Tumble too powerful?

[Cyclone_Joker]

It seems reasonable that both Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist are abilities designed to replace the advantage of specialization with another advantage of comparable value. With this in mind, the interpretation that you may take either one, not both, for the price of specialization seems the most reasonable.

Sure, except it's not an interpretation, because it's completely unsupported by anything resembling rules.

Unrelated to that aspect, I don't believe one can have Versatile Spellcaster as a L1 domain wizard, elven generalist or both. You must have the ability to spontaneously cast spells to take the Versatile Spellcasting feat. Now, you could get that with Uncanny Forethought, but that requires Spell Mastery. Even if I accept flaws, allowing a bonus feat at L1, you still can't have all three feats at first level and be Elven. Alacritous Cogitation is an option, but...

Trading it in for a higher level slot is not casting a spell of the same level or lower.

This is completely nonsensical to the point where I can't figure out what you're trying to say. Versatile Spellcaster and Alacritatious Cognition are entirely separate abilities, completely disconnected.

So no immediate spells. And

So only one encounter a day.

I don't see such a limit on Versatile Spellcaster.

Back to Versatile Spellcaster, I think it could be easily fixed with a bit of editing for sloppy wording. Clarify the prerequisite to mean you must have at least one level of a class which provides spontaneous spellcasting. I doubt it's intended for clerics and druids who can spontaneously cast a different spell instead of the one they prepared. Clarify that the slots traded in must be spontaneous slots (even spontaneous slots created by Uncanny Forethought). Clarify that you cannot cast a spell higher of higher level than the character can otherwise cast. I say "clarify" as I suggest this is what the feat was intended to do in the first place. But if someone wants to cite a designer who says it was intended to let L1 characters cast L9 spells, feel free to cite the quote.

Oh, so now you're telepathic and know exactly what the designers were thinking? I don't claim to know their intent, nor do I particularly care outside of obvious errors like the unerratad Nerveskitter, about their intent, but if you want to claim knowledge of it, you'd best have some sources to cite.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

There is a third ACF used to allow for spontaneous casting: The Spontaneous Divination ACF found in Complete Champion, page 52. That one is compatible with either the Domain or Elven Generalist wizard variant, but of note is it can only be taken in place of a feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th levels. To quote it, if I may:

Spontaneous Divination
You can use your connection to the divine to inquire about mysteries beyond mortal ken.
Level: 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th.
Replaces: This benefit replaces the bonus feat gained by a wizard at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th level.
Benefit: You can spontaneously cast any spell of the divination school by sacrificing a prepared spell of equal or greater level.

To work at 1st level, the Versatile Spellcaster trick would need another way of spontaneously casting spells which neither the Domain nor Elven Generalist wizard variants provide. Likewise, no other ACFs I know of for Wizards in regular printed books besides a specialist Abjurer variant allows for spontaneously casting spells, and since that one can't be taken with the Domain Elven Generalist or get the ability to spontaneously cast at 1st level, it cannot be part of the build. If anyone knows of a wizard variant in the regular books (so no Dragon Mag stuff) besides Spontaneous Divination or Spontaneous Dispelling, please let me know. I'd like to add it to the ACF handbook I've ported over from wherever Dead Weasel posted it, and even added a few things to it.

There is also the issue that, according to Versatile Spellcaster, the caster must know the spell to be cast before actually casting it. To quote it, in case no one clicks the link to read it:

You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher.

Emphasis mine. So the question becomes: How does the wizard actually know not only a 9th level spell before using Versatile Caster to, arguably, be able to cast said spell using two 8th level spell slots, but how is the 1st level wizard able to get one each of a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spell known? Note that the Domain variant saying it grants automatic knowledge of its spells only works upon being able to cast it in the first place. To quote it:

A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it.

Since we've noted that Versatile Caster requires actually knowing the spell to be cast before using two lower spell slots to cast it, and the Domain wizard only gains knowledge of the spell once it's able to cast it in the first place, it is not possible that the Domain wizard can actually cast the spell. It's basically a Catch 22. Since neither can function without the other, nothing functions. The Spontaneous Divination variant that allows spontaneously casting any divination spell can't be used here because the character is assumed to be level 1, but even if the character was level 5 and had taken the ACF the specifics of Spontaneous Divination clearly states that the wizard must sacrifice a prepared spell of equal or greater level, which isn't possible by using Versatile Spellcaster because VS allows only casting a known spell and does not in fact create a new spell slot. Despite having the Versatile Spellcaster feat, not actually knowing higher level spells to use with it means the character cannot use VS to cast anything of that level, and if the wizard cannot cast something of that level then certain features do not kick in such as the extra spell slots granted by the Domain or Elven Generalist. Since the trick is based on the interaction of those (which is still dubious because in the context of most ACFs, it clearly states which features are gained and lost), it is not possible to use VS to be able to cast a higher level spell unless the character already knows one, or in this case the many required for the trick.

Since it should now be plain that the wizard doesn't gain higher level spells known through the ACF interactions, we must hypothesize another route the character might learn them. If we go by the DMG's Wealth By Level chart on page 135, we see that 900 GP is the noted number for 2nd level characters, which might be interpreted as either that during the course of 1st level and upon leveling to 2nd, the character has gotten roughly 900gp worth of items or services. It might also mean that a 2nd level character itself is limited to that much gp worth of items and such until it reaches 3rd level. Either way, that 1st level character is not going to have the resources needed to simply buy scrolls of those spells at regular market price. Note that scrolls have a base price of spell level × caster level × 25 gp and the default caster levels for scrolls of each spell level can be found here, there is no way the wizard can afford to simply buy more than a 4th level scroll much less one each of 2nd through 9th. Where would the 1st level wizard get that much money?

Also of note are the costs involved in scribing scrolls to a wizard's spellbook in the first place. It costs spell level x 100 gp for the wizard to copy a spell into his spellbook. Adding it all up (2+3+4+5+6+7+8+9) x 100 equals 4,400 gold. That's certainly not in the budget!

Did the character steal said spell scrolls or a spellbook perhaps? If so, the guidelines in the DMG, page 135, clearly state that characters running amok (stealing high level magic is, indeed, running amok) will very likely face the consequences of stealing very powerful magic, which could certainly include the creators of those objects in the first place. Since a 9th level spell is being stolen (because VS requires knowing the spell to be cast and we are going with the hypothesis that the route taken is stealing one), expect the resources of a 17th level character or greater to come bearing down on the 1st level wizard. Or perhaps a bit lower if some fast-track stuff like Beholder Mage is in play. Either way, that 1st level wizard doesn't stand a chance because of the opponent definitely having several 9th level spells while the wizard, assuming he can actually learn those spells in whatever amount of time passes before he's taken care of, would only have 1 available to cast. That and he doesn't have the caster level to actually do much of anything meaningful with the spells anyway. In fact, according to that link:

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

Wizards need a CL of 17+ to cast 9th level spells. Is there anything in the build that boosts the wizard's CL to be high enough to actually cast the spells in the first place? It doesn't seem like there is. Versatile Spellcaster does not remove the need to have a high enough caster level to cast the spells, nor do any of the ACFs presented so far. How is the 1st level wizard able to boost his CL to at least 17 to cast 9th level spells?



In short, even if we assume the wizard is able to take both the Domain and Elven Wizard variants, the hurdles of: Not having a high enough Caster Level to cast the spells; not being able to spontaneously cast spells at 1st level to qualify for Versatile Spellcaster; not having enough gold to buy scrolls for the spells; not having enough gold to pay for copying spells into his spellbook; the likelihood of having a much higher level character stomp the wizard grabbing so much power so early on; and the fact that the character explcitly needs to know the higher level spell being cast say to me that the "9th level spells with a 1st level character" trick previously presented in scattered posts does not actually work.

By the way, if you'd like to do a rebuttal to any of this, could you please give me and the rest of the board the courtesy of replying with citations and in about as much detail as I have taken care to do? Thank you.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

There is a third ACF used to allow for spontaneous casting: The Spontaneous Divination ACF found in Complete Champion, page 52. That one is compatible with either the Domain or Elven Generalist wizard variant, but of note is it can only be taken in place of a feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, or 20th levels. To quote it, if I may:

Which is unnecessary due to multiple feats.

Emphasis mine. So the question becomes: How does the wizard actually know not only a 9th level spell before using Versatile Caster to, arguably, be able to cast said spell using two 8th level spell slots, but how is the 1st level wizard able to get one each of a 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, and 8th level spell known?

If you really need it, Heighten Spell. You're welcome.

Wizards need a CL of 17+ to cast 9th level spells. Is there anything in the build that boosts the wizard's CL to be high enough to actually cast the spells in the first place? It doesn't seem like there is. Versatile Spellcaster does not remove the need to have a high enough caster level to cast the spells, nor do any of the ACFs presented so far. How is the 1st level wizard able to boost his CL to at least 17 to cast 9th level spells?

Actually, that limit was never clearly defined, and several classes laugh at it repeatedly. In other words, unless you can quote the rules compendium clarifying that, you've got nothing there.

By the way, if you'd like to do a rebuttal to any of this, could you please give me and the rest of the board the courtesy of replying with citations and in about as much detail as I have taken care to do? Thank you.

Do I really need to cite Heighten? Alacritous Cognition, complete mage, page 37, by the way.

 

[N'raac]

Oh, so now you're telepathic and know exactly what the designers were thinking? I don't claim to know their intent, nor do I particularly care outside of obvious errors like the unerratad Nerveskitter, about their intent, but if you want to claim knowledge of it, you'd best have some sources to cite.

Every time we must interpret the rules, we are forced to assess the intent of the writer.

By the way, in addition to requiring yet another feat, Heighten Spell notes "The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level." - if you can't cast a 9th level spell, you can't heighten a spell to 9th level either. As well, I don't recall any of the other feats you cite allowing you to attach metamagic feats - VS says you can cast a spell you know, not that you can add metamagic feats taking the spell to a higher spell slot. I haven't researched that aspect in detail.

 

[Jackinthegreen]

Every time we must interpret the rules, we are forced to assess the intent of the writer.

By the way, in addition to requiring yet another feat, Heighten Spell notes "The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level." - if you can't cast a 9th level spell, you can't heighten a spell to 9th level either. As well, I don't recall any of the other feats you cite allowing you to attach metamagic feats - VS says you can cast a spell you know, not that you can add metamagic feats taking the spell to a higher spell slot. I haven't researched that aspect in detail.

Every time we interpret the rules we must also think about their effect on the game itself and the campaign said rules might be introduced to.

Regarding whether VS would allow casting a spell benefiting from a metamagic feat, that might be debatable but it does put a damper on the usefulness of VS, especially for inherently spontaneous casters. With regards to the balance of it, it does seem reasonable to let a caster sack two spell slots to cast a higher level spell with metamagic, although the conditions for that could be better defined by the feat.

Cyclone, I'll respond to your post with full details in a few hours once I've got some other things taken care of. One thing I'll suggest right now though is to make use of DNDtools to cite feats and such. It still has some things that need to be cleaned up but the majority of things (including Alacritous Cogitation) are properly referenced as they are in the book.

 

[Celebrim]

Folks, the question of whether it works or not is irrelevant. The whole complex rules discussion we've been side trekked on is irrelevant. I'm perfectly willing to take it for granted that the particular build in question works as stated. Even if I wasn't, I'd be perfectly willing to granted that it works for the purposes of the conversation because it is entirely a red herring.

If you go back and read this thread before it got derailed by Cyclone_Joker, and you evaluate his argument this whole 10 page derailment got started because Cyclone_Joker wrote a post filled with assumptions about how you should play and then threw (ironicly) a 'I have the one true way to play post' in Croathian's face when Croathian asserted that in practice Wizards weren't all powerful. This whole thread boils down to Cyclone_Joker essentially replying, "Well, Pun-Pun, so there!" Debating rules with him is just feeding the troll IMO. Who cares. In practice do we really have all these variants, optional rules, features, and splatbooks in play anyway? And even if we do, in practice are we really going to play whatever Pun-Pun lite build Cyclone_Joker is using as an example or anything like it?

Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that unless your wizard is invincible, you are stupid? Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that because wizards are invincible it's a terrible idea to play with the Tumble rules? Go read post #23 again that started this whole train wreck, and ask yourself, "Are any of the assumptions of that post operative in the campaign I'm playing or would want to play in?" And if the answer is, "No.", then who really cares whether some build exists that does broken stuff. I mean, really, why are we even in this debate with a rules lawyer? How long have you been DMing that you can't recognize this gambit for what it is?

This thread is equivalent of that session where, instead of playing, you spend 3 hours arguing rules minutia because you got a player that gets the thrill of winning whenever he can argue over rules minutia.

 

[Cyclone_Joker]

Every time we must interpret the rules, we are forced to assess the intent of the writer.

No, one must read the text. Because that's where the rules are.

By the way, in addition to requiring yet another feat, Heighten Spell notes "The heightened spell is as difficult to prepare and cast as a spell of its effective level." - if you can't cast a 9th level spell, you can't heighten a spell to 9th level either.

So? Versatile Spellcaster lets you do just that.

As well, I don't recall any of the other feats you cite allowing you to attach metamagic feats - VS says you can cast a spell you know, not that you can add metamagic feats taking the spell to a higher spell slot. I haven't researched that aspect in detail.

Really? Show me where it says one does not know a spell one is casting with metamagics. I'd like to see that.

If you go back and read this thread before it got derailed by Cyclone_Joker, and you evaluate his argument this whole 10 page derailment got started because Cyclone_Joker wrote a post filled with assumptions about how you should play and then threw (ironicly) a 'I have the one true way to play post' in Croathian's face when Croathian asserted that in practice Wizards weren't all powerful. This whole thread boils down to Cyclone_Joker essentially replying, "Well, Pun-Pun, so there!"

Oh, you're adorable. It's like you didn't even read the thread but are just trying to fit in with the cool kids. It's equal parts hilarious and sad.

D In practice do we really have all these variants, optional rules, features, and splatbooks in play anyway?

Yes.

And even if we do, in practice are we really going to play whatever Pun-Pun lite build Cyclone_Joker is using as an example or anything like it?

You keep saying that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that unless your wizard is invincible, you are stupid?

I would say because the rules make it trivially easy, but even then, I'm pretty sure you're the one saying that.

Why in the world have we even entertained the argument that because wizards are invincible it's a terrible idea to play with the Tumble rules?

Because we aren't? If you'd actually read my post(Don't worry, systems knowledge isn't contagious, you can read my posts without catching it), you'd know they were entirely separate

I mean, really, why are we even in this debate with a rules lawyer?

I can't decide what's funnier, you using "rules lawyer" as an insult or how amusing even the term "rules lawyer" is coming from you.

How long have you been DMing that you can't recognize this gambit for what it is?

Oh, cool, I'm in a gambit now? So is it of the Batman or Xanatos variety, or do I get a cool coat and a sexy Cajun accent?

This thread is equivalent of that session where, instead of playing, you spend 3 hours arguing rules minutia because you got a player that gets the thrill of winning whenever he can argue over rules minutia.

No, this thread is closer to an entire class period in elementary school with three or four children trying to argue that "1+1=11" is correct.

Also, keep up the insults! Maybe if you keep throwing them out you'll eventually find one that's not hilarious or just sad.

 

[N'raac]

In the interests of slowing the derail, I'm responding in the Calling Out Systems Mastery thread, to make room in case there's anyone wanting to post something related to Tumble in here.

 

[Umbran]

Folks,

We expect people to show respect for one another. We expect you to not make it personal. That is not at all the tone I see here.

So, here's the drill - best behavior in this thread from this point on. Continue grinding those axes, and you will not like the results. Do not expect further warnings - and remember that we do not have a threadban function. If we need to remove you from the discussion, that means sitting out a tempban. Consider that before posting further.

Thank you.

 

[Aluvial]

I just will add my system, it may be mentioned already in the 11 pages below your post.

A creature who tumbles must make an opposed roll against the creature's attack roll who is trying to attempt an AoO against it. If the tumbler wins, there is no attack. If the attacking creature wins, they roll again to see if they can hit the tumbler's AC. Works well, one extra roll, but no one seems to mind.

I allow "tumbling" in all movement types (flying, swimming, burrowing, normal). I think the main reasoning behind this change was to impress on the tumbling character that it is harder to do so against creatures that outclass them.