Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="N'raac" data-source="post: 6183140" data-attributes="member: 6681948">I'd dig through the various items to address them, just as I would expect any GM to do in assessing which optional rules to allow and the manner in which they would combine. The interpretation that the combination of feats and abilities permits a 1st level character to cast 9th level spells, in my view, relies on a very generous interpretation of the various abilities, and the manner in which they would combine. Given the ridiculous result, that interpretation would not be reasonably sustained.Since we're clearly getting into rules lawyering, I'll draw on my own experience on law. [CAVEAT:  I'm not a lawyer, and my exposure to legal principals is commonwealth, non-US]  When there are multiple possible interpretations of the words, the courts look to divine the intent of the legislators. The legislators are presumed to know what they are doing. When one possible interpretation carries a ludicrous result, it is discarded as obviously not what the legislators intended, so some other interpretation is assessed as the appropriate one.Any interpretation allowing a 1st level character to cast 9th level spells carries a ludicrous result, and therefore is not supportable. The specific wizard in question keeps bouncing around in level, feat choices, etc., with only a sample of the character's abilities presented on any given occasion, so attempting to evaluate the specific build is rendered impractical anyway. Perhaps obfuscating the character's abilities and responding to any challenge of the accuracy of the rules interpretations with insults works with your GM. It would more likely see the player invited to find a different gaming group in any of the groups I've played with.</blockquote>

Verification