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: 6183966" data-attributes="member: 6681948">The "can't trade in the same ability twice" rule appears within Pathfinder's archetype rules.  I haven't looked for it in 3e, and it may be possible (absent a specific statement to the contrary) that, since neither Elven Generalist nor Domain Wizard is a specialist, both can be taken.  At the worst, however, both interpretations would be plausible.  So that requires a search for which is more reasonable.  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.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.So no immediate spells.  AndSo only one encounter a day.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.</blockquote>

Verification