Versatile Spellcaster feat from Races of the Dragon

[Thanee]

I do think the feat has a different intent, however.

But what makes you think so?

The wording is exactly the same as in the core rules!

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

Generally speaking, if something is written vaguely, and the interpretation that seems a bit unusual to you isn't in any way broken, we tend to engage in the discussion rather than continuing to dwell on how "obvious" your personal interpretation is to you.

Or in other words, unless the rules say anything, I assume, that it is not.

I expect any changes to the rules, especially major changes like allowing to cast spells from one class with the slots of another, to be spelt out, at least in some fashion.

And I expect that two rules, which use the very same wording, do not have diametrically different effects.

Bye
Thanee

 

[satori01]

I hope you are only kidding here.

This made me laugh, especially given all the discussion on the Extra Spell Feat.

In Arcana Evolved all casters can do this without a feat, as Spell Weaving is common feature of the magic system. It is completely balanced, and a very nice feature, bringing up the efficicacy of casters getting to cast the spell they need w/ limited resources. It should also be pointed out that multi classed spell casting classes in AE stack their spell slots and class spell lists, which of course does not happen in D&D.

If the feat was intended to be used for a single class' spell slots only shouldnt the feat say something to the effect of " This feat can be selected mutiple times. Each time the feat is taken, chose a spellcasting class to apply it's effect to" or something to that effect ala
Practised Spell Caster?

This is the troubling part, the feat is so broadly written, you kinda have to think it was done on purpose. Afterall it is clearly based off the AE spell weaving rules, and is called "Versatile Caster".

Else we get into a Princess Bride syndrom where like Indigo, we say to
Kestrel, Wilkes, and Liquette (authors of the book), " I do not think it means, what you think it means".

 

[IcyCool]

But what makes you think so?

Probably the same thing that makes you think the opposite.

The wording is exactly the same as in the core rules!

Which I have readily admitted means that you can technically have your Sorcerer/Cleric scenario above. As I do not believe that is the intent, I am forced to interpret the rule in a manner I find acceptable.

Edit - satori01 brings up a good point with the reference to practiced spellcaster.

 

[KarinsDad]

If the feat was intended to be used for a single class' spell slots only shouldnt the feat say something to the effect of " This feat can be selected mutiple times. Each time the feat is taken, chose a spellcasting class to apply it's effect to" or something to that effect ala
Practised Spell Caster?

This is the troubling part, the feat is so broadly written, you kinda have to think it was done on purpose.

Actually, I do not think it is broadly written. I think it is poorly written.

I agree with Thanee as to what I think the intent is. The intent is to use lower level spell slots to cast a higher level spell (but only in the same class).

1) The core rule is that you can replace higher level slots with lower level spells, but only for the same class.

2) The core rule is that you cannot replace any spells from one class with those of another class.

This feat appears to be closer to core rule #1 here than core rule #2. It appears to be a "switch spells around" feat (similar to that rule), not a "cast spells from one class with slots from another" feat (which for the most part, does not exist in the game unless a feat explicitly calls it out).

Just because it is poorly written does not mean that we should just blow off the core rules. It does not explicitly allow for casting cross-class, hence, it does not. To break such a fundamental rule requires that the feat actually state this.

 

[IcyCool]

For example, one could claim that this feat allows a 10th level Sorcerer to cast a 6th level spell by using up two 5th level slots. The claim could be that it is irrelevant that the Sorcerer does not yet have a 6th level known spell, the feat does not state that the spell has to be known.

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

(emphasis mine)

The feat does state that the spell must be one the caster knows. You could make a case (as Thanee attempted) that this doesn't refer to the Spells Known table. It would feel pretty shaky to me, though.

And, as the literal RAW is unhelpful on this matter, we have naught but interpretations to go with.

The feat allows you to sacrifice two lower level slots to cast a higher level spell that you know. Other feats that are class-specific (Practiced Spellcaster) dictate that if you want the benefit to apply to multiple casting classes, you must take the feat multiple times. There is no such stipulation in this feat. Therefore, I assume it means exactly what it says. Which, of course, is vague enough to allow multiple interpretations.

Mine is that it is usable cross-class, and that it is only usable with Spontaneous casting classes (of which Cleric and Druid are not, IMO).

 

[KarinsDad]

(emphasis mine)

The feat does state that the spell must be one the caster knows. You could make a case (as Thanee attempted) that this doesn't refer to the Spells Known table. It would feel pretty shaky to me, though.

I agree. That is why I edited my post and dropped that example from it.

 

[IcyCool]

I agree. That is why I edited my post and dropped that example from it.

Strange, even though the edit happened 5 minutes before I posted, I saw the old post (even after I submitted my post).

*shrug* Uhh.. nevermind I guess.

 

[KarinsDad]

The feat allows you to sacrifice two lower level slots to cast a higher level spell that you know. Other feats that are class-specific (Practiced Spellcaster) dictate that if you want the benefit to apply to multiple casting classes, you must take the feat multiple times. There is no such stipulation in this feat. Therefore, I assume it means exactly what it says. Which, of course, is vague enough to allow multiple interpretations.

Mine is that it is usable cross-class, and that it is only usable with Spontaneous casting classes (of which Cleric and Druid are not, IMO).

The Practiced Spellcaster feat is basically irrelevant to the discussion. Just because one feat is well written and explicitly made clear does not mean that a feat that is not as well written and not as explicitly clear means something new unless it actually explicitly states that it means something new.


The core rule is that you cannot use slots from one class to cast spells from another class. This feat does not state that it overrides this core rule, hence, it does not.


The idea is that you have to take the interpretation that still obeys all other core rules, not one that breaks another core rule and does not state that it does this. For a feat to break class boundaries, it has to state it.

 

[Mistwell]

The Practiced Spellcaster feat is basically irrelevant to the discussion. Just because one feat is well written and explicitly made clear does not mean that a feat that is not as well written and not as explicitly clear means something new unless it actually explicitly states that it means something new.


The core rule is that you cannot use slots from one class to cast spells from another class. This feat does not state that it overrides this core rule, hence, it does not.


The idea is that you have to take the interpretation that still obeys all other core rules, not one that breaks another core rule and does not state that it does this. For a feat to break class boundaries, it has to state it.

It does state it. It's just not stated as clearly as you would like. It's stated well enough for me however, and for some others.

"You can use two spell slots of the same level" - Right, I have two 2nd level sorceror spell slots. I use both.
"to cast a spell you know" - I know a 3rd level warmage spell.
"that is one level higher" - 3rd level is one level higher than 2nd level.

In similar feats if they mean to prevent the use of the feat for multiple classes, they tell you specifically that you have to take the feat multiple times. That caveat is not present here.

By definition, feats change the rules by making an exception to the rules. You cannot use two spell slots to cast one spell even within the same class by the RAW. The feat makes a change to the RAW.

Looks like it works to me. And, given it is balanced, it looks like there isn't a strong "intent based on balance" argument here either.