Versatile Spellcaster feat from Races of the Dragon

[werk]

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.

If I may...OT.

The time shown in the post is when it is posted, so (hypothetically) KD posted originally at :35, reopened it and started editing, finished editing, and hit save at :48. You opened your reply after :35 and before :48, missing the edit, and posted at :53.

You opened the reply before the edit, and posted after, NBD.

Now, if someone can explain how I get replies to emails before I get the emails...

 

[Thanee]

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?

I don't think it can only be used with a single class, but it can only be used inside a single class each time it is used.

A bard/sorcerer can use it with two bard slots to cast a higher level bard spell or with two sorcerer slots to cast a higher level sorcerer spell.

That's what the feat gives you, the ability to weave two lower level slots to one higher level slot.

The ability to cast spells with other classes' slots is something entirely different and should be mentioned specifically. The 'a spell you know' part does not suffice there, as the core rules quote shows, where the same words are used in the core rules to describe regular spellcasting, which surely does not allow cross class slot usage, therefore - obviously - 'a spell you know' refers to each single class and not to the character's spell knowledge as a whole.

Bye
Thanee

 

[KarinsDad]

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.

It does not explicitly state it.

This is an inference that you are making from the words, not a rule that the words explicitly declare.

To change a rule, it has to be explicit.


This is like PrC abilities. If a PrC ability states "This ability gives the character a +1 bonus per class level", it means the class level of the PrC. It does not mean the class level of any other class the character might have. It has to explicitly state that it applies to other classes for it to do so.

When this feat states "You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher", it means spell slots of the same class that is being used to cast the higher level spell. It does not mean the spell slots of any other class the character might have. It has to explicitly state that it applies to other classes for it to do so.

No difference.


Here is the difference between our points of view. Mine is that if the feat is going to change a rule, it must explicitly say so. Implicit rules changes do not count. Yours is that if the wording of the feat can be interpreted in multiple different ways, then any of the interpretations is valid.

 

[Mistwell]

Here is the difference between our points of view. Mine is that if the feat is going to change a rule, it must explicitly say so. Implicit rules changes do not count. Yours is that if the wording of the feat can be interpreted in multiple different ways, then any of the interpretations is valid.

Actually, mine is that if a rule can be interpreted multiple ways, then you look to determine if the various interpretations are balanced. If both interpretations are balanced, then you are stuck with a vague feat that is just a DM's call, which won't hurt any game however the DM calls it.

I don't care much beyond whether the interpretation is one reasonable way to read the feat, and that it is balanced. I think most DMs and players handle new rules that way.

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't care much beyond whether the interpretation is one reasonable way to read the feat, and that it is balanced. I think most DMs and players handle new rules that way.

I'm not convinced it is balanced. Even with my interpretation.

Bard 2 / Sorcerer X

This Sorcerer took this combination in order to get the Cure Light Wounds spell.

Normally, he can cast it once per day. With my interpretation, he can cast it twice per day. With your interpretation, he can cast it 5 times per day.

This single feat increases his Bardic casting ability by a factor of about 2.5 times with no significant cost to the character (i.e. the 0th level Sorcerer spells are generally worthless most days anyway and even if he needed them, he could use higher level Sorcerer spell slots to cast them). It also increases his highest level Sorcerer casting ability by a factor of about 1.75 (or more).

What other feat allows a caster to cast his highest level spell for a given class 5 times as often as before?


Compare this to the Spontaneous Casting feats for non-spontaneous casters. They get a few select spells they can replace. They do not get all spells from all of their classes, nor do they get to replace spells in all of their slots. Balance-wise, your interpretation of Versatile Spellcaster is stronger and broader than the Spontaneous Caster feats.

Balance is not just about potency. It is also about flexibility.


An 18th level Sorcerer who can cast 5 or 6 Wish spells is nearly as potent as a 20th level Sorcerer. This feat allows him to not pay his dues (i.e. 2 more extra levels). He can up each of his ability scores by 5 with Wish without having to wait until 20th level to do so.

So like I said, I am not convinced that the feat is overly balanced in the first place. Cool ideas do not necessarily equate to balance.

 

[Thanee]

Actually, mine is that if a rule can be interpreted multiple ways, then you look to determine if the various interpretations are balanced.

But it has to correlate with the core rules still, or is that no factor in your considerations?

Bye
Thanee

 

[RigaMortus2]

The ability to cast spells with other classes' slots is something entirely different and should be mentioned specifically. The 'a spell you know' part does not suffice there, as the core rules quote shows, where the same words are used in the core rules to describe regular spellcasting, which surely does not allow cross class slot usage, therefore - obviously - 'a spell you know' refers to each single class and not to the character's spell knowledge as a whole.

Bye
Thanee

One of the problems I see with this, is that mentioning of "spells known" in the core rules are usually mentioned under the specific classes, as to what specific spells they know. So "spells known" only includes that specific class. In this case we have a feat which is not class specific, it is character specific. We are talking about spells that the character knows, not spells that the class knows.

 

[Hypersmurf]

An 18th level Sorcerer who can cast 5 or 6 Wish spells is nearly as potent as a 20th level Sorcerer. This feat allows him to not pay his dues (i.e. 2 more extra levels). He can up each of his ability scores by 5 with Wish without having to wait until 20th level to do so.

Well, so can any 18th level sorcerer who knows a 1st level wizard...?

-Hyp.

 

[RigaMortus2]

What other feat allows a caster to cast his highest level spell for a given class 5 times as often as before?

Not a feat, but the Psion class (and any other Psionic characters) can do this as soon as they get high enough to cast 2nd level spells. And I don't think anyone would call the Psion overpowered.

 

[RigaMortus2]

This is like PrC abilities. If a PrC ability states "This ability gives the character a +1 bonus per class level", it means the class level of the PrC. It does not mean the class level of any other class the character might have. It has to explicitly state that it applies to other classes for it to do so.

When this feat states "You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher", it means spell slots of the same class that is being used to cast the higher level spell. It does not mean the spell slots of any other class the character might have. It has to explicitly state that it applies to other classes for it to do so.

Except that unlike class features, feats are CHARACTER specific. They effect the character as a whole (unless specified otherwise, which this feat does not).

It would be like a Fighter 3/Barbarian 3 who picked up Power Attack as their 1st level Fighter feat, only being allowed to use thier Fighter's BAB (instead of their character's base attack bonus) to power attack with. Because that is the class that picked up the skill. Which would then mean they could only PA for a total of 3 points (Fighter BAB +3) vs 6 points (Character's total BAB +6).