No, you are ignoring answers you don't like.
I'm not ignoring it at all. But the question (which was a gotcha and a distraction I guess I shouldn't have even given the time of day, considering the spiral) was clearly about casting spells without having access to spell slots.
You'll note that NO race and NO feat gives access to Fireball, the spell that was in question. And the class only does so at very late levels. So, if the question was "A fighter tries to cast fireball, what happens" saying "Well, I decided to play an Elf so I have magic" doesn't answer the question and is completely beside the point.
No, they can't. You have to first be a pilot and be able to handle yourself in 3D movement. Which is entirely it's own skill set. Which is the center of the complaint. And don't try to say "well, that's study, isn't it?" In this case, no. You imply that someone with a cursory knowledge set should have access to whatever they want "for the good of the story". No, they shouldn't; not every time, not every case, not even occasionally. For some of us.
Strike One! As you say.
Three misconceptions here.
First, you do not need to be a pilot. A pilot is a person with a license. Claiming you need to be a pilot is like claiming that you can only physically drive a car if you are a licensed driver, no, anyone can drive a car, the license only lets you do so legally. Pilots, after all, take these 3D simulations as well.
Second, you seem to have entirely missed the part about a simulation. I've taken a simulation of flight and successfully flown a craft in a 3D environment. I'm sure you could as well, depending on the levels in the simulation. This is in fact WHY simulation training IS NOT ENOUGH. Because flight is deceptively simple, until you need to act accurately and SWIFTLY.
This the part you don't seem to get about my example. You think creating the same magical effect means being equally effective. Just because I can sit down with several sheets of paper and do astrophysics math and equations (because many of them are simple, just long and tedious) does not mean I am a computer capable of doing those same calculations in seconds. Just because the Fighter can take AN HOUR to do something doesn't mean he is a Wizard who can do the same thing, better and safer, in SECONDS.
And finally, what do you mean by "cursory knowledge"? That is not what proficiency represents AT ALL. Like, not even close. A person proficient with Musical Instruments can use their downtime to live a Wealthy lifestyle. That is 10 gp per day. A skilled laborer is making 2 gp per day, and that is what someone proficient with a tool is, a skilled laborer. There is a level above proficient, with Expertise, but a person with proficiency with Arcana has the same knowledge base as a Professor of Arcane Studies. That isn't "cursory knowledge" by any stretch of the imagination.
Is this why you lot are so adamantly against this? Do you think something like proficiency in Religion is something like "Yeah, I read a book once"? No. Someone with proficiency in Religion has basically graduated Seminary School and has a working knowledge of EVERY major world religion. Think about that for a second. There are people in our world who have an understanding and knowledge of: Protestantism, Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Shintoism, Judaism, Orthodox Judaism, Buddhism, Tibetan Buddhism, Suni Islam, Shia Islam, Multiple sects of Hinduism, and more. That is the equivalent level of knowledge of someone with proficiency in religion, who can recognize and know quite a bit about the various religions of DnD. Does that sound like someone with "cursory knowledge" of the subject? This is collegiate professorship levels of knowledge.
Look, the OP asked a mechanical question (disingenuously, I feel). Answers were given that address the question mechanically, everything from Can't to % chance to this check at that difficulty. If you want a narrative answer that's a different question. As has been stated before, narrative answers that you imply would be acceptable would also be acceptable mechanically if a feat was spent, or plan to multiclass, or some other mechanical nod to the ruleset. Implying that knowledge of a mystical matter grants access to said matter, within the rules, is, I feel, an attempt at sophistry to gain advantage.
You give a moving impassioned speech to save your downed friend, and the DM knows your multiclassing into paladin, sure. You don't even need to roll. The narratives and mechanicals are both happy.
See, and I DON'T assume that the player is engaging in sophistry to gain an unfair advantage. Mostly because if they are, they suck at it. A single DC 10 check with a positive modifier (most characters have a positive wisdom due to perception) is fairly trivial without needing to engaging in impassioned speeches to roll a different skill.
Maybe I just play with people more likely to engage on a deep level with the story, but I can't imagine anyone I play with even trying this for the sole purpose of gaining advantage. They would do this for a great narrative moment, I've seen stuff like that happen, where they aren't thinking of the game but are reacting in the world, and that is why I'm pushing the narrative aspect.
Because frankly, if the mechanics are in the way of the narrative, abandon them. I gave an example earlier in the thread about rolling athletics to move further. I have made that a houserule. Why? Because the mechanics prevented people from running away or successfully chasing down an enemy. If you and the enemy can both move 30 ft per turn, and dash for 60, then a chase scene is like an old cartoon, you might as well both be on a treadmill as the scenery moves behind you, you will never change the effective distance between you. The mechanics make for a bad narrative. So I changed the mechanics to allow for a better narrative. Because we don't play this game so the mechanics can dictate the narrative. The mechanics are there to help support the narrative, that's why Rule Zero exists.
But pemerton, you need to STOP putting forward this "player-facing" crap when you are making mechanical inquiries. It's trolling, and you have been doing it for years. You've generated about 3 pages of useful discussion with an additional 17 of sniping, arguing, and drive-by snark. Which is a shame because elsewhere you have discussed insights that I have found very useful and given me interesting things to think about. But, I tire of your chicanery.
I am not
@pemerton , maybe you need to double check who you are hitting reply to.
At last, a useful answer to the OPs question for your table.
Yeah, the same answer I gave over 10 pages ago. Real shocker, no one would have seen it coming.
You can't possibly want me to operate on you. You have no idea what a surgeon does to learn their skills, A&P is the barest beginning. But, hey, sign the waiver and I'll give you a cut rate.
I didn't know drawing a diagram was surgery. But hey, I'm sure you could do a fairly accurate autopsy given the time and space, right?
This is the point you keep missing. You see "fighter [....] fireball" or "Fighter prays [....] ally not dying" and just assume that this means they have done the thing just as fast, just as effectively, and just safely. But that isn't what I've been proposing.
I can totally drive the race track of the Indy 500, trivially easily. It is something someone who has only driven once in their life can do.... as long as the track is empty and they are going around 15 mph. That's very different from going around the track at 200 mph with other cars jockeying for position.
A fighter casting fireball after an hour long ritual is very different than casting fireball in six seconds during combat. Why can you not understand that?
Yes, you do. Sometimes you can chart the bloodlines, but having red hair is often a promising sign of talent.
False
Sure it is, you need the Spider spirit's permission to cast spider climb and web.
False
Summoning spells, unseen servant, &c.
False
Again, higher level summoning. You think a wizard can't summon an angel?
Of course they can, don't need the backing of a god to do so though, so again, false.
You either really don't understand what a wizard is, or you run under extensive houserules.
No, just book study. You really don't seem to understand that reading some books has limits.
Nothing in Arcana proficiency says you have never conducted a practical experiment. Proficiency in instruments or performance doesn't mean you've only read about then but have no practical experience after all. You are just adding limitations that aren't there.
Yes, they do, because otherwise they don't function. They need the personal investiture of blood, sweat and tears to bind them to you.
See, you don't get to stray from the rules and narrate whatever you want without the DM doing that, too.
Oh.
You think that because I, as the DM, okayed things because they fit the standard narrative of a DnD world, you can just go around adding arbitrary limits because you are a DM.
Okay, cool. In your world wizards need to be born of the correct bloodline, make a pact with spirits, and invest literal blood into the crafting of their tools. Tell that to everyone at your table, make sure they follow it, and then explain what why warlocks and sorcerers are different (or ban them I suppose).
However, don't expect... literally any of us, to give your homebrew any credence to the narratives presented in the game.
