Fallacy of Elven Generalist+Domain Wizard "Leapfrog Wizard"

[eggynack]

The difference is, the rules for regular wizard spell slots say that may prepare spells in them, or they may leave them blank, and spend like 15 minutes later in the day to prepare spells in them.

EGW says only that you may PREPARE an extra spell per day. So, by the most literal reading of that, if an EGW chose NOT to prepare that extra spell, she would NOT have an "empty slot" like one which she would use Alacritous Cogitation with. BUT, she COULD still prepare that spell later like a regular wizard could with normal slots.

But that's getting into some ridiculously nitpicky details. Because who keeps track of which of their spells are memorized in "regular" slots, vice the bonus slots from high INT? Who's to say that the person wasn't leaving REGULAR slots blank, and preparing a spell as the bonus provided by EGW? It's silly, but it's RAW. Because TECHNICALLY, there is a difference, but no one cares. But the point is, that EGW does NOT grant you a bonus "spell slot" that is as versatile as regular wizard slots. It explicitly MUST have a spell prepared in the "slot".

So the slot basically doesn't exist UNTIL you prepare a spell in it, for lack of a more concise explanation. It's Schrodinger's spell slot.

The rules for elven generalist place no bounds on when you can prepare the spell. So your claimed difference doesn't really exist. And, critically, the elven generalist spell fully meets the definition of a spell slot. A spell slot, after all, is defined as the space in a casters head that holds a prepared spell. Well, the elven generalist's spell granted is necessarily that. In order to grant a new spell prepared each day, there must be a slot to contain that spell. The definitions here line up in such a way that your distinction is really not one.

[Emperor Tippy]

This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s ability to specialize in a school of magic.

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard;

All Domain Wizard requires is that you not be a specialist wizard (which is a RAW defined term). Elven Generalist replaces the School Specialization class feature of Wizards.

Domain Wizard does not, specifically, strip or replace the School Specialization Class Feature; it is simply barred to any Wizard who has chosen to Specialize in a school of magic. There is also no RAW requirement that you need even have the option to specialize to take Domain Wizard.
Elven Generalist is open to any Elf wizard and replaces the School Specialization Class Feature with something else.

---
The reasons that the whole "leapfrog" scheme doesn't work are:
1) Alacritous Cogitation says that you may "If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open."

While Versatile Spellcaster has as its prerequisite "Ability to spontaneously cast spells,".

AC provides the ability to cast a single spell spontaneously and VS requires the ability to cast multiple spells spontaneously. Ergo, AC alone can not qualify one for VS.

2) All spells have a minimum caster level that must be met to cast that spell. Versatile Spellcaster does nothing to change that rule. For a Wizard to cast a second level spell requires a CL of 3, a 3rd level spell requires a CL of 5, etc. If you don't meet the CL requirements than you can't cast the spell with Versatile Spellcaster and thus don't gain the spell (and spell slot) from Domain Wizard and thus Elven Generalist doesn't give you an additional Spell Slot of that highest level.

[RedMage125]

That argument doesn't apply. Either the prepared spell is in a spell slot that exists, in which case it works, or the spell slot somehow disappears when you put a spell into it, in which case it presumably doesn't.

It absolutely does apply. Throughout all the RAW for wizards "spell slots" are used exclusively to describe EMPTY spell slots. Once it is "filled" it is called a "prepared spell". Now, the term "spell slot" is used MUCH more often with spontaneous casters, whose slots are more versatile. This is why Alacritous Cogitation is necessary, to allow a prepared caster to cast their spells spontaneously.

No. I mean something like, "A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features." Something that implies it's an ability you're trading away, instead of just a possible option you're forgoing.

If the text says so, yes. I follow the text, not likelihoods. Also, arbitrary point, not all variants involve a trade. Zhentarim soldier, the first half-orc druid substitution level, and the wild shape hands ability of fangshields druid substitution levels don't, for example. They're all pure upside once you've met the prerequisites. You could claim lack of parity because the prerequisite is the trade off, but in the same sense I can and do claim that not specializing is itself a prerequisite. Not a hard prerequisite to meet in this case, obviously, but given the fact that fangshields is accessible through dragonborn anthropomorphic bats, it's not always a hardship hitting these marks.

That's not precisely what I was saying, but again, I go by text and not likelihood. What I was saying was that being in that chapter does not strictly connote an exchange as you implied. It doesn't connote an exchange at all, actually. You need to prove that an exchange is occurring in this specific case, not point to surrounding cases, because you lack a general rule.

The dictionary definition of "instead", according to Mirriam-Webster is:
Definition of instead
1
: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead>
2
: as an alternative to something expressed or implied : rather <longed instead for a quiet country life>

So if you are "going by the text", as you claim, you need to not IGNORE what the word "instead" means.

I am curious as to how you can say you "go by the text". How are YOU incorporating the "instead" part of that text? What does "instead" mean to you?

The two sentences are related and relevant. It's just that you're also meeting the requirements of both sentences. You are indeed doing this instead of specializing. That you're getting paid to do so is irrelevant. Consider an analogous case. I could decide to go to the movies instead of taking a walk. The reason for this could be that I just want to do that, or it could just be because the relevant path is closed. It may make sense in a conversational form.

"Today, I shall go for a walk down cool guy avenue."
"Nah, cool guy avenue is closed for a weird roadside cool guy convention."
"Then, instead of going for a walk, I shall go to the movies."

That conversation holds up on a semantic level, so this in turn works.

You show here that you understand the meaning of "instead". Since it means "as an alternative" or "as a substitute for", it means they are mutually exclusive, and not just mutually exclusive, but that one was a substitute for the other.

In your example, you are going to the movies and NOT going for a walk down cool guy avenue. Those two activities are mutually exclusive in your immediate future, and going to the movies was only an option because you had the time free for your original plan to take a walk. You have made this clear by use of the word "instead". If, for instance, you get called into work during that time, you wouldn't be available to walk down cool guy avenue OR go to the movies.

Who cares? Still spells known. Maybe they magically just appear in your book. It doesn't matter. The text says they're spells known, so they're spells known, and the ability says "as soon as" so it happens right away. This trick requires only that they be spells known, and they explicitly are.

Other people are debating this point. I might at some point as well, but as I've already said, what you're doing here is repackaging what I think is an old Tippy argument with a bunch of inaccuracies. I take umbrage with the inaccuracies, because they have influence outside this particular trick. If you decide to agree on all the other points, I'll either stop arguing or start looking into the minutiae of caster level stuff. But you haven't, so I won't.

Tippy DID bring this up, and he's right. It is just one of MANY things that deflates the entire "Leapfrog Wizard" trick. Those rules, found on the PHB page 7 and page 171, mean that a DW CAN'T cast a L2 spell until she is level 3. Unless she has Precocious Apprentice, she cannot cast L2 wizard spells below caster level 3, and PA explicitly creates a Specific exception to the General rule (and PA specifies that she may cast ONLY the L2 spell chosen with the feat with regards to the caster level exception). Since she CANNOT cast L2 spells, she does not gain her L2 domain spell "known" when she uses the AC+VS combo. She has to wait until level 3. The "as soon as she can cast" was never triggered, because she never COULD. The AC+VS combo used at level 1 can only Heighten a L1 spell, to cast it with a higher DC.
I don't know what "influence outside this trick" that point has, aside from being a part of RAW that some people ignore, or didn't realize was a thing.
For instance, Mialee the 6th level wizard has 3 3rd level spells prepared. She gets hit with 2 negative levels. She loses two prepared spells of her highest level (3rd). Her caster level is also reduced to 4, she is considered a 4-HD creature, and a 4th level wizard. So even though she still has one 3rd level spell prepared, she cannot cast it. When Jozan hits her with a Restoration spell and the negative levels go away, she can once again cast her 3rd level spells. PHB 310-311 have the rules regarding negative levels, and even specify that the caster gets their spells back when the negative level is removed "providing the caster would be capable of using it at that time."
These rules have always been there. You MUST have the minimum caster level in order to cast a spell of a particular level. The minimum caster level varies, because different classes get new spells at different levels. A Bard cannot cast L3 spells until level 7, Wizards get them at 5, Sorcerers at 6, and Ur-Priests at 3. Just because you can manage, through the expenditure of two feats, to access a spell slot above your prescribed maximum as a wizard does NOT create an exception that you can cast L2 spells below the minimum caster level. The very fact that we DO have one exception to this rule (Precocious Apprentice), and that said exception is VERY explicit in that it IS an exception, shows us that any exceptions to this rule will be THAT explicit. As there is nothing for this class or this trick, it does not happen.
If you're interested in the minutiae of the caster level thing, Quertus and I are having a discussion on the other thread, the "level 1 wizard/9th level spells" one. I ask that you read that (most of it's on the last page of the thread) before chiming in, so I don't end up repeating the same argument.

Yeah, but I don't care all that much how it was intended. This is a RAW argument.

That was just a point about how a Sorc cannot use this feat to cast spells above the max level he can cast by his class.

[Quertus]

2) All spells have a minimum caster level that must be met to cast that spell. Versatile Spellcaster does nothing to change that rule. For a Wizard to cast a second level spell requires a CL of 3, a 3rd level spell requires a CL of 5, etc. If you don't meet the CL requirements than you can't cast the spell with Versatile Spellcaster and thus don't gain the spell (and spell slot) from Domain Wizard and thus Elven Generalist doesn't give you an additional Spell Slot of that highest level.

Do you have a better source on this than the op?

[Mehangel]

Is there any actual RAW support that:
A) You must have a CASTER LEVEL of X before you can cast LEVEL Y spells.
and/or
B) If your CASTER LEVEL drops below X, you cannot cast LEVEL Y spells.

I am NOT talking about caster level loss through Enervation or Energy Drain. But rather lets say the character had an orange ioun stone (which grants +1 CL), or any number of feats which increase or decrease the caster level.

I have ALWAYS been under the assumption, that CASTER LEVEL had NO EFFECT on what SPELL LEVELS or SLOTS you had access to, but rather only contributed to DC, Duration, Range, Area and Effects of spells.

I ask because RedMage125 I think has mentioned multiple times that Class Z cannot cast spells of level Y if their CL is below X.

[RedMage125]

The rules for elven generalist place no bounds on when you can prepare the spell. So your claimed difference doesn't really exist. And, critically, the elven generalist spell fully meets the definition of a spell slot. A spell slot, after all, is defined as the space in a casters head that holds a prepared spell. Well, the elven generalist's spell granted is necessarily that. In order to grant a new spell prepared each day, there must be a slot to contain that spell. The definitions here line up in such a way that your distinction is really not one.

I actually addressed, in the post you quoted, that an EGW could prepare it later in the day.

And unless you are PREPARING a spell in that slot, you don't get a blank "spell slot".

And it still certainly doesn't "float"

All Domain Wizard requires is that you not be a specialist wizard (which is a RAW defined term). Elven Generalist replaces the School Specialization class feature of Wizards.

Domain Wizard does not, specifically, strip or replace the School Specialization Class Feature; it is simply barred to any Wizard who has chosen to Specialize in a school of magic. There is also no RAW requirement that you need even have the option to specialize to take Domain Wizard.
Elven Generalist is open to any Elf wizard and replaces the School Specialization Class Feature with something else.

Tippy, you're one of the most respected TO optimizers on the forums. You should know better than to post a fragment of the RAW text. Go back, and look at Unearthed Arcana and read the WHOLE sentence. Don't stop at the semicolon, because that is not a complete sentence.
Then fold in what the word "instead" means. "in something's stead" "as an alternative to" "as a substitute for"

If anyone reads this and chooses to ignore the rest of the sentence, because a few words say what they want to hear, where does it stop?

---
The reasons that the whole "leapfrog" scheme doesn't work are:
1) Alacritous Cogitation says that you may "If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open."

While Versatile Spellcaster has as its prerequisite "Ability to spontaneously cast spells,".

AC provides the ability to cast a single spell spontaneously and VS requires the ability to cast multiple spells spontaneously. Ergo, AC alone can not qualify one for VS.

NICE. Didn't catch that.

2) All spells have a minimum caster level that must be met to cast that spell. Versatile Spellcaster does nothing to change that rule. For a Wizard to cast a second level spell requires a CL of 3, a 3rd level spell requires a CL of 5, etc. If you don't meet the CL requirements than you can't cast the spell with Versatile Spellcaster and thus don't gain the spell (and spell slot) from Domain Wizard and thus Elven Generalist doesn't give you an additional Spell Slot of that highest level.

Been saying that this whole time.

Do you have a better source on this than the op?

Is there any actual RAW support that:
A) You must have a CASTER LEVEL of X before you can cast LEVEL Y spells.
and/or
B) If your CASTER LEVEL drops below X, you cannot cast LEVEL Y spells.

I am NOT talking about caster level loss through Enervation or Energy Drain. But rather lets say the character had an orange ioun stone (which grants +1 CL), or any number of feats which increase or decrease the caster level.

I have ALWAYS been under the assumption, that CASTER LEVEL had NO EFFECT on what SPELL LEVELS or SLOTS you had access to, but rather only contributed to DC, Duration, Range, Area and Effects of spells.

I ask because RedMage125 I think has mentioned multiple times that Class Z cannot cast spells of level Y if their CL is below X.

The answer to both of you is the Player's Handbook, page 7.

"The ability that governs bonus spells (see Chapter 3:
Classes) depends on what type of spellcaster your
character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics,
druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and
bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster
must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of
a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3
for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an
Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1stlevel
spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get
the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum
level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)

[Mehangel]

The answer to both of you is the Player's Handbook, page 7.

"The ability that governs bonus spells (see Chapter 3:
Classes) depends on what type of spellcaster your
character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics,
druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and
bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster
must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of
a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3
for details.) For instance, the wizard Mialee has an
Intelligence score of 15, so she’s smart enough to get one bonus 1stlevel
spell and one bonus 2nd-level spell. (She will not actually get
the 2nd-level spell until she is 3rd level wizard, since that’s the minimum
level a wizard must be to cast 2nd-level spells.)

That is CLASS LEVEL, I am talking about CASTER LEVEL.
CLASS LEVEL =/= CASTER LEVEL
EDIT: CLASS LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CASTER LEVEL, just as CASTER LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CLASS LEVEL. If you raise your CASTER LEVEL does it AUTOMATICALLY allow you to cast higher level spells (because there are SEVERAL feats that increase your CL with specific spell schools or descriptors)?

[eggynack]

It absolutely does apply. Throughout all the RAW for wizards "spell slots" are used exclusively to describe EMPTY spell slots. Once it is "filled" it is called a "prepared spell". Now, the term "spell slot" is used MUCH more often with spontaneous casters, whose slots are more versatile. This is why Alacritous Cogitation is necessary, to allow a prepared caster to cast their spells spontaneously.

It's actually used to characterize a non-empty slot in the glossary. The glossary defines a slot as, "The “space” in a spellcaster’s mind dedicated to holding a spell of a particular spell level." It maintains that state whether it's in use or not, because it's obviously dedicated to holding a spell while it's holding a spell.

The dictionary definition of "instead", according to Mirriam-Webster is:
Definition of instead
1
: as a substitute or equivalent <was going to write but called instead>
2
: as an alternative to something expressed or implied : rather <longed instead for a quiet country life>

So if you are "going by the text", as you claim, you need to not IGNORE what the word "instead" means.

Not really. You're using domain wizard as an alternative or substitute for specialization.

I am curious as to how you can say you "go by the text". How are YOU incorporating the "instead" part of that text? What does "instead" mean to you?

It means that you're doing thing B, but not doing thing A.

You show here that you understand the meaning of "instead". Since it means "as an alternative" or "as a substitute for", it means they are mutually exclusive.

Yes. Which is why you're not specializing.

In your example, you are going to the movies and NOT going for a walk down cool guy avenue. Those two activities are mutually exclusive in your immediate future, which you have made clear by use of the word "instead".

Exactly. And, in the same fashion, you're using domain wizard and not specializing.

I don't know what "influence outside this trick" that point has, aside from being a part of RAW that some people ignore, or didn't realize was a thing.

Not that point. Your other points are intrinsically externally meaningful. You claim that one cannot use both of these alternative class features. I disagree. It's not like people only use both of those when they want to use this trick. Same goes for your claims about versatile spellcaster.

Also, to the alacritous cogitation point, worst case scenario, can't you just use spontaneous divination? Really great ability, that.

[Doc_Maynot]

Also, to the alacritous cogitation point, worst case scenario, can't you just use spontaneous divination? Really great ability, that.

Or Magical Training (Sorcerer), that gives you three 0 level slots you can cast Spontaneously.

[RedMage125]

That is CLASS LEVEL, I am talking about CASTER LEVEL.
CLASS LEVEL =/= CASTER LEVEL
EDIT: CLASS LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CASTER LEVEL, just as CASTER LEVEL does not ALWAYS equal CLASS LEVEL.

I apologize for the confusion. I think my cold medicine's kicking in, so this will likely be my last post on the subject for tonight.

PHB 171 has the relevant information regarding how a spell may NOT be cast BELOW the minimum caster level for that class.

If you raise your CASTER LEVEL does it AUTOMATICALLY allow you to cast higher level spells (because there are SEVERAL feats that increase your CL with specific spell schools or descriptors)?

THAT is the situation you would refer to PHB page 7, which I quoted before. Even if your caster level is boosted above your class level, your class level still prevents you from casting higher-level spells.

They BOTH affect which level of spell you can cast. This may seem redundant, but the reason it isn't is because of negative levels. The example I gave of a 6th level wizard gaining 2 negative levels highlights this. Even though she only lost two of her three L3 spells prepared, her caster level was too low to cast her remaining L3 spell. But she's still a level 6 wizard, which is why she didn't lose ALL the spell slots gained between levels 4 and 6 (which will only happen if she doesn't get the negative levels removed and she fails both Fort saves). Negative levels are a status effect that very specifically causes loss of prepared spells/spell slots, reduced caster level, and even reduced the Hit Dice that the creature is considered to be. If Mialee had been a human wizard, for example, getting 2 negative levels would make her a valid target for the spell Sleep, which only affects creatures of 4 HD or less (obviously, elves are naturually immune anyway). I very specifically tailored that example to show how the "class level vis caster level" minimums affect ability to cast spells of a given level. Everything IN my example, is supported by the rules (specifically PHB 7, 171, and 310).

It's actually used to characterize a non-empty slot in the glossary. The glossary defines a slot as, "The “space” in a spellcaster’s mind dedicated to holding a spell of a particular spell level." It maintains that state whether it's in use or not, because it's obviously dedicated to holding a spell while it's holding a spell.

How about that.

Well played, sir. Although this point may now be moot with Tippy's recent bombshell about AC and VS.

Not really. You're using domain wizard as an alternative or substitute for specialization.

Full stop.

It is a SUBSTITUTE for specialization, a class feature that an EGW no longer has.

Thank you.

P.S.
I had editted the rest of the text you quoted because I left out some of what I was saying (again, might be due to my cold meds kicking in), and I think I was less clear because of it. And you had already quoted the OLD text, and must have been typing your post when I did that editing. That which you quoted was incomplete for what I was saying, but that's my fault, not yours.

Not that point. Your other points are intrinsically externally meaningful. You claim that one cannot use both of these alternative class features. I disagree. It's not like people only use both of those when they want to use this trick. Same goes for your claims about versatile spellcaster.

My whole point on using both is that they can't ANYWAY, not just for this trick. It's just one of many things that makes the trick not work.

And I've said VS can be used to do metamagic spontaneously. That seems to work. Assuming one qualifies for VS.

Also, to the alacritous cogitation point, worst case scenario, can't you just use spontaneous divination? Really great ability, that.

You mean the ACF available to wizards at level 5, 10, 15, or 20? I suppose that would qualify you for VS without even needing to take AC, but can't be done at level 1, so...

[Emperor Tippy]

Tippy, you're one of the most respected TO optimizers on the forums. You should know better than to post a fragment of the RAW text. Go back, and look at Unearthed Arcana and read the WHOLE sentence. Don't stop at the semicolon, because that is not a complete sentence.
Then fold in what the word "instead" means. "in something's stead" "as an alternative to" "as a substitute for"

"in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

That is everything post semicolon. It's also not rules relevant. No where does Domain Wizard state that you loose the School Specialization class feature and no where does Elven Generalist state that it does anything but replace your ability to specialize in a school of magic.

Domain Wizard adds a new class feature (Arcane Domain) but is an option that can only be taken if the wizard has not made use of their School Specialization class feature.
Elven Generalist alters spells per day but strips out the School Specialization class feature of the Wizard.

Domain Wizard is essentially "If Specialization != True THEN Domain Wizard = True." not, "If Specialization = False THEN Domain Wizard = True."

With Elven Generalist removing specialization entirely it can not =False.

Been saying that this whole time.

And I've been saying it for years at this point. The rules are outrageously hazy though since what the minimum caster level is for a spell (except Fireball) has never been explicitly defined for each class. In my opinion the RAI is very clear cut and the RAW is explicit enough that a lot of early casting tricks don't work but it is at least somewhat debatable.

Most everyone who has been around for a while also already knows this and has pretty much already formed their own opinions and gone with the "agree to disagree" route.

[eggynack]

Full stop.

It is a SUBSTITUTE for specialization, a class feature that an EGW no longer has.

Thank you.

Ironically, you're missing the context here. That line isn't directly characterizing the trade, but rather the reason you wouldn't take it. Thus, while it still characterizes the ACF, it's using the term substitute (or, y'know, the term instead) in the informal sense, rather than in the sense that this is the core exchange taking place.

My whole point on using both is that they can't ANYWAY, not just for this trick. It's just one of many things that makes the trick not work.

Exactly. And I disagree with that point.

You mean the ACF available to wizards at level 5, 10, 15, or 20? I suppose that would qualify you for VS without even needing to take AC, but can't be done at level 1, so...

Thought you could use scribe scroll or something. Ah well. The magical training then.

[RedMage125]

"in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells with increased power."

That is everything post semicolon. It's also not rules relevant. No where does Domain Wizard state that you loose the School Specialization class feature and no where does Elven Generalist state that it does anything but replace your ability to specialize in a school of magic.

Domain Wizard adds a new class feature (Arcane Domain) but is an option that can only be taken if the wizard has not made use of their School Specialization class feature.
Elven Generalist alters spells per day but strips out the School Specialization class feature of the Wizard.

Domain Wizard is essentially "If Specialization != True THEN Domain Wizard = True." not, "If Specialization = False THEN Domain Wizard = True."

With Elven Generalist removing specialization entirely it can not =False.

You neglected to account for the meaning of the word "instead". Which is "in place of" or "as a substitute for".

How can you take a SUBSTITUTE for a class feature you DO NOT HAVE?

To say otherwise is to imply that a Lion totem Barbarian (Unearthed Arcana) may take the View The Spirit World variant in Complete Champion, because he still isn't taking Improved Uncanny Dodge.

And how can you say one half of a sentence is "rules relevant" and the other half is not? The way semicolons work in English is that when two sentences are combined into one, and separated with a semicolon, that they are of equal importance. Google it if you don't believe me. If one is rules relevant, the other is.

And I've been saying it for years at this point. The rules are outrageously hazy though since what the minimum caster level is for a spell (except Fireball) has never been explicitly defined for each class.

Actually it is, because the example paragraph says that Fireball is an EXAMPLE.
It also specifies that 5th level is the minimum CL for a wizard to cast Fireball.
The minimum caster level depends on which level (and caster level) a character of a given class would need to be to cast THAT spell
So CL for 3rd level spells for a Sorc is 6, for example. Minimum for a Bard is 7, and Ur-Priest is 3. A Paladin must be level 11 (caster level 5) to cast a 3rd level spell.

In my opinion the RAI is very clear cut and the RAW is explicit enough that a lot of early casting tricks don't work but it is at least somewhat debatable.

Most everyone who has been around for a while also already knows this and has pretty much already formed their own opinions and gone with the "agree to disagree" route.

Well, the RAW are pretty firmly in the "disagree" group, lol.

Ironically, you're missing the context here. That line isn't directly characterizing the trade, but rather the reason you wouldn't take it. Thus, while it still characterizes the ACF, it's using the term substitute (or, y'know, the term instead) in the informal sense, rather than in the sense that this is the core exchange taking place.

You're trying to impose INTENT. The word "instead" has a specific meaning of "in the place of" or "as a substitute for". Thus RAW (not the RAI you propose) says that it is, in fact, a trade.

The reason the two sentences are together is to show, unequivocally, that a wizard cannot be both. To prove it, I will replace the word "instead" with the dictionary definition of "instead"

"A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange
for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain in the place
of an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells
with increased power."
or
"A
domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; in exchange
for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain as a substitute for
an entire school, the domain wizard casts her chosen spells
with increased power."

Make sense? If you were correct, substituting the definition of a word for the word itself should not appear to change the meaning.

[AnachroNinja]

Interestingly, if the minimum caster level for spells is an accurate concept, it means that certain prestige classes, such as Unseen Seer, that increase your caster level with a particular school (divination in this case) while reducing your caster level with other schools, would actually prevent you from using your highest level spell slots for anything except divination spells, which does not seem to be the intent of that class feature.

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

[Emperor Tippy]

You neglected to account for the meaning of the word "instead". Which is "in place of" or "as a substitute for".

No, you neglected to recognize that no where in the Domain Wizard section does it actually state that you are trading out the School Specialization class feature or the like. The bit that you are talking about even states that all you are giving up is versatility, not the class feature itself.

How can you take a SUBSTITUTE for a class feature you DO NOT HAVE?

Because Domain Wizards still have the School Specialization Class Feature so Elven Generalists can trade it away. And because Elven Generalists are not Specialized Wizards they qualify to take the Domain Wizard variant.

Order doesn't matter. One trades away a specific class feature, the other is bared to those who have used a specific class feature.

To say otherwise is to imply that a Lion totem Barbarian (Unearthed Arcana) may take the View The Spirit World variant in Complete Champion, because he still isn't taking Improved Uncanny Dodge.

Replaces:This benefit replaces the improved uncanny dodge class feature.

A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities.

To replace something requires that you have that thing in the first place. Lion Totem Barbarian does not have Improve Uncanny Dodge as a class feature as so is thus incapable of replacing it with something else.

And how can you say one half of a sentence is "rules relevant" and the other half is not? The way semicolons work in English is that when two sentences are combined into one, and separated with a semicolon, that they are of equal importance. Google it if you don't believe me. If one is rules relevant, the other is.

Because the post semicolon part does not actually say anything about the rules.

Actually it is, because the example paragraph says that Fireball is an EXAMPLE.
It also specifies that 5th level is the minimum CL for a wizard to cast Fireball.

Yes, that part is RAW true. Which is what I said.

The minimum caster level depends on which level (and caster level) a character of a given class would need to be to cast THAT spell
So CL for 3rd level spells for a Sorc is 6, for example. Minimum for a Bard is 7, and Ur-Priest is 3. A Paladin must be level 11 (caster level 5) to cast a 3rd level spell.

None of that is explicitly stated anywhere in the rules. Hence the RAI bit of my explanation.

Well, the RAW are pretty firmly in the "disagree" group, lol.

No, they aren't. "Minimum Caster Level" is technically a RAW undefined term and is thus technically totally meaningless (with the loan exception of the spell Fireball in the case of a pure class Wizard).

Per strict, technical, RAW Minimum Caster Level is meaningless.

[RedMage125]

No, you neglected to recognize that no where in the Domain Wizard section does it actually state that you are trading out the School Specialization class feature or the like. The bit that you are talking about even states that all you are giving up is versatility, not the class feature itself.

It absolutely does. It says "instead of", meaning "in place of" or "as a substitute for".

Because Domain Wizards still have the School Specialization Class Feature so Elven Generalists can trade it away. And because Elven Generalists are not Specialized Wizards they qualify to take the Domain Wizard variant.

Order doesn't matter. One trades away a specific class feature, the other is bared to those who have used a specific class feature.

Incorrect.
Taking DW first means that you are beholden to the first half of that sentence "cannot also be a specialist wizard", which means you do NOT have "the ability to specialize in a school of magic", which is the tradeoff for the EGW ACF.

Order does not matter, correct. But there is no order in which to take these that does not exclude the other.

Replaces:This benefit replaces the improved uncanny dodge class feature.

A barbarian dedicated to the lion totem does not gain the standard fast movement, uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge barbarian class features, and instead gains the following abilities.

To replace something requires that you have that thing in the first place. Lion Totem Barbarian does not have Improve Uncanny Dodge as a class feature as so is thus incapable of replacing it with something else.

Likewise EGW takes away "ability to specialize in a school of magic", and domain wizard is specializing in a domain "as a substitute for" specializing in a school. If you do not have the ability to specialize in a school, you cannot take a class option that is a substitute for that.
Doing it the other way around, a DW "may not be a specialist wizard". If you may not do something, you do not have the ability to do it, right? Therefore you are excluded from the EGW feature.

Because the post semicolon part does not actually say anything about the rules.

Only if you assume that "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of a school of magic" is not rules text. Which I do not assume that, because I am trying to use RAW, so what is WRITTEN is significant.
And I don't know by what authority you claim to say what is and is not "rules text". The way the sentence is formatted (i.e. the semicolon connecting two sentences) means the two are equally important. If ONE is rules text, then BOTH are.
And if you read it so that the "instead of" IS rules text, then it DOES, in fact, say that domain specialization is "a substitute for" school specialization.
And since you have no ACTUAL authority to declare that sentence NOT rules text, whilst I can cite the English use of a semicolon and the definition of the word "instead" to back my points, I think it's safe to say that I am right.
Unless you have some actual PROOF that the second half of that sentence "is not rules text".

None of that is explicitly stated anywhere in the rules. Hence the RAI bit of my explanation.

Without doing that for EVERY SPELL in the book, they cannot be THAT explicit. It is very clear that Fireball is an EXAMPLE of what the ruling is saying, ergo, that ruling should be applied to ALL spells. And they even specify that 5th is the minimum CL for a WIZARD, because some classes handle spells differently.

No, they aren't. "Minimum Caster Level" is technically a RAW undefined term and is thus technically totally meaningless (with the loan exception of the spell Fireball in the case of a pure class Wizard).

Actually, you're right about one thing. The term "minimum caster level" is not used. But to paraphrase just a bit, it DOES mention that caster level cannot go below "the minimum level for [x class] to cast the spell".

Per strict, technical, RAW Minimum Caster Level is meaningless.

Well, then I'll coin the term to mean "the minimum caster level which corresponds to the minimum level for which [x class] must be in order to cast the spell".
Not a RAW term, but useful shorthand for this discussion.

Interestingly, if the minimum caster level for spells is an accurate concept, it means that certain prestige classes, such as Unseen Seer, that increase your caster level with a particular school (divination in this case) while reducing your caster level with other schools, would actually prevent you from using your highest level spell slots for anything except divination spells, which does not seem to be the intent of that class feature.

I could be wrong, but that's my opinion.

Like Tippy said "Minimum Caster Level" is not a RAW term.

BUT the RAW do say that in order to cast a spell of a given level, one's caster level may not be reduced below the minimum class level required to cast the spell. So...a Rogue 2/Wizard 3/Unseen Seer 10 would have a caster level of 10 for all non-divination spells. So, yes, they would not be able to cast their L6 or L7 spells. An Ioun Stone that boosts caster level, and perhaps a level of Archmage that takes Spell Power would help offset some of that, but you're right. That seems like one of those Rules Dysfunctions, but that's what the RAW says...

[Beheld]

In 2016 people are still claiming that level 7 Wizard with 17 Int can't cast 4th level spells

[icefractal]

It's not a variant class feature. It's a variant class. You are a domain wizard, as opposed to a normal wizard.

Eh, you're still a wizard. It's not a different class.

C'mon, really now.

Yeah, but it's really similar. You're not altering any class features, or casting, or really much of anything besides this one element. Moreover, my point was that, even if you're not the same class, you're still a wizard, and you're still taking a level in wizard.

This is not the kind of argument you can make about something that grants 9th level spells at 1st level. You're appealing to the (hypothetical) GM to rule things favorably, but if this kind of trick comes down to GM rulings at all, then it's already failed, because without unwavering adherence to the RAW there's no way this level of cheese gets the ok.

Moreover, my point was that, even if you're not the same class, you're still a wizard, and you're still taking a level in wizard.

And this one, especially no. "Dread Necromancer" has the word "Necromancer" in it - does that mean you can take Wizard ACFs for it?

[Lorddenorstrus]

In 2016 people are still claiming that level 7 Wizard with 17 Int can't cast 4th level spells

It's at least funny. Most people that think they're capable of arguing with Tippy at least try to bring a competent and semi valid argument. This isn't a debate, it's one guy screaming crazy words and even the people that normally take that side of said debate aren't even siding with him.

Personally I think it delves to much into interpretation or RAI to make the theory not work. Also didn't realize Alacritous doesn't technically qualify for Versatile, but there are valid replacements. Still good to learn things. So for that thanks for the lesson Tippy!

Alsp, RAI is fine at a table, I do wish people could separate their RAI and PO from the funsy RAW TO **** I see get thrown together.

[eggynack]

C'mon, really now.

This is not the kind of argument you can make about something that grants 9th level spells at 1st level. You're appealing to the (hypothetical) GM to rule things favorably, but if this kind of trick comes down to GM rulings at all, then it's already failed, because without unwavering adherence to the RAW there's no way this level of cheese gets the ok.

This isn't a favorable ruling argument. A wizard variant is a wizard. Elven generalist only demands you be a wizard, and you still are one. Also, UA specifies that you're tweaking an existing character class here, not strictly generating a new one.

And this one, especially no. "Dread Necromancer" has the word "Necromancer" in it - does that mean you can take Wizard ACFs for it?

It's not a name thing. A domain wizard is a type of wizard.

Edit: Point is, the first two lines you quoted look like they contradict each other a bit, but they don't. A variant of a thing is still within the overall class of that thing (where class is defined in the broad sense, not the game sense).

[Mordaedil]

The intent of the rule is that a Domain wizard is itself a specialist wizard, hope this helps.

[Emperor Tippy]

The intent of the rule is that a Domain wizard is itself a specialist wizard, hope this helps.

Nothing in the text shows such intent, so making such a categorical statement is very ill advised unless you happen to be Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Nooman, or Rich Redman (those being the authors of Unearthed Arcana).

[Arcanist]

The intent of the rule is that a Domain wizard is itself a specialist wizard, hope this helps.

Nothing in the text shows such intent, so making such a categorical statement is very ill advised unless you happen to be Andy Collins, Jesse Decker, David Nooman, or Rich Redman (those being the authors of Unearthed Arcana).

Regardless of whether their statement is true or not (it isn't), such an implication would render Domain Wizard, by RAW, a self-invalidating class since:

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard

[AnachroNinja]

I'm not saying I have rules text to back this up, is just my feeling on it.

If having a higher caster level due to items, feats, or class features does not allow you to gain higher level spell slots, assuming you know all spells of the level your able to cast, then I'm never personally going to go with an interpretation of the rules on which a lower caster level prevents you from using spell slots you have available.

Most of the bonuses and penalties in this game are fairly symmetrical. It doesn't seem reasonable for negative caster level effects to have such a disproportionate effect vs that of bonus caster levels. Even if not for the aforementioned Unseen Seer example, it just doesn't make sense to me. You're wizard who's been level drained is weaker and able to put less arcane energy into his spells, that doesn't mean he forgot how to cast lightning bolt, or that there is necessarily a minimum threshold of energy to make it work. Especially since that would give you other weird rules gaps. Example, a level 7 wizard who for some reason has a caster level of 1, according to some can not cast lightning bolt because he lacks the energy to make it work. He does still have it memorized however, so his Storm Bolt reserve feat is still going to function at full damage capacity. That doesn't have a minimum CL or even any relation to caster level.

Overall I'm just going to call this rules area wonky. OP is coming off more and more as a frothing zealot though.

[Mehangel]

I'm not saying I have rules text to back this up, is just my feeling on it.

If having a higher caster level due to items, feats, or class features does not allow you to gain higher level spell slots, assuming you know all spells of the level your able to cast, then I'm never personally going to go with an interpretation of the rules on which a lower caster level prevents you from using spell slots you have available.

Most of the bonuses and penalties in this game are fairly symmetrical. It doesn't seem reasonable for negative caster level effects to have such a disproportionate effect vs that of bonus caster levels. Even if not for the aforementioned Unseen Seer example, it just doesn't make sense to me. You're wizard who's been level drained is weaker and able to put less arcane energy into his spells, that doesn't mean he forgot how to cast lightning bolt, or that there is necessarily a minimum threshold of energy to make it work. Especially since that would give you other weird rules gaps. Example, a level 7 wizard who for some reason has a caster level of 1, according to some can not cast lightning bolt because he lacks the energy to make it work. He does still have it memorized however, so his Storm Bolt reserve feat is still going to function at full damage capacity. That doesn't have a minimum CL or even any relation to caster level.

Overall I'm just going to call this rules area wonky. OP is coming off more and more as a frothing zealot though.

I agree. If RAW having a lower CL means you cannot cast spells of level X, than it SHOULD mean that having a higher CL allows you to cast spells of level X.

But to me allowing CASTER LEVEL (as opposed to CLASS LEVEL) to determine what spells could be cast is messy business, and I would never allow it (excluding of-course explicit use of spells such as energy drain or enervation). To me the rules get particularly wonky when people assume class level = caster level, when there are a number of classes, feats, items that say differently.

In short, I use and have always used CLASS LEVEL not CASTER LEVEL to determine the highest level spell a character can use. So if someone takes a feat that explicitly gives them a spell slot to a spell level they normally wouldn't be able to cast from, I see it as a Specific Trumps General Rule. Of-course none of my comments here really matter because these are only RULES AS INTERPRETED by myself.

[Dgrin]

The reasons that the whole "leapfrog" scheme doesn't work are:
1) Alacritous Cogitation says that you may "If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower and of casting time no longer than 1 round. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open."

While Versatile Spellcaster has as its prerequisite "Ability to spontaneously cast spells,".

AC provides the ability to cast a single spell spontaneously and VS requires the ability to cast multiple spells spontaneously. Ergo, AC alone can not qualify one for VS.

I don't think that's a correct reading. By the same logic, bard being "proficient with all simple weapons, plus the longsword, rapier..." means that any bard can only be proficient with one specific longsword, one specific rapier and so on, because being proficient with the longsword does not equal being proficient with longswords.
Also, consider the following example:
Bob is level 3 wizard with Alacritous Cogitation feat. He leaves 2 first level spell slots open today, and uses those to cast a second level spell spontaneously. Let's say it was Glitterdust. He then sleeps, and on the next day, uses 2 slots to cast different second level spell, Mirror Image. He was able to cast 2 different spells using that feat, and I don't see anything about time constraints in Versatile Spellcaster prerequisites. Nothing forces you to cast those spells in one day.
Is that correct?

[Beheld]

It's at least funny. Most people that think they're capable of arguing with Tippy at least try to bring a competent and semi valid argument. This isn't a debate, it's one guy screaming crazy words and even the people that normally take that side of said debate aren't even siding with him.

I think you missed a bit. Tippy is the one who originally advanced the argument which supports the conclusion that a level 7 Wizard can't cast 4th level spells.

[Segev]

I'm afraid that the only arguments that suggest that comments relating to caster levels mean that 7th level wizards can't cast 4th level spells are conflating two terms that are not, denotatively, identical.

The rules that say you can't cast spells of a given spell level if your class level is too low specifically refer to class levels. The other rules being referenced refer to caster levels. While the two are often related, they are not synonymous. A great deal of attention is paid to terms in PrCs to determine which ones advance spellcasting as if you'd taken a level in a particular class vs. which ones advance caster level.

[Beheld]

I'm afraid that the only arguments that suggest that comments relating to caster levels mean that 7th level wizards can't cast 4th level spells are conflating two terms that are not, denotatively, identical.

No No No. That's not what I'm talking about at all. I'm talking about his argument for how Arcane Whatever doesn't grant casting of Xth level spells because it can only be used once per day. Hence why I stated in my orgininal post, "level 7 Wizard with 17 Int."

It's the old "Your Sorcerer and/or Wizard can't take prestige classes until one level later than everyone in the world knows you can, so I can make a bad argument for how this cheese isn't RAW" argument that I thought we were done with 5 years ago.

[animewatcha]

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard

Just kinda throwing this in here since specialist wizard actually got defined..
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/classes/sorcererWizard.htm