Fallacy of Elven Generalist+Domain Wizard "Leapfrog Wizard"

[Mordaedil]

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).

Don't get me wrong, I do feel really bad for you if you cannot make such a logical leap in itself. But if you really want their input on the ordeal, I can just go on Twitter and ask them. It's not a big deal to really get information about this stuff anymore, but when I read the Domain Wizard, it was very obvious to me that it was an alternative variant to replace playing a specialist wizard for the benefit of playing a wizard with a cleric twist to it.

Again, I am sorry you can't see it when it is really obvious (Unearthed Arcana itself is intended as a mess of optional rules to allow you to tweak your gaming experience, not a bunch of suggested supplemental details like most other splatbooks)

[Lorddenorstrus]

Don't get me wrong, I do feel really bad for you if you cannot make such a logical leap in itself. But if you really want their input on the ordeal, I can just go on Twitter and ask them. It's not a big deal to really get information about this stuff anymore, but when I read the Domain Wizard, it was very obvious to me that it was an alternative variant to replace playing a specialist wizard for the benefit of playing a wizard with a cleric twist to it.

Again, I am sorry you can't see it when it is really obvious (Unearthed Arcana itself is intended as a mess of optional rules to allow you to tweak your gaming experience, not a bunch of suggested supplemental details like most other splatbooks)

So.. you're talking about read as intended. RAI. Which has NOTHING to do with this thread? This.. is a discussion on RAW. Is that freaking difficult for some people to understand? As it doesn't say anything about replacing the feature by RAW, it therefore.. DOESN'T. You do it differently at your tables? Cool again that's an interpretation and judicious use of Rule 0 to change the rules from as written. Which is the only thing discussed for these kind of debates.

[Mordaedil]

I see, I've been wondering what RAW meant this whole time. Read As Written. Now I just feel like an idiot. Sorry everyone, ignore me!

This whole time I thought RAW was some sort of source reference document.

[ryu]

I see, I've been wondering what RAW meant this whole time. Read As Written. Now I just feel like an idiot. Sorry everyone, ignore me!

This whole time I thought RAW was some sort of source reference document.

Well technically it's rules as intended and rules as written, but the intent was correct. Everyone has their own RAI. Some even give their RAI different titles like Rules as Common Sense dictates to mask the fact they're really just making their own RAI like everyone else.

[eggynack]

Well technically it's rules as intended and rules as written, but the intent was correct. Everyone has their own RAI. Some even give their RAI different titles like Rules as Common Sense dictates to mask the fact they're really just making their own RAI like everyone else.

I think there exists a distinction there. Rules as intended means you're making some guess, perhaps a very educated or context based guess, about how the designers wanted the game to be, and using that guess to determine how the rule set should operate. Rules as interpreted, which I think is another meaning of RAI, is similar, but depends a bit less on designer intent and a bit more on textual extrapolation. RACSD, meanwhile, doesn't care immensely about what the rules actually are. The goal there is to scrap the technical meaning behind the words, as well as the intent, and instead essentially construct house rules based on how you think the game world should operate. There's a lot of overlap between the three, but I kinda like how open RACSD is about the fact that its apathy towards any sort of overarching ruler of the system. RAI and RACSD might wind up at a certain identical rule between them, but RAI is more likely to get there with some underlying idea that this is the only possible outcome, and that anyone that disagrees is squaring off with the designers themselves instead of one fellow's opinion.

[RedMage125]

So.. you're talking about read as intended. RAI. Which has NOTHING to do with this thread? This.. is a discussion on RAW. Is that freaking difficult for some people to understand? As it doesn't say anything about replacing the feature by RAW, it therefore.. DOESN'T.

It DOES say that if the phrase "...in exchange for the versatility of specializing in a domain instead of specializing in an entire school..." is rules text.
Which... no one has any authority to say is NOT rules text. And I have shown, positively, through English syntax rules tell us that both halves of that sentence carry equal importance. Also I have an understanding of what the words "in exchange for" and "instead" mean.

Seriously, that would be like if I claimed "there was no RAW that said wizards had spell failure while wearing armor", just because I chose to ignore that line of text in the wizard description.

You do it differently at your tables? Cool again that's an interpretation and judicious use of Rule 0 to change the rules from as written. Which is the only thing discussed for these kind of debates.

Right, so I'll stick with the interpretation that DOESN'T require me to IGNORE what is written. Since, you know, what I have proposed is the only way to read it that actually includes ALL of the text.

[ryu]

To be fair I actually count the designers as having less credibility than any randomly selected person's opinion. The designers made the fighter, and ''tested'' the druid without casting a single spell or making the animal companion do things. I don't feel I need to offer a more complicated explanation of my complete and utter disdain of their track record.

[eggynack]

It DOES say that if the phrase "...in exchange for the versatility of specializing in a domain instead of specializing in an entire school..." is rules text.
Which... no one has any authority to say is NOT rules text. And I have shown, positively, through English syntax rules tell us that both halves of that sentence carry equal importance. Also I have an understanding of what the words "in exchange for" and "instead" mean.

But, even if a trade can be proved, you're not trading away specialization. At best, you're trading away the versatility associated with specialization. And associated versatility is not, in itself, a class feature that you are capable of having or not having prior to taking a variant. And you are giving up that versatility. By not specializing. You give up that versatility whether you also have elven generalist or not.

[Segev]

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.

Ah, okay. Finally managed to find the post in question with the argument to which you're objecting, and I actually agree: that's a spurious argument.

For reference, the argument as I understand it is that the prerequisite for a particular PrC or feat is phrased such that it requires "the ability to cast [some kind of] spells," typically spells of a particular level. Alacritous Cogitation allows you to cast a spell that meets the requirements once per day. Thus, you can only cast "a spell" rather than "spells." Or, so goes the argument.

However, this fails on two fronts:

1) Trying to fine parse plurals and singulars goes well beyond what the language used in D&D 3.5 specifies. When an ability to do X is required to be something you can do more than 1x per day, the minimum number of uses/day is explicitly specified. Even in legal documents, you'd be hard-pressed to make a case that a generic plural expressly specifies that a singular is insufficient. "The right to keep and bear arms" doesn't mean that you have a right to keep and bear any number of weapons except 1. Regardless of where you might fall in any real-world debate on the 2nd amendment (which is WAY outside the scope of this thread), I think anybody would laugh you out of court if you tried to claim that it didn't protect the right of an individual to carry a weapon because he's not carrying at least 2.

2) Even if you can only cast 1 7th level (for example) spell per day, you still can cast 7th level spells. By two distinct definitions, even:

• If you know both mirage arcana and Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion, you can cast either of those spells. Plural.
• If you cast Mordenkainen's magnificent mansion on Tuesday, then cast it again on Wednesday, you've cast 2 7th level spells.

So the ability to do it once per day doesn't mean you can't cast spells. It doesn't say "ability to cast Xth level spells in any given day." It says "ability to cast Xth level spells."

Even if you're limited to one per day, you have multiple days to consider.

Golly, if you know two 7th level spells, of which you can cast only one per day, you could still cast one on Thursday and the other on Friday, and you've demonstrated the ability to cast at least 2 7th level spells!


So, yeah, any argument hinging on once-per-day uses not being the ability to cast "spells" fails outright.

[TheBrassDuke]

I think people are forgetting where these variants say "this ability replaces", which is a staple to the variants that actually replace something.

Directly below the Introduction for "Elf Wizard":

Elves are naturally enthralled by the study of magic, and many of history’s most famous wizards were elves. Elf wizards typically prefer a general approach to magic, recognizing the value in versatility.

Directly below the Introduction for "Domain Wizard":

A wizard who uses the arcane domain system (called a domain wizard) selects a specific arcane domain of spells, much like a cleric selects a pair of domains associated with his deity. A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; 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.
Some of the arcane domains described below have the same name as a divine domain. Regardless of any apparent similarity, these domains have no connection to one another.

Okay. So, these are the "introductions", right?

Then it moves on to requirements and features, etc. At that point, it goes into specifics, and if a variant is supposed to give up anything in exchange for something else, you will always see "this ability (or other variation) replaces" in its own paragraph.

Generalist Wizardry: A 1st-level elf wizard begins play with one extra 1st-level spell in her spellbook. At each new wizard level, she gains one extra spell of any spell level that she can cast. This represents the additional elven insight and experience with arcane magic.
The elf wizard may also prepare one additional spell of her highest spell level each day. Unlike the specialist wizard ability, this spell may be of any school.
This substitution feature replaces the standard wizard’s ability to specialize in a school of magic.

Arcane Domain: At 1st level, a domain wizard selects an ar- cane domain from those listed below. (At the DM’s discretion, the player might create an alternatively themed domain instead.) Once selected, the domain may never be changed.
A domain wizard automatically adds each new domain spell to her list of known spells as soon as she becomes able to cast it. These spells do not count against her two new spells known per wizard level.
A domain wizard casts spells from her chosen domain (re- gardless of whether the spell was prepared as a domain spell or a normal spell) as a caster one level higher than her normal level. This bonus applies only to the spells listed for the domain, not all spells of the school or subtype whose name matches the domain name.
In some cases, an arcane domain includes spells not normally on the wizard’s class spell list. These spells are treated as being on the character’s class spell list (and thus she can use wands or arcane scrolls that hold those spells, or even prepare those spells in her normal wizard spell slots).

So would you like to tell me exactly why you're taking an introductory statement about a variant to diametrically oppose another variant Class Feature? You're taking what you think supports your claim, from another area entirely, and trying to directly use it against a feature it has no grounds to oppose.

I'm going to drop out an watch this unfold now, so just read all that and discuss. I won't be responding (probably).

Edit:

No Prohibited Schools: Unlike a specialist wizard, a domain wizard need not select any prohibited schools or do- mains. All wizard spells are available
to her to learn.

So you still think, just by your outrageous definition and an introductory statement, that a domain wizard is still "specializing"? Right in the Class Features: "UNLIKE a Specialist Wizard..."

RAW, *****es...

[AnachroNinja]

Nothing is going to change his mind, he's already determined that it doesn't work, and now he's just trying to massage the facts to match the conclusion he already came to. It's a common problem unfortunately.

I'll grant that domain wizard is something of an oddity in that it doesn't follow the standard ACF formula of "Replaces: blah blah, Benefits: blah blah blah" or the standard "Gains: / Loses:" format in UA. It's not unreasonable to infer that the intent may have been for the wizard to lose the ability to specialize. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say that so by the RAW, it doesn't do that.

[RedMage125]

But, even if a trade can be proved, you're not trading away specialization. At best, you're trading away the versatility associated with specialization. And associated versatility is not, in itself, a class feature that you are capable of having or not having prior to taking a variant. And you are giving up that versatility. By not specializing. You give up that versatility whether you also have elven generalist or not.

Ummm, I should apologize because I somehow deleted two words when I copy/pasted that, "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; 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."

The versatility is exchanged for power, yes. But specializing in a domain is still "instead of" (i.e. "in the place of", or "as a substitute for") specializing in a school.

I think people are forgetting where these variants say "this ability replaces", which is a staple to the variants that actually replace something.

Directly below the Introduction for "Elf Wizard":

Directly below the Introduction for "Domain Wizard":

Okay. So, these are the "introductions", right?

Then it moves on to requirements and features, etc. At that point, it goes into specifics, and if a variant is supposed to give up anything in exchange for something else, you will always see "this ability (or other variation) replaces" in its own paragraph.

You mean like the paragraph whose only statement of substance is that a DW cannot be a specialist because specializing in a domain is done "in the place of" specializing in a school?

So would you like to tell me exactly why you're taking an introductory statement about a variant to diametrically oppose another variant Class Feature? You're taking what you think supports your claim, from another area entirely, and trying to directly use it against a feature it has no grounds to oppose.

If you take THAT stance, then that means there is no text under "Class Features" that implies mutual exclusivity between specializing in a school and being a domain wizard.

So, by your reading, I could be an Abjuration Domain Abjuration Specialist Wizard, right?

No. That way lies madness.

I'm going to drop out an watch this unfold now, so just read all that and discuss. I won't be responding (probably).

How very passive-aggressive of you.

Edit:

So you still think, just by your outrageous definition and an introductory statement, that a domain wizard is still "specializing"? Right in the Class Features: "UNLIKE a Specialist Wizard..."

RAW, *****es...

I don't know what you think you are "proving here". No one ever said a DW IS a specialist wizard. The names are distinct to distinguish them as separate. The argument (which is tangential to the main point of the OP anyway, since the Leapfrog Wizard fails for more reasons than the DW+EGW combo) is that taking DW as an option is "as a substitute for" (which is what "instead" means) specializing in a school, the ability to do which is explicitly removed by EGW.

Nothing is going to change his mind, he's already determined that it doesn't work, and now he's just trying to massage the facts to match the conclusion he already came to. It's a common problem unfortunately.

That's cute that you want to paint me like that, but I am quite open-minded, if confronted with FACTS. I already ceded the point on the nomenclature of "spell slots" (maybe that was in the other thread on this topic) when RAW proof was provided. I can and do change my mind.

I came to this conclusion by reading the text. When I hear about a lot of these "exploits", I like to check out the rules to see if it's actually a dysfunction that is technically legal by RAW, or not. I haven't been "massaging" any facts. I've said since the OP that the word "instead" was the clincher that most people overlook. Some, like Tippy, assume for some bizarre reason, that one half of that sentence is rules text, and the other half is not.

But no one has yet provided one iota of evidence that "specializing in a domain INSTEAD of an entire school" is not Rules Text. Unless you count Brass Duke's attempt, which, if we accept as true, then there is no rule against a domain wizard who is also specialized in a school. Which I think is safe to say is not RAW, because there is an explicit sentence "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard".

Perhaps also I overestimated people's understanding of English. Like the meaning of the word "instead". Or what, exactly, is the significance of a semicolon that connects two otherwise complete sentences into one. Maybe not everyone already knows these things.

But I have explained them here, and people continue to argue while not even remotely addressing those points. I have yet to see one argument contesting either of those. Except for Tippy saying "Nuh uh, that's not rules text", and then being markedly silent on WHY he thinks it isn't rules text.

I'll grant that domain wizard is something of an oddity in that it doesn't follow the standard ACF formula of "Replaces: blah blah, Benefits: blah blah blah" or the standard "Gains: / Loses:" format in UA. It's not unreasonable to infer that the intent may have been for the wizard to lose the ability to specialize. Unfortunately, it doesn't actually say that so by the RAW, it doesn't do that.

Because there is text in the RAW that uses a word that means "in the place of" or "as a substitute for", and that sentence IS rules text, the RAW does, in fact, say just that.

[Segev]

If I am correct in where the current state of the discussion is, we are all agreed on the following:

• A Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist Wizard
• An Elven Generalist takes that ACF, giving up the class ability of a Wizard to take a Specialty School

The point of contention around which all of this hinges is whether the first bullet point makes the second impossible to achieve.

One side is arguing that, because a Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist, he doesn't have the class feature to give up to be an Elven Generalist. (Or, perhaps, that because an Elven Generalist has given up the ability to Specialize, he cannot be a Domain Wizard because a Domain Wizard must first HAVE the ability to Specialize and then choose not to.)

The other side is arguing that, because nothing says a Domain Wizard has to have the class feature that allows a Wizard to Specialize in order to be a Domain Wizard (since Domain Wizards are merely forbidden from taking that option), an Elven Generalist who lacks that option can still be a Domain Wizard.


Is that an accurate summation of the positions?

[RedMage125]

If I am correct in where the current state of the discussion is, we are all agreed on the following:

• A Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist Wizard
• An Elven Generalist takes that ACF, giving up the class ability of a Wizard to take a Specialty School

The point of contention around which all of this hinges is whether the first bullet point makes the second impossible to achieve.

One side is arguing that, because a Domain Wizard cannot be a Specialist, he doesn't have the class feature to give up to be an Elven Generalist. (Or, perhaps, that because an Elven Generalist has given up the ability to Specialize, he cannot be a Domain Wizard because a Domain Wizard must first HAVE the ability to Specialize and then choose not to.)

The other side is arguing that, because nothing says a Domain Wizard has to have the class feature that allows a Wizard to Specialize in order to be a Domain Wizard (since Domain Wizards are merely forbidden from taking that option), an Elven Generalist who lacks that option can still be a Domain Wizard.


Is that an accurate summation of the positions?

Yes, with a few additional points of support from the RAW, defending exactly WHY those positions are held.

All of which is tangential to the ACTUAL point of the thread, which is about the "Leapfrog Wizard". DW+EGW is just one factor contributing to which.

[Segev]

The finer points of the RAW which support or denounce each argument are of course important, but I wanted to make sure we know which points each side was upholding, so we don't just swing randomly and try to knock down something that turns out to be a straw man on either side of the field.



I have to say that I'm afraid I don't find the argument that "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school" means that he can't be both a DW and an EG to be very persuasive. The order of application which is most demonstrative is to first make the decision to give up "the ability to Specialize in a school" to take Elven Generalist.

Domain Wizard option does not require that you have the ability to Specialize in a school. It only requires that you not be specialized in a school. EGs are not specialized in a school. Therefore, an EG can be a DW.

The phrase, "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school," doesn't say they can't have given it up in some way other than simply choosing not to use it. An EG has given up that versatility, as well, so he can still be a DW.



(Tangentially, I'm not sure why anybody who isn't planning to Specialize would FAIL to take Domain Wizard; it gives up nothing over a normal non-specialist wizard.)

[RedMage125]

The finer points of the RAW which support or denounce each argument are of course important, but I wanted to make sure we know which points each side was upholding, so we don't just swing randomly and try to knock down something that turns out to be a straw man on either side of the field.

I just want to say I appreciate the calm mature manner in which are willing to debate this.

I have to say that I'm afraid I don't find the argument that "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school" means that he can't be both a DW and an EG to be very persuasive. The order of application which is most demonstrative is to first make the decision to give up "the ability to Specialize in a school" to take Elven Generalist.

Domain Wizard option does not require that you have the ability to Specialize in a school. It only requires that you not be specialized in a school. EGs are not specialized in a school. Therefore, an EG can be a DW.

The phrase, "in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school," doesn't say they can't have given it up in some way other than simply choosing not to use it. An EG has given up that versatility, as well, so he can still be a DW.

You don't find it persuasive, I get that.

But to me that begs the question, what does the word "instead" mean, then?

I've heard the arguments you are espousing before, and I understand where you (and they) are coming from. But that means ignoring "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", and what that means, rules-wise.

The argument that one half of that sentence "is not rules text" can be refuted by the meaning of a semicolon that connects two otherwise complete sentences. It means both are equal in importance. And since "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is rules text, so is what's on the other side of the semicolon. It's being very literal and specific about grammar and syntax, but that's what "strict-RAW adherence" means.

Since it is rules text, the significance of the phrase including "instead" must be considered.

[Segev]

I just want to say I appreciate the calm mature manner in which are willing to debate this.

I likewise appreciate such calmness.

You don't find it persuasive, I get that.

But to me that begs the question, what does the word "instead" mean, then?

I've heard the arguments you are espousing before, and I understand where you (and they) are coming from. But that means ignoring "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", and what that means, rules-wise.

I'm going to just re-quote the whole sentence, so I am not accidentally guilty of picking it apart while ignoring other parts.

A wizard who uses the arcane domain system (called a domain wizard) selects a specific arcane domain of spells, much like a cleric selects a pair of domains associated with his deity. A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; 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.

The first sentence doesn't seem to be of concern to us in this debate, so I'll ignore it unless we find that assumption was incorrect, later.

Breaking apart the next sentence into bullets, we get:

• A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard
• 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

It seems that the second bullet is the main crux of the disagreement. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong, or if you feel the other two bullets are important to parsing how this particular interaction between DW and EG works.)

I believe that the second bullet - which contains the "in exchange" and "instead" terms on which your argument focuses - doesn't actually impede EG at all.

Bear with me; I'm repeating myself, but I will try to elaborate to clarify in the process.

An EG gives up the ability to specialize in a school. The second bullet for a DW says that, in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, he can be a DW (with all the mechanical benefits thereof).

Technically, per the RAW, it doesn't say that the DW can't get anything else on top of the DW benefits "in exchange for specializing in a domain instead of an entire school." It only says that he gets the DW benefits in return for not specializing in an entire school.

An EG does not specialize in an entire school. Nothing says that the EG can't also get the DW benefits in exchange for doing what he already was doing - not specializing in an entire school.

The argument that one half of that sentence "is not rules text" can be refuted by the meaning of a semicolon that connects two otherwise complete sentences. It means both are equal in importance. And since "A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard" is rules text, so is what's on the other side of the semicolon. It's being very literal and specific about grammar and syntax, but that's what "strict-RAW adherence" means.

Since it is rules text, the significance of the phrase including "instead" must be considered.

Agreed. I hope my discussion above - which in no way denies the text is there nor discounts it as potentially part of the RAW - is more illustrative.


Think of it this way: Let's say there's a secret society which allows entry only to those who've given up all their worldly possessions, and forbids members to ever again rise out of poverty. Vow of Poverty gives you a bunch of non-item bonuses in exchange for owning practically nothing. Just because a character joined the society doesn't mean he can't also take Vow of Poverty. All VoP does is check to see if he does, in fact, own more than what it allows. It doesn't care if he also got some other benefit (such as secret society membership) for having obeyed that restriction.

EG makes you give up your ability to specialize in a school of spells. DW doesn't care if you HAVE that ability or not, it only checks to see if you have not used it. You can "not use it" by either having it but choosing not to, or by trading it away and not having it at all. As long as you have "given up" the chance to specialize in an entire school of spells, you can be a DW. EGs have, in fact, given up the chance to specialize in an entire school. In exchange, they may specialize in a domain instead and get the increased casting power for that domain.

[eggynack]

The versatility is exchanged for power, yes. But specializing in a domain is still "instead of" (i.e. "in the place of", or "as a substitute for") specializing in a school.

But those two words mean that that last part is no longer true, if it ever was. It's not instead of specializing in a school, which means that you're not trading away specializing in a school. I think I may have been going about this wrong, actually, saying that elven generalist should come first, though I think Tippy is right that it works either way now. Consider what it looks like if you open on domain wizard, keeping the different language in mind. You take domain wizard, which means that you can no longer make the choice to specialize. The ability to specialize is still on your character sheet, but you are forgoing the versatility offered by specialization, so you cannot make use of it. Then you take elven generalist, and that's when you trade away the ability to specialize itself. It works the other way too, as I just noted. You first ditch the underlying specialization ability, and then you trade away the ability to make a wizard specialization choice. It's less intuitive, but it works. The truth here is that this wizard is, in fact, trading away two things. Those two things look similar, but they are different to the extent that they can be traded separately.

[AnachroNinja]

I believe part of the confusion is that it appears to be his contention that a domain wizard IS a form of specialist wizard, one who is specialized in a domain instead of a school, and of this disqualified for EGW.

[Segev]

I believe part of the confusion is that it appears to be his contention that a domain wizard IS a form of specialist wizard, one who is specialized in a domain instead of a school, and of this disqualified for EGW.

It states clearly in the rules that a DW and a Specialist Wizard are two distinct things. I don't think RedMage125 is claiming they're the same thing.

He might - and I invite him to clarify whether this is true or not - be saying they're equivalent. But we have no rules that say they are for any rules purpose.

As written - whether intended this way or not - the rules state that a DW gets his powers in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school of magic. It doesn't say that he can't have gotten anything else in addition.




As another example, if a politician is accepting bribes to pass a certain policy through his office, the people bribing him honestly don't care if somebody else is bribing him to do the exact same thing. For all they care, he could take bribes from 30 different sources as long as he delivers on it to them.

DW doesn't have any text that makes its reward for not being a specialist wizard exclusive, such that you can't have any other rewards for the same thing in addition.

[RedMage125]

I'm going to just re-quote the whole sentence, so I am not accidentally guilty of picking it apart while ignoring other parts.



The first sentence doesn't seem to be of concern to us in this debate, so I'll ignore it unless we find that assumption was incorrect, later.

Breaking apart the next sentence into bullets, we get:

• A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard
• 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

It seems that the second bullet is the main crux of the disagreement. (Please do correct me if I'm wrong, or if you feel the other two bullets are important to parsing how this particular interaction between DW and EG works.)

So far so good, as far as what the crux is. But I would keep the second and third bullets together, so only 2 bullets. And I think separating those ideas is where you and I read that differently.

I believe that the second bullet - which contains the "in exchange" and "instead" terms on which your argument focuses - doesn't actually impede EG at all.

Bear with me; I'm repeating myself, but I will try to elaborate to clarify in the process.

An EG gives up the ability to specialize in a school. The second bullet for a DW says that, in exchange for the versatility given up by specializing in a domain instead of an entire school, he can be a DW (with all the mechanical benefits thereof).

Technically, per the RAW, it doesn't say that the DW can't get anything else on top of the DW benefits "in exchange for specializing in a domain instead of an entire school." It only says that he gets the DW benefits in return for not specializing in an entire school.

Maybe it's because of my own "grammar-nazi" tendencies, but that's not how I read the sentence.
It's "In exchange for X, you get Y"
Where X is "giving up some versatility by doing Z"
Y is "casting her chosen spells with increased power"
So the "exchange" is versatility for power.
Z, which is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", is HOW you are giving up versatility.

So, to break it down chronologically...
You do Z, "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"
Domain specialization is much less versatile than school specialization (because one of your spells/day is specifically picked out for you), so by doing this, you have paid a cost, X. Y, "casting her chosen spells with increased power", is the reward for paying said cost.

To me, this is the only coherent way to read the text.

An EG does not specialize in an entire school. Nothing says that the EG can't also get the DW benefits in exchange for doing what he already was doing - not specializing in an entire school.

But even in this sentence here...
In order to receive a tangible BENEFIT from "not specializing", wouldn't you need the "ability to specialize"?

It states clearly in the rules that a DW and a Specialist Wizard are two distinct things. I don't think RedMage125 is claiming they're the same thing.

He might - and I invite him to clarify whether this is true or not - be saying they're equivalent. But we have no rules that say they are for any rules purpose.

You are correct as to what I am saying.
But I contend that we DO have rules that say that.

As written - whether intended this way or not - the rules state that a DW gets his powers in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school of magic. It doesn't say that he can't have gotten anything else in addition.

So you read that as that all of his powers (i.e. DW class features) are the benefit from "giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school". Is that correct?
Like I said before, the way I read that sentence, the DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school. Since that has a cost of loss of versatility (resulting in a net loss for the character), he is compensated with extra power (mechanically, +1 caster level) with his domain spells.
So the domain/school specialization options are already mutually exclusive and equivalent. He is choosing to specialize in Y manner, instead of the usual X manner. Loss of versatility is the result of that exchange, which is then compensated for.

Make sense?

[eggynack]

It's "In exchange for X, you get Y"
Where X is "giving up some versatility by doing Z"
Y is "casting her chosen spells with increased power"

Sure.

So the "exchange" is versatility for power.

Not exactly. The exchange is the versatility of specializing in a school. You are not getting that versatility when you take elven generalist. The ACF doesn't care about any other forms of versatility you might be getting.

Z, which is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", is HOW you are giving up versatility.

And you're doing that. You're not specializing in an entire school, and you're thus giving up that versatility associated.

You do Z, "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"
Domain specialization is much less versatile than school specialization (because one of your spells/day is specifically picked out for you), so by doing this, you have paid a cost, X. Y, "casting her chosen spells with increased power", is the reward for paying said cost.

And, as noted, you are paying that cost, and thus get the associated benefit.

To me, this is the only coherent way to read the text.

Maybe, except that coherent text reading seems to lead to this working fine.

In order to receive a tangible BENEFIT from "not specializing", wouldn't you need the "ability to specialize"?

Don't see why you would. The cost you're paying is simply that you're deciding not to specialize in the first place. Cost paid, benefit gained.

But I contend that we DO have rules that say that.

Where?

Like I said before, the way I read that sentence, the DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school. Since that has a cost of loss of versatility (resulting in a net loss for the character), he is compensated with extra power (mechanically, +1 caster level) with his domain spells.

But, as I said above, you're paying that specifically stated versatility cost whether you go elven generalist or not.

So the domain/school specialization options are already mutually exclusive and equivalent. He is choosing to specialize in Y manner, instead of the usual X manner. Loss of versatility is the result of that exchange, which is then compensated for.

Domain and the school are mutually exclusive. It's nowhere indicated that they're somehow equivalent, and I don't even know what that equivalence would imply.

Edit: Also, critical point, you are not simply recouping your versatility with the domain elven generalist. The specialist still has advantages, as the generalist only gets one perfectly free slot while the specialist gets a lot of pretty free slots. Elven generalist isn't even necessarily better than specializing. Thus, beyond pointing to a semantic loss, one can also point to a real versatility loss.

[Quertus]

I believe part of the confusion is that it appears to be his contention that a domain wizard IS a form of specialist wizard, one who is specialized in a domain instead of a school, and of this disqualified for EGW.

It states clearly in the rules that a DW and a Specialist Wizard are two distinct things. I don't think RedMage125 is claiming they're the same thing.

He might - and I invite him to clarify whether this is true or not - be saying they're equivalent. But we have no rules that say they are for any rules purpose.

As written - whether intended this way or not - the rules state that a DW gets his powers in exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school of magic. It doesn't say that he can't have gotten anything else in addition.

He may not be, but I will. Consider the text:

A domain wizard cannot also be a specialist wizard; 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.

The domain wizard specializes in a domain. One who specializes is, by definition, a specialist, are they not?

So, much like the abuse of the word "level", what version of the words "specialize" and "specialist" should we be using?

EDIT: 2e was rife with specialist wizards, from the 8 spheres, 4 elements, wild mages, chronomancers, etc. So I see "domain wizard specializes in a domain", and easily say, "yup, another specialist".

[Segev]

So far so good, as far as what the crux is. But I would keep the second and third bullets together, so only 2 bullets. And I think separating those ideas is where you and I read that differently.

Actually, I don't think combining them changes any part of my argument, as hopefully I'll demonstrate here.

Eggynack did a good job of covering many of the points I would, so I probably will try to let his post stand, and only hit a few areas. (I might fail at this; I tend towards sesquipedalian loquatiousness.)

Maybe it's because of my own "grammar-nazi" tendencies, but that's not how I read the sentence.
It's "In exchange for X, you get Y"
Where X is "giving up some versatility by doing Z"
Y is "casting her chosen spells with increased power"
So the "exchange" is versatility for power.
Z, which is "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school", is HOW you are giving up versatility.

That's actually irrelevant. It says that you get X in exchange for Y, yes, but the exact wording of Y in this case is important.

In exchange for giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school, the DW casts his chosen spells at increased power.

It doesn't specify that that is the ONLY thing he can get for giving up that versatility.

As long as he gives up that versatility, he can get the reward clause "in exchange."

An EG has given up that versatility.

In exchange for giving up that versatility, the EG can get the benefits of being a DW, per the sentence we're analyzing.

So, to break it down chronologically...
You do Z, "specializing in a domain instead of an entire school"
Domain specialization is much less versatile than school specialization (because one of your spells/day is specifically picked out for you), so by doing this, you have paid a cost, X. Y, "casting her chosen spells with increased power", is the reward for paying said cost.

To me, this is the only coherent way to read the text.

The thing is, it doesn't demand a cost; it demands an opportunity cost. There is a significant difference.

Let's say you had a choice between going to a meeting at work where you might be able to pitch your idea for a project to the big boss of the company (but you don't think you have a good chance of it going anywhere), or you could skip the meeting and go to Disney World with the girl you're dating because she's already got plans to go there that day. The opportunity cost of doing one is not doing the other. You decide to go to Disney World, resigning yourself to the 100% (rather than merely "high") probability that you won't get your project approved (and promoted to middle management), but having fun with your girlfriend.

A month later, the company downsizes and closes all special projects, firing their management. In exchange for not being the manager of your project, you don't get fired.

You already got "go to Disney World with girlfriend" out of giving up your chance to be middle management. Now you've also gotten "keep your job" in exchange for giving up that chance. You didn't have to have the choice still open to you in order to have given it up and gotten the benefit.


The same is true for a DW. The DW gets increased casting power in exchange for giving up the versatility to specialize in an entire school. He only has to have given it up to get that power. It doesn't matter how or why he gives it up. He can give it up by simply "not being a specialist wizard" (as is the default expectation when UA was written), or by any other means - including ACFs which trade away the option to be a specialist wizard. As long as whatever he does doesn't make him specialize in an entire school, he's given up that versatility, and may be a DW to get the DW's perks "in exchange" for giving up that versatility.

But even in this sentence here...
In order to receive a tangible BENEFIT from "not specializing", wouldn't you need the "ability to specialize"?

Nope. You need expressly to have given up the versatility of specializing in an entire school. Anything that lets you give up that versatility will let you get the perks of being a DW. It doesn't matter if you gave up that versatility for nothing other than the DW perks, or gave it up for a bonus spell slot of your highest level spells each day. You've "given up the versatility of specializing in an entire school," so you qualify for what the DW gives you "in exchange."

So you read that as that all of his powers (i.e. DW class features) are the benefit from "giving up the versatility of specializing in an entire school". Is that correct?

Yes.

Like I said before, the way I read that sentence, the DW specializes in a domain instead of an entire school. Since that has a cost of loss of versatility (resulting in a net loss for the character), he is compensated with extra power (mechanically, +1 caster level) with his domain spells.

That is true.

So the domain/school specialization options are already mutually exclusive

They are.

and equivalent.

But here is where you're wrong. It may be intended that this be the case, but nowhere in the rules does it say this. It does say they're mutually exclusive; specializing in an entire school precludes being a DW, so any DW cannot have specialized in an entire school.

He is choosing to specialize in Y manner, instead of the usual X manner. Loss of versatility is the result of that exchange, which is then compensated for.

Make sense?

It does, but see above. Despite the "compensation" being given, nothing in it says that he can't receive ADDITIONAL compensation. Nowhere does it say that DWs are specialist wizards, and in fact it says the opposite.

I agree; it is probably intended to be understood as you read it. But that isn't what the RAW say. The RAW say that you can be a DW if you are not specialized in a school, and that a DW is not a specialist wizard.

The domain wizard specializes in a domain. One who specializes is, by definition, a specialist, are they not?

So, much like the abuse of the word "level", what version of the words "specialize" and "specialist" should we be using?

Sorry, you're wrong, here. "Specialist wizard" is a specific game term, and the rules of DW explicitly differentiate DWs from specialist wizards. DWs are explicitly not "specialist wizards." They may be "specialists" in the English-language sense, but not in a game-term sense. The game term for them is "domain wizard."

[GeminiVeil]

So, I think others are arguing this a lot better than I could, but I just wanted to post an analogy that I think is what the pro-working group is trying to say they believe the RAW is saying. If anyone can correct anything here, I would appreciate that. This is just a way of me putting into words what I THINK they are saying, so if it's wrong, I would very much like to be corrected.

Specializing is like a short sword. It's versatile, more so than just my hands, because it can cut things and I can still use my other hand for other things, such as a shield, if I want.

Then someone fastens, in some way, boxing gloves to my hands. I can't remove them myself. I can no longer use my short sword, I must use the gloves instead. However, this does not mean I no longer HAVE that sword. Not being able to use the sword is not the same thing as no longer possessing it.

What this means is I am free to trade away my sword for something that DOES help me now, such as spikes (or, as Ryu suggested, razor wire) on those gloves. (lame example, I know) Because I can't use it anyway, this is a good 'trade' for me. I gives something I can no longer use for something that I could use now.

Is this essentially what is being said?

[ryu]

So, I think others are arguing this a lot better than I could, but I just wanted to post an analogy that I think is what the pro-working group is trying to say they believe the RAW is saying. If anyone can correct anything here, I would appreciate that. This is just a way of me putting into words what I THINK they are saying, so if it's wrong, I would very much like to be corrected.

Specializing is like a short sword. It's versatile, more so than just my hands, because it can cut things and I can still use my other hand for other things, such as a shield, if I want.

Then someone fastens, in some way, boxing gloves to my hands. I can't remove them myself. I can no longer use my short sword, I must use the gloves instead. However, this does not mean I no longer HAVE that sword. Not being able to use the sword is not the same thing as no longer possessing it.

What this means is I am free to trade away my sword for something that DOES help me now, such as spikes on those gloves. (lame example, I know) Because I can't use it anyway, this is a good 'trade' for me. I gives something I can no longer use for something that I could use now.

Is this essentially what is being said?

Generally good analogy but I would trade out the spikes for razor-wire It's less visible at a distance and is liable to do significantly more consistent damage. Also lighter.

[GeminiVeil]

Generally good analogy but I would trade out the spikes for razor-wire It's less visible at a distance and is liable to do significantly more consistent damage. Also lighter.

As I said, lame example. :)

Glad I got the central points correct, though.

[Segev]

Yes. Essentially, DW only requires that you not specialize in a school. Nowhere in it does it say you can't have gotten something else out of failing to specialize in a school. If you are an EG, you are not specialized in a school. You satisfy the requirements to become a DW.

[Mehangel]

Yes. Essentially, DW only requires that you not specialize in a school. Nowhere in it does it say you can't have gotten something else out of failing to specialize in a school. If you are an EG, you are not specialized in a school. You satisfy the requirements to become a DW.

I also view it as if DW was a prestige class. The Domain Wizard has the prerequisite that it may not be a specialist wizard. The hypothetical prestige class wouldn't care how or why you are not a specialist wizard, only that you are not one.

[dascarletm]

If I gave you two statements (Italics are what I've changed):

Someone wearing a white shirt cannot also wear a white jacket; in exchange for the classic-ness given up by wearing a white jacket instead of an white shirt, the white jacket imbues the wearer with increased suaveness.

I want to also give you a blue shirt in exchange for your white shirt.

This substitution shirt replaces the standard person's ability to wear a white shirt.

Could you wear the blue shirt with the white jacket?

I feel like I've lost where I'm going with this.... I need to see a tailor.