Fallacy of Elven Generalist+Domain Wizard "Leapfrog Wizard"

[Segev]

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

Yeah, if you're dascarletm, you can't be wearing blue and white!

[Sliver]

While I wouldn't allow it in my games, because I feel like getting something instead of something you can't have, basically two features for the price of one, is cheesy, especially concerning Wizards, it's still a generally legal idea. It may be purely semantics, but not being able to specialize doesn't mean that you can't have something to replace specialization.

But hey, I don't care that much. From what I've read, both sides repeat the same arguments and neither is changing their minds.

It doesn't replace the ability, just forbids using it.

No, if you can't use it, you don't have it.

I really doubt anyone has a secret ace they were waiting to reveal. The discussion won't be going anywhere... Can we talk about trains or something instead?

[Extra Anchovies]

I really doubt anyone has a secret ace they were waiting to reveal. The discussion won't be going anywhere... Can we talk about trains or something instead?

Domain and Specialist wizards are equally good with trains, because there's both an arcane school and an arcane domain for trainsmutation.

[DarkSoul]

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.

Interesting analogy. RedMage's point of view is that the answer to your final question is "No, someone wearing a blue shirt can't wear white, period." For sanity's sake, I share that view. Specialize in a school or a domain, you're still a specialist wizard, which is what EGW prevents. Yes, yes, I know it says "specialize in a school of magic", I just don't care. Variants from UA are just that: variations. You can't be a specialist and a domain wizard because the latter is a variant of the former, and therefore is affected by anything in the main body of the rules that affects specialist wizards. I can't say for sure that it's the intent of the rules but the letter of the rules support not allowing it at least as much, if not more, than allowing a level 1 wizard to cast 9th level spells. I mean really? What DM does something that stupid?

Regardless of shirts and ACF's, there's still the minimum caster/class level issue that shuts the whole thing down.

On the topic of trains, this entire argument in favor of allowing the apprentice to cast meteor swarm should be thrown directly in front of the next one to come by.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Interesting analogy. RedMage's point of view is that the answer to your final question is "No, someone wearing a blue shirt can't wear white, period." For sanity's sake, I share that view. Specialize in a school or a domain, you're still a specialist wizard, which is what EGW prevents. Yes, yes, I know it says "specialize in a school of magic", I just don't care. Variants from UA are just that: variations. You can't be a specialist and a domain wizard because the latter is a variant of the former, and therefore is affected by anything in the main body of the rules that affects specialist wizards. I can't say for sure that it's the intent of the rules but the letter of the rules support not allowing it at least as much, if not more, than allowing a level 1 wizard to cast 9th level spells. I mean really? What DM does something that stupid?

Regardless of shirts and ACF's, there's still the minimum caster/class level issue that shuts the whole thing down.

On the topic of trains, this entire argument in favor of allowing the apprentice to cast meteor swarm should be thrown directly in front of the next one to come by.

RAW isn't RAI. Nobody here is discussing interpretations or "as intended" variations of the rules that YOU use at your table. This is a discussion of RAW only.

[DarkSoul]

RAW isn't RAI. Nobody here is discussing interpretations or "as intended" variations of the rules that YOU use at your table. This is a discussion of RAW only.

So provide irrefutable proof according to the rules as written that one interpretation or the other is correct. Right now, because of the caster level/class level limitation, it's been soundly debunked and everything beyond that is RAI bickering.

So tell me again how anything anyone's said beyond that isn't an interpretation or "as intended" variation?

[Beheld]

Right now, because of the caster level/class level limitation

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

[Lorddenorstrus]

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

Exactly the point, the only spell like that is fireball, it's an oddity. There's no line near the example saying "Apply this to all spells in the game and cause a dysfunction." So... there is absolutely 0 RAW support for such a rule. It's an extrapolation. The entire opposing argument to this monstrosity from RAW is exactly that.. Extrapolation. This is from the same group of people that generally think RAW isn't broke. They'll argue even the most commonly realized mistakes as not working like drown healing. So we get this idiotic argument threads with people unqualified to discuss RAW thinking they're experts.

[zergling.exe]

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

There is proof, it's just that people refuse to take it as a general rule and claim that it's specific for fireball (which requires CL 5 due to being a 3rd level spell), casting a spell at a lower CL, and wizards needing 3 spellcaster levels to cast 2nd level spells.

Citation 1, PHB pages 7-8:

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 1st level 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.)

Citation 2, PHB page 171:

If she wishes, she can cast a fireball that deals less damage by casting the spell at a lower caster level, but she must reduce the range according to the selected caster level, and she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball).

I swear there was another place but cannot find it at the moment. I thought it was scrolls but maybe it's another magic item.

edit: Case in point, poster above.

edit 2: See Tippy's posts in the thread.
Point 2
Second half
Here too, but not sure if he is arguing against himself here

[DarkSoul]

Wait, have any of the people claiming that's a rule provided a single rules cite for it? Last I checked, people were saying there was totally a rule double dog pinkie promise.

Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white. It's also on page 133 of the rules compendium, where it takes the ruling zergling quoted about Fireball and removes the spell-specific parts. There's a similar reference in the rules for crafting scrolls but people like to ignore that one too, spouting some "that only applies to scrolls" BS.

[Troacctid]

The section on scrolls also has a chart showing the price of a scroll made at minimum caster level for each class, and there are similar charts for wands and potions.

[zergling.exe]

Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white.

Even if this weren't a general rule, it still is explicitly denying a first level DW, EGW or both a second level slot; since wizards need 3 levels before they can cast second level spells at all, and both require being able to cast second level spells.

[Beheld]

Yes, as zergling.exe pointed out it's on pages 7-8 of the PHB, in black and white. It's also on page 133 of the rules compendium, where it takes the ruling zergling quoted about Fireball and removes the spell-specific parts. There's a similar reference in the rules for crafting scrolls but people like to ignore that one too, spouting some "that only applies to scrolls" BS.

Uh.... the rules on page 7-8 don't say that at all. If a 5th level Wizard takes Mage Slayer, then according to the rules of page 7-8 totally say that can just totally roll right on and cast 2nd and even 3rd level spells at Caster level 1.

The rules quote from 171 is the only relevant rules citation at all. My PHB says "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question" which certainly implies there is one, but it doesn't state what it would be.

I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.

I think the problem with the minimum caster level rule, is that in addition to never being actually stated in the rules, and instead implied from a bunch of other nearby things, it basically makes entire sections of the game make no sense, like Wild Mages, and Mage Slayer, and that Rogue/Diviner hybrid class.

Even if this weren't a general rule, it still is explicitly denying a first level DW, EGW or both a second level slot; since wizards need 3 levels before they can cast second level spells at all, and both require being able to cast second level spells.

No, what it actually says is that the Wizard Class doesn't give access to 2nd level spells until you take 3 levels of it. It specifically talks about what the Wizard class levels grant. It certainly doesn't prevent a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 from casting 2nd level spells, so long as it gets the spell slots from somewhere besides the Wizard class description.

[Troacctid]

I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.

The DMG has minimum caster levels for all the PHB spellcasting classes. It's the same level that you first get a spell slot of that level (or half that for paladins and rangers). You should be able to easily extrapolate from there.

[Beheld]

The DMG has minimum caster levels for all the PHB spellcasting classes. It's the same level that you first get a spell slot of that level (or half that for paladins and rangers). You should be able to easily extrapolate from there.

That's not what it says in my DMG. It says:

"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."

and

"Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise."

Neither of which prevents a level 6 Wizard with Mage slayer from making a level 3 scroll with a Caster level of 2, absent some other rule.

Must be really awkward for Wild Mages in your games, since they begin casting a spell, and then find out if they are allowed to cast the spell after they cast the spell:

Wild Magic: A wild mage casts spells differently from any other arcane spellcaster. She reduces her caster level by 3 for all spells she casts from now on. However, every time she casts a spell, her use of wild magic adds 1d6 to her adjusted caster level. For example, an 8th-level sorcerer/1st-level wild mage has a base caster level of 6th, not 9th, but her actual caster level varies from 7th to 12th for every spell she casts. Caster level affects all level-based variables of a spell, including spell penetration checks.

[DarkSoul]

Uh.... the rules on page 7-8 don't say that at all. If a 5th level Wizard takes Mage Slayer, then according to the rules of page 7-8 totally say that can just totally roll right on and cast 2nd and even 3rd level spells at Caster level 1.

Because of the rule on page 171, your example wizard can't cast anything higher than level 1 spells. You can choose any lower caster level to cast spells at, but it must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. The fact that you can't choose anything higher than CL 1 is irrelevant.

The rules quote from 171 is the only relevant rules citation at all. My PHB says "You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question" which certainly implies there is one, but it doesn't state what it would be.

I wonder what the specifics of the Rules Compendium quote is, since there exist a bunch of Chameleons and Ur-Priests and Trapsmiths and Shadowlords with nonstandard caster level to spell level access provisions.

This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium.

It tells you exactly what the minimum caster level for your spells are. Whatever is high enough for you to cast the spell in question. Chameleon minimum caster level for a level 3 spell is 6 (twice your class level). For Ur-Priests it's 3, Trapsmiths cast as a bard, so caster level = class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5 thus minimum caster level is 5. Shadowlord's caster level is their class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5, so minimum caster level for Shadowlords to cast level 3 spells is 5. See? This isn't hard, people just try to make it hard to get around the rules.

No, what it actually says is that the Wizard Class doesn't give access to 2nd level spells until you take 3 levels of it. It specifically talks about what the Wizard class levels grant. It certainly doesn't prevent a Wizard 1/Cleric 19 from casting 2nd level spells, so long as it gets the spell slots from somewhere besides the Wizard class description.

It specifically talks about a wizard in a sentence starting with "For instance," also known as an example. The pertinent rules text is entirely on page 7, and reads:

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.

There is no mention of any class, no "but it doesn't apply to this other caster!" ridiculousness. The wizard 1/cleric 19 cannot cast level 2 wizard spells, but can cast level 2 cleric spells at any level over 3.

Must be really awkward for Wild Mages in your games, since they begin casting a spell, and then find out if they are allowed to cast the spell after they cast the spell:

Specific exception to a general rule, just like Precocious Apprentice.

[Beheld]

Because of the rule on page 171, your example wizard can't cast anything higher than level 1 spells. You can choose any lower caster level to cast spells at, but it must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. The fact that you can't choose anything higher than CL 1 is irrelevant.

Again, the rules one page 7-8 don't say that at all, like I said, the rule on 171 would be the only relevant rule, and would have the exact same power with or without the rule on page 7-8.

This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium.

It tells you exactly what the minimum caster level for your spells are. Whatever is high enough for you to cast the spell in question. Chameleon minimum caster level for a level 3 spell is 6 (twice your class level). For Ur-Priests it's 3, Trapsmiths cast as a bard, so caster level = class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5 thus minimum caster level is 5. Shadowlord's caster level is their class level, and they get level 3 spells at class level 5, so minimum caster level for Shadowlords to cast level 3 spells is 5. See? This isn't hard, people just try to make it hard to get around the rules.

So... you still won't give the actual Rules Compendium rule, and according to your own inexact description, it doesn't define a minimum caster level at all, so it turns out there is no minimum caster level, and Wizard 7 who took Mage Slayer at level 6 can cast 4th level spells at Caster Level 3.

It specifically talks about a wizard in a sentence starting with "For instance," also known as an example. The pertinent rules text is entirely on page 7, and reads:

There is no mention of any class, no "but it doesn't apply to this other caster!" ridiculousness. The wizard 1/cleric 19 cannot cast level 2 wizard spells, but can cast level 2 cleric spells at any level over 3.

Uh... that's my point? The Wizard class doesn't grant Mailee 2nd level spells until she has three levels in it. If she got 2nd level spells from other source, she obviously can still cast them even without three Wizard levels. So if she got a 2nd level Wizard spell from source besides the Wizard class that used her Wizard caster level, even if her Wizard Caster level was 1, she would still be able to cast the spell at Caster level 1 according to that rule. Again, if the rules on 171 prevent that, they do it entirely on their own, and without reference to the rules on page 7-8 which have nothing to do with minimum caster level.

[Wild Mage] Specific exception to a general rule, just like Precocious Apprentice.

Except it isn't. It doesn't say anything at all about Wild Mages being able to cast spells at lower than "minimum caster level" it never says you can. It just says that all your spells are at a lower base Caster level with a bonus based on a die roll. If a Wizard 5/Wild Mage 2 tries to cast a 7th level spell, it has a base caster level of 4+1d6, and it doesn't say anywhere that it can cast 4th level spells at caster level 5.

So it either can, or can't, depending on if there actually is a rule that says it can't (which might exist in the RC, but not in the PHB or DMG.)

[zergling.exe]

Uh... that's my point? The Wizard class doesn't grant Mailee 2nd level spells until she has three levels in it. If she got 2nd level spells from other source, she obviously can still cast them even without three Wizard levels. So if she got a 2nd level Wizard spell from source besides the Wizard class that used her Wizard caster level, even if her Wizard Caster level was 1, she would still be able to cast the spell at Caster level 1 according to that rule. Again, if the rules on 171 prevent that, they do it entirely on their own, and without reference to the rules on page 7-8 which have nothing to do with minimum caster level.

You missed this part:

(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.)

Bolded for emphasis. A wizard must be a 3rd level wizard in order to cast 2nd level wizard spells. RAW. No exceptions. No wiggling around the wording. A wizard is physically incapable of casting those 2nd level spells until thier third wizard level.

Either that or nobody can cast 2nd level spells without 3 levels in wizard. One of the two is right.

[DarkSoul]

So... you still won't give the actual Rules Compendium rule, and according to your own inexact description, it doesn't define a minimum caster level at all, so it turns out there is no minimum caster level, and Wizard 7 who took Mage Slayer at level 6 can cast 4th level spells at Caster Level 3.

What part of "This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium." did you find confusing, exactly? To be perfectly clear:

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question.

Uh... that's my point? The Wizard class doesn't grant Mailee 2nd level spells until she has three levels in it. If she got 2nd level spells from other source, she obviously can still cast them even without three Wizard levels. So if she got a 2nd level Wizard spell from source besides the Wizard class that used her Wizard caster level, even if her Wizard Caster level was 1, she would still be able to cast the spell at Caster level 1 according to that rule. Again, if the rules on 171 prevent that, they do it entirely on their own, and without reference to the rules on page 7-8 which have nothing to do with minimum caster level.

Page 7 governs when you can normally cast spells of a given level, and PHB 171/RC 133 sets a lower limit on the power of your spells (caster level). If Mialee knows a second level spell and casts it using two first level spell slots via Versatile Spellcaster, great, she's found an exception to the general rule. It goes off at caster level 1.

Except it isn't. It doesn't say anything at all about Wild Mages being able to cast spells at lower than "minimum caster level" it never says you can. It just says that all your spells are at a lower base Caster level with a bonus based on a die roll. If a Wizard 5/Wild Mage 2 tries to cast a 7th level spell, it has a base caster level of 4+1d6, and it doesn't say anywhere that it can cast 4th level spells at caster level 5.

So it either can, or can't, depending on if there actually is a rule that says it can't (which might exist in the RC, but not in the PHB or DMG.)

But it is, because if there was a chance their spell wouldn't go off, it would say so in the description. Regardless it does tell you that the caster level for all your spells is reduced by 3, which is the exception, and with no specific rules text either preventing you from casting them or saying that they fail to take effect you can only assume that you're still allowed to cast them and that they still go off, albeit at a possibly-reduced caster level. Though you're free to take the text completely literally and then Wild Mage becomes even more horrible than it already is, I suppose.

Here's a question: Mialee the level 1 wizard finds a spellbook in her first adventure and it's got a second level spell in it. She's got an 18 intelligence, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and 4 ranks in Spellcraft for a total modifier of 11. She gets lucky and masters the spellbook on her first try (rolls a 16), so now she knows a second level spell. Can she cast it and if not, why not?

[eggynack]

So provide irrefutable proof according to the rules as written that one interpretation or the other is correct. Right now, because of the caster level/class level limitation, it's been soundly debunked and everything beyond that is RAI bickering.

What are you talking about? Your post quoted was just about entirely your explicitly non-RAW views on the operation of generalist wizard. It had very little to do with the overarching leapfrogging element of the thread. What proof is needed here? You yourself pointed out that elven generalist trades away the ability to specialize in a school of magic, not the ability to specialize.

[Troacctid]

That's not what it says in my DMG. It says:

"For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given."

and

"Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise."

Neither of which prevents a level 6 Wizard with Mage slayer from making a level 3 scroll with a Caster level of 2, absent some other rule.

It says the minimum caster level for a scroll is the minimum caster level to cast the spell, and then gives the prices for scrolls of all spell levels from 1–9 for all the core classes at their minimum caster levels. The math is easy enough to do.

[Segev]

Hm. We seem to have moved to a different "reason this doesn't work," if I'm parsing this correctly. Let me see if I understand the reasoning:

1) The rules say that you must have a sufficiently high level in a given caster class to cast spells of a particular level, even if your ability score would give you a bonus spell( slot)-per-day of that level.
2) Therefore, anything which seems to give you a bonus spell( slot) of a level which would require more caster class levels than you have doesn't actually do so unless you get your caster class level up.
3) So, even if you get a spell slot of 2nd level at 1st character level, you can't get that spell slot because you're not at least a 3rd (or 4th) level wizard (or sorceress).

Is that accurately representing the argument?


So far, I haven't seen anybody confusing the "effective CL" style bonuses that things like Practiced Spellcaster give you and actual caster class levels as given by the classes themselves and PrCs which expressly advance casting for all relevant purposes, so that's good.

[Beheld]

What part of "This is the same wording as appears in the Rules Compendium." did you find confusing, exactly? To be perfectly clear:

So you are saying the Rules Compendium doesn't have a minimum caster level rule, and there is no minimum caster level rule? Because again, the thing you quoted doesn't have a minimum caster level rule anywhere.

Page 7 governs when you can normally cast spells of a given level, and PHB 171/RC 133 sets a lower limit on the power of your spells (caster level). If Mialee knows a second level spell and casts it using two first level spell slots via Versatile Spellcaster, great, she's found an exception to the general rule. It goes off at caster level 1.

....... So there's a minimum caster level rule that never mentions caster level, and that doesn't stop you from casting spells with a lower caster level... Can you see how that isn't a minimum caster level rule?

But it is, because if there was a chance their spell wouldn't go off, it would say so in the description.

That is not how rules work at all. There is a chance the spell won't go off! If a Wild Mage is interrupted they have to make a concentration check, and if they fail that, the spell is wasted. The description doesn't say that, but it does say that the Wild Mage casts spells, so we know it inherits all the rules for spells from elsewhere in books, even ones it doesn't reference.

So if there was a rule about minimum caster level, that would also be inherited, even if it doesn't mention that limiting what spells a Wild Mage can cast.

Here's a question: Mialee the level 1 wizard finds a spellbook in her first adventure and it's got a second level spell in it. She's got an 18 intelligence, Skill Focus (Spellcraft), and 4 ranks in Spellcraft for a total modifier of 11. She gets lucky and masters the spellbook on her first try (rolls a 16), so now she knows a second level spell. Can she cast it and if not, why not?

I don't know Mailee's build, but chances are very good that she cannot, because with very few exceptions, first level Wizards do not have any second level spell slots. If on the other hand she has a second level spell slot, then, depending on the rules of that spell slot, she might be able to cast it.

It says the minimum caster level for a scroll is the minimum caster level to cast the spell, and then gives the prices for scrolls of all spell levels from 1–9 for all the core classes at their minimum caster levels. The math is easy enough to do.

No, it doesn't say that.

It says "Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1)" and then it gives a bunch of example scrolls created by "typical" Wizards and Clerics. Pursuant to the rules it shows, a Cleric with the Air Domain could make Wind Wall Scroll at caster level 3, but it only shows a CL 5 Wind Wall scroll, because a Cleric with the Air Domain is atypical.

Likewise, a Wizard 6/Wild Mage 1 with Mage Slayer is atypical, so even though a Wizard 6/Wild Mage 1 could totally make a scroll of Evard's Black Tentacles at Caster Level 1, and could cast it at caster level 1, his scrolls are not on that list either.

[AnachroNinja]

The gist of it is this, the rules for scrolls and minium caster levels do IMPLY that they are referencing a general rule about minimum caster levels for casting spells. They do not actually directly provide such a rule, nor does any other rule DIRECTLY state that this is the case.

There are a variety of classes, wild mage, unseen Seer, ur-priest, and similar that would become dysfunctional of the caster level minimums were a true rule. They would be crippled to the point of barely being functional in some cases.

Now, if one believes that the caster level minimum rule is a true rule, one could assume that those classes imply am exception to the minimum caster level rules. However, much like the minimum caster level rules under the scroll section, at no point do the rules for these PRCs actually directly state that this is the case.

One can certain interpret it such that a spell caster must meet minimum caster level requirements, and that PRCs that provide spell casting without the requisite casting level are deliberate exceptions. That is a reasonable interpretation of the intent of the rules. There is one fact I want to make clear however.

At no point do the rules directly and unequivocally state that this is the case. It is only implied indirectly.

Now, as for the other end of the argument. It is in some ways essentially based on the often maligned "It doesn't say that I can't, so I can" school of thought, which generally doesn't carry much weight. However, in this case it has more weight then normal. We know the basic rules for spell casting. If you know the spell and have a spell slot for it, you can cast that spell and your caster level determines the level of effect produced. In the absence of a direct rule stating otherwise, as long as you meet those requirements, you can cast the spell.

The combo this thread is about provides you with spells known, and the ability to cast those spells at the necessary level via heighten and versatile spellcaster, so that you gain access to the bonus slots of that level.

In the absence of a rule that says: You must meet a minium caster level of Spell level x 2 - 1 to cast a given spell. This combo seems to work, or at least isn't derailed on that basis.

[Segev]

It is noteworthy that, even if there is a "general minimum caster level" rule, specific beats general, and these are a combination of specific rules that let you gain the spell slots in question despite not being high enough level under the general rule.

ALL of the rules referenced talk about not getting spell SLOTS of that level. If you have slots, you can cast spells out of them.

[dascarletm]

Yeah, if you're dascarletm, you can't be wearing blue and white!

SNIP
Now, if one believes that the caster level minimum rule is a true rule...
SNIP

That's no true Scotsman! er.. rule!

[Segev]

That's no true Scotsman! er.. rule!

I'm pretty sure you're joking and do understand this, but because I often see No True Scottsman being thrown around inappropriately, I'm going to briefly explain what it is and what it isn't.

"Not True Scottsman" is a fallacy when the definition of a category is changed to include irrelevancies so that you can exclude things which fall into that category or so you can make assertions about members of that category which are not necessarily true.

"Bob can't have worn clogs; he's a Scottsman!" "We both saw Scotty the Scottish-born Scottsman who grew up in Scottland wearing clogs last week." "Bah; Scotty is not a true Scottsman; no true Scottsman wears clogs!"

It's a fallacy because the definition of "Scottsman" has nothing to do with clogs.

It is NOT a fallacy when you are arguing that somebody's definition of "Scottsman" is wrong.


"This rule is not a true rule" because it doesn't appear in the rules anywhere <- That's not actually "No True Scottsman" as a fallacy. That's saying, "The definition of a true rule is one which is written in the text of the rulebooks, therefore, because the 'rule' being discussed doesn't appear in the text and is not actually a required consequence of the rules that do, it is not a true rule."

[dascarletm]

I'm pretty sure you're joking and do understand this, but because I often see No True Scottsman being thrown around inappropriately, I'm going to briefly explain what it is and what it isn't.

Yes, I was joking. I usually use to signify that.

[zergling.exe]

I just went and read the rules for Domain Wizard and Elven Generalist Wizard, and no where does it say that they get their bonus spell slots just when they are able to cast that level of spells:

Spellcasting: A domain wizard prepares and casts spells like a normal wizard. However, a domain wizard gains one bonus spell per spell level, which must be filled with the spell from that level of the domain spell list (or with a lower-level domain spell that has been altered with a metamagic feat).

Note that it does not specify that you get it when you gain the ability to cast a new level of spell, but merely a bonus per spell level. So you either can cast 9th level spells at first level anyway, or you gain them as your class grants additional spell levels. This works exactly the same as the default specialist's bonus spell slot.

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 one is more ambigous, but the spell must be prepared daily, so if you don't have the spell level available when you prepare it, you can't prepare a spell of that level. It doesn't just float from one level to the next as an empty slot.

Taking these combined, even being kind with the EGW's bonus spell slot and letting it float doesn't grant additional spell levels, as the DW would not grant a higher level spell slot to be combined with it. Reading DW the other way allows for a 9th level slot every day with or without EGW, and regular specialists would get this as well, so it would be noting notable for the DW.

[Troacctid]

It says "Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1)" and then it gives a bunch of example scrolls created by "typical" Wizards and Clerics. Pursuant to the rules it shows, a Cleric with the Air Domain could make Wind Wall Scroll at caster level 3, but it only shows a CL 5 Wind Wall scroll, because a Cleric with the Air Domain is atypical.

I'm not talking about the list of example scrolls from typical wizards and clerics. I'm talking about the chart that spells out the cost of minimum CL scrolls by class and spell level. It's later in the chapter. There are ones for wands and potions as well.