Viability of Elf Generalist Wizard + Domain Wizard "Leapfrog" combo (cont. from 2016)

[RedMage125]

Odd that you assume your reading is the one everyone must have by default, so that a difference could only be an artificial deviation. Wrong in this case.

"My reading"? Oh, you mean reading the words of the text with an understanding on English Language grammar, syntax, and ability to understand context?

Silly me.

It is proven untrue when applied to those cases. An exemption being specifically called out or given special rules doesn't prevent it from being an exception. In any other bluntly stated situation, where something says what it does and is an exemption by virtue of that, you wouldn't be making this argument.

Do you have exemption language regarding the ability to cast a spell of whichever spell level for Faustian pact? No? Then it isn't an exception, is it?

Presence of a spell slot does not equal "abilty to cast spells". I'll repeat my example for you (although this might have been in the "minimum caster" thread, now that I think about it). Mialee is a level 11 wizard, but her INT is 15. Can she cast L6 spells? Obviously, no. Does she have L6 spell slots, by virtue of being a level 11 wizard? Yes, she does. And she may use them for metamagic, or simply to prepare lower-level spells.

PrApp is the only thing (that I am aware of) that grants a spell slot outside of class levels. When it does so, it explicitly makes itself an exception to the rules regarding class level and caster level restrictions on casting L2 spells. Faustian pact just gives a slot and says nothing else.

Since you keep mentioning this "fallacy", I hope you know it was formulated for 4e, and even specifies:

"The 3.5e books do not contain the language given as my basis for this Fallacy, and as such the Munchkin Fallacy is unofficial and only really exists as a function or practical concerns (in which case the Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization are a better guide anyway)."

The Reverse Munchkin Fallacy is more relevant to 3.5.

Would you prefer Argumentum Ad Silentio? I was keeping it a little lighter with terms used in gaming forums, but your entire "interpretation" is based off of "lack of text" as opposed to actual citation of text to support it. It is a logical fallacy, and your conclusion is not valid.

Apparently you didn't notice that these citations support my interpretation. If the PHB 7 sentence is primary rules text, the parenthetical can't be "nonessential", because the rest of the sentence doesn't form a complete rule, making the reference essential. Meanwhile, if the sentence is descriptive, everything in your citation is a true description of how it works.

I think you were thinking "nonessential" simply in terms of what is 'more important', rather than in a linguistic sense.

...are you trolling me?
If you're just trolling me this whole time, can you just cop to it and bring your little game to an end?
There's no way you actually think this is an argument.

In that context "nonessential" means "nonessential to making the sentence make sense". Did you not notice the first part? "Grammatically integral". I included that one specifically to help prevent you having this kind of confusion over the term "nonessential". That, and the second one, where I bolded "If the meaning of the sentence would be clear without the parenthetical remark, then parentheses are appropriate". And yet, here you are.

And that is in a linguistic sense. I'm a little irritated that you think you are correcting me on that, because I feel, at this point, that I have a better grasp of the nuances of the language, especially syntax, than you do. You literally tried to claim earlier that that "this level" used in PrApp's text might mean something other than "caster level", because you didn't get that singular demonstrative pronouns actually do indicate something specific.

You really have nothing to add about how the text is parsed, including syntax? Other than to try and twist the words (which I assume was intentional) to say it supports you? If you're gonna come at me about grammar and syntax, you better come correct, or stay in your lane. If you have nothing to actually counter those points, say so.

You can't say one half of a sentence is a rule, when it says, "In addition to [that rule], one must also [X] in order to [do the thing]", and claim that [X] is "not a rule". Of course it isn't complete, you need to refer to chapter 3 to get the details, because depending on which class and which spell level you are talking about, the required class level is different. So is the ability score. You had to refer to Chapter 3 for the details on that, too. Didn't you? *gasp*

Example: If a college's requirements said "In addition to high SAT score, you must also have high enough GPA to be considered for admission. (See Enclosure A for details.)" That first sentence is a complete sentence. You don't have to have the values for "high score" or "high enough GPA" for that to be a complete sentence. And they are both clearly requirements, yes? Do you need to follow a reference to find out what those values are? Yes. Does that make the first sentence "not a requirement"? No.

Seriously, if this is all you have to say in your defense, why not just have the grace to admit you were wrong?

After all, you formulated no response to the following points (continuing your trend):

• You have no authority to declare one half of a sentence "not a rule" or "descriptive"
• Calling it "descriptive" in a flat-out lie in the example of your hypothetical wizard anyway, since he's level 1, "of high enough class level" doesn't describe him.
• You have no authority to declare page 7 "subsidiary" to Chapter 3 (or more correctly, your inferential leap you made from looking at Chapter 3). Chapter 3 is where one finds the details of what page 7 said.
• You declared that "that [spell slot] allotment, and not some other general rule, is what the quote on page 7 is referring to", but myopically ignore that it is spell slots granted by class levels.
• You originally admitted that "the slot from the Faustian pact is equivalent to one granted through your class" was probably wrong, and I agreed and told you it was. You never responded to that again, and have been acting this entire time like they are equivalent, like it was "word-of-God truth". That you never backed up, supported, or found any proof for in any way.
• You repeatedly dodge the points about Faustian Pact and "exemption text". Since you wanna get into semantics about "Munchkin Fallacy", let's call it what it is: Argumentum Ad Silentio.
• I'm not really sure where you landed on the caster level adjustments thing. Do you finally acknowledge that things that provide adjustment to caster level only adjust for the things the book says they do? Or is the Argumentum Ad Silentio train gonna keep going on this track, too?

A lot of these are related, I know. Because if you were able to pony up any proof that class level "isn't a restriction", you might have a case for "only spell slots matter". Of course, if such proof existed, I would think you would have found it by now.

[Elves]

PrApp is the only thing (that I am aware of) that grants a spell slot outside of class levels. When it does so, it explicitly makes itself an exception to the rules regarding class level and caster level restrictions on casting L2 spells. Faustian pact just gives a slot and says nothing else.

Funnily enough this falls into one of the adjuncts listed under the Munchkin Fallacy, false parallelism. Precocious Apprentice's rules govern Precocious Apprentice.

Would you prefer Argumentum Ad Silentio? I was keeping it a little lighter with terms used in gaming forums, but your entire "interpretation" is based off of "lack of text" as opposed to actual citation of text to support it. It is a logical fallacy, and your conclusion is not valid.

Formalizing the term doesn't change the bit I quoted -- the fallacy is of limited applicability to the 3.5 game. If anything, in this game, the fallacy tends to fall on the opposite side.

There are two places where it seems you're accusing me of this fallacy: the possible uses of the pact slot and the benefits of CL boosting. CL boosting I've addressed -- CL's role in minimum CL for spells is addressed elsewhere and so needn't be listed. Your interpretation that bonus CL only applies at the time of casting is potentially ok, but nonstandard.

Meanwhile, the pact slot is a spell slot, so yes, if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to. This is why we came back to PHB 7, which your fallacy claim is unrelated to our talk about.

You literally tried to claim earlier that that "this level" used in PrApp's text might mean something other than "caster level", because you didn't get that singular demonstrative pronouns actually do indicate something specific.

Another misrepresentation. I said just as "this" refers to caster level there, the earlier "level" might refer to the "caster level" in the prereqs (then immediately dismissed that possibility because it's obvious that "level" refers to a class level that gives you 2nd level spells).

You don't have to have the values for "high score" or "high enough GPA" for that to be a complete sentence.

Fair enough, so as you ask, I'll get to the important part: idiomatic usage often contradicts general grammatical guidelines. One of those principles about punctuation is even contradicted on the page we're discussing. Altogether, these things are both too vague to be informative.

What it comes down to is this: the "separate rule" reading relies on an inferential jump; the "citational" reading requires no such jump, and does not, as you've claimed, contradict the sentence on page 7. Where no inferential jump is necessary, the reading that doesn't demand one should be preferred.

After all, you formulated no response to the following points (continuing your trend):

Bizarre -- argue with what I say on these topics, but don't act as if your disagreement with what I've said means I haven't responded.

You never responded to that again, and have been acting this entire time like they are equivalent, like it was "word-of-God truth". That you never backed up, supported, or found any proof for in any way.

Initially I did say the one reading was "controversial" because it would let this work, but going and actually reading the text made me skeptical that there was a class level rule in the way you claimed.

[RedMage125]

Funnily enough this falls into one of the adjuncts listed under the Munchkin Fallacy, false parallelism. Precocious Apprentice's rules govern Precocious Apprentice.

Obviously. Are you just bringing up random little tangents because you feel like you need a "win"? This doesn't actually even help your case.

PrApp is only relevant because it's the only RAW way to cast a L2 spell at level 1. And it is filled with exemption text. Since PrApp's rules only govern PrApp, you can't claim Faustian Pact does the same thing.

Formalizing the term doesn't change the bit I quoted -- the fallacy is of limited applicability to the 3.5 game. If anything, in this game, the fallacy tends to fall on the opposite side.

There are two places where it seems you're accusing me of this fallacy: the possible uses of the pact slot and the benefits of CL boosting. CL boosting I've addressed -- CL's role in minimum CL for spells is addressed elsewhere and so needn't be listed. Your interpretation that bonus CL only applies at the time of casting is potentially ok, but nonstandard.

Meanwhile, the pact slot is a spell slot, so yes, if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to. This is why we came back to PHB 7, which your fallacy claim is unrelated to our talk about.

Quite related, actually. Your "interpretation" of page 7 kind of hinges on "since there isn't a clause saying 'your class level must be high enough to grants spell slots of that spell level'" not being present. Since that clause is absent, you claim your "interpretation" is correct, even though it blatantly violates the words of the text. So your basing that on absence of evidence, rather than presence of it.

"Caster level's role is addressed elsewhere"...I'm sorry, you seem to have mistaken me for some kind of ignorant cretin. Do you need it spelled out for you again?

• As a wizard, your caster level is equal to your class level (this is RAW), so your caster level is 1 for your hypothesis.
• Your hypothetical uses items and abilities to "boost" caster level artificially.
• There is a distinct list of what things that "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. So your hypothetical is only considered CL 17 for those effects on that list. Ability to cast spells of a higher spell level than one's class level allows is not on that list.
• What I said about "applies at time of casting" (post #161), if you go back and read it, was an inference that I quite blatantly said is not RAW, so don't try and build a Straw Man to try and undercut what I've been saying to you.

And, the spell slot...I love that you defend your argument as "not being guilty of Argumentum Ad Silentio" with the phrase " if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to", basically copping to the fact that you think the absence of a specific restriction means you don't abide by general ones. Which is Argumentum Ad Silentio.

Bravo.

Another misrepresentation. I said just as "this" refers to caster level there, the earlier "level" might refer to the "caster level" in the prereqs (then immediately dismissed that possibility because it's obvious that "level" refers to a class level that gives you 2nd level spells).

There was never a "might", that was never a possibility. Not unless you don't understand what a singular demonstrative pronoun like "this" indicates when it precedes a word.

Fair enough, so as you ask, I'll get to the important part: idiomatic usage often contradicts general grammatical guidelines. One of those principles about punctuation is even contradicted on the page we're discussing. Altogether, these things are both too vague to be informative.

1) Since when do we read rules text as "idiomatic usage"?
2) Where is the principle of punctuation "contradicted"? Example, please.
3) How is it too vague? You refer to Chapter 3 for the details of "high ability score". You refer to Chapter 3 for the details of "high enough class level", finding that information on the table in Chapter 3. Tables are a part of class descriptions.

What it comes down to is this: the "separate rule" reading relies on an inferential jump; the "citational" reading requires no such jump, and does not, as you've claimed, contradict the sentence on page 7. Where no inferential jump is necessary, the reading that doesn't demand one should be preferred.

A citational reading still requires you to abide by the text that sent you running to Chapter 3 for the detail in the first place.

Have you never read the very next few sentences from the PHB?

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.)

And yet you claim a level 1 wizard can cast a L9 spell? And that such a reading is RAW?

Your hypothetical level 1 wizard depends on 2 major factors, the first of which is kind of divided into 2 smaller sections.

• That "class level is not a restriction", something you think is RAW because of lack of a specific clause you came up with that is "missing from the text. And that Faustian Pact spell slots are "equivalent to" spell slots granted by class, also based on lack of text telling you they aren't. These things each require the other to be true to back up each point, making them a self-referential tautological loop of logic. This is why I said I perceived you as saying "I'm right because I want to be right".
• Totally separate from that, you also assume that "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" affect more than the list of things that the RAW specifically applies to. Because for your purposes, you want it to count as actual caster level as far as "minimum caster level" rules. But that higher CL is achieved through adjustment to caster level, and must follow the rules for adjustments.

Bizarre -- argue with what I say on these topics, but don't act as if your disagreement with what I've said means I haven't responded.

I just drew that list from my previous 2 posts that you hadn't yet addressed. Oh, and dodging a question doesn't count as addressing it.

Like this most recent post of yours.

• Have you yet discussed what authority you have to declare one rule "subsidiary"? Or one clause "descriptive", or "not a restriction"?
• You finally said "fair enough" on the complete sentence nature of page 7, but never back to the fact that since the reference is in parenthesis, it is "less crucial" to understanding the sentence. And the sentence establishes that "high enough class level" is equal in weight to "high ability score" which is, in fact, a restriction. Yes, the parenthetical gives us a reference that we must follow to understand how that rule applies, but it is not necessary to understand what the rule says.
• Myopia regarding that Chapter 3's "ability to cast spells of a given spell level" is in reference to spell slots granted by class levels, not just "spell slots".

You kind of addressed what I said about the other now, but you still haven't backed up your claim with proof. Unless "lack of evidence to the contrary" is something you think is "proof positive". Which is exactly copping to Argumentum Ad Silentio.

Initially I did say the one reading was "controversial" because it would let this work, but going and actually reading the text made me skeptical that there was a class level rule in the way you claimed.

Even this isn't really answering my point, because you haven't told us where you found RAW proof that says that the faustian pact slot was "equivalent to one granted by class". This quoted statement, to me, just says "oh, I decided it was. I based this on my other interpretation, which still is not 100% ironclad. And if this is true, then it helps support the interpretation I am using to support this interpretation".

[Elves]

Since PrApp's rules only govern PrApp, you can't claim Faustian Pact does the same thing.

Facepalm. No, it means that PrApp's rules cover how its slot works and the pact slot functions by whatever other rules govern spellcasting. Those rules are what we're talking about. Your constant comparison to PrApp's text is irrelevant.

Quite related, actually. Your "interpretation" of page 7 kind of hinges on "since there isn't a clause saying 'your class level must be high enough to grants spell slots of that spell level'" not being present.

Claiming argumentum ex silentio in order to justify inserting additional evidence that isn't present is a crackpot's application of the fallacy.

Since that clause is absent, you claim your "interpretation" is correct, even though it blatantly violates the words of the text.

How many times do I have to point out: no, it does not blatantly violate the text. The text is true by any reasonable standard. Moreover, it's already in your view "blatantly violated" by Precocious Apprentice, so your actual argument is about claiming that exemptions must have some standard, defined by you, of explicit exception wording.

[*]What I said about "applies at time of casting" (post #161), if you go back and read it, was an inference that I quite blatantly said is not RAW, so don't try and build a Straw Man to try and undercut what I've been saying to you.[/list]

I haven't tried to build such a strawman. As I said, it's "if x then y, if z then a".

And, the spell slot...I love that you defend your argument as "not being guilty of Argumentum Ad Silentio" with the phrase " if no additional restrictions are listed you can do with it what you're able to", basically copping to the fact that you think the absence of a specific restriction means you don't abide by general ones. Which is Argumentum Ad Silentio.

Bravo.

Seemingly you didn't read the paragraph before that, where I pointed out that formalizing "munchkin fallacy" to "argumentum ex silentio" doesn't change its limited applicability to the 3.5 system.

1) Since when do we read rules text as "idiomatic usage"?

"See for details" and similar is idiomatic. You cited those punctuation guidelines to allege it worked a certain way.

Have you never read the very next few sentences from the PHB?

That sentence presents the exact same wording as the one before -- which we've already established is not actually dissonant with a citational reading.

[*]Have you yet discussed what authority you have to declare one rule "subsidiary"? Or one clause "descriptive", or "not a restriction"?

My argument doesn't include any assertion of personal authority. It's based on prioritizing text that is present.

Even this isn't really answering my point, because you haven't told us where you found RAW proof that says that the faustian pact slot was "equivalent to one granted by class".

If there's no minimum level rule that's not really relevant, which was my point.


You did a "how you sound to me" bit. To me, you sound like you are willing to make an unintuitive reading of page 7, with little support elsewhere in the rules, simply to prevent a single obscure combo -- one which, in your view, doesn't work anyway due to your interpretation of caster level boosting. Why not use the simpler reading of page 7 and simply argue that it's CL boosting that prevents this combo from working?

In any case, I've tried twice to step out of this circular conversation and at this point I'm going to formally say I won't be discussing page 7 further unless you bring new evidence. I might look into the stuff from your CL post in the other thread when I have a bit.

[RedMage125]

Facepalm. No, it means that PrApp's rules cover how its slot works and the pact slot functions by whatever other rules govern spellcasting. Those rules are what we're talking about. Your constant comparison to PrApp's text is irrelevant.

Having a spell slot of whichever spell level does not equate to the ability to cast spells of that level. Remember my example about Mialee being level 11 with an INT of 15? She has L6 spell slots, but may not cast L6 spells. That's not meeting the "high ability score" restriction. Your hypothesis doesn't meet the "be of high enough class level" restriction. By no reading does your hypothetical meet that restriction.

Claiming argumentum ex silentio in order to justify inserting additional evidence that isn't present is a crackpot's application of the fallacy.

I've never actually claimed anything about "inserting additional evidence that isn't present". You've been making that Straw man for pages now. I'm only talking about reading page 7 as a complete sentence, with it's context, grammar and syntax considered. Then going to Chapter 3 for the details of what the sentence means for each given class. You know, like the text says to. No more, no less.

How many times do I have to point out: no, it does not blatantly violate the text. The text is true by any reasonable standard. Moreover, it's already in your view "blatantly violated" by Precocious Apprentice, so your actual argument is about claiming that exemptions must have some standard, defined by you, of explicit exception wording.

PrApp is a feat. Many feats allow for violation of general rules by using exemption text, or specifying circumstances under which the general rule can be broken by someone with the feat. You and I both argued this to Doctor_Awkward earlier regarding Alacritous Cogitation. Let's not forget that Weapon Finesse allows a character to use a stat other than STR for some melee attacks. PrApp explicitly allows for casting a L2 spell by a level 1 character. Faustian Pact just gives a slot. That's it.

I haven't tried to build such a strawman. As I said, it's "if x then y, if z then a".

And again, I have no idea what you are trying to say with that, you need to be more specific.
And yes, taking what I said "would be a reasonable inference from the text, but is by no means RAW", and calling it "my interpretation that is nonstandard" is a straw man.

Seemingly you didn't read the paragraph before that, where I pointed out that formalizing "munchkin fallacy" to "argumentum ex silentio" doesn't change its limited applicability to the 3.5 system.

No, it's true of any edition of D&D. You can't claim you can do something on the grounds that there is a lack of RAW saying you can't. That's not valid.

"See for details" and similar is idiomatic. You cited those punctuation guidelines to allege it worked a certain way.

So...you didn't read those guidelines that say that the information in the parentheses is "supplemental" to the text outside it, huh?

Words and syntax have meaning in English. Not being as familiar with those meaning as I am is not "unforgivable". But continuing to argue after they have been presented to you may be.

That sentence presents the exact same wording as the one before -- which we've already established is not actually dissonant with a citational reading.

It also specifies the connection between "class level" and "ability to cast spells" in regards to L2 spells. So if level 1 is explicitly not high enough to cast a L2 spell*, what makes you think that it can cast a L9 spell?

*wizards who have taken the PrApp feat obviously exempted.

My argument doesn't include any assertion of personal authority. It's based on prioritizing text that is present.

No, your argument is based on de-prioritizing the text present. Because you want to, apparently. Which in your mind is "proof".

You have tried to declare one clause "subsidiary" to the other. I pointed out the rules of syntax and punctuation that explicitly say you are wrong. You continue to insist you are right, which means you are in fact, claiming "authority".

If there's no minimum level rule that's not really relevant, which was my point.

If you depend on hypothesis #1 being true to prove hypothesis #2 to be true, and Hypothesis #2 being true is the clincher that makes Hypothesis #1 true...then these are tautological and self-referential, and neither are true.

See how easy that is?

You did a "how you sound to me" bit. To me, you sound like you are willing to make an unintuitive reading of page 7, with little support elsewhere in the rules, simply to prevent a single obscure combo -- one which, in your view, doesn't work anyway due to your interpretation of caster level boosting. Why not use the simpler reading of page 7 and simply argue that it's CL boosting that prevents this combo from working?

Again, I have said multiple times that CL boosting on it's own merit prevents your hypothesis from working.

You're also wrong about "your interpretation" of page 7, which is a wholly separate issue.

In any case, I've tried twice to step out of this circular conversation and at this point I'm going to formally say I won't be discussing page 7 further unless you bring new evidence. I might look into the stuff from your CL post in the other thread when I have a bit.

Quit because you can't furnish evidence if you want, but your logic is backwards. As the one trying to prove an experimental hypothesis, the burden on proof is on you. I've cited English Language Grammar and Syntax as my proof, even linked you to some language and punctuation refreshers. Not to mention the Context of the words on page 7.

To which you have not cited even one source of actual proof or reference to back up your claim. Just a lot of "nuh-uh", and trying to take a word or two out of context to twist things, and act like it was your proof. Remember? The "nonessential" BS you tried to claim a few posts ago?

But...walk away because you're stymied and can't figure out a way to still be "right"? Sure. I thought we grew out of that, but whatever floats your boat.

[Elves]

If you depend on hypothesis #1 being true to prove hypothesis #2 to be true, and Hypothesis #2 being true is the clincher that makes Hypothesis #1 true...then these are tautological and self-referential, and neither are true.

If there's no class level rule, it doesn't matter how you count the pact slot (except insofar as whether it can be used for multiple spellcasting classes you have levels in).

Quit because you can't furnish evidence if you want, but your logic is backwards. As the one trying to prove an experimental hypothesis, the burden on proof is on you.

We're focusing on PHB 7 right now. Interpreting it doesn't involve the wider hypothesis. And you may find your interpretation of PHB 7 self-evident, but that's clearly not the case for everyone. Other threads on this have shown it, too.

But...walk away because you're stymied and can't figure out a way to still be "right"? Sure. I thought we grew out of that, but whatever floats your boat.

This PHB 7 thing is going in circles of slight rephrasing. There's no point continuing without new evidence, unless it's ego, which seems to be what you're decrying, so...

[RedMage125]

Ok, first of all, we're dealing with too many hypothetical issues here, let's give your "level 1 wizard with faustian pact granted L9 slot and CL 17" a name. Let's call him Bob.

Bob requires your "interpretation" of page 7 to work, as well as "your interpretation" regarding caster level via effects that provide adjustment to it.

If there's no class level rule, it doesn't matter how you count the pact slot

I'm quite tickled that you responded to my point with this, because it's copping to exactly what I've been saying is wrong with your logic, and why it's self-referrential.

Hypothetical #1 = "there is no class level rule"
Hypothetical #2 = "spell slot granted by faustian pact is equivalent to one granted by class"

#1 must be true for #2 to be true. So yes, in an imaginary world where there was no class level rule, it would not matter.

So how do you prove #1? Well so far, you've been unable to, save that you use an inference that you drew from chapter 3 (where you were referred to look for details of "must be of high enough class level") to claim that only spell slots matter, and that if you use faustian pacts to get a L9 spell slot at 1st level, then 1st level is "high enough class level". I'm quite aware of your claim.

But that means you're using #2 as proof that #1 is true.

If #2 is your proof that #1 is true, but #1 must be true for #2 to be true, then your claims are self-referential and tautological, and neither are true.

(except insofar as whether it can be used for multiple spellcasting classes you have levels in).

This makes no sense. Spell slots for multiclass characters are tracked separately, review the rules for multiclass characters yourself if you need to. If you get a L9 spell slot from faustian pact, it needs to be a spell slot of whichever class you intend to cast spells from.

We're focusing on PHB 7 right now. Interpreting it doesn't involve the wider hypothesis. And you may find your interpretation of PHB 7 self-evident, but that's clearly not the case for everyone. Other threads on this have shown it, too.

I understand that I have a better grasp on the nuances of grammar and syntax than a lot of people.

That doesn't make them not wrong.

Look at the 2016 thread. Look at how many people claimed that the line in UA about Domain Wizards was "just flavor text, not rules". Sorry, but 2 independent clauses connected with a semicolon indicates that they are of equal importance. So all the people who claimed that everything on one side of the semicolon "is rules" and everything on the other side "is fluff" are wrong, objectively.

This PHB 7 thing is going in circles of slight rephrasing. There's no point continuing without new evidence, unless it's ego, which seems to be what you're decrying, so...

We might be getting somewhere if you could just grasp that context, grammar, and syntax have significance in how rules are parsed.

• In any context, "In addition to [restriction], a spellcaster must [X] to be able to [do the thing]." Means that [X] is a restriction, too.
• "(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" is a separate sentence, and it is in parentheses. Ergo it is supplemental to the information in the sentence preceding it. When you go to Chapter 3, you go for details of what "high ability score" and what "high enough class level" mean. Trying to take what you glean from Chapter 3 and infer a rule that makes "high enough class level" not a restriction in an invalid reading of the text.
• It's intellectually dishonest to claim that you cannot glean that information from Chapter 3, because you've demonstrated that you can. using the information in Chapter 3 as details of what page 7 says is also the only way that the example on page 8 resonates with the text as well.

So if your "interpretation" is correct, it invalidates the text that referred you to Chapter 3 in the first place, not to mention makes the "for example" that follows the page 7 text not resonate with the rules.
-OR-
You are incorrect, everything I have been saying to you about how context, grammar, and syntax are significant and important, and there is no dissonance with the rest of the rules.

Just...try to be objective here, and set your ego aside and ask...which is more likely?

Spoiler: gonna leave this here, since you didn't pick it up

Show

Facepalm. No, it means that PrApp's rules cover how its slot works and the pact slot functions by whatever other rules govern spellcasting. Those rules are what we're talking about. Your constant comparison to PrApp's text is irrelevant.

Having a spell slot of whichever spell level does not equate to the ability to cast spells of that level. Remember my example about Mialee being level 11 with an INT of 15? She has L6 spell slots, but may not cast L6 spells. That's not meeting the "high ability score" restriction. Your hypothesis doesn't meet the "be of high enough class level" restriction. By no reading does your hypothetical meet that restriction.

Claiming argumentum ex silentio in order to justify inserting additional evidence that isn't present is a crackpot's application of the fallacy.

I've never actually claimed anything about "inserting additional evidence that isn't present". You've been making that Straw man for pages now. I'm only talking about reading page 7 as a complete sentence, with it's context, grammar and syntax considered. Then going to Chapter 3 for the details of what the sentence means for each given class. You know, like the text says to. No more, no less.

How many times do I have to point out: no, it does not blatantly violate the text. The text is true by any reasonable standard. Moreover, it's already in your view "blatantly violated" by Precocious Apprentice, so your actual argument is about claiming that exemptions must have some standard, defined by you, of explicit exception wording.

PrApp is a feat. Many feats allow for violation of general rules by using exemption text, or specifying circumstances under which the general rule can be broken by someone with the feat. You and I both argued this to Doctor_Awkward earlier regarding Alacritous Cogitation. Let's not forget that Weapon Finesse allows a character to use a stat other than STR for some melee attacks. PrApp explicitly allows for casting a L2 spell by a level 1 character. Faustian Pact just gives a slot. That's it.

I haven't tried to build such a strawman. As I said, it's "if x then y, if z then a".

And again, I have no idea what you are trying to say with that, you need to be more specific.
And yes, taking what I said "would be a reasonable inference from the text, but is by no means RAW", and calling it "my interpretation that is nonstandard" is a straw man.

Seemingly you didn't read the paragraph before that, where I pointed out that formalizing "munchkin fallacy" to "argumentum ex silentio" doesn't change its limited applicability to the 3.5 system.

No, it's true of any edition of D&D. You can't claim you can do something on the grounds that there is a lack of RAW saying you can't. That's not valid.

"See for details" and similar is idiomatic. You cited those punctuation guidelines to allege it worked a certain way.

So...you didn't read those guidelines that say that the information in the parentheses is "supplemental" to the text outside it, huh?

Words and syntax have meaning in English. Not being as familiar with those meaning as I am is not "unforgivable". But continuing to argue after they have been presented to you may be.

That sentence presents the exact same wording as the one before -- which we've already established is not actually dissonant with a citational reading.

It also specifies the connection between "class level" and "ability to cast spells" in regards to L2 spells. So if level 1 is explicitly not high enough to cast a L2 spell*, what makes you think that it can cast a L9 spell?

*wizards who have taken the PrApp feat obviously exempted.

My argument doesn't include any assertion of personal authority. It's based on prioritizing text that is present.

No, your argument is based on de-prioritizing the text present. Because you want to, apparently. Which in your mind is "proof".

You have tried to declare one clause "subsidiary" to the other. I pointed out the rules of syntax and punctuation that explicitly say you are wrong. You continue to insist you are right, which means you are in fact, claiming "authority".

You did a "how you sound to me" bit. To me, you sound like you are willing to make an unintuitive reading of page 7, with little support elsewhere in the rules, simply to prevent a single obscure combo -- one which, in your view, doesn't work anyway due to your interpretation of caster level boosting. Why not use the simpler reading of page 7 and simply argue that it's CL boosting that prevents this combo from working?

Again, I have said multiple times that CL boosting on it's own merit prevents your hypothesis from working.

You're also wrong about "your interpretation" of page 7, which is a wholly separate issue.

Of course, if you've finally been convinced, feel free to say so.

[RedMage125]

So...are we on the same page now? Because I am about to be -like my profile says- On A Boat, for the next month or so, where internet is spotty at best. I don't expect to be able to get on the forums very much.

You don't seem to otherwise have an answer to your 2 hypotheticals that "your interpretation" is based on being entirely a referential loop with each other. Each can only be true if the other one is, and you can't prove one of them true without reference to the other. Not in a manner that actually takes the context, grammar, and syntax of those sentences into account with proper understanding.

Also, I never quite got what you meant by "if x then y, if z then a", in regards to caster level adjusting effects. Because irrespective of your claims about how "it's included in the rules about minimum caster level", getting to CL 17 requires adjustments to caster level, and those adjustments only apply to specific things. Of which, your proposed use of them is not included.

I would hope that if you still contest these things, you'll respond to my previous post. And if not, that you'd have the grace to admit you were incorrect. People are wrong, it happens. Hell, I admitted I was wrong in this very thread (way back on page 2 somewhere). It diminishes you not at all to be wrong.

[Elves]

Like I said, I wasn't planning on continuing further without new evidence, and I'm guessing you're as bored of the discussion as I am.

Also, I never quite got what you meant by "if x then y, if z then a", in regards to caster level adjusting effects.

This was in regards to your potential reading of CL boosting not being constant or whatever. It's just - under one reading, one result, under another reading, a different result.

I would hope that if you still contest these things, you'll respond to my previous post. And if not, that you'd have the grace to admit you were incorrect.

Your reading of page 7 is, IMO, unfounded. (Again, barring other evidence.) Your argument about what CL boosting applies to is not, IMV, a strict refutation of the Faustian combo because as I've said that clause would not need to be there, but I'm open to your reading because it resolves problems with wild mage and other situations. I haven't looked into it in detail.


Have a good time on the boat.

[RedMage125]

This was in regards to your potential reading of CL boosting not being constant or whatever. It's just - under one reading, one result, under another reading, a different result.

Yes, when you utterly ignore how the rules work and input whatever you want on the basis of "the RAW don't specifically say I can't do this", you get a different reading from someone who actually abides by the rules.

Shocking.

Your reading of page 7 is, IMO, unfounded. (Again, barring other evidence.)

Unfounded?

I have been literally citing to you how the English Language works. I've even provided sources.

Tell you what...what actual evidence, citation, or other founding have you used to support your claim?

There was the one time you said "[see for details] is very often used in nonfiction writing to direct from a glib or simplified summary to the info on how something actually operates.". But you didn't even support that statement. No citation, no proof that was true, just your word that this is "often" the case, so not even a guarantee that such is the case in this instance.

And you have the absurd notion that I am the one with an "unfounded" argument?

You haven't even countered the evidence I did show. Not to mention that I rather neatly dissected how your two hypotheses use only each other as "proof". Even in your last post you said "If there's no class level rule, it doesn't matter how you count the pact slot". Which is the same as saying "well, if you hypothetically accept that I'm right about this first thing I haven't proven yet, it makes the second one right, too." Which would be fine if you could prove the first one. But your proof for that was in using the second was as evidence that it was true. Which is saying "Now that you see the second one is right, that's the proof that the first one was correct". You've never actually proven your claims with any kind of citation outside yourself. Nothing from the RAW, nothing from any grammatical, contextual , or syntax-related sources, either. Nothing to actually try and prove what I have said about grammar, context and syntax was "wrong", or that such did not apply.

No, you just referred to yourself again. This is why you gave the perception of "because I wish it really hard it's true". Please provide some kind of actual source for your claims. Or admit you are wrong.

Or send me a PM and tell me that you've just been trolling me this whole time.

Your argument about what CL boosting applies to is not, IMV, a strict refutation of the Faustian combo because as I've said that clause would not need to be there, but I'm open to your reading because it resolves problems with wild mage and other situations. I haven't looked into it in detail.

By claiming something is "true" of the rules in the absence of a clause saying it is true is exactly why your claim is Munchkin Fallacy, or whatever you want to call it. The RAW say what one can do. So the only relevant questions are: 1) Does Bob require "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" to work?; and 2) Do we have rules that govern "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level"?

Have a good time on the boat.

If you've ever been on a Navy vessel, you'd know that's not likely. But I'll try, thank you.

[Elves]

Yes, when you utterly ignore how the rules work and input whatever you want on the basis of "the RAW don't specifically say I can't do this", you get a different reading from someone who actually abides by the rules.

Shocking.

Like I said this was in regards to the part you provided as an example of a "by no means RAW" inference.

Tell you what...what actual evidence, citation, or other founding have you used to support your claim?

Occam's razor for one. It's the simpler reading and there's no genuine contradiction involved in it (because no, this unforeseen and non-RAI edge case in a later sourcebook isn't a valid basis to claim contradiction).

You haven't even countered the evidence I did show.

The analogy with Precocious Apprentice is invalid -- PrApp's rules govern PrApp. I don't know where your implication that only feats can provide specific exemptions is coming from. Your emphasis on the word "must" I already addressed, and like I said there's no valid claim for contradiction under a citational reading. So in regards to page 7 what haven't I addressed?

By claiming something is "true" of the rules in the absence of a clause saying it is true is exactly why your claim is Munchkin Fallacy, or whatever you want to call it. The RAW say what one can do. So the only relevant questions are: 1) Does Bob require "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" to work?; and 2) Do we have rules that govern "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level"?

We know that magic items and special abilities can provide an "adjustment to your caster level". We know there is a minimum caster level to cast spells of a certain level. The implication seems clear, and I claim inference is justified here because this is a unique and unanticipated situation (also a reason why it wouldn't specifically be called out in the text).

In line with this, the sentence about caster level adjustment is phrased inclusively and doesn't draw a distinction between adjusted and innate CL. On the contrary its point is that they have all the same effects.

This reading also works fine with Precocious Apprentice -- "Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances" -- regardless of whether normal caster level is taken as inclusive of CL-adjusting effects.

[RedMage125]

Like I said this was in regards to the part you provided as an example of a "by no means RAW" inference.

No, it was in regards to you ignoring what the RAW says that "[things] which provide an adjustment ot caster level" apply to. No more, no less.

Occam's razor for one. It's the simpler reading and there's no genuine contradiction involved in it (because no, this unforeseen and non-RAI edge case in a later sourcebook isn't a valid basis to claim contradiction).

First of all, that's not a citation. Even though I was citing English Language Syntax as a source, I at least provided some evidence to support that. You have provided none.

Second, you really think this:

Spoiler: Your stance, in a nutshell

Show

• Read "In addition to high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to cast spells of a given spell level. (See class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)"
• Go to Chapter 3, see that the way class level interacts with spell level is by spell slots granted by class level.
• Deduce that only spell slots matter.
• So if a L9 spell slot is granted at level 1 thru a Faustian pact, that is sufficient.

But now "high enough class level" isn't actually a restriction, even though it's parsed with another restriction using the words "in addition to" and "must".

• Decide for oneself that it must be "subordinate to 'see for details'".

is "simpler" than:

• Read "In addition to high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to cast spells of a given spell level. (See class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)".
• Go to Chapter 3, see how spell slots granted by class level equate to ability to cast spells.
• This is the details of what is meant by "high enough class level".

Really?

Because to me, the simplest thing to do would be to assume that if something said "[Rule]. (See later chapter for details.)", then the later chapter's specifics are just the details of [rule]. How in Pelor's name is your convoluted mental acrobatics "interpretation" more "simple"?

The analogy with Precocious Apprentice is invalid -- PrApp's rules govern PrApp. I don't know where your implication that only feats can provide specific exemptions is coming from.

Don't put words in my mouth, I never said "only feats can provide specific exemptions".

PrApp's rules only govern PrApp, yes. So the general rule is only "broken" for characters who possess the feat. Your claim that the existence of a feat which overrides the general rule is somehow "proof" that the general rule "isn't actually a rule" is absurd.

Your emphasis on the word "must" I already addressed, and like I said there's no valid claim for contradiction under a citational reading. So in regards to page 7 what haven't I addressed?

This is frustrating me because this is what is sounds like when you say the above:

Spoiler: my perception of this sentence

Show

Hey, I already said I don't think "must" means anything, and "must" was one of the words RedMage bolded. So I'm going to ignore that he was pointing out the entire sentence, which included "in addition to [something I recognize as a restriction], a spellcaster must [X] to [do the thing]. (See Chapter 3 for details.)". I'm also going to ignore that he provided actual citation about the way syntax in English works, how the fact that one sentence ended as a complete sentence, and that the following sentence being in parentheses means it is subordinate to the preceding sentence.

No, I will ignore all that, because I saw the word "must" again, and I don't think that's important. So I'll just blithely ignore everything being said and repeat that I have already addressed the word "must". I am making good points. My arguments are well supported because I wished it super hard, even though I refuse to provide citation in the text of the RAW or any other source to support my claim.

This is frustrating to me because, for the record, I do not believe you are some kind of idiot. You show a great deal of attention to detail, you have a very good grasp of the rules (to include a lot of TO "tricks"), you have shown a willingness to look up some (like Munchkin Fallacy)...the fact that you have responded this way after everything I have been citing and pointing things out to you is frustrating. It is precisely because I think you are a smart person that I find your seeming unwillingness to understand so frustrating. Not "inability" to understand, "unwillingness".
You make statements like "well, under a citational reading". What, exactly, do you think that word means? Because (as I have demonstrated) I am very well versed in grammar and syntax rules, and nothing about reading "(See Chapter 3 for details.)" as a citation supports what you are claiming. Can you find something, anything to maybe try and shore up your baseless claims? Maybe something that supports what you think "a citational reading" means? Preferably a reputable source. Maybe a ".edu" website? Anything other than your own claims and what you presume to say about "how it should be read". Because I have very clearly supported my points. You have not reciprocated.

You want to know what I think you're not responding to? How about this?

• In any context, "In addition to [restriction], a spellcaster must [X] to be able to [do the thing]." Means that [X] is a restriction, too. Period. The end. [X] is a restriction. That's Context and Grammar. Claiming that [X] is "not a restriction" can only be done by someone deliberately ignoring the text for their own dishonest benefit, or someone who does not understand how words in English work and what they mean.
• "(See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)" is a separate sentence, and it is in parentheses. Ergo it is supplemental to the information in the sentence preceding it. That is Syntax.
  When you go to Chapter 3, you go for details of what "high ability score" and "high enough class level" mean. So what you learn from Chapter 3 about spell slots is a detail of "high enough class level". Trying to take what you glean from Chapter 3 and infer a rule that makes "high enough class level" not a restriction is an invalid reading of the text. Attempting to claim that "'high enough class level' is subordinate to 'see for details'" is claiming an authority you do not have. The Syntax rules for use of parentheses in English have been cited to you. You do not have authority over those rules of syntax. They have more weight as fact than your wishes and desires.
• It's intellectually dishonest to claim that you cannot glean that information from Chapter 3, because you've demonstrated that you can. Using the information in Chapter 3 as details of what page 7 says is also the only way that the example on page 8 resonates with the text as well.

So if your "interpretation" is correct, it invalidates the text that referred you to Chapter 3 in the first place, not to mention makes the "for example" that follows the page 7 text not resonate with what you claim about the rules.
-OR-
You are incorrect, everything I have been saying to you about how context, grammar, and syntax are significant and important, and there is no dissonance with the rest of the rules.

Just...try to be objective here, and set your ego aside and ask...which is more likely?

We know that magic items and special abilities can provide an "adjustment to your caster level". We know there is a minimum caster level to cast spells of a certain level. The implication seems clear, and I claim inference is justified here because this is a unique and unanticipated situation (also a reason why it wouldn't specifically be called out in the text).

1) Does Bob require "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" to work?; and 2) Do we have rules that govern "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level"?

In line with this, the sentence about caster level adjustment is phrased inclusively and doesn't draw a distinction between adjusted and innate CL. On the contrary its point is that they have all the same effects.

This goes so far beyond "intellectual dishonesty" that I'm going to call it what it is. A blatant lie.

The sentence about caster level adjusting effects is actually a completely separate paragraph from "minimum caster level" rules. They are both under the heading of "Caster Level". That you claim it is "phrased inclusively" to try and make your point tells me you are either going off memory (in which case it is not a blatant lie, but a mistake), or you think I wouldn't look and would just take your word for it, thinking you could slip a falsehood past me and parse it as "true". Especially in the arena of "Sentence Structure And How It Is Significant", trying to get that one past me, of all people, was a poorly conceived plan.
There are 3 paragraphs under the Caster Level heading. 1) Brief explanation of how caster level impacts a spell's power; 2) Minimum Caster Level for spells; 3) Effects that provide adjustment to caster level.

This reading also works fine with Precocious Apprentice -- "Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances" -- regardless of whether normal caster level is taken as inclusive of CL-adjusting effects.

PrApp is a feat. It's rules only apply to characters who take the feat. Stop trying to refer to a feat that provides exception to a general restriction to claim the restriction "isn't a restriction".

Furthermore, nothing about what I am saying about "CL adjusting effects" makes PrApp "problematic" or "not work". Because when you cast the PrApp spell (after making your DC 8 Spellcraft check), you would apply adjusted CL to everything that page 171 says you apply those adjustments to.

[Zhepna]

So, does this combo work?

[Cocoapeanuts]

It's RAW legal. RAI obviously don't let it happen. If you use the Gate Domain you can get infinite wishes if you're lvl 2 doing this and have the exp to pay for the Gate. It's been debated up and down on this forum. The problem you'll encounter is the forum members who can't separate raw and rai. They immediately look at a broken raw combo and freak out rather than just realizing it isn't intended and block it from the DM side.