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

[RedMage125]

Because I think it's establishing a general rule that a sufficient ability score is not the only requirement to cast a spell of a given level; there is also a dependence on class level. It refers us to chapter 3 for details, where we find out exactly what that dependence is: it operates through spell slots and spells known. Hence we conclude that these two things are what "able" was referring to in the general rule.

This is nonsensical. If you acknowledge that there is a dependence on class level, then your "Level 1 Wiz, Faustian Pact, CL 17" hypothetical cannot cast L9 spells.

It doesn't matter if you want to infer that "able" means "spell slots", you're ignoring the text. It says "must be of high enough class level". Straight up, no matter what else you say, your hypothetical is ignoring this rules text.

When a Specific Rule allows a character to violate this, it looks like the text in Precocious Apprentice. Since we know what a Specific>General rule that DOES grant this exception looks like, we know anything without that kind of text is not supported by RAW

This discussion has pretty much bottomed out for now...I don't think your interpretation is bad for the game or all that much of a stretch, but I don't find it's RAW-established in the way you claim.

Mine is rooted only in RAW, yours is rooted in your preferred inference that makes you think you can safely circumnavigate the RAW.

Furthermore, to bring things full circle, if you were correct (you're not), then you're lending an air of legitimacy to the "Leapfrog" BS. Remember all the reasons you came to understand why it doesn't work? Your claim is no different that the people who think that a wizard with AC+VS can suddenly cast spells beyond their class level limitation, and are then entitled to bonus slot after bonus slot, due to the illegal combo of ACFs they're using.

[Elves]

Furthermore, to bring things full circle, if you were correct (you're not), then you're lending an air of legitimacy to the "Leapfrog" BS.

Under this interpretation, the "leapfrog" combo still wouldn't work because EGW+DW don't give you the necessary spell slots (and there's still the CL issue). Under this interpretation, you could use EGW to double the slot gained through the Faustian pact.

Precocious Apprentice's line "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells..." works just as naturally to mean having a class level that lets you cast 2nd level spells. In line with which, later on in the feat it uses the wording "when you become able to cast 2nd-level spells".

Cases like Faustian pact are extremely rare and you have to remember that 3.5 relies on exemption phrasing. (The person who wrote Faustian pact probably didn't think through the full applications of that spell slot line anyway).

[RedMage125]

Under this interpretation, the "leapfrog" combo still wouldn't work because EGW+DW don't give you the necessary spell slots (and there's still the CL issue). Under this interpretation, you could use EGW to double the slot gained through the Faustian pact.

Precocious Apprentice's line "Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells..." works just as naturally to mean having a class level that lets you cast 2nd level spells. In line with which, later on in the feat it uses the wording "when you become able to cast 2nd-level spells".

Cases like Faustian pact are extremely rare and you have to remember that 3.5 relies on exemption phrasing. (The person who wrote Faustian pact probably didn't think through the full applications of that spell slot line anyway).

And the Faustian Pact does not have the exemption phrasing. Thank you for acknowledging why your hypothesis is incorrect.

Choose one 2nd-level spell from a school of magic
you have access to. You gain an extra 2nd-level spell slot that
must be used initially to cast only the chosen spell. Until your
level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you
must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully
cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect. 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.

Precocious Apprentice explicitly makes note that it is providing a single-case exception (that of one specific spell); this is the underlined part. The part I bolded is the specific granting of exception to the caster level. Both class level limitation AND caster level limitation needed to be addressed for PA to work.

Your hypothesis possesses none of the exception phrasing. You are arguing that because it does not explicitly reinforce the general rule, that it should work. But that is Munchkin Fallacy. General Rules always apply unless a specific exception explicitly says otherwise.

And again, PHB pg 171 tells you what effects CL boosts apply to. You don't get to add additional side effects and benefits beyond that, such is also Munchkin Fallacy.

[Elves]

Both class level limitation AND caster level limitation needed to be addressed for PA to work.

This is what the second paragraph of my last post is addressing.

And again, PHB pg 171 tells you what effects CL boosts apply to. You don't get to add additional side effects and benefits beyond that, such is also Munchkin Fallacy.

Why would it mention it when it's implied by the other rules (and when there's no scenario in Core where it's relevant)? The pertinent issue, minimum CL, is indeed addressed in that section.

I say "exemption" in that due to the way it's worded, Faustian pact lets you do something that's not normally possible -- get a spell slot you can't normally use. The rules aren't designed with that kind of exemption in mind, so we follow the rules that exist, which provide a minimum CL specification but only a by-proxy class level restriction.

[RedMage125]

This is what the second paragraph of my last post is addressing.

And yet you are completely disregarding "class level".

You have said "class level = spell slots, therefore, if I get spell slots another way, I can bypass class level", but that's not how RAW works.

Why would it mention it when it's implied by the other rules (and when there's no scenario in Core where it's relevant)? The pertinent issue, minimum CL, is indeed addressed in that section.

Not under "caster level increasing effects" it isn't. That's after minimum caster level.

I say "exemption" in that due to the way it's worded, Faustian pact lets you do something that's not normally possible -- get a spell slot you can't normally use. The rules aren't designed with that kind of exemption in mind, so we follow the rules that exist, which provide a minimum CL specification but only a by-proxy class level restriction.

No, you have inferred a by-proxy class level restriction. The RAW quite clearly say "class level" not "have a spell slot".

Nothing in the case you are making refutes this point.

[Elves]

And yet you are completely disregarding "class level".

If this is in reference to PHB 7, I've explained at length why you are making a grammatical leap to confirm your preconception here. You continue to claim RAW without addressing that.

If it's in reference to Precocious Apprentice, having your level be high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells can mean...having a class level that enables you to cast 2nd level spells. Otherwise, if anything, under the absolutist interpretation that line would hint at a universal minimum level requirement rather than a minimum class level requirement.

Alternately, since the prereqs have already established "arcane caster level" and "level" is used as a byword for "arcane caster level" later on, "level" here might simply mean caster level and not class level.

Not under "caster level increasing effects" it isn't. That's after minimum caster level.

So there you go, even less reason why that would be addressed in that section instead of the section that deals with caster level and spellcasting. And as I said, there would be no reason for them to include such a clause when there was no situation in Core or in the splatbooks published at that time where it would be relevant, making it a case of interpretation based on the rules that do exist. You want to say munchkin fallacy, I say anti-munchkin fallacy -- absence of prior mention doesn't mean exclusion when it does appear.

[RedMage125]

If this is in reference to PHB 7, I've explained at length why you are making a grammatical leap to confirm your preconception here. You continue to claim RAW without addressing that.

Backwards. Because it it YOU who is making leaps. Your entire point hinges on "class level = have spell slots, so if I get spell slots another way, I can bypass 'class level'".

Page 7 is quite clear. "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level. "

Your level 1 Faustian Pact wizard with CL boosters to 17 is not of high enough class level.

You got to this false conclusion of yours by a logic leap that makes you think "see chapter 3 for details" supercedes "must be of high enough class level". As opposed to what it says, which is that chapter 3 contains the specific details of which class level is required.

If it's in reference to Precocious Apprentice, having your level be high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells can mean...having a class level that enables you to cast 2nd level spells. Otherwise, if anything, under the absolutist interpretation that line would hint at a universal minimum level requirement rather than a minimum class level requirement.

Precocious Apprentice is explicitly available to only 2 classes, wizard and sorcerer. Those have different minimum class level for respective spell levels, so your insistence that some "universal minimum level requirement" is nonsensical.

Furthermore, Precocious Apprentice is a Specific Rule that overrides the General rules on page 7 and 171. There are specific clauses in that feat that say so.

Faustian Pact spell slot does not possess this exemption phrasing.

Alternately, since the prereqs have already established "arcane caster level" and "level" is used as a byword for "arcane caster level" later on, "level" here might simply mean caster level and not class level.

Another leap by you. The RAW always say "caster level" when they mean caster level.

While I agree that "level" is used in so many connotations (class, caster, spell) that it can be confusing to talk about, the actual text does not ever use "level" as shorthand for "caster level".

So...no.

So there you go, even less reason why that would be addressed in that section instead of the section that deals with caster level and spellcasting. And as I said, there would be no reason for them to include such a clause when there was no situation in Core or in the splatbooks published at that time where it would be relevant, making it a case of interpretation based on the rules that do exist. You want to say munchkin fallacy, I say anti-munchkin fallacy -- absence of prior mention doesn't mean exclusion when it does appear.

PHB pg 171: "In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other
special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that
adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as
range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level
check to overcome your target’s spell resistance (see Spell Resistance,
page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both
the dispel check and the DC of the check)."

That is a distinct list of what things CL adjustments apply to.

There is no exemption clause like Precocious Apprentice that allows casting of higher level spells.

Dude, I know you think you've stumbled onto some kind of amazing thing, but you haven't found the new "drown healing". Your hypothesis is not as in keeping with RAW as you claim, because of how many times you need to make assumptions. Assumptions which result in you then flat-out ignoring the very clause in the text you used as a base to make those assumptions.

General Rules always apply unless exemption clauses create a specific exception. Faustian Pact doesn't NEED to re-iterate how it affects PHB pg 7 and 171 unless it was allowing a violation of those rules. Since no exemption clause exists, no exception exists.

[Elves]

You got to this false conclusion of yours by a logic leap that makes you think "see chapter 3 for details" supercedes "must be of high enough class level".

I've pointed out multiple times that this is not what I'm saying. I don't think there's any supersession, I think there is a general principle stated and then we learn how that principle operates. The other reading rests on a clause that's absent from the text.

Another leap by you. The RAW always say "caster level" when they mean caster level.

Later in that very same paragraph "level" is used to mean "caster level":
"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." It relies on first establishing caster level, and similarly the prereq clause "arcane caster level 1st" could be the primer for the earlier sentence.

But as said in my post that's not my primary reading or the one I'm arguing for.

Dude, I know you think you've stumbled onto some kind of amazing thing, but you haven't found the new "drown healing".

I'm just trying to follow the logic to the end. It remains doubtful whether there even is a way to reach the required minimum CL which severely limits this as a practical optimization trick.

(It's not like this is a new argument either.)

Faustian Pact doesn't NEED to re-iterate how it affects PHB pg 7 and 171 unless it was allowing a violation of those rules.

PHB 7 and RC 133 lay out the rules. Then Faustian pact comes out, so we fit it into the matrix of rules that have been established. That's how rules work. I'm in agreement that it's still subject to minimum CL, so it comes back to how the PH page 7 quote is interpreted. I've detailed my interpretation of it.


I appreciate that you've been willing to keep discussing this. At this point I've basically said what I have to say about it. Clearly you aren't convinced. I think what I've said makes sense. Maybe other people will read this and make up their minds.

[RedMage125]

I've pointed out multiple times that this is not what I'm saying. I don't think there's any supersession, I think there is a general principle stated and then we learn how that principle operates. The other reading rests on a clause that's absent from the text.

Except that the clause you claim to be "missing" is dependent on a number of independent variables, such as which class you are talking about and which spell level you would like to cast. Ergo, all of that is covered under "see chapter 3 for details".

So for what you are saying to be valid, you would have to be either flat-out ignoring the text saying "must be of high enough class level", or claiming that what you have inferred from chapter 3 permits you to circumvent that restriction based solely on the idea that your inference of the specifics supercedes the general rule.

That's why I keep harping on it.

Later in that very same paragraph "level" is used to mean "caster level":
"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." It relies on first establishing caster level, and similarly the prereq clause "arcane caster level 1st" could be the primer for the earlier sentence.

"This" is a singular demonstrative pronoun. Earlier in the same sentence, "caster level" was specified, and no other form of the word "level" (such as class or spell) has been used.

Grammatically, it is unnecessary to re-iterate in the same sentence "caster level". It is redundant. After saying it once, and following with "this level", having no break of a period to indicate a separate sentence, it is actually quite clear that only "caster level" is indicated.

That's just how grammar works, and if you're going to claim things about the RAW, understanding of grammar and syntax helps. Much like how I previously had to point out that people could not dismiss one clause of Domain Wizard's text as "fluff" when it was a second clause connected to another (which is also rules text), and separated by a semicolon. 2 independent clauses separated by a semicolon indicates that both are of equal weight and importance.

Likewise, understanding that the word "this" is a singluar demonstrative pronoun means that it can only mean the indicated "level" mentioned earlier in the sentence, which is only "caster level".

Sometimes I forget that not everyone remembers all this stuff about syntax from grade school.

But as said in my post that's not my primary reading or the one I'm arguing for.

I'm starting to have trouble discerning what, in fact, you are arguing for. Because you will say that you acknolwedge that one must have sufficient class levels in order to cast spells of a given spell level, but then claim your Faustian Pact idea has RAW support. These are mutually exclusive statements.

I'm just trying to follow the logic to the end. It remains doubtful whether there even is a way to reach the required minimum CL which severely limits this as a practical optimization trick.

(It's not like this is a new argument either.)

Even if you made the Faustian Pact for a L2 spell, and used magic items (well outside the WBL for a level 1 wizard) to boost your CL to 3, you still would not be able to cast a L2 spell.

Unless you also had Precocious Apprentice. Then you would be able to prepare that PA spell again, following the same restirctions as imposed by PA, meaning a DC 8 Spellcraft check must be made. If you were also an EGW, you'd be able to prepare it 3 times.

And the "Leapfrog Wizard" isn't new, either. Sometimes, people who come up with these "optimization tricks" are wrong. They missed a detail somewhere in the RAW that prevents the trick from working. I say this, looking at RAW through the same lens that says "drown healing" is a true thing.

PHB 7 and RC 133 lay out the rules. Then Faustian pact comes out, so we fit it into the matrix of rules that have been established. That's how rules work. I'm in agreement that it's still subject to minimum CL, so it comes back to how the PH page 7 quote is interpreted. I've detailed my interpretation of it.

The problem is that your interpretation of PHB page 7 manages to fly directly in the face of the only thing that sentence even says.

Look, if your interpretation was true by RAW, you could answer this question.

How is "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.)" a true statement in your interpretation? Your level 1 wizard with CL boosts to get his CL up to 17. If what you said is at all in accordance with RAW, you will have a way to explain how it is still true in your interpretation. Which you have not done, by any means.

That means no switching clauses around. No twisting words to say "having high enough class level actually means just have a spell slot, so only the spell slot is important", because that means you're disregarding the words in the text itself.

So please. How is the text still true in your interpretation?

I appreciate that you've been willing to keep discussing this. At this point I've basically said what I have to say about it. Clearly you aren't convinced. I think what I've said makes sense. Maybe other people will read this and make up their minds.

I always love a good debate. Especially when I can cite sources and prove what I'm arguing for empirically. But seriously, I too, appreciate that you have not stormed off in a silent huff (like another poster), nor has this degenerated into personal attacks or baseless claims of such (you know, when people act like a victim for no reason). I've seen too much of that, and I always appreciate a bracing debate that does not feature such.

I am not convinced because your whole point claims to be "true by RAW", but hinges on claiming the RAW is "incomplete", when the very clause you suggest is missing is, in fact, just begging a question. Begging several, actually, because there are 2 independent variables of such an answer ("which class?" and "which level of spell?"). Then the conclusion you come to is mutually exclusive with the words of the very text you say "needs to say more". Just because you think it could be more clear does not mean you can derive a conclusion that runs directly contrary to what the RAW do say.

[Elves]

Look, if your interpretation was true by RAW, you could answer this question.

How is "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.)" a true statement in your interpretation? Your level 1 wizard with CL boosts to get his CL up to 17. If what you said is at all in accordance with RAW, you will have a way to explain how it is still true in your interpretation.

It's true in that, as I've been saying, it functions as a descriptive or referential statement and not actually as a rules-primary imperative. What has to be true is the rules it refers us to. In this scenario, those referred rules remain true.

(And as an aside, notice that the contextual function of this sentence, which is in the section "Abilities and Spellcasters", is simply to establish that a sufficient ability score isn't the only requirement for casting spells of a given level -- not to lay down comprehensive rules for levels and spellcasting, which is why it refers us to them.)

That means no switching clauses around.

Kind of odd that you would make grammatical arguments and then act as if clause switching that sentence changes its meaning.

[RedMage125]

It's true in that, as I've been saying, it functions as a descriptive or referential statement and not actually as a rules-primary imperative. What has to be true is the rules it refers us to. In this scenario, those referred rules remain true.

(And as an aside, notice that the contextual function of this sentence, which is in the section "Abilities and Spellcasters", is simply to establish that a sufficient ability score isn't the only requirement for casting spells of a given level -- not to lay down comprehensive rules for levels and spellcasting, which is why it refers us to them.)

You have no authority to declare that text "not a rule". In this, your argument is no stronger than the claim I mentioned previously about how some people would dismiss rules text as "fluff, not rules" so that they could violate the RAW.

That sentence very clearly says the word "must", ergo it is a rules-primary imperative. "Must" means that it is a requirement. Furthermore, we are referred to Chapter 3, not for the actual rules, but for "details". That is, to say, the specifics of what this statement is saying. Because this statement about posessing class levels is, itself, a rule. The details of which vary depending on which class and which spell level one is discussing. What do you know? The text says exactly that Chapter 3 is where we will find the details.

I find it funny that in your last post, you denied the claim that "must be of a high enough class level" was superceded by your extrapolation and interpretation of what is Chapter 3, but in this post, you straight-up cop to it. You are literally saying that "chapter 3 is the rules" and that the sentence on page 7 is just a "referential statement". Which, again, is a claim about the text that you have no authority to declare. And is thus not true. A grammatical and syntaxical assessment of the paragraph does not yield the result you claim. You are dismissing the words of rules text because they prevent a conclusion you would like to be true.

Furthermore, your hypothesis still fails to meet the requirement of this statement, even if you want to dismiss it as "descriptive", because your hypothesized scenario does not have sufficient class levels to cast a L9 spell.

And on top of all of that, an analysis of Chapter 3 doesn't even yield the result which you claim. Saying that "class level equals spell slots so therefore only spell slots are relevant and actual class level is not" is not even a coherent reading of Chapter 3. It's a rather large leap of logic, well away from what the RAW actually say, and it takes Munchkin Fallacy to a whole new level. Nothing in the text, not in the PHB, not in the RC, and not in the FC2 where Faustian pacts are found, says that "having a spell slot of spell level X" equals "able to cast spells of spell level X". You are making inferences and assumptions not supported by the text.

Your reading of the text is incorrect. No coherent reading can interpret a use of the word "must" as anything other than a requirement.

Your hypothesis about a level 1 wizard with a Faustian Pact for a L9 slot being able to cast a L9 spell is incorrect.

Kind of odd that you would make grammatical arguments and then act as if clause switching that sentence changes its meaning.

It doesn't, but your earlier statement seemed to imply that YOU thought it had an impact.

[HouseRules]

The context is Versatile Spellcasting and Wizard Spell Known.

It kind of does.

Versatile Spellcasters requires you to use two slots of the same level to "cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

Wizards do not have spells that they know, because they are not spontaneous spellcasters.

The rules draw a very specific distinction between prepared and spontaneous casters in this way. You can note that the wizard class table lacks the spells known section as is found in sorcerer and bard and all other spontaneous casting classes.

You can also see this distinction in other places, such as prestige classes that advance spellcasting:



Additionally, a cleric and druid's ability to give up a prepared spell in place of a cure or summon nature's ally is also not spontaneous casting. It's spontaneous conversion. The same applies to a wizard who takes the Spontaneous Divination alternate class feature.

Wizard do have spell known. It's just that they have to spend a feat to convert a spell in their spellbook to become a spell known.

Spell Mastery

[Special]

You are so intimately familiar with certain spells that you don't need a spellbook to prepare them anymore.
Prerequisite

Wizard level 1,
Required for

Familiar Spell (Und) , Uncanny Forethought (EE) ,
Benefit

Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.
Normal

Without this feat, you must use a spellbook to prepare all your spells, except read magic.

Since wizards always have read magic as a spell known, they could versatile spellcaster a metamagic version of that.
Also, read magic is required to copy scrolls into your spellbook; otherwise, you will cast the scroll.
Read magic is also needed to prepare spells from spellbooks that your character have not written in.

[Elves]

You have no authority to declare that text "not a rule". In this, your argument is no stronger than the claim I mentioned previously about how some people would dismiss rules text as "fluff, not rules" so that they could violate the RAW.

I used the word "function" for a reason -- it *functions* as a descriptive/referential statement, because it isn't able to function, grammatically, in any other way.

You want it to mean something to the effect of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level that their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level", in which case, and only in which case, the "details" we're instructed to find would simply be those table entries.

But that interpretation contains added imputation by you that is not part of the rules text.

If the text didn't make sense otherwise, that inference or imputation would be justified.

But in fact the text functions just fine the way it is -- as a descriptive or referential statement.

I find it funny that in your last post, you denied the claim that "must be of a high enough class level" was superceded by your extrapolation and interpretation of what is Chapter 3, but in this post, you straight-up cop to it. You are literally saying that "chapter 3 is the rules" and that the sentence on page 7 is just a "referential statement".

It's not superseded because it doesn't specify anything coherent in the first place. It's a broad statement that is then detailed.

It's also accurate in all but very rare edge cases, and is true throughout Core, so it seems like a reasonable sentence to print. But call it supersession if you like; doesn't change what I said in the paragraph above.

Nothing in the text, not in the PHB, not in the RC, and not in the FC2 where Faustian pacts are found, says that "having a spell slot of spell level X" equals "able to cast spells of spell level X". You are making inferences and assumptions not supported by the text.

In this case, you're the one making the assumption that there must be an additional restriction. As it happens there is an additional restriction: minimum CL.

[RedMage125]

Wizard do have spell known. It's just that they have to spend a feat to convert a spell in their spellbook to become a spell known.



Since wizards always have read magic as a spell known, they could versatile spellcaster a metamagic version of that.
Also, read magic is required to copy scrolls into your spellbook; otherwise, you will cast the scroll.
Read magic is also needed to prepare spells from spellbooks that your character have not written in.

*sigh*
I suggest you read the rest of the thread. This matter has been closed, and you are incorrect.

Look in the PHB page 310, in the glossary. "Spells known" for a wizard means the spells in their spellbook. ALL of the spells in their spellbook, not just Read Magic. Hell you even quoted the text for the Spell Mastery feat. Did you notice that it says "choose a number of spells...that you already know"? That point, also, wasa brought up before.

I used the word "function" for a reason -- it *functions* as a descriptive/referential statement, because it isn't able to function, grammatically, in any other way.

You want it to mean something to the effect of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level that their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level", in which case, and only in which case, the "details" we're instructed to find would simply be those table entries.

But that interpretation contains added imputation by you that is not part of the rules text.

If the text didn't make sense otherwise, that inference or imputation would be justified.

But in fact the text functions just fine the way it is -- as a descriptive or referential statement.

This is a spurious claim. One you have no authority to make.

There's nothing "missing" from the line on page 7.

"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." is sufficient as a general rule. When you follow to the SPECIFICS of that rule, you can see that " their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level" ends up being what that sentence means, but that does not mean that lacking those words somehow makes it "not a rule".

You have no authority to declare it "not a rule", and one must accept that it it is "not a rule" for your hypothesis to be true.

Ergo, your hypothesis fails to be true by RAW.

It's not superseded because it doesn't specify anything coherent in the first place. It's a broad statement that is then detailed.

It's also accurate in all but very rare edge cases, and is true throughout Core, so it seems like a reasonable sentence to print. But call it supersession if you like; doesn't change what I said in the paragraph above.

"A broad statement that is then detailed" that you follow to a conclusion that ends up COMPLETELY IGNORING the "broad statement" means that you believe your extended inference and interpretation is more significant and rules-weighted than the actual text of the book.

So...yes. Superceded.

In this case, you're the one making the assumption that there must be an additional restriction. As it happens there is an additional restriction: minimum CL.

I didn't think it was necessary to re-iterate that, since your hypothesis also hinged on "somehow get CL boosts to get up to 17". Obviously caster level is also a restriction.

But once again, I contest that even if you could get CL-boosters to get up to 17 you would not be "able to cast L9 spells", because PHB page 171 is quite clear and distinct on what things that CL-adjusting effects apply to. And allowing the casting of spells of a higher level than one has access to was not one of them.

Because if that was true, then a level 6 cleric with the Evil domain who took a Faustian Pact for a L4 spell slot would be able to cast a L4 spell with the [Evil] descriptor 9because his CL would be 7). They cannot. The RAW do not support this.

Everything about your hypothesis hinges on your claim that "the rules don't explictly forbid this"*, which is Munchkin Fallacy. The rules must explicitly say that you can.

*And again, I am telling you that they do, you just ignore it and say "it's not rules, it's a descriptive statement".

BTW, I note you had no response to the fact that I pointed out that the PHB page 7 explicitly using the word "must" shows that it is a rules-imperative statement. Did you think that by glossing over it, I would forget that the point existed? I'll copy/paste it for you:

That sentence very clearly says the word "must", ergo it is a rules-primary imperative. "Must" means that it is a requirement. Furthermore, we are referred to Chapter 3, not for the actual rules, but for "details". That is, to say, the specifics of what this statement is saying. Because this statement about posessing class levels is, itself, a rule. The details of which vary depending on which class and which spell level one is discussing.

You disregard "must be of high enough class level" because it doesn't suit your purposes. Even in your (unauthorized) attempt to denigrate it as "a decriptive statement", it does not acurrately describe your hypothesized "Level 1 wizard with a faustian-Pact L9 spell slot and CL boosters to get CL 17", because that character is not of high enough class level.

Your hypothesis is not true by RAW.

[HouseRules]

Strong Cheese
Wizard 1/Sorcerer 19

Since Wizard and Sorcerer spell list are the same, Sorcerer only need to dip one level in Wizard to get the advantage of a spellbook. Then, they are no longer bounded by their limited spell known.

The context is Versatile Spellcasting and Wizard Spell Known, but then that context was ignored when I said that Wizard does not have any spell known other than read magic.

[RedMage125]

Strong Cheese
Wizard 1/Sorcerer 19

Since Wizard and Sorcerer spell list are the same, Sorcerer only need to dip one level in Wizard to get the advantage of a spellbook. Then, they are no longer bounded by their limited spell known.

Multiclassed characters track each of their spellcasting progressions separately. This is well known. This kind of comment is just trolling the thread, please stop.

EDIT:

The context is Versatile Spellcasting and Wizard Spell Known, but then that context was ignored when I said that Wizard does not have any spell known other than read magic.

It doesn't matter, because you were grossly incorrect, which you would know if you read the thread as I suggested. Read Magic is not a "Spell Known", it is a spell wizards can prepare without a spellbook. Same goes for any spells they take with Spell Mastery.

Here's the quote, since you won't do it yourself:
"known spell: A spell that an arcane spellcaster has learned and
can prepare. For wizards, knowing a spell means having it in their
spellbooks. For sorcerers and bards, knowing a spell means having
selected it when acquiring new spells as a benefit of level
advancement." -PHB, page 310 (Glossary)

So no matter what, your "wizard spells known" are all the spells in your spellbook. Which you would know if you read the rest of the thread, instead of repeating DA's claim that was thoroughly disproven.

And I'm AFB right now, but I am reasonably sure a wizard can only scribe a spell they are capable of casting into their spellbook. So your Wiz1/Sor19 using VS is only able to cast L1 spells from the spellbook that way.

[Elves]

*sigh*"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." is sufficient as a general rule. When you follow to the SPECIFICS of that rule, you can see that " their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level" ends up being what that sentence means...

So you're calling your inference RAW. I still fail to see why you think it's more straightforward to read something demanding inference as its own additional rule when there's so little attestation elsewhere that that rule exists.

For whatever it's worth, I looked through RC and couldn't find any reference to a level req. The closest thing was "provided you’re capable of casting spells of that level", which is certainly referencing minimum CL and need not be referencing anything else.

"A broad statement that is then detailed" that you follow to a conclusion that ends up COMPLETELY IGNORING the "broad statement" means that you believe your extended inference and interpretation is more significant and rules-weighted than the actual text of the book.
[...]
BTW, I note you had no response to the fact that I pointed out that the PHB page 7 explicitly using the word "must" shows that it is a rules-imperative statement. Did you think that by glossing over it, I would forget that the point existed? I'll copy/paste it for you:

That sentence very clearly says the word "must", ergo it is a rules-primary imperative. "Must" means that it is a requirement. Furthermore, we are referred to Chapter 3, not for the actual rules, but for "details".

Given that this equivalence is broken only in bizarre tangential edge cases that weren't in publication at the time, it's a perfectly solid and reasonable way to phrase it, especially in a game that runs on specific over general.

That is, to say, the specifics of what this statement is saying.

Right, agreed.

[RedMage125]

So you're calling your inference RAW. I still fail to see why you think it's more straightforward to read something demanding inference as its own additional rule when there's so little attestation elsewhere that that rule exists.

What "inference"?

Saying "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." is a rule is not infering anything. I was simply agreeing that your words of " their class has a numerical slot entry for spells of that level" is a useful shorthand to sum up what that rules means as far as it applies to the specific details found in chapter 3. That doesn't make it "my inference". However, what you cut out, which was the most significant clause of that paragraph, is that the lack of your suggestion does not make that sentence "not a rule". And also that you have no authority to declare it "not a rule".

See, you are the one who made an inference that is not in the text. It is you claiming that when the text says "see chapter 3 for details" means that "high enough level = has spell slots of that level", which is understanding, so that's not the problem. The problem is that you up and decided for yourself, with no backing from the text, no rules whatsoever, that "if I can get a spell slot of that level from another source, that's the only thing that matters, and I can cast L9 spells as long as I boost my CL". Which means, you are now violating the words of the very text you used as a pretext to justify this inference to begin with.

And it's something that you have no proof to claim.

Likewise, you have no rule citation to support the idea that CL adjustments allow you to bypass that, either. The PHB and RC both provide a distinct list of what CL adjustments apply to. Your suggested use is not on that list. So...Munchkin Fallacy.

For whatever it's worth, I looked through RC and couldn't find any reference to a level req. The closest thing was "provided you’re capable of casting spells of that level", which is certainly referencing minimum CL and need not be referencing anything else.

"Lack of rule saying no" =/= "rules saying yes". Munchkin Fallacy.

Also, the existence of the RC doesn't mean that "there are no rules found only in the PHB".

Given that this equivalence is broken only in bizarre tangential edge cases that weren't in publication at the time, it's a perfectly solid and reasonable way to phrase it, especially in a game that runs on specific over general.

And yet your hypothesis completely and utterly lacks specific rules to override the general ones. That's why I keep citing Precocious Apprentice, because when a Specific Rule overrides a General one, it uses language that says so explicitly. Your hypothesis lacks such text.

Furthermore, the fact that later publications said something that provides additional options later doesn't suddenly make "must be of high enough class level" suddenly "no longer a rule".

Face it, any grammatical analysis of the text in the PHB says that page 7 is a rule that lays down a hard statement making the casting of higher spell levels restricted to individuals with high enough class levels.

Right, agreed.

How are you "agreeing"? You're claim requires me to think that the details found in chapter 3 (and the inference you drew from that) makes the general statement "not a rule at all".

[tstewt1921]

Elves get 4 bonus feats, humans only get one. And an elf should never be ashamed about exercising that option, because WOTC made it abundantly clear that they're alone in the world.

Can you please explain how???? Cause I will be playing an elf from here on out if this is actually possible?

[Doctor Awkward]

Can you please explain how???? Cause I will be playing an elf from here on out if this is actually possible?

I think he's talking about the Martial Weapon proficiency that all elves get: rapier, longsword, longbow, shortbow.

[tstewt1921]

I think he's talking about the Martial Weapon proficiency that all elves get: rapier, longsword, longbow, shortbow.

Ahh...well that's.....underwhelming

[Elves]

You use two spells from Fiendish Codex to swap those out for any feats you want. Look up "dark chaos shuffle".

Unfortunately it's not a low level option, since you need to locate a 15th level cleric or wizard, and it costs about 5k for each feat you swap.

(You probably will also need to pay the costs for the wizard learning the two spells. Cleric is easier, but make sure not to ask a lawful cleric since the spells are chaotic. Note however that the spells are not evil.)

Once you can access a high enough level caster, 20k for any four feats is an incredible deal. So join the chaos elf train.

[tstewt1921]

You use two spells from Fiendish Codex to swap those out for any feats you want. Look up "dark chaos shuffle".

Unfortunately it's not a low level option, since you need to locate a 15th level cleric or wizard, and it costs about 5k for each feat you swap.

(You probably will also need to pay the costs for the wizard learning the two spells. Cleric is easier, but make sure not to ask a lawful cleric since the spells are chaotic. Note however that the spells are not evil.)

Once you can access a high enough level caster, 20k for any four feats is an incredible deal. So join the chaos elf train.

I myself as a DM wouldn't count them as "feats" for my game and I'm sure our other DM wouldn't count them as "feats" that can be traded due to it coming with the race. Normally myself or our other DM wouldn't allow those spells as we don't play highly optimized builds with our groups. But I definitely get where it can be used for builds.

[Doctor Awkward]

I myself as a DM wouldn't count them as "feats" for my game and I'm sure our other DM wouldn't count them as "feats" that can be traded due to it coming with the race. Normally myself or our other DM wouldn't allow those spells as we don't play highly optimized builds with our groups. But I definitely get where it can be used for builds.

This is one of those theoretical fuzzy areas that usually doesn't fly at tables.

By the Rules As Written. There is nothing wrong with this.

The spells have no limitations on which feats the character may give up in exchange for Abyssal heritor feats. Feats provided by you race are functionally identical in all respects to ordinary feats, and for all rules purposes are treated as such unless they explicitly say otherwise.

The intention of the feats is in no way clear. It's entirely possibly (and very likely) that the designers never even considered racial feats when they wrote those spells. And it is "gaming the system" in every sense of the term, both in the sense of abstract character statistics and tinkering with the forces of chaos and evil for personal gain.

But this trick is explicitly permitted by the Rules As Written, and the Fiendish Codex is hardly an obscure resource. I personally allow the spells when I run games, but make certain the players are aware of the consequences of their actions and that evil outsiders take note when either of these spells are cast.

[tstewt1921]

But this trick is explicitly permitted by the Rules As Written, and the Fiendish Codex is hardly an obscure resource. I personally allow the spells when I run games, but make certain the players are aware of the consequences of their actions and that evil outsiders take note when either of these spells are cast.

Ooo I like that, I'm sure when I'm a player if I pulled it I would have to end up dealing with some kind of demon or something to that extent, would make an interesting character arch that's for sure.

[Elves]

My original "they need to take every advantage they can get" comment was more of a joke. Would I try this in a real game? No, because a live RPG is a social experience where there's nothing to really win by ultra-optimizing.

As DM I'd be open to it — as always it's just about whether it can be done in a way where no one feels one person's being favored.

I do like situations like this or rainbow warsnake where an accident creates fun opportunities.

There's a similar case where the Feat chapter in the PHB alleges certain classes get certain armor proficiency feats, but I doubt that holds up RAW since it's not primary source for those classes.

Ooo I like that, I'm sure when I'm a player if I pulled it I would have to end up dealing with some kind of demon or something to that extent, would make an interesting character arch that's for sure.

In a 3.5 dedicated setting I would totally use elf chaos shuffle as the basis for a history of elves using Abyssal and demonic energies to empower themselves.

[RedMage125]

I myself as a DM wouldn't count them as "feats" for my game and I'm sure our other DM wouldn't count them as "feats" that can be traded due to it coming with the race. Normally myself or our other DM wouldn't allow those spells as we don't play highly optimized builds with our groups. But I definitely get where it can be used for builds.

If the Elf racial entry had said "Elves are proficient with these weapons" you would be correct. However...

Weapon Proficiency: Elves receive the Martial Weapon Proficiency
feats for the longsword, rapier, longbow (including
composite longbow), and shortbow (including composite
shortbow) as bonus feats. Elves esteem the arts of swordplay and
archery, so all elves are familiar with these weapons.

[RedMage125]

So, I was looking at the thread to see if anything new was posted, and something occurred to me...

Under this interpretation, the "leapfrog" combo still wouldn't work because EGW+DW don't give you the necessary spell slots (and there's still the CL issue). Under this interpretation, you could use EGW to double the slot gained through the Faustian pact.

Absolutely not, and you are only thinking that because, like many people, you are thinking that EGW says something like "you get an extra spell slot equal to your highest level spell slot". But it doesn't say that.

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

Much like how the italicized portion came up with regards to the EGW "slot" not "floating", the bolded portion means that until you know and can cast a L9 spell, your extra spell prepared in the morning cannot be a L9 spell.

Again, a level 1 EGW with Precocious Apprentice prepares an extra L2 spell (which must be a second iteration of the spell chosen with the feat). That's the only way to get the EGW bonus higher than L1 at 1st level.

This is one of those theoretical fuzzy areas that usually doesn't fly at tables.

By the Rules As Written. There is nothing wrong with this.

The spells have no limitations on which feats the character may give up in exchange for Abyssal heritor feats. Feats provided by you race are functionally identical in all respects to ordinary feats, and for all rules purposes are treated as such unless they explicitly say otherwise.

The intention of the feats is in no way clear. It's entirely possibly (and very likely) that the designers never even considered racial feats when they wrote those spells. And it is "gaming the system" in every sense of the term, both in the sense of abstract character statistics and tinkering with the forces of chaos and evil for personal gain.

But this trick is explicitly permitted by the Rules As Written, and the Fiendish Codex is hardly an obscure resource. I personally allow the spells when I run games, but make certain the players are aware of the consequences of their actions and that evil outsiders take note when either of these spells are cast.

I'm actually baffled by your acceptance of this, given your opposition to Elves and myself earlier. Unless you have realized you made a mistake before and now recognize that were are correct about Alacritous Cogitation and Versatile Spellcaster . Because it's the same kind of lens that one looks through to see this trick.

Both are perfectly acceptable, given a literal reading of the RAW, but are almost certainly a violation of the RAI, at least it seems that way.

Because that means that AC gives a wizard the prerequisite "ability to spontaneously cast spells" for VS*. And VS does not hinge on language like "one of your spells known" or "spell from your Spells Known List". It says "a spell that you know", using the same text that AC (which is explicitly a wizard feat) uses. So, for example, a Level 6 wizard who has AC and VS may expend 2 L2 spell slots to cast any L3 or lower spell that is in her spellbook.

Is that overpowered? I would say yes. And at my table, I would probably not allow it. But I acknowledge that such is an exercise of my right as a DM to prohibit things at my table.

*And remember, even using the RC quote that you provided, spontaneous spellcasting does not say "must not be able to prepare spells" but rather "has a daily allotment of spells that can be cast without preparation". And Alacritous Cogitation gives a wizard such a daily allotment -of one spell.

Now, if you have recognized that you were mistaken, please say so. I would be happy to drop the matter.

[Elves]

So, I was looking at the thread to see if anything new was posted, and something occurred to me...

Absolutely not, and you are only thinking that because, like many people, you are thinking that EGW says something like "you get an extra spell slot equal to your highest level spell slot". But it doesn't say that.

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.

Much like how the italicized portion came up with regards to the EGW "slot" not "floating", the bolded portion means that until you know and can cast a L9 spell, your extra spell prepared in the morning cannot be a L9 spell.

Notice that the comment is "under [the no absolute minimum level rule] interpretation..."

"Highest spell level" is certainly talking about from your wizard casting. It's poorly worded, as is the line from Faustian pact, but since the pact provides an "additional" spell slot, that slot is probably part of your casting in the class you add it to (which is one of the ways it's different from Precocious Apprentice).

And "know" isn't a problem since the only req for scribing a spell into your spellbook is a trivial Spellcraft check (PHB 179).

[RedMage125]

Notice that the comment is "under [the no absolute minimum level rule] interpretation..."

Which you also have yet to respond about (post #138). You still have no authority to declare it "not a rule". Especially when the inference that you draw from "(see Chapter 3 for details)" gives you a conclusion that completely disregards the sentence that preceded it, which is what you were looking to Chapter 3 for details about.

You interpretation completely abrogates "must be of high enough class level" as if it were not even rules text. Remember, the worst "must" means it's a requirement. And therefore a rule, just as much as "must have high enough ability score" for casting spells of whichever spell level. Because by your hypothesis, that sentence is not even "true as 'descriptive text'", as you claimed it was earlier.

So the sentence on pg 7 being true is mutually exclusive with your hypothesis being true, no matter how you twist it. And since that's RAW, your hypothesis is therefore false.

"Highest spell level" is certainly talking about from your wizard casting. It's poorly worded, as is the line from Faustian pact, but since the pact provides an "additional" spell slot, that slot is probably part of your casting in the class you add it to (which is one of the ways it's different from Precocious Apprentice).

Are you really saying "granted by a Faustian pact" = "granted by class"? Because that would be ridiculous.

The text is different from Precocious Apprentice. But PA explicitly contains text which provides Specific exemption to the rules, covering exemption from both "class level" and "caster level" rules. Since the text you claim for support is different and that difference is the lack of exemption text, the RAW does not support your hypothesis that this is an exemption to the rule.

That was easy.

And "know" isn't a problem since the only req for scribing a spell into your spellbook is a trivial Spellcraft check (PHB 179).

Right. I wasn't sure earlier, but there's no minimum level for scribing a spell into your spellbook. Still, for a L9 spell, that would be a DC24 check, and even with a 20 INT that's only a 30% chance of success (15 or higher on the die) at level 1 (4 ranks + 5 INT =+9 modifier). And if you fail, you can't try again until you level up.

Doesn't matter even if you make the check and learn the spell anyway, though, because even if you have the WBL-breaking resources to get CL boosters to get yourself to CL 17 (and again, that assumes your DM is kind enough to ignore the Munchkin Fallacy Goodness that allows CL-adjustments to matter in this instance), you still do not have "high enough class level" to cast it.