Rainbow Warmage combo does not work by RAW

[Chronos]

On the 6/10 casting vs 10/10 casting question, my take is that "Text Trumps Table" is meant to address situations where a table only gives the name of an ability, or a brief summary, because there's not room for the full description. It's not meant to cover cases where there's a typo in one of them. When two sources conflict, and one has a typo, you should always use the one that doesn't have the typo.

And of the two, it's pretty clear that it's the text, not the table, that has the typo. The class is described in multiple places as being only moderate casting. Most translations of the book into other languages use the table version. It'd be harder for the writers to have made a mistake on the table (they'd have noticed it and fixed it) than in the text. And the exact levels where the Rainbow Servant doesn't gain spells, according to the table, are when it gains significant other benefits.

[Crake]

No, it's specifically the ability to cast spells of a particular level:

Again, that line is in context of gaining bonus spell slots.

It doesn't say that that is the only way to gain access to higher level spells, merely that that is the only way to qualify for bonus spell slots.

[Darg]

Again, that line is in context of gaining bonus spell slots.

It doesn't say that that is the only way to gain access to higher level spells, merely that that is the only way to qualify for bonus spell slots.

I don't see how that's even possible as a reading. The section is talking about both bonus spells and the ability to cast spells. Limiting it to only bonus spells is ignoring the context, not including it. You need both levels and the appropriate ability score to cast spells of a particular level and benefit from bonus spells.

It doesn't say you gain access to spells, it's saying you simply can't cast if you don't have either qualifications. The examples in the PHB make it clear that it governs both the calculation of bonus spells and the ability to cast spells.

[Crake]

I don't see how that's even possible as a reading. The section is talking about both bonus spells and the ability to cast spells. Limiting it to only bonus spells is ignoring the context, not including it. You need both levels and the appropriate ability score to cast spells of a particular level and benefit from bonus spells.

It doesn't say you gain access to spells, it's saying you simply can't cast if you don't have either qualifications. The examples in the PHB make it clear that it governs both the calculation of bonus spells and the ability to cast spells.

It also doesn't use exclusive language, meaning it's not limiting access to spells via only that way.

It also seems a bit redundant to say "you can only cast spells when your class lets you cast the spells", but on the other hand it's much more understandable to say "you don't get bonus spell slots for spell levels which you can't cast yet", because, especially with metamagic involved, it's understandable to think that a new player might assume "oh, I get a bonus 2nd level spell slot for my 15 int, which lets me cast a +1 metamagic 1st level spell at level 1". In that context, I think it's very apparent that the text so often cited is specifically making sure people understand they can't get 9th level spell slots at level 1 even if they have 28 in their spellcasting ability somehow.

[Darg]

It also doesn't use exclusive language, meaning it's not limiting access to spells via only that way.

It also seems a bit redundant to say "you can only cast spells when your class lets you cast the spells", but on the other hand it's much more understandable to say "you don't get bonus spell slots for spell levels which you can't cast yet", because, especially with metamagic involved, it's understandable to think that a new player might assume "oh, I get a bonus 2nd level spell slot for my 15 int, which lets me cast a +1 metamagic 1st level spell at level 1". In that context, I think it's very apparent that the text so often cited is specifically making sure people understand they can't get 9th level spell slots at level 1 even if they have 28 in their spellcasting ability somehow.

How is it redundant when it's the only place in the rules where it's stated directly? Class level grants the ability to cast spells of a given level, not just grants access to secondary attributes that give you the mechanical tools to do so.

Either way, let's say your understanding is true and versatile spellcaster does indeed grant you the ability to cast a higher level spell. How does that not overwrite the class level rule when the rule only stipulates that the class is relevant because that is what is tied to the ability to cast levels of spells. If you're a level 1 wizard with 34 intelligence and versatile spellcaster you are "of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of" 2nd level. Thus you get bonus spells of 2nd level, which allows you to cast 3rd level spells, qualifies you for 3rd level bonus spells, etc. All the way up to 9ths.

As you can see if class level is not relevant to the ability to cast spells of a particular level and just gives access, things get out of hand really quickly.

[Crake]

How is it redundant when it's the only place in the rules where it's stated directly? Class level grants the ability to cast spells of a given level, not just grants access to secondary attributes that give you the mechanical tools to do so.

It's redundant, because class levels granting the ability to cast spells is stated in the class descriptions.

The only point where it becomes pertinent under ability scores, is for bonus spell slots, because it's not written anywhere else that bonus spell slots are limited to spell levels that are granted by your class levels.

Either way, let's say your understanding is true and versatile spellcaster does indeed grant you the ability to cast a higher level spell. How does that not overwrite the class level rule when the rule only stipulates that the class is relevant because that is what is tied to the ability to cast levels of spells. If you're a level 1 wizard with 34 intelligence and versatile spellcaster you are "of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of" 2nd level. Thus you get bonus spells of 2nd level, which allows you to cast 3rd level spells, qualifies you for 3rd level bonus spells, etc. All the way up to 9ths.

As you can see if class level is not relevant to the ability to cast spells of a particular level and just gives access, things get out of hand really quickly.

Because versatile spellcaster is not a function of your class.

You can have the ability to cast 3rd level spells at 3rd level thanks to versatile spellcaster, but your class level only allows you to cast 2nd level spells, ergo, your bonus spell slots are limited to 2nd level spell slots.

[Darg]

It's redundant, because class levels granting the ability to cast spells is stated in the class descriptions.

Where? It's only inferred from class tables. And if class tables are a statement, versatile spellcaster doesn't change a - to a 0.

The only point where it becomes pertinent under ability scores, is for bonus spell slots, because it's not written anywhere else that bonus spell slots are limited to spell levels that are granted by your class levels.

If you read the whole section it pertains to both bonus spells and the ability to cast spells. As such, the entire sentence pertaining to the ability to cast spells includes the limitations of ability score and class level.

Because versatile spellcaster is not a function of your class.

You can have the ability to cast 3rd level spells at 3rd level thanks to versatile spellcaster, but your class level only allows you to cast 2nd level spells, ergo, your bonus spell slots are limited to 2nd level spell slots.

No one said a feat was the function of the class, but if specific trumps general then it must apply in all relevant areas it could apply, including bonus spells. If as you said that the rule I pointed out does not in fact determine what level you get the ability to cast spells of a particular level then nowhere states such a rule (except in examples in reference to such a rule). Class descriptions don't state that class level determines your ability to cast spells, just the levels at which you gain spell slots and spells known and that by table. Thus by process of elimination your interpretation means that the ability to cast 9th level spells is simply a function of having the spells feature. Thus a 1st level caster would have the ability to cast 9th level spells if they had access by other means. Thus they are "of high enough class level."

[Crake]

but if specific trumps general then it must apply in all relevant areas it could apply, including bonus spells.

Disagree, specific trumps general, in specifically the ways it states. Trying to apply degrees of separation to rules will lead you down a very dirty rabbit hole of rules interpretations.

Versatile spellcaster grants you the ability to spend 2 spell slots to cast a spell 1 level higher, it makes no mention of altering the existing rules of anything else, including the rules on bonus spell slots, and so it does not.

[Darg]

Disagree, specific trumps general, in specifically the ways it states. Trying to apply degrees of separation to rules will lead you down a very dirty rabbit hole of rules interpretations.

Versatile spellcaster grants you the ability to spend 2 spell slots to cast a spell 1 level higher, it makes no mention of altering the existing rules of anything else, including the rules on bonus spell slots, and so it does not.

No no, you're right. I should be able to apply single metamagics more than once to the same spell because the rule that prevents applying single metamagic feats more than once to a spell isn't part of the feat and is thus altered by the lack of mention.

Doesn't make sense right? It's the same argument that has to be made for versatile spellcaster. X feat says you can do Y even though general rule Z says you can't do that. X doesn't mention Z and thus Y has exception status over conflict with Z. This argument is perfectly sound until you realize that sometimes Y doesn't have to come into conflict with Z and both can coexist without violating either. Versatile spellcaster's description is still true even if it does not grant you the ability to cast higher level spells than what your class level normally allows. You can metamagic spells and not make empowered empowered spells. Is a rule always an exception if it doesn't have to be? Based on evidence littered throughout the rules and common sense I argue it is not.

A perfect example of this is metabreath feats:

A dragon can use the same metabreath feat multiple times on the same breath. In some cases, this has no additional effects. In other cases, the feat’s effects are stackable. Apply the feat’s effect to the base values for the breath weapon once for each time the feat is applied and add up the extra time the dragon must wait before breathing again. For example, a Small dragon with a line-shaped breath weapon could use Enlarge Breath twice on the same breath. Since the base length of the line is 40 feet, the doubly enlarged line would become 80 feet long (20 extra feet per application of the feat), and the dragon would have to wait 1d4+2 rounds before breathing again.
If a metabreath feat stacks with itself, this fact will be
noted in the Special section of the feat description.

That last line does not have to conflict with the given example at all. Never does it say that applying a single metabreath more than once is "stacking" except in that line. The single metabreath that "stacks" has an effect where if it's effect were applied separately and added up as instructed it would have no additional effect as many others would. So it's given a stacking rule to allow it to benefit from applying the metabreath more than once. Thus if "stacking" is limited to a category of metabreaths that would otherwise not benefit from applying the feat more than once, but is given a specific exception to benefit from the multiple applications, then there is no conflict whatsoever.

[Crake]

No no, you're right. I should be able to apply single metamagics more than once to the same spell because the rule that prevents applying single metamagic feats more than once to a spell isn't part of the feat and is thus altered by the lack of mention.

Doesn't make sense right?

It doesn't make sense because that's the complete opposite of what I said.

I said, if a feat makes no mention of changing the base rule, then you don't infer extra changes. You did the literal opposite here. Terrible strawman.

[Darg]

It doesn't make sense because that's the complete opposite of what I said.

I said, if a feat makes no mention of changing the base rule, then you don't infer extra changes. You did the literal opposite here. Terrible strawman.

Except my interpretation doesn't rely on any changed rule other than the one you think happens with versatile spellcaster. You think it does, but it doesn't. At all. I've broken it down several times already. I've pointed out multiple flaws with your argument and you call them strawmen just so you don't have to address the issues with your argument. Calling something a strawman without say how they are strawman is a simple dismissal. If you aren't willing to actually discuss anything we aren't having a discussion.

[Crake]

Except my interpretation doesn't rely on any changed rule other than the one you think happens with versatile spellcaster. You think it does, but it doesn't. At all. I've broken it down several times already. I've pointed out multiple flaws with your argument and you call them strawmen just so you don't have to address the issues with your argument. Calling something a strawman without say how they are strawman is a simple dismissal. If you aren't willing to actually discuss anything we aren't having a discussion.

Your issue is that you're trying to attack my interpretation of the rules by looking at extensions of the rule, rather than actually addressing my interpretation of the rule.

We have a fundamental disagreement about what the line you cited actually refers to. You tend to quote just the single sentence:

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.

However, if we look at the whole paragraph it becomes a bit clearer that the context is specifically referring to bonus spell slots:

The ability that governs bonus spells depends on what type of spellcaster your character is: Intelligence for wizards; Wisdom for clerics, druids, paladins, and rangers; or Charisma for sorcerers and bards. In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level.

The disagreement occurs because you take the last sentence in isolation, and address it as a general rule, wheras I take it in context, and address it as part of the rules governing bonus spell slots.

Neither of us is demonstrably right or wrong, but you aren't going to change my mind by randomly galavanting across the rulescape and talking about how the interaction between completely unrelated rules proves you to be right. Especially when you do so in a disingenuous manner that doesnt even come close to accurately representing my statement, to the point where it seems like you're almost deliberately misinterpreting my words.

[Pezzo]

What would happen to an epic character with only 5 levels of trapsmith, arcane disciple and improved spell capacity?

[St Fan]

What would happen to an epic character with only 5 levels of trapsmith, arcane disciple and improved spell capacity?

Well, assuming that Improved Spell Capacity can be applied to a prestige class (which admittedly seems to be RAW), there is one little problem with this combo applied to Trapsmith: it is a spontaneous casting class with a repertoire of spells known.

Improved Spell Capacity only gives you a spell slot (a 4th-level one for Trapsmith) and Arcane Disciple only expands your class list (quote: "You may learn these spells as normal for your class.") Neither can add a spell known to your repertoire, which is how a Trapsmith learn new spells. So, in this case, the 4th-level spell slot couldn't be used with the 4th-level spell granted by arcane disciple, since it cannot be "learnt" for lack of a 4th-level spell known. It can be used with your 3rd-level (or lower) spells known, however.

[Pezzo]

Yeah my bad, let's give him extra spell after that, can he learn the 4th level domain spell?

[St Fan]

Yeah my bad, let's give him extra spell after that, can he learn the 4th level domain spell?

Well, Extra Spell is also limited: it can only give an additional spell known one level below the max spell level the character can cast. So, with spellcaster levels solely in Trapsmith, that max spell level is 3, thus Extra Spell will give an extra spell known of maximum level 2.

Mind you, there is a reading of Extra Spell that points out that this maximum spell level doesn't need to be in the same class; so, if you have the ability to cast spell up to 5th level in another class, you can theoretically use Extra Spell and Arcane Disciple to add a 4th-level spell known to Trapsmith. But, then the combo is a bit of a moot point (since it's better to apply Arcane Disciple to that other class), and there is another often-overlooked rule that the DM can invoke to veto this, namely:

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.

For a prestige class limited to 5 levels and 3rd-level spells, you're out of luck. The trick could be applied to a base class, but there is not much ways to increase a class level beyond its actual class level (as opposed to caster level or spellcaster level). Only method I'm aware of are Bloodline levels.

As a side note, you may notice that Arcane Disciple is pretty useless for spontaneous casters. For Sorcerers at least, there is a much better alternative (Divine Sorcery from Dragon #343).

[Pezzo]

I was asking, because of the RAW argument that you need to be of high enough class level to cast a spell, and the versatile spellcaster thing. If that was true then improved highten spell could not be used to highten a spell beyond 9th level, because there is no class that grants the ability to cast 10th level and higher spells.

[Darg]

However, if we look at the whole paragraph it becomes a bit clearer that the context is specifically referring to bonus spell slots:

The disagreement occurs because you take the last sentence in isolation, and address it as a general rule, wheras I take it in context, and address it as part of the rules governing bonus spell slots.

Neither of us is demonstrably right or wrong, but you aren't going to change my mind by randomly galavanting across the rulescape and talking about how the interaction between completely unrelated rules proves you to be right. Especially when you do so in a disingenuous manner that doesnt even come close to accurately representing my statement, to the point where it seems like you're almost deliberately misinterpreting my words.

Except you're the one taking the paragraph out of context. The paragraph is not talking solely about bonus spell slots, but also a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. I think what is going on here is that you aren't reading the PHB, but rather the SRD which is actually missing the second paragraph.

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

If your character’s ability score is 9 or lower, you can’t cast spells tied to that ability. For example, if Mialee’s Intelligence score dropped to 9 because of a poison that reduces intellect, she would not be able to cast even her simplest spells until cured.

As one can plainly see, it does not only pertain to bonus spell slots, but also the ability to cast spells. The "In addition to having a high ability score" is in reference to the fact that you need a high ability score to even cast spells. The "In addition to" connects the first part of the sentence prior to the comma to the predicate of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." "In addition" adds "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" to the result the predicate dictates.

I was asking, because of the RAW argument that you need to be of high enough class level to cast a spell, and the versatile spellcaster thing. If that was true then improved highten spell could not be used to highten a spell beyond 9th level, because there is no class that grants the ability to cast 10th level and higher spells.

Specific exceptions do exist, like Precocious Apprentice. My argument is about when it isn't specifically an exception, but rather one tangentially caught as a side note. When there is a reading where two rules don't have to conflict, that reading should be the one used because that is the most likely intended way for the rules to be read. Basically, a feat like Versatile Spellcaster is just too broad to be considered more specific than the rule attempted to be overturned.

[Troacctid]

It would be more accurate to say that they gain the ability to APPLY that knowledge.

Honestly, this entire post makes me lean toward rainbow servant NOT working, but versatile spellcaster almost CERTAINLY working.

Take this line: Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list.

Your spell list includes spells ABOVE your normal level. A level 1 mage can still use a wand of scorching ray, because scorching ray is on their spell list, regardless of being able to cast it or not.

Similarly, a level 1 warmage knows even their 9th level spells, they simply lack the capability to cast them. They knowledge isnt sealed away, or locked somehow, its there, and all they need is the power to apply it, which is something that versatile spellcaster provides

The maximum level of spells you can choose with advanced learning is set based on the highest level of spell that you know, not the highest level of spell that you can cast. Your reading here would result in that restriction being dysfunctional; if you know 9th-level spells starting at level 1, what is the intent of that line supposed to be?

Advanced Learning (Ex): At 3rd, 6th, 11th, and 16th level, a warmage can add a new spell to his list, representing the result of personal study and experimentation. The spell must be a wizard spell of the evocation school, and of a level no higher than that of the highest-level spell the warmage already knows. Once a new spell is selected, it is forever added to that warmage's spell list and can be cast just like any other spell on the warmage's list.

I mean, it is a fairly mild dysfunction, as far as these things go, so it's not as if it actually breaks anything, but it is pretty weird, and it does have a big impact on the level 3 advanced learning in particular.

[RedMage125]

As for VS, it depends on how you interpret "gains access". Does it mean actually gaining the appropriate class level? Does it mean having a spell slot of that new spell level? Or does VS itself count as a form of access? (You still need to CL boost so you can cast a spell of the higher level.) I lean toward gaining access meaning gaining a spell slot of that level, but the other two readings are plausible.

We've been over this before, Elves. It means class level (or effective class level, in the case of PrCs that improve spellcasting). Having a spell slot through some other, bizarre means (like a Faustian Pact) is not sufficient to cast spells spell of that level.

Once again, things that provide an adjustment to Caster Level ONLY affect the things listed on page 171 of the PHB (effects based on caster level like range, duration, and damage; CL for overcoming SR; and CL for Dispel checks). It does not allow you to cast spells higher than your class level allows.

That said, VS is still useful to a Warmage, but not to cast spells above their level. If a level 6 Warmage with VS is out of L3 spell slots, he may use 2 L2 slots to cast fireball.

Except you're the one taking the paragraph out of context. The paragraph is not talking solely about bonus spell slots, but also a spellcaster's ability to cast spells. I think what is going on here is that you aren't reading the PHB, but rather the SRD which is actually missing the second paragraph.



As one can plainly see, it does not only pertain to bonus spell slots, but also the ability to cast spells. The "In addition to having a high ability score" is in reference to the fact that you need a high ability score to even cast spells. The "In addition to" connects the first part of the sentence prior to the comma to the predicate of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." "In addition" adds "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" to the result the predicate dictates.



Specific exceptions do exist, like Precocious Apprentice. My argument is about when it isn't specifically an exception, but rather one tangentially caught as a side note. When there is a reading where two rules don't have to conflict, that reading should be the one used because that is the most likely intended way for the rules to be read. Basically, a feat like Versatile Spellcaster is just too broad to be considered more specific than the rule attempted to be overturned.

My God, thank you for finally posting the whole text. I was spooling myself up as I read all of Crake's "interpretation". This is exactly what I was about to say, to include mention of Precocious Apprentice, and what Specific exemption text looks like.

Because (and this came up in a thread with the same OP about 4 years ago), a spellcaster with both Precocious Apprentice and Versatile Spellcaster is able to burn 2 L1 spell slots to cast their PA spell a second time.

Also (to further support your point), check out PHB 171. Things that adjust Caster Level ONLY affect certain factors. And "caster level minimum to cast a spell of a given level" isn't one of them. That means that a level 9 wizard who takes Mage Slayer (-4 Caster Level), can still cast their level 5 spells. But the damage, range, duration, SR rolls and Dispel check rolls will be as if CL was 5.

[St Fan]

We've been over this before, Elves. It means class level (or effective class level, in the case of PrCs that improve spellcasting). Having a spell slot through some other, bizarre means (like a Faustian Pact) is not sufficient to cast spells spell of that level.

Once again, things that provide an adjustment to Caster Level ONLY affect the things listed on page 171 of the PHB (effects based on caster level like range, duration, and damage; CL for overcoming SR; and CL for Dispel checks). It does not allow you to cast spells higher than your class level allows.

That said, VS is still useful to a Warmage, but not to cast spells above their level. If a level 6 Warmage with VS is out of L3 spell slots, he may use 2 L2 slots to cast fireball.

You are quite correct; there are plenty tricks that can increase caster level, but they only affect what you listed and not class level.

As I mentioned above, the only thing to my knowledge that can increase class level without increasing spellcasting level (as prestige classes can do) are Bloodline levels.

Include the character's bloodline level when calculating any character ability based on his class levels (such as caster level for spellcasting characters, or save DCs for characters with special abilities whose DCs are based on class level). The character doesn't gain any abilities, spells known, or spells per day from the addition of his bloodline levels, though—only the calculations of his level-based abilities are affected.

In the case of Versatile Spellcaster, a spontaneous caster who manages to have a spell known 1 level above the maximum level she can cast could cast it at the cost of two spell slots if she also have 1, 2 or 3 Bloodline levels to raise her effective class level high enough for said spell. That's the only way I can see for this specific combination to be working.

[Crake]

As one can plainly see, it does not only pertain to bonus spell slots, but also the ability to cast spells. The "In addition to having a high ability score" is in reference to the fact that you need a high ability score to even cast spells. The "In addition to" connects the first part of the sentence prior to the comma to the predicate of "to be able to cast spells of a given spell level." "In addition" adds "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level" to the result the predicate dictates.

You might note that the line about having a caster ability score of 9 or lower is completely separated from the earlier section about bonus spell slots, and that paragraph indeed begins with "The ability that governs bonus spells".

Also (to further support your point), check out PHB 171. Things that adjust Caster Level ONLY affect certain factors. And "caster level minimum to cast a spell of a given level" isn't one of them. That means that a level 9 wizard who takes Mage Slayer (-4 Caster Level), can still cast their level 5 spells. But the damage, range, duration, SR rolls and Dispel check rolls will be as if CL was 5.

The factors stated there are not implied as being a limited list, and in fact, I should very much hope they are not, as, other things that went unmentioned are: caster level for crafting items, caster level for meeting prerequisites, and I'm sure people can find plenty of other dysfunctions with treating this list as a limited list, despite it not using any limiting terminology.

One thing you might note, is that the line in the paragraph for bonus spell slots, is specifically referring to class level required to cast spells of a sufficient level, and it makes no mention of caster level whatsoever.

As an aside

I was spooling myself up as I read all of Crake's "interpretation".

If you're finding yourself getting riled up over another person's reading of a 20 year old piece of rules text from a version of the game that is slowly being less and less played by people around the world, on a topic that has always been rather highly contentious... Maybe just take a second and relax.

[Darg]

You might note that the line about having a caster ability score of 9 or lower is completely separated from the earlier section about bonus spell slots, and that paragraph indeed begins with "The ability that governs bonus spells".

A paragraph can contain multiple concepts and ideas. It does not have to be filled in with words that are automatically adjusted in meaning to the theme of the first sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole.

There's a language barrier here and we just aren't going to agree on this point.

[Crake]

A paragraph can contain multiple concepts and ideas. It does not have to be filled in with words that are automatically adjusted in meaning to the theme of the first sentence rather than the paragraph as a whole.

Except, the fact that the sentence begins with “In addition” means its clearly an extension of the previous sentence, which is specifically talking about bonus spell slots, and then the NEXT sentence, which is an example, also is demonstrating how bonus spell slots work

[RedMage125]

You might note that the line about having a caster ability score of 9 or lower is completely separated from the earlier section about bonus spell slots, and that paragraph indeed begins with "The ability that governs bonus spells".

Your attempt to squint your eyes and tilt your head to make the words say what you want does not have greater authority than the way English works and the primacy of the text.

In any context, text which says:
"In addition to [restriction], an individual must [X] in order to [do the thing]"
Means that X is also a restriction. Period. Full stop.

That is how language and words work, and you don't have the authority to supercede that.

Furthermore, the sentence is followed by a complete sentence in parentheses which indicates it is supplemental to the preceding sentence. That sentence in parentheses tells us to "See the class description in Chapter 3 for details". Those details in Chapter 3 should us that classes gain access to spells of a certain level when their class level grants them slots.

The factors stated there are not implied as being a limited list, and in fact, I should very much hope they are not, as, other things that went unmentioned are: caster level for crafting items, caster level for meeting prerequisites, and I'm sure people can find plenty of other dysfunctions with treating this list as a limited list, despite it not using any limiting terminology.

Appeal to Silence is a Fallacy for a reason. In gaming terms, it's often called Munchkin Fallacy, to say "the rules don't say I can't, therefore I can". Anything that provides an adjustment to caster level only affects what the rules say they do.

Like I said to the above poster, this is actually critical to understanding how things with negative modifiers to CL work (Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer, and Wild Mage, for example). Since those things don't prohibit spells of a certain level from being cast (assuming high enough class level), neither does boosting it permit higher level spells to be cast. A 9th level wizard who picked up Mage Slayer (-4 CL) can still cast her 5th level spells, but all the caster level dependent effects listed on page 171 that are affected by adjusted caster level are likewise affected when she does.

Caster Level adjustments don't affect caster level for crafting items. Because they don't say they do. There are specific rules that sometimes provide specific exceptions to this (such as the way the Artificer works vis a vis items he can create).

Caster level for meeting prerequisites is one of the most often Munchkined claims about 3e out there. And it's fallacious for the same reason you cite. The assumption that adjusted caster level counts as their actual spellcaster level. This point of the RAW is often overlooked, and it's almost always by people trying to gain some kind of advantage by glossing over it.

One thing you might note, is that the line in the paragraph for bonus spell slots, is specifically referring to class level required to cast spells of a sufficient level, and it makes no mention of caster level whatsoever.

That paragraph is, more correctly, about the relationship between ability scores and spellcasting. You know, like the header above it explicitly states. Bonus spells are only one part of that. It's intellectually dishonest to pretend that the whole paragraph is "only about bonus spells".

And the fact that caster level ISN'T mentioned is important, I agree. Because artificially boosting/draining caster level has no impact on what level of spells a caster is able to cast. The connection between caster level and spell level is covered later in the book (page 171).

If you're finding yourself getting riled up over another person's reading of a 20 year old piece of rules text from a version of the game that is slowly being less and less played by people around the world, on a topic that has always been rather highly contentious... Maybe just take a second and relax.

Settle down, Kemosabe. I meant only that I was working up exactly what I was gonna say to utterly destroy your argument with complete RAW citations (that you kept snipping out bits of so you could ignore the context while simultaneously accusing your opponent of the same). He just beat me to it. Don't allow your ego to inflate to the point that you think I had any more emotional investment. You don't have nearly that kind of presence in my worldview.

[Elves]

We've been over this before, Elves. It means class level (or effective class level, in the case of PrCs that improve spellcasting). Having a spell slot through some other, bizarre means (like a Faustian Pact) is not sufficient to cast spells spell of that level.

I'm not going to rehash this but there is simply no rules basis for your claim that there is a minimum class level required to cast spells of a certain level. What you're calling the "appeal to silence" is an appeal to the gaping lack of any rules text to support your claim. In any case we talked about this at length a couple of years ago and I would encourage others not to re-litigate it here.

[RedMage125]

I'm not going to rehash this but there is simply no rules basis for your claim that there is a minimum class level required to cast spells of a certain level. What you're calling the "appeal to silence" is an appeal to the gaping lack of any rules text to support your claim. In any case we talked about this at length a couple of years ago and I would encourage others not to re-litigate it here.

PHB 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. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.) "

That's actually very clear. You are dead wrong. And I would encourage others not to listen to your absurd claims and instead, actually read the rules for themselves.

*drops microphone*

[Darg]

Page 8 has an example that explains you don't get bonus slots because the class hasn't gotten to the minimum level needed to cast spells of that level.

Page 171 declares you can't choose to lower caster level below the minimum needed to cast the spell and also declares that the minimum level a wizard needs to be to cast a fireball is level 5.

Considering there are 4 points in the text that reference or state that you need a particular class level in order to cast spells of a given level, it kind of makes sense that it's an actual rule.

[RedMage125]

Page 8 has an example that explains you don't get bonus slots because the class hasn't gotten to the minimum level needed to cast spells of that level.

Page 171 declares you can't choose to lower caster level below the minimum needed to cast the spell and also declares that the minimum level a wizard needs to be to cast a fireball is level 5.

Considering there are 4 points in the text that reference or state that you need a particular class level in order to cast spells of a given level, it kind of makes sense that it's an actual rule.

Love everything you've said.

But I'd like to build on something, the second part of what's on page 171, explicitly says "For example" with regards to minimum level for a wizard to cast fireball being 5. Which showcases explicitly that it is only example of a general rule that applies to all spells. This is necessary to point out, because there are Munchkins who try to claim that the RAW only ever spells out the minimum caster level for fireball, and pretty that no general rule exists.

One thing to note that we discovered in earlier threads, though, is that voluntarily lowering one's caster level (as per page 171) is irrespective of things that provide adjustments to caster level. Because casters can voluntarily lower their ACTUAL level, but those adjustments apply to the things the RAW says they do whenever spells are cast, regardless.

That means the level 9 wizard with Mage Slayer (-4 CL adjustment) can choose to cast fireball at CL5. But the damage, range, and roll to beat SR are going to be considered CL 1.

[Darg]

Love everything you've said.

But I'd like to build on something, the second part of what's on page 171, explicitly says "For example" with regards to minimum level for a wizard to cast fireball being 5. Which showcases explicitly that it is only example of a general rule that applies to all spells. This is necessary to point out, because there are Munchkins who try to claim that the RAW only ever spells out the minimum caster level for fireball, and pretty that no general rule exists.

One thing to note that we discovered in earlier threads, though, is that voluntarily lowering one's caster level (as per page 171) is irrespective of things that provide adjustments to caster level. Because casters can voluntarily lower their ACTUAL level, but those adjustments apply to the things the RAW says they do whenever spells are cast, regardless.

That means the level 9 wizard with Mage Slayer (-4 CL adjustment) can choose to cast fireball at CL5. But the damage, range, and roll to beat SR are going to be considered CL 1.

This is getting a bit off topic, but if you are a level 9 wizard with mage slayer, your fireball is caster level 5. You can't choose to lower it further. If you were a level 5 wizard with mage slayer, your fireball is caster level 1, but nothing says you can't cast a spell with a lower caster level, just that you can't choose to lower it further. So the CL 1 fireball is legal to cast.