Rainbow Warmage combo does not work by RAW

[Crake]

Interesting point. This made me go back and see if I could answer this with RAW, and not rely on "Common Sense".

I found this, right above the drowning rules, in the DMG, under the heading "Water Dangers":
"Water presents adventurers with five general problems. First, it’s an obstacle that can block their movement. Second, characters in the water face the danger of drowning or losing gear...*snip*"
This tells me, unequivocally, that once the character is removed from the water, that the "water danger" of drowning has been eliminated. Thus stopping the drowning process.

So while I believe that answers that point, I do appreciate the challenge to my assumptions! I do enjoy pedantic semantics analysis of RAW.

When you leave the water the danger of drowning has been eliminated, yes, but if you are already drowning, its too late, its no longer a danger, its a reality. Youre not IN DANGER of drowning, you ARE drowning

[RedMage125]

When you leave the water the danger of drowning has been eliminated, yes, but if you are already drowning, its too late, its no longer a danger, its a reality. Youre not IN DANGER of drowning, you ARE drowning

Yeah, no. That's not in the text.

Even a completely pedantic RAW analysis shows that "characters IN the water" are the ones who face the danger of drowning.

"Drowning" is under its own subheading below. Only a character IN the water* has to deal with the rules for drowning. Once no longer "IN the water", one is no longer facing that danger, and thus using those rules. You're making things up, now. And that's not how RAW work. I get that you're implying that there's not specific text telling you "if you remove a character from the water, the drowning process stops". But that's covered by clarifying that the dangers are for characters "in the water". Unless you're also claiming that a character who has left the water also has to deal with the movement impediment as well, which I don't think you are.

*or other substance, as the DMG adds "It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain."

[Crake]

Yeah, no. That's not in the text.

Even a completely pedantic RAW analysis shows that "characters IN the water" are the ones who face the danger of drowning.

"Drowning" is under its own subheading below. Only a character IN the water* has to deal with the rules for drowning. Once no longer "IN the water", one is no longer facing that danger, and thus using those rules. You're making things up, now. And that's not how RAW work. I get that you're implying that there's not specific text telling you "if you remove a character from the water, the drowning process stops". But that's covered by clarifying that the dangers are for characters "in the water". Unless you're also claiming that a character who has left the water also has to deal with the movement impediment as well, which I don't think you are.

*or other substance, as the DMG adds "It is possible to drown in substances other than water, such as sand, quicksand, fine dust, and silos full of grain."

You may have a misunderstanding of what the noun "danger" means. A danger is a possibility. While in the water, you face the possibility of drowning. Once you are removed from the water, the possibility of drowning is gone, but if you are already drowning, then drowning is no longer a possibility, it is a reality, you are drowning, you're not in danger of drowning.

danger
/ˈdeɪn(d)ʒə/
noun
noun: danger

the possibility of suffering harm or injury.

[RedMage125]

You may have a misunderstanding of what the noun "danger" means. A danger is a possibility. While in the water, you face the possibility of drowning. Once you are removed from the water, the possibility of drowning is gone, but if you are already drowning, then drowning is no longer a possibility, it is a reality, you are drowning, you're not in danger of drowning.

This tangent is absurd and getting out of hand. You have no RAW text to support this. I have cited text to support what I have said. If something is "no longer a possibility", then it isn’t happening.

Possibility
noun: possibility; plural noun: possibilities
a thing that may happen or be the case.

Impossibility
noun
the state or fact of being impossible.
"the impossibility of walking anywhere in this jungle"

Impossible
adjective
not able to occur, exist, or be done

This tangent is closed. Can we get back on topic?

[Crake]

You have no RAW text to support this.

Its literally the english language. For someone who’s such a stickler for “the RAW”, you are very confident, while being very clearly unable to grasp certain language concepts, all wrapped in the arrogance of you being certain you’re right. Makes you very unpleasant to discuss with.

[RedMage125]

Its literally the english language. For someone who’s such a stickler for “the RAW”, you are very confident, while being very clearly unable to grasp certain language concepts, all wrapped in the arrogance of you being certain you’re right. Makes you very unpleasant to discuss with.

If someone pointing out to you that you did not do something which you know you did not do makes you feel that person is "arrogant", then it says more about you than it does that person.

You still haven't supported your claim -with text from the rules- that drowning continues after the person has been removed from the water. And there's no way you aren't aware of that. You attempted to circumvent that by posting word definitions. And now you want to play the victim when you're called on it.

I, on the other hand, pointed out that drowning, just like being an obstacle to movement, is parsed as a danger to those "IN the water". Not relying on any kind of extrapolation from the text, nor common sense.

You directly insulted my understanding of language in your post before last, and you clearly take no accountability for how YOU come across to others. So you attempting to take me to task for how I come across to you is absurd.

You blithely posted the definition of "danger", immediately after making an incorrect and uninformed declaration about "possibility" vis "reality". Because something that is "certain" (i.e. a "reality") remains in the realm of "possibilty", linguistically. That's why I started with the definition of possibility. And if something is "no longer a possibility" (to use your own words), it means it is the opposite, "an impossibility" instead. Which I also posted the definition of. And the subsequent definition of "impossible", because "impossibility" used that.

I matched your energy, by posting dictionary definitions of words, without resorting to insults to your intelligence or understanding. If you can't handle someone addressing you like you do them, it again, says more about you than anyone else.

Back on topic:

If someone is no longer "in danger", then they are not subject to the "possibility of harm or injury", are they? Is dying "harm or injury"? Unequivocally, yes.

I invite you to support your claim, but as I have just read the rules AGAIN, I'm certain you're not going to find it.

[Crake]

I invite you to support your claim, but as I have just read the rules AGAIN, I'm certain you're not going to find it.

Nah, your general attitude shows a real lack of openness, or capability to see a discussion from multiple angles, you view it as a competition, and you think winning means relentlessly and blindly insisting your point of view is correct, while religiously pointing to “RAW”.

So no, I’m not really interested in engaging with you, because I’m interested in discussion and a mixing of ideas, not a competition of who can insist they’re right for the longest. Its the same reason I didnt bother continuing the other conversation about versatile spellcaster with you earlier in this thread, because you showed no capability of even conceptualising the notion that your interpretation of the rules may not be the literal gospel of “the RAW”.

[RedMage125]

Nah, your general attitude shows a real lack of openness, or capability to see a discussion from multiple angles, you view it as a competition, and you think winning means relentlessly and blindly insisting your point of view is correct, while religiously pointing to “RAW”.

So no, I’m not really interested in engaging with you, because I’m interested in discussion and a mixing of ideas, not a competition of who can insist they’re right for the longest. Its the same reason I didnt bother continuing the other conversation about versatile spellcaster with you earlier in this thread, because you showed no capability of even conceptualising the notion that your interpretation of the rules may not be the literal gospel of “the RAW”.

So...no acknowledgement of your own bad behavior, and since you can't find any text in the books to support what you're claiming, you're just going to outline yourself in chalk, and walk away, putting on the facade of a moral high ground.

Do you want some kind of slow clap as you trot off in your little huff?

I'm absolutely open to discussion of the text that disagrees with my reading. The actual topic of this thread is an example. While I contest Elves' absurd claim that "there is no rule requiring class levels to cast spells of a given level" (because there is, on page 7 of the PHB), I absolutely said the way he reads the abilities for Rainbow Warsnake is a valid way to read the text. I just also see the justification for 2 other readings. I, personally, don't even LIKE the most permissive reading, and have been very open about that in my debate with Darg. That I am playing Devil's Advocate with regard to showcasing the support that the most permissive reading DOES have. Elves' claim may very well be correct. The way the RAW is worded with regards to the way these game elements interact is unclear, even from a mindset of pedantic adherence to the semantics of what is written (as in, the kind of mindset that acknowledges "drown healing" as a thing).

You have shown a trend of not actually citing the text to support claims you make about what is true. Before I joined the thread, you were cutting lines of RAW out of context (while accusing Darg of the same). Darg beat me to posting the entirety of that paragraph.
And let's be honest, you backed out of the other discussion, because it was pointed out that the thrust of that section (both paragraphs) was about the relationship between ability scores and spellcasting -you know, like the header above it states- of which bonus spells are only one part. That, and having no response to the point:
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 to doing the thing.
You also attempted to claim that "[things] that provide an adjustment to caster level" somehow applies to more than what the rules say they do.

If you don't like citing support for things you claim to be true about the RAW, then maybe RAW discussions aren't a thing you enjoy. But that doesn't mean anyone else is wrong for engaging them. You don't join a pick up game of soccer as a forward and complain when you get fouls called on you for using your hands. This is a discussion about what the RAW do or do not say. That means citing the RAW as proof, because in a RAW discussion, only what is in the text is true. Any claims you make about minimum class levels to cast spells, adjustments to caster levels, or drowning needs to be based on words written in the text, or be dismissed as "not true".

It's not something everyone enjoys, but don't try and paint me as the villain or yourself the victim because you're not abiding by the rules of engagement.

[Crake]

So...no acknowledgement of your own bad behavior.

I’ve been nothing but cordial, don't project your attitude onto me.

I didnt read the rest, because as I said, I’m not interested in discussing any topics with you while you maintain this style of discussion.

[RedMage125]

I’ve been nothing but cordial, don't project your attitude onto me.

So...this wasn't you?

You may have a misunderstanding of what the noun "danger" means.

For someone who’s such a stickler for “the RAW”, you are very confident, while being very clearly unable to grasp certain language concepts,

If you're going to lie about what you said, you could at least be clever enough to edit your earlier posts, so it's not so easy to prove that you're lying.

I didnt read the rest, because as I said, I’m not interested in discussing any topics with you while you maintain this style of discussion.

Of course you're not. You're interested in painting yourself as "the poor victim of mean old Redmage".

When you first posited this idea, I was cordial, and accepted it as a challenge. For which I was even grateful to you for challenging my assumption, and giving me the opportunity to support it with RAW.

You responded with essentially re-iterating what you said before, but with some CAPS. You didn't even try to bring up any kind of text that would support it, you just made an assertion as if it were fact.

When I pointed out that you didn't bring any rules up to support thay claim, the insults began. Any every other person reading this thread can see that such is true.

So your attempt to "play the victim" and act like "[you're] here for discussion and a mixing of ideas" are bull****. You escalated into personal attacks, and while I did not respond in kind, I matched the tone of the rest of your post (citing dictionary definitions of the words). When that mirror got held up to you, you promptly outlined yourself in chalk. And you have the unmitigated gall to talk to me like you're dressing me down for bad behavior, when YOU initiated hostility when you condescendingly asserted that "I may have a misunderstanding" of an extremely common noun. Grow up and take accountability for yourself.

[Crake]

So...this wasn't you?





If you're going to lie about what you said, you could at least be clever enough to edit your earlier posts, so it's not so easy to prove that you're lying.

Theres nothing uncordial about what I wrote. Calling you out for your attitude, and pointing out your misunderstanding of the language is not flaming.

What you’re doing is projecting your own tone onto my posts, and reading it with malintent.

[Darg]

This answer only make it clear to me that you don't know what "drown healing" is. It has nothing to do with making saving throws, and you don't hold them for 3 rounds.

Spoiler: For Space

Show

Here's the RAW for drowning in the DMG. I'm going to bold the most relevant bit.
"Any character can hold her breath for a number of rounds equal to twice her Constitution score. After this period of time, the character must make a DC 10 Constitution check every round in order to continue holding her breath. Each round, the DC increases by 1.
When the character finally fails her Constitution check, she begins to drown. In the first round, she falls unconscious (0 hp).
In the following round, she drops to –1 hit points and is dying. In the third round, she drowns."
So "drown healing" is when you take a character who is already at negative hp (let's say, for example, that Tordek has -7 hp). So he's already unconscious, and cannot hold his breath. You drown Tordek for 1 round. By the RAW, he falls unconscious (redundant), and his hit points become 0.
Congratulations. You have just "healed" Tordek for 7 hp. Pull him out of the water.
Is this illogical and absurd? Yes. Does it fly in the face of logic and common sense? Absolutely. Do we expect any DM on earth would let this work? No. But none of that is the point. The RAW explicitly say after one round of drowning, the person is at 0 hp.
Here is a link to a thread of people discussing this, in case you doubt that what I am telling you is how "drown healing" works. But it is a well-known Rules Dysfunction of 3e.

The whole point of bringing this up is to point out that the RAW sometimes fly in the face of logic and common sense. That's why I invited you to look up "drown healing", which you clearly did not. A pedantic adherence to the semantics of what's in the text is what a RAW discussion calls for. It does not matter if this causes dissonance with you.
And to the point of this: the RAW say that Warmages "know" their spells. It never uses "learn" as a verb to describe adding spells to their list (the 3 PHB arcane casters do). It even says explicitly that "he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage's spell list." Note the singular possessive. HIS spell list. Not just "the warmage spell list" (language used just a few sentences up). So, by strict RAW text adherence, and without worrying if logic and common sense fit, what happens when a warmage is explicitly given access to a whole additional spell list?

First round it just says you fall unconscious. There's a "(0 hp)" but the rules don't tell you what to do with that information. Any assumption that you drop or rise to 0 hp is just that, an assumption that isn't RAW. Hence the fallacy of the drown healing. The only time drowning tells you to move your hp is on the second round and "she drops to -1 hit points." You can't drop up so no healing there.

I think darg’s point was that, once you fail the con check, you begin drowning, and will die in 3 rounds, even if you’re pulled out of the water.

Which kinda makes sense, since you’re unconscious, and your lungs are filled with water, even if you get pulled out, youre still gonna be drowning

You can drown without having a fluid or other substance enter the lungs. Drowning is simply having your breathing be impaired by a liquid (or in D&D's case a liquid-like substance), whether externally or internally.

The rules assume you are able to breathe when the environment allows. The drowning rules don't contradict that when you are pulled out of the water while drowning. If you are out of the water your breathing is no longer impaired so technically wouldn't be drowning any more

[RedMage125]

Theres nothing uncordial about what I wrote. Calling you out for your attitude, and pointing out your misunderstanding of the language is not flaming.

What you’re doing is projecting your own tone onto my posts, and reading it with malintent.

No, projecting on to me that I "may have a misunderstanding of the noun danger" (an extremely common word) is absolutely an insult to me, personally.

Be an adult, and take accountability for how you come across.

I have never, at any point, insinuated that your intelligence or understanding were deficient. I pointed out that you didn't cite anything in the text to support the idea that a character who was no longer "in the water" would continue to drown. Because you didn't. On the contrary, I pointed out that the RAW specified that characters "in the water" faced problems such as obstacles to movement and the danger of drowning. If you are no longer in the water, you have removed the conditional prerequisite to facing those problems. And if one is not "in danger" of drowning, then it isn't a possibility, is it?

First round it just says you fall unconscious. There's a "(0 hp)" but the rules don't tell you what to do with that information. Any assumption that you drop or rise to 0 hp is just that, an assumption that isn't RAW. Hence the fallacy of the drown healing. The only time drowning tells you to move your hp is on the second round and "she drops to -1 hit points." You can't drop up so no healing there.

Okay, again...this is a commonly referenced Rules Dysfunction. And the RAW say "unconscious (0hp)". This is brought up to highlight the kind of pedantic text adherence (even in the face of common sense) that most of us on the forums mean when we talk about "literal reading of the RAW". This is only a tangent to frame the kind of mindset I'm trying to explain when we talk about how Warmages "know" without ever having to "learn" (both of those only in the mechanics sense, not colloquial sense).

So, from the understanding of the same kind of pedantic adherence to the text of the RAW that says "drown healing" is a thing, do you understand that Warmages have no need to "learn" before they can "know"?

The rules assume you are able to breathe when the environment allows. The drowning rules don't contradict that when you are pulled out of the water while drowning. If you are out of the water your breathing is no longer impaired so technically wouldn't be drowning any more

While you are correct in your conclusion, the main thrust of the disagreement between Crake and myself was the the RAW specify that drowning (and thus the rules thereof) is a danger to those "IN the water". That's why I went hunting for support for that that didn't rely on Common Sense.

[Darg]

So, from the understanding of the same kind of pedantic adherence to the text of the RAW that says "drown healing" is a thing, do you understand that Warmages have no need to "learn" before they can "know"?

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.

All arcane casters must learn before they can know a spell. The difference is in the when the learning takes place. Wizards when it's in their spellbooks. Sorcerers when they select it at level advancement. Wizards can learn spells way before they could ever cast them. As that is the case, it makes sense that warmages can mostly learn their spells and then when they reach a particular level fit the puzzle piece that makes it known like their background says it works.

[RedMage125]

All arcane casters must learn before they can know a spell. The difference is in the when the learning takes place. Wizards when it's in their spellbooks. Sorcerers when they select it at level advancement. Wizards can learn spells way before they could ever cast them. As that is the case, it makes sense that warmages can mostly learn their spells and then when they reach a particular level fit the puzzle piece that makes it known like their background says it works.

That is the General rule, yes.

This is getting tedious, because each time you get so focused on one element of a point, you lose track of how it applies to the larger point.

So, once again, the RAW support for those that claim the most permissive view is based on Specifc Overrides General. The specific exemption being the following text from the Warmage:

Spells: A warmage casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and wizards), which are drawn from the warmage spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time the way a cleric or wizard must. When a warmage gains access to a new level of spells, he automatically knows all the spells for that level listed on the warmage's spell list. Essentially, his spell list is the same as his spells known list. Warmages also have the option of adding to their existing spell list through their advanced learning ability as they increase in level (see below).

Warmages -specifically- do not need to "learn" their spells. They automatically know them. Again, we're going off a pedantic and literal reading of the RAW that takes the words at face value (the same mindset that says "drown healing" is a thing). As it is written as "warmage's spell list" (singular possessive), that means we are talking about the spell list of that particular warmage (which is why I used Billy as an example, it's Billy's spell list). And the Cleric Spell Access ability of a Rainbow Servant explicitly "grants access" to the spells of the cleric spell list. It is an entirely valid reading of these texts to say that it means the Cleric Spell List is now also "Billy's". A level 10 RS "can learn" cleric spells, but if he was a warmage, beguiler, or dread necromancer, he doesn't need to.

I have tried very hard to be clear that I am not trying to get you to accept the most permissive view. I don't like it, myself. My most literal reading says that "ONLY when a new spell level is gained (which, if you're using the table version of RS progression, will take another 2 levels), does the Rainbow Warsnake get access to all the cleric spells of that spell level, not all the lower level ones".

But there IS text supporting the most permissive option. The way you've been arguing, it seems like you're trying to claim that there isn't. And I have been very clear that I am playing Devil's Advocate when I present these points. But a good chunk of your argument hinges on the following:
* Switching back and forth between colloquial and mechanics use of "know" and "learn".
* Insistence that the mechanics of "know" follow the logic of colloquial use.
* Insistence that flavor text in the class intro has mechanical weight. And/Or the name of the ability, rather than just the rules text of the ability.
* Ignoring the RAW that warmages (from a pure mechanics use of the term) never "learn" spells, they simply "know" them. Even for single-classed Warmages, this is a Specific Exception to the General rule in the glossary.

I also believe that the most permissive view plays too fast and loose with "can cast from the cleric list", "access to the spells", and "spell list is the same as spells known list". I am just able to look outside my own opinion and recognize that such is a valid reading of those rules. But so is what Elves posits (which you also seem to support). I think insisting that they have to use Advanced Learning to get a cleric spell has RAW support, too. And what I espoused. All have valid support from the text. This is one of those areas that isn't entirely black and white, unlike Class levels being a requirement to cast spells of a given spell level, for example. That's a hard fact.

Regardless, the Sage Advice FAQ says that the intent is that they can cast all cleric spells. They also say that the intent is to be a 6/10 casting class, but the RAW says "text trumps table".

[Darg]

And the Cleric Spell Access ability of a Rainbow Servant explicitly "grants access" to the spells of the cleric spell list. It is an entirely valid reading of these texts to say that it means the Cleric Spell List is now also "Billy's".

Except it relies on an assumption never stated within the rules. Rule precedence is that "access" does not equate to adding it to your spell list. Cleric got access to domain spell lists which explicitly are not added to the cleric's spell list. They are kept wholly separate. The only times the rules mention access to spells or spell lists is for domains or cleric spell access and neither ever mention adding spells to a spell list. Arcane disciple is conspicuously missing "access" even though it adds the spells to your list.

I have tried very hard to be clear that I am not trying to get you to accept the most permissive view. I don't like it, myself. My most literal reading says that "ONLY when a new spell level is gained (which, if you're using the table version of RS progression, will take another 2 levels), does the Rainbow Warsnake get access to all the cleric spells of that spell level, not all the lower level ones".

But there IS text supporting the most permissive option. The way you've been arguing, it seems like you're trying to claim that there isn't. And I have been very clear that I am playing Devil's Advocate when I present these points. But a good chunk of your argument hinges on the following:
* Switching back and forth between colloquial and mechanics use of "know" and "learn".
* Insistence that the mechanics of "know" follow the logic of colloquial use.
* Insistence that flavor text in the class intro has mechanical weight. And/Or the name of the ability, rather than just the rules text of the ability.
* Ignoring the RAW that warmages (from a pure mechanics use of the term) never "learn" spells, they simply "know" them. Even for single-classed Warmages, this is a Specific Exception to the General rule in the glossary.

I also believe that the most permissive view plays too fast and loose with "can cast from the cleric list", "access to the spells", and "spell list is the same as spells known list". I am just able to look outside my own opinion and recognize that such is a valid reading of those rules. But so is what Elves posits (which you also seem to support). I think insisting that they have to use Advanced Learning to get a cleric spell has RAW support, too. And what I espoused. All have valid support from the text. This is one of those areas that isn't entirely black and white, unlike Class levels being a requirement to cast spells of a given spell level, for example. That's a hard fact.

If we want to talk about colloquialism, it's literally the only source of support for rainbow warsnake. It's a spell list you can learn and cast from, therefore it must be "yours" right? But from the same logic, nothing gave it to you. You're claiming something that isn't yours. Which to be fair is a very common English speaking thing to do. If I have access to a bank vault and have permission to use and organize the contents of the vault for my benefit, is the bank vault mine? Not necessarily. It could be owned by someone else who gave you permission and access. By law it's still their's. However, it wouldn't be wrong colloquially to say that it's mine, within the context of my right to access it. In the same way "warmage's spell list" is yours because you are the warmage, but the "cleric spell list" isn't yours because you aren't a cleric.

Regardless, the Sage Advice FAQ says that the intent is that they can cast all cleric spells. They also say that the intent is to be a 6/10 casting class, but the RAW says "text trumps table".

I take the FAQ with a dump truck of salt for anything they say. It's a nice collection of house rules, but I can't say all of them are coherent in the context of the rules in which they are supposed to represent and a couple times have been contradicted by the writers of the rules they are ruling on.

That said, extra domains and cleric spell access just needs good houseruling to work well with warmage and the other two classes as they're in a book that assumes they don't exist.

[RedMage125]

Except it relies on an assumption never stated within the rules. Rule precedence is that "access" does not equate to adding it to your spell list. Cleric got access to domain spell lists which explicitly are not added to the cleric's spell list. They are kept wholly separate. The only times the rules mention access to spells or spell lists is for domains or cleric spell access and neither ever mention adding spells to a spell list. Arcane disciple is conspicuously missing "access" even though it adds the spells to your list.

That's where you keep getting it twisted. Arcane disciple adds it to the CLASS Spell list, which means for that caster, they're all arcane spells.

Meanwhile, for Wizards and Sorcerers, Rainbow Servant does in fact, allow them to access it in the same manner they do their own. But the spells remain divine spells, which is the distinction. They are accessing a different spell list, via the only manner in which they access spells, they are not adding it to their own, either.

Warmages just have a more advantageous relationship with their spell list than those other classes. This is usually offset by the fact that the Warmage's class spell list is pretty terrible compared to them.

By the way, what other "precedence" do you speak of with regard to "access" to a spell list?

If we want to talk about colloquialism, it's literally the only source of support for rainbow warsnake. It's a spell list you can learn and cast from, therefore it must be "yours" right? But from the same logic, nothing gave it to you. You're claiming something that isn't yours. Which to be fair is a very common English speaking thing to do. If I have access to a bank vault and have permission to use and organize the contents of the vault for my benefit, is the bank vault mine? Not necessarily. It could be owned by someone else who gave you permission and access. By law it's still their's. However, it wouldn't be wrong colloquially to say that it's mine, within the context of my right to access it. In the same way "warmage's spell list" is yours because you are the warmage, but the "cleric spell list" isn't yours because you aren't a cleric.

Welcome to exactly my stance. I have said, like 4 times now, that the most permissive reading plays it too fast and loose (in my opinion) with "may cast cleric spells", "access the spells", and "[your] spell list is the same as your spells known list". Because it draws from ONE WAY to read the words of the text. And doesn't really ignore any specific text forbidding it, because warmages have no need to "learn" spells, mechanics wise. But other casters do. But considering it "yours", while potentially a correct reading, seems a bit greasy to me.

I take the FAQ with a dump truck of salt for anything they say. It's a nice collection of house rules, but I can't say all of them are coherent in the context of the rules in which they are supposed to represent and a couple times have been contradicted by the writers of the rules they are ruling on.

That said, extra domains and cleric spell access just needs good houseruling to work well with warmage and the other two classes as they're in a book that assumes they don't exist.

More correctly, I would say it's a look into RAI, rather that hpuse rules. During most of the 3.5e run, Sage Advice in Dragon Magazine was run by WotC employees who were on the 3.5e design team (Skip Williams, and Andy Collins). RAI is only as useful as people want to make it. Actual contradictions with any writers are rare, and that's assuming you know of some, because I never heard any.

And again, the Complete Divine is one of the worst books to ever be published in the 3.5e era. The Miniatures Handbook is up there, too (fun fact, that is the original source of the warmage and the favored soul). It was so badly edited, that the errata didn't even cover all the errors. It feels to me like they gave up.

But better errata would have fixed the issue to keep it in line with RAI. Something along the lines of putting the following after the first sentence: "The Rainbow Servant may access the cleric spell list in the same manner as the spell list of her original arcane casting class. So a RS who entered as a Wizard may learn cleric spells from a scroll and write them in her spellbook, and a Sorcerer or Bard may select spells from the cleric spell as a spell known when they level up." A line like that would make it clear that the most permissive Rainbow Warsnake interpretation is the correct one.
Also errata to be clear if spellcasting is supposed to be 6/10 or 10/10.

Also...I just realized something...a Wizard 5/Rainbow Servant 10 who learns Mass Cure Moderate Wounds from a cleric spell scroll...still casts it as an arcane spell, and not a divine one, because the spell appears on the Bard spell list. I don't know why, but that strikes me as funny.

[redking]

Regardless, the Sage Advice FAQ says that the intent is that they can cast all cleric spells. They also say that the intent is to be a 6/10 casting class, but the RAW says "text trumps table".

I started a thread about this before and the consensus was that 6/10 with automatic access to the cleric spell list is not broken. I would definitely allow it, but not at 10/10.

[RedMage125]

I started a thread about this before and the consensus was that 6/10 with automatic access to the cleric spell list is not broken. I would definitely allow it, but not at 10/10.

I suppose, but I've taken this thread to be more about whether or not the RAW actually permit it, as opposed to whether or not it's overpowered.

But as far as power...
A Tier 4 class losing 4 levels of spell progression to suddenly have spontaneous access to a Tier 1 class list at level 16, and getting a max of L8 spells at 20...sure, that's not really too overpowered.

As for 10/10...I guess it would depend on the rest of that party makeup. If the rest of the party is high-OP and averages above Tier 3...maybe that wouldn't be the worst thing to allow.

[redking]

I suppose, but I've taken this thread to be more about whether or not the RAW actually permit it, as opposed to whether or not it's overpowered.

If the plain language of Rainbow Servant does not grant Warmages true access to the Cleric list, then it is effectively non-functional for these characters. In the end, the DM must make a ruling, not only about the cleric list access, but about the spell progression as well. RAW arguments face challenges too. I've seen many RAW based arguments where the root issue was comprehension, rather than any ambiguity in the text. I am not saying it is the case in this instance, but it is often the case.