Precocious Apprentice

[awaken_D_M_golem]

ksb --- Interesting 

Yeah, Caedrus mentions PA in the Mystic Theurge handbook.
" ... This is perhaps the most contentious method of early entry into any Prestige Class in the history of the Character Optimisation Boards ... "
http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=8719.0
... even at this late date, and numerous very old links lost.


If you're trying to be precise on early game build objectives,
going X 1 / Y 2 keeps pace with a Sorc, but going X 1 / Y 3
will quite often tag the multiclassing penalty.  X 2 / Y 2 would
be easily and obviously weaker than Sorc ... although the
next 2 levels fixes that at the quantity level (not quality).

An early entry method would usually keep a Dual Caster
near or slightly ahead of a Bard, and maybe justify a
keeping up with the Tier 1 Joneses, but only after the
build matures.

[kitep]

By the RAW it works. You can cast a 2nd level spell, you qualify.

Actually, somebody pointed out that by RAW it doesn't work.  Since RAW requires spellS (plural), and PA only allows spell.  Maybe if the PC takes it twice...

This interpretation leads to the absurdity that a Sorc 4 can't cast 2nd levels spells, because he only gets one spell known.

And so the logical conclusion is to go by RAI, not RAW.  Sometimes I want to bang my head because people try to justify something by saying "by RAW"  -- not saying this is one of those times, but there have been some whoppers, all based on a misprint, or bad wording, or an intentional misunderstanding.  Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

[linklord231]

By the RAW it works. You can cast a 2nd level spell, you qualify.

Actually, somebody pointed out that by RAW it doesn't work.  Since RAW requires spellS (plural), and PA only allows spell.  Maybe if the PC takes it twice...

This interpretation leads to the absurdity that a Sorc 4 can't cast 2nd levels spells, because he only gets one spell known.

And so the logical conclusion is to go by RAI, not RAW.  Sometimes I want to bang my head because people try to justify something by saying "by RAW"  -- not saying this is one of those times, but there have been some whoppers, all based on a misprint, or bad wording, or an intentional misunderstanding.  Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

Or you could go with the interpretation that "able to cast X level spells" means "has one or more slots of X level per day."

[Stratovarius]

Which, as pointed out, the feat itself says it doesn't meet. So if there was another feat with similar antics, sure, but Precocious Apprentice pretty clearly excludes itself.

[kitep]

And so the logical conclusion is to go by RAI, not RAW.  Sometimes I want to bang my head because people try to justify something by saying "by RAW"  -- not saying this is one of those times, but there have been some whoppers, all based on a misprint, or bad wording, or an intentional misunderstanding.  Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

Or you could go with the interpretation that "able to cast X level spells" means "has one or more slots of X level per day."

And so we agree - it's better to go by RAI, since the "I" stands for "interpreted".   

But we're getting away from the original topic.  I'll let you have the last word, but I'm gonna drop it.

[Necrosnoop110]

And so we agree - it's better to go by RAI, since the "I" stands for "interpreted".   

Always thought it was RAI = Rules as Intended?

[kitep]

I guess it could be.  I always read it as "rules as interpreted" - but I think I figured it out from context, so yours could very well be righter than mine.

[Sleepyphoenixx]

You can quibble over the exact wording all day. In the end your DM either allows early entry tricks or he doesn't.
Some of those can't really be argued away by anything other than "no early entry in my game because i say so".
Precocious Apprentice may be one of the cheaper ones, feat-wise, but it's not the only one.

[Kajhera]

... or your DM allows early entry only if you can make a convincing argument (either that it works by the rules or that entering the prestige class early would be worth the trouble because campaign is low-level and not likely to reach the good parts otherwise).  There are those of us out there ...

For an example of the type of requirement of what Precocious Apprentice would be likely to qualify one for ... Shadowcraft Mage's spell requirement. If the spell was somehow 4th level instead of 2nd level. Why's this? Phrasing is as follows: "Spells: Able to cast at least three illusion spells, including at least one shadow spell of 4th level or higher."

Doesn't need multiple 4th level spells, just one. Find a requirement that needs just one 2nd level spell, and you're golden by any reasonable interpretation.

Prestige bard is another example of this type of phrasing, but it needs three different spells and they only have to be first level in the first place so ... a bit of a superfluous one.

[phaedrusxy]

By the RAW it works. You can cast a 2nd level spell, you qualify.

Actually, somebody pointed out that by RAW it doesn't work.  Since RAW requires spellS (plural), and PA only allows spell.  Maybe if the PC takes it twice...

This interpretation leads to the absurdity that a Sorc 4 can't cast 2nd levels spells, because he only gets one spell known.

And so the logical conclusion is to go by RAI, not RAW.  Sometimes I want to bang my head because people try to justify something by saying "by RAW"  -- not saying this is one of those times, but there have been some whoppers, all based on a misprint, or bad wording, or an intentional misunderstanding.  Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

Or you could go with the interpretation that "able to cast X level spells" means "has one or more slots of X level per day."

Which excludes low(ish) Int wizards who only have one spell slot for that level due to a lack of bonus slots.

[SorO_Lost]

Well that and you can't cast a 2nd level Spell without 12 Int or a CL of 3+, Spontaneous Casters also need to Known a Spell of said level.
"Having a Spell Slot" is a very poor short hand explanation full of exceptions, quite misleading really.

[linklord231]

Which excludes low(ish) Int wizards who only have one spell slot for that level due to a lack of bonus slots.

I did say "one or more" didn't I?  I definitely meant to.

Well that and you can't cast a 2nd level Spell without 12 Int or a CL of 3+, Spontaneous Casters also need to Known a Spell of said level.

[citation needed]. 
Glossing right over the Factotum (it's so poorly written that it's impossible to tell if you're actually casting a spell or using a spell-like ability), a Bladesinger (Races of Faerun, 180) doesn't have the restriction on minimum ability score, and the very feat we're talking about lets you cast a 2nd level spell at CL 1. 

"Having a Spell Slot" is a very poor short hand explanation full of exceptions, quite misleading really.

You're right in that my definition could be more clear, in that a Wizard 4 with Int 11 can't cast 2nd level spells, even though he has at least one second level spell slot.  Still, that seems like a much less glaring oversight than excluding a Wiz 3 with 18 Int, which is what the other proposed definition would do. 

[phaedrusxy]

Which excludes low(ish) Int wizards who only have one spell slot for that level due to a lack of bonus slots.

I did say "one or more" didn't I?  I definitely meant to.

I missed that... but in that case, Precocious Apprentice should be able to qualify you for "must be able to cast 2nd level spells", because you do explicitly get a 2nd level spell slot and a 2nd level spell known...

So again... the only reason PA doesn't meet that qualification is basically because the Sage/FAQ said "Because I said so".  Any so-called "RAW" arguments against it either fail, or exclude things that are obviously not meant to be excluded from meeting that prereq (3rd level wizards, 4th level sorcerers, etc).

[Sinfire Titan]

Which excludes low(ish) Int wizards who only have one spell slot for that level due to a lack of bonus slots.

I did say "one or more" didn't I?  I definitely meant to.

I missed that... but in that case, Precocious Apprentice should be able to qualify you for "must be able to cast 2nd level spells", because you do explicitly get a 2nd level spell slot and a 2nd level spell known...

So again... the only reason PA doesn't meet that qualification is basically because the Sage/FAQ said "Because I said so".  Any so-called "RAW" arguments against it either fail, or exclude things that are obviously not meant to be excluded from meeting that prereq (3rd level wizards, 4th level sorcerers, etc).

Which is circumvented by Focused Specialist.

[SorO_Lost]

Well that and you can't cast a 2nd level Spell without 12 Int or a CL of 3+, Spontaneous Casters also need to Known a Spell of said level.

[citation needed]. 

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

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.

A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.

If I need to cite the other two, then I also feel the need to remind you to take a breath.
Except I won't.

[linklord231]

That's what I thought you were going to say.  The relevant quotes (the ones not dealing with item creation) all say something along the lines of "your caster level must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question."  There is no global minimum for what caster level you need in order to cast a spell of X level.  It's always on an individual basis.  If I have an ability that lets me cast a fireball at CL 3, then I can do so, and it will deal 3d6 damage and have a range of 520 feet. 

The minimum CL for a caster to cast a spell of X level is the lowest level he was able to cast the spell. 

[Raineh Daze]

That argument suggests that Precocious Apprentice doesn't allow you to cast the spell it explicitly gives you the ability to cast, because your CL isn't 3.

EDIT: I think I may have made too many posts.

[awaken_D_M_golem]

Raineh Daze

Posts: 5000

Was it AC/DC that sang:  Too Much Is Just Enough.
 

And so we agree - it's better to go by RAI, since the "I" stands for "interpreted".   

Always thought it was RAI = Rules as Intended?

Don't forget Caelic's Rules As I Want Them To Be (or something like that).

That's MY personal favorite of course.
Someone might assume I don't spend all my kitty avatar's time gazing at a metaphoric and hard to find navel.
I just want them to know that is what I spend all my kitty avatar's time ...

[SorO_Lost]

That's what I thought you were going to say.

So pull your head out of your ass?

The relevant quotes (the ones not dealing with item creation)

Means: "I'm ignoring those two entries because they disagree with me."

all say something along the lines of "your caster level must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question."  There is no global minimum for what caster level you need in order to cast a spell of X level.

The discussion, and your rebuttal to my comment, were directly related to the Wizard which has a minimum CL of 3. Bitching about how a Sorcerer's is 4 doesn't mean all numbers and minimal values are to be ignored, that's a logical fallacy so stupid I don't even think it has a name.

If I have an ability that lets me cast a fireball at CL 3, then I can do so, and it will deal 3d6 damage and have a range of 520 feet.

As I literately just quoted, that quote on quote "Ability" better be Fireball is a 2nd level Spell to you or you have no such ability without explicit text. And if you do this does not alter the base rules because D&D does not operate this way.

The minimum CL for a caster to cast a spell of X level is the lowest level he is able to cast the spell.

With that little fix and a little quoting out of context on my end, I got you to appear like you manged to say one thing that isn't a load of bullshit. Your welcome.

But yes, "Caster Level" is often an ambiguous term. Some times it can mean your actual levels in a Class or the sum of various Items, Feats, Class Features, Special Abilities which a Spell uses to determine stuff like it's Range, bonuses against Spell Resistance, and so on. The quoted passage used both terms. The CL you choose is talking about the modifiable end value, must be high enough for you to cast the spell is talking about the former as your Spellcasting Ability has dictated (for example, wizard 3). Feat and PrC requirements, as well as Bonus Spell Slots, exclusively use the former as well.

That argument suggests that Precocious Apprentice doesn't allow you to cast the spell it explicitly gives you the ability to cast, because your CL isn't 3.

Indeed. Which goes right by to my point against Linklord.
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.
This is exactly what I mean by explicit text, and per Order of Rules, it does not alter the Base Rules.

[FlaminCows]

And so we agree - it's better to go by RAI, since the "I" stands for "interpreted".   

Always thought it was RAI = Rules as Intended?

Don't forget Caelic's Rules As I Want Them To Be (or something like that). That's MY personal favorite of course.

The problem is, RAW is generally applied not as "The Rules as Written," but rather as "The Rules As I Interpret Them And You Can't Prove I'm Wrong, Nyeah." The RAITAYCPIWN. Not quite as catchy an acronym, granted, but that's what it boils down to.

Very applicable to Precocious Apprentice, that one is.