[3.5] 'Unlimited' Wizard, e6 'friendly.' Sorta.

[Ice9]

Yes, Arcane Preparation's requirement is "Ability to cast arcane spells without preparation,". If it actually granted the Preparation the prerequisite cared about the Feat would null it's self and always be in an unobtainable state.

Hm?  That doesn't follow; the fact that you can cast arcane spells with preparation doesn't mean you've lost the ability to cast them without preparation.  Also, there are a number of things that are technically self-disqualifying, if ruled that strictly.

[SorO_Lost]

Hm?  That doesn't follow; the fact that you can cast arcane spells with preparation doesn't mean you've lost the ability to cast them without preparation.

Link's statement was a Sorcerer with Arcane Preparation is a Prepared Spellcaster and per the RC a Prepared Spellcaster cannot cast anything that's not Prepared.

Functionally, what's on the table is the interpretation of how things cross over. Chemus thinks a Wizard with Spontaneous Divination, or form the other side Sorcerer with Arcane Preparation, mechanically becomes the other which runs into a lot of errors. It disagrees with rule entries that can only be worked out by overlooking or ignoring them and you have to get pretty subjective with terms that consistently don't as a houserule patch to ad hoc things into a working, a bit broken, condition. All for the end goal of being broken, >.>

The other side of the argument which is held by me points out there is a difference between having the mechanical rule defined abilities and having something that produces the end result, in other words it's impossible for a Wizard to count as a Spontaneous Caster when it comes to the rules even if they are producing a similar result that follows some of the rules in question. My Barghest example is a good in-a-nutshell explanation (aka strawman red herring as chemus will claim) but really you can pick and replace it with anything. A 4th level Law Cleric casting Calm Animals or a Rogue with a Scroll of Cone of Cold still must follow the rules of Spellcasting (and item activation) and they produce the outcome of a Spell with a CL of 5 but they cannot use those methods to meet requirements. In fact, you may know this argument under it's other name. Precarious Apprentice. It's the Feat that gives you something people would normally call the ability to cast a 2nd level Spell but the Feat goes on to say that when you do obtain the ability to cast 2nd level Spells it loses some of it's functionality. Heck you can hark back to the sixteen year old debate of if Grease is flammable or not since it's all the same deal.

The problem that people have issues with, much like you were able to spot within the singular of my reply, is that just because you can call something by a certain name does not mean it is the same thing. It's a formal fallacy, affirming the consequent I think, or if you can find a way to produce B then you assume when something asks for A you have it.

[Ice9]

Link's statement was a Sorcerer with Arcane Preparation is a Prepared Spellcaster and per the RC a Prepared Spellcaster cannot cast anything that's not Prepared.

That rule seems broken on first principles.  What exactly do they consider a Sorcerer/Wizard/UM as being?  Because that person is obviously both a prepared caster and a spontaneous caster.

That's all moot to Versatile Spellcaster though, because what it requires is simple "ability to spontaneously cast spells", which doesn't even have to come from a class.

[Chemus]

SorO, the requirement to be able to do one thing does not preclude you from being able to do another thing. Being able to cast spells without preparation is not an exclusive requirement. It asks only "can you cast spells without preparing them in a slot first?" Not "Can you only cast spells without preparing them in a slot first"

Same for Versatile spellcaster "Ablility to cast spontaneous spells." =/= "Ability to only cast spontaneous spells." If you meet the second version, good for you, but the first version is non-exclusionary, and is met by being able to cast spells spontaneously.

The section on spontaneous casting on RC 139 says that spontaneous casters cast any spell they know from spell slots without preparing the spell that they are going to cast spontaneously first. They also don't prepare or cast these spells from spellbooks. They take a full-round action to cast the spells with metamagic. They learn these spells either by selecting them when they level up, or they have a list of them they gain access to when they level up.

The last section, regarding other spontaneous casting says that the spells cast spontaneously by prepared casters in place if a prepared spell follow special rules for spontaneous casting, but otherwise function as normal casting.

So, a Spontaneous Divination Wizard knows all divination spells of a spell level he can prepare spells, he need not even pay to put the divination spells in his spellbook. He casts them spontaneously other spells already prepared. He casts them without referring to a spellbook. He learns his entire list of divinations for any level he can cast when he gains an appropriate level. These are all special rules for spontaneous casting. Otherwise this spontaneous casting functions as normal spellcasting.

A good cleric casts cure spells spontaneously by replacing spells of equal or higher level already prepared into slots. He knows these spells when his level in his class is high enough to gain access to the level these spells are on...etc.

Spontaneous spellcaster does not mean unable to cast spells with preparation, it means able to cast spells without preparation.

Link's statement was a Sorcerer with Arcane Preparation is a Prepared Spellcaster and per the RC a Prepared Spellcaster cannot cast anything that's not Prepared.

No that's not what Linklord wrote, not even a paraphrase. Linklord wrote that a Sorcerer with the Arcane Preparation feat gained the ability to prepare spells, and thus failed your definition of spontaneous spellcaster, which definition he apparently agreed with. That meant that he no longer qualified as a spontaneous spellcaster, not that he became unable to cast spontaneous spells.

Functionally, what's on the table is the interpretation of how things cross over. Chemus thinks a Wizard with Spontaneous Divination, or form the other side Sorcerer with Arcane Preparation, mechanically becomes the other which runs into a lot of errors. It disagrees with rule entries that can only be worked out by overlooking or ignoring them and you have to get pretty subjective with terms that consistently don't as a houserule patch to ad hoc things into a working, a bit broken, condition. All for the end goal of being broken, >.>

Your initial sentence about my thinking is correct. Spont Div Wiz, Sig Spell Wis, Arcane Prep Sorc, Cleric, Druid, all cast spontaneous and prepared spells. They're all prepared and spontaneous spellcasters. Mechanically, this breaks... what? Disagrees with which entries, and in what way? What has to be houseruled?

Ex.: here's part of the spell 'Symbol of Spell Loss, SC 218: "...[a saving throw] Failure means that the highest-level spell prepared by the [targeted] spellcaster (or highest-level spell slot, if the character casts spells spontaneously) is lost for the day..."

The character who has a highest level prepared spell in his highest slot who also casts spontaneously loses... that highest level prepared spell, which is also the slot that he could cast his highest level spontaneous spell from. Where's the subjectivity or houserule? Ooh yeh, the DM would have to agonize whether to kill the highest level prepared spell or the highest level slot of the AP Sorc. That's... uh, really nebulous...

Is a Spontaneous Divination wizard using Versatile Spellcaster to cast spells he knows of a level higher than those of his peers overpowered or broken? Yes. It's akin to Gnome illusionist/Shadowcraft Mage casting an Earth-Invisible-Cooperative-Sanctum-Heighten Silent Image Cantrip from a 5th level slot and getting a 7th level conjuration (creation/summoning) spell at 100% reality, and +8 to his caster level. Or a 9th level and 120% real (on a failed save) while in his sanctum.

But it's not against the rules. If you don't like it, fix it in your game. Being a dog in the manger, trying to tell people that wizards can't ever ever ever cast spontaneously, is disingenuous.

The other side of the argument which is held by me points out there is a difference between having the mechanical rule defined abilities and having something that produces the end result, in other words it's impossible for a Wizard to count as a Spontaneous Caster when it comes to the rules even if they are producing a similar result that follows some of the rules in question.

How? There are rules in place that specifically call spontaneous replacement of prepared spells spontaneous casting, that say that it follows special rules for spontaneous casting, and that include spontaneous conversion users under the title of spontaneous spellcasters.

...In fact, you may know this argument under it's other name. Precarious [sic] Apprentice. It's the Feat that gives you something people would normally call the ability to cast a 2nd level Spell but the Feat goes on to say that when you do obtain the ability to cast 2nd level Spells it loses some of it's functionality.

Precocious Apprentice says "...Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect...When you become able to cast 2nd level spells..."

Spontaneous Divination says "You can spontaneously cast any spell of the divination school by sacrificing a prepared spell of equal or greater level. [example]" (this is the entirety of the benefit section, minus the, apparently correct, example, as examples are to be given little weight anyway.)

The one qualifies that you can't cast 2nd level spells until your level is high enough, then goes on to say what happens when your level gets high enough, the other straight up says that you can spontaneously cast div spells by sacrificing prepared spells, without qualifying anything. Not the same argument at all.

So yes, it's a strawman (I never said boo re: PA)/red herring/association fallacy.

Heck you can hark back to the sixteen year old debate of if Grease is flammable or not since it's all the same deal.

Yeah, that's really good. An interpretation of the physical properties of grease, versus specific words and even rules that show that they mean what they say.

[SorO_Lost]

Link's statement was a Sorcerer with Arcane Preparation is a Prepared Spellcaster and per the RC a Prepared Spellcaster cannot cast anything that's not Prepared.

That rule seems broken on first principles.

As explained it's not, it's only broken if you treat Requirements are being highly subjective like...

That's all moot to Versatile Spellcaster though, because what it requires is simple "ability to spontaneously cast spells", which doesn't even have to come from a class.

That's a good example. Like take the following which is how I try to type things out, Sorcerer can cast Spontaneously but a Cleric can spontaneously cast Cure. Due to capitalization you can easily discern that even through I'm using the same word one is mechanical and the other is title/descriptive, in the rules it's not so easy.

In general, specially in Spellcasting, Requirements are tied to the Class meeting them. Like a Cleric 10 / Wizard 5 can't take Extra Spell to learn a new 5th level Wizard Spell and the same build cannot sacrifice a Wizard Prepared Spell to cast Cure. The Greater Barghest fails out because only CLs that are fixed or come from Class Levels are counted. Spellcasting Ability, when you don't go full RAWtard, is also measured entirely off your (possible virtual) Class Levels. It's even confirmed through the FAQ that a Cleric cannot meet the Spontaneous side of Reserve Feats, it cites the mechanical Known property being left out, but if you're getting that technical the The Wizard "Knows" Spells but does not have a "List", nor does it use Slots in the same way (slots being a big one), nor does it cast anything without Preparation (as noted, spontaneous divination requires you to sacrifice a prepared spell).

Not only is there precedence that you need to interpret has checking mechanical abilities but the RC goes so far as to flat out say that if you Prepare Spells you cannot be called a Spontaneous Spellcaster and CM's clarification of Versatile Spellcaster's Requirements expressly states only Spontaneous Spellcasters can use it which is something the Wizard can never be called. Ever. And I'm not kidding about VA either, here is the RAW on the subject.

Versatile Spellcaster (Races of the Dragon): Although only spontaneous spellcasters can utilize this feat, the ability to sacrifice two lower-level spell slots for one higher-level spell slot comes in handy more often than you might think.

Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters.

Which also means it's a debate of interpretation, mine which over the course of this thread has a dozen rules and examples or Chemus's which ignore things (such as cm of course) and offer fallacies as the reason why you should pick it.

And unfortunately for you, it's not my problem if you decide to accept a lie for the purposes of breaking things.

[Chemus]

...But let's take a moment and go back to that dumb appeal of yours, recall when I said I could prove VA's requirements were not subjective? Of course not, you didn't read the owlbear post before replying.

Versatile Spellcaster (Races of the Dragon): Although only spontaneous spellcasters can utilize this feat, the ability to sacrifice two lower-level spell slots for one higher-level spell slot comes in handy more often than you might think.

Some characters can cast spells, but they don’t need spellbooks, nor do they prepare their spells. They can cast any spell they know using a daily allotment of spell slots. These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters.

The wizard prepares spells. The wizard is a prepared caster. The wizard, through a feat or ACF, is able to spontaneously cast spells. The wizard is a spontaneous caster. Since the wizard fulfills both definitions, and there's nothing invalidating the definitions, he's both. That was, and is, my 'appeal.'

The precis description on p24 of Complete Mage (do I smell... herring?) of what a feat in Races of the Dragon does, and who can use it, especially in regards to character building? Wow, heavy stuff. It might go to intent (one of the 4 designers of CM, as well as the editing manager worked on both books). But maybe they just didn't care to explain who is a spontaneous caster, and that you can become a spontaneous caster. Or they didn't think of it, or even know. CC (spont div) came out in May 2007, RoD in January 2006, and CM in October 2006, and RC in October 2007. FRCS came out in, what... 2001, with the PGTF updating it in 2004. These interactions are unusual, why would they be referred to?

A dozen rules? Which, a description of spontaneous spellcasters, which precedes more detailed rules on the subject? Your interpretation of what 'normal spellcasting' refers to? Which other ten. Or, without hyperbole, which other 2 rules say that spontaneous casting of spells by replacing prepared spells is not spontaneous spellcasting? What contradicts the inclusion of spontaneous conversion casters among spontaneous spellcasters in the spontaneous metamagic section? Which rule says that a character cannot qualify as having more than one type of spellcasting?

[SorO_Lost]

Which rule says that a character cannot qualify as having more than one type of spellcasting?

*yawns*

Speaking of hyperbole fallacies, The fallacy of suppressed correlative is a type of argument that tries to redefine a correlative (one of two mutually exclusive options) so that one alternative encompasses the other, i.e. making one alternative impossible. .. A simple example based on one by Alexander Bain:
* Person 1: "Things are either mysterious or not mysterious. Exactly when an earthquake will strike is still a mystery, but how blood circulates in the body is not."
* Person 2: "Everything is mysterious. There are still things to be learned about how blood circulates."
Regardless of whether Person 2's statement about blood circulation is true or not, the redefinition of "mysterious" is so broad that it omits significant contrast in the level of scientific understanding between earthquakes and blood circulation.

See also

For example, I already just called out how you have to change the word "follow" to something else and this is what you go and rephrase the entire sentence to say, "other than special rules regarding spontaneous spellcasting, this spellcasting works like normal spellcasting". You probably choose page 125 for metamagic rules rather than page 139 because it comments that spontaneous casters don't prepare Metamagics. And even still you took the author(s) explicit inclusion of the Cleric's special rules not as a reminder to include a non-Spontaneous Class because the author figured you wouldn't have known to do that but that it's support for saying the Cleric equals Spontaneous Casting. And then finally it attempts to conclude with a fallacy of appeal, of course you can be a Wizard 1 / Sorcerer 1 and there is no rule text preventing that, but that has nothing to do with the points being discussed. Your post reeks of your attempts to reach out and grasp anything support which is the exact opposite of how you should test a theory.

&
Proof by assertion, sometimes informally referred to as proof by repeated assertion, is an informal fallacy in which a proposition is repeatedly restated regardless of contradiction. Sometimes, this may be repeated until challenges dry up, at which point it is asserted as fact due to its not being contradicted (argumentum ad nauseam). In other cases, its repetition may be cited as evidence of its truth, in a variant of the appeal to authority or appeal to belief fallacies.

And I want you to focus on that last part there, because even if I stop posting you won't become right or "win" the argument. Good day.

[Chemus]

Prior to RC, the core books contained jack-all calling bards or sorcerers spontaneous casters (the bard itself was called spontaneous in its class lore section, and the sorcerer's first spells had that adjective as well, also in the sorcerer lore spot), and the official glossary has but one entry for spontaneous anything, and the cleric's pic is next to it. The RC's 139 preamble copypasta's the Sor/Brd preamble from the SRD/PHB Arcane casting section, but replaces the class names with 'Some characters', then finally calls them 'spontaneous spellcasters'.

Sorcerers and bards cast arcane spells, but they do not have spellbooks and do not prepare their spells. A sorcerer’s or bard’s class level limits the number of spells he can cast (see these class descriptions). His high Charisma score might allow him to cast a few extra spells. A member of either class must have a Charisma score of at least 10 + a spell’s level to cast the spell.

Furthermore, Core doesn't even refer to Brd/Sor as spontaneous casters in the metamagic feats section; they're listed by class name, and described as 'without preparation' and separated from the spontaneously casting cleric and druid, even though the Metamagic rules are shared.

Your contention that the FAQ says that clerics can't use reserve feats from their spontaneous spells because they 'aren't spontaneous' is very wrong. The FAQ says

"[Q] Does the ability to spontaneously cast domain spells granted by the Domain Spontaneity feat (CD) fulfill the spell requirement of the reserve feats from CM?
[A] Not technically. Since you don’t have a list of spells known, only a list of spells prepared and the ability to cast some spells spontaneously, having the ability to spontaneously cast domain spells that fulfill the requirements for reserve feats does not fulfill the reserve feat requirements.
That said, there’s probably no harm in allowing it, and an unflinching DM confident in his ability to challenge you at every turn can have no problem hand-waving the technicality away."

'...list of known spells...' That's a specific requirement of the reserve feat regarding spontaneous casters; high enough slot, and spell on list of spells known.

The cleric and every other caster who converts spells to spontaneously cast has older, better supported and greater claim to both the ability to cast spontaneous spells and the moniker spontaneous spellcaster than the sorcerer. The bard and sorcerer's status was assumed rather than defined until RC. The RC merely let the Brd/Sor into the club through the front door, at long last; they'd been spontaneous casters, but only mentioned as such in passing within splatbooks.

You don't want wiz to get Versatile Spellcaster because it's almost as overpowered as Shadowcraft Mage (it is)? House-rule it.



I would like to get the build over the hurdle to refreshing its spells without resorting to casting actual 4th level spells prior to 7th level, and still be (mostly) within the framework of e6.

My initial build had used Signature Spell and Sanctum Spell together to get the first doubled casting of Mnem. Enh. out there. SorO's initial post said that I was misusing Sanctum, and I presumed that he was referring to the interaction between Sanctum and Spont Conversion (such as Sig. Spell). I went with a more defined way, but it leaves this hypothetical character overpowered, getting to cast spells 2 levels early.

I'm of two minds about the legality of Sanctum Signature spells; the effective -1 says that it's for "...all effects dependent on spell level...", but MM slots and spell level are dicey...

The benefit of a feat is an effect, and it works for spells. Most of the game is an effect, in fact.

I would gladly replace VS... and I shall.

[SorO_Lost]

Prior to RC,

You do realize I'm the one that wrote the guide on Spontaneous Casting Wizard before both of these books came out right? While your sour graping over how you think you could have been right years ago over I actually went through it. I didn't become the most rules knowledgeable person on these forums by slacking off you know, I skipped the classes on communication for it.

You don't want wiz to get Versatile Spellcaster because it's almost as overpowered as Shadowcraft Mage (it is)? House-rule it.

Trying to say my angle is balance is pretty ludicrous given my suggestions >.>

I would like to get the build over the hurdle to refreshing its spells without resorting to casting actual 4th level spells prior to 7th level, and still be (mostly) within the framework of e6.

How about buying items like having Wand Surge and a Staff with Unfettered Heroism (created by a monster or wish trick for E6) is an effective loop of infinite Action Points which lets you infinite cast Unfettered Heroism.

Combined with a way to dual cast Spells you can fit Rary's Mnemonic Enhancer easy enough.

[Chemus]

Your guide... here on BG? The one that says...:

...Versatile Spellcaster (races of the dragon)
A well know feat that allows you to combine lower level spells to cast higher level ones. While this was meant to be off limits to a wizard, its prerequisite is "ability to spontaneously cast spells" which Spontaneous Divination meets....

That guide?

Your assertion that you know the most about the rules... what backs it up? You made the claim, after all.

[SorO_Lost]

That guide?

Sort of, you need to go back another five years or so on the deleted 339 forum for the original.

Your assertion that you know the most about the rules... what backs it up? You made the claim, after all.

Well because I have no qualms with saying it obviously. I mean it's not about insulting everyone else, the veterans all have their unique contributions with vast arrays of knowledge giving them areas of expertise, just when it comes to the rules I've forgotten more than most people cycling through here will ever come to know which sounds like a good enough excuse to me.

I like to think arguing the rules across multiple forums for over a decade gave me some forum of insight. Like in all honestly I probably only recall CM's entry on VA because someone told me nine years ago on one of the multiple forums I used to post on. And food for thought, how many of these arguments you think I've been in and why is it nothing ever posed after that ever appealed to my human nature of being right is better than pretending I was right? I'm sure right now you think your divinely inspired posts could convince anyone of the truth but in less than three months you'll think you were a moron with the way you tried to make your points. And maybe if you're lucky another six months later the understanding of how spellcasting is instanced out will click and you'll realized you didn't just make some bad arguments but some wrong ones.

Add another sixteen years to that and you'll hit the point I'm at. Then if you want to claim you know more then, well I'll probably be dead of a heart attack from stress anyway so it's not like I'll be around to challenge otherwise.

[Chemus]

"Because I said so?" That's laughable.

You seem to expect that you have some cachet, some actual authority on 'how to interpret the rules.' Yet any authority you might have is undermined by your consistent misuse of words, and even game phrases. If before you post, you can't catch that either you, or your autocorrect uses the wrong word or phrase every single time, what hope should anyone have that you correctly parse other things that you read?

You never answered my assertion that the 'normal spellcasting' phrase on RC 139 is in regards to the actual actions and consequences of spellcasting. Nor that in wherever you find spontaneous spellcasting in the RC, spontaneous conversion is included, and its users included with spontaneous spellcasters, and that prior to the RC, spontaneous conversion was the only Core mention of spontaneous casting at all.

I've found no Spontaneous Wizard Handbook or permutation, by you or anyone, at the WotC Board archive, and the one you made on BG sure sounded to me like it was new there, LostPassword.

Assertion of your authority with nothing support it, misrepresenting others positions, misrepresenting your own abilities, failing to actually make arguments of your own, reversing your positions depending on the result you desire from the argument, and ignoring rather than answering any actual arguments that contradict your statements, are all reasons that I almost never take anything you say as fact until I've checked for myself.

Good day.

[SorO_Lost]

You seem to expect that you have some cachet, some actual authority on 'how to interpret the rules.'

Not really, besides consistently quoting or referencing rules to avoid this very fallacy of appeal where you use ad hominian attacks to reinforce fallacy your assertion as a strawman for losing your main points, the fact is I really don't, but I'm considering why that shouldn't change.

I mean, lets face it even with all the problems in this thread and your history aside. Your last post shows how you were willing to research "LostPassWordDoesNotWork" solely for defamation when you came up with nothing because you can't access a deleted board you assuming that's the first, and only, log in I've ever used. And then with no evidence to support your claim you in turn dismiss someone else's claims for not being sufficient to you as unequal grounding. You've insulted your self in a dozen more ways than I can even begin to describe.

And maybe the change of pace I need isn't to throw up rules and listen to total fucking morons make a complete ass of them selves as they try to give you reasons to ignore them. Maybe a new approach, one that I'd actually be capable of performing, is needed. And your concern either way is entirely irrelevant to me through you have pointed out that I am wasting my time with filth. I just wanted you to know that when you copied my usage of good day I'm also assuming you copied my intent. So thanks, today has kind of sucked so I appreciate the good will.

[Chemus]

...through you have pointed out that I am wasting my time with filth. I just wanted you to know that when you copied my usage of good day I'm also assuming you copied my intent. So thanks, today has kind of sucked so I appreciate the good will.

I have no ill will toward you... may your days not suck. However, I am often frustrated, disgusted or even angered by your consistent tactics of name calling and baseless derision.

You've barely answered any points made in this thread; otherwise your answers have been to misrepresent presented info or stances, to dismiss them, usually as stupid, or to ignore them.

I didn't start this; you claimed that 'Wizard cannot take [Versatile Spellcaster.]' The only place I've seen that is in your Spont Wiz HB here, not on BG (where you claimed the opposite at the time). The HB here has no reasons given for the prohibition.

Spontaneous spellcaster is not exclusively defined; "...These characters are called spontaneous spellcasters...(RC 139)" does not say "...Only these..." That is a description, not a definition. A spellcaster who prepares spells, but can cast certain spells spontaneously, is also a spontaneous spellcaster, a position reinforced by the Metamagic section on p 125. The fact that casting a spell spontaneously by replacing a prepared spell is unusual enough that the authors clarified that the only special rules that such casting follows are those of spontaneous spellcasting; all other rules are those of casting a spell normally. Unfortunately, there are no examples of that given. One interpretation is that they meant that the spells are still prepared spells for all purposes, another is that the spells still require components, casting time, provoke AoO's, etc. I strongly favor the second, but neither is perfectly clear.

The 'ability to spontaneously cast spells', is straightforward, if you can cast certain spells spontaneously, you have the ability to spontaneously cast spells. If this ability comes from your class (cleric, druid, spontaneous divination wizard, spontaneous summoning conjurer), then its a spontaneous spellcasting class; a class that grants spontaneous spellcasting. If it comes from another source, then it merely provides spontaneous spellcasting ability.