Magical Training + Versatile Spellcaster Trick

[OblivionSmurf83]

I only just found out about this trick today. Does anyone think it can actually work? That is, taking Magical Training and Versatile Spellcaster, then sacrificing spell slots in a non-Wizard spellcasting class to be able to spontaneously cast any Wizard spells you know.

As a secondary question, would it work if you actually took a one level dip in Wizard, instead of Magical Training. I suspect that won't influence the answer one way or another though.

[SorO_Lost]

A. Context is everything.
A Cleric or Druid can Spontaneously sacrifice a Prepared Spell for Cure/SNA, however, this only applies for that Class's Spellcasting and no other. A Wizard/Cleric/Theurge cannot sacrifice Wizard Spells to cast Cure Minor Wounds. This is backed by practical application world wide and the FAQ.

Likewise, Wizard granted Spellcasting is not Spontaneous Spellcaster. A Domain Wizard with Domain Spontaneity or w/e whom can choose to cast some spells using Prepared Spell Slots is meeting requirements as an End Result, like a Wizard UMDing a Runestaff or using a Ring of Spellstoring. They are still using Prepared Spells in a Prepared Spell Slot, their is no printed exception to their base rules on Metamagic, they are still a Prepared Spellcasting Class using Prepared Spellcaster Rules. Again, backed up in the FAQ.

So no, Versatile Spellcaster which is Spontaneous Spellcaster based, printed in a Sorcerer focused book, and exemplifies Sorcerer, shouldn't be applicable to Wizard based spellcasting which doesn't meet the requirements.

B. Immediately after seeing this, someone will jump in here and mention "RAW" a few times and tell you the FAQ sucks. But they won't offer any real counter points to anything I've said, they are just here to bitch about what they dub a 'nerf'. Their baggage, your problem.

[Cyclone Joker]

Yeah, sorry, but faqs are lulz.

Wizards with Spontaneous Divination are spontaneous spellcasters, as are any with Uncanny Forethought. Not that it really matters.

 I'm really sorry you dislike RAW, but seriously, too bad. Context doesn't matter when something is as completely explicit and clear. One CAN sacrifice slots of another class. Whether it should be allowed is an entirely different matter, but the rules are completely clear.

[bruceleeroy]

Really? Explicit? Because I'm pretty sure this is an example of "the rules don't say I can't".

"You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows."

Care to explain what about that text is explicit in stating that you can use spell slots from any class to fuel spells of any other class?

[Cyclone Joker]

Really? Explicit? Because I'm pretty sure this is an example of "the rules don't say I can't".

"You can use two spell slots of the same level to cast a spell you know that is one level higher. For example, a sorcerer with this feat can expend two 2nd-level spell slots to cast any 3rd-level spell he knows."

Care to explain what about that text is explicit in stating that you can use spell slots from any class to fuel spells of any other class?

The effect is completely explicit. It's any two slots.

Really, you're the one arguing against the very clear rules. The rules say two spell slots of the same level, and spell one level higher. Dead stop, that's it. End of the line. That's all that matters.

It's not "the rules don't say I can't," it's "the rules very clearly state I can."

[SorO_Lost]

It's not "the rules don't say I can't," it's "the rules very clearly state I can."

Look, CJ building a lie on a fallacy.

I'm really sorry you dislike RAW, but seriously, too bad.

[Cyclone Joker]

Look, CJ building a lie on a fallacy.

...No, that would be you. The rules are completely clear. It's any two slots of the same level and any known spell of the level above. It's extremely simple. Unless you can provide any text contradicting this. Oh, wait, of course you can't.

I'm really sorry you dislike RAW, but seriously, too bad.

Lulz. I think you just love to be wrong. It's the only possible explanation for your bizarre inability to recognize fact.

On a side note, it really seems you don't know what the word "fallacy" means. Kinda sad, but not at all surprising.

[Nytemare3701]

Holy hell this got hostile quick.

The rules don't state that it needs to be the original class's spell slots because 90% of this stuff is written in a Core+The splat book in question-style vacuum. RAW? It doesn't say you can't because it never had any reason to assume there would be a problem. It was intended for one use, and that use needed no such clarification.

So yeah, SorO_Lost is correct about the intention of the rules.

As for the RAW? It flies so blatantly past the RAI that it's comical, but yeah if you are doing a TO project then there's not any room to argue against it.

Obligatory RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGE to fit in with the thread theme

[bruceleeroy]

ex·plic·it  [ik-splis-it] 
adjective
1.
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.

un·e·quiv·o·cal  [uhn-i-kwiv-uh-kuhl] 
adjective
1.
not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.



The text of the feat has nothing to say on the matter of using spell slots from one class to fuel higher level spells of another. It uses the generic term "slots". How is that explicitly stating anything at all about multiple classes?

It simply isn't. Cyclone Joker, you are arguing an interpretation of the rules. There is nothing to contradict your interpretation within the feat itself. But make no mistake, it is an interpretation based on "the rules don't say I can't".


Nytemare: they're just continuing their spat from a few other threads.

[Sinfire Titan]

Look, CJ building a lie on a fallacy.

...No, that would be you. The rules are completely clear. It's any two slots of the same level and any known spell of the level above. It's extremely simple. Unless you can provide any text contradicting this. Oh, wait, of course you can't.

I'm really sorry you dislike RAW, but seriously, too bad.

Lulz. I think you just love to be wrong. It's the only possible explanation for your bizarre inability to recognize fact.

On a side note, it really seems you don't know what the word "fallacy" means. Kinda sad, but not at all surprising.

Nipping this in the bud now, keep it civil.

[Cyclone Joker]

ex·plic·it  [ik-splis-it] 
adjective
1.
fully and clearly expressed or demonstrated; leaving nothing merely implied; unequivocal: explicit instructions; an explicit act of violence; explicit language.

un·e·quiv·o·cal  [uhn-i-kwiv-uh-kuhl] 
adjective
1.
not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation: an unequivocal indication of assent; unequivocal proof.

Good. I'm glad we're on the same page.

It only says slots. That's the end of it.

The text of the feat has nothing to say on the matter of using spell slots from one class to fuel higher level spells of another. It uses the generic term "slots". How is that explicitly stating anything at all about multiple classes?

Because it doesn't need to. It is completely unambiguous, clear, has only one possible interpretation, and fully and clearly expressed. "Slots." That's it.

It simply isn't. Cyclone Joker, you are arguing an interpretation of the rules. There is nothing to contradict your interpretation within the feat itself. But make no mistake, it is an interpretation based on "the rules don't say I can't".

No, I'm not. The rules clearly state I can. Therefore I've can. But you've really provided nothing to contradict that beyond "nu-uh, cuz I said so."

Holy hell this got hostile quick.

You sound surprised.

It was intended for one use, and that use needed no such clarification.

So yeah, SorO_Lost is correct about the intention of the rules.

Y'know, this really irritates me. "Intended." The vast majority of the time, the one claiming it has absolutely no basis to make that claim.  So, unless anyone can provide evidence that something was their intent, one way or another, it really should be called "Rules as Seems Reasonable," or "RASR."

That said, I really didn't see any argument as to whether it was reasonable.

[zook1shoe]

I agree with several of you. It doesn't say that it works between classes, therefore it doesn't. As said before, anything else falls under the "it doesn't say I can't" rule.

[Elevevated Beat]

Correct me if I'm wrong on your stances but this is how I'm seeing it:

CJ is arguing from the vacuum of complete TO. It gives no thought to context, intention, or what things "may" mean. Therefore it doesn't care if there are multiple types of spell slots because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

Everyone else (it seems) is taking intent (or what is thought to be) into consideration and using the "the rules don't say I can't is wrong" argument.

EDIT: Would like to add in here that this next part is mainly pointed at Cyclone and sorO.

I only point this out because you guys seem to constantly argue over the same thing again and again in different threads. And at the start, yeah, you might argue about the actual rulings/interpretations; but then it degenerates into name calling rather quickly, and you start attacking parts of the other sides argument that actually has no relevance to what they're actually saying. And you never seem to get anywhere. You've probably noticed it, I'm assuming you're not stupid people (big leap of faith for me here as I have a very low opinion of humanity on the internet). You've both had your piece, let the OP decide what he's going to do with it.

For what it's worth I agree with Nytemare in that RAW and TO it works, but RAI (or RASR... but doesn't roll off the tongue as well) it can be argued much differently. And like hell it'll fly in game.

[zook1shoe]

I was just stating my view and going to argue with anyone about this interpretation of the feat

[Elevevated Beat]

I was just stating my view and going to argue with anyone about this interpretation of the feat

Apologies, I'll clear up what I meant. After laying out the stances as I saw them, the next part was more pointed towards sorO and Cyclone.

[zook1shoe]

No worries

[Cyclone Joker]

I agree with several of you. It doesn't say that it works between classes, therefore it doesn't. As said before, anything else falls under the "it doesn't say I can't" rule.

Except that's totally irrelevant. That's very much akin to saying Power Attack only works for  fighter BAB, and you can't Power Attack away any Rogue BAB.

Correct me if I'm wrong on your stances but this is how I'm seeing it:

CJ is arguing from the vacuum of complete TO. It gives no thought to context, intention, or what things "may" mean. Therefore it doesn't care if there are multiple types of spell slots because it doesn't explicitly state otherwise.

Mostly. The issue is, there's no room for context. All it says is "slots," and that means any slots, because it doesn't differentiate.

Everyone else (it seems) is taking intent (or what is thought to be) into consideration and using the "the rules don't say I can't is wrong" argument.

Which is a bad argument, and they're wrong, especially since, going from the context they love so much in the OP, their belief on intent really shouldn't matter.

I only point this out because you guys seem to constantly argue over the same thing again and again in different threads. And at the start, yeah, you might argue about the actual rulings/interpretations; but then it degenerates into name calling rather quickly, and you start attacking parts of the other sides argument that actually has no relevance to what they're actually saying. And you never seem to get anywhere. You've probably noticed it, I'm assuming you're not stupid people (big leap of faith for me here as I have a very low opinion of humanity on the internet). You've both had your piece, let the OP decide what he's going to do with it.

Except it's fun. Like a racing game, it's not the getting anywhere that matters, but the discussion and argument itself. Plus, well...

For what it's worth I agree with Nytemare in that RAW and TO it works, but RAI (or RASR... but doesn't roll off the tongue as well) it can be argued much differently. And like hell it'll fly in game.

RAR(Rules as Reasonable) could work, even if it is slightly less accurate. RAR even feels better than RAI in my not at all humble opinion.

EDIT:Wow, I really suck at this whole "English" thing.

[Elevevated Beat]

Except it's fun. Like a racing game, it's not the getting anywhere that matters, but the discussion and argument itself. Plus, well...

I do like that picture, and can, sadly, agree with the sentiment. Which makes me a bit of a hypocrite But w/e, I'm human.

RAR(Rules as Reasonable) could work, even if it is slightly less accurate. RAR even feels better than RAI in my not at all humble opinion.

Maybe Rules As Written Reasonably?

[Jackinthegreen]

Rules as Reasonable sounds like something better, and would probably lead to fewer shitflings than RAW does.  Then at least people can discuss what seems reasonable versus what their interpretation of RAW is, especially if any or all participants are incapable of recognizing a different read of the words and are going to get tetchy about it.

And no, it doesn't seem reasonable to let Versatile Spellcaster sack spells from one side to fuel a spell on the other.  Not for a single feat at least.  Going several levels into a PrC like Ultimate Magus to get the ability, now that would be reasonable.

[Cyclone Joker]

Maybe Rules As Written Reasonably?

Not feelin' it. That implies that the authors were reasonable, which bitter experience has proven otherwise. I mean, Sarrukh, Shapechange, Candle of Invocation, Ice Assassin, the list goes on, and on.

Maybe Rules If Written Reasonably, but that just feels wrong.