Magical Training + Versatile Spellcaster Trick

[Nytemare3701]

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.

But...Rules As Written Reasonably means we can argue for and against RAWR!

[Jackinthegreen]

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.

In more than one way probably.  RIWR definitely doesn't sound as good as RAW, RAI, or RAR.  And I almost typed RAWR instead...  Heh.

[Elevevated Beat]

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.

Rules As Written (if redone by) Reasonable (people) just felt a little forced.
I couldn't find anything that fit "If" by meaning but started with an "A"... probably not thinking hard enough.

But...Rules As Written Reasonably means we can argue for and against RAWR!

Yes! And as everyone knows, RAWR means "I love you" in dinosaur. Which, in my mind, somehow thematically fits what we're going for.

(click to show/hide)

Inb4 thematically doesn't work
I know   But I'm not having much luck getting my "feels" across today.

[bruceleeroy]

From the SRD on Sorcerers and Wizards:

"A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below)."

"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells."


So, a multiclass Sorcerer/Wizard can cast any spell in their Wizard spellbook, using Sorcerer slots?


Because that's what your logic leads to, Cyclone.


And I'm done here.

[Scottzar]

Some points to make:
CJ is unavoidably right in this instance. It's pretty unambiguous RAW in this case.

Soro speaks assuming logic and common sense are in play, and that core assumptions of the game system are being held intact (which, by the rules, they aren't).

Bruce:
"Any number" makes no constraints on the number, at all. It is literally any number. Sorcerer casting then goes on to make constraints on the number of spells you can know. In theory this conflicts with:

A wizard can use a borrowed spellbook to prepare a spell she already knows and has recorded in her own spellbook

But given the fact that wizards don't really have any rules on knowing spells or methods of knowing spells, that rules snippet is of dubious use to wizards anyway.



The idea of arguing via Read as (Intended, or whatever people want to call it) in a min/max forum is basically abhorrent to the sort of system mastery I learnt, so I can't really agree with anyone contesting CJ's claim via external logic, but I suppose most people don't assume the nonsensical world of RAW is in effect.

[OblivionSmurf83]

I should probably add that I asked this question in the context of RAW.

That's not because I'm particularly against RAI (you can't really run a game without it), but because the RAI interpretation of this feat is obviously not going to support it.

[Vampireshado]

Okay I'm going to share my opinion on the question posed in the OP. Please no one rip my throat out about this.

Let's start by reading the beginning of the feat in question:
"You can use two spell slots of the same level"

Okay so we start by knowing that we need to use two spell slots, and that those slots have to be at the same level.

Now the end of the feat:
"to cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

So we can use our two spell slots to cast a spell that is exactly one level higher. The only requirement here is that we have to know that spell. So we can't use the two slots to cast a spell out of a rune staff for instance.

Now in a theoretical situation we have a sorcerer 5/ wizard 5 and we want to use our versatile spellcaster feat. We can use any two spell slots to fulfill the beginning of the feat as long as they are the same level, as that is the only requirement given by the feat. So let's use one sorcerer 1st level spell slot and one wizard 1st level spell slot. Good, the first part of the feat is fulfilled. Now we are able to cast any 2nd level, since that is one level higher than our 1st level slots, spell as long as we know that spell. Wizards don't "know" spells as sorcerers do. They have no "spells known" chart and no where are spells known mentioned in their write up, so it seems we can't use our 2nd level spell on a wizard spell as we don't "know" any. So we have to spend our 2nd level spell on a sorcerer spell that we "know."

It is my understanding from this train of thought that we can in fact trigger the feat with any spell slots that we have, even from different classes, but the resultant of the feat must be that a spell from a class with "known" spells is cast.

[Cyclone Joker]

From the SRD on Sorcerers and Wizards:

"A sorcerer casts arcane spells which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below)."

"Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells."


So, a multiclass Sorcerer/Wizard can cast any spell in their Wizard spellbook, using Sorcerer slots?

Well, are they using Versatile Spellcaster? If no, then no. I've said nothing even remotely relating to your bizarre train of thought.

Because that's what your logic leads to, Cyclone.

Assuming you mean without the use of Versatile Spellcaster, then no. Because it's, you know, logic. Nice try, though.

[Jackinthegreen]

The idea of arguing via Read as (Intended, or whatever people want to call it) in a min/max forum is basically abhorrent to the sort of system mastery I learnt, so I can't really agree with anyone contesting CJ's claim via external logic, but I suppose most people don't assume the nonsensical world of RAW is in effect.

That depends somewhat on the situation for min/maxing.  Is it for an actual game?  If yes, it's probably best to err on the side of intended/sane rules interpretations.  If it is simply mental masturbation that won't be used in a game then perhaps "You Break It, You Buy It" comes into effect.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Please take the FAQ-bashing here: http://www.minmaxboards.com/index.php?topic=9187

And TBH, I didn't read the back and forth relevant here. Obviously I don't mind the trick from a balance perspective. First level spells at first level at the cost of both your starting feats? Compare to Sorc1

[OblivionSmurf83]

And TBH, I didn't read the back and forth relevant here. Obviously I don't mind the trick from a balance perspective. First level spells at first level at the cost of both your starting feats? Compare to Sorc1

I think the balance concerns come into it when you consider how a Wizard knows spells. If they know spells in their spellbook, then you can use Magical Training + Versatile Spellcaster to essentially give a spontaneous class like Beguiler the chance to sacrifice their spell slots to cast higher level Wizard spells. That is, you sacrifice two slots of X level from the Beguiler to cast any X+1 level Wizard spell you know.

[OblivionSmurf83]

Okay I'm going to share my opinion on the question posed in the OP. Please no one rip my throat out about this.

Let's start by reading the beginning of the feat in question:
"You can use two spell slots of the same level"

Okay so we start by knowing that we need to use two spell slots, and that those slots have to be at the same level.

Now the end of the feat:
"to cast a spell you know that is one level higher."

So we can use our two spell slots to cast a spell that is exactly one level higher. The only requirement here is that we have to know that spell. So we can't use the two slots to cast a spell out of a rune staff for instance.

Now in a theoretical situation we have a sorcerer 5/ wizard 5 and we want to use our versatile spellcaster feat. We can use any two spell slots to fulfill the beginning of the feat as long as they are the same level, as that is the only requirement given by the feat. So let's use one sorcerer 1st level spell slot and one wizard 1st level spell slot. Good, the first part of the feat is fulfilled. Now we are able to cast any 2nd level, since that is one level higher than our 1st level slots, spell as long as we know that spell. Wizards don't "know" spells as sorcerers do. They have no "spells known" chart and no where are spells known mentioned in their write up, so it seems we can't use our 2nd level spell on a wizard spell as we don't "know" any. So we have to spend our 2nd level spell on a sorcerer spell that we "know."

It is my understanding from this train of thought that we can in fact trigger the feat with any spell slots that we have, even from different classes, but the resultant of the feat must be that a spell from a class with "known" spells is cast.

Just to keep this discussion going, this is the description of Spell Mastery from the PHB:

Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.

To me, this suggests that Wizards know spells. If they didn't know spells, then presumably they wouldn't be able to use the feat, since it requires a Wizard to chose spells they 'already know'. This appears backed up by the PHB, which contrasts Wizards to Sorcerers at p 57:

Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, page 179).

Similarly, the description of Sorcerers on p 52 suggests they 'know fewer spells than wizards do', which again suggests that Wizards know spells.

Does that change your opinion at all?

[SorO_Lost]

So having paid little attention to this discussion I come back and find cast being so empathized that it's hit a point you can ignore Verbal, Somatic, Material Components, Focuses, and even Concentration Checks.

Wait what? Well Wizards cannot cast an unprepared Spell, they don't even expend or use Spell Slots really. They use them as a container, filling with with a Prepared Spell and leaving it with an already cast Spell or leaving it empty. But that aside, Versatile Spellcaster's mention of being able to cast is being over empathized to bypass inherent requirements of how a Class actually casts spells (eg sorcerer slots for wizard spells). Well since technically, in order to Cast a Spell you also need the required Components, why on earth would you stop there?

If you lobotomize your self before reading this thread, it's pretty funny.

Edit - ROFLMAO, can't pass this up.

Warforged Dragonborn. That one has always held a special place in my heart, along with pop music and people who talk in movie theaters. It's pretty explicit in saying it goes to humanoids, and all.

Mindful this "explicit requirement of Humanoid" is mentioned once under the Call of Bahamut, which is flavor text that doesn't weigh in a lot seeing how Tiamat and the Eberron Dragons can create Dragonborn, anyway what is important is Dragonborn prerequisites doesn't require your type to be Humanoid at all.

"RAW" (noun): Something kicked by the f*cking wayside the moment it disagrees with you.

[Cyclone Joker]

So having paid little attention to this discussion I come back and find cast being so empathized that it's hit a point you can ignore Verbal, Somatic, Material Components, Focuses, and even Concentration Checks.

Wait what? Well Wizards cannot cast an unprepared Spell, they don't even expend or use Spell Slots really. They use them as a container, filling with with a Prepared Spell and leaving it with an already cast Spell or leaving it empty. But that aside, Versatile Spellcaster's mention of being able to cast is being over empathized to bypass inherent requirements of how a Class actually casts spells (eg sorcerer slots for wizard spells). Well since technically, in order to Cast a Spell you also need the required Components, why on earth would you stop there?

If you lobotomize your self before reading this thread, it's pretty funny.

Are you trying to say something, or are you just butthurt your ignorance is so blatantly obvious?

Edit - ROFLMAO, can't pass this up.

Warforged Dragonborn. That one has always held a special place in my heart, along with pop music and people who talk in movie theaters. It's pretty explicit in saying it goes to humanoids, and all.

Mindful this "explicit requirement of Humanoid" is mentioned once under the Call of Bahamut, which is flavor text that doesn't weigh in a lot seeing how Tiamat and the Eberron Dragons can create Dragonborn, anyway what is important is Dragonborn prerequisites doesn't require your type to be Humanoid at all.

"RAW" (noun): Something kicked by the f*cking wayside the moment it disagrees with you.

I suggest you get your vision checked. Or maybe your head. You really need some professional help, bro. Especially since it really doesn't have anything to do with this thread.

[Jackinthegreen]

Dragonborn Warforged:  http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ask/20070112a

[Vampireshado]

Just to keep this discussion going, this is the description of Spell Mastery from the PHB:

Each time you take this feat, choose a number of spells equal to your Intelligence modifier that you already know. From that point on, you can prepare these spells without referring to a spellbook.

To me, this suggests that Wizards know spells. If they didn't know spells, then presumably they wouldn't be able to use the feat, since it requires a Wizard to chose spells they 'already know'. This appears backed up by the PHB, which contrasts Wizards to Sorcerers at p 57:

Unlike a bard or sorcerer, a wizard may know any number of spells (see Writing a New Spell into a Spellbook, page 179).

Similarly, the description of Sorcerers on p 52 suggests they 'know fewer spells than wizards do', which again suggests that Wizards know spells.

Does that change your opinion at all?

Yes it does. I had just spot checked the phb wizard entry and didn't see the term "know" anywhere. I must have missed it. But your examples do indeed suggest that wizards "know" spells. So what defines the spells that wizards know? Are they the spells that they have in their personal spellbook? That would make the most sense to me. And if that is the case then I would say yes, you can use versatile spellcaster to cast wizard spells. Which makes this a very powerful feat by RAW.

[SorO_Lost]

The hang up has never been about known, it's context vs stupidity.

The act of casting a spell as a Wizard is brought up on page 178, where it notes Spell Preparation is actually part of how a Wizard casts spells. Preparation of course has a lengthy time, peaceful atmosphere, and requires reading a spellbook (or spellmastery). Similarly, the act of casting a spell includes the various Components. And it is completely and totally overlooked. Because a Sorcerer Feat allows you to use two lower level slots in order to cast a spell. "Cast" being heavily empathized as to trump all other Cast related rules (technically, spellcasting entries say cast, ignore those while your at it) rather than say, the Feat only makes an exception on the Slot(s) consumed to cast a Spell. Plus you cannot cross class stuff. What applies to one set of spell casting doesn't apply to another and the Feat requires Spontaneous Spellcasting, something the Wizard does not and nor will ever have.

But obviously. CJ is here and people are tossing RAW around, that's no less than two reasons you should seriously stop and reevaluate. Is this RAW or RAITAYCPIWN?

[Jackinthegreen]

In other words, you're arguing that because a wizard's spell casting has a lot of extra baggage, that should be taken into account?  Sounds reasonable.  Iffy on whether it's RAW, and I imagine there is an opinion where anything but the feat's wording should be dismissed, but it does have a genuine basis in the rules.  Wizards aren't generally able to pull spells out of their asses like sorcerers can after all.

Generally of course meaning doesn't have Spell Mastery for that spell and isn't a Spontaneous Divination variant.

[zook1shoe]

If it somehow worked as CJ wants it to, you could take the Magical Training (wizard) feat and just buy spells of whatever level you want in your spellbook. Then just blow slots to cast spells for classes you don't even have real levels in.

that's ridiculous and just more reason to show that common sense must also be applied to RAW rulings, and CJ's interpretation is wrong in so many ways.

without common sense... Where does cow's milk come from? Where does bread come from? Cheese? Corn? Rope? Keys? Locks?

many of the these things don't actually have DnD rules for what makes them what they are, because the authors assumed people would use at least some common sense.

I admit there have been more than a lot of times I haven't used common sense. But in this case I am.

[OblivionSmurf83]

The hang up has never been about known, it's context vs stupidity.
What applies to one set of spell casting doesn't apply to another and the Feat requires Spontaneous Spellcasting, something the Wizard does not and nor will ever have.

Just so we're clear, are you arguing that the feat requires more than the ability to cast spells spontaneously? That is, a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard with spontaneous divination would never be able to qualify for the feat?

Also, is your problem here about poor interpretation of the feat rather than the overpowered nature of the feat? That is, you'd accept a Wizard 1/Druid 7/Hathran 1 being able to pull off an equivalent trick while in Rashemen?