|
Perhaps a bit defensive but I think it's more spirited than hostile though I think I was more than fair given the shade thrown.
I think he probably got a bit sensitive since Shrink Item is already one of his own personal pet projects to try to abuse so he decided to deride my perspective by being toxic and suggesting that my players aren't allowed to be creative and should stop playing or take up video games instead.
Also to be clear, it's totally 100% acceptable for people to have different benchmarks of what they personally consider abusive. It's simply the fact that RD is in the extreme minority when it comes to permissiveness of "antics" in order to achieve some ludicrous goal.
Give and take.
|
But you're just assuming it is "the wrong slot".
Despite it being perfectly compatible with chosen wording ("appropriate") and grammar ("an" not "the").
2 opportunities for precise exclusivity were not used, in favor of wording congruent with Permissive function....
Except... it's not perfectly compatible with the chosen wording.
I'd like to think that most people would think a 40' U-Haul isn't an 'appropriate' truck to rent to haul a dishwasher home from the store.
You get the truck that is an appropriate size. Meaning one that fits as closely as possible, and doesn't waste extra gas, etc.
It really seems like you are trying to stretch the meanings to suit a carryover from 1st ed.
As an aside, people who argue about adding versatility vs power...
Versatility IS power, people.
Versatility IS power, people.
As someone who makes a hobby out of intentionally trying to break RPG systems with silly nonsense and stretched interpretations of the RAW (apparently) I wholeheartedly agree. Versatility is most definitely its own form of power.
Anyone who believes otherwise is kidding themselves.
|
|
I'd say True Strike is a less exotic example of a low level spell that you might want to cast a lot more often than your level 1 slots allow.As I mentioned in the beginning of the thread about the 20 true strike sorcerer. But the thing is, as powerful as that seems... the opportunity cost of using 3rd, 4th, 5th level spells on a single strike that may still actually miss? It's enormous, and it's hard for me to call that anything but highly suboptimal use of resources.
Perhaps if you built specifically for it, like a sniper build that gets set up in cover and just obliterates people with constant true strikes. But still. You can do a lot with those spell slots at their appropriate level.
You can also use True Strike to help your spell attacks. For example, you're going to spend a 6th level slot on Disintegrate, then spending a level 3 slot to increase the chance of hitting/critting is definitely worth it.
Since low-level spell slots can't keep up with damage, using them to fish for crits with high level slots is entirely reasonable.
|
I'd say True Strike is a less exotic example of a low level spell that you might want to cast a lot more often than your level 1 slots allow.As I mentioned in the beginning of the thread about the 20 true strike sorcerer. But the thing is, as powerful as that seems... the opportunity cost of using 3rd, 4th, 5th level spells on a single strike that may still actually miss? It's enormous, and it's hard for me to call that anything but highly suboptimal use of resources.
Perhaps if you built specifically for it, like a sniper build that gets set up in cover and just obliterates people with constant true strikes. But still. You can do a lot with those spell slots at their appropriate level.
You can also use True Strike to help your spell attacks. For example, you're going to spend a 6th level slot on Disintegrate, then spending a level 3 slot to increase the chance of hitting/critting is definitely worth it.
Since low-level spell slots can't keep up with damage, using them to fish for crits with high level slots is entirely reasonable.
Is that really going to be worth it though? Sure combining true strike with disintegrate is going to have benefits but the more you eat up your other slots that way you run the risk of severely limiting your options.
For example when a wizard hits level 11 and gets disintegrate he can cast it twice. If this is his strategy he will always have the option of tacking on a true strike to fish for crits. Even when he levels up to be able to cast 3 times.
So as he goes to his next highest level spell slot and looks for a spell that has an attack roll he is also starting to consume level 2 spells slots instead of level 1 to do divine strike. He is effectively cutting his spell pool in half by eating away at it from both ends. The advantage effect becomes more and more expensive and the spell you can use it with for max effect gets weaker and weaker. The potential downside of that strategy doesn't put this in the "mechanic abuse" category for me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except... it's not perfectly compatible with the chosen wording.
I'd like to think that most people would think a 40' U-Haul isn't an 'appropriate' truck to rent to haul a dishwasher home from the store.
You get the truck that is an appropriate size. Meaning one that fits as closely as possible, and doesn't waste extra gas, etc.
Look, if your natural inclination is to read some protestant work ethic obligatory frugality into absolutely everything, I'm not arguing that's not compatible with the wording. But claiming that nagging interpretation of "appropriate" as inherently true or obligatory seems a stretch, with the ambiguity of phrasing seemingly acknowledged even by most people here leaning towards Restrictive reading.
I did make a strategic analysis of why 2 failures to use more precise language IMHO increases plausibility or reasonableness of Permissive interpretation. But that doesn't strictly change what RAW allows for, nor imply using either interpretation is "breaking the rules" or somehow less than equally compatible with the RAW.
I get that plenty of people aren't really interested in such a debate, and most people in fact already thought it was ambiguous before closely examining grammar. So IMHO the grammatic analysis to affirm ambiguity was really a stretch in Restrictive reading's favor, which facts failed to support. I get that many or most people will primarily consider perceived game balance reasons for favoring one interpretation or another... Which I haven't focused on since it seems more subjective, and I consider that argument can go either way, but I acknowledge that such factors may and SHOULD play a critical role in resolving which reading SHOULD be officially supported.
Versatility IS power, people.
I agree, of course it isn't absolute power, but is definitely a factor in game balance which I acknowledged can impact how this mechanic SHOULD work, distinct from what what RAW happens to formally be compatible with. I fully expect the "SHOULD" issue to be decisive in resolving this officially, and achieving clarity on grammatic ambiguity of RAW doesn't change that, it just is clarity on grammatic ambiguity of RAW.
But the thing is, with regards to something like True Strike: If you want to cast True Strike with all your slots, you always are able to regardless of interpretation, using Signature Spell. So the power balance issues at hand here are really more about indirect orthogonal issues. Every slot spent on True Strike is a slot that you aren't casting "all your slots" with another spell (after all you always DO have a SigSpell of each level). There is clearly inherent limits to exploitation here, with any versatility coming at cost of actual spell power (with non-Heightened or non-natively high level spells).
I guess there is philosophical issues (hi puritans!) akin to glass half full or empty, in that: Are Heighten benefits an extra potential benefit for those properly prepared (Prep casting or SigSpell), or is Heighten mandatory to access any flexibility at all, i.e. those sinners who didn't have enough virtue may not get any such flexibility even at cost of wasting spell slot power? I don't claim to know how to answer that.
Anyhow, it's a topic that many people have persistently raised, so IMHO clearly deserves FAQ if not Errata. The official ruling will be whatever it is, and if people prefer another they can do that in home games.
Except... it's not perfectly compatible with the chosen wording.
I'd like to think that most people would think a 40' U-Haul isn't an 'appropriate' truck to rent to haul a dishwasher home from the store.
You get the truck that is an appropriate size. Meaning one that fits as closely as possible, and doesn't waste extra gas, etc.Look, if your natural inclination is to read some protestant work ethic obligatory frugality into absolutely everything, I'm not arguing that's not compatible with the wording. But claiming that nagging interpretation of "appropriate" as inherently true or obligatory seems a stretch, with the ambiguity of phrasing seemingly acknowledged even by most people here leaning towards Restrictive reading.
I did make a strategic analysis of why 2 failures to use more precise language IMHO increases plausibility or reasonableness of Permissive interpretation. But that doesn't strictly change what RAW allows for, nor imply using either interpretation is "breaking the rules" or somehow less than equally compatible with the RAW.
I get that plenty of people aren't really interested in such a debate, and most people in fact already thought it was ambiguous before closely examining grammar. So IMHO the grammatic analysis to affirm ambiguity was really a stretch in Restrictive reading's favor, which facts failed to support. I get that many or most people will primarily consider perceived game balance reasons for favoring one interpretation or another... Which I haven't focused on since it seems more subjective, and I consider that argument can go either way, but I acknowledge that such factors may and SHOULD play a critical role in resolving which reading SHOULD be officially supported.
Versatility IS power, people.I agree, of course it isn't absolute power, but is definitely a factor in game balance which I acknowledged can impact how this mechanic SHOULD work, distinct from what what RAW happens to formally be compatible with. I fully...
I think the point is that you have a choose a signature spell. it's a limited resource which by it's very nature means its very likely it's not intended that you can caste 20 true srikes if you didnt make it a signature spell.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
...stuff...
If your choice of progressing in a discussion turns to insults and attempts to pad your word count in an effort to seem more educated, it generally, though not always, means you have realized you are backing a losing position.
So I, at least, am done here. Arguing with someone who tries to argue using as many words as possible to obfuscate his circular logic just isn't worth it.
|
|
I think the point is that you have a choose a signature spell. it's a limited resource which by it's very nature means its very likely it's not intended that you can caste 20 true srikes if you didnt make it a signature spell.
Signature spell is a mechanism for heightening spells. I think heightening is a very different issue (and one much more firmly spelled out) than downcasting with high level spell slots. I still do not think the presence of signature spells and other heightening mechanics really address the issue of whether downcasting is intended behavior or not (at least after reading what's been posted and what I can find so far).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When I read the sorcerer spell casting section, I'm struck by the way spells and slots are phrased.
From the sorcerer casting section:
"Each day, you can cast up to 3 1st level spells."
Here, I place emphasis here on the fact that your slots are the spell levels. It is not this number things that can filled, having 3 1st level slots is literally you can cast up to 3 1st level spells per day.
Further down in the sorcerer rules it makes this more explicit:
"The number of spells you can cast each day is called your spell slots."
So let us use the same phrasing for a 3rd level sorcerer instead of a 1st level, at least as I see it:
"Each day, you can cast up to 4 1st level spells, and up to 3 2nd level spells"
So asking, "Can I use a 2nd level spell slot to cast a 1st level spell?" is like asking "Is casting a 2nd level spell the same as casting a 1st level spell?", and the answer looks like a no to me. Heightening is the mechanism which raises a 1st level spell to 2nd level, and then the statement "Can I cast a 2nd level spell as a 2nd level spell?" becomes sensible (if admittedly as a tautology).
Another way to put it, is if you try to cast 5 1st level spells in a day, then you're trying to go over the limit of 1st level spells you are allowed to cast per day. Doesn't matter that you can cast 3 2nd level spells. A 1st level spell is not a 2nd level spell. You'd need a mechanism like the Wizard Spell Blending arcane thesis to add/remove spell slots (castings per day) of different levels.
I think this also makes clear what an appropriate spell slot is. If you want to cast a 2nd level spell, well, thats clearly 1 of your 3 castings of 2nd level spells per day. It is not 1 of your 4 castings of 1st level spells per day. They don't need to say it is of the same level as the slot, and not lower or higher, because "X 2nd level spell slots" is simply short hand "up to X castings of 2nd level spells per day".
So again, 4 1st level slots means you can cast up to 4 1st level spells a day. There is no trading down functionality I can see in the rules. If there were, it be worded something like you can trade a 2nd level slot for a bonus 1st level slot, along the lines of the Wizard Spell Blending arcane thesis.
I think this is also related to known spells. You can't learn a lower level spell in a higher level slot. You always learn the heightened version. There's no provision for knowing five 1st level spells and two 2nd level as a 3rd level Sorcerer. You can't because a 1st level spell is not a 2nd level spell. At best you can learn a 2nd level spell and make it a signature spell, allowing for lower level casting in 1st level slots as well as 2nd.
Anyways, thats my take on it. On the other hand, I certainly don't see as a problem if a GM house rules you can cast lower level spells as higher level spells without heightening. It raises the versatility of the spontaneous casters relative to the prepared casters, but not by a game breaking amount I think.
|
|
When I read the sorcerer spell casting section, I'm struck by the way spells and slots are phrased.
From the sorcerer casting section:
"Each day, you can cast up to 3 1st level spells."
Here, I place emphasis here on the fact that your slots are the spell levels. It is not this number things that can filled, having 3 1st level slots is literally you can cast up to 3 1st level spells per day.Further down in the sorcerer rules it makes this more explicit:
"The number of spells you can cast each day is called your spell slots."So let us use the same phrasing for a 3rd level sorcerer instead of a 1st level, at least as I see it:
"Each day, you can cast up to 4 1st level spells, and up to 3 2nd level spells"
So asking, "Can I use a 2nd level spell slot to cast a 1st level spell?" is like asking "Is casting a 2nd level spell the same as casting a 1st level spell?", and the answer looks like a no to me. Heightening is the mechanism which raises a 1st level spell to 2nd level, and then the statement "Can I cast a 2nd level spell as a 2nd level spell?" becomes sensible (if admittedly as a tautology).
Another way to put it, is if you try to cast 5 1st level spells in a day, then you're trying to go over the limit of 1st level spells you are allowed to cast per day. Doesn't matter that you can cast 3 2nd level spells. A 1st level spell is not a 2nd level spell. You'd need a mechanism like the Wizard Spell Blending arcane thesis to add/remove spell slots (castings per day) of different levels.
I think this also makes clear what an appropriate spell slot is. If you want to cast a 2nd level spell, well, thats clearly 1 of your 3 castings of 2nd level spells per day. It is not 1 of your 4 castings of 1st level spells per day. They don't need to say it is of the same level as the slot, and not lower or higher, because "X 2nd level spell slots" is simply short hand "up to X castings of 2nd level spells per day".
So again, 4 1st level slots means you can cast up to 4 1st level spells a...
"Sorcerer Spellcasting
Your bloodline provides you with incredible magical power. You can cast spells using the Cast a Spell activity, and you can supply material, somatic, and verbal components when casting spells (see Casting Spells on page 302). Because you’re a sorcerer, you can usually replace material components with somatic components, so you don’t need to use a spell component pouch.
Each day, you can cast up to three 1st-level spells. You must know spells to cast them, and you learn them via the spell repertoire class feature. The number of spells you can cast each day is called your spell slots."
In that very same entry you are quoting they distinguish between the three 1st level spells you can cast and the number of spells you can cast per day (spell slots).
Even if you can cast 1st level spells many times per day, you can still only cast the three 1st level spells you learned from your repertoire (as far as things granted to you from the Sorcerer Spellcasting class feature).