9th level spells with True Necromancer. [Archive] - Wizards Community

9th level spells with True Necromancer. [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
ShatteredArcadia
03-12-06, 01:54 PM Is there any way to get 9th level arcane and divine spells with a True Necromancer? Actually, I've managed this one, really it's another that's causing me problems. Specifically, I also want to fit in a level of Runesmith. My first couple levels look like this:

Wizard 1 - Precocious Apprentice
Cleric 1-3
Mystic Theurge
Runesmith
True Necromancer 1-14.

This gives me 9th level divine, but not arcane. Does anybody see a way to maneuver it in, somehow? For the record, this isn't actually going to be played in a game, it's more an academic challenge. Thanks for any help. Oh, stats are pretty irrelevant, gear is irrelevant, books are pretty much any published WotC material.
PhaedrusXY
03-12-06, 02:00 PM I doubt it is possible. You might pull something off by combining Ur-Priest, Sublime Chord, and Contemplative (for the Death Domain), but it won't be easy.
Caelic
03-12-06, 02:46 PM Keep in mind that Precocious Apprentice, while it will technically work for most prestige classes, will not work for dual-advancement classes such as Mystic Theurge and True Necromancer.
ancalimohtar
03-12-06, 03:40 PM Actually, Caelic, I think PA should let you qualify for TN and other PrCs that require the ability to cast a specific spell. Why do you think it shouldn't, besides the fact that it wasn't meant to?
Slyver
03-12-06, 04:39 PM Keep in mind that Precocious Apprentice, while it will technically work for most prestige classes, will not work for dual-advancement classes such as Mystic Theurge and True Necromancer.
Yes, why is this? Is this another one of those wording things that people seem to feel is straight-forward when it is actually ambiguous (sans one word ("arcane" which is implied) to make it not) and goes completely against the obvious intent of the feat? Someone uses non-conclusive but convincing logic, says it doesn't work and everyone dumps common sense at the door and jumps on the band-wagon?

Or is there another reason.

Slyver
Caelic
03-12-06, 05:26 PM Yes, why is this? Is this another one of those wording things that people seem to feel is straight-forward when it is actually ambiguous (sans one word ("arcane" which is implied) to make it not) and goes completely against the obvious intent of the feat? Someone uses non-conclusive but convincing logic, says it doesn't work and everyone dumps common sense at the door and jumps on the band-wagon?

Or is there another reason.

Slyver

You don't really want to go there. If we're talking about the "obvious intent" of the feat, then it doesn't work for anything, as the designers have explicitly said--repeatedly--that this feat is NOT intended to qualify for prestige classes requiring second level spells.

Catch-22. Those who want the feat to work are arguing that by the literal RAW, it works, regardless of designer intent. The problem is that, by the literal RAW, it doesn't work--and then they're forced to turn around and say, "Well, the intent is obvious!"
Caelic
03-12-06, 05:30 PM Actually, Caelic, I think PA should let you qualify for TN and other PrCs that require the ability to cast a specific spell. Why do you think it shouldn't, besides the fact that it wasn't meant to?

Would you believe, "Because I didn't have the class handy and remembered it as also having a generic spellcasting level requirement?"

Since the class only requires that you be able to cast a specific arcane spell, then yes, I agree that PA will work as written.
ancalimohtar
03-12-06, 05:49 PM Yeah I think it's probably the saving grace of the TN. Without PA, TN is actually worthless. With it, it's alright. Gradually giving up 3 Cleric PLs for Wiz15 plus some abilities can be worth it, I'd say.
Slyver
03-12-06, 05:54 PM You don't really want to go there. If we're talking about the "obvious intent" of the feat, then it doesn't work for anything, as the designers have explicitly said--repeatedly--that this feat is NOT intended to qualify for prestige classes requiring second level spells.

Catch-22. Those who want the feat to work are arguing that by the literal RAW, it works, regardless of designer intent. The problem is that, by the literal RAW, it doesn't work--and then they're forced to turn around and say, "Well, the intent is obvious!"
Yes, I will go there. Inane crap like this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. This is EXACTLY the type of thing I thought your "rules of sensible optimization" or whatever it is called (Which I liked Btw) was supposed to be addressing.

There is no catch-22. If the designers say it is not supposed to qualify for PRCs then it doesnt qualify for PRCs. That intent is NOT implied in the feat. That is COMPLETELY different than manipulating words to leave out an implication (in english, we do that, thus the invention of the word "imply") in an AMBIGUOUS, psuedo-logical, NOT CONCLUSIVE and completely asanine way to make it not work.

Slyver
Talen Lee
03-12-06, 06:23 PM The reason PA normally doesn't work is because it does specify that, once you get access to 2nd level spells, your PA spell just becomes a second level spell slot.

This means that when you go Wizard 1/Cleric 3, the second you hit cleric 3, you're able to cast 2nd level spells. Which means that Precocious Apprentice turns into a 2nd level cleric spell slot, and your Wizard level is now unable to cast 2nd level spells.

This means you can't become a mystic theurge or any of the needs-2nd-level-spells-in-two-classes prestige classes off the back of Precocious Apprentice. That's why Caelic was reacting.

I don't remember, but I assume since he's not clarified himself, the TN might not require '2nd level divine spells and 2nd level arcane spells', but instead, have some other bizarre esoterica about it.
Caelic
03-12-06, 06:33 PM Yes, I will go there. Inane crap like this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. This is EXACTLY the type of thing I thought your "rules of sensible optimization" or whatever it is called (Which I liked Btw) was supposed to be addressing.

It is. For those for whom those rules are enough, simply saying, "The designers have said that it's not supposed to work that way," or perhaps pointing them in the direction of the post where it was said, is enough.

There is no catch-22. If the designers say it is not supposed to qualify for PRCs then it doesnt qualify for PRCs. That intent is NOT implied in the feat. That is COMPLETELY different than manipulating words to leave out an implication (in english, we do that, thus the invention of the word "imply") in an AMBIGUOUS, psuedo-logical, NOT CONCLUSIVE and completely asanine way to make it not work.

Slyver

Those who continue to insist that Precocious Apprentice can be used to qualify for prestige classes are the ones who deny that intent matters, and therefore disregard the designers' statements on the subject. "Intent doesn't matter," they say, "Only the literal wording of the feat."

Perhaps "foist by their own petard" is more appropriate than "Catch-22."
Caelic
03-12-06, 06:35 PM I don't remember, but I assume since he's not clarified himself, the TN might not require '2nd level divine spells and 2nd level arcane spells', but instead, have some other bizarre esoterica about it.

Correct, Talen. TN requires one specific arcane spell and one specific divine spell. (I misremember which is which at the moment.)
Slyver
03-12-06, 06:35 PM The reason PA normally doesn't work is because it does specify that, once you get access to 2nd level spells, your PA spell just becomes a second level spell slot.

This means that when you go Wizard 1/Cleric 3, the second you hit cleric 3, you're able to cast 2nd level spells. Which means that Precocious Apprentice turns into a 2nd level cleric spell slot, and your Wizard level is now unable to cast 2nd level spells.

This means you can't become a mystic theurge or any of the needs-2nd-level-spells-in-two-classes prestige classes off the back of Precocious Apprentice. That's why Caelic was reacting.

I don't remember, but I assume since he's not clarified himself, the TN might not require '2nd level divine spells and 2nd level arcane spells', but instead, have some other bizarre esoterica about it.

Sigh, I am aware that people use this psudo-logic to say it doesn't work. I am pretty sure I implied that. The exact wording of the feat however implies that you lose your spell slot when you can cast 2nd level ARCANE spells. The feat is an arcane caster feat. Throughout the feat it talks about arcane spellcasting. Yes, the wording is ambiguous if you are oblivious to what it means to imply. When writing, at least in english it is common to leave out words that are obvious in order to save time, energy, space and generally make it more readable. I bet there is no one who looks at the wording of that sentence and doesn't know, intuitively, that what is meant is ARCANE 2nd level spells. However, as people are often wont, they will look for any way to manipulate something to work for their own purposes.

Can you, by ignoring what is implied, use psuedo-logic (psuedo-logic is logic that is non-conclusive but is purported to be) to make your statement sound? Yup, most definitely. As I said, leave your understanding of the english language right next to your common sense at the door. They are not required for lawyers. (Who very often lose btw using logic just like this.)

Slyver
Caelic
03-12-06, 06:40 PM Slyver,

You're missing the point. The rules-lawyer, literalist position in this case is "This trick works." The common-sense, "Intent matters" position is "This trick doesn't work."

The trick doesn't work because the designers have SAID the trick doesn't work.

Some attempt to circumvent that by a literalist reading of the feat, and by claiming that "What they MEANT doesn't matter, only what they SAID." They basically disallow context, common sense, and intent in favor of a literal reading of the feat.

The problem is, literalism in this case works against them--because taken literally, without the benefit of context, common sense, and intent, the trick doesn't work, as has been pointed out.

In short: they're precisely the lawyers from your example who lose because of their attempted semantic games.
Talen Lee
03-12-06, 06:53 PM Can you, by ignoring what is implied, use psuedo-logic (psuedo-logic is logic that is non-conclusive but is purported to be) to make your statement sound? Yup, most definitely. As I said, leave your understanding of the english language right next to your common sense at the door. They are not required for lawyers. (Who very often lose btw using logic just like this.)

Slyver
Gee, wow, I'm really sorry, man. I didn't mean to answer your question. I'm really, really sorry that I offended you so badly, especially when you asked. When will I learn?! It's this kind of hideous behaviour that I'm propogating that gets this place its reputation.

Really, ignore what you want to about the feat. The designers have said 'no', and the context is good enough for me. Ignore the prerequisites of Weapon Specialisation if you want. But it's kinda silly to try and start a rules wonk argument, then try and double-back into interpretation.

RAW, it doesn't work. RAI, it doesn't work. If you wanna put your hands over your ears and invent facts about it, knock yourself out.

And don't be an ass to people who just answer your questions.
Slyver
03-12-06, 07:08 PM Caelic, thank you for elaborating on your stance. Your position makes sense to me now, and I agree whole-heartedly.

Talen Lee...

Did you even read my posts? I mean this sincerely, to avoid any future argument and/or derailment of threads, please don't respond to me. Out of the ten or so responses you have given me on these boards I have yet to see one that suggests you read more than the first sentence of any post I make. Either that or you are completely oblivous to innuendo, implication and/or satire, in which case you will not understand a single thing I ever write.

Thanks for your future consideration.

Slyver
Talen Lee
03-12-06, 07:21 PM Subtitle: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
PhaedrusXY
03-12-06, 07:40 PM These boards should have an ignore function. Would make the mod's jobs easier, and everyone happier. :P
Talen Lee
03-12-06, 08:54 PM I have seen my share of forums that allow that, and the only problem is, it leads to disjointed conversation. Someone will ask a question, get no response, and ask again, simply because the person who has answered is on their ignore list.
ancalimohtar
03-12-06, 11:44 PM These boards should have an ignore function. Would make the mod's jobs easier, and everyone happier. :PActually, they do. In fact, I added someone today who had the nerve to PM me with threats. Threats! How darling. But it gets boring fast. Better to go on the list.
scrollreader
03-13-06, 12:51 AM Check my sig for a legit way to get 9th level (Cleric) casting out of TN. I'm rather proud of it, if I do say so myself. And the flavor is pretty nifty too.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
ShatteredArcadia 03-12-06, 01:54 PM	Is there any way to get 9th level arcane and divine spells with a True Necromancer? Actually, I've managed this one, really it's another that's causing me problems. Specifically, I also want to fit in a level of Runesmith. My first couple levels look like this: Wizard 1 - Precocious Apprentice Cleric 1-3 Mystic Theurge Runesmith True Necromancer 1-14. This gives me 9th level divine, but not arcane. Does anybody see a way to maneuver it in, somehow? For the record, this isn't actually going to be played in a game, it's more an academic challenge. Thanks for any help. Oh, stats are pretty irrelevant, gear is irrelevant, books are pretty much any published WotC material.
PhaedrusXY 03-12-06, 02:00 PM	I doubt it is possible. You might pull something off by combining Ur-Priest, Sublime Chord, and Contemplative (for the Death Domain), but it won't be easy.
Caelic 03-12-06, 02:46 PM	Keep in mind that Precocious Apprentice, while it will technically work for most prestige classes, will not work for dual-advancement classes such as Mystic Theurge and True Necromancer.
ancalimohtar 03-12-06, 03:40 PM	Actually, Caelic, I think PA should let you qualify for TN and other PrCs that require the ability to cast a specific spell. Why do you think it shouldn't, besides the fact that it wasn't meant to?
Slyver 03-12-06, 04:39 PM	Keep in mind that Precocious Apprentice, while it will technically work for most prestige classes, will not work for dual-advancement classes such as Mystic Theurge and True Necromancer. Yes, why is this? Is this another one of those wording things that people seem to feel is straight-forward when it is actually ambiguous (sans one word ("arcane" which is implied) to make it not) and goes completely against the obvious intent of the feat? Someone uses non-conclusive but convincing logic, says it doesn't work and everyone dumps common sense at the door and jumps on the band-wagon? Or is there another reason. Slyver
Caelic 03-12-06, 05:26 PM	Yes, why is this? Is this another one of those wording things that people seem to feel is straight-forward when it is actually ambiguous (sans one word ("arcane" which is implied) to make it not) and goes completely against the obvious intent of the feat? Someone uses non-conclusive but convincing logic, says it doesn't work and everyone dumps common sense at the door and jumps on the band-wagon? Or is there another reason. Slyver You don't really want to go there. If we're talking about the "obvious intent" of the feat, then it doesn't work for anything, as the designers have explicitly said--repeatedly--that this feat is NOT intended to qualify for prestige classes requiring second level spells. Catch-22. Those who want the feat to work are arguing that by the literal RAW, it works, regardless of designer intent. The problem is that, by the literal RAW, it doesn't work--and then they're forced to turn around and say, "Well, the intent is obvious!"
Caelic 03-12-06, 05:30 PM	Actually, Caelic, I think PA should let you qualify for TN and other PrCs that require the ability to cast a specific spell. Why do you think it shouldn't, besides the fact that it wasn't meant to? Would you believe, "Because I didn't have the class handy and remembered it as also having a generic spellcasting level requirement?" Since the class only requires that you be able to cast a specific arcane spell, then yes, I agree that PA will work as written.
ancalimohtar 03-12-06, 05:49 PM	Yeah I think it's probably the saving grace of the TN. Without PA, TN is actually worthless. With it, it's alright. Gradually giving up 3 Cleric PLs for Wiz15 plus some abilities can be worth it, I'd say.
Slyver 03-12-06, 05:54 PM	You don't really want to go there. If we're talking about the "obvious intent" of the feat, then it doesn't work for anything, as the designers have explicitly said--repeatedly--that this feat is NOT intended to qualify for prestige classes requiring second level spells. Catch-22. Those who want the feat to work are arguing that by the literal RAW, it works, regardless of designer intent. The problem is that, by the literal RAW, it doesn't work--and then they're forced to turn around and say, "Well, the intent is obvious!" Yes, I will go there. Inane crap like this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. This is EXACTLY the type of thing I thought your "rules of sensible optimization" or whatever it is called (Which I liked Btw) was supposed to be addressing. There is no catch-22. If the designers say it is not supposed to qualify for PRCs then it doesnt qualify for PRCs. That intent is NOT implied in the feat. That is COMPLETELY different than manipulating words to leave out an implication (in english, we do that, thus the invention of the word "imply") in an AMBIGUOUS, psuedo-logical, NOT CONCLUSIVE and completely asanine way to make it not work. Slyver
Talen Lee 03-12-06, 06:23 PM	The reason PA normally doesn't work is because it does specify that, once you get access to 2nd level spells, your PA spell just becomes a second level spell slot. This means that when you go Wizard 1/Cleric 3, the second you hit cleric 3, you're able to cast 2nd level spells. Which means that Precocious Apprentice turns into a 2nd level cleric spell slot, and your Wizard level is now unable to cast 2nd level spells. This means you can't become a mystic theurge or any of the needs-2nd-level-spells-in-two-classes prestige classes off the back of Precocious Apprentice. That's why Caelic was reacting. I don't remember, but I assume since he's not clarified himself, the TN might not require '2nd level divine spells and 2nd level arcane spells', but instead, have some other bizarre esoterica about it.
Caelic 03-12-06, 06:33 PM	Yes, I will go there. Inane crap like this is a HUGE pet peeve of mine. This is EXACTLY the type of thing I thought your "rules of sensible optimization" or whatever it is called (Which I liked Btw) was supposed to be addressing. It is. For those for whom those rules are enough, simply saying, "The designers have said that it's not supposed to work that way," or perhaps pointing them in the direction of the post where it was said, is enough. There is no catch-22. If the designers say it is not supposed to qualify for PRCs then it doesnt qualify for PRCs. That intent is NOT implied in the feat. That is COMPLETELY different than manipulating words to leave out an implication (in english, we do that, thus the invention of the word "imply") in an AMBIGUOUS, psuedo-logical, NOT CONCLUSIVE and completely asanine way to make it not work. Slyver Those who continue to insist that Precocious Apprentice can be used to qualify for prestige classes are the ones who deny that intent matters, and therefore disregard the designers' statements on the subject. "Intent doesn't matter," they say, "Only the literal wording of the feat." Perhaps "foist by their own petard" is more appropriate than "Catch-22."
Caelic 03-12-06, 06:35 PM	I don't remember, but I assume since he's not clarified himself, the TN might not require '2nd level divine spells and 2nd level arcane spells', but instead, have some other bizarre esoterica about it. Correct, Talen. TN requires one specific arcane spell and one specific divine spell. (I misremember which is which at the moment.)
Slyver 03-12-06, 06:35 PM	The reason PA normally doesn't work is because it does specify that, once you get access to 2nd level spells, your PA spell just becomes a second level spell slot. This means that when you go Wizard 1/Cleric 3, the second you hit cleric 3, you're able to cast 2nd level spells. Which means that Precocious Apprentice turns into a 2nd level cleric spell slot, and your Wizard level is now unable to cast 2nd level spells. This means you can't become a mystic theurge or any of the needs-2nd-level-spells-in-two-classes prestige classes off the back of Precocious Apprentice. That's why Caelic was reacting. I don't remember, but I assume since he's not clarified himself, the TN might not require '2nd level divine spells and 2nd level arcane spells', but instead, have some other bizarre esoterica about it. Sigh, I am aware that people use this psudo-logic to say it doesn't work. I am pretty sure I implied that. The exact wording of the feat however implies that you lose your spell slot when you can cast 2nd level ARCANE spells. The feat is an arcane caster feat. Throughout the feat it talks about arcane spellcasting. Yes, the wording is ambiguous if you are oblivious to what it means to imply. When writing, at least in english it is common to leave out words that are obvious in order to save time, energy, space and generally make it more readable. I bet there is no one who looks at the wording of that sentence and doesn't know, intuitively, that what is meant is ARCANE 2nd level spells. However, as people are often wont, they will look for any way to manipulate something to work for their own purposes. Can you, by ignoring what is implied, use psuedo-logic (psuedo-logic is logic that is non-conclusive but is purported to be) to make your statement sound? Yup, most definitely. As I said, leave your understanding of the english language right next to your common sense at the door. They are not required for lawyers. (Who very often lose btw using logic just like this.) Slyver
Caelic 03-12-06, 06:40 PM	Slyver, You're missing the point. The rules-lawyer, literalist position in this case is "This trick works." The common-sense, "Intent matters" position is "This trick doesn't work." The trick doesn't work because the designers have SAID the trick doesn't work. Some attempt to circumvent that by a literalist reading of the feat, and by claiming that "What they MEANT doesn't matter, only what they SAID." They basically disallow context, common sense, and intent in favor of a literal reading of the feat. The problem is, literalism in this case works against them--because taken literally, without the benefit of context, common sense, and intent, the trick doesn't work, as has been pointed out. In short: they're precisely the lawyers from your example who lose because of their attempted semantic games.
Talen Lee 03-12-06, 06:53 PM	Can you, by ignoring what is implied, use psuedo-logic (psuedo-logic is logic that is non-conclusive but is purported to be) to make your statement sound? Yup, most definitely. As I said, leave your understanding of the english language right next to your common sense at the door. They are not required for lawyers. (Who very often lose btw using logic just like this.) Slyver Gee, wow, I'm really sorry, man. I didn't mean to answer your question. I'm really, really sorry that I offended you so badly, especially when you asked. When will I learn?! It's this kind of hideous behaviour that I'm propogating that gets this place its reputation. Really, ignore what you want to about the feat. The designers have said 'no', and the context is good enough for me. Ignore the prerequisites of Weapon Specialisation if you want. But it's kinda silly to try and start a rules wonk argument, then try and double-back into interpretation. RAW, it doesn't work. RAI, it doesn't work. If you wanna put your hands over your ears and invent facts about it, knock yourself out. And don't be an ass to people who just answer your questions.
Slyver 03-12-06, 07:08 PM	Caelic, thank you for elaborating on your stance. Your position makes sense to me now, and I agree whole-heartedly. Talen Lee... Did you even read my posts? I mean this sincerely, to avoid any future argument and/or derailment of threads, please don't respond to me. Out of the ten or so responses you have given me on these boards I have yet to see one that suggests you read more than the first sentence of any post I make. Either that or you are completely oblivous to innuendo, implication and/or satire, in which case you will not understand a single thing I ever write. Thanks for your future consideration. Slyver
Talen Lee 03-12-06, 07:21 PM	Subtitle: LA LA LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.
PhaedrusXY 03-12-06, 07:40 PM	These boards should have an ignore function. Would make the mod's jobs easier, and everyone happier. :P
Talen Lee 03-12-06, 08:54 PM	I have seen my share of forums that allow that, and the only problem is, it leads to disjointed conversation. Someone will ask a question, get no response, and ask again, simply because the person who has answered is on their ignore list.
ancalimohtar 03-12-06, 11:44 PM	These boards should have an ignore function. Would make the mod's jobs easier, and everyone happier. :PActually, they do. In fact, I added someone today who had the nerve to PM me with threats. Threats! How darling. But it gets boring fast. Better to go on the list.
scrollreader 03-13-06, 12:51 AM	Check my sig for a legit way to get 9th level (Cleric) casting out of TN. I'm rather proud of it, if I do say so myself. And the flavor is pretty nifty too.