Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mattastrophic 02-14-07, 03:05 PM	Alacritous Cogitation: You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell. Prerequisite: Must prepare arcane spells. Benefit: If you leave an arcane spell slot open when preparing spells, you can use that open slot to cast any arcane spell you know of the same level or lower. Casting the spell requires a full-round action. You can use this feat only once per day, regardless of the number of slots you leave open. Special: A wizard can select this feat as a wizard bonus feat. I'm wondering... does Alacritous Cogitation qualify me for feats that require the ability to cast spells spontaneously? -Matt
Rerednaw 02-14-07, 04:36 PM	Alacritous Cogitation: You can leave a prepared spell slot open to spontaneously cast a spell. ...Special: A wizard can select this feat as a wizard bonus feat. I'm wondering... does Alacritous Cogitation qualify me for feats that require the ability to cast spells spontaneously? -Matt Sure sounds like it. Wow, this one feat means your wizard can use ANY reserve feat so long as he has the appropriate spell on his LIST and he leaves the highest applicable slot open. Woo-hoo.
LachlarlanIII 02-14-07, 04:40 PM	It also lets you qualify for Dragon Disciple as a wizard.
Timlagor 02-14-07, 09:39 PM	I would say it lets you cast a spell spontaneously and is insufficient.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-15-07, 01:29 AM	And it's not really all that useful with reserve feats unless you have like 4 of them...and even they...it's hardly worth it to take more than 1 reserve feat...
ranagrande 02-15-07, 01:37 AM	I would say it lets you cast a spell spontaneously and is insufficient. I don't think the rules would support this. A fifth level Hexblade can only spontaneously cast one spell per day, just like a Wizard with Alacritous Cogitation, and they still qualify for Dragon Disciple.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-15-07, 02:10 AM	I don't think the rules would support this. A fifth level Hexblade can only spontaneously cast one spell per day, just like a Wizard with Alacritous Cogitation, and they still qualify for Dragon Disciple. Whether or not it qualifies, I don't think anyone would waste the feat to do it, especially when Beguiler is available as an INT based spontaneous caster already...
Mattastrophic 02-15-07, 11:21 AM	But from how the feat's written, it works, right? -Matt
ranagrande 02-15-07, 07:30 PM	But from how the feat's written, it works, right? -Matt That would be my interpretation.
vvincent 02-15-07, 07:40 PM	But from how the feat's written, it works, right? -Matt Interpret it as you see fit - but don't complain if it's errated or the Circle nixes it later on. If the benefit seems too good to be true - it probably is.
DroidTrooper 02-16-07, 12:38 AM	If a player came up to me with this concepts, I'd let him play until I heard otherwise. However, its seems to be the tradition of LG is to read only the rules portion of a ability (object/feat/etc.) and ignore the flavor text. And the only spot the word spontaneous is used in the feat's description not in the rules block.
Mattastrophic 02-16-07, 01:16 AM	If a player came up to me with this concepts, I'd let him play until I heard otherwise. However, its seems to be the tradition of LG is to read only the rules portion of a ability (object/feat/etc.) and ignore the flavor text. And the only spot the word spontaneous is used in the feat's description not in the rules block. I am not sure where off the top of my head, but I do believe that flavor text "mattered" when it came to some other feat or spell, I don't know which. Any help here? I'm mainly trying to make sure I don't get nerfed by table variation on this one. -Matt
solbergb 02-16-07, 02:23 AM	You won't get nerfed on table variation if you use the feat as intended, to get spells without prepping them specifically. You WILL get table variation if you use it to try to qualify for a spont-only PRC as it isn't clear to every judge that this is an intended consequence of the feat. Any table variation on a PRC Prereq is very bad, because it can mean you can't play the char at some tables (or are limited to no class abilities from PRC if you do elect to play). I wouldn't risk it, without iron clad proof that it works like you think it does, eg, a FAQ entry.
Mattastrophic 02-16-07, 11:29 AM	doublepost
Mattastrophic 02-16-07, 11:31 AM	I did some thinking, and I realized that I'll never have anything iron-clad on anything. I've had judges who refused multiple sneak attacks on a full-attack, and I remember one just point-blank say that my cohort was not allowed to take prestige classes. So I can either A) Just Do It, or B) Nerf my own ideas out of fear of table variation. At least, this way, getting screwed by table variation into being unable to sit at the table would mean that I wouldn't have to deal with anything else from that judge. Solbergb: I've had you as a judge twice now, and I have a feeling it'll happen again sometime. Would you be cool with this use of Alacritous Cogitation? -Matt
solbergb 02-16-07, 11:51 AM	I would be really really unhappy about it. To me it is right up there with 3.0 gnomes getting into dragon disciple via sloppy editing. I don't think the intent is to be a wizardly form of arcane preparation. If it was, it wouldn't have the 1/day limit. I might be wrong though, so I'd give the benefit of the doubt. I would strictly enforce the fact that you only got the PRC benefits if you keep the spell slot open for it but don't actually cast the spell. Once the 1/day thing is used, you can no longer cast spontaneous spells and lose the PRC perks. If it was not limited uses/day, I'd allow it to be a wizard form of arcane preparation with no limits. But it is limited uses/day, which to me tells strongly about intent. I would also be mildly amazed that you'd take such a risk on a character you like Matt :)
Mattastrophic 02-16-07, 12:03 PM	I would also be mildly amazed that you'd take such a risk on a character you like Matt :) Well, that's what retraining's for, eh? Plus, my intentions for the feat aren't broken, just very very unique. I can hardly wait. -Matt
solbergb 02-16-07, 01:23 PM	Well, if it is unique you won't mind tying up the slot and feat on it I guess. Now I'm curious :)
Timlagor 02-16-07, 02:44 PM	I did some thinking, and I realized that I'll never have anything iron-clad on anything. I've had judges who refused multiple sneak attacks on a full-attack, and I remember one just point-blank say that my cohort was not allowed to take prestige classes. So I can either A) Just Do It, or B) Nerf my own ideas out of fear of table variation. I think you should draw a distinction between outright bad (terrible) judging and legitimate different interpretations. Both your examples above are absolutely clearly wrong by the rules and should not have been accepted. This one isn't.
solbergb 02-16-07, 03:03 PM	Matt, you know I like to run chars that do odd things, and force judges to learn new rules or think out of the box. (grapple rules and interaction with trip and flurry, servant hordes, interactions of bardsong and tk violent thrust, tking people and enchanted arrows, mixing weapon capsule retainers and monk unarmed strike, using grease or obscuring mist as readied action to block charging, aggressive use of arcane sight putting weird things into quiver of ehlonna, using size large bow briefly on an archer, chain spell and mage hand and alchemicals, trying to use the FAQ ruling on flurry+natural weapons, tenser's disks filled with alchemicals vs swarms, shatter+unseen servant+alchemicals, theoretical discussions of interaction between dispel magic and explosive runes, hold the line, reach and combat reflexes interaction + distinction between types of AOO's, with attempting to actually use craft trapmaking in modules, the list just goes on and on). However there is always a trial period where I experiment and pay attention to reactions. If the reactions are negative, or it causes too much explanation or discussion I quietly stop doing the tactic or trick. My goal is to be seen as weird but interesting and innovative at the table, not to cause arguments or to introduce balance issues. Retraining opens more avenues for this kind of behavior, as you can try something risky and see what the real variation is, and the reactions you get and quietly retrain it away if the reaction is bad. There are some things I don't try, when the testing the waters in theory causes a million different response (see "Earth's Embrace" for a feat that is useless in LG because nobody can agree on what it does. All of my explosive runes ideas also died in discussion). Some things I turn away from sadly - the reaction to my Rhenee Sorceress's flying boat wasn't at all what I wanted. I'll just have to settle for phantom steed, which is mechanically better in just about every way but isn't quite as flavorful. There is also a category I reserve for emergencies. This is "It's complicated, but when you explain it most judges allow it". I save those for situations where they stop deaths or turn around a near TPK. People are more receptive to hearing a complex tactic or combination when it makes the module more likely to succeed.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-16-07, 04:31 PM	I would be really really unhappy about it. To me it is right up there with 3.0 gnomes getting into dragon disciple via sloppy editing. I don't think the intent is to be a wizardly form of arcane preparation. If it was, it wouldn't have the 1/day limit. I might be wrong though, so I'd give the benefit of the doubt. I would strictly enforce the fact that you only got the PRC benefits if you keep the spell slot open for it but don't actually cast the spell. Once the 1/day thing is used, you can no longer cast spontaneous spells and lose the PRC perks. If it was not limited uses/day, I'd allow it to be a wizard form of arcane preparation with no limits. But it is limited uses/day, which to me tells strongly about intent. I would also be mildly amazed that you'd take such a risk on a character you like Matt :) The problem with that logic is you would also have to apply it to 4th level hexblades who have cast their 1 spell per day. Most pre-reqs don't specify how often you can cast spontaneously, as long as you possess some ability to do so. For instance, if there was some bizarre class that let you spontanseously cast 1 spell per year, it would still qualify for anything that requires spontaneous casting...You can't make a ruling based on the frequency of casting, it must be determined whether or not the feat grants spontaneous casting. The type of casting is the only thing that matters, not the frequency. This is where clarification is needed.
solbergb 02-16-07, 05:57 PM	Well, right. It's unclear. And because I'm not sure what the right thing is, I take a middle ground. A hexblade IS a spontaneous spellcaster. A hexblade with arcane preparation is BOTH a prep spellcaster and a spont caster. He can behave in all ways like he is one or the other. A wizard with this feat is NOT a spontaneous spellcaster. He's a prep caster with the ability to do one spontaneous a day if he preps a spell slot to do so, and his casting time is different even on the one spell he can spont, and if he sponts anything he loses ALL spont casting ability till the next day. They're similar in both cases. But they aren't the same. The difference introduces grey. A hexblade who cast his one spell and found a ring of wizardry would have a second slot open. A wizard who used his feat and had more open slots could not spont anything. Should you insist that they are the same, I'll just say, "no they aren't, there are significant mechanical differences and therefore it doesn't work at all at my table, since you don't appear to like the middle ground." Spont casting includes all of: 1. can cast any spell you want on your list, out of any slot you have not prepared. (until the feat is used, you have this ability. When the feat is used, you no longer have this ability) 2. takes a std action without metamagic (feat doesn't give this, it takes longer) 3. takes a full round action to apply any metamagic you might have (feat probably takes longer or can't do it at all, it's grey. I'm inclined to allow it with extra time...ie round+std to cast) #1 and the way the feat behaves is the reasoning behind my ruling. Given #2 and #3 it's actually a stronger ruling to just not allow it, but when the feat is unused, the similarities are very great between a sorc with arcane prep on most of his spells and a wiz with the feat. And it means that Matt doesn't have to choose another char at my table, just play within the restrictions.
Bosstone 02-16-07, 06:01 PM	Spont casting includes all of: 1. can cast any spell you want on your list, out of any slot you have not prepared. (until the feat is used, you have this ability. When the feat is used, you no longer have this ability)I don't see why this is so, actually. If a wizard can cast 4 spells per day, preps 3 and leaves the 4th open, he, paraphrasing your wording, can cast any spell he wants on his list out of that slot that he hasn't prepared. Sure, he no longer has the ability to cast spontaneously, but neither does a sorceror who uses up all his unprepared slots.
Japangirl 02-16-07, 06:13 PM	After reading over both feats, the intent is completely obvious to me that it should work. However, because Wizards' editors screw up a lot, the actual rules don't really support the interpretation that it counts as "spontaneous casting". Looking at the wording of the feat and the wording of how sorcerors spontaneously cast, it's very very similar, but not exactly the same. "Unlike a wizard or a cleric, a sorcerer need not prepare his spells in advance. He can cast any spell he knows at any time, assuming he has not yet used up his spells per day for that spell level. He does not have to decide ahead of time which spells he’ll cast" (SRD). I would allow it as a DM, everyone around me I've talked to would allow it, but ETV until a final FAQ ruling or Dispel Confusion comes out about it.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-16-07, 06:29 PM	Well, right. It's unclear. And because I'm not sure what the right thing is, I take a middle ground. A hexblade IS a spontaneous spellcaster. A hexblade with arcane preparation is BOTH a prep spellcaster and a spont caster. He can behave in all ways like he is one or the other. A wizard with this feat is NOT a spontaneous spellcaster. He's a prep caster with the ability to do one spontaneous a day if he preps a spell slot to do so, and his casting time is different even on the one spell he can spont, and if he sponts anything he loses ALL spont casting ability till the next day. They're similar in both cases. But they aren't the same. The difference introduces grey. A hexblade who cast his one spell and found a ring of wizardry would have a second slot open. A wizard who used his feat and had more open slots could not spont anything. Should you insist that they are the same, I'll just say, "no they aren't, there are significant mechanical differences and therefore it doesn't work at all at my table, since you don't appear to like the middle ground." Spont casting includes all of: 1. can cast any spell you want on your list, out of any slot you have not prepared. (until the feat is used, you have this ability. When the feat is used, you no longer have this ability) 2. takes a std action without metamagic (feat doesn't give this, it takes longer) 3. takes a full round action to apply any metamagic you might have (feat probably takes longer or can't do it at all, it's grey. I'm inclined to allow it with extra time...ie round+std to cast) #1 and the way the feat behaves is the reasoning behind my ruling. Given #2 and #3 it's actually a stronger ruling to just not allow it, but when the feat is unused, the similarities are very great between a sorc with arcane prep on most of his spells and a wiz with the feat. And it means that Matt doesn't have to choose another char at my table, just play within the restrictions. By RAW alone, the only thing that matters is whether or not the feat grants the ability to spontaneously cast spells. How he spontanesouly casts them, and how often he can do it, are irrelevant to this argument. It either IS spontaneous spellcasting, or it ISN'T. There is no middle ground. You are free to argue whether it is or isn't, but the moment you admit that the feat grants a form of spontaneous spellcasting, you have to allow it to count toward pre-reqs. For example, the Dragon Disciple PrC specifically requires the "Ability to cast arcane spells without preparation." The feat in question does allow a wizard to cast arcane spells without preparation, if only once per day, so it would then seem to fullfill this requirement. I can't think of anything else the feat might apply to at the moment, but there doesn't seem to be any room for argument with dragon disciple anyway...
magebeast 02-16-07, 08:25 PM	Well, right. It's unclear. And because I'm not sure what the right thing is, I take a middle ground. A hexblade IS a spontaneous spellcaster. A hexblade with arcane preparation is BOTH a prep spellcaster and a spont caster. He can behave in all ways like he is one or the other. A wizard with this feat is NOT a spontaneous spellcaster. He's a prep caster with the ability to do one spontaneous a day if he preps a spell slot to do so, and his casting time is different even on the one spell he can spont, and if he sponts anything he loses ALL spont casting ability till the next day. They're similar in both cases. But they aren't the same. The difference introduces grey. A hexblade who cast his one spell and found a ring of wizardry would have a second slot open. A wizard who used his feat and had more open slots could not spont anything. Should you insist that they are the same, I'll just say, "no they aren't, there are significant mechanical differences and therefore it doesn't work at all at my table, since you don't appear to like the middle ground." Spont casting includes all of: 1. can cast any spell you want on your list, out of any slot you have not prepared. (until the feat is used, you have this ability. When the feat is used, you no longer have this ability) 2. takes a std action without metamagic (feat doesn't give this, it takes longer) 3. takes a full round action to apply any metamagic you might have (feat probably takes longer or can't do it at all, it's grey. I'm inclined to allow it with extra time...ie round+std to cast) #1 and the way the feat behaves is the reasoning behind my ruling. Given #2 and #3 it's actually a stronger ruling to just not allow it, but when the feat is unused, the similarities are very great between a sorc with arcane prep on most of his spells and a wiz with the feat. And it means that Matt doesn't have to choose another char at my table, just play within the restrictions. I take issue with your statement in two ways. 1) By your own logic, once the Hexblade uses up all of his "prepped" slots for the day, he is suddenly no longer a prepared spellcaster - until tomorrow when he can prep slots again. Once he's burned his remaining spells, he's not even a spell caster. 2) You've just sort of made up these definitions. Spontaneous spellcasting *as a sorcerer or bard* works that way. Spontaneous casting, as far as I can tell, is literally the ability to spontaneously cast a spell. The reason, to me, that they limited it to once per day is pretty clear. If a Wizard could spontaneously cast as many spells per day as they wanted, they would be able to do it from a vastly larger list than any sorcerer could ever hope to have. Albeit they get fewer spells, but if you prepped your more common spells and used pearls for those, you'd be pretty comparable in quantity to a sorcerer.
solbergb 02-16-07, 08:26 PM	Spontaneous casting as a sorcerer, bard, hexblade, assassin, warmage, beguiler, favored soul and probably a bunch I can't remember offhand all work this way. In fact 100% of real spont casters work that way. Even dragons and naga that have sorcerer-like spont casting work that way. Please forgive me if I seem sceptical. Does it let you cast spells without preparation? What it does, if you do this, is require me as Judge to look at the wording of the PRC, look at the feat and scratch my head. As with the arcane caster level vs ability to cast arcane spells stuff in PRC wording, the exact wording might include or exclude a given PRC. It's funny, because my reading is that it is obvious they did NOT intend it to be the arcane preparation equivalent for wizards. Japangirl came to opposite conclusion, equally "obvious". It's a recipe for table variation. It's a recipe for arguments instead of gaming. I'm still thinking over how I feel, but I have to think that the 1/day restriction, the extended casting time and lack of provision for metamagic etc is there for a reason and I have to rule by letter and spirit of the rules. This isn't bad enough that I want to kill off a person who uses it as a prereq but I feel there should be some cost to it as opposed to actually being a spont caster beyond the feat. I'd be irritated if I saw an author doing it too.
ithardin 02-16-07, 08:55 PM	I am going to have to vote "no" on this one. In reading the things mentioned in this discussion (class descriptions, etc) I think the original intent is that Dragon Disciple is connected to classes that are by nature spontaneous casters. Wizards are not spontaneous casters, regardless of acquiring a feat that lets you cast a spell spontaneously. Wizards must acquire new spells through study, etc. Spontaneous casters are an entirely different breed in my opinion. Does this mean that using the words as they are written you could shoehorn what you want to do? Sure. Should you? I don't think so.
Jay_Ibero_911 02-16-07, 09:10 PM	I am going to have to vote "no" on this one. In reading the things mentioned in this discussion (class descriptions, etc) I think the original intent is that Dragon Disciple is connected to classes that are by nature spontaneous casters. Wizards are not spontaneous casters, regardless of acquiring a feat that lets you cast a spell spontaneously. Wizards must acquire new spells through study, etc. Spontaneous casters are an entirely different breed in my opinion. Does this mean that using the words as they are written you could shoehorn what you want to do? Sure. Should you? I don't think so. The same could be said with respect to sponatneous casters using Arcane Preparation to access Mage of the Arcane Order. Of course, Arcane Preparation is much more neatly worded, but you can't argue that they didn't intend for characters getting into PrC's they normally don't qualify for by taking a feat.
ithardin 02-16-07, 09:29 PM	sure I can argue it :P
Mattastrophic 02-16-07, 09:35 PM	Honestly, I am unconcerned about losing prereqs after using the feat; I'm just asking if I qualify for stuff. -Matt
DroidTrooper 02-16-07, 10:23 PM	I think there is some key word discrepency here. The initial question asked is: "does Alacritous Cogitation qualify me for feats that require the ability to cast spells spontaneously?" Unless I am mistaken: The ability to cast spontaneously is the ability Clerics and Druids have to drop prepared spells and cast other spells. The ability bards/sorcerers/hexblades have is to cast spells without preperation. I believe this feat would count as being able to cast a spell without preperation (as you are casting a spell with out it being prepared.) But not give you the ability to cast spontaneously as the word spontaneous does not appear in the benefits section. To better answer your question, it would probably help us to know, which feat/ability/class you are hoping to qualify for with this feat. Although I think you can see by the differing answers in this thread there will probably be some variation between tables.
Mattastrophic 02-17-07, 01:48 PM	I double-checked; I'm good. -Matt
JamesMaissen 02-20-07, 05:18 PM	I would be really really unhappy about it. To me it is right up there with 3.0 gnomes getting into dragon disciple via sloppy editing. I don't think the intent is to be a wizardly form of arcane preparation. If it was, it wouldn't have the 1/day limit. I might be wrong though, so I'd give the benefit of the doubt. If ruling one way or another subconsciously forces you to contort rulings to make you feel comfortable with that first ruling then it's a sure sign that you shouldn't be making that ruling in the first place. My litmus test for this is to look at another ramification of the ruling and ask myself if I would have made such a ruling for it. In this case something akin to 'must be able to cast 3rd level spells' would or would not merit exclusion once all such spells had been cast (or casting stat dropped, etc). Making arbitrary compromises for lines to cross is something very reasonable to do in a home game where the DM is constant. In LG it's adding to table variation needlessly as everyone will change where that line needs to be. In my mind, either you feel that it is sufficiently grey to allow an invested character to achieve it baring a central responsive authority to appeal to for a ruling, or you feel it is wrong enough to say that the character is not valid at your table and cannot play that character. This brings up the interesting question: what happens next? Can judges use this as a means to bar players that they don't want at their tables? All in all it's a bad situation. The common duck and cover method of not risking things seems wrong to me. As has been said in this thread already you will get variation on even clear cut rules. A line should be drawn somewhere perhaps for sake of reason, but it should be done sparingly and with sadness (ie Earth's Embrace). Perhaps I'm simply too confrontational in spirit, but I think in many cases that a squeeky wheel will get the grease rather than waiting for ignored things to repair themselves. -James
solbergb 02-20-07, 05:51 PM	I think Matt should just ask Britt in the Questions thread. Then I'd feel better about any ruling I made, based on his ruling. Or heck, why not just post it myself, since I'm the one bothered. :)
bitznarf 02-20-07, 05:56 PM	Heh, 10 to 1 you get a 'Core rules question' response.
Britt 02-20-07, 06:03 PM	I'm checking on it. I don't know if this is something we can rule on.
bitznarf 02-20-07, 06:09 PM	Despite my sarcastic reply I really do appreciate the work you do here Britt. Thanks and keep up the good work. :)
solbergb 02-20-07, 06:22 PM	If he can't rule on it than it means my opinion is as good as anyone else's, and I'll feel better about it.
Mattastrophic 02-20-07, 09:45 PM	It's not really LG-specific; that's why I didn't ask. -Matt