Did Frank & K create The Wish and The Word?

[Roog]

Level in a spellcasting class means caster level. It does not mean class levels. It does not mean character levels. A 20th level paladin has 10 levels in a spellcasting class, and 20 levels in paladin, which is a spellcasting class.

So does that mean that one levels in a prestige class that advances spellcasting for a paladin to gain the increase in spell casting that two levels of paladin would give?

I'll take Church Inquisitor as an example, since that's the first prestige class in complete divine (the first book I looked in) that has simple casting advancement and a Paladin Qualifies for.

"Spells per Day/Spells Known: A church inquisitor continues advancing in divine spellcasting ability as well as learning the skills of inquisition. Thus, when a new church inquisitor level is gained, the character gains new divine spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever divine spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained [...]. This means that he adds the level of church inquisitor to the level of another divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day accordingly."

If a Paladin 10 has 5 "levels in a spellcasting class" and a Paladin 12 has 6 "levels in a spellcasting class", then a prestige class that adds spells per day (etc) as if the character had gained a level in a spellcasting class should advance Paladin casting from the equivalent of 10th to 12th Paladin class level.

If not, why not.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, it sounds a bit like the rules for caster levels and certain classes say something like "2=1"

Am I correct?

[John Magnum]

It means that 2 of one kind of level equals 1 of a different kind of level.
Did you know that when you gain two Wizard levels, you only gain one new spell level???

[DSMatticus]

So, it sounds a bit like the rules for caster levels and certain classes say something like "2=1"

Am I correct?

Well, the argument revolves around whether or not "levels in a spellcasting class" is a term used to refer to a unique property distinct from both caster levels and class levels, or if it is an ambiguous plain English description that can mean either "levels in a class which grants spellcasting" (class levels) or "the level at which you cast your class's spells" (caster levels) depending on context.

In the first case, your spells known, spells per day, and caster levels are a function of your levels in a spellcasting class, and then modified by any other features you might have. Your levels in a spellcasting class are, in turn, a function of your class levels and any other abilities you might have which grant levels in a spellcasting class (such as the second level of eldritch knight).

In the second case, caster levels are a function of your class levels, and then modified by any other features you might have (such as the second level of eldritch knight, or an orange ioun stone). Also spells per day are a function of your class levels, and then modified by any other features you might have (such as the second level of eldritch knight, or a pearl of power). Also spells known are a function of your class levels, and then modified by any other features you might have (such as the second level of eldritch knight, or the feat extra spell). Everything is a function of class levels.

In the first case, the eldritch knight's explicitness about what it does and does not grant is simply clarification.

In the second case, the eldritch knight's explicitness about what it does and does not grant is essential function.

In the first case, a paladin's levels in a spellcasting class equal his class levels. His levels in the spellcasting class are used to calculate his spells known, spells per day, and caster levels as described in the paladin entry (his caster levels are equal to one half his levels in the spellcasting class).

In the second case, a paladin's class levels grant him spells known and spells per day as class features, and his caster levels are defined as one half his paladin levels in his class feature ("At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level." Note that the terminology "levels in a spellcasting class" is never used here, it's just a straight reference to class levels).

In the first case, a paladin who takes church inquisitor gains levels in a spellcasting class. These are used to calculate his spells known, spells per day, and caster levels exactly as described above (he only gains half caster levels from church inquisitor).

In the second case, a paladin who takes church inquisitor gains certain benefits as though he had gained a class level in paladin ("as if he had also gained a level in whatever divine spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class..." In the context of gaining a level in church inquisitor, "also gained a level in..." is completely unambiguous - it means class levels). Gaining a class level of paladin is worth one-half caster level.

The challenge is to either a) find some or all of these terms explicitly defined in a way that shuts everyone up, or b) find an example where these two systems lead to different results, and then to assess which result is intended, and then to assess whether or not that could reasonably be the author's fuckup (this conversation starts with the sublime chord and the ur-priest, we do regrettably have to consider that the authors of any given portion have no idea what the fuck they are doing - splats are not sacrosanct. Certain kinds of examples would be incredibly damning, others would be easily and rightly dismissed).

[Roog]

Well, the argument revolves around whether or not "levels in a spellcasting class" is a term used to refer to a unique property distinct from both caster levels and class levels, or if it is an ambiguous plain English description that can mean either "levels in a class which grants spellcasting" (class levels) or "the level at which you cast your class's spells" (caster levels) depending on context.

Those do not appear to be the only two positions that have been seriously put forward in the thread.

Level in a spellcasting class means caster level. It does not mean class levels. It does not mean character levels. A 20th level paladin has 10 levels in a spellcasting class, and 20 levels in paladin, which is a spellcasting class. Level in a spellcasting class is a fucking game term that refers to a very specific use of the word "level" and not to any of the other dozen uses of the word "level" that D&D also uses for other things.

[DSMatticus]

I probably could have said that better. I am not suggesting that any text in the game actually refers to "class levels" with the term "levels in a spellcasting class," I am suggesting that it is an ambiguous plain English phrase. It could be the case that it is used ambiguously in the game, or it could be the case that it is used consistently to refer to caster level, or it could be the case that it is used consistently to refer to a separate and unique property, but regardless of how the game uses it, it is ambiguous in English. Which is why this argument is a thing.

[Username17]

I probably could have said that better. I am not suggesting that any text in the game actually refers to "class levels" with the term "levels in a spellcasting class," I am suggesting that it is an ambiguous plain English phrase. It could be the case that it is used ambiguously in the game, or it could be the case that it is used consistently to refer to caster level, or it could be the case that it is used consistently to refer to a separate and unique property, but regardless of how the game uses it, it is ambiguous in English. Which is why this argument is a thing.

While I do agree that the entire range of sane discussion runs from whether "level in a spellcasting class" refers specifically to caster levels or whether it is merely an ambiguous English phrase used to refer to whatever type of D&D level is contextually important to whatever sentence it is used in, from the standpoint of The Wish & The Word it doesn't actually matter. The context of the sentence in contention is that it is talking about caster level. That's the context. There is no other context that is at all important for the Ur Priest.

The Cyberzombies of the world don't actually win the overall argument if they force me to give ground on the idea that "level in a spellcasting class" is an ambiguous context dependent term. Because the context is still that the sentence is talking about fucking caster levels and all contextually determined uses of the word "level" in that fucking sentence are also therefore about caster levels unless they are specifically labeled otherwise.

Cyberzombie doesn't need to show that the use of the word "level" is context dependent, he needs to show that it is not context dependent and that "level in a spellcasting class" always refers to character level, spell level, class level, dungeon level, adjusted level, manifester level, encounter level, or some other game mechanically important use of the word "level" that isn't "caster level" in every situation. Because if it's even a little bit context dependent, the fucking context is that the sentence is about caster levels and not about other things. So if "level" can possibly refer to "caster level" in any context, it does in the only context that is actually under contention.

-Username17

[Grek]

The basic issue here is that D&D has lots of different things that all use the world 'level', and a natural English reading of the phrase "levels in a spellcasting class" makes it seem (at least to some people) like it would be the same sort of level as a 'class level' rather than the same kind of level as a 'caster level'. This is apparently not true in D&D, which makes for a huge amount of confusion and butthurt when Frank tries to make a build that relies on using the more accurate 'caster level' interpretation of the phrase over the better sounding but factually incorrect 'class level' interpretation. And frankly (tee hee, puns) the fact that Frank sounds like a massive barrel of pickled pricks whenever he argues with someone does not make his claims sound more credible to the sort of people who like rules that actually say what they sound like they say.

[PoliteNewb]

I am going to give this a shot; I have no real dog in the fight, since I'm not even sure what CL shenanigans the Ur-Priest build is using, and I don't care. All I care about is getting consistent definitions, and Frank's definition is bullshit.

Okay:

"+1 level of existing class". This is on numerous charts, and it always means "advance spells known and spells per day, but nothing else". It sometimes says "existing arcane spellcasting class" or "existing divine spellcasting class". I think this is pretty clearly adding "levels in a spellcasting class", because it literally says that in many cases.

To go along with this, the PrC descriptions always use some variant of "whenever a new (Derpmaster) level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in whatever spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class".

In Complete Divine, at least, it clarifies this by saying "This essentially means that she adds the level of (Derpmaster) to the level of whatever other spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day accordingly".

It also usually clarifies that a.) you don't get any other benefits from raising a level in that (prior) class, and b.) if you have more than one spellcasting class, you pick one to advance (not all of them).

Contrasting this...things that give you "+1 caster level" are always understood to NOT advance spells per day and/or spells known; they don't advance anything, they are simply a numeric adder for making calculations based on caster level. Practiced spellcaster, domains, ioune stones...all of these add to caster level ONLY.

I don't see how caster level could possibly be synonomous with "levels in a spellcasting class". PrCs clearly advance your "levels in a spellcasting class"...which means your class level ONLY for the purpose of determining spells per day, spells known, and caster level (which is a separate thing). But when you advance your Paladin casting with a PrC, it adds 1 to your paladin level for the purposes of spellcasting...that is one "level in a spellcasting class", and it may or may not give you any new spells and it may or may not increase your CL, depending on what your paladin level was before.
None of this is consistent with items or abilities that grant you "+1 caster level", which is something entirely different.

Levels in a spellcasting class are not class level, and they are not caster level...they are what level you are considered to be for determining spells per day, spells known and caster level in one particular class. In the case of PrCs, they are the class level of your base spellcasting class PLUS whatever advancements you get from the PrC...NOT PrC class levels, only those which add to your spellcasting class.

A class level in a PrC that does not advance your spellcasting in a prior class is NOT a "level in a spellcasting class"; in fact technically, NO PrC class levels are "levels in a spellcasting class" (for the reason Frank pointed out, with Mystic Theurge shenanigans). What PrCs DO do is increase your "levels in a spellcasting class" for a different class.

If you are a Wizard5, you have character level 5, class level 5, caster level 5, and 5 levels in a spellcasting class.

If you are a Wizard5/Fighter5, you have character level 10, class levels of 5 and 5, caster level 5, and 5 levels in a spellcasting class. If you take Practiced Spellcaster, your caster level goes up to 9...but nothing else changes.

If you are a Wizard5/Fighter5/Eldritch Knight5, you have character level 15, class levels of 5/5/5, caster level 9, and 9 levels in a spellcasting class. If you take Practiced Spellcaster, your caster level goes up to 13...but nothing else changes.

You cannot take a PrC to advance your Eldritch Knight casting, because you don't HAVE Eldritch Knight casting...it is not a spellcasting class.

*****

Now: to the specifics of Ur-Priest. It says:

To determine the caster level of an Ur-Priest, add the character's Ur-Priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes.

Breaking this down...

"...the caster level of an Ur-Priest..." This is referring to the level at which his spell effects are calculated; it has nothing to do with his class level (BAB, Saves, etc) OR his levels in a spellcasting class (spells per day).

"...add the character's Ur-Priest levels..." This is referring to his CLASS level in Ur-Priest (this format is consistent in the books; when it says "(Derpmaster) levels", it means class levels. This clause does not refer to caster level or levels in a spellcasting class.

"...to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes." This is specifically referring to the level that determines spells known/spells per day, specifically excluding Ur-Priest (use of "other"). This means that any level in any other class the character has that is added together to determine spells per day counts.

Let's take an Ur-Priest 1 and look at his (possible) past levels:

Wizard5/Fighter5/Eldritch Knight5? 9 levels in a spellcasting class (because you cast as Wizard 9). If this guy had Practiced Spellcaster, his caster level (for Wizard spells) would be 13, but he would STILL only have 9 levels in a spellcasting class.
So his class level (in Ur-Priest) is 1. He gets spells per day as an Ur-Priest1. His caster level for Ur-Priest spells is 5 (half of 9, +1). His character level is 16.

Paladin5/Monk5/Sacred Fist5? 9 levels in a spellcasting class (because you cast as a Paladin9). Even though your caster level (for Paladin spells) is only 4.
So his class level (in Ur-Priest) is 1. He gets spells per day as an Ur-Priest1. His caster level for Ur-Priest spells is 5 (half of 9, +1). His character level is 16.

Fighter5/Pious Templar5/Shining Blade of Heironeous5? 7 levels in a spellcasting class (because you cast as a PTemplar7. It doesn't say how to figure CL for a Pious Templar, so I assume it's class level...so his caster level for Templar is 7.
So his class level (in Ur-Priest) is 1. He gets spells per day as an Ur-Priest1. His caster level for Ur-Priest spells is 4 (half of 7, +1). His character level is 16.

Wizard5/Druid5/MysticTheurge5? 20 levels in a spellcasting class (because you cast as a Wizard10 and Druid10), regardless of whatever the fuck your caster level is in either of those.
So his class level (in Ur-Priest) is 1. He gets spells per day as an Ur-Priest1. His caster level for Ur-Priest spells is 11 (half of 20, +1). His character level is 16. If he took Practiced Spellcaster (Ur-Priest) he could have CL 15.

If this looks like Mystic Theurge (using non-cleric) is the best way to stack up your levels in spellcasting classes for Ur-Priest, you would be right...since it gives you effective levels in 2 spellcasting classes at a time. I honestly do not know what to do if you Mystic Theurge with cleric...in the example above, you'd have Wiz8 and Clr8 casting, so that's 16 levels in spellcasting classes...but it says not to count Cleric levels of ex-clerics. But does that refer to Cleric spellcasting levels (8) or Cleric class levels (4)? I could see a good argument either way.
You could do Ultimate Magus for similar (if less potent) shenanigans.

Please give me an example of how this interpretation does not hold water, or is inconsistent.

Recap of problems with the "levels in spellcasting classes" = "caster levels" stance:

1.) PrCs clearly say "add a level in a spellcasting class", and give you things that are different from something that says "add 1 caster level".

2.) If you are a paladin6 and take a level in a PrC that gives you "+1 level of a spellcasting class", your casting ability goes up to paladin7...despite the fact that this does not change your paladin caster level at all (it remains 3). Unless these advocates are saying that the PrC should jump his casting to paladin8 (CL 4).

3.)

Getting a 6th level spell slot isn't a feature of your level in spellcasting (which is your caster level), it's a class feature of your class level in Wizard.

No it isn't, as every goddamn PrC ever published proves. They don't advance your class level in wizard...they advance your level in wizard for the purposes of casting spells only...i.e. your "levels in a spellcasting class", just like it says in the goddamn chart.

[Username17]

I am going to give this a shot; I have no real dog in the fight, since I'm not even sure what CL shenanigans the Ur-Priest build is using, and I don't care.

If you're not going to read the things being discussed, I'm not going to read your tirade about the true meaning of Christmas. I honestly don't give a shit what you think words mean in regards to a context that you admit to being wholly unlearned in. For fuck's sake.

We're talking about a word which individually has over a dozen technical meanings depending on its exact context. If you aren't even going to attempt to read and understand the exact relevant context, your position on what the word means in that specific instance is obviously worthless.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Here is the portion of my last post that would be relevant to PoliteNewb:

In the first case, your spells known, spells per day, and caster levels are a function of your levels in a spellcasting class, and then modified by any other features you might have. Your levels in a spellcasting class are, in turn, a function of your class levels and any other abilities you might have which grant levels in a spellcasting class (such as the second level of eldritch knight).

In the second case, caster levels are a function of your class levels, and then modified by any other features you might have (such as the second level of eldritch knight, or an orange ioun stone). Also spells per day are a function of your class levels, and then modified by any other features you might have (such as the second level of eldritch knight, or a pearl of power). Also spells known are a function of your class levels, and then modified by any other features you might have (such as the second level of eldritch knight, or the feat extra spell). Everything is a function of class levels.

In the first case, the eldritch knight's explicitness about what it does and does not grant is simply clarification.

In the second case, the eldritch knight's explicitness about what it does and does not grant is essential function.

You are describing the first case. But because the eldritch knight is explicit about granting spells known and spells per day, the eldritch knight functions identically even if the second is true. That makes it poor evidence pretty much by definition.

[PoliteNewb]

I am going to give this a shot; I have no real dog in the fight, since I'm not even sure what CL shenanigans the Ur-Priest build is using, and I don't care.

If you're not going to read the things being discussed, I'm not going to read your tirade about the true meaning of Christmas. I honestly don't give a shit what you think words mean in regards to a context that you admit to being wholly unlearned in. For fuck's sake.

Fuck you right back. We are talking about a specific statement made by you, not dozens of different contexts. Your assertion is that "levels in a spellcasting class" = "caster level", always, no matter what. I find that assertion nonsensical, for reasons I outline.

I don't care if you (Frank Trollman) want to read my rant or not. But your condescending brush-off dismissal is also worth exactly jack shit. Put me back on ignore, I'll talk to people who are interested in talking about this.

DSM: I apologize, I completely missed your earlier post. Your summary is accurate and on point, and yes, I take the first interpretation.

Now: what reason is there to believe that the second interpretation is correct? The first interpretation fits with the actual words written in the goddamn book ("+1 level of existing spellcasting class"). The second adds assumptions (that it really means "adds a class level for spellcasting purposes only") for no reason I can tell.

[JonSetanta]

UGH essays in an RPG forum? Unheard of.

It's not even educational. Just annoying.

[DSMatticus]

The first interpretation fits with the actual words written in the goddamn book ("+1 level of existing spellcasting class")

There is nothing about that statement that suggests the first interpretation is correct: even if "levels of a spellcasting class" is not a property that actually exists, those are still words you can put together to refer to other kinds of levels. And, remembering that text trumps table anyway, for the actual description of what "+1 level of an existing spellcasting class" means you would read the eldritch knight class feature description and it would explicitly mention gaining a bunch of different things as though you had gained a class level. I'm like, 99.99% sure this reasoning has been ran through before a few times already.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I am fucking confused as fucking fuck.

[Cyberzombie]

Level in a spellcasting class means caster level. It does not mean class levels. It does not mean character levels. A 20th level paladin has 10 levels in a spellcasting class, and 20 levels in paladin, which is a spellcasting class.

There isn't really anything complex going on here Frank.

1. Paladin is a spellcasting class (by your own admission)
2. The character has 20 levels in the paladin class. (which we can both agree on)

Therefore: The character must have at least 20 levels in a spellcasting class.

Very simple.

If you can't understand that, then you need to go back to basic logic. Because dude, this shit ain't hard.

[Grek]

Frank's contention is that those 'levels in a spellcasting class' are caster levels, not class levels and that a paladin has a caster level of 10 at level 20.

[TiaC]

Frank seems to be saying that levels in a spellcasting class does not actually refer to class levels despite the word class informing us that it does. He also says that when the phrase is used in the Ur-Priest class description it implicitly inherits the qualification that it is talking about caster levels. However, the actual description says:

To determine the caster level of an Ur-Priest, add the character's Ur-Priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes.

Now, the phrase "the character's Ur-Priest levels" obviously is not referring to caster level, but instead class level. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that "levels in a spellcasting class" should have an implied caster level in it. If the word level inherits any connotation, it does so from its last use in the sentence and must refer to class level.

[Grek]

Yes. That is exactly what Frank is saying. I know, it took me a while to get it too, but the entire argument is based on the assertion that "levels in other spellcasting classes" does not refer to class levels in that context.

[Username17]

Level in a spellcasting class means caster level. It does not mean class levels. It does not mean character levels. A 20th level paladin has 10 levels in a spellcasting class, and 20 levels in paladin, which is a spellcasting class.

There isn't really anything complex going on here Frank.

1. Paladin is a spellcasting class (by your own admission)
2. The character has 20 levels in the paladin class. (which we can both agree on)

Therefore: The character must have at least 20 levels in a spellcasting class.

Very simple.

If you can't understand that, then you need to go back to basic logic. Because dude, this shit ain't hard.

Oh for fuck's sake. Yes it is complicated. The word "level" has over a dozen technical and game mechanically important definitions. "A 4th level paladin character" isn't remotely the same thing as "a 4th level paladin spell" or "4th level paladin casting." You absolutely don't get to play verbal shellgames with technical language where you substitute similar words or similar constructions and claim that the meanings haven't changed. The meanings can completely change when you change word order or word use.

There is absolutely no commutative property or whatever the fuck in technical D&D language surrounding the word "level." You get zero points for claiming that there is. You don't just get zero points for that argument, all of your other arguments are now also worth zero points! It's that fucking bad.

Basic logic and natural English don't fucking apply to D&D when it comes to the word "level." You might think that logically the term "4th level Paladin" would have the same meaning no matter where or how it is used in a sentence, and you'd be completely fucking wrong. "4th level Paladin" is a context dependent term in D&D, and if you use it in different contexts the meaning is unrecognizably distinct. If you're going to make an argument as if that wasn't true, you should just suck a barrel of cocks, because your argument is a priori a waste of time to read.

The construction of your argument doesn't hold water even in natural English. Socrates is not a dog and all that. Once we factor in the fact that we're talking about context dependent technical language, making an argument based on the Masked Man Fallacy is so obviously invalid that I don't understand why you'd waste people's time by attempting it.

-Username17

[NineInchNall]

Also, substitution equivalence doesn't hold for a good number of natural language constructions in general. Logicians have been aware of this since the Greeks. "Hesperus is Phosphorus" does not have the same meaning as "Phosphorus is Phosphorus." Even though the two are names for the same thing.

[DSMatticus]

Frank seems to be saying that levels in a spellcasting class does not actually refer to class levels despite the word class informing us that it does.

Didn't I just do this? Wizard 5/eldritch knight 2: how many class levels of wizard do you have? How many d4's have you rolled for hitdice? Levels in a spellcasting class are quite obviously not class levels, because the answer to both of those questions is "five." The point of contention is whether or not levels in a spellcasting class refers to a 'virtual' property defined as the sum of your class levels and your spellcasting advancements for that class which is distinct from both caster level and class level.

In the first case, you have people arguing that clearly this virtual property exists and PrC's such as the eldritch knight increase it, and then this virtual property is used to calculate spells per day and caster level and whatever. In the second case, you have people arguing that clearly this virtual property doesn't exist at all, and PrC's such as the eldritch knight instead explicitly and directly hand out certain benefits as though you had gained a level.

In the first case, the table of the eldritch knight is given priority, while the feature text is considered clarification of what that means. In the second case, the table of the eldritch knight is considered incomplete shorthand, and the ability text is considered definition of the ability that the shorthand refers to.

In both cases, eldritch knight will work exactly the same.

[Roog]

In the first case, you have people arguing that clearly this virtual property exists and PrC's such as the eldritch knight increase it, and then this virtual property is used to calculate spells per day and caster level and whatever. In the second case, you have people arguing that clearly this virtual property doesn't exist at all, and PrC's such as the eldritch knight instead explicitly and directly hand out certain benefits as though you had gained a level.

You also have the third case, where Frank states that "levels in a spellcasting class" is caster level, and is not used to calculate spells per day and whatever (except in any case where more specific rules state that it is).

[Cyberzombie]

There is absolutely no commutative property or whatever the fuck in technical D&D language surrounding the word "level."

The wording isn't "levels in spellcasting", it's "levels in a spellcasting class"

The rules are talking about class levels there. Not spell levels, not spellcasting levels, but class levels. That's just basic english. I can go and point out the nouns and adjectives in that clause, but I really don't have to.

This isn't an issue of you not understanding english, it's an issue of you refusing to admit you're wrong. You have to treat every thread on an internet forum as some pathetic proof of your manhood where you absolutely can't back down, no matter what. Anyone who has ever been in an argument with you on any thread can attest to that.

The funny part of this whole thing is you're claiming I'm the one doing verbal shell games? Come on man. Really? Am I the one blatantly ignoring basic english and substituting my own definitions? Am I the one asking everyone to disregard everything they learned about the english language and basic logic? I'm not the guy telling you that "levels in a class" and "class levels" mean different things. That's all you man. But according to your weird way of looking at things, I'm the one playing shell games. Wow.

[Username17]

This isn't an issue of you not understanding english, it's an issue of you refusing to admit you're wrong. You have to treat every thread on an internet forum as some pathetic proof of your manhood where you absolutely can't back down, no matter what. Anyone who has ever been in an argument with you on any thread can attest to that.

This is absolute horse shit. Just the other day, someone produced compelling arguments that my assessment of LA Rlyeh as medium to high tier could be wrong and it should be considered for inclusion in the underpowered bracket, and I accepted their assessment and changed my list accordingly. This is not about whether or not I would back down. This is about you using an illegitimate substitution of identicals as your argument.

You're thoroughly into "Hana is my wife. Hana is a teacher. Therefore Hana is my teacher" territory even when discussing natural English. In natural English you absolutely can't substitute an X for a Y in a sentence and have it retain its original meaning even if X is a Y. You. Can't. Do. That. I don't know what your native language is, but I honestly don't think you can do that in any natural language, and you sure as fuck can't do it in English. The only place that actually works is certain kinds of math. And you know what? D&D rules don't even follow normal math rules in their actual mathematical expressions. 2 * 2 * 2 = 6 in D&D land.

Seriously dude, just take a highschool English course. Not even college level, they should really discuss basic sentence structure at the highschool level. We don't even have to get into high level or even low level philosophy and formal logic - you are failing at the level of simple grammar.

-Username17