Arguments and direct refutations.

> What i was discussing is that you are focusing on what comes out of the caster, not what spell levels the caster is actually allowed to cast - which is the parameter for spell scrolls, and a parameter to see if you can cast a spell at all to begin with.

This distinction is not a thing by rules. It is for preparation purposes, but not casting.

It's particularly telling so, given the rule you're even referencing also refers to preparation.

"This table might give you spell slots of a higher level than the spells you prepare. You can use those slots but only to cast your lower-level spells. If a lower-level spell that you cast, like Burning Hands, has an enhanced effect when cast at a higher level, you can use the enhanced effect as normal."

Your lower level spells in this instance refers to the spells you have prepared. Note that when you cast a lower level spell as a higher level spell, you are casting(and therefore can cast) a higher level spell. Your analogy doesn't work because you claimed that the abstract quality(the tastiness) was not what we were looking for, but the abstract quality *is* all the rules reference. You need to merely make a tasty as pizza, what that dish constitutes is irrelevant so long as if fulfills that requirement.

> The ability to cast them "normally" is what is in question, tho, not what level a spell is once you checked if you are allowed to cast it or not.

Cite this cutoff. Oh, wait, it's not there? Crazy. Point being, not only do the rules specifically refer to higher level casting as normal as already cited, but they do not specify "before you cast them" or any such thing. And no, besides similarly "normal" exceptions, "as normal" does not apply to a situation which is not normal. There can be multiple of such situations, but the presence of the phrase specifically dictates that it is normal.

Besides that, you also misunderstand what normal even means to begin with your statement on ubiquitous circumstances not being normal(able to be consistently expected, definition number 1 under oxford) by proxy, but I digress.

Your claim of circular reasoning similarly misunderstands the order here. You are not checking if you can cast a spell at 6th level by refencing the spell in the scroll as normal casting here, which would actually be circular reasoning, nor presuming that you can cast the spell in the scroll at all. Can you cast a 6th level spell somehow under normal circumstances? You can cast a 6th level spell by upcasting a first level one. 6th level is not below the level of the spell in the scroll, in this case. Therefore, you can use the spell in the scroll without rolling. This is one line, it does not require circling back to its premise for its conclusion. It would be circular if i suggested spell scrolls themselves give you this ability, but I did not, therefore the "counterpoint" is disingenuous.

By contrast, your argument *is* actually circular. Ignoring the contradiction, you assert that a lower-level spell is not higher level, therefore cannot be higher level. That is refencing your premise with your conclusion rather than using evidence, a circle rather than a line.

You also claim that upcasting isn't normal thus cannot be considered as normally, contradicted as above, but again, a circular argument.

> Because remember: casting without spell slots is still casting and it is still described on the spellcasting section

Correct. This is normal. Did you for some reason conclude cantrips were abnormal in circumstance...? Because that would be pretty ridiculous to assert, given they apply to nearly every spellcaster.

> The focus of the rule: it doesn't state that upcasting is normal. It states that you behave normally - no matter what the normality is.


It specifically does. **As normal** does not grammatically function in any situation the speaker would not consider normal. You cannot state "the sky is falling, as normal" without being grammatically incorrect or being in a situation where the sky falling is normal, whatever that would mean.

Normally, refers to any normal circumstances. The rule you are citing confirms you incorrect on the matter in question, given you assert that upcasting is not normal circumstances as it is not part of the check that spell scrolls use, neither of which is supported.

> The fact that there are rules that allow to produce higher level effects, and those effects are spells, and those spells have been cast, and have been cast by the wizard in question, that the wizard in question spent an higher level slot... all is of no consequence. All that matters is looking at the spell, looking at that level, and saying: Considering nothing else, if i were to cast this... could i?

As stated before, you **are** adding a requirement here. If I look at the spell, and consider just its level, the question is not whether I could cast this spell, but whether I could cast a spell of equal level. Look at that, a 2nd level spell. If I cast magic missile at 2nd level, what do the rules say the spell is?

You already know the answer, your reframing is an attempt to change the situation from what it actually is, intentionally or not, and it does not logically follow. By necessity, since we are referring to casting, not preparing, not learning, and nothing else that refers to the base level, we care about the final product, hence why your framing is wrong. The final product, what you actually cast, is a higher-level spell by definition according to confirmably normal rules text.

> Sure, true, reactions are allowed to be something else than the general timing. However, each timing itself is still an exceptional timing, and you would still follow it even without that part because of it. The fact that the general rule specifies that other timings do exist do not change the reality of their exceptionality, or specificity. They are still very much more specific than the general, that only states that they can exist - not how.

False, they specifically state how. If it's referenced in the description of the item. But either way, both of these reaction timings due to not conflicting(therefore there is no exception) would be part of the general case. The sky is normally blue unless it is orange, black or pink. No part of this statement contradicts when the sky is those other colors(though it would contradict colors other than those) nor does it show that they are abnormal. You can demonstrate this by showing what happens when you swap blue and black, or blue and orange, or blue and pink. Even if all of these statements were stated simultaneously such that each color were normal, none of them contradict eachother on that statement.

Your final argument does not logically interact with mine at all. It does not prove or disprove normality, which is what we care about.

Therefore, the statement of "this case is normal, therefore any other case is not normal" is fundamentally unfounded. In fact, that assertion itself as stated above with the "as normal" point contradicts the text directly.