Does Arcane Stunt Swashbuckler give Caster lvl?

[Venger]

Okay, so, ur-priest is notoriously difficult to qualify for, but I found a way to get in on time at lvl 6 so you actually get your spells before normal casters starting at lvl 12. here's my plan:

monk 2 (for religion, arcana, and saves)
swashbuckler 3 (for bluff and plenty of skillpoints)
ur priest 10
xx 5 (maybe dread pirate)

since you only get grace 1 from swash 3, arcane stunt's not a terrible tradeoff.
keeper of forbidden lore at 1st lvl makes planes and spellcraft class skills, iron will at 1 and malign spell focus at 3 take care of the prereqs

I was figuring for practiced spellcaster (ur priest) at lvl 6 to boost the CL from 1 to 5.

my question was, if I take the arcane stunt ACF from p32 of complete mage it says to "treat my swashbuckler lvl as my caster lvl" does that count as a "spellcasting class" in order to boost ur-priest's caster lvl ( 3 lvls give 1) so at lvl 6 with practiced spellcaster, he'd be casting at 6th lvl, which is cool

featswise I'd planned on
1- keeper of forbidden lore
1- iron will
3- malign spell focus
6- practiced spellcaster (ur priest)
9- extend spell
12- persistent spell
15- DMM persistent spell
18- xx

what would be something to do with the 18th lvl feat? are you allowed to take practiced spellcaster twice for the same class? if I took the last 5 levels in a class that wasn't swashbuckler or a caster, practiced spellcaster (ur priest) again would give a total CL of 19 which isn't half bad.

are these things rules legal? I've always wanted to play an urpriest all the way through since it's such an interesting class and steal SLA is pretty darn cool.

[candycorn]

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bardVariantSavageBard) is the simplest easy entry to Ur-Priest.

Bluff, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (the Planes), Knowledge (Religion), Spellcraft. All class skills for the bard normally.

Savage Bard makes the saves Fort/Will, giving you +3, starting at level 2.

Best of all, this allows for a good segue into Sublime Chord.

This means:

Savage Bard 8 / Ur-Priest 2 / Sublime Chord 2 / Mystic Theurge 8 (level 9 arcane and divine).

Alternately, to focus on Ur priest early:
Savage Bard 5 / Ur-Priest 10 / Hierophant 5

With practiced spellcaster, Ur priest is CL 20, here.
(10 base + 2 Bard + 5 Hierophant + 4 Practiced caster = 21, Max 20)
This lets you choose other abilities, including 9th level SLA 2/day, which is good. Divine Reach, which makes touch spells fixed range, by any definition, qualifying them for Persist spell. Metamagic feats, which are always good.

WITHOUT practiced spellcaster, you can get higher, by choosing the spell power 5 times.
(10 base + 2 bard + 5 Hierophant + 5 spell power = CL 22)

With certain interpretations on stack order, you could do:
(10 base + 2 Bard + 5 Hierophant + 4 Practiced caster = 21, Max 20)
then (+5 spell power = CL 25).

[candycorn]

I just love hierophant for the spellpower buff on fast-cast builds.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I just love hierophant for the spellpower buff on fast-cast builds.

I never understood why Heirophant didn't advance spellcasting directly but still bumped CL and gave bonuses to spellcasting.

[candycorn]

I never understood why Heirophant didn't advance spellcasting directly but still bumped CL and gave bonuses to spellcasting.

Well, in this case, it works amazingly well, as you don't need more direct casting.

They probably did it because they tried to balance it against Archmage. Archmage advances casting, but each special ability costs spell slots. Hierophant? The special abilities don't, so they weakened the casting to compensate.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Well, in this case, it works amazingly well, as you don't need more direct casting.

They probably did it because they tried to balance it against Archmage. Archmage advances casting, but each special ability costs spell slots. Hierophant? The special abilities don't, so they weakened the casting to compensate.

So the designer's didn't play test anything?

[Tengu_temp]

So the designer's didn't play test anything?

In early 3.5?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvdf5n-zI14

[Siosilvar]

So the designer's didn't play test anything?

You would be surprised how true that statement often seems.

[candycorn]

So the designer's didn't play test anything?

Ummm... Hierophant can't be entered by straight druid pre-epic, due to the Knowledge (Religion) requirement, and you're concerned that they might not have looked over the class features, one of which only applies to druids?

[MesiDoomstalker]

Ummm... Hierophant can't be entered by straight druid pre-epic, due to the Knowledge (Religion) requirement, and you're concerned that they might not have looked over the class features, one of which only applies to druids?

Are you argueing with me here? Cause you just defeated yourself if you are :smallamused:

[candycorn]

Are you argueing with me here? Cause you just defeated yourself if you are :smallamused:

I'm pointing out that your question has a much more obvious indicator than comparing spellcasting vs spellslots on 2 prestige classes.

Just look at the intended classes for this PrC, and the entry requirements, and whether those classes can meet those requirements. That would be the first thing they'd find, if they tried to playtest a basic druid/hierophant. The very first thing.

[MesiDoomstalker]

I'm pointing out that your question has a much more obvious indicator than comparing spellcasting vs spellslots on 2 prestige classes.

Just look at the intended classes for this PrC, and the entry requirements, and whether those classes can meet those requirements. That would be the first thing they'd find, if they tried to playtest a basic druid/hierophant. The very first thing.

So your agreeing with me by posting an even more obvious piece of evidence in support of our mutual statment?

....

I just confused my self. :smallconfused:

[candycorn]

So your agreeing with me by posting an even more obvious piece of evidence in support of our mutual statment?

....

I just confused my self. :smallconfused:

Correct. You're... looking at a guy with 4 root canals, a partial denture, 17 fillings, and a cavity...

And you're asking if his excessive plaque buildup is a sign that he has poor dental hygiene.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Correct. You're... looking at a guy with 4 root canals, a partial denture, 17 fillings, and a cavity...

And you're asking if his excessive plaque buildup is a sign that he has poor dental hygiene.

:smallredface: Ya I fail I know. I'm gonna go cry in the corner now.

[Devmaar]

Just look at the intended classes for this PrC, and the entry requirements, and whether those classes can meet those requirements. That would be the first thing they'd find, if they tried to playtest a basic druid/hierophant. The very first thing.

You'd like to think that, but there's a pretty good chance they just wouldn't have bothered to qualify

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

You can stack Heirophant's caster level increase with Practiced Spellcaster, as long as you apply Practiced Spellcaster first.

Ur-Priest counts half of your levels in other 'spellcasting classes' toward its caster level. Swashbuckler is not a 'spellcasting class' even if it gets a spell-like ability with a caster level based on class level.

[candycorn]

You'd like to think that, but there's a pretty good chance they just wouldn't have bothered to qualify

Then it's not playtesting. Playtesting is using the system of the game to ascertain problems or errors within that system.

If you are not using the system, by not following the rules for that system, it does not qualify as playtesting.

It's like trying to determine if a Ford Focus meets crash specifications... but first installing a rollbar, extra airbags, and custom crash resistant bumpers.

After you do that, you're no longer crash testing the car. You're testing a custom car.


You can stack Heirophant's caster level increase with Practiced Spellcaster, as long as you apply Practiced Spellcaster first.

Ur-Priest counts half of your levels in other 'spellcasting classes' toward its caster level. Swashbuckler is not a 'spellcasting class' even if it gets a spell-like ability with a caster level based on class level.
Relies on a rule interpretation that isn't always guaranteed. You only choose the order for simultaneous effects.

If it's determined that CL from class abilities come first, then Hierophant cannot be applied last.

What you're arguing is not much different than saying a level 10 wizard can apply practiced spellcaster to reach CL 14, simply by claiming that he's applying it before caster level from the wizard class.

[Venger]

You can stack Heirophant's caster level increase with Practiced Spellcaster, as long as you apply Practiced Spellcaster first.

Ur-Priest counts half of your levels in other 'spellcasting classes' toward its caster level. Swashbuckler is not a 'spellcasting class' even if it gets a spell-like ability with a caster level based on class level.

So, is "spellcasting class" a specific game term ruleswise? I don't think I've seen that exact phrase used in prereqs except ur-priest. Does it exist elsewhere? What exactly does it mean?

I understand your train of thought, you mean a spellcasting class is defined as a class that has "spells" listed under its class abilities.

[Venger]

This (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/classes/variantCharacterClasses.htm#bardVariantSavageBard) is the simplest easy entry to Ur-Priest.

Bluff, Knowledge (Arcana), Knowledge (the Planes), Knowledge (Religion), Spellcraft. All class skills for the bard normally.

Savage Bard makes the saves Fort/Will, giving you +3, starting at level 2.

Best of all, this allows for a good segue into Sublime Chord.

This means:

Savage Bard 8 / Ur-Priest 2 / Sublime Chord 2 / Mystic Theurge 8 (level 9 arcane and divine).

Alternately, to focus on Ur priest early:
Savage Bard 5 / Ur-Priest 10 / Hierophant 5

With practiced spellcaster, Ur priest is CL 20, here.
(10 base + 2 Bard + 5 Hierophant + 4 Practiced caster = 21, Max 20)
This lets you choose other abilities, including 9th level SLA 2/day, which is good. Divine Reach, which makes touch spells fixed range, by any definition, qualifying them for Persist spell. Metamagic feats, which are always good.

WITHOUT practiced spellcaster, you can get higher, by choosing the spell power 5 times.
(10 base + 2 bard + 5 Hierophant + 5 spell power = CL 22)

With certain interpretations on stack order, you could do:
(10 base + 2 Bard + 5 Hierophant + 4 Practiced caster = 21, Max 20)
then (+5 spell power = CL 25).

Okay, I understand what you're saying. Thanks for the tip, I was unfamiliar of the specifics of savage bard.

I know that mechanically it's suboptimal, but I actually did want to take all 10 levels of ur-priest on purpose.

hierophant is awesome! I'd never really looked at it very closely since I hadn't run a high level divine caster before, but that is a very attractive class and easy to qualify for too.

I think I'll probably give him divine reach at least once, maybe twice. it reminds me a little of the spellwarp sniper's spellwarp ability except with touch spells, which are the kind you actually want to throw at the enemy (since they're gimped by not being able to throw them at your enemy) ranged slay livings or whatever without pumping up the spell level or burning through precious rebuke attempts from the persistent DMM pool is very sexy.

Would it qualify touch spells for being persisted since they have a definite range? I think the definite range is referring to the bit in the "target" slot rather than the "range" slot since that's where "personal" is found. the example it gives is "detect magic" and I think the other detects (good/evil/law/chaos/undead/thoughts/dragon) are the only spells with a range in their target slots. I agree that the text is sort of confusing, but I'm not really sure how a persistent touch spell would work since most of them have a duration of instantaneous like shocking grasp or slay living or the like. If my understanding is incorrect, what would be an example of a touch spell that would be good to persist? the only one I could really think of (since it's touch and has a fixed duration) is mage armor, but by level 15, it effectively lasts all day anyway and ur-priests can't cast it (not that AC matters at that level)

I get what you mean about how practiced spellcaster and the (possible) application of the +1CL ability of hierophant would interact. if practiced spellcaster applied "first", then it wouldn't raise the CL over his HD, hierophant would do that, and there's no rule against it doing so, but if you counted hierophant's booster "first" then practiced spellcaster wouldn't function. since he's taking practiced spellcaster early on, I think the DM would count that as applying "first", but it's a pretty straight-up judgement call.


what metamagic feats would be useful in this build? would reach spell combined with divine reach x2 make touch spells have a range of 120 feet? (not going to use it since I don't have room to DMM reach spell, although I could always DCFS it, more out of curiosity)

are the SLAs that hierophant grants useful? they make you pay for material costs in xp and xp itself which cuts out the main point of using SLAs. what advantage does it have over normal spells? what are good spells to have as SLAs?

the way it is written, do I sacrifice a slot like I do with archmage or not?

the analogies the two of you used while debating the point made my head spin


Correct. You're... looking at a guy with 4 root canals, a partial denture, 17 fillings, and a cavity...

And you're asking if his excessive plaque buildup is a sign that he has poor dental hygiene.

I gotta know what you meant by this or it's gonna bug me all day

[MesiDoomstalker]

Quick answers in order:

Touch is not a fixed ranged as defined by Persistent metamagic. A fixed range spell can only increase its range by the metamagic that increases range (forget what its called). Touch range is based on your reach which is changeable by a myriad of abilities.

Theres a rule in PH that says you apply effects in the most beneficial way for the PC. So Practised Spellcaster would be applied before Heirophant and thus your CL could exceed your HD.

Quicken is always useful and you can't "double up" your reach effects as once one is applied the spell no longer be a valid spell for the other effect.

SLA's granted by Heirophant cost you XP if the normal spell had an XP cost or expensive material cost. If it had a material cost it costs x10 as much XP. You trade 1 spell slot for 2/day SLA of a single spell of equal level (even a metamagic'ed version) or a higher slot for more uses.

Only the SLA granting ability costs you spell slots. All others are 'free' in that you don't pay for them directly but still have to level up Heirophant to obtain them.

[Runestar]

Ummm... Hierophant can't be entered by straight druid pre-epic, due to the Knowledge (Religion) requirement, and you're concerned that they might not have looked over the class features, one of which only applies to druids?

Well, if that is an consolation, a lv27 druid sure won't be worried that heirophant doesn't advance spellcasting...:smalltongue:

[candycorn]

Theres a rule in PH that says you apply effects in the most beneficial way for the PC. So Practised Spellcaster would be applied before Heirophant and thus your CL could exceed your HD.


Effects, not abilities. Class features are always applied first. The type of rules lawyering you're trying here is like saying:

Wizard 17 / Archmage 3 (spell power x3, Practiced spellcaster). - Caster level 27, because I apply CL increases in this order:

Practiced Spellcaster (0+4 = 4 max 20), then Wizard 17 (4+17 = 21), then Archmage 3 (21+3 = 24), then spell power (24+3 = 27).

No. Class based CL determines what your base is. You don't apply Bull's strength before you apply your base strength. You don't apply feat, item, and spell based CL boosts before you apply class features.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Officially, a character can choose whether to apply Practiced Spellcaster before or after the Wild Mage's Wild Magic class feature. Thus you can indeed apply the caster level bonus of a feat before that of a class feature.

A Wizard 17/ Archmage 3 has a total spellcasting ability of 20, which cannot be divided when applying effects. This is similar to the Wild Magic class feature being indivisible, it's an entire 1d6-3, not -3 first, then Practiced Spellcaster, and finally +1d6. Thus you cannot apply Practiced Spellcaster before any part of your total spellcasting ability.

An Illumian (Krau) Beguiler 1/ Wizard 4/ Ultimate Magus 10 with Practiced Spellcaster: Beguiler has a total caster level as follows: Beguiler 18 (8 spellcasting ability, +2 krau, +4 practiced spellcaster, +4 arcane spell power); Wizard 19 (14 spellcasting ability, +1 krau to equal character level, +4 arcane spell power). You can apply your own effects in the most beneficial order, thus the level of your indivisible spellcasting ability is your base ability (such as Strength), and then your other bonuses are effects which can be applied in the most beneficial order (such as Bull's Strength and Enlarge Person).

Heirophant does not increase your base spellcasting ability, it grants a bonus to your caster level not unlike any of the above examples. Thus, a Cleric 17/ Heirophant 3 with Practiced Spellcaster would have a total caster level of 23 (17 spellcasting ability, +3 practiced spellcaster to equal character level, +3 heirophant). Definitely passable in nearly any game at that level, and nothing compared to a Cleric 21 with Earth Spell, DMM: Heighten, and Improved Heighten Spell using Night Sticks to cast a Holy Word at caster level 100.

[Venger]

Officially, a character can choose whether to apply Practiced Spellcaster before or after the Wild Mage's Wild Magic class feature. Thus you can indeed apply the caster level bonus of a feat before that of a class feature.

A Wizard 17/ Archmage 3 has a total spellcasting ability of 20, which cannot be divided when applying effects. This is similar to the Wild Magic class feature being indivisible, it's an entire 1d6-3, not -3 first, then Practiced Spellcaster, and finally +1d6. Thus you cannot apply Practiced Spellcaster before any part of your total spellcasting ability.

An Illumian (Krau) Beguiler 1/ Wizard 4/ Ultimate Magus 10 with Practiced Spellcaster: Beguiler has a total caster level as follows: Beguiler 18 (8 spellcasting ability, +2 krau, +4 practiced spellcaster, +4 arcane spell power); Wizard 19 (14 spellcasting ability, +1 krau to equal character level, +4 arcane spell power). You can apply your own effects in the most beneficial order, thus the level of your indivisible spellcasting ability is your base ability (such as Strength), and then your other bonuses are effects which can be applied in the most beneficial order (such as Bull's Strength and Enlarge Person).

Heirophant does not increase your base spellcasting ability, it grants a bonus to your caster level not unlike any of the above examples. Thus, a Cleric 17/ Heirophant 3 with Practiced Spellcaster would have a total caster level of 23 (17 spellcasting ability, +3 practiced spellcaster to equal character level, +3 heirophant). Definitely passable in nearly any game at that level, and nothing compared to a Cleric 21 with Earth Spell, DMM: Heighten, and Improved Heighten Spell using Night Sticks to cast a Holy Word at caster level 100.

Thank you for your explanation. I found your examples easy to follow but I had one question.

In everything that everyone's said so far, no one has counted hierophant for ur-priest's caster level, since it says you add ur-priest levels to half of his levels in other "spellcasting classes", so you don't divide that 5 by 2 and add those 2 on.

could you explain what exactly a "spellcasting class" is, then? arcane stunt swashbuckler isn't applicable because it just has a caster level and not a unique spell list. would this apply to everything? would levels in archmage or initiate of the sevenfold veils not count or is it just because hierophant explicitly doesn't advance spells per day? does it require a class that either has spells per day or advances them?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

"Levels in the hierophant prestige class, even though they do not advance spell progression in the character’s base class, still stack with the character’s base spellcasting levels to determine caster level."

"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."

Some could argue that Heirophant cannot advance Ur-Priest caster level, since Ur-Priest is a prestige class and Heirophant specifically mentions base class. However, it stacks with your base spellcasting levels which would imply the base spellcasting ability (Ur-Priest class levels plus '+1 level of [Ur-Priest] spellcasting' prestige class levels), thus it could be added directly to your Ur-Priest caster level. Heirophant is not a spellcasting class, so it must be added directly to your Ur-Priest caster level or it will not be considered at all.

Your "levels in other spellcasting classes" means class levels in classes which have their own unique progression of spells per day based on class level. Prestige classes which increase the spellcasting ability of another class are not themselves spellcasting classes. If this were not the case, a character could go something like Wizard X/ Cleric Y/ Mystic Theurge 1/ Dweomerkeeper 10, and apply Dweomerkeeper's increase in spellcasting ability to Mystic Theurge. Mystic Theurge is not a spellcasting class, and thus it cannot be selected for "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" of other prestige classes. Thus Ur-Priest will not count levels in any prestige classes which advance the spellcasting of another class when determining its own caster level.

An exception to this could be Mystic Theurge, which specifies, "This essentially means that he adds the level of mystic theurge to the level of whatever other arcane spellcasting class and divine spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day and caster level accordingly." Many will say that you add your Mystic Theurge level to your levels in your arcane spellcasting class before adding half of that level toward your Ur-Priest caster level, thus every Mystic Theurge level increases your Ur-Priest caster level by 1.5: One per level for base spellcasting ability, and 1/2 per level as it's added to your arcane spellcasting class levels for determining your Ur-Priest caster level as per the wording of the quoted section. Thus a Wizard 9/ Ur-Priest 2/ Mystic Theurge 9 would have an Ur-Priest caster level of 20 (11 base spellcasting ability, +18/2 wizard levels for determining caster level). Note that Ur-Priest totals his base spellcasting ability and half his levels in other spellcasting classes to determine his caster level as part of a single indivisible class feature, thus Practiced Spellcaster could only be added on after this total and is thus redundant for the above build. You can and should still take Practiced Spellcaster for Wizard in this case.

[candycorn]

Officially, a character can choose whether to apply Practiced Spellcaster before or after the Wild Mage's Wild Magic class feature. Thus you can indeed apply the caster level bonus of a feat before that of a class feature.

...that's hardly a good example, as Wild Mage's Class Feature grants the bonus each time you cast, at the time you cast.

Class Feature: +1 Caster level
does NOT equal
Class Feature: When you cast a spell, you gain +1 caster level.

Static Caster Level increases, granted by class level, apply first. Look at the order you level. First thing you always do is choose class. It always comes first, and determines your caster level. From there, other spells, feats, triggered effects, and the like can apply.

And if your interpretation is correct, then a Wizard 20 with practiced spellcaster is CL 24. In other words, you're trying to dance your way to ignoring the restriction on the ability.

[Runestar]

...that's hardly a good example, as Wild Mage's Class Feature grants the bonus each time you cast, at the time you cast.

By that logic, can't I argue that spell power also applies only when a wizard casts a spell, or whenever he needs to check for caster level? :smalltongue:

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

And if your interpretation is correct, then a Wizard 20 with practiced spellcaster is CL 24. In other words, you're trying to dance your way to ignoring the restriction on the ability.

I do not see how you are coming to this conclusion. I've already stated that your base spellcasting ability is the base stat to which bonuses are applied, thus you could not apply Practiced Spellcaster before considering your Wizard levels. The above quote is called a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).

The official ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) is that, "The bonus from Practiced Spellcaster applies whenever it would be most beneficial to the caster." That's not in whatever order abilities are gained upon leveling up, but whenever it would be most beneficial. Furthermore, your reasoning for ordering abilities as per leveling up does not take into consideration the fact that Practiced Spellcaster could be taken at 1st level, prior to any class features gained via leveling up. The fact of the matter is that Practiced Spellcaster can be applied "whenever it would be most beneficial to the caster." You are an avid defender of what you believe the rules to be, but you've yet to present a relevant rules reference to support your claims.

[Venger]

What you're arguing is not much different than saying a level 10 wizard can apply practiced spellcaster to reach CL 14, simply by claiming that he's applying it before caster level from the wizard class.


And if your interpretation is correct, then a Wizard 20 with practiced spellcaster is CL 24. In other words, you're trying to dance your way to ignoring the restriction on the ability.

Regardless of whether you apply practiced spellcaster or wizard levels "first," practiced spellcaster raises your caster level by up to +4 to a maximum of your HD. If you are wiz 10, you can't have a CL of more than 10 with practiced spellcaster. same if you're wizard 20. 20HD means a max caster level of 20 if practiced spellcaster is the only way you're raising your CL.

the full text is on p82 of Complete Arcane (and also, oddly enough, p82 of Complete Divine)

it also says you can't take it twice for the same class in case you wanted to make a melee based ur-priest, which kind of stinks, but oh well.

[Fax Celestis]

Relies on a rule interpretation that isn't always guaranteed. You only choose the order for simultaneous effects.

If it's determined that CL from class abilities come first, then Hierophant cannot be applied last.

What you're arguing is not much different than saying a level 10 wizard can apply practiced spellcaster to reach CL 14, simply by claiming that he's applying it before caster level from the wizard class.

Incorrect. Bonuses and effects (of which Practiced Spellcaster counts, but basic caster level is not) are always applied in the order most beneficial to the player (or players, as the case may be). Since players have far more 'screen-time' than NPCs and monsters, they gain the advantage here as a compensating factor.

[candycorn]

I do not see how you are coming to this conclusion. I've already stated that your base spellcasting ability is the base stat to which bonuses are applied, thus you could not apply Practiced Spellcaster before considering your Wizard levels. The above quote is called a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man).No. You stated that Practiced spellcaster can apply before class features. Caster levels from Wizard are every bit as much a class feature as caster levels from hierophant. If Practiced Spellcaster can apply before one, there is no basis for why it could not apply before the other.


The official ruling (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/er/20030221a) is that, "The bonus from Practiced Spellcaster applies whenever it would be most beneficial to the caster."FAQ does not equal "official ruling". At the absolute best, the FAQ is an opinion from WotC. On average, it's a view which does not take into account the rules when venturing an inaccurate opinion on what the rules mean.

Care to try again with ACTUAL rules?

That's not in whatever order abilities are gained upon leveling up, but whenever it would be most beneficial. Furthermore, your reasoning for ordering abilities as per leveling up does not take into consideration the fact that Practiced Spellcaster could be taken at 1st level, prior to any class features gained via leveling up. The fact of the matter is that Practiced Spellcaster can be applied "whenever it would be most beneficial to the caster."Then Wizard 20 with Practiced Spellcaster is CL 24, because it took it at level 1. Because applying it before wizard caster levels is most beneficial to the caster. That is precisely what you're saying. It's not a straw man. I'm taking your exact words, and providing you with what exactly that would mean.

You are an avid defender of what you believe the rules to be, but you've yet to present a relevant rules reference to support your claims.Simple: Practiced Spellcaster provides a bonus to caster level that caps at character level. For that cap to have any meaning, it must actually apply. If you can apply it willy nilly whenever you like, before class features... Then the wording of the feat is meaningless.

[MesiDoomstalker]

Practised Spellcaster is meaningless on any character with caster HD (of the same class or PrC advancing that class' casting) equal to its total HD. EX: Wiz 15/ArchM 5 would gain no benefit.

A Cleric 15/Heirophant 5 would gain full benefit and have an effective CL of 19 for Cleric casting. If any of those Heirophant levels have the Spell Power ability, then the Cleric CL will increase the same amount for a possible range of 19-24.

Practised Spellcaster can not be applied before the base caster level derived directly from levels. AKA any caster levels derived from a class that has a spell casting progression or advances spellcasting of another class (a casting PrC). Heirophant is not a casting PrC as it does not advance spellcasting. Spell Power is a class feature (seperate from actual casting) that gives a bonus to CL. Both Practised Spellcaster and Spell Power class feature provide untyped CL boosts. When combined, if Spell Power's boost is more beneficial to be applied first it will be. If its not, then the order doesn't matter as you aren't hitting the cap by Practised Spellcaster anyways.

The crux of the issue is CL from base classes (and PrC's that advance spellcasting) is part of, but not seperate from, the spellcasting class feature of a given class. Spell Power is a completely seperate class feature that stacks and Practised Spellcaster is a feat that increases CL to a max of HD due to the feat it self. By RAW, you can apply those all seperatly to your benefit. But, that makes no sense. So RAI would (probably) be that base CL is always applied first even when it is not most beneficial.

[candycorn]

Practised Spellcaster is meaningless on any character with caster HD (of the same class or PrC advancing that class' casting) equal to its total HD. EX: Wiz 15/ArchM 5 would gain no benefit.

A Cleric 15/Heirophant 5 would gain full benefit and have an effective CL of 19 for Cleric casting. If any of those Heirophant levels have the Spell Power ability, then the Cleric CL will increase the same amount for a possible range of 19-24.

Spells and Caster Level

Levels in the hierophant prestige class, even though they do not advance spell progression in the character’s base class, still stack with the character’s base spellcasting levels to determine caster level.
Cleric 15/ Hierophant 5 is CL 20 WITHOUT Practiced Spellcaster


Practised Spellcaster can not be applied before the base caster level derived directly from levels. AKA any caster levels derived from a class that has a spell casting progression or advances spellcasting of another class (a casting PrC). Heirophant is not a casting PrC as it does not advance spellcasting.See above. It advances caster level as a function of the Class.

Spell Power is a class feature (seperate from actual casting) that gives a bonus to CL.

Spell Power

This special ability increases a hierophant’s effective caster level by 1 for purposes of determining level-dependent spell variables and for caster level checks. This ability can be selected more than once, and changes to effective caster level are cumulative.It doesn't say it's a bonus. It says it's a change to the caster level, not a bonus.


A modifier is any bonus or penalty applying to a die roll. A positive modifier is a bonus, and a negative modifier is a penalty.Caster level is not a positive modifier applying to a die roll. Therefore, it is not a bonus.

Both Practised Spellcaster and Spell Power class feature provide untyped CL boosts. When combined, if Spell Power's boost is more beneficial to be applied first it will be. If its not, then the order doesn't matter as you aren't hitting the cap by Practised Spellcaster anyways.Incorrect. Spell power is a permanent increase to caster level granted by a class. It's no different than the caster levels granted by the above effect.

The crux of the issue is CL from base classes (and PrC's that advance spellcasting) is part of, but not seperate from, the spellcasting class feature of a given class. Spell Power is a completely seperate class feature that stacks and Practised Spellcaster is a feat that increases CL to a max of HD due to the feat it self. By RAW, you can apply those all seperatly to your benefit.Cite the RAW that allows this. Oddly enough, nobody has. Everyone who supports this has SAID it's RAW, but nobody has actually quoted the RAW authorizing this.

[Fax Celestis]

Cite the RAW that allows this. Oddly enough, nobody has. Everyone who supports this has SAID it's RAW, but nobody has actually quoted the RAW authorizing this.

Someone did, and you went "oh, it doesn't count, it's the FAQ."

REGARDLESS of whether or not the FAQ has some errors in it, it is still the interpretation of the rules that WotC considers correct. All of D&D's books have some errors in them, and the FAQ is no different. To discredit it entirely on the thought that it is "opinion" is evasive: WotC has released it as a supplement to the rules to clarify (and in some cases, alter) how the game should be played.

[Safety Sword]

{{scrubbed}}

[Fax Celestis]

FAQ is not Errata.

Neither are the Rules of the Game articles, and people still reference those. In either case, it doesn't matter: the purpose of the FAQ is to clarify frequently asked questions (imagine that) about the game. Whether or not you think the author of the FAQ is a giant tool, he has still been hired by the game designers (and is, in at least one incarnation, one of the game's designers) to answer questions about the system in a definitive manner.

You can choose your own opinion about the FAQ's decisions, but by and large it gets far more of a bad rap than it deserves. Most of its answers are correct--either textually or sensically--and to dismiss one of its more broadly accepted points (order of bonus stacking) simply because of its source is inane.

[Safety Sword]

Neither are the Rules of the Game articles, and people still reference those.
Agreed, not official game rules. I can reference anything, doesn't make it correct.


In either case, it doesn't matter: the purpose of the FAQ is to clarify frequently asked questions (imagine that) about the game. Whether or not you think the author of the FAQ is a giant tool, he has still been hired by the game designers (and is, in at least one incarnation, one of the game's designers) to answer questions about the system in a definitive manner.

It's not RAW if it's not in the rules. It depends on what you allow in your game and how strictly you're playing D&D 3.5 or some homebrewed version. As you can probably see, it does matter, to some people and in certain contexts. Why, just on this very board I'm pretty sure that the Iron Chef challenges would actually want you to make builds that use the ACTUAL rules of the game and not "Rules of the Game".


You can choose your own opinion about the FAQ's decisions, but by and large it gets far more of a bad rap than it deserves. Most of its answers are correct--either textually or sensically--and to dismiss one of its more broadly accepted points (order of bonus stacking) simply because of its source is inane.

I have. In my opinion it confuses more people than it helps in a fair number of cases. Source bias is common and accepted. It's why academics like to publish in respected, well renowned journals rather than just posting their findings on a blog.

[Fax Celestis]

Source bias is still bias. We should be as objective as possible in every instance.

[Safety Sword]

{{scrubbed}}

[Fax Celestis]

And yet, here is an opportunity to do things differently, and it is passed over specifically because of source bias.

[Safety Sword]

And yet, here is an opportunity to do things differently, and it is passed over specifically because of source bias.

{{scrubbed}}

[Venger]

It's passed over (in my case) because FAQ is trash.

As I have already stated, that's my opinion and your experiences may be different from my own. If symptoms persist you should consult your health care professional.

Edit: You dang typos

typos are sneaky, like ninjas.

wait a second


your health care professional.

are you dr mcninja?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

FAQ does not equal "official ruling". At the absolute best, the FAQ is an opinion from WotC. On average, it's a view which does not take into account the rules when venturing an inaccurate opinion on what the rules mean.

Care to try again with ACTUAL rules?
You have provided zero rules references thus far; onus probandi, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

First and foremost, base spellcasting ability is not a bonus; there is no "+" in front of it. Your levels in Wizard do not grant a bonus to your caster level, they grant you a base spellcasting ability to which bonuses are applied. I have been saying this from when it was first mentioned. Prestige class levels that add "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" in the table have the following text entry: "as if he had also gained a level in whatever spellcasting class he belonged to before" thus such levels directly increase your base spellcasting ability as though they were levels of your original spellcasting class, thus not considered a bonus because "+" is nowhere in the text entry. Levels of base spellcasting ability are not bonuses, do not misrepresent my arguments by saying I'm implying that they are.

That brings us to the topic of bonuses. There is no fixed RAW about when bonuses are applied, but there is a definite RAI in the official FAQ which has been quoted. The rules for gaining a level have nothing to do with when bonuses from various effects are applied to a character's final stats. Characters should not be expected to track in which order every bonus was gained, since it would lead to characters simply gaining bonuses at optimal times anyway. Thus we are left with no choice but to go with the RAI spelled out in the FAQ, that a given character's bonuses are applied in whatever order is most beneficial to that character.

By your reasoning, a Fighter 4/ Wizard 10 with Practiced Spellcaster could never have a caster level above 14 unless Practiced Spellcaster was not considered at all. Even if he put on a Ring of Arcane Might (+1 caster level) and donned an Orange Prism Ioun Stone (+1 caster level) after taking Practiced Spellcaster, he would not apply each of those +1 bonuses to his current caster level of 14? Practiced Spellcaster cannot increase your caster level above your hit dice at the time it is applied, but your caster level can be increased to exceed your hit dice after the bonus from that feat has been added. Give book and page number for RAW to refute this.

[candycorn]

Source bias is still bias. We should be as objective as possible in every instance.


And yet, here is an opportunity to do things differently, and it is passed over specifically because of source bias.
Source bias? Ha.

The only bias I use is:
Use things that are encompassed within the Rules As Written, and take them as Official Rules of the Game.

Disregard any and every source that is not encompassed within the Rules As Written, and ignore them for determining the rules of the game.

That's not bias. That's using the rules to answer questions about the rules... And not using things that are not the rules.

You don't cry "source bias" when a mechanic doesn't use the manual for a Porsche 911 to find out what's wrong with your Toyota Tercel.

You praise that mechanic for only consulting a relevant authority in that situation. And, regardless of whether the FAQ is right or wrong, until you use an ACTUAL RULE to support it, it is not supported by the rules.

Argue however you like. That is true. And I will not accept unsupported arguments as valid RAW. If it's true, back it up.

By the rules.


Levels of base spellcasting ability are not bonuses, do not misrepresent my arguments by saying I'm implying that they are.Neither are any other increases to caster level that are not explicitly stated as bonuses. (yes, I can use bold too)

Bonuses are bonuses when they provide a positive modifier to a die roll (such as true strike), or when they explicitly state that they are bonuses (such as Cat's Grace). Otherwise, they are not bonuses. Using that to justify adding one non-bonus after, and not allowing another non-bonus (because it's not a bonus) is flawed logic. Correct this error, reformulate your argument, and I'll consider it.


That brings us to the topic of bonuses. There is no fixed RAW about when bonuses are applied, but there is a definite RAI in the official FAQ which has been quoted.You mean, there is non-RAW in the official non-RAW.

Tell me, do you consult a veterinarian when you have a serious medical issue? Or do you see a doctor? Hopefully, the latter, because of the two, only the latter is licensed to treat a human. And between FAQ and RAW, only the latter actually determines the rules.


The rules for gaining a level have nothing to do with when bonuses from various effects are applied to a character's final stats.Which means precisely nothing, since the things that you refer to as "bonuses"... aren't.


Characters should not be expected to track in which order every bonus was gained, since it would lead to characters simply gaining bonuses at optimal times anyway.Again, not bonuses.

Thus we are left with no choice but to go with the RAI spelled out in the FAQ, that a given character's bonuses are applied in whatever order is most beneficial to that character.And now, you have used a neat bit of misinformation to justify treating a non-rule source as rules.

To make it clear: FAQ is every bit as official as the rulings, interpretations, and house rules of Jim Johnson, DM Extraordinare. In other words: Not at all.


By your reasoning, a Fighter 4/ Wizard 10 with Practiced Spellcaster could never have a caster level above 14 unless Practiced Spellcaster was not considered at all. Even if he put on a Ring of Arcane Might (+1 caster level) and donned an Orange Prism Ioun Stone (+1 caster level) after taking Practiced Spellcaster, he would not apply each of those +1 bonuses to his current caster level of 14?
Hm. My argument was that caster levels gained by class feature apply first, before other sources.

Are the caster level increases from a Ring of Arcane Might and an Orange Prism Ioun Stone bonuses? No.

Are the caster level increases from a Ring of Arcane Might and an Orange Prism Ioun Stone gained by class feature? No.

How does this have any bearing on my reasoning, again? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man)

Practiced Spellcaster cannot increase your caster level above your hit dice at the time it is applied, but your caster level can be increased to exceed your hit dice after the bonus from that feat has been added. Give book and page number for RAW to refute this.Not disputing that caster level can exceed hit dice after the bonus from Practiced Spellcaster is applied.

I'm disputing that Practiced Spellcaster can be applied before the class features of spellcasting classes, on the basis that not a single quoted rule has allowed it. Cite a RULE (read: Not FAQ) that states this is allowed, if you would, please.

[Venger]

Are the caster level increases from a Ring of Arcane Might and an Orange Prism Ioun Stone gained by class feature? No.

This is true.


Are the caster level increases from a Ring of Arcane Might and an Orange Prism Ioun Stone bonuses? No.

As far as nomenclature is concerned, p260 of the DMG only says "+1 Caster Level" of the orange stone and doesn't name it as a bonus or give it a type (enhancement, competence, etc.)

You are mistaken about the Ring of Arcane Might, however. p144 of Complete Arcane says that ''the ring provides a +1 bonus to arcane caster level" granted, the bonus is not typed and as a result would stack with other things, such as the orange ioun stone, but it is explicitly referred to by the RAW as a bonus.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

[opinions]

Please give a book and page number for a rules reference that supports anything you've claimed thus far in this thread. So far you have not, you have only tried to discredit the valid rules that others have referenced, demanding 'better' rules references without providing any of your own. Even what you have stated is completely wrong, since you haven't even bothered to double check the actual rules before posting your opinions on how the game works. I'll use Practiced Spellcater as an example:

"Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4." By your reasoning, this is not a bonus because it does not contain the word 'bonus' even though it is one, as shown by the "+" before the number.
"...even if you can’t benefit from the full bonus immediately," there, you see? Just two sentences later, it clearly states that this is in fact a bonus, even though it was not originally stated as such. That's because there's a "+" in front of a number, that alone makes it a bonus. This is not explicitly spelled out, but it doesn't need to be because it is implied often enough and there are precedents like this one.
You cannot cite any instances of a text description containing a "+" that is explicitly stated as not a bonus, because you are wrong. If you cannot cite a rules reference for what you claim, then you are posting opinion. Your opinions on this matter are irrelevant to how the game works, please cite rules next time.