Loredrake without sorcerer levels.

[TheNivMizzet]

Hi, this might be a really stupid question but I was wondering if you needed sorcerer levels to gain the benefit from Loredrake. Might not be important in the long run, but would be nice to know if it ever came up. :smallsmile:

[ExLibrisMortis]

No, but you do need to be a true dragon (to get a sovereign archetype), and you need the ability to cast spells to get any benefit. If you can cast spells, your effective sorcerer level is increased by two.

Depending on your interpretation, this either means a non-casting loredrake/druid gets level 2 sorcerer casting, or no benefit at all. Some people rule that a non-casting creature has an effective sorcerer level of 0, others rule that it's -- (NaN), with the latter not leading to a valid total and therefore no bonus from the archetype (NaN + 2 = NaN).

[Red Fel]

No, but you do need to be a true dragon (to get a sovereign archetype), and you need the ability to cast spells to get any benefit. If you can cast spells, your effective sorcerer level is increased by two.

Depending on your interpretation, this either means a non-casting loredrake/druid gets level 2 sorcerer casting, or no benefit at all. Some people rule that a non-casting creature has an effective sorcerer level of 0, others rule that it's -- (NaN), with the latter not leading to a valid total and therefore no bonus from the archetype (NaN + 2 = NaN).

Well, to be fair, a Dragon automatically gets casting "as a Sorcerer of the levels indicated," so it has an effective Sorcerer level even if it hasn't actually taken Sorcerer levels. For example, a Young Adult Black Dragon has an effective Sorcerer level of 1st; that is, it knows and casts spells as a 1st-level Sorcerer. An Adult Gold Dragon has an effective Sorcerer level of 7th. These are true whether the Dragon has taken additional Sorcerer levels or not.

And that's before taking Loredrake into account. Loredrake increases effective Sorcerer level by 2. In the example in the book, that increases the Adult Gold Dragon's effective Sorcerer level to 9; it knows and casts spells as a 9th-level Sorcerer.

Because a Dragon automatically has an effective Sorcerer level (admittedly, starting with certain age categories), this isn't a case of increasing NAN by 2. So long as the Dragon has reached its spellcasting age, there is an effective Sorcerer level to increase even if the Dragon has taken no Sorcerer levels.

That said, ExLibrisMortis makes a fair point. If the Dragon has neither Sorcerer levels nor effective Sorcerer levels, it is a case of 0 vs. NAN, and I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. If it is NAN, then increasing NAN by 2 is still NAN.

[Flickerdart]

Well, to be fair, a Dragon automatically gets casting "as a Sorcerer of the levels indicated," so it has an effective Sorcerer level even if it hasn't actually taken Sorcerer levels. For example, a Young Adult Black Dragon has an effective Sorcerer level of 1st; that is, it knows and casts spells as a 1st-level Sorcerer.
What about wyrmling black dragons?

[ExLibrisMortis]

What about wyrmling black dragons?
The MM1 dragons too young to have casting all have -- as listed sorcerer level.

[DrMotives]

I assume it's like the difference between a paladin casting 0 spells per day and casting "-" spells per day. One is boostable with stuff, one isn't. Loredrake on an underage dragon, or one that never has effective sorc levels (lung dragons, planar dragons) will do nothing.

[Red Fel]

What about wyrmling black dragons?


Because a Dragon automatically has an effective Sorcerer level (admittedly, starting with certain age categories), this isn't a case of increasing NAN by 2. So long as the Dragon has reached its spellcasting age, there is an effective Sorcerer level to increase even if the Dragon has taken no Sorcerer levels.

That said, ExLibrisMortis makes a fair point. If the Dragon has neither Sorcerer levels nor effective Sorcerer levels, it is a case of 0 vs. NAN, and I'm inclined to believe it's the latter. If it is NAN, then increasing NAN by 2 is still NAN.

Emphasis added.