Green Whisperer Requirements?

[Bad Wolf]

So I noticed it has skill reqs in Knowledge nature and survival, and ranks in Perform. It's very obvious what the ideal entry is, but they don't actually require druid or bard spellcasting. Thoughts?

[Troacctid]

Indeed they do not, and it's a simple matter for a non-Druid, non-Bard to qualify for the class. Green Whisperer will even grant you Bard and Druid spellcasting if you don't have them already. It's actually very strong on a base Bard with no Druid levels for that reason—advances all your casting and bardic music and gives you five levels of Druid on top of it.

[Bad Wolf]

So a Savage bard 5/Green Whisperer 5/Mystic Theurge 10 can get 15 levels of druid for free?

[Troacctid]

No, because Mystic Theurge can't advance Green Whisperer. You need an actual Druid level for that, I'm afraid.

[Nifft]

Indeed they do not, and it's a simple matter for a non-Druid, non-Bard to qualify for the class. Yes.


Green Whisperer will even grant you Bard and Druid spellcasting if you don't have them already.

Maybe, maybe not.

It might be that you get zero plus one = 1.

Or it might be that you get null plus one = ERROR.

There are PrCs which advance spellcasting, and also give you spellcasting if you didn't already have it -- the 3.0e Contemplative did this, I think -- but the Green Whisperer lacks any such language.


It's a gap in the rules. If you're the DM, you get to decide how to patch that gap -- and if this is just theory-crafting, then there is no DM so do as you like without fear of consequence. If this is for a real game and you're not the DM, then you should talk to your DM (and potentially the rest of your group).


EDIT:
So a Savage bard 5/Green Whisperer 5/Mystic Theurge 10 can get 15 levels of druid for free?

Arcane Hierophant and Fochluchan Lyrist are both more interesting than Mystic Theurge, though the entry prereqs are also higher.

But as a direct answer: even if MT worked as you'd hoped, it wouldn't be free Druid casting, because you'd pay 15 levels of Bard skills & Bard features.

[Troacctid]

Maybe, maybe not.

It might be that you get zero plus one = 1.

Or it might be that you get null plus one = ERROR.

There are PrCs which advance spellcasting, and also give you spellcasting if you didn't already have it -- the 3.0e Contemplative did this, I think -- but the Green Whisperer lacks any such language.
I think it's pretty clear. You specifically get spells as if you gained a level in Bard and Druid. If a character with no Bard or Druid levels took a level of Bard and Druid, would they get spells per day and spells known? Of course.

[Nifft]

I think it's pretty clear. Indeed, that's why we disagree.

I see two valid interpretations, and you're favoring one of them.

If you could show that your interpretation is the only possibly correct interpretation, that would move the conversation forward.

Right now you're just shoring up that your valid interpretation is valid -- which it is, since it's one of the two valid interpretations -- but that's not a trait that it enjoys in exclusivity.

[Troacctid]

I don't see where that other interpretation is coming from though. There are a lot of prestige classes that require you to have levels in the class you're advancing—but to my knowledge, all of them say so explicitly. Some examples:

When a new mystic theurge level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in any one arcane spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class and any one divine spellcasting class he belonged to previously.

When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level.

At each level, a whistler gains new spells per day and spells known (if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class to which he belonged before adding the prestige class level.

At each even-numbered doomlord level, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class to which he belonged before adding the prestige class.

At every even-numbered level, a Green Star adept gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in an arcane spellcasting class to which he belonged before adding the prestige class level.

At every level indicated on the table, a crystal master gains additional power points per day and access to new powers as if she had also gained a level in whatever manifesting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class.

Starting at 2nd level, and at each swanmay level thereafter, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in either druid or ranger, whichever class she belonged to before adding the prestige class level.
And so on.

On the other hand, compare with a class like Anima Mage:

Soul Binding Bonus: At each anima mage level, your soul binding ability improves as if you had also gained a level in the binder class. Your anima mage levels and binder levels stack for the purpose of determining your bonus on binding checks, the effectiveness of your vestige-granted abilities, your ability to bind higher-level vestiges, and the number of vestiges you can bind. You do not, however, gain any other benefit a binder would have gained.
I think it's pretty commonly accepted that someone who enters the class via the Bind Vestige feat line can still advance binding with it, and this wording is arguably more restrictive than what we see on Green Whisperer (and the other Dragon #311 prestige classes).

[Nifft]

I don't see where that other interpretation is coming from though. There are a lot of prestige classes that require you to have levels in the class you're advancing—but to my knowledge, all of them say so explicitly. Some examples:

And so on. The difference there is generality. Green Whisperer doesn't let you advance any two spellcasting classes, it only advances Druid casting and Bard casting. It differs in specificity, not in intention.

The rest of the write-up, including the table, are a bit more harmonious with advancing pre-existing casting.

Here's what it looks like when "+1 level" is intended to grant casting:


Spells per Day: Starting at 1st level, and at each stalker of Kharash level thereafter, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in the ranger class. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (improved favored enemies and so on). If the character had no ranger levels before becoming a 1st-level stalker of Kharash, he gains the spellcasting ability of a 1st-level ranger—that is, no spellcasting ability—when he takes his first stalker level. When he becomes a 4th-level stalker, he gains spellcasting ability (as a 4th-level ranger) assuming his Wisdom score is high enough to grant him a bonus 1st-level spell.

A stalker of Kharash's caster level is one-half the sum of his ranger levels and his stalker levels.
Notice how none of your samples have this additional text.




On the other hand, compare with a class like Anima Mage:

I think it's pretty commonly accepted that someone who enters the class via the Bind Vestige feat line can still advance binding with it, and this wording is arguably more restrictive than what we see on Green Whisperer (and the other Dragon #311 prestige classes).

Heh, that's funny.

As far as I could tell, the common understanding is that you can get into Anima Mage without any Binder levels, but you won't advance Binding if you get in that way -- you'll only advance spellcasting.

[Troacctid]

The difference there is generality. Green Whisperer doesn't let you advance any two spellcasting classes, it only advances Druid casting and Bard casting. It differs in specificity, not in intention.

The rest of the write-up, including the table, are a bit more harmonious with advancing pre-existing casting.

Here's what it looks like when "+1 level" is intended to grant casting:
Notice how none of your samples have this additional text.
But contrast with the other abilities of the very same class:

Bardic Knowledge: If the character already has the bardic knowledge ability, his green whisperer levels stack with the levels of any other classes that grant him that ability for the purpose of determining the bonus, but only when making a bardic knowledge check about something involving plants, animals, the elements, or items associated with those topics.

Bardic Music: If the character already has the bardic music ability, his green whisperer levels stack with the levels of any other classes that grant him that ability for the purpose of determining abilities, duration, and so on.

Spells per Day/Spells Known: At each green whisperer level, the character gains new bard and druid spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had gained a level in the bard and druid classes. He does not, however, gain any other benefit of the druid class.
Both bardic knowledge and bardic music are very specific in saying that they only advance if you have the abilities already. The spellcasting ability does not.

[Nifft]

Both bardic knowledge and bardic music are very specific in saying that they only advance if you have the abilities already. The spellcasting ability does not.

Yep. That's why your favored interpretation is also valid.

But the absence of text is not enough for your interpretation to be exclusive, since the other interpretation exists -- and the other interpretation has the notable virtue of not forcing a conflict between text & table.


-- -- --

All that said, even if you did get Druid casting without any Druid levels, you get a much better deal if you do take at lest one Druid level. The spontaneous conversion into SNA spells is one example; advancement through a later PrC is another.

[Troacctid]

But the absence of text is not enough for your interpretation to be exclusive, since the other interpretation exists -- and the other interpretation has the notable virtue of not forcing a conflict between text & table.
Where's the conflict between text and table here?

[Nifft]

Where's the conflict between text and table here?

"+1 level Bard and Druid" says that you're adding one to your levels of Bard and Druid.

Unlike Stalker of Kharash, there's nothing in the text to harmonize this disconnect.


We all know that text trumps table, but I'll argue that if you can find an interpretation which satisfies both text and table, then that's the more elegant and satisfying interpretation.

[Troacctid]

The text says you gain spells as if you gained a level of Bard and Druid. The table says the same thing. Not seeing the disconnect here.

[Nifft]

The text says you gain spells as if you gained a level of Bard and Druid. The table says the same thing. Not seeing the disconnect here.

The disconnect is that you cannot add one to a thing that does not exist.

Em-dash is not zero.

"—"+ 1 = Error.

You can see this throughout the rules -- if you lack a thing, you can't increase that thing.

Skeletons can't benefit from bear's endurance. They don't have a Con score, so they can't gain +4 Con. You can add to zero, but not to null.

If an effect grants you an enhancement bonus to natural armor, you must already have a natural armor score, or the effect must specify how to handle the disconnect between getting +X to a thing that does not yet exist.

If you would get bonus spells for having a high ability score, you must already have spells of the relevant level to gain bonus spells. Bards illustrate this very nicely, getting 0 spells per day at certain levels -- which is distinct from having "—" spells per day.

This is what I meant upthread:



Maybe, maybe not.

It might be that you get zero plus one = 1.

Or it might be that you get null plus one = ERROR.

[Troacctid]

So you can't gain Bard levels unless you already have them? How does anyone multiclass, then? That makes no sense, sorry.

[Nifft]

So you can't gain Bard levels unless you already have them? How does anyone multiclass, then? That makes no sense, sorry.

It makes fine sense, except you're confusing real class level advancement -- which follows a table, not a formula -- with "+1 level" effective bonus advancement.

Do you see anywhere in the PHB that says a Druid gets "+1 Druid level" casting at each level? (Of course you don't, that would be nonsense.)

[Troacctid]

It very clearly says you gain it as if you had gained a level of Bard. If you had gained a level of Bard, would you have a null + 1 problem? Obviously not.

There's no conflict in the table either. "+1 level of Bard" is a perfectly adequate shorthand for the text. It's also the same formatting used in your example of Stalker of Kharash.

[Nifft]

It very clearly says you gain it as if you had gained a level of Bard. If you had gained a level of Bard, would you have a null + 1 problem? Obviously not. Heh, you want to go re-read PHB p.59.


Picking up a new class is not exactly the same as starting a character in that class. Per the PHB, +1 Bard does not equal +1 Bard, presumably because class levels are path-dependent.

You're allowed to multi-class because the PHB specifically allows you to multi-class, not for any other reason.



There's no conflict in the table either. "+1 level of Bard" is a perfectly adequate shorthand for the text. It's also the same formatting used in your example of Stalker of Kharash.

Do you think "+4 Constitution" is perfectly meaningful and adequate for all creatures, or do you think some creatures would not benefit from that bonus?

The Stalker of Kharash requires a special exemption in the text in order to function. The Green Whisperer lacks that special exemption.

[Troacctid]

Heh, you want to go re-read PHB p.59.

Per the PHB, +1 Bard does not equal +1 Bard, presumably because class levels are path-dependent.

You're allowed to multi-class because the PHB specifically allows you to multi-class, not for any other reason.
Yes, and if you gained a level of Bard through multiclassing, you would gain spells. Just like the Dragon #311 prestige classes gives you spells as if you gained a level of Bard. I'm still not seeing where this doesn't work.


Do you think "+4 Constitution" is perfectly meaningful and adequate for all creatures, or do you think some creatures would not benefit from that bonus?

The Stalker of Kharash requires a special exemption in the text in order to function. The Green Whisperer lacks that special exemption.
And is that questionable because it's a text/table conflict? No. The text is clearly expounding on the table.

[Nifft]

Yes, and if you gained a level of Bard through multiclassing, you would gain spells. Just like the Dragon #311 prestige classes gives you spells as if you gained a level of Bard. I'm still not seeing where this doesn't work. There are two potentially valid interpretations, so the other interpretation also 'works", and that's not a disproof of the one that I'm trying to show you.

You've been barking up this binary tree every so often, but it's a tactic that isn't applicable to this discussion.

Here, let me throw you a bone. This is what it would look like if your favored interpretation were explicitly invalid:


Spells per Day

At 2nd and 3rd level, a gnome paragon gains new spells per day and spells known as if he had also gained a level in bard. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (bard class features, and so on). This essentially means that he adds the level of gnome paragon to his level in bard, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

If a gnome paragon has no levels in bard, this class feature has no effect.

Is that last paragraph a dysfunction? I mean, per your reading of the first paragraph, the Gnome would have a level in Bard because "+1 Bard" right?



And is that questionable because it's a text/table conflict? No. The text is clearly expounding on the table. The text and table don't need to conflict -- you can easily interpret both of them in a way that's harmonious. That's the interpretation which I'm trying to show you.


Back on topic:


Do you think "+4 Constitution" is perfectly meaningful and adequate for all creatures, or do you think some creatures would not benefit from that bonus?

[Troacctid]

There are two potentially valid interpretations, so the other interpretation also 'works", and that's not a disproof of the one that I'm trying to show you.

You've been barking up this binary tree every so often, but it's a tactic that isn't applicable to this discussion.

Here, let me throw you a bone. This is what it would look like if your favored interpretation were explicitly invalid:

Is that last paragraph a dysfunction? I mean, per your reading of the first paragraph, the Gnome would have a level in Bard because "+1 Bard" right?
No, because the text takes priority over the table.


The text and table don't need to conflict -- you can easily interpret both of them in a way that's harmonious. That's the interpretation which I'm trying to show you.


Back on topic:


Do you think "+4 Constitution" is perfectly meaningful and adequate for all creatures, or do you think some creatures would not benefit from that bonus?
Oh! Wait, I think I get it. The other interpretation is if you think the table takes priority over the text, right?

[Nifft]

No, because the text takes priority over the table. There's no need to force a conflict between them such that priority matters.


Oh! Wait, I think I get it. The other interpretation is if you think the table takes priority over the text, right? There's no need to force a conflict between them such that priority matters.

[Troacctid]

There's no need to force a conflict between them such that priority matters.

There's no need to force a conflict between them such that priority matters.
Which leads us back to my interpretation, yes. But if this other one is based on it being impossible to perform an arithmetic operation on nonexistent value, then you have to be taking the table (which says +1) over the text (which doesn't mention addition or stacking or any calculation at all), or that wouldn't be an issue.

[Nifft]

Which leads us back to my interpretation, yes.

Do you think "+4 Constitution" is perfectly meaningful and adequate for all creatures, or do you think some creatures would not benefit from that bonus?

This is relevant to the validity of "your" interpretation.

[Troacctid]

Do you think "+4 Constitution" is perfectly meaningful and adequate for all creatures, or do you think some creatures would not benefit from that bonus?

This is relevant to the validity of "your" interpretation.
Sure, in the absence of anything precluding it.

[Nifft]

Sure, in the absence of anything precluding it.

The absence of something does preclude it.

Can you think of what?

[Troacctid]

The absence of something does preclude it.

Can you think of what?
Nothing comes to mind (except nonabilities, but we've already established why those aren't relevant). I haven't memorized every monster ability, though, so maybe there's something I don't know about. In any case, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Green Whisperer.

[Nifft]

Nothing comes to mind (except nonabilities, but we've already established why those aren't relevant). I haven't memorized every monster ability, though, so maybe there's something I don't know about. In any case, it doesn't seem to have anything to do with Green Whisperer.

Nonabilities are in fact relevant. How delightful of you to recall them.

Do you know why a nonability would preclude gaining a +4 bonus to that ability?


Related question: when a Barbarian 4 puts an Orange Prism ioun stone into orbit around her head, what is her Wizard caster level? How about her Bard caster level?

[Troacctid]

It's impossible to perform a mathematical operation on a nonexistent value. You're trying to breadcrumb me to something I already explained several posts ago, Nifft.

[Nifft]

It's impossible to perform a mathematical operation on a nonexistent value. You're trying to breadcrumb me to something I already explained several posts ago, Nifft.

I'm trying to get you to engage with the rules argument that I made at the beginning, which you've been ignoring -- perhaps because you realize that it undermines your central premise.

It's entirely reasonable for a DM to say: "You have no Druid casting, therefore you can't benefit from a +1 advancement of your Druid casting."

If this person wants to use Green Whisperer in a real game, then it's bad advice to imply that there is rules certainty when no such certainty exists.

[Troacctid]

Of course a DM would be well within their rights to say such a thing, but that's DM fiat. It has nothing to do with what's actually in the text. And your rules-based objections are not consistent with the text. I don't think they're even consistent with the intent of the text, as it actually calls out in the description how you don't have to be a Bard/Druid to take the class.

I mean, believe me, I'm totally on board with table trumping text for spellcasting advancement. Nobody wants to have to double-check the prestige class to find out that oops, Eldritch Knight only advances spells per day, not spells known, or that Archmage doesn't advance caster level, or that Wavekeeper doesn't advance anything at all. That sort of nonsense is why I say to ignore the text and just use the table...in my houserules document.

[Nifft]

Of course a DM would be well within their rights to say such a thing, but that's DM fiat. It has nothing to do with what's actually in the text. And that's where we disagree. A DM could also fiat any-darn-thing, but that's not what would be happening if the DM ruled one way or the other on this.

Rulings aren't houserules. Reasonable interpretation isn't DM fiat. (Both fiat and interpretation are valid tools, of course.)



And your rules-based objections are not consistent with the text. I don't think they're even consistent with the intent of the text, as it actually calls out in the description how you don't have to be a Bard/Druid to take the class.

I mean, believe me, I'm totally on board with table trumping text for spellcasting advancement. Nobody wants to have to double-check the prestige class to find out that oops, Eldritch Knight only advances spells per day, not spells known, or that Archmage doesn't advance caster level, or that Wavekeeper doesn't advance anything at all. That sort of nonsense is why I say to ignore the text and just use the table...in my houserules document. Yeah it can be more reasonable to ignore the text. That's a point we can agree upon. In real games, RAW must bend to reason.

In this case, it's not particularly unbalanced to permit Druid casting on a Bard 5 / Green Whisperer 1, since one to four levels of Druid gives a lot more punch than that 5th level of Bard. So I don't have any balance objections to the interpretation that you prefer.

In fact, I see your favored interpretation as valid. It's just that I also see the other interpretation as valid, too.


Perhaps we should agree to disagree about this.

[Troacctid]

And that's where we disagree. A DM could also fiat any-darn-thing, but that's not what would be happening if the DM ruled one way or the other on this.

Rulings aren't houserules. Reasonable interpretation isn't DM fiat. (Both fiat and interpretation are valid tools, of course.)
In this case it's less "Interpretation" and more "I don't want to look it up, I'll just make something up."

[Nifft]

In this case it's less "Interpretation" and more "I don't want to look it up, I'll just make something up." Heh, I guess we could get personal instead of agreeing to disagree.

In that case, I see that "—" ≠ 0, and that's something which I interpret as a fundamental part of the rules. You lack the requisite mathematical background so you just make up word-tricks to justify this gap in your understanding.

How about that instead?

Or we could just agree that we both have valid points.