Quick Clearification

[Hunterx]

And there is the problem with your reading, as opposed to the reading of everyone else of this ability. Everyone else reads the ability as +1 to caster level, your total caster level can't exceed your character level. Only you try to make it into some ridiculously OP bonus.

There is simply no way the ability does what you claim it does because it doesn't have the word 'per' in there. As someone with English as their frist language, you'd know that.

It does not need to say per for it to be every level. It says the maximum bonus can not exceed your character level. it can go up to your character level. IE the max bonus you could get is your character level, nothing higher than that. This is so clear I do not know how you can not see this. Truly.

But as posted in another post I have said how i think it works, but as RAW this is correct.

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level).



.

[JNAProductions]

"You can have one cookie."
"You can have no more cookies than your age."

If you're, say, 27, how many cookies can you get?

[XionUnborn01]

I dont understand how it's not clear that the part in parentheses is NOT talking about the +1 bonus, but your caster level. Its saying:

You get a +1 bonus to you Carter level (bringing your caster lwvel to a max of your characters level.)

Not:

You get a +1 bonus to your caster level (this bonus cant be more than your character level)


The parantheses is not saying how large the bonus is, its saying how high it can bring your caster level.

[Deophaun]

You do not know me for one
Well enough that this...

and as stated by RAW I am correct.
...was entirely predictable.

So saying I am wrong
Take note that I didn't even say Hunterx was wrong in the portion he quoted, yet he still hammers on it. It's not a reasoned position at this point. It's pure reflex. There's no reasoning him out of it.

[RoboEmperor]

Well enough that this...

...was entirely predictable.

Take note that I didn't even say Hunterx was wrong in the portion he quoted, yet he still hammers on it. It's not a reasoned position at this point. It's pure reflex. There's no reasoning him out of it.

If JNAProductions wants to give it a try let JNAProductions give it a try. I might learn a thing or two about proper people skills watching him handle this.

[Hunterx]

"You can have one cookie."
"You can have no more cookies than your age."

If you're, say, 27, how many cookies can you get?

You are age 1 at age one you get 1 cookie but i give you a bonus cookie to the maximum of your age which is +1 for 2 cookies.

Your age 2 at age 2 I give you +1 cookie plus a second cookie for +2 to the maximum of your age.

your age 3 at age 3 I give you the same 2 cookies you got at age 2, that is not to the maximum of your age. Why can i not have 3 cookies my age is 3 that would be the maximum of my age.

at age 4 your going to get those same 2 cookies i gave you at age 2

at age 5 the same.

Now is this a bonus? of course it is, it is a bonus of 2 sure a nice bonus. Now lets look at the next part. The bonus can not exceed your maximum character level. How can we get to a maximum character level if the bonus stays at 2, well if we got 2 at level 1 that would happen, but the fixed that by lowering the bonus to a +1, now at level 2 you get +2 this is not over your max level this is your max level. level 3 +2 well this is below your max level again, why would they increase the bonus to your max level at level 2 just to have it go back down below your max level ?

Now WOTC yes prints some stuff that is out there I know this, and you all assume this is what they did with this. But there is nothing in an errata about it and as such you have all decided to errata it yourself.

This is not the way, RAW is RAW and RAI is RAI but saying this works like PS is still not true and, even if it does not scale which i have said I think that the max character level is an error as RAW it holds true, and still is not OP.

Now the +2 yes I think the math is +2 after level 2 for ever and as stated a +2 is not bad as it gives you caster level 22 at level 20. But you do not need to multi class for this, you get the +2 no matter what. The wizard fighter cleric thing i gave was something that i thought may appease you ppl, but after looking it over it would be

Wizard 4 fighter 3 cleric 2
wizard caster level 11 figher 3 cleric caster 11
casting level 2 arcane spells as caster level 11
casting level 1 divine spells at cast level 11

[Hunterx]

I dont understand how it's not clear that the part in parentheses is NOT talking about the +1 bonus, but your caster level. Its saying:

You get a +1 bonus to you Carter level (bringing your caster lwvel to a max of your characters level.)

Not:

You get a +1 bonus to your caster level (this bonus cant be more than your character level)


The parantheses is not saying how large the bonus is, its saying how high it can bring your caster level.

It says you get a +1 bonus TO your caster level. so if you do not have a caster level as if you are a fighter and you take the Krau sigil you still have a +1 caster level now don't you. You cant cast spells but you have a caster level of 1

Now you take a caster level wizard you now have a caster level 1 wizard and a bonus +1 for a caster level of 2 how can you not under stand this.

No it is saying that the bonus can not exceed your character level, so if you are level 5 the bonus can not exceed that number.

How do you get to that number, the only way is for it to scale. period full stop.

[JNAProductions]

You're either willfully ignoring the actual text or not a native English speaker.

Side note-how's the process of finding a DM who'd agree with this reading going? Had any luck?

[Hunterx]

You're either willfully ignoring the actual text or not a native English speaker.

Side note-how's the process of finding a DM who'd agree with this reading going? Had any luck?

again you are not reading everything are you.

I have said that the RAW says this and I have said that I think it is this.

So i have said I think it works as a +2 at every level as in no more than a +2 so when at level 20 you will be casting spells as a lv 22 caster if you take a caster all the way.

It does not mean that I do not think that the RAW is the other way where it scales with you. It just means that sounds a little to outlandish and i think that they made an error either by saying character level or by not putting in per.

But the +2 gets added to all caster levels you have and you do not have to be a multi class character to get it.

There is nothing and i mean nothing that even hints to this being the case. So yes a +2 is the max and i do think they made an error with the word character level and or forgot per in the sentence.

But like i said a Lv2 wizard lv2 cleric with Krau have a caster level 4 for both divine and arcane spells casting only level 1 spells.

[Florian]

Learn to read how exceptions work.

Caster Level being unequal to Character Level is a common state in 3E, either by Multiclassing, having racial HD or by using a class that gets spellcasting late and works on a formula based on Class Level -4 equals Caster Level.

You can either gain a flat +1 or +2 bonus to your Caster Level. The stated exception is when you Caster Level is already equal to your Character Level.

If you don't intend something to scale, you don't need to put a "per" to it, leaving it a flat bonus.

[Hunterx]

Learn to read how exceptions work.

Caster Level being unequal to Character Level is a common state in 3E, either by Multiclassing, having racial HD or by using a class that gets spellcasting late and works on a formula based on Class Level -4 equals Caster Level.

You can either gain a flat +1 or +2 bonus to your Caster Level. The stated exception is when you Caster Level is already equal to your Character Level.

If you don't intend something to scale, you don't need to put a "per" to it, leaving it a flat bonus.

No the bonus is very clear you get a +1/+2 to caster level. there is no grey area for this there is no need for you to be a -4 caster level or a multi class not to get the bonus. again you are assuming that this racial ability is working like PS and it is not period full stop.

[Crake]

You are age 1 at age one you get 1 cookie but i give you a bonus cookie to the maximum of your age which is +1 for 2 cookies.

Your age 2 at age 2 I give you +1 cookie plus a second cookie for +2 to the maximum of your age.

your age 3 at age 3 I give you the same 2 cookies you got at age 2, that is not to the maximum of your age. Why can i not have 3 cookies my age is 3 that would be the maximum of my age.

at age 4 your going to get those same 2 cookies i gave you at age 2

at age 5 the same.

HunterX shows right here that he cannot perform basic comprehension without adding details to suit his narrative. You know, they did a study on people who dig into their position even when undeniably proven to be wrong. These people actually have a sub-standard metacognitive function compared to normal people, and there is very little, if nothing at all that can be done to convince these people that they are wrong.

[Hunterx]

HunterX shows right here that he cannot perform basic comprehension without adding details to suit his narrative. You know, they did a study on people who dig into their position even when undeniably proven to be wrong. These people actually have a sub-standard metacognitive function compared to normal people, and there is very little, if nothing at all that can be done to convince these people that they are wrong.


You show that you just can not understand the English language and when you see the word to in a situation when it involves math aka the +1 to caster levels involving spells and spell like abilities. This means that it i added to the base class, even if you do not have a caster level at all and you take the Krau sigil you would than have a lv1 caster levels but have no spells to use it.

So if you get a +1/+2 at level 2 than that is what it is, the simple fact that they added a limit that is greater than 2 implies that there is a way to increase the bonus to the caster level that is above the +2.

The only way this can be achieved is by it scaling at each level. So how do we scale it at each level well if it was to simply work like this
Lv1 +1
Lv2 +2
Lv3 +2+1
Lv4 +2+2
Lv5 +2+2+1
and so on than you would have the scaling that the the no higher than your character level because the bonus would be equal to your character level.
which at max level would give you a caster level of 40 doubling your caster level and the bonus would never have been higher than your character level.

But i guess that this is to much stress for you and curling up in the corner and sucking on your thumb might make you feel better. Because this seems to be to advanced type of math for you to figure out and you are a pure sheep just following what everyone else says instead to trying to find the truth.

[DeTess]

You show that you just can not understand the English language and when you see the word to in a situation when it involves math aka the +1 to caster levels involving spells and spell like abilities. This means that it i added to the base class, even if you do not have a caster level at all and you take the Krau sigil you would than have a lv1 caster levels but have no spells to use it.

So if you get a +1/+2 at level 2 than that is what it is, the simple fact that they added a limit that is greater than 2 implies that there is a way to increase the bonus to the caster level that is above the +2.



No, it implies you're reading it wrong, and that that limit applies to the total caster level. One of our readings turns this class into OP BS. The other reading gives it a reasonable ribbon-ability in, line with what other classes get. I wonder which is the correct reading...

[AvatarVecna]

So if you get a +1/+2 at level 2 than that is what it is, the simple fact that they added a limit that is greater than 2 implies that there is a way to increase the bonus to the caster level that is above the +2.

No. No it doesn't. The fact that the ability is poorly-written doesn't mean it implies whatever you want it to. And more to the point, the second your argument includes the word "implies", you're in Rules As Interpreted territory, not RAW territory. Additionally, reading implications into the way the rules are written is you reading into developer intent, which is the exact thing you've been railing against other people doing in this thread.

The existence of a cap that only applies to a flat bonus doesn't mean you get to pretend the bonus is variable when it's not. It's +1 at first level, it's +2 at 2nd level and beyond. If you take the feat somebody mentioned upthread, you can get an additional point. But the second you insist that the cap implies the bonus can get bigger - you're not wrong but you're officially wandering out of RAW territory and it falls to whether the DM agrees with that interpretation or not. Maybe your DM is particularly open-minded, but if we're using this thread as a litmus test, I'd wager that you're going to find a hard time finding a DM that lets you double your caster level at all class levels with just a single racial feature.

[Hunterx]

No, it implies you're reading it wrong, and that that limit applies to the total caster level. One of our readings turns this class into OP BS. The other reading gives it a reasonable ribbon-ability in, line with what other classes get. I wonder which is the correct reading...

One reading does not give it crazy OP power and i explained why it does not but you seem to keep your rose colored glasses on and refuse to see that, yes duration damage and ranges increase the DC to save does not. In which case the spell still has an x factor that it will not effect the out come of the battle. As you go higher in levels the saves for those spells that you all point out become easier and easier to save and even be immune to, so in that case it really does not matter if you are casting a fireball as a level 7000 caster level the damage is still going to be 1 fixed to a max of 10D6, 2 have a crazy easy save, three be immune to or resistant to by a ton of creatures.

So again how is this OP, at some levels sure it may get lucky and maybe do a great deal of damage, but the chances are highly unlikely.

[Hunterx]

No. No it doesn't. The fact that the ability is poorly-written doesn't mean it implies whatever you want it to. And more to the point, the second your argument includes the word "implies", you're in Rules As Interpreted territory, not RAW territory. Additionally, reading implications into the way the rules are written is you reading into developer intent, which is the exact thing you've been railing against other people doing in this thread.

The existence of a cap that only applies to a flat bonus doesn't mean you get to pretend the bonus is variable when it's not. It's +1 at first level, it's +2 at 2nd level and beyond. If you take the feat somebody mentioned upthread, you can get an additional point. But the second you insist that the cap implies the bonus can get bigger - you're not wrong but you're officially wandering out of RAW territory and it falls to whether the DM agrees with that interpretation or not. Maybe your DM is particularly open-minded, but if we're using this thread as a litmus test, I'd wager that you're going to find a hard time finding a DM that lets you double your caster level at all class levels with just a single racial feature.

I used implies because you all used it first way way way back. So if your implying I am implying ( i do not mean you directly). Once again I have said this i do not know how many time, but i will say it again. In the RAW I am correct and as for our game plays by RAW than i am correct. Now do i think there was an error yes i do, I think they either forgot to put per in the sentence or for some reason they added a cap of the character level. This is continuing because people so not seem to see how, that as RAW i am correct and they continue to say this is like PS which it is not. Your the only one who has admitted that in the RAW I am correct I think there was one more, but others insist that it is PS only by racial. I have pointed out I do not know how many examples that it is not PS and it is not even close to PS but they still go on and on like the energizer bunny. It is simple instead of continuing to say this is PS but racial, just say It is not PS and by RAW Hunter is correct. I except the fact that ppl see it differently and i can see how they can see that. I have even said that the +2 is fair and that it applies to all casters that you may have in your build.

I have even talked with a few that disagree with me here on a build i would love to play. but I really do not know how Krau would work in it. with the +2 simply because of how the class, reacts to caster levels.

[DeTess]

One reading does not give it crazy OP power and i explained why it does not but you seem to keep your rose colored glasses on and refuse to see that, yes duration damage and ranges increase the DC to save does not. In which case the spell still has an x factor that it will not effect the out come of the battle. As you go higher in levels the saves for those spells that you all point out become easier and easier to save and even be immune to, so in that case it really does not matter if you are casting a fireball as a level 7000 caster level the damage is still going to be 1 fixed to a max of 10D6, 2 have a crazy easy save, three be immune to or resistant to by a ton of creatures.

So again how is this OP, at some levels sure it may get lucky and maybe do a great deal of damage, but the chances are highly unlikely.

In the fireball example, it does something better. Creatures that make the save take half damage, but you're dealing double the damage, so effectively you do the same damage as if you had a normal CL and they failed the save against fireball. Against those that fail the save, you deal double damage. You're twice as effective in most scenarios as a wizard of any other race. How is being twice as effective as a similar build from another race not OP?

And being fixed at 10d6 might matter if you're more than level 10, but from level 5-10 your interpretation will deal far more damage than another build. And don't even get me started on using reserves of strength or smart spell picks to get uncapped spells.

Honestly, have you ever actually played this game with a properly build caster? Because take it from someone who has: double CL makes an already really powerful class at high levels also complete BS at low levels.

[Hunterx]

In the fireball example, it does something better. Creatures that make the save take half damage, but you're dealing double the damage, so effectively you do the same damage as if you had a normal CL and they failed the save against fireball. Against those that fail the save, you deal double damage. You're twice as effective in most scenarios as a wizard of any other race. How is being twice as effective as a similar build from another race not OP?

And being fixed at 10d6 might matter if you're more than level 10, but from level 5-10 your interpretation will deal far more damage than another build. And don't even get me started on using reserves of strength or smart spell picks to get uncapped spells.

Honestly, have you ever actually played this game with a properly build caster? Because take it from someone who has: double CL makes an already really powerful class at high levels also complete BS at low levels.

Because they are magic based race so why would not being better at magic than other races be out of the question

[JNAProductions]

Because they are magic based race so why would not being better at magic than other races be out of the question

Orcs are a warrior race, so they should get to double their BAB.
Halflings are a sneaky race, so they should double all precision damage they deal.

Just makes sense, right?

[Hunterx]

Orcs are a warrior race, so they should get to double their BAB.
Halflings are a sneaky race, so they should double all precision damage they deal.

Just makes sense, right?

I would like to direct you the whisper gnome for sneaking and Orcs do a ton of damage as fighters, and at level 1 they can out damage everyone and you know that as well as i do.

Rage power attack great sword. So do not try giving me that crap and if you rage two weapon fighting with lion totem barbarian you are doing double the damage.

Whisper gnome go luck trying to find them at any level, with a +8 right off the top and if you take skill focus hide or move silently you get a +11 at level 1 before dex bonus and ranks.

So double caster level is just away for this race to flex its magical prowess. but again you have not seen what i said about this in the other post i put up.

As RAW the caster level doubles but i think this is an error, either they for got the word per or for some reason they have put in the maximum of your character level.
But i guess that has escaped you again.

[umbergod]

Hows the hunt (I'm so punny) going with finding a DM that agrees with your interpretation of this?

[JNAProductions]

I would like to direct you the whisper gnome for sneaking and Orcs do a ton of damage as fighters, and at level 1 they can out damage everyone and you know that as well as i do.

Rage power attack great sword. So do not try giving me that crap and if you rage two weapon fighting with lion totem barbarian you are doing double the damage.

Whisper gnome go luck trying to find them at any level, with a +8 right off the top and if you take skill focus hide or move silently you get a +11 at level 1 before dex bonus and ranks.

So double caster level is just away for this race to flex its magical prowess. but again you have not seen what i said about this in the other post i put up.

As RAW the caster level doubles but i think this is an error, either they for got the word per or for some reason they have put in the maximum of your character level.
But i guess that has escaped you again.

Hunter, let me try this again.

"You earn $30 for mowing the lawn."
"The most you can earn from mowing the lawn is $10 per year old you are."

You mow a lawn, and are at least 3 years old. (If you're mowing lawns at 2 years old, I'd be quite impressed.) How much money do you make?

Do not add or change words. Do not change the circumstances.

How much money do you make for mowing a lawn?

[ColorBlindNinja]

Hunter, let me try this again.

"You earn $30 for mowing the lawn."
"The most you can earn from mowing the lawn is $10 per year old you are."

You mow a lawn, and are at least 3 years old. (If you're mowing lawns at 2 years old, I'd be quite impressed.) How much money do you make?

Do not add or change words. Do not change the circumstances.

How much money do you make for mowing a lawn?

We're doing word problems now?! :smalleek:

Abandon thread! Abandon thread!

[Hunterx]

Hunter, let me try this again.

"You earn $30 for mowing the lawn."
"The most you can earn from mowing the lawn is $10 per year old you are."

You mow a lawn, and are at least 3 years old. (If you're mowing lawns at 2 years old, I'd be quite impressed.) How much money do you make?

Do not add or change words. Do not change the circumstances.

How much money do you make for mowing a lawn?

In this you would earn 30 because it says you earn 30 for mowing the lawn. \

But this is not the same as the sigil, because you are missing the key words BONUS which is in addition to which if you add that word to the second line you would earn 60. 30 from mowing the lawn and 30 from each year old you are and you are 3. So you see. You changed the whole thing and tried to make work in your way and you failed because you for got that one little word. BONUS is the key word that you all seem to keep dropping.

[Hunterx]

We're doing word problems now?! :smalleek:

Abandon thread! Abandon thread!

Sorry if this hurts your brain, but you never know you may learn something and learn what words mean in word problems.

[JNAProductions]

In this you would earn 30 because it says you earn 30 for mowing the lawn. \

But this is not the same as the sigil, because you are missing the key words BONUS which is in addition to which if you add that word to the second line you would earn 60. 30 from mowing the lawn and 30 from each year old you are and you are 3. So you see. You changed the whole thing and tried to make work in your way and you failed because you for got that one little word. BONUS is the key word that you all seem to keep dropping.

Please provide the definition of bonus.

Google provides the following:


an amount of money added to wages on a seasonal basis, especially as a reward for good performance.

Another one?


something free, as an extra dividend, given by a corporation to a purchaser of its securities.

Now, if I say your Caster Level is normally 6 (because you have 6 Wizard Levels), but then I say you get a bonus of +1 to it, does your caster level suddenly become 12? No, it becomes 7.

Bonus does NOT mean per. That's the word that's missing for your argument to be correct. Not bonus-per.

Edit: Hunter, you're also being really rude. I get that you're entrenched in your position and you WANT to be right. That doesn't mean you should be rude to anyone.

[ColorBlindNinja]

Sorry if this hurts your brain, but you never know you may learn something and learn what words mean in word problems.

The only thing that hurts my brain is that you still are pushing this obviously wrong interpretation of the text.

[Hunterx]

Please provide the definition of bonus.

Google provides the following:



Another one?



Now, if I say your Caster Level is normally 6 (because you have 6 Wizard Levels), but then I say you get a bonus of +1 to it, does your caster level suddenly become 12? No, it becomes 7.

an extra free throw awarded to a fouled player when the opposing team has exceeded the number of team fouls allowed during a period.

Edit: Hunter, you're also being really rude. I get that you're entrenched in your position and you WANT to be right. That doesn't mean you should be rude to anyone.

In the definition it uses money but it can be used in any format that adds something above what the normal is.

an amount of money added to wages on a seasonal basis, especially as a reward for good performance.

an extra free throw awarded to a fouled player when the opposing team has exceeded the number of team fouls allowed during a period.

[JNAProductions]

In the definition it uses money but it can be used in any format that adds something above what the normal is.

an amount of money added to wages on a seasonal basis, especially as a reward for good performance.

Yes. And is +1 to your CL or +2 to your CL a bonus? Above that which is normal?

[umbergod]

Sorry if this hurts your brain, but you never know you may learn something and learn what words mean in word problems.

Irony is you coming to this forum asking a question, get told your wrong repeatedly, insult those that are explaining with increasingly interesting examples, have english as a first language, yet have proven several times over you dont actually grasp your native language. Case in point: its clarification, something any adult with english as their native language would know

[Hunterx]

Please provide the definition of bonus.

Google provides the following:



Another one?



Now, if I say your Caster Level is normally 6 (because you have 6 Wizard Levels), but then I say you get a bonus of +1 to it, does your caster level suddenly become 12? No, it becomes 7.

You are correct in that, but if i say you are a wizard 6 and you gain a +1/+2 bonus that can not exceed your character level. Now your bonus becomes a max of your character level, because the bonus can not exceed your character level. Now how do we get up to the max of your character level, the only way is your character level gets added as a bonus but can not exceed your character level.

Bonus does NOT mean per. That's the word that's missing for your argument to be correct. Not bonus-per.

As I have said, however since the max is your character level the only possible way to get there is your character level being added as the bonus.

Edit: Hunter, you're also being really rude. I get that you're entrenched in your position and you WANT to be right. That doesn't mean you should be rude to anyone.

If rude to me I will be rude back,...not you by the way...

[ColorBlindNinja]

If rude to me I will be rude back,...not you by the way...

You're been rude throughout this entire thread.

[HouseRules]

Irony is you coming to this forum asking a question, get told your wrong repeatedly, insult those that are explaining with increasingly interesting examples, have english as a first language, yet have proven several times over you dont actually grasp your native language. Case in point: its clarification, something any adult with english as their native language would know

Hunterx never says the "per" part. Many people accused Hunterx of it, and they believe that Accusation is Evidence. The argument is building upon this Accusation is Evidence issue.

[JNAProductions]

So can you see that the word "Bonus" does not indicate scaling?


Hunterx never says the "per" part. Many people accused Hunterx of it, and they believe that Accusation is Evidence. The argument is building upon this Accusation is Evidence issue.

Hunter has made it clear that they think that a 10th level Illumian Wizard has a CL of 20-as in, they get +1 CL per level, not just a flat +1 capped by character level.

[Hunterx]

Yes. And is +1 to your CL or +2 to your CL a bonus? Above that which is normal?

Agreed as stated in my last big post were i said there was an error and that they missed the word per or they put a max of character level for some reason.

[JNAProductions]

Agreed as stated in my last big post were i said there was an error and that they missed the word per or they put a max of character level for some reason.

So, because there isn't the word "per" there...

Why do you treat the RAW like there is?

[Hunterx]

So can you see that the word "Bonus" does not indicate scaling?



Hunter has made it clear that they think that a 10th level Illumian Wizard has a CL of 20-as in, they get +1 CL per level, not just a flat +1 capped by character level.

I am saying you get a bonus to the max of your character level, that is what I am saying, The only way to get there is to use your levels. because the bonus is +2 as i have stated.

Now like i have said how do you get to the maximum bonus of your character level, you have to use your levels.

I really thought i had explained that, but maybe i did not.

[Hunterx]

So, because there isn't the word "per" there...

Why do you treat the RAW like there is?

There is a maximum of your character level they had to put that there for some reason, can you find any other way for you to get the maximum of your character level aside from using your levels?

[JNAProductions]

What caster level does a Illumian Wizard 10 have? (Assuming the right sigils have been picked, of course.)


There is a maximum of your character level they had to put that there for some reason, can you find any other way for you to get the maximum of your character level aside from using your levels?

The bonus cannot make your caster level exceed your character level. That's why it's there.

[Hunterx]

What caster level does a Illumian Wizard 10 have? (Assuming the right sigils have been picked, of course.)

OK a illumian wizard 10 without Krau would have CL 10 of course.

Now a Illumian wizard 10 with Krau as per the wording would have CL 20. This would be because the bonus can not exceed your CHARACTER LEVEL, with is 10 so your bonus can be up to a 10. How do we get there we use the wizard levels as they are your character levels.

An illumian wizard 10 with Krau as per what I think it is because of the error they mad one way or the other CL 12

[HouseRules]

So can you see that the word "Bonus" does not indicate scaling?



Hunter has made it clear that they think that a 10th level Illumian Wizard has a CL of 20-as in, they get +1 CL per level, not just a flat +1 capped by character level.

If you all read pages 1 and 2 and part of 3, Hunter stop the "per", until people Accuse Hunter of using "per". We were able to get Hunter to not interpret with "per" until you guys accused Hunter of it again and again by not reading the first three pages!

[Hunterx]

What caster level does a Illumian Wizard 10 have? (Assuming the right sigils have been picked, of course.)



The bonus cannot make your caster level exceed your character level. That's why it's there.

No the BONUS can not exceed your caster level, Not that your CL can not exceed your character level.

Krau ("magic"): +1 bonus to caster level for all spells and spell-like abilities (up to a maximum value equal to the illumian's character level)

This is the big part right here. to a maximum value equal to the illumians character level

[Roland St. Jude]

Sheriff: Thread closed for review.

[AvatarVecna]

If you all read pages 1 and 2 and part of 3, Hunter stop the "per", until people Accuse Hunter of using "per". We were able to get Hunter to not interpret with "per" until you guys accused Hunter of it again and again by not reading the first three pages!

He literally just said that's how he thinks it works.

[Jeraa]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this. Races of Destiny, page 190 has an example Illumian Loremaster with the krau sigil. It is a wizard 7/Loremaster 2. Such a character would have a caster level of 9 (7 from wizard, 2 from Loremaster). The listed example character has a caster level of... 9. It has a character level of 9 and a caster level of 9. The krau sigil adds nothing. The entry for the sigil specifically says the effects are added. Since the character already has a caster level equal to his character level, the bonus becomes +0.

If Hunterx was correct, the caster level would be something higher than 9th as listed. So either (1) the book is wrong in 2 places, the errors were never fixed, pretty much everyone in this thread is wrong, and all the powergamers missed somehow this race when making their spellcaster guides, or (2) Hunterx doesn't know how the ability should work. I know which one is most likely, and I think everyone (Except one person apparently) does as well.

[HouseRules]

Is this the build?


Effective Character Level Class Level Things of Note
1 Duskblade 1 Feat: Power Attack, Power Sigil (Krau), +1 caster level
2 Duskblade 2 Power Sigil (Aesh), +2 caster level, +2 strength checks and strength-based skill checks
3 Duskblade 3 Feat: Enhanced Power Sigils, +3 caster level, +3 strength checks and strength-based skill checks
4 Duskblade 4 Caster Level 7
5 Duskblade 5 Caster Level 8
6 Green Star Adept 1 Caster Level 9, Spell Access as Duskblade 5, Feat: ?
7 Green Star Adept 2 Caster Level 10, Spell Access as Duskblade 6
8 Green Star Adept 3 Caster Level 11, Spell Access as Duskblade 6
9 Green Star Adept 4 Caster Level 12, Spell Access as Duskblade 7, Feat: ?
10 Green Star Adept 5 Caster Level 13, Spell Access as Duskblade 7

[Hunterx]

I don't think anyone has mentioned this. Races of Destiny, page 190 has an example Illumian Loremaster with the krau sigil. It is a wizard 7/Loremaster 2. Such a character would have a caster level of 9 (7 from wizard, 2 from Loremaster). The listed example character has a caster level of... 9. It has a character level of 9 and a caster level of 9. The krau sigil adds nothing. The entry for the sigil specifically says the effects are added. Since the character already has a caster level equal to his character level, the bonus becomes +0.

If Hunterx was correct, the caster level would be something higher than 9th as listed. So either (1) the book is wrong in 2 places, the errors were never fixed, pretty much everyone in this thread is wrong, and all the powergamers missed somehow this race when making their spellcaster guides, or (2) Hunterx doesn't know how the ability should work. I know which one is most likely, and I think everyone (Except one person apparently) does as well.

The builds I have seen in many books lots of them are wrong. The sigil is very clear it says a +1/+2 bonus which is in addition to what your caster level is. But i will will look at it and see what is there.

I have looked at it and Loremaster gives you a +1 to caster level per level. So the only thing i can conclude with that is that they did not add the Krau bonus to the caster level.

S

[Hunterx]

Is this the build?


Effective Character Level Class Level Things of Note
1 Duskblade 1 Feat: Power Attack, Power Sigil (Krau), +1 caster level
2 Duskblade 2 Power Sigil (Aesh), +2 caster level, +2 strength checks and strength-based skill checks
3 Duskblade 3 Feat: Enhanced Power Sigils, +3 caster level, +3 strength checks and strength-based skill checks
4 Duskblade 4 Caster Level 7
5 Duskblade 5 Caster Level 8
6 Green Star Adept 1 Caster Level 9, Spell Access as Duskblade 5, Feat: ?
7 Green Star Adept 2 Caster Level 10, Spell Access as Duskblade 6
8 Green Star Adept 3 Caster Level 11, Spell Access as Duskblade 6
9 Green Star Adept 4 Caster Level 12, Spell Access as Duskblade 7, Feat: ?
10 Green Star Adept 5 Caster Level 13, Spell Access as Duskblade 7


That is one i was working on but has abandoned it.

[Jeraa]

There is also the statblock on page 83 of Races of Destiny. A Sorcerer 12/Bard 5 with the krau sigil. Without the sigil, the caster levels should be Sorcerer 12/Bard 5. The listed cater level with the krau sigil bonus included (as stated in the stat block) are Sorcerer 14/Bard 7. The bonus of +2 applies because the characters caster levels (12 and 5) are below the characters character level of 17th).

The statblock on 85 for the paladin 2/cleric 9 has caster levels of nothing for paladin (as 2nd level paladins don't have a caster level) and 11th for cleric.

[JNAProductions]

So, WotC is apparently so precise that there's no way they included extraneous words in writing the sigil's ability... But then you can't take the statblocks provided by WotC at face value, because they screw them up?

[Hunterx]

There is also the statblock on page 83 of Races of Destiny. A Sorcerer 12/Bard 5 with the krau sigil. Without the sigil, the caster levels should be Sorcerer 12/Bard 5. The listed cater level with the krau sigil bonus included (as stated in the stat block) are Sorcerer 14/Bard 7. The bonus of +2 applies because the characters caster levels (12 and 5) are below the characters character level of 17th).

I will look again.

Ok this says what i think as they have made a mistake by not placing per in the, or putting a maximum of character level.

[Hunterx]

So, WotC is apparently so precise that there's no way they included extraneous words in writing the sigil's ability... But then you can't take the statblocks provided by WotC at face value, because they screw them up?

look at the Sorcerer/Bard build it shows exactly what i think it truly is, but it is not what the RAW says.

The Loremaster does not add the +2

[JNAProductions]

look at the Sorcerer/Bard build it shows exactly what i think it truly is, but it is not what the RAW says.

The Loremaster does not add the +2

So now you agree that the Krau Sigil bonus cannot make your Caster Level exceed your Character Level?

[HouseRules]

Show an example of a single class character from the books.

The mistake? there is none: Succubus has 12th caster level, but only 6 RHD or character level, though she has 12 class levels, the 6 RHD and the 6 RLA.

[JNAProductions]

Sheriff: Thread closed for review.

Crap, I missed this. Roland probably forgot to actually lock the thread, but we should probably all stop posting until they post again.

[Hunterx]

The build I am looking at now and is most likely is a
Illumian Human paragon 3 Warlock 6 Marshal 1
Sigils Krau and Hoon i think it is
minor aura is motivate charisma.

The +2 from Krau effecting warlock is where there is a small issue as per the wording for warlocks. gaining pluses to there caster level.

It is something i will have to clear up or just abandon and go with something else. As we have been talking about the Whisper Gnome I have thought about a sneak master type.

[Hunterx]

So now you agree that the Krau Sigil bonus cannot make your Caster Level exceed your Character Level?

It Kinda does, the Sorcerer level is 12 it has a caster level of 14 and a Bard level 5 caster level 7 which in total gives you a caster level of 21 but a character level if 17 so it kinda does.

[Jeraa]

It Kinda does, the Sorcerer level is 12 it has a caster level of 14 and a Bard level 5 caster level 7 which in total gives you a caster level of 21 but a character level if 17 so it kinda does.

No. Caster levels from different base classes never combine in any way. A sorcerer 12/cleric 10 doesn't have a caster level of 22 for any purpose. It has a caster level of 12 (for sorcerer related things) and a caster level of 10 (for cleric things).

[Hunterx]

No. Caster levels from different base classes never combine in any way. A sorcerer 12/cleric 10 doesn't have a caster level of 22 for any purpose. It has a caster level of 12 (for sorcerer related things) and a caster level of 10 (for cleric things).

No read the build in races of destiny and you will see that it would be

Sorcerer CL 14 and Cleric CL 12 which as a whole would be a total caster level of 26 14 on the sorcerer and 12 on the cleric.

[AvatarVecna]

So I don't wanna be that guy (well, actually that's a lie :smallwink:) but that looks an awful lot like two separate official statblocks treating the ability in a manner akin to Practiced Spellcaster.

[Hunterx]

So I don't wanna be that guy (well, actually that's a lie :smallwink:) but that looks an awful lot like two separate official statblocks treating the ability in a manner akin to Practiced Spellcaster.

No PS adds to your caster level only if you have non caster levels and it is also adds to both caster levels. PS does not will not and can not. So no it is not like PS

[AvatarVecna]

No PS adds to your caster level only if you have non caster levels and it is also adds to both caster levels. PS does not will not and can not. So no it is not like PS

This bolded part is objectively wrong, and you'd know that if you even read it.


Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4. This benefit can't increase your caster level to higher than your Hit Dice. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain Hit Dice in levels of nonspellcasting classes, you might be able to apply the rest of the bonus. For example, a human 5th-level sorcerer/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his sorcerer caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8 Hit Dice). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his sorcerer caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 Hit Dice). A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect. This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only, which would help you penetrate spell resistance and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.

The first part describing the bonus and its limit don't mention non-casting at all, and the part talking about non-casting is in reference to casters who take Practiced Spellcaster when they objectively don't need it (aaaaand it then gives Bard/Sorcerer and Ranger/Druid as examples this could apply to, so they didn't mean "nonspellcasting classes" as much as "not the same class you have now").

And all of this leaves us with one statblock (the wizard/loremaster) where the bonus isn't counted at all for some reason, and a multiclass build where the bonus is counted for both classes (although even then, your Caster Level isn't greater than your Character Level - just because they are both together bigger doesn't mean they are both individually bigger, and you know it, but you're in too deep now to admit that you're wrong about this so you have to defend the indefensible).

[Hunterx]

This bolded part is objectively wrong, and you'd know that if you even read it.



The first part describing the bonus and its limit don't mention non-casting at all, and the part talking about non-casting is in reference to casters who take Practiced Spellcaster when they objectively don't need it (aaaaand it then gives Bard/Sorcerer and Ranger/Druid as examples this could apply to, so they didn't mean "nonspellcasting classes" as much as "not the same class you have now").

And all of this leaves us with one statblock (the wizard/loremaster) where the bonus isn't counted at all for some reason, and a multiclass build where the bonus is counted for both classes (although even then, your Caster Level isn't greater than your Character Level - just because they are both together bigger doesn't mean they are both individually bigger, and you know it, but you're in too deep now to admit that you're wrong about this so you have to defend the indefensible).

Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus. For example, a human 5th-level cleric/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his cleric caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8 HD). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his cleric caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 HD). A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect. This does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It only increases your caster level, which would help you penetrate SR and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.

I guess you must have missed this, so you need to have a non caster level for PS to be effective. Maybe you should read the feats before putting them forward. The bard/sorcerer example says you need to pick which class you are going to add the bonus to when you have a non caster level.

So no Krau is not like PS

[AvatarVecna]

Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus. For example, a human 5th-level cleric/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his cleric caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8 HD). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his cleric caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 HD). A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect. This does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It only increases your caster level, which would help you penetrate SR and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.

I guess you must have missed this, so you need to have a non caster level for PS to be effective. Maybe you should read the feats before putting them forward. The bard/sorcerer example says you need to pick which class you are going to add the bonus to when you have a non caster level.

I guess you missed the part I've underlined, where that's only the case if you weren't multiclassed yet. Logically, this means that if you take the feat as a character with levels in two caster classes, you can still get the bonus - which the feat confirms with the second underlined part, giving clear example of double-casters benefiting from the feat. Also:


The first part describing the bonus and its limit don't mention non-casting at all, and the part talking about non-casting is in reference to casters who take Practiced Spellcaster when they objectively don't need it (aaaaand it then gives Bard/Sorcerer and Ranger/Druid as examples this could apply to, so they didn't mean "nonspellcasting classes" as much as "not the same class you have now").

I guess you also missed the part where I specifically called out the part bout noncasting, so no, I didn't miss it. But I can see how you might think that, because it's what you need to think to dismiss the argument and not actually engage with it.

EDIT: Now if you want to get this anal about the RAW, I suppose you are technically kind of right in the sense that, by the letter of the rule, if you took PS as a Sorcerer 3, and then multiclassed into another caster, you wouldn't gain the benefit for either, since the "gaining it later" part is only about noncasters. But if you're multiclassed when you take the feat, you get the benefit. But that's not the part of PS that I'm saying Krau seems to be working like in these statblocks and you know it, that's why you're picking at the parts of the feat that are different and holding it up as proof that they can't possibly work anything the same.


So no Krau is not like PS

I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that both of these statblocks seem to be treating it that way.

[Hunterx]

I guess you missed the part I've underlined, where that's only the case if you weren't multiclassed yet. Logically, this means that if you take the feat as a character with levels in two caster classes, you can still get the bonus - which the feat confirms with the second underlined part, giving clear example of double-casters benefiting from the feat. Also:



I guess you also missed the part where I specifically called out the part bout noncasting, so no, I didn't miss it. But I can see how you might think that, because it's what you need to think to dismiss the argument and not actually engage with it.

EDIT: Now if you want to get this anal about the RAW, I suppose you are technically kind of right in the sense that, by the letter of the rule, if you took PS as a Sorcerer 3, and then multiclassed into another caster, you wouldn't gain the benefit for either, since the "gaining it later" part is only about noncasters. But if you're multiclassed when you take the feat, you get the benefit. But that's not the part of PS that I'm saying Krau seems to be working like in these statblocks and you know it, that's why you're picking at the parts of the feat that are different and holding it up as proof that they can't possibly work anything the same.



I'm not saying it is, I'm just saying that both of these statblocks seem to be treating it that way.

The one example there makes sense the ranger because they are a -4 class for Spellcasting, the bard does not and the simple part wher it says which one gets the effect. I wounder if there is an errata for this feat.

From what I can find the answer is no. So if this is true as per the RAW.

Illumian's Krau sorcerer 1 lv1
Feat practice spell caster
Lv2 ranger 1
Krau bonus +2
Go to level 5 ranger sorcerer 1
PS to ranger so ranger is caster level 7 sorcerer caster level 3
Ranger 5 sorcere 5 both caster lever 7

However in these words. Ranger 5 sorcerer 1 PS bonus to sorcerer Caster level 7, ranger 5 sorcerer 5 caster level is 11
But is could not happen as it would exceed the character level, which makes taking PS pointless. Because once you get your Caster level even with what other class you have you lose +1 bonus.

So taking just the Krau because it adds to both is the better and is still nothing like PS.

I do not believe it was their intent for it to work without none spell casters.