deleted

[wefoij123]

Don't need this answered anymore so deleted.

[sleepyphoenixx]

If this is true then this is gonna have some wide reaching effects on my table. One of my players told me that the next character he plays, he's going to go human, grab the spellgifted trait, and grab 3 feats that give him +1 caster level to a single spell he can cast so that he can cast one arcane spell at CL7 as early as level 3 and grab a mirror mephit familiar, which has a requirement of (arcane) caster level 7.

Personally I'm ok with it. Rather than waiting until level 7 to get his character's main shtick going, optimizing so that he gets his schtick at a much earlier level is totally fine for me. But I am a stickler for the rules so I'd like some verification before I give the go ahead.

Is everything i presented here correct or did I miss something?

Depending on how strictly you read things not every caster level increase is equal.
Spellgifted for example only increases your CL when you're casting a spell from the relevant school, so by a strict reading having a CL of 6 and Spellgifted does not give you a CL of 7 for purposes of qualifying for things because Spellgifted doesn't give you that +1 CL most of the time.

A Ring of Arcane Might on the other hand gives you a permanent +1 to your arcane CL as long as you wear the ring, so it works for purposes of qualification.

I'm not usually a big fan of enforcing technicalities like that, but when you're trying to cheese something exact wording matters.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I think you are correct in that this issue is something that will be nothing but technicalities and exact wording.

The exact wording of the quote is that the caster level requirement "measures the character’s ability to channel a minimum amount of magical power." I think this wording allows things that say "bonus to caster level to the next spell you cast" to be used to fulfill requirements because it contributes to the "minimum amount of magical power" the character can channel.

With this wording I'd say +CL limited times per day won't work (Mystic Surge), but permanent effects like spellgifted would.
The passage you quoted doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are clear rules for losing the prerequisites for feats.
If you want to have an improved familiar that requires CL 7 you need to have CL 7 all the time, not just when you're casting a particular spell or a spell of a particular school or descriptor.

By strict RAW if you stop having CL 7 for even a moment you stop qualifying for the feat, so your familiar stops being your familiar and becomes a normal creature of its type with no particular bond with you (and leaves, most likely).

That's why by my reading permanent bonuses to CL ("your CL increases by X") work for qualification, but conditional increases ("when it's cold outside", "when casting spells with the [good] descriptor", "when casting spells of a particular school") don't, because "when X" implies you don't get whatever benefit when X is not true.


Requirements of "ability to cast a spell of Xth level" function differently because they don't care about outside conditions. You don't lose the ability to cast 3rd level spells for purposes of qualifying in an AMF, a Silence spell or if you're out of spell slots. As long as you can cast an Xth level spell under some kind of circumstance (Earth Spell, Sanctum Spell, Precocious Apprentice, etc) you have the ability to cast Xth level spells.
Unless you want to go with the "but it says spellS, so you need multiple" argument anyway, but that only really stops Precocious Apprentice.

[Crake]

That's why by my reading permanent bonuses to CL ("your CL increases by X") work for qualification, but conditional increases ("when it's cold outside", "when casting spells with the [good] descriptor", "when casting spells of a particular school") don't, because "when X" implies you don't get whatever benefit when X is not true.

I agree that conditional is a factor, though I disagree that bonuses to a particular type of school are "conditional" in this regard. It would be like saying "You have 2 classes, one at CL5 and one at CL3. If you cast all your spells from your CL5 class, you no longer qualify as having CL5".

I think the limiting factor is simply outside influence. If you can produce CLX without the need for outside influence of some kind, then you're probably set.

However, you'll note that improved familiar doesn't require CASTER level, it requires "Arcane spellcaster level". They are not the same thing. You can't qualify early for familiars by simply boosting your caster level. Even the prerequisite states "Sufficiently high level", not caster level, just level.

[sleepyphoenixx]

I agree that conditional is a factor, though I disagree that bonuses to a particular type of school are "conditional" in this regard. It would be like saying "You have 2 classes, one at CL5 and one at CL3. If you cast all your spells from your CL5 class, you no longer qualify as having CL5".

I think the limiting factor is simply outside influence. If you can produce CLX without the need for outside influence of some kind, then you're probably set.


My reasoning is that a familiar or feat has no school or descriptor, so a school- or descriptor-specific bonus shouldn't count when qualifying for it.
It's also not a spell, so "when casting spells..." shouldn't count either.

Since i've never seen a "for purposes of qualifying for feats/prestige classes" CL boost that only leaves general boosts to help with prerequisites.

[Crake]

The version in question is from complete scoundrel and in there the table is labeled caster level not class level.

The table yes, however the prequisite itself still states arcane spellcaster level, and text trumps table. If you wanna rule it that way, sure go ahead, but it is very clearly not the same thing.

[Crake]

Check create magic tattoo's spell description.

Spell descriptions are noted that any mention of "level" in reference to the caster specifically means caster level. No such rules exist outside of spell descriptions.

Page 181 of the player's handbook under Caster Level: "The word “level” in the spell lists that follow always refers to caster level."

[Beni-Kujaku]

Also, do ask what the player wants to do with a mirror mephit familiar. Simulacrum as an SLA can break a campaign faster than you can say "Rule 0", since you don't exactly need the material components. At the very least, I recommend Kelb_Panthera's fix:


My go-to fix for both simulacrum and its big brother ice assassin is a simple one. Nothing; not being a SLA, an SU, nor even a spell from an item; can bypass the requirement that you have a piece of the creature to be copied. You can get past all the rest with the usual tricks since they're all high enough up the optimization table they should get -some- payoff but if you don't have a scrap of hair/fur/fingernail/claw/etc then you're not making a copy of anybody or anything, period.

Also, one simulacrum per copied target per caster. You want 15 ghouls, you've got to get samples from 15 ghouls or you've got to get 15 caster buddies to take samples from the one you have or some other combination of casters and sample creatures. (Don't overthink the example, it's just literally the first creature to spring into my mind.)

And honestly, they really should have made the snow and the hair as a focus instead of a material component, since the spell is supposed to transform a statue made of snow into the simulacrum.

[Crake]

Also, do ask what the player wants to do with a mirror mephit familiar. Simulacrum as an SLA can break a campaign faster than you can say "Rule 0", since you don't exactly need the material components. At the very least, I recommend Kelb_Panthera's fix:



And honestly, they really should have made the snow and the hair as a focus instead of a material component, since the spell is supposed to transform a statue made of snow into the simulacrum.

I mean, Kelb's post specifically isn't a fix, it's the RAW reading. If you cast simulacrum without the component, the spell has no way to know what it's supposed to be forming, and thus forms nothing. Well, except for the one simulacrum of a given creature per caster, but that's a sensible houserule.

It's still absurdly strong, because you can literally just make a simulacrum of every monster you fight, so I personally just wouldn't allow it.

[Crake]

So lets just put all the evidence together.

Sure


On one hand we have multiple printings of improved familiar listing "caster level" as the requirement for each familiar both in 3.0 and 3.5.

So far you've only cited one, and that was specifically the table, while the text states arcane spellcaster level, and not arcane caster level. Text trumps table. If you wanna cite more, go ahead.


We have a spell that also uses arcane spellcaster level interchangeably with caster level.

The fact that create magical tattoo specified that the increase to spellcaster level does not increase the total number of spells means that the standard increase to spellcaster level DOES increase total number of spells, something that caster level on it's own does NOT do, further solidifying that they are not the same thing. This is further supported by the greater draconic rite for kobolds that increases spellcaster level, and DOES also increase total spells.


We also have the steelman argument. Even if you're right, the complete scoundrel's version specifically lists caster level as the requirement for mephits.
Also, consistency across books is a rare thing so if WotC is consistent about anything then that's damn well intentional.

Again, text trumps table. The table specifying caster level while the text says arcane spellcaster level means that arcane spellcaster level wins out.


On the other hand, your side, we have you saying they're not the same with no supporting evidence. Just you
You saying other times the terminology was used doesn't count because feats don't have an explicit quote like that.
You saying the table is an error with no supporting evidence.

And... that's it. 0 evidence for your side. Only attempts to dismiss the evidence on my side. And you claim to be right. You can see how your argument is unconvincing to me right?
Please show one time in the rule books that says arcane spellcaster level is class level and not caster level, or any affirmative evidence.

Greater draconic rite for kobolds pretty much throws your entire argument out of the water, not to mention that create magical tattoo had to specify that it's spellcaster level increase does not come accompanied by all the standard benefits associated with it normally.

Caster level = affects the level-based varibales of a spell such as range, damage dice, and duration
Spellcaster level = gains more total spells in addition to corresponding increased caster level.


You do know there is a spell called summon component that renders all this "logic" moot right? And you do know that in the mirror mephit's own monster description it has a sample encounter of it making a simulacrum of a PC without a piece of it right?

To a degree, sure. Whether a piece of a rare or powerful monster has a GP value of more than 1 is up to the DM.


And what kind of logic is this? How does Shadow Conjuration know which monster to create? Because the caster chooses said monster. How does simulacrum know which monster to create? Because the caster chooses said monster. How does Gate know which monster to call? Because the caster chooses it.

Shadow conjuration's effect is decided by the caster at the time of casting the spell. Simularcrum's effect is determined by the part of the creature that is provided. If no part is provided, no effect is created.

[Crake]

Forgotten Realms campaign setting. Arcane Castor level.
"Prerequisite
Ability to acquire a new familiar, compatible alignment, "
Notice the lack of the term arcane spellcaster level.

Races of Faerun. Says look at Forgotten Realms' feat description.

That is 3 printings that say caster level. Two of which is 3.5.

I'm looking at my copy of forgotten realms campaign setting and it pretty clearly says "Arcane spellcaster Level Required" on the page, so that rules out both that and races of faerun. Complete scoundrel is still being overruled by text trumping table.

[Crake]

Interesting. The website I've been relying on is wrong. I will be checking my books directly.

Best that you do, a lot of third party websites seem to have begun making it a habit to include their own personal spin on things, even d20srd isn't reliable anymore.


I'm looking at it and I don't see any mention of the term "arcane spellcaster level"

Yeah, you're right, it just says "as if sorcerer level was one level higher" etc. I unfortunately can't stay up to really investigate any further, but create magic tattoo makes it pretty clear that "Spellcaster level", under normal circumstances, grants you more than just an increase to level based variables to spells, otherwise they wouldn't have had to state the exceptions for this spell. Why they chose to use spellcaster level instead of just flat caster level is unknown to me, maybe it just went through revision hell and ended up with some weirdly butchered language, who knows.

[AvatarVecna]

Scrubbed .

[redking]

The other RAW is the dictatorial rule of the DM. If you have mechanically broken mirror mephits at your beck and call, expect to be Rule Zeroed by the DM and hated by the other players.

Some early entries simply don't matter. If a player asked me for a 1st caster level entry for Create Wondrous Item, I'd probably just grant it. It doesn't change anything or alter the game balance.

If the player actually had a caster level in a school of magic that was one level higher than the rest, I'd be inclined to say that's valid for determining a CL prerequisite. If it was a single spell cast at that CL I'd just shoot it down.

[Darg]

I think the problem here is the scope that is being applied for qualifying for feats and prestige classes. The whole quote limits it to class level or the fixed level of the ability:


In the context of a feat or a prestige class requirement, a caster level prerequisite (such as “caster level 5th”) measures the character’s ability to channel a minimum amount of magical power. For feats or prestige classes requiring a minimum caster level, creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations instead of spells use either their fixed caster level or their class level to determine qualification.

External modifications to caster level do not apply.

As for the Improved Familiar/spellgifted debate, it's scope again. To bring this back to earth, we need to go all the way back to the PHB:


Prerequisite: A minimum ability score, another feat or feats, a minimum base attack bonus, a minimum number of ranks in one or more skills, or a class level that a character must have in order to acquire this feat. This entry is absent if a feat has no prerequisite. A feat may have more than one prerequisite.

When the PHB is refering to "caster level" as a feat prerequisite it is referring to the specific class level. CArc only expanded that to include SLA fixed CL and invocation class levels.

Now, we can argue about modifiers to caster level, but the only place that they are written to exist and affect anything is in the casting of spells (literally the header above caster level in the PHB). There is never a case where a spell's caster level is determinant of your class level, but the reverse is true. WotC was really bad about differentiating "caster level" from "caster" "level".

[Darg]

I disagree on the first part. CArc gave its reasons why SLAs qualify for prerequisites. Which means anything that also satisfies the reasons the SLAs work also work as well. An off-topic example in the same book, CArc says sudden metamagic feats work with SLAs because they don't modify spell slot level. Which means any metamagic feat that doesn't modify spell slot level also work with SLAs such as metamagic feats with +0 mod because while not explicitly pointed out, it satisfies the same reasons why sudden metamagic works with SLAs.

In the second part, I can't find the quote you are quoting. From my copy of PHB

I don't see class level anywhere.



Some other thing I found:
Obtain familiar's prerequisite is "arcane caster level 3rd".

p.91 of PHB
Brew Potion: Spellcaster level 3rd
Craft Magical Arms and Armor: Spellcaster level 5th
Craft Rod: Spellcaster level 9th
Craft Staff: Spellcaster level 12th
Craft Wand: Spellcaster level 5th
Craft Wondrous Item: Spellcaster level 3rd
Forge Ring: Spellcaster level 12th
Scribe Scroll: Spellcaster level 1st


--PHB p.32

I take back what I said. I am claiming consistency across books.
PHB consistently interchanges spellcaster level and caster level.
Create Magic tattoo and Complete Scoundrel is consistent with what PHB is doing.

I think the matter regarding familiar requirements is closed. Arcane Spellcaster Level = Arcane Caster Level. There is just too much overwhelming evidence on this side so this is definitive.

Now regarding what Darg pointed out, anyone disagree that anything that satisfies the reasons why something works also works as well?

The premium edition and earlier printings of the PHB specifically say class level on page 89 under the format for feat descriptions and the crafting feats all say "caster level." Your quote is under the header of prerequisites instead of feat descriptions.

You can have reasons and specific limitations at the same time. In this case they don't even conflict. Your unmodified caster level is what prerequisites are looking for. I even agree with the interpretation that metamagic feats with a +0 mod or solutions to reduce the slot cost to 0 work with SLAs, but that is a different argument because it gives cart blanche permission to under "other metamagic feats."

The reason that "spellcaster level" can be used interchangeably with caster level is because "spellcaster" and "level" are defined terms which can be combined to mean multiple understandings:


spellcaster: A character capable of casting spells.


level: A measure of advancement or power applied to several areas of the game. See caster level, character level, class level, and spell level.

So yes, spellcaster levels can mean caster level or class level, but they are not interchangeable in meaning. Nor is there a standard that declares one is more right in any context. In a similar fashion knowing which meaning of a homonym applies in a given situation can be just as difficult. However, when it comes to caster level prerequisites for feats and PrCs we do have precedent and a specific rule in place.

[Darg]

I did find the quote. It was on p.89 too. I don't think it really means anything though because it acts like it's a complete list yet doesn't include class features, SLAs, ability to change forms, race, etc. and my quote conflicts with it. And to add to this, Complete Arcane says Craft Wondrous Item is referring to caster level not class level and we don't see caster level listed in your quote.

My quote simply says, "a class level that a character must have." That qualifies a lot of things and the list doesn't have to be exhaustive.


There is ample precedent that Familiar requirements are caster level. First the fact that item creation feats used spellcaster level and caster level interchangeably, second the fact that complete scoundrel has also done so for familiars. There is no precedent that the familiar requirements in complete scoundrel are an error and must be ignored. So I think all things considered, for all familiars, arcane spellcaster level = arcane caster level. Obtain familiar is not direct proof of anything but I think it supports the notion that the familiar feats are referring to arcane caster level not class level.

For your final point, I have a question. In your opinion, would a Nixie (CL4 charm person) using an orange ioun stone qualify for feats that require caster level 5? And 4th level Warlocks with an orange ioun stone.

I would say not. CArc is pretty explicit about prerequisites using the fixed caster level of an SLA and the class level of the invocation user.


creatures that use spell-like abilities or invocations instead of spells use either their fixed caster level or their class level to determine qualification.

Because of that, it's definitely more likely that for consistency the writers believed that caster level prerequisites were of a more fixed quality. Class level is independent of caster level and is specifically defined in the glossary.

That said, I'm not against allowing it. Personally it's easy enough to simply shut power gaming down from the start.

[JNAProductions]

Do you want a practical answer or a technically correct answer?

[Darg]

Could you answer my question? If a Nixie or a 4th level Warlock were to obtain an orange Ioun stone, would they qualify for feats with caster level 5 as a prerequisite in your opinion?


I would say not.

I thought I did and then went on to explain my reasoning.


Now correct me if I'm wrong, but you are saying that 2. makes the entire quote exclusive to SLAs and Invocations. Is this correct? If so this is where we will have to disagree unless you can convince me that 1. is not a new general rule for every feat with a caster level prerequisite.

The section "caster level" on page 72 is under the header "invocations and spell-like abilities" on page 71. Considering the ordering of the topics, it's only standard to assume what is under "invocations and spell-like abilities" is applying to invocations and spell-like abilities. We can ignore things like orders of operations, but that leads to, well, a mess. I'd prefer to stick with the syntax.

[Darg]

We have a requirement that is unambiguously not specific to SLAs and Invocations under the header you pointed out, so there is no reason to think everything under said header applies only to SLAs and Invocations.

This is exactly how people reach the conclusion that psi-abilities are actually psi-like abilities. They ignore the header it's under and make the claim that the words under it apply in every situation they could apply to. Syntax is important. Because of that I would say that the text has the burden to specify if it applies to anything out of the bounds of the topic presented by the header. I've given you my reasoned arguments and you've chosen to dismiss them which is your right. Reasonable minds can differ and I can see how you reach your conclusions. I just can't agree with them.

[Darg]

I'm sorry. I don't think anyone objectively looking at the quotes would say these quotes are only for SLAs and Invocations.

Quoting out of context is misleading. There have been many things taken out of context that have been warped to mean their exact opposite even if that wasn't the intention. I do it all the time myself regardless of the standard I try to keep.


After elaborating what the requirement is measuring in the first section, it then talks about SLAs and Invocations specifically with regards to this requirement. I cannot see how anyone could conclude the first part of the quote is addressing SLAs and Invocations exclusively.

Sorry if I offended you.

If the text said that everything in the section under the header "Invocations and Spell-like Abilities" only pertained to SLAs and invocations would you believe it? That is what a header is for; to easily parse the topic for easy identification. It's meant to put the text under it into context. The chapter title is "Arcane feats" which implies that the chapter pertains to arcane feats in generality. A header further specifies the context you are reading that it pertains to invocations and SLAs. Then, you finally get the subsection header "caster level" which further restricts the context it should be read with. So we are left with the context of caster level of invocations and SLAs as it pertains to arcane feats.

You haven't offended at all. Having civil discourse is how we as people grow after all.

[Endarire]

If as GM you wonder whether a caster should be able to take a feat for Improved Familiar at level 1, I'm for it.

Just be careful about Mirror Mephits and their ability to use simulacrum!

[Rleonardh]

I would say it's your game if you the dm, allow whatever is cool to you and the players.
Rule 0: cool rules always over rules by raw or rai.

Homebrew there for a reason.

With that said
Character level
Caster level
Divine caster level
Arcane caster level
Spells at x level
All different in my eyes

Now 2nd level spells is not same as being able to cast 1 level 2 spell at level 1 by feats so in my table it's not allowed. Same with a 4th sla that's one level higher to qualify for things that require being a caster level x like the nixi. And by extension items that grant feats or abilities to qualify for a prc.


Now can a wizard 2 cleric 1 get craft wondrous items... I would rule no
It's a caster level 2 arcane and divine caster 1 neither is a caster level 3, now add practiced spellcaster so either now is caster level 3 (cleric as example) than that equals..
Arcane 2
Divine 3 caster levels.

If you want your player to have have the familiar? Go for it it would be cool and fun so go for it.

[Seward]

A lot of people play that as a general rule, anything assisted by an item that lasts all day (as in orange ioun stone or enhancement item) is sufficient to do things like qualify for feats or do magic item crafting - or mundane crafting for that matter. Short duration buffs don't help (eg, some bard casting harmonic chorus while you craft).

I don't think RAW really says either way, but I could be wrong.

[Darg]

Must is a strong word in a game about doing what you want. It's just a strict application of the words on the page. Nothing is preventing anyone from doing what they want if the DM allows it. Sort of like how Obtain Familiar technically doesn't let a non-arcane spellcaster provide the level based benefits for the familar even though arcane casters like a warlock qualifies. It's not always best to read rules strictly for the fun and proper function of the game. Other times it is extremely important to take conservative views. You just have to weigh each instance.

Another example of this is how the rules give you permission to use single target touch spells, hold the charge, and affect 6 friends as a full-round action. It wasn't until I started frequenting sites that I learned it wasn't a common understanding of the rules. After a bit of research I discovered it was holdover text from 3.0 where multi-target touch spells could be held and the 6 targets per full-round action was the only way to target more than one friend at a time. As in you couldn't touch all targets within reach as part of the casting like you can in 3.5. We've been playing this way for years and won't stop because it's actually a really fun way to play the game. We tried removing it in a couple of one-offs and all of a sudden casters got really greedy so we've decided to stick with it. No one plays the same game.