Does Magical Training allow you to take Precocious Apprentice?

[TalonOfAnathrax]

Could a human take Magical Training and Precocious Apprentice at first level?
My reading of the feats suggests that the answer is "no" if you're not already a spellcaster, but googling it returns threads where people suggest taking those two feats together.

On another note, would it be possible to take Precocious Apprentice if I already had SLAs? Say, from the Touch of Deception feat, or a Dragonmark?

[Doctor Awkward]

Could a human take Magical Training and Precocious Apprentice at first level?
My reading of the feats suggests that the answer is "no" if you're not already a spellcaster, but googling it returns threads where people suggest taking those two feats together.

On another note, would it be possible to take Precocious Apprentice if I already had a first-level SLA? Say, from a Dragonmark or something?

Neither Magical Training nor Least Dragonmark meet the requirements for Precocious Apprentice. The Magical Training feat does not give you an arcane caster level. You are only treated as having one for the specific purposes of determining the attributes of the cantrips that the feat gives you access to. The Least Dragonmark feat likewise does not give your character an arcane caster level.

[thorr-kan]

Magical Training:
Benefit: You can cast three 0-level arcane spells per day as either a sorcerer or wizard (your choice, so long as you have a score of at least 10 in the ability that controls the spellcasting for that class). You must make this decision when you first take the feat. Thereafter, you have an arcane spell failure chance if you wear armor and are treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast.

Precocious Apprentice:
Prerequisite: Spellcasting ability (Int or Cha) 15, arcane caster level 1st.

Magical Training grants you an arcane caster level. Precocious Apprentice requires an arcane caster level. Now you get some 0-level spells and a 2nd-level spell. You have no way to add to your spellcasting ability, unless the DM allows spellbook shenanigans.

[Crake]

You have no way to add to your spellcasting ability, unless the DM allows spellbook shenanigans.

Practised spellcaster can up your caster level up to 5th. The extra spell feat grants you an extra spell known, up to 1 lower than the maximum spell level you can cast, and requires caster level 3rd. The extra slot feat does the same thing, but for a spell slot, and requires caster level 4th..... Then you can slap on sanctum spell for +1 spell level to your spells, snowcasting for another +1 spell level to your spells, and versatile spellcaster/heighten spell/earth spell for another +2 spell level (albeit needing 2 spell slots of your maximum level spell slot).... So for the cost of Magical Training, Practised spellcaster, Snowcasting, Sanctum Spell, Versatile Spellcaster, Heighten Spell, Earth Sense, and Earth spell, you can suddenly cast cantrips as 4th level spells... Which means you can then take extra slot to gain a 3rd level spell slot... and now with a 3rd level spell slot you can cast cantrips as 7th level spells... allowing you to take extra slot again for a 6th level slot... which lets you cast cantrips as 10th level spells... allowing you to take extra slot for a 9th level spell slot. Now that you've done all that, you can retrain versatile spellcaster, heighten spell, earth sense, earth spell, and snowcasting into extra spell to learn five 9th level spells via extra spell, using sanctum spell to maintain the ability to cast effective 10th level spells, hence qualifying you for 9th level spells from extra spell.

Congrats, for the cost of a bunch of feats, you can now cast 9th level spells... at caster level 5. In fairness though, that's a lot of feats, and so you wouldn't be able to squeeze that into a standard build pre-epic without two flaws, and even then you'd only be getting pay off starting at 12th level in the form of your first 3rd level spell slot, and not getting 9th level spells until around the same time as a spellcaster, albeit at a very neutered CL. That, of course, could be very quickly accelerated by a spellcaster with access to DCFS, but again, that wouldn't unlock until someone in the party has access to at least 8th level spells, and if you're the sort of table that allows DCFS, CL5 9th level spells is probably not a big deal.

[Doctor Awkward]

Magical Training grants you an arcane caster level.

False

Magical Training causes you to be "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

You do not have an arcane caster level. You are treated as though you have one for that specific purpose and for no other.

[Darg]

False

Magical Training causes you to be "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

You do not have an arcane caster level. You are treated as though you have one for that specific purpose and for no other.

Except it also says "You can cast three 0-level arcane spells per day as either a sorcerer or wizard." SLAs qualify for feats even though you don't possess an actual caster level. Those SLAs have a fixed caster level "for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the" SLA that you cast. As long as you possess a caster level in some form, you qualify for precocious apprentice as the minimum is 1st level.

Precocious apprentice also never specifies that the spell has to be one that is on your class list either, meaning you can get access to a 2nd level spell that isn't on your list.

[Crake]

False

Magical Training causes you to be "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

You do not have an arcane caster level. You are treated as though you have one for that specific purpose and for no other.

What other purpose does your arcane caster level serve? Seems like a pointless distinction.

[Doctor Despair]

false

magical training causes you to be "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

you do not have an arcane caster level. You are treated as though you have one for that specific purpose and for no other.

what other purpose does your arcane caster level serve? Seems like a pointless distinction.

Based on his argument, it isn't a pointless distinction -- while you would have a caster level for the purposes of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast, you wouldn't have a caster level for the purposes of determining which spells you can cast. Level 0 spells still require caster level 1 to cast them, so by his argument, taking Magical Training doesn't even confer the ability to cast those level 0 spells.

[Doctor Awkward]

Except it also says "You can cast three 0-level arcane spells per day as either a sorcerer or wizard." SLAs qualify for feats even though you don't possess an actual caster level. Those SLAs have a fixed caster level "for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the" SLA that you cast. As long as you possess a caster level in some form, you qualify for precocious apprentice as the minimum is 1st level.

Precocious apprentice also never specifies that the spell has to be one that is on your class list either, meaning you can get access to a 2nd level spell that isn't on your list.

Yes. You can cast three spells because the feat says that you can. You still do not have an arcane caster level because the feat does not say you do. You are merely treated as though you have one for one specific purpose. And that purpose is not qualifying for another feat.

What other purpose does your arcane caster level serve? Seems like a pointless distinction.

Per the Player's Handbook, a character's caster level generally determines the power of a spell that is being cast, which translates into level dependent effects which vary based on the individual spells. It further states that your caster level is equal to your class level in the class that you are using to cast the spell. Thus per the rules as written a character will only have an arcane caster level if they have levels in a class which grants the ability to cast spells.

Since exceptions to the rules are always called out specifically as such in the rules text, Magical Training would only grant a character an arcane caster level for purposes other than what is specified in the feat if the text of the feat explicitly said as much. It does not. So you don't.

[Crake]

Per the Player's Handbook, a character's caster level generally determines the power of a spell that is being cast, which translates into level dependent effects which vary based on the individual spells. It further states that your caster level is equal to your class level in the class that you are using to cast the spell. Thus per the rules as written a character will only have an arcane caster level if they have levels in a class which grants the ability to cast spells.

Since exceptions to the rules are always called out specifically as such in the rules text, Magical Training would only grant a character an arcane caster level for purposes other than what is specified in the feat if the text of the feat explicitly said as much. It does not. So you don't.

You didn't really answer the question though. What other purpose does your arcane caster level serve such that the line you quoted is making a meaningful difference from the norm?

[Darg]

Yes. You can cast three spells because the feat says that you can. You still do not have an arcane caster level because the feat does not say you do. You are merely treated as though you have one for one specific purpose. And that purpose is not qualifying for another feat.

You cast them as a wizard/sorcerer. This makes them arcane spells. The caster level of your spells is equal to your arcane spellcaster level which is a minimum of 1.

In the context of a feat or prestige class requirement, a caster level prerequisite (such as "caster level 5th") measures the character's ability to channel a minimal 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. For example, Craft Wondrous Item has a requirement of caster level 3rd, so both a 3rd-level warlock and a nixie (caster level 4th for its charm person spell-like ability) meet the requirement.

Magical training certainly satisfies the bolded.

You have misread what caster level says in the PHB:

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

It says most characters. If, "It further states that your caster level is equal to your class level in the class that you are using to cast the spell," is true then the fact that you have an arcane spellcaster level which modifies the caster level of the spells means that you yourself have an arcane caster level as you cast as a wizard/sorcerer of 1st level.

[Doctor Awkward]

You didn't really answer the question though. What other purpose does your arcane caster level serve such that the line you quoted is making a meaningful difference from the norm?

I didn't answer your question directly because it's irrelevant. In order to take Precocious Apprentice you are required to have an arcane caster level. Arcane caster levels come from having levels in an arcane spellcasting class. Exceptions to this, like everything else, must be specifically called out as such. An all encompassing set of the different functions a caster level might serve is a meaningless line of inquiry given the subject at hand.

You cast them as a wizard/sorcerer. This makes them arcane spells. The caster level of your spells is equal to your arcane spellcaster level which is a minimum of 1.

Yes. You are given explicit permission to cast them just like the thing that are not. This is an exception to the normal rule that only characters with levels in the appropriate spellcasting class can cast these spells. Every other benefit that you get from the feat is carefully and explicitly spelled out by the rules text because that's how exceptions work. If the feat simply said, "You have an arcane caster level of 1," then went on to describe what that meant then the feat would work as you want it to. But it doesn't say that. So you don't.

Magical training certainly satisfies the bolded.

...which would matter if Magical Training explicitly granted the character spell-like abilities. It does not. That is the context in which that paragraph of rules is discussing. Selectively quoting rules text out of context is not only an explicitly incorrect way of interpreting the rules, but it invariably causes more problems than it solves.

You have misread what caster level says in the PHB:



It says most characters. If, "It further states that your caster level is equal to your class level in the class that you are using to cast the spell," is true then the fact that you have an arcane spellcaster level which modifies the caster level of the spells means that you yourself have an arcane caster level as you cast as a wizard/sorcerer of 1st level.

You have misinterpreted what it says in the PHB. It says "most characters" determine their caster level by looking at their class level because the rules are well aware of the existence of things within the rules which modify your caster level in some way. In fact, that is the topic of the very next paragraph. This is why context is so important.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Arcane caster levels come from having levels in an arcane spellcasting class. Exceptions to this, like everything else, must be specifically called out as such.
[...]
This is an exception to the normal rule that only characters with levels in the appropriate spellcasting class can cast these spells. Every other benefit that you get from the feat is carefully and explicitly spelled out by the rules text because that's how exceptions work. If the feat simply said, "You have an arcane caster level of 1," then went on to describe what that meant then the feat would work as you want it to. But it doesn't say that. So you don't.

I think this is an overly nitpicky and exclusionary reading of "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast," for two reasons:

1) The "For the purpose..." clause is basically another way to say that you have the caster level of a 1st-level sorcerer or wizard but not, say, the sorcerer's ability to gain a familiar or the wizard's bonus Scribe Scroll feat. This is similar to how the prestige class section in the DMG says:

Caster Level: Generally equal to the number of class levels (see below) in a spellcasting class. Some prestige classes add caster levels to an existing class.

...and then the spellcasting entries for PrCs say something like:

Spells per Day: When a new arcane trickster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class he belonged to before adding the prestige class. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (improved chance of controlling or rebuking undead, metamagic or item creation feats, and so on), except for an increased effective level of spellcasting. If a character had more than one spellcasting class before becoming an arcane trickster, he must decide to which class he adds the new level for purposes of determining spells per day.

...where the "He does not, however..." clause is a verbose way of saying "spells only, no class features" just like the Magical Training clause is.

Now, you'll notice that the Spells per Day entry does not say that an Arcane Trickster adds its caster level to an existing class's caster level, as the Definition of Terms say some PrCs do, or that it even increases its caster level at all! It only says that it gains new spells per day, nothing about CL (or, for that matter, spells known), and base classes have a "Spells" class feature rather than a "Spells per Day" feature so spells per day doesn't automatically include CL, right?

Of course not. No one would ever argue that a Rogue 1/Sorcerer 5/Arcane Trickster 5 has the spells per day of a 10th-level sorcerer but a CL of only 5, because the increase in CL is included in the "as if he had also gained a level in a spellcasting class he belonged to" clause, because that's what having "a level in a spellcasting class" means.

Likewise, the clause in Magical Training doesn't explicitly use the phrase "caster level," but trying to argue that the effective sorcerer or wizard level that sets the level-based variables of spells you cast is not equivalent to "caster level" is ridiculous.

2) There's another feat out there that grants you the ability to use low-level magic without having levels in the appropriate class:

Your latent power of psionics flares to life, conferring upon you the designation of a psionic character. As a psionic character, you gain a reserve of 2 power points, and you can take psionic feats, metapsionic feats, and psionic item creation feats. If you have or take a class that grants power points, the power points gained from Hidden Talent are added to your total power point reserve.

When you take this feat, choose one 1st-level power from any psionic class list. You know this power (it becomes one of your powers known). You can manifest this power with the power points provided by this feat if you have a Charisma score of 11 or higher. If you have no psionic class levels, you are considered a 1st-level manifester when manifesting this power. If you have psionic class levels, you can manifest the power at the highest manifester level you have attained. (This is not a manifester level, and it does not add to any manifester levels gained by taking psionic classes.) If you have no psionic class levels, use Charisma to determine how powerful a power you can manifest and how hard those powers are to resist.

Notice the three key differences between Hidden Talent and Magical Training:

A) Magical Training explicitly treats you as a sorcerer 1 or wizard 1 if you're not already an arcane caster, while Hidden Talent talks about what happens if you "have no psionic class levels" and says nothing about counting as a psion 1 or a wilder 1.
B) Magical Training treats you as a 1st-level caster at all times, while Hidden Talent only explicitly treats you as a 1st-level manifester "when manifesting" but not necessarily at other times.
C) Most importantly, Hidden Talent explicitly says that its virtual manifester level is not an actual manifester level, while Magical Training says nothing of the sort.

These two feats show up in books that were published a month apart (March and April 2004) and in development at the same time, so if the developers wanted to say that Magical Training did not, in fact, grant you a caster level, but only did something virtual like Hidden Talent does, they could have darn well said so, and in that case you would have a solid basis for saying that Magical Training doesn't qualify you for Precocious Apprentice.

But it doesn't say that. So you don't.

[Crake]

I didn't answer your question directly because it's irrelevant. In order to take Precocious Apprentice you are required to have an arcane caster level. Arcane caster levels come from having levels in an arcane spellcasting class. Exceptions to this, like everything else, must be specifically called out as such. An all encompassing set of the different functions a caster level might serve is a meaningless line of inquiry given the subject at hand.

Right, but having an arcane caster level from class levels, or having an arcane caster level from magical training for the only purpose of which an arcane caster level is used seems like a pointless distinction. In both cases you have an arcane caster level.

Usually, when something is intentionally not meant to allow you to qualify for something, it says so, for example, the chameleon class, but otherwise, nitpicking the exact phrasing of a feat as if it's a computer program you're trying to compile seems a bit hollow.

[gijoemike]

Doctor Awkward is correct. These don't stack and it is specifically because of the phrase

and are treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spell caster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast.

I have to admit I have never looked that hard at this feat. It is worded in a ridicules way. It doesn't grant you an Spell like Ability. So the shortcut method of using SLA's to qualify doesn't work. Gnomes get SLA's with a fixed caster level. Why not this?

But it also doesn't give you a spell list. If one were to hand an identified scroll of magic missile to a character with magical training they cannot cast it. The spell isn't on their spell list. Even though they cast as a sorc and wizard. That is pretty odd. But clearly this feat doesn't open the door to abuse like that. There hasn't been formal study as a wizard and they don't have natural ability as a sorc does.

What about the actual caster level though? Say said magically trained person uses Use Magic device to trick a scroll of level 1 magic missile into thinking it was on your spell list. Said person would still need to rule a caster level check because they are not actually caster level 1.

OK, what about a cantrip that isn't one of the chosen 3? Same situation as Magic missile. So Magical training in cantrips doesn't let you use cantrip scrolls. This is spiraling into stupidity.

BUT if you handed them an identified scroll of one of their chosen 0 level cantrips. Somehow they can cast that. Because to cast that spell they are considered a level 1 and it is on their spell list. BEHOLD: this is why it isn't an SLA. You have these 3 spells on your spell list and can use scrolls of them. Only for the purpose of casting these spells do you calculate caster level as a 1. It is not a general case. It only works for these 3 cantrips and only expands your cantrip list/casting if one later does add an Arcane caster level. There is no magical free arcane caster level.

So you don't have an SLA, or caster level, and the spell list is 3 cantrips long. But when casting those 3 cantrips one calculates range, damage, duration, etc as though it was a 1 instead of what it actually is ZERO.



With that said. House rule this mess. I'm a WIZZARDD, but only for message, ray of frost, and disrupt undead is absurd.

It is fixed with a simple SLA x3/day for those 3 chosen cantrips and would allow shenanigans to commence. Yeah, they couldn't use scrolls of it anymore but the wording is just... so bad.

Right, but having an arcane caster level from class levels, or having an arcane caster level from magical training for the only purpose of which an arcane caster level is used seems like a pointless distinction. In both cases you have an arcane caster level.

Usually, when something is intentionally not meant to allow you to qualify for something, it says so, for example, the chameleon class, but otherwise, nitpicking the exact phrasing of a feat as if it's a computer program you're trying to compile seems a bit hollow.

Except that it isn't pointless. It is very important though worded horribly. You treat the caster level as a 1 but only for those spells you cast. Is P. Apprentice casting one of those spells? No, then one doesn't have caster level 1 to allow the feat to be taken. At some weird magical door that needs a caster level check to open. No caster levels here. Oh well. Like I said above this feat is worded very badly.

[Crake]

You treat the caster level as a 1 but only for those spells you cast.

Except the feat doesn't specifically say for those spells. It simply says "for spells you cast".

[Doctor Awkward]

1) The "For the purpose..." clause is basically another way to say that you have the caster level of a 1st-level sorcerer or wizard but not, say, the sorcerer's ability to gain a familiar or the wizard's bonus Scribe Scroll feat.

This is speculation not backed up by the relevant facts. The rules for 3.5 D&D are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do, and you are told explicitly by those rules that this is how they are meant to be interpreted. The text will lay out the general rules for how the game works, and then create exceptions to those rules that are always explicitly called out as such in the text. Nothing you've put here refutes the fact that characters need levels in a spellcasting class in order to have a caster level. Squinting real hard at the Magical Training feat will never make it do anything beyond exactly what it says it does.

2) There's another feat out there that grants you the ability to use low-level magic without having levels in the appropriate class:



Notice the three key differences between Hidden Talent and Magical Training:

A) Magical Training explicitly treats you as a sorcerer 1 or wizard 1 if you're not already an arcane caster, while Hidden Talent talks about what happens if you "have no psionic class levels" and says nothing about counting as a psion 1 or a wilder 1.
B) Magical Training treats you as a 1st-level caster at all times, while Hidden Talent only explicitly treats you as a 1st-level manifester "when manifesting" but not necessarily at other times.
C) Most importantly, Hidden Talent explicitly says that its virtual manifester level is not an actual manifester level, while Magical Training says nothing of the sort.

These two feats show up in books that were published a month apart (March and April 2004) and in development at the same time, so if the developers wanted to say that Magical Training did not, in fact, grant you a caster level, but only did something virtual like Hidden Talent does, they could have darn well said so, and in that case you would have a solid basis for saying that Magical Training doesn't qualify you for Precocious Apprentice.

But it doesn't say that. So you don't.

Case in point.
Here is a similar ability that explicitly spells out what happens in an instance of what you want Magical Training to do. The feat does not need to say "But this does not grant you an arcane caster level for other purposes," because that's not how the rules work. If you did have an arcane caster level, then Magical Training would explicitly say you do, just like Hidden Talent does.

[liquidformat]

False

Magical Training causes you to be "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

You do not have an arcane caster level. You are treated as though you have one for that specific purpose and for no other.

There is a glaring issue with your argument that you have not meaningfully addressed. In the passage you quoted 'for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast.' The important bit has been bolded and underlined. This feat expressly treats you as a wizard/sorcerer for any spell you cast not just the spells granted by the feat. This line in the feat you have quoted actually does more to disprove your argument then support your argument since it has unmarried the relationship between your wizard/sorcerer/arcane caster level and the spells specifically provided by the feat. the fact that it has removed the direct relationship between the three spells granted by the feat and being treated as an arcane spell caster minimum level 1 for spells you cast means you are in fact what allows you to take feats like precocious apprentice and not what prohibits you from doing so.

If the feat had said "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells granted by this feat." I would fully support your argument, but that isn't what the feat says.

[Darg]

^ i was going to make this argument but got beaten to it. RAW, at the very least makes you an arcane spellcaster with a level of one if you cast spells.

Sure, one can get hung up on "for the purpose of," but then one can also argue that requirements for feats don't care about that. You have an arcane caster level for some purpose. Precocious apprentice does not require an "arcane caster class level." Heck, it doesn't even require that you possess levels at all considering SLAs don't actually require you to have the appropriate level to actually get the caster level feats.

You have a caster level of a wizard/sorcerer of 1st level for the purpose of casting your spells. This does not preclude it from the feat as the requirement is not exclusive by the rules. There is not a rule that says class levels that aren't class levels are excluded. Actually, the only class that requires class levels is warlock considering a wizard level 2 and sorcerer level 1 multiclass qualifies for craft wondrous items that needs caster level 3rd.

When the rules aren't exclusive, they are inclusive.

[bean illus]

I see clues in the names of the feats .
One says "training", and the other "apprentice". Apparently, they got these spells by almost finishing school. They cast spells, have a list, and need a caster level.

* It's sorta like having caster level 0.4, rounded down, minimum one.

...

Sure, one can get hung up on "for the purpose of," but then one can also argue that requirements for feats don't care about that. You have an arcane caster level for some purpose.
...

Reminds me of the argument that a ranger's manyshot doesn't quaify for GMS.

[Darg]

Reminds me of the argument that a ranger's manyshot doesn't quaify for GMW.

Greater Magic Weapon? Or maybe greater manyshot?

I agree with the sentiment though. An exclusive interpretation would mean that the ranger wouldn't qualify as they don't actually possess the feat, but the inclusive interpretation would be that since they are treated as if they have the feat they meet the requirement. In general the group needs to have a general understanding of how these will be ruled, otherwise you'll end up having to go point by point ruling how each scenario is going to play out. I generally prefer an inclusive stance as long as it doesn't break the balance of the game. These two feats don't actually break the game unless one uses a loose interpretation of the meaning of "spells."

[bean illus]

Yeah, GMS. Thanks.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

This is speculation not backed up by the relevant facts. The rules for 3.5 D&D are structured in such a way as to tell you what you can do, and you are told explicitly by those rules that this is how they are meant to be interpreted. The text will lay out the general rules for how the game works, and then create exceptions to those rules that are always explicitly called out as such in the text. Nothing you've put here refutes the fact that characters need levels in a spellcasting class in order to have a caster level. Squinting real hard at the Magical Training feat will never make it do anything beyond exactly what it says it does.

Except, as the feat itself says, you "are treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st)." If you claim that a character needs levels in a spellcasting class to have a caster level (which is manifestly untrue, since characters and monsters have caster levels for SLAs and innate casting all the time), well, congratulations, someone with Magical Training is treated as having a minimum of 1 level in a spellcasting class.

Pedantically claiming that being treated as being a 1st-level wizard doesn't actually treat you as being a 1st level wizard because the magic words "caster level" aren't used there means that, by extension, in your games sorcerers cannot increase their caster level or spells known when they take prestige classes because the specific verbiage in the class entries doesn't match that of the early definitions. Live by the RAW, die by the RAW.

Case in point.
Here is a similar ability that explicitly spells out what happens in an instance of what you want Magical Training to do. The feat does not need to say "But this does not grant you an arcane caster level for other purposes," because that's not how the rules work. If you did have an arcane caster level, then Magical Training would explicitly say you do, just like Hidden Talent does.

Except, as noted, Hidden Talent says that you have a manifester level "when manifesting this power" and that you don't have an actual manifester level otherwise, while Magical Training straight-up treats you as a sorcerer or wizard, to the point that if you pick wizard you actually "prepare your spells exactly as a wizard does," spellbook and all.

If the feat was not intended to give you an actual caster level in the same way it gives you a spellbook, there's no reason for it to mention anything about classes at all, it could just say you get three slots, you can cast them once each, pick Int or Cha for the save DC, done. But since the feat gives you actual sorcerer or wizard casting with no exclusions or limitations, you get an actual caster level along with it.

[Doctor Awkward]

Reminds me of the argument that a ranger's manyshot doesn't quaify for GMS.

I don't remember anyone ever arguing that. And the ranger's class feature is not the main issue considering Greater Manyshot has more prerequisites than just the Manyshot feat.

Except, as the feat itself says, you "are treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st)."

False.

The feat says "treated as a sorcerer or wizard of your arcane spellcaster level (minimum 1st) for the purpose of determining level-based variables of the spells you cast."

In order for the feat to work the way you want it to, the end of that sentence would have to be left out-- which, I assume, is the main reason people do leave it out when they quote the text of the feat.
You need to read the entire text when interpreting something, not just the parts that support your preconceived notion about how you believe it should work.

This line in the feat you have quoted actually does more to disprove your argument then support your argument since it has unmarried the relationship between your wizard/sorcerer/arcane caster level and the spells specifically provided by the feat.

If you genuinely believe that the rules text explaining how the feat works affects anything for a character beyond the feat itself, then I really don't know how to help you. This is like arguing that a 3rd-level wizard who takes a level in sorcerer gets bonus sorcerer spells per day based on their Intelligence modifier because under the wizard class the rules say, "In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score." Or that, actually, rogues are the only class in the game capable of finding magical traps with the Search skill because that's what their Trapfinding ability says, and that this overrides all other instances of Trapfinding that appear on any other class.

[Hellpyre]

Now, you'll notice that the Spells per Day entry does not say that an Arcane Trickster adds its caster level to an existing class's caster level, as the Definition of Terms say some PrCs do, or that it even increases its caster level at all! It only says that it gains new spells per day, nothing about CL (or, for that matter, spells known), and base classes have a "Spells" class feature rather than a "Spells per Day" feature so spells per day doesn't automatically include CL, right?

For what it's worth, that is arguably covered by the line "He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained (improved chance of controlling or rebuking undead, metamagic and item creation feats, and so on), except for an increased effective level of spellcasting".

It is odd that the class is missing the "(and spells known, if applicable)" bit, but it appears on a glance through my DMG that only the Archmage and Loremaster classes had that. Probably out of the odd fear that Sorcerors would break the game.

I tend to agree with Doctor Akward on this. It gives you a statistic that can be referenced in regards to a very specific scenario, rather than giving a caster level directly as would have been less text-intensive and clearer (both of which would tend to indicate to me that the distinction was deliberate). But there are certainly sillier assumptions that I've seen people try to push for optimization purposes in actual games. At least here the opposing argument has a solid foundation here for the most part.