| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
(It was suggested that I put this question in its own thread.)
Here's a hypothetical character - Say you're a Wiz 8, Ftr 1 who has taken the 'magical knack' trait and you get an orange ioun stone (+1 CL) what is your CL? I can do the math 2 ways.
1) class level (8) + trait (+1) + stone (+1) = 10
or
2) Class level (8) + stone (+1) + trait (+0) = 9
In the second case the stone has brought you up to the current class level rendering the trait useless.
FYI Hero Lab uses calculation #2.
The downside is that if you have a multiclass character and you take 'magical knack' (and why wouldn't you), any sort of CL-raising magic is useless. Is that the intent? (if so, fine :))
John
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
(It was suggested that I put this question in its own thread.)
Here's a hypothetical character - Say you're a Wiz 8, Ftr 1 who has taken the 'magical knack' trait and you get an orange ioun stone (+1 CL) what is your CL? I can do the math 2 ways.
1) class level (8) + trait (+1) + stone (+1) = 10
or
2) Class level (8) + stone (+1) + trait (+0) = 9In the second case the stone has brought you up to the current class level rendering the trait useless.
FYI Hero Lab uses calculation #2.
The downside is that if you have a multiclass character and you take 'magical knack' (and why wouldn't you), any sort of CL-raising magic is useless. Is that the intent? (if so, fine :))
John
Let me point out that even if calculation #2 is correct, you would still benefit from the ioun stone if you had 3 levels of Fighter instead of 1. The calculation would be like this:
Class level (8) + stone (1) = 9, your total character level is 11, so the trait would boost you to caster level 11.
(It was suggested that I put this question in its own thread.)
Let me point out that even if calculation #2 is correct, you would still benefit from the ioun stone if you had 3 levels of Fighter instead of 1. The calculation would be like this:
Class level (8) + stone (1) = 9, your total character level is 11, so the trait would boost you to caster level 11.
That's true. But would taking two levels of fighter boost you to level 11 as well (making you Wiz 8, Ftr 2)? Again, we run into an ordering issue.
This is my thinking:
When you create a character, you pick your traits. This means that the traits are there at the get go. So a starting character is already +2 CL provided that he has those levels in another class. Everything else that happens to the character happens from the standpoint of that trait already being applied.
From a generic programming point of view, if we view this as a series of IF statements, the trait is the first IF.
"IF trait=yes and caster level is 2 less than character level
THEN add 2 to caster level.
IF character owns magic item which grants +1 caster level
THEN add 1 to caster level."rinse, repeat for additional items, spells and circumstances that apply and are validated by their respective rules.
But, of course, I don't know that this is the RAW or the RAI. Which is why I'm asking :D
John
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can do the math 2 ways.
Doesn't matter which way you try to add them. Magical Knack is always checking your caster level. Raise your caster level, Magical Knack's bonus reduces or disappears.
Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.
I can do the math 2 ways.Doesn't matter which way you try to add them. Magical Knack is always checking your caster level. Raise your caster level, Magical Knack's bonus reduces or disappears.
Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.
This is the answer. Whenever a trait or feat list a cap that feat can not be factor in going over that cap.
|
RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16
|
This is the answer. Whenever a trait or feat list a cap that feat can not be factor in going over that cap.I can do the math 2 ways.Doesn't matter which way you try to add them. Magical Knack is always checking your caster level. Raise your caster level, Magical Knack's bonus reduces or disappears.
Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.
Yep, the "as long as" is definitely the important part there. Your caster level would never go over your character level from the Magical Knack bonus.
The point is that Magical Knack is at any time checking the caster level. Even if you would add the bonus from Magical Knack first it would stop giving you a bonus as soon as you add the bonus of the stone because now your caster level is above your current Hit Dice. As the bonus of the trait is part of the reason why your caster level is above your hit dice, it may not give you any bonus to your caster level and stops doing so.
Interesting.
The opposing opinion seems to be that magical knack is always checked last. All other CL raising things get applied first.
Understand I came into this knowing that Magical trait cannot raise your CL above your character level.
I'm honestly still not convinced that the opposing opinion is what the devs had in mind when they wrote up the trait. And I haven't seen anyone cite in the RAW whether trait bonuses are applied first or last. Confirmation along either one of those lines would pretty much clear up this question.
The intent, i feel, that the devs had was to allow for those spellcasters who had such an innate talent that they could afford to take two levels off and diversify without taking too bad of a hit. If that's the case then magical knack should stack first (raising your CL to your character level) and the ioun stones applied afterwards.
Good discussion though! :)
John
PS: I don't really buy the "you have to take the whole bonus or none at all argument either" ;). If that were the case then magical knack would only be effective if you took 2 levels in something else.
Sorry guys I'm going to yammer on this a little more.
I think in the numbers game we're losing sight of the point of traits so here's what it says in the SRD
And the Magical Knack trait reads, in full:Character traits are abilities that are not tied to your character's race or class. They can enhance your character's skills, racial abilities, class abilities, or other statistics, enabling you to further customize him. At its core, a character trait is approximately equal in power to half a feat, so two character traits are roughly equivalent to a bonus feat. Yet a character trait isn't just another kind of power you can add on to your character—it's a way to quantify (and encourage) building a character background that fits into your campaign world. Think of character traits as “story seeds” for your background; after you pick your two traits, you'll have a point of inspiration from which to build your character's personality and history. Alternatively, if you've already got a background in your head or written down for your character, you can view picking his traits as a way to quantify that background, just as picking race and class and ability scores quantifies his other strengths and weaknesses.
Many traits grant a new type of bonus: a “trait” bonus. Trait bonuses do not stack—they're intended to give player characters a slight edge, not a secret backdoor way to focus all of a character's traits on one type of bonus and thus gain an unseemly advantage.
You were raised, either wholly or in part, by a magical creature, either after it found you abandoned in the woods or because your parents often left you in the care of a magical minion. This constant exposure to magic has made its mysteries easy for you to understand, even when you turn your mind to other devotions and tasks. Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.
So now I'm going to tell you the context that I'm doing this in. There's a character in my group who has this trait and is on the run from the law. (nevermind why - he says he's innocent!) The way he's staying low to the ground is by masquerading as a fighter. Full up in chain-mail and everything. The ground rules are that he gets a significant bonus to his disguise by not using magic in public - allowing him to ample opportunity to role-play something completely different. I also said that if he does this he needs to take the level he just upped to as a fighter level for a few reasons - not the least of which is that he'd be useless to the party otherwise.
The feel that I get from the above rules is that this exactly the sort of thing that this trait was made for. Because the trait is something acquired before his adventuring career started, it is equivalent to his starting ability scores and always gets applied first.
Honestly the other explanation sounds appropriate from a numbers point of view and is arguably RAW, but I think that looking back at the rules it is definitely NOT RAI.
I, of course, welcome clarification :)
Magical Knack can not contribute to going over the caster level. That is why it is written the way it is. If it did not matter if it was a factor or not that clause would not be there.
Magical Knack can not contribute to going over the caster level. That is why it is written the way it is. If it did not matter if it was a factor or not that clause would not be there.
And so it does not. The magical knack bonus only brings it up to the CL. Cite me the page where it says that traits get applied last and I'll happily acquiesce. Until then I find the rules ambiguous. In fact, I believe that the order of operations is implied to go as follows:
check to see if caster level is < HD.
apply trait to reach CL.
apply other bonuses.
If I have my terminology correct the trait is inherent - just like your starting ability scores. Its the starting point, not some random bonus to be added afterwards. With this trait your caster level is CL+2 </= HD. Apply bonuses afterwards.
Magical Knack can not contribute to going over the caster level. That is why it is written the way it is. If it did not matter if it was a factor or not that clause would not be there.
And so it does not. The magical knack bonus only brings it up to the CL. Cite me the page where it says that traits get applied last and I'll happily acquiesce. Until then I find the rules ambiguous. In fact, I believe that the order of operations is implied to go as follows:
check to see if caster level is < HD.
apply trait to reach CL.
apply other bonuses.If I have my terminology correct the trait is inherent - just like your starting ability scores. Its the starting point, not some random bonus to be added afterwards. With this trait your caster level is CL+2 </= HD. Apply bonuses afterwards.
I don't have to site anything. It has a specific clause saying what it can't do. The intent is clear. If you could just apply it at the end to get around the clause you would have a rule loophole at best.
edit:If you can just ignore the clause then why even have it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
They stack just fine, as shown in #1. It seems pretty clear to me that the so called "clause" is referring to your base caster level.
An orange ioun stone works for everyone with a caster level. Period.
It doesn't stop working just because a person has Magical Knack for the same reasons the designers didn't put belts of gisant strength +3 into the game--generic magic items such as these are meant to work for everyone, not a select few. ShadowcatX is absolutely right about this.
RD you care to explain why the clause is even there if it does not really matter since you think can just apply it(the trait) first to get around it?
edit: Boon Companion is the same way which you tried to argue differently in this thread. To argue otherwise is nothing but cheese.
boon companion cheese
Here is basically what you are saying
ability X(no cap) +ability y(capped) = ability X(no cap) +ability y(no cap)
That makes no sense at all. As to why it has never worked that way before. The answer is you have not tried it with caps before, not by the rules anyway. You can't provide one capped example from 3.5 that or PF that would work that way without a rule specifically saying otherwise.
RD you care to explain why the clause is even there if it does not really matter since you think can just apply it(the trait) first to get around it?
I would think it obvious: It is to prevent you from playing a wizard 10, and having a caster level of 12, or a wizard 9/fighter 1 and having a caster level of 11. Nothing more. Nothing less.
You guys are seriously over thinking this one.
EDIT: I have no idea how that boon companion thread relates to anything I said at all. Also, calling something cheese means absolutely nothing other than "I don't like it."
RD you care to explain why the clause is even there if it does not really matter since you think can just apply it(the trait) first to get around it?
I would think it obvious: It is to prevent you from playing a wizard 10, and having a caster level of 12, or a wizard 9/fighter 1 and having a caster level of 11.
You guys are seriously over thinking this one.
Obviously it is not obvious, and your example is not valid.
According to your logic I take magical knack to gain a caster level of 10 using the wizard/fighter combo, with magical knack. I then get an orange ioun stone to have a caster level of 11 despite having a wizard level of 9.
edit:Note that I just did what you said should not be possible by applying the trait first.
Magical Knack hasn't exceeded any limits. The orange ioun stone has. Since the orange ioun stone doesn't have the same limitations as Magical Knack, that's fine.
A wizard 11 could just as easily get the orange ioun stone and end up with caster level 12. It's going to work regardless of what kind of caster uses it. Magical Knack doesn't change that.
You're twisting my intention. I never said having an increased caster level was impossible. I said it was impossible for MAGICAL LINEAGE to increase your caster level beyond your character level/hit dice.
EDIT: Sorry, it seems I did phrase my above post quite badly.
Here are several examples to make my stance very clear:
Wizard 10 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 10 with OPIS = CL 11
Wizard 10 with both = CL 11
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with OPIS = CL 10
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with both = CL 11
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with OPIS = CL 9
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with both = CL 11
In none of these examples does Magical Knack break its rule of pushing the caster level over the character's character level. It is clearly prevented from doing so in many of the above cases.
The orange prism ioun stone, however, can and does.
The former allows a character to get his caster level to meet his character level (potentially), and then the latter allows him to exceed it.
It really is very simple.
You're twisting my intention. I never said having an increased caster level was impossible. I said it was impossible for MAGICAL LINEAGE to increase your caster level beyond your character level/hit dice.
EDIT: Sorry, it seems I did phrase my above post quite badly.
:)
It is cool. At least you are trying to explain it. Right now I am not getting the point of the phrase with the way you are reading it. I know that it won't allow a single classed caster to go above his caster level, but since the trait calls out HD and not class levels I am reading it as the trait is not supposed to help you do go above HD with regard to caster levels.If the intention was to say that only single classed casters can't benefit from it then it could have been worded in such as manner that it specially called out single class casters, but by referring to HD it is calling out the character as a whole.
edit:clarity.
There was a post at one time from a developer that said things stack in the most beneficial way -- but I don't know where that is.
Concerro, what you seem to be describing is a handicap, not a benefit (as it actively interferes with ioun stones, Spell Specialization, Varsisian Tattoos, etc.). It's not worth half a feat, it'd be worth less than not having a feat at all.
I seriously doubt that was the designer's intent.
Also, it makes sense that they would call out the caster as a whole, since not all casters have class levels.
Abraham, I searched every thread Sean, James, and Jason have ever posted for the word "beneficial" and nothing pertinent came up. Still, I do recall a developer making that statement somewhere.
Here are several examples to make my stance very clear:
Wizard 10 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 10 with OPIS = CL 11
Wizard 10 with both = CL 11Wizard 9/fighter 1 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with OPIS = CL 10
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with both = CL 11Wizard 8/fighter 2 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with OPIS = CL 9
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with both = CL 11In none of these examples does Magical Knack break its rule of pushing the caster level over the character's character level. It is clearly prevented from doing so in many of the above cases.
The orange prism ioun stone, however, can and does.
The former allows a character to get his caster level to meet his character level (potentially), and then the latter allows him to exceed it.
It really is very simple.
In the 3rd group the level wiz 8/fighter 2 should only have a 10 even by your more liberal reading.
wizard 8 +stone 1+ Mk 1=10.and
wizard 8 + MK 1=9. MK only gives one caster level not 2 so how did you get 10?
-----------------------------------------------------------------
I can't agree with that interpretation since the trait is part of the equation that takes CL past HD. I am reading it the trait can have no part in it.
If that is what they meant then that trait, and Boon Companion need to be rewritten. As written they are more restrictive than they intend to be.
How I am looking at it-->Telling me I can't use the money from the accounting department's funds to help me exceed 100 dollars for the company party, but then telling me I can get accounting's money first, and get the rest of the money from HR so that HR's money is pushing me over the mark just because I picked it up last is just using the letter of the law vs the spirit of the law.
I probably did not word that perfectly I think my point is clear. Do not go over 100 dollars.
Concerro, what you seem to be describing is a handicap, not a benefit (as it actively interferes with ioun stones, Spell Specialization, Varsisian Tattoos, etc.). It's not worth half a feat, it'd be worth less than not having a feat at all.
I seriously doubt that was the designer's intent.
Also, it makes sense that they would call out the caster as a whole, since not all casters have class levels.
Abraham, I searched every thread Sean, James, and Jason have ever posted for the word "beneficial" and nothing pertinent came up. Still, I do recall a developer making that statement somewhere.
I agree in most situations, but when an ability says you can not do X then I see it as an exception to the normal way the rules work.
edit:It would have less value, but this being the rules thread I am not debating the usefulness of it in either form.
Co
Also, it makes sense that they would call out the caster as a whole, since not all casters have class levels.
That is true, but most rules are written from the point of the PC's.
Remember your thread on blink dog sorcerers. :)
Concerro, what you seem to be describing is a handicap, not a benefit (as it actively interferes with ioun stones, Spell Specialization, Varsisian Tattoos, etc.). It's not worth half a feat, it'd be worth less than not having a feat at all.
I seriously doubt that was the designer's intent.
Also, it makes sense that they would call out the caster as a whole, since not all casters have class levels.
Abraham, I searched every thread Sean, James, and Jason have ever posted for the word "beneficial" and nothing pertinent came up. Still, I do recall a developer making that statement somewhere.
I seem to recall that statement somewhere too. I wonder at this point, if it is apocrypha.
So here's the funny part. I stumbled across this point playing with Hero Labs. I've actually learned a lot about the rules nuances from just playing with Hero Labs.
I started digging around in Hero Labs to see how they did their calculation. As best as I can determine they haven't coded the increase in CL due to the ioun stone.
Which means that what I thought was a rules question was simply something that hadn't been implemented. Ooops! lol
(and yes, its been marked as a bug)
Ioun Stone Bug
John
Remember your thread on blink dog sorcerers. :)
*shivers* Ugh. I try not to.
Concerro:
Magical Knack: You were raised, either wholly or in part, by a magical creature, either after it found you abandoned in the woods or because your parents often left you in the care of a magical minion. This constant exposure to magic has made its mysteries easy for you to understand, even when you turn your mind to other devotions and tasks. Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn’t raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice.
Thus, Ravingdork's calculations are correct (assuming that the trait is added first).
Personally, I agree with trait first (thus not raising it over hit dice) and then add in anything else. The intent of the trait appears (to me) to be to mitigate multiclassing when you are a spellcaster. Thus, why would the trait inflict an extra penalty by negating itself (in part or whole) due to any magic items that are added on after the fact? However, I do agree that by a strict reading of the rules it MIGHT be read that way but I do not think it was the intent to read it that way.
- Gauss
Edit: BTW, a key phrase to me:
as long as this bonus
Since 'this bonus' is not raising it over the Hit Dice limit (in the case of a Wizard8/Fighter2) I see no problem. A DIFFERENT bonus raises it over. Not 'this bonus'.
Darn it I am starting to look at it different. Oh well, it is only 2 caster levels, but I still don't like the wording.
I've already posed the question to James Jacobs directly. Hopefully we will have a pseudo-official answer this time tomorrow.
Wizard 10 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 10 with OPIS = CL 11
Wizard 10 with both = CL 11
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with OPIS = CL 10
Wizard 9/fighter 1 with both = CL 10
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with MK = CL 10
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with OPIS = CL 9
Wizard 8/fighter 2 with both = CL 10
Compare that to my interpretation above. The opposing interpretation seems inconsistent to me as the Orange Prism Ioun Stone seems like it would work with a fully leveled caster even when he has Magical Knack, but suddenly stops working when he is short one or two caster levels. It also turns a beneficial trait into something of a handicap, as it prevents a host of other abilities (see above) from working.
I don't see it as the ioun stone not working. I see it as the trait not working anymore, or at least not as much.
As an example if you take the trait, and you are a level 4 wizard then the trait is not working.
If you go wiz 2/fighter 1 then the the trait gives you one caster level.
If you go wiz 2/fighter 2 then you the trait gives you 2 levels.
Honestly, one of the best uses of this trait imo is for a Ranger or Paladin. Great way to mitigate the -3caster level penalty (to only -1 CL penalty).
- Gauss
Remember it doesn't give you the additional spells. It just kicks up the caster level. So it only gives back some of that lost level. You'll need other things to make up the rest.
And I'm glad that the group came to a resolution. Thanks everyone :-)
I don't think anyone thought it would give additional spells. That is not what Caster level does. However, it will allow the paladin a couple extra minutes of certain spells. Or allow the paladin to qualify for certain feats 2 levels earlier. :)
- Gauss
I don't think anyone thought it would give additional spells. That is not what Caster level does. However, it will allow the paladin a couple extra minutes of certain spells. Or allow the paladin to qualify for certain feats 2 levels earlier. :)
- Gauss
:-) yeah, I was just stating the obvious. But yeah, its all that secondary stuff that matters. I think it really only becomes a problem if the casting class has something awesome when it hits level 20. But if level 20 is just like level 19 redux, then swapping out for the one level may make sense.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A fighter 2/wizard 8 has 10 HD.He has a caster level of 8th.
If he has an ioun stone, that'll make his caster level 9th, which is still lower than his HD. If he has magical knack, that boosts his caster level up to 10th, which is equal to his HD, and thus legal and legit. It does NOT increase his caster level to 11th, since that would increase it above his HD.
Basically... Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels.
(If you add magical knack first and increase your caster level to 10, then try to add your +1 from your ioun stone, your effective caster level is above your Hit Dice and Magical Knack gets angry.)
I know James is not "the rules guy" so we can't call this an official ruling, but it makes sense with the phrase limiting the magical knack to HD.
There doesn't seem to be anything that becomes particularly overpowered by doing Knack first. It makes sense that the ioun stone should be as effective for one caster as it is for another. Also, I agree with ravingdork that the intent (magical knack shouldn't allow for a super powerful +2 bonus over level at the cost of a trait, it's only meant for multiclass spellcasters to be able to keep up) seems sort of obvious; it appears as though caster level increasing items were not taken into consideration.
The wording is vague and could be interpreted in multiple ways, and both interpretations look valid. You can either err on the side of caution and just forget/sell the ioun stone, or err on the side of reasonability and allow the seemingly non-gamebreaking alternate interpretation.
EDIT: Missed James Jacobs intepretation. Still seems weird that the 30,000 gold orange prism ioun stone should have no effect for this caster because of HD limitations when making caster level higher than HD seems to be the purpose of the stone in the first place. I mean, it could presumably be used to multiclass as well, but it's not very good at that considering it's such a late game item.
It comes down to whether or not Magical Knack constantly checks if your caster level exceeds your hit dice. If it does, it does not matter how you stack the bonuses as Magical Knack will cease to be effective as soon as you exceed it. If it does not constantly check, the order in which the bonuses were added matters. The former is true because Magical Knack is part of the reason why your caster level exceeds your hit dice and thus its limiting phrase applies. According to James, it does constantly check and therefore, stops working if your caster level exceeds your hit dice.
It is not about how much the stone cost or how powerful it is. Magical knack is not supposed to be a factor with anyone being able to make CL go over HD. That is why it is worded the way it is. By saying magical knack is added first the clause is being ignored. Which is why I keep asking why have the clause written that way if the intent is just to bypass it anyway. The intent of the feat is to keep CL as close to HD as possible.
My post here shows that it is not always on.
Does "this bonus" help raise your CL above HD by only checking it at the beginning?
Yes, therefore that voids the way the ability is written.
As written "this bonus" is not allowed to raise CL above HD.
It is no different than boon companion which does not allow your effective druid levels to bypass your hd.
|
Concerro, what you seem to be describing is a handicap, not a benefit (as it actively interferes with ioun stones, Spell Specialization, Varsisian Tattoos, etc.). It's not worth half a feat, it'd be worth less than not having a feat at all.
I seriously doubt that was the designer's intent.
Also, it makes sense that they would call out the caster as a whole, since not all casters have class levels.
Abraham, I searched every thread Sean, James, and Jason have ever posted for the word "beneficial" and nothing pertinent came up. Still, I do recall a developer making that statement somewhere.
Most traits are limited in what they do and can be nerfed by later choices. Look at all the traits that give a skill as a class skill. If, as you advance in level, you take a class that has that skill as a class skill, you lose part of the trait benefit.
As Pathfinder don't have a feat that allow you to "recover" up to 4 caster level as 3.5 had there is nothing against which you can compare this trait to say if getting 1 CL is equivalent to half a feat or less or if getting 2 CL is equivalent to half a feat or more. I suspect there will be people interested in acquiring this ability [recovering 2 CL] even at the cost of a feat, especially as they would be capable to do that after character creation and after getting a few levels. After all recovering 2 CL you have traded away is equivalent to getting Spell penetration with an added bonus for a mixed class character.
So, while I feel that the rules don't give a clear cut answer I am favourable to limit the effect of Magical Knack, applying it last after all the other CL rising effects have been applied.
There doesn't seem to be anything that becomes particularly overpowered by doing Knack first.
The moment in which it give better benefits than a feat for some class combo it is overpowered for a trait. And it is better than Spell penetration for some class combo.
lol.. so is *this* the final answer then? ;)
Either way is fine. I just need to allow my players to undo a few magic item purchases as they were done under the wrong rules interpretation.
Yeah, i could always houserule it otherwise (and I don't think it would break the game) but I like to keep my game as near to the actual rules as possible.
thanks again for all the helpful replies!
It is as final an answer as we're likely to get. I personally would like to see official FAQ on the topic, even if the answer remains the same, but that seems unlikely.
Me too. And frankly, I'm glad it's generated such discussion. I've had rules questions in the past before but I've always spent several hours researching them on my own to figure them out. Glad that my first Q wasn't something dumb :D
There's an answers thread? (digs around for several minutes using the "search" function).
There's an answers thread! Wow!
also: I am the GM. Now what could I bribe myself with? (rolls).
Ooh, I've just nerfed myself!
...I guess the rumors are true. Paizo really does hate multiclassing and prestige classes...
*cries*
Personally, while I respect and appreciate James Jacobs' response, in my home games I will run it as 'Magical Knack first, all else second'. It simply makes more sense to me that way.
- Gauss