It isn't spelled out in the Alpha one way or the other, but I've ruled that if a character goes, say, Wiz 5/Ftr 1/Eldritch Knight 10, he gets the spell-like abilities of a 5th level wizard, not a 15th level wizard. My reasoning is that the SLAs are a class feature, not a strict function of his caster level.
It's hazier when an ability says "1/day per 2 caster levels you possesas." In that case, I'm reading "caster level" as caster level, not class level, so the guy above would get 7/day, not 2/day.
How are other people handling this? Or has it even come up?
I also think there are a bunch of places where Jason meant "class level" instead of "caster level".
|
I also think there are a bunch of places where Jason meant "class level" instead of "caster level".
I'm playing an Ultimate Magus in a campaign...we're still scratching our heads over how to interpret the Wizard specialist abilities. Are they really by caster level....or is it supposed to be class level?
There seems to be arguments in favor of either interpretation, although it currently says "caster level".
This is a distinction that needs to be very, very carefully watched during editing...
|
How are other people handling this? Or has it even come up?
Well as written your existing abilities improve as your caster level does. So your eldrich knight's 1/2 caster level abilities does improve and the DC of the abilities increase.
As far as I'm concerned if there is a grey area in the rules I try to figure out the author's intent. I don't see this as grey though because the definition of caster level is pretty clear. Perhaps he did intend class level but I'm not going to have my guess about someone's intent contradict the wording.
Besides, the idea is to test the rules. If it is broken as written it should be tested and brought forward, we shouldn't assume one thing and leave the mistake buried.
-- Dennis
Well as written your existing abilities improve as your caster level does.
Right. Existing abilities use your total CL, I think. But as far as gaining new SLAs, I'd end that when the character in question "prestiges" out of the class that grants them.
I'd prefer to go with a strict reading of when it says "caster level" or doesn't, but much of the Alpha shows a careless usage of game terms (enchant, enhancement, etc.) to mean things other than their SRD definitions, so that I'm not really able to trust the wording used (If I did, bonded items would be intelligent, for example, and it would cost money when their users cast charms or compulsions on them).
|
|
Well as written your existing abilities improve as your caster level does.Right. Existing abilities use your total CL, I think. But as far as gaining new SLAs, I'd end that when the character in question "prestiges" out of the class that grants them.
Ahh... I see what you are saying now. As written it appears that you gain new school powers even if you go into a prestige class. It is definitely a gray area.
-- Dennis
hmm, since they are class abilities derived from the initial core-class' variant, I would rule for new ones being unavailable unless the character in question holds the required level in the class giving the special ability.
Wizards never gained additional meta-magic feats or other benefits of the wizard class in 3.5 when following a prestige class (unless specificially saed ha hey did, say improving the familiar's capabiliies ), and neither did classes like the druid. Which established a pattern I see no reason not to apply to these class option-based abilities.
So there would actually be little reason to assume that they would do now in "Pathfinder", unless very explicitly phrased that they actually are suppossed to do. Or being off a mind to actually read and apply the the rules and underlying paradigms against the obvious intention^^
Overall, I very much like that these abilities keep players interested in the upper levels of the core classes through this mechanism, since in 3.5, there was pretty little reason to actually stay in one's core class for more than the levels requried to qualify for the inevitable prestige-class.
Actually, hardly anyone did except for druids, monks and the non-core spirit shamans and BoNS-classes. All of which improvedon/added to their basic concept-abilities.
|
|
hmm, since they are class abilities derived from the initial core-class' variant, I would rule for new ones being unavailable unless the character in question holds the required level in the class giving the special ability.
However you or I would rule it is aside from the point. The point is that the rule as written is vague and should be fixed.
However you or I would rule it is aside from the point. The point is that the rule as written is vague and should be fixed.
Agreed. I nominate Sebastian to proof the whole Beta for loopholes and incorrect usage of definitions. I'm sure he'd be willing to do this one pro bono if we ask nicely and maybe offer him a cookie!
|
|
this is an interesting discussion but most prestige classes that improve casting abilities only aplly those improvements to spell not special abilities.
This is a good point. So is the specific wording of "caster level" rather than class level for Wizards intentional, or an oversight? Sorcerer bloodlines, for example, say class level (I think)...
At the same time though, you do get your extra spell slots and such from cleric domains per caster level, not class level. Is that what they were going for?
<- *head explodes*
|
|
At the same time though, you do get your extra spell slots and such from cleric domains per caster level, not class level. Is that what they were going for?
There are no more cleric domain spells, they have SLAs similar to wizard's school powers. Incidentally their SLAs are also granted by "Caster Level" so same issue.
There are no more cleric domain spells, they have SLAs similar to wizard's school powers. Incidentally their SLAs are also granted by "Caster Level" so same issue.
Yes, exactly. Does the Alpha really mean "caster level," or does it mean "class level"? (Keeping in mind that when the Alpha says "enchant," it usually means means "enhance" or "augment.") Hopefully the Beta will make everything more clear.
hmm, since they are class abilities derived from the initial core-class' variant, I would rule for new ones being unavailable unless the character in question holds the required level in the class giving the special ability.However you or I would rule it is aside from the point. The point is that the rule as written is vague and should be fixed.
the question is whether one establishes and then follows underlying universal principles in a given set of rules.
"it has be done this way befoe, it will be done this way again, unless an exception is explicitly noted"
Although I admit that it is a pretty european POV on things regulatory/legal in nature - anglo-saxon and US attitude to establishing rules and laws is notably different IMHO.
Besides, IMHO fine-tuning the rules should really be done by the authors who actually have a grasp upon just what is intended specifically by it. Nothing wrecks rules/regulatiosn as much as typo-checks and editing by sources outside the creative and formulative process.
Besides, IMHO fine-tuning the rules should really be done by the authors who actually have a grasp upon just what is intended specifically by it. Nothing wrecks rules/regulations as much as typo-checks and editing by sources outside the creative and formulative process.
I'll be the first to agree that editing should not never done without consulting the author(s)... however, as one who does a great deal of technical writing professionally, I can assert that it's imperative to have an outside editor. I always know what I mean when I write something, but that doesn't imply that the meaning is always clear to others. An outside viewpoint is indispensible in that regard.
That seems to be the process here, by default: we posters can point out ambiguities, but we don't actually write the corrections into the document. This way there's full communication and checks on both ends.
|
|
Besides, IMHO fine-tuning the rules should really be done by the authors who actually have a grasp upon just what is intended specifically by it. Nothing wrecks rules/regulatiosn as much as typo-checks and editing by sources outside the creative and formulative process.
Definitely, it is not the playtesters job to write the rules, it is the playtesters job to test them and point out any problems we see.
p. 81: "The wizard’s level is used when determining the caster level of these effects." That would imply that a wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10 has a CL of 5th for SLAs, and uses the 2nd level ability only 2/day, not 7/day. Which would really hamstring prestige-class wizards. Maddening!
p. 81: "The wizard’s level is used when determining the caster level of these effects." That would imply that a wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight 10 has a CL of 5th for SLAs, and uses the 2nd level ability only 2/day, not 7/day. Which would really hamstring prestige-class wizards. Maddening!
I don't have a problem with that at all, especially considering that a Universalist wizard is getting free stuff compared to a 3.5 wizard. Complaining about the quality of the free stuff seems a bit ungrateful. ;-)
I think you picked a poor example, too; the Eldritch Knight doesn't really have any interesting class features of its own so it seems like a bit of a poor trade-off. But there are plenty of non-Core PrC's that I'd be willing to take in exchange for a somewhat lower caster level for SLAs.
I don't have a problem with that at all, especially considering that a Universalist wizard is getting free stuff compared to a 3.5 wizard. Complaining about the quality of the free stuff seems a bit ungrateful. ;-)
Yes, WRT to the Universalist, you're quite right. But the 3.5e specialist has already traded an extra spell/spell level for fixed, lower-DC SLAs... and now he doesn't even get most of those, AND the few he does get no longer scale with his level. EldKt has become a very poor option for anyone but a Universalist wizard or a sorcerer, it would appear.
Which would be fine -- I don't think I have any evoker/EldKt PCs in any of my games, for example -- but it does sort of smack of removing options, rather than adding them, if you follow my drift. Losing the higher-level SLAs makes perfect sense to me. But not increasing the CL of the ones you already have -- even though your CL increases -- almost seems needlessly punitive, IMHO.
Which would be fine -- I don't think I have any evoker/EldKt PCs in any of my games, for example -- but it does sort of smack of removing options, rather than adding them, if you follow my drift. Losing the higher-level SLAs makes perfect sense to me. But not increasing the CL of the ones you already have -- even though your CL increases -- almost seems needlessly punitive, IMHO.
Well, 90% of the options removed have to do with the wizard specialist's lost spell slots and the cleric's lost domain spell slots. So to quibble about the remaining 10% (lost caster levels for low-level SLAs) seems minor by comparison (IMO).
It all boils down to the fact that some prestige class abilities are really good, so maybe you should have some significant trade-off in exchange.
It all boils down to the fact that some prestige class abilities are really good, so maybe you should have some significant trade-off in exchange.
Yeah. It's a shame that the primary OGL "gish" PrC gives so few of them, in comparison with the later, rather broken stuff like Abjurant Champion.
Which would be fine -- I don't think I have any evoker/EldKt PCs in any of my games, for example -- but it does sort of smack of removing options, rather than adding them, if you follow my drift. Losing the higher-level SLAs makes perfect sense to me. But not increasing the CL of the ones you already have -- even though your CL increases -- almost seems needlessly punitive, IMHO.
Well new abilities should be definitely be determined by class level. I'm kind of split on existing abilities but I generally agree with you that they should ramp with caster level.
Maybe some PrCs should be rewritten explicitly to continue progressing the wizards classes SLAs but by default they are not upgraded.
I'm inclined for now to allow CL to increase, but new SLAs never gained. For certain PrCs (Abj Champ), I might also cap the CL as well.
When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he became an archmage, he must decide to which class he adds each level of archmage for the purpose of determining spells per day.
I took a third look at this and looking at the text from the Archmage class this is not an issue. The only thing that increases is spells per day. Now I agree that the use of the term "Caster Level" is confusing but the actual PrC text is pretty clear that the SLA's would not advance with PrC advancement.
I'm not sure how non-core classes are written so it's not entirely clear how it would affect them.