Magical Knack trait as a prerequisite


Rules Questions


Can Magical Knack trait (+2 caster levels, total caster level no higher than total character levels), fulfill the requirement of 3rd level spellcaster for a 2nd level fighter/1st level wizard? I have a character in my game that is about to make 3rd level, and I need to know how to answer.


requirements for what?

generally speaking, i'd say if the requirement is caster level 3, the trait helps you meet it.
but it doesn't affect anything beyond caster level, nor do the bevy of other Caster Level boosts.
(i.e. class level in caster class, spell levels, etc, aren't effected)


Oops. Requirement for Arcane Armor Training feat, which has the requirement of 3rd level spellcaster.

Contributor

I'd say yes.

If you added the Practiced Spellcaster feat from Complete Arcane, that would let you qualify for Arcane Armor Mastery as well, once your reach 7th level.


Jeff1964 wrote:
Oops. Requirement for Arcane Armor Training feat, which has the requirement of 3rd level spellcaster.

Even with that, your player will get spells off most of the time with light armor until 3rd caster level.

Practiced spellcaster is better than magical knack, if allowed, if the player wants/needs more than 2 levels outside of his arcane class. A feat vs. a trait.


He already took the trait, and I'm not sure I want to allow that feat in my game. He'll be happy with the chance to pick up Arcane Armor Training at 3rd level, anyway.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dave Young 992 wrote:
Practiced spellcaster is better than magical knack, if allowed, if the player wants/needs more than 2 levels outside of his arcane class. A feat vs. a trait.

I honestly don't see why they wouldn't stack.

Well, except the part where I can't stand the "trait" mechanic in the first place. We already have those, they're called... feats. I don't see how One More Freebie helps the game.


The point of traits is to give your character some, you know, character. A trait tells you about your character's backstory and, in the case of AP traits, ties you into the campaign world.


Jabor wrote:
The point of traits is to give your character some, you know, character. A trait tells you about your character's backstory and, in the case of AP traits, ties you into the campaign world.

I like traits. Magical knack is a nice example of a feat that was too good for many GMs, but, cut in half, is a fair compromise for a character who, in-story, is a cut above most multi-classed casters.

In the PbP I just started, we were allowed one general trait and one module-specific trait to start off with. It's a nice little boost, and adds some flavor without giving away the store.

With all the splat-feats out there, and the better capabilities of PF classes, I'd look carefully at what players want, and allow feats on a case-by-case basis, looking at balance, and, most importantly, the fun factor.

If you don't like traits in your game, that's fine. As a player, I wouldn't mind one way or another.


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The knack raises your effective caster level but that does not make you a level 3 caster.

Your spells are more effective but you are still a level 1 caster. You do not get more spells just the ones you have are more effective. Two bolts out of magic missile but no invisibility.

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

Jabor wrote:
The point of traits is to give your character some, you know, character. A trait tells you about your character's backstory and, in the case of AP traits, ties you into the campaign world.

If you can't play a character as a character without being baited into it with free cheese, you're probably not at my table in the first place. A cookie-cutter backstory isn't going to improve matters; quite the opposite, it lets the roleplay-disinclined say "Look! I'm roleplaying!" without having to actually do so.

Beyond that, it's just power creep. I tend to run low-fantasy campaigns, which probably colors my view.

(On the flip side, I've never had a problem with Practiced Spellcaster.)


dulsin wrote:

The knack raises your effective caster level but that does not make you a level 3 caster.

Your spells are more effective but you are still a level 1 caster. You do not get more spells just the ones you have are more effective. Two bolts out of magic missile but no invisibility.

/agree


right. "Caster Level" is a common, crunch-specific term, and MANY ways exist to increase it, though besides the Feat mentioned, most of them tend to apply only to specific schools of magic, etc.
The fact they DIDN'T use "Caster Level 3" but instead said 3rd level Caster, I tend to think is intentional. And if you play lose with the distinction in this case, I'm not exactly sure where you would cut it off. Caster Level bonuses are SUPPOSED to be strictly constrained, not being "virtual" bonus Class Levels in Caster Classes. The character can pick up the Feat soon or later anyways, isn't Mage Armor available in the mean time?

Scarab Sages

Even if you allow it to count, is it really a big deal? This is Arcane Armor Training. It just reduces the penalty by 10%, which, unless you're using Leather Armor, still leaves a failure chance. A 1st level mage would be better off, mechanically speaking, just using Mage Armor (which, with that trait, would be for 3 hours). Buy a few scrolls of it and prosper. Much better than wasting a feat. Not to mention they have to spend a swift action to even gain the feat's benefit.

Personally, I think it's ok for counting. The feat isn't really a good one, and like I said, a 1st level mage is better off with spells to give him armor.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Magical Knack trait as a prerequisite All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.