| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I apologize if this answer already exists on the forum, but I have been searching with little success.
Is there an official ruling on the Magical Knack trait?
Does it increase the caster's number of spells per day?
I have a player who feels that it should, but to me that seems way overpowered for a trait. I think it increases "caster level" only not the actual "class level" - and so no additional spells per day.
From what I have seen on the boards, some agree people with me, while some others don't.
I can rule on it as the DM of course (and I will if I must), but I would feel better if I had an official answer to share with the player.
Thanks in advance for all of your responses.
I apologize if this answer already exists on the forum, but I have been searching with little success.
Is there an official ruling on the Magical Knack trait?
Does it increase the caster's number of spells per day?
I have a player who feels that it should, but to me that seems way overpowered for a trait. I think it increases "caster level" only not the actual "class level" - and so no additional spells per day.
From what I have seen on the boards, some agree people with me, while some others don't.
I can rule on it as the DM of course (and I will if I must), but I would feel better if I had an official answer to share with the player.
Thanks in advance for all of your responses.
The trait description states "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 increase your caster level higher than your current Hit Dice."
It cannot be much clearer in my opinion, since it explicitely states "caster level" and not "class level". So no, no bonus spells.
You know Sangalor I agree with you, it seems pretty obvious to me. But this is a player I respect and he has been playing RPG's as long as I have. So I was hoping to find a post from someone on the Paizo staff to show to him.
My understanding is that the Paizo staff does not usually comment on rules questions if the answer should be obvious - so perhaps I will not find the post I am seeking.
You know Sangalor I agree with you, it seems pretty obvious to me. But this is a player I respect and he has been playing RPG's as long as I have. So I was hoping to find a post from someone on the Paizo staff to show to him.
I understand your intentions. But if he is that experienced, he should also be able to read the entry and accept the - IMO - very clear wording of it.
My understanding is that the Paizo staff does not usually comment on rules questions if the answer should be obvious - so perhaps I will not find the post I am seeking.
That is what I would expect in this instance. But you never know, maybe you get lucky ;-)
|
From another thread-
This is an official response.The rules are clear.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but expecting someone on staff to give an "official" answer to your rules questions (1) is an unreasonable demand on our time needed to get books finished, and (2) sets a bad precedent that takes power away from the GM because "unless someone at Paizo says it, it's not the rule" becomes the rule.
The bolding is my emphasis.
Trust the wisdom of the crowds on this one. The trait says +2 to caster level. It says nothing about class level.
From another thread-
This is an official response.The rules are clear.
I appreciate your enthusiasm, but expecting someone on staff to give an "official" answer to your rules questions (1) is an unreasonable demand on our time needed to get books finished, and (2) sets a bad precedent that takes power away from the GM because "unless someone at Paizo says it, it's not the rule" becomes the rule.
The bolding is my emphasis.
Trust the wisdom of the crowds on this one. The trait says +2 to caster level. It says nothing about class level.
At this point I will make the ruling myself, that is the job of the GM/DM. My problem is that I try to think from both sides of the GM Screens.
As a player, when my DM makes ruling I disagree with - I may feel some small resentment. I might think - "he is just being overly conservative" or "he just got that one wrong". I don't make an issue of it, but inside I feel slighted. Having an official ruling would help.
I agree that Paizo should not comment on every rules question raised by the masses. But if there are many requests for clarification, then perhaps the rule is not as clear to some as it is to others. After a certain volume of requests, I think it might be worth providing an official answer.
After a certain volume of requests, I think it might be worth providing an official answer.
A) If there were that many requests why make a new thread instead of replying to one of the others?
B) If you are so long in the tooth gaming wise why would this trait function any differently than the Practiced Caster feat it is so similar to from the 3.5 books? Which only effects things like range, damage dice, durations? To be sure some old timers like yourself saw and dealt with that in 3.5 days right?
|
I agree that Paizo should not comment on every rules question raised by the masses. But if there are many requests for clarification, then perhaps the rule is not as clear to some as it is to others. After a certain volume of requests, I think it might be worth providing an official answer.
There is an option to flag a post for inclusion in the FAQ. If something really needs official explanation a bunch of people will click on that little FAQ flag and in theory at least it eventually gets addressed by the devs.
The answer to this particular question is pretty well known in the community because Caster Level is defined in the book and pretty well understood by the community so the official ruling is already there, you just needed to be pointed at it.
After a certain volume of requests, I think it might be worth providing an official answer.A) If there were that many requests why make a new thread instead of replying to one of the others?
B) If you are so long in the tooth gaming wise why would this trait function any differently than the Practiced Caster feat it is so similar to from the 3.5 books? Which only effects things like range, damage dice, durations? To be sure some old timers like yourself saw and dealt with that in 3.5 days right?
A) I had considered replying to one of the existing threads on this topic. I didn't because I did not find any that were more recent than March 2010. Perhaps I should have done so anyway.
B) That is a good point, but Practiced Caster did not come up often in our 3.5 days - I do not know why. It is mainly because this player is generally very reasonable and conservative that I have taken this approach. I am so surprised at his interpretation of this trait that it made me think I might have it wrong. Silly huh?
You know Sangalor I agree with you, it seems pretty obvious to me. But this is a player I respect and he has been playing RPG's as long as I have. So I was hoping to find a post from someone on the Paizo staff to show to him.
My understanding is that the Paizo staff does not usually comment on rules questions if the answer should be obvious - so perhaps I will not find the post I am seeking.
Quite frankly they've made the point here that these forums are not an avenue where they're going to take over the GM's responsibility to run their home games. Paizo's more than willing to to help in various areas of rules support. Social mechanics are your problem. :)
Ultimately I'll listen to a player but at some point I will make a ruling and that will be that. That's been the default assumption since the first publication of Chainmail and any GM should be willing to stick to that. Any player should learn to respect it.
My point is that GM and players are usually from the same group of players - in other words peers. So even though I am the GM, and my players respect that, I don't really know any more than they do - thus sometimes I cam be wrong.
It is mainly because this player is generally very reasonable and conservative that I have taken this approach. I am so surprised at his interpretation of this trait that it made me think I might have it wrong. Silly huh?
I have seen it played both ways. The change is very minimal, one or two extra spells a bit early, at the most, but balanced out by other levels with no extra spells gained, if memory serves me.
I don't see it as a game breaker or even over-powered. So, if your player is normally very reasonable and conservative, is there any harm in allowing their interpretation of the rule, even if you yourself call it a house rule?
|
|
One thing to remember is that traits are about as powerful as 1/2 feats. Is giving 2 class levels in the 1/2 feat power level?
Go back to Practiced Caster. That was a feat and gave 4 caster levels.
Tying it in to what LazarX said about using logic at a certain point brings us to the point where we can see that it is at its most logical to think that the trait only adds 2 caster levels.
Thank you for the input guys - it is appreciated. I have made the ruling and informed the player. I also pointed him to this thread.
In the future I will go with my instincts.