RD:
I think they are just being preemptive to make sure MC'ing and PrC'ing does not become like it was in 3.5.
If magical knack had no without limits, and then they realized it was a bad idea, so they errata'd it people would lose their minds, since taking things from people does not make them happy(monk thread is evidence). By never allowing it they are playing it safe, and if some options are too safe they can always remove restrictions later on.
After going through about a dozen of my offline characters, and realizing that I only needed to fix three, and that the changes to those three were actually very minor, I am beginning to come around to Mr. Jacob's ruling. Though I still don't share his interpretation by a strict reading of the RAW, I can understand them not wanting a trait to potentially be the best source of caster level increases in the game.
Several of my online build on these forums have probably been invalidated, however. That being said, I stand by my statement above. The only thing that might convince me that Paizo cares anythign at all for multiclassed characters and prestige classes is if they release come kind of patch, similar to what v3.5 did with feats like Ascetic Hunter/Knight/Mage/Rogue/Stalker, Daring Outlaw, Devoted Inquisitor/Performer/Tracker, Martial Stalker, Master Spellthief, Practiced Metamagic (but include Magical Knack's limitations), and Swift Ambusher/Hunter.
Who shat in your cereal this morning, LazarX?
RD, if you interpret "love for multi-classing" to return to the extremely broken state of multi-classing that existed in 3.5, you're doomed to dissapointment. And your online builds must have been extremely corner cases if the lost of one stinking caster level renders them all useless.
I meant invalidated as in "no longer accurate." That's not a good thing for any Rules Lawyer From Hell. It might damage my otherwise sterling reputation. :P
Also, who said anything about returning to v3,5? Please note that I'm only referring to a small part of v3.5, one that was hardly broken--don't dismiss me out of hand just because you've overly-generalized me into a previous editions munchkin fan boy.
What do you find to be so broken about the feats that I mentioned anyways? I'm just not seeing it. A few multi-classing friendly feats couldn't do anything but help Pathfinder be a better game.
|
One thing to remember is that answers from James aren't "this is official RAW stance and is to be taken as law". It's more of "this is how I run it in my games, feel free to agree/disagree". I think JJ would hate to see people cry over his suggestions, or use them to bludgeon others to death in a discussion.
There were instances of JJ's answers being in synch with "official" responses from Sean/Jason/Stephen, and there were times when JJ and Jason did contradict each other.
Of course, the problem is that RD can't go on without an official ruling in some cases. :)
Of course, the problem is that RD can't go on without an official ruling in some cases. :)
Sterling reputation and all that. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that using a trait to exceed the power of other straight-classed casters might be beyond what this 'half-feat' was intended for.
Let's not see Master Spellthief again.
Except it never at any point allows them to exceed the power of a full spellcaster (since single-classed casters can also benefit from the ioun stone). At best, it allows them to equal them.
Think about it, a 10th-level abjurer can have a CL of 12th with his adbjuration spells thanks to an orange prism ioun stone and the Varisian Tattoo feat. A 9th-level abjurer/2nd-level fighter with Additional Traits (Magical Knack), an orange prism ioun stone, AND Varisian Tattoo (by my interpretation at least) also has CL 12th, but can't even cast 5th-level spells--despite his greater investment.
If anything, that is quite a bit weaker, even when you account for some of his alternate class abilities (in this case, feats and a minor increase to base stats).
|
As I already pointed out, it is on par with the power of a feat, Spell penetration, for mixed class characters, if it will allow them to their CL above their character level when combined with other magic items or abilities.
And having a trait becoming as strong as a feat is clearly against the RAI and RAW (At its core, a character trait is approximately equal in power to half a feat,) of traits.
Unless you can justify why this trait should be as strong as a full feat for a mixed class character JJ opinion has a strong rule based foundation.
I was going to rant but I just decided to spoiler it and instead point out where denying the bonus leads.
By the logic preventing the stone from working, certain class abilities would be rendered useless by the magical knack trait.
This is from the Menhir Savant druid archetype in UM:
Place Magic (Su): At 2nd level, a menhir savant learns to identify and tap into ley lines in different types of terrain. As a free action, she can tap into the magic of a nearby ley line and increase her caster level by +1 for 1 round. She can use this ability a number of times per day equal to 3 + her Wisdom bonus. This ability replaces woodland stride and trackless step.
If JJ's reasoning were right, then a multiclass Menhir Savant (that has two or less levels outside of druid) who took magical knack now has an entirely useless class ability.
Does that seem right to anyone?
Rant:
Is there really so much wrong with a multiclass caster having a CL 1 higher than his level by spending a load of gold when a full level caster can get the same 1 level higher by spending that same amount? The non-caster levels still lose spells per day and spell levels (and spells known for spontaneous casters), class feature progression, and probably even require the character to have a lower primary casting stat due to a presumably more spread out focus.
So what the Sorcerer8/Fighter2 with magical knack and the stone's flaming spheres are going to last 11 rounds just like the Sorcerer10 with the same stone? Your highest level spells are fourth and his highest level spells are fifth. If it was entire spellcasting progression, this would all be a different story, but its not. The biggest buff is in overcoming spell resistance, but the full caster is benefiting just as much but with higher level spells.
It seems to me like the full caster is getting just as much if not more of a buff out of the ioun stone than the 2 away from full caster with magical knack. If that is the case, then what is the deal here? The full caster is still a better caster than the near full caster. It almost feels like the real problem here is either with magical knack alone or the orange ioun stone alone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The class ability is not what is turned off. The trait is what is turned off.
It is not right or wrong though, it just is. Considering that traits are supposed to be very limited in power it makes sense though. A +2 to caster level is as good as a feat if it has no cap.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing that concerns me about the ruling is that it is an item being rendered moot by an aspect of the character. "This item fails to improve your spellcasting abilities because you were raised by a magical being and already have an improved aptitude for dabbling in spellcasting" seems a little odd to me.
I can totally accept it however for non-item sources of increases to caster level, in the sense that "you don't gain any new insights from this feat/ability that you didn't already have from your childhood".
That is the fluff. The mechanics is entirely different. Fluff is mutable. The trait could be called Magical Prodigy, and the fluff could be:
You have a unique ability to grasp things beyond your means in the realm of magic even when you lapse in your devotion to it.
The "lapse in devotion" would be multiclassing of course.
By that fluff the trait only fills in gaps that may be available, which is mechanically what it is doing anyway.
That is the fluff. The mechanics is entirely different. Fluff is mutable. The trait could be called Magical Prodigy, and the fluff could be:
You have a unique ability to grasp things beyond your means in the realm of magic even when you lapse in your devotion to it.
The "lapse in devotion" would be multiclassing of course.
By that fluff the trait only fills in gaps that may be available, which is mechanically what it is doing anyway.
That fluff still doesn't explain why the character would be able to tap into ley lines with Place Magic, and use an ioun stone, and stay at exactly the same level of power.
That fluff still doesn't explain why the character would be able to tap into ley lines with Place Magic, and use an ioun stone, and stay at exactly the same level of power.That is the fluff. The mechanics is entirely different. Fluff is mutable. The trait could be called Magical Prodigy, and the fluff could be:
You have a unique ability to grasp things beyond your means in the realm of magic even when you lapse in your devotion to it.
The "lapse in devotion" would be multiclassing of course.
By that fluff the trait only fills in gaps that may be available, which is mechanically what it is doing anyway.
You have a unique ability to reach within yourself and push your spellcasting to higher limits when all other means have been exhausted.
edit:"Spellcasting" is probably not the best word to use, but I think the general point is there this time.
That fluff still doesn't explain why the character would be able to tap into ley lines with Place Magic, and use an ioun stone, and stay at exactly the same level of power.That is the fluff. The mechanics is entirely different. Fluff is mutable. The trait could be called Magical Prodigy, and the fluff could be:
You have a unique ability to grasp things beyond your means in the realm of magic even when you lapse in your devotion to it.
The "lapse in devotion" would be multiclassing of course.
By that fluff the trait only fills in gaps that may be available, which is mechanically what it is doing anyway.You have a unique ability to reach within yourself and push your spellcasting to higher limits when all other means have been exhausted.
edit:"Spellcasting" is probably not the best word to use, but I think the general point is there this time.
That fluff is better, but it sounds more like a "Do X one more time" ability than a constant boost. After all, at 2nd level (when it first matters), it's unlikely there have been any other means to have been exhausted....
|
The class ability is not what is turned off. The trait is what is turned off.
It is not right or wrong though, it just is. Considering that traits are supposed to be very limited in power it makes sense though. A +2 to caster level is as good as a feat if it has no cap.
This gets at the real problem, which is that this particular knack has become a must-have if you want to play a multi-classed caster. It *is* as good as a feat for that kind of character.
There needs to be a feat which does the same sort of thing. As long as it only increases your base CL to your character level, without affecting Spell Slots or Spells Known, it shouldn't be overpowered.
I know that there is a 3rd Party Feat which gives +4 to your CL (a reasonable extrapolation if a trait = half a feat) because my GM handed it to me when I told him I was making an Arcane Trickster.
The more accurate response might be that RD is going to keep making new threads on this, until he gets the response from a Dev that he wants. He already got an answer from Mr. Jacobs, but it wasn't the one he wanted to read.Of course, the problem is that RD can't go on without an official ruling in some cases. :)Sterling reputation and all that. ;)
I was under the impression that JJ himself did not want his rules answers to be considered the "official ruling." I think they at most provide an insightful interpretation from a developer and player of the game who knows in general what is most likely the best way for a GM to rule this trait/item combo as they are worded. To me, his answer seems to come from what is essentially a very well-versed GM's perspective.
I don't think his answer is necessarily meant to describe how the rule should be interpreted from a position of developer intent, or even from a game design perspective. Those sorts of answers would seem perhaps a little too intensive for the scope of the thread from which it came, unless he was actually the one who authored the rule himself.
That fluff is better, but it sounds more like a "Do X one more time" ability than a constant boost. After all, at 2nd level (when it first matters), it's unlikely there have been any other means to have been exhausted....That fluff still doesn't explain why the character would be able to tap into ley lines with Place Magic, and use an ioun stone, and stay at exactly the same level of power.That is the fluff. The mechanics is entirely different. Fluff is mutable. The trait could be called Magical Prodigy, and the fluff could be:
You have a unique ability to grasp things beyond your means in the realm of magic even when you lapse in your devotion to it.
The "lapse in devotion" would be multiclassing of course.
By that fluff the trait only fills in gaps that may be available, which is mechanically what it is doing anyway.You have a unique ability to reach within yourself and push your spellcasting to higher limits when all other means have been exhausted.
edit:"Spellcasting" is probably not the best word to use, but I think the general point is there this time.
Any current means would have been exhausted. :)
The most literal meaning would mean every possible conceived option. I am sure even the fluff of many things in the book can be nitpicked if someone really tries hard enough.
The class ability is not what is turned off. The trait is what is turned off.
It is not right or wrong though, it just is. Considering that traits are supposed to be very limited in power it makes sense though. A +2 to caster level is as good as a feat if it has no cap.
This gets at the real problem, which is that this particular knack has become a must-have if you want to play a multi-classed caster. It *is* as good as a feat for that kind of character.
There needs to be a feat which does the same sort of thing. As long as it only increases your base CL to your character level, without affecting Spell Slots or Spells Known, it shouldn't be overpowered.
I know that there is a 3rd Party Feat which gives +4 to your CL (a reasonable extrapolation if a trait = half a feat) because my GM handed it to me when I told him I was making an Arcane Trickster.
He might have given you the 3.5 feat that did the same thing. I can't remember the name though. I think if this were a feat it would be a +4 also.
Sometimes he tells us what the thinks the rules are, and sometimes he say "how he would do it". He is normally specific though so there is no confusion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that you can get rid of an ioun stone; you can't get rid of a trait and traits are usually chosen at the beginning of the game before you know what you're going to get. If two characters, one a wizard 9 and one a wizard 7/fighter 2 find a pair of orange ioun stones, it would be pretty balls for the pure wizard to be able to boost up his CL beyond his level but the multiclass character to get nothing out of it.
This is clearly an anti-multiclass perspective. You're punishing those who are trying to mix it up. Quit being racist against half-elves...
If two characters, one a wizard 9 and one a wizard 7/fighter 2 find a pair of orange ioun stones, it would be pretty balls for the pure wizard to be able to boost up his CL beyond his level but the multiclass character to get nothing out of it.
My thoughts exactly.
Caster Level isn't the primary concern obviously, but that doesn't mean you have to take it and throw it on the ground.
A player decides that they want to add a little diversity, is a whole level of spells obtainable, spells per day, familiar, class abilities, domain, channeling, etc behind so that they can broaden their abilities and for some reason so you decide that you have to mitigate their bonus to caster levels so that not even their level-behind spells can have an extra oomph. It's not even like CL from different classes stack.
I don't see other traits arbitrarily stop working just because you gain an item. I don't see the attack bonus from a trait disappearing when you get a masterwork weapon. I don't see trait bonuses to skills disappearing because a wondrous item grants bonuses to the same skill.
There's a lack of consistency in-game (Two people of equal wizard CL pick up the same item, item works for one character, doesn't work for the other and the reason it doesn't work is ultimately metagamey), it doesn't do anything balance the game other than punish a multiclassed caster.
The trait does not stop working. It is doing its job, which is to make sure you have CL equal to your HD. In short it is kind of like overdraft for a bank account. It kicks in when there is a void to meet the CL=HD, but only covers you for up to +2. I am not seeing the issue.
Just wanted to say again how the whole "they don't stack" thing sucks.