Magical Knack & Varisian Tattoo

[ZanThrax]

Does a caster whose caster level is two lower than his character level gain any benefit from Varisian Tattoo (beyond the SLA) if he also has Magical Knack?

[Bigdaddyjug]

Yes because Varieian Tattoo doesn't raise your actual caster level, it just raises the level the spells are cast at. It's the same reason treats like Magical Lineage work.

[Zark]

Varieian Tattoo does raise your actual caster level in chosen school of magic, but it does not raise your class level.

ZanThrax@ Short answer: yes, but your GM might say no.

[pH unbalanced]

RAW: No, it doesn't. You have to add the caster levels in the *least* advantageous order. There's a quote around here somewhere from one of the devs that states that.

Personally, that's not how I would rule it -- I would allow them to stack in the *most* advantageous combination. But that's not how the ruling went.

[Samasboy1]

pH unbalanced wrote:

RAW: No, it doesn't. You have to add the caster levels in the *least* advantageous order. There's a quote around here somewhere from one of the devs that states that.

Anyone have a link for this. I would be interested in seeing what they said.

[pH unbalanced]

Samasboy1 wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

RAW: No, it doesn't. You have to add the caster levels in the *least* advantageous order. There's a quote around here somewhere from one of the devs that states that.

Anyone have a link for this. I would be interested in seeing what they said.

Found it. This is an earlier thread on the subject, and this post is quoting James Jacobs.

[Bigdaddyjug]

If you couldn't cast spells at a higher level than your HD, my level 1 wizard with Spell Specialization (burning hands) would only do 1d4 damage instead of the 3d4 he actually does.

[Samasboy1]

pH unbalanced wrote:

Found it. This is an earlier thread on the subject, and this post is quoting James Jacobs.

Thanks. Its unfortunate that he doesn't link to James actually posting that. I don't think I agree that such a rule exists, but it is food for thought.

[Zark]

pH unbalanced wrote:

Samasboy1 wrote:

pH unbalanced wrote:

RAW: No, it doesn't. You have to add the caster levels in the *least* advantageous order. There's a quote around here somewhere from one of the devs that states that.

Anyone have a link for this. I would be interested in seeing what they said.

Found it. This is an earlier thread on the subject, and this post is quoting James Jacobs.

Yep, you are right. You have to add the caster levels in the least advantageous order, so no benefit.

Although if I’d GM I would let them benefit.

@pH unbalanced: Good Catch and thanks for the link :)

[mdt]

Actually, not a good catch, sorry.

The actual post is Here. This is JJ's 'Ask me anything' thread, which he has stated MULTIPLE times involves ONLY his own 'how would I do it in my game', not official rules. He's actually quite annoyed by people using his posts as 'how this works'.

[James Risner]

mdt wrote:

This is JJ's 'Ask me anything' thread

I think he says "this is how I run it" because despite being very good with rules, people reject his rules interpretations.

Magical Knack (MK) says:
"as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice."

MK will detect if it's contribution is making you above HD and shut off.
I don't see any valid way to read RAW other than this way.

[ShadowcatX]

IIRC: In 3.5 caster levels were added in the way that most benefited the character. I don't believe Pathfinder has any actual RAW on the issue.

[James Risner]

ShadowcatX wrote:

IIRC: In 3.5 caster levels were added in the way that most benefited the character. I don't believe Pathfinder has any actual RAW on the issue.

Where there any "as long as" qualifiers in 3.5 CL improving feats/abilities?

[mdt]

James Risner wrote:

mdt wrote:

This is JJ's 'Ask me anything' thread

I think he says "this is how I run it" because despite being very good with rules, people reject his rules interpretations.

Magical Knack (MK) says:
"as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice."

MK will detect if it's contribution is making you above HD and shut off.
I don't see any valid way to read RAW other than this way.

I am not arguing one way or the other on MK.

I agree it's probably correct as you state.

I am however pointing out that JJ has said before his posts (especially in that thread) are not to be considered or quoted as 'official rules', only how he runs it in his games.

Is there anything in accurate in that statement?

[ShadowcatX]

James Risner wrote:

ShadowcatX wrote:

IIRC: In 3.5 caster levels were added in the way that most benefited the character. I don't believe Pathfinder has any actual RAW on the issue.

Where there any "as long as" qualifiers in 3.5 CL improving feats/abilities?

Yes. Practiced caster was +4 levels not to exceed your hit dice.

[mdt]

I wish I could find it, but there was a PDT or SKR post about things being applied in the order most beneficial for a character, or in the order they chose.

If that's the case, then the trait would be first.

[James Risner]

mdt wrote:

Is there anything in accurate in that statement?

It is accurate he has said so, but that is because of some perception that he isn't a rules guy. While it is true he isn't part of the core PDT, he has written a number of chunks of rules (Alchemist in particular) and his take on the rules are often correct.

In a perfect world, we would take statements from him if we don't have anything from the official PDT and give it some weight.

[mdt]

James Risner wrote:

mdt wrote:

Is there anything in accurate in that statement?

It is accurate he has said so, but that is because of some perception that he isn't a rules guy. While it is true he isn't part of the core PDT, he has written a number of chunks of rules (Alchemist in particular) and his take on the rules are often correct.

In a perfect world, we would take statements from him if we don't have anything from the official PDT and give it some weight.

I will repeat.

He has posted several times requesting that his comments be treated as personal opinion when it comes to rules. And that PDT is the source.

Wehther you like that or not, it's his request.

[James Risner]

mdt wrote:

Wehther you like that or not, it's his request.

You missed my point. The only reasons he says that is if it makes people happier to disregard his opinion, he won't stop them and he tries to not let it hurt his feelings. But I'm sure it does anyway.

Link to him talking about it.

[ZanThrax]

Surely there have been situations in the past where JJ's comments have been the closest thing to an official ruling we have; does PFS usually follow his comments? I've really become enamoured of my Mysterious Stranger / Tattooed Sorcerer / Eldritch Knight but I don't know that I'll actually bother playing him if his Tattoo is going to go entirely to waste.

[James Risner]

ZanThrax wrote:

does PFS usually follow his comments?

him if his Tattoo is going to go entirely to waste.

I think you will find it a hard task to find a PFS GM who doesn't follow a JJ rules quote. Especially if you consider that we PFS GM's are required to follow the rules. If you have an official response from a Paizo employee who took the time to give us his opinion on a rule, his opinion holds some weight.

Magical Knack is the problem, not the Tattoo. It shuts itself off (very explicitly) if it discovers at any point your CL is greater than Character Level.

If it didn't there would be absolutely no complaint against a single classed Wizard taking it to exceed Character Level.

[ShadowcatX]

Xan, I do not believe that PFS follows JJ's comments. I think they're only supposed to follow the rulings of the design team and Mike Brock.

And yes, sometimes JJ's comments have been the closest thing to a ruling we've had. And sometimes he's right and sometimes he's not.

[Bigdaddyjug]

You guys are missing the clear difference between the wording "raises your caster level" and "increases the level at which you cast XXX". They do not do the same thing.

[ShadowcatX]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

You guys are missing the clear difference between the wording "raises your caster level" and "increases the level at which you cast XXX". They do not do the same thing.

Mage's Tattoo:

Quote:

+1 caster level

Magical Knack:

Quote:

your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus

Not seeing a difference.

[Bigdaddyjug]

Mage's Tattoo said wrote:

Select a school of magic (other than divination) in which you have Spell Focus—you cast spells from this school at +1 caster level.

Nothing there about actually raising your caster level that I can see, just that you cast spells from a certain school at a higher caster level.

Spell specialization works the same way, except it only applies to 1 spell and you cast it at CL +2.

[James Risner]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Nothing there about actually raising your caster level that I can see

I can't tell which side you are advocating. Either way, Magical Knack should shut itself off if the caster level ever would exceed Character Level.

[ZanThrax]

Well following a link from the Ask JJ thread, I found a previous Rules Question thread that was marked "no response required". So I guess that multiclass casters just get to suck. Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, and any other feats that boost caster level in a narrow focus simply do nothing for a multiclassed caster who has the Magical Knack trait.

Too bad; I quite liked the idea of a tattooed gunslinger with a scorpion tat that moved around.

[James Risner]

ZanThrax wrote:

multiclass casters just get to suck.

Well that is a totally different thing ;-)

If (when?) they make more feats that do what you want, you can take advantage.

But also consider the Orange Ioun Stone and Otherworldly Kimono. They give a very good boost.

[ZanThrax]

The Orange Ioun Stone would be a waste of money, much as the Varisian Tattoo feat is wasted on a multiclass sorcerer.

And really, if they ever do create a "Magical Knack x2" feat, I expect it will have the same wording that breaks all the narrow focus caster level boosts.

[Bigdaddyjug]

James Risner wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

Nothing there about actually raising your caster level that I can see

I can't tell which side you are advocating. Either way, Magical Knack should shut itself off if the caster level ever would exceed Character Level.

I am advocating that Mage's Tattoo would allow you to cast spells at a higher caster level than your HD because it doesn't actually raise your caster level.

So in the OP's example of a character with CL of HD-2, if that character had Magical Knack and Varisian Tattoo (evocation), that character's evocation spells would be cast at HD+1.

[Victor Zajic]

so you are advocating that +1 caster level does not raise your caster level?

How would you propose that something that does raise your caster level be worded?

Because I have to be honest, your argument makes no coherent logical sense to me. Could you provide some examples in the rules of it working that way?

[Bigdaddyjug]

Victor Zajic wrote:

so you are advocating that +1 caster level does not raise your caster level?

How would you propose that something that does raise your caster level be worded?

Because I have to be honest, your argument makes no coherent logical sense to me. Could you provide some examples in the rules of it working that way?

Nothing in the language of Varisian Tattoo says it raises your caster level. It says you cast spells of a certain school at a higher level. Your overall caster level does not change. Show me in the language of the feat where your overall caster level goes up and I'll agree with you.

Something that does raise your overall caster level would be worded just like Magical Knack is worded.

[Clectabled]

As copied from the Rise of the Runelords Players guide

Players guide wrote:

Varisian Tattoo
You bear intricate tattoos which inspire and empower your natural magical ability. These tattoos mark you as a worker of the ancient
traditions of Varisian magic.
Prerequisite: Spell Focus in matching school.

Benefit: Select a school of magic other than divination in which you have Spell Focus—you cast spells from this school at +1 caster level.

Additionally, you can cast a single cantrip as a spelllike ability a number of times per day equal to your Constitution modifier (minimum 1/day, caster level equals Hit Dice, save DC is Charisma- based). The spell-like ability gained (and its Varisian name) are as follows:

Abjuration: Resistance.
Conjuration: Acid splash.
Enchantment: Daze.
Evocation: Dancing lights.
Illusion: Ghost sound.
Necromancy: Touch of fatigue.
Transmutation: Mage hand.
A Varisian tattoo typically consists of a long string of characters in Thassilonian, the language found on the ancient monuments of the land. Most are quite complex, running the entire length of an arm or leg.

So the language "Select a school of magic other than divination in which you have Spell Focus—you cast spells from this school at +1 caster level" I feel does at least imply you get a +1 CL for any spell you have the Spell Focus feat in...

[Bigdaddyjug]

It says you cast the spells at +1 level, not that it raises your caster level. I know it's splitting hairs, but they could have worded it to say it raises your caster level but didn't. Why didn't they?

[James Risner]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

they could have worded it to say it raises your caster level but didn't. Why didn't they?

I think they did, you think there is a lot to make out of a very minor restating of the same thing.

[Lifat]

Honestly I fought long and hard for the Magical knack thing, although in a slightly different discussion, about which order to apply the bonuses.
I was very nitpicky about the discussion because people kept restating their own ideas of how it was supposed to work (including me). Technically speaking there is NO RAW on the subject of order, but James Jacobs has stated how it is supposed to work. (LEAST favorable order).

I get that you are trying a slightly different approach here, and technically speaking if you are being extremely litterary I believe that you are right. But seeing as there still are no specific RAW (either in the books or the FAQ), you could justify it simply by going with the order arguement. I would point out that if you accept James Jacobs post about it, then the spirit of the rule is that the two do NOT stack (unless you don't go over HD of course)!

Basically what I am trying to say: If you want help to convince a GM, I think you are out of luck. If you want a ruling aka get into a FAQ, then I also think you are out of luck. This subject has been discussed extensively and we still have had no word on the matter in a FAQ.

Personally speaking I do believe that if it ever gets FAQed, then it will be judged as order of LEAST favorable. And I also believe that Varisian Tattoo will be judged to be a CL bonus.

I would however knowingly go against RAW and RAI here and create a houserule that allowed them to stack (in order of MOST favorable). I don't think it is terribly gamebreaking.

[Bigdaddyjug]

James Risner wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

they could have worded it to say it raises your caster level but didn't. Why didn't they?

I think they did, you think there is a lot to make out of a very minor restating of the same thing.

Well, we will just have to disagree just like we seem to be doing about everything else lately.

[Clectabled]

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

James Risner wrote:

Bigdaddyjug wrote:

they could have worded it to say it raises your caster level but didn't. Why didn't they?

I think they did, you think there is a lot to make out of a very minor restating of the same thing.

Well, we will just have to disagree just like we seem to be doing about everything else lately.

I am pretty sure that the phrase cast spells at +1 Caster level really implies that the spells in question are cast at +1 caster level. ( and that is cut and paste from the PDF of the original AP, not from a website.)

The quote does not say "cast the spells at +1 level" It says "you cast spells from this school at +1 caster level."

Thats pretty clear.. Spells is question +1 Caster level...

Not sure how you are reading this different Bigdaddyjug.

[Clectabled]

Lifat wrote:

Honestly I fought long and hard for the Magical knack thing, although in a slightly different discussion, about which order to apply the bonuses.

I was very nitpicky about the discussion because people kept restating their own ideas of how it was supposed to work (including me). Technically speaking there is NO RAW on the subject of order, but James Jacobs has stated how it is supposed to work. (LEAST favorable order).

I get that you are trying a slightly different approach here, and technically speaking if you are being extremely litterary I believe that you are right. But seeing as there still are no specific RAW (either in the books or the FAQ), you could justify it simply by going with the order arguement. I would point out that if you accept James Jacobs post about it, then the spirit of the rule is that the two do NOT stack (unless you don't go over HD of course)!

Basically what I am trying to say: If you want help to convince a GM, I think you are out of luck. If you want a ruling aka get into a FAQ, then I also think you are out of luck. This subject has been discussed extensively and we still have had no word on the matter in a FAQ.

Personally speaking I do believe that if it ever gets FAQed, then it will be judged as order of LEAST favorable. And I also believe that Varisian Tattoo will be judged to be a CL bonus.

I would however knowingly go against RAW and RAI here and create a houserule that allowed them to stack (in order of MOST favorable). I don't think it is terribly gamebreaking.

Dude, I followed the other thread and I think you are expecting too much from a trait (which is supposed to be half the power of a feat).

Truth be told it's probably overpowered if it has the same text but reads +1 caster level. That you get a +2 caster level as a trait bonus, is simply awesome and it's a pretty minor flaw that it wont stack above you HD. Note it will STILL stack with other bonuses, just not above your HD.

Varisian Tatto is a CL bonus and pretty clearly states it in the text of the trait.. +1 Caster level ( believe it or not) equates to a +1 caster level.. I can pretty much go out on a limb here and say that's the way it was not only is written, but was intended to work.