|
1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
|
Is magical knack legal in PFS? And if so, how does it work with Feats that raise the caster level of certain spells like Mage's Tattoo and Spell Specialization? If I have a level of non-wizard and 1 level of wizard (2HD), Spell Specialization Burning hands and a mage's tattoo for Evocation, is my burning hands a level 5 caster level spell or just level 4? I assume all other spells that are not evocation would be caster level 2, but shouldn't evocation spells be caster level 3 for the wizard with burning hands caster level 5?
Thanks, I know this might get messy :)
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Step 1: Determine the source for "Magical Knack". When I looked it up, it seems to come from Ultimate Campaign.
Step 2: Go to the PFS document titled Additional Resources. Find the source from step 1 within the document.
Step 3: Read what it says. In this case:
Step 4: If what you found states that what you want to use is legal for PFS play, be sure you own a legal copy of said resource.
However, under no circumstances can Magical Knack be part of any calculation that raises your caster level above your hit dice.
Vincent The Dark wrote: Is magical knack legal in PFS? You may wish to verify Additional Resources page to make sure it is legal.
If legal, it says "as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice" which makes it turn itself off if it contributes to exceeding your HD.
SlimGauge wrote: Step 1: Determine the source for "Magical Knack". When I looked it up, it seems to come from Ultimate Campaign.
Step 2: Go to the PFS document titled Additional Resources. Find the source from step 1 within the document.
Step 3: Read what it says. In this case: ** spoiler omitted **
Step 4: If what you found states that what you want to use is legal for PFS play, be sure you own a legal copy of said resource.
However, under no circumstances can Magical Knack be part of any calculation that raises your caster level above your hit dice.
Bolding is mine.
Why not? If magical knack is applied first then in the example his caster level is raised to 2 instead of one. Then mage's tattoo is applied (notice that this feat does not have HD limitation). Spell Spezialisation is then added aswell (Notice that this feat does not have HD limit)...
I guess it depends on which effect is applied first. I'd say that by RAW original posters assumptions are correct. If I am incorrect in assuming that you choose which effect applies first then by all means show me a quote from the rules.
Lifat wrote: If I am incorrect in assuming that you choose which effect applies first then by all means show me a quote from the rules. Order doesn't matter, if the bonus provided by Magical Knack (regardless of order of application) it will shut down itself.
James Risner wrote: Lifat wrote: If I am incorrect in assuming that you choose which effect applies first then by all means show me a quote from the rules. Order doesn't matter, if the bonus provided by Magical Knack (regardless of order of application) it will shut down itself. Are you sure that it doesn't matter. I've looked and I can't seem to find any place in the rules that says anything about this. Unless a specific rule exists that states that the order of the bonus doesn't matter, then I believe people would be fully within their right to assume you can assign the order yourself, and then magical knack would stack. Also I don't think the combination is powerful considering the resources put into it.
Lifat wrote: Are you sure that it doesn't matter. There is no concept or order in Pathfinder.
The only way you get it to stack is to think of some way to ignore a direct rule of Magical Knack.
So unless you ignore the rules, you can't make it work the way you want.
James Risner wrote: Lifat wrote: Are you sure that it doesn't matter. There is no concept or order in Pathfinder.
The only way you get it to stack is to think of some way to ignore a direct rule of Magical Knack.
So unless you ignore the rules, you can't make it work the way you want. Again. If the rules don't specifically state in what order things are added together, then how do you know that they are all added together at once? Isn't it an assumption on your part that they are all added together at once if nothing has ever been stated in the rules?
I know that in 3.5 you could get it to work. For an example practiced spellcaster added +4 CL up to your HD and if you had other CL bonuses they stacked AFTER practiced spellcaster. So why are you suddenly assuming pathfinder changed this, if nothing has been stated in the rules?
It doesn't matter what the order is, because after you apply everything, your CL is higher than your HD, and Magical Knack helped put it there. And that's against the rules of Magical Knack.
RainyDayNinja wrote: It doesn't matter what the order is, because after you apply everything, your CL is higher than your HD, and Magical Knack helped put it there. And that's against the rules of Magical Knack. That assumes a specific order of adding. If you apply Magical knack FIRST, then the bonus from the trait DOESN'T raise the CL higher than HD. THEN you apply the rest of the bonuses that aren't limited by HD.
I did give an example, granted from 3.5, that works exactly like magical knack.
The trait doesn't say "if it is part of raising the CL above HD in any way then it doesn't work." It says "As long as this bonus doesn't"
No. The order doesn't matter. Once you apply the bonuses in whatever order you want, you still end up with a CL higher than your HD, and Magical Knack is part of how it got that high. It has absolutely nothing to do with the order. So it doesn't work.
Can you show me a rule that says you only have to worry about a trait's limitations when you first apply it?
RainyDayNinja wrote: No. The order doesn't matter. Once you apply the bonuses in whatever order you want, you still end up with a CL higher than your HD, and Magical Knack is part of how it got that high. It has absolutely nothing to do with the order. So it doesn't work.
Can you show me a rule that says you only have to worry about a trait's limitations when you first apply it?
I cannot show you a rule that says that. Can you show me a rule that supports your position? Because if you can't, then what makes your assumption better than mine?
I at least have how 3.5 handled this question backing my position. I know that this isn't proof of RAW for pathfinder, but when two positions lack any support from the pathfinder rules, I find it weird that you think your position is better than the other, especially when the other position is backed by the previous edition.
In the Op's example, Magical Knack is already increasing his CL beyond his HD just by itself. In his example, evocation spells would have a CL of 2 and whichever spell Spell Specialization was affecting would be cast at CL4.
In the OPs example he only adds +1 CL from magical knack and THEN adds the two other bonuses to CLs that don't have a HD limitation. This is how it would have worked in 3.5 edition.
If he later added another non spellcaster level, he could get the full bonus of magical knack. Of course his example does require the assumption that you choose the order of the bonuses applying in pathfinder.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Nothing in the Pathfinder rules explains what order to apply bonuses in, or even that the order matters. So if your interpretation depends on applying the bonuses in a certain order, then it's not supported by the rules.
Let me use an analogy. Suppose you're trying to lose weight, and your dietician tells you that you can have a bowl of ice cream, as long as it doesn't put you over 2000 calories for the day. When you report back, she asks you about what you ate.
Dietician: Did you have any ice cream today?
You: Yes, I had a bowl.
Dietician: So how many calories total did you eat today?
You: 2300
Dietician: But that's over the limit! I said you could only have ice cream if it didn't put you over 2000 calories.
You: It's OK. I had the ice cream for breakfast!
Cute example but that has nothing to do with the rules at all. And my assumption is just as supported by the rules as yours is.
Your interpretation depends on two rules (that you can choose the order you apply your bouses, and that you only have to look at the limitations when you first apply the bonus) that do not appear in any Pathfinder rulebook. When your position requires that you make up new rules to support it, you can't honestly say that it's supported by the rules. You may want to check out the Houserules/Homebrew forum instead if that's how you want to run it.
And your interpretation requires that they DON'T work as I said, which you cannot find any support for EITHER!
The difference between us is that you are saying that I am wrong by RAW, and I am saying that our positions hold equal sway by RAW because neither are supported. Granted I did push for it being in my favor by saying that it is how it worked in the edition this edition was built on, but also admitted that it wasn't enough to claim that mine was the correct one.
The difference between our positions is that mine doesn't require inventing additional rules to work. That means they do not hold equal sway by the rules as written.
So there is a rule that states that they are all added together at once? Please point me to that rule, because if it exists then you are right.
You may have pointed out that the magical knack cannot go beyond the HD limit, and I agree that is what is stated in the trait. It does NOT state what happens when combined with other similar abilities. In fact it simply states that "As long as THIS bonus doesn't raise CL above HD..." The emphasis on "this" is mine, to show how you could read that line.
As there are no rules to govern this by RAW, your interpretation needs the inventing of rules just as much as mine!
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lifat wrote: And your interpretation requires that they DON'T work as I said, which you cannot find any support for EITHER!
The difference between us is that you are saying that I am wrong by RAW, and I am saying that our positions hold equal sway by RAW because neither are supported. Granted I did push for it being in my favor by saying that it is how it worked in the edition this edition was built on, but also admitted that it wasn't enough to claim that mine was the correct one.
The problem is that in order for it to work like you say, you need to show where the rules allow you to do so. Pathfinder rules say what you are allowed to do. They don't list everything you aren't allowed to do. So RainyDayNinja saying "the rules you want to use don't exist" is an effective counter to your arguement, and he doesn't need to provide a rules citation. The burden of rules proof is on you, and you've completely failed to meet said burden.
|
2 people marked this as a favorite.
|
Victor Zajic wrote: Lifat wrote: And your interpretation requires that they DON'T work as I said, which you cannot find any support for EITHER!
The difference between us is that you are saying that I am wrong by RAW, and I am saying that our positions hold equal sway by RAW because neither are supported. Granted I did push for it being in my favor by saying that it is how it worked in the edition this edition was built on, but also admitted that it wasn't enough to claim that mine was the correct one.
The problem is that in order for it to work like you say, you need to show where the rules allow you to do so. Pathfinder rules say what you are allowed to do. They don't list everything you aren't allowed to do. So RainyDayNinja saying "the rules you want to use don't exist" is an effective counter to your arguement, and he doesn't need to provide a rules citation. The burden of rules proof is on you, and you've completely failed to meet said burden. I am not claiming that I am the correct one! This is very important when considering burden of proof! When you are saying someone is incorrect then you need to prove it by quoting rules either from the books or from the FAQ. He is the one claiming that I am incorrect. I am claiming that when no rules exist to govern it, we can't KNOW who is right.
BigNorseWolf wrote: Lifat
No.
You know that.
I'm sorry I don't understand this post.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
Your CL is recalculated each time you need it. It can vary due to factors that only affect a particular school of spells or one particular spell or that depend on the phase of the moon.
When you recalculate CL, if MK would cause the result of the calculation to exceed your HD, you may not include it in the calculation. There is no "order" or rather, the order you sum the factors in is irrelevant, because it is the final total that you check against, not any intermediate results. FAQ it if you want, but you'll get a "no faq required" response, if you get one at all.
SlimGauge wrote: Your CL is recalculated each time you need it. It can vary due to factors that only affect a particular school of spells or one particular spell or that depend on the phase of the moon.
When you recalculate CL, if MK would cause the result of the calculation to exceed your HD, you may not include it in the calculation. There is no "order" or rather, the order you sum the factors in is irrelevant, because it is the final total that you check against, not any intermediate results. FAQ it if you want, but you'll get a "no faq required" response, if you get one at all.
These are all assumptions on your part. At least they are untill you show me the rule to back you up.
Lifat wrote: I know that in 3.5 you could get it to work. You presume I agree with that, I don't.
Lifat wrote: RainyDayNinja wrote: No. The order doesn't matter. Once you apply I cannot show you a rule that says that. Can you show me a rule that supports your position? Magical Knack wrote: 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 raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice. Consider yourself shown.
Lifat wrote: BigNorseWolf wrote: Lifat
No.
You know that.
I'm sorry I don't understand this post. He probably means that you probably know this isn't allow but are employing the "it doesn't say I can't" defense. It is a good defense, because no one can show you a rule written "Core p745: Lifat can't employ order to defeat rules as written."
Your position isn't defensible in the rules, because no matter what you do Magical Knack has a rule that prevents it from working.
Think of it this way. We have a Wizard1/Fighter1If the he has Varisian Tattoo(Illusion) than he's casting Illusions as a 2nd level caster. If he has Magical Knack instead, he's casting them as a 1st level caster.
With both, which one puts him over his hit dice in caster level? Here's a hint: it's not Varisian Tattoo.
Throw away your assumptions for just one second. Imagine that when you add bonuses you do it in the order of your choosing. With what the original poster wanted in his example, I would start by adding magical knack. But his total HD is only 2 and he already have 1 CL from his class(es). Therefor I only get to add +1 from Magical knack because I cannot break the HD limit on the trait. Now I have used Magical knack. I then proceed to add the two other CL increasing feats I have, so now my CL is 5, because the feats granted me +3 CL.
Now. We all know that the rules have no rules governing how to add bonuses, if they are added in turn of when your character acquired them or you get to choose how to add them or if it works as most of you say it does, where there are no order, but rather a collection of bonuses added at once.
Tell me again, considering you cannot show me a rule that supports your interpretation of how it happens why I am wrong in assuming something different.
For PFS, it explicitly says "part of the calculation".
So even if there were a specific order, it would be irrelevant; if Magical Knack gives you a bonus at any point, and you wind up with a CL greater than your HD for any reason, then Magical Knack switches off.
To use an analogy: You're playing Blackjack. Normally Blackjack states that you want to have cards with a value of as close to 21 (without going over) as possible - but the casino has an additional that says that if your hand ever contains the Jack of Hearts, you automatically lose. In that instance, it doesn't matter if it's the first card that is turned up for you, or the third, or the fifth, or even if the Jack of Hearts would give you a 21 - you still lose.
[edit]
I assumed that what SlimGauge wrote was in the official PFS text. I don't see it, so my argument is probably invalid. Somewhere, Vladimir Putin is wearing a bear...
Lifat, by your logic, I could choose to apply Magical Knack before I apply the CL bonus from my actual class levels, and get a boost on a single-classed caster. After all, I get to choose the order I add things in, right? So my level 3 Wizard can get CL 5 on all his spells from Magical Knack!
Can you show me a rule that says I can't do this?
@Xarathus: Can you please show me where PFS explicitly says so? Because if it does then I'd say it is discussion over, you proved your point.
@RainyDayNinja: No you cannot choose to add the CL bonus from your actual caster level after Magical knack. Because the caster levels you get from your actual class is not a bonus. But I get where you are going with this and it has me close to convinced that you are right.
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
See also This Thread
It references This Post that quotes James Jacobs.
And/Or see a different post by James
And a follow-up here
@SlimGauge: Okay. I did some thread jumping via SlimGauge's post. I did find a quotable source, namely James Jacob. He isn't exactly RAW, but he is probably as close as we are going to get. He supports your position on this, but not in the way you thought. He actually says that the bonuses are added in order (which is what I was saying) but he adds that you have to apply them in the LEAST favorable order, which means magical knack would indeed not stack.
James Jacobs wrote: A fighter 2/wizard 8 has 10 HD.
He has a caster level of 8th.
If he has an ioun stone, that'll make his caster level 9th, which is still lower than his HD. If he has magical knack, that boosts his caster level up to 10th, which is equal to his HD, and thus legal and legit. It does NOT increase his caster level to 11th, since that would increase it above his HD.
Basically... Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels.
(If you add magical knack first and increase your caster level to 10, then try to add your +1 from your ioun stone, your effective caster level is above your Hit Dice and Magical Knack gets angry.)
Pathfinder Maps Subscriber
My original statement
SlimGauge wrote: However, under no circumstances can Magical Knack be part of any calculation that raises your caster level above your hit dice. is a paraphrase of James' statement "Magical knack, though, can NEVER raise your caster level above your Hit Dice. So if you have another effect that raises your caster level above your HD (like an ioun stone), then Magical Knack doesn't help."
I didn't expect to be challenged on it, so I didn't immediately have all those links. However, the search feature is your/my friend.
I must say I find this debate quite unusual.
Magical Knack is designed to help multiclass casters approach or equal the caster level of single class casters. It is specifically not meant to increase caster level above hit dice and so the limitation is there.
However things like Spell Specialization are quite different and are designed to increase the caster level above and beyond a character’s hit dice.
Surely the most obvious thing to do is to add the bonus from Magical Knack up to the character’s hit dice, and then to add the bonuses that can take it above?
This is certainly the way it’s played in our games and makes the most sense to me.
Legalistic reading of the rules aside, isn’t this how most people play it?
Lifat wrote: In the OPs example he only adds +1 CL from magical knack and THEN adds the two other bonuses to CLs that don't have a HD limitation. This is how it would have worked in 3.5 edition.
If he later added another non spellcaster level, he could get the full bonus of magical knack. Of course his example does require the assumption that you choose the order of the bonuses applying in pathfinder.
You can't add only +1 CL from Magical Knack because it doesn't say you increase your CL by up to 2, so there is no basis for only applying part of the bonus.
@Slimgauge: You weren't the one who argued that the bonuses were simply pooled and then added. That was others. Regardless the quote does show that even though their reasoning was incorrect, their result was correct. Again this is still not RAW, but very close to. For it to be considered RAW it would have to be added to FAQ.
@Durinor: I would totally do the opposite of what James Jacobs says and let people do it the most favorable way. (although not caster levels gained from actual class levels).
The discussion is not that unusual. When an area of the rules are very vague or unclear, then the discussion of what RAW is tends to be very long.
Bigdaddyjug wrote: Lifat wrote: In the OPs example he only adds +1 CL from magical knack and THEN adds the two other bonuses to CLs that don't have a HD limitation. This is how it would have worked in 3.5 edition.
If he later added another non spellcaster level, he could get the full bonus of magical knack. Of course his example does require the assumption that you choose the order of the bonuses applying in pathfinder.
You can't add only +1 CL from Magical Knack because it doesn't say you increase your CL by up to 2, so there is no basis for only applying part of the bonus. I believe that technically speaking you are correct when talking RAW.
Lifat wrote: Magical Knack has to take the LEAST advantageous route to giving you those extra caster levels. Which is what every in this thread has essentially been saying. If done in least favorable order, then the last application must be Magical Knack and it will shut off instead of providing the +2 to CL.
So, am I right and thinking that a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight 1/5/1 with Magical Knack gets no benefit from Spell Specialisation or any other caster level boosting items or feats?
Durinor wrote: So, am I right and thinking that a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight 1/5/1 with Magical Knack gets no benefit from Spell Specialisation or any other caster level boosting items or feats? You could still use things like Spell Specialization, Varisian Tattoo, the ioun stone, etc. to boost it past your HD, but you wouldn't get a leg up from Magical Knack, so it's probably not worth it.
@James Risner: "Order doesn't matter, if the bonus provided by Magical Knack (regardless of order of application) it will shut down itself." (your own text) "There is no concept or order in Pathfinder." (Again your own text). These quotes go directly in the face of James Jacobs texts. Granted James goes on to add "stacks in least favorable order" so your result was correct. I was the one arguing that they do stack in order. Granted I thought I could apply them in the most favorable way instead of least.
@Durinor: By strict RAW, who knows? But if you take James Jacobs post as valid (and I suggest you do), then it seems the system says that Magical Knack only works with other CL bonuses as long as the total of these bonuses don't go above your HD.
Personally speaking I'd allow them to stack in the most favorable way, but that is just me. Expect resistance on the matter from people who go RAW.
As RainyDayNinja says, if you do stack in the least favorable way, then you should never take Magical Knack unless you expect to get way behind in caster levels compared to HD and/or if you aren't going to use other CL bonuses.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Lifat wrote: These quotes go directly in the face of James Jacobs texts. Not if you consider JJ's way to describe the fact that order doesn't matter in a way that is easy to grok.
My thoughts:
Magical Knack applies to all spells you cast.
Why should it apply +1 CL to some and +0 CL to others?
/cevah
Durinor wrote: So, am I right and thinking that a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight 1/5/1 with Magical Knack gets no benefit from Spell Specialisation or any other caster level boosting items or feats? Pretty much yes. I've got a Mysterious Stranger/Tattooed Sorcerer/EK that I'm probably not going to bother playing very much beyond level one because he's completely wasting his Varisian Tattoo.
Recent threads in Rules Questions
|
Owner - D20 Hobbies, Representative - D20 Hobbies
