Things that say level refer to the most relevant level, in this case caster level. If it meant character level then it would explicitly say character level
|
Things that say level refer to the most relevant level, in this case caster level. If it meant character level then it would explicitly say character level
Basically this is closer to what I meant to say, Spells generally reference Caster Level. The spell doesn't specify what type of "level" it is using, so taking it RAW means you can't discern what to check it against. But if we assume the use of Caster Levels then it makes sense.
It is based on caster level. They just forgot to put the "caster" in there. I just FAQ'd it so it can be errata'd.
Yeah, should be caster level. FAQing to have it spelled out explicitly.
Unless there is a rule that specifically states default to character level, then in the absence of anything further 'most relevant level' is where the smart money goes.
At least in one place in the spell rules they state that if the term "level" is used then it references "caster level".
Caster Level: A spell’s power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster’s class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell. A creature with no classes has a caster level equal to its Hit Dice unless otherwise specified. The word “level” in the short descriptions that follow always refers to caster level.
Note, this is applicable to the "short descriptions" which, the question at hand is not, but it is pretty clear that the default in the spell section is that "level = caster level" unless stated otherwise.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think we all agree on the RAI... But this is the rules forum and in here it is important to note the distinction between RAW and RAI.
So far the closest you've come to proving what we all believe is RAI is that short description level always refers to caster level, but since this isn't from short description it technically doesn't apply.
AndUnless there is a rule that specifically states default to character level, then in the absence of anything further 'most relevant level' is where the smart money goes.is a very reasonable assumption when it comes to RAI, but not RAW, unless we can show somewhere that it spells out that this is the assumption we are supposed to have.
So by RAW I still hold that a paladin 7 would get resist 20 when he casts resist energy. I have FAQ'ed it myself, because I believe as you do (and I'd run it the RAI way aswell, unless I was playing organized in which case I'd still run it as such unless someone brought this up).
By RAW, what is 7th level?
The rules forum is for figuring out how the game is intended to be played. The actual intent of the rule is the rule, not some obvious miswording in the book. Otherwise some of those FAQ's would be written differently. If Paizo writes a feat that can be taken a first level and gives +3 to damage and adds an extra "0", don't expect for any GM, even in PFS to allow you to add 30 extra points of damage.
Paizo dev: That "0" is an error. You only get 3 extra points of damage.
Player(knowing about the dev statement) at a PFS table: Forum announcements are not official so that is 40 points of damage.
PFS GM: I am taking 10 points of damage off the enemy. You can always make a thread for Mike Brock after this session is over to see what he says. <with a smirk on his face or a look of annoyance depending on his demeanor>
By RAW, what is 7th level?I think we all agree on the RAI... But this is the rules forum and in here it is important to note the distinction between RAW and RAI.
So far the closest you've come to proving what we all believe is RAI is that short description level always refers to caster level, but since this isn't from short description it technically doesn't apply.
AndUnless there is a rule that specifically states default to character level, then in the absence of anything further 'most relevant level' is where the smart money goes.is a very reasonable assumption when it comes to RAI, but not RAW, unless we can show somewhere that it spells out that this is the assumption we are supposed to have.
So by RAW I still hold that a paladin 7 would get resist 20 when he casts resist energy. I have FAQ'ed it myself, because I believe as you do (and I'd run it the RAI way aswell, unless I was playing organized in which case I'd still run it as such unless someone brought this up).
Good question. It does not say 7th level character. Class, character and spells all have levels. It could mean when you heighten the spell up to a certain level. :)
The rules forum is for figuring out how the game is intended to be played. The actual intent of the rule is the rule, not some obvious miswording in the book. Otherwise some of those FAQ's would be written differently. If Paizo writes a feat that can be taken a first level and gives +3 to damage and adds an extra "0", don't expect for any GM, even in PFS to allow you to add 30 extra points of damage.
Paizo dev: That "0" is an error. You only get 3 extra points of damage.
Player(knowing about the dev statement) at a PFS table: Forum announcements are not official so that is 40 points of damage.
PFS GM: I am taking 10 points of damage off the enemy. You can always make a thread for Mike Brock after this session is over to see what he says. <with a smirk on his face or a look of annoyance depending on his demeanor>
Problem with this argument is that some typos are more obvious than others and I don't think your example is a fair representation of how obvious it is that resist energy has a typo. Besides what is an "obvious typo" will vary from person to person and the whole point of RAW is to keep the rules uniform no matter what table you sit down at.
The heighten spell level is not a good example either. I'd claim that when level refers to anything but character level it is supposed to say so by spelling out "spell level" or "caster level" or other such examples. If it wasn't supposed to then the spell descriptions wouldn't need to constantly write "caster level", but they do, except in the case of resist energy.
In any of my homegames any player of mine would have the Game Mastery Guide thrown at them for bringing this up and I would rule that resist energy is based of caster level, but in a paizo official game? I'd say the question would be a fair one. I'd probably rule like you that it was based of caster level and ask them to bring it up with their Venture Captain or other official.
Some thing are obvious to almost everyone. I mean like 99% of us. I also brought the PF dev saying it was an error to support the point, and something not spelling out every detail does not make it valid. The game fails in a quiet a few places if the words in the book are not read in context. Sometime it is a failure of the written words, but sometimes it is a failure of the reader to comprehend.
Now when I said spell level was possible I am sure you know I was not serious with heighten about it being the right answer, but I was also making a point that if someone wants to be pedantic enough with the rules a lot of things can be argued. If we are really being picky about the wording then the spell level argument with heighten can be made. So someone can just accept that caster level was left out, or be willing to accept that since "level" is used without referencing class level, caster level, character level, or spell level, that any of them can be argued.
Basically if someone want to read this exactly as it is written then the spell has no way to indicate how it works.