caster level is defined in the magic section of the crb.
all spellcasting classes have a caster level usually equal to their class level.
the "usually" there, i assume because it makes sense, is in regards to paladin/ranger who their actual class lists it as class level-3.
so, for a non-spellcasting class, the caster level is non existant (not 0)
the issue here, is if an sla makes a class a "spellcaster".
my take on this is no.
but it's true that there are no written rules about that, and sla's always use weird mechanics. So far, what the PDT restricts, seems to imply that indeed, having an sla doesn't make one a "spellcaster".
shroudb wrote: caster level is defined in the magic section of the crb.
all spellcasting classes have a caster level usually equal to their class level.
the "usually" there, i assume because it makes sense, is in regards to paladin/ranger who their actual class lists it as class level-3.
so, for a non-spellcasting class, the caster level is non existant (not 0)
the issue here, is if an sla makes a class a "spellcaster".
my take on this is no.
but it's true that there are no written rules about that, and sla's always use weird mechanics. So far, what the PDT restricts, seems to imply that indeed, having an sla doesn't make one a "spellcaster".
SLAs don't necessarily use a specific class's levels to determine their caster level, some of them use character level as caster level instead.
Do you use an SLA that emulates a specific spell with a specific caster level, as determined by the source of the SLA? Emphatically, yes.
Can you use having an SLA as a prerequisite for something that requires you be able to cast spells of a specific level? No. E.G. An Aasimar cannot use their Daylight SLA as supplying a prerequisite of being able to cast 2nd level spells.
Can you use an SLA as a prerequisite for something that requires the spell the SLA is based off of? Yes. E.G An Aasimar can use their Daylight SLA to qualify for a feat (or other item) that would require the ability to cast Daylight as a prerequisite.
So, if an SLA uses your levels in a normally non-spellcasting class as your Caster Level for it, do you have a caster level from that class? Yes, for that SLA.
Magical Knack wrote: You were raised, either wholly or in part, by a magical creature, either after it found you abandoned in the woods or because your parents often left you in the care of a magical minion. This constant exposure to magic has made its mysteries easy for you to understand, even when you turn your mind to other devotions and tasks. 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. So, for the limited area where your non-spellcaster class is used to determine a caster level, Magical Knack would apply, as long as it doesn't raise your effective caster level in that class above your total hit dice/character level.
Believe me, there are a lot of stronger traits than Magical Knack, especially for a Rogue. Like the traits that can raise your Fortitude and Will saving throws, where a Rogue is going to be more vulnerable.
Consider: Raising your caster level, by at most 2, for a cantrip and a 1st level spell (usable 3 times a day, IIRC), or an unlimited +1 bonus that stacks to your Fortitude or Will saving throws.
Also, did you know that there is a feat that can allow a Rogue to use a spellbook to change the spells that they use with Minor and Major Magic?
Just a reminder to those arguing magical knack works with class-based SLAs (this is beyond just the rogue). The argument shroudb and I presented is the argument that Mark (one of designers) gave uswhen asked this question about kineticists (whose whole schtick is SLAs). Marks mentioned that there several SLA FAQs being looked at now that the kineticist is out, to really spell out how they do or do not resemble spells, but the two initial answers we go have been that SLA's don't provide or interact with spellcasting caster levels, and that feats/abilities/class features that trigger off of "casting a spell" don't work with SLA's. Personally, not a huge fan of either ruling, and neither is currently explicitly RAW (designer posts are unofficial), but its at least fair warning to not get too attached to a build that requires either to function.
Some like to call the previous situation "abuse", but now we have schrodinger's abilities
Dallium wrote: Crimeo wrote:
Which means you have to look at the actual printed rules, which I think very clearly grant you a CL for having an SLA.
Actually, if you look at the actual printed rules, Wizards, Sorcs and Druids only have caster levels for the purposes of spells. There is nothing written down that I've ever read that actually says those spell casting classes explicitly have a catch all caster level. I agree about
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Dallium wrote: Crimeo wrote:
Which means you have to look at the actual printed rules, which I think very clearly grant you a CL for having an SLA.
Actually, if you look at the actual printed rules, Wizards, Sorcs and Druids only have caster levels for the purposes of spells. There is nothing written down that I've ever read that actually says those spell casting classes explicitly have a catch all caster level. I agree that this seems to be the case.
Although note that having "*A* caster level" does not necessitate having "a class level caster level" or your class having one, etc. -- if any of your spells have one, then you do have one of them as spell CLs.
"A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell." <-- A "spell's ... caster level" so you do have spell CLs, but not class CLs.
Magical knack refers to "your caster level in your class" -- If you want to be a stickler for rules, I don't think anyone can legally take this feat as a result, as again I agree with you on this point. If you don't want to be a stickler, well then do whatever you want as a house rule, that's beyond the rules forum.
Whereas if any feat or whatnot says you need "a caster level" not a "caster level in your class" then for THAT a rogue would qualify without house rules, because he meets the definition for having spell CLs.
Quote: Now that is OBVIOUSLY something that has been a part of DnD and Pathfinder for so long that everyone just knows it This is not D&D, I don't know anything about that game nor should anyone need to or be expected to to play pathfinder. Nothing is "obvious" about games that you haven't and don't need to have played before as a prerequisite. As for pathfinder, class caster level has not "been a part of this game" for ANY amount of time, unless the first edition used to say this and was edited out, which I doubt very much.
Quote: That doesn't mean you can use the absence of an explicit caster level for casters to give a caster level to everyone. Casters DO have an explicit caster level. Their class doesn't/not a class caster level, apparently, but they still have many spell-based caster levels, one for each spell they have, as defined under "caster level" in the magic section.
Rogues also have one if they have an SLA by merit of the section's rules. Rogues don't have one "because nobody does thus everybody does" that has not been anybody's logic on this thread as far as I can see. They have one because there's a rule saying you have one (spell ones) if you meet XYZ criteria, and they meet XYZ criteria. That is the reason.
Quote: Before level 4, Paladins and Rangers explicitly DO NOT have a caster level. Agreed, so long as nothing else before that level has granted them any means by which to cast a spell, I'm not 100% sure there isn't one. But if not, then this is orrect.
For rogues, that's also the case UNLESS you take the talents that give you those SLAs, at which point you meet the criteria and gain CLs for those (not for your whole class).
Quote: all spellcasting classes have a caster level usually equal to their class level.
the "usually" there, i assume because it makes sense, is in regards to paladin/ranger who their actual class lists it as class level-3.
so, for a non-spellcasting class, the caster level is non existant (not 0)
It says "Spellcasting characters" not "characters from the following list of classes blah blah and blah" Spellcasting chracters includes a rogue who has gained an SLA, since SLAs act like spells, so they have become spellcasting characters. The CL is then "...equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell." I.e. rogue level. There is still not a Rogue CL, but there is a CL = to rogue level for the SLA.
There are FAQs that say SLAs don't act as cast spells for purposes of character options (which would be optional things like feats, etc.), but they still should for anything else not optional including all generic magical rules about how to handle spells and spellcasting in action economy, etc., including caster levels, as these are not character options.
So, your whole argument is that having an sla makes a class a "spellcasting class".
I disagree wholeheartedly with that but I agree that there aren't explicit rules defining what is exactly makes a class a " spellcasting class".
Throughout all iterations of dnd, and, etc it used to be "classes that cast spells" (not spell-like abilities)
So I'm willing to stick to my opinion and be quite certain that the intent is that having an sla does not make someone a spellcaster.
Quote: So, your whole argument is that having an sla makes a class a "spellcasting class". "Spellcasting character" is the term used in the text, not class, if that matters. I sort of thing it does, as it carries rather different implications I think, but *shrug*
Quote: So I'm willing to stick to my opinion and be quite certain that the intent is that having an sla does not make someone a spellcaster. They could have just said "SLAs never act like spells anymore" but instead they've consistently and repeatedly gone out of their way to restrict it to only certain things that it doesn't count as spells for. Assuming anything from their intent not clearly written seems unwarranted to me when they obviously have rather subtle opinions on the matter.
Crimeo wrote: Quote: So, your whole argument is that having an sla makes a class a "spellcasting class". "Spellcasting character" is the term used in the text, not class, if that matters. I sort of thing it does, as it carries rather different implications I think, but *shrug*
Quote: So I'm willing to stick to my opinion and be quite certain that the intent is that having an sla does not make someone a spellcaster. They could have just said "SLAs never act like spells anymore" but instead they've consistently and repeatedly gone out of their way to restrict it to only certain things that it doesn't count as spells for. Assuming anything from their intent not clearly written seems unwarranted to me when they obviously have rather subtle opinions on the matter. I see it the other way around. The original text of sla say they work like spells, not that they are like spells.
And from then on, they keep removing things.
|
