Did Frank & K create The Wish and The Word?

[DSMatticus]

In the first case, you have people arguing that clearly this virtual property exists and PrC's such as the eldritch knight increase it, and then this virtual property is used to calculate spells per day and caster level and whatever. In the second case, you have people arguing that clearly this virtual property doesn't exist at all, and PrC's such as the eldritch knight instead explicitly and directly hand out certain benefits as though you had gained a level.

You also have the third case, where Frank states that "levels in a spellcasting class" is caster level, and is not used to calculate spells per day and whatever (except in any case where more specific rules state that it is).

...

That is the second case. If you believe "levels in a spellcasting class" refers to caster level, then you obviously do not believe "levels in a spellcasting class" refers to a unique property that equals your 'virtual' levels in the class for spellcasting. And your "except..." is exactly the consideration for what eldritch knight explicitly and directly hands out I described as part of the second case.

It is in fact possible to draw up distinctions among all the various arguments that fall under the second case, but it's far less interesting to do so than you think. Ultimately, if there does not exist a 'virtual' class level that "levels in a spellcasting class" refers to, then the vast majority of arguments people are making fall apart.

it's "levels in a spellcasting class"

The rules are talking about class levels there. Not spell levels, not spellcasting levels, but class levels. That's just basic english. I can go and point out the nouns and adjectives in that clause, but I really don't have to.

Wizard 5/eldritch knight 2. How many caster levels in wizard does this character have? Did the answer "six" pop into your head before you realized you were shooting yourself in the foot? I bet so. Your argument that the implicit modifier "caster" is incompatible with the phrase "levels in a spellcasting class" is quite obviously wrong. That implicit modifier may or may not be there, but it's quite clearly compatible.

[RadiantPhoenix]

2 * 2 * 2 = 6 in D&D land.

Wait, what?

[PoliteNewb]

2 * 2 * 2 = 6 in D&D land.

Wait, what?

In D&D math, when you double, and then double again...you multiply by 3, not 4. Same for future doublings (3 doublings is x5, etc).

[codeGlaze]

I've always simplified the language (in the back of my mind) for PrCs granting spellcaster levels as this ... (Using Eldritch Knight as an example) :

You've just gained an Eldritch Knight Wizard level!
-or-
You've just gained an Eldritch Knight Sorcerer level!

Basically you ACL'd your Wizard/Sorcerer/Arcane-caster for certain bennies.

[zugschef]

The point is that the DMG's spellcasting progressing prestige classes state that your level in a spellcasting class rises and that you calculate caster level, spells per day and spells known accordingly. That's the point where things become confusing.

[codeGlaze]

The point is that the DMG's spellcasting progressing prestige classes state that your level in a spellcasting class rises and that you calculate caster level, spells per day and spells known accordingly. That's the point where things become confusing.

I don't see why it's difficult to seperate out a casting progression from a class template. Clearly there is the full arcane progression in wiz/sor flavors, full divine in clr/drd flavors, and partials/mixed in brd/rgr/pld flavors.

+1 to spellcasting class could just as easily read "+1 to casting progression table" (which advances your flavor of spells known / spells per day and boosts your CL for that magical flavor/casting-type)

[zugschef]

The point is that the DMG's spellcasting progressing prestige classes state that your level in a spellcasting class rises and that you calculate caster level, spells per day and spells known accordingly. That's the point where things become confusing.

I don't see why it's difficult to seperate out a casting progression from a class template. Clearly there is the full arcane progression in wiz/sor flavors, full divine in clr/drd flavors, and partials/mixed in brd/rgr/pld flavors.

+1 to spellcasting class could just as easily read "+1 to casting progression table" (which advances your flavor of spells known / spells per day and boosts your CL for that magical flavor/casting-type)

-.- An orange ioun stone gives you +1 caster level, but doesn't give you more spells per day or spells known. In case of rangers and paladins this becomes even more confusing.

[name_here]

It's probably worth noting at this point that the SRD eldritch knight actually acts differently from some of the other prestige classes

From 2nd level on, when a new eldritch knight level is gained, the character gains new spells per day as if she had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class. She does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained.

When a new loremaster level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if she had also gained a level in a spellcasting class she belonged to before she added the prestige class. She does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained.

They've both got the same table text and both calculate caster level in the same manner, but Eldritch Knight does not gain more spells known. Also, the Archmage does not explicitly state that it increases caster level:

When a new archmage level is gained, the character gains new spells per day (and spells known, if applicable) as if he had also gained a level in whatever arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he added the prestige class level. He does not, however, gain any other benefit a character of that class would have gained. If a character had more than one arcane spellcasting class in which he could cast 7th-level spells before he became an archmage, he must decide to which class he adds each level of archmage for the purpose of determining spells per day.

Obviously, it would be kind of stupid if the Archmage didn't progress in caster level, and the text describing caster level calculation in other prestige classes is phrased as clarification.

[codeGlaze]

The point is that the DMG's spellcasting progressing prestige classes state that your level in a spellcasting class rises and that you calculate caster level, spells per day and spells known accordingly. That's the point where things become confusing.

I don't see why it's difficult to seperate out a casting progression from a class template. Clearly there is the full arcane progression in wiz/sor flavors, full divine in clr/drd flavors, and partials/mixed in brd/rgr/pld flavors.

+1 to spellcasting class could just as easily read "+1 to casting progression table" (which advances your flavor of spells known / spells per day and boosts your CL for that magical flavor/casting-type)

-.- An orange ioun stone gives you +1 caster level, but doesn't give you more spells per day or spells known. In case of rangers and paladins this becomes even more confusing.

Not confusing at all.
Caster level could just be called Caster Power or Spell Power, something along those lines. Caster Power is the end result calculation, derived from your casting progression. So your total Caster Power is ( 'spell progression rank' plus any 'Caster Power bonuses/modifiers' ) = Total C.P. Just like your melee or ranged bonus is derived from your BAB progression.

The orange stone is , essentially, a 'spell-bab' modifier. If you want to equate Caster Power to a melee stat of some kind.

[Cyberzombie]

Wizard 5/eldritch knight 2. How many caster levels in wizard does this character have? Did the answer "six" pop into your head before you realized you were shooting yourself in the foot? I bet so. Your argument that the implicit modifier "caster" is incompatible with the phrase "levels in a spellcasting class" is quite obviously wrong. That implicit modifier may or may not be there, but it's quite clearly compatible.

No. You see, I never shoot myself in the foot because I accept that caster level is a separate quantity from class levels. So that it's okay if your caster level and your class levels are different, because the two aren't the same thing, and can therefore be different quantities. So you can increase wizard casting level independently of your class level and be logically consistent. The contradictions only start to pop up when you try to link class levels and caster level the way Frank is doing.

[Username17]

The contradictions only start to pop up when you try to link class levels and caster level the way Frank is doing.

Wat.

You know, I'm not actually linking class levels and caster levels. I am linking caster level to quantities in sentences that use the word "class" but they don't actually say "class level." You are the only person in the entire world who thinks this is a problem, and you're doing it because you're literally making the "Socrates is a Dog" argument.

1. Paladin is a spellcasting class (by your own admission)
2. The character has 20 levels in the paladin class. (which we can both agree on)

Therefore: The character must have at least 20 levels in a spellcasting class.

Socrates is a mortal.
Every dog is a mortal.
Therefore: Socrates is a dog.

It's the classic example of an invalid structural argument, and you've just been making it over and over again even after multiple people have called you on your bullshit. Stop it. Stop being such a fucking stupid asshole. When you say this:

The wording isn't "levels in spellcasting", it's "levels in a spellcasting class"

You aren't proving how stubborn I am, you're proving how stupid you are. Level is a noun. Class is an adjective when you use the important phrase "class level," just as "caster" is an adjective in the important phrase "caster level." You get zero points for bolding the word "class" when it is used as a noun right next to "casting" used as an adjective. It means you don't understand parts of speech and are trying to make a linguistic argument that is over your own head. It's pathetic and we want you to stop.

-Username17

[RadiantPhoenix]

2 * 2 * 2 = 6 in D&D land.

Wait, what?

In D&D math, when you double, and then double again...you multiply by 3, not 4. Same for future doublings (3 doublings is x5, etc).

No, three doublings is x4 in D&D

100% base
+100% first doubling
+100% second doubling
+100% third doubling
=400%

[DSMatticus]

Wizard 5/eldritch knight 2. How many caster levels in wizard does this character have? Did the answer "six" pop into your head before you realized you were shooting yourself in the foot? I bet so. Your argument that the implicit modifier "caster" is incompatible with the phrase "levels in a spellcasting class" is quite obviously wrong. That implicit modifier may or may not be there, but it's quite clearly compatible.

No. You see, I never shoot myself in the foot because I accept that caster level is a separate quantity from class levels. So that it's okay if your caster level and your class levels are different, because the two aren't the same thing, and can therefore be different quantities. So you can increase wizard casting level independently of your class level and be logically consistent. The contradictions only start to pop up when you try to link class levels and caster level the way Frank is doing.

You have absolutely no idea what is happening in this thread. Like, everything you think you understand about what other people are saying and what you yourself are saying is so completely off the mark it would take an organized month-long search for those of us on the mark to venture into the surreal wilderness of confusion that has claimed you and return you to comprehension. You are a crazy person wandering around the woods having arguments with trees that no one else quite gets.

I'm not going to repeat myself (again) without something new to respond to, but I am going to helpfully remind you that you can go read some of my posts until you have at least a little better idea of the conversation. Or maybe my posts aren't nearly as helpful as I think they are. Whatever. Gist is: you're not going to accomplish anything coherent without doing something to get on the same page as everyone else. Figure something out or call it quits or something.

t's probably worth noting at this point that the SRD eldritch knight actually acts differently from some of the other prestige classes

What prestige classes do and do not mention appears to be incredibly hit and miss, yeah. I'm not sure that's a compelling point for anyone, though - I think everyone agrees that the archmage, eldritch knight, and loremaster are all meant to do the same thing. Which means if you ask someone who believes that "levels in a spellcasting class" is not a real term why each class has different text for it, they will say "because the authors fucked up." And if you ask someone who believes that "levels in a spellcasting class" is a real term why it's explained differently in many different places, they will say... "because the authors fucked up."

And if you aren't willing to admit the authors fucked up, then not only do all of those classes suddenly work differently from one another, but levels in a spellcasting class obviously cannot be a real term because what it means is defined individually for each class.

[Cyberzombie]

You aren't proving how stubborn I am, you're proving how stupid you are. Level is a noun. Class is an adjective when you use the important phrase "class level," just as "caster" is an adjective in the important phrase "caster level." You get zero points for bolding the word "class" when it is used as a noun right next to "casting" used as an adjective. It means you don't understand parts of speech and are trying to make a linguistic argument that is over your own head. It's pathetic and we want you to stop.

No, you're the one who is pathetic. Good job twisting my logical argument into some strawman that wasn't even remotely close to what I said. I'm sure you must feel really smart and proud of yourself. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

As for remedial english, here's a refresher.

In the clause "levels in a spellcasting class", the word "class" and "level" are what we call nouns. The word "spellcasting" is an adjective that describes the noun "class". The end result is that we're talking about levels in a class. The adjective tells us what kind of class we're talking about, but that doesn't change the fact that we're talking about levels in a class. I know you'd love to read it as "levels in spellcasting", but that's not what it says. It's talking about levels in a specific type of class.

I realize in your weird Frank logic you're going to tell us that "class levels" and "levels in a class" are different things. I'm sure you have some bullshit explanation for it which all makes sense if we take what you say as the word of God.

Or.. why not show me something that will really surprise me. Show me a post in an internet argument where you admit where you abandon your position because someone else convinced you of something. Show me that you're not just another internet blowhard convinced of his own infallibility. So show me. Show me one instance where you backed down, put your ego aside and said "Look guys I was wrong, I'm only human."

If I'm going to continue arguing with you, I want some proof that you're capable of admitting your mistakes. Show me you have some potential for maturity and we can continue this debate. Otherwise, it's just not worth my time. Talking to you is like beating a 6 year old at a game and then having him refuse to accept his defeat and continually claiming victory.

[Username17]

In the clause "levels in a spellcasting class", the word "class" and "level" are what we call nouns. The word "spellcasting" is an adjective that describes the noun "class". The end result is that we're talking about levels in a class.

Levels in a class are not the same thing as "class level." For fuckity fuck's sake, you still have lots of different things that are in classes that are leveled. You have spell levels in classes, caster levels in classes, manifester levels in classes, meldshaper levels in classes, and so on and so forth.

No matter how many times you point out that "level" and "class" are both used in that sentence, the reality is that "class" is not used as an adjective to modify the word level, and your claim that it is is necessarily referring to "class levels" (where class is necessarily used as an adjective) is completely groundless. The only thing that tells you what kind of "level" is being talked about is the implied adjective, not any nouns, prepositions, conjunctions, or adverbs that are not being used as adjectives in the linguistic vicinity.

This is exactly as absurd as when you were ranting about how making fun of people who make terrible and dishonest arguments is exactly the same as racial discrimination. The only appropriate response is to make fun of you. You are a stupid person who makes stupid arguments to support stupid positions. And then you get all butt hurt when people make fun of your stupidity. Well guess what: you're still an idiot and your argument is still structurally invalid. Even if your conclusion was true, your argument doesn't in any way support it. And this is the last fucking time I'll bother explaining why that is.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Cyberzombie, there is no nice way to say this, and even if there were I'd probably still be a dick about it: you are completely incapable of following this conversation. It is not a thing you can do. Every swing you make is a wild miss and shows a total disconnect between what is actually being said and what you think is being said. The extent to which you are fucking this up cannot be understated. I know you don't think you are, but the inability to see that you are fucking up is sort of why you're fucking up so badly in the first place so I guess that's a given.

Your argument is that "levels in a spellcasting class" must refer to class levels because the word class is there. Here is how it looks when you consider the actual grammar involved:
1) "in a spellcasting class" is a prepositional phrase attached to and describing levels
2) class is a noun in that prepositional phrase
3) class can also be used as an adjective for levels
4) ???
C) levels means class levels

Notice the missing link at 4. This is the part of the argument where you would cite something to explain why nouns that occur in prepositional phrases which also happen to be valid adjectives for the objects those prepositional phrases are attached to become adjectives on those objects themselves. Of course, English doesn't fucking work that way, so there's nothing you can cite: the man in the snow is not always a snow man.

It's not even the case that the only levels you can have in a spellcasting class are class levels. When you made this argument the first time, I asked you "how many caster levels in wizard does wizard 5/eldritch knight 2 have?" And you apparently missed the point and went on a rambling non-sequitur defense of yourself and how you totally hadn't shot yourself in the foot while shooting yourself in the other goddamn foot by telling everyone you don't even know what the fuck is being discussed in the first place. The point is that I just asked you the question how many caster levels someone has in a spellcasting class. Your argument is that that sentence should explode and produce a DOES NOT COMPUTE because if they are levels in a class they must be class levels. Yet the question makes perfect sense and is completely answerable. Ergo, you are wrong.

[RadiantPhoenix]

I am different: I know I have almost no idea what's going on, except that people are arguing about the formula for an Ur-Priest's caster level.

[TiaC]

Frank, why must "levels in a spellcasting class" equal caster level and only caster level? You are very good at showing how Cyberzombie's position is unsupported, but I think you would do better laying out your own.

Frank's earlier statement that the glossary entry for Caster Level is a reference to "levels in a spellcasting class" is inaccurate. The SRD has this to say "Caster Level: Generally equal to the number of class levels in a spellcasting class." This obviously does not apply to any of the situations we are talking about.

DMG Prestige classes are all fucked up and make a terrible starting place. They get increased caster level from a class feature called Spells per Day/Spells Known. The "+1 level of existing class" on the table is not labeled Spellcasting but instead Spells per Day. Everyone allows the ones that don't specifically grant Spells Known to do so anyway.

PrCs in later books have a Spellcasting column in the table that grants +1 level of existing spellcasting class. The text for that feature will call out new spells per day, an increase in caster level, and spells known, if applicable as what is gained.

More relevantly, the Ur-Priests CL is determined by this sentence. "To determine the caster level of an ur-priest, add the character’s ur-priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes." If the word levels in the phrase levels in other spellcasting classes were to inherit a specific type of level from an earlier part of the sentence it would do so from the last use. This is how english works. The last use is in the phrase "the character’s ur-priest levels" which is referring to class level as Ur-priest caster level is still undefined. This is, of course, only relevant if "levels in a spellcasting class" is not a defined virtual property itself.

[zugschef]

I realize in your weird Frank logic you're going to tell us that "class levels" and "levels in a class" are different things.

They fuckin' are different things. A drow wizard5/fighter1/eldritch knight2 has five levels in the wizard class, one level in the fighter class, two levels in the eldritch knight prestige class, eight class levels, six levels in a spellcasting class and character level nine.

"To determine the caster level of an ur-priest, add the character’s ur-priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes."

See how it doesn't say "[...]to one-half of his [class] levels in other spellcasting classes."

[Neeeek]

I realize in your weird Frank logic you're going to tell us that "class levels" and "levels in a class" are different things.

They fuckin' are different things. A drow wizard5/fighter1/eldritch knight2 has five levels in the wizard class, one level in the fighter class, two levels in the eldritch knight prestige class, seven class levels, six levels in a spellcasting class and character level nine.

8 class levels.

[zugschef]

I realize in your weird Frank logic you're going to tell us that "class levels" and "levels in a class" are different things.

They fuckin' are different things. A drow wizard5/fighter1/eldritch knight2 has five levels in the wizard class, one level in the fighter class, two levels in the eldritch knight prestige class, seven class levels, six levels in a spellcasting class and character level nine.

8 class levels.

Ah yeah, sorry. ^^ Had wizard5/eldritch knight2 first until I realized that that wouldn't work.

[name_here]

DMG Prestige classes are all fucked up and make a terrible starting place. They get increased caster level from a class feature called Spells per Day/Spells Known. The "+1 level of existing class" on the table is not labeled Spellcasting but instead Spells per Day. Everyone allows the ones that don't specifically grant Spells Known to do so anyway.

PrCs in later books have a Spellcasting column in the table that grants +1 level of existing spellcasting class. The text for that feature will call out new spells per day, an increase in caster level, and spells known, if applicable as what is gained.

That would be a somewhat better argument if we weren't discussing 3.5 DMG classes, several of which first appeared in other sourcebooks, including the Archmage.

More relevantly, the Ur-Priests CL is determined by this sentence. "To determine the caster level of an ur-priest, add the character’s ur-priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes." If the word levels in the phrase levels in other spellcasting classes were to inherit a specific type of level from an earlier part of the sentence it would do so from the last use. This is how english works. The last use is in the phrase "the character’s ur-priest levels" which is referring to class level as Ur-priest caster level is still undefined. This is, of course, only relevant if "levels in a spellcasting class" is not a defined virtual property itself.

See, not treating levels in a spellcasting class as meaning caster level has multiple more easily accessible stupid breakpoints. First up, as frequently mentioned, Paladins and Rangers have reduced caster level progression, but under the other interpretation would give the same extra caster levels as a Cleric of equal level. There is a similarly dumb failure mode when combined with the Hierophant class, which explicitly only advances caster level.

Sublime Chord also has the potential for a dumber failure mode, although I don't think any class that would permit accessing it actually exists. If there were an arcane class with ranger/paladin caster level progression, taking it and Sublime Chord would allow you to get a caster level higher than the sum of your caster level from all your classes without the aid of feats or items. Plus it would cause odd behavior if you do have caster level bonuses, because it's supposed to make your caster level the same for all arcane spellcasting.

While Frank's interpretation produces an extremely severe failure mode, it's also stupidly overcomplicated to access, requiring two prestige classes with nonstandard caster level calculations and at least two additional arcane spell-casting classes. Admittedly, it also means full casting progression PRCs increase caster level at one per PRC level for paladins and rangers unless the text explicitly states otherwise, but that doesn't strike me as terribly unreasonable because it doesn't accelerate spells known/per day.

I also must dispute your English argument. "level" is not a pronoun and does not require an antecedent, and everyone is arguing that "levels in a spellcasting class" is a defined virtual property anyway.

[NineInchNall]

More relevantly, the Ur-Priests CL is determined by this sentence. "To determine the caster level of an ur-priest, add the character’s ur-priest levels to one-half of his levels in other spellcasting classes." If the word levels in the phrase levels in other spellcasting classes were to inherit a specific type of level from an earlier part of the sentence it would do so from the last use. This is how english works. The last use is in the phrase "the character’s ur-priest levels" which is referring to class level as Ur-priest caster level is still undefined. This is, of course, only relevant if "levels in a spellcasting class" is not a defined virtual property itself.

No. Language does not work like that. Even pronoun reference is not limited to the most recent use of a compatible noun. If there is more than one possible antecedent for a personal pronoun in a sentence, you actually do have to make sure that the pronoun refers only to one of them: "Jerry called Steve twelve times while he was in Reno." The pronoun "he" could refer either to "Jerry" or to "Steve," and there is nothing intrinsic to the sentence - i.e., word order - that can tell us who was in Reno.

Some adopt the practice of using pronouns in that fashion, but doing so is merely personal preference.

The context of the ur-priest sentence is caster level. Subsequent references to level in the sentence can escape (in the programming sense, like "\n" for newline) that context, but they cannot change it.

[Dean]

When people have Wish & Word arguments it's worth nothing that the duo relies on massively high caster level AND possesses the ability to make unlimited Orange Ioun stones with Wish abuse. As such even if Ur-Priest stacking didn't work it wouldn't matter because the Word could just add on an extra 82 Ioun stones made instantly by the Wish and the net result is the same.

No matter what the Ur-priest decision the duo's offensive power is unchanged. The massive complexity of the builds is clearly just a demonstration of system mastery because that's the statement they were trying to make. They could have replicated about 90% of the duo's power by taking a 13th level Cleric and saying "A Candle of Invocation -> Unlimited Wishes -> Unlimited Ioun Stones -> Unlimited Caster level -> Word spells and Wishes combo to kill everything" and been done with it but that wouldn't have really had an effect on anyone because people like theatre.

[RadiantPhoenix]

People have "refined" The Wish down to even lower levels (1 or less). It's the basis of the modern version of Pun-Pun. (Or at least, pretty close to it -- IIRC, once you have wishes whose XP cost nobody has to pay, it will take you about 1 round to become The Wish)