Help with a bad idea, and the opportunity for a side-bet

[Username17]

It doesn't say "caster level in another arcane spellcasting class", it says "level in another arcane spellcasting class".

See: Reasoning, Circular.

Your level in an arcane spellcasting class for purposes of calculating your level for the purposes of the spells you are casting is your caster level. Every time any spell or caster level calculation refer to your "level" that actually does mean "caster level". So spells lik magic missile and equations like the Loremaster addition do mean "Caster level", and not "class level" and not "character level".

If a spell or caster level equation means anything other than "caster level" when it says "level" it must say "character level" or "class level". Heck, even "class level" usually means "caster level" since caster level is defined as your class level for purposes of casting spells.

In short, hellz yes it means "Caster Level" when it says "Level" in the catch-up casting classes description.

-Username17

[User3]

Does your bet consider typo correcting as houseruling? Because that is a typo; check the right price out there.

Also: I have no books here, and that's from the Hypertext SRD. I suppose it's equal to the DMG in the relevant parts.

Definitions Of Terms

Here are definitions of some terms used in this section.
Base Class

One of the standard eleven classes.
Caster Level

Generally equal to the number of class levels (see below) in a spellcasting class. Some prestige classes add caster levels to an existing class.
Character Level

The total level of the character, which is the sum of all class levels held by that character.
Class Level

The level of a character in a particular class. For a character with levels in only one class, class level and character level are the same.

...

Spells per Day/Spells Known

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. This essentially means that she adds the level of loremaster to the level of some other spellcasting class the character has, then determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

(emphasis mine)

So, the PrC equation starts by adding levels, unless "caster level" is wholly mentioned - the "caster" instead of "class" default is solely for spells. Anything else I miss?

[Zherog]

1181907190[/unixtime]]It gets better... I've just had to tell someone that they can't take the Holy Ki Strike feat because a prerequisite for the feat - ki strike (holy) doesn't exist in the RAW. Priceless!

There's a FAQ ruling on that, which you might need to take into consideration...

The Holy Ki Strike feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds (page 44) lists “Ki strike (holy)” as a prerequisite, but that ability doesn’t exist in the book. Is that a typo or is it in a different book?

This looks like an error, since no such ability exists. Sanctify Ki Strike (page 46), a prerequisite for Holy Ki Strike, lists “Ki strike (lawful)” as a prerequisite. This suggests that Holy Ki Strike’s prerequisite should be the same. While no official errata for Book of Exalted Deeds exists, this seems like a reasonable conclusion for DMs who use the feat.

Don't know how that "ruling" affects your situation.

[Zherog]

1181923747[/unixtime]]Does your bet consider typo correcting as houseruling? Because that is a typo; check the right price out there.

d20srd.org is blocked by my employer. Would you mind quoting the relevant passage? I assume this is from the karma bead? If so, I'm also curious where they got the correction from...

[User3]

No worries.

Strand of Prayer Beads

This item appears to be a normal string of prayer beads until the owner casts a divine spell. Once that occurs, the owner instantly knows the powers of the prayer beads and how to activate them. Each strand includes two or more special beads, each with a different magic power.

Code: Select all

Special Bead Type  	Special Bead Ability[br][br]Bead of blessing 	Wearer can cast bless.[br][br]Bead of healing 	Wearer can cast his choice of cure serious wounds, remove blindness/deafness, or remove disease.[br][br]Bead of karma 	Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level. Effect lasts 10 minutes.[br][br]Bead of smiting 	Wearer can cast chaos hammer, holy smite, order’s wrath, or unholy blight (Will DC 17 partial).[br][br]Bead of summons 	Summons a powerful creature of appropriate alignment from the Outer Planes (an angel, devil, etc.) to aid the wearer for one day. (If the wearer uses the bead of summons to summon a deity’s emissary frivolously, the deity takes that character’s items and places a geas/quest upon him as punishment in the very least.)[br][br]Bead of wind walking 	Wearer can cast wind walk.

A lesser strand of prayer beads has a bead of blessing and a bead of healing. A strand of prayer beads has a bead of healing, a bead of karma, and a bead of smiting. A greater strand of prayer beads has a bead of healing, a bead of karma, a bead of summons, and a bead of wind walking.

Each special bead can be used once per day, except for the bead of summons, which works only once and then becomes nonmagical. The beads of blessing, smiting, and wind walking function as spell trigger items; the beads of karma and summons can be activated by any character capable of casting divine spells. The owner need not hold or wear the strand of prayer beads in any specific location, as long as he carries it somewhere on his person.

The power of a special bead is lost if it is removed from the strand. Reduce the price of a strand of prayer beads that is missing one or more beads by the following amounts: bead of blessing -600 gp, bead of healing -9,000 gp, bead of karma -20,000 gp, bead of smiting -16,800 gp, bead of summons -20,000 gp, bead of wind walking -46,800 gp.

Faint, moderate or strong (many schools); CL 1st (blessing), 5th (healing), 7th (smiting), 9th (karma), 11th (wind walking), 17th (summons); Craft Wondrous Item and one of the following spells per bead, as appropriate: bless (blessing); cure serious wounds, remove blindness/deafness, or remove disease (healing); righteous might (karma); gate (summons); chaos hammer, holy smite, order’s wrath, or unholy blight (smiting), wind walk (wind walking); Price 9,600 gp (lesser), 45,800 gp (standard), 95,800 gp (greater).

From here, it's just math (try to total the individual prices) - notice that all prices, except the total for the standard strand, match in the DMG, only all match here.

[Zherog]

Interesting. I wonder where that change comes from - it's not in the errata for the DMG...

[User3]

Yeah, I had checked that too; seemingly, Jans Carton (or somebody that told him) spotted the bad math and did something about it (which was trivial to figure out).

[Zherog]

Sure, it's easy to figure out. But for this exercise, that change can't be made - that change isn't written in any official source.

[User3]

That's what I asked Amra: it is an obvious typo a "2" instead of "4" and nothing else. It isn't because editing was bad, it isn't because some designer drank too much - it is because the wrong key was pressed; doesn't that count for something?

[Username17]

It definitely counts for something. But after four rounds of errata it hasn't even been mentioned. If WotC stands up and refuses to acknowledge the typo, doesn't that count for something in such an exercise?

-Username17

[User3]

But do you have any evidence that someone actually told them this (not to defend WotC; let's just say I have a Complete Psionic, and its editing is worse than anything you saw ...)? I wouldn't doubt that.

[Amra]

Hullo again folks and thanks for all the replies!

On the caster level vs. class level front, I figured that this *must* have come up before so I decided to do the decent thing and read as many of the arguments that have gone before as I could to save going over old ground.

As it happens, I'm now actually having this discussion with a member of my group so I need to be able to make my mind up; else I probably wouldn't bother returning to the subject at all. Please note that I couldn't give a stuff what the answer is, provided I know it and can make a consistent case for it!

By and large, I'm generally with you: "level" = "caster level" for most purposes unless benefits are explicitly excluded. I think there is in fact a case the other way because all prestige classes say "you gain spells per day and spells known as though you had gained a level in another spellcasting class". This strongly implies that it is not the same as gaining a level in that spellcasting class.

Yes, the tables all say "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" but text trumps table by RAW.

However, I know that the wheels fall off completely if we follow what's written: none of the text grants the caster an explicit increase in caster level, so if we followed the alternative view we'd end up with the ludicrous situation whereby a character in a full spellcasting prestige class ended up casting 9th-level spells at a caster level of 5th, which is plain daft. Thus, the caster level increase is implied; thus your argument for equivalence is the sanest interpretation.

There's another problem with it, which I'll come to in a minute but generally I have to agree with you.

Reasonable thus far? However, I now need to thrash out whether there's a case to answer over this for the purposes of my game and I was hoping you could (continue to) help me. As an aside, I suspect it's All Your Fault that one of my players has come up with this as I have reason to believe they've come across The Word whilst Googling for ideas Anyway, the outstanding issue:

"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."

Now, to me, "levels in other spellcasting classes" may well not be the same thing as "level in another spellcasting class".

Forgive me for taking a reductionist approach, but I'm not as au fait with all these arguments as you guys and it helps me to make a simpler example so's I can understand precisely what I'm doing when having it out with my group.

Let's say we have a character of Rog4/Wiz5 who realises that he has made a complete mess of his life and tries to compensate a little by taking the Practised Spellcaster feat. His caster level is now 9th. He has the spells per day of a 5th-level Wizard but casts them as a 9th-level spellcaster.

What is his Wizard level? I'd say "effectively 9th for most purposes, including caster level for prestige class qualification". How many Wizard levels does he have? Well, he has 5. What is his level in an arcane spellcasting class? 9. How many levels does he have in an arcane spellcasting class? 5.

Taking the Sublime Chord, Ur-Priest build (and the more I think about it, the more I'm sure my player didn't hit this independently)...

"A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class."

We can't be saying that "level"="caster level" in this instance - at least not consistently - or we immediately run into a recursion loop with the Sublime Chord all by herself. If "caster level" = "level" for this calculation, as soon as her caster level increased, we'd be adding her Sublime Chord caster level to her Sublime Chord level to determine her caster level, which would increase her Sublime Chord "level" and so on. So her "Sublime Chord level" is not and cannot ever be equal to her "Sublime Chord caster level".

This issue doesn't arise with Ur-Priest because the description says "Ur-Priest levels", not "Ur-Priest level", which - as I was trying to explain above - I don't believe is the same thing.

I don't think I explained that terribly well, but do you see what I mean? That was my outstanding problem with the "caster level" = "level" issue. Probably I'm missing something obvious, but I didn't see this one brought up in your previous discussions (and if I missed it, I apologise) so I thought it was worth introducing.

Now returning to the problem I have with the Ur-Priest bit...

"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."

Let us say we've got a Wiz8/Brd1/Sor1/SCh1. His caster level (and following the argument, "level" for calculation purposes) is 11 in each class. His "total level in other spellcasting classes" is 44. However, the "levels he has in spellcasting classes" are eight levels in Wizard, plus one level in Bard, plus one level in Sorceror, plus one level in Sublime-Chord, for 11 levels in spellcasting classes. His "level" in Wizard might reasonably be said to be "11" but he still only has 8 "levels in Wizard".

If he took a feat or somesuch that was based off "the number of levels you have in Wizard", that number would be - as far as I can tell - 8.

Thus, this character's Ur-Priest caster level would be (half-of-eleven plus one) 6.

Am I being terminally dense?

[Amra]

1181944969[/unixtime]]It definitely counts for something. But after four rounds of errata it hasn't even been mentioned. If WotC stands up and refuses to acknowledge the typo, doesn't that count for something in such an exercise?

-Username17

Yes, what he said. Please note that the aim of this exercise is not "the sanest possible interpretation of the rules"

That player has now recanted on the request for free prayer beads: I said I'd go with it, but every bad guy on the planet would be going around with a satchel full of the things...

On that note, I have had a question on karma bead stacking from my player that has me scratching my head a little. The point he made was that the description says: "Wearer casts his spells at +4 caster level. Effect lasts 10 minutes."

It doesn't say "Wearer gains a +4 bonus to his caster level", so is it that he casts spells at +4 level compared to his level without the karma bead or that he casts spells at +4 level compared to whatever level he has at the time, including any karma beads. The player is suggesting that the effect overlaps rather than stacks: I'm sure the answer ought to be a simple one, but for some reason it has got me wondering...

[Amra]

1181933719[/unixtime]]

1181907190[/unixtime]]It gets better... I've just had to tell someone that they can't take the Holy Ki Strike feat because a prerequisite for the feat - ki strike (holy) doesn't exist in the RAW. Priceless!

There's a FAQ ruling on that, which you might need to take into consideration...

The Holy Ki Strike feat from the Book of Exalted Deeds (page 44) lists “Ki strike (holy)” as a prerequisite, but that ability doesn’t exist in the book. Is that a typo or is it in a different book?

This looks like an error, since no such ability exists. Sanctify Ki Strike (page 46), a prerequisite for Holy Ki Strike, lists “Ki strike (lawful)” as a prerequisite. This suggests that Holy Ki Strike’s prerequisite should be the same. While no official errata for Book of Exalted Deeds exists, this seems like a reasonable conclusion for DMs who use the feat.

Don't know how that "ruling" affects your situation.

It doesn't, as far as I can tell. I'd already spotted that in the FAQ but it falls down for the purpose of this exercise on two points:

1) It doesn't make a ruling, it just says "looks like", "suggests" and "seems like" and thus is far from definitive

2) Although the FAQ was last updated 15 months AFTER an errata was published for the Book of Exalted Deeds (and is thus Just Plain Wrong), said errata is one page long, contains only three corrections and doesn't mention the feat at all

Thus, there's no official ruling explaining the prerequisites for the feat; thus I may not allow it under the rules of our current exercise.

[shirak]

1182245128[/unixtime]]What is his Wizard level? I'd say "effectively 9th for most purposes, including caster level for prestige class qualification". How many Wizard levels does he have? Well, he has 5. What is his level in an arcane spellcasting class? 9. How many levels does he have in an arcane spellcasting class? 5.

That... depends. He has 5 levels of Wizard but whenever the text talks about his Wizard level in the context of casting spells it actually means his caster level which is 9. So if a feat referenced Wizard levels and had to do with familiars, it would be 5. If the feat was something like Forge Ring it would be 9.

1182245128[/unixtime]]Taking the Sublime Chord, Ur-Priest build (and the more I think about it, the more I'm sure my player didn't hit this independently)...

"A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class."

We can't be saying that "level"="caster level" in this instance - at least not consistently - or we immediately run into a recursion loop with the Sublime Chord all by herself. If "caster level" = "level" for this calculation, as soon as her caster level increased, we'd be adding her Sublime Chord caster level to her Sublime Chord level to determine her caster level, which would increase her Sublime Chord "level" and so on. So her "Sublime Chord level" is not and cannot ever be equal to her "Sublime Chord caster level".

There is no loop. Remember that D&D is a linear algorithm. What you do is:
1) Determine caster levels in another spellcasting class
2) Determine actual levels in Sublime Chord
3) Add the two together.
4) STOP! No more calculations because the last step replaced the formula with a static value. If the components change, you run the formula again which resets the Sublime Chord caster level to another static value.
5) because it is that stupid.

1182245128[/unixtime]]I don't think I explained that terribly well, but do you see what I mean?

Yes, you didn't. No, I don't. Read above.

1182245128[/unixtime]]Am I being terminally dense?

No, you're not. It's just that this is a more than usually complex bit of D&D legalese. Basically, until WotC decides to clear up the terms such confusion will naturally arise. As it stands, they seriously expect you, the DM, to smell your fingers and determine what they meant to say whenever they say level. Sometimes they even mean character level when they say "level". This is especially bad in PrCs which habitually say "your level" and mean any of the three.

[rant] I hate the concept of "level" as it stands now with a burning rage that only the Power of Rage can ever understand[/rant]

Btw, you have never studied Japanese, neh?

[Amra]

1182247097[/unixtime]]

There is no loop. Remember that D&D is a linear algorithm. What you do is:
1) Determine caster levels in another spellcasting class
2) Determine actual levels in Sublime Chord
3) Add the two together.
4) STOP! No more calculations because the last step replaced the formula with a static value. If the components change, you run the formula again which resets the Sublime Chord caster level to another static value.
5) because it is that stupid.

1182245128[/unixtime]]I don't think I explained that terribly well, but do you see what I mean?

Yes, you didn't. No, I don't. Read above.

Btw, you have never studied Japanese, neh?

No, no I haven't!

OK, I'll have another crack at explaining what I mean. Maybe I'll do a better job with a worked example. The statement I'm currently trying to come to a conclusion over one way or another is:

If a spell or caster level equation means anything other than "caster level" when it says "level" it must say "character level" or "class level". Heck, even "class level" usually means "caster level" since caster level is defined as your class level for purposes of casting spells.

In short, hellz yes it means "Caster Level" when it says "Level" in the catch-up casting classes description.

Again with the Sublime Chord: "A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class."

Wiz8/Brd1/Sor1 is our starting point.

So, following your steps:

1) Determine caster level in another arcane spellcasting class.

Wizard, I choose you! Current value of variable = 8

2) Determine actual level in Sublime Chord.

You see, this is where the argument I'm examining falls down.

You're saying that when it says "level in another spellcasting class" it means "caster level", but when it says "sublime chord level" it means "actual level in Sublime Chord". How so? My point - in contradiction of Frank's point - is that it is not the case that "level" means "caster level".

If it had said "level in [another spellcasting class]" - square brackets included - would you then have said it meant *actual * levels? If not, why are you saying it means "actual levels" in Sublime Chord?

I'm saying that if we apply Frank's argument consistently, your step 2 becomes:

2) Determine caster level in Sublime Chord

At this point, your caster level in Sublime Chord is 1 because we haven't added anything in yet.

3) Add them together

1+8 = 9, at which point your caster level for Sublime Chord = 9, except that it isn't because it's equal to itself plus a calculation involving itself so it's 8 +9 = 17, then 8+17...

4) STOP!

How?!

Let's be reasonable and say that we do stop after just one iteration. Doesn't matter: next time you go up a level, you do the same trick again. I've been told emphatically that "level" = "caster level" (and tend to agree in most circumstances) so when we take another level in Wizard for Wiz9/Brd1/Sor1/SCh1...

1) Determine level in another spellcasting class

Well, that's now equal to itself plus the Sublime Chord "level", which is 9, so the answer is 18

2) Determine level in Sublime Chord

We haven't done the next bit of the calculation, so that's still 9

3) Add them together

9+18 = 27

4) STOP!

Good idea...

All I'm saying is that in order for the class not to spontaneously combust as soon as you use it, "level" in the context of the Sublime Chord description has to mean "actual levels" for Sublime Chord... so why doesn't it mean "actual levels" in whatever other arcane spellcasting class you choose?

Ur-Priest actually says levels with regard to both itself and the other classes you add, which I maintain means "actual levels".

If we're saying that "level"="caster level" in the catch-up classes, as described, then all previous estimates for maximum caster level attainable with Sublime Chord and Ur-Priest have been too low by orders of magnitude!

I've probably still not explained myself properly but I thought I'd give it a go!

[shirak]

2) Determine actual level in Sublime Chord.

You see, this is where the argument I'm examining falls down.

You're saying that when it says "level in another spellcasting class" it means "caster level", but when it says "sublime chord level" it means "actual level in Sublime Chord". How so? My point - in contradiction of Frank's point - is that it is not the case that "level" means "caster level".

Ah, now I see where the problem is. You see, at this point of our calculations, Sublime Chord actually has no spellcasting level. We're in the middle of figuring it out, remember? So, when they say level in this specific instance they can only mean "levels in Sublime Chord". So, yeah. You add your "levels in Sublime Chord" to your "spellcassting level in another class". And then you go on figuring what your caster level actually is.

Btw, if what you say goes, you have a double loop. Every iteration resets your caster level for all arcane classes so if you run the calculations a second time the Wizard's caster level is more than 8.

If it had said "level in [another spellcasting class]" - square brackets included - would you then have said it meant *actual * levels? If not, why are you saying it means "actual levels" in Sublime Chord?

Again, because it can't mean anything else.

I'm saying that if we apply Frank's argument consistently, your step 2 becomes:

2) Determine caster level in Sublime Chord

At this point, your caster level in Sublime Chord is 1 because we haven't added anything in yet.

Your caster level at this point is an undefined quality.

[Amra]

Ah, now I see where the problem is. You see, at this point of our calculations, Sublime Chord actually has no spellcasting level. We're in the middle of figuring it out, remember?

I considered that. So we run the first calculation again and the Sublime Chord level is "0". It makes no significant difference, because the problem arises when the character gains their *next* level, at which point we DO have a value for SC level.

So, when they say level in this specific instance they can only mean "levels in Sublime Chord". So, yeah. You add your "levels in Sublime Chord" to your "spellcassting level in another class"

Again... WHY?! WHY is it "spellcasting level in another class" and not "actual level in another class"? The term "level" is used thusly:

"[...] is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class."

That's "sublime chord level" and "level in another arcane spellcasting class". I totally follow the fact that the description has to refer to "actual sublime chord level" jn order to retain any semblance of sanity, but what I want to hear is why it DOES NOT refer to "actual level in another arcane spellcasting class".

Btw, if what you say goes, you have a double loop. Every iteration resets your caster level for all arcane classes so if you run the calculations a second time the Wizard's caster level is more than 8.

Er, yes... I forgot to include it at the end of my first example but I did do that when I worked the example the second time. Thing is, it stays broken even when you count the SC's initial level as 0.

If it had said "level in [another spellcasting class]" - square brackets included - would you then have said it meant *actual * levels? If not, why are you saying it means "actual levels" in Sublime Chord?

Again, because it can't mean anything else.

Why not? Why can't it mean anything else? Or are you saying it "can't mean anything else" because the numbers get so high, so fast, yes?

We'll try working the recipe up from scratch again, keeping it simple:

Take one Wiz8/Brd2. For maximum flavour, store at room temperature for 24 hours before proceeding. Add 1 level of Sublime Chord by following the steps:

Level in other spellcasting class = 8
Level in Sublime Chord at this point (using the same definition of "level") = 0
Add together for 8+0=8

So now our caster level for Wizard, Sublime Chord and Bard is 8 each and our character is Wiz8/Brd2/SuC1. Coat with a mixture of flour and parmesan cheese, grill for 5 mins per side, and add a further level of Sublime Chord:

Level in other spellcasting class = 8
Level in Sublime Chord = 8
Add together for 8+8 = 16

Wizard, Sublime Chord and Bard are each at 16th "level" and our character is Wiz8/Brd2/SuC2. Dispense with the flour entirely and spread a thick layer of room temperature Roquefort before adding another Sublime Chord level:

Level in other spellcasting class = 16
Level in Sublime Chord = 16
Add together for 16+16 = 32

...or 32nd caster level in Wizard, Bard and Sublime Chord at Wiz8/Brd2/SuC3. One more SC level for luck, eh?

Level in other spellcasting class = 32
Level in Sublime Chord = 32
Add together for 32+32 = 64

64th caster level at 14th character level - Wiz8/Brd2/SuC4 - isn't bad, is it? Of course it will keep doubling so long as we keep adding SC levels, such that Wiz8/Brd2/SuC10 has a caster level of 4096.

This is what happens when you insist that "level"="caster level". If you admit that there is precedent for "level" != "caster level" in a prestige class description, then you have to establish WHY the two equate in one example and not in the other.

Again, I don't *care* what the answer is because it's broken either way... but I have to have this out with my players and I can feel the ice shifting under my feet whichever way I tapdance!

[User3]

1182268387[/unixtime]]

So, when they say level in this specific instance they can only mean "levels in Sublime Chord". So, yeah. You add your "levels in Sublime Chord" to your "spellcassting level in another class"

Again... WHY?! WHY is it "spellcasting level in another class" and not "actual level in another class"? The term "level" is used thusly:

"[...] is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class."

That's "sublime chord level" and "level in another arcane spellcasting class". I totally follow the fact that the description has to refer to "actual sublime chord level" jn order to retain any semblance of sanity, but what I want to hear is why it DOES NOT refer to "actual level in another arcane spellcasting class".

Before you've calculated the sublime chord's caster level, its caster level is undefined. That's not the same as being equal to zero. So you must use the class level, which is a fixednum.

You then add your class level in another arcane spellcasting class. I'm willing to admit that there is epistemological uncertainty as to whether you're adding the "caster level" or the "class level," but I think that in this case it's safest to assume that you're adding the same thing for both classes.

Of course, this calculation is to determine a characteristic of spellcasting, so you add the "level used to determine spellcasting ability" for both classes. The "level used to determine spellcasting ability" for a wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 4 is 9. The "level used to determine spellcasting ability" for an Eldritch Knight 2/Loremaster 1 is 3. This is not the same as caster level. Caster level is a quantity derived (in part) from this number.

If you're calculating the arcane caster level of a wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 4/Sublime Chord 2/Loremaster 1 (don't ask me how it got that way), you add the wizard spellcasting level (9) to the sublime chord spellcasting level (3), to get 12. Note that 12 is not your spellcasting level in either class. You don't have the spells per day of a twelfth level wizard, nor do you (heaven forbid!) have the spells per day of a twelfth level sublime chord.

In fact, this is almost the same as how calculating the caster level of any class works. The caster level of a character is the spellcasting level plus or minus appropriate modifiers. A 10th level cleric using Karma has a caster level of 14, but a spellcasting level of 10.




Obviously the distinction is both confusing and not explicitly define, but the implicit definition is quite precise.

[Username17]

You're over thinking it.

Yes, Sublime Chord refers to "Caster Level" every time. But because the equation is only performed once, it's not infinite or iterative.

So if you do something stupid like get a bonus to all your caster levels (example: Orange Ioun Stone), this actually adds double that to your caster level when you have Sublime Chord.

For example: Our Wizard 8/ Bard 1/ Sublime Chord 1 would have a Caster Level (in all classes) of 9. If he had an Orange Ioun Stone, he'd have a Caster Level of 11 (Wizard 8 + 1 added to Sublime Chord 1 + 1 = 11).

But it's not infinite, because the Sublime Chord only checks and sets the one time. You can perform your caster level equation in any order you want, but you can't recalculate any value once you've calculated it.

-Username17

[User3]

I can't claim any expertise in D&D rules, but I'm generally pretty good at understanding and following formalized instructions, and I don't see any way you can make that work.

According to the earlier quote:

A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class.

This seems to be a pretty clear instruction saying that if you want to know a sublime chord's caster level, for any reason, you add "sublime chord level" to "level in another arcane spellcasting class."

SC-CL = SC-L + ASC-L

You want to say that "sublime chord level" means "sublime chord caster level."

SC-CL = SC-CL + ASC-L

Computationally, you're broken right there. It's not a question of how many "iterations" you do, it's a question of being able to compute the answer once in the first place. In order to calculate the sublime chord caster level, you first need to determine the sublime chord caster level so that you can plug it into the equation. What do you plug in there?

If you interpret "sublime chord caster level" as a function, this is infinitely recursive, and you can't compute it. If you interpret it as a variable that's calculated once and then just plugged in, then it's undefined, because we haven't calculated it yet, and you still can't compute it. That's not an issue of it becoming infinitely large, it's a problem of being unable to continue with the game because you literally cannot carry out the rules as written.

Frank seems to be saying that we should plug in "what the sublime chord's caster level would be if we ignored this rule." That is certainly one way to make the value computable, but I don't see how you could construe the rules as written as actually saying that (if there's some precedent I'm unaware of, feel free to enlighten me).

Catharz seems to be saying that "sublime chord level" should in this particular instance be taken to mean "class level" instead of "caster level," regardless of any rules or precedents that would normally apply, because interpreting it as "caster level" makes it impossible to carry out the rules. However, if you're arguing that the same instructions, used to calculate any value except the sublime chord's caster level, would cause "sublime chord level" to be interpreted as "sublime chord caster level," then it seems to me that you're revising the rules, not interpreting them, with that position.

Of course, Amra, your challenge to see how quickly the game breaks isn't really interesting if you rule that the RAW is inherently self-contradictory and can't be followed in the first place; if you do that, then it has nothing to do with the players' choices at all.

[Amra]

Yes, Sublime Chord refers to "Caster Level" every time. But because the equation is only performed once, it's not infinite or iterative.

But by that reading, the equation can't be performed at all because the caster level of Sublime Chord is an equation which uses the equation used to calculate itself to calculate itself, thereby promptly disappearing up its own arse in a puff of stupid.

So if you do something stupid like get a bonus to all your caster levels (example: Orange Ioun Stone), this actually adds double that to your caster level when you have Sublime Chord.

[...]

But it's not infinite, because the Sublime Chord only checks and sets the one time. You can perform your caster level equation in any order you want, but you can't recalculate any value once you've calculated it.

That's clearly not true: you've just cited an example where the Sublime Chord level checks and sets again!

For example: Our Wizard 8/ Bard 1/ Sublime Chord 1 would have a Caster Level (in all classes) of 9.

No he wouldn't, not if we're saying that "level"="caster level". We can't work it out *at all*.

If we say that "level"="caster level for everything other than the first level of Sublime Chord, which we shall declare as a fixed value of 1" we end up with a caster level of 9, granted, but then the wheels fall off.

If he had an Orange Ioun Stone, he'd have a Caster Level of 11 (Wizard 8 + 1 added to Sublime Chord 1 + 1 = 11).

Wiz8/Brd1/SC1, caster level 9. Adds an Orange Ioun Stone, prompting caster level recalculations. We're saying now that "level=caster level", yes? Wizard caster level goes up to 10. Bard caster level goes up to 10. Sublime Chord caster level = Sublime Chord caster level (10) + Wizard caster level (10) + Ioun Stone (1), for a total of 21; to which latter value Wizard and Bard are now set.

The description cannot mean "caster level" on both sides unless you get very selective about how you apply it, which is just hand-waving.

1182285869[/unixtime]]I can't claim any expertise in D&D rules, but I'm generally pretty good at understanding and following formalized instructions, and I don't see any way you can make that work.

Neither can I, which was pretty much my point with the examples.

According to the earlier quote:

A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord level to her level in another arcane spellcasting class.

This seems to be a pretty clear instruction saying that if you want to know a sublime chord's caster level, for any reason, you add "sublime chord level" to "level in another arcane spellcasting class."

SC-CL = SC-L + ASC-L

To me, the only interpretation that works, consistently, is adding "sublime chord class level" to "class levels in another class". However, an ever-increasing number of my players as well as some people here assert that we're talking about caster levels when performing these calculations, which is why I need to arrive at an answer.

You want to say that "sublime chord level" means "sublime chord caster level."

SC-CL = SC-CL + ASC-L

Computationally, you're broken right there.

Yes.

It's not a question of how many "iterations" you do, it's a question of being able to compute the answer once in the first place. In order to calculate the sublime chord caster level, you first need to determine the sublime chord caster level so that you can plug it into the equation. What do you plug in there?

You simply can't plug anything other than class level in there. Any interpretation that says "you call it class level first time and then call it caster level thereafter" is inconsistent and *still* doesn't work because "your caster level in other arcane spellcasting classes" is always set to be the same as your "Sublime Chord caster level" so all you've done is ducked the problem for a single level.

That's not an issue of it becoming infinitely large, it's a problem of being unable to continue with the game because you literally cannot carry out the rules as written.

Agreed. That's the argument I was trying to make, albeit less succinctly.

Frank seems to be saying that we should plug in "what the sublime chord's caster level would be if we ignored this rule." That is certainly one way to make the value computable, but I don't see how you could construe the rules as written as actually saying that (if there's some precedent I'm unaware of, feel free to enlighten me).

It can't be caster level, it's not possible.

Catharz seems to be saying that "sublime chord level" should in this particular instance be taken to mean "class level" instead of "caster level," regardless of any rules or precedents that would normally apply, because interpreting it as "caster level" makes it impossible to carry out the rules. However, if you're arguing that the same instructions, used to calculate any value except the sublime chord's caster level, would cause "sublime chord level" to be interpreted as "sublime chord caster level," then it seems to me that you're revising the rules, not interpreting them, with that position.

Again, agreed.

My position is this: it's "actual class levels" on BOTH sides of the equation, except when explicitly stated otherwise.

Of course, Amra, your challenge to see how quickly the game breaks isn't really interesting if you rule that the RAW is inherently self-contradictory and can't be followed in the first place; if you do that, then it has nothing to do with the players' choices at all.

That's absolutely not what I'm trying to do. I want an interpretation that works, consistently, and I don't care what that interpretation is.

A Wiz8/Brd2 who adds a level of Sublime Chord takes his class level in an arcane spellcasting class - 8 - and adds it to his Sublime Chord level - 1 - to determine his caster level in all classes, which will now be 9. The computation is revisited every time class level changes, not caster level.

Before you've calculated the sublime chord's caster level, its caster level is undefined. That's not the same as being equal to zero. So you must use the class level, which is a fixednum.

Yes, absolutely.

You then add your class level in another arcane spellcasting class. I'm willing to admit that there is epistemological uncertainty as to whether you're adding the "caster level" or the "class level," but I think that in this case it's safest to assume that you're adding the same thing for both classes.

Absolutely.

Of course, this calculation is to determine a characteristic of spellcasting, so you add the "level used to determine spellcasting ability" for both classes. The "level used to determine spellcasting ability" for a wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 4 is 9. The "level used to determine spellcasting ability" for an Eldritch Knight 2/Loremaster 1 is 3. This is not the same as caster level. Caster level is a quantity derived (in part) from this number.

I was with you right up to that point. I'm still having trouble with this, but let us say that if it's class level, it's class level. A Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 3/Bard 2 who takes a level of Sublime Chord has to use one arcane spellcasting class to determine his caster level. He'll choose Wizard and add one from his Sublime Chord levels to end up with a caster level of 7 in Bard and Sublime Chord.

However, he has 3 levels of Eldritch Knight (goodness knows why). This gives him 2 levels of spells per day and caster level for purposes of Wizard spellcasting. How do we apply the Sublime Chord effect?

I believe it's not unreasonable to say that when the SC level is taken, his Wizard caster level is set to 7. His Wizard class level and spells per day remain unchanged at this point. Then we apply the effect from Eldritch Knight: after all, we derived the SC level from his Wizard level before counting EK, so we should apply the SC caster level effect before counting it too.

Thus, the Wiz6/EK3/Brd2/SC1 gains spells per day as an 8th-level Wizard but casts them as a 9th-level caster. He gains spells per day as a 2nd-level Bard but casts them as a 7th-level caster. He gains spells per day as a 1st-level Sublime Chord, and casts them as a 7th-level caster.

Yes, it makes taking levels in another PrC before Sublime Chord a sub-optimal choice, but... so what?

Now we add in Ur-Priest and we keep to the same interpretation. Wiz6/EK3/Brd2/SC1/UP1 has exactly the same arcane casting ability as above, plus gains spells per day as a 1st-level Ur-Priest. Ur-Priest caster level suffers from all the same arguments as those offered previously in the thread for Sublime Chord:

"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 we're talking about adding "character's ur-priest caster levels" to "one-half of his caster levels in other spellcasting classes", the equation is (thank you, Guest!) computationally impossible. If we're saying it's "class levels in ur-priest" to "caster levels in other spell-casting classes" we are, as a wise person once said, revising the rules rather than interpreting them.

So, the Wiz6/EK3/Brd2/SC1/UP1 character's Ur-Priest caster level is:

1+0.5(6+2+1) = 5.5, or "5".

If the character hadn't been quite so hopelessly awful to begin with and had taken Wiz9/Brd1/SC1/UP1, his Ur-Priest caster level would have been:

1+0.5(9+1+1) = 6.5, or "6".

In terms of Spells Known / Caster Level, this character is:

Wizard 9 / 10
Bard 1 / 10
Sublime Chord 1 / 10
Ur-Priest 1 / 6

This also means no "double effect" from a Karma Bead or Orange Ioun Stone as class levels are unaffected and therefore no level recalculation is performed for Ur-Priest or Sublime Chord. I think this resolves it for me, unless someone can show me a reason why this interpretation can't be applied consistently.

Cheers folks!

[shirak]

Last time I try to explain it. Man, if you can't see my point, we'll just have to agree to disagree. Cheers.

The algorithm for determining the caster level of Sublime Chord is this:

1) Determine your levels in Sublime Chord.
Why levels in Sublime Chord and not "Sublime Chord Caster Level"? Because the last is an undefined quantity and cannot be used for the same reason you can't use ARGABLAHDINGBONG in an English sentence. It doesn't mean anything and defaults to the closest possible meaning based on context, in this case "random word I pulled out of my ass to prove a point". The closest possible meaning of "Sublime Chord Caster Level" in this case is definitionally "levels in the Sublime Chord class". So that's what you use in this instance.


2) Determine spellcasting level of class X

3) Add the two

4) Add any bonuses to Caster level for Sublime Chord (like Ioun Stones)

5) Set the Caster level of Arcane Spellcasting Classes to be equal to the above number

The last step of the algorithm locks the caster level to a certain value so there is no loop. You recalculate the level only if it changes (you wear an Ioun Stone or gain a level or something). And in that case you just run the algorithm form step 1 and that's it. Capiche?

[Amra]

But what I'm saying is that you don't use "caster level" for the Sublime Chord calculation.

Yes, Sublime Chord refers to "Caster Level" every time. But because the equation is only performed once, it's not infinite or iterative.

But by that reading, the equation can't be performed at all because the caster level of Sublime Chord is an equation which uses the equation used to calculate itself to calculate itself, thereby promptly disappearing up its own arse in a puff of stupid.

So yes, I understand that. I also agree that if you don't change the value again there's no loop. You don't need to explain what you're doing, what I want to know is why you're doing it that way!

If it's "class levels" for Sublime Chord, I don't see why it's "caster level" for Class X. I furthermore don't see why you then switch from "class levels" to "caster levels" in the calculation when applying bonuses from Ioun Stones in step 4, unless you're working on the a priori assumption that the description *meant* "caster level".

Why does it mean that, when "class level" all the way doesn't require any additional interpretation and doesn't result in ludicrous caster level increases when combined with other catch-up classes?

Saying "you have to take the closest possible meaning to the thing I've decided it means but it can't possibly be, then assume after that point that it means the thing I decided it did in the first place" is not helping.

You've said it's "class level" in Sublime Chord for step 1 of your example, but "caster level" in step 5. Why should that be so? Tell me why this makes MORE sense than saying "it's class level all the way". I say the description never meant "caster level" because "caster level", as we agree, cannot make sense in the first step of the level calculation.

Your interpretation of the SC calculation would read thusly:

"A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord caster level to her caster level in another arcane spellcasting class."

Mine would read:

"A sublime chord's caster level for both her sublime chord spells and the spells she gains from other arcane spellcasting classes is determined by adding her sublime chord class level to her class levels in another arcane spellcasting class."

Tell me what is wrong with:

1) Determine class level in Sublime Chord: "1"
2) Determine class level of class X: "
3) Add the two
4) Set the caster level of Arcane Spellcasting classes to be the above number
5) Add any bonuses to Caster level (like Ioun Stones)

And that's it, and I'm absolutely sure you capiche just fine.

As far as I can tell, you don't have to "default to the nearest possible meaning" in Step 1 of the calculation if you assume up front that we're talking about class levels, and thus this is the most reasonable interpretation of what is written.

[shirak]

1182345181[/unixtime]]And that's it, and I'm absolutely sure you capiche just fine.

As far as I can tell, you don't have to "default to the nearest possible meaning" in Step 1 of the calculation if you assume up front that we're talking about class levels, and thus this is the most reasonable interpretation of what is written.

I understand just fine. But it isn't what the rules say. The rules say "caster level" and since you can't use that you default to "class level".