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

[Amra]

I don't see where the rules say "caster level" though. I thought I did, but now I'm sure I don't.

Is it seriously the case that WoTC have NEVER come up with an official clarification for this?

[shirak]

1182346735[/unixtime]]I don't see where the rules say "caster level" though. I thought I did, but now I'm sure I don't.

Is it seriously the case that WoTC have NEVER come up with an official clarification for this?

There is no clear rule. it's one of those situtation where everybody understands something different but they're close enough that the lack of understanding was missed. So it only shows up in weird fringe cases like this.

And yes, WotC never came up with official clarifications. They've never come up with official clarifications about a lot of things. This stubborn refusal to admit their own mistakes is part of why they are... disliked around here.

And, finally, I can say. Welcome to the club man. Welcome to the club

[Amra]

Thanks for the welcome! You'll excuse me if I just pass out on the floor for a while, won't you?

*thud*

That high whistling sound you just heard was the steam coming out of my ears, and the wet splat thereafter was my brain exploding...

I've got this sudden urge to let off steam about those bloody "Save My Game" articles where the response is both "There's nothing wrong with the rules" and at the same time "it's up to you as DM to fix everything that would need to be fixed if there was anything amiss, which there isn't". And what about the FAQ entries that are Just Plain Fvcking Wrong? I mean, these people must eat, sleep and breathe D&D... how can they not KNOW they're full of sh1t? AAAAAAARGH!

[shirak]

1182348352[/unixtime]]Thanks for the welcome! You'll excuse me if I just pass out on the floor for a while, won't you?

*thud*

That high whistling sound you just heard was the steam coming out of my ears, and the wet splat thereafter was my brain exploding...

I've got this sudden urge to let off steam about those bloody "Save My Game" articles where the response is both "There's nothing wrong with the rules" and at the same time "it's up to you as DM to fix everything that would need to be fixed if there was anything amiss, which there isn't". And what about the FAQ entries that are Just Plain Fvcking Wrong? I mean, these people must eat, sleep and breathe D&D... how can they not KNOW they're full of sh1t? AAAAAAARGH!

Now, to become a full member you must get warned on the WotC forums for being a perfectly reasonable guy who asked/answered a question. Don't worry, it's depressingly easier than it sounds.

[Username17]

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).

There actually is.

Here's the deal: the glossary of the PHB defines Caster Level as being usually equal to the level of the class. So until you find a rule that says otherwise, that's your caster level.

So the Sublime Chord actually references its own default values for caster level in its own special rule to change the caster level.

So first you find the default levels (your class level), then you follow the instructions (adding the caster level to another caster level in a different class). Then you stop, because that equation is now completed (even though it has now changed both the values you added together).

Stupid? Hellz yeah. But there is a logic to it if you follow D&D Math rather than actual math.

-Username17

[User3]

Amra:

Would it be correct for me to state that we are in agreement, with the exception of what "for the purpose of casting spells" means?

-

At least it seems like everyone is in agreement that A=A+B works in D&D in the same way as in most programming languages.

[Neeek]

1182349866[/unixtime]]

Now, to become a full member you must get warned on the WotC forums for being a perfectly reasonable guy who asked/answered a question. Don't worry, it's depressingly easier than it sounds.

It is? I've flamed people, evidently once reduced a 13 year old to tears, and started threads that were openly admitted trolls, and not only have I never been warned on the WotC boards, when they were testing their new software, I was invited to help "for [my] contributions to the boards (specifically the Char Op board) and [my] opinions are respected and deserved."

They confuse me to no end. Do I have to start working around the filter to swear or something?

[fbmf]

I got warned on the Ravenloft boards for asking if the original module would be updated for 3.0 back in 2001. It's not hard.

Game On,
fbmf

[shirak]

1182370150[/unixtime]]

1182349866[/unixtime]]

Now, to become a full member you must get warned on the WotC forums for being a perfectly reasonable guy who asked/answered a question. Don't worry, it's depressingly easier than it sounds.

It is? I've flamed people, evidently once reduced a 13 year old to tears, and started threads that were openly admitted trolls, and not only have I never been warned on the WotC boards, when they were testing their new software, I was invited to help "for [my] contributions to the boards (specifically the Char Op board) and [my] opinions are respected and deserved."

They confuse me to no end. Do I have to start working around the filter to swear or something?

I don't know man. I got warned for saying Monk was a bad choice for a ranged build.

[PhoneLobster]

Dude I've been warned like numerous times over there.

Primarily over using a strongly implied condescension toward complete assholes who openly accuse everyone of being munchkins and cheats (apparently the Wizos see no actually problematic behaviour in that sort of language).

Yes, today its condescension, tomorrow, sarcasm. What next? Alliteration?

You clearly aren't trying hard enough Neek, I mean I hardly ever post out there and I'm up to something like my third warning.

[MrWaeseL]

I got warned for calling someone's DM "retarded". I agree with Fbmf, it's not hard at all.

[Dragon_Child]

I got warned for something I said on this message board, and again warned for saying "Jesus Christ" as an exclimation.

[MrWaeseL]

I got warned for something I said on this message board,

Wait, you got warned here or there?

[Dragon_Child]

I got warned THERE, for something I said HERE. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

[User3]

1182359472[/unixtime]]Here's the deal: the glossary of the PHB defines Caster Level as being usually equal to the level of the class. So until you find a rule that says otherwise, that's your caster level.

Er...but the entire discussion is about a rule that says otherwise, isn't it?

[Leress]

Wow, they must like me at the Wizards boards because I have done similar things that some of you have done and have never gotten a warning from a Wizo. I maybe on some posters' ignore list, and I have been attacked with phrases like muchkin and the like.

[Iaimeki]

Despite valiant efforts, I've never been warned on the WotC boards. I feel like I've missed out on something.

[User3]

I've also never been warned by a WizO, as far as I can remember. Maybe that's because I tend to put consistantly stupid posters on my ignore list.

[Cielingcat]

I think I've been warned twice, though one was for posting on a spam thread.

[Neeek]

1182388172[/unixtime]]I got warned THERE, for something I said HERE. Sorry if it wasn't clear.

Which post?

[Amra]

1182363669[/unixtime]]Amra:

Would it be correct for me to state that we are in agreement, with the exception of what "for the purpose of casting spells" means?

I'd go further than that! We're pretty much in agreement, and I even agree with your implicit definition of "for the purpose of casting spells" means: my disagreement is simply that you use this definition for the caster level calculation.

The reason I disagree is actually pretty straightforward, unlike the teeth-gritting ass-pain that results from trying to literally interpret the rest of this pile of steaming mammoth entrails...

The description says "level in another arcane spellcasting class". I believe that "another arcane spellcasting class" is a variable used for convenience and could be replaced by "level in Wizard", "level in Bard" or "level in Beguiler". For me, that means "the levels you have in that class" because I don't see any good reason to extrapolate as far as "your effective level for the purpose of determining your spells per day and caster level".

Yes, we're talking about a calculation to do with spellcasting so I can see why you'd *want* to choose the interpretation you have, but the fact that the interpretation I favour - the simplest possible reading - is sub-optimal for character development would be entirely in keeping with most PrC's!

I consider the Ur-Priest description to even more strongly indicate my interpretation: it says "levels in other spellcasting classes", which I read as "levels in other [spellcasting class A]+[spellcasting class B]+...+[spellcasting class n]". If it said "levels in Wizard" it would be cut and dried. To my mind, deciding that by "levels in other spellcasting classes" it means "total caster level in other spellcasting classes" is a real stretch.

Considering a Wizard 5/Mage of the Arcane Order 3...

What is his Wizard level? Arguably, 8, although the more I consider it the more I'd say 5.

How many levels does he have in "Wizard"? 5, definitely, even if you consider him an 8th-level Wizard for some purposes he only has 5 levels in Wizard.

And now I don't want to hear, speak, read or write the word "level" again for at least four hours!

[Amra]

1182390746[/unixtime]]

1182359472[/unixtime]]Here's the deal: the glossary of the PHB defines Caster Level as being usually equal to the level of the class. So until you find a rule that says otherwise, that's your caster level.

Er...but the entire discussion is about a rule that says otherwise, isn't it?

Well, I'd have said so. The rules in fact talk about "generally", which - in my UK English dictionary at least - has a different connotation. "Usually" means "most of the time, in the majority of cases". "Generally" means "broadly, without regard to specific instances or exceptions".

If this ain't a specific instance, I don't know what is!

Still, I managed to get through that without mentioning the "l" word...

[Cielingcat]

You mean "level"?

[shirak]

1182411884[/unixtime]]You mean "level"?

Bad kitty. No milk for you.

[Cielingcat]

How am I supposed to enjoy my cereal now?