Did Frank & K create The Wish and The Word?

[Kaelik]

A single classed wizard 10 picks up an ioun stone. We know by your definition that +1 caster level means he's gaining a class level in some spellcasting class. Since we know that the caster level he ends up with is 11, not 1, we also know that it must be adding to a class that already has 10 levels. The only class he possesses is the wizard class and it has 10 levels, so it logically follows that the "level in a spellcasting class" he's gaining must be in the wizard class. And since wizard levels give you hit dice, base attack bonus, save bonuses and spell slots, then the wizard should be able to cast disintegrate.

However, in the first statement I quoted, you said he couldn't cast disintegrate. That's a logical contradiction.

No you idiot. When you gain spellcasting levels in a spellcasting class, you do not gain Hit Die or BAB or saves. Because you are not gaining levels in a class.

Level means lots of different things depending on the context. Claiming that gaining a spellcasting level gives you more HD or BAB would be fucking retarded, since then when you took a level in Mystic Theurge you would gain a d8 HD from the class, and a d4 from your arcane spellcasting level, and a d8 from your divine spellcasting level.

[Username17]

A single classed wizard 10 picks up an ioun stone. We know by your definition that +1 caster level means he's gaining a class level in some spellcasting class. Since we know that the caster level he ends up with is 11, not 1, we also know that it must be adding to a class that already has 10 levels. The only class he possesses is the wizard class and it has 10 levels, so it logically follows that the "level in a spellcasting class" he's gaining must be in the wizard class. And since wizard levels give you hit dice, base attack bonus, save bonuses and spell slots, then the wizard should be able to cast disintegrate.

However, in the first statement I quoted, you said he couldn't cast disintegrate. That's a logical contradiction.

All of this logical sophistry is retarded. You are claiming a contradiction because you are sneaking in a definition that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by the rules and then using it interchangeably with the actual definition. "Level in a spellcasting class" is not the same thing as "class level" or "character level" but it is the same thing as "caster level." It's as simple as that. That's the definition, it's consistent, and it doesn't change.

When something adds to your level in a spellcasting class, it adds to your caster level and your caster level alone unless it also says that it adds to your level for purposes of spells per day, hit dice, skill maximums, or whatever else.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Devil's advocate: how did he learn it, and out of what spell slots did he cast it? Even if you believe levels in a spellcasting class <=> caster level, you don't have to think that increasing that number (whatever you call it) will grant the class features associated with it. Can you think of any examples where a character is clearly meant to gain new spells and spell slots but isn't explicitly granted them (as is the case with prestige classes) that would make this interpretation suspect?

That is the entire point. Gaining bonus to your caster level clearly does not give you more spells known and spell slots, but gaining a level in a spellcasting class does. Since gaining a level in a spellcasting class gives you things that gaining a bonus to your caster level does not, gaining a bonus to your caster level cannot be the same thing as gaining a level in a spellcasting class.

That is not a response. No one thinks that either prayer beads or loremaster levels improve your will saves from wizard. The question, again, is whether or not it's reasonable that things might increase your levels in a class without actually giving you the class features associated with them. It seems Frank's answer is "no." Does answering "no" to that question produce any glaring inconsistencies with how you expect D&D to work? Caster levels will function the same at his table as your's, as they will count as "levels in a spellcasting class" without giving the associated class features. Standard spellcasting advancement prestige classes will function the same, as they are explicit about counting as levels in a spellcasting class and they are explicit about what class features they do and do not give (such as spells).

Anyway, my little question isn't going to see any more answers, so I'm gonna do a little summary:
A&B) 22 counts the derp-priest levels, wizard levels, advances to your wizard level from the eldritch knight PrC, and the practiced spellcaster caster level increase. 20 is the same thing, except for people who fuck up with the practiced spellcaster cap. This is the answer most consistent with the Word, because caster level boosts count for ur-priest. I'm pretty much positive this is not how caster levels were meant to work, but Frank's position (as I'm understanding and stating it anyway) is consistent in practice with how we think things like prayer beads and loremaster work and I'm interested in seeing if anyone can dig up an actual smoking gun.

C) 18 counts the derp-priest levels, the real wizard levels, and advances to your wizard level from the eldritch knight PrC. This is how virtually everyone would handle it: caster level increases are distinct from your levels in a spellcasting class, and clearly ur-priest should count eldritch knight's advancement because reasons. It's a very reasonable answer, but reasonable is not the same thing as correct and other than getting caught up in bullshit word games about terminology overlap it's surprisingly difficult to actually prove C (and not A) is correct. A lot of the things you might initially think explode when you declare A to be true actually don't, because they have explicit rules text that overwrites the consequences of the difference.

D) 15 counts the derp-priest and real wizard levels aaand stop. This is the simplest and most literal possible reading that can be made, and it is what Grek's position would look like if he stopped arguing that eldritch knight was a spellcasting class. But it's also obviously not what the authors mean by levels in a spellcasting class, as it completely neglects that PrC's exist which can advance spellcasting and that's too big a hole to miss by accident and clearly not intended. This is why Grek has forced himself to argue the inane position that eldritch knight is a spellcasting class: it preserves adherence to the simplest reading of ur-priest while producing results that look vaguely like what ur-priest is clearly meant to give. But of course, that's not how ur-priest works, that's not how ur-priest was meant to work, and prestige classes which advance spellcasting are very clearly not spellcasting classes themselves.

I'm confident saying the authors intended C, which is amusing because C requires the loosest reading of the text. D is an absolutely valid (but not uniquely valid) reading that produces bad results in such an immediate and obvious manner that it can not actually be the correct reading. If you buy Frank's argument, then A is also a valid reading, and it produces its crazy results through exactly the sorts of ill-considered edge cases that an author would miss.

[echoVanguard]

Well, "levels in a spellcasting class" is the actual literal wording in the fucking glossary entry of "caster level" in the Player's Handbook. You can fuck all the way off.

-Username17

Actually, it says (emphasis mine):

caster level: A measure of power with which a spellcaster casts a spell. Generally, a spell's caster level is the spellcaster's class level.

That means that right there in the source you quoted, it specifies that caster level is not the same thing as the spellcaster's class level. Which is consistent with the passage I quoted from d20srd.org on the previous page, but not consistent with the conclusion you are drawing.

Let's perform a logical test of your assertion from your most recent post:

"Level in a spellcasting class" is not the same thing as "class level" or "character level" but it is the same thing as "caster level." It's as simple as that. That's the definition, it's consistent, and it doesn't change.

Let's see what happens when we replace all instances of "level in a spellcasting class" with "caster level" and vice versa. Since you claim they're interchangeable, it shouldn't matter, correct?

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.

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 level in a spellcasting class accordingly.

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 caster level 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.

Assertion #1 produces a recursive statement, and Assertion #2 is nonsensical. The only way the text can be correct is if the terms are not interchangeable.

For your next argument, are you going to try to make a case for two things that have the same value being philosophically interchangeable despite not being the same thing? Because if so, I'll get in ahead of the game and remind you that if a=b it does not necessarily follow that a := b, just to save some time.

echo

[echoVanguard]

When something adds to your level in a spellcasting class, it adds to your caster level and your caster level alone unless it also says that it adds to your level for purposes of spells per day, hit dice, skill maximums, or whatever else. -Username17

Can you produce a citation of a class feature, ability, feat, or other character option which does this ("this" meaning "adding to your caster level without adding to your level for purposes of spells per day, hit dice, skill maximums, or whatever else" using the specific term "level in a spellcasting class" instead of using the specific term "caster level"? Otherwise it's a real Russel's Teapot.

echo

edit - clarity

[Username17]

When something adds to your level in a spellcasting class, it adds to your caster level and your caster level alone unless it also says that it adds to your level for purposes of spells per day, hit dice, skill maximums, or whatever else. -Username17

Can you produce a citation of a class feature, ability, feat, or other character option which does this ("this" meaning "adding to your caster level without adding to your level for purposes of spells per day, hit dice, skill maximums, or whatever else" using the specific term "level in a spellcasting class" instead of using the specific term "caster level"? Otherwise it's a real Russel's Teapot.

echo

edit - clarity

The Loremaster prestige class, which I have asked you assholes to look at several times now, states that it adds to your levels in a spellcasting class and specifies both that you gain spell's per day and spells known. Then, without having even once mentioned "caster level" as a distinct entity from "level in a spellcasting class" it says the following:

determines spells per day, spells known, and caster level accordingly.

Emphasis mine. It literally, specifically, and exactly says that. If something modifies "level in a spellcasting class" it modifies Caster Level whether it ever mentions caster levels or not, because otherwise a lot of things really fall apart. Because the rules have used those terms interchangeably since the core rules.

The only counter argument is people stamping their foot and insisting that "level" in a calculation of caster level must be referring to some other definition of "level" because... no actual fucking reason given. We came up with this fucking thing like eight years ago, and not once has any solitary person ever given a coherent reason why "level" shouldn't be "caster level" in an equation whose sole purpose is to determine caster level.

If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If the rules are on your side, pound the rules. If neither are on your side, pound the table. Two presidential elections have come and gone, and not once has anyone pounded anything but the table.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

You are claiming a contradiction because you are sneaking in a definition that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by the rules and then using it interchangeably with the actual definition. "Level in a spellcasting class" is not the same thing as "class level" or "character level" but it is the same thing as "caster level."

Let me get this straight.

You're saying "levels in the wizard class" is different from "wizard levels"? And that levels in a spellcasting class are not actually class levels, despite being specifically described as levels in a class. And by some Moon Logic you can somehow have 10 wizard levels but also 11 levels in the wizard class at the same time. Somehow this is logically consistent in Frank doublethink land.

AHAHAHA. I haven't laughed my ass off like that in a long time. I've heard some crazy arguments from rules lawyers over the years, but this one takes the cake. Dude, you've reached the point where you no longer have the credibility to call anyone retarded anymore. The illusion of your intellectual superiority is officially pissed away in a toilet and flushed into the sewer.

Time to let go, man up and admit you're wrong. Prove you've got a set of balls and call a spade a spade.

[Kaelik]

You're saying "levels in the wizard class" is different from "wizard levels"?

No he is not saying that, because if you sub in "wizard" in place of "caster" and in place of "spellcasting" you are a fucking fucktard, and even someone as dumb as you should be able to see that those are not valid substitutions because "caster level" is a single term, and caster is not synonymous with wizard, and in fact, means nothing outside of the entire term together.

(Small point of order, caster actually means in the magic overview section, the originator of a spell effect, but since the caster can be a Balor or an item, telling me that "levels in the wizard class" is different from "Balor levels" is not very impressive.)

[echoVanguard]

The Loremaster prestige class, which I have asked you assholes to look at several times now

No. I asked you to provide an example of any character option providing an increase to "level in a spellcasting class" without providing an increase in "your level for purposes of spells per day, hit dice, skill maximums, or whatever else". The Loremaster does not have such a character option, and saying "the first half of the text of this particular class ability totally qualifies even though the second half does what you explicitly asked me not to do" is not going to cut it.

echo

[DSMatticus]

You are claiming a contradiction because you are sneaking in a definition that doesn't make sense and isn't supported by the rules and then using it interchangeably with the actual definition. "Level in a spellcasting class" is not the same thing as "class level" or "character level" but it is the same thing as "caster level."

You're saying "levels in the wizard class" is different from "wizard levels"? And that levels in a spellcasting class are not actually class levels, despite being specifically described as levels in a class. And by some Moon Logic you can somehow have 10 wizard levels but also 11 levels in the wizard class at the same time. Somehow this is logically consistent in Frank doublethink land.

AHAHAHA. I haven't laughed my ass off like that in a long time.

I'm not sure you're cut out for this. Let me see if I can get you up to speed:

There are three terms being debated here: caster level, levels in a spellcasting class, and class level. Frank's assertion is that [caster level] <==> [levels in a spellcasting class] (or that they have some strong relation or whatever and are essentially always equal), but [levels in a spellcasting class] <=/=> [class level]. The former is a point of contention, and the latter is absolutely not. If you need conclusive proof that [levels in a spellcasting class] <=/=> [class level], you need look no further than Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 2. How many levels in a spellcasting class does that character have? How many levels in wizard does that character have? Are they the same value? If they are not, then they clearly do not describe the same property. Pretty simple stuff, and I think everyone except Grek (and apparently you) is on board with that notion.

You are coming at this from very much the wrong end.

[TiaC]

1. Paladin is a spellcasting class.

2. A 20th level paladin has 20 levels in a spellcasting class.

3. A 20th level paladin has a caster level of 10.

Therefore, levels in a spellcasting class does not equal caster level.

[Kaelik]

1. Paladin is a spellcasting class.

2. A 20th level paladin has 20 levels in a spellcasting class.

3. A 20th level paladin has a caster level of 10.

Therefore, levels in a spellcasting class does not equal caster level.

1) A Paladin is a caster.
2) A 20th level paladin has 20 levels in a caster class.
3) A 20th level paladin has a caster level of 10.

Therefore, a caster level is not equal to levels in a caster class.

You are making the incorrect assumption that Paladin being a spellcasting class makes a level of Paladin a spellcasting level. It is not.

One is a term of art. One is an application of natural language.

Paralyzed has a specific definition in the game that is not the same as its natural language one. Your ability to prove that, and not the thing you think you are proving, is not impressive.

[Grek]

You just fucking told us that giving spellcasting class levels is exactly like levels in the class, then you told us that eldritch knight 1 is a spellcasting level.

I only agree with that second one. My claims are that:

A] A prestige class (examples: Loremaster or Arcane Trickster) that has a class feature that says you get the spells you would have gotten for advancing in some other spellcasting class is itself a spellcasting class. If you take two such classes, you get to use the second to advance the casting of the first. Normally it doesn't matter whether you advance Loremaster and apply the Loremaster advancement to Wizard, or advance Wizard directly, but when dealing with prestige classes that have unusual casting progressions, it does.

B] 4 levels in Eldritch Knight counts as 4 levels "in a spellcasting class" for the purposes of Ur Priest spellcasting advancement, even though it doesn't improve your spellcasting for the 1st level.

[DSMatticus]

Claim B is just an application of claim A. Claim A is just bullshit that you are trying to glue together with more bullshit and it's going about as well as can be expected.

You are simultaneously arguing that [eldritch knight -> loremaster -> wizard] works because loremaster is a spellcasting class you can advance (and instead of advancing your loremaster casting which doesn't exist, it advances your loremaster's advancement of other spellcasting classes, in this case wizard) AND that [eldritch knight -> mystic theurge -> wizard, cleric] doesn't work like that because... well, that wouldn't be identical to [eldritch knight -> wizard].

You're literally fucking acknowledging the counter-example that proves your stupid ass claim is stupid and bullshit, and arguing that because it would disprove you it's clearly an exception. And in lieu of providing any actual mechanic basis for that distinction, you just insist It Has Always Been This Way. Look, let's be honest: you're not describing rules. You are making them up in order to reach the desired outcome.

[Grek]

[eldritch knight -> mystic theurge -> wizard, cleric] works by RAW if you consider mystic theurge to be a spellcasting class.

Divine Companion would not work because, as near as I can tell from googling it, it's a feat that applies a template to your animal companion and doesn't advance anyone's spellcasting at all.

[Kaelik]

[eldritch knight -> mystic theurge -> wizard, cleric] works by RAW if you consider mystic theurge to be a spellcasting class.

Divine Companion would not work because, as near as I can tell from googling it, it's a feat that applies a template to your animal companion and doesn't advance anyone's spellcasting at all.

Divine Companion was a completely made up PrC designed to be from the name obviously a PrC that only advanced one type of casting. Replace the made up Divine Companion with any specific spellcasting increasing PrC that isn't a Theurge and you can see the same thing.

[Koumei]

I like how a build made back in 1863 still provides arguments and nerd rage. This thread is incredible.

Frank & K really need to get back together* and start making more things that cause decades of argument.

*in whichever sense of "get back together" the reader wants.

[radthemad4]

Frank & K really need to get back together* and start making more things that cause decades of argument.

*in whichever sense of "get back together" the reader wants.

I like to think of them as originally having been one person with a Jekyll-Hyde type of thing, leaving cryptic messages about game mechanics on post it notes for the other to find. Then something caused them to split into two separate beings. Someday, there will be a big enough threat to the RPG industry that the two will put aside their differences and fuse back together DBZ style. Then, FrankenKeith(or FrankenKay if you prefer) will create the greatest system ever, which will be played by everyone on the planet. Playing this new game will help people better understand each other and themselves and usher in a new era of peace and prosperity.

[Username17]

[eldritch knight -> mystic theurge -> wizard, cleric] works by RAW if you consider mystic theurge to be a spellcasting class.

Yeah, and I'm a multi-billionaire if you consider guineapig shits to be million dollar bills. If you make assumptions that are known to be false, you can derive false conclusions in a logically consistent manner. Who gives a fuck?

Mystic Theurge isn't a spellcasting class. It's in the FAQ. That was made abundantly clear long before the Mystic Theurge was even printed because the equivalent question had to be answered about 3rd edition PrCs. Thisquestion was answered with regards to specifically the Mystic Theurge before it was even printed because it was a god damned web preview.

You are literally attempting to raise controversy about a rules question that was answered before the relevant rules were even printed.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

The former is a point of contention, and the latter is absolutely not. If you need conclusive proof that [levels in a spellcasting class] <=/=> [class level], you need look no further than Wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 2. How many levels in a spellcasting class does that character have? How many levels in wizard does that character have? Are they the same value? If they are not, then they clearly do not describe the same property. Pretty simple stuff, and I think everyone except Grek (and apparently you) is on board with that notion.

You are coming at this from very much the wrong end.

You're over complicating things and then trying to draw a conclusion from PrCs with odd exception-based rules. You're forgetting that to to prove Frank is wrong, I only need to show he's wrong in one instance where caster level and levels in a spellcasting class aren't the same.

Even if you're reading "levels in a spellcasting class" as "combined levels in all spellcasting classes", then use wizard 5/ cleric 5 as counter example. 10 levels in spellcasting classes and yet only a caster level of 5. No matter what way you want to read "levels in a spellcasting class", you will never get a case where caster level and that quantity are always equal. There's no way to spin this where Frank is correct.

But perhaps my counterexample was too complicated, so lets go as simple as possible.

Look at the paladin example that TiaC brought up. Excellent and simple proof that Frank is wrong. Character with 20 paladin levels and yet has a caster level of 10. How can caster level be both equal to half your level and also equal to your levels in spellcasting classes? How are you going to Moon Logic away that one?

It's pretty laughable because about the only thing this thread does is show that Frank refuses to admit he's wrong. It's game designer hubris 101, and I'd blame that attitude for the majority of the problems in the RPG industry. You really can't give effective feedback on TTRPGs, because game designer personalities never admit they're wrong. The more you argue with them, the more they dig in and stick to their guns. I don't know why that is... Maybe they fear they'll lose their credibility if they admit to a mistake? Maybe it's a giant ego and a belief in their own infallibility? I don't know. But regardless, it's a very destructive personality trait that leads to game designers surrounding themselves with fan boys and yes-men instead of people capable of actually giving real feedback.

[virgil]

I don't even know what these people are arguing about any more.

[Username17]

Look at the paladin example that TiaC brought up. Excellent and simple proof that Frank is wrong. Character with 20 paladin levels and yet has a caster level of 10. How can caster level be both equal to half your level and also equal to your levels in spellcasting classes? How are you going to Moon Logic away that one?

Could you get your dick out of your mouth for one fucking second?

Level in a spellcasting class means caster level. It does not mean class levels. It does not mean character levels. A 20th level paladin has 10 levels in a spellcasting class, and 20 levels in paladin, which is a spellcasting class. Level in a spellcasting class is a fucking game term that refers to a very specific use of the word "level" and not to any of the other dozen uses of the word "level" that D&D also uses for other things.

Basically, you're just shellgaming the word "level" over and over again. It's not clever. It's not funny. It's not insightful. If you keep using "level in a spellcasting class" to mean caster level, class level, and character level interchangeably, you'll get results that are stupid and wrong. That doesn't mean there is a fundamental problem with my framework, it means that you aren't keeping your fucking definitions constant even inside your own sentences.

I don't even know what these people are arguing about any more.

People are trying to "best" me by playing verbal shellgames with the word "level." Like somehow I wouldn't notice them trying to sneak a trojan horse into a debate with something as fucking obvious as using the word "level" to mean two different things.

-Username17

[Lago PARANOIA]

Equivocating with the word 'level' is so trite that I'm positive that there's an early-run Knights of the Dinner Table comic mocking it in a Who's On First Way. Hell, it was one of the first gags of Order of the Stick.

[angelfromanotherpin]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html

[DSMatticus]

There are three terms being debated here: caster level, levels in a spellcasting class, and class level. Frank's assertion is that [caster level] <==> [levels in a spellcasting class] (or that they have some strong relation or whatever and are essentially always equal), but [levels in a spellcasting class] <=/=> [class level].

And that levels in a spellcasting class are not actually class levels, despite being specifically described as levels in a class.

You're forgetting that to to prove Frank is wrong, I only need to show he's wrong in one instance where caster level and levels in a spellcasting class aren't the same.

Either you are deliberately moving the goalposts, or this conversation really is going over your head. Read my quote. Read Cyberzombie #1. Read Cyberzombie #2. Of the three terms described in my quote, which two are Cyberzombie #1 comparing? Which two are Cyberzombie #2 comparing? You'll note that they are not the same terms. I am criticizing the position stated by Cyberzombie #1. Even if you mounted the most successful and compelling defense of the position stated by Cyberzombie #2 possible, it would have no bearing on whether or not Cyberzombie #1 is correct or not. They are separate claims.

Even if you're reading "levels in a spellcasting class" as "combined levels in all spellcasting classes", then use wizard 5/ cleric 5 as counter example. 10 levels in spellcasting classes and yet only a caster level of 5.

You have completely misunderstood the point of the example. Nobody is talking about combined levels in all spellcasting classes, and despite Grek's assertions eldritch knight is not a spellcasitng class at all.

Wizard 5/cleric 5 has 5 wizard levels, 5 levels in wizard spellcasting, and a cleric caster level of 5, as well as 5 cleric levels, 5 levels in cleric spellcasting, and a cleric caster level of 5. Wizard 5/eldritch knight 2 has 5 wizard levels, 6 levels in wizard spellcasting, and a wizard caster level of 6. Because the second level of eldritch knight gives you a level in wizard spellcasting without itself being a wizard level. You may disagree with Frank that caster levels are the same thing as levels in a spellcasting class, but if you disagree with Frank that levels in a spellcasting class aren't necessarily class levels then you are wrong because PrC's which advance spellcasting exist. This has no bearing on the validity of the claims of Cyberzombie #2, but it means Cyberzombie #1 is absolutely wrong.