Did Frank & K create The Wish and The Word?

[K]

I sometimes feel that people forget that the Wish and the Word were designed to point out massive flaws in the rules that needed major revisions.

The fact that there even can be an argument about what caster levels or levels in a spellcasting class means is evidence that the whole thing was poorly made by the game dedsigners. It's not evidence that Frank and I are awesomely clever people who think that the Wish and the Word are good gaming in the same way that the Pun Pun people do.

[deaddmwalking]

It's not evidence that Frank and I are awesomely clever people...

It totally is.

Personally, I'm not convinced that the untyped ioun stones stack with themselves (despite untyped bonuses stacking) - guess they should have solved the problem by creating a type for it. Retcon it as a 'bullshit bonus' and most of the problem goes away.

[RadiantPhoenix]

+1 "Caster Level" bonus to Caster Level

[DSMatticus]

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.

In the second case, a paladin who takes church inquisitor gains certain benefits as though he had gained a class level in paladin ("as if he had also gained a level in whatever divine spellcasting class he belonged to before he added the prestige class..." In the context of gaining a level in church inquisitor, "also gained a level in..." is completely unambiguous - it means class levels). Gaining a class level of paladin is worth one-half caster level.

When you read the text for spellcasting advancement class features, it usually refers to gaining benefits as though you had gained a class level. Text trumps table and all that jazz - the table is shorthand you use to summarize the remind (and as such, may not be completely accurate) while the text defines the abilities.

There may be other classes where the slightly different wording leads to completely different results, of course. But a lot of the abilities are worded in such a way that once you look past the table to the ability the tables are referring/summarizing things still work exactly how you'd expect.

[...You Lost Me]

+1 "Caster Level" bonus to Caster Level

God yes.

[Username17]

The point is that "caster level" shouldn't even exist and that there shouldn't be any bonuses or penalties to it. Sure, many spells get nothing or almost nothing for an increase or decrease in caster level (+/-1 to SR checks is something you might never notice), but some spells have hugely important level thresholds like how create undead determines what kind of minions you get.

Some spells should check your character level for things, but nothing should check a semi-level-independent variable called "level." That's just stupid.

-Username17

[OgreBattle]

Does Tomes clear any of that 'caster level' confusion up?

[Username17]

Does Tomes clear any of that 'caster level' confusion up?

We set "level" to "character level" for all level based effects such as item bonuses and monster abilities. And we strongly suggested that people use character level for caster level for all the other crap that we didn't write. We stand by those decisions, they make the game better.

-Username17

[zugschef]

Does anybody know why monte and skip came up with this level-bullshit anyway and didn't just keep it simple?

[NineInchNall]

Well, it probably went something like this:

"How can we give little bonuses that represent someone's being more betterer at a particular sort of magic? Ya know, like an affinity to fire magic or something."

"Well, spells do damage and stuff based on level ... Why not have someone with an affinity to fire cast fireballs as though a higher level?"

"It's so simple!"

...

It also inherited certain expectations from previous editions. Like, if you were dual classed Fighter 10/Wizard 1, you'd have a weak-ass magic missile compared to the single-classed Wizard 9. So they had to keep that stuff in, too.

[zugschef]

Sounds legit.

[hyzmarca]

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%

Yep. It's really poorly defined.

They say x*2 when they really mean x+x. Which is almost the same thing, but isn't. Addition and multiplication are two different operations and the way 3.5 phrases things unnecessarily confuses them.

[Cyberzombie]

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.

You're mixing general and specific here. You can't attach a specifier like "wizard" to class levels and then not attach it to levels in classes or vice versa. Wizard class levels are the same things as levels in the wizard class.

To say otherwise is denial of the english language.

[Username17]

You can't attach a specifier like "wizard" to class levels and then not attach it to levels in classes or vice versa. Wizard class levels are the same things as levels in the wizard class.

To say otherwise is denial of the english language.

Why are you still talking? How did you not notice how fucking stupid you were being when DSM pointed out that the "man in the snow" was not the same things as the "snow man?"

Consider the following sentences:

• "My Mystic Theurge has 3 class levels of Cleric and 3 levels in the Wizard class."
• "My Mystic Theurge has 5 caster levels of Cleric and 5 levels in the Wizard class."

Both those sentences describe the same 8th level character, and both use the phrase "in the Wizard class" but you'll note that the type of level being described is different. Because really, truly, honestly, English does not work the way you keep claiming it does and never has.

-Username17

[Cyberzombie]

Why are you still talking?

Uh oh guys. I might need some help here. Frank is gonna try to bully me, I'm scared!

Come on man. You ain't a tough guy. You're the dude who is too pussy to admit he's ever wrong. You rely on insults and berating people to make your own positions seem stronger, and you hope that if you keep repeating the same bullshit with enough conviction, people will think you're right. I noticed in all of this you couldn't give me a single example of where you were willing to admit you were wrong and change your opinion.

Until you prove to me you're capable of being educated instead of blindly defending every single position you have unto death, it's not worth my time to try to educate you. I'm fine with letting you go to your grave with the idea that the world is flat. I won't lose any sleep over it.

[Omegonthesane]

Come on man. You ain't a tough guy. You're the dude who is too pussy to admit he's ever wrong. You rely on insults and berating people to make your own positions seem stronger, and you hope that if you keep repeating the same bullshit with enough conviction, people will think you're right. I noticed in all of this you couldn't give me a single example of where you were willing to admit you were wrong and change your opinion.

Just the other day, someone produced compelling arguments that my assessment of LA Rlyeh as medium to high tier could be wrong and it should be considered for inclusion in the underpowered bracket, and I accepted their assessment and changed my list accordingly.

Yes he did. Though I suppose you're going to deny it to your grave even if he provides a link.

Until you prove to me you're capable of being educated instead of blindly defending every single position you have unto death, it's not worth my time to try to educate you. I'm fine with letting you go to your grave with the idea that the world is flat. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Said the person who will not alter his position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

[Username17]

Until you prove to me you're capable of being educated instead of blindly defending every single position you have unto death, it's not worth my time to try to educate you.

Look, I know this is hard for you to accept, but you're full of shit. The true test of someone's character is not them admitting that they are wrong, it's admitting that they are wrong when they are actually wrong and not at other times. Admitting that they are wrong when they are actually right would be an example of becoming wrong in response to peer pressure - which is a sign of weakness.

Your argument is that every man in snow is a snow man, every horse in the sea is a sea horse, and every man in garbage is a garbage man. That is an absurd argument. It is not a failure of character on my part to refuse to accept that argument, because it's a dumb argument. Noun phrases connected by prepositions do not automatically imply adjectives on the nouns they are attached to. That is simply not a property English has or has ever had. An "X in Y" is not necessary the same thing as a "Y X." The fact that you think it is means that you're bad at English. It means nothing else.

And when we get to the specific thing being discussed, which is the word "level" in a D&D context - it's even more absurd. There are lots of kinds of "level" that are "in" any particular class. You can have spell levels in a class, caster levels in a class, and caster levels in a class. And that's just in Wizard. There are other classes that have other kinds of levels in them. Crusader has Initiator Levels and Maneuver Levels and Stance Levels in it. Psion has Manifester Levels, Totemist has Meldshaper Levels. You are just fucking wrong. Both generally and specifically.

If you can't tell that you're being a twat shitter when someone brings up the man in snow / snow man example, you have serious problems. Because I can go outside right now and stand in some fucking snow and be a "man in snow" but I'm still not going to be a fucking Frosty look-alike whether I do that or not. Right now, everyone in this discussion, even people who don't agree with me, think your argument is self defeating nonsense. Because it's self defeating nonsense.

-Username17

[DSMatticus]

Why are you still talking?

Uh oh guys. I might need some help here. Frank is gonna try to bully me, I'm scared!

Come on man. You ain't a tough guy. You're the dude who is too pussy to admit he's ever wrong. You rely on insults and berating people to make your own positions seem stronger, and you hope that if you keep repeating the same bullshit with enough conviction, people will think you're right. I noticed in all of this you couldn't give me a single example of where you were willing to admit you were wrong and change your opinion.

Until you prove to me you're capable of being educated instead of blindly defending every single position you have unto death, it's not worth my time to try to educate you. I'm fine with letting you go to your grave with the idea that the world is flat. I won't lose any sleep over it.

You are being a stupid whiny baby. Again. Like that time you started throwing around weirdly personal (and incredibly cliched) attacks at Kaelik because he was mean to you on the internet for saying something dumb. Watching you pretend to be a victim of aggression is getting incredibly fucking awkward and I'm sure we'd all appreciate it if you developed some social awareness and just cut it the fuck it out.

More importantly, it amuses the fuck out of me that your core two complaints are "you just keep repeating the same bullshit!" and "you can't admit you're wrong!" while your response to having your argument from grammar decisively and unambiguously destroyed is... to repeat yourself without admitting you're wrong. Or even provide any counter-argument at all.

You've been threatening to take your ball and go home for awhile now. Please fucking do. You're terrible at this game.

[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.

You're mixing general and specific here. You can't attach a specifier like "wizard" to class levels and then not attach it to levels in classes or vice versa. Wizard class levels are the same things as levels in the wizard class.

To say otherwise is denial of the english language.

Are you mentally handicapped?

Look at your sentence which I quoted, again:

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

You already put a specifier to "levels in a class [emphasis by me]". "A" fuckin' does make it class-specific you goddamn idiot. You're defeating your own argument, again.

Now I know it was the right choice to put you on my ignore-list.

[deaddmwalking]

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

A Wizard 10/Fighter 5 has 15 class levels. His 'levels in a class' are 10 and 5, respectively.

[erik]

Now I know it was the right choice to put you on my ignore-list.

It's the sanity-preserving option. I gave up caring whether he's trolling us or he just really doesn't understand. At the end of the day I'll just have to be satisfied not knowing.

[fbmf]

Come on man. You ain't a tough guy. You're the dude who is too pussy to admit he's ever wrong. You rely on insults and berating people to make your own positions seem stronger, and you hope that if you keep repeating the same bullshit with enough conviction, people will think you're right. I noticed in all of this you couldn't give me a single example of where you were willing to admit you were wrong and change your opinion.

Just the other day, someone produced compelling arguments that my assessment of LA Rlyeh as medium to high tier could be wrong and it should be considered for inclusion in the underpowered bracket, and I accepted their assessment and changed my list accordingly.

Yes he did. Though I suppose you're going to deny it to your grave even if he provides a link.

Until you prove to me you're capable of being educated instead of blindly defending every single position you have unto death, it's not worth my time to try to educate you. I'm fine with letting you go to your grave with the idea that the world is flat. I won't lose any sleep over it.

Said the person who will not alter his position in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

He does about halfway down the page here, as well.

http://www.niftymessageboard.com/viewto ... d144c5a768

He even admits Skip's interpretation is cooler than his. That must have stung. Probably still stings on cold days.

Game On,
fbmf

[Manxome]

Tangential note on an argument NineInchNall made, which is not the same as the argument that Frank made:

Language doesn't work that way. Suppose I say, "When you buy a compact disc at the store, you should check whether it is the same color as your other discs." The second instance of "disc" does not require "compact" in order to refer to compact discs. The second clause actually inherits the contextual restriction to "compact discs" from the first.

It can, but does not have to, inherit "compact" from the first. Natural language is often ambiguous.

This is related to why I can say, "The second clause inherits from the first," and have you know that the "first" is referring to a clause and not a sheep.

Here it must inherit because you dropped the noun instead of the adjective, which makes it syntactically incorrect if it does not inherit. But if you had said "the second clause inherits from your other clause" (compare "...your other discs"), that would not need to be (and probably would not be) interpreted as meaning that the second clause inherits from your other second clause.

In technical writing, restrictions are usually not inherited like that. If you made a Dominion card that said "gain a victory card with a cost equal to the number of cards in your hand", I think you'd have a hard time finding anyone who thought that meant "the number of victory cards in your hand" as opposed to the total number of cards of all types in your hand, even though there is nothing syntactically or semantically problematic about the restricted interpretation.

In the case of the Ur-Priest, the text says, "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." Just as before, the contextual restriction to "caster level" is set by the first instance of "level" and subsequent references to "level" inherit that.

First, you are acting as if "caster" is an adjective that is modifying "level", making "caster levels" a specific subset of "all levels", like "red balloons" are a subset of "all balloons". That's not the case; "caster level" is a term of art which has a special meaning distinct from a literal reading of its component pieces. "Caster level" does not simply refer to any level that happens to be a caster, any more than "Eldritch Knight" just refers to any knight that happens to be otherworldly. So this is not like either of your previous examples, and I'm not sure whether inheritance works at all in this case.

But even if it did, notice there are 3 instances of "level" in your quote:

"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 "caster" qualifier on the first instance of "level" were inherited by all subsequent instances of "level", then this would say that:

(caster level in Ur-Priest) = (caster level in Ur-Priest) + something

which of course has no solution unless the "something" is zero. That's obviously not the intended interpretation of that sentence. So even if we assume that "level" can inherit "caster" at all, it clearly doesn't always inherit (or if it does, then this sentence is nonsensical and we can't use it at all).



As for Frank's argument, if I were the king of D&D and during the design process someone came to me and said they wanted to define the term "levels in a spellcasting class" as referring to "caster levels" rather than "class levels", I would tell them they were an idiot and there was no chance in hell we were doing that. However, that does not preclude the possibility that the actual designers were idiots and did exactly that, and I have substantially less technical knowledge of D&D than most of the people on this forum, so I will not opine on what they actually did.

[jadagul]

As for Frank's argument, if I were the king of D&D and during the design process someone came to me and said they wanted to define the term "levels in a spellcasting class" as referring to "caster levels" rather than "class levels", I would tell them they were an idiot and there was no chance in hell we were doing that. However, that does not preclude the possibility that the actual designers were idiots and did exactly that, and I have substantially less technical knowledge of D&D than most of the people on this forum, so I will not opine on what they actually did.

This is important. Something that I think gets lost in a lot of these arguments is that all too often, the answer to "what do the rules really say?" is "Oh my god, who wrote these incredibly shitty and ambiguous rules?" They don't necessarily resolve unambiguously to an answer at all.

[Red Archon]

Because "caster level" or commonly CL is such a high-use term and "level in spellcasting class" seems to only occur in PrC level-ups, it's not entirely surprising that this is very confusing. The moment I read the statement that those two phrases are equal, I, too, was like "The fuck they are!" but the moment I set out to make an actual argument against it, I got lost in a similar lingo-technical shitstorm that's making the last four pages nearly incomprehensible.

After reading this, I think I haven't exactly wasted my time, I'm just a worse person now.