PDA

View Full Version : Wanted: Practiced Spellcaster



Skaves
06-28-2007, 04:27 PM
Practiced Spellcaster

Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells cast from that class are more powerful.

Prerequisite: Spellcraft 4 ranks. (we can use Concentration I suppose)

Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4. This benefit can't increase your caster level to higher than your Hit Dice. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain Hit Dice in levels of nonspellcasting classes, you might be able to apply the rest of the bonus.

For example, a human 5th-level sorcerer/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his sorcerer caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8 Hit Dice). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his sorcerer caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 Hit Dice).

A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect.

This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only, which would help you penetrate spell resistance and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.

Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time you choose it, you must apply it to a different spellcasting class. For instance, a 4th-level cleric/5th-level wizard who had selected this feat twice would cast cleric spells as an 8th-level caster and wizard spells as a 9th-level caster.





I thought if this feat from the Complete Arcane was implimented the Multiclassed Casters would love it.

Gimpster
06-28-2007, 05:34 PM
A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect.
DDO should not allow ranger or paladin spellcaster level to benefit from Practiced Spellcaster. There should just be Practiced Wizard, Practiced Cleric, and Practiced Sorc. (Maybe also bard)

1. Rangers and Paladins in this game already have double the caster level they do in PnP. That is a major boost, and they don't need to be given more.

2. There is rather little reason to stay pure to the ranger/paladin classes instead of going into barb or fighter for more combat power. However, staying pure up to level 11 is important because you get the valuable Resist Energy 30 spell. Allowing someone to have that spell power with just 7 ranger levels would be bad.

Note that a PnP ranger needs to be level 22 to get resist 30, or level 14 if he takes Practiced Spellcaster.

Corran99
06-28-2007, 05:44 PM
practiced spellcaster dose not work that way. if you have a 14th level ranger and take practiced spellcaster guess what you still cast as a 14th level ranger.

Now if the same 14th level character had 12 levels of ranger and and 2 levels of fighter it would allow him to cast spells he has access to as a 12th level caster but allows them to cast them as a 14th level ranger.

In the feat description it says that practiced spell caster cannot grant spell casting ability above the hit dice of the character. this feat was designed to help multiclass casters get a bonus to their spells by raising there effective caster level up by 4 levels.

Gimpster
06-28-2007, 06:11 PM
practiced spellcaster dose not work that way. if you have a 14th level ranger and take practiced spellcaster guess what you still cast as a 14th level ranger.
Wrong. The Practiced Spellcaster feat increases your caster level for a single class by either +4, or to a max of your HD. A 14th level ranger is caster level 7, so training Practiced Spellcaster would bring him up to CL 11.


Now if the same 14th level character had 12 levels of ranger and and 2 levels of fighter it would allow him to cast spells he has access to as a 12th level caster but allows them to cast them as a 14th level ranger.
No. He'd have the spells of a 12 ranger, and a caster level 6+4=10.


In the feat description it says that practiced spell caster cannot grant spell casting ability above the hit dice of the character. this feat was designed to help multiclass casters get a bonus to their spells by raising there effective caster level up by 4 levels.
Yes, that was the intention of the feat. But it also gives a great benefit to non-multiclassed rangers, paladins, and other classes whose caster level is 4 or more below their class level.

PS. This is touching on a design flaw of 3rd edition D&D. Effects which boost your caster level should have a consistent way to apply to classes which advance CL at variable rates. For example, a prestige class which gives you +1 level of divine spellcasting should generally give +1 level to clerics and +2 to paladins.

llevenbaxx
06-29-2007, 07:22 AM
So am I right in saying that this feat is only useful really for helping to overcome spell resistance, increasing the affects of level dependant damage spells and increasing the duration of buffs?

Many times I have seen this(and other) feat(s) asked for here. Do they ever plan on adding any new feats? All they seem to be interested in really expanding upon is there "super" enhancement system. Give us some more D&D already. Feats man, feats.

Gimpster
06-29-2007, 07:51 AM
So am I right in saying that this feat is only useful really for helping to overcome spell resistance, increasing the affects of level dependant damage spells and increasing the duration of buffs?
No. As already explained, it also increases level-dependent effects of spells, such as Resist Energy increasing to 30 at caster level 11.

The other effect will be raising your caster level for dispel checks. It gives you all the benefits of increased spellcasting except for more mana and more slots.

KristovK
06-29-2007, 11:30 AM
Gimpster, I've never seen it applied that way in PnP in regards a Ranger/Paladin...even when this feat was taken by one who multiclassed. While it does TECHNICALLY say what you say it does, that's not the spirit of the feat and that's not how it's meant to be implemented. It's very clearly meant to raise the effective caster level of a MULTICLASSED caster, not get around the inbuilt limitations of the Ranger/Paladin effective caster levels.

I'm sure there's munchkins out there who've done this, but no DM with any sense would allow it, it's obviously not what the feat is meant to do.

Gimpster
06-29-2007, 12:17 PM
I'm sure there's munchkins out there who've done this, but no DM with any sense would allow it, it's obviously not what the feat is meant to do.
No:
1. Munchkins don't play rangers.

2. Conceptually, if a feat lets a Fighter4/Druid4 advance to the caster level of 8, it should also advance a Ranger8 to a caster level of 8. Neither kind of improvement is fundamentally more sensible or more balanced. After all, something like ranger is essentially a pre-multiclassed class, and they should behave like a multiclass in several mechanical ways.

Roguewiz
06-29-2007, 12:53 PM
misread

In regards to Caster Level:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#casterLevel

Practiced spellcaster allows you to increase your Caster Level by +4, but cannot exceed your character level.

Therefor
3 Wizard, 4 Fighter = Caster Level 3. Practiced Spellcaster will make it Caster Level 7
4 Wizard 2 Fighter = Caster Level 4. Practiced Spellcaster will make it only 6, because you are only a 6th level character.

Final Example:
6 Wizard, 8 Fighter = Caster Level 6, Character Level 15 = Practiced Spellcaster will make your Caster level 10, allowing you to get 10th level power out of your CURRENT spells.

BluePaladin24
06-29-2007, 01:08 PM
Okay, I use this feat all the time. Here is how it really works.

I have a Centaur lvl 6 Wizard. Drow have an ECL of +6. So I am an 12th lvl character with 10 Hit dice. (Centaur 4d8 hit dice, +2 ECL, makes it ECL 6)

So I am caster level 6, have spells as a 6th level wizard, and I have practiced spell caster. I do not gain spells as a 10th level wizard. That would be the most overpowered thing I have ever heard in my life. If you do not believe me go to a book store, and open up complete arcane. I have it in front of me.

I am with my party in combat against a white dragon. I cast fire ball. The fire ball deals 10d6 points of damage (6th level wizard +4 from practiced spell caster). For purposes of overcoming the spell resistance I would be a 10th level caster.

This is actually a really well balaced feat.

llevenbaxx
06-29-2007, 01:14 PM
misread

In regards to Caster Level:
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#casterLevel

Practiced spellcaster allows you to increase your Caster Level by +4, but cannot exceed your character level.

.

Thats right, I forgot about that part in the description. Since a rangers spell progression is just slower than the primary casting classes, they simply arent a MC therefore the feat wouldnt raise their affective caster level as it is in fact already his max level. Would this be correct?

Roguewiz
06-29-2007, 01:41 PM
Thats right, I forgot about that part in the description. Since a rangers spell progression is just slower than the primary casting classes, they simply arent a MC therefore the feat wouldnt raise their affective caster level as it is in fact already his max level. Would this be correct?

I've never personally used the feat as a "hybrid" class, so I am not sure. Keep in mind, there are a few spells which don't start off at max. Take Divine Favor (or whatever it is called) for Paladins. It doesn't start off maxed out. It doesn't max until level 9 Paladin.

Yet another example:
Ranger 8/Rogue 6

Jump
+10 skill, +20 at 5th level caster, +30 at 9th.

This is the confusing part about this feat. It either works one of two ways.

1st way (the way I believe it works.)
-Increased your Caster Level to 12, allowing you full affect of your current spells

2nd way (the most confusing)
-Since you dont gain spells until level 4, your "5th level" would be 9th level ranger, and your "9th level" would be 12th level ranger.

Corran99
06-29-2007, 02:05 PM
Wrong. The Practiced Spellcaster feat increases your caster level for a single class by either +4, or to a max of your HD. A 14th level ranger is caster level 7, so training Practiced Spellcaster would bring him up to CL 11.


No. He'd have the spells of a 12 ranger, and a caster level 6+4=10.


Yes, that was the intention of the feat. But it also gives a great benefit to non-multiclassed rangers, paladins, and other classes whose caster level is 4 or more below their class level.

PS. This is touching on a design flaw of 3rd edition D&D. Effects which boost your caster level should have a consistent way to apply to classes which advance CL at variable rates. For example, a prestige class which gives you +1 level of divine spellcasting should generally give +1 level to clerics and +2 to paladins.The way I read the description for the feat is that if you have a 10/2 ranger/fighter his caster level would be 5. now adding the feat into the equation would make the character spells act as if he was a 12th level ranger which would mean that his caster level is 6 instead of 5.

This is the way I would have it work in any game I play, as I'm sure this is the way it was meant to be implemented. unfortunately the way it was worded does make it a bit fuzzy.

Corran99
06-29-2007, 02:07 PM
Okay, I use this feat all the time. Here is how it really works.

I have a Centaur lvl 6 Wizard. Drow have an ECL of +6. So I am an 12th lvl character with 10 Hit dice. (Centaur 4d8 hit dice, +2 ECL, makes it ECL 6)


So is he a Drow or Centaur?

Roguewiz
06-29-2007, 02:08 PM
So is he a Drow or Centaur?

I'm confused also. Because drow only have an ECL of 2 or 3, last i checked ;)

Solik
06-29-2007, 02:36 PM
I fully support implementation of this feat, with Gimpster's caveats.

SneakThief
06-29-2007, 03:38 PM
2nd way (the most confusing)
-Since you dont gain spells until level 4, your "5th level" would be 9th level ranger, and your "9th level" would be 12th level ranger.

I dont think you are calculating caster level for Ranger right for PnP. There is no subtraction involved.

Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is one-half his ranger level.

A 9th level Ranger would be 4.5 (doesnt specify rounding rules), but more importantly, a 10th level Ranger is only CL 5 in PnP, not 6.

The difference (and why someone brought up Rangers and Paladins at all) is that in DDO, as a Ranger or Paladin, your CL is you class level. So a level 10 Ranger is CL 10 in DDO, but 5 in PnP.

So the complaint was the Practiced Spell caster should not apply to Rangers/Paladins in DDO because thier CL is already inflated quite a bit.

Though regardless of how they implement it for Rangers/Paladins, I would LOVE to see this feat added!

BluePaladin24
06-29-2007, 05:24 PM
So is he a Drow or Centaur?


Sorry was typing fast, and at work. Centaur

KristovK
06-29-2007, 10:53 PM
No:
1. Munchkins don't play rangers.

2. Conceptually, if a feat lets a Fighter4/Druid4 advance to the caster level of 8, it should also advance a Ranger8 to a caster level of 8. Neither kind of improvement is fundamentally more sensible or more balanced. After all, something like ranger is essentially a pre-multiclassed class, and they should behave like a multiclass in several mechanical ways.

Actually Gimp, yeah, they do player Rangers, usually just enough to get TWF for free true enough, but some take more levels and go with PrCs that sweeten the ranged abilities or FE feats. Isn't a class in PnP that munchkins can't abuse to the nine hells and back, much as in MMOs there are always people who'll abuse anything they can find.

And you have to take Practiced Caster for a specific CLASS, it's not generic and doesn't add to each caster class you have by taking it once. So that Ranger/Druid would need to take it twice in order to affect both Druidic and Ranger spells, and it would only allow the character to cast spells as an 8th Druid/8th Ranger. Rangers do act like a multi in some respects...such as their caster level progression in PnP...1-3rd level, no caster level, 4th and up, 1/2 of level is the caster level, and they top out with 4th level spells. It's actually a wasted feat for a Ranger to take PractCast:Ranger, so I really doubt many PnP players bother with it except for munchkins who can convince a DM that it raises their total caster level as you suggest Gimp, which is clearly not it's intent. Conceptually a Ranger 4/Druid 4 taking PractCast Ranger is...well...stupid, they'd be taking PractCast Druid since those spells would actually benefit from the feat, but I guess that didn't factor into your conceptualization.

The feat is obviously NOT meant to raise the caster level of a single class's progression, it's very clearly meant to be used by multiclassed builds to increase the magical power of a caster who's given up levels of caster for something else, such as the Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge. As I said, only munchkins would try to argue what you are saying Gimp and no halfassed intelligent DM would fall for it.

And in DDO it would be pointless anyway, Ranger/Paladin already get a full 1/1 caster progression, shouldn't but they do, so it'd be even dumber for one of those classes to take the feat in DDO.

Seriously..if you honestly thought this feat did what you posted...man...I don't know how to respond to that. Member of the Church I take it Gimp?

Shawhan
06-30-2007, 12:15 AM
I played a cleric/wizard for over a year when i saw this feat. For the next year i truely loved my character. I would love to see this in DDO. I know there is a small window of abuse easily controlled by the dev's but i think it would be excellent. For almost any character the cost of the feat for this as opposed to something else is a very respectable price to pay. Specially for something like a bard or sorcerer or cleric who does not get extra feats like a wizard does.

Shawhan

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 12:36 AM
And you have to take Practiced Caster for a specific CLASS, it's not generic and doesn't add to each caster class you have by taking it once. So that Ranger/Druid would need to take it twice in order to affect both Druidic and Ranger spells, and it would only allow the character to cast spells as an 8th Druid/8th Ranger.
Nobody mentioned any druid/ranger. The classes compared were a pure ranger and a druid/fighter.


The feat is obviously NOT meant to raise the caster level of a single class's progression
That is blatantly false.

What part of "increase your caster level by four" do you not understand?


Seriously..if you honestly thought this feat did what you posted...man...I don't know how to respond to that.
That is true. You do not know how to respond to someone who understands how the D&D game works.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 11:28 AM
I evidently mixed up someone's multiclass, sorry about that, saw ranger/druid not fighter/druid.

And the rule IS pretty clear, it raises the spell casting level of a multiclassed character by up to +4 in the casting class chosen. Please note that difference as it's rather important. Taking that one word out of the description is what munchkins do Gimp. The rule is pretty clear that this is a feat for multiclassed builds with caster levels, not single classed casters.

I understand the rules of D&D fine, I also understand how to manipulate them by adding or subtracting words from the rules to make them fit one's own desired result. 3.0 and 3.5 have enough blatantly munchkin rules and add-ons that you don't need to make more where they don't exist.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 12:40 PM
And the rule IS pretty clear, it raises the spell casting level of a multiclassed character by up to +4 in the casting class chosen. Please note that difference as it's rather important. Taking that one word out of the description is what munchkins do Gimp. The rule is pretty clear that this is a feat for multiclassed builds with caster levels, not single classed casters.
That is absolutely and blatantly false. Maybe you don't have the rulebook in question, but you are completely misrepresenting it. The word "multiclass" is not involved anywhere in the feat.

It's a feat for characters whose caster level is less than character level. Why their CL is less than HD is irrelevant.

If the game designers judged it as fair for a fighter4/druid4 to spend a feat to advance from CL 4 to 8, it is also fair for a ranger8 to spend a feat to go from CL 4 to 8. In fact, because the ranger's spell list is worse than a druid's, he is gaining less benefit from taking this feat than a multiclass would.

Richtenfaust
06-30-2007, 12:50 PM
I evidently mixed up someone's multiclass, sorry about that, saw ranger/druid not fighter/druid.

And the rule IS pretty clear, it raises the spell casting level of a multiclassed character by up to +4 in the casting class chosen. Please note that difference as it's rather important. Taking that one word out of the description is what munchkins do Gimp. The rule is pretty clear that this is a feat for multiclassed builds with caster levels, not single classed casters.

I understand the rules of D&D fine, I also understand how to manipulate them by adding or subtracting words from the rules to make them fit one's own desired result. 3.0 and 3.5 have enough blatantly munchkin rules and add-ons that you don't need to make more where they don't exist.

If the rule was clear, people like you wouldn't be misreading it. I don't see the word "multiclassed" anywhere in the description of the feat. Do you have a D&D 3.51 that I don't know about? Some errata I have never read? Anyway, your mistakingly taking the "I read it right" stance is irrelevant and ignorant. Instead of making a long-winded argument as to how you are wrong in your interpretation, I will go with the shortest route to how it works as possible: the way it works in NWN 2, which plays *1111110000000%* by D&D 3.5 rules, it adds the full +4 caster levels to a Ranger or Paladin. It had to be patched and corrected to work *properly* after its initial release. Don't believe me? Take 2 minutes to do a Google search...you know, add some validity to your arguments.

That goes for everyone...if anyone here had bothered to do 5 sec. of research instead of getting into an "interpretation" argument, they would've found several official Wizards articles and official "interpretations" in D&D media, such as with NWN 2...then people like KristovK would've been shut down 3 posts in.

Now, as for your incessant repetition of the word "munchkin..." Care to define it for us? Wait, I'll save you the trouble...

Munchkin - 1. A slang term used by gamers of below-average intelligence to describe other gamers that actually pay attention to the rules systems of various games and create highly effective combinations within said rules sets.

Seriously, though, who are you to judge anyone else for the way they build their characters or choose to play them? Just because you lack the ability or innovation to rub two feats together and get one over on the bad guys doesn't give you the right to chastize others for doing so.

People who hate "munchkins" only hate them because they can't be them. Same reason I hate rich people.

QuantumFX
06-30-2007, 01:01 PM
DDO should not allow ranger or paladin spellcaster level to benefit from Practiced Spellcaster. There should just be Practiced Wizard, Practiced Cleric, and Practiced Sorc. (Maybe also bard)

What's I'd rather see in this case is have Paladins and Rangers get their caster levels adjusted to their P&P standards. Then have Practiced Spellcaster (Ranger), Practiced Spellcaster (Paladin) implemented plus have a 1/1/1/1 AP enhancement chain implemented so they could keep their full caster level DDO advantage but actually have to pay for the advantage either with feats or APs. The paladin aura enhancements would have to come down in cost though so they could keep their relative power... Overall no one would lose and the game would have a higher level of complexity.

And reading the rules lawyering going on I have to ask - Are the different versions just inconsistant editing from different sources? Some of the descriptions read like a D&D 3.0 version others are pulled from Complete Arcane and yet others are pulled from Complete Divine. The only official description I've read is from HERE (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rp/20041201a)

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 01:21 PM
Some of the descriptions read like a D&D 3.0 version others are pulled from Complete Arcane and yet others are pulled from Complete Divine. The only official description I've read is from HERE (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/rp/20041201a)
That version is incorrect. Maybe they intentionally changed it because Practiced Spellcaster is not in the D20 SRD, and they didn't want to release splatbook feats on the web in usuable form.

Regardless, the version of Practiced Spellcaster in Complete Divine does not use that language. The bit about "depends on your nonspellcasting class levels" is not part of the actual feat.

The version I'm using is Practiced Spellcaster in Complete Arcane, which is a newer book than CD and would supercede it if there was a conflict.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 01:24 PM
That goes for everyone...if anyone here had bothered to do 5 sec. of research instead of getting into an "interpretation" argument, they would've found several official Wizards articles and official "interpretations" in D&D media, such as with NWN 2
NWN games do not suffice as any kind of proof regarding what the D&D rules are. It's easy to point to many examples where NWN violates D&D, such as the Martial Weapons Proficiency feat.

QuantumFX
06-30-2007, 01:44 PM
That version is incorrect. Maybe they intentionally changed it because Practiced Spellcaster is not in the D20 SRD, and they didn't want to release splatbook feats on the web in usuable form.

Regardless, the version of Practiced Spellcaster in Complete Divine does not use that language. The bit about "depends on your nonspellcasting class levels" is not part of the actual feat.

The version I'm using is Practiced Spellcaster in Complete Arcane, which is a newer book than CD and would supercede it if there was a conflict.

Exactly - I think the different versions are what's causing a lot of the arguments here. It's kinda like a Ring of Evasion with a heavy armor wearer and does the shield spell work with or against the monk AC bonus ability. Also, it's not like Turbine isn't infamous for changing core rules to make it more MMO friendly.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 02:58 PM
I was going to point out what you did Gimp, that NWN/NWN2 can't be used as a source, they do vary from the PnP rules, often widely, and they do things totally outside of the PnP rules altogether(Tumble adding +1AC every 5 ranks anyone?). Not to mention that the only question in regards this specific subject on the NWN2 boards was answered by another poster, not by a dev for NWN2, so it's not even halfassed official.

I am using the PractCast feat as linked by QuantumFX, I don't have the 3.5 books and add-ons and that's the description of the feat originally shown me.


Practiced Spellcaster (from Complete Divine): When determining caster level for one of your spellcasting classes, you can add a bonus of up to +4. The amount of the bonus depends on the number of nonspellcasting class levels you have; you can add +1 for each nonspellcasting class level up to the limit of +4.

That feat is pretty clear about what it does and how it works, there's NO way to rule lawyer it into anything but what it is, it adds caster levels from NON-caster classes up to +4 total. It's very clearly meant for a multiclassed build and nothing else.

Now, according to what I can find on the web, there's various rulings on this feat now, even WoTC doesn't say anything specific on this, probably because no one has actually asked if it applies in the way Gimp said to a Ranger/Paladin. From http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/feats

Practiced Spellcaster CAr 82 Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells cast from that class are more powerful.
Practiced Spellcaster CD 82 Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells cast from that class are more powerful.

Problem is, neither of those actually fit the descriptions given by those books for the feat, which has different entries in each book(see above for the CD entry). And yes, I know, the most currently published book supercedes all previous books/entries. I don't have the CAr, should go find a copy and see exactly what the feat says, unless someone wants to post the exact description instead of 'it doesn't say that'.

The D&D 3.5 FAQ says this...

Does the bonus to caster level from the Practiced
Spellcaster feat (from Complete Arcane and Complete
Divine) apply before or after other caster level bonuses
(such as those from the Good or Healing domains)?
The bonus from Practiced Spellcaster applies whenever it
would be most beneficial to the caster. A 4th-level cleric/4thlevel
fighter with the Healing domain and Practiced Spellcaster
would cast Conjuration (Healing) spells as a 9th-level caster
(base caster level 4th, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster, +1 from
the Healing domain). A 4th-level cleric/4th-level rogue with
Practiced Spellcaster who activates a bead of karma (from a
strand of prayer beads) would cast her spells as a 12th-level
caster (base 4, +4 from Practiced Spellcaster, +4 from bead of
karma).

Which again isn't very clear and doesn't help. It then goes on to say this..

How does Practiced Spellcaster interact with the wild
magic class feature of the wild mage (from Complete
Arcane)?
The –3 penalty and +1d6 bonus to the wild mage’s caster
level are applied as a single step in the process of determining
the wild mage’s caster level. Since Practiced Spellcaster’s
bonus is always applied when it is most beneficial to the
character (see previous answer), a wild mage with Practiced
Spellcaster would typically apply the wild magic class feature
first (subtracting 3 and adding 1d6 to her caster level) and then
add the Practiced Spellcaster benefit, up to a maximum value
equal to her character level.
For example, if a 5th-level wizard/4th-level wild mage with
Practiced Spellcaster rolled a 1 on the 1d6 bonus to her caster
level, her caster level for that spell would be 9th (base 9th, –3
from wild magic penalty, +1 from wild magic bonus, +4 from
Practiced Spellcaster up to a maximum equal to her character
level). If she rolled a 6, her caster level would be 12th (base
9th, –3 from wild magic penalty, +6 from wild magic bonus;
the Practiced Spellcaster bonus would not apply since it would
increase her caster level above her character level).
On the other hand, imagine a wild mage whose caster level
(before applying the effects of the wild magic class feature) is
less than her character level, such as a wild mage with levels of
rogue or other non-spellcasting class. She might well choose to
apply the Practiced Spellcaster bonus first, before applying the
wild magic modifiers. A rogue 4/wizard 5/wild mage 4 would
have a base caster level of 9th before any other modifiers are
applied. Adding Practiced Spellcaster’s bonus would increase
this to 13th, at which point the penalty and bonus from wild
magic would be applied. The Sage recommends that players
averse to frequently recalculating caster level avoid playing a
character with this combination, as it is likely to cause
headaches.

Again, not very clear on this subject, it's only ever applied to 'pure' caster classes in regards to questions/responses. The feat originally was quite clear on what it does and where it applied. It would seem that WoTC has now made it rather vague and lets the CoM players apply it however they see fit...what a shock.

Oh..and Richtenfaust...munchkin is a term that's been around for a good 20+ years now in this genre, it even had it's own webpresence once upon a time in the Church of the Munchkin, which was very clear on exactly what it was and what it meant.....exploiting every single possible rule in ANY PnP game for the best possible advantage for the player, game balance be damned. I'm actually quite adept at doing this, did it for a while helping develop PnP games in the late 80's, drove designers nuts by finding every possible loophole and exploit there was..even creating them if there was any vagueness about a rule or rules at odds with each other. Came in quite useful when designing and building NWN worlds online, I knew every possible exploit and loophole in character design and building from the base NWN through the 2 Expacks and the PrC, so I could plan accordingly and deal with problems before the players created them. Because I did code with the Aurora engine for NWN, I could exploit even easier, I knew where the bugs were on top of the bad design flaws. I can do the same thing in DDO that I did in NWN and PnP, it's easy, and I don't get on people for doing it in DDO, I don't like it and don't do it myself, but to each their own. Calling a spade a spade is just that, calling something what it is. If you get a guilty feeling about being called a munchkin...well...sounds like you know you are doing something wrong and don't like being called on it...but that's something for your shrink to deal with, not me, I could give a kobold's scaly rearend.

Richtenfaust
06-30-2007, 03:26 PM
So you are capable of research and semi-intelligent thought! Good. Now go back and *read* the way the feat is written. There doesn't need to be anything official written by WotC on it because IT IS SELF-EXPLANATORY! "Add +4 to your spellcasting level, but not to exceed your HD" (paraphrased).

Ranger lvl 8 - Caster Lvl 4
+4 Caster level

4+4 = 8...which does not exceed Ranger's level of 8, also his HD.

If you could point out the part that is up to interpretation, that would be most helpful. Also, yes, I was off on the NWN 2 thing, but it's a heckuva lot more official than DDO. The variations are for the benefit of a video game transition, not because they felt like doing it that way. As for the original NWN, it would of course be more broken compared to standard D&D, so I wouldn't use it as a reference for anything.

But you've admitted that you didn't bother to look the feat up in an actual sourcebook...just some dumbed down online interpretation. Stop looking for the original wording online and go out and buy a few *actual* 3.5 books. I own every WotC 3.5 sourcebook produced up to Secrets of Sarlona and I've been playing the game since AD&D 1st Edition. People play DDO for a few months and all of the sudden they are rules experts.

For yours and everyone else's benefit, here is the *EXACT* wording out of the Complete Arcane (the most recent wording available, for which there is no rules errata nor FAQ concerning the details of this feat, only FAQs as it applies to Wild Mage, Ultimate Magus, and Mystic Theurge):

"Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by 4. This benefit can't increase your caster level to higher than your Hit Dice. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain Hit Dice in levels of nonspellcasting classes, you might be able to apply the rest of the bonus."

Then it lists the examples, one of which is ranger/druid, though it doesn't go into detail. Since the wording of the feat doesn't say "halve the +4 for Paladins and Rangers," and Ranger is one of the valid options for this feat, it doesn't take a genius to know that a Ranger's caster level doesn't match his HD, so he can make it match his HD with this feat. A very important point to note, the word multiclass appears nowhere in the *entire* description of the *entire* feat, even in the examples. So stop blathering on about how it only applies to multiclass characters. You're wrong.

Richtenfaust
06-30-2007, 03:28 PM
I hate being logged out...it always tries to post things twice.

But while I'm here, I don't get any sort of guilty feeling being called a munchkin. I embrace it now, because when you say "munchkin" I hear "you know the rules, I don't." But a person can only hear the same thing so many times before they get tired of it, even if it is complimentary.

As for game balance, yep...game balance be damned. If they don't want the rules to be used as they are printed, then they need to change the rules. I don't bend or break anything...I just build the best character to fit my concept. We are playing *heroes* after all, not "average at everything but exceptional at nothing" characters. Bottom line: character creation is all about mechanics...you want to build the best machine possible. That's what a so-called "munchkin" does. But if you're happy with a Ford, far be it by me to change your mind. I'll keep my Ferrari.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 03:39 PM
The CD listing is very clear, nothing added or subtracted from it, and it's the original version of the feat. Adds non-spellcasting class levels to spellcasting class levels up to +4, not to exceed total HD/levels...pretty clear that it's specifically for multiclassed characters since a non-spellcasting class wouldn't have a use for the feat now would it.

As for the feat description you posted from the CAr...does it SAY it adds to the Ranger's total caster level or did it actually say it boosted the Druid level...I know which one I'm betting it said.

Again, WoTC hasn't clarified that feat as to whether or not it applies to classes which don't get full caster level progression, every single example has pure caster classes mixed with either non-caster or PrC classes like Wild Mage which alter caster level progression. Not once is there an example of how a Ranger taking the feat would cast +4 levels higher then normal as a single class(or Paladin for that matter).

I would suggest you go back and read how the original feat was written and described, then look at the updated version and look at the examples given and point out exactly where it says it gives partial progression classes the boost instead of where it says it gives the full progression classes the boost, because I can't find it in ANY example given to date.

Oh..and please keep the attitude to yourself, thank you. Any idiot can munchkinize the game, PnP or DDO, there's entire websites devoted to just that, so it's not like it takes more then having someone read it to you and draw pretty pictures so you get the concepts..or at least enjoy the pretty pictures. DDO is so easy to exploit it's not funny, they've fixed a few glaring examples, like Evasion in med/heavy armor, but it's still far too easy to exploit the engine and game mechanics. Don't have to be a MENSA member, barely have to be able to read, it's that easy. PnP...just need a pushover DM or a DM who's of the same mindset, which is typically the DM that CoM players have, after all, any other DM wouldn't let them get away with it and they'd leave.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 03:52 PM
The CD listing is very clear, nothing added or subtracted from it, and it's the original version of the feat. Adds non-spellcasting class levels to spellcasting class levels up to +4, not to exceed total HD/levels...
No. That is not what the feat says.


I would suggest you go back and read how the original feat was written and described, then look at the updated version and look at the examples
No, how about you go and read the feat?


given and point out exactly where it says it gives partial progression classes the boost instead of where it says it gives the full progression classes the boost, because I can't find it in ANY example given to date.
Do you actually have Complete Divine or Complete Arcane? Or are you just guessing about what they might say by looking at sample characters you found on the web?

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 03:55 PM
I am using the PractCast feat as linked by QuantumFX, I don't have the 3.5 books and add-ons and that's the description of the feat originally shown me.
You don't have the books, and yet you dare get into an argument about what the books say?

Let's skip your 5+ pages of badly-formatted gibberish about guessing what the rule book may or may not say, and simply accept the authority of someone who has the book.

Richtenfaust
06-30-2007, 04:01 PM
Good thing you didn't place the bet, because you'd be wrong regardless of what you put...I believe I said that it didn't go into detail, and that's what I meant. The "Ranger/Druid" was in the part about if you had multiple spellcasting classes, you had to choose one. It didn't give any further example beyond that.

There is no clarification either way, but you keep saying it's meant for multiclass characters, and that just isn't true. I found three seperate forum threads in the "Feats and Skills" member section on the Wizards forums website, and no one even hesitated to say "yes" when all three threads asked "does it work with Paladin and Ranger?"

Also, if you want a Complete Divine comparison, here goes:

"Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus."

By that wording, I see where your confusion has come from. Suffice it to say, WotC has stated several times that if a feat is listed in multiple official sources, you go by the *most recent source*. That would be Complete Arcane, which supercedes Complete Divine. But even the CD entry contradicts the "if you later gain noncaster-level HD" portion by having a section just like the CAr on what to do if you have multiple *spellcasting* classes. It also has the "Special: You may take this multiple times, each time applying to a different spellcasting class" and lists "Wizard 5/Cleric 4." I don't see any noncaster-level HD in that combo...so does taking the feat twice do nothing for this character, since it violates the precious "noncaster-HD" portion of the feat description? Maybe now you see why the wording had to be *updated*. It was never intended to just be for multiclass non-caster/caster characters. If it were ever intended just for multiclass characters, the wording would indicate that.

I don't read other people's **** on how to min-max/exploit/munchkinize...if I can't do it myself, it isn't worth doing. I also never made a med/hvy armor Evasion character because it is a blatant violation of 3.5 rules and I knew it would eventually get fixed, then I'd be screwed with my build, like everyone with one of those builds is now. Didn't take a MENSA member to know that was going to happen, regardless of the Devs' posts on how it would never change.

Oh, and I *am* a member of MENSA. :-) A lot of good it does me, though, since I waste my time on these forums and on video games. My grandchildren sure won't care whether or not Practised Spellcaster works with Rangers or Paladins. Wait...what am I saying...yes they will...I plan on passing all of my anal-retentive gamer knowledge on to my children and my children's children. I'm *that* hardcore.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 04:07 PM
You going to actually answer something Gimp or just keep picking? Post the actual feats as listed in CD and CAr instead of simply saying 'no, that's not what it says'. Richtenfaust at least posted the CAr version of the feat, didn't go on to list the examples that didn't further his argument, but he did post the feat. I posted the feat as WoTC gives it in CD, and it's pretty clear, you keep saying CD doesn't say that..but..that IS the CD version.

As for the rules for 3.5...I have the complete SRD right here, along with the errata and updates and the FAQ as of 6/2007. You have yet to give the actual feat description for PractCaster, just your version of it. Since in DDO the classes in question already get full caster levels, I fail to see how this feat would make a bit of difference if added to DDO, which was part of your original problem with adding it. I pointed out that the feat isn't supposed to work as you say, but you've yet to actually prove anything other then your ability to type. Got the CD feat description listed here, per the book, and it's clear on how it works, no ambiguity at all. You and Richtenfaust claim otherwise, but fail to give actual proof of this, so...guess it's put up or shut up time. WoTC themselves give no examples of a Ranger(or Paladin) using this feat in the way you say it can be used, not one single time do they do so. Even mixing a Ranger with a Druid, they use the feat to show how the DRUID gets the caster level progression boost, not the Ranger. So...how about it? Where's the feat description or ruling by WoTC saying that it works for partial progression casters directly as you say?

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 04:09 PM
You going to actually answer something Gimp or just keep picking? Post the actual feats as listed in CD and CAr instead of simply saying 'no, that's not what it says'.
1. That would be a violation of US and international copyright laws.
2. The exact wording of the feat has already been posted in this thread.
3. It is not our responsibility to educate you on the fundamentals of the topic at hand. It has been established that you do not have the books and are ignorant, while those of us who do have the books have a clue as to what is going on.

I have no motivation to help you when you won't take the effort to learn it for yourself.


You have yet to give the actual feat description for PractCaster, just your version of it.
Wrong. The actual description has been given many times. Why would we do any work to help you understand?

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 04:14 PM
By that wording, I see where your confusion has come from. Suffice it to say, WotC has stated several times that if a feat is listed in multiple official sources, you go by the *most recent source*. That would be Complete Arcane, which supercedes Complete Divine. But even the CD entry contradicts
No, it doesn't actually contradict anything. The CD text about "non-spellcasting level" is simply an illustrative example; it was not written in such a way as to be an exclusive case. The word "may" indicates they are not saying something will or will not happen, but are just alerting the reader to the possibility that it might, based on rules given elsewhere.

That's similar to what happens in the rule description for Tenser's Transformation: "Your BAB increases, which may give you extra attacks". The mention of extra attacks is just an example/reminder of a fact that is inherent in an increased BAB.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 04:24 PM
Ok Richtenfaust, the book doesn't say who gets the progression bonus, so that again leaves it up in the air. As for the rest of your argument...sorry, please re-read the CD description of the feat...

Practiced Spellcaster (from Complete Divine): When determining caster level for one of your spellcasting classes, you can add a bonus of up to +4. The amount of the bonus depends on the number of nonspellcasting class levels you have; you can add +1 for each nonspellcasting class level up to the limit of +4.

Don't paraphrase, use the exact description, it leads to less confusion, which you seem to have plenty of already. That right there is pretty clear...you get a bonus based on your non-casting levels, no ambiguity about that at all. That is probably why the CAr description was changed, it indicates that ONLY a non-caster class would be used with this feat, which isn't how it is supposed to work, a non-caster class could be Cleric if you are a Wiz/Cleric who took PractCast:Wiz or Wizard if you took PractCast:Cleric..in either case, the non-feat class would be the non-caster class.

The CAr description is a little vague but still clearly indicates that another class(assumed to be non-caster, but not required to be one) is required to get the progression level boost. As I pointed out, it was done to remove the implied misconception that only non-caster classes could be used with this feat(which is in fact true, but not applied as it sounds, hence the wording change).

Gimp, I rather doubt that WoTC would go after you for posting a feat from one of their products ON a website devoted to another of their products..see the WoTC forums for examples of this...many direct quotes of the published material is posted by the forum users there, none of them sued yet. I won't even give that a 'weak' on the list of excuses, especially since the feat as printed in CD and now in CAr has been listed here. And you are calling me ignorant? No motivation to help me? Somehow that just doesn't hurt very much Gimp....sorry. Having a book doesn't give one a magical understanding of what is contained therein...prime examples right here on this very forum.

GeneralDiomedes
06-30-2007, 04:25 PM
Even mixing a Ranger with a Druid, they use the feat to show how the DRUID gets the caster level progression boost, not the Ranger.

Actually it says that a Ranger/Druid must choose which 'spellcasting class' they wish to apply the feat to which means the Ranger is an equally valid recipient.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 04:35 PM
Any spellcasting class is a valid recipient of the feat, that's not at question, what is at question is whether it would boost a Ranger's caster level by 4 if taken without another class. Every single description and example of the feat is done with multiple classes, not one gives a single class as the user of the feat, even the updated 3.5 FAQ gives multiclass builds for the examples, one with caster/non-caster and one with caster/caster...no single class examples at all anywhere. WoTC is bad about leaving OUT something if that something isn't included in the possible uses of something, as a Ranger or Paladin being able to add +4 to their caster level with the feat as a solo class, because they felt the rule/description was clear enough(something even TSR was bad about as well...funny how that is a continuing trend with the D&D franchise). The very wording of the feat makes it clear it's meant to be used with multiple class builds, not single class, which could be the reason WoTC never uses Rangers/Paladins using the feat, it's not meant for solo class use.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 04:35 PM
Ok Richtenfaust, the book doesn't say who gets the progression bonus, so that again leaves it up in the air. As for the rest of your argument...sorry, please re-read the CD description of the feat...
For the last time, why do you keep telling people to read the feat from Complete Divine when you have not read the feat from Complete Divine?


Practiced Spellcaster (from Complete Divine): When determining caster level for one of your spellcasting classes, you can add a bonus of up to +4. The amount of the bonus depends on the number of nonspellcasting class levels you have; you can add +1 for each nonspellcasting class level up to the limit of +4.
No. For the final time, that is not the Practiced Spellcaster feat.

The exact text of the feat have already been inserted into the thread above. However, just to shut you up once and for all, I will open Complete Divine and type in the exact feat:

Practiced Spellcaster (General)
Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells from that class are more powerful.
Prereq: omitted
Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD.

Symar-FangofLloth
06-30-2007, 04:35 PM
http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=877148&highlight=practiced+spellcaster

Anyway, I'd have to agree that it would allow rangers and paladins to boost up their caster level. Not DDO rangers and paladins (unless they fix them to 1/2 caster level first), but standard, single-classed rangers and paladins.

That said, I would like to see this feat in the game. It would allow multiclassed builds to be that much more viable. They still miss out on sp and spells known versus a full caster, so there's not much reason to go against it.

GeneralDiomedes
06-30-2007, 04:41 PM
Any spellcasting class is a valid recipient of the feat, that's not at question, what is at question is whether it would boost a Ranger's caster level by 4 if taken without another class. Every single description and example of the feat is done with multiple classes, not one gives a single class as the user of the feat, even the updated 3.5 FAQ gives multiclass builds for the examples, one with caster/non-caster and one with caster/caster...no single class examples at all anywhere. WoTC is bad about leaving OUT something if that something isn't included in the possible uses of something, as a Ranger or Paladin being able to add +4 to their caster level with the feat as a solo class, because they felt the rule/description was clear enough(something even TSR was bad about as well...funny how that is a continuing trend with the D&D franchise). The very wording of the feat makes it clear it's meant to be used with multiple class builds, not single class, which could be the reason WoTC never uses Rangers/Paladins using the feat, it's not meant for solo class use.

Well if you take the base function in pseudo code

Spell caster level = spell caster level + 4

If spell caster level > HD then
spell caster level = HD
end if

I don't see how it can't apply to a Ranger. Caster level is generic.

Anyways to me it's much easier to explain why it would apply to Ranger than to glean an insinuation that it doesn't from the lack of explicit examples in the text. The examples they gave were to show the two basic properties: HD limit and choosing between caster classes, not to cover every scenario like an FAQ.

Ask yourself -> if this was a true/false question in a D&D test, how would you answer?


And yes I have the Complete Arcane in front of me :P

MysticTheurge
06-30-2007, 05:00 PM
Gimpster is 100% right about the way this feat works.

In case anyone wanted my opinion. ;)

KristovK
06-30-2007, 05:09 PM
I sent the question directly to the horse's mouth, sageadvice@paizo.com because opinions, while each is entitled to one, aren't always valid no matter the background behind them.

I saw the reply Richt got on the WoTC forums, doesn't help settle the issue though as it's clear that there is no official response to date on this issue and it's the poster's in question firm opinion that it works the way the poster says. Again, opinion, not a rule or decision by WoTC, just another person's opinion.

General, that's a nice bit of logic, but we ARE talking about D&D here and logic isn't part of the equation usually. I know the PrC pack for NWN didn't add caster levels to a single class Ranger or Paladin build, but whether that was an official WoTC call or just the decision of the PrC team was never made clear. The PrC pack did many things that WERE strictly 3.0 and even 3.5(which was confusing at times since there were major changes between them) but they also did many things that were strictly because they decided they liked their way better then WoTC's way(MT epic level progression was one major one..the head of the PrC team loved the class and purposely made it more powerful then it should have been). Again, opinions are often the rule in D&D when something isn't set in stone and crystal clear with the D&D system, been that way since Chainmail, hasn't changed yet.

Richtenfaust
06-30-2007, 05:11 PM
Gimp, I already typed in the exact wording of Practiced Spellcaster in the Complete Divine...it didn't shut him up.

Kris, wherever you are getting your "exact wording" from is an invalid source. The whole "+1 per noncaster level up to +4" isn't in any official WotC book anywhere...including the CD. What I typed as the exact wording was not a paraphrase. As I read it now from pg. 82 in the Complete Divine, A Player's Guide to Divine Magic for All Classes by David Noonan, First Printing May 2004, ISBN: 0-7869-3272-4, barcode 9-780786-932726, it reads:

"PRACTICED SPELLCASTER [GENERAL]
Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells cast from that class are more powerful.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 4 ranks.
Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus.
For example, a human 5th-level cleric/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his cleric caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8HD). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his cleric caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 HD).
A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect.
This does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It only increases your caster level, which would help you penetrate SR and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.
<pg. 84> Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time you choose it, you must apply it to a different spellcasting class. For instance, a 4th-level cleric/5th-level wixard who had selected this feat twice would cast cleric spells as an 8th-level caster and wizard spells as a 9th-level caster."

THAT IS THE EXACT WORDING. Please stop telling me that I'm not using the correct sources.

Gimp, you said earlier that it had "may" in there, but the "may" wasn't applied to the noncaster part, it was in reference to being able to apply the remainder of the bonus. By its wording, the CD does indicate it can only be applied to noncasting mixed with casting...this is reinforced by the initial example, but contradicted immediately by the part about two or more casting classes, as well as the "Special" portion. But apparently it is a moot point because Kris seems to be getting his info from some limited edition "only 1 copy available" printing of the book I have in my lap. Unfortunately, as I have the Complete Arcane in my lap, I'm noticing the wording is exactly the same...to the letter...as Complete Divine. Regardless of that, the examples and "special" indicate in no uncertain terms that it can be applied to pure multiclass spellcasters, and that Ranger is a valid option as well. The whole "Ranger/Druid" portion...otherwise, what would applying it to Ranger do, since nowhere does it state the bonus is halved for Rangers.

KristovK
06-30-2007, 05:29 PM
Ok..now I'm literally laughing here....thanks for that Richt! It's funny...Gimp posts

The exact text of the feat have already been inserted into the thread above. However, just to shut you up once and for all, I will open Complete Divine and type in the exact feat:

Practiced Spellcaster (General)
Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells from that class are more powerful.
Prereq: omitted
Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD.

And you post...

"PRACTICED SPELLCASTER [GENERAL]
Choose a spellcasting class that you possess. Your spells cast from that class are more powerful.
Prerequisite: Spellcraft 4 ranks.
Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus.
For example, a human 5th-level cleric/3rd-level fighter who selects this feat would increase his cleric caster level from 5th to 8th (since he has 8HD). If he later gained a fighter level, he would gain the remainder of the bonus and his cleric caster level would become 9th (since he now has 9 HD).
A character with two or more spellcasting classes (such as a bard/sorcerer or a ranger/druid) must choose which class gains the feat's effect.
This does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It only increases your caster level, which would help you penetrate SR and increase the duration and other effects of your spells.
<pg. 84> Special: You may select this feat multiple times. Each time you choose it, you must apply it to a different spellcasting class. For instance, a 4th-level cleric/5th-level wixard who had selected this feat twice would cast cleric spells as an 8th-level caster and wizard spells as a 9th-level caster."

THAT IS THE EXACT WORDING. Please stop telling me that I'm not using the correct sources.

See the difference there? Gimp is only posting a very small portion of the feat and he's doing it to hide the little bit about adding non-caster levels at a later date to increase the benefit if you can't get it all yet. That's very specific editing to hide something that doesn't support what he's presenting, that the feat is specifically designed and meant to be used by multiclass builds. Then you go on and say that BOTH of the books you have, CAr and CD contain the exact same description of the feat...that's amusing! See...Gimp has stated that the current descriptions say nothing about non-caster levels, and that's just too damn funny! So, which is it Gimp? Do your books have something totally different from what Richt's have? Cause the CD I'm using is 3.0, obviously an older printing with a different description but the same intent, multiclass specific feat, not single class.

Man...thanks, seriously...nothing like getting a good chuckle from an online forum.

Richtenfaust
06-30-2007, 06:10 PM
There is no such thing as a 3.0 Complete Divine, nor is there a 3.0 version of the Practiced Spellcaster feat.

Gimp may have skimmed over the noncaster part, but you are skimming over the examples and "special" circumstances that clearly indicate it is simply misworded. All FAQs regarding Practiced Spellcasting also indicate that the levels for classes you don't pick PS for don't have to be noncaster levels. But I will concede that you are correct in that there is still no example of Ranger or Paladin taking the feat, but the FAQ as the feat pertains to Wild Mage is an example of a single class taking it. Again...for the 150th time...if the feat were meant to be specifically for multiclassed characters, it would indicate as much. Just because the limited number of examples provided are all in reference to multiclass characters doesn't mean it *only* applies to multiclass characters. That's just nonsense. So if a feat had an example of "Human Fighter" would that feat only apply to Human Fighters, even though those aren't prereqs for the feat? By citing the examples as proof it only applies to multiclass characters that is what you are saying. Draw a box on a piece of paper and put the letters T, H, I, N, and K along the outer edges.

Get back to me on what you believe I'm trying to tell you with this diagram.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 06:11 PM
See...Gimp has stated that the current descriptions say nothing about non-caster levels, and that's just too damn funny! So, which is it Gimp?
You stopped deserving a response around 5 or 6 posts ago.

I could explain in detail why you are still wrong and why your latest questions are invalid ("Are you still beating your wife?"). But I won't waste my time writing to you, just like I hope the Sage Advice columnist doesn't waste his time answering a question from someone who doesn't even have the book.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 06:20 PM
Benefit: Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD. However, even if you can't benefit from the full bonus immediately, if you later gain noncaster-level HD you may be able to apply the rest of the bonus.
The section I underlined above is irrelevant to this discussion, which is why I didn't bother to type it in before.

As clearly stated in the preamble to that sentence, it only refers to characters who are unable to get the full bonus at the time they take the feat (because their caster level was greater than HD - 4). In PnP, a pure ranger of level 8 or higher would already be able to get the full benefit from the feat as soon as he takes it, because his CL (4) is 4 or more below his HD (8).

Additionally, look closer at the exact wording: "noncaster-level HD". It does not say "HD from a noncaster class", which is different.
Every HD from the Fighter, Rogue, or Barbarian is a noncaster-level HD, because those classes are completely non-casters. And obviously, every HD from Wizard or Cleric is a caster-level HD, because those classes increase caster level at each level.

However, PnP ranger levels 6, 8, 10, 12 are caster-level HD, because a ranger increases CL +1 at those levels. But levels 5, 7, 9, and 11 are not.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 06:24 PM
Again...for the 150th time...if the feat were meant to be specifically for multiclassed characters, it would indicate as much.
Yes. If that had been the intention, it would have been written:
Benefit: Pick one spellcaster class you possess. Your caster level for spells from that class is increased by either +4, or by the number of levels you have in classes which do not grant spellcasting, whichever is less.

But instead, they wrote it as "Your caster level increases by +4, up the the maximum of your HD".

MysticTheurge
06-30-2007, 06:35 PM
Cause the CD I'm using is 3.0, obviously an older printing with a different description but the same intent, multiclass specific feat, not single class.

Please, enlighten us as to what the "3.0 CD" says about practiced spellcaster, we're all eager to hear its description of the feat.


nothing like getting a good chuckle from an online forum.

How true. How true.

Gimpster
06-30-2007, 06:42 PM
Please, enlighten us as to what the "3.0 CD" says about practiced spellcaster, we're all eager to hear its description of the feat.
Although there was no "Complete Divine" book published in D&D prior to edition 3.5, the the "Defenders of the Faith" book from 3.0 edition served about the same function (just like 3.0's "Tome and Blood" became "Complete Arcane" in 3.5).

It's not entirely inaccurate to say that there was a 3.0 version of Complete Divine... but, the Practiced Spellcaster feat didn't show up in any of those 3.0 books that I can remember.

MysticTheurge
06-30-2007, 07:43 PM
It's not entirely inaccurate to say that there was a 3.0 version of Complete Divine... but, the Practiced Spellcaster feat didn't show up in any of those 3.0 books that I can remember.

Not that it would even really matter. Even if there were a 3.0 version of Practiced Spellcaster, the 3.5 version from CD or CA would replace it for play under the 3.5 rules.

Tavok
06-30-2007, 11:00 PM
DDO should not allow ranger or paladin spellcaster level to benefit from Practiced Spellcaster. There should just be Practiced Wizard, Practiced Cleric, and Practiced Sorc. (Maybe also bard)

1. Rangers and Paladins in this game already have double the caster level they do in PnP. That is a major boost, and they don't need to be given more.

2. There is rather little reason to stay pure to the ranger/paladin classes instead of going into barb or fighter for more combat power. However, staying pure up to level 11 is important because you get the valuable Resist Energy 30 spell. Allowing someone to have that spell power with just 7 ranger levels would be bad.

Note that a PnP ranger needs to be level 22 to get resist 30, or level 14 if he takes Practiced Spellcaster.

Agreed that rangers and paladins already have a good enough caster level. Now, it should NOT be nerfed, but it shouldn't be increased either, nor should an option to increase it be there.

KristovK
07-01-2007, 12:48 AM
That was a typo on my part, the 3.0 CD, should have been 3.5, older printing though because the feat is described differently, and I'm aware that newer printings override, even said that already. That description was clear that it boosted caster level by up to 4 from another class, used the specific wording of non-caster levels though which undoubtedly caused enough questions that they've reworded it...even though they left the non-caster class descriptor in the new version as well. They did add specific examples of multi-caster classes and that you must pick the feat for each caster class, it's not an all encompassing feat for any caster levels.

As I said, your opinion is just that, same as mine is, and I've asked the people who decide exactly what the rules are supposed to mean what this one means with a Ranger being used specifically.

Gimpster
07-01-2007, 01:38 AM
That was a typo on my part, the 3.0 CD, should have been 3.5, older printing though because the feat is described differently, and I'm aware that newer printings override, even said that already.
So are you claiming that there is some alternate version of Complete Divine out there? How could you possibly know that, when you don't have the book at all?

Talias006
07-01-2007, 03:31 AM
I concur with MT and Gimpster, there are ways to read what a rule says and to read it in a way that gives special precedence to a specific goal you're looking for. I've been playing for about 22 yrs now (omg, I can't believe it's been this long already, where did the time go?) and I've been on the helping side of this new-fangled D&D for a while, actually served my time as a play-tester for the old floppy thin guidebooks, DotF as it happens. :D

Now, I stopped buying books shortly after CD came out. Such happens when you find yourself jobless temporarily. I don't have a copy of Complete Arcane to peruse, but there are a few ppl that I take their word for, one of them MT. He says it works as intended, I'm inclined to believe him. I spent the last minute looking through my relevant books for anything pertinent to this discussion and I can't find anything that blatantly says "Paladin/Ranger casters only gain half the benefit of this Feat." So, seems to me that it works for anyone, be it a Ran/Rog, Pal/Mon, Cle/Wiz, or even the bizarre Brb/Brd/Ran or Brd/Dru/Ftr (just to give examples of extreme mixtures). Even just a plain ol' Ranger or Paladin (single classed).

MysticTheurge
07-01-2007, 07:09 AM
There's another use for PS that's going to tend to be a non-PC one. Since it increases your spellcaster level by four but not higher than your HD, it's also useful for single-classed full-caster-level-progression characters with Racial HD.

An Ogre Cleric 5, for example, has 5 cleric HD and 4 giant (racial) HD. He could take Practiced Spellcaster and then have a caster level of 9 for his cleric spells.

Gimpster
07-01-2007, 11:18 AM
There's another use for PS that's going to tend to be a non-PC one.
The other funny use would be if you were a bard with it, meaning you'd get +2 caster level anytime you Inspire Greatness.

Skaves
07-01-2007, 02:25 PM
Wow, I post this thread, take a 2 day vacation and come back to all kinds of craziness.

I believe I posted the EXACT text of the feat per the Complete Arcane. The exact source (of my cut and paste as I'm lazy) was http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/ex/20041105a&page=2

Anywho, I know the paladin and ranger classes in DDO have a boost to caster level (in Actual DnD 3.5 rangers and paladins cast at 1/2 class level). I could see this feat being resticted to Bards, Clerics, Sorcerers and Wizards for that reason. (but I am not advocating one way or another)

I just think spending a feat for longer lasting/more damaging/more powerful low level spells is quite fair, and would allow for more class deviation from caster classes.