Wanted: Practiced Spellcaster

[Gimpster]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

[Gimpster]

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

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.