-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Page 171, its still irritating finding the one exception to the "Ignore Examples" rule
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Page number, if you will? I've been referencing the SRD because it's more convenient, but if the books have an actual citation, then you should have just said so earlier.
You missed the example in my post, 5 for fireball is for a wizard, it'd be 6 for the Sorc, because he gets spells later that's his minimum.
I said right there in the post that the minimum level for the spell to be cast is dependent on the class casting it not the spell it self.
If your class gives you spells at a different progression it will change what your minimum caster level is, lets take remove curse as an example.
Quote:
Level: Brd 3, Clr 3, Pal 3, Sor/Wiz 4
So for a Bard 7th, a Cleric 5th, a Paladin 5th, Sorc 8th, Wiz 7.
Same spell, different minimum caster level for each class.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TypoNinja
You missed the example in my post, 5 for fireball is for a wizard, it'd be 6 for the Sorc, because he gets spells later that's his minimum.
I said right there in the post that the minimum level for the spell to be cast is dependent on the class casting it not the spell it self.
If your class gives you spells at a different progression it will change what your minimum caster level is, lets take remove curse as an example.
So for a Bard 7th, a Cleric 5th, a Paladin 5th, Sorc 8th, Wiz 7.
Same spell, different minimum caster level for each class.
I didn't miss anything. It's just that you failed to actually cite anything.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Have we thought of a name for the new thread? I suggest "Well that went well".
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
Is anyone bored enough to compile a list of actual dysfunctional rules from the thread, and of rules that appear dysfunctional but are actually not (like the Ur-Priest one)? It would help us avoid repeats.
Yeesh that would be a massive task. I might be able to whip up a spreadsheet for myself or someone else to maintain, though. (Especially if we get a bunch of collation done by various posters.)
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Flickerdart
I didn't miss anything. It's just that you failed to actually cite anything.
Uhhh the spell list of each class? Combined with the listed spell progressions for each class?
Page whatever the hell each one starts at in the PHB, its the last third of the book you can't miss it. The Classes section is pretty big too, also hard to overlook.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
toapat
Minimum CL for a magic Missile is then 3 because the cleric has to invest at least CL3 in the spell.
Class level =/= caster level. A Cleric with the Force domain needs at least three Cleric levels to cast Magic Missile, because that's the level at which she gets a 2nd level domain slot. Generally, a third level Cleric will have a Cleric caster level of three.
However, if that Cleric somehow had the Mage Slayer feat, she could then cast Magic Missiles with a caster level of -1, because she still has a 2nd level domain slot, and there's no rule anywhere saying that you need anything besides an Xth level slot and a casting stat of 10+X in order to cast an Xth level spell.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
If you take the mage slayer feat and try to cast a burning and with a CL of -3, does it give back 3d4 HPs with fire?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
tuggyne
Have we thought of a name for the new thread? I suggest "Well that went well".
How about "That still doesn't seem right somehow..." More of the Dysfunctional Rules Collection?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pilo
If you take the mage slayer feat and try to cast a burning and with a CL of -3, does it give back 3d4 HPs with fire?
If it did, that would be the cheesiest use for Mage Slayer I have ever seen.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pilo
If you take the mage slayer feat and try to cast a burning and with a CL of -3, does it give back 3d4 HPs with fire?
I don't think Negative damage (Numerically not Energy Based) becomes Healing or maybe the opposite would be true.
Does a Cure Light Wounds heal 1d8-3? What happens if you roll a 1 and heal(?) -2 HP.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pilo
If you take the mage slayer feat and try to cast a burning and with a CL of -3, does it give back 3d4 HPs with fire?
The minimum amount of damage dealt by anything is 1.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Or "WTF!" More of the Dysfunctional Cules Rollection?
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Sith_Happens
*snip*
Caster level rules:
Horribly worded and Assbackwards phrasing, but on PHB p171, it says specifically that because a wizard has to invest at least 5 CL into 3rd level spells because they get 3rd level spells at 5th level. the rule applies to all classes, so clerics, who get 2nd level spells at third level, have to invest 3CL into magic Missiles, and so does the Divine Crusader, who will only have 2CL at lvl 2, and can only get at maximum CL14, when they are stated to specifically need CL 17 to cast all their spells.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
toapat
Caster level rules:
Horribly worded and Assbackwards phrasing, but on PHB p171, it says specifically that because a wizard has to invest at least 5 CL into 3rd level spells because they get 3rd level spells at 5th level. the rule applies to all classes, so clerics, who get 2nd level spells at third level, have to invest 3CL into magic Missiles, and so does the Divine Crusader, who will only have 2CL at lvl 2, and can only get at maximum CL14, when they are stated to specifically need CL 17 to cast all their spells.
Specifically, the wording is as follows when describing casting a spell at a lower caster level.
Quote:
You can cast a spell at a lower level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level
Divine Crusader works. Since it has its own spell list and does not improve the spellcasting of another class, it's caster level for casting 9th level spells at 9th level DC is 9.
Earlier on page 171.
Quote:
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you're using to cast the spell.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Talderas
Divine Crusader works. Whatever level the spell is granted at determines the caster level needed to cast the spell. A 10th level PrC that grants 1-9th level spells over the first 9 levels means the caster level for the 9th level spells on its list is 9+the caster level prerequisite for the PrC. In the case of divine crusader, it does not have a caster level prerequisite so the caster level needed to cast 9th level Divine Crusader spells is 9.
actually, no it doesnt, because
Quote:
The Divine Crusader prepares and casts spells as a cleric
meaning that, although they have an indepentant table, they still need the same CL minimums as a cleric for the spell level. Ur-Priest has their own spell list so they get around that, Divine Crusader and Sublime Chord dont
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
You're wrong about sublime chord, too.
It specifically casts sublime chord spells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CAr pg 61
To cast a sublime chord spell, a character must have [details cha based casting mechanic]
It then goes on to say that they choose their sublime chord spells by drawing from the sorc/wiz and bard lists. They're still sublime chord spells.
In any case, while the intent was clearly that a spellcaster can't cast a spell at a caster level lower than the number of levels in the class granting access to the spell, the absence of an actual minimum caster level rule means that there is no way to call any adjudication of the point unimpeachable RAW. It's a case of RAW doesn't actually exist so we can only use RAI.
On the bright side, that means its still definitely a mechanic that belongs in this thread.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
In any case, while the intent was clearly that a spellcaster can't cast a spell at a caster level lower than the number of levels in the class granting access to the spell, the absence of an actual minimum caster level rule means that there is no way to call any adjudication of the point unimpeachable RAW. It's a case of RAW doesn't actually exist so we can only use RAI.
I think it is RAW. The PHB states that the caster level used to cast a spell is equivalent to the class level of the class you're using to cast it. It further goes on to state that you can voluntarily lower the caster level when casting a spell but it may not be lower than what you would have when casting the spell at the earliest.
RAW does not state that a caster cannot caster a spell at a caster level lower than when he would gain it. It only states that the caster cannot voluntarily lower his caster level below what he needs to cast it. The only common mechanism that outright blocks casting a spell of a given spell level is lowering the character's casting attribute below 10+Spell or granting negative levels.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by SRD
Caster Level
...
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
...
This seems straightforward to me.
A 7th level Wizard could cast a CL 5 Fireball, but not a CL 4 one.
Because you need to be a level 5 Wizard to cast Fireball.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Kelb_Panthera
You're wrong about sublime chord, too.
It specifically casts sublime chord spells. It then goes on to say that they choose their sublime chord spells by drawing from the sorc/wiz and bard lists. They're still sublime chord spells.
No, it doesnt, thats talking about casting a spell slot, not the same issue.
Quote:
A Sublime Chord can choose spells from the Wizard/Sorcerer and Bard Spell lists (conflict resolution clause)
There is no sublime Chord spell list, and since the rule, while RAE and so it is not explicitly written, it still falls under the same problem as Divine Crusader having to meet the same conditions as a cleric in order to cast spells.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
This seems straightforward to me.
A 7th level Wizard could cast a CL 5 Fireball, but not a CL 4 one.
Because you need to be a level 5 Wizard to cast Fireball.
The PHB has a paragraph example explaining what that rule in the SRD means, and amazingly, it is an example, and not a waste of time. It does state outright that it means that you cant invest less CL then when your given class would be able to cast the spell normally.
This enters huge problems when you have instances such as the Divine crusader where it explains that they cast as though they were a cleric.
Edit: Oh, name for the new thread: "Casters" ~ Additional Dysfunctional rules.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
toapat
The PHB has a paragraph example explaining what that rule in the SRD means, and amazingly, it is an example, and not a waste of time. It does state outright that it means that you cant invest less CL then when your given class would be able to cast the spell normally.
Read it again — specifically the last bit within the brackets — it's class dependant.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nedz
Read it again — specifically the last bit within the brackets — it's class dependant.
that paragraph is the only example in the books that i can think of that actually explains anything about the game. Being that there are minimum CL requirements to cast a given spell.
Because of handwaivium, the divine crusader is thus an even worse class then is given on the surface.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Disfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ChumpLump
Using a ranged weapon to make an attack as a standard action provokes an attack of opportunity.
Using a ranged weapon to make a full attack action does not.
A full attack is just several regular attacks. Which attacks you do determines if they provoke aoo or not.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Quote:
Originally Posted by
deuxhero
Problem: Know: Religion governs the info that is used for this.
A new one: Mind Over Body heals abiliity damage equal to 1 + your con score.
Take the feat, now it's impossible to recover from con damage naturally.
uh no it isn't? If I have 5 constitution and use mind over body, it heals 5 + 1 constitution damage. I now have 11 constitution.
-
Re: "Wait, that didn't work right" - the Dysfunctional Rules Collection
Threadcomancy aside...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
ross
uh no it isn't? If I have 5 constitution and use mind over body, it heals 5 + 1 constitution damage. I now have 11 constitution.
Test of feat in question:
"Prerequisite: Con 13.
Benefit: You heal ability damage and ability burn damage more quickly than normal. You heal a number of ability points per day equal to 1 + your Constitution bonus."
The feat works off of CON _bonus_ not CON score.
The proposed dysfunction by deuxhero was that you can no longer heal CON damage, as you would be trying to heal 1+"bonus". With CON damage, it is likely your "bonus" is -1 or worse, so you'd heal 1-1 > 0 damage.
So your correction is incorrect.
This is not a dysfunction for a few reasons. The main one being "Feats stop working if you fail to meet the prerequisites". As "CON 13" is a prereq, if you have less than that, then the feat stops functioning, and you heal ability damage as normal.