Sorcerer Build Up

[Nifft]

Why take Draconic Power and NOT take any energy spells that can benefit from it?

The +1 to caster level is pretty sweet in and of itself, because the coma in the Feat description separates that from the +1 DC to energy spells.

If your DM rules that the Feat only grants a +1 to caster level when casting energy spells, drop that like a loadstone and take Draconic Resistance instead.

-- N

 

[Bryon_Soulweaver]

Why would anyone ever take one level of Wizard and all the rest Sorcerer?

Scrolls! You can never have enough of them.

 

[Mistwell]

The +1 to caster level is pretty sweet in and of itself, because the coma in the Feat description separates that from the +1 DC to energy spells.

If your DM rules that the Feat only grants a +1 to caster level when casting energy spells, drop that like a loadstone and take Draconic Resistance instead.

-- N

It only applies to energy spells of your heritage, and not your caster level for all spells. "You have greater power manipulating the energies of your heritage" is the very first line of the feat, and the "Special" section wouldn't make sense if the feat read as you think it does. Nor would it make sense as a feat in general, as the description of draconic feats specifies it would have to do with something specific to your particular heritage type "or grant him affinity with his draconic progenitor's breath weapon energy type".

Also, the sentence is grammatically written correctly (though a bit awkward) as that is how you would say that it applies to the last part of the sentence (since if you were to add a second comma it would make no sense for either of the two modifiers to the last part of the sentence).

 

[Nifft]

It only applies to energy spells of your heritage, and not your caster level for all spells.

See, you're just wrong here. That might have been the intent, but what it actually says is:

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

It's not even ambiguous. If they had said something like: "...caster level increases by 1 when casting spells with the energy descriptor..." then you would be right. Or even more clearly "...caster level is treated as 1 higher when casting specifically this...".

But they don't.

They say: "Your caster level increases by 1, and (unrelated clause)..."

The Special section indicates that the part of the feat which grants a save DC bonus will also apply to spells modified by Energy Sub. It does not in any way contradict or modify the "+1 caster level" aspect.

-- N

 

[Mistwell]

Your entire claim is based on a false grammatical rule. The first part of the sentence can in fact be modifying the last part of the sentence even with the comma where it is. There is no way you can be certain your intepretation is correct, as grammatically it can go both ways.

Here is an example: "Electricity discharges, and you can be electrocuted when you drop a toaster in the bathtub." Obviously from the context of the sentence, both "electricity discharges" and "you can be electrocuted" refer to what happens when you drop a toaster in the bathtub. The sentence does not mean that electricity discharges whether or not you drop a toaster in the bathtub...it's clearly only referring to the last part of the sentence.

When there is doubt as to which way to interpret a rule (any language text in fact), you look to context.

Based on the context of the feat, which starts by saying it is a feat only about energy spells, and based on the "Special" section, and based on the description of the Draconic feats in general, and based on the rules of balance inherant in the game, all of the context points to my view of the feat.

If you have something OTHER than your grammatical intpretation (which, as I said, is not conclusive), then lets hear it. Otherwise, given the grammatical doubt, the default must be against your intepretation based on context.

 

[Mistwell]

More for the "Familiars are Powerful" portion of this thread, from the user Havrani:

"A spellstitched familiar, now that's not a bad idea. For some reason a homunculus is listed as having an undead type in the improved familiar list so you could spell stitch your homi! You get a telepathic link with it so it makes the best scout and I wonder if its telepathy trait would qualify it for the mindsight feat too? A spell stitched homunculus with mindsight would be nasty."

 

[Nifft]

Your entire claim is based on a false grammatical rule. The first part of the sentence can in fact be modifying the last part of the sentence even with the comma where it is. There is no way you can be certain your intepretation is correct, as grammatically it can go both ways.

*sigh* this is what I get for being tongue-and-cheek with punctuation.

No. No it cannot be interpreted that way.

Here's how you can tell. Delete the part that you are claiming is a subordinate clause, and you will have a passage that makes no sense.

I'll show you. Here's a sentence that has two parts, each being modified by the same clause:

The white horses ran down the hill, and broke into a gallop.

This is how you can tell those two parts are related: delete the stuff in the middle.

The white horses ran down the hill, and broke into a gallop.

Now here's an example of a conjunction which does NOT imply that the final clause modifies the first:

The white horses ran down the hill, and a light drizzle started to fall.

Can you spot the difference? Yes, the second clause has its own subject! Can you guess what will happen when we delete the stuff in the middle for this passage? Don't worry, I won't keep you hanging!

The white horses ran down the hill, and a light drizzle started to fall.

See that? Now, compare:

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

With:

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

See that? Does it look like "not so good", listed above? Yes, yes it does!


There is no doubt. There is no room for interpretation. There is certainly room for a house rule based on what YOU think the authors WANTED to write, but what they actually wrote is clear.

I'm very sad now that I made a joke about a coma in my earlier post.


@Seph: ...so the moral is: if a DM tries to pull crap like this, don't argue, just take a different Draconic feat.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Nifft]

Scrolls! You can never have enough of them.

I was looking at Geometer and Mage of the Arcane Order as an interesting progression for a Sorcerer... but not by taking a level of Wizard!

-- N

 

[Mistwell]

*sigh* this is what I get for being tongue-and-cheek with punctuation.

No. No it cannot be interpreted that way.

Here's how you can tell. Delete the part that you are claiming is a subordinate clause, and you will have a passage that makes no sense.

I'll show you. Here's a sentence that has two parts, each being modified by the same clause:



This is how you can tell those two parts are related: delete the stuff in the middle.



Now here's an example of a conjunction which does NOT imply that the final clause modifies the first:



Can you spot the difference? Yes, the second clause has its own subject! Can you guess what will happen when we delete the stuff in the middle for this passage? Don't worry, I won't keep you hanging!



See that? Now, compare:

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

With:

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

See that? Does it look like "not so good", listed above? Yes, yes it does!


There is no doubt. There is no room for interpretation. There is certainly room for a house rule based on what YOU think the authors WANTED to write, but what they actually wrote is clear.

I'm very sad now that I made a joke about a coma in my earlier post.


@Seph: ...so the moral is: if a DM tries to pull crap like this, don't argue, just take a different Draconic feat.

Cheers, -- N

First, not only does it leave room for doubt, but I am the one in this conversation having the doubt. And I am reading the same sentence as you. So unless you are calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, apparently reasonable minds can differ on this one, and there IS room for interpretation. Given I cannot tell if you are being intentionally hostile and aggressive, or if that's just how I am viewing what you are writing, I am not sure. Are you calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, or is that just my inference?

As for the grammar issue, give two experiments a try. 1) Remove the comma entirely and read the sentence. 2) Add a second comma after the word "spells" and read the sentence. Note that both of these experiments result in the feat being just about energy spells and not all spells.

I believe, after you do that, you may see what I am getting at. It really is ALL about that comma - a purely grammatical contention. The sentence as written can be broken into two sentences as follows: "Your caster level increases by 1 with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage." and "You add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage." Both of those sentences make sense (though are not how I would write the sentences given the opportunity).

And, as I said, given there are two reasonable grammatical interpretations of the rule, you look to context, all of which says it's all about energy spells and not about all spells. Again, if you think there is ANYTHING other than grammar which supports your position, I'd like to hear it.

But if you also think the feat is "supposed" to mean energy spells, then why are you advocating for anything different? Even IF you are correct about the grammar of the sentence (which I disagree with obviously), I still do not consider it a house rule if you are correcting obvious errata. And, I think that is what we are talking about here, if you were correct about the grammar. The feat is meant to be about energy spells, and not all spells. And so far you have not tried to make the case that it is supposed to be about all spells. Pretending you are required to be slavish to a single comma in a feat knowing full well it's not supposed to be there doesn't seem like a productive use of the rules...that is, unless you think there is some non-grammatical reason the feat is intended to be about all spells.

By the way, do you think the "Your caster level increases by 1" applies to ALL spells the caster can cast, even divine spells?

 

[Nifft]

Are you calling my viewpoint entirely unreasonable, or is that just my inference?

I'm annoyed, because it seemed like you were taking my jest (regarding a comma) literally, and arguing with me based on it. Also, this is the Rules form, not the Intent forum, so what a Feat was *intended* to do is not relevant. What it *does* do is relevant.

As for the grammar issue, give two experiments a try. 1) Remove the comma entirely and read the sentence. 2) Add a second comma after the word "spells" and read the sentence.

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1 and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

It means exactly what it meant before, but it's slightly harder to parse because there is no comma.

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC of all arcane spells, with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

Now it makes no sense. This would have been what they wrote if they had intended it to work like you seem to think it should work:

Benefit: Your caster level increases by 1, and you add 1 to the save DC, when casting an arcane spell with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage.

... but that's not what they wrote. Not at all.

I believe, after you do that, you may see what I am getting at. It really is ALL about that comma

WRONG. Without the comma, the sentence does not change. With an extra comma, as it would be formed if the central clause were indeed subordinated, it would NOT BE ENGLISH. And that is also annoying to me... that you don't see the what seems to me obvious. I'm sure you're not dumb, but it feels like you're playing dumb to make a point about how your house rule should apply in this not-house-rule forum.

"Your caster level increases by 1 with the energy descriptor of the same energy type as determined by your draconic heritage."

That is NOT a well-formed sentence. "caster level" does not apply to "energy descriptor".

But if you also think the feat is "supposed" to mean energy spells, then why are you advocating for anything different?

Given that the rules are communicated only in English text, saying that an interpretation is "merely grammar based" could be seen as rather disingenuous.

I'm not sure how it was inteneded, which is different yet again from how it should work. See below.

By the way, do you think the "Your caster level increases by 1" applies to ALL spells the caster can cast, even divine spells?

As written, it does apply to all spells. Given how poor a Sorcerer usually is as a choice for half of a Mystic Theurge or Cerebremancer, perhaps that's exactly how it's intended.

Compare to an Orange Prism Ioun Stone. +1 Caster Level (to all casting classes) is 30kgp.

Anyway. With luck there will be errata, and it will either be changed or not. Just so you know, I brought this up on the WotC Char Opt forum, and those rules lawyers agree with my reading.

-- N