Draconic Power and Spelllike ability

[Herzog]

Divine Spellpower is limited by both the number of Turn uses you have and the Divine spells restriction.

Draconic Power (when using interpretation '1') is only limited by it's prerequisites.

And i think comparing a feat with a magic item is unfair.
There may be magic items that duplicate feats, and Feats that give abilities similar to some magic items, but the two are completely different when trying to find out whether they are 'balanced'.

 

[Shin Okada]

Divine Spellpower is limited by both the number of Turn uses you have and the Divine spells restriction.

Yes. But in number of turns per day can be increased relatively easily via feat (Extra Turning) & magic items (any CHA +X items and Nightstick). Assuming a cleric fights 4 encounters before resting. Most encounters in 3.5e ends within 3-4 rounds. So it is very likely that he casts all the spells he casts during the encounter with raised CL via this feat. For breakfast spells, he can use Bead of Karma.

Also, Practiced Spellcaster and Praciced Manifester feats increases CL (or ML) of a certain class by 4, though up to one's character level. It is so easy to satisfy the prerequisites of those feats.

Limited only to divine spell, or limited to only a certain class, are not troublesome at all when a character has only one standard spellcasting (or psionic) class.

Draconic Power (when using interpretation '1') is only limited by it's prerequisites.

Draconic Heritage feat itself has prerequisite. You must be either a sorcerer or has Dragontouched feat.

And i think comparing a feat with a magic item is unfair.
There may be magic items that duplicate feats, and Feats that give abilities similar to some magic items, but the two are completely different when trying to find out whether they are 'balanced'.

I tend to agree with you. But I also think that, in general, feats and class abilities should be more powerful than mare magic items.

 

[pawsplay]

I can't figure out any way to make, "Your caster level increases by one" parallel with any sentence structure in the second clause. So even though "your caster level" is not a real trait, I think the only logical way to interpret is as your caster level, any time your caster level is calculated. So intepretation #1.

 

[Herzog]

@pawsplay: good point!

In my quest to determine whether the second part of the sentence should apply to the first I never thought to consider basic grammar....


Most people bring up whether that comma should be in there, but considering the sentence without it:

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.

or, even better, the first sentence seperate in combination with the restriction (emphasis mine):

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

That doesn't hold at all.

So, I'm conviced. Logic by grammar

 

[Herzog]

After a face-to-face discussion with some of my friends, I have reconsidered my conclusion.

Normally, text trumps table-entry, but in this case, the text is ambiguous.

In other words, when the text fails, refer to the table:

+1 caster level and DC for spells of the energy type matching your​

Draconic Heritage

Unambiguous.

(which still leaves open the original question about spell-like abilities, although I now consider that one to be 'no, but wouldn't be unreasonable')

 

[pawsplay]

How is that unambiguous? It could just as easily say:


+1 DC for spells of the energy type matching your Draconic Heritage and caster level

and it would have the same sentence structure, and be equally ambiguous.

 

[Herzog]

No, in this sentence the caster level and DC increase are used in a contracted sentence, indicating any following clause is to be used to limit both increases.
Also, the word 'for' is used, instead of the misleading word 'of', which caused the bad grammar in the Feat's text.

Third, your sentence restructuring suggests that the +1 DC is limited to spells matching your caster level. (And although that would make no sense whatsoever within the rules, that's what it would say)