Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="green slime" data-source="post: 4457559" data-attributes="member: 1325">You don't. That is "understood", that SR only comes into play in certain circumstances. Nontheless, just because you can, if you try really hard, avoid ever having to penetrate SR, it is nonetheless a measurable quantity of how effective a character is in certain situations. If you are forced to cast a less effective spell because you cannot hope to penetrate the creature's SR, then you are worse off than the character who penetrates it with ease. Same as you choose to avoid the question of quality of "Buffs" with your SPR, likewise, the ability to penetrate SR is another metric to measure the spellcaster's effectiveness.Likewise, many spells beyond core (and I'm looking at you, Orb spells), are subject to DM whim, and you cannot really count on exotic sources to overcome/bypass SR. I for one, have never allowed those Orb spells for precisely this reason. Are you saying you choose to ignore the fact that a single metric does not tell the whole tale, and refuse to take other metrics into consideration? Seems a rather stubborn position to take.With regards to the Practiced Spellcaster, a simple reading of that feat renders your question mute. So they can't have a +8 to effective caster level, unless they are multiclassed out the wazoo, and are therefore casting relatively low level spells.... But otherwise, of  course it stacks, but can never push the effective caster level beyond character level.You speculate about every feat you could add to your build, without ever considering the feats available to the single classed character... Practised Spellcaster needs to be taken twice for the theurge-type caster, just to maintain caster level efficiency in comparisson with the single classed spellcaster. Which means that the single classed spellcaster has two more to focus on other capabilities, or extend their abilities. You keep refering to this book I don't possess, yet seemingly haven't read the basic rules (questions about Practised Spellcaster which are answered in the feat description and generic rules, UM spell progression errors), which weakens your case. Nonetheless, the fact that certain information is contained in it doesn't detract from the fact, that the metrics I proposed are valid ones, to be applied together with "SPR". SPR is too blunt to be used as the sole metric. Your original post was stating that the reason you disliked theurge-type PrC's was basically because the amount of "SPR" was too high, and they still had all these high level spell slots. When it was pointed out, that your build didn't have 8th level spelll slots, you redesigned the build, which showed at least you hadn't put too much consideration into the first post. It was based on your bias against the PrC-type, more than any real facts. Given that your spell slots were originally incorrect, how can we accept that your calculated "SPR" comparisson is correct?Readjusting the UM to have access to 8th level spell slots, but fewer of them, and fewer 7th level spell slots to boot, means the SPR should once again be recalculated, surely?Furthermore, this not only brings into question that the calculated SPR's for the UM is correct, but that even the calculation for the SPR's for the single classed spellcasting character. IOW, the whole conclusion can be done away with, unless the presentation is redone in a more careful manner.Of course you are free to dislike the theurge-style PrC's as much as you like, but I haven't seen anything that convinces me that they are too powerful. Quite the contrary.</blockquote>

Verification