Semantics on "Caster Level" [Archive] - Wizards Community

Semantics on "Caster Level" [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Androcus Divinicus
07-07-07, 11:07 AM I'm in the process of desigining an appropriately uber BBEG for the end of my current campaign. I've gone with an epic level lich (clr/wiz/Mystic Theruge/ArchMage) ... however, while I want him to be tough enough to make a group of high level players quake in their boots, I want him to be fair (that is, I want to make sure that he's legally uber). So I'm currently struggling with a question of semantics regarding the phrase "caster level". Let me put the question forth first, and then include some of my reasoning for my personal conclusion second. Can a character satisfy the requirements of, say for example, "Craft Staff" by being a Clr9/Wiz3? I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to get input from my fellow DMs.

Here is what I'm thinking: I would like the answer to that question to be yes, and, indeed, in my previous casual perusals of this part of the rules, I'd always read "caster level x" as "one with x levels in spell casting classes". With that said, however, I think that my desires are not supported by a strict reading of the rules. The references to "caster level" made by the index of the PHB are a reference to the power of a spell, and not the power of the caster (if such a distinction can even be drawn), saying: "A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell." This leads me to believe that, in my previous example, the Clr9/Wiz3, while being a 12th level character, is not a 12th level caster for the purposes of the Craft Staff Feat.

So, what are your thoughts?
Ebonarc
07-07-07, 11:37 AM This leads me to believe that, in my previous example, the Clr9/Wiz3, while being a 12th level character, is not a 12th level caster for the purposes of the Craft Staff Feat.

So, what are your thoughts?

That's correct. To be a 12th level caster, you have to have 12 levels in one class (say, cleric or wizard), or levels in multiple classes that stack the spellcasting progression (say, Wizard and Archmage).
Marcus Majarra
07-07-07, 11:38 AM My thoughts are that you need a caster level of 12th in either of your spellcasting classes. As stated, the feat doesn't require 12 levels in spellcasting classes. It requires a caster level of 12th. As it is, a Clr9/Wiz3 has two caster levels: 9 and 3. Since neither is 12, he doesn't qualify for Craft Staff.

Wouldn't it be simpler to give the feat to your lich at a later level, take one for which it qualifies at that point?
Androcus Divinicus
07-07-07, 11:44 AM Well, this is rather what I was thinking ... :) Ah well.
Nom
07-09-07, 05:03 AM Or give him Practiced Spellcaster in the higher class.
Leonis472
07-10-07, 09:20 AM I find it interesting in the first place that one who seems to support that the DM has the freedom to make his world rain PokéMon would even blink at a non-issue like this one. Part of the fun is not letting the players pay attention to the man behind the curtain. You provide the challenges and settings and the player characters often shouldn't demand explanations. I've typically not enjoyed spilling the beans on what spell allowed a wizard to survive so many hits, or in this case, what allows an uber-lich to make staffs when he shouldn't be able to.

Anyway, all well and good, but if you're short only a Craft Staff feat why not just let him have it? The DM's guide says its impossible for us to cheat, as we adjudicate when certain rules apply when or if they do at all. If you want him to be tough enough to cause mass boot-quaking then compunctions over the rules shouldn't stop you. The players stick to the rules to keep balanced, and the dungeon master follows them when they're convenient and steps over the rules when needed to make up for complications that strict semantics would impose. I hate saying the obvious, sometimes I think it makes me think I'm just taking up space.
Androcus Divinicus
07-10-07, 09:52 AM I find it interesting in the first place that one who seems to support that the DM has the freedom to make his world rain PokéMon would even blink at a non-issue like this one.

Well, first of all, thanks for taking the time to click through the sblocks in my sig file. As far as the "freedom to make his world rain PokéMon", I guess my feeling on it is that the DM has the authority to make his world work like that, but the DM should also have the obligation to work within the rules that he sets. And, since the rules that I've set are mostly core, it is important to me to work within those rules. What I'm trying to do here is just get a consensus opinion on how those rules apply to this situation.

Regards,
Justin.
Leilond
07-10-07, 09:57 AM It doesn't exista any obligation at all
The only things the DM "must do" is work for the fun of all. It is absurd to ask a DM to look around in 137 manuals and web articles to give his lich a power that he thinks will be fun for the campaign!
Come on! I need this power for my BBEG, it's not in the rules, but it will be fine to play... DOT
We're totally losing the respect for the incredible hard, time spending, dedition work that the DM do. During the week, the players think about D&D every now and then, being distracted... the DM dedicate his time to the fun of other and this people pretend that I find that stupid feat on that lost manual, only recoverable in the library of alexandria? No my dear, my BBEG has that power and you'll have fun if you stop to question about it and play
kelvinaw273
07-10-07, 10:27 AM I'm in the process of desigining an appropriately uber BBEG for the end of my current campaign. I've gone with an epic level lich (clr/wiz/Mystic Theruge/ArchMage) ... however, while I want him to be tough enough to make a group of high level players quake in their boots, I want him to be fair (that is, I want to make sure that he's legally uber). So I'm currently struggling with a question of semantics regarding the phrase "caster level". Let me put the question forth first, and then include some of my reasoning for my personal conclusion second. Can a character satisfy the requirements of, say for example, "Craft Staff" by being a Clr9/Wiz3? I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to get input from my fellow DMs.

Here is what I'm thinking: I would like the answer to that question to be yes, and, indeed, in my previous casual perusals of this part of the rules, I'd always read "caster level x" as "one with x levels in spell casting classes". With that said, however, I think that my desires are not supported by a strict reading of the rules. The references to "caster level" made by the index of the PHB are a reference to the power of a spell, and not the power of the caster (if such a distinction can even be drawn), saying: "A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell." This leads me to believe that, in my previous example, the Clr9/Wiz3, while being a 12th level character, is not a 12th level caster for the purposes of the Craft Staff Feat.

So, what are your thoughts?

Separate levels in separate classes are just that, separate. If you are a Clr 9 / Wiz 3, then you have 9 caster levels as a cleric and 3 as a wizard. They do not stack for spell effects or damage, and they don't for fulfilling magic item requirements: Even Wizard and Sorcerer levels (if you had both) do not stack. Prestige classes that add to a specific caster level DO count (and Mystic Theurge specifically adds to both). In PrC descriptions it specifies or says you must specify which classes you are increasing if you have more than one. A Clr 3 / Wiz 3 / MT 6 is a 9th level caster for clerical spells and a 9th level caster for wizard spells - and clearly if levels stacked this would then make the 18th level for feat requirements, not a sensible thing!

However, the feat Practiced Caster comes to your rescue. This feat adds up to four non-casting hit-dice levels you possess to your caster level at one class. So your Clr 3 / Wiz 3 / MT 6 could take Practiced Caster (Wizard) and Practiced Caster (Cleric) and this allows them to stack their caster levels together with non caster levels. Cleric is non-wizard casting, and Wizard is non-cleric casting, so it is legal. They now cast their spells as a 12th level Cleric and as a 12th level Wizard, even though they only select spells as a 9th level in either.

This should allow you to craft a staff ...
Leonis472
07-10-07, 03:29 PM (You're welcome, I liked your sigs.)

[...] I guess my feeling on it is that the DM has the authority to make his world work like that, but the DM should also have the obligation to work within the rules that he sets. And, since the rules that I've set are mostly core, it is important to me to work within those rules. [...]

There are two issues as I see it:

One- You want to rules to justify your villain's abilities. The consensus is they do not, except Practised Spellcaster saves the day.

Two- I'm thinking we shouldn't be so bound, and that is where I left off in the conversation and that is where I still am, along with others. The point I make now is if you had not been given the feat practised spellcaster you may not have done what you wanted. You seem unwilling to make a concession for the ease of yourself and the game, and it turns out that that concession was only the size of a single feat according to the books. I don't believe that kind of adherence to dharma is always beneficial. On the contrary, I see it as a hindrance.

[...] The only things the DM "must do" is work for the fun of all. It is absurd to ask a DM to look around in 137 manuals and web articles to give his lich a power that he thinks will be fun for the campaign! [...]

Thanks for the support, hahaha. I too, think there's a bigger issue than finding what the rules condemn when those same rules give DMs freedoms guided and limited (indeed if limited at all) solely by principles.

[...] The players stick to the rules to keep balanced, and the dungeon master follows them when they're convenient and steps over the rules when needed to make up for complications that strict semantics would impose. [...]

Please understand that what I say is for your liberty and ease, not to annoy you with many words, and obvious ones at that. ;)

Leo out.
Androcus Divinicus
07-10-07, 04:38 PM Alright ... well this thread has grown considerably beyond where I expected it to die. While I'm far from upset about this (so please don't misread my tone), I do think that there are some misunderstandings here. So, let me clarify a few things:

1) I was curious about the opinions of other DMs on what exactly "caster level" meant within the specific context of item creation feats. I think this has been dealt with, at least to my satisfaction.

2) I'm aware of the Practiced Spellcaster feat and all of the effects it would have on this situation. It is irrelevant in this case because it gains nothing. The character in question spends a feat to be able, in this case, to meet the requirements of a second feat three levels earlier. But he'll still have to wait three levels until he has another feat slot to spend. This is why I did not mention it in the original post. I'm further aware that because none of this information was mentioned in the original post, it would have been impossible for any of you to know that the feat would not be effective in this situation. But then, keep in mind, I wasn't asking "Gee guys, how do I accomplish getting this character to be able to get Craft Staff?"

3) It isn't that I want the rules to justify this guy's abilities, it's that I want him to have a certain set of abilities, and I want to put this character together in a way that is within the context of the rules. I am able to do that. If I were not able to do that, I would create or change rules as needed to make it happen, but I would work within those rules (more on this later). The original question of this post was not a "I can't get this to work the way I want", it was a "This is how I think it works, what do you think?"

4) On the issue of following the rules, it is my opinion that, simply because a DM can ignore as many rules as he wants to, there is no reason that he automatically should, just because it would seem to make his life easier at the time. I have been DMing for about ten years now ... which is longer than some of you, and shorter than some others, but it is long enough that I'm capable of making an informed decision about the rules that govern my game. I have learned in this time that the rules are important. They are important because they help to maintain a sense of verisimilitude and internal consistency within a campaign world. I do believe that the DM ought to have complete authority over his world, but I believe that his authority should extend to himself as well, and when he decides upon a rule that governs the universe that is his game world, that he should enforce it on himself as well as on his players. Further, just because I desire to work within the rules does not mean that I'm willing to paralyze my game in the pursuit of a rule. I'm perfectly willing and able to make judgement calls, and "on-the-fly" rullings. But right now I'm not running this game, I'm preparing for it. And, what's more, in that preparation, I'm not looking through 137 books and web articles ... all the topics that this thread addresses are contained within three books.

5) I disagree with the notion that the only job of the DM is to provide fun for all. But then, I'm just one man, and I respect the fact that not everyone will agree with me. But, if all I were doing was ensuring everyone had a good time, I'd merely show up with strippers and beer. I think that the job of a DM is to provide an enjoyable game world upon which a group of role-players can build a story. Providing for this enjoyment means, to me at least, providing a world that is consistent within itself, so that it can form a foundation for the creation of that story.

Finally, let me just say ... this was not a rant, I'm not angry with anyone. To the contrary, I rather enjoy discussing the finer points of DMing ... but I did feel that I should point out that the original purpose of the thread has been resolved.

Regards,
Justin.
Leonis472
07-11-07, 10:03 PM 4) On the issue of following the rules, it is my opinion that, simply because a DM can ignore as many rules as he wants to, there is no reason that he automatically should, [...]I agree completely. I just thought that as semantics is in the title one might be tripped up by them. 5) I disagree with the notion that the only job of the DM is to provide fun for all. But then, I'm just one man, and I respect the fact that not everyone will agree with me. But, if all I were doing was ensuring everyone had a good time, I'd merely show up with strippers and beer. I think that the job of a DM is to provide an enjoyable game world upon which a group of role-players can build a story. Providing for this enjoyment means, to me at least, providing a world that is consistent within itself, so that it can form a foundation for the creation of that story.I, too, disagree with such a notion. It was a poor choice of words and a poor choice of quotation; a better choice might be to say that the aim of the DM's much work is the fun for all. This is not in any magnitude contradictory to your statement; rather it supports it. A fun game is not one in which it is impossible to lose, but one which is, as you said, consistent within itself, and can turn on the players not out of malice (though sometimes, haha) but out of chance, just like life, and all within a rigid framework which still allows for freedom. You are certainly right to say that a game in which everyone always wins is like a "debauchery of winning," and when the alcohol wears off everyone realizes there were never any true virtues to it. Finally, let me just say ... this was not a rant, I'm not angry with anyone. To the contrary, I rather enjoy discussing the finer points of DMing ... but I did feel that I should point out that the original purpose of the thread has been resolved.I was going to refrain from another post, but I wanted to reassure you that I recognize your kind reply was not a rant. Please likewise understand that I was ever only trying to perform for you a service, though in my many words I may still have become the redundancy I feared. Rather than further endanger myself by it, I'll end on this wise. :)
Leonis472
07-11-07, 10:32 PM Actually, scratch that. I don't believe words are ever wasted on courtesy. Courtesy can be defined as going over the top to make others feel most at ease, and since "over the top" must mean "excess," I suppose words might be said to be wasted. However, since the principle of courtesy is to intentionally ensure the comfort of others regardless of personal cost, it seems that from the payer's perspective "enough" is by definition "too much." In conclusion, I will be redundant in kindness until I know what "enough" is, and this without fear.

As an aside to any wondering, my D&D sessions are not plagued by constant philosophical delays. :)
Madsamurai
07-12-07, 06:39 PM actually, there is a varient rule that does what you want in UA.

See link:
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedMagic.html
Androcus Divinicus
07-13-07, 11:16 AM actually, there is a varient rule that does what you want in UA.

See link:
http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedMagic.html

Now, see? I knew that I got the idea of wizard and cleric levels stacking for the purpose of determining caster level somewhere. After looking at the rules, I found myself wondering, "Damn. How the hell did you ever think that?" Now I know. Blame UA. That's where I read it. :)

Thanks for the link Madsamurai.

J.
Madsamurai
07-13-07, 05:06 PM no problem, happy to help

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Androcus Divinicus 07-07-07, 11:07 AM	I'm in the process of desigining an appropriately uber BBEG for the end of my current campaign. I've gone with an epic level lich (clr/wiz/Mystic Theruge/ArchMage) ... however, while I want him to be tough enough to make a group of high level players quake in their boots, I want him to be fair (that is, I want to make sure that he's legally uber). So I'm currently struggling with a question of semantics regarding the phrase "caster level". Let me put the question forth first, and then include some of my reasoning for my personal conclusion second. Can a character satisfy the requirements of, say for example, "Craft Staff" by being a Clr9/Wiz3? I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to get input from my fellow DMs. Here is what I'm thinking: I would like the answer to that question to be yes, and, indeed, in my previous casual perusals of this part of the rules, I'd always read "caster level x" as "one with x levels in spell casting classes". With that said, however, I think that my desires are not supported by a strict reading of the rules. The references to "caster level" made by the index of the PHB are a reference to the power of a spell, and not the power of the caster (if such a distinction can even be drawn), saying: "A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell." This leads me to believe that, in my previous example, the Clr9/Wiz3, while being a 12th level character, is not a 12th level caster for the purposes of the Craft Staff Feat. So, what are your thoughts?
Ebonarc 07-07-07, 11:37 AM	This leads me to believe that, in my previous example, the Clr9/Wiz3, while being a 12th level character, is not a 12th level caster for the purposes of the Craft Staff Feat. So, what are your thoughts? That's correct. To be a 12th level caster, you have to have 12 levels in one class (say, cleric or wizard), or levels in multiple classes that stack the spellcasting progression (say, Wizard and Archmage).
Marcus Majarra 07-07-07, 11:38 AM	My thoughts are that you need a caster level of 12th in either of your spellcasting classes. As stated, the feat doesn't require 12 levels in spellcasting classes. It requires a caster level of 12th. As it is, a Clr9/Wiz3 has two caster levels: 9 and 3. Since neither is 12, he doesn't qualify for Craft Staff. Wouldn't it be simpler to give the feat to your lich at a later level, take one for which it qualifies at that point?
Androcus Divinicus 07-07-07, 11:44 AM	Well, this is rather what I was thinking ... :) Ah well.
Nom 07-09-07, 05:03 AM	Or give him Practiced Spellcaster in the higher class.
Leonis472 07-10-07, 09:20 AM	I find it interesting in the first place that one who seems to support that the DM has the freedom to make his world rain PokéMon would even blink at a non-issue like this one. Part of the fun is not letting the players pay attention to the man behind the curtain. You provide the challenges and settings and the player characters often shouldn't demand explanations. I've typically not enjoyed spilling the beans on what spell allowed a wizard to survive so many hits, or in this case, what allows an uber-lich to make staffs when he shouldn't be able to. Anyway, all well and good, but if you're short only a Craft Staff feat why not just let him have it? The DM's guide says its impossible for us to cheat, as we adjudicate when certain rules apply when or if they do at all. If you want him to be tough enough to cause mass boot-quaking then compunctions over the rules shouldn't stop you. The players stick to the rules to keep balanced, and the dungeon master follows them when they're convenient and steps over the rules when needed to make up for complications that strict semantics would impose. I hate saying the obvious, sometimes I think it makes me think I'm just taking up space.
Androcus Divinicus 07-10-07, 09:52 AM	I find it interesting in the first place that one who seems to support that the DM has the freedom to make his world rain PokéMon would even blink at a non-issue like this one. Well, first of all, thanks for taking the time to click through the sblocks in my sig file. As far as the "freedom to make his world rain PokéMon", I guess my feeling on it is that the DM has the authority to make his world work like that, but the DM should also have the obligation to work within the rules that he sets. And, since the rules that I've set are mostly core, it is important to me to work within those rules. What I'm trying to do here is just get a consensus opinion on how those rules apply to this situation. Regards, Justin.
Leilond 07-10-07, 09:57 AM	It doesn't exista any obligation at all The only things the DM "must do" is work for the fun of all. It is absurd to ask a DM to look around in 137 manuals and web articles to give his lich a power that he thinks will be fun for the campaign! Come on! I need this power for my BBEG, it's not in the rules, but it will be fine to play... DOT We're totally losing the respect for the incredible hard, time spending, dedition work that the DM do. During the week, the players think about D&D every now and then, being distracted... the DM dedicate his time to the fun of other and this people pretend that I find that stupid feat on that lost manual, only recoverable in the library of alexandria? No my dear, my BBEG has that power and you'll have fun if you stop to question about it and play
kelvinaw273 07-10-07, 10:27 AM	I'm in the process of desigining an appropriately uber BBEG for the end of my current campaign. I've gone with an epic level lich (clr/wiz/Mystic Theruge/ArchMage) ... however, while I want him to be tough enough to make a group of high level players quake in their boots, I want him to be fair (that is, I want to make sure that he's legally uber). So I'm currently struggling with a question of semantics regarding the phrase "caster level". Let me put the question forth first, and then include some of my reasoning for my personal conclusion second. Can a character satisfy the requirements of, say for example, "Craft Staff" by being a Clr9/Wiz3? I have some thoughts on the matter, but I'd like to get input from my fellow DMs. Here is what I'm thinking: I would like the answer to that question to be yes, and, indeed, in my previous casual perusals of this part of the rules, I'd always read "caster level x" as "one with x levels in spell casting classes". With that said, however, I think that my desires are not supported by a strict reading of the rules. The references to "caster level" made by the index of the PHB are a reference to the power of a spell, and not the power of the caster (if such a distinction can even be drawn), saying: "A spell's power often depends on caster level, which is defined as the caster's class level for the purpose of casting a particular spell." This leads me to believe that, in my previous example, the Clr9/Wiz3, while being a 12th level character, is not a 12th level caster for the purposes of the Craft Staff Feat. So, what are your thoughts? Separate levels in separate classes are just that, separate. If you are a Clr 9 / Wiz 3, then you have 9 caster levels as a cleric and 3 as a wizard. They do not stack for spell effects or damage, and they don't for fulfilling magic item requirements: Even Wizard and Sorcerer levels (if you had both) do not stack. Prestige classes that add to a specific caster level DO count (and Mystic Theurge specifically adds to both). In PrC descriptions it specifies or says you must specify which classes you are increasing if you have more than one. A Clr 3 / Wiz 3 / MT 6 is a 9th level caster for clerical spells and a 9th level caster for wizard spells - and clearly if levels stacked this would then make the 18th level for feat requirements, not a sensible thing! However, the feat Practiced Caster comes to your rescue. This feat adds up to four non-casting hit-dice levels you possess to your caster level at one class. So your Clr 3 / Wiz 3 / MT 6 could take Practiced Caster (Wizard) and Practiced Caster (Cleric) and this allows them to stack their caster levels together with non caster levels. Cleric is non-wizard casting, and Wizard is non-cleric casting, so it is legal. They now cast their spells as a 12th level Cleric and as a 12th level Wizard, even though they only select spells as a 9th level in either. This should allow you to craft a staff ...
Leonis472 07-10-07, 03:29 PM	(You're welcome, I liked your sigs.) [...] I guess my feeling on it is that the DM has the authority to make his world work like that, but the DM should also have the obligation to work within the rules that he sets. And, since the rules that I've set are mostly core, it is important to me to work within those rules. [...] There are two issues as I see it: One- You want to rules to justify your villain's abilities. The consensus is they do not, except Practised Spellcaster saves the day. Two- I'm thinking we shouldn't be so bound, and that is where I left off in the conversation and that is where I still am, along with others. The point I make now is if you had not been given the feat practised spellcaster you may not have done what you wanted. You seem unwilling to make a concession for the ease of yourself and the game, and it turns out that that concession was only the size of a single feat according to the books. I don't believe that kind of adherence to dharma is always beneficial. On the contrary, I see it as a hindrance. [...] The only things the DM "must do" is work for the fun of all. It is absurd to ask a DM to look around in 137 manuals and web articles to give his lich a power that he thinks will be fun for the campaign! [...] Thanks for the support, hahaha. I too, think there's a bigger issue than finding what the rules condemn when those same rules give DMs freedoms guided and limited (indeed if limited at all) solely by principles. [...] The players stick to the rules to keep balanced, and the dungeon master follows them when they're convenient and steps over the rules when needed to make up for complications that strict semantics would impose. [...] Please understand that what I say is for your liberty and ease, not to annoy you with many words, and obvious ones at that. ;) Leo out.
Androcus Divinicus 07-10-07, 04:38 PM	Alright ... well this thread has grown considerably beyond where I expected it to die. While I'm far from upset about this (so please don't misread my tone), I do think that there are some misunderstandings here. So, let me clarify a few things: 1) I was curious about the opinions of other DMs on what exactly "caster level" meant within the specific context of item creation feats. I think this has been dealt with, at least to my satisfaction. 2) I'm aware of the Practiced Spellcaster feat and all of the effects it would have on this situation. It is irrelevant in this case because it gains nothing. The character in question spends a feat to be able, in this case, to meet the requirements of a second feat three levels earlier. But he'll still have to wait three levels until he has another feat slot to spend. This is why I did not mention it in the original post. I'm further aware that because none of this information was mentioned in the original post, it would have been impossible for any of you to know that the feat would not be effective in this situation. But then, keep in mind, I wasn't asking "Gee guys, how do I accomplish getting this character to be able to get Craft Staff?" 3) It isn't that I want the rules to justify this guy's abilities, it's that I want him to have a certain set of abilities, and I want to put this character together in a way that is within the context of the rules. I am able to do that. If I were not able to do that, I would create or change rules as needed to make it happen, but I would work within those rules (more on this later). The original question of this post was not a "I can't get this to work the way I want", it was a "This is how I think it works, what do you think?" 4) On the issue of following the rules, it is my opinion that, simply because a DM can ignore as many rules as he wants to, there is no reason that he automatically should, just because it would seem to make his life easier at the time. I have been DMing for about ten years now ... which is longer than some of you, and shorter than some others, but it is long enough that I'm capable of making an informed decision about the rules that govern my game. I have learned in this time that the rules are important. They are important because they help to maintain a sense of verisimilitude and internal consistency within a campaign world. I do believe that the DM ought to have complete authority over his world, but I believe that his authority should extend to himself as well, and when he decides upon a rule that governs the universe that is his game world, that he should enforce it on himself as well as on his players. Further, just because I desire to work within the rules does not mean that I'm willing to paralyze my game in the pursuit of a rule. I'm perfectly willing and able to make judgement calls, and "on-the-fly" rullings. But right now I'm not running this game, I'm preparing for it. And, what's more, in that preparation, I'm not looking through 137 books and web articles ... all the topics that this thread addresses are contained within three books. 5) I disagree with the notion that the only job of the DM is to provide fun for all. But then, I'm just one man, and I respect the fact that not everyone will agree with me. But, if all I were doing was ensuring everyone had a good time, I'd merely show up with strippers and beer. I think that the job of a DM is to provide an enjoyable game world upon which a group of role-players can build a story. Providing for this enjoyment means, to me at least, providing a world that is consistent within itself, so that it can form a foundation for the creation of that story. Finally, let me just say ... this was not a rant, I'm not angry with anyone. To the contrary, I rather enjoy discussing the finer points of DMing ... but I did feel that I should point out that the original purpose of the thread has been resolved. Regards, Justin.
Leonis472 07-11-07, 10:03 PM	4) On the issue of following the rules, it is my opinion that, simply because a DM can ignore as many rules as he wants to, there is no reason that he automatically should, [...]I agree completely. I just thought that as semantics is in the title one might be tripped up by them. 5) I disagree with the notion that the only job of the DM is to provide fun for all. But then, I'm just one man, and I respect the fact that not everyone will agree with me. But, if all I were doing was ensuring everyone had a good time, I'd merely show up with strippers and beer. I think that the job of a DM is to provide an enjoyable game world upon which a group of role-players can build a story. Providing for this enjoyment means, to me at least, providing a world that is consistent within itself, so that it can form a foundation for the creation of that story.I, too, disagree with such a notion. It was a poor choice of words and a poor choice of quotation; a better choice might be to say that the aim of the DM's much work is the fun for all. This is not in any magnitude contradictory to your statement; rather it supports it. A fun game is not one in which it is impossible to lose, but one which is, as you said, consistent within itself, and can turn on the players not out of malice (though sometimes, haha) but out of chance, just like life, and all within a rigid framework which still allows for freedom. You are certainly right to say that a game in which everyone always wins is like a "debauchery of winning," and when the alcohol wears off everyone realizes there were never any true virtues to it. Finally, let me just say ... this was not a rant, I'm not angry with anyone. To the contrary, I rather enjoy discussing the finer points of DMing ... but I did feel that I should point out that the original purpose of the thread has been resolved.I was going to refrain from another post, but I wanted to reassure you that I recognize your kind reply was not a rant. Please likewise understand that I was ever only trying to perform for you a service, though in my many words I may still have become the redundancy I feared. Rather than further endanger myself by it, I'll end on this wise. :)
Leonis472 07-11-07, 10:32 PM	Actually, scratch that. I don't believe words are ever wasted on courtesy. Courtesy can be defined as going over the top to make others feel most at ease, and since "over the top" must mean "excess," I suppose words might be said to be wasted. However, since the principle of courtesy is to intentionally ensure the comfort of others regardless of personal cost, it seems that from the payer's perspective "enough" is by definition "too much." In conclusion, I will be redundant in kindness until I know what "enough" is, and this without fear. As an aside to any wondering, my D&D sessions are not plagued by constant philosophical delays. :)
Madsamurai 07-12-07, 06:39 PM	actually, there is a varient rule that does what you want in UA. See link: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedMagic.html
Androcus Divinicus 07-13-07, 11:16 AM	actually, there is a varient rule that does what you want in UA. See link: http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/unearthedMagic.html Now, see? I knew that I got the idea of wizard and cleric levels stacking for the purpose of determining caster level somewhere. After looking at the rules, I found myself wondering, "Damn. How the hell did you ever think that?" Now I know. Blame UA. That's where I read it. :) Thanks for the link Madsamurai. J.
Madsamurai 07-13-07, 05:06 PM	no problem, happy to help