Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Vanulf 11-02-07, 04:48 AM	I know there are Practiced Spellcaster and Practiced Manifester feats, but is there a feat for Warlocks to boost up there effective caster levels?
Aricandor 11-02-07, 06:26 AM	Looking at the prerequisites for Practiced Spellcaster, I don't see anything to explicitly disallow warlocks from gaining benefit from it. The nitpick would be "Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class...", considering warlocks qualify for PrCs (another matter entirely, as far as I'm concerned) as having a caster level, but not as casting actual spells, one could somewhat reasonably say no to Practiced Spellcaster, but I don't really see any solid reasons to do so. Bottom line: Talk to the DM about letting Practiced Spellcaster working for it. It doesn't look unreasonable to allow it.
runestar 11-02-07, 06:43 AM	Unfortunately, warlock is not a spellcasting class. It merely has a caster lv for purposes of meeting requirements.:(
Tordak 11-02-07, 08:57 AM	And I'm sure any slightly open minded DM wouldn't be against creating the appropriate feat, which would requires little efforts seeing how there are only a few words to change.
StevenO 11-02-07, 12:42 PM	I'd allow a Warlock to use Practiced Spellcaster. Note that this will have NO effect on he eldritch blast damage and because most invocations already last all day durations aren't a problem. That means the only thing an increased caster level is good for is punching an EB through spell resistance (there is an invocation that can help too) and maybe helps with a few other invocations.
Count Arioch the 28th 11-02-07, 12:54 PM	Actually, the PrCs that increase spellcaster level do in fact increase Eldritch Blast damage. Therefore, the theoreticial "PRacticed Invoker" feat would need to as well.
goawayugh 11-02-07, 01:58 PM	CL has nothing to do with EB damage. EB damage is based on class level. Look at it this way: If a wizard has a change in CL will it affect his spells per day? No, because those are based on class level. The same is true for EB damage. Sure you can increase CL, but all that will do is help you with SR checks, and some invocation variables based on CL. Although, Practiced Spellcaster can't be taken by Warlocks, they are not a 'spellcasting class'. This has been clarified in the FAQ.
vorpo 11-02-07, 02:11 PM	Actually, the PrCs that increase spellcaster level do in fact increase Eldritch Blast damage. Therefore, the theoreticial "PRacticed Invoker" feat would need to as well. They do not because of caster level. They do because they specifically design them to up the EB dmg ("+1 to spellcasting level" includes CL but CL doesn't imply you go +1 with everything else involving spellcasting). I have to agree with all others that said EB damage is independent of CL
Vanulf 11-02-07, 03:33 PM	I'm not looking to increase the EB damage but to use the feat to punch through SR. I'm joining an epic level campaign and am playing a Warlock/Wizard/Eldritch Theurge and can use the extra oomph.
Grod_The_Giant 11-02-07, 03:48 PM	hmm...as a DM, I'd say practiced spellcaster would work. Unless yours is a real rules lawyer, I'd say you could get away with it.
runestar 11-02-07, 10:11 PM	Rules lawyering has nothing to do with it...;)
Dog_O_War 11-03-07, 01:44 PM	What possible benefit could a warlock glean from this feat? Most of his invocations have virtually no level (and thus caster level) based points; they last either a really long time or modify his eldrich blast. As for his eldrich blast, it is also not based on "caster level" but rather character level, like sneak attack. Unless I'm missing something, there'd be like what, maybe half a dozen invocations across all his levels that could possibly benefit? It is just not worth it. Also, I may have put my foot in my mouth (again) as I don't have CAr in front of my right now. Ignore this post if such is the case. Edit: I see now why you'd want to take the feat. Unfortunately, this sounds a tad powergamey as you wish to compensate (now) for character class dilution.
imakuni67 11-03-07, 01:55 PM	Although, Practiced Spellcaster can't be taken by Warlocks, they are not a 'spellcasting class'. This has been clarified in the FAQ. I think the Practiced Spellcaster feat almost needs it's own faq... :rolleyes:
Vanulf 11-03-07, 04:19 PM	Powergamey?, perhaps. But I'm entering the campaign at 25th level whereas everyone else is 28th, so I'm already behind the curve to begin with.
archerpwr 11-03-07, 04:35 PM	Edit: I see now why you'd want to take the feat. Unfortunately, this sounds a tad powergamey as you wish to compensate (now) for character class dilution. Full casters are *not* powergaming if they have to take practiced spellcaster. Warlock is a weak class anyway that gets little benefit. Here are the only people that would benefit: Gishes (arcane or divine) 1/2 level casters like ranger and paladin prestige classes (such as assassin)
Dog_O_War 11-03-07, 05:31 PM	I'm just saying.... If there were a feat that allowed a rogue to gain extra rogue levels for the purpose of avoiding sneak attack, then that would be ludicrous. Certain classes have an imbedded balance factor; levels. The rogue is one such class, as is the warlock. In order to be more powerful at what you do, you need to advance within that class. A rogue who deviates from his class loses additional sneak attack damage, and the ability to disarm higher level traps (unless of course your class has the disable device skill, or you pump cross-class ranks into it). This too is the down-side of the warlock. without levels, you lose DR, elemental resists, and ofcourse "spell" power. You'd think it unfair if a rogue 4 levels lower than you (with you being a rogue as well) could still sneak attack you flanking by virtue of a feat, how then would you percive a character who by the grace of the class eldritch thurge can cast both 9th level spells and dark invocations - with two feats - at maximum spell power? Something people forget is that a warlock does not even need a requisite stat. This (in a point buy system) is very powerful. As for epic levels; the spells balance themselves out. He can pretty much cast any spell his friends can, save for epic spells (for a couple levels - then he's on par). Besides, there are spells he can cast to increase spell penetration - true casting is the one that comes to mind (which he could quicken like 10 times if spell penetration is so paramount). What I don't understand is why you wouldn't take quicken spell-like ability three times (or once depending on the version allowed) with the combo you've got. Unless, ofcourse - you did.
StevenO 11-03-07, 11:14 PM	I'm just saying.... If there were a feat that allowed a rogue to gain extra rogue levels for the purpose of avoiding sneak attack, then that would be ludicrous. Certain classes have an imbedded balance factor; levels. snip. Ludicrous as in underpowered? Even without the capping at HD a feat, lets call it "Practiced Assassin" that treated its sneak attack as if used by a rogue four levels higher is probably underpowered. I wouldn't increase damage by itself but would enable a rogue to by-pass any Improved Uncanny Dodge ability when flanking a character of its own level. It would be useful in a limited sense but I'd add that you treat your level of IUD at +4 normal.
Count Arioch the 28th 11-04-07, 01:50 AM	I'm just saying.... If there were a feat that allowed a rogue to gain extra rogue levels for the purpose of avoiding sneak attack, then that would be ludicrous. Certain classes have an imbedded balance factor; levels. The rogue is one such class, as is the warlock. In order to be more powerful at what you do, you need to advance within that class. A rogue who deviates from his class loses additional sneak attack damage, and the ability to disarm higher level traps (unless of course your class has the disable device skill, or you pump cross-class ranks into it). The difference is, if a rogue has 7d6 of sneak attack instead of 9d6, he is still a functional rogue, he just deals less damage. A spellcaster that is 4 levels behind his hit dice might as well not be a spellcaster, he's utterly useless. And to be honest, Practiced Spellcaster doesn't help all that much. Let me put it this way: Assume you are playing a fighter 4/ wizard 10. Let's say the party fighter has leadership and has a rogue cohort. That rogue has leadership, and has a wizard as a cohort. The fighter brings just as much magic to the table as your character does though the cohort of his cohort. If you take Practiced Spellcaster, you might be able to overcome spell resistance, but you're still bringing magic to the table that was level appropriate four levels ago. So, to even be in a situation where Practiced Spellcaster is a reasonable feat, you basically have to cripple your own character to do so. And even then, it doesn't make up for the fact that a real spellcaster has two spell levels over you.
Dog_O_War 11-04-07, 01:34 AM	Let's assume that a follower could infact have a cohort first, then let's look at the facts; a 14th level character with 14th level magic items (not to mention 4 levels and thus immunities to certain level based spells) versus a tenth level character and his tenth level magic items. They don't even compare. Also, a fighter/wizard (I am using your example) really doesn't need spell penetration as (you may have guessed) such a character probably doesn't have DD spells in mind. Finally, what useful spell-like abilities would said multiclass warlock be using that would require such a hefty penetration? From my experience (at that level) you're either going to pass the caster level check or your not, as things at the epic level are that tough. Next people'll be wanting a "practiced melee dude" feat. So then I ask, where does it stop?
Count Arioch the 28th 11-04-07, 01:46 AM	Let's assume that a follower could infact have a cohort first, then let's look at the facts; a 14th level character with 14th level magic items (not to mention 4 levels and thus immunities to certain level based spells) versus a tenth level character and his tenth level magic items. They don't even compare. We're not talking about items or hit dice. We are talking about spellcasting. A level 10 wizard/level 4 fighter has the same spellcasting as a level 10 wizard. That's not debatable. 10 levels of wizard = 10 levels of wizard. A tenth level wizard brings as much magic to the party as a tenth level wizard, regardless of the levels in other nonspellcasting classes they have. Also, a fighter/wizard (I am using your example) really doesn't need spell penetration as (you may have guessed) such a character probably doesn't have DD spells in mind. No one with sense has direct damage spells in mind. It's the least efficient way to deal with threats. I don't see how you have a point. Finally, what useful spell-like abilities would said multiclass warlock be using that would require such a hefty penetration? From my experience (at that level) you're either going to pass the caster level check or your not, as things at the epic level are that tough. Dunno. If there was a "practiced invoker" feat, the warlock that the OP posted wouldn't even qualify for the feat at all, he would need 4 levels in something that's not warlock. Furthermore, warlocks can bypass spell resistance pretty easily by applying the proper invocation to the eldritch blast, and not directly attacking the beasty otherwise, Spell Resistance isn't a huge deal for warlocks in the first place. The only thing that the theoretical "Practiced Invoker" would do is increase Eldritch Blast damage (which is arguable, I would rule in that fashion because otherwise, the feat would accomplish nothing at all.) Next people'll be wanting a "practiced melee dude" feat. So then I ask, where does it stop? What would the theoretical "Practiced Melee Dude" feat even do? Considering that multiclassing makes melee characters MORE powerful, not LESS. At any rate, the fighter 4/wizard 10 with practiced spellcaster still is still vastly inferior to the Wizard 14 in spellcasting. They have equal chanced of overcoming spell resistance, but the wizard 14 has two full spell levels above the wizard 10/fighter 4. If you are that far behind, your spellcasting is irrelevant.
Dog_O_War 11-04-07, 12:02 PM	Originally posted by me Also, a fighter/wizard (I am using your example) really doesn't need spell penetration as (you may have guessed) such a character probably doesn't have DD spells in mind. Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th No one with sense has direct damage spells in mind. It's the least efficient way to deal with threats. I don't see how you have a point. The point was that what spells would a fighter/wizard want to cast against the enemy directly? Not save spells, because of multiclassing in mind, the saves generally won't be as high. So then it would be DD spells; the type that relies on spell penetration. That was my point. (on a side note, a character could focus on such, I'm just saying that it is not very likely). Originally posted by me Finally, what useful spell-like abilities would said multiclass warlock be using that would require such a hefty penetration? From my experience (at that level) you're either going to pass the caster level check or your not, as things at the epic level are that tough. Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Dunno. If there was a "practiced invoker" feat, the warlock that the OP posted wouldn't even qualify for the feat at all, he would need 4 levels in something that's not warlock. Furthermore, warlocks can bypass spell resistance pretty easily by applying the proper invocation to the eldritch blast, and not directly attacking the beasty otherwise, Spell Resistance isn't a huge deal for warlocks in the first place. The only thing that the theoretical "Practiced Invoker" would do is increase Eldritch Blast damage (which is arguable, I would rule in that fashion because otherwise, the feat would accomplish nothing at all.) That was the point of my post - that such a feat is generally useless to a warlock anyways. (he does qualify for a "practiced invoker" feat though, as he does have levels in a non-evocation using class.) Finally, a wizard10/fighter4 DOES have a magical edge - for one he can craft magic items the other cannot (staves and rings being the forefront of this example - with practiced spellcaster of course). The expendature of resources for such a character is far less than just a 10 wizard; the former has the ability to out-spell the lesser anytime, anywhere, any realm. And this is about spell-casting. What about all the spells that have a cap higher than ten (damage dice)? only the wizard/fighter could get the bonus damage, for he is the superior "weapon" so to speak. Longer durations, range, damage; more likely to have higher saves, as well he has an extra feat which could be a reserve feat - this only serves to further the gap between the two. That is why they do not even compare. They may cast the same spells, yes. But they do not have the same spell-casting.
archerpwr 11-04-07, 12:18 PM	The point was that what spells would a fighter/wizard want to cast against the enemy directly? Not save spells, because of multiclassing in mind, the saves generally won't be as high. So then it would be DD spells; the type that relies on spell penetration. That was my point. (on a side note, a character could focus on such, I'm just saying that it is not very likely). That was the point of my post - that such a feat is generally useless to a warlock anyways. (he does qualify for a "practiced invoker" feat though, as he does have levels in a non-evocation using class.) Finally, a wizard10/fighter4 DOES have a magical edge - for one he can craft magic items the other cannot (staves and rings being the forefront of this example - with practiced spellcaster of course). The expendature of resources for such a character is far less than just a 10 wizard; the former has the ability to out-spell the lesser anytime, anywhere, any realm. And this is about spell-casting. What about all the spells that have a cap higher than ten (damage dice)? only the wizard/fighter could get the bonus damage, for he is the superior "weapon" so to speak. Longer durations, range, damage; more likely to have higher saves, as well he has an extra feat which could be a reserve feat - this only serves to further the gap between the two. That is why they do not even compare. They may cast the same spells, yes. But they do not have the same spell-casting. Let me put it bluntly: you're entirely missing the point and don't know how wizards are played. Or fighter/wizards for that matter. StevenO and Count Arioch the 28th are demonstrating a much higher level of knowledge of the game right now. You are indeed putting your foot in your mouth. Practiced spellcaster is not a powergamey feat in any way it is used.
Count Arioch the 28th 11-04-07, 12:32 PM	Let me put it bluntly: you're entirely missing the point and don't know how wizards are played. Or fighter/wizards for that matter. StevenO and Count Arioch the 28th are demonstrating a much higher level of knowledge of the game right now. You are indeed putting your foot in your mouth. Practiced spellcaster is not a powergamey feat in any way it is used. I'm not worried. You see, the point of an internet argument isn't to convince the other person in the argument, that never happens on the internet. No, the point of the internet argument is to convince everyone who's watching that the other person doesn't know what he's talking about. And judging by your reply, I'm winning the debate.
Dog_O_War 11-04-07, 12:48 PM	Foot in my mouth? I don't taste the blood of my trampled foes... I am not saying the practiced spell-caster feat is "powergamey". It gives the one class type that really does not benefit from a multiclass union it's edge back. I was saying that a "practiced invoker" feat would be, as singular invocations are more powerful than any single spell (save for wish and miracle). As the Count had said earlier, eldritch blast (amoung other warlock abilities) are too imbedded into the classes' caster level. You would either be giving them an overpowered feat, or an underpowered one. There really isn't any middle ground. As for only wanting a feat that granted me +4 to spell penetration (albeit OP, through a reasonable sounding means) is powergamey; two feats for the price of one? Also, do not assume you know whether or not I know how to play a wizard (of any level). This is bad form and shows the lack of actual knowledge one posesses. I know what fighter/wizards are capable of; I've played a few and am quite aware of their limitations and advantages. Maybe I should've wrote caster-class dilution. Just about everyone that has ever posted about +1 LA races being casters, as well as certain multiclasses says not to. They can't all be wrong, right? I don't want to fight with the lot of you posters, so this'll be my final (unless someone decides to throw the verbal "first punch") post on the topic, as by now you all know my very vocal opinion. EDIT: Count, I am an open person. One of the few that will actually listen to another side's arguement. Your post was a cheap-shot against me. Just not cool.
Count Arioch the 28th 11-04-07, 01:01 PM	EDIT: Count, I am an open person. One of the few that will actually listen to another side's arguement. Your post was a cheap-shot against me. Just not cool. Fair enough, I deleted the offending comment.
StevenO 11-04-07, 01:47 PM	Let's... snip Next people'll be wanting a "practiced melee dude" feat. So then I ask, where does it stop? Again a feat I've proposed that is underpowered if it follows the same vein as Practiced Spellcaster. Practiced Combatant Prereqs: (To be determined but include BAB +1 at minimum.) Benefit: You may make itterative attacks as if your BAB=HD. You may consider your BAB=HD for meeting feat (but NOT class) prerequisites and when assigning modifiers based on BAB. That is a level 20 character with a normal BAB +10 could still Power Attack for 20. NOTE that this does not change any actual attack roll. What does a warrior give up that is similiar to a caster's casting level? BAB and its corresponding attack progression and the ability to utilize feats that want a good BAB. This feat would have its uses (most likely a rogue utilizing TWF) but for most warriors lossing the chance to hit from NOT having the BAB outweighs the gains from the extra attack. The last benefit would offer some abuse potential (max PA and Improved Combat Expertise) but if you're gaining an illusionary +6 to +10 BAB you probably aren't connecting that often anyway.
archerpwr 11-04-07, 02:07 PM	Foot in my mouth? I don't taste the blood of my trampled foes... I am not saying the practiced spell-caster feat is "powergamey". It gives the one class type that really does not benefit from a multiclass union it's edge back. I was saying that a "practiced invoker" feat would be, as singular invocations are more powerful than any single spell (save for wish and miracle). As the Count had said earlier, eldritch blast (amoung other warlock abilities) are too imbedded into the classes' caster level. You would either be giving them an overpowered feat, or an underpowered one. There really isn't any middle ground. As for only wanting a feat that granted me +4 to spell penetration (albeit OP, through a reasonable sounding means) is powergamey; two feats for the price of one? Also, do not assume you know whether or not I know how to play a wizard (of any level). This is bad form and shows the lack of actual knowledge one posesses. I know what fighter/wizards are capable of; I've played a few and am quite aware of their limitations and advantages. Maybe I should've wrote caster-class dilution. Just about everyone that has ever posted about +1 LA races being casters, as well as certain multiclasses says not to. They can't all be wrong, right? I don't want to fight with the lot of you posters, so this'll be my final (unless someone decides to throw the verbal "first punch") post on the topic, as by now you all know my very vocal opinion. EDIT: Count, I am an open person. One of the few that will actually listen to another side's arguement. Your post was a cheap-shot against me. Just not cool. Ah. I misinterpretted your post. I thought you were talking about practiced spellcaster. My apologies. I agree that a practiced invoker feat would be hard to balance. It would in fact be me with a foot in my mouth.