Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 muertog Oct 31, 2008 18:55:59	Pretty much what it says. Trying to figure out how the heck people can claim unlimited caster level increases via this spell: http://boards1.wizards.com/wotc_archive/index.php/t-543715 As far as I can see, the caster level increases are unnamed, so will stack with other abilities, but the effective caster level is limited to half your original caster level. Effects from the same spell, even if it is a different casting of the same spell, do not stack. Additionally, it only increases your effective caster level, and the max bonus is tied to the original caster level. If your caster level is 6, the max it can go is +3 EffectiveCasterLevel. I see they have a trick to stack the cleric/wizard caster levels, but that still only can boost the caster level so far. 7 wizard, 7 cleric would turn into 7+3 wizard, 7+3 cleric, for a total of and effective 10 wizard, 10 cleric caster levels, and a total of 20 effective necromancer levels.
#2 insane_ailurophile Oct 31, 2008 19:09:07	I believe that it is that the statement "original caster level" is assumed to refer to the caster level possessed when the spell is cast, allowing multiple castings to result in a higher caster level. While the castings would overlap, the maximum caster level allowed would still increase.
#3 jaronk Oct 31, 2008 19:31:31	Indeed, so a 12th level caster who casts consumptive field maxes out at CL 18 (assuming no other CL bumps). If he casts it again at CL 18, it won't stack, but now his max caster level is 27. With enough bags of rats or whatever, you can get a VERY high caster level at the end of this. JaronK
#4 muertog Oct 31, 2008 19:44:23	So it relies upon the understanding that "original caster level" equals "effective original (prior to casting spell) caster level". Well, just as long as I understand how people are trying to take advantage of the wording... I still think that is a bit of a stretch. I frown upon your half-baked wordy shenanigans.
#5 muertog Oct 31, 2008 20:01:51	Not that I don't applaud good work... the arseplomancer is probably one of the funniest ones I have ever seen, and I regularly sacrifice at Pun-pun's altar. Just arbitrarily large stretches to accommodate game-breaking is rather... cheap.
#6 brainpiercing Oct 31, 2008 21:41:38	Not that I don't applaud good work... the arseplomancer is probably one of the funniest ones I have ever seen, and I regularly sacrifice at Pun-pun's altar. Just arbitrarily large stretches to accommodate game-breaking is rather... cheap. So? It's not a long stretch by far. It's just the wording. Whoever wrote the spell was clearly on crack. Infinite Strength is a given (with greater), stupidly high CL (with many castings) not out of the way. However, there are numerous sensible house-rules, just pick one or do one yourself. Noone in their right mind plays this spell without a house-rule.
#7 eldritch_lord Nov 01, 2008 13:27:39	The thing is, though, that most stackable things only check for target conditions once: when you cast the spell, take the feat, apply the template, whatever. That's why you can buff, polymorph yourself, and have the buffs carry over; you can apply three bazillion templates with different type requirements as long as you apply some type-changers in there; and why metamagic feats (with the specific exception of Maximize and Empower) apply to the modified spell and not the base spell. When you cast consumptive field, your "original" CL is whatever it is when you cast it. The spell checks, sees your CL, and limits it to that--regardless of how many consumptive fields you cast to get to that CL. It's not shenanigans, it's a combination of the wording and the way things generally work.
#8 Senevri Nov 02, 2008 2:51:18	the other way to argue it is that if only "original" or "genuine" caster level counts, you add another level of bookkeeping. It also goes against the stated intent of "whichever reading is the most beneficial to the player".
#9 jaronk Nov 02, 2008 2:57:47	Well, "original" can only in this case mean "at the origin of the spell" otherwise you start having weird questions like "is it your caster level before applying your Ioun Stone" or, heck, "is it your caster level when you originally made the character" or other such nonsense. So yes, by RAW this works just fine. And yeah, it's just a badly written spell, much like Genesis or Shapechange... abuse is pretty much built in. No weird interpretations needed. And of course, house ruling to fix it is recommended. JaronK
#10 muertog Nov 02, 2008 10:12:50	Dunno. It seems clear enough to me that original caster level refers to the caster level without any bonuses. There seems to be a difference between caster level and effective caster level, mostly because effective caster levels don't grant additional spells or spell levels. At the very least, the spell shouldn't be able to count the levels granted by a previous casting of itself, since there is that rule of "effects cannot stack". Just my $0.03 (inflation, ya know). Thanks for the input... it seemed clear enough to me upon reading, but it appears that there are other interpretations available.
#11 sinfire_titan Nov 02, 2008 10:27:55	Actually, the best way to do this trick is to get a Warforged Cohort who has Infested With Chickens+Quick Draw (Commoner 1/Warrior 2) and a fence that is the size of the spell's inital radius. You then have him draw weapons (easiest via a Guantlet of Blades, which can produce infinite weapons at will) until you have a massive number of chickens (enough to get the max CL bonus), then cast an Echoing Greater Consumptive Field multiple times, thus getting the CL you want.