Is there any in-text justification for limiting Reserves of Strength?
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Dragonlance Campaign Setting has a feat called Reserves of Strength. This is the complete text of its benefit:
When you cast a spell, you can decide to increase your caster level with that spell by 1, 2, or 3, but you are stunned for an equal number of rounds immediately after doing so. Your increased caster level affects all level-based variables of the spell, including range, area of effect, spell penetration, and the difficulty of dispelling the spell. You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat, so a 9th-level wizard could use Reserves of Strength to cast a Fireball as a 12th-level wizard and deal 12d6 fire damage.
If you are not subject to stunning effects, you instead suffer 1d6, 3d6, or 5d6 points of damage when you call upon your Reserves of Strength feat.
(Dragonlance Campaign Setting pg. 86, emphasis mine)
The bolded portion is the one that gets the most attention: it allows spells to exceed their usual caster level cap, potentially allowing vastly more powerful effects from the same spell slot. In practice, it tends not to matter very much at all—usually spells become obsolete well before hitting their caps anyway—but certain spells, particularly when combined with other shenanigans to boost caster level absurdly high, are quite broken by this feat.
Some claim, however, that the feat cannot do this: that the feat is limited only to exceeding that limit by the 1, 2, or 3 you add to your caster level with the rest of the feat, and not any other source of caster level—be it simply being high level, or having tons of bonuses—can exceed that limitation.
Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?
Note that, in a sense, there are two aspects to this claim: that you can only benefit from the limit-exceeding benefit while using the CL-for-stun trade, and secondarily, that the limit-exceeding benefit applies only to the CL from the CL-for-stun trade, and not to CL from any other source. It would be sufficient to address only the second (since if the limit-exceedingly only applies to the bonus from the trade, you obviously have to be making the trade), but it would be insufficient to address only whether the trade needs to be taking place. The primary concern is whether or not the feat allows arbitrarily-high CLs to be used; whether or not you must takes a stun or d6 of damage in order to gain that benefit is a secondary concern.
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do: this is purely about what the text in the feat itself, as published, says, and if there is any way to justify that limitation within the feat’s own text.
spells dnd-3.5e rules-as-written feats
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Dragonlance Campaign Setting has a feat called Reserves of Strength. This is the complete text of its benefit:
When you cast a spell, you can decide to increase your caster level with that spell by 1, 2, or 3, but you are stunned for an equal number of rounds immediately after doing so. Your increased caster level affects all level-based variables of the spell, including range, area of effect, spell penetration, and the difficulty of dispelling the spell. You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat, so a 9th-level wizard could use Reserves of Strength to cast a Fireball as a 12th-level wizard and deal 12d6 fire damage.
If you are not subject to stunning effects, you instead suffer 1d6, 3d6, or 5d6 points of damage when you call upon your Reserves of Strength feat.
(Dragonlance Campaign Setting pg. 86, emphasis mine)
The bolded portion is the one that gets the most attention: it allows spells to exceed their usual caster level cap, potentially allowing vastly more powerful effects from the same spell slot. In practice, it tends not to matter very much at all—usually spells become obsolete well before hitting their caps anyway—but certain spells, particularly when combined with other shenanigans to boost caster level absurdly high, are quite broken by this feat.
Some claim, however, that the feat cannot do this: that the feat is limited only to exceeding that limit by the 1, 2, or 3 you add to your caster level with the rest of the feat, and not any other source of caster level—be it simply being high level, or having tons of bonuses—can exceed that limitation.
Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?
Note that, in a sense, there are two aspects to this claim: that you can only benefit from the limit-exceeding benefit while using the CL-for-stun trade, and secondarily, that the limit-exceeding benefit applies only to the CL from the CL-for-stun trade, and not to CL from any other source. It would be sufficient to address only the second (since if the limit-exceedingly only applies to the bonus from the trade, you obviously have to be making the trade), but it would be insufficient to address only whether the trade needs to be taking place. The primary concern is whether or not the feat allows arbitrarily-high CLs to be used; whether or not you must takes a stun or d6 of damage in order to gain that benefit is a secondary concern.
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do: this is purely about what the text in the feat itself, as published, says, and if there is any way to justify that limitation within the feat’s own text.
spells dnd-3.5e rules-as-written feats
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
It seems a bit more biased than what I was writing, but is okay nevertheless.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@AguinaldoSilvestre Acknowledged; there are two reasons I wrote it that way (or, three, if you want to include my own biases): 1. it emphasizes heavily that we are talking purely about the rules text, and thus attempts to ward off irrelevant answers about balance or apparent intent (since that was never the claim I was making—I’ve already acknowledged it can be game-breaking in combination with particular tricks), and 2. it hopefully means that any answer that stands up well against the slant of the question is particularly well-written and well-argued.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
Is this the correct stack for this kind of question? I mean, yeah, the question is about a game element, but demanding an answer based solely on grammar and syntax so as to forcibly exclude everything else (including the game itself!) sounds closer to logic or English language.
– Hey I Can Chan
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I was reading the English grammar to try to answer this and it classifies it under "Ambiguity". The more I read, the less I can prove both points.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I am not aware of any relevant game text that would affect anything here, but it wasn’t my intent to rule out any. It was my intent to eliminate any one saying “well, I don’t like it the way it’s written, so I limit it”—that’s fine, that’s great, that’s not what the question is asking. And yes, it was also meant to eliminate the forum posts of someone who may or may not know what the team was thinking when they were writing the feat.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
Dragonlance Campaign Setting has a feat called Reserves of Strength. This is the complete text of its benefit:
When you cast a spell, you can decide to increase your caster level with that spell by 1, 2, or 3, but you are stunned for an equal number of rounds immediately after doing so. Your increased caster level affects all level-based variables of the spell, including range, area of effect, spell penetration, and the difficulty of dispelling the spell. You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat, so a 9th-level wizard could use Reserves of Strength to cast a Fireball as a 12th-level wizard and deal 12d6 fire damage.
If you are not subject to stunning effects, you instead suffer 1d6, 3d6, or 5d6 points of damage when you call upon your Reserves of Strength feat.
(Dragonlance Campaign Setting pg. 86, emphasis mine)
The bolded portion is the one that gets the most attention: it allows spells to exceed their usual caster level cap, potentially allowing vastly more powerful effects from the same spell slot. In practice, it tends not to matter very much at all—usually spells become obsolete well before hitting their caps anyway—but certain spells, particularly when combined with other shenanigans to boost caster level absurdly high, are quite broken by this feat.
Some claim, however, that the feat cannot do this: that the feat is limited only to exceeding that limit by the 1, 2, or 3 you add to your caster level with the rest of the feat, and not any other source of caster level—be it simply being high level, or having tons of bonuses—can exceed that limitation.
Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?
Note that, in a sense, there are two aspects to this claim: that you can only benefit from the limit-exceeding benefit while using the CL-for-stun trade, and secondarily, that the limit-exceeding benefit applies only to the CL from the CL-for-stun trade, and not to CL from any other source. It would be sufficient to address only the second (since if the limit-exceedingly only applies to the bonus from the trade, you obviously have to be making the trade), but it would be insufficient to address only whether the trade needs to be taking place. The primary concern is whether or not the feat allows arbitrarily-high CLs to be used; whether or not you must takes a stun or d6 of damage in order to gain that benefit is a secondary concern.
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do: this is purely about what the text in the feat itself, as published, says, and if there is any way to justify that limitation within the feat’s own text.
spells dnd-3.5e rules-as-written feats
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
Dragonlance Campaign Setting has a feat called Reserves of Strength. This is the complete text of its benefit:
When you cast a spell, you can decide to increase your caster level with that spell by 1, 2, or 3, but you are stunned for an equal number of rounds immediately after doing so. Your increased caster level affects all level-based variables of the spell, including range, area of effect, spell penetration, and the difficulty of dispelling the spell. You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat, so a 9th-level wizard could use Reserves of Strength to cast a Fireball as a 12th-level wizard and deal 12d6 fire damage.
If you are not subject to stunning effects, you instead suffer 1d6, 3d6, or 5d6 points of damage when you call upon your Reserves of Strength feat.
(Dragonlance Campaign Setting pg. 86, emphasis mine)
The bolded portion is the one that gets the most attention: it allows spells to exceed their usual caster level cap, potentially allowing vastly more powerful effects from the same spell slot. In practice, it tends not to matter very much at all—usually spells become obsolete well before hitting their caps anyway—but certain spells, particularly when combined with other shenanigans to boost caster level absurdly high, are quite broken by this feat.
Some claim, however, that the feat cannot do this: that the feat is limited only to exceeding that limit by the 1, 2, or 3 you add to your caster level with the rest of the feat, and not any other source of caster level—be it simply being high level, or having tons of bonuses—can exceed that limitation.
Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?
Note that, in a sense, there are two aspects to this claim: that you can only benefit from the limit-exceeding benefit while using the CL-for-stun trade, and secondarily, that the limit-exceeding benefit applies only to the CL from the CL-for-stun trade, and not to CL from any other source. It would be sufficient to address only the second (since if the limit-exceedingly only applies to the bonus from the trade, you obviously have to be making the trade), but it would be insufficient to address only whether the trade needs to be taking place. The primary concern is whether or not the feat allows arbitrarily-high CLs to be used; whether or not you must takes a stun or d6 of damage in order to gain that benefit is a secondary concern.
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do: this is purely about what the text in the feat itself, as published, says, and if there is any way to justify that limitation within the feat’s own text.
spells dnd-3.5e rules-as-written feats
spells dnd-3.5e rules-as-written feats
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
edited 4 hours ago
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
asked 5 hours ago
KRyan
217k28541930
217k28541930
It seems a bit more biased than what I was writing, but is okay nevertheless.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@AguinaldoSilvestre Acknowledged; there are two reasons I wrote it that way (or, three, if you want to include my own biases): 1. it emphasizes heavily that we are talking purely about the rules text, and thus attempts to ward off irrelevant answers about balance or apparent intent (since that was never the claim I was making—I’ve already acknowledged it can be game-breaking in combination with particular tricks), and 2. it hopefully means that any answer that stands up well against the slant of the question is particularly well-written and well-argued.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
Is this the correct stack for this kind of question? I mean, yeah, the question is about a game element, but demanding an answer based solely on grammar and syntax so as to forcibly exclude everything else (including the game itself!) sounds closer to logic or English language.
– Hey I Can Chan
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I was reading the English grammar to try to answer this and it classifies it under "Ambiguity". The more I read, the less I can prove both points.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I am not aware of any relevant game text that would affect anything here, but it wasn’t my intent to rule out any. It was my intent to eliminate any one saying “well, I don’t like it the way it’s written, so I limit it”—that’s fine, that’s great, that’s not what the question is asking. And yes, it was also meant to eliminate the forum posts of someone who may or may not know what the team was thinking when they were writing the feat.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
It seems a bit more biased than what I was writing, but is okay nevertheless.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@AguinaldoSilvestre Acknowledged; there are two reasons I wrote it that way (or, three, if you want to include my own biases): 1. it emphasizes heavily that we are talking purely about the rules text, and thus attempts to ward off irrelevant answers about balance or apparent intent (since that was never the claim I was making—I’ve already acknowledged it can be game-breaking in combination with particular tricks), and 2. it hopefully means that any answer that stands up well against the slant of the question is particularly well-written and well-argued.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
Is this the correct stack for this kind of question? I mean, yeah, the question is about a game element, but demanding an answer based solely on grammar and syntax so as to forcibly exclude everything else (including the game itself!) sounds closer to logic or English language.
– Hey I Can Chan
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I was reading the English grammar to try to answer this and it classifies it under "Ambiguity". The more I read, the less I can prove both points.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I am not aware of any relevant game text that would affect anything here, but it wasn’t my intent to rule out any. It was my intent to eliminate any one saying “well, I don’t like it the way it’s written, so I limit it”—that’s fine, that’s great, that’s not what the question is asking. And yes, it was also meant to eliminate the forum posts of someone who may or may not know what the team was thinking when they were writing the feat.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
It seems a bit more biased than what I was writing, but is okay nevertheless.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
It seems a bit more biased than what I was writing, but is okay nevertheless.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@AguinaldoSilvestre Acknowledged; there are two reasons I wrote it that way (or, three, if you want to include my own biases): 1. it emphasizes heavily that we are talking purely about the rules text, and thus attempts to ward off irrelevant answers about balance or apparent intent (since that was never the claim I was making—I’ve already acknowledged it can be game-breaking in combination with particular tricks), and 2. it hopefully means that any answer that stands up well against the slant of the question is particularly well-written and well-argued.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
@AguinaldoSilvestre Acknowledged; there are two reasons I wrote it that way (or, three, if you want to include my own biases): 1. it emphasizes heavily that we are talking purely about the rules text, and thus attempts to ward off irrelevant answers about balance or apparent intent (since that was never the claim I was making—I’ve already acknowledged it can be game-breaking in combination with particular tricks), and 2. it hopefully means that any answer that stands up well against the slant of the question is particularly well-written and well-argued.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
Is this the correct stack for this kind of question? I mean, yeah, the question is about a game element, but demanding an answer based solely on grammar and syntax so as to forcibly exclude everything else (including the game itself!) sounds closer to logic or English language.
– Hey I Can Chan
5 hours ago
Is this the correct stack for this kind of question? I mean, yeah, the question is about a game element, but demanding an answer based solely on grammar and syntax so as to forcibly exclude everything else (including the game itself!) sounds closer to logic or English language.
– Hey I Can Chan
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I was reading the English grammar to try to answer this and it classifies it under "Ambiguity". The more I read, the less I can prove both points.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I was reading the English grammar to try to answer this and it classifies it under "Ambiguity". The more I read, the less I can prove both points.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I am not aware of any relevant game text that would affect anything here, but it wasn’t my intent to rule out any. It was my intent to eliminate any one saying “well, I don’t like it the way it’s written, so I limit it”—that’s fine, that’s great, that’s not what the question is asking. And yes, it was also meant to eliminate the forum posts of someone who may or may not know what the team was thinking when they were writing the feat.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I am not aware of any relevant game text that would affect anything here, but it wasn’t my intent to rule out any. It was my intent to eliminate any one saying “well, I don’t like it the way it’s written, so I limit it”—that’s fine, that’s great, that’s not what the question is asking. And yes, it was also meant to eliminate the forum posts of someone who may or may not know what the team was thinking when they were writing the feat.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
|
show 4 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Without Context
Let's re-imagine this feat in a vacuum.
You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell.
In the situation where that is the entire text of the feat, the questioner's claim (that any spell can ignore level-fixed limits) is unilaterally supported.
However...
Adding the rest of the text in gives us more to work with. We have:
- An active use of the feat to boost your caster level when casting a spell
- A notice that "you can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat"
- An example of this exception in action in the same sentence
If I were to frame challenge this question, I would ask "is there any in-text justification for allowing Reserves of Strength to affect every spell cast?"
Whichever answer is given to the question "when do I exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell" requires interpretation of the phrase "with this feat." There's no reason to believe that "when using the active effect of this feat" is a less valid interpretation than the questioner's assumed "whenever you cast a spell, whether or not you use the active effect this feat grants".
To conclude
Taking this even further, and to finalize my answer to the posed question, "Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?", I provide these in-text justifications:
- The primary use of Reserves of Strength is an active effect that increases your caster level by 1, 2, or 3, which contextualizes casting a spell "with this feat"
- The intent for the level-fixed limit exception is immediately clarified in the same sentence, where a spell is allowed to exceed its normal level-fixed limit when using the active effect of Reserves of Strength
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I think the text "...with this feat" means "...with the bonus provided by this feat" and not "...with your entire caster level". So a level-14 wizard would not be able to use this feat to cast a 14d6 fireball.
You've written:
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do
so I'll end my answer here, without discussion of any of those topics, as requested.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["\$", "\$"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "122"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137410%2fis-there-any-in-text-justification-for-limiting-reserves-of-strength%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
Without Context
Let's re-imagine this feat in a vacuum.
You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell.
In the situation where that is the entire text of the feat, the questioner's claim (that any spell can ignore level-fixed limits) is unilaterally supported.
However...
Adding the rest of the text in gives us more to work with. We have:
- An active use of the feat to boost your caster level when casting a spell
- A notice that "you can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat"
- An example of this exception in action in the same sentence
If I were to frame challenge this question, I would ask "is there any in-text justification for allowing Reserves of Strength to affect every spell cast?"
Whichever answer is given to the question "when do I exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell" requires interpretation of the phrase "with this feat." There's no reason to believe that "when using the active effect of this feat" is a less valid interpretation than the questioner's assumed "whenever you cast a spell, whether or not you use the active effect this feat grants".
To conclude
Taking this even further, and to finalize my answer to the posed question, "Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?", I provide these in-text justifications:
- The primary use of Reserves of Strength is an active effect that increases your caster level by 1, 2, or 3, which contextualizes casting a spell "with this feat"
- The intent for the level-fixed limit exception is immediately clarified in the same sentence, where a spell is allowed to exceed its normal level-fixed limit when using the active effect of Reserves of Strength
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
Without Context
Let's re-imagine this feat in a vacuum.
You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell.
In the situation where that is the entire text of the feat, the questioner's claim (that any spell can ignore level-fixed limits) is unilaterally supported.
However...
Adding the rest of the text in gives us more to work with. We have:
- An active use of the feat to boost your caster level when casting a spell
- A notice that "you can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat"
- An example of this exception in action in the same sentence
If I were to frame challenge this question, I would ask "is there any in-text justification for allowing Reserves of Strength to affect every spell cast?"
Whichever answer is given to the question "when do I exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell" requires interpretation of the phrase "with this feat." There's no reason to believe that "when using the active effect of this feat" is a less valid interpretation than the questioner's assumed "whenever you cast a spell, whether or not you use the active effect this feat grants".
To conclude
Taking this even further, and to finalize my answer to the posed question, "Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?", I provide these in-text justifications:
- The primary use of Reserves of Strength is an active effect that increases your caster level by 1, 2, or 3, which contextualizes casting a spell "with this feat"
- The intent for the level-fixed limit exception is immediately clarified in the same sentence, where a spell is allowed to exceed its normal level-fixed limit when using the active effect of Reserves of Strength
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
Without Context
Let's re-imagine this feat in a vacuum.
You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell.
In the situation where that is the entire text of the feat, the questioner's claim (that any spell can ignore level-fixed limits) is unilaterally supported.
However...
Adding the rest of the text in gives us more to work with. We have:
- An active use of the feat to boost your caster level when casting a spell
- A notice that "you can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat"
- An example of this exception in action in the same sentence
If I were to frame challenge this question, I would ask "is there any in-text justification for allowing Reserves of Strength to affect every spell cast?"
Whichever answer is given to the question "when do I exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell" requires interpretation of the phrase "with this feat." There's no reason to believe that "when using the active effect of this feat" is a less valid interpretation than the questioner's assumed "whenever you cast a spell, whether or not you use the active effect this feat grants".
To conclude
Taking this even further, and to finalize my answer to the posed question, "Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?", I provide these in-text justifications:
- The primary use of Reserves of Strength is an active effect that increases your caster level by 1, 2, or 3, which contextualizes casting a spell "with this feat"
- The intent for the level-fixed limit exception is immediately clarified in the same sentence, where a spell is allowed to exceed its normal level-fixed limit when using the active effect of Reserves of Strength
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
Without Context
Let's re-imagine this feat in a vacuum.
You can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell.
In the situation where that is the entire text of the feat, the questioner's claim (that any spell can ignore level-fixed limits) is unilaterally supported.
However...
Adding the rest of the text in gives us more to work with. We have:
- An active use of the feat to boost your caster level when casting a spell
- A notice that "you can exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell with this feat"
- An example of this exception in action in the same sentence
If I were to frame challenge this question, I would ask "is there any in-text justification for allowing Reserves of Strength to affect every spell cast?"
Whichever answer is given to the question "when do I exceed the normal level-fixed limits of a spell" requires interpretation of the phrase "with this feat." There's no reason to believe that "when using the active effect of this feat" is a less valid interpretation than the questioner's assumed "whenever you cast a spell, whether or not you use the active effect this feat grants".
To conclude
Taking this even further, and to finalize my answer to the posed question, "Is there anything in the text of the feat itself that supports that claim?", I provide these in-text justifications:
- The primary use of Reserves of Strength is an active effect that increases your caster level by 1, 2, or 3, which contextualizes casting a spell "with this feat"
- The intent for the level-fixed limit exception is immediately clarified in the same sentence, where a spell is allowed to exceed its normal level-fixed limit when using the active effect of Reserves of Strength
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
answered 2 hours ago
m bzroll
912
912
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I think the text "...with this feat" means "...with the bonus provided by this feat" and not "...with your entire caster level". So a level-14 wizard would not be able to use this feat to cast a 14d6 fireball.
You've written:
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do
so I'll end my answer here, without discussion of any of those topics, as requested.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
I think the text "...with this feat" means "...with the bonus provided by this feat" and not "...with your entire caster level". So a level-14 wizard would not be able to use this feat to cast a 14d6 fireball.
You've written:
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do
so I'll end my answer here, without discussion of any of those topics, as requested.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
I think the text "...with this feat" means "...with the bonus provided by this feat" and not "...with your entire caster level". So a level-14 wizard would not be able to use this feat to cast a 14d6 fireball.
You've written:
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do
so I'll end my answer here, without discussion of any of those topics, as requested.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
I think the text "...with this feat" means "...with the bonus provided by this feat" and not "...with your entire caster level". So a level-14 wizard would not be able to use this feat to cast a 14d6 fireball.
You've written:
This question is not about balance, nor is it about what anyone thinks the feat should say, or even about what we suspect the authors may or may not have meant the feat to do
so I'll end my answer here, without discussion of any of those topics, as requested.
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
answered 1 hour ago
Dan B
35.3k765139
35.3k765139
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Role-playing Games Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2frpg.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f137410%2fis-there-any-in-text-justification-for-limiting-reserves-of-strength%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
It seems a bit more biased than what I was writing, but is okay nevertheless.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@AguinaldoSilvestre Acknowledged; there are two reasons I wrote it that way (or, three, if you want to include my own biases): 1. it emphasizes heavily that we are talking purely about the rules text, and thus attempts to ward off irrelevant answers about balance or apparent intent (since that was never the claim I was making—I’ve already acknowledged it can be game-breaking in combination with particular tricks), and 2. it hopefully means that any answer that stands up well against the slant of the question is particularly well-written and well-argued.
– KRyan
5 hours ago
Is this the correct stack for this kind of question? I mean, yeah, the question is about a game element, but demanding an answer based solely on grammar and syntax so as to forcibly exclude everything else (including the game itself!) sounds closer to logic or English language.
– Hey I Can Chan
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I was reading the English grammar to try to answer this and it classifies it under "Ambiguity". The more I read, the less I can prove both points.
– Aguinaldo Silvestre
5 hours ago
@HeyICanChan I am not aware of any relevant game text that would affect anything here, but it wasn’t my intent to rule out any. It was my intent to eliminate any one saying “well, I don’t like it the way it’s written, so I limit it”—that’s fine, that’s great, that’s not what the question is asking. And yes, it was also meant to eliminate the forum posts of someone who may or may not know what the team was thinking when they were writing the feat.
– KRyan
5 hours ago