Question about caster check, dispel magic, and a specific ruling..

[Kerilstrasz]

Ok.. Here what i want to do.

Assume a wizard. He casts Xplosive runes on a surface.
Now that wiz, wants to detonate them by distance.

What i thought so far..
Cast dispel magic on them or use a wand of dispel magic.
BUT..
1.) Can he intentionally fail a caster check against his own spell? is that.. legal/possible???

Lets assume he can, cause he is using a wand that maybe he didn't craft..
2.) What wand will he buy exactly?? i mean, he goes into the shop and ask a wand of dispel magic from a low lvl wizard?

Thank you for you time :)

PS: I may ask more question on the subject, depending on answers i get :)

[tomandtish]

Ok.. Here what i want to do.

Assume a wizard. He casts Xplosive runes on a surface.
Now that wiz, wants to detonate them by distance.

What i thought so far..
Cast dispel magic on them or use a wand of dispel magic.
BUT..
1.) Can he intentionally fail a caster check against his own spell? is that.. legal/possible???

Lets assume he can, cause he is using a wand that maybe he didn't craft..
2.) What wand will he buy exactly?? i mean, he goes into the shop and ask a wand of dispel magic from a low lvl wizard?

Thank you for you time :)

PS: I may ask more question on the subject, depending on answers i get :)

IF he got a wand of dispel magic from a low level caster, then the spell goes off if the caster check is failed. But with a wand I don't think you can choose to fail the check. Wands are magic devices with all the conditions set sat time of creation. So while you have to roll a dispel check, the user of the wand actually has no real control over it, so can't choose to "fail" it.

If he has feats or other special abilities that modify his use of wands, he may be able to choose not to use the modifiers, but the die roll itself is going to be set as is the base DC of the wand.

[Fax Celestis]

You are allowed to lower your own caster level if you choose, so you could cast dispel magic at CL 1, which would give you a tiny modifier on your dispel check and likely fail.

[Chronos]

The default for wands is that they use the lowest caster level that could have been used to make them, so if you want a minimum-CL wand of Dispel Magic, then you just tell the shopkeeper "I want a wand of Dispel Magic". Alternately, you're allowed to cast a spell yourself at a caster level lower than your normal caster level, again down to the minimum needed to cast the spell.

You can't intentionally fail, but if your caster level for the Explosive Runes (i.e., presumably your normal caster level) is significantly higher than your caster level for the Dispel Magic, then you're likely to fail anyway. And if you have enough castings of Explosive Runes, then it won't matter if only 75% of them or so are detonated, because that'll still be enough to nuke your target.

[Kerilstrasz]

You are allowed to lower your own caster level if you choose, so you could cast dispel magic at CL 1, which would give you a tiny modifier on your dispel check and likely fail.

Very nice..
So.. could I craft wand with "lowered" CL???

(can't i just choose to fail my CL check completely? By intentionaly.. lets say misscast the spell or smthing)

and..
can you PLEASE tell me in which book can i find this rule? the Dm only allows things that can be found in a book. (page would be welcome too)

thnx

[sleepyphoenixx]

You automatically succeed any dispel check against your own spells. No exceptions. So you'll have to get someone else to (fail to) dispel it, like a familiar or party member.

[Kerilstrasz]

You automatically succeed any dispel check against your own spells. No exceptions. So you'll have to get someone else to (fail to) dispel it, like a familiar or party member.

Ok .. can this "someone else" fail his CL check intentionally?

[sleepyphoenixx]

Ok .. can this "someone else" fail his CL check intentionally?

The only rule like that i'm aware of is the one that allows you to fail a save.

[Captainspork]

You automatically succeed any dispel check against your own spells. No exceptions. So you'll have to get someone else to (fail to) dispel it, like a familiar or party member.

The spirit of that rule seems to suggest that you want the dispel to succeed, the idea being that the caster has insight on how the particular target spell was cast. Does that apply here?

[Captainspork]

For what it's worth this is on the SRD:

"You may choose to automatically succeed on dispel checks against any spell that you have cast."

Though it also has a line that states you always succeed, so...

[sleepyphoenixx]

The spirit of that rule seems to suggest that you want the dispel to succeed, the idea being that the caster has insight on how the particular target spell was cast. Does that apply here?

I doubt that the spirit of the rules for Explosive Runes was for people to build remote-detonated bombs. It's pretty clear that it's supposed to be a trap.
Not that it's impossible. You just need someone else to trigger it.

[Miss Disaster]

The most cost-effective way to explode Explosive Runes from a remote location is to use Amanuensis, not Dispel Magic. That's a cheapo cheap cantrip instead of a way more expensive 3rd level spell. The only slight performance downgrade you are getting in this 100% foolproof method is that Amanuensis has a Close Range and Dispel Magic has a Medium Range.

[Chronos]

Well, that, and the fact that Amanuensis would result in you taking the damage, too. You're obviously close enough to read it, given that you're doing so. You could, however, use Erase instead: At minimum caster level, you'd only have a 30% chance of "success", and there's no rule that says you auto-succeed at Erasing your own writing.

[Duke of Urrel]

You could, however, use Erase instead: At minimum caster level, you'd only have a 30% chance of "success", and there's no rule that says you auto-succeed at Erasing your own writing.

You could use the Erase spell, but you'd still have to risk damage, because (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/spells/erase.htm):


Magic writing must be touched to be erased…

[sleepyphoenixx]

Well, that, and the fact that Amanuensis would result in you taking the damage, too. You're obviously close enough to read it, given that you're doing so. You could, however, use Erase instead: At minimum caster level, you'd only have a 30% chance of "success", and there's no rule that says you auto-succeed at Erasing your own writing.

Amanuensis has a range of close. Since the range of the explosion is 10ft i fail to see how you arrived at that conclusion.

[2xMachina]

Anyone next to the runes (close enough to read them) takes the full damage with no saving throw; any other creature within 10 feet of the runes is entitled to a Reflex save for half damage

That is to say, if the runes are big enough (say, written on the moon), the explosion range can be half a planet.

[Monarch Dodora]

You are allowed to lower your own caster level if you choose, so you could cast dispel magic at CL 1, which would give you a tiny modifier on your dispel check and likely fail.

You can lower the caster level of your spells, but you can't choose to cast it at a lower caster level than the minimum level needed to access that spell - wizards get dispel at level five, so that can't cast it below CL 5th.

[sleepyphoenixx]

That is to say, if the runes are big enough (say, written on the moon), the explosion range can be half a planet.

The spell is restricted to objects weighing 10lb. or less.

[TiaC]

You can lower the caster level of your spells, but you can't choose to cast it at a lower caster level than the minimum level needed to access that spell - wizards get dispel at level five, so that can't cast it below CL 5th.

However, a Trapsmith gets dispel at level 1. Therefore, they can make a CL 1 wand of dispel magic.



The spell is restricted to objects weighing 10lb. or less.
10lbs of office paper has an area of 610sqft. That allows the runes to take up a square 24.5 feet on a side. You'll be able to read that from some distance.

[Fax Celestis]

You can lower the caster level of your spells, but you can't choose to cast it at a lower caster level than the minimum level needed to access that spell - wizards get dispel at level five, so that can't cast it below CL 5th.

Please find me the rule that delineates what the minimum level is.

Here's a hint: there isn't one, despite being referenced multiple times. Your interpretation is probably what they meant and us completely reasonable, but comes from nowhere.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Please find me the rule that delineates what the minimum level is.

Here's a hint: there isn't one, despite being referenced multiple times. Your interpretation is probably what they meant and us completely reasonable, but comes from nowhere.

From the PHB, p. 171

You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the
caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell
in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the
same caster level. For example, at 10th level, Mialee can cast a fireball
to a range of 800 feet for 10d6 points of damage. If she wishes, she
can cast a fireball that deals less damage by casting the spell at a lower
caster level, but she must reduce the range according to the selected
caster level, and she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than
5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball).
That's pretty clear in my opinion.

[Fax Celestis]

And what do I do with an ability that let's me cast it in a lower level slot?

I'm a third level spellcaster and I have a ability that let's make asked third level spells and second levels lots. My caster level is three and yet I can cast fireball. So what then is the minimum? Because of how meta-magic works, we can't base the minimum level required off of the spell's level. For a similar reason, we can't base it off of access due to different levels of access for different classes.

Yes, the book gives one example and expect that to be enough to tell us what actually happens. It isn't enough information for us to be able to make that kind of judgment call, and because of that we are left wondering how to use it. There are just too many variables in play for that little of an example, especially one that didn't even make it into the SRD, for that to be enough to make a global sweeping rule.

Edit: speech to text is stupid

[sleepyphoenixx]

I really don't see the problem here. It's a general rule. Things like Precocious Apprentice fall under "specific trumps general".
The rule does put a stop to early entry cheese via Versatile Spellcaster and similar tricks unless you also boost CL, but i fail to see that as a problem.
It's pretty much the magical equivalent to psionics "max pp spent = ML" cap.

The minimum CL depends on what class gives you access to the spell. That's pretty clearly apparent through the example given. A wizard gets 3rd level spells at level 5 so 5 is the minimum CL for any spell that has "Wizard 3" in the "level" line. If the same spell also has "Cleric 4" the minimum CL for a cleric caster is 7.
For wands and similar items it clearly depends on the class of the crafter.

Perhaps you could give an example where this is not clear. The only reason to claim "it is too vague" that i can see at the moment is that the above interpretation stops quite a few popular tricks.

[Segev]

Yes, with your Precocious Apprentice spell, your minimum CL is 1. But just for that particular 2nd level spell.

[Segev]

Oh, and the easiest way I know of is to hand the runes to unseen servants and have them walk up to your target and read them.

Reading does not require a skill check greater than 10, so Unseen Servants can do it.

[Fax Celestis]

I really don't see the problem here. It's a general rule. Things like Precocious Apprentice fall under "specific trumps general".
The rule does put a stop to early entry cheese via Versatile Spellcaster and similar tricks unless you also boost CL, but i fail to see that as a problem.
It's pretty much the magical equivalent to psionics "max pp spent = ML" cap.

The minimum CL depends on what class gives you access to the spell. That's pretty clearly apparent through the example given. A wizard gets 3rd level spells at level 5 so 5 is the minimum CL for any spell that has "Wizard 3" in the "level" line. If the same spell also has "Cleric 4" the minimum CL for a cleric caster is 7.
For wands and similar items it clearly depends on the class of the crafter.

Perhaps you could give an example where this is not clear. The only reason to claim "it is too vague" that i can see at the moment is that the above interpretation stops quite a few popular tricks.

The inclarity stems from the fact that "caster level" and "spell level" are two disparate concepts, and it is very possible to get a very high caster level while still having access to a small handful of spells, and vice versa. Furthermore, classes that use the same spell lists get spell access at different levels (sorcerer and wizard both have fireball as a 3rd level spell, but the wizard gets it at character level 5th while the sorcerer gets it at character level 6th).

Again, I'm not stating I disagree with the proposed rule, nor am I stating I don't think it should be used: all I'm saying is, as far as the SRD is concerned, it's never defined.

[Andezzar]

Reading does not require a skill check greater than 10, so Unseen Servants can do it.An Unseen Servant cannot explicitly read, so it might not be able to set the explosive runes off:
An unseen servant is an invisible, mindless, shapeless force that performs simple tasks at your command. It can run and fetch things, open unstuck doors, and hold chairs, as well as clean and mend. The servant can perform only one activity at a time, but it repeats the same activity over and over again if told to do so as long as you remain within range. It can open only normal doors, drawers, lids, and the like. It has an effective Strength score of 2 (so it can lift 20 pounds or drag 100 pounds). It can trigger traps and such, but it can exert only 20 pounds of force, which is not enough to activate certain pressure plates and other devices. It can’t perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 or that requires a check using a skill that can’t be used untrained. Its speed is 15 feet.The underlined parts are the entirety of what an unseen servant can do. The only thing that comes close to reading the runes is "trigger traps and such". Explosive runes are not traps even though they may be used as traps. It is up to the DM whether this falls under "and such".

[Hiro Quester]

It can’t perform any task that requires a skill check with a DC higher than 10 or that requires a check using a skill that can’t be used untrained.

I doubt literacy is a skill that can't be used untrained either. You need to spend ranks in languages to get it.

A clairvoyance spell might enable you (or another party member) to read the runes from a distance and set off the explosion, though.

[With a box]

You will want to use wand of dispell ward from SpC
It's first level spell, so cl 1
+ it is more cheaper..

[Andezzar]

I doubt literacy is a skill that can't be used untrained either. You need to spend ranks in languages to get it.It is a bit hard to guess what you are trying to say, the two sentences seem contradictory. Anyways, all classes except those that explicitly mention it (e.g. barbarian) give literacy in all languages the character knows. You only need the speak language skill to learn additional languages beyond those granted at first level. You can automatically read and write all those purchased languages unless you are a member of the aforementioned classes.

[Segev]

The only thing that comes close to reading the runes is "trigger traps and such". Explosive runes are not traps even though they may be used as traps.

Actually, nearly every time "magical traps" are referenced, Explosive Runes is one of the examples given. So yes, I'd say Unseen Servants can explicitly trigger them under the "trigger traps" clause.

[ericgrau]

Yes, the book gives one example and expect that to be enough to tell us what actually happens. It isn't enough information for us to be able to make that kind of judgment call
Stahp, the rule books are thick enough already and this is why. We don't need them even thicker. All of us can figure out what the minimum CL is supposed to be, unless you're actively trying not to.

[Fax Celestis]

Stahp, the rule books are thick enough already and this is why. We don't need them even thicker. All of us can figure out what the minimum CL is supposed to be, unless you're actively trying not to.

All they had to do was put one sentence anywhere in the Magic chapter. "The minimum Caster Level required to cast a spell is the Caster Level your class gains access to the spell."

Yes, that's how it should work. Yes, that's how anyone with a brain plays. No, it's not spelled out in the SRD anywhere.

[Andezzar]

All they had to do was put one sentence anywhere in the Magic chapter. "The minimum Caster Level required to cast a spell is the Caster Level your class gains access to the spell."
This will cause problems with casting PrCs that advance spells per day and spells known but not caster level, causing them to have X level slots but not being able to cast X level spells. So unless the caster has metamagic those slots effectively are X-1 or less slots.

[Hiro Quester]

It is a bit hard to guess what you are trying to say, the two sentences seem contradictory. Anyways, all classes except those that explicitly mention it (e.g. barbarian) give literacy in all languages the character knows. You only need the speak language skill to learn additional languages beyond those granted at first level. You can automatically read and write all those purchased languages unless you are a member of the aforementioned classes.

Sorry. Unfortunate double negative. Unseen servant can only use skills that can be used untrained. Literacy can't be used untrained. It's a language you have to learn if not part of your race.

So you couldn't get an unseen servant to read anything.

But a literate party member who is not explicitly licensed to read your runes harmlessly could use a clairvoyance spell (or third eye sense or third eye view) to read the rune remotely and trigger it from a safe distance.

[Fax Celestis]

This will cause problems with casting PrCs that advance spells per day and spells known but not caster level, causing them to have X level slots but not being able to cast X level spells. So unless the caster has metamagic those slots effectively are X-1 or less slots.

No it won't, because the base class that gains access has a minimum CL. The PrC doesn't grant access by itself: it augments your existing casting from a previous class.

Besides how many PrCs are there that do that? Aside from the four in the DMG that are attributable to terrible writing rather than actual intent?

[Chronos]

Most of them, actually, though it's probably an error in all cases.

And that's not the only way it could come up, either. What if, for instance, you have Mage Slayer? Or you're hit with a negative level?

Nor would such a rule eliminate any cheese: For instance, a beguiler (or sorcerer with Heighten Spell) with Versatile Spellcaster gains the ability to cast 2nd level spells at 1st level, so the minimum CL for such a character for a 2nd-level spell would be 1.

[Fax Celestis]

Most of them, actually, though it's probably an error in all cases.

And that's not the only way it could come up, either. What if, for instance, you have Mage Slayer? Or you're hit with a negative level?Negative levels specify that you may lose ability to cast your upper-most spells, I thought.


Nor would such a rule eliminate any cheese: For instance, a beguiler (or sorcerer with Heighten Spell) with Versatile Spellcaster gains the ability to cast 2nd level spells at 1st level, so the minimum CL for such a character for a 2nd-level spell would be 1.

Still no, because that's not when the base class grants access. The feat modifies when access is granted, but the class itself isn't modified by the feat.