If your Caster Level is lowered to the point where its lower than needed to cast...

[RPGaddict28]

So, say your a wizard that has a CL of 7, you get a reducer of your CL by 1, can you cast 4th level spells?

[Pinkie Pyro]

short answer: no

long answer: nooooooooo

[sideswipe]

really don't go there......

[bekeleven]

If your caster level is lower than the minimum CL needed to cast a spell, the rules 100% say you are now unable to cast that spell.

Unfortunately there's a lot of dispute over the phrase "minimum CL needed to cast a spell." Common interpretation is that it means the CL of your class at the level you gain spells of that level. However, there are alternate interpretations. Consider that a chameleon can cast every 2nd level spell with a caster level of 2. So how can you say that level 2 spells have a minimum CL of 3?

[Ansem]

Unless you lose the spellcasting due to lower levels (negative levels) or a lower spellcasting stat (ability damage/drain) or otherwise explicitly stated, you do not lose the ability to cast spells.

Examples to prove this are that other cases where your CL is lowered doesn't affect your ability to cast the spells (Uncanny Forethought, Spellgifted, Wild Mage) and I've yet to see a clear quotation that says otherwise in any legitimate D&D 3.5 book.

Hope this helped.

[bekeleven]

Examples to prove this are that other cases where your CL is lowered doesn't affect your ability to cast the spells (Uncanny Forethought, Spellgifted, Wild Mage) and I've yet to see a clear quotation that says otherwise in any legitimate D&D 3.5 book.

Would the player's handbook count?


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.

As I said, there is a limit, it's just not clear exactly where it's set.

Level 1 human wizard. Takes Spell Mastery and Uncanny Forethought as his first-level feats.

Uncanny Forethought to cast burning hands. -2 Caster Level.

I think we can all agree that a CL of -1 is not "high enough for you to cast the spell in question." If not, I'd love to hear a ruling on how it would resolve.

[Silva Stormrage]

Would the player's handbook count?



As I said, there is a limit, it's just not clear exactly where it's set.

Level 1 human wizard. Takes Spell Mastery and Uncanny Forethought as his first-level feats.

Uncanny Forethought to cast burning hands. -2 Caster Level.

I think we can all agree that a CL of -1 is not "high enough for you to cast the spell in question." If not, I'd love to hear a ruling on how it would resolve.

You deal 0d6 damage? And since you aren't producing any heat you probably wouldn't light anything on fire.

The last bit is not RAW but it seems fairly obvious for a house rule.

[AnonymousPepper]

Caster - 7th druid, to be specific, Druid 5/Planar Shepherd 2 to be even more so - in question here. Spell in question was Enervate, as acquired through Nightbringer Initiate, and I was hit by a Crusader maneuver that deprived me of 1CL for one minute.

We ended up just for the moment rolling with it, because I elected against using Enervate anyway - for the record, that later gave me an Enervate that hit one of my own allies because Ray Deflection is a giant PitA and an SNA IV that gave me a single freaking Greenbound Dire Wolf - but I am definitely curious as to whether there's an actual RAW answer as to whether that would have prevented me from casting either of my prepared Enervates or my spontaneous Summon Nature's Ally IVs.

[sideswipe]

yes it states that there is a minimum caster level, but it is NEVER defined. yes common sense blah blah but D&D 3.5 is a system where everything has a clear definition if possible. and it only says you cannot cast if you have a caster level that is too low. but it never says that cl3 for 2nd lvl, cl5 for 3rd lvl. or anything, it never even states one of them. so there is no defined cl minimum.

so as intended you can come to the assumption most people come to. the caster level the spell would become available. but as a RAW standpoint it remains undefined. like a certain commonly used word people use everyday that cannot be said on the forums just in case. i digress.

so on one hand, common sense
on the other no min caster level. and to back this up there are many exceptions and examples.

[StreamOfTheSky]

yes it states that there is a minimum caster level, but it is NEVER defined. yes common sense blah blah but D&D 3.5 is a system where everything has a clear definition if possible. and it only says you cannot cast if you have a caster level that is too low. but it never says that cl3 for 2nd lvl, cl5 for 3rd lvl. or anything, it never even states one of them. so there is no defined cl minimum.

so as intended you can come to the assumption most people come to. the caster level the spell would become available. but as a RAW standpoint it remains undefined. like a certain commonly used word people use everyday that cannot be said on the forums just in case. i digress.

so on one hand, common sense
on the other no min caster level. and to back this up there are many exceptions and examples.

The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1046771)


6. Mistakes happen.
Everybody's human. You're human; I'm human; the folks at WotC are human. Sometimes, humans make mistakes.

That shouldn't be seen as an opportunity to break the game.

Among others relevant to your post.

It is pretty painfully obvious that you're not supposed to be able to cast a spell if you don't have the min. CL to cast it, as determined by your class. And just because the designers *try* to give clear definitions for everything doesn't mean they succeeded in doing so, there's plenty of examples of them failing to do so, in fact. So trying to argue, "well, if they really meant it that way, they would've been more definitive" is a pretty poor argument.

[Svata]

The Ten Commandments of Practical Optimization (http://community.wizards.com/forum/previous-editions-character-optimization/threads/1046771)



Among others relevant to your post.

It is pretty painfully obvious that you're not supposed to be able to cast a spell if you don't have the min. CL to cast it, as determined by your class. And just because the designers *try* to give clear definitions for everything doesn't mean they succeeded in doing so, there's plenty of examples of them failing to do so, in fact. So trying to argue, "well, if they really meant it that way, they would've been more definitive" is a pretty poor argument.

Sure. But then what do you you do in cases where PrCs have fast-progression spellcasting or advances casting but not Caster Level?

[Fax Celestis]

The only sensical, fair, and consistent means of adjudication I can see is to have the context be per-build: minimum caster level is the earliest caster level your character has access to the spell in question.

This makes Beguilers and other "I know my whole list" spontaneous casters with Versatile Spellcaster weirder than they were already, but at least it's a measurable yardstick that you can use consistently from character to character and class to class.

[Qwertystop]

The only sensical, fair, and consistent means of adjudication I can see is to have the context be per-build: minimum caster level is the earliest caster level your character has access to the spell in question.

This makes Beguilers and other "I know my whole list" spontaneous casters with Versatile Spellcaster weirder than they were already, but at least it's a measurable yardstick that you can use consistently from character to character and class to class.

So in other words, if you don't have any penalties to CL you can cast whatever-it-is, but if you do have penalties then figure out what your CL was when you first got access and compare that?

[bekeleven]

The only sensical, fair, and consistent means of adjudication I can see is to have the context be per-build: minimum caster level is the earliest caster level your character has access to the spell in question.

This makes Beguilers and other "I know my whole list" spontaneous casters with Versatile Spellcaster weirder than they were already, but at least it's a measurable yardstick that you can use consistently from character to character and class to class.

This leads to the even weirder consequence that a beguiler won't want to level up from level 1 until they've gotten a +6 headband and a +5 tome, so that their high number of bonus spells lets them versatile up the spell levels.

[Fax Celestis]

So in other words, if you don't have any penalties to CL you can cast whatever-it-is, but if you do have penalties then figure out what your CL was when you first got access and compare that?

Correct. Easiest general means is, for a 9th caster, 1/2 level -1 (prepared) or +0 (spontaneous). For a 6th, 1/3 level approximately. The designers faked using a formula to determine these things but it's not exact except in the case of 9 level casters. This does have the weird side effect of having the minimum CL for a Ranger's 1st level spells as 4, but I think that's an acceptable side effect.

[Fax Celestis]

This leads to the even weirder consequence that a beguiler won't want to level up from level 1 until they've gotten a +6 headband and a +5 tome, so that their high number of bonus spells lets them versatile up the spell levels.

That assumes your DM will (a) allow you to delay leveling; and (b) agrees that Versatile Spellcaster works that way (it does), and agrees that it should work that way (it shouldn't).