Is there a rule that caster level must be position?

[With a box]

Minimum caster level is never defined, right?
Can I cast heal at caster level -300 and "cure" -3000 HP?
This is RAWful stupid thread

[Psyren]

"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."

RAW is indeed dumb but they do plug some loopholes.

[Zaq]

"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."

RAW is indeed dumb but they do plug some loopholes.

The problem is that it's never explicitly stated what that minimum caster level is. It's implied to be the level at which your class can first cast spells of that level, but it's never spelled out in as many words.

[Psyren]

The problem is that it's never explicitly stated what that minimum caster level is. It's implied to be the level at which your class can first cast spells of that level, but it's never spelled out in as many words.

"For you" would mean that it is based on your class progression, yes.

[fallensavior]

"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."

RAW is indeed dumb but they do plug some loopholes.

Isn't there also the minimum 1 rule? So even if you could cast cure light for d8-1000, it would still heal them for 1. Just like a low strength halfling punch doesn't heal people even if it's d2-5.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The problem is that it's never explicitly stated what that minimum caster level is. It's implied to be the level at which your class can first cast spells of that level, but it's never spelled out in as many words.
Seems pretty unambiguous. A 1st level wizard cannot cast a 3rd level spell; ergo I cannot cast a 3rd level spell at CL 1.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

The problem is that it's never explicitly stated what that minimum caster level is. It's implied to be the level at which your class can first cast spells of that level, but it's never spelled out in as many words.

I believe it is pretty much spelled out by the line "The various character class tables show how many spells of each level a character can cast per day."

Since there is also no direct text stating at what level you get access to various spell levels (other than the table), the text about "minimum caster level required" would mean nothing unless the table gave us that. The first time 1st spells appear is level 1, so level 1 is the minimum caster level to cast 1st level spells.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Seems pretty unambiguous. A 1st level wizard cannot cast a 3rd level spell; ergo I cannot cast a 3rd level spell at CL 1.

You cannot because you don't have 3rd level spell slots, which has nothing to do with that rule. The intent of the rule is painfully obvious; the RAW is not clear at all.

[Psyren]

It's perfectly clear - some folks just want it to be unclear so we can have another rousing 40-page thread.

If you do want a general rule, scrolls provide one:


Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1)

Bold would thus apply everywhere unless specifically contradicted elsewhere.

[torrasque666]

Bold would thus apply everywhere unless specifically contradicted elsewhere.
Like, ya know, sorcerers. or bards.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Like, ya know, sorcerers. or bards.

Actually, there's our RAW right there.

If we assume that Sorcerers or Bards or Paladins or what have you aren't subject to the clause in bold, then we assume that the table gives the minimum caster level for spells. Which means that 1st level spells and 0th level spells have a minimum caster level of 1.

If we don't assume that the table gives the minimum caster level spells, than, barring any rules text that says otherwise, all classes have a minimum caster level for spells of (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1), meaning that we can cast 0th level spells at Caster Level -1, and everything else must be positive.

Both readings are probably RAW defensible, but I don't think any other readings are.

[Psyren]

Like, ya know, sorcerers. or bards.

Hence "usually."

Also, DIT's response.

[Chronos]

The intent of the rule is obvious for very simple situations, like a straight wizard or cleric. It's considerably less obvious for an ur-priest, or a wizard with the Mage Slayer feat, or for many other less-common situations. If a fifth-level wizard has Mage Slayer, does that mean that he can't cast 2nd and 3rd level spells at all any more, or does it mean that he can now cast those at CL 1? And if he can cast them at CL 1, then why can't a wizard without that feat?

[Sewercop]

"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."

RAW is indeed dumb but they do plug some loopholes.

There was a thread years back that looked into this. They found caster level adjustments that gave you lower caster level that didnt say you lost the ability to cast a spell. In the end they proved it(took a long time) was possible to cast 8 or 9 level spells with caster level 1 with adjustments that didnt call out they couldnt.

there is more, but im way to lazy to find a thread thats years and years old

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

There was a thread years back that looked into this. They found caster level adjustments that gave you lower caster level that didnt say you lost the ability to cast a spell. In the end they proved it(took a long time) was possible to cast 8 or 9 level spells with caster level 1 with adjustments that didnt call out they couldnt.

there is more, but im way to lazy to find a thread thats years and years old

I'm skeptical. Unless they found caster level adjustments that specifically said you could cast the spells at a lower level, then the general "minimum caster level" clause would take effect.

In short, the special rules would have to specifically override the general case, not just fail to mention that you don't lost the ability to cast a spell if your caster level drops below the minimum.

[With a box]

I'm skeptical. Unless they found caster level adjustments that specifically said you could cast the spells at a lower level, then the general "minimum caster level" clause would take effect.

In short, the special rules would have to specifically override the general case, not just fail to mention that you don't lost the ability to cast a spell if your caster level drops below the minimum.

if a wizard 10/ wild mage 1 try to cast disintigrete, he failed to cast if if he rolls 1 or 2 at to caster level dice?


Wild Magic: A wild mage casts spells differently from any other arcane spellcaster. She reduces her caster level by 3 for all spells she casts from now on. However, every time she casts a spell, her use of wild magic adds 1d6 to her adjusted caster level. For example, an 8th-level sorcerer/1st-level wild mage has a base caster level of 6th, not 9th, but her actual caster level varies from 7th to 12th for every spell she casts. Caster level affects all level-based variables of a spell, including spell penetration checks.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

if a wizard 10/ wild mage 1 try to cast disintigrete, he failed to cast if if he rolls 1 or 2 at to caster level dice?

By RAW, yes.

I'd probably never enforce this ruling at my game table (I don't like denying people their fancy tricks based on random dice rolls even before saves or attack rolls come into play), but unless you can find something that specifically says you can cast spells at a caster lower than the minimum level, I think its pretty clear that you're not allowed to.

[Psyren]

if a wizard 10/ wild mage 1 try to cast disintigrete, he failed to cast if if he rolls 1 or 2 at to caster level dice?

Yes, of course.

(Gosh, it's almost like Wild Magic is chaotic and has a chance not to work or something. Who'd have thunk? :smalltongue:)

[Troacctid]

Wild Mage alters your caster level for the spell after you've started casting it. It takes effect later in the spellcasting process than the part where you choose whether to cast the spell at a lower caster level. Altering the spell's caster level after the fact can't retroactively prevent you from having cast it earlier.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

Wild Mage alters your caster level for the spell after you've started casting it. It takes effect later in the spellcasting process than the part where you choose whether to cast the spell at a lower caster level. Altering the spell's caster level after the fact can't retroactively prevent you from having cast it earlier.

I'm not sure this is true, actually. Seems to be a -3 across-the-board reduction, with an increase of 1d6 whenever you go to cast a spell.

Which means you'd check it as you cast the spell...if it's not high enough, no spell goes off.

[Psyren]

Wild Mage alters your caster level for the spell after you've started casting it. It takes effect later in the spellcasting process than the part where you choose whether to cast the spell at a lower caster level. Altering the spell's caster level after the fact can't retroactively prevent you from having cast it earlier.

If you go with this wording then you can't even attempt to cast a high-CL spell, because the reduction applies proactively and then you try to overcome it by rolling.

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

If you go with this wording then you can't even attempt to cast a high-CL spell, because the reduction applies proactively and then you try to overcome it by rolling.

^^Yep, pretty much.

[Sewercop]

Noone can find a rule that says what minimum caster level is. That simple. You can however find find feats and other effects that change the caster level up and down with no mention.

Minimum caster level was never defined. you can say but but but....
You can show me the rule that says minimum caster level, but not the explenation for it.


do that and ill pretend ill listen

[Psyren]

Noone can find a rule that says what minimum caster level is. That simple.

DMG pg. 238, that simple.

[With a box]

DMG pg. 238, that simple.

So you were the "Noone"!
(Sorry, I failed a will save)

[137beth]

It's perfectly clear - some folks just want it to be unclear so we can have another rousing 40-page thread.
40 pages? Pfft, on GitP, no thread is truly rousing until it reaches the 50 page lock mark!

[Extra Anchovies]

40 pages? Pfft, on GitP, no thread is truly rousing until it reaches the 50 page lock mark!

I dunno, LordDrako's Sorcerer v. Wizard thread has been rousing for a while and it's still got a ways to go.

[Necroticplague]

It's perfectly clear - some folks just want it to be unclear so we can have another rousing 40-page thread.

If you do want a general rule, scrolls provide one:



Bold would thus apply everywhere unless specifically contradicted elsewhere.

So....since ur-priests don't give an exception to this rule anywhere, they don't actually gain the ability to cast level 3 spells at level 3, despite what their class table says, because they don't meet the minimum CL (5)?

[Djinn_in_Tonic]

So....since ur-priests don't give an exception to this rule anywhere, they don't actually gain the ability to cast level 3 spells at level 3, despite what their class table says, because they don't meet the minimum CL (5)?

By one interpretation of RAW, yes.

The other is that the tables are correct, and the minimum caster level is the first level appears on your class table.

I fully believe those are the only two defensible RAW arguments. Of the two, it's pretty clear the latter is the intended functionality.

[Psyren]

So....since ur-priests don't give an exception to this rule anywhere, they don't actually gain the ability to cast level 3 spells at level 3, despite what their class table says, because they don't meet the minimum CL (5)?

Depends on your build, an Ur-lock for instance will have CL 5 at Ur-Priest 3. (Assuming Binder 1/Warlock 4 entry.)

[Sewercop]

DMG pg. 238, that simple.

nope...
That has nothing to do with the definition of minimum spell level at all.

{scrubbed}

[Psyren]

nope...
That has nothing to do with the definition of minimum spell level at all.

{scrubbed}

Your location says Norway, so I'm not sure if English is your first language, but just in case:

In the English language, parentheses are used to clarify a previous statement. (http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/parens.asp) So when a statement says "Assume the scroll spell’s caster level is always the minimum level required to cast the spell for the character who scribed the scroll (usually twice the spell’s level, minus 1)" the portion in the parentheses is being used to clarify the clause "minimum level required to cast the spell for the character." In other words, the formula given is being used to clarify what the game means by "minimum level." And even though this is found in the scroll section, it specifically refers to the minimum level of the caster of the spell itself in this case. In the absence of a general rule anywhere else, this one stands.