Rules/Build question — possible dysfunction.

[nedz]

Consider the build
Rogue 1 / Beguiler 1 / Warmage 3 / Unseen Seer 10 / ...
(where Unseen Seer advances Warmage)

Does the Divination Spell Power class feature apply to your Beguiler spells ?
If so your CL will be -2.

Now Unseen Seer can switch between advancing Beguiler or Warmage on a level by level basis — so you could have advanced Beguiler by 1 level during your 10 levels of Unseen Seer. Clearly Divination Spell Power would apply here and your CL would be -1.

Obviously you can grab Practised Spellcaster etc. but lets assume not.

[NNescio]

Consider the build
Rogue 1 / Beguiler 1 / Warmage 3 / Unseen Seer 10 / ...
(where Unseen Seer advances Warmage)

Does the Divination Spell Power class feature apply to your Beguiler spells ?
If so your CL will be -2.

Now Unseen Seer can switch between advancing Beguiler or Warmage on a level by level basis — so you could have advanced Beguiler by 1 level during your 10 levels of Unseen Seer. Clearly Divination Spell Power would apply here and your CL would be -1.

Obviously you can grab Practised Spellcaster etc. but lets assume not.

Divination Spell Power provides a caster level bonus to arcane divination spells, at the cost of a corresponding penalty to caster level for all other (non-divination) arcane spells. Where you learn the spell from doesn't matter; if it's arcane, and is Divination, you get +1/+2/+3 to your caster level. If it's arcane but not Divination, you get -1/-2/-3 to your caster level instead.

[nedz]

Yes, but is there some general rule which stops CL becoming zero or negative ?

If not: how does a spell with a negative duration work ?

[NNescio]

Yes, but is there some general rule which stops CL becoming zero or negative ?

If not: how does a spell with a negative duration work ?

Ah, like the old Mage Slayer conundrum. I get you now.

Caster level can go to zero or even negatives, but you can't cast any spells then. It's found under the definition for caster level.


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.

So if your caster level isn't high enough to cast a spell, like say, Fireball (CL5 for most casting classes), you can't cast it.

[nedz]

Yes I'm aware of that rule, but I'm not choosing to cast a spell at a lower CL so that doesn't apply.

In fact the next line seems to imply that the spell works, albeit in a strange kind of way.


In the event that a class feature, domain granted power, or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt) but also to your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).

[Zaq]

Clearly it retroactively applies to previous rounds.

Kidding, of course. Shouldn’t even need to say that.

Anyway, the devs clearly thought that there was a rule about a minimum CL for spells, and it’s implied to be the minimum CL a pure-class caster with no funny business would be at when they’re first able to learn spells of the relevant level. (So usually [2 x spell level] – 1.)

But the kicker is that they never spelled it out explicitly (except for fireball), and then they went and gave us ways to monkey around with caster level. Worse, they gave us nonstandard classes that don’t have the same CL-to-spell-level function as normal casters, so there can’t be a truly universal formula without breaking other stuff. (Even just in PHB stuff, can a sorcerer—not a wizard—voluntarily lower the CL on haste to 5? Not clear at all.) Again, it’s heavily implied in a lot of ancillary rules (Echoing Spell, for one example), but it’s never actually made explicit.

This is just a weird manifestation of that existing dysfunction. (And a great case study in a fundamental game design principle: state your damned assumptions somewhere.) There’s no satisfying RAW answer. My take on RAI is that you can’t cast a spell with CL 0 or lower. Is that RAW? Nah. (I’m usually okay with casting a spell below the implied minimum CL, but not when you start getting nonpositive results.)

[nedz]

...
Yes.

So is it a new dysfunction or another example of the old Mageslayer thingy ?

Actually we have a situation where you (may) lose the ability to cast a spell you still know, and could previously cast — if you rule that you cannot cast spells at 0 CL.

I think a better fix is to state CL cannot be less than 1.

YMMV.

[Falontani]

Clearly it retroactively applies to previous rounds.

Kidding, of course. Shouldn’t even need to say that.

Anyway, the devs clearly thought that there was a rule about a minimum CL for spells, and it’s implied to be the minimum CL a pure-class caster with no funny business would be at when they’re first able to learn spells of the relevant level. (So usually [2 x spell level] – 1.)

But the kicker is that they never spelled it out explicitly (except for fireball), and then they went and gave us ways to monkey around with caster level. Worse, they gave us nonstandard classes that don’t have the same CL-to-spell-level function as normal casters, so there can’t be a truly universal formula without breaking other stuff. (Even just in PHB stuff, can a sorcerer—not a wizard—voluntarily lower the CL on haste to 5? Not clear at all.) Again, it’s heavily implied in a lot of ancillary rules (Echoing Spell, for one example), but it’s never actually made explicit.

This is just a weird manifestation of that existing dysfunction. (And a great case study in a fundamental game design principle: state your damned assumptions somewhere.) There’s no satisfying RAW answer. My take on RAI is that you can’t cast a spell with CL 0 or lower. Is that RAW? Nah. (I’m usually okay with casting a spell below the implied minimum CL, but not when you start getting nonpositive results.)

Thank you for saying what I have wanted to say for a while so eloquently.

[Thurbane]

If you have an NPC spellcaster with a negative caster level cast a spell for you, does he give you money back afterwards?


Assuming that the PCs can find a caster of the needed level who is amenable to helping them out, the NPC charges 10 gp per spell level × caster level (5 gp × caster level for a 0-level spell).

[HalfQuart]

Now Unseen Seer can switch between advancing Beguiler or Warmage on a level by level basis — so you could have advanced Beguiler by 1 level during your 10 levels of Unseen Seer.

I don't see anything in the description of Unseen Seer that lets it switch between the class it advances. Generally you pick one spellcasting class you want to advance and you're stuck with it throughout. What am I missing?

That said, I'm not sure what the appropriate reading of Divination Spell Power is as it relates to arcane spells from spellcasting classes that are not advanced by Unseen Seer. My guess at RAI is that even though it says "all other arcane spells" it is only meant to include those from the spellcasting class it progresses. I understand Mage Slayer applies to all classes, but I don't think a feat necessarily interacts the same way as a class feature. It is weird how it keeps using the phrase "arcane spells", though, as if it is continually trying to differentiate between other arcane and divine spells that the character might be able to cast. Is it generally accepted that RAW is that this affects all spellcasting classes of the character?

[nedz]

I don't see anything in the description of Unseen Seer that lets it switch between the class it advances. Generally you pick one spellcasting class you want to advance and you're stuck with it throughout. What am I missing?


Spellcasting: At each level, ... If you had more than one arcane spellcasting class before becoming an unseen seer, you must decide to which class to add each level for the purpose of determining spells per day, caster level, and spells known.


Is it generally accepted that RAW is that this affects all spellcasting classes of the character?
Well that's a good question.

Divination Spell Power (Ex): ...
This benefit comes at a cost: Your caster level for all other arcane spells is reduced by 1 at 3rd level.
No mention of classes here, only spells.

[HalfQuart]

Interesting. I guess it just never occurred to me that different levels of the same PrC could be applied to different qualifying classes on the same character. That does indeed seem to be how the text reads.

[nedz]

It is unusual — usually your choice at level 1 is fixed.

Actually there are some similar things in ToB, hence: Idiot Crusader, but it is a rare PrC feature.

[Handsome_Jack]

That said, I'm not sure what the appropriate reading of Divination Spell Power is as it relates to arcane spells from spellcasting classes that are not advanced by Unseen Seer. My guess at RAI is that even though it says "all other arcane spells" it is only meant to include those from the spellcasting class it progresses.

Disclaimer: this is a corner case, but I feel deserves mentioning.

Given that Seer requires you to have Arcane casting of at least 1st level, there's a slight workaround for all of this. It is setting specific, but does change how Unseen Seer interacts with the CL of the character.

Southern Magician (Races of Faerun)

Once per day per two spellcaster levels, you can cast a divine spell as an arcane spell, or vice versa.

This bypasses the fact that Seer would usually reduce your CL by X amount, if you are using the option to prepare a Spell as divine (or spontaneously cast as a Sorcerer/Bard/Etc) and ignore the reduction effects. Requires a dip of a divine casting class, but hey, one level of cleric isn't necessarily a bad idea. Faerun came out long before Complete Mage, but the workaround stands. Also, if memory serves, if something is reduced to 0 for purposes of an ability or otherwise, it's always assumed it's minimum of 1. Example being damage during combat. A creature with DR 10/- taking only 9 damage from a successful hit still takes one point of damage. I could be incorrect in that assumption though.

[tyckspoon]

This bypasses the fact that Seer would usually reduce your CL by X amount, if you are using the option to prepare a Spell as divine (or spontaneously cast as a Sorcerer/Bard/Etc) and ignore the reduction effects. Requires a dip of a divine casting class, but hey, one level of cleric isn't necessarily a bad idea. Faerun came out long before Complete Mage, but the workaround stands. Also, if memory serves, if something is reduced to 0 for purposes of an ability or otherwise, it's always assumed it's minimum of 1. Example being damage during combat. A creature with DR 10/- taking only 9 damage from a successful hit still takes one point of damage. I could be incorrect in that assumption though.

A damage roll has a minimum result of 1 - if you're a very small creature with major Strength penalties such that your damage roll is 1d3 - 4, you still deal 1 point of damage. But that's not a privileged point of damage in any other respect, it still interactis with other special abilities normally; you don't get to ignore Regeneration or Damage Reduction or similar effects just because you have really low damage potential. If you don't either roll high enough or have the special qualities needed to beat it, you just do no damage. (A similar thing applies to HD and rolling for Hit Points, IIRC; if you have a major Constitution penalty, you still get at least 1 HP/HD.)