Minimum Caster Levels, Myth or Dysfunction?

[Falontani]

Many classes have a point when they learn to cast a specific level of spell. This is when they get their earliest spell slots of that spell level.

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell. For example, a fireball deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 10d6), so a 10th-level wizard can cast a more powerful fireball than a 5th-level wizard can.
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).
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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check). For instance, a 7th-level cleric with the Good domain casts spells with the good descriptor as if he were 8th level. This means that his holy smite deals 4d8 points of damage, he tolls 1d20+8 to overcome spell resistance with his good spells, and his protection from evil spell resists being dispelled as if it had been cast by an 8th-level spellcaster.
This is the only text we ever get about minimum caster level to cast spells that I am aware of.

If this is the only text then we can assume that using the example, fireball's minimum caster level for wizard is 5, the same point that a wizard gains third level spells, and articulate that all other spells follow this example.

However.
1. This is not RAW. This is RAI. Nowhere does it state that the minimum caster level of all spells is the earliest that your class gains access to such a spell.
2. This is given in the example text, which is notorious for being incorrect.

Now some questions using that philosophy:
Wizards and sorcerers cast off of the same list, can a sorcerer lower his caster level of fireball to caster level five, even if he doesn't get it until level 6?

Can a Divine Crusader cast Wall of Fire (a fourth level fire domain spell, as well as a fourth level wizard spell) at caster level 4 (the level divine crusader gets fourth level spell slots) or must he wait until caster level 7 (the normal level that clerics with the fire domain and wizards gain access to fourth level magic)?

Can a cleric with the fire domain cast Wall of Fire with a caster level of 4, the level that the earliest spellcaster with access to the fire domain is able to cast the spell?

[Troacctid]

Many classes have a point when they learn to cast a specific level of spell. This is when they get their earliest spell slots of that spell level.

This is the only text we ever get about minimum caster level to cast spells that I am aware of.
That's surprising, since you quoted my post in the Simple RAW thread where I cited multiple other places where it's mentioned. :smallconfused:

[rrwoods]

“High enough for *you* to cast the spell in question” ties this up with a bow, honestly.

The example isn’t RAW; it’s an example. Mialee is a Wizard. Absent any other information about her build, what’s the lowest level she could be to cast fireball? 5th. Therefore the lowest caster level she can choose for fireball is 5th.

If something about your character’s *current* stat block somehow changes the lowest level at which your character could cast the spell in question, take it into account. But classes you didn’t take don’t matter because they don’t change the level at which you got access to the spell.

[Quertus]

I'm going with "neither myth, nor dysfunction", final answer.

[heavyfuel]

I'm going with "neither myth, nor dysfunction", final answer.

Yup. Starting this thread with a false dichotomy in the title was not a very honest thing to do.

[AvatarVecna]

Also, slighlt nitpick, but examples aren't "notoriously wrong", they almost always spell out the general case pretty well even if they don't necessarily represent all specific edge cases perfectly (for an example of that, see how Fireball is also used as an example in the text for "Reserves Of Strength", which addresses that the CL boost from RoS itself is definitely not capped by the spell's normal CL cap, but doesn't address whether it uncaps CL entirely or only for the purposes of the CL added by RoS). But looking at an example that's only true for general cases and not for specific ones should lead to the conclusion of "specific cases are more complicated than this general example describes" rather than "this general example is wrong and stupid because it doesn't represent 100% of the possibilities in this game".

[nedz]

There are Dysfunctions in this area, but I don't think that this is one of them.

[Falontani]

Yup. Starting this thread with a false dichotomy in the title was not a very honest thing to do.

Honestly I wasn't trying to be dishonest, I honestly do believe that minimum caster levels are not RAW. I should have waited until I was home to bring this up, but I thought I had a fairly good beginning to the post that would bring debate and more examples would be pulled by the community. I did begin getting busy at work so I probably did post the thread a tad unfinished. When I have more time I'll put more information into the OP. Mainly getting this post out to say that I apologize if I misled you with the title.

[heavyfuel]

Honestly I wasn't trying to be dishonest, I honestly do believe that minimum caster levels are not RAW. I should have waited until I was home to bring this up, but I thought I had a fairly good beginning to the post that would bring debate and more examples would be pulled by the community. I did begin getting busy at work so I probably did post the thread a tad unfinished. When I have more time I'll put more information into the OP. Mainly getting this post out to say that I apologize if I misled you with the title.

Regardless of its RAW status, I don't think starting a thread on a presumption of myth/dysfunction is good, still, I didn't mean to sound accusatory in my post.

With that in mind, let's go back to the actual content of the thread. I looked at Troacctid post in the RAW Q&A and then at the DMG (presuming you don't consider tables for classes RAW, which, why wouldn't you? but I digress) and the DMG does, in fact, presume that every spell has a minimum CL.

For example, pg 286 tells us that the cost for potions is "25 gp × the level of the spell × the level of the caster". It then also gives us the full price of potions for each class. A 3rd lv potion costs 750gp when created by a Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Ranger, or Paladin; 900 gp when created by a Sorcerer; or 1050gp when by a Bard.

It also tells us that these values were gotten using the minimum caster level. If there was no minimum caster level, then these prices wouldn't make sense.

The only possible conclusion is that yes, there is a minimum CL. And that this CL is equivalent to a class' CL at the level it gains spells per day accordign to the table.

There's only a disfunciton if you ignore the table and ignore the DMG, which - again - why would you? Even if the rule is not spelled out in the books, it's still very much present and can be deduced from the magic items costs.

[Elves]

There are Dysfunctions in this area

What are you thinking of?

[Evil DM Mark3]

This is the only text we ever get about minimum caster level to cast spells that I am aware of. Its all we need and as clear as crystal.

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.Emphasis mine. CL 4 Wizards can't case Fireball as they lack 3rd level spell slots, so there is no such thing as a CL 4 Fireball from a Wizard. If a class does get Fireball at CL 4 then that's hunky-dory, but it doesn't mean a fighter can. Its like saying "Barbarians get their 4th feat at level 9, so fighters can't take feats with 3 prerequisite feats at level 4." The two classes do not alter each others rules by existing.

[nedz]

What are you thinking of?

Minimum CL is never defined.
Discussion here http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?333789-Dysfunctional-Rules-Thread-V-Dysfunctions-All-the-Way-Down/page6

It was also discussed on a recent thread,

[Evil DM Mark3]

Its not defined as a term, perhaps, but the quote makes it very clear what it is, meaning it exists even if it doesn't have an official name. You don't need a name for something to know that it exists. For example if I refereed to a skill as being at "Minimum synergy level" you know how many ranks I mean and if I said "But that is never defined" it wouldn't wash.

[Blue Jay]

Its not defined as a term, perhaps, but the quote makes it very clear what it is, meaning it exists even if it doesn't have an official name. You don't need a name for something to know that it exists. For example if I refereed to a skill as being at "Minimum synergy level" you know how many ranks I mean and if I said "But that is never defined" it wouldn't wash.

From the context, I think the idea is that "minimum CL" is a descriptive term, not a prescriptive one. It's not a set property of the spell, nor a defined game term: it's just a de facto consequence of the way a class or character is built. As such, it has no independent meaning and adds no unique information to the rules text.

In simple terms, "your CL is too low" is never the actual reason why you can't cast a particular spell. The actual reason is because you lack an appropriate spell slot, but your spell slots are determined by your class level, not your caster level. So, when the rules text says "your CL must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question," there's actually no rules text that tells you exactly what "high enough" means.

For example, consider a 5th-level wizard with a negative level. His caster level is now 4th, but he's likely still got at least one spell of 3rd level available to cast. Is there any rules text that says he can't cast that 3rd-level spell on account of his caster level not being high enough? I don't think there is, because the only references to CL being high enough don't actually define what "high enough" means.

Obviously, I do agree that RAI was for there to be a minimum CL for spells, and I would probably try to rule in a way that forbids munchkinry like "now I can scribe scrolls of 9th-level spells for 12.5 x 9 x 1 = 112.5 gp!" But I don't think the books ever actually define "minimum CL" as a game term, so any references to it are technically ambiguous.

[KillianHawkeye]

It's always nice to have a reminder that common sense isn't common. :smallamused:

[RatElemental]

For example, consider a 5th-level wizard with a negative level. His caster level is now 4th, but he's likely still got at least one spell of 3rd level available to cast. Is there any rules text that says he can't cast that 3rd-level spell on account of his caster level not being high enough? I don't think there is, because the only references to CL being high enough don't actually define what "high enough" means.

The wizard loses 1 effective level in that case, making them effectively a level 4 wizard. This caps the caster level they can cast at at 4, meaning they can't cast at the caster level of 5 they need to cast the fireball at, even if they still have it prepared.


Obviously, I do agree that RAI was for there to be a minimum CL for spells, and I would probably try to rule in a way that forbids munchkinry like "now I can scribe scrolls of 9th-level spells for 12.5 x 9 x 1 = 112.5 gp!" But I don't think the books ever actually define "minimum CL" as a game term, so any references to it are technically ambiguous.

In the context of scribing scrolls and mixing potions is where I even learned about the minimum caster level rule. I always thought it was fairly straightforward. You can find a potion of, say, mage armor with a CL of 20, but you can't ever find a wand of fireball with a CL of 4. Assuming both were made by pure wizards, that is.

[Debatra]

That's surprising, since you quoted my post in the Simple RAW thread where I cited multiple other places where it's mentioned. :smallconfused:


That's incorrect. Minimum caster levels for the core casting class are included in the magic item creation rules in the DMG. They're also in the spell tables for the class—a dash means that you're unable to cast the spell at that level.

Not sure about the DMG part you mentioned, but the class tables have nothing to do with caster level. Those are about class levels (ie, a Wizard gets third-level spells at level five). If they meant caster level, then CL boosts would suddenly become infinitely more powerful.

[Blue Jay]

The wizard loses 1 effective level in that case, making them effectively a level 4 wizard. This caps the caster level they can cast at at 4, meaning they can't cast at the caster level of 5 they need to cast the fireball at, even if they still have it prepared.

Well, that could be. But I don't think that's what it says. It says your effective level is 1 lower for die rolls and calculations, and I don't think access to your class features counts as a calculation. I mean, if spell slots count as a calculation, then surely the hit points you got from your last level also qualify as a calculation. But, I don't think you're meant to lose those in additon to the 5 you lose automatically, so I don't think you're supposed to lose access to your spell slots outside of the specifically-enumerated slot lost, either.

But, I also don't think the designers intended for you to be able to craft cheap scrolls by claiming that you could technically cast 9th-level spells with CL 1st because you and your buddies all know spells that inflict temporary negative levels, either.


In the context of scribing scrolls and mixing potions is where I even learned about the minimum caster level rule. I always thought it was fairly straightforward. You can find a potion of, say, mage armor with a CL of 20, but you can't ever find a wand of fireball with a CL of 4. Assuming both were made by pure wizards, that is.

I think the salient point here is that last sentence: in order to define what "minimum CL" is, you have to add a sentence about what assumptions you're making, but those assumptions are never codified anywhere in the rules. So, it's ambiguous to me whether it's meant to be an actual constraint to be exported to other parts of the game rules, or just some convenient wording for unloading some unspoken assumptions into a footnote where space is at a premium.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Managed to have a look into this when not at a work PC.

So the SRD says this: (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicItems/magicItemBasics.htm#casterLevel)
For potions, scrolls, and wands, the creator can set the caster level of an item at any number high enough to cast the stored spell and not higher than her own caster level. For other magic items, the caster level is determined by the creator. The minimum caster level is that which is needed to meet the prerequisites given.Emphasis is mine.

So the first doesn't deffine a term Minimum Caster Level, but it does make it clear that there is a minimum caster level and that is the lowest caster level that would allow you to cast the spell, which varies by the creator's class. The second uses the term minimum caster level and states that it is the caster level needed to meet the prerequisites, which are often but not always spells.

I think we have a prime Rules Lawer For The Defence issue here, the term Mimimum CL is not defined explicitly like Charge or Wand are, but it is 100% clear what is meant, just like it is clear what is meant when one is told to "roll" dice even if the book never defines what rolling is.

[Troacctid]

It says pretty directly that minimum CL is usually twice the spell's level - 1.

[nedz]

It says pretty directly that minimum CL is usually twice the spell's level - 1.

For creating items ...

There are lots of corner case rules which appear to reflect a general rule, but there is no general rule, and there are other corner cases which are not defined.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I'm with Blue Jay on this one. "Minimum caster level" is not properly defined, so it can be interpreted in different ways. In particular, it's unclear when minimum caster level is calculated.

For example, take an Unseen Seer with Spellgifted (Divination). With 15th-level casting, they have CL 19 for Divination spells, and CL 11 for every other spell. Does that mean they can't cast 7th- and 8th-level Transmutations, or does it mean their minimum caster level for an 8th-level Transmutation is 11? Do you take into account class features when calculating minimum caster level, or not? Clearly, spellcasting is itself a class feature, so on the face of it, MCL should take into account class features, but perhaps MCL is calculated as part of the Spells class feature, and not subsequently modified?

In a way, it'd be totally hilarious if the bargain crafter was actually an artificer with Mage Slayer, but it'd also be pretty stupid, so...

[RedMage125]

I'm surprised there's still any confusion on this matter. Especially when the PHB quote in the OP is quite clear, it's even bolded.

The "minimum caster level" for a given spell is the lowest class level at which that individual may cast said spell.

So for 3rd Level spells:
Minimum CL for a wizard/cleric/druid is 5
Minumum for a Sorcerer is 6
Minimum for a Bard is 7
Minimum for an Ur-Priest is 3.

The reason this information is repeated in the scrolls section is that the default listed price of all those scrolls assumes the class that can gain access to the spell earliest is the one crafting it*. A Scroll of Glibness costs a lot more than a scroll of Fireball, for example, because Glibness is a Bard-only spell, and thier minimum caster level L3 spells is higher than that of a wizard for a L3 spell. But the same goes for any magic item ceated by a given character. A Druid can create a scroll of Flame Strike at CL 7, and have the market price be 700gp (25gp x CL x Spell Level), because Flame Strike is a 4th level spell for Druids (yes, that means Druids can make a Wand of Flame Strike, even though a Cleric cannot).

*Oddly, Flame Strike isn't listed in the 4th level spell scrolls by default, though, only in 5th. But as per the RAW, it is 4th level for druids.

An Ur-Priest adds half their caster level for other classes to their CL for Ur-Priest spells. So a Wizard 10 who then went into Ur-priest for 4 levels has a CL of 9 for their Ur-Priest spells. That is their MAXIMUM. But should they desire to undercast them (as in the example), they could go as low as 3 for their L3 spells. This is because technically, Ur-Priest is a PrC with it's own distinct casting progression that just happens to use the entire cleric spell list and go to 9th level spells. So, as per the question in the OP, yes, a Divine Crusader can cast Wall of Fire at CL 4. But the Fire Domain Cleric would still have a minimum of 7 because that is the lowest level HE could cast it.

And yes, if Mialee was a 5th level wizard and got hit with a negative level, she would be unable to cast her remaining L3 prepared spells. If she had an Empowered Magic Missile in that L3 spell slot, she could still cast it, but it would only be 2 missiles, due to her reduced CL.

The ONLY way to cast a spell with a lower CL than the minimum FOR YOU to cast is a wizard with the Precocious Apprentice feat. That feat explicitly grants a Specific exception to the General rule. And only for the single L2 spell chosen when the feat is selected.

[Troacctid]

For creating items ...

There are lots of corner case rules which appear to reflect a general rule, but there is no general rule, and there are other corner cases which are not defined.
It's pretty clear that the two are the same.

A spell successfully activated from a scroll works exactly like a spell prepared and cast the normal way. 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), unless the caster specifically desires otherwise. For example, a 10th-level cleric might want to create a cure critical wounds scroll at caster level 10th rather than the minimum for the spell (caster level 7th), in order to get more benefit from the scroll spell. (This scroll would, however, be more costly to scribe.)

[ExLibrisMortis]

The "minimum caster level" for a given spell is the lowest class level at which that individual may cast said spell.
Yes, it is. That doesn't tell you what the number is, though, and you're not providing any reasoning to support your numbers.

The Ur-Priest example is particularly tricky. You are referring to the wizard 10/ur-priest 4 as being able to cast 3rds at CL 3, because an alternate Ur-Priest build could do so. That's a pretty tricky concept, because it implies that any wizard could cast their 2nds at CL 1, like a wizard with Precocious Apprentice could. For beguilers and casters who know their entire list, you could argue that the mere existence of the Versatile Spellcaster feat reduces all minimum CLs by 2. Hell, you could imagine a beguiler with a Pact Certain, who could cast a 9th-level spell at CL 1.


So, how do you calculate minimum caster levels?
(1) On a class-by-class basis, taking into account only single-classed builds without race, feats, equipment, etcetera. This breaks casting PrCs.
(2) On a class-by-class basis, taking into account all possible builds. This likely puts minimum CL for most spells at 1.
(3) Somewhere between 1 and 2 in terms of the builds taken into account, e.g. taking into account feats but not races or equipment.
(4) On a build-by-build basis, calculating the minimum CL that the build had at any point in history for a particular spell. The order in which you take your levels or feats may impact your minimum CL (for example, in the case of taking Practiced Spellcaster before or after attaining a spell of a certain level).
(5) On a build-by-build basis, circularly. As in: the minimum level at which you can cast this spell is the minimum level at which you can cast this spell.

[RedMage125]

Yes, it is. That doesn't tell you what the number is, though, and you're not providing any reasoning to support your numbers.

The Ur-Priest example is particularly tricky. You are referring to the wizard 10/ur-priest 4 as being able to cast 3rds at CL 3, because an alternate Ur-Priest build could do so. That's a pretty tricky concept, because it implies that any wizard could cast their 2nds at CL 1, like a wizard with Precocious Apprentice could. For beguilers and casters who know their entire list, you could argue that the mere existence of the Versatile Spellcaster feat reduces all minimum CLs by 2. Hell, you could imagine a beguiler with a Pact Certain, who could cast a 9th-level spell at CL 1.


So, how do you calculate minimum caster levels?
(1) On a class-by-class basis, taking into account only single-classed builds without race, feats, equipment, etcetera. This breaks casting PrCs.
(2) On a class-by-class basis, taking into account all possible builds. This likely puts minimum CL for most spells at 1.
(3) Somewhere between 1 and 2 in terms of the builds taken into account, e.g. taking into account feats but not races or equipment.
(4) On a build-by-build basis, calculating the minimum CL that the build had at any point in history for a particular spell. The order in which you take your levels or feats may impact your minimum CL (for example, in the case of taking Practiced Spellcaster before or after attaining a spell of a certain level).
(5) On a build-by-build basis, circularly. As in: the minimum level at which you can cast this spell is the minimum level at which you can cast this spell.

What? No, it's based off the PHB quote the OP provided.
"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)."

You can't just "provide the number", because given spells are different levels for different classes (like how Flame Strike is a 4th level druid spell, but 5th for clerics and most domains). Also some classes get certain spell levels at different Caster Levels (sorcerers minimum CL for fireball is 6th, wizards is 5th, even though it is a L3 spell for both).

So it's based on the class, and which level that class gets that spell. Each spell has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. How is that "tricky"?

Ur-Priests get L3 spells at 3rd level of Ur-Priest. Their caster level equals their class level. A Fighter 10/Ur-Priest 4 has a CL of 4. IF they have caster levels from other sources, like the aforementioned Wizard 10/Ur-Priest 4, their CL is (1/2 other CL + Ur-Priest level). But the minimum caster level for L3 Ur-Priest spells is 3. Because casters can always choose to cast at reduced power. that's what that PHB quote tells us. And a given caster can only reduce a spell's CL to the minimum for their class to cast it. Again, as per that PHB quote.

Nothing about what I said implies "that any wizard could cast their 2nds at CL 1, like a wizard with Precocious Apprentice could". That's utterly absurd. Precocious Apprentice is a feat that provides a specific exception to the general rule, I said that quite clearly. Another level 1 wizard who doesn't have PA doesn't have that exception, therefore he can't violate the rule. Specific > General, remember? But you need to have that Specific thing apply. No PA feat? No special treatment.

And this statement: "For beguilers and casters who know their entire list, you could argue that the mere existence of the Versatile Spellcaster feat reduces all minimum CLs by 2. Hell, you could imagine a beguiler with a Pact Certain, who could cast a 9th-level spell at CL 1." is just nose-diving into utter absurdity and Munchkin Fallacy, not to mention it requires intentionally ignoring the RAW.
Versatile Spellcaster doesn't provide the specific wording that Precocious Apprentice does that would allow a level 1 character to CAST a spell above L1. Therefore it does not. The whole "Leapfrog Wizard" trick that supposedly allows a level 1 wizard to get L9 spell slots is not in keeping with RAW and does not work. There's a currently open thread where it was being discussed (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597394-Viability-of-Elf-Generalist-Wizard-Domain-Wizard-quot-Leapfrog-quot-combo-(cont-from-2016)), but even there, it was acknowledged on all parts that the "Leapfrog Wizard" fails to be true by RAW. The last page and a half are just one guy not quite grasping what is meant by "spells a wizard knows" vis "Spells Known like a sorcerer", and others trying to explain it.

The Fixed List Casters (beguilers, dread necro, warmage) who take Versatile Spellcaster still have no means of violating the PHB quote the OP provided, ergo they cannot cast L2 spells at level 1. General rule still applies.

Have you not actually read the full text of Precocious Apprentice? It has the following wording in it: "Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal conditions." THAT is what an exception to the PHB general rule looks like. Versatile Spellcaster says nothing like this.

You are incorrect, sir or madam.

[nedz]

And in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?599835-Rules-Build-question-%97-possible-dysfunction) corner case the rule you are relying on simply does not apply.

[RedMage125]

And in this (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?599835-Rules-Build-question-%97-possible-dysfunction) corner case the rule you are relying on simply does not apply.

Specific > General.

I don't know how you missed that. You have a specific instance of your caster level being reduced below what you can CHOOSE to reduce it to.

Wild Mage is another one.

It's not a dysfunction if you understand that Specific rulings are totally acceptable contradictions to General ones.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Look, if you are the type of DM who gives intricate backstories to the origins of every randomly drawn up scroll, wand and potion then sure you can have an item with a strangely low CL. If the PC has a strange build then they can take whatever advantage there is in having the lower caster level, gods knows that won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Me? I assume that a scroll of Fireball found in a random barrel in the backroom of the thieves guild was scribed by a regular Wizard with regular class features unless I have either established the local Wizards use an alternate class feature as a local tradition or I know who scribed it because he was in the previous room, presumably with a knife in his chest.

Minimum caster level is the minimum level that that character has access to the spell. Not class, not over all classes everywhere. It is determined on the basis of a single spell and a single caster. You cannot cast a spell at a caster level lower than the level at which you obtained the spell and, unless you are engaged strange battlefield in shenaniganery (in which case a straight up illusion would probably serve you better) crafting items is the only time when there would be an advantage to doing so.

Having re-read negative levels however I accept that you don't lose CL, you just take a penalty, in the same way you don't lose BAB.

[nedz]

Specific > General.

I don't know how you missed that. You have a specific instance of your caster level being reduced below what you can CHOOSE to reduce it to.

Wild Mage is another one.

It's not a dysfunction if you understand that Specific rulings are totally acceptable contradictions to General ones.

The problem is: there is no General rule !

[HouseRules]

Look, if you are the type of DM who gives intricate backstories to the origins of every randomly drawn up scroll, wand and potion then sure you can have an item with a strangely low CL. If the PC has a strange build then they can take whatever advantage there is in having the lower caster level, gods knows that won't be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Me? I assume that a scroll of Fireball found in a random barrel in the backroom of the thieves guild was scribed by a regular Wizard with regular class features unless I have either established the local Wizards use an alternate class feature as a local tradition or I know who scribed it because he was in the previous room, presumably with a knife in his chest.

Minimum caster level is the minimum level that that character has access to the spell. Not class, not over all classes everywhere. It is determined on the basis of a single spell and a single caster. You cannot cast a spell at a caster level lower than the level at which you obtained the spell and, unless you are engaged strange battlefield in shenaniganery (in which case a straight up illusion would probably serve you better) crafting items is the only time when there would be an advantage to doing so.

Having re-read negative levels however I accept that you don't lose CL, you just take a penalty, in the same way you don't lose BAB.

Negative Levels is a specific rule that bypass the general rule of minimum caster level.

[nedz]

Negative Levels is a specific rule that bypass the general rule of minimum caster level.

Look, we all think we know what the general rule is — but it's not written down anywhere. This is the problem.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Look, we all think we know what the general rule is — but it's not written down anywhere. This is the problem.First, I've quoted the rule, written in the SRD. I do not understand how what I said doesn't address your objection, so please make that clear.

Second how, exactly, does this cause problems, anywhere? What table situations exist where the lack of a line of text that states:

Minimum Caster Level: This term refers to the Caster Level the caracter would be at if they were at the lowest possible level at which they could cast the spell. This is the lowest Cast Level they can cast the spell at and the lowest Caster Level a magic item crafted with this spell can have (if a magic item has multiple prerequisites then the highest minimum Caster Level applies).

This is turning into one of those "you can heal someone by drowning them" or "potions have negative mass" arguments.

[nedz]

First, I've quoted the rule, written in the SRD. I do not understand how what I said doesn't address your objection, so please make that clear.

No you haven't. You have quoted a specific rule about voluntarily lowering your CL. This is not a general rule.

[Evil DM Mark3]

No you haven't. You have quoted a specific rule about voluntarily lowering your CL. This is not a general rule.No I haven't. I have read the rule about what caster levels you can use, which introduces the clear concept of the upper and lower bound. Please read my entire post and address the entire post. Are you saying you need a rule like the hypothetical one I posted?

[ExLibrisMortis]

What? No, it's based off the PHB quote the OP provided.
That quote only shows that a wizard can't choose to cast fireball at a caster level lower than 5. It does not provide a general rule. It certainly provides no support for any assertions that you need a certain MCL to cast spells at all (I realize that you did not make this point, but others have), relevant when it comes to negative levels. If all rules text to the effect of "you cast spells at -x CL" is taken to be an explicit exception, then what's the point of CL debuffs?


So it's based on the class, and which level that class gets that spell. Each spell has to be considered on a case-by-case basis. How is that "tricky"?
I will need a rules quote to support this. Until we have a statement of the rule, it's tricky to determine which of many possible methods was used to arrive at MCL 5 for fireball.


Nothing about what I said implies "that any wizard could cast their 2nds at CL 1, like a wizard with Precocious Apprentice could". That's utterly absurd.
Yes, it's absurd. I'm trying to show you that your argument regarding the Ur-Priest example leads to the absurd situation that a build besides your own can affect your MCL, which becomes more absurd when considering other potential build sets. However, since you've made it clear that you mean class level, we can find other fun dysfunctions, such as paladins.

An 11th-level paladin gets 3nd-level spells. Their minimum caster level is 11, clearly--like a wizard gets third-level spells at level 5 and has an MCL of 5, like an Ur-Priest gets third-level spells at level 3 an has an MCL of 3, the paladin gets them at level 11 and has an MCL of 11. However, an 11th-level paladin only has a caster level of 5. Now, they're not voluntarily lowering their caster level, so they can still cast and craft items (or not, depending on your interpretation), but if they level up, they can't lower their caster level. A 20th-level paladin must craft a scroll of remove curse at CL 10, which is a little odd.

Of course, you could say something like "it's the caster level you had for those spells when you first got them", which then introduces the Practiced Spellcaster-before-first-level problem.
Or you could say something like "it's the caster level some reference build had for those spells when they first got them", which introduces the "what is the reference build?" problem.

And of course, you could say it's "the caster level a single-classed character with no abilities besides their base class casting ability would have when they first got their spells", which, in addition to being a little wordy, won't actually work for prestige classes (since you can't be single-classed in a PrC, unless you allow RHD, which means we're adding in at least one race, and that extends the definition a bit), and isn't actually supported in the rules anywhere. All the ifs and buts need to be covered--you can't just reverse-engineer a paragraph and say "you know what would make sense? If the rule was xyz!".

So, once again: The rules are unclear, and it's tricky, and "simple" solutions turn out not to be so simple.

[RedMage125]

That quote only shows that a wizard can't choose to cast fireball at a caster level lower than 5. It does not provide a general rule. It certainly provides no support for any assertions that you need a certain MCL to cast spells at all (I realize that you did not make this point, but others have), relevant when it comes to negative levels. If all rules text to the effect of "you cast spells at -x CL" is taken to be an explicit exception, then what's the point of CL debuffs?
Yeah, this is nothing new, I've heard the claim that "it only applies to fireball" before. The thing is, everyone who claims that is missing very important context of the quote:

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell. For example, a fireball deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 10d6), so a 10th-level wizard can cast a more powerful fireball than a 5th-level wizard can.
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).
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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check). For instance, a 7th-level cleric with the Good domain casts spells with the good descriptor as if he were 8th level. This means that his holy smite deals 4d8 points of damage, he tolls 1d20+8 to overcome spell resistance with his good spells, and his protection from evil spell resists being dispelled as if it had been cast by an 8th-level spellcaster.
Fireball is clearly used as an EXAMPLE of the General Rule. It says example quite clearly.

That's the end of that absurd claim.


I will need a rules quote to support this. Until we have a statement of the rule, it's tricky to determine which of many possible methods was used to arrive at MCL 5 for fireball.

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell. For example, a fireball deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 10d6), so a 10th-level wizard can cast a more powerful fireball than a 5th-level wizard can.
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).
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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check). For instance, a 7th-level cleric with the Good domain casts spells with the good descriptor as if he were 8th level. This means that his holy smite deals 4d8 points of damage, he tolls 1d20+8 to overcome spell resistance with his good spells, and his protection from evil spell resists being dispelled as if it had been cast by an 8th-level spellcaster.
Done and done.

As I said, if you're looking for some hard and fast "X is the minimum CL for level Y spells", it does not exist. If you're looking for "X is the minimum CL for spell Y" for each specific spell, it does not exist. Different classes obtain spells that are on the same spell list at different levels (Sorcerers one higher than wizards), and some spells are different levels for different classes (like Flame Strike in my example).

Ergo, since the rules say "For you to cast the spell in question", it means that each spell has a different minimum CL, depending on who is casting it.

Why is that difficult? The text is very clear to me, and leaves no ambiguity.


Yes, it's absurd. I'm trying to show you that your argument regarding the Ur-Priest example leads to the absurd situation that a build besides your own can affect your MCL, which becomes more absurd when considering other potential build sets.
You do know that when I said L3 spells at level 3 I specifically only meant L3 Ur-Priest spells, right? The Wiz10/Ur-Priest4 example would still have a minimum CL of 5 for their Wizard spells.

Prestige Classes that have a distinct spell progression taken by characters who are already spellcasters gets complicated and problematic, I know. Wanna get really wonky? A Wizard 10/Ur-Priest 2/Mystic Theurge 8 has a maximum CL of 18 for his Wizard spells, and 19 for his Ur-Priest spells (which of course use the cleric spell list). But because Ur-Priest is a distinct spellcasting class, the minimum CL for Ur-Priest spells is the class level at which the Ur-Priest gained the ability to cast spells of that level.


However, since you've made it clear that you mean class level, we can find other fun dysfunctions, such as paladins.

An 11th-level paladin gets 3nd-level spells. Their minimum caster level is 11, clearly--like a wizard gets third-level spells at level 5 and has an MCL of 5, like an Ur-Priest gets third-level spells at level 3 an has an MCL of 3, the paladin gets them at level 11 and has an MCL of 11. However, an 11th-level paladin only has a caster level of 5. Now, they're not voluntarily lowering their caster level, so they can still cast and craft items (or not, depending on your interpretation), but if they level up, they can't lower their caster level. A 20th-level paladin must craft a scroll of remove curse at CL 10, which is a little odd.
I don't mean to be rude, so i apologize if this off that way, but I have a sincere question:
Is this actually somethign you find confusing? Or are you being intentionally obtuse to prove a point? Or are you trolling me?
I'm going to assume you are sincere.

Paladins and Rangers have a special relationship to their CL in that it does not equal their class level. So it's not about "class level" as you claim, but "the caster level you are at when your class level allows access to spells of that spell level". Dear Pelor, D&D uses the word "level" in too many contexts!

The Paladin's minimum CL for L3 spells is 5, because their CL at level 11 is 5.

And I don't know by what POSSIBLE proof from RAW you claim that a paladin crafting a scroll could not lower his CL like any other caster. A paladin over level 4 meets the prerequisites to Scribe Scroll. the rules for crafting all magic items permit the caster to make the item at a lower CL, as long as that CL can still cast said spell. So a 20th level Paladin (in addition to having wasted so many potential Prestige Class levels) may craft a scroll of Remove Curse at a CL as low as 5.

That's not an odd rule. You want an odd rule? A druid can craft a scroll of Flame Strike at CL 7. As it is a Divine Spell Scroll, and Flame Strike is also on the cleric list, can a level 7 Cleric use this scroll? By the RAW, yes. It is a spell on his spell list, and it is scribed at a caster level not greater than his own. And yet, that cleric cannot yet cast that particular spell yet on his own, because it's a L5 spell for him. THAT is an odd conjunction of rules.


Of course, you could say something like "it's the caster level you had for those spells when you first got them", which then introduces the Practiced Spellcaster-before-first-level problem.
Or you could say something like "it's the caster level some reference build had for those spells when they first got them", which introduces the "what is the reference build?" problem.
Neither of those things are problems. Practised Spellcaster explicitly limits your CL to no more than your HD (or character level, I forget which exact wording is used). Did you perhaps mean Precocious Apprentice? Because that feat can ONLY be taken at 1st level, and is explicitly for wizards. And it is a property of the feat itself in the "Benefit" section of the feat that a Specific exception to the General rule is permitted (and even that requires a DC 8 Spellcraft check). Specific > General doesn't mean the General rule "never applies to anybody". It's a simple question, does the Specific rule in question appy to your character, yes or no? If you do not HAVE the Precocious Apprentice feat, then the answer is no. If the Specific rule does not apply to your character, the General one does.

And it's not so much some "hyopthetical reference build", unless you mean "look at the spell progression for the class in question".
It's very simple, let's do L3 spells:
Look at the Wizard table, wizards get L3 spells at level 5, their caster level = their clas level, minimum CL 5.
Sorcerers get L3 spells at level 6, their caster level = their class level, minimum CL 6.
Paladins get L3 spells at level 11 (0 is a number, as opposed to "-"), their caster level is HALF their class level, minimum CL 5.
Bards get L3 spells at level 7, their caster level = their class level, minimum CL 7.
Blackguards get L3 spells at level 5, their caster level = their class level, minimum CL 5.
Ur-Priests get L3 spells at level 3, their caster level = their class level (with potential CL boost to their CL from "half other class CL", but that's not a given), minimum CL 3.




And of course, you could say it's "the caster level a single-classed character with no abilities besides their base class casting ability would have when they first got their spells", which, in addition to being a little wordy, won't actually work for prestige classes (since you can't be single-classed in a PrC, unless you allow RHD, which means we're adding in at least one race, and that extends the definition a bit), and isn't actually supported in the rules anywhere. All the ifs and buts need to be covered--you can't just reverse-engineer a paragraph and say "you know what would make sense? If the rule was xyz!".

So, once again: The rules are unclear, and it's tricky, and "simple" solutions turn out not to be so simple.

The rules are not at all unclear, and to claim they are requires one to either IGNORE the text in the RAW.

Prestige Classes are not problematic. Those that say something to the effect of "+1 level in existing class" are easy, because they specify that caster level increases accordingly. Prestige Classes with distinct spellcasting progressions have their CL tracked seperately, just like a multiclassed character. A Ranger 6/Blackguard 6 has a CL of 3 for his Ranger spells and a CL of 6 for his Blackguard spells. You treat a Prestige Class with a distinct spellcasting progression no different than multiclassing in 2 spellcasting classes. Ur-Priest is most often brought up in conjunction because the special rules that govern how they may get increased CL for their Ur-Priest spells due to having a CL for a different spellcasting class. But since that's not a default assumption for the Ur-Priest class itself, the minimum CL is the class level of Ur-Priest that the (Lx) spells were gained.

No one's "reverse engineering" anything. I said it before, and you ignored it: So it's based on the class, and which level that class gets that spell. Each spell has to be considered on a case-by-case basis.

That's what the General Rule tells us: "the caster level must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question". The RAW are not "unclear".

People try and claim it's "unclear" with spurious claims to get away with builds or "tricks" that violate the RAW, and sometimes, they talk fast enough to convince a DM who is less well-versed with the minutae of the rules. That doesn't make them correct.

The claim that there "must be a hard and fast general rule that says minimum CL for Lx spells is level Y" is absurd. There is no need for such a blanket statement. The RAW tell you that each spell in question is considered based on which class that character is using to cast that spell.
The claim that the PHB section quoted (page 171 I think) "only applies to fireball" is more than absurd, it's a blatant lie. That section of the RAW clearly uses fireball as an EXAMPLE to highlight the rule, and explicitly says so.
Your claim that the existence of a feat that allows one to break the General rule means that "anyone without the feat can break it too" is so absurd that it's not worth anything more than snide dismissal.

[HouseRules]

Look, we all think we know what the general rule is — but it's not written down anywhere. This is the problem.

Troacctid post #24 already pointed out the DMG general rule.

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

[Rijan_Sai]

I really, really don't understand why people keep getting caught up with "Fireball"...

Note that, in the text I'm quoting below, the main RULES are the same in both sources; the EXAMPLE text is only from the PHB

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.
There is the first RULE.

For example, a fireball deals 1d6 points of damage per caster level (to a maximum of 10d6), so a 10th-level
wizard can cast a more powerful fireball than a 5th-level wizard can.
First EXAMPLE (emphasis added.)


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.
Second RULES (again emphasized).

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).
Second EXAMPLE.

Again, Fireball is only used as an example, as stated clearly in the text. Also clearly, the spell must be cast at a caster level high enough to cats the spell in question, for the class used to cast the spell.

Evil DM Mark3 gave some very good examples using the item creation rules, which reference the "minimum caster level;" RedMage125 gave a very good explanation of how it actually works.

There are rules. They exist. And are easy enough to understand, if you don't put too much emphasis on the example used...


(This does not break any PRCs, either. The ones that advance previous casting add to the class in question; the ones that have their own casting (EXAMPLE: Ur-Priest) use their own caster level, sometimes with their own semi-unique rules (again, Ur-Priest).)

Edit: And huge ninja'd by a Red Mage!

[RedMage125]

Edit: And huge ninja'd by a Red Mage!

You still get props. It's probably better the way you put it, because you were short and concise, and I am overly verbose. Most people don't have the attention span to read my mini-novellas.

[ShurikVch]

So, let's say, Duskblade would take Mage Slayer feat at the 3rd level.
Now his CL is "-1".
Does it mean he wouldn't be able to cast any spells at all at the current level, and even on the next level would be limited to cantrips?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Yeah, this is nothing new, I've heard the claim that "it only applies to fireball" before.
That is not what I said, though. I said and am saying that an example is not a general rule. It is an example of the application of that rule to a specific situation. As such, what we know is that a wizard's fireball has a minimum caster level of five, so the implied general rule must produce "5" when given "wizard" and "fireball".


Now, I had a really long point-for-point reply typed up, but it was becoming a bit of an organizational nightmare with all the different quotes belonging to several examples, so let's boil it down to this: I think the general rule you're using is something like the one below.


"For each spellcasting class, the minimum caster level to cast a given level of spells of that class is equal to the caster level they had--considering only caster levels and spell levels derived from the spellcasting ability itself, not from races, feats, magic items, other class abilities, or other classes--at the level at which they first learned to cast that level of spells."

It's a bit wordy, but it works. It precludes CL shenanigans with Practiced Spellcaster or Mage Slayer, it stops Heighten and Precocious Apprentice tricks, it works for prestige classes, it works for racial casting (I think--there are a lot of monsters to check). It's also very much not in that rules text, which is the material point. There are a lot of ifs and buts you have to make up if you want the general rule to work as you might think it should. All that stuff about not considering races, feats, class abilities? That's not RAW, but you're treating it though it is.



With that rule in mind, a few words on the purpose of the rule (unrelated to previous arguments).

I always thought that the point of the minimum caster levels was to (a) make CL debuffs actually hurt casters, by making their higher-level spells impossible to cast, and (b) make cheap scrolls of miracle impossible. However, the MCL rule is only mentioned in the context of voluntary CL reductions, both for casting and for item crafting. It doesn't stop your friendly neighbourhood Spellgifted Mage Slayer Divine Crusader from crafting you a cheap scroll, because it's not a voluntary reduction, and likewise, a stack of negative levels doesn't prevent you from casting death ward, provided you have the higher-level spell slots to lose. So at the end of the day, it's not a very limiting rule. It just means you can't waste a fireball to lightly toast a teacake.

[NNescio]

Paladins and Rangers have a special relationship to their CL in that it does not equal their class level. So it's not about "class level" as you claim, but "the caster level you are at when your class level allows access to spells of that spell level". Dear Pelor, D&D uses the word "level" in too many contexts!

Mandatory OOTS comic link. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0012.html)

[Evil DM Mark3]

So, let's say, Duskblade would take Mage Slayer feat at the 3rd level.
Now his CL is "-1".
Does it mean he wouldn't be able to cast any spells at all at the current level, and even on the next level would be limited to cantrips?Yes. And?
However, the MCL rule is only mentioned in the context of voluntary CL reductions, both for casting and for item crafting.No, I don't think it is.
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.If I have a standing rule at my table that you can borrow a pencil BUT the pencil you choose can't be one of my mono-grammed pencils and there are only monogrammed pencils there does that mean that you can borrow one? No. It puts a limit on what you can choose and that can create a situation where there are no valid choices.

My definition of minimim caster level would be:

The minimum caster level for the spell is the caster level assosiated with the level of the class where the class that is the source of the spell when that spell first becomes available.

I do admit that there is no mention of modifiers in RAW, but the PHB and DMG both pre-date any feats, races, classes, abilites, magic items or singing fish that messed with the caster levels set out in the classes chapter. The SRD meanwhile was written and updated later, but it also does not include anyhting that does that either. Besides those would all be covered by the Specific>general rule.

[ShurikVch]

Yes. And?Quote, please!

[Evil DM Mark3]

Quote, please!Quote what? What you are desribing is the logical outcome of a strange character building choice. What am I supposed to be quoting? The rules text that is in this thread 5 or 6 times already or the text of the Mage Slayer feat?

[HouseRules]

Quote, please!

The MINIMUM [spell]caster level (or equivalent terminology) for cantrips (arcane), orisons (divine), talents (psionic), ..., etc. is 1.

[RedMage125]

That is not what I said, though. I said and am saying that an example is not a general rule. It is an example of the application of that rule to a specific situation. As such, what we know is that a wizard's fireball has a minimum caster level of five, so the implied general rule must produce "5" when given "wizard" and "fireball".
"A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell."
"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"
There's your general rules drawn from the RAW of the text.



Now, I had a really long point-for-point reply typed up, but it was becoming a bit of an organizational nightmare with all the different quotes belonging to several examples, so let's boil it down to this: I think the general rule you're using is something like the one below.


"For each spellcasting class, the minimum caster level to cast a given level of spells of that class is equal to the caster level they had* at the class level at which they first learned to cast that level of spells."
*considering only caster levels and spell levels derived from the spellcasting ability itself, not from races, feats, magic items, other class abilities, or other classes

I had to re-arrange your words there to make them easier to read coherently. But yes, that's a fairly decent way to paraphrase the rules as a shorthand, but it doesn't take into account that some spells are different level spells based on which class is casting them. Which is why you need to rely on the RAW themselves when you start dealing with things that affect or interfere with that. Especially things that grant Specific exceptions to this rule.


It's a bit wordy, but it works. It precludes CL shenanigans with Practiced Spellcaster or Mage Slayer, it stops Heighten and Precocious Apprentice tricks, it works for prestige classes, it works for racial casting (I think--there are a lot of monsters to check). It's also very much not in that rules text, which is the material point. There are a lot of ifs and buts you have to make up if you want the general rule to work as you might think it should. All that stuff about not considering races, feats, class abilities? That's not RAW, but you're treating it though it is.
Full stop. No. I just cited above what is in the rules, and makes up the General Rules.

There are no "ifs or buts" in the General Rule, because it specifies that each "spell in question" is considered based on "the class you’re using to cast the spell". Which means you have to do a case-by-case determination for every spell everywhere, potentially with different responses for different classes that cast those spells. That's in the RAW.

What CL shenanigans do you mean with Practised Spellcaster? That feat explicitly does not allow your Caster Level to exceed your Hit Dice. Precocious Apprentice explicitly grants a Specific exception to the general rule, so that isn't "shenanigans", but it also specifies that only the single spell chosen with PA can be cast, which means that -technically- someone with PA does not meet a Prestige Class or Feat prerequisite that says "ability to cast 2nd level arcane spells", because they can only cast the one. So a Domain Wizard who "knows his domain spells as soon as he can cast spells of that level" may "know" his L2 Domain Spell (i.e. it is in his spellbook), but he may not cast that spell because the specific exception covered in Precocious Apprentice only covers the spell chosen with that feat. However, an Elven Generalist wizard with PA would be able to prepare that L2 spell from PA spell twice.

Racial SLAs track CL for their SLAs in a different manner unrelated to CL from class levels. No different than my aforementioned Ranger 6/Blackguard 5 who has a different CL for each class' spells. i don't think any races have racial "spellcasting" per se, do they? A Spell-Like Ability is not a "spell".



With that rule in mind, a few words on the purpose of the rule (unrelated to previous arguments).

I always thought that the point of the minimum caster levels was to (a) make CL debuffs actually hurt casters, by making their higher-level spells impossible to cast, and (b) make cheap scrolls of miracle impossible.
It should, yes. What "CL debuffs" aside from negative levels do you mean?


However, the MCL rule is only mentioned in the context of voluntary CL reductions, both for casting and for item crafting. It doesn't stop your friendly neighbourhood Spellgifted Mage Slayer Divine Crusader from crafting you a cheap scroll, because it's not a voluntary reduction, and likewise, a stack of negative levels doesn't prevent you from casting death ward, provided you have the higher-level spell slots to lose. So at the end of the day, it's not a very limiting rule. It just means you can't waste a fireball to lightly toast a teacake.
WTF is a "friendly neighbourhood Spellgifted Mage Slayer Divine Crusader"? Such a "cheap scroll crafter" doesn't sound like something a player is actually playing, so is this an NPC that you just get to decide exists in the DM's world?

I don't have my books in front of me, and I don't remember "Spellgifted" or "Divine Crusader" off the top of my head. I know Mage Slayer grants a -4 penalty to CL (and that Unseen Seer and Wild Mage can reduce CL as well). Without having my books in front of me, I'd be inclined to assume those are Specific Exceptions to the general rule, but consider that a tentative statement on my part.

[Evil DM Mark3]

The ONLY [spell]caster level (or equivalent terminology) for cantrips (arcane), orisons (divine), talents (psionic), ..., etc. is 1.Where did you get that? If so why do several have durations or targets that scale with caster level, ie Light, duration 10min/level (D)

[HouseRules]

Where did you get that? If so why do several have durations or targets that scale with caster level, ie Light, duration 10min/level (D)

Forgot that there are some scalable 0th level abilities (though not in damage).

[ShurikVch]

Quote what? What you are desribing is the logical outcome of a strange character building choice. What am I supposed to be quoting? The rules text that is in this thread 5 or 6 times already or the text of the Mage Slayer feat?You are I supposed to be quoting something like "loss of caster level may/must/will cause loss of spellcasting ability"

[Troacctid]

As I said, if you're looking for some hard and fast "X is the minimum CL for level Y spells", it does not exist. If you're looking for "X is the minimum CL for spell Y" for each specific spell, it does not exist.
So are we just ignoring the tables in the DMG that explicitly provide this information for all the core casting classes?

[Evil DM Mark3]

You are I supposed to be quoting something like "loss of caster level may/must/will cause loss of spellcasting ability"But it doesn't. You are still a spellcaster. You have just reduced your caster level below the minimum required to cast your spells, which is the whole point of the thread, which means you ARE just asking me to re-post the same section of rules text again by posing a strange edge case as some sort of gotcha. I can't even imagine what spells you would be casting with a negative caster level anyway, unless you are trying to morph 1st level damage spells into healing...Either that of you want the following.
3-4 = -1. -1<1.

EDIT:Oh, and given that you can't be a Wizard 0 the MCL for cantrips is 1, not 0.

[NNescio]

But it doesn't. You are still a spellcaster. You have just reduced your caster level below the minimum required to cast your spells, which is the whole point of the thread, which means you ARE just asking me to re-post the same section of rules text again by posing a strange edge case as some sort of gotcha. I can't even imagine what spells you would be casting with a negative caster level anyway, unless you are trying to morph 1st level damage spells into healing...Either that of you want the following.

Nah, clearly someone wants negative rounds to retroactively cast spells in the past. Or negative cost to force NPC casters to pay them for the privilege of using their spellcasting services.

[ShurikVch]

But it doesn't. You are still a spellcaster. You have just reduced your caster level below the minimum required to cast your spells, which is the whole point of the thread, which means you ARE just asking me to re-post the same section of rules text again by posing a strange edge case as some sort of gotcha. I can't even imagine what spells you would be casting with a negative caster level anyway, unless you are trying to morph 1st level damage spells into healing...Either that of you want the following.I don't know how it's for you, but for me - if you're incapable to cast spells - you lost your spellcasting ability
And even if the loss is restricted to spells of certain/higher levels - it's still a loss of spellcasting ability - just partial loss

Nothing which was quoted previously impressing me in the slightest: quotes from Magic Item Creation RAW shouldn't impact things outside of Magic Item Creation, and all other was even less convincing

So, I'm asking: show me some new quote!

[Evil DM Mark3]

I don't know how it's for you, but for me - if you're incapable to cast spells - you lost your spellcasting abilityWands.
So, I'm asking: show me some new quote!Can't show you a new one, can show you this one again.
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.As I and half the posters in this thread keep saying, this sentence is all that is needed. If you consider the fact that the sentence contains the word choose to mean you can ignore the restrictions placed on that choice then naturally you come to a different conclusion. In my opinion if you can choose any snack from the fridge other than pie, and there is nothing in the fridge but pie, you cannot exercise your snack privileges. Likewise if you can choose any caster level you like, but it has to be below your actual caster level but at least high enough for you to cast the spell, and your actual caster level is lower than the minimum needed for the spell you can't cast the spell.

[RedMage125]

So are we just ignoring the tables in the DMG that explicitly provide this information for all the core casting classes?

Page number, please? It's been a long time since I was overly familiar with my 3.5e DMG, but I don't recall a table. i will check my books when I get home if you can give me a page number.

EDIT: I realize when I re-read this that I may have sounded sarcastic or snarky. I am not. I genuinely do not remember such a table and would like a page number.

[ShurikVch]

Wands.Which wands?


Can't show you a new one, can show you this one again.As I and half the posters in this thread keep saying, this sentence is all that is needed. If you consider the fact that the sentence contains the word choose to mean you can ignore the restrictions placed on that choice then naturally you come to a different conclusion. In my opinion if you can choose any snack from the fridge other than pie, and there is nothing in the fridge but pie, you cannot exercise your snack privileges. Likewise if you can choose any caster level you like, but it has to be below your actual caster level but at least high enough for you to cast the spell, and your actual caster level is lower than the minimum needed for the spell you can't cast the spell.Except: what IS the "minimal caster level"?
Who said "-1" is too low to cast it?
Where it's written?

This is a clear dysfunction called "Appealing to nonexistent rule" - author clearly either presumed such rule actually exists somewhere, or was sure it would be added at some point. (As we can see, neither is the case)

[ExLibrisMortis]

[lots of misunderstanding]
You're not understanding any of my points, or even what any of my examples are for. For reference:

(1) No, you haven't provided a general rule, because it's not stated in that paragraph.
(2) Yes, it does take into account that different spells have different spell levels when appearing on different lists.
(3) No, what I wrote was not in the rules. I made some unstated assumptions that you were using explicit.
(4) Under some alternate definitions, without some of the caveats I added, Practiced Spellcaster would increase your MCL. Likewise, Mage Slayer would reduce it.
(5) I wasn't talking about racial SLAs. I was talking about racial spellcasting. And yes, plenty of creatures have spellcasting.
(6) It's a Divine Crusader with Mage Slayer and the Spellgifted trait. Crucially, it crafts miracle scrolls for 450 gp and 36 XP each, and polymorph any object for 400 gp and 32 XP each.


I don't think you're trying to understand my position. I don't think you're trying to understand your own position, given that you haven't shown how the text leads to your interpretation. For that reason, I don't think it's worth continuing this debate.

[Evil DM Mark3]

Which wands?Wands would be the most significant difference between having no ability to cast spells and no spellcasting ability.


Except: what IS the "minimal caster level"?
Who said "-1" is too low to cast it?
Where it's written?Seeing as I have addressed these directly at least once and it is clear that no one in this thread is going to change their minds so I will just say that I finally found an argument dumber than the potion powered blimp I once saw the maths for, and that one was at least intended as a joke.

[RedMage125]

You're not understanding any of my points, or even what any of my examples are for. For reference:

(1) No, you haven't provided a general rule, because it's not stated in that paragraph.
(2) Yes, it does take into account that different spells have different spell levels when appearing on different lists.
(3) No, what I wrote was not in the rules. I made some unstated assumptions that you were using explicit.
(4) Under some alternate definitions, without some of the caveats I added, Practiced Spellcaster would increase your MCL. Likewise, Mage Slayer would reduce it.
(5) I wasn't talking about racial SLAs. I was talking about racial spellcasting. And yes, plenty of creatures have spellcasting.
(6) It's a Divine Crusader with Mage Slayer and the Spellgifted trait. Crucially, it crafts miracle scrolls for 450 gp and 36 XP each, and polymorph any object for 400 gp and 32 XP each.


I don't think you're trying to understand my position. I don't think you're trying to understand your own position, given that you haven't shown how the text leads to your interpretation. For that reason, I don't think it's worth continuing this debate.

(1) "A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell."
"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"
That's quite clear, actually.
(2) Then it wasn't clear. If you're looking for some kind of a "useful shorthand", EvilDMMk3's was more clear: The minimum caster level for the spell is the caster level assosiated with the level of the class where the class that is the source of the spell when that spell first becomes available. But that's still not rules text, it's just a shorthand parlance for what the rules DO say.
(3) The 2nd sentence of this seems incomplete. Explicit what?
(4) I don't know why you would assume it did. Especially when CL can be voluntarily lowered on the fly as the spell is cast, even for prepared spellcasters.
(5) And these "plenty of creatures", do they have their CL for their racial abilities spelled out? Is it (like every other racial ability, SLA and SU) tied to their Racgial Hit Dice?
(6) I'm not familiar with the Spellgifted trait, what book is it in? Also, why would this build be a thing? Is this strictly an NPC whose sole function is to scribe these scrolls?

And I do understand your position. Most of it, except the details of this Spellgifted thing.

I've cited the text to you no less than three times. I genuinely do not understand how you can say "you haven't cited a rule" or "you haven't shown how the text eads you to that". It's all in that PHB quote. There's also (and I had to look on another thread for the page number, because I am still AFB), the PHB page 7 which states: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)". So, like the thing I have been citing to you, which also states "the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question". Is that more clear?

You're the one claiming things are unclear. You straight up claimed it was "tricky to determine which of many possible methods was used to arrive at MCL 5 for fireball." And then tried to make some claim about how a Paladin 20 somehow "couldn't" lower her caster level to make a scroll of remove curse. At which point, I asked if you were genuinely somehow confused, or just intentionally ignoring the rules text to be obtuse or to roll me. But I still responded in good faith.

Why don't you ante up some proof? Why don't you cite the RAW and try and show why it is unclear? The RAW I am going to cite to you are the same rules text that me and about 3 other posters have repeated half a dozen times in this thread. It's quite clear and unambiguous. Maybe if you could better explain why you're confused? As it is, YOU are the one not discussing in good faith. Because I cite the RAW, you claim "but that's not a rule". With no justification for that baseless claim. Yes, it is a rule. Can you perhaps explain why you think it isn't and we can help you understand? Or will you act like a sitcom teenager, and stomp out, shouting "you don't even try to understand me"? I'd prefer the former.

[Falontani]

Wands.Can't show you a new one, can show you this one again.As I and half the posters in this thread keep saying, this sentence is all that is needed. If you consider the fact that the sentence contains the word choose to mean you can ignore the restrictions placed on that choice then naturally you come to a different conclusion. In my opinion if you can choose any snack from the fridge other than pie, and there is nothing in the fridge but pie, you cannot exercise your snack privileges. Likewise if you can choose any caster level you like, but it has to be below your actual caster level but at least high enough for you to cast the spell, and your actual caster level is lower than the minimum needed for the spell you can't cast the spell.

I just want to point out, that as the op said, I funny and still don't believe that the single quote given (or any other) has sufficiently given a definitive RAW. They give an implication that a RAW statement should be there, but it doesn't exist and is therefore imo (and perhaps others in this thread) RAI.

The quotes that I have seen have stated things like generally the minimum caster level for a given spell is (2x spell level-1) yet then immediately is wrong due to sorcerer and bard both existing.

Practiced spellcaster is usually only argued away with it can't exceed your hd, but could a beguiler 1/barbarian 5 use versatile spellcaster and practiced spellcaster to cast third level beguiler spells?

Finally to answer the given quote: if a person is given fridge access and told they can eat anything but the pie, there is only pie in the fridge and they don't know what pie even is then YES, they can exercise their snack privileges until the concept of pie exists.

[ExLibrisMortis]

I just want to point out, that as the op said, I funny and still don't believe that the single quote given (or any other) has sufficiently given a definitive RAW. They give an implication that a RAW statement should be there, but it doesn't exist and is therefore imo (and perhaps others in this thread) RAI.
Don't you know that if you quote a passage often enough, it will have the rule you want in it? That's all you have to do!

[Troacctid]

Page number, please? It's been a long time since I was overly familiar with my 3.5e DMG, but I don't recall a table. i will check my books when I get home if you can give me a page number.

EDIT: I realize when I re-read this that I may have sounded sarcastic or snarky. I am not. I genuinely do not remember such a table and would like a page number.
Page 287 gives a formula with charts.

[Falontani]

Page 287 gives a formula with charts.

(This text is supposed to be blue, but I don't know how to do it on mobile)It is making an assumption about the RAW of minimum levels as well. It even said that it's an assumption. (/Blue)

But no seriously, that doesn't seem like it is telling me the minimum caster level on anything, just saying what scrolls/wands/etc are assumed to be made at.

[Troacctid]

(This text is supposed to be blue, but I don't know how to do it on mobile)It is making an assumption about the RAW of minimum levels as well. It even said that it's an assumption. (/Blue)

But no seriously, that doesn't seem like it is telling me the minimum caster level on anything, just saying what scrolls/wands/etc are assumed to be made at.
It tells you that the price of a scroll is 25 x spell level x caster level, and then it says, assuming the minimum caster level for each spell, here are the prices you should be paying for a scroll made by each PHB class according to this formula. Are we going to pretend that math is not a thing, or...?

[Blue Jay]

Okay, I don't really care to defend the position I outlined upthread much further than I already have, but I don't want to just leave the thread with misunderstandings still in the air. And I feel like the opposition to the position Falontani, ExLibrisMortis and I have defended is largely not recognizing the difference between our approach to the topic, and yours. So, let me try to explain.

To me, this is not about enabling cheese or obfuscating rules. To me, this is about learning lessons about how to write rules text. When I look at this "minimum CL" text from the perspective of a technical writer or editor, I see several deficiencies. The most obvious deficiency is that the "minimum CL" rule is not presented as a generalizable method, and the exceptions that we all believe exist are not noted or marked in the typical fashion.

The way general rules usually work is modeled effectively by this rule (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#supernaturalAbilities) related to Supernatural Abilities:


"Using a supernatural ability is a standard action unless noted otherwise."

It gives a definitive rule, and makes it clear that exceptions will be noted. Then, the specific rules, such as the ethereal filcher (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/etherealFilcher.htm)'s Ethereal Jaunt ability, clearly state how they diverge from the general rule.

By comparison, the general rule about minimum CL (PHB p. 171) does not follow this procedure at all. It doesn't state a general rule about how to determine minimum CL. Tt simply says "must be high enough," and gives one simple example. It should have a line like "The minimum CL for a spell is the level at which the caster gains at least one spell slot of the spell's level." But, there's no such line. There is only the one example about the minimum level for one spell cast by one class.

Yes, the intention is fairly obvious, and I don't think anybody here really puts any credence in the argument that the rule only applies to fireball spells cast by a wizard. But the text is deficient: it does not come out and say what we all think we understand. This leaves several ambiguities that could easily have been cleared up if they had only presented this rule in the same manner that they presented the rule about the action economy of (Su) abilities.

There is this quote, kindly provided for us by Troacctid:


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

This is a reasonably good statement of the rule. But, it is still deficient in two major ways:

Placement: This quote is buried in the middle of a paragraph about scribing scrolls. That's not where you're supposed to put general rules: this is where you put specific rules about scribing scrolls. So, with the current layout of the text, this is not a general rule, but a specific rule that applies only to scribing scrolls.
Phraseology: It's not phrased like a solid rule. The word "usually" implies that exceptions will be noted elsewhere, but it doesn't have that line like the rule about (Su) abilities does, and as far as I'm aware, there is no specific rules text that actually notes any exceptions to this rule. So, for example, the bard entry has no text about how its minimum CL is determined differently from the general rule: so technically, if this were taken as a general rule, then we must conclude that a bard does not use a modified formula for determining minimum CL.

Now, do I, Blue Jay, actually believe that this it he way this rule should operate? No, I do not. I don't think anybody really does. But, I do believe that the relationship between caster level and ability to cast spells is ambiguous in enough realistic game situations that it's useful to dissect and critique the rules text, and I believe that these deficiencies demonstrate the failure of the designers to provide a definitive rule where they clearly intended to.

-----

We've also seen repeated referrals to the class tables that show when spellcasters gain access to spells of each level. But the class tables do not show a relationship between caster level and spell level: they show a relationship between class level and spell level. We all know that CL and class level are not always equal, so it's disingenuous to argue that the class tables provide any definitive information about what caster level is needed to cast a given spell.

Another edge case I'd like to know about is how to incorporate CL buffs. For example, a cleric with the Healing domain casts Conjuration (Healing) spells at +1 CL. This sort of buff explicitly doesn't increase your effective class level for the purpose of accessing spells. So, does that mean that this cleric's minimum CL for cure moderate wounds is 4th, because that was his caster level for that spell when he first gained access to it?

-----

And we've also seen references to the tables in the Magic Items section of the DMG, which all have footnotes that say they assume the minimum caster level. Again, the footnotes of item-price tables are not the appropriate place for general rules to be, so everyone ought to be willing to forgive someone who dismisses these footnotes as specific rules that only apply to their specific topic, which is the cost of scrolls and wands as such.

Of course, we also know that these footnotes are no longer strictly accurate, since newer supplements have provided several means of lowering caster level below the minimum values used in these calculations. So, one could easily argue that these footnotes were only referring to the minimum CL under a given set of assumptions, not to a universal minimum CL that applies to all game situations.

-----

From all of this, I conclude that the designers failed to explicitly provide a general rule for determined a character's minimum CL. I do believe they meant to, and I do agree that the intended value is fairly clear. But, I also believe that ambiguities remain.

[unseenmage]

Right proper communication that a lot of folk could learn from.
Thank you for that.

Additionally. Probably shouldn't be giving the designers as much credit as we are here folks. It's entirely plausible that intentional minimum CLs were the fevered dreams of the the fanbase reading too much into a poorly designed facet of a MUCH larger game.

These are the brilliant minds who brought us every other dysfunction this glorious game has to offer after all.
(Which I dont honestly blame them for as much as I seem to, ain't nobody cant precognitively design flawlessly after all.)

[Falontani]

Great Post #1


Great Post #2

This. This is what I wish I could do when I put the fingies to the klikityklak. They explain what I have been trying to explain.

The reason I started this thread was simply to show that an established rule that touches nearly every aspect of the game. Isn't a stated rule, but an implied one. I was hoping that people like Troacctid (who regularly proves me wrong) would pull out a quote that definitively puts to bed an assumption of the game. One that concisely explains the rule that I thought was a rule.
But that hasn't happened in this thread yet. You have all posted things solidifying what I thought was true, that the rule was implied and undefined. And that's fine.

[Troacctid]

"The rules are hard to find" is not the same as "There are no rules." You have to refer to three different chapters in two different books just to figure out how to brew a potion. Don't even get me started on the rules for incorporeal creatures. It's a problem that's endemic to this edition of the game. But the rules for minimum caster levels are there, even if they aren't where you would expect them to be. It's not a myth. The values provided for the core classes are not ambiguous. And nothing in the text limits them to just scrolls and wands.

[nedz]

Troacctid post #24 already pointed out the DMG general rule.

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

And this doesn't cover the example I linked to in post #27.

[ExLibrisMortis]

From all of this, I conclude that the designers failed to explicitly provide a general rule for determined a character's minimum CL. I do believe they meant to, and I do agree that the intended value is fairly clear. But, I also believe that ambiguities remain.
Blue Jay is my hero :smallredface:.

I do wonder whether the rule was discussed, scheduled for addition, and just never completed, or that the current state is supposed to be clear, or that the rule was added and then scheduled for removal, and then all references to it were just glossed since none of the editors ever got a memo. I mean, it literally takes two lines of text to clear this up, and you would think an editor or proofreader would pick up on this sort of thing. (Playtesters, on the other hand, could miss it pretty easily, since there aren't many reasons to cast spells at lower CL outside item crafting, which I'm thinking is not the first subsystem you dive into.)

[unseenmage]

Blue Jay is my hero :smallredface:.

I do wonder whether the rule was discussed, scheduled for addition, and just never completed, or that the current state is supposed to be clear, or that the rule was added and then scheduled for removal, and then all references to it were just glossed since none of the editors ever got a memo. I mean, it literally takes two lines of text to clear this up, and you would think an editor or proofreader would pick up on this sort of thing. (Playtesters, on the other hand, could miss it pretty easily, since there aren't many reasons to cast spells at lower CL outside item crafting, which I'm thinking is not the first subsystem you dive into.)

It feels to me, and this is just gut instinct, that either the relevant lines if text hit the cutting room floor to save wordcount. Someone probably thought it minor enough to not matter.
Or, more likely, only part of the team.was writing with a previously discussed actual potential rule in mind.

It just feels like a miscommunication of some sort more than anything intentional.

[RedMage125]

Don't you know that if you quote a passage often enough, it will have the rule you want in it? That's all you have to do!
Did you know that if you keep refusing to read the words of rules text it means those rules don't exist?

"The rules are hard to find" is not the same as "There are no rules." You have to refer to three different chapters in two different books just to figure out how to brew a potion. Don't even get me started on the rules for incorporeal creatures. It's a problem that's endemic to this edition of the game. But the rules for minimum caster levels are there, even if they aren't where you would expect them to be. It's not a myth. The values provided for the core classes are not ambiguous. And nothing in the text limits them to just scrolls and wands.
I agree.

I get the bone of contention, especially in regards to how it's located with magic item creation, but really that's just reinforcing what's in the PHB pages 7 and 171.




Practiced spellcaster is usually only argued away with it can't exceed your hd, but could a beguiler 1/barbarian 5 use versatile spellcaster and practiced spellcaster to cast third level beguiler spells?

Absolutely not. And that is supported by rules text.
PHB, page 7: "a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."

Unambiguously NO.


To me, this is not about enabling cheese or obfuscating rules. To me, this is about learning lessons about how to write rules text. When I look at this "minimum CL" text from the perspective of a technical writer or editor, I see several deficiencies. The most obvious deficiency is that the "minimum CL" rule is not presented as a generalizable method, and the exceptions that we all believe exist are not noted or marked in the typical fashion.
If the whole point is that "It could have been worded better" then I agree wholeheartedly. I do have a few responses to some of your finer points, though...



By comparison, the general rule about minimum CL (PHB p. 171) does not follow this procedure at all. It doesn't state a general rule about how to determine minimum CL. Tt simply says "must be high enough," and gives one simple example. It should have a line like "The minimum CL for a spell is the level at which the caster gains at least one spell slot of the spell's level." But, there's no such line. There is only the one example about the minimum level for one spell cast by one class.

Yes, the intention is fairly obvious, and I don't think anybody here really puts any credence in the argument that the rule only applies to fireball spells cast by a wizard. But the text is deficient: it does not come out and say what we all think we understand. This leaves several ambiguities that could easily have been cleared up if they had only presented this rule in the same manner that they presented the rule about the action economy of (Su) abilities.
To be fair, there's also PHB page 7, which states earlier:
"In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)"
Which is clear language written like a general rule. I perhaps took for granted that people were already familiar with that.


Now, do I, Blue Jay, actually believe that this it he way this rule should operate? No, I do not. I don't think anybody really does. But, I do believe that the relationship between caster level and ability to cast spells is ambiguous in enough realistic game situations that it's useful to dissect and critique the rules text, and I believe that these deficiencies demonstrate the failure of the designers to provide a definitive rule where they clearly intended to.
But when you have both PHB page 7 and 171 together, you can see that the rules themselves call for you to look specifically at each class' spell progression in the class description. I agree that the whole "usually" is a crappy way to words rules, especially because it clearly implies that wizards, clerics, and druids "outnumber" sorcerers, bards, paladins and rangers (at least in terms of who is making magic items). The frequency and basis for the qualifier "usually" is also not clearly defined. It doesn't say why it's "usually" [(Spell level x 2) -1], HOWEVER, since the rules do tell us to look at the particular class descriptions individually, it's easy to infer. But rules text shouldn't require "inference", which is what you're saying and I get that.


We've also seen repeated referrals to the class tables that show when spellcasters gain access to spells of each level. But the class tables do not show a relationship between caster level and spell level: they show a relationship between class level and spell level. We all know that CL and class level are not always equal, so it's disingenuous to argue that the class tables provide any definitive information about what caster level is needed to cast a given spell.
Technically, we are referred to the class descriptions, which includes the class tables. We are not solely referred to the tables themselves, at least in the rules text. And the class descriptions are more clear in the relationship between CL and class level, especially since we have 2 PHB classes (Ranger and Paladin) for whom that is not the same thing.

So I would argue that it's disingenuous to argue that the class tables are what we are being referred to.


Another edge case I'd like to know about is how to incorporate CL buffs. For example, a cleric with the Healing domain casts Conjuration (Healing) spells at +1 CL. This sort of buff explicitly doesn't increase your effective class level for the purpose of accessing spells. So, does that mean that this cleric's minimum CL for cure moderate wounds is 4th, because that was his caster level for that spell when he first gained access to it?
Technically, all the RAW refer us to class descriptions, and domain and deity choice are specific build choices, much like a wizard's choice of specialty school. Healing Domain says "you cast Healing spells at +1 caster level", with no specific mention of raising the floor. The rules on page 171 say that the bare minimum CL for the "spell in question" and you can't lower beyond the minimum for "[you class] to cast the spell". Since all reference to this rule goes by what "the class" may cast it at, and not what "the individual" first was able to cast it at, it seems clear that the minimum CL is 3 for cure moderate wounds.

To wit: Let's say, for whatever reason, the wizard Mialee has reached 11th level, but still only has an INT of 15. By the RAW, she may not cast L6 spells, right? Arguably, she gets L6 spell slots, but may only use those for metamagic at this point. Now, when she hits level 12 of wizard, she uses her ASI to bring her INT up to 16. Now she may cast L6 spells. Are you saying the minimum CL for all her L6 spells should be 12 and not 11? Of course not. The minimum caster level is whatever the minimum is "for a wizard" to cast spells of that level.

Furthermore, when CL adjustments exist, "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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check)". It does not say that CL adjustments must be added to spells with voluntarlly lowered CL.


And we've also seen references to the tables in the Magic Items section of the DMG, which all have footnotes that say they assume the minimum caster level. Again, the footnotes of item-price tables are not the appropriate place for general rules to be, so everyone ought to be willing to forgive someone who dismisses these footnotes as specific rules that only apply to their specific topic, which is the cost of scrolls and wands as such.
I think it bore repeating there, because the PHB rules reference casting of spells, and magic item creation could be argued to be different. It just sucks that it was a little more concise there.


Of course, we also know that these footnotes are no longer strictly accurate, since newer supplements have provided several means of lowering caster level below the minimum values used in these calculations. So, one could easily argue that these footnotes were only referring to the minimum CL under a given set of assumptions, not to a universal minimum CL that applies to all game situations.

One could also likewise argue that those are Specific exceptions to the general rule, and the exceptions only apply where they are stated to. That's also logicaly coherent.




From all of this, I conclude that the designers failed to explicitly provide a general rule for determined a character's minimum CL. I do believe they meant to, and I do agree that the intended value is fairly clear. But, I also believe that ambiguities remain.
I get your point, I do.
But I see it as quite unambiguous, using only the text that is there.


In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)Class levels determine availability of spells of higher spell levels.

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.Ranger and Paladin specify in their class descriptions that they are exceptions to this. All other PHB spellcasting classes follow this rule.

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.Since "you" are a member of a class, you again refer to your class level, and the caster level you derive from that (which may or may not be equal to your class level).

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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).Modifiers to CL apply to spell effects based on CL (so all the things in the spell's description that refer to CL), as well as SR checks and Dispel DCs.

That's all quite clear to me. It's also all in one book. Could it have been worded better? Certainly. It also could have been more well-collected into one spot. But I don't see ambiguities. I absolutely see general rules.

Ideally, it should say:
"A spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details). Your caster level equals your class level in (each of) your spellcasting class(es), unless your class specifies otherwise. When casting a spell, you may voluntarily lower your caster level to reduce it's power, but not below a minimum caster level which is defined as the caster level which corresponds to the class level at which you gained access to the level of spell in question based on the class you are using to cast said spell. All caster level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level at which it is cast. 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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check)."
But all of that information is in the RAW. It's just broken up, and filled with examples after each time one part of the rule is stated.

[Blue Jay]

Technically, we are referred to the class descriptions, which includes the class tables...

...So I would argue that it's disingenuous to argue that the class tables are what we are being referred to.

When I spoke about referrals to the class tables, I was actually talking about the posts in this thread that referred to the class tables, not any sort of text from the books that refers to the class tables. Apologies if that wasn't clear.


Technically, all the RAW refer us to class descriptions, and domain and deity choice are specific build choices, much like a wizard's choice of specialty school. Healing Domain says "you cast Healing spells at +1 caster level", with no specific mention of raising the floor. The rules on page 171 say that the bare minimum CL for the "spell in question" and you can't lower beyond the minimum for "[you class] to cast the spell". Since all reference to this rule goes by what "the class" may cast it at, and not what "the individual" first was able to cast it at, it seems clear that the minimum CL is 3 for cure moderate wounds.

The p. 171 text actually reads like this:


"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."

You inserted "your class" in place of "you," but I don't think that's justified. I guess it can be reasonably interpreted to mean "your class," as you have done, but it could just as easily be interpreted to mean "your build," in which case your entire argument falls apart. And frankly, "your class" is a much bigger stretch than "your build," which means it's your task to unequivocally demonstrate that it cannot be interpreted to mean "your build" and must be interpreted to mean "your class." And I don't believe you've met this standard yet.

It's true that the Mialee example (PHB p. 171) refers to a wizard's class level for determining her minimum voluntary CL, but it's just an example. All examples have assumptions built into them, but you can't extrapolate those assumptions back onto the general rule, because that's not how examples work.

For example*, the tattooed monk (CWar) has the tortoise tattoo, which is described this way:

*Heh! I'm giving an example of an example! :smallbiggrin:


Tortoise: Once per day per tattoo he possesses, a character with this tattoo can use his class level as the number of ranks in a skill he does not possess for the purpose of one skill check. For example, a 4th-level tattooed monk with two tattoos can make up to two Use Magic Device checks as if he had 4 ranks in that skill. He adds his Charisma modifier to the skill check as usual.

Emphasis mine. This example makes the assumption that UMD is a skill that a tattooed monk doesn't "possess." Assuming "possess" means "have ranks in," it's entirely possible for a tattooed monk to possess UMD. So, for a tattooed monk who possesses UMD, there is tension between the rules text and the example. He cannot use the tortoise tattoo in the way described by the example (i.e., he can't use it to make UMD checks), because his situation is different from the example: the example makes an (unspoken) assumption that doesn't apply to him. So he should presumably follow the rules text, and ignore the inapplicable example.

Likewise, a Healing-domain cleric does not conform to the assumptions of the wizard example that was provided for minimum CL. Specifically, her caster level is not equal to her class level, unlike the wizard in the example. So, for her, there is tension between the rules text and the example: does she use the level at which she casts the spell, as the rules text suggests, or the level at which a standard cleric casts the spell, as the example suggests? She can't simply assume that the unspoken specifics of the example apply to her, so when the rules text and the example suggest different courses of action, she ought to follow the rules text instead of the example.


I get your point, I do.
But I see it as quite unambiguous, using only the text that is there.

I honestly feel like your standards for "unambiguous" are simply too low. Then again, I'm a scientist and technical writer, and I often find that I'm basically getting paid to split hairs, so it's also possible that my standards are simply too stringent. I don't know.

To me, it all boils down to the various examples and bits of text that assume a relationship between class level and caster level that simply is not universal, and then do not connect the dots about how to handle the situation when that relationship doesn't hold. Nothing you've presented has shown me where the rules text does this, so I'm sticking with the null hypothesis, which is that the rules text doesn't close this loophole.


Ideally, it should say:
"A spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details). Your caster level equals your class level in (each of) your spellcasting class(es), unless your class specifies otherwise. When casting a spell, you may voluntarily lower your caster level to reduce it's power, but not below a minimum caster level which is defined as the caster level which corresponds to the class level at which you gained access to the level of spell in question based on the class you are using to cast said spell. All caster level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level at which it is cast. 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 (see Spell Resistance, page 177) and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check)."
But all of that information is in the RAW. It's just broken up, and filled with examples after each time one part of the rule is stated.

I'm glad you wrote this out, and it's quite excellent. I've taken the liberty of underlining the specific portion of your rules text that I do not believe can be found in RAW. And I think, in this post, I have sufficiently illustrated the ways in which your argument falls short of showing that this portion can be found in RAW.

[RedMage125]

When I spoke about referrals to the class tables, I was actually talking about the posts in this thread that referred to the class tables, not any sort of text from the books that refers to the class tables. Apologies if that wasn't clear.

Ah. I was unclear, because the rest of your post indicts the rules, and not the other posters here/



The p. 171 text actually reads like this:


"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."

You inserted "your class" in place of "you," but I don't think that's justified. I guess it can be reasonably interpreted to mean "your class," as you have done, but it could just as easily be interpreted to mean "your build," in which case your entire argument falls apart. And frankly, "your class" is a much bigger stretch than "your build," which means it's your task to unequivocally demonstrate that it cannot be interpreted to mean "your build" and must be interpreted to mean "your class." And I don't believe you've met this standard yet.

It's true that the Mialee example (PHB p. 171) refers to a wizard's class level for determining her minimum voluntary CL, but it's just an example. All examples have assumptions built into them, but you can't extrapolate those assumptions back onto the general rule, because that's not how examples work.

Likewise, a Healing-domain cleric does not conform to the assumptions of the wizard example that was provided for minimum CL. Specifically, her caster level is not equal to her class level, unlike the wizard in the example. So, for her, there is tension between the rules text and the example: does she use the level at which she casts the spell, as the rules text suggests, or the level at which a standard cleric casts the spell, as the example suggests? She can't simply assume that the unspoken specifics of the example apply to her, so when the rules text and the example suggest different courses of action, she ought to follow the rules text instead of the example.
I suppose that's fair. But contrariwise, when it tells you the list of things that you DO add CL modifiers to (it uses the Good domain as a specific example), "minimum CL for a spell you choose to reduce" isn't on the list either.

That's a little ambiguous, I guess, only because the rules are not explicit on whether you do or don't. But I'm in the "the rules have to say you can before you can" camp, so I would say that you don't add CL boosters to that number.


For example*, the tattooed monk (CWar) has the tortoise tattoo, which is described this way:

*Heh! I'm giving an example of an example! :smallbiggrin:


Tortoise: Once per day per tattoo he possesses, a character with this tattoo can use his class level as the number of ranks in a skill he does not possess for the purpose of one skill check. For example, a 4th-level tattooed monk with two tattoos can make up to two Use Magic Device checks as if he had 4 ranks in that skill. He adds his Charisma modifier to the skill check as usual.

Emphasis mine. This example makes the assumption that UMD is a skill that a tattooed monk doesn't "possess." Assuming "possess" means "have ranks in," it's entirely possible for a tattooed monk to possess UMD. So, for a tattooed monk who possesses UMD, there is tension between the rules text and the example. He cannot use the tortoise tattoo in the way described by the example (i.e., he can't use it to make UMD checks), because his situation is different from the example: the example makes an (unspoken) assumption that doesn't apply to him. So he should presumably follow the rules text, and ignore the inapplicable example.
I think we can all agree that suddenly shifting language into using terms like "possess" for skills is bad writing. You either possess ranks in a skill or you do not. Most skill can be used untrained, UMD is obviously an exception to that.


I honestly feel like your standards for "unambiguous" are simply too low. Then again, I'm a scientist and technical writer, and I often find that I'm basically getting paid to split hairs, so it's also possible that my standards are simply too stringent. I don't know.

To me, it all boils down to the various examples and bits of text that assume a relationship between class level and caster level that simply is not universal, and then do not connect the dots about how to handle the situation when that relationship doesn't hold. Nothing you've presented has shown me where the rules text does this, so I'm sticking with the null hypothesis, which is that the rules text doesn't close this loophole.
"Rules that exist but have loopholes in specific situations" =/= "there are not rules on this matter". Which IS what some people on this thread have been saying.

Honestly, CL modifiers should only affect the parts of the spells that pg 171 explicitly says that they do, because that is all the RAW says that those modifiers affect.

The relationship between class level and caster level may not be universal, but it does not need to be. "A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell." from the text tells you a general rule but tells you IN the general rule that there are exceptions. Ranger and Paladin specify that they are exceptions. Other classes do not. Ergo, other classes follow this rule. I phrased this as: "Your caster level equals your class level in (each of) your spellcasting class(es), unless your class specifies otherwise.", which is about only half a degree more concise than saying "most".

I'm an aviation electrician for the Navy, believe me, I know all bout how detailed, anal-retentive, and redundant technical writing is. And in the context of technicians it absolutely should be. But for a game? I think the bar for "unambiguous" is lower, yes. So it's not "my standards for unambiguous", so much as "my standards for unambiguous for a game vis something that potentially affects safety of personnel and equipment".




I'm glad you wrote this out, and it's quite excellent. I've taken the liberty of underlining the specific portion of your rules text that I do not believe can be found in RAW. And I think, in this post, I have sufficiently illustrated the ways in which your argument falls short of showing that this portion can be found in RAW.
Okay, since quotes within quotes don't work out, I'll repost the sentence with your underlining, for the folks at home reading this so they don't have to scroll up to compare.
"When casting a spell, you may voluntarily lower your caster level to reduce it's power, but not below a minimum caster level which is defined as the caster level which corresponds to the class level at which you gained access to the level of spell in question based on the class you are using to cast said spell."
Okay, so that underlined portion comes from the following RAW quotes:
PHB, page 7: "In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."
PHB, page 171: "A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell."
All I did was reiterate the distinction of "when higher spell levels are available" via class level to the understanding of the relationship between "class level" and "caster level", which, as I stated before, I think is very clear. Could have been more clear in the RAW, yes. But it's still clear. You will note that I worded it is such a way as to avoid the word "most" in the previous sentence, which was about how "caster level equals your class level in (each of) your spellcasting class(es), unless your class specifies otherwise." The RAW just says "for most classes, CL equals class levels", and leaves it to you to figure out when a class doesn't fit in with "most". Although, to be fair, you have ALREADY been referred to the individual class description in Chapter 3.

[Elves]

Reposting this from another thread where Redmage and I were talking about a similar issue. This is a reading of the relevant quote on PHB 7 that if valid suggests there's no general minimum class level rule as some people have argued. But there's still clearly a minimum caster level, re OP.



Parsed grammatically, the quote on PHB page 7 is


to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)

This is either a tautology:

"To be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level"

or is missing the information about what a high enough class level is, so as instructed we go to the class descriptions in Chapter 3 to find that out. When we go to Chapter 3 we find no general rule about what is a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given level. All we have is the spells per day chart and the rules for spells known.

So there are two interpretations that can be drawn from this.

The first is that "able to cast spells" in the page 7 quote is simply referring to the rules that are present, and that we're referred to, in chapter 3 -- that able in this case means having the spell known and having the spell slot [and having, as we learn elsewhere, a high enough caster level].

The second relies on a jump of implicit logic to claim that the page 7 quote is saying something it doesn't literally sum to, creating an extra rule:

"to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level [for their class to grant them spells per day of that level]."

Reading literally, the descriptive reading of this quote seems straightforward and the second one seems like the construction of a phantom rule.

[Rijan_Sai]

Reposting this from another thread where Redmage and I were talking about a similar issue. This is a reading of the relevant quote on PHB 7 that if valid suggests there's no general minimum class level rule as some people have argued. But there's still clearly a minimum caster level, re OP.



Parsed grammatically, the quote on PHB page 7 is



to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)

This is either a tautology:

"To be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level"

or is missing the information about what a high enough class level is, so as instructed we go to the class descriptions in Chapter 3 to find that out. When we go to Chapter 3 we find no general rule about what is a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given level. All we have is the spells per day chart and the rules for spells known.

So there are two interpretations that can be drawn from this.

The first is that "able to cast spells" in the page 7 quote is simply referring to the rules that are present, and that we're referred to, in chapter 3 -- that able in this case means having the spell known and having the spell slot [and having, as we learn elsewhere, a high enough caster level].

The second relies on a jump of implicit logic to claim that the page 7 quote is saying something it doesn't literally sum to, creating an extra rule:

"to be able to cast spells of a given spell level, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level [for their class to grant them spells per day of that level]."

Reading literally, the descriptive reading of this quote seems straightforward and the second one seems like the construction of a phantom rule.

Elves, I gotta admit, I really don't understand where you are coming from on this... (diagraming sentences was the bane of my schooling, so forgive me but) I don't understand why it's more "grammatically accurate" to reverse the clauses

In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level. (See the class descriptions in Chapter 3 for details.)
Relevant section bolded (nobody is arguing that you can cast without a high enough ability score.)

Looking at Chapter 3: Classes we can see that first of all, some classes (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue specifically) do not have any casting at all, so we dismiss those for this discussion.
Next, looking at the Bard, Cleric, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Sorcerer, and Wizard, we see this section under Class Features:
Spells

(I apologize in advance for what I am about to do... I will put it in a spoiler block to save space)

Spells: A bard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and wizards), which are drawn from the bard spell (page 181) list. He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or cleric must (see below). Every bard spell has a verbal component (singing, reciting, or music).

To learn or cast a spell, a bard must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11 for 1stlevel spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a bard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the bard’s Charisma modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a bard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–4: The Bard. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score (see Table 1–1: Ability
Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). When Table 3–4 indicates that the bard gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance, 1stlevel
spells for a 2nd-level bard), he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Charisma score for that spell level.

The bard’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A bard begins play knowing four 0-level spells (also called cantrips) of your choice.
At most new bard levels, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3–5: Bard Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day,
the number of spells a bard knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table 3–5 are fixed.)

A cleric casts divine spells (the same type of spells available to the druid, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from the
cleric spell list (page 183). However, his alignment may restrict him from casting certain spells opposed to his moral or ethical beliefs;
see Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A cleric must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).

To prepare or cast a spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 10 for 0-level spells, Wis 11 for
1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cleric’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric’s Wisdom
modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a cleric can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–7: The Cleric. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability
Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). A cleric also gets one domain spell of each spell level he can cast, starting at 1st level. When a
cleric prepares a spell in a domain spell slot, it must come from one of his two domains (see Deities, Domains, and Domain Spells, below).

A druid casts divine spells (the same type of spells available to the cleric, paladin, and ranger), which are drawn from
the druid spell list (page 189). Her alignment may restrict her from casting certain spells opposed to her moral or ethical beliefs; see
Chaotic, Evil, Good, and Lawful Spells, below. A druid must choose and prepare her spells in advance (see below).

To prepare or cast a spell, the druid must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 10 for 0-level spells, Wis 11
for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a druid’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the druid’s Wisdom modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a druid can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–8: The Druid. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page8). She does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does.

Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a paladin gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells (the same type of spells available to the cleric, druid, and ranger), which are drawn from the paladin spell list (page 191). A paladin must choose and prepare her spells in advance.

To prepare or cast a spell, a paladin must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 11 for 1st-level spells, Wis
12 for 2nd-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a paladin’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the paladin’s Wisdom modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a paladin can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–12: The Paladin. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability
Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). When Table 3–12 indicates that the paladin gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance,
1st-level spells for a 4th-level paladin), she gains only the bonus spells she would be entitled to based on her Wisdom score for that
spell level The paladin does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does.

A paladin prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though she cannot lose a prepared spell to spontaneously cast a cure spell in its place. A paladin may prepare and cast any spell on the paladin spell list (page 191), provided that she can cast spells of that level, but she must choose which spells to prepare during her daily meditation.

Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is one-half her paladin level.

Spells: Beginning at 4th level, a ranger gains the ability to cast a small number of divine spells (the same type of spells available to the cleric, druid, and paladin), which are drawn from the ranger spell list (page 191). A ranger must choose and prepare his spells in advance (see below).

To prepare or cast a spell, a ranger must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Wis 11 for 1st-level spells, Wis 12 for 2nd-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a ranger’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the ranger’s Wisdom modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a ranger can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–13: The Ranger. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Wisdom score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8). When Table 3–13 indicates that the ranger gets 0 spells per day of a given spell level (for instance, 1st-level spells for a 4th-level ranger), he gains only the bonus spells he would be entitled to based on his Wisdom score for that spell level. The ranger does not have access to any domain spells or granted powers, as a cleric does.

A ranger prepares and casts spells the way a cleric does, though he cannot lose a prepared spell to cast a cure spell in its place. A ranger
may prepare and cast any spell on the ranger spell list, provided that he can cast spells of that level, but he must choose which spells to prepare during his daily meditation.

Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is one-half his ranger level.

Spells: A sorcerer casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to bards and wizards), which are drawn primarily from the sorcerer/wizard spell list (page 192). He can cast any spell he knows without preparing it ahead of time, the way a wizard or a cleric must (see below).

To learn or cast a spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Cha 10 for 0-level spells, Cha 11
for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a sorcerer can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. His base daily spell allotment is
given on Table 3–16: The Sorcerer. In addition, he receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8).

A sorcerer’s selection of spells is extremely limited. A sorcerer begins play knowing four 0-level spells (also called cantrips) and two 1st-level spells of your choice. At each new sorcerer level, he gains one or more new spells, as indicated on Table 3–17: Sorcerer Spells Known. (Unlike spells per day, the number of spells a sorcerer knows is not affected by his Charisma score; the numbers on Table 3–17 are fixed.)

Spells: A wizard casts arcane spells (the same type of spells available to sorcerers and bards), which are drawn from the sorcerer/ wizard spell list (page 192). A wizard must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time (see below).

To learn, prepare, or cast a spell, the wizard must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell level (Int 10 for 0-level spells, Int 11 for 1st-level spells, and so forth). The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a wizard’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the wizard’s Intelligence modifier.

Like other spellcasters, a wizard can cast only a certain number of spells of each spell level per day. Her base daily spell allotment is given on Table 3–18: The Wizard. In addition, she receives bonus spells per day if she has a high Intelligence score (see Table 1–1: Ability Modifiers and Bonus Spells, page 8).

Good Nugget! that was a lot of repetition...

So, we were referred to the classes from page 7; every class with "Spells" follows the same basic format:
•[Class] casts [Arcane/Divine] spells; must prepare in advance/does not need to prepare in advance
•To learn/prepare/cast, [Class] needs a high enough [CHA/WIS/INT]; save DC calculation
•Limited spells per day (reference to class table)*
•Additional, class-specific details (some were left in for reference, like the Paladin/Ranger clause about not having a caster-level until (class) level 4, then Caster Level = (Class Level)/2; or the points about Bard/Sorcerer being limited in spells known.)

*This is the relevant point to my post...
Page 7 (which states that you must have a "high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level" refers us to Chapter 3: Classes. C3, in the individual class descriptions, refers us to the class-specific tables. These tables, in turn, show us exactly when [Class] is able to have access to spells of different levels.
Keep in mind that in D&D 3.5, a mark of "--" in any category (see: Level Adjustment (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/monsters/intro.htm#levelAdjustment); Non-Ability Scores (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#nonabilities)) is an indication of non-existence: Any class level that shows "--" for a spell slot does not have the ability to cast from that slot; it doesn't exist. Higher level spells only are available when the class table indicate a "0" or higher number for that slot.

...Okay, ^that took a long time with several distractions, so I kinda lost anywhere else I might have been going with it...
The point is: taken together, the rules on page 7 and 171, as well as reading the class descriptions and class tables, show us that you need to have both a high enough class level as well as a high enough caster level to cast spells. 7 and 171 are the general rules; class descriptions are the specific rules. (And 171 does refer to "class", as I have seen people state otherwise:

A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most (Added: See Paladin/Ranger) spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell.

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.


WRT gaining higher level spell slots than your class would normally allow (leaving aside Dead Horse #2: Precocious Apprentice, Faustian Pacts were mentioned in either this topic or the other one (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?597394-Viability-of-Elf-Generalist-Wizard-Domain-Wizard-quot-Leapfrog-quot-combo-(cont-from-2016)) as being able to get a low-level caster a 9th level spell slot. If this is true, then that's fine; you could use that slot to cast/prepare additional available level spells, or (possibly... I'd probably allow it) (non-Heighten) metamagic a lower level spell to the 9's. But you still would not have a class level able to cast 9th level spells.

[RedMage125]

So...I'm posting this here because during my discussion on another thread, I realized I had answered some of the questions posed here regarding "minimum caster level". It's a bit long-winded, so hear me out.

By this point, we all know what PHB pg 171 says about minimum caster level. The next paragraph discusses special abilities and whatnot that provide adjustment to caster level. As many of us know, something has to say, in the RAW, that one can do something, in order for it to be true. If you try to do something just because "there isn't a rule saying you can't" you are guilty of what most on the forum refer to as Munchkin Fallacy (which is, more correctly, a form of Argumentum Ad Silencio).

The rules say what "[effects] that provide an adjustment to caster level" apply to. That is:
effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt)
your caster level check to overcome your target’s spell resistance
the caster level used in dispel checks


Nothing else. Note that it says "adjustment" and not "increase". So to any other reference to "caster level", you do not factor in those adjustments. That means, that that's how Mage Slayer, Unseen Seer, Wild Mage work with minimum caster level. Since those are "adjustments" to caster level, and they only affect those bulleted things.

Example: A Wizard 15 with the Mage Slayer feat (-4 caster level) can still cast her L8 spells, because her actual caster level is 15. But when she casts it, the spell effects based on caster level (range, duration, and damage dealt), the caster level she would use to overcome SR, and the caster level used for a dispel check against her spell would all be 11. Because "adjustments to caster level" only apply to those things, and do not affect minimum caster level to cast spells. Likewise, boosting your CL artificially does not grant the ability to cast spells of a higher spell level.

So...earlier it was posited, what would happen if our level 15 wizard with Mage Slayer wanted to cast a fireball, reduced all the way? Well, apparently, she could lower her caster level to the minimum she can do willingly (which is 5). But then the spell effects based on caster level (range, duration, and damage dealt), the caster level she would use to overcome SR, and the caster level used for a dispel check against her spell would all be 1. She's still casting the spell at CL 5, but the adjustment to caster level affects those listed aspects of the spell. Likewise, a level 15 Healing Domain Cleric tries to cast Cure Moderate Wounds at CL 3, the spell effects based on caster level (range, duration, and damage dealt), the caster level she would use to overcome SR, and the caster level used for a dispel check against her spell would all be 4. I would assume that there would be a minimum of "CL 1", but don't have a RAW citation for that, so it's an assumption.

Not only is this the most banal, pedantic, and rules-literal way to look at it, but it's also the only way to make these things which otherwise seem to be contradictory rules, in a way in which they no longer cause dissonance with the RAW of the PHB.

However, if you notice, those "adjustments to caster level" do not apply to making magic items. Simply because the adjustments apply to spells being cast, and creating a magic item does not involve the casting of a spell, but rather, the expenditure of spell slot or prepared spell. Which means that magic items' minimum caster level is still going to be normal for the spell. Which also makes sense as far as why things like a scroll of Holy Smite have a minimum CL of 7, and not 8. Think about it. If those adjustments applied to magic item creation, a CL 7 Holy Smite scroll would not be possible, because lvl 7 is when a cleric gets access to L4 spells, but Holy Smite only exists on the Good Domain list, and that domain grants a +1 CL adjustment to all [Good] spells, meaning that if it did apply, the lowest CL possible for a scroll of Holy Smite would be 8. Check the price and do the math yourself. The default price for Holy Smite is CL 7.

That means, no Luck Domain Divine Crusader with CL-reducing effects making CL 1 Miracle Scrolls. Such a character could make Cl-9 scrolls, but only because that's the lowest CL she gets access to that spell.