does uncanny forethoughts -2 cl penalty prevent you from casting spells?

[newguydude1]

Alternatively, as a full-round action, you can use a reserved slot to cast any spell that you know. The spell is resolved as normal, but for the purpose of the spell, your caster level is reduced by two. The level of the slot used must be equal to or greater than the level of the spell you intend to cast.

what does "for the purpose of the spell" mean?

does it mean just the effects are reduced by 2? like a penalty. so i cast the spell, and it receives a -2cl.

i am wiz3 and want to cast a 2nd level spell with uncanny forethought. cl-2 is 1. does the minimum required caster level rule apply here and prevent me from casting the spell, or can i cast the spell but its effects are as if its cl1?

as far as i can tell, it doesnt prevent me from casting spells right?



how does this interact with practiced spellcaster? would practiced spellcaster remove the -2 cl altogether?

[sleepyphoenixx]

what does "for the purpose of the spell" mean?

does it mean just the effects are reduced by 2? like a penalty. so i cast the spell, and it receives a -2cl.
Yes, the penalty only applies to the spells you cast using that function (it's not an universal -2 CL).


i am wiz3 and want to cast a 2nd level spell with uncanny forethought. cl-2 is 1. does the minimum required caster level rule apply here and prevent me from casting the spell, or can i cast the spell but its effects are as if its cl1?

as far as i can tell, it doesnt prevent me from casting spells right?
It doesn't say that the minimum CL rule doesn't apply so it does.
At least by my interpretation you wouldn't be able to cast the spell at a CL lower than 3.


how does this interact with practiced spellcaster? would practiced spellcaster remove the -2 cl altogether?

Yes. Since there is no mention of it standard stacking rules apply, so you can choose the most beneficial order to apply any CL boosts/penalties you may have.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

It is possible to cast spells below the normal minimum CL, though, under special circumstances. For example, ur priests can cast 2nd level spells with a CL of 2.

[newguydude1]

specific trumps general. so i was wondering if uncanny forethought was a specific that trumps general.

as in you can cast whatever spell you konw thats equal to or lower level than the spell slot expended. regardless of final cl.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It is possible to cast spells below the normal minimum CL, though, under special circumstances. For example, ur priests can cast 2nd level spells with a CL of 2.

Minimum CL is class-dependant. The minimum CL for an Ur Priest to cast 2nd level spells is 2. For a wizard it's 3, for a sorcerer it's 4.


specific trumps general. so i was wondering if uncanny forethought was a specific that trumps general.

as in you can cast whatever spell you konw thats equal to or lower level than the spell slot expended. regardless of final cl.

It doesn't make an exception to the minimum CL rule though. "It doesn't say i can't" is not a rule.
So since there is no specific rule to trump it the general minimum CL rule still applies.

[Darg]

The minimum CL for an Ur Priest to cast 2nd level spells is 2.

It can actually be argued otherwise. It casts as a cleric which would require caster level 3rd. For an example, both suel arcanamach and sublime chord mention they cast as a sorcerer, included gaining the spell known swap at 4th. However, unlike sorcerer the suel arcanamach gains 3rd level spells at forth and 2nd at second. Normally you'd think that once it gets access to second level spells they could swap. Sublime chord already has access to 4th, 5th, and 6th by level 4 and isn't actually gaining access to a new level at that level.

Based on this speculative evidence it wouldn't be impossible to deny an Ur Priest from casting higher spells without additional spells, just as you can deny the other classes. Practiced spellcaster basically becomes required and prevents ur Priest from very easily casting 9ths at 14.

[sleepyphoenixx]

It can actually be argued otherwise.

I see where you're coming from, but i can't see that argument holding up when the table specifically states that you get 2nd level spells at UP 2.
If a class description tells you that you get 2nd level spells the common expectation is that you actually get 2nd level spells.
It even mentions that you only get bonus slots based on high wisdom for that level but makes no mention of minimum CL.

Since UP doesn't require levels in another (non-cleric) casting class and getting spells you can't cast without boosting your CL would be dysfunctional i don't really see anyone going with that reading instead of the more sensible "you can cast spells at the level you get them".

[DarkSoul]

Your class spell progression determines whether you can cast spells of a given level. Your caster level determines how powerful those spells are when cast. In your example you'd cast a 2nd level spell through uncanny forethought and it would go off at CL 1, which would determine range, damage, duration etc.

[Darg]

I see where you're coming from, but i can't see that argument holding up when the table specifically states that you get 2nd level spells at UP 2.
If a class description tells you that you get 2nd level spells the common expectation is that you actually get 2nd level spells.
It even mentions that you only get bonus slots based on high wisdom for that level but makes no mention of minimum CL.

Since UP doesn't require levels in another (non-cleric) casting class and getting spells you can't cast without boosting your CL would be dysfunctional i don't really see anyone going with that reading instead of the more sensible "you can cast spells at the level you get them".

Text trumps table and it says you cast as a cleric. I think it holds up quite well. The only real issue is that it hurts most if not all of the partial caster PrCs slightly. It doesn't prevent you from casting those spells if you have the caster level to do it. I doubt any one would actually implement this though and it's simply easier to delay access to ur-priest if one doesn't want such early progression to 9ths.

[tyckspoon]

i am wiz3 and want to cast a 2nd level spell with uncanny forethought. cl-2 is 1. does the minimum required caster level rule apply here and prevent me from casting the spell, or can i cast the spell but its effects are as if its cl1?

as far as i can tell, it doesnt prevent me from casting spells right?


The 'minimum required level' rule is not clearly defined, and as much as it works at all, only works for core classes casting spells with nothing modifying their caster level (it's one of the places where the designers habit of conflating 'caster level' and 'levels you have in spellcasting classes' really makes a mess of things, as 'caster level' turned out to be a much more mutable number that can differ quite a bit from 'levels in casting classes.')

I know you're coming from a "I need firm supportable RAW or I can't use it" place, and unfortunately in this one, it's going to be a 'you can't use it' - there is no concrete answer to the question of how 'minimum caster levels' interact with non-standard means of casting.

[DarkSoul]

Text trumps table and it says you cast as a cleric. I think it holds up quite well. The only real issue is that it hurts most if not all of the partial caster PrCs slightly. It doesn't prevent you from casting those spells if you have the caster level to do it. I doubt any one would actually implement this though and it's simply easier to delay access to ur-priest if one doesn't want such early progression to 9ths. you're right, no one would implement this, because it's an absurd interpretation.

[RedMage125]

what does "for the purpose of the spell" mean?

does it mean just the effects are reduced by 2? like a penalty. so i cast the spell, and it receives a -2cl.

i am wiz3 and want to cast a 2nd level spell with uncanny forethought. cl-2 is 1. does the minimum required caster level rule apply here and prevent me from casting the spell, or can i cast the spell but its effects are as if its cl1?

as far as i can tell, it doesnt prevent me from casting spells right?



how does this interact with practiced spellcaster? would practiced spellcaster remove the -2 cl altogether?

I actually hit on the answer to this a ways back. As was mentioned, "minimum caster level" is based on Class. Which class grants the ability to cast the spell in question. In your case, as a wizard 3, your minimum CL to cast L2 spells is 3.

Here's the kicker: You HAVE a Caster Level of 3.

The rules in the PHB 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.

Which means, for purposes of "minimum caster level", your Caster Level is 3. But once you CAST the spell, those "adjustments" affect the things I bulleted above.

[newguydude1]

Which means, for purposes of "minimum caster level", your Caster Level is 3. But once you CAST the spell, those "adjustments" affect the things I bulleted above.

thats what i was trying to say, but a lot of people above have disagreed with this interpretation.

could those very same people try to refute redmage here?

dont want to grab the most convenient interpretation for me, but the most logically sound based on raw.

[sleepyphoenixx]

thats what i was trying to say, but a lot of people above have disagreed with this interpretation.

could those very same people try to refute redmage here?

dont want to grab the most convenient interpretation for me, but the most logically sound based on raw.
After rereading the relevant passages i'd have to say it's a matter of interpretation. I also checked the Rules Compendium and it uses the exact same wording.

If you consider the list given in the relevant passage as exclusive CL adjustments apply only to the mentioned things.
If you consider the list inclusive CL adjustments apply to those things but also anything else CL affects because it doesn't say they don't, so the general rule applies.

The wording allows for both and i couldn't find any other rule invalidating either one, so it comes down to which interpretation your DM favors.

[RedMage125]

After rereading the relevant passages i'd have to say it's a matter of interpretation. I also checked the Rules Compendium and it uses the exact same wording.

If you consider the list given in the relevant passage as exclusive CL adjustments apply only to the mentioned things.
If you consider the list inclusive CL adjustments apply to those things but also anything else CL affects because it doesn't say they don't, so the general rule applies.

The wording allows for both and i couldn't find any other rule invalidating either one, so it comes down to which interpretation your DM favors.

Exclusive is the RAW answer that doesn't require any inference. The rules say what you CAN do, and any argument based on "rules don't say I can't", is usually referred to as Munchkin Fallacy (or Argumentum Ad Silencio, if you wanna be fancy).

The reason a lot of people favor the "inclusive" reading (as you put it), is because that also allows for "early entry" tricks. By a strict reading of the RAW using the "exclusive" reading, you cannot use CL-boosters to cast higher level spells than your class level allows*. Which clearly follows RAI.

If you want to know which reading is "correct"**, there's a simple limitus test. One view does not engage in Argumentum Ad Silencio and manages to stay within the bounds of what seems to be RAI. The other requires one to expand on what the RAW do say, extending that into applying to "everything that rules don't say it doesn't apply to", which also leads to some options used in TO that seem like they're bending the intent of the rules pretty far.

I favor the Exclusive version because of exactly what this thread is covering. Effects that LOWER caster level. You have the Wild Mage who lowers their CL as they cast spells, Unseen Seer, and even feats like Mage Slayer (which a caster could theoretically take). Using the "exclusive" reading means those characters can still CAST their spells, but the CL-dependent effects as listed in the PHB are the only things the adjustment applies to. Whereas if you used the "inclusive" reading, a Wild Mage might try to cast a L4 spell, only to get a low roll and be unable to cast it.

That's really the only reason I think the "exclusive" is right. It eliminates Rules Dysfunction and some RAI-violating Early Entry tricks, as well. Which I view as a bonus.

*Specific Over General exceptions exist, of course, such as the Precocious Apprentice feat.

**In this instance I mean "correct" as in "most logically coherent and in keeping with the rules". As always, the only "wrong" way to play is if people are not having fun.

[Darg]

Uncanny forethought reduces caster level by 2 for the purpose of the spell. Minimum caster level applies just as it does for wild mage (I don't believe practiced spellcaster actually affects the wild mage either because of general vs specific; wizard 5/wild mage 5 actually has a caster level of 10 so practiced spellcaster doesn't work on the specific reduction on spells only, but that's a different argument). Wild mage is supposed to be fickle. For the chance at extra power you have the chance to fail. Its the same here with uncanny forethought.

It's also the same reason I believe the RAI was for the Warlock to benefit from general spellcasting bonuses. CArc has a warlock listed as a class that would benefit from most of the prestige classes that have benefits that only affect spells. Lose class features to gain no features. It's like how it benefits from the spell penetration feat and sudden metamagic.

DMM removes the spell slot cost, but not the casting spell level increase which increases the minimum caster level. An increase in caster level through other means would let you cast the spell such as spell focus or items that increase caster level.

[schreier]

The way we play it is there is not a "minimum CL" to cast a specific spell in a class (it is not like a minimum intelligence). We play that spell effects are determined by CL (so you are -2CL for that purpose), but your list of spells per day is by your level in the class, not your caster level.

Just like improving your caster level (through a feat or item) does not allow you to cast higher level spells than your class level allows.

[Odin's Eyepatch]

In the SRD at "Caster Level" it says


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.

Which suggests that there IS a minimum caster level, because it has to be high enough to cast the spell in question.

[Darg]

The way we play it is there is not a "minimum CL" to cast a specific spell in a class (it is not like a minimum intelligence). We play that spell effects are determined by CL (so you are -2CL for that purpose), but your list of spells per day is by your level in the class, not your caster level.

Just like improving your caster level (through a feat or item) does not allow you to cast higher level spells than your class level allows.

I can see that. Have you ever considered that class level determines access and spell slots rather than ability? Caster level determines a caster's ability to cast spells. Even casting spells from scrolls require the appropriate caster level to bypass the caster level check. If you are a 6th level wizard with 4 levels of fighter, but have practiced spellcaster; you cast spells as a 10th level wizard.

Practiced spellcaster has this:


This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only...

This implies that your class level is the only thing that applies to the above, but caster level as stated in the PHB would still apply towards the minimum caster level of casting a spell.

[schreier]

I can see that. Have you ever considered that class level determines access and spell slots rather than ability? Caster level determines a caster's ability to cast spells. Even casting spells from scrolls require the appropriate caster level to bypass the caster level check. If you are a 6th level wizard with 4 levels of fighter, but have practiced spellcaster; you cast spells as a 10th level wizard.

Practiced spellcaster has this:
This feat does not affect your spells per day or spells known. It increases your caster level only...


This implies that your class level is the only thing that applies to the above, but caster level as stated in the PHB would still apply towards the minimum caster level of casting a spell.

How does it imply that / where does the PHB say that?
Is there a definition of "minimum caster level?"

[Darg]

How does it imply that / where does the PHB say that?
Is there a definition of "minimum caster level?"

Practiced Spellcaster is found in CArc and CDiv. Minimum caster level is a function of caster level interaction with spells. The PHB declares that a wizard can't cast a fireball below 5 caster levels.

If minimum caster level is tied simply to class level, that would mean that you can only reduce a spell's caster level only by an amount equal to your minimum class level. An example of this would be a wizard 5/ fighter 4 with practiced spellcaster. This wizard would be unable to lower the caster level below 9th because to lower it further would make the wizard a 4th-1st level caster which isn't enough to cast the fireball. Caster level from levels in a class would be fundamentally different from other sources of caster level. There aren't any cases to be found where this exclusive version can be found.

Caster level is caster level. Whether it applies in specific circumstances or otherwise it doesn't matter. D&D doesn't make a distinction between sources of caster level. In my opinion that means there isn't one.

[sleepyphoenixx]

Exclusive is the RAW answer that doesn't require any inference. The rules say what you CAN do, and any argument based on "rules don't say I can't", is usually referred to as Munchkin Fallacy (or Argumentum Ad Silencio, if you wanna be fancy).
My point isn't that "the rules don't say i can't", it's that Uncanny Forethought has no specific rule overriding the general minimum CL rule.
You could just as easily argue that the fallacy would lie with the exclusive reading for arguing that "Uncanny Forethought and the general CL rules don't say minimum CL applies so it doesn't".
The minimum CL rule exists, so barring a specific exception it should apply to CL regardless of its source.

That's why i'm saying it's a matter of interpretation.
I get your argument and really the reason i've used the inclusive interpretation until now is because that's how i interpreted it when i read it, not because i made a conscious decision to.
The exclusive reading simply never occured to me.

[Darg]

The reason a lot of people favor the "inclusive" reading (as you put it), is because that also allows for "early entry" tricks. By a strict reading of the RAW using the "exclusive" reading, you cannot use CL-boosters to cast higher level spells than your class level allows*. Which clearly follows RAI.


Early entry tricks ignore qualities of caster level and/or the innate caster level that isn't temporary when qualifying for feats and prestige classes. +1 caster level to good spells while being a level 2 caster means you are only a 3rd level caster when casting good spells. A wild mage's wild magic only applies for the purpose of spells and wouldn't disqualify you. A sorcerer 1/fighter 2 with practiced spellcaster would qualify for scribe scroll because the caster level increase isn't tied to a quality and it isn't temporary (something not earned through experience).

[schreier]

Practiced Spellcaster is found in CArc and CDiv. Minimum caster level is a function of caster level interaction with spells. The PHB declares that a wizard can't cast a fireball below 5 caster levels.

If minimum caster level is tied simply to class level, that would mean that you can only reduce a spell's caster level only by an amount equal to your minimum class level. An example of this would be a wizard 5/ fighter 4 with practiced spellcaster. This wizard would be unable to lower the caster level below 9th because to lower it further would make the wizard a 4th-1st level caster which isn't enough to cast the fireball. Caster level from levels in a class would be fundamentally different from other sources of caster level. There aren't any cases to be found where this exclusive version can be found.

Caster level is caster level. Whether it applies in specific circumstances or otherwise it doesn't matter. D&D doesn't make a distinction between sources of caster level. In my opinion that means there isn't one.

I don't see where it "declares that a wizard can't cast a fireball below 5 caster levels." The table lists the spells that you have memorized at level 5, which includes a level 3 spell. Is there any discussion, or are you just referencing the table?

If practiced spellcaster doesn't impact the number of spells you have memorized, if an ioun stone does impact a number of spells memorized - why would uncanny forethought?

Uncanny Forethought says "Alternatively, as a full-round action, you can use a reserved slot to cast any spell that you know. The spell is resolved as normal, but for the purpose of the spell, your caster level is reduced by two. The level of the slot used must be equal to or greater than the level of the spell you intend to cast."

So it must be of the proper level (so 5th level wizard using a level 3 spell slot to cast fireball). The spell is resolved as normal, but caster level is reduced by two. So 3d6 damage.

[newguydude1]

i think we can settle this
1. casting spell
2. effect of the spell.

if uncanny forethought only affects 2. we can cast cl1 2nd level spells.
if uncanny forethought affects 1, we can't cast cl1 2nd level spells.

an artificer can cast cl3 fireball scrolls, something to consider.

does uncanny forethought affect 1. or 2.?

[DarkSoul]

2. As long as your class levels allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, it might go off at less than 3rd caster level. You can't voluntarily lower the CL beyond a certain point, depending on the character, but effects like uncanny forethought and wild mage can force it lower.

[Kaleph]

The rules say what you CAN do, and any argument based on "rules don't say I can't", is usually referred to as Munchkin Fallacy (or Argumentum Ad Silencio, if you wanna be fancy).

Actually, if you really want to be fancy, you say "argumentum e silentio"; "ad silencio" means nothing.

[tyckspoon]

Exclusive is the RAW answer that doesn't require any inference. The rules say what you CAN do, and any argument based on "rules don't say I can't", is usually referred to as Munchkin Fallacy (or Argumentum Ad Silencio, if you wanna be fancy).


This is more colloquially known as the 'Air Bud Fallacy'.

[Darg]

I don't see where it "declares that a wizard can't cast a fireball below 5 caster levels." The table lists the spells that you have memorized at level 5, which includes a level 3 spell. Is there any discussion, or are you just referencing the table?


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....she can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than
5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball).

When you cast a spell you are choosing what caster level to cast it at. If you can't choose a caster level that's high enough to cast the spell then you can't cast the spell.

One example of class level and caster level being completely separate concepts is the precocious apprentice feat:


Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell; if you fail, the spell is miscast to no effect. Your caster level with the chosen spell is your normal caster level, even if this level is insufficient to cast the spell under normal circumstances.

Your level determines when you get access to 2nd level spells, but your caster level determines if you can cast a spell with the minimum caster level. Precocious apprentice specifically lets you bypass this minimum.

Wizard 1/fighter 4 with practiced spellcaster qualifies for scribe scroll which requires caster level 3rd. It also let's them use scrolls with a caster level up to 5th without a caster level check. Caster level is separate from class level. Minimum caster level is only set by the level at which you gain access to spell levels.


2. As long as your class levels allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, it might go off at less than 3rd caster level. You can't voluntarily lower the CL beyond a certain point, depending on the character, but effects like uncanny forethought and wild mage can force it lower.

What happens if you try to cast a spell at -1? Does a duration spell go back in time to apply the spell for the previous amount of time? The rules don't say. The only thing they say on the subject is that you can't choose to cast a spell below the minimum caster level.

Don't forget to not hold a double standard. Your interpretation would also mean that bonuses to caster level could not be reduced below mcl + bonuses. Meaning a wizard 5 with +10 caster levels from some where would never be able to cast a 3rd level spell below 15 caster levels.

[newguydude1]

no one is saying 1. or 2.....

whatever im just gonna avoid the argument and grab practiced spellcaster.

[DarkSoul]

What happens if you try to cast a spell at -1? Does a duration spell go back in time to apply the spell for the previous amount of time? The rules don't say. The only thing they say on the subject is that you can't choose to cast a spell below the minimum caster level.Assuming you mean caster level -1, then it doesn't go off, obviously.


Don't forget to not hold a double standard. Your interpretation would also mean that bonuses to caster level could not be reduced below mcl + bonuses. Meaning a wizard 5 with +10 caster levels from some where would never be able to cast a 3rd level spell below 15 caster levels.Why not? They're voluntarily lowering their caster level to 5, just like a Wiz 20 could. I'm not seeing a problem, or a double standard.

[Darg]

Assuming you mean caster level -1, then it doesn't go off, obviously.

Where does it say in the rules it doesn't go off or isn't cast?


Why not? They're voluntarily lowering their caster level to 5, just like a Wiz 20 could. I'm not seeing a problem, or a double standard.

If I understood you right, you believe that the only caster level that can be lowered is attributed to your class level. You also posit that choosing your caster level happens prior to the application of any bonuses/penalties. Meaning a Wizard 20 could only ever lower their caster level by 19 levels at the maximum because you only have 20 levels to adjust to with a minimum of 1. Based on order of operations this means you have much less control and flexibility over the power of your spells. (class level - adjustment) + cumulative CL modifier = caster level

The way I have always played is that your total cumulative caster level can be adjusted. The order of operations is that modifiers to caster level are applied prior to casting a spell (especially as it can effect more than simply casting spells) and then you can choose to lower it from the total to the minimum caster level as you cast the spell. This makes it impossible to go lower than the minimum caster level, no negative numbers, and complete control over the caster level of your spells (class level + modifier) - adjustment = caster level

Adjusting the caster level of your spells is not a bonus or penalty. This means that the "most beneficial order" clause of the FAQ does not allow you to apply your bonuses, adjustment, and/or penalties in any order you wish. You either add your modifiers to the caster level before you adjust your caster level or add them after you adjust your caster level. There is no applying your bonuses, reduce caster level to minimum, and then applying penalties.