Putting a cap on maximum caster level

[Arael666]

I believe the playground is very familiar with all kinds of caster level shenanigans and ways to get to very silly/arbitraly high numbers, while my proposition will probably touch and affect said tricks my main objective is to makle a rulling that will impact mostly high level practical optimization. Thus while I would like to hear how and if this rulling will impact say "wish for a CL 1000 scroll o X", I'm more interested in how my rulling would impact a Cleric with reserves of strength, elder giant magic, karma prayer beads, etc.

That beig said, how "fair" is it and how would the game be impacted if I limit the caster level increse to "base caster level" x 0,5? ("base caster level" being defined as caster levels you aquire only by gaining levels in classes that gives spellcasting, like wizard, druid and other prestige classes). Thus, a 10th level spellcaster would only be able to raise his caster level up to 15.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

I assume you're worried about pumping level-based effects of (e.g.) magic vestments/weapon, along with the buffing caster making things difficult to dispel. It's a reasonable limitation, if one I might find irritating, as being dispel-resistant is a must in a high-op game for a buffer. This may cause your buffers to look for alternative solutions which are arguably more problematic, such as spell blades. One compromise solution is to let CL above the cap affect dispel DC but nothing else.

Another way to phrase your house rule is that maximum CL is spellcasting level * 1.5. The one thing I'd definitely tweak is to cap CL at character level * 1.5 instead, so as not to unduly punish multi-classed spellcasters.

[Particle_Man]

Seems fair enough to me, since presumably everyone (including monsters and npcs) will be similarly affected. It might slightly reduce the linear fighter/quadratic wizard issue but only slightly.

[Arael666]

I assume you're worried about pumping level-based effects of (e.g.) magic vestments/weapon, along with the buffing caster making things difficult to dispel. It's a reasonable limitation, if one I might find irritating, as being dispel-resistant is a must in a high-op game for a buffer. This may cause your buffers to look for alternative solutions which are arguably more problematic, such as spell blades. One compromise solution is to let CL above the cap affect dispel DC but nothing else.

Another way to phrase your house rule is that maximum CL is spellcasting level * 1.5. The one thing I'd definitely tweak is to cap CL at character level * 1.5 instead, so as not to unduly punish multi-classed spellcasters.

Yeah, caster level limits should also apply to dispel checks them. Exactly, a level 10 character having long duration buffs equivalent of an epic caster is the main issue. But also blasters pumping their CL breaking limit to roll hundreds of dice. While I have no probleem with buffing a blaster, I would like to keep it to acceptable levels, manyjaws dealing 15d6 at lvl 10 is ok, 36d6 is not.

And I have no problem with tem acquiring spell blades or rings of counterspells, there are several dispell spells and effects where that those would not apply, but I also want them to feel that the investment was worth.

[Particle_Man]

I suppose another limit might be a non-epic ceiling: Non-epic casters don't get a caster level above 20, period. Caster level 21+ is reserved for epic characters.

[Quertus]

Not something people have cared about at my tables, so… I'm not really seeing the *problem* that this is supposed to solve.


The one thing I'd definitely tweak is to cap CL at character level * 1.5 instead, so as not to unduly punish multi-classed spellcasters.

Definitely. An Ogre Cleric 1 is a level 7 character, who can't boost his caster level above 1? That doesn't sound fair.


Seems fair enough to me, since presumably everyone (including monsters and npcs) will be similarly affected.

Do all monsters have a character level? How does it compare to their CR?

Because this sounds to me like, "the monsters are always better than you, hahaha!".

[redking]

Just remove the abilities that result in outright system abuse. You mentioned wishing for items with an absurdly high CL - simply cap the CL to the CL of the wish being cast or used from an item.

As for Reserves of Strength, is your campaign in the Dragonlance setting? This feat opens up a can of worms that could slow down the game. My suggestion is to simply have the feat increase caster level without increasing the cap. Allow the player to choose between being stunned and taking damage.

[Arael666]

Just remove the abilities that result in outright system abuse. You mentioned wishing for items with an absurdly high CL - simply cap the CL to the CL of the wish being cast or used from an item.

As for Reserves of Strength, is your campaign in the Dragonlance setting? This feat opens up a can of worms that could slow down the game. My suggestion is to simply have the feat increase caster level without increasing the cap. Allow the player to choose between being stunned and taking damage.

I don't see a problem with the feat, in fact I quite like it as a way to improve spells in a similar way as augmented psionic powers. The only problem is that you have too many ways to increase caster level, and since this will mostly impact blasters and long duration buffs I think it is a wecomed buff, as long as it stays withing a margin.

I'm gonna go with CL at character level * 1.5, since the argument of it being unfair to multiclass characters makes a lot of sense.

[Fizban]

I'm more interested in how my rulling would impact a Cleric with reserves of strength, elder giant magic, karma prayer beads, etc.

That beig said, how "fair" is it and how would the game be impacted if I limit the caster level increse to "base caster level" x 0,5? ("base caster level" being defined as caster levels you aquire only by gaining levels in classes that gives spellcasting, like wizard, druid and other prestige classes). Thus, a 10th level spellcaster would only be able to raise his caster level up to 15.
Perfectly fair- I guarantee none of the people writing the vast majority of caster level bonuses ever expected them to stack past a few. In fact, I wouldn't even use a +50% ruling: I'd cap it at +5 above your normal.

This allows you to stack several discrete bonuses, while keeping to a limit of what is generally expected for your spells, and only "punishing" those bonuses which were grossly large to begin with. The table of maximum dice for creating new spells (flagrantly violated by quite a number of published spells of course), goes up by +5 every two spell levels. Having +5 caster level cap should be enough to nearly max out your new spells as soon as you get them, without pushing the effects of spells that happen to lack appropriate caps past the point where they were supposed to be capped. And it's just a nice round number.

[Crake]

This may cause your buffers to look for alternative solutions which are arguably more problematic, such as spell blades.

If you play spellblades as they're actually written, which is to say, they only function once, spellblades aren't that problematic.


Perfectly fair- I guarantee none of the people writing the vast majority of caster level bonuses ever expected them to stack past a few. In fact, I wouldn't even use a +50% ruling: I'd cap it at +5 above your normal.

This allows you to stack several discrete bonuses, while keeping to a limit of what is generally expected for your spells, and only "punishing" those bonuses which were grossly large to begin with. The table of maximum dice for creating new spells (flagrantly violated by quite a number of published spells of course), goes up by +5 every two spell levels. Having +5 caster level cap should be enough to nearly max out your new spells as soon as you get them, without pushing the effects of spells that happen to lack appropriate caps past the point where they were supposed to be capped. And it's just a nice round number.

I was thinking a flat +5 as well. The spell with the highest cap afaik is shapechange which inherently caps at 25 HD for the form you transform into, so, pre-epic, being able to at least meet that cap seems like the very minimum of expectations within the game.

[fallensavior]

I've never really bought the reading of Reserves of Strength that lets you break the cap generally rather than just with the bonus from that feat.

If you don't interpret it that way, then I don't think you'll see astronomic CLs in the first place.

[gijoemike]

I have a slight issue with it.


Red Wizard has an ability called spell power - spell power increased the duration, caster level, yadda yadda for all spells the RW casts. It is +1 caster level. Through-out the class you get 5 of this power.

Said RW buys an orange prisim ioun stone. Would you say that the RW cannot use ANY caster level item since he is at this arability cap of +5? The only item that boosts CL that the RW owns is just this ioun stone. What if the RW takes 3 levels of a different prestige class and gets a new +1 cast level ability. They cannot use their new class ability? That is clearly wrong. The +5 cap simply wont work. There are classes in the game that reach that with no item usage.


Now instead use a 50% of caster level cap instead? At level 15 the cap would be 7. It would be extremely easy for certain classes to
reach this without trying. And at level 9 the cap would be 4. A wizard 5 RW 4 is level 9 and already has a +2 effect. There are times at lower level this would be a block. It is better than a flat 5 but still not great.


Maybe have a flat +8? +8 Would cover 5 from a prestige class, 2 from a different source and 1 from an item?

[Crake]

I have a slight issue with it.


Red Wizard has an ability called spell power - spell power increased the duration, caster level, yadda yadda for all spells the RW casts. It is +1 caster level. Through-out the class you get 5 of this power.

Said RW buys an orange prisim ioun stone. Would you say that the RW cannot use ANY caster level item since he is at this arability cap of +5? The only item that boosts CL that the RW owns is just this ioun stone. What if the RW takes 3 levels of a different prestige class and gets a new +1 cast level ability. They cannot use their new class ability? That is clearly wrong. The +5 cap simply wont work. There are classes in the game that reach that with no item usage.


Now instead use a 50% of caster level cap instead? At level 15 the cap would be 7. It would be extremely easy for certain classes to
reach this without trying. And at level 9 the cap would be 4. A wizard 5 RW 4 is level 9 and already has a +2 effect. There are times at lower level this would be a block. It is better than a flat 5 but still not great.


Maybe have a flat +8? +8 Would cover 5 from a prestige class, 2 from a different source and 1 from an item?

It's +5 above normal. A red wizard's "normal" caster level is their casting class levels combined +5, so their cap would be +5 ontop of that.

[Fizban]

Red Wizard has an ability called spell power - spell power increased the duration, caster level, yadda yadda for all spells the RW casts. It is +1 caster level. Through-out the class you get 5 of this power.

Said RW buys an orange prisim ioun stone. Would you say that the RW cannot use ANY caster level item since he is at this arability cap of +5? The only item that boosts CL that the RW owns is just this ioun stone. What if the RW takes 3 levels of a different prestige class and gets a new +1 cast level ability. They cannot use their new class ability? That is clearly wrong. The +5 cap simply wont work. There are classes in the game that reach that with no item usage.
Red Wizard has a giant pile of caster level bonuses because when they nerfed DC bonuses they apparently thought they had to give something back, so they gave out full caster level bonuses instead. Originally it was all DC/SR bonuses. So I would question whether they "deserve" the giant bonus to begin with, and possibly not allow the class in the first place.

If I was accepting the class as "standard," and they were only using this one +1 item, then sure I would probably rule that the bonus from the prestige class is "normal." But if I had only grudgingly allowed it, then I would say no, you're already getting up to +5 for cheap, don't complain that you have to sell caster level bonus items for extra usable cash.

It's also funny, because Red Wizard is one of the main sources of Circle Magic, which is one of the main sources of ridiculous caster level bonuses. So if a Red Wizard not gaining maximum bonus stacking with their class abilities invalidates a ruling, then the entire idea of a cap is already moot.

There are classes in the game that reach that with no item usage.
Which have no bearing on the point of broad rulings meant to fix certain problems. If there happen to be a few classes in the game that run into what is otherwise a completely reasonable cap, then it is those classes with the problem, not the cap. The same as any other broken spell, or feat, or item, or. . .

[Satinavian]

Character level +5 seems a good idea if one wants to limit it.

And yes, that makes Red Wizards significantly worse as boosting CL is their main trick. But if you want to have powerful Red Wizards, you shouldn't implement a CL-limiting houserule in the first place.

[Psyren]

You may want to double check some monsters' SR so that it doesn't effectively become immunity or near-immunity with this cap. With that said, this does make Spell Penetration and similar feats more valuable.