What does it mean to change your caster level? [3.5]

[Duke of Urrel]

What does it mean to change your caster level?

The Rules as Written thread has recently challenged me more than I expected. At first, I thought I could present a clear interpretation of the rules as written that would not require any great creativity or house-ruling, but now, I am not so sure.

The first text in the rulebooks that discusses changes in your caster level appears on page 171 of the Player's Handbook v. 3.5. It also appears in the SRD (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/castingSpells.htm#casterLevel).


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.

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

The Player's Handbook also explains this rule as follows. If you are 10th-level wizard, you can cast the Fireball spell to a range of 800 feet (that's 400 feet plus your caster level times 40 feet) for 10d6 Hit Points of damage (that's your caster level times 1d6 Hit Points). If you choose, you can cast a Fireball at a lower caster level, which reduces both the range of the spell and the damage that it deals. (Indeed, it must reduce both; it cannot reduce one without reducing the other.) However, you can't choose to reduce one but not the other. You also can't cast a Fireball spell with a caster level lower than five, because this is the minimum caster level required for you to cast the spell at all.

This all seems very straightforward and seems to forbid us from casting any spell with a caster level lower than the class level that you need to attain (in a spellcasting class) in order to add this spell to your class list. The rule seems to imply that lowering your caster level effectively entails lowering your class level, or that lowering your caster level is the same thing as lowering your class level.

And this was basically my opinion – at first.

However, the text quoted above may only apply when you lower the caster level of one spell only, with the specific purpose of reducing this spell's caster-level dependent effects: range, duration, damage, and how well the spell overcomes spell resistance. But what happens if something changes the caster level of all your spells, either by raising it or by lowering it?

In particular, what happens if you take the Mage Slayer feat? What happens if you take the Practiced Spellcaster feat? What happens if you take the Disciple of Boccob alternate class feature? All of these things change your caster level for all of your spells, either by raising it or by lowering it. But what does this mean?

I separate this main question into two smaller questions.

First Question: Which is the (implied) general rule?

Is it: (1) that your caster level and your class level as a spellcaster are the same thing, so that you cannot change the former without changing the latter, unless a rule specifies otherwise?

Or is it: (2) that your caster level and your class level are two different things, so that you can change your class level without changing your class level, unless a rule specifies otherwise?

My recent decision to accept the latter rule, rule 2, as the general rule, creates the interpretative challenge of having to distinguish caster level from class level in all written rules. I haven't yet thought through all the consequences of this. Sometimes, the distinction may not even be clear in the RAW. So at this moment, I am questioning the wisdom of my choice to accept rule 2.

Second Question: What does it mean to raise or lower your caster level?

Does this: (1) give you a higher or lower caster level for all intents and purposes, including not only casting spells but also creating magic items?

Or does this: (2) make only the changes that are specifically mentioned in the description of the feat or class feature that raises or lowers your caster level?

*** *** ***

I have a few opinions that I did not mention in the RAW thread, because they didn't belong there.

I believe the Mage Slayer feat should be attractive only for mundanes or perhaps multi-class spellcasters who willingly sacrifice some spellcasting power in exchange for greater power to defeat spellcasters in mêlée combat. I don't believe this feat should be used by spellcasters to create magic items more cheaply. That is not its purpose.

I believe spellcasters are overpowered, or at least not underpowered. Therefore, as a dungeon master, I feel inclined to be very stingy with the benefits of feats and class features that increase the power of spellcasters.

1. If something lowers your caster level, I will tell you that it is lower for all intents and purposes. This includes not only casting spells but also creating magic items.

2. Conversely, if something raises your caster level, I will tell you that this entails only the benefits that are specifically mentioned in the feat or class feature that raises your caster level.

For example, the Disciple of Boccob alternate class feature enables you to cast spells with greater range, duration, damage, and power to overcome spell resistance, and it also enables you to create magic items whose effects have greater range, duration, damage, and power to overcome spell resistance. However, when I am the dungeon master, I will tell you that the Disciple of Boccob class feature does not enable you: (1) to take the Brew Potion feat, the Craft Magic Arms and Armor feat, or the Craft Wondrous Item feat as a second-level spellcaster; (2) to take the Craft Wand feat as a fourth-level spellcaster; (3) to take the Craft Rod feat as an eighth-level spellcaster; or (4) to take the Craft Staff or Forge Ring feat as an eleventh-level spellcaster, because there is no specific mention of these benefits in the description of the Disciple of Boccob alternate class feature.

Although I am stingy, I don't want to be mean.

1. Taking the Mage Slayer feat lowers your caster level by four. Thus, if you are a wizard and the Mage Slayer feat lowers your caster level from eight to four, I will tell you (as the dungeon master) that you cannot cast any third-level or fourth-level spells and that you cannot take the Craft Wand feat (because your caster level is four, not five). However, since your daily spell limit is determined not by your caster level but by your class level as a wizard, I still allow you to cast as many first-level and second-level spells per day as a normal eighth-level wizard can (namely: 4 +Int +spec and 3 +Int +spec, respectively).

2. Taking the Practiced Spellcaster feat raises your caster level by four. According to the description of this feat (on page 82 of Complete Arcane v. 3.5 and on pages 82 and 84 of Complete Divine v. 3.5), taking it does not affect your spells per day or spells known. However, if you already have the Mage Slayer feat, I make it a house rule to allow the Practiced Spellcaster feat to negate this feat's penalty totally. Thus, if you are an eighth-level wizard and you have both the Mage Slayer feat and the Practiced Spellcaster feat, I allow you: (1) to cast third-level and fourth-level spells, (2) to create magic items with a caster level of eight, and (3) to take any Item Creation feat that requires a caster level of no higher than eight as a prerequisite.

*** *** ***

Okay, that's it. I welcome your comments.

[Darg]

First, class level is what determines your ability to cast a spell. Second, minimum caster level is only mentioned for two separate uses: the minimum requirement to craft items and the minimum you can choose to lower your caster level to cast a spell at.


caster level: A measure of the power with which a spellcaster casts a spell. Generally, a spell’s caster level is the spellcaster’s class level.

Your caster level is just a variable used to determine factors of a spells function. It's not part of a spell. It's a statistic just like a character's ability scores.

A 5th level wizard has 5 caster levels. A 5th level wizard with an orange ioun stone has 6 caster levels. A 5th level wizard with an orange ioun stone and mage slayer has 6 caster levels. Why is this? This is because mage slayer doesn't decrease caster level in general. It specifically only modifies caster level for spells and SLAs only. This means you could still craft an item at caster level 6th. You just cast spells and SLAs at caster level - 4.

Disciple of Boccob specifically states that you qualify for item creation feats as if you were higher level. Saying that you can't qualify for Craft Wondrous Items at wizard level 2 nullifies half the benefit of the ACF (not that you can easily get a feat at level 2). And it's not like you can't get general caster level boosts like the ioun stone above to qualify early for theses feats. You can use magic items and spells to qualify for other feats like using +4 str gloves to pick up power attack when you only have 10 str normally. You lose the benefit of the feat if you lose its prerequisites anyways.


1. Taking the Mage Slayer feat lowers your caster level by four. Thus, if you are a wizard and the Mage Slayer feat lowers your caster level from eight to four, I will tell you (as the dungeon master) that you cannot cast any third-level or fourth-level spells and that you cannot take the Craft Wand feat (because your caster level is four, not five). However, since your daily spell limit is determined not by your caster level but by your class level as a wizard, I still allow you to cast as many first-level and second-level spells per day as a normal eighth-level wizard can (namely: 4 +Int +spec and 3 +Int +spec, respectively).

2. Taking the Practiced Spellcaster feat raises your caster level by four. According to the description of this feat (on page 82 of Complete Arcane v. 3.5 and on pages 82 and 84 of Complete Divine v. 3.5), taking it does not affect your spells per day or spells known. However, if you already have the Mage Slayer feat, I make it a house rule to allow the Practiced Spellcaster feat to negate this feat's penalty totally. Thus, if you are an eighth-level wizard and you have both the Mage Slayer feat and the Practiced Spellcaster feat, I allow you: (1) to cast third-level and fourth-level spells, (2) to create magic items with a caster level of eight, and (3) to take any Item Creation feat that requires a caster level of no higher than eight as a prerequisite.

There is no rule that states you can't cast spells below the minimum caster level. The only rule is that you can't choose to lower the caster level of a spell below the minimum. If you want to prevent something like DMM+persist on higher level spells you don't need to use caster level, just read the rules literally. Metamagic increases the level of the spell and thus the class level needed to cast the spell; slot reducers or things similar to DMM only reduce the slot cost aspect, not the spell level.

Yes, practiced spellcaster and mage slayer cancel each other. However let's look at how they interact. A fighter 10/wizard 10 has mage slayer and practiced spellcaster. The character has 14 caster levels and can craft items and use staves at caster level 14 (items use spell-like effects) while they can only cast their own spells at caster level 10.

[Duke of Urrel]

Sorry for my long absence! I appreciate the input, Darg, and I think I have come around to agree with you.


First, class level is what determines your ability to cast a spell. Second, minimum caster level is only mentioned for two separate uses: the minimum requirement to craft items and the minimum you can choose to lower your caster level to cast a spell at.

At long last, I have decided to treat your class level as a spellcaster and your caster level as two different and separate things. Thus, when you lower your caster level by taking the Mage Slayer feat, or when you raise it by taking the Disciple of Boccob feat or the Practiced Spellcaster feat, you change only your caster level and not your class level as a spellcaster. Also, if you take two feats and one raises your caster level and the other lowers it, the two effects should stack with each other. And if you take both the Disciple of Boccob feat and the Practiced Spellcaster feat, the bonuses should stack, because the sources are different.

All these feats increase or decrease the effects of spells that depend on your caster level – that is, range, duration, damage, and power to overcome spell resistance.

All these feats increase or decrease the caster level of magic items that you create. (Thus, the Mage Slayer feat enables you to create magic items that are unusually cheap, provided that they are also unusually weak.) These feats may also enable you to take an Item Creation feat at a lower class level or forbid you take one until you attain a higher class level as a spellcaster.

In contrast, these feats do not increase or decrease the number of spells that you can cast per day, and they do not increase or decrease the number of spells that you know. These things depend on your class level as a spellcaster, as distinct from your caster level.

The question of what happens if your caster level is no higher than four when you take the Mage Slayer feat – which reduces your caster level by four – still needs an answer, and this answer probably needs to be a house rule. Either: (1) we can say that reducing your caster level to zero or below makes you unable to cast spells or create magic items at all, or: (2) we can make a house rule that the Mage Slayer feat can't reduce your caster level to any number lower than one.

I don't have a strong opinion either way. However, I now lean toward the house rule that the Mage Slayer feat can't reduce your caster level to any number lower than one. The reason for this is the following rule (https://www.d20srd.org/srd/specialAbilities.htm#spellLikeAbilities) that appears on page 315 of the Monster Manual v. 3.5.

The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name.


I interpret this to mean that no matter how low your caster level sinks, and even if it sinks below zero, you still get to keep all your spell-like abilities. I feel that I might as well allow you to keep all your spells, too, no matter how low your caster level sinks. However, it is absurd to try to modify a spell so that its caster level is zero or lower. This creates parity between spells and spell-like abilities, which I think is a good idea, though dungeon masters may disagree. So I think it proper to make a house rule that the Mage Slayer feat simply can't reduce your caster level to any number lower than one.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I see it as such:

Your effective class level for spells/day and the highest level spells you can cast (which we'll call spellcaster level) is not the same thing as your caster level which changes level-dependent variables of your spells such as range and damage. Increasing your spellcaster level increases your caster level, but increasing or decreasing your caster level has no impact on your spellcaster level.

A prestige class that grants "+1 level of existing spellcasting class" increases your spellcaster level, and increasing your spellcaster level also increases your caster level. Gaining a bonus to your caster level, whether from Practiced Spellcaster or an Orange Prism Ioun Stone or similar, does not increase your spellcaster level and thus it does not increase your spells/day or the highest level spells you're able to cast.

The only exception to the above is the Ardent class, which determines the highest level powers it can learn and manifest based on its manifester level (i.e. caster level) rather than its effective class level (i.e. spellcaster level). This is an exception to the rule, i.e. every other spellcasting class in the game uses its effective class level, regardless of caster level, to determine spells/day and the highest level spells you're able to cast. Keep in mind if you take Mage Slayer or similar and your caster level is lower than your spellcaster level, you can still learn and prepare the highest level spells your effective class level permits, but may not be able to ever cast those spells due to your reduced caster level.

Magic item creation in the DMG was updated with the errata, the current verbiage is in the SRD (https://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.

[Crake]

1. Taking the Mage Slayer feat lowers your caster level by four. Thus, if you are a wizard and the Mage Slayer feat lowers your caster level from eight to four, I will tell you (as the dungeon master) that you cannot cast any third-level or fourth-level spells and that you cannot take the Craft Wand feat (because your caster level is four, not five). However, since your daily spell limit is determined not by your caster level but by your class level as a wizard, I still allow you to cast as many first-level and second-level spells per day as a normal eighth-level wizard can (namely: 4 +Int +spec and 3 +Int +spec, respectively).

They would also still get their 3rd and 4th level spell slots, but would be restricted to only casting 1st and 2nd level spells from them in this interpretation.

However, Im not entirely convinced that this works in such a way, otherwise negative levels suddenly become INCREDIBLY powerful against spellcasters. Imagine being hit by a enervation and suddenly losing access to your top two spell levels? That seems far too invasive in terms of effectiveness and just bookkeeping as well.

I believe the “minimum caster level” rule only effectively applies when voluntarily lowering your caster level, but when the caster level is forced down, then it is not applicable.

As for magic item crafting, the magic item creation rules DO on the other hand specify that the CL of items like scrolls and wands NEED to meet the minimum CL requirements, just like voluntarily lowering CL does, so you cant use mage slayer to lower the cost of scrolls and wands below what they should be.

[Vaern]

They would also still get their 3rd and 4th level spell slots, but would be restricted to only casting 1st and 2nd level spells from them in this interpretation.

However, Im not entirely convinced that this works in such a way, otherwise negative levels suddenly become INCREDIBLY powerful against spellcasters. Imagine being hit by a enervation and suddenly losing access to your top two spell levels? That seems far too invasive in terms of effectiveness and just bookkeeping as well.

I'd agree that the bookkeeping could be annoying, but I'd argue against it being too invasive in terms of effectiveness. If offered the choice between losing half of my spell selection but still being allowed to act versus keeping all of my spells but not being allowed to actually play the game, I'd still prefer to tank shots from enervation even under the harsher interpretation of negative levels' effects than be hit by hold person, or deep slumber, or hideous laughter, or resilient sphere, or ghoul touch, or bestow curse (50% chance to take no action), or confusion (10% chance of taking your turn normally), or phantasmal killer (save twice or die) - and these are just the core options available at the same level as enervation or lower.

[Crake]

I'd agree that the bookkeeping could be annoying, but I'd argue against it being too invasive in terms of effectiveness. If offered the choice between losing half of my spell selection but still being allowed to act versus keeping all of my spells but not being allowed to actually play the game, I'd still prefer to tank shots from enervation even under the harsher interpretation of negative levels' effects than be hit by hold person, or deep slumber, or hideous laughter, or resilient sphere, or ghoul touch, or bestow curse (50% chance to take no action), or confusion (10% chance of taking your turn normally), or phantasmal killer (save twice or die) - and these are just the core options available at the same level as enervation or lower.

Right, but those all only last for the combat at most, wheras enervation screws you for the rest of the day. Enervation is also quite easily the easiest to hit out of all of those.

Also phantasmal killer is save once out of two or die, rather different from save twice or die :P

[Vaern]

Right, but those all only last for the combat at most, wheras enervation screws you for the rest of the day. Enervation is also quite easily the easiest to hit out of all of those.

For some reason I was thinking enervation had a fortitude save attached to it. Enervation's negative levels are at least dispelled by restoration, which is available at the same level. It's common to see spells come into play with an answer introduced at the same spell level, with blindness/deafness and bestow curse coming alongside remove blindness/deafness and remove curse. If we look just one spell level higher than enervation, though, we find feeblemind.
It's still a bit more difficult to hit since it does allow a saving throw (which arcane casters get a penalty against), but it's notably more difficult to counteract and is tailor-made to remove casters from the game indefinitely by stripping their spellcasting ability, removing their ability to communicate intelligibly, and nerfing their intelligence to the point that they're no longer considered a playable character. The notable difference between this and nearly every other long-term debuff is that the spell which counters its effect, heal, is only available at higher levels than feeblemind itself. This means if your party's 9th-level caster gets feebleminded by a wizard in a 9th-level dungeon, he's useless until the party finishes the dungeon because the cleric doesn't have an answer to the debuff for two more levels (and druids still don't get it for another 2 more levels after that). The standard counters to feeblemind are gaining blanket immunity in one way or another with, mind blank being considered an essential for blocking mind-affecting spells... but this particular defense requires access to a spell three levels higher than feeblemind itself.


Also phantasmal killer is save once out of two or die, rather different from save twice or die :P

Whoops. I know what I meant, I just lost what I was trying to say while trying to keep it short xD

[lesser_minion]

Right, but those all only last for the combat at most, wheras enervation screws you for the rest of the day. Enervation is also quite easily the easiest to hit out of all of those.

Also phantasmal killer is save once out of two or die, rather different from save twice or die :P

Negative levels are a replacement for just taking actual levels away on the spot. I don't think they're intended to be any softer (that's also why it's possible for the stat penalties to overtake what your last few levels gave you).

[Crake]

Negative levels are a replacement for just taking actual levels away on the spot. I don't think they're intended to be any softer (that's also why it's possible for the stat penalties to overtake what your last few levels gave you).

Right, but they're also just penalties, not meant to take away your abilities. For example, the attack penalty doesn't reduce your bonus attacks from high BAB, and nobody else loses class features, which is pretty much exactly what spells are for casters. For some of them, their spells are their ONLY class feature.

[Darg]

For some reason I was thinking enervation had a fortitude save attached to it. Enervation's negative levels are at least dispelled by restoration, which is available at the same level. It's common to see spells come into play with an answer introduced at the same spell level, with blindness/deafness and bestow curse coming alongside remove blindness/deafness and remove curse. If we look just one spell level higher than enervation, though, we find feeblemind.
It's still a bit more difficult to hit since it does allow a saving throw (which arcane casters get a penalty against), but it's notably more difficult to counteract and is tailor-made to remove casters from the game indefinitely by stripping their spellcasting ability, removing their ability to communicate intelligibly, and nerfing their intelligence to the point that they're no longer considered a playable character. The notable difference between this and nearly every other long-term debuff is that the spell which counters its effect, heal, is only available at higher levels than feeblemind itself. This means if your party's 9th-level caster gets feebleminded by a wizard in a 9th-level dungeon, he's useless until the party finishes the dungeon because the cleric doesn't have an answer to the debuff for two more levels (and druids still don't get it for another 2 more levels after that). The standard counters to feeblemind are gaining blanket immunity in one way or another with, mind blank being considered an essential for blocking mind-affecting spells... but this particular defense requires access to a spell three levels higher than feeblemind itself.

Break enchantment is level 5 and is the same level as feeblemind. Feeblemind is an enchantment. Ergo, the cure is the same level.


Right, but they're also just penalties, not meant to take away your abilities. For example, the attack penalty doesn't reduce your bonus attacks from high BAB, and nobody else loses class features, which is pretty much exactly what spells are for casters. For some of them, their spells are their ONLY class feature.

That may be so, but casters get so many "class features" by comparison that not having a counter to the excess seems silly.

[lesser_minion]

Right, but they're also just penalties, not meant to take away your abilities. For example, the attack penalty doesn't reduce your bonus attacks from high BAB, and nobody else loses class features, which is pretty much exactly what spells are for casters. For some of them, their spells are their ONLY class feature.

Spellcasters have the most options for both preventing and curing conditions, so I'm not sure it's necessarily a problem if some conditions are worse for them. A -4 to all attack rolls, saving throws, and checks for 7 hours also still hurts basically anyone else, even if non-casters technically keep a bit more of their stuff.

[redking]

However, Im not entirely convinced that this works in such a way, otherwise negative levels suddenly become INCREDIBLY powerful against spellcasters. Imagine being hit by a enervation and suddenly losing access to your top two spell levels? That seems far too invasive in terms of effectiveness and just bookkeeping as well.

I believe the “minimum caster level” rule only effectively applies when voluntarily lowering your caster level, but when the caster level is forced down, then it is not applicable.

My objection is to the extra bookkeeping burden. Anything that requires the table to stop for a while is a huge no-no. It also occurs to me that a caster level debuff is punishment enough.

[Vaern]

Break enchantment is level 5 and is the same level as feeblemind. Feeblemind is an enchantment. Ergo, the cure is the same level.

Huh. In the past I've always just dismissed it as being something of a variant of dispel magic that only affects specific types of magic. I guess I've just never registered the rather significant bit about it being able to reverse even instantaneous effects.

[St Fan]

Actually, it is much worse than you think. There are at least FIVE different "level" stats that you may expect to be equal at first glance for a character, but can all be distinguished and possibly have different values:


Character Level
Hit Dices
Class Level
Spellcaster Level
Caster Level


Hit dices are generally equal to character levels, but some monster races can have bonus HD, and some creatures can have a different total (familiars, for example, are treated as if their HD are equal to the master's character level).

For spellcasters, class levels are equal to spellcaster levels and caster levels, but only if they stick to the basic level progression.

Taking a prestige class that gives "+1 level of wizard spellcasting ability" will raise your spellcaster level (and caster level) but not your class level. A 5th-level Wizard taking 5 level of such a prestige class will be a 10th-level spellcaster, but still a 5th-level Wizard for other abilities (bonus feat, familiar, etc.).

Something modifying your class level but not your spellcaster level is rarer, but it does exist: Bloodline Levels (from Unearthed Arcana) can increase your class levels (and your caster levels) but specifically don't grant new spells, hence leaving the spellcaster level untouched.

And they were mentioned, but modifiers to your caster level are a-plenty. They might, indeed, not all apply strictly to the same thing. Most only concern a strict category of spells when you cast them (like Master Spellthief, which concern arcane spells only), and thus wouldn't be of concern for caster level matters outside of spellcasting (like minimum caster level for Item Creation feats). Disciple of Boccob concern strictly magic items, not spells. Bloodline Levels would concern both.

By the way, the OP is mistaken about combining Mage Slayer and Practiced Spellcaster: this doesn't remove the penalty for Mage Slayer entirely. Practiced Spellcaster only concern ONE class. Spells from another class would still be penalized (unless Practiced Spellcaster is taken more than once). And spell-like abilities independent of class will always be.

EDIT:

By the by, to add to the "minimum caster level to cast a spell" debate, I will provide the one exception to it, which incidentally seems to confirm the rule: the Precocious Apprentice feat.

Which includes this text: "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."

This strongly implies that, under normal circumstances (Precocious Apprentice being the only known exception), you cannot cast a 2nd-level arcane spell with a caster level below 3 (for a wizard or wu jen) or 4 (for a sorcerer or bard). Thus, it seems a caster level penalty would indeed prevent casting spells of a given level if said caster level is pushing below the minimum (for the class at a given spell level) -- just like a penalty to the spellcasting stat does, in fact.