Okay, so I fully understand how negative levels affect spellcasting and attacks, skills, etc. but what about the rest? So, going to give an extreme example just to be 100% clear how such a character would be affected.
Say I am a Level 20 Witch (white-hair) Level 5 Gunslinger (techslinger) and 10 Mythic Marshal. (Yes, I am aware this is an 'epic' optional character... figured I'd add that extra 5 to witch because I DO use that optional rule that the only cap is class 20)
I am suffering a divine curse that can't be easily removed... It gives me a whopping 20 negative levels (over the course of the campaign, the levels will be slowly removed when the 'deity' that laid the curse deems it)
So, how would I be affected beyond the obvious -20 on all my attacks, CMB, etc?
Would I lose levels on my familiar? Would I LOSE my improved familiar? WOuld I lose feats, would I lose the ability to grab someone with my hair and pull them closer to me and shoot them in the face?
How would it affect the Mythic Marshal abilties, if at all (remember, it's a DIVINE curse laid by a deity... the negative levels cannot be removed until the deity who laid the curse decides I've learned my lesson)
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You started by stating that you "fully understand" but then you misrepresented the rule later in your post. Here it is:
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.
Note: I hope you have a good CON or you rolled well. If not these negative levels might kill you immediately. If you have a 10 CON, started as a Gunslinger, and had perfectly average rolls, you have 8 + (4 x 4.5) + (20 x 3.5) = 8 + 18 + 70 = 96 HP, but you will be losing 100 HP from the negative levels, so you are at -4 HP, fully healed. I don't know if there is a rule for what happens when your MAXIMUM HP is a negative number. You're either dead or stabilized at -4 with no way to get back to a non-negative HP value so either way, you're not doing anything useful anymore.
Even if you have a decent CON and have more than 100 HP, once you lose 100 HP and you have only, what, 50 HP, maybe 100 HP, you will be very easy to kill. One-shotted by any CR25 creature out there. Try to stay out of danger.
As I read it, you don't lose any PREPARED spells or slots, but you are "treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed". So you still have all your spell slots and can prepare spells in them (as this is not a "level-dependent variable", but if you tried to cast, say, Fireball, it would do ZERO d6 of damage (your witch level is 20-20=0). OK, I don't think fireball is on the witch list, but it's a simple example that everyone can understand.
Other people argue that negative levels work differently for spellcasters. I see their point. There are some very high level spells you would have access to that have NO "level-dependent variables" and so you could still be useful (far, far, FAR more useful than a martial character with -20 levels). Which seems unfair. If martials are crippled by uselessness, casters should be too. Sadly, to me, this is not the case. If your GM feels the same way, you might be marginally useful.
Class abilities are not lost. You don't lose your familiar and you can still use EVERY feat you have, even those with level pre-reqs, because those are not variables.
You are -20 on your attack rolls with guns, and on your attack rolls with Ray spells. You will never make any Saving Throw you attempt (I'm assuming with 25 levels AND 10 mythic tiers that you're fighting some deadly stuff) and skills harder than "I weave a basket" will mostly be beyond you.
But at least you're still a witch20/gunslinger5 with all your class abilities and feats, so you can probably find something to do. Until a dragon sneezes on you and knocks you down to -150 HP with no chance to make the REF save.
Hopefully that helps clear it up.
Yes, she has a pretty good CON plus other stuff. She still has 107 HP.
Also, as for what she is fighting, yeah part of the out of game reason for this 'curse' is to totally BONE her without having to completely remake her at level 1 because the player likes her (which is why I am using her) and yet actually remaking her at level 1 just isn't feasible with her background. She's a Space Pirate from the Alpha Centauri system who was shot down over Golarion running from the minions of a deity she pissed off. Hence the 20 negative levels that only that deity can remove. (Basically, as the player levels up, she'll lose negative levels, starting when the player is 6)
It's a single player Carrion Crown game (I'll probably make it Mythic too, or at least the player be Mythic just to boost since I only have the one player and two NPCs (the other is level 1 no problem)
A lot of her early time will be spent muttering under her breath about being stuck on a backwater planet and mostly using lower level stuff just for the sake of balance like you mentioned about high level spells still being useful yet broken (I'm the GM). :D
AND like you said, her saving throws are HOSED... that's actually funny... Fort -5 Ref -2 Will -4.
Oh and as for Fireball, no she doesn't have Fireball but "Elements" patron witches do. Hehe. But yeah, good example either way. :D
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You started by stating that you "fully understand" but then you misrepresented the rule later in your post. Here it is:
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.Note: I hope you have a good CON or you rolled well. If not these negative levels might kill you immediately. If you have a 10 CON, started as a Gunslinger, and had perfectly average rolls, you have 8 + (4 x 4.5) + (20 x 3.5) = 8 + 18 + 70 = 96 HP, but you will be losing 100 HP from the negative levels, so you are at -4 HP, fully healed. I don't know if there is a rule for what happens when your MAXIMUM HP is a negative number. You're either dead or stabilized at -4 with no way to get back to a non-negative HP value so either way, you're not doing anything useful anymore.
Comatose characters FTW.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels never make you lose class features. When you gain an ability at Xth level, you keep it forever. The only way you can lose a class feature is if you fall under an effect that specifically says you lose it. For example, amnesia or the baleful polymorph spell.
Variables refer to caster levels and anything that has numerical effects based on level. For example, if you have an ability with a duration or damage measured in class levels, that gets affected.
I don't think your caster level can go below 1 though.
Negative levels never make you lose class features. When you gain an ability at Xth level, you keep it forever. The only way you can lose a class feature is if you fall under an effect that specifically says you lose it. For example, amnesia or the baleful polymorph spell.
Variables refer to caster levels and anything that has numerical effects based on level. For example, if you have an ability with a duration or damage measured in class levels, that gets affected.
I don't think your caster level can go below 1 though.
I don't recall ever seeing a limit on penalties anywhere so I don't know that I agree with that last bit.
As a multiclass you could essentially lose access to any spell with a level dependant variable with enough negative levels to push you past CL but not to death, at least RAW.
I don't actually think that you completely lose level dependent variable spells. I think the game is based on the assumption that you cannot have a caster level of zero or negative numbers. Though the rules don't explicitly mention is, it doesn't mean that RAW implies a 0d6 fireball if only for the reason what would a -1d6 fireball be?
If you don't die from the negative levels and since the text doesn't explicitly discuss a zero or negative caster level I believe the only sensible approach is to have caster level of 1 basement. To be clear, there is no explicit rule on this one way or another so when people inevitably respond this isn't RAW; no other approach is either. Be sensible, don't introduce nonsense concepts like 0d6 or -1d6 into the game by the implication of the absence of specific text otherwise.
Negative damage would be healing. That is obviously not anywhere in the cards with this situation.
Having a caster level of 0 or less means that certain effects end immediately because 0 rounds and the like.
As mentioned before, there are spells that this wouldn't be an issue for, but they would be very limited by the situation.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Skylancer4, that doesn't make any sense.
It makes more sense that CL 1 is the lowest because that's the caster level a spellcaster begins with.
Yeah a zero caster level just isn't a thing. Normally you'd automatically be incapacitated before you hit a zero caster level, so it is not considered in the rules; but where in the text does it ever say you can have a caster level of zero.
Where does it say you are unable to have a caster level below 1?
I would posit it was considered which is why it was listed as a penalty and explained in such detail as to what the adjustment meant to spell casters.
Some spells have that built in +1/CL minimum of 1 but that doesn't mean that somehow there is an unwritten minimum caster level of one.
It just means you plug the number in and if it is 0, or less you are screwed for the majority of spells that reference CL. Which is the point of negative levels, no?
Skylancer4, that doesn't make any sense.
It makes more sense that CL 1 is the lowest because that's the caster level a spellcaster begins with.
It makes enough sense that I wasn't the first person to mention it.
What you see as sensible and others see as sensible are obviously not the same.
The rules state you have a number, you plug the number in for certain equations and get a result.
If the the equation is 1 round a level, and your caster level is -1 what makes sense is the spell ends immediately as the duration has become non-existent. At least from math and apparently the negative level rules.
A CL 0 doesn't make sense because the game's math doesn't consider that scenario. It always assumes that a spellcaster has at least 1 CL. If the game is built and written on that logic, then it should be played with that assumption.
Also, it's impossible to cast a spell at CL 0. The rules specifically say you cannot cast a spell at a caster level lower than required to do so. This seems like a serious oversight with your above arguments.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There was a time when nobody had ever heard of zero. The Greeks philosophers believed that it was impossible to have something that is nothing and therefore zero was not a number and not used mathematically. The Romans didn't figure out zero until the 6th century.
It took Middle Eastern Arabs to show these great civilizations, and everyone else, the value of zero.
Today, we can use zero in our math. In fact, we're expected to.
20 - 20 = 0. Not 1. Zero.
If there IS a rule that says the lowest caster level is 1, I have not heard of it. Please, trot it out?
Until then, it seems to simply be a matter of math.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No. The burden is on your nonsensical interpretation. Show any of us one example of caster level 0 existing and coming into play; particular since the caster maintains all spells as a class feature and this interpretation would invalidate that in many cases. Let's see some text proving caster level 0 is a possibility.There was a time when nobody had ever heard of zero. The Greeks philosophers believed that it was impossible to have something that is nothing and therefore zero was not a number and not used mathematically. The Romans didn't figure out zero until the 6th century.
It took Middle Eastern Arabs to show these great civilizations, and everyone else, the value of zero.
Today, we can use zero in our math. In fact, we're expected to.
20 - 20 = 0. Not 1. Zero.
If there IS a rule that says the lowest caster level is 1, I have not heard of it. Please, trot it out?
Until then, it seems to simply be a matter of math.
Easy.
The OP has the perfect example. A multiclass caster gets a number of negative levels equal to his casting class (in this case 20). Because his negative levels do not equal his character level, he doesn't die.
The Negative Energy and Level Drain rule quote I posted earlier everything you need to know. You subtract the number of negative levels from level dependent variables. Fireball produces an explosion that does 1d6 damage per caster level. This is a level dependent variable. A 20th level caster produces a 10d6 fireball. A 20th level caster with 20 negative levels produces a 0d6 fireball because 20 - 20 = 0.
Simple math.
No actual rule anywhere in the core book that says NOT to use math, but there is a rule in the core book that says EXPLICITLY to use math. I quoted this rule in my first post.
The EXISTING rule to use math trumps the lack of any rule to not use math, so, yeah. Math.
You don't need 20-20 vision to see this...
the caster maintains all spells as a class feature and this interpretation would invalidate that in many cases.
Of course he maintains all spells as a class feature. I have already said this earlier.
Some spells don't even HAVE level dependent variables, so as long as he sticks with those, he'll be just fine. But the ones that do will be fully, not partially, affected by the rule I've quoted.
I don't see how anything is invalidated. He just sticks to the usable spells and can make full use of his class feature. Sadly, the useless spells will have to wait until he removes some of his negative levels. This does not invalidate the class feature, but it might limit the class feature.
You know, like the negative levels do. They limit things. Explicitly.
No. The burden is on your nonsensical interpretation. Show any of us one example of caster level 0 existing and coming into play; particular since the caster maintains all spells as a class feature and this interpretation would invalidate that in many cases. Let's see some text proving caster level 0 is a possibility.
A level 1 Fighter?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I'm a level 19 Fighter and Level 1 Cleric, and I get 19 negative levels, do I have a caster level of -18?
If I'm a level 19 Fighter and Level 1 Cleric, and I get 19 negative levels, do I have a caster level of -18?
A fun question. Yes. Per math. Well, you're treated as 19 levels lower for purposes of level-dependent variables. If you cast a Magic Missile, you get 1 missile per 2 levels. That means you get -9 missiles. Which is meaningless in real world terms and in fantasy world terms.
While it is possible to have zero of a thing, it's impossible to have negative amounts of a thing. At best you can only have a debt equal to our negative amount of that thing. While you can owe a bank or creditor a debt, you cannot owe your spellbook (or your enemies) a debt of 9 Magic Missiles.
Ergo, it makes sense to me that we're limited to Whole numbers here, which includes zero but not negative numbers. Unless we can find debt mechanics for spell effects. Or even define them logically.
But of course, that isn't RAW. It's just my opinion. If some GM wanted to rule that firing -9 Magic Missiles at an enemy means the enemy really fires 9 Magic Missiles at YOU, well, then so be it. Maybe that's how magic works.
Edit: Dang, you said cleric.
So, yeah, Cure Light Wounds at -18 caster levels means you heal 1d8-18 HP (maximum +5 which doesn't really apply here). So, will you actually damage the guy you wanted to heal, or will you just heal for 0? Only your GM can possibly know...
Technically yes, but for most purposes it won't have any different effect than caster level 0. It will affect a spell with a duration something like 10 minutes +1 minute/level (i think i recall seeing something like that).
No actual rule anywhere in the core book that says NOT to use math, but there is a rule in the core book that says EXPLICITLY to use math. I quoted this rule in my first post.
The EXISTING rule to use math trumps the lack of any rule to not use math, so, yeah. Math.
You don't need 20-20 vision to see this...
Math?
All of the game's math assumes that caster level is a value equal-to-or-greater than 1. Since by your admission there exists no rule or precedent that says you can have a caster level of zero, we have to follow that assumption. That's common sense.
Finally, you cannot cast spells at CL 0. The rules specifically say you cannot cast a spell below the minimum CL needed to cast it. You can't even cast a cantrip at CL 0. If you're suggesting you can still cast a spell at a caster level lower than 1, you're blatantly making drek up, which completely undermines your credibility in rules knowledge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative Levels do not alter in any way the actual CL of a character. Only the variables are calculated as if the level was lower.
The saving throw minuses are going to hose the character pretty thoroughly, especially in Carrion Crown. No spells (q.v. CL 0), or rather, almost no spells. The familiar is a 0 level improved familiar (i.e., improved familiar with 1/2 hp et al but none of the familiar bonuses since the character's effective Wizard level is 0). Skill ranks benefit the familiar greatly (up to 25 ranks of a given skill - the familiar doesn't have any negative levels) and it will use its own positive saves bonuses for a good while. Barring Boon Companion or the like that increases effective wizard level for the familiar of course.
Level-dependant variables don't interact often with mythic, so those 10 tiers of mythic Marshall are going to be the only thing keeping the character around. Even those I don't believe change the penalties, but the character is hosed as soon as it takes any significant ability damage, depending upon the Marshal abilities/mythic dooflichies.
This character won't have many useful spells, so it will be in deep doodoo when it attains "dying". That -20 penalty on Constitution checks in combination with the standard rules to stabilize while dying ... ouch. I do hope that familiar can use wands.
While the character can only be killed by artifacts/mythic monsters, I don't know if those rules address death by non-hp means. Otherwise, I suppose the character is looking at "Waking up Dead" a lot.
An interesting scenario, to be sure.
No actual rule anywhere in the core book that says NOT to use math, but there is a rule in the core book that says EXPLICITLY to use math. I quoted this rule in my first post.
The EXISTING rule to use math trumps the lack of any rule to not use math, so, yeah. Math.
You don't need 20-20 vision to see this...
Math?
All of the game's math assumes that caster level is a value equal-to-or-greater than 1. Since by your admission there exists no rule or precedent that says you can have a caster level of zero, we have to follow that assumption. That's common sense.
Finally, you cannot cast spells at CL 0. The rules specifically say you cannot cast a spell below the minimum CL needed to cast it. You can't even cast a cantrip at CL 0. If you're suggesting you can still cast a spell at a caster level lower than 1, you're blatantly making drek up, which completely undermines your credibility in rules knowledge.
Blantently stating that there is a minimum CL of 1 with no rules suggesting anything of the sort undermines any credibility of yours as well. What is your point?
For someone with a Superstar title, it would seem you have really missed the mark on actual rules discussions VS your take on how the rules should be.
Actually we have a precedent of caster levels below 0. Paladins, rangers and any other class with a CL of -x.
They are unable to use wands and the like until they have an positive caster level and can actually cast spells.
So I guess that makes the CORE rules, impossible, nonsensical, drekish, made up and whatever else you called having a negative CL.
But yet there it is RAW.
The reason the OP's character could cast is they actually have a CL, but the negative level penalty brings the variables dependant on CL (not CL) to 0 or below. Two completely distinct items.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No actual rule anywhere in the core book that says NOT to use math, but there is a rule in the core book that says EXPLICITLY to use math. I quoted this rule in my first post.
The EXISTING rule to use math trumps the lack of any rule to not use math, so, yeah. Math.
You don't need 20-20 vision to see this...
Math?
All of the game's math assumes that caster level is a value equal-to-or-greater than 1. Since by your admission there exists no rule or precedent that says you can have a caster level of zero, we have to follow that assumption. That's common sense.
Finally, you cannot cast spells at CL 0. The rules specifically say you cannot cast a spell below the minimum CL needed to cast it. You can't even cast a cantrip at CL 0. If you're suggesting you can still cast a spell at a caster level lower than 1, you're blatantly making drek up, which completely undermines your credibility in rules knowledge.
Interesting.
I've said more than once that there isn't a rule about this at all. How does admitting that there's no rule about this undermine my credibility?
And I've quoted the rule that says you subtract your negative levels from your caster level for all level-dependent variables. That's black and white, it's in the core rulebook. There's no denying that.
It doesn't say to subtract some of your negative levels but not all. It doesn't say to subtract only a number of negative levels equal to your caster level -1. It has no limits applied. So you just subtract your negative levels. All of them. As instructed by the rulebook.
If reading the rulebook, quoting the rule, and explaining it undermines my credibility, then wow, Jason Bulmahn's credibility must be at an all time low because he does that all the time. Me, I would have assumed that misunderstanding, misquoting, or misrepresenting the rules would be the only way to undermine credibility, but I've done none of that, so I think my credibility remains intact.
And for the record, I've never said the Op would have a caster level of 0. I've only said that his total number of negative levels (20) would be subtracted from his caster level (20) for all level-dependent variables which means those variables would be calculated as if his caster level were 0. For all other things spell-related that are not level-dependent variables, he still has a caster level of 20.
By RAW.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
<snip>
Note: I hope you have a good CON or you rolled well. If not these negative levels might kill you immediately. If you have a 10 CON, started as a Gunslinger, and had perfectly average rolls, you have 8 + (4 x 4.5) + (20 x 3.5) = 8 + 18 + 70 = 96 HP, but you will be losing 100 HP from the negative levels, so you are at -4 HP, fully healed. I don't know if there is a rule for what happens when your MAXIMUM HP is a negative number. You're either dead or stabilized at -4 with no way to get back to a non-negative HP value so either way, you're not doing anything useful anymore.
<snip>
Just to stir things up...
Contingency False Life, followed by Heroes Feast twice a day (or extended) Is enough temp HP to put the character over 0hp.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And actually your CL does not go down. That is not a level dependent variable and because it SPECIFICALLY SAYS YOU KEEP YOUR SPELL SLOTS AND PREPARED SPELLS. Which means you can still cast them and even memorize them again... You'll just more than likely suck mothballs at it because the level-dependent variables are reduced. So, as one person said... Cure Light Wounds? 1d8-20. Maybe a minimum 1? Spells technically do have that caveat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually we have a precedent of caster levels below 0. Paladins, rangers and any other class with a CL of -x.
They are unable to use wands and the like until they have an positive caster level and can actually cast spells.
Incorrect. Wands can be used even if you can't cast spells yet. Paladins are even listed as an example.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.
They can also use scrolls. It just requires a caster level check equal to the scrolls caster level +1.
Actually we have a precedent of caster levels below 0. Paladins, rangers and any other class with a CL of -x.
They are unable to use wands and the like until they have an positive caster level and can actually cast spells.
Incorrect. Wands can be used even if you can't cast spells yet. Paladins are even listed as an example.
Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it's even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Spell trigger items can be used by anyone whose class can cast the corresponding spell. This is the case even for a character who can't actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin. The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity.They can also use scrolls. It just requires a caster level check equal to the scrolls caster level +1.
Hmm, I know there is a FAQ/Dev quote out there in regards to something the delayed casters are unable to do until they have cleared the CL penalty. I thought it was wands. Guess not, and not worth looking up as it isn't really on topic.
Regardless it doesn't have any effect on the actual point at hand, negative CL is actually a core mechanic.
Regardless it doesn't have any effect on the actual point at hand, negative CL is actually a core mechanic.
No, it isn't.
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.
Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.
At the levels rangers and paladins would have a negative caster level, the rules specifically say they do not have a caster level. I would assume that similar classes have similar wordings. Which does mean my last post could be partly wrong, and they can't use scrolls (which requires a caster level check).
Regardless it doesn't have any effect on the actual point at hand, negative CL is actually a core mechanic.No, it isn't.
Through 3rd level, a paladin has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, her caster level is equal to her paladin level – 3.Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3.At the levels rangers and paladins would have a negative caster level, the rules specifically say they do not have a caster level. I would assume that similar classes have similar wordings. Which does mean my last post could be partly wrong, and they can't use scrolls (which requires a caster level check).
Actually it is, it shows that there are mechanics that have negatives and when the numeric value is less than 1 it "doesn't work". This is what they call a precedent. Especially when discussing similar situations, like a penalty to CL variables that ends up reducing the effect to 0 or less. We have an established rule and guidelines for the situation that some feel is made up drek and nonsensical.
No actual rule anywhere in the core book that says NOT to use math, but there is a rule in the core book that says EXPLICITLY to use math. I quoted this rule in my first post.
The EXISTING rule to use math trumps the lack of any rule to not use math, so, yeah. Math.
You don't need 20-20 vision to see this...
Math?
All of the game's math assumes that caster level is a value equal-to-or-greater than 1. Since by your admission there exists no rule or precedent that says you can have a caster level of zero, we have to follow that assumption. That's common sense.
Finally, you cannot cast spells at CL 0. The rules specifically say you cannot cast a spell below the minimum CL needed to cast it. You can't even cast a cantrip at CL 0. If you're suggesting you can still cast a spell at a caster level lower than 1, you're blatantly making drek up, which completely undermines your credibility in rules knowledge.
Blantently stating that there is a minimum CL of 1 with no rules suggesting anything of the sort undermines any credibility of yours as well. What is your point?
For someone with a Superstar title, it would seem you have really missed the mark on actual rules discussions VS your take on how the rules should be.
Seriously? It says so right in the caster level rules in the chapter on magic in the CRB.
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.
It also says so in the magic item creation rules since casting a spell at CL 0 would completely screw up the pricing formulas. You can't cast a spell at a CL less than 1 because you need a CL 1 to cast any spell.
Saying the variables get lowered below 1 while your CL stays the same? I disagree but I can see the logic there.
Saying that you can cast spells at CL 0? Total wyrm drek.
Seriously? It says so right in the caster level rules in the chapter on magic in the CRB.
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.
Nice quote, but it's irrelevant.
1. Some spells don't even need a caster level. Consider Magic Missile. You CAN cast this at CL 0. The range will be 100 feet. You get 1 missile that does d4+1 damage. The only level-dependent variables are the range and the number of EXTRA missiles - you always get 1. So, the quote you provided says nothing for Magic Missile. I can, theoretically, based only on that quote, cast Magic Missile at a CL 0 because that IS high enough to cast the spell in question.
2. The quote you provided talks about voluntarily lowering your CL. What you can do voluntarily and what you are forced to do (by magic, for example) are not always the same.
3. This thread is not even really discussing having a lower caster level. We are talking about "The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed". For all intents and purposes, the character's CL is still 20 and the character is suffering a curse that reduces that level just for level-dependent variables.
It also says so in the magic item creation rules since casting a spell at CL 0 would completely screw up the pricing formulas. You can't cast a spell at a CL less than 1 because you need a CL 1 to cast any spell.
It doesn't even say that.
If you're going to quote the rulebook, quote it right. Or are you not worried about your own credibility?
Nowhere does it say "since casting a spell at CL 0 would completely screw up the pricing formulas" nor does it say "You can't cast a spell at a CL less than 1 because you need a CL 1 to cast any spell."
Since it says neither of those things, what does it say?
A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
So, yeah, when you create a magic item you cannot create it at a CL lower than the level needed to cast the spell.
Also irrelevant.
1. That is for creating magic items, not for suffering magical curses or other negative level effects.
2. Interestingly enough, the OP's character (and anyone else) can create magical items above their CL (which is also irrelevant since his CL is 20). A level 1 cleric can make a Ring of Three Wishes if he has enough gold and time. The DC will be tough since he'll be creating it without actually casting Wish spells. In fact, I bet he'd fail that DC. The OP probably would too with his -20 on Spellcraft checks. OK, level one characters cannot learn the Craft Ring feat, but you get the picture.
In short, nothing about the Magic Item Creation rules says anything about CL of zero and even if you actually have a CL of 0 (the OP does not, his is CL 20), you could still make magical items just fine.
Saying the variables get lowered below 1 while your CL stays the same? I disagree but I can see the logic there.
Saying that you can cast spells at CL 0? Total wyrm drek.
I remain unconvinced.
No actual rule anywhere in the core book that says NOT to use math, but there is a rule in the core book that says EXPLICITLY to use math. I quoted this rule in my first post.
The EXISTING rule to use math trumps the lack of any rule to not use math, so, yeah. Math.
You don't need 20-20 vision to see this...
Math?
All of the game's math assumes that caster level is a value equal-to-or-greater than 1. Since by your admission there exists no rule or precedent that says you can have a caster level of zero, we have to follow that assumption. That's common sense.
Finally, you cannot cast spells at CL 0. The rules specifically say you cannot cast a spell below the minimum CL needed to cast it. You can't even cast a cantrip at CL 0. If you're suggesting you can still cast a spell at a caster level lower than 1, you're blatantly making drek up, which completely undermines your credibility in rules knowledge.
Blantently stating that there is a minimum CL of 1 with no rules suggesting anything of the sort undermines any credibility of yours as well. What is your point?
For someone with a Superstar title, it would seem you have really missed the mark on actual rules discussions VS your take on how the rules should be.
Seriously? It says so right in the caster level rules in the chapter on magic in the CRB.
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.It also says so in the magic item creation rules since casting a spell at CL 0 would completely screw up the pricing formulas. You can't cast a spell at a CL less than 1 because you need a CL 1 to cast any spell.
Saying the variables get lowered below 1 while your CL stays the same? I disagree but I can see the logic there.
Saying that you...
The only thing you have managed to establish is you don't like it.
Do you have some pertinent rules quotes or FAQs to back up how you think the rules work that contradicts the RAW that we have pointed out?
Do you have some pertinent rules quotes or FAQs to back up how you think the rules work that contradicts the RAW that we have pointed out?
What "RAW" specifically?
Do you have some pertinent rules quotes or FAQs to back up how you think the rules work that contradicts the RAW that we have pointed out?What "RAW" specifically?
Now you're just being childish.
Now you're just being childish.Do you have some pertinent rules quotes or FAQs to back up how you think the rules work that contradicts the RAW that we have pointed out?What "RAW" specifically?
I asked a legitimate question. You said you pointed out rules text that refutes my argument that you cannot cast spells at CL 0. I'm not seeing it here.
I asked a legitimate question. You said you pointed out rules text that refutes my argument that you cannot cast spells at CL 0. I'm not seeing it here.Now you're just being childish.Do you have some pertinent rules quotes or FAQs to back up how you think the rules work that contradicts the RAW that we have pointed out?What "RAW" specifically?
Negative levels don't lower your CL, they lower the number used for variables. The OP's character has a CL but effects derived from it are 0'd. This has been explained at least twice, but I believe 3 times, before this. Feel free to re read the thread maybe you'll catch it finally.
Negative levels don't lower your CL, they lower the number used for variables. The OP's character has a CL but effects derived from it are 0'd. This has been explained at least twice, but I believe 3 times, before this. Feel free to re read the thread maybe you'll catch it finally.I asked a legitimate question. You said you pointed out rules text that refutes my argument that you cannot cast spells at CL 0. I'm not seeing it here.Now you're just being childish.Do you have some pertinent rules quotes or FAQs to back up how you think the rules work that contradicts the RAW that we have pointed out?What "RAW" specifically?
I never argued that negative levels lower your CL. I only said you can't cast spells at a caster level less than 1. Several folks here said you can, falsely assuming that negative levels lower your CL. Spell variables are a different matter, though I still believe they can't be lowered below 1.
|
|
At the levels rangers and paladins would have a negative caster level, the rules specifically say they do not have a caster level. I would assume that similar classes have similar wordings. Which does mean my last post could be partly wrong, and they can't use scrolls (which requires a caster level check).
I always interpreted no caster level as a zero caster level. Thus, they can use scrolls if they make the CL Check.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why does it have to be so dramatic?
"Made up drek"?
"Lying".?
OK, OK, you caught me. I have a secret agenda of making up blatant lies to deceive Pathfinder players into...
Into what?
I don't know. I guess it's not my drama. You tell me what my secret agenda is.
In the meantime, I've quoted the rule that says you do this math and doesn't impose any limits (a major oversight if they meant to have a limit but failed to include it in the rule). I've shown how the caster still has his full caster level (so he CAN cast spells). I've demonstrated how some spells (e.g. Magic Missile) CAN be cast for normal effect even if you have a caster level of zero.
All by RAW.
I've been counterpointed by people inferring and concluding that there actually is an unstated non-RAW limit but nobody can provide the quote for this rule and nobody can demonstrate anything - it's just claims that this imaginary limit exists and counterattacking the posters rather than than counterpointing the rules.
I remain unconvinced.
|
|
They don't have a caster level, thus cannot cast at all. If you can cast you must have some sort of caster level, the minimum must be one for this to work.
Everyone saying they want to see text proving this is simply wrong. Show us text demonstrating a caster can cast with a zero caster level and the discussion can begin. Until then the silence as to this rule strongly implicates a reading of minimum caster level of one to still cast any spells.
This may be intractable due to different interpretations, but if you blanketly state the casting with caster level zero is wrong you are lying or deluding yourself.
I think you could have made your point without pejorative statements about lying or deluding yourself.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It actually was quite impossible. No matter how much common sense has been presented, people who still believe caster level 0 is a thing keep demanding text to support it, when, in fact, the opposite is true. In order for a concept that runs against the grain of rules or logic to exist to be RAW the burden is on the people proposing that rule to point to text.
Why does this logic not apply to yourself? You get no special pleading. You must "point to text" just like the rest of us.
I have directly quoted a rule. That rule says, in effect, "subtract your negative levels". It does not say, in effect or otherwise, "subtract your negative levels but only if that leaves you at least one caster level".
I have quoted the RAW. I have "pointed to the text". It does not "run against the grain of rules" because it is a direct rules quote. I've done what you say I have not done, so stop saying I haven't done it. I have. Clearly and directly.
Now it's your turn. YOU need to point to the text that says the rule quote I've provided has the limit that you imagine it does.
My claim is substantiated by a direct rules quote. Now substantiate your claim by "pointing to text", as you claim you must.