|
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.
In response they just keep saying show me where it says you can't have a caster level of zero. It's impossible to have a conversation like that and it's an inherently deceptive position. I think my language was generous considering.
DM_BLake is right, and you need to tone down your language.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
they just keep saying show me where it says you can't have a caster level of zero. It's impossible to have a conversation like that and it's an inherently deceptive position. I think my language was generous considering.
The irony is that I feel the same way. You just keep saying "show me where it says you can have a caster level of zero." It's impossible to have a conversation like that and it seems to be intentionally deceptive.
As a result, I suggest neutral territory.
Let's BOTH quote the rule that supports our position.
Here's my rule:
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.
There it is. I bolded the relevant part for this discussion. You'll notice no text there that says there is a hard cap at CL1. A caster who is level 20 (with levels in another class so they don't die) who receives 20 negative levels is treated as 20 levels lower for level-dependent variables. 20 levels lower than 20 is 0, not 1 (which would only be 19 level lower and out of compliance with this rule).
I've quoted the rule. Neutrally. No deception. No refusing to quote a rule. There it is, right there on the page.
I've showed you mine, now show me yours, and then we can have that conversation you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, I step away and it got crazy in here...
Wow, I step away and it got crazy in here...
I already was... :)
|
|
they just keep saying show me where it says you can't have a caster level of zero. It's impossible to have a conversation like that and it's an inherently deceptive position. I think my language was generous considering.The irony is that I feel the same way. You just keep saying "show me where it says you can have a caster level of zero." It's impossible to have a conversation like that and it seems to be intentionally deceptive.
As a result, I suggest neutral territory.
Let's BOTH quote the rule that supports our position.
Here's my rule:
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.There it is. I bolded the relevant part for this discussion. You'll notice no text there that says there is a hard cap at CL1. A caster who is level 20 (with levels in another class so they don't die) who receives 20 negative levels is treated as 20 levels lower for level-dependent variables. 20 levels lower than 20 is 0, not 1 (which would only be 19 level lower and out of compliance with this rule).
I've quoted the rule. Neutrally. No deception. No refusing to quote a rule. There it is, right there on the page.
I've showed you mine, now show me yours, and then we can have that conversation you want.
My question is what happens if you have, say a Paladin who decides to take some Sorcerer Levels. Are the more recently added levels lost first? And if all the Sorcerer levels are gone, but Paladin levels remain, is the character still a Sorcerer (with a CL of 0) or not? Based upon what you have said here, the character is still a Sorcerer who casts 0 dice fireballs, and Bulls Strength with 0 duration. Seems absurd that now the most powerful spells are Acid Splash and Resistance. Oh well...
My question is what happens if you have, say a Paladin who decides to take some Sorcerer Levels. Are the more recently added levels lost first? And if all the Sorcerer levels are gone, but Paladin levels remain, is the character still a Sorcerer (with a CL of 0) or not? Based upon what you have said here, the character is still a Sorcerer who casts 0 dice fireballs, and Bulls Strength with 0 duration. Seems absurd that now the most powerful spells are Acid Splash and Resistance. Oh well...
As there is no class distinction for the penalty, the penalty would apply to all classes as written.
Each time the CL gets tested, the penalty gets called and applied.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My question is what happens if you have, say a Paladin who decides to take some Sorcerer Levels. Are the more recently added levels lost first? And if all the Sorcerer levels are gone, but Paladin levels remain, is the character still a Sorcerer (with a CL of 0) or not? Based upon what you have said here, the character is still a Sorcerer who casts 0 dice fireballs, and Bulls Strength with 0 duration. Seems absurd that now the most powerful spells are Acid Splash and Resistance. Oh well...As there is no class distinction for the penalty, the penalty would apply to all classes as written.
Each time the CL gets tested, the penalty gets called and applied.
This is correct.
A Paladin 10/Sorcerer 5 with 3 negative levels is -15 Max HP, -3 on all the indicated rolls, and is treated as if he is 3 levels lower for all level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting). He would normally cast arcane spells as a level 5 sorcerer but while he has those negative levels, his level-dependent variables are treated as if he is 3 levels lower (CL2). But he still has his second level sorcerer spell slots because he really is a level 5 sorcerer with CL5 - you simply treat his level-dependent variables as if he is 3 levels lower.
And he casts his Paladin spells as an 10th level paladin with CL 7 (because paladins normally treat their caster level as their actual level -3). With the negative levels, this character is treated as 3 levels lower than that for level-dependent variables. That means effectively a CL of 4 for those variables. He still has his 2nd and 3rd level paladin spell slots.
|
This entire argument regarding CL 0 seems out of place based on the OP. The cursed PC in the OP is still CL 20, so she can still cast all of her spells; her spells simply take a -20 penalty for all CL dependent variables.
For this example, let's assume that fireball is a Witch spell and the PC casts it. Let's also assume an Intelligence of 30. It has a range of 400' + 40' x (CL-20), and it does 1d6 x (CL[Max 10] - 20) damage, and allows a Reflex Save for half damage (DC = 10 + 3 + 10).
Since the PC is still CL 20, spell is cast, the bead of fire flies from the caster's pointed finger, and at the range intended a burst of fire fills a 20' radius sphere:
Max Range: 400' + [40' x (20 - 20)] = 400'
Damage: 1d6 x (10 - 20) = -10d6
Save DC: 23 (half)
There are exactly zero rules to cover what to do with a negative number of dice rolled. None. So, you can either rule it as the target takes 0 points of damage, or you can roll 10d6 (since it is impossible to roll a negative number of dice) and heal the target for that much damage. Since there are a total of ZERO RAW scenarios where a negative number of damage dice can be rolled, we're forced to rely on RAI. So, I wonder which of the two scenarios above the designers intended?
Now, let's move beyond the odd situation where the caster is taking a -20 penalty to CL dependent variables. What if a 12th level wizard picked up 11 temporary negative levels? CL is still 12, so fireball is still a viable spell, the range is 440', the save DC is still 13+Int Mod. But the damage is -1d6. For all intents and purposes, this is identical to a -10d6 fireball.
The bottom line is that none of the discussion of whether or not CL 0 is a thing is completely irrelevant to the question at hand (which GM Blake answered perfectly in the initial response). If you have a Caster Level of 0 (also known as 'no caster level', like, say, a fighter), you can't cast spells. If you take a mathematical penalty to all caster level dependent variables, and that penalty reduces the variables to 0 (or less), those variables simply have no effect. This isn't difficult...
Now, let's move beyond the odd situation where the caster is taking a -20 penalty to CL dependent variables. What if a 12th level wizard picked up 11 temporary negative levels? CL is still 12, so fireball is still a viable spell, the range is 440', the save DC is still 13+Int Mod. But the damage is -1d6. For all intents and purposes, this is identical to a -10d6 fireball.
Not quite. Damage is capped at 1d6, not caster level. A 12th level caster with 11 negative levels would effectively have a caster level of 1, so his fireball would do 1d6 damage. You figure out caster level first before figuring out the spell effects, otherwise you don't know what the spell is actually doing.
Basically, the fireball damage is (by caster level, for a 12th level caster):
1d6, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 5d6, 6d6, 7d6, 8d6, 9d6, 10d6, 10d6, 10d6
11 negative levels would remove 11 of those numbers, starting from the right, leaving you with 1d6.
So a MT might actually have negative levels.
A Clr3 Wiz3 MT2 losing 6 levels would cast -1d6 fireballs, healing his targets of 1d6 fire damage if they miss the saving throw...
No, not really... The rule does lead to some strange situations...
Or 0 damage, or the spell fizzles as nothing happens due to variables being reduced to 0. There is no precedent for negative damage, causing healing or anything of the like.
There is for something not working as it doesn't have a functional value.
|
|
Now, let's move beyond the odd situation where the caster is taking a -20 penalty to CL dependent variables. What if a 12th level wizard picked up 11 temporary negative levels? CL is still 12, so fireball is still a viable spell, the range is 440', the save DC is still 13+Int Mod. But the damage is -1d6. For all intents and purposes, this is identical to a -10d6 fireball.Not quite. Damage is capped at 1d6, not caster level. A 12th level caster with 11 negative levels would effectively have a caster level of 1, so his fireball would do 1d6 damage. You figure out caster level first before figuring out the spell effects, otherwise you don't know what the spell is actually doing.
Basically, the fireball damage is (by caster level, for a 12th level caster):
1d6, 2d6, 3d6, 4d6, 5d6, 6d6, 7d6, 8d6, 9d6, 10d6, 10d6, 10d6
11 negative levels would remove 11 of those numbers, starting from the right, leaving you with 1d6.
How did I mess that up? Fingers working faster than my brain, apparently. You're right, Jeraa. I'd go back and strike through my error if I could.