If a medium suffers a caster level penalty from taking too much influence with a champion spirit and has her caster level reduced to the minimum of 0, can she still cast knacks? Or at least knacks that don't have some sort of variable dependent on caster level such as duration? (e.g., daze, mage hand, sift)
I think if you have a caster level of 0, you can't cast even 0 level spells.
Claxon's view is backed up by the cost of items of zero level spells - a minimum caster level of 1 gets plugged into the item cost formula.
Claxon's view is backed up by the cost of items of zero level spells - a minimum caster level of 1 gets plugged into the item cost formula.
It says:
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 but not higher than her own caster level.
and more generally
While item creation costs are handled in detail below, note that normally the two primary factors are the caster level of the creator and the level of the spell or spells put into the item. 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.
Hypothetically, a CL 0 potion of Resistance could be made as it's high enough to cast the stored spell. There doesn't appear to be a declaration that a CL of 1 is required to cast CL 0 spells, not anywhere I can locate. The limiting factor would be spells that have a variable dependent on CL in the first place. (e.g., the light spell's duration of 10 minutes/level versus daze which has no level dependent requirements.)
Why would they also declare the Medium's champion influence penalty as lowering caster level to a minimum of 0 unless it somehow mattered that it wasn't lower? The implication is that knacks remain accessible but other casting is not.
It's a corner case problem because no one anticipated it being possible to have a caster level of less than 1, especially not in the CRB.
Also, you seem to think that lower it to 0 implies the knack is accessible, but lower it to 0 could also imply that casting is unavailable. I can' think of any class that can have a caster level of 0 except in this particular situation.
It's a corner case problem because no one anticipated it being possible to have a caster level of less than 1, especially not in the CRB.
Also, you seem to think that lower it to 0 implies the knack is accessible, but lower it to 0 could also imply that casting is unavailable. I can' think of any class that can have a caster level of 0 except in this particular situation.
Multiclass characters with negative levels can also definitely manage it without dying.
Why would they also declare the Medium's champion influence penalty as lowering caster level to a minimum of 0 unless it somehow mattered that it wasn't lower?
Because it's not a value that should ever go negative, and that's what we say for values that don't go negative. It would be like having a negative number of ki points.
So Mark, then what is the answer, do 0 level spells still require a caster level of at least 1? Or can you cast them at caster level 0?
So Mark, then what is the answer, do 0 level spells still require a caster level of at least 1? Or can you cast them at caster level 0?
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.
I believe this is the only relevant rules-text. So I would say, there isn't any direct text that fully explains what this means, but clearly it must mean something. If a wizard can't cast 1st-level spells with a caster level of 0 (and I fully believe that is true), then there's no way you would be able to cast cantrips/orisons/knacks either (incidentally, the medium and bloodrager can't cast 1st-level spells with a caster level below 4 because of how they work, unless the medium is channeling archmage or hierophant).
Thanks for your help!
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.I believe this is the only relevant rules-text. So I would say, there isn't any direct text that fully explains what this means, but clearly it must mean something.
It means that a 10th level wizard can choose to cast a fireball as though he were 5th level instead, perhaps to do less damage to allies caught within it. It means that he can't cast it lower than 5th since that is the minimum caster level required to cast fireball.
If a wizard can't cast 1st-level spells with a caster level of 0 (and I fully believe that is true),
This is true ...
then there's no way you would be able to cast cantrips/orisons/knacks either
This does not follow from the first part. Cantrips, orisons and knacks are minor magics, not first level spells.
Traditionally, they were considered as 1/4th of real spell -- you literally could trade a 1st level slot to gain 4 cantrips in its place. Bulmahn describes them (in the CRB) as magic "so inconsequential that a spellcaster might cast it without limit." This is the sort of minor magic that wizard apprentices or youthful acolytes would train themselves with as they sought to become real casters. We're talking about "0-level" casters using them as toys or tools, things that are magic but not fully realized spells. (PF/3.0 has seemed to view them as more powerful than earlier editions, however.)
The idea that being incapable of casting 1st level spells also makes cantrips uncastable goes against the entire history of them.
but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question
What do you think makes a caster level high enough for the spell in question? Although the rule doesn't exactly say how you would determine this, I do agree with you on fireball and 1st level spells that you can't choose a caster level 4 fireball or caster level 0 magic missile because 5th level is the caster level when you first gained access to 3rd-level spells and 1st level is the caster level you first gained access to 1st-level spells (this is why bloodrager has a minimum 4th caster level for 1st-level spells, as it first gains access to 1st-level spells at 4th caster level). Spellcasters first gain access to cantrips, orisons, and knacks at 1st-level caster level (if they gain them at all).
Spellcasters first gain access to cantrips, orisons, and knacks at 1st-level caster level (if they gain them at all).
They actually gain the cantrips/orison/knacks class feature.
Many of these minor magics don't rely on caster level at all. In earlier days, prestidigitation was a cantrip employed by magicians, along with sleight of hand, to produce crowd-pleasing effects despite not being actual spellcasters. It's literally a minor magic used by novices to learn how to cast.
What do you think makes a caster level high enough for the spell in question?
Minimally, two things -- the caster level must be at least equal to the spell in question (and often higher than that), the caster must have a minimum score in the associated casting stat.
For cantrips, historically speaking, the caster level appears to be 0. That is to say, you don't need a higher caster level to use them. They are used by non-casters who are learning to become spellcasters for this reason. Caster level-0 is essentially a non-caster, and minor magics are their peak capability. Arguably, someone with a 10 in the casting stat could also use cantrips but nothing more potent.
IMO once a spellcaster hits Zero spell caster level, he has no appreciable spellcasting ability left.
You're right that in previous editions, minor magics couldn't be cast infinite times. That's why I remarked that PF/3.0 seem to have elevated them somewhat, at least in terms of accessibility. They also took some 1st level spells and made them into minor magics instead, so in some cases, the overall power level of cantrips increased too.
Nonetheless, having a caster level of 0 is to have no appreciable spellcasting ability. Cantrips are considered to be within that tier of casting -- enough for an apprentice or commoner to use as entertainment or for practice, but little more. We have lost the more limited per day use of them, but I think the principle still stands for what they represent.
It's undefined in PF thus not RAW and out of scope. So the RAW answer is "No". I understand the desire but in this forum that's the answer. Again, level, HD, and CR are not 0 indexed, they are generally natural numbers with a minimum of 1 (CRs are the exception).
Actually, Mark has already stated that caster level is 0 indexed. The discussion erupted from the rule that stated a Medium's caster level could be decreased to a minimum of 0.
Hmmm, I've had a wizard centric view. I'll have to rollback a bit on implications for the term "caster level" as I was discussing level, HD, CR.
There are two things going on here.
Caster Level is less than or equal to character level, level, or class level. Some classes have caster level at class level less a static constant rather than the wizard's caster level = class level. Is zero possible? Medium may be an exception. Usually at 0 {character or combined class} level (from draining) PCs fall dead and that's pretty severe. You wouldn't want home GMs imposing that penalty for caster level.
Spell lists are a bit different and there are the "-" and "0" entries. "0" meaning you may get a bonus spell from a high ability score.
Ranger (CRB) "Through 3rd level, a ranger has no caster level. At 4th level and higher, his caster level is equal to his ranger level – 3." and Spells per day "0" entry is at 4th Ranger level, thus a caster level of 1.
This would imply that "no caster level" and zero caster level are equivalent.
A ranger with 1 negative level can also wind up with a 0 caster level for "level-dependent effects" as per negative levels.
Arguably, someone with a 10 in the casting stat could also use cantrips but nothing more potent.
This isn't arguable, it's definitely true by the rules, and not really related to "must be high enough for you to cast the spell"