| 7 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This came up on the OPO Discord, so I figure I'd ask it here in the hopes it gets an FAQ. The question is basically the title of the thread. What is the caster level of the spell gem cast with a spellthrower fusion.
For context, spellthrower rules can be found here, and spell gems here.
For the purposes of this discussion, I will highlight the important text in spellthrower fusion.
If you are proficient with and wielding the weapon, as a full action you can cast the spell contained within the spell gem rather than make a normal attack. This allows you to use the spell gem as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on your class’s spell list.
Unlike the normal rules for using a spell gem, it does not matter if the gem’s item level is higher than your caster level (even if your caster level is 0). However, if the spell gem’s item level is higher than your base attack bonus, once you’ve spent the full action to cast the spell, you must succeed at an attack roll with the weapon against an AC equal to the spell gem’s level + 1 or you fail to cast the spell.
So we have two effects here: We have the full action that "lets you use the spell gem as if you were a spellcaster with the spell on you...list" and states that you can use spell gems "even if your caster level is 0" (in other words, you have no levels in a spellcasting class). From this together, what do we determine the spellthrower user's caster level to be? There is no language that grants an effective caster level, so I assume your CL is 0 unless you get a caster level from somewhere else.
Some people argue this would make spellthrower not function. I would disagree, but that's tangential to the question of this thread.
I think the best argument is for your caster level being your base attack bonus or your level.
A caster level of zero wouldn't work and isn't very well evidenced. "Even if your caster level is zero" just says that it works for non casters.
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.
A caster level of zero isn't high enough to cast anything.
I don't like making conjecture to hard rules (because a logical consistent underpinning isn't always there) but I think there's a better argument for either your level or your BAB
Quote the FAQ - The save DC of a spell from a spell ampoule or cast from a spell gem equals 10 + spell level + the modifier of the user's key ability score.-
which could suggest that unlike pathfinder scrolls it's really you, not the gem casting the spell.
However, if the spell gem’s item level is higher than your base attack bonus, once you’ve spent the full action to cast the spell, you must succeed at an attack roll with the weapon against an AC equal to the spell gem’s level + 1 or you fail to cast the spell.
Which would suggest you're using your BAB for your caster level.
BAB makes some sense, I still think the spell level is going to be caster level.
Spell level or item level? Casting mystic cure III as a third level spell is under the minimum caster level of 7.
A caster level of zero wouldn't work with spells that have a duration dependent on level (life bubble, comprehend languages, fly). That's the sort of backdoor banhammer you'd need to spell out.
It could be
your bab (since thats how the gem has you "Cast" by using the weapon
your level
the item level of the gem (which is caster level +1, which is when you can normally buy it)
the minimum caster level of the spell
all of these have more evidence and a better working result than 0, and are close enough together that it makes very little difference.
I'm not that worried about the gem making you a better caster than a caster: the infusion only works up to 1/4 the item level of the weapon its on, and the spell level is a more important indication of casting ability than spell level.
*edit*
Did you add a bunch of text to that, or did I just stop being able to read after your first sentence?
I added a bunch of text
It is very likely the item was written before the rules for spell gems were finalized, or that the item was written assuming spell gems functioned as scrolls from PF1. Unfortunately the item, as written, is practically non-functional strictly read-as-written except for non-level-dependent effects like explosive blast (since it saves the headache of haggling over what your CL is).
So far, the options for spellthrower's CL appear to be:
- 1. Caster level is 0. This is the most restrictive interpretation and limits the usefulness of the spellthrower. It relies on the assumption that an otherwise undefined caster level is 0 (there is evidence that CL can be 0, but it is less clear when CL is 0).
- 2. Caster level is spell gem item level. Although this reading isn't supported by rules for spell gems, it might be how the author of the spellthrower fusion assumed spell gems would function, since scrolls in PF1E were assumed to be minimum CL to cast the spell unless specified otherwise. To editorialize, this is probably the ruling I would use in home games.
- 3. CL is equal to BAB. This relies on the assumption that the author's intent in replacing the spell gem activation condition was also to define the caster level by this same conceit.
- 4. CL is equal to weapon item level. This is probably the strongest reading of the spellthrower, and is certainly a ruling one could make given a lack of clarity in the item's rules.
A caster level cannot be zero
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.
Unlike the normal rules for using a spell gem, it does not matter if the gem’s item level is higher than your caster level (even if your caster level is 0)
If we are going with the interpretation that the spell only overrides specifically what it overrides, that clause only overrides this rule.
If the Spell gem’s item level is higher than your caster level, once you’ve spent the full casting time of the Spell, you must succeed at a caster level check with a DC equal to the Spell gem’s item level + 1 or you fail to cast the Spell. If you fail to cast a Spell from a Spell gem, the Spell remains within the gem and you can attempt to use it again.
Deductive logic just doesn't work with an inconsistent or incomplete ruleset. It has a terrible record of getting the right answer. Comparing multiple lines of evidence for and against an idea
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.
This would be evidence toward supporting a reading that I left off the list (probably by accident): CL = minimum required CL (1/1/4/7/10/13). Thank you for pointing that particular rule out from the Magic & Spells chapter.