Fun finds thread V3.0

[SorO_Lost]

Sounds like selective application to me. The paragraph says you cannot cast a spell below it's required caster level and that's what you need to take away from it, even items state they use the minimum caster lower (ie lowest possible) as further proof of concept.

Now excuse me, that ASF entry only says armor and I've got to argue Shields don't have failure chances else where kthx.

[zook1shoe]

What I was trying to say is the min CL is based on the spell level, which each spell can POTENTIALLY have different spell levels due to which class you get the spell through, depending on the spell.

Example: Spell X might be a 3rd level spell for class A, or 4th level for class B, while you can also get it through domain A as a 5th level spell.

Since each way has a different spell level, each way has a different min CL. But technically they ALL are the min CL for the same spell.

[SorO_Lost]

Oh I know what you're trying to say and I think Lo77o got it as well.

What he is saying is that there is no minimum CL to spell levels, because: but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. and all references to a minimum caster level can have only one possible meaning. ~Ignore this. Currently his reason is because it's based on choice, but I'm sure his second line of defense is there is no text says I can't cast 2nd level spells as a 1st Sorcerer since their are both up the same alley. IE please give me flashing neon signs about what I can or cannot do or I will argue that I can.

I've always read that section as choose a valid number. I mean, Magical Items as an entire chapter in every single book printed certainly suggests the minimum caster level of Wish isn't -79,746, but instead you need 17 or higher (if wizard). Maybe is isn't exactly spelled out in the exact English you think it should be, but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.

[linklord231]

Wouldn't the implied general rule of "you must have a caster level this big to cast this spell" be trumped by the specifics of Versatile Spellcaster?  Otherwise things like Precocious Apprentice wouldn't work at all. 

[snakeman830]

Well, the lowest caster level for any Domain spell is equal to the spell level, thanks to Divine Crusader.  Archivists and Artificiers get the most use out of this fact.

[phaedrusxy]

Well, the lowest caster level for any Domain spell is equal to the spell level, thanks to Divine Crusader.  Archivists and Artificiers get the most use out of this fact.

If you're going down that road, Ur-Priest says hi.

[snakeman830]

Well, the lowest caster level for any Domain spell is equal to the spell level, thanks to Divine Crusader.  Archivists and Artificiers get the most use out of this fact.

If you're going down that road, Ur-Priest says hi.

True.  I suppose that means scrolls for any Cleric spell can be nabbed at caster level=spell level.

[SorO_Lost]

Wouldn't the implied general rule of "you must have a caster level this big to cast this spell" be trumped by the specifics of Versatile Spellcaster?  Otherwise things like Precocious Apprentice wouldn't work at all.

No, the Feat's rules are totally ambiguous to start with, but do make a tiny assumption which I'll cover in a second. The first obvious question you would have after reading it is do you need the ability to cast 4th level spells to do this?

The FAQ comes in and to a Metamagic based question (think an extended spell) says it's possible to cast higher than normal. However, this is a Metamagic based question. To understand what I mean, take for example an 8th level Sorcerer & Empowered Fireball. That's a 3rd level spell using a 5th level slot two 4th level slots, that deals 8d6+50% damage. Do you see the number dynamics there and where Versatile Spellcaster plays in? You can obtain CL boosts readily enough, but it's just as important as knowing a spell which tends to be the primary element discussed.


You're observation on PA is a good call out, but mindful actually doesn't support VA and opposes the FAQ ruling. See, PA calls out: Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell;. So in it, PA creates an exception to cast a 2nd level spell as say a 1st level character by using the provided rules.

VS on the other hand only creates an exception toward using the spell slots. And it does so in the operation that kind of assumes that you already have the higher spell level: unknown-level-sorcerer combines two 2nd level slots for a 3rd level spell they know, specific builds/combos are almost never used to this would mean the assumption is the sorcerer is of at least 6th level.

When comparing the two, you'd actually see that VS shouldn't break any sort of level cap to begin with. However, the FAQ that everyone hates for nerfing their favorite trick did broke it for power, sort of ironic I guess.


Also, helpful link here (got a newer link?). Mindful, you still need some sort of access. So we can move on to talking about how you'd need a Runestaff to merge two 2nd level spells to cast Animate Dead (a typically 4th level sorcerer spell).

[Lo77o]

Oh I know what you're trying to say and I think Lo77o got it as well.

What he is saying is that there is no minimum CL to spell levels, because: but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question. and all references to a minimum caster level can have only one possible meaning. ~Ignore this. Currently his reason is because it's based on choice, but I'm sure his second line of defense is there is no text says I can't cast 2nd level spells as a 1st Sorcerer since their are both up the same alley. IE please give me flashing neon signs about what I can or cannot do or I will argue that I can.

I've always read that section as choose a valid number. I mean, Magical Items as an entire chapter in every single book printed certainly suggests the minimum caster level of Wish isn't -79,746, but instead you need 17 or higher (if wizard). Maybe is isn't exactly spelled out in the exact English you think it should be, but that doesn't mean the rule doesn't exist.

I assure you that you have no idea what i had in mind when i asked this. I find your approach to the rules regarding Caster Level both simple, logical and very much a valid interpretation.

The reason i was asking you to elaborate is that this will have consequences in the game i am playing in, and it will change some of the NPC's i am currently using.

Few examples. I have several NPC spell caster / gishes that uses the Mage Slayer line of feats. They all reduce caster level. As it was my understanding before this only had an impact on a few things such as duration and Xd6 damage and so on. And it was not an issue since my NPC's used spells mostly for instantaneous buffs or debuffs.

As it is now, none of them can cast higher then level 1 spells, since most have a CL of 1 or 2.

It opens up some fun new ways to attack spellcasters now. Hit a level 6+ wizard with a no save Herorics and give him the mageslayer feat, and you cut his two highest spell levels out under him for 10/min per CL. Same thing applies to most Big Baddies such as Balors with a lot of Sell-Like Abilities. One no save 2nd level spell, and you remove his Wish ability.

Besides the Mageslayer feat chain, there is a few other feats and traits and so on that reduces your spell level in one or more schools. And ill have to have a look out for those in the future.

On a further note, and mind you i haven't had a chance to look into this yet since i am AFB, would this have consequences for people who uses any kind of heighten to cast higher level spells early for entry into PrC's. Would that not work anymore?

[linklord231]

Wouldn't the implied general rule of "you must have a caster level this big to cast this spell" be trumped by the specifics of Versatile Spellcaster?  Otherwise things like Precocious Apprentice wouldn't work at all.

No, the Feat's rules are totally ambiguous to start with, but do make a tiny assumption which I'll cover in a second. The first obvious question you would have after reading it is do you need the ability to cast 4th level spells to do this?

The FAQ comes in and to a Metamagic based question (think an extended spell) says it's possible to cast higher than normal. However, this is a Metamagic based question. To understand what I mean, take for example an 8th level Sorcerer & Empowered Fireball. That's a 3rd level spell using a 5th level slot two 4th level slots, that deals 8d6+50% damage. Do you see the number dynamics there and where Versatile Spellcaster plays in? You can obtain CL boosts readily enough, but it's just as important as knowing a spell which tends to be the primary element discussed.


You're observation on PA is a good call out, but mindful actually doesn't support VA and opposes the FAQ ruling. See, PA calls out: Until your level is high enough to allow you to cast 2nd-level spells, you must succeed on a DC 8 caster level check to successfully cast this spell;. So in it, PA creates an exception to cast a 2nd level spell as say a 1st level character by using the provided rules.

VS on the other hand only creates an exception toward using the spell slots. And it does so in the operation that kind of assumes that you already have the higher spell level: unknown-level-sorcerer combines two 2nd level slots for a 3rd level spell they know, specific builds/combos are almost never used to this would mean the assumption is the sorcerer is of at least 6th level.

When comparing the two, you'd actually see that VS shouldn't break any sort of level cap to begin with. However, the FAQ that everyone hates for nerfing their favorite trick did broke it for power, sort of ironic I guess.


Also, helpful link here (got a newer link?). Mindful, you still need some sort of access. So we can move on to talking about how you'd need a Runestaff to merge two 2nd level spells to cast Animate Dead (a typically 4th level sorcerer spell).

Who are you, and what have you done with SorO?  That post had no biting sarcasm, no profanity, and not once did you insult anyone's intelligence.  Totally not your style.

On topic, I'm still not sure I agree with you about there being a RAW minimum caster level for any given spell.  It would be too variable, due to classes like Ur Priest or Trapsmith with lower-than-normal CLs for certain spells, or feats like Mage Slayer that lower CL, or Orange Ioun Stones or other CL boosters.  Even in core, the Sorcerer has a "minimum CL" of 1 higher than the wizard for every spell he casts.  It seems obvious that the designers didn't think anyone would be able to cast Wish before level 17 when they first wrote it, but other books came along and kind of wrecked that.  Versatile Spellcaster seems like one of the ways to circumvent this (to borrow a concept from Aelrynth) "metacap".

The way I see it, Versatile Spellcaster asks 3 things:
1) Is what you're trying to cast a spell?
2) Do you know it?
3) Is it one level higher than the two spell slots you just sacrificed?

If the answer to all of the above is "yes", you can cast it.  The tricky part (and I think the part the designers weren't thinking too deeply about when they wrote this feat) is "Do you know it?".  They probably assumed that the only way to know a spell is to have a high enough class level to have at least a 1 on your class's "Spells Known" table for that spell level.  Under that assumption, the feat is probably pretty well balanced, if you believe that spells double in power every new spell level.  They probably weren't thinking about classes like Warmage that explicitly know their entire spell list from level 1, and that's why we get early entry shenanigans. 

[McPoyo]

Also to keep in mind, Ur-Priest has no clause for bypassing the default caster level requirements of spells, so theoretically you could have access to spell levels that can't be cast with the caster level possessed by default.

[zook1shoe]

Also to keep in mind, Ur-Priest has no clause for bypassing the default caster level requirements of spells, so theoretically you could have access to spell levels that can't be cast with the caster level possessed by default.

What is the default CL for a spell without knowing the spell?

[McPoyo]

Also to keep in mind, Ur-Priest has no clause for bypassing the default caster level requirements of spells, so theoretically you could have access to spell levels that can't be cast with the caster level possessed by default.

What is the default CL for a spell without knowing the spell?

when I said "default", I meant the "1/2 other non-divine casting classes + ur-priest level" that sets your ur-priest level.

[zook1shoe]

Lol... Ok

[SorO_Lost]

Who are you, and what have you done with SorO?  That post had no biting sarcasm, no profanity, and not once did you insult anyone's intelligence.  Totally not your style.

Last one sort of did and I'll call you an idiot now. Does that count?

My forum rage is tied to stress in real, and currently I'm just so burned out I'm boiled down to basic human functions. Only got 4 night shifts in October through so things should improve. Maybe I'll get my characters finish for a PBP game too >.>

[123456789blaaa]

Something more weird than fun: In dragon 339 there's a spell called Exaction. It allows you to sacrifice things to improve relations with a planar bound target. In the examples the moderate example is: sacrifice a sentient being. The weird thing is that the penalty is changing your alignment to one step closer to the target. So if you planar bind a lawfull good angel for example and you were lawful neutrel than your alignment would change to lawfull good when you sacrificed the sentient being  .

[zook1shoe]

 

[123456789blaaa]

It doesn't matter what you sacrifice either (except that it's sentient). Sacrifice the angels god, kid, whatever.

[zook1shoe]

all you have to do is say to the god after you cast the spell... "i sacrifice you!" and they die :-p

here's a fun one (don't remember if it was brought up or not)

Transference  (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/we/20060526a)

just use the Dominate spells to control someone to transfer all their XP into all your items, or your familiar. oh my familiar is down to level 1.... I'll trade it off for a full-powered new one.


Anthro-Badger + Instantaneous Rage + Intimidating Rage = infinite intimidates until they fail

[123456789blaaa]

Anthro-Badger + Instantaneous Rage + Intimidating Rage = infinite intimidates until they fail

Can't you already do this without anthro-badger and instantaneous rage? The feat in my copy says that you can do while in a rage and that you can do it as a free action.