Enervation

[Darmanicus]

Ok, too many Budweisers I have consumed

Hype, I get what you are saying.

The prob is with the spellls lost. I assume then that you would agree that the enemy caster would lose both caster levels equal to the level loss as well as the highest level spells he has available equal also to the level loss......which he cannot cast anyway because of the caster level loss?

In fact the loss of highest level spells is nowhere near as bad as the actual loss of caster levels which in fact causes the caster to lose even more of those spells....at least for a duration of anything up to 15 hours?

 

[Darmanicus]

I like both arguements.

Cal's because it doesn't totally screw a caster, it just seriously hampers him and seems to adhere to the spell description. It also doesn't require the addition of any other references. It also doesn't screw my party right up when our DM decides to use it against us

Hype's because it does screw a caster right up And who doesn't love a Smurf!?

Seriously though, I value both of your opinions however I really need a say "what would be right" type of clarification.

Please feel free to debate this some more though, you two always make a damn good read on these boards.

 

[Hypersmurf]

The prob is with the spellls lost. I assume then that you would agree that the enemy caster would lose both caster levels equal to the level loss as well as the highest level spells he has available equal also to the level loss......which he cannot cast anyway because of the caster level loss?

Let's take the example of a 6th level wizard with a 16 Intelligence. He has 3 3rd level spells available, and a caster level of 6.

He takes a negative level. This means he loses one of those 3 3rd level spells, and has an effective caster level of 5. He still has two 3rd level spells he can cast (at caster level 5).

Then he takes another negative level. This means he loses another one of those two remaining 3rd level spells, and has an effective caster level of 4. He has one 3rd level spell still available... but his effective caster level is below the minimum required for a wizard to cast a 3rd level spell. Unless he can boost his caster level somehow, that spell is of no use to him, despite still being prepared and available.

-Hyp.

 

[frankthedm]

I feel the section Hype quotes has bearing for voluntarily lowering caster level. A forced lowering of caster level should prevent the caster from voluntarily lowering his caster level below that minimum, but I think turning off whole spell levels is far too strong.

There is even precedent for spell having less than minimum caster level’s effects. Look at the SLAs of most demons and devils. The dretch makes a 3rd level stinking cloud at a caster level of two.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I feel the section Hype quotes has bearing for voluntarily lowering caster level. A forced lowering of caster level should prevent the caster from voluntarily lowering his caster level below that minimum, but I think turning off whole spell levels is far too strong.

There is even precedent for spell having less than minimum caster level’s effects. Look at the SLAs of most demons and devils. The dretch makes a 3rd level stinking cloud at a caster level of two.

SLAs are covered: "The creature’s caster level never affects which spell-like abilities the creature has; sometimes the given caster level is lower than the level a spellcasting character would need to cast the spell of the same name."

There's nothing wrong with having a creature that can use Fireball as a SLA with caster level 1.

There's nothing wrong with having a class, like, say, the Ur-Priest, who gains access to 3rd level spells at caster level 3. For the Ur-Priest, the minimum level required to cast a 3rd level spell is 3. For a Wizard, the minimum level required to cast a 3rd level spell is 5. The existence of SLAs and Ur-Priests doesn't change the minimum level required for a Wizard to cast a 3rd level spell.

A Sorcerer can't lower the caster level of a 3rd level spell below 6. But a Wizard can.

A Wizard can't lower the caster level of a 3rd level spell below 5. But a Ur-Priest can.

An Ur-Priest can't lower the caster level of a 3rd level spell below 3. But a creature might have a spell-like ability of a 3rd level spell, with a caster level lower than 3... like the Dretch.

The section I quoted states that you can't voluntarily lower your caster level that far, but it also says why you can't - it's because the minimum level required for a Wizard to cast a 3rd level spell is 5. If your caster level is below 5 - voluntarily or involuntarily - it's below the minimum level required for a Wizard to cast a 3rd level spell. And if it's below the required minimum, you can't do it... by definition of 'required' and of 'minimum'.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

Hyp, I don't think the rules section you quote applies to this situation. That is for voluntarily lowering your caster level, not involuntarily gained negative levels.

Negative levels give you a penalty for the purpose of calculating level based effects, but nowhere do they say that they prevent you from actually casting the spells you have left.

Under your ruling, a lvl 12 sorcerer with four 6th level spell slot who gets single negative level does not lose a single 6th level spell slot (as specified by the negative level rules), but instead effectively loses all 4 of his 6th level spell slots, while a 13th level sorcerer in the same situation still be able to cast his 6th level spells.

I've never seen anyone rule it the way you suggest.

 

[Land Outcast]

(Agreeing with Hyp)*
You can see it from this perspective:

Wizard 6:
Can you voluntarily cast fireball at CL 5? Yes, CL 5 is equal to or greater than the minimum level required for a wizard to cast Fireball

Can you voluntarily cast fireball at CL 4? no because CL4 is less than the minimum level required for a wizard to cast Fireball


Wizard 6 hit by 2 negative levels:
Can you voluntarily cast fireball at CL 5? No, you don't have high enough CL to do so

Can you voluntarily cast fireball at CL 4? No, because CL 4 is less than the minimum level required for a wizard to cast Fireball

[sblock=I think you could summarize it like this]A wizard can cast a spell at CL x, where x fulfills both following conditions:

is equal or smaller than your Caster Level
is equal or larger than than the minimum level required for a wizard to cast the spell[/sblock]


*Note that I belive this wasn't the intent when creating the spell

 

[Caliban]

If you want to play it that way, more power to you. But I really don't think that is the way it's supposed to work, even by "RAW".

 

[Hypersmurf]

Hyp, I don't think the rules section you quote applies to this situation. That is for voluntarily lowering your caster level, not involuntarily gained negative levels.

The section I quoted is for voluntarily lowering your caster level, and states that the minimum level for a wizard to cast Fireball is 5th, which is why he cannot voluntarily lower it below that to cast the spell.

5th isn't the minimum level to which a Wizard can voluntarily lower his caster level for a 3rd level spell, period; rather, 5th is the minimum level at which a Wizard can cast a 3rd level spell, and therefore it's the minimum level to which a Wizard can voluntarily lower his caster level for a 3rd level spell.

Under your ruling, a lvl 12 sorcerer with four 6th level spell slot who gets single negative level does not lose a single 6th level spell slot (as specified by the negative level rules), but instead effectively loses all 4 of his 6th level spell slots, while a 13th level sorcerer in the same situation still be able to cast his 6th level spells.

I'd replace "Under your ruling" with "Under the ruling that 5th is the minimum level for a Wizard to cast Fireball", personally, but yes.

Unless the 12th level sorcerer had some bonus to caster level. Practised Spellcaster would do it - his hit dice are still 12, so the bonus would be able to raise his caster level from 11 to 12, raising it above the minimum level for a Sorcerer to cast 6th level spells.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

If you think that's the fair and fun way to play, go for it.

But in my opinion, your just flat wrong on this one.

5th is the minimum level the wizard has to be, not necessarily what his caster level has to be. And he's still higher than 5th level, no matter how many negative levels he currently has.