Does the Mage Slayer feat cause a caster level less than 1? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Does the Mage Slayer feat cause a caster level less than 1? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Kimblex
11-11-07, 11:24 PM Hello.

I am currently playing an elf 2Ranger/3Rogue. I am considering taking a level of wizard next level and then taking the Mage Slayer feat.

My question is Would this feat cause my character to have a caster level of zero? Or does it reduce caster levels to a minimum of one?

References to official sources would be great. But I don't mind in-house interpretations.

Thanks,
Kimblex
StruckingFuggle
11-11-07, 11:58 PM I don't think there's an official ruling; but now I'm rather curious what you need it for. It's not quite like AC where it can make a difference, is it...? o.o
Polaris
11-12-07, 12:12 AM Kimblex,

I don't think there is an official interpretation (or at least I haven't heard of one). However, I'd say (based loosely on how rangers and other half-casters are handled) that you'd lose the caster level with any result less than zero being treated as zero....and if you have a caster level of zero, you can't cast spells (at least of that type). Again, no official rules support, but that's my take based on the mechanics of half-casters. This isn't so bad given that you can completely mitigate the caster level penalty of Mage-slayer with another feat (practiced spellcaster).

-Polaris
StevenO
11-12-07, 12:20 AM Nothing in the feat suggests it has a floor so go ahead and look at negative caster levels. That may not make sense in most cases so I'd have a virtual floor with a zero caster level but if a negative level is compelling enough I may go with that.
runestar
11-12-07, 02:36 AM Is there a rule which states that a caster with a net caster lv of zero or less cannot cast any spells at all?

I thought that you simply plugged in the appropriate numbers as per normal, and resolve the spell's effects from there.

For example, a fireball would have no effect as it deals 0d6 damage.

Conversely, true-strike would still work as its effect is independent of caster lv, so it does not matter if you have a caster lv of +100 or -100.:confused:
draco1119
11-12-07, 04:00 AM But would the lost levels be effective casting or caster levels?

I always thought it meant that (for example) a 7th level caster becomes a 3rd level caster in all respects (spells/day, spells known, and effects based on caster level).
zeratulcraft
11-12-07, 04:36 AM Keep in mind you can't cast spells if your caster level doesn't meet the minimum for you to have learnt the spell. It's in the magic section of your PHB, gives the example of 6th level Mialee casting either a 6d6 fireball, or a 5d6 one, but couldn't go any lower.
Tordak
11-12-07, 10:13 AM But would the lost levels be effective casting or caster levels?

I always thought it meant that (for example) a 7th level caster becomes a 3rd level caster in all respects (spells/day, spells known, and effects based on caster level).

No, it mean caser level for purpose of determining caster-dependent varaibles, like spell with caster-dependent range, duration, damages. A 7th level wizard could still cast a fireball, but it only does 3d6 damages and a range of 460 ft.

As for the OP, you obviously don't want to bother with negative caster level (-3 caster level fireball is not going to heal anyone), but I think, since it is not noted in the feat description, that you can have a caster level 0. Like noted in previous post, some spell are independant of caster level, so you would still be able to use them. For other spell, you replace any 'caster level' by 0 (for example, spell with duration 1 round/caster level would not work, and range 100ft +10 ft/caster level would have a range of 100ft). As I said if there was a minimum caster level it would be noted in the feat.
Kimblex
11-12-07, 05:57 PM Thanks everyone.

I think it's clear that my character's caster level would be zero and I feel that would mean he could not cast spells. He could still use wands, read scrolls (with a check), etc. So I think that feat is not a choice at all for him since I only plan on taking one (or maybe three) levels of wizard. So I'm more likely to go with Practiced Spellcaster.

Thanks again.
Kimblex

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Kimblex 11-11-07, 11:24 PM	Hello. I am currently playing an elf 2Ranger/3Rogue. I am considering taking a level of wizard next level and then taking the Mage Slayer feat. My question is Would this feat cause my character to have a caster level of zero? Or does it reduce caster levels to a minimum of one? References to official sources would be great. But I don't mind in-house interpretations. Thanks, Kimblex
StruckingFuggle 11-11-07, 11:58 PM	I don't think there's an official ruling; but now I'm rather curious what you need it for. It's not quite like AC where it can make a difference, is it...? o.o
Polaris 11-12-07, 12:12 AM	Kimblex, I don't think there is an official interpretation (or at least I haven't heard of one). However, I'd say (based loosely on how rangers and other half-casters are handled) that you'd lose the caster level with any result less than zero being treated as zero....and if you have a caster level of zero, you can't cast spells (at least of that type). Again, no official rules support, but that's my take based on the mechanics of half-casters. This isn't so bad given that you can completely mitigate the caster level penalty of Mage-slayer with another feat (practiced spellcaster). -Polaris
StevenO 11-12-07, 12:20 AM	Nothing in the feat suggests it has a floor so go ahead and look at negative caster levels. That may not make sense in most cases so I'd have a virtual floor with a zero caster level but if a negative level is compelling enough I may go with that.
runestar 11-12-07, 02:36 AM	Is there a rule which states that a caster with a net caster lv of zero or less cannot cast any spells at all? I thought that you simply plugged in the appropriate numbers as per normal, and resolve the spell's effects from there. For example, a fireball would have no effect as it deals 0d6 damage. Conversely, true-strike would still work as its effect is independent of caster lv, so it does not matter if you have a caster lv of +100 or -100.:confused:
draco1119 11-12-07, 04:00 AM	But would the lost levels be effective casting or caster levels? I always thought it meant that (for example) a 7th level caster becomes a 3rd level caster in all respects (spells/day, spells known, and effects based on caster level).
zeratulcraft 11-12-07, 04:36 AM	Keep in mind you can't cast spells if your caster level doesn't meet the minimum for you to have learnt the spell. It's in the magic section of your PHB, gives the example of 6th level Mialee casting either a 6d6 fireball, or a 5d6 one, but couldn't go any lower.
Tordak 11-12-07, 10:13 AM	But would the lost levels be effective casting or caster levels? I always thought it meant that (for example) a 7th level caster becomes a 3rd level caster in all respects (spells/day, spells known, and effects based on caster level). No, it mean caser level for purpose of determining caster-dependent varaibles, like spell with caster-dependent range, duration, damages. A 7th level wizard could still cast a fireball, but it only does 3d6 damages and a range of 460 ft. As for the OP, you obviously don't want to bother with negative caster level (-3 caster level fireball is not going to heal anyone), but I think, since it is not noted in the feat description, that you can have a caster level 0. Like noted in previous post, some spell are independant of caster level, so you would still be able to use them. For other spell, you replace any 'caster level' by 0 (for example, spell with duration 1 round/caster level would not work, and range 100ft +10 ft/caster level would have a range of 100ft). As I said if there was a minimum caster level it would be noted in the feat.
Kimblex 11-12-07, 05:57 PM	Thanks everyone. I think it's clear that my character's caster level would be zero and I feel that would mean he could not cast spells. He could still use wands, read scrolls (with a check), etc. So I think that feat is not a choice at all for him since I only plan on taking one (or maybe three) levels of wizard. So I'm more likely to go with Practiced Spellcaster. Thanks again. Kimblex