| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Victor_ograygor |
Posted - 07 May 2007 : 10:30:11
Can a mage ore a priest make lees damage then rolled, and that way chose how much damage to give others.
Example
10 level Santa Pope cast a Fire ball 10d6 and he fore some reasons don’t want to inflict more than 20 points of damage is this possible even if he dose ex. 35 points of damage.
I know that he could chose to cast the spell with lees dices, but what about lowing the damage 
|
| 13 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| malchor7 |
Posted - 10 May 2007 : 16:38:12
I'm not aware of "Caster Level" affecting spells known or spells per day (that would be your actual class levels). For instance, having the healing domain makes your caster level for healing spells one higher--but it doesn't give you more spells. You can have an effect that increases your caster level 4 or even 5, without giving you more spells. So why can't you have an effect that decreases your caster level without taking spells away?
Negative levels decrease your caster level by 1 each, but (if I'm not mistaken) they only wipe out one of your most powerful spells, not all of them. Example: a 5th level wizard gets hit with a negative level, loses the fireball he has memorized, but not any other 3rd levels spells he has for some reason. But then, if he can't cast them, doesn't that kinda seem like it wipes out *ALL* his 3rd level spells? Doesn't that seem a little overpowered?
Death Knell makes your caster level one higher for the purposes of determining the effect of your spells, but it doesn't give you more spells. Why can't some effect make it lower without taking spells away?
What about when you're operating under some kind of effect that makes your caster level lower--like shadow magic making your caster level for evocation spells down by one. A 6th level shadow sorcerer can learn fireball--he just can't cast it?
Also, you can create wands at a lower caster level than your own--a magic missile wand defaults at 1st level caster, even if you're a 10th level caster. Again, an instance of decreasing caster level freely. (I'm not going to argue that you can make a fireball wand at a 4th level caster, however.)
I just don't think that that's how temporary caster level decreases affect spells. I think they make them less effective (do less damage), but I don't think they make them unable to function.
|
| warlockco |
Posted - 10 May 2007 : 05:01:29
quote:
Originally posted by malchor7
Are we SURE a wizard can't cast at a lower level than the spell requires?
A wild mage (Complete Arcane), for instance, casts a spell at CL +1d6-3, meaning that he could be casting it at 2 less than his own level. If a wizard 7/wild mage 4 casts a chain lightning spell and rolls a 1 on his wild magic check, his spell doesn't just fizzle because 9th level is too low to cast the spell. His lightning just does 9d6 damage.
I don't think lowering the caster level beyond what it would take to be able to know and memorize the spell stops you flat.
Well Wild Magic is an exception to the rules regarding magic. |
| malchor7 |
Posted - 10 May 2007 : 03:02:26
Are we SURE a wizard can't cast at a lower level than the spell requires?
A wild mage (Complete Arcane), for instance, casts a spell at CL +1d6-3, meaning that he could be casting it at 2 less than his own level. If a wizard 7/wild mage 4 casts a chain lightning spell and rolls a 1 on his wild magic check, his spell doesn't just fizzle because 9th level is too low to cast the spell. His lightning just does 9d6 damage.
I don't think lowering the caster level beyond what it would take to be able to know and memorize the spell stops you flat.
|
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 09 May 2007 : 22:36:03
quote:
Originally posted by warlockco
quote:
Originally posted by Garen Thal
There's also this bit from the PH/SRD:quote:
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.
So, a sorcerer 10 could cast fireball at 5th level, for example, and inflict 5d6 damage rather than the 10d6 she'd normally cause. Damage is still random, however, so it's just as likely she'll do 5 points of damage as 30.
A Sorcerer would have to cast it as a 6d6, since they don't get 3rd level spells til 6th level.
A Wizard could do the 5d6, since they can cast them at 5th level.
Mmm, sorta. Depends on how you parse the sentence.
Fireball is a 3rd level spell, so it has a minimum caster level of 5. The fact that the sorcerer can't cast it until level 6 doesn't increase the minimum caster level; it just increases the minimum level that the caster needs. Semantics, I know, but stick with me...
A sorcerer can create a wand of fireball with a caster level of 5, even though she'd need to be 6th level to ever cast the spell. That's because it's the spell level--and not the class--that determines minimum caster level. The same goes for a paladin with a wand of bless weapon; even though he could never cast the spell with a caster level of 1 (paladin's don't get spells until their caster level is at least 2), he could create a wand with the lower caster level, because the spell's level is what sets the floor on caster level.
Of course, you're free to read the rule however you like. I just happen to see things differently. |
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 09 May 2007 : 20:02:54
quote:
Originally posted by Victor_ograygor
Maybe its time fore me to tell you whey I ask you this question
I have this group of adventures (Npc) : The Burning Five (Five sorceress) they all cast fireball where they stand, and use magic to protect themselves against fire.
Unless you're immune to that particular type of damage, dropping an offensive area of effect spell on yourself isn't the best strategy. There are very few circumstances where that would be a good idea... |
| warlockco |
Posted - 09 May 2007 : 18:31:16
quote:
Originally posted by Garen Thal
There's also this bit from the PH/SRD:quote:
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.
So, a sorcerer 10 could cast fireball at 5th level, for example, and inflict 5d6 damage rather than the 10d6 she'd normally cause. Damage is still random, however, so it's just as likely she'll do 5 points of damage as 30.
A Sorcerer would have to cast it as a 6d6, since they don't get 3rd level spells til 6th level.
A Wizard could do the 5d6, since they can cast them at 5th level. |
| Victor_ograygor |
Posted - 09 May 2007 : 15:37:18
Maybe its time fore me to tell you whey I ask you this question
I have this group of adventures (Npc) : The Burning Five (Five sorceress) they all cast fireball where they stand, and use magic to protect themselves against fire.
|
| Garen Thal |
Posted - 09 May 2007 : 13:41:36
There's also this bit from the PH/SRD:quote:
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.
So, a sorcerer 10 could cast fireball at 5th level, for example, and inflict 5d6 damage rather than the 10d6 she'd normally cause. Damage is still random, however, so it's just as likely she'll do 5 points of damage as 30. |
| Ergdusch |
Posted - 09 May 2007 : 13:07:49
Anyone interested - you can find that feat, "Nonlethal Substatution" in Compete Arcane p. 81.
Good gaming, Ergdusch |
| Mkhaiwati |
Posted - 08 May 2007 : 03:31:27
The feat is called non-lethal Substitution. I like it for mages that don't want to destroy everything.
Another option would be to consider that the spells cause max damage of, say, 1d6 per level, as in the fireball example. He could cast a 10d6, or make it less like a 6d6, but I wouldn't have it alter the points of damage done, just the number of dice. That is, he could roll all 6's and cause 36 points damage, or 1's and cause just 6 points for that 6d6 fireball. Just saying, "I want to max out at 35 points of damage" doesn't work for me, I like that variable issue there. |
| Kaladorm |
Posted - 07 May 2007 : 20:13:24
There's a feat, I think in book of exalted deeds, or possibly one of the complete books, that allows you to have all damage caused by your spell be non-lethal. Not quite what you're after I know but it might aid your purpose (whatever that may be) :) |
| Victor_ograygor |
Posted - 07 May 2007 : 15:55:59
That was just what I wanted to hear, thanks fore the feat…  |
| Kentinal |
Posted - 07 May 2007 : 15:43:27
Not really anyway in core rules to declare maximun damage that a spell inflicts. Magic is not all that sure, plus there is the issue of saving throws that effect the amount of damage.
One thing you could house rule is a feat minimise spell, though not sure any character would want to waste a feat slot for such a feat.
Perhaps give such a feat as a bonus feat.
Minimise Spell:
Prerequisites: Ability to cast Level 1 spell.
Benefit: All variable, numeric effects of a spell modified by this feat are minimized. Saving throws and opposed rolls are not affected, nor are spells without random variables. A minimized spell uses up a spell slot the same level as the spell’s actual level.
Special: This is a bonus feat that does not count to the normal feat limit.
|
|
|
