| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Do spellcasters that gain negative levels lose the ability to cast their highest level spells as a result of those negative levels?
Say a 14th level Wizard gains 2 negative levels. Has he lost the ability to cast 7th level spells entirely?
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Do spellcasters that gain negative levels lose the ability to cast their highest level spells as a result of those negative levels?
Say a 14th level Wizard gains 2 negative levels. Has he lost the ability to cast 7th level spells entirely?
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
So it would also reason you can't use slots above your current caster level for metamagic?
An example is an energy drained 7th level wizard/sorcerer trying to metamagic up to a 4th level spell.
I know the answer, but I need it for reference.
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
I am so empowering this!
But how does this not nerf casters more than other classes? Fighters aren't losing feats due to a reduced attack....
|
Creative Director
|
So it would also reason you can't use slots above your current caster level for metamagic?
An example is an energy drained 7th level wizard/sorcerer trying to metamagic up to a 4th level spell.
I know the answer, but I need it for reference.
You can NEVER metamagic a spell to a point beyond a spell level that you can cast. So yeah, level drain would indeed reduce or possibly make useless some metamagic feats.
|
Creative Director
|
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
I am so empowering this!
But how does this not nerf casters more than other classes? Fighters aren't losing feats due to a reduced attack....
Not every attack should equally affect every class. If we wanted that, we wouldn't have 11 different classes... we'd just have one class.
Taking a different route... ray of enfeeblement hurts fighters far more than wizards. There are plenty of effects that are worse to some classes than others, and that's fine.
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
I am so empowering this!
But how does this not nerf casters more than other classes? Fighters aren't losing feats due to a reduced attack....
It does seem like casters are suffering a lot more than non casters from negative levels...
Ah and James replied as I was typing...
You can NEVER metamagic a spell to a point beyond a spell level that you can cast. So yeah, level drain would indeed reduce or possibly make useless some metamagic feats.So it would also reason you can't use slots above your current caster level for metamagic?
An example is an energy drained 7th level wizard/sorcerer trying to metamagic up to a 4th level spell.
I know the answer, but I need it for reference.
Thanks
Okay, how does Enervation effect a monster that casts spells as one of its special abilities but does not actually have class levels? For instance, a couple of the Lamia-kin from Runelords cast divine spells as an xth level caster. Would getting hit by an enervation effect these monster's abilities to cast spells? (I'm guessing not since they do not actually possess class levels)
|
Creative Director
|
Okay, how does Enervation effect a monster that casts spells as one of its special abilities but does not actually have class levels? For instance, a couple of the Lamia-kin from Runelords cast divine spells as an xth level caster. Would getting hit by an enervation effect these monster's abilities to cast spells? (I'm guessing not since they do not actually possess class levels)
If it gave them enough negutive levels to reduce their caster level below the caster level required to cast the spell they would lose the ability to cast the spell.
By my interpretation at least :)
This.
That means that some monsters might lose spellcasting ability entirely before they died from level drain, while others who have more HD than caster level would die before they lose access to all their spellcasting power.
Thank you so much for the clarifications James!
|
Personally, I do not think that casters should lose the ability to cast their highest level spells. Certainly the text says that 'level dependent effects' suffer, but to me that only implies that a 5th level wizard now casts 4d6 fireballs instead of 5d6 (with a single negative level). I don't get the same read that they lose the ability to cast, in fact the text seems to encourage the fact that this facet is not lost.
Your spell slots are determined by your level. How is that not level dependent?
|
|
A "level dependent variable" that the text quotes is different from a "level dependent effect" that I said originally (I misquoted). To my interpretation, a variable is something like the range that a spell is at, the number of dice rolled, or other things based off of 'caster level'. This I can see being reduced. The text clearly says that spells prepared and such are not lost, but I cannot see the point in that if they were unable to be cast. Better they were temporarily lost and the argument made easier than 'oh they're still here, you just can't use them'.
In any case, 'variables' does not seem to apply to the ability to gain spells.
Do spellcasters that gain negative levels lose the ability to cast their highest level spells as a result of those negative levels?
Say a 14th level Wizard gains 2 negative levels. Has he lost the ability to cast 7th level spells entirely?
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
Sorry but you are wrong. I hope you check this out with Jason.
The way I read it and the way it was used during beta caster level etc changed but not the ability to cast spells. A level 12 wizard is still a level 12 wizard. And a Level 4 Paladin is still a level 4 Paladin.Let me give you some examples:
A level 5 wizard gets hit with 2 negative levels. He can still cast fireball or haste but caster level is 3. So concentration checks, checks to beat spell resistance, damage dice are all based on level 3, but he is still a level 5 wizard and he can still cast 3 level spells. The duration of haste however would be 3 rounds and fireball would only deal 3d6 damage.
A 4 level Paladin hit by 3 negative levels would still be able to use Channel energy gained at level 4, but she would not be able to use lay on hands gained at level 2. Both Lay on hands and Channel energy are level dependent. The Paladin would channel as a level 1 cleric = 1d6.
She would use lay on hands as a level 1 paladin, but LoH is 1d6 per two levels and since she is hit with 3 negativ levels she can’t use lay on hands because paladin level 1 = 0d6.
A level 1 fighter and level 1 wizard is hit with one negative level.
His caster level is treated and 0. So He can’t cast spells that are based on his Caster level and since most spells atre base on caster level he is pretty much useless as a wizard. (Damage dice X per level or duration X per level).
You do not lose any abilities based on level. You only recalculate them based on your new level. If you start messing with the term “level dependent variables” this would cast Pathfinder right back to 3.5.
More “level dependent variables”
A 10 level rogue would loose her Advanced Talent.
A level 7 ranger would loose Woodland stride and even a combat style feat.
A level 4 paladin would loose channel energy.
A level 4 sorcerer would loose her blood line spell and spells known and 2 level spells.
A level 11 barbarian would lose greater rage and one rage power
A fifth level Monk would loose Ki pool (magic), slow fall High jump, purity of body
Etc.
I say you are wrong. A monk still have Ki pool but the pool is based of a third level monk.
A level 4 paladin hit with 2 negative levels can’t use lay on hands (or cast spells) but she can still use Channel energy and smite evil 2 times per day. The smite damage is however +2, not +4.
A 12 level wizard hit by 11 negative levels can still cast all his spells, but duration and damage would be based on a level 1 wizard. So improved invisibility would last for one round and the damage from Chain Lightning would be 1d6.
/Kind regards Zark
I'm sorry Zark, but James Jacobs made it pretty clear. Abilities gained, like feats, aren't lost. The ability to cast spells is. A 5th lvl Figther hit with 2 lvls loses hit points and takes penalties to rolls. A 5th lvl Wizard does the same, but also loses the ability to cast 3rd lvl spells.
Feats and class abilities aren't level dependent variables. Spell slots are.
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
I am so empowering this!
But how does this not nerf casters more than other classes? Fighters aren't losing feats due to a reduced attack....
Actually, they do lose access to any feats with a level-dependent requirement.
|
|
I'm sorry Zark, but James Jacobs made it pretty clear. Abilities gained, like feats, aren't lost. The ability to cast spells is. A 5th lvl Figther hit with 2 lvls loses hit points and takes penalties to rolls. A 5th lvl Wizard does the same, but also loses the ability to cast 3rd lvl spells.
Feats and class abilities aren't level dependent variables. Spell slots are.
And yet, as the text states directly, spell slots are not lost. Nor does it say the ability to cast spells is.
I think people are overthinking the change with negative levels. The person affected does not really 'lose' a level. They take a small penalty on all rolls, lose a static amount of hit points, and count their level as one lower for VARIABLE effects in spells, such as those that have been pointed. No where does it imply that they lose the ability to cast these spells.
I'm sorry Zark, but James Jacobs made it pretty clear. Abilities gained, like feats, aren't lost. The ability to cast spells is. A 5th lvl Figther hit with 2 lvls loses hit points and takes penalties to rolls. A 5th lvl Wizard does the same, but also loses the ability to cast 3rd lvl spells.
Feats and class abilities aren't level dependent variables. Spell slots are.
And yet, as the text states directly, spell slots are not lost. Nor does it say the ability to cast spells is.
I think people are overthinking the change with negative levels. The person affected does not really 'lose' a level. They take a small penalty on all rolls, lose a static amount of hit points, and count their level as one lower for VARIABLE effects in spells, such as those that have been pointed. No where does it imply that they lose the ability to cast these spells.
This is exactly my same reading of the 'Negative Levels effects' description.
If this is not the case, then the description should be clarified in a future errata (IMHO), since there are people (like Karui Kage, Zark and myself, among - i believe - others) who read that description in a different way.
Just my 2c.
I think James is off on this one, this would actually make such effects grossly overpowered vs much higher opponents.
In my opinion it just affects the spell's variables and level checks, I tend to think that would be punishment enough.
Also I do not think negative levels should specifically hinder some classes more than others, the loss of power should be roughly equal since the classes are supposedly roughly equal.
I have no problem with James' interpretation.
I believe that the line about casters not losing spells is a boon to them in that if a restoration is cast on them, they can now use those spells, rather than having lost them and now needing to re-memorize/pray after 8 hours of rest.
Remco, not all spells should affect all the classes roughly equal. A feeblemind will have a much greater effect on a wizard than on a sorcerer. I believe that James addressed this in an earlier post in this thread.
I believe negative levels are a little different in that they SHOULD actually reduce ability roughly as much.
some spells are specifically designed to be more effective against some cretures / characters, I dont think enervation or level drain in general was ever intended to do that.
Like I see it, it is similar to ray of enfeeblement giving a penalty to strength, it doesn't actually rob people of their use of power attack and feats derived there of, it just gives a penalty to hit and damage.
No offence to James, I think James is often wrong as well and he never claims to be right either, he tends to tell people how he would rule it, but doesn't specifically put down the rules.
This one is in my opinion a wrong call on his part.
|
"For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies."
here is our reference for the sake of this post...
I agree with James Jacobs on this. Casting level and spell level are variable. they changes as your character increases level.
Okay, how does Enervation effect a monster that casts spells as one of its special abilities but does not actually have class levels? For instance, a couple of the Lamia-kin from Runelords cast divine spells as an xth level caster. Would getting hit by an enervation effect these monster's abilities to cast spells? (I'm guessing not since they do not actually possess class levels)
Spell-like abilities, however, are not caster level dependent for when they are acquired or castable (see Spell-Like Abilities in the Bestiary, which mentions some creatures ability to use certain spells that would typically be beyond the creature's caster level). So, Enervation does not affect a critter's access to its Spell-Like Abilities, only the level-dependent effects of that ability. A critter would be treated just like a character for spells it casts as an x-level character type.
"For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies."
here is our reference for the sake of this post...
I agree with James Jacobs on this. Casting level and spell level are variable. they changes as your character increases level.
well, there is alot of things that change as you increase level, that doesn't make them level-dependent variable as described here.
like when you are trying to dispel magic, or penetrate SR, or the a spell's variables, I do not think it should remove abilities you have gained through those levels, fighters don't lose feats, BAB, not even when they need a specific level as requirement (like specialization).
rogues do not lose talents, sneak attack potential, uncanny dodge or trap sense improvements.
nor would a barbarian lose access to ragepowers for which a specific level is needed.
I could go on and on, but essentially these would be the same thing as spellcasters losing their spells,
Basically I do not think it affects anything gained through a specific requirement, like being level X to cast this spell, rather it comes into play when level interacts directly with a spell or ability.
Maybe I am wrong, it seems too much for an ability that doesn't allow a save and usually only requires a touch attack to be effective.
I agree with James Jacobs on this. Casting level and spell level are variable. they changes as your character increases level.
Casting level is also variable based on the choice of the spellcaster when he casts a spell (up to his max caster level, that is).
well, there is alot of things that change as you increase level, that doesn't make them level-dependent variable as described here.
like when you are trying to dispel magic, or penetrate SR, or the a spell's variables, I do not think it should remove abilities you have gained through those levels, fighters don't lose feats, BAB, not even when they need a specific level as requirement (like specialization).
rogues do not lose talents, sneak attack potential, uncanny dodge or trap sense improvements.
nor would a barbarian lose access to ragepowers for which a specific level is needed.
I could go on and on, but essentially these would be the same thing as spellcasters losing their spells,
Basically I do not think it affects anything gained through a specific requirement, like being level X to cast this spell, rather it comes into play when level interacts directly with a spell or ability.
Maybe I am wrong, it seems too much for an ability that doesn't allow a save and usually only requires a touch attack to be effective.
I'd have to argue that based on this ruling, rogue talents, sneak attack potential, uncanny dodge and trap sense improvements are just as level-dependent as when a spellcaster can cast 5th or 6th level spells. I agree that this doesn't seem to fit the intent here, but what's good for the goose is good for the gander....
No offence to James, I think James is often wrong as well and he never claims to be right either, he tends to tell people how he would rule it, but doesn't specifically put down the rules.
This one is in my opinion a wrong call on his part.
Actually he has always differentiated between when he is giving a ruling and giving an opinion when I have seen him here. This is a ruling*, and that ruling is correct unless Jason comes by and erratas it or overrides it.
*When he gives an opinion he states something along the lines of "this is how I would do it".
The real purpose of the change to Energy Drain was to get rid of the process of remaking characters. Other than that it basically gives the same penalties as 3.5
As Karui Kage said: The person affected does not really 'lose' a level. They take a small penalty on stuff.
Saying you don't lose any spell but you can't cast them is like saying you don't lose any feats but you can't use them.
As the book says:
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels.
Casting spells is not the only level-dependent variable. There are feats, abilities, etc.
But again, the person affected does not really 'lose' a level.
As Karui Kage said: The person affected does not really 'lose' a level. They take a small penalty on stuff.
Saying you don't lose any spell but you can't cast them is like saying you don't lose any feats but you can't use them.
As the book says:
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels.Casting spells is not the only level-dependent variable. There are feats, abilities, etc.
But again, the person affected does not really 'lose' a level.
Spellcasting=ability to cast spells. What else could it mean?
I do agree that "level-dependent variable" needs to be better defined though.
As far as the not losing feats, but you can't use them argument, that is done to stop character rebuilding. It was the only reason I never used it in 3.5. It was too much book keeping.
well it still leaves a bad taste, it seems spellcasters were hit hard because they were easy to nerf.. the others.. meh you guys are too much work.. you are off the hook kinda thing..
I think it had been a better solution to just leave it for casters as well then
Spellcasting=ability to cast spells. What else could it mean?
My point was spellcasting is not the only "level-dependent variable".
By your and James logic, would that not also affect spells per day and spells know (sorceres and bards)?
Spellcasting=ability to cast spells. What else could it mean?
I do agree that "level-dependent variable" needs to be better defined though.
As far as the not losing feats, but you can't use them argument, that is done to stop character rebuilding. It was the only reason I never used it in 3.5. It was too much book keeping.
As posted on the other thread, level-dependent variable can be construed to draw a line between caster level (a level-dependent variable) and class level (not a level-dependent variable). Checking the SRD for Caster Level, it uses some of the same language that the negative level effect description uses.
|
|
As Karui Kage said: The person affected does not really 'lose' a level. They take a small penalty on stuff.
Saying you don't lose any spell but you can't cast them is like saying you don't lose any feats but you can't use them.
As the book says:
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels.Casting spells is not the only level-dependent variable. There are feats, abilities, etc.
But again, the person affected does not really 'lose' a level.Spellcasting=ability to cast spells. What else could it mean?
I do agree that "level-dependent variable" needs to be better defined though.
As far as the not losing feats, but you can't use them argument, that is done to stop character rebuilding. It was the only reason I never used it in 3.5. It was too much book keeping.
I think he/she was pointing out that it says 'such as spellcasting' and not just 'for spellcasting'. The 'such as' part implies that spellcasting is only an example of level-dependent variables, and if losing access to casting higher level spells counts, then so should access to other higher level-dependent things like feats, class abilities, and so on.
However, it's not a loss of higher level abilities, it's a loss of variables, which I still firmly believe to just be caster level variables in certain spells, not the ability to cast them. It's simple, it's fair, and it makes sense.
This whole thing was re-written to make it very simple to use in a game and not as harsh as it used to be. It is such my belief that the variables just means something simple as lowering your effective caster level when calculating spell stuffs (range/dice/etc.). As it's been stated, saying you get to keep your spells prepared and spells known would be pointless if you couldn't use them. The one argument about 'well when you get a Restoration you have your spells ready!' seems kind of flimsy since 8 hours of time really isn't that long to get your spells back, especially since you're likely getting the Restoration in a safe place anyhow (assuming it's shortly after you got raised from the dead, which takes a bit of time and a relatively safe location too).
Anyhow, I've said my peace, and I personally don't see any other arguments that can come up. Go with what's best for your game.
well basically, negative level ruling is shaky and it smells bad.
I am not going to use it as is, I'll let you know if I have found a solution that is deserving of my stamp of approval.
Spellcasting=ability to cast spells. What else could it mean?
My point was spellcasting is not the only "level-dependent variable".
By your and James logic, would that not also affect spells per day and spells know (sorceres and bards)?
I took level dependent variables to mean things like class abilities.
I may be wrong on that though as "level dependent variables" is not defined or at least I have not been able to find it.
Most players don't have to deconstruct a character. They know they have to be level X to use Y abilities. Just put a red dot by that ability until you get it back. As far as doing the math for dice rolls, it basically works out so that you take a minus on the roll equal to your negative levels.
According to the way I see it it would affect spells per day. As far as spells known the last one learned should be restricted first until the level was returned
Once again put a dot beside it, or some other marker.
PS: If class abilities are not affected, but spellcasting is then I misunderstood James previous post, and I would need clarification on any class ability other than spellcasting that is to be affected.
PS: If class abilities are not affected, but spellcasting is then I misunderstood James previous post, and I would need clarification on any class ability other than spellcasting that is to be affected.
I should think that the save DC for a monk's stunning fist would be affected since it's level-based.
Amount of damage a cleric of Torag would repair with Artificer's Touch.Number of rounds a day a barbarian could rage, bard could use bard performance, cleric of Erastil could talk to animals.
Amount of damage done/healed by a channeling cleric and the related save DC.
I took level dependent variables to mean things like class abilities.
Thus Grater rage would be affected if a level 11 barbaran would be drained etc.
Most monk stuff would be affected.Bard stuff, rogue stuff, etc.
Most players don't have to deconstruct a character. They know they have to be level X to use Y abilities.
You no longer lose levels.
If a level 5 caster getting hit with 1 negative level will be unable to cast level 3 spells because level 3 spells can only be cast if you are level 5 or higher, then the following should also be true:
A level 5 druid getting hit with 1 negative level will be unable to use his Natural Spell feat since you can only have this feat if you are level 5 or higher. A lower level druid might even lose his shapeshift ability alltogether.
Etc etc. All abilities, skills and feats with a level requirement cannot be used the moment energy drain brings your virtual level below the minimum level required. If you do not really lose levels, then the wizard above would still be level 5 and therefore be able to cast level 3 spells.
If a level 5 caster getting hit with 1 negative level will be unable to cast level 3 spells because level 3 spells can only be cast if you are level 5 or higher, then the following should also be true:
A level 5 druid getting hit with 1 negative level will be unable to use his Natural Spell feat since you can only have this feat if you are level 5 or higher. A lower level druid might even lose his shapeshift ability alltogether.
Etc etc. All abilities, skills and feats with a level requirement cannot be used the moment energy drain brings your virtual level below the minimum level required. If you do not really lose levels, then the wizard above would still be level 5 and therefore be able to cast level 3 spells.
My exact thought. If Negative Levels were rewoked to avoid TCC (Total Character Calculation), then the Wizard 5 with 2 Neg Levels should still have his Fireball spells (albeit lousy 3d6 ones)
Otherwise, bye-bye to Weapon Specialization to a Fighter 5 with 2 Neg Levels, since he cannot use it anymore (the prereq to Weapon Specialization IS level-dependant, after all...) - and I truly do not believe that was the intention behind the changes...
My exact thought. If Negative Levels were rewoked to avoid TCC (Total Character Calculation), then the Wizard 5 with 2 Neg Levels should still have his Fireball spells (albeit lousy 3d6 ones)
Otherwise, bye-bye to Weapon Specialization to a Fighter 5 with 2 Neg Levels, since he cannot use it anymore (the prereq to Weapon Specialization IS level-dependant, after all...) - and I truly do not believe that was the intention behind the changes...
I'd like to add that IF James is correct, the negative level description should be rephrased. I don't really mind what the end ruling will be as long as the Negative level description is clear about it.
PS: People saying ray of enfeeblement is more inconvenient for a warrior than a wizard are wrong though. If you hit a wizard with a really good one he will probably drop everything he holds since it would drop his Strength to 1 hehe. That's quite something more than a few penalties on to hit and damage a warrior will suffer ;-)
My exact thought. If Negative Levels were rewoked to avoid TCC (Total Character Calculation), then the Wizard 5 with 2 Neg Levels should still have his Fireball spells (albeit lousy 3d6 ones)
Otherwise, bye-bye to Weapon Specialization to a Fighter 5 with 2 Neg Levels, since he cannot use it anymore (the prereq to Weapon Specialization IS level-dependant, after all...) - and I truly do not believe that was the intention behind the changes...I'd like to add that IF James is correct, the negative level description should be rephrased. I don't really mind what the end ruling will be as long as the Negative level description is clear about it.
PS: People saying ray of enfeeblement is more inconvenient for a warrior than a wizard are wrong though. If you hit a wizard with a really good one he will probably drop everything he holds since it would drop his Strength to 1 hehe. That's quite something more than a few penalties on to hit and damage a warrior will suffer ;-)
if I am not mistaken ray of enfeeblement only gives a loss to strength for purposes of to hit and damage, not for any other function of strength like carrying capacity and such, so it would indeed do virtually nothing to a wizard.
Even if James is correct, the rules should be changed to either penalize other classes to a greater extent, or (easier) to not affect casters as badly. Like I stated before, level drain should not be an ability that singles out a particular class.
The whole basis of this discussion is the loss in casterlevel making them unable to cast, while this is true according to RAW, I do not have the impression this was written with the new negative level condition in mind, just like temporary penalties to strength doesn't affect the function of feats or carying capacity this should not cause the loss of spell use.
If this was infact the intention the description should not read it doesn't cause the loss of spells or slots, to me it seemed that this loss of casterlevel did not affect the spells but only the casterlevel, and also the most sensible interpretation.
There might need to be mention that casterlevel can not be reduced below
1 or that a casterlevel of 0 or less makes spellcasting impossible.
(which is possible incase of multiclassing for example)
Caster level is a level-based variable, which is why spellcasting is effected. Other class abilities aren't variable, so you keep those (though they might be reduced as is the case for a monk's stunning fist DC and things like it).
if I am not mistaken ray of enfeeblement only gives a loss to strength for purposes of to hit and damage, not for any other function of strength like carrying capacity and such
Why wouldn't it?
It would even affect the use of feats like power attack.
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain
"Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal
damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does
not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty
to
the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability,
apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the
relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have
taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately
fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability
score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score.
If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater
than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise
noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate
of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged.
Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells,
such as lesser restoration.
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability
penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these
penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot
cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties
cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to
take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee
attack
rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength).
The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus
(if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver
Defense."
I pasted the appropriate section for easy reference
Ability Score Damage, Penalty, and Drain
"Diseases, poisons, spells, and other abilities can all deal damage directly to your ability scores. This damage does not actually reduce an ability, but it does apply a penalty to the skills and statistics that are based on that ability.
For every 2 points of damage you take to a single ability, apply a –1 penalty to skills and statistics listed with the relevant ability. If the amount of ability damage you have taken equals or exceeds your ability score, you immediately fall unconscious until the damage is less than your ability score. The only exception to this is your Constitution score. If the damage to your Constitution is equal to or greater than your Constitution score, you die. Unless otherwise noted, damage to your ability scores is healed at the rate of 1 per day to each ability score that has been damaged. Ability damage can be healed through the use of spells, such as lesser restoration.
Some spells and abilities cause you to take an ability penalty for a limited amount of time. While in effect, these penalties function just like ability damage, but they cannot cause you to fall unconscious or die. In essence, penalties cannot decrease your ability score to less than 1.
Strength: Damage to your Strength score causes you to take penalties on Strength-based skill checks, melee attack rolls, and weapon damage rolls (if they rely on Strength). The penalty also applies to your Combat Maneuver Bonus (if you are Small or larger) and your Combat Maneuver Defense."
I pasted the appropriate section for easy reference
Wow. That's news to me.
So if I have 12 Strength, and take 1 point of ability damage, nothing changes whatsoever? That is definitely something I am going to have to get used to.
I think people have to accept that there is a certain amount of convenience of book keeping in this rule.
You don't lose skills because you'd have to track what skill you took at each level.
You don't use slots because, someone would get out an eraser and modify their spell sheet only to complain later. Spontaneous casters pick spells when they get slots. If your slots are left then your spell choice and spells known is not affected.
Negative levels are a player gimme. You're not actually losing all that experience and there is still something you can do about it.
Don't be ungracious and remove all the downsides of the affect and the game becomes more bland.
I think there is nothing contradictory or difficult about the ruling. Spellcasters get a fixed advantage from level advancement. Negative levels remove that benefit.