Dear James, regarding Enervation...


Rules Questions

51 to 100 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

The only point I am making is that it is unnecesary to remove spellcasting ability beyond caster level, in no way this is balanced by what other classes lose, reducing the effectiveness of spells but not the spells themselves fit with the effect it has on other classes.


So to get back on topic:

If you lose the ability to cast spells with a minimum level requirement when getting hit with negative levels, why don't you lose feats or other abilities with a minimum level requirement?

Secondly, you can also look at it this way:
Casting spells is not caster-level based. If a 5th level wizard has feats or items that ups his caster level by 2, he still is not able to cast 4th level spells, since getting access of level X spells is only dependant on your TRUE player character/class level.

So why would a 5th level wizard that has downed his caster level by 2 due to debuffs lose his ability to cast 3rd level spells if upping his caster level by 2 does not give him the ability to cast 4th level spells?


by the way this was how it worked in 3.5 :

"If a spellcaster is subjected to the enervation spell and
gets two negative levels, does the character also lose the
ability to cast his highest level of spells? The descriptive text
for negative levels says that a spellcaster loses one spell or
spell slot (the highest) for each negative level. This would
imply that the spellcaster could still cast his highest level
spells so long as he hasn’t been enervated for more negative
levels than he has spells of his highest level.

You are correct. A spellcaster with a negative level loses
one spell of the highest level he currently has available to cast.
He does not necessarily lose his whole highest level of spells
(although that’s a real possibility when a spellcaster picks up
several negative levels)."


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Funkytrip wrote:

If you lose the ability to cast spells with a minimum level requirement when getting hit with negative levels, why don't you lose feats or other abilities with a minimum level requirement?

Because the other abilities don't specifically say YOU HAVE TO BE X LEVEL TO HAVE Y ABILITY like spellcasting does (that's what makes it a level-dependent variable). Sure, most class abilities say YOU GAIN Y ABILITY AT X LEVEL, but that's not the same thing. Gaining an ability at a certain level is not the same thing as an explicit level requirement. It's a subtle difference.


It's a negative level. It means you lost a level.

And since that's a bear to calculate, PF has a method that simplifies the process so you don't have to sit there going 'dang it, what skills did I take the past two levels??'

For the most part, act like you've lost 2 levels. For speed of play, don't worry about when you gained what, but if something clearly is 'X is based on Y level' (like feats, spell levels, etc.), then there you go, you're effectively lower level.


Ravingdork wrote:


Because the other abilities don't specifically say YOU HAVE TO BE X LEVEL TO HAVE Y ABILITY like spellcasting does (that's what makes it a level-dependent variable). Sure, most class abilities say YOU GAIN Y ABILITY AT X LEVEL, but that's not the same thing. Gaining an ability at a certain level is not the same thing as an explicit level requirement. It's a subtle difference.

Many feats say "prerequisite: level X". I have to admit that this might mean that once you meet the prerequisites, you get the feat and anything that happens afterwards to your level doesn't matter since you have the feat now period.

Still, if lowering your caster level deprives you of your highest level spells, the opposite should count as well:

Using an ioun stone which states "+1 caster level" will enable the player with 6 wizard levels to write 4th level spells in his spellbook because his effective caster level is now 7, enabling him to cast 4th level spells.

Quote:
For the most part, act like you've lost 2 levels. For speed of play, don't worry about when you gained what, but if something clearly is 'X is based on Y level' (like feats, spell levels, etc.), then there you go, you're effectively lower level.

Well no, that's the entire point. Apparently it only effects spell levels, not feats. To be able to wildshape a druid has to be level 4, but if I understand correctly, according James you do not lose the ability to wildshape when you get a negative level at level 4.


Except wildshape doesn't SAY 'level requirement: level 4,' it's just something you gain at level 4.

Similarly, if you have ...

You know, I'm going to reverse myself. Looking at negative levels some more, here's a list of level varying things that are not affected:
BAB, saves, ability scores (a penalty is different from 'X has been lowered')

I think I'm going to disagree with the dev and state that I don't think it should affect spell availability, because it looks like negative levels have been recast to make everything a character does weaker rather than rolling back abilities.


James Jacobs wrote:
Robert Young wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

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.

This is a wide reading of the term "level dependent variables". I was under the impression it related to caster level and spells like fireball as Kauri Kage mentioned. Also, it's extremely confusing to tell a player they lose the ability to cast the spell -- but they don't lose the spell nor do they lose the ability to cast spells.

In that case, isn't base attack bonus a level dependent variable? A character with all fighter levels who is 6th level must have a base attack bonus of +6. A character with all rogue levels who has a base attack bonus of +6 must be 8th or 9th level. Therefore, if you give a 6th level fighter 4 negative levels, he should lose access to Great Cleave, Spring Attack, Greater X, etc. . . not to mention the Disruptive feat (tied to a 6th level fighter) or Weapon Specialization (4th level).


Remco Sommeling wrote:

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.
[...]
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.

My bold. The text doesn't explicitly state carrying capacity but it's pretty obvious it affects carrying capacity.


I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure James Jacobs interpretation of "level dependent benefits" is completely wrong. The wording on negative levels was changed in PF so that casters don't lose memorized spells. It used to be (IIRC) that for every negative level a caster would lose ONE spell memorized at his highest castable spell level. Now if a 13th level wizard gains one negative level they lose the ability completely to cast 7th level spells, including any they had for a high Int modifier. Furthermore they would lose any spells from lower levels that they gained from going from 12th to 13th levels? This makes no sense to me, and counter to the language which I thought was rather straightforward, PF is actually harsher on casters in this regard than 3.5?

Can this be right?


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zark wrote:
Remco Sommeling wrote:

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.
[...]
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.

My bold. The text doesn't explicitly state carrying capacity but it's pretty obvious it affects carrying capacity.

The "and statistics" part refers to the individual statistics specifically called out in the ability score sections below. Since Carrying Capacity is not called out in the Strength section, it is not affected by Strength damage or Strength penalties (but it is effected by Strength drain).

Also, negative levels and ability damage both are a lot like temporary hit points. They don't actually change your score, they are tracked separately.

Dark Archive

meatrace wrote:

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure James Jacobs interpretation of "level dependent benefits" is completely wrong. The wording on negative levels was changed in PF so that casters don't lose memorized spells. It used to be (IIRC) that for every negative level a caster would lose ONE spell memorized at his highest castable spell level. Now if a 13th level wizard gains one negative level they lose the ability completely to cast 7th level spells, including any they had for a high Int modifier. Furthermore they would lose any spells from lower levels that they gained from going from 12th to 13th levels? This makes no sense to me, and counter to the language which I thought was rather straightforward, PF is actually harsher on casters in this regard than 3.5?

Can this be right?

They lose ability to cast those spells, but should their levels be regained, they resume play as if nothing had occurred. In 3.5 since you lose the spells, they aren't there should a cleric cast restoration on you.

Think of it more as a "If you fail to qualify for something because of a penalty or negative level. As soon as you re qualify, it returns to you as if nothing happened."


I think James is completelly right. Back in second edition this was painful, cause u really lost that level, but anyway, not the issue.

The issue is, most feats, and abilities you need to be certain level to GET IT, not to USE IT. Now, spell you do need a certain level of power to use, so this is level dependent.

And I see no big deal whatsoever with it, casters, deal with it. Non casters have a pretty hardtime already, I don't see how this one thing that gets to casters is so hideous.


James Jacobs wrote:
Robert Young wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:

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.

Right there. James states in pretty plain language that Fighters and other characters do not lose their feats from negative levels. That's about as official as you can get.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dork Lord wrote:
Right there. James states in pretty plain language that Fighters and other characters do not lose their feats from negative levels. That's about as official as you can get.

As official as one can get without Errata or FAQ clarification.


meatrace wrote:

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure James Jacobs interpretation of "level dependent benefits" is completely wrong. The wording on negative levels was changed in PF so that casters don't lose memorized spells. It used to be (IIRC) that for every negative level a caster would lose ONE spell memorized at his highest castable spell level. Now if a 13th level wizard gains one negative level they lose the ability completely to cast 7th level spells, including any they had for a high Int modifier. Furthermore they would lose any spells from lower levels that they gained from going from 12th to 13th levels? This makes no sense to me, and counter to the language which I thought was rather straightforward, PF is actually harsher on casters in this regard than 3.5?

Can this be right?

It's not right. You don't lose the ability to cast the lower level slots you may have gained from 12th to 13th level if you take on a negative level. Your caster level is suppressed a bit (back to 12th level) so you can no longer muster the mojo to use those 7th level spell slots you got. But your caster level is still good enough to use the lower level ones you got for being 13th level.

Keep in mind - you get spell slots for being a particular class level. You fire off those slots using your caster level. The latter gets knocked down because of negative levels, the former does not.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

meatrace wrote:

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure James Jacobs interpretation of "level dependent benefits" is completely wrong. The wording on negative levels was changed in PF so that casters don't lose memorized spells. It used to be (IIRC) that for every negative level a caster would lose ONE spell memorized at his highest castable spell level. Now if a 13th level wizard gains one negative level they lose the ability completely to cast 7th level spells, including any they had for a high Int modifier. Furthermore they would lose any spells from lower levels that they gained from going from 12th to 13th levels? This makes no sense to me, and counter to the language which I thought was rather straightforward, PF is actually harsher on casters in this regard than 3.5?

Can this be right?

I was asked. I gave my interpretation of the rules. It's the interpretation I'll be applying to every single Paizo release unless Jason steps in and tells me that's not how it's supposed to work, in which case I'll task him with including a more clearly-written bit of text for an upcoming errata.

If that doesn't sit well with you, fine. Houserule it. If my interpretation changes, I'm sure this thread will be among the first to hear about it. Certainly not having level drain impact spell access makes for a simpler game, and that's a VERY strong argument for saying that it doesn't hurt a spellcaster's access.

But the simple fact that negative levels DO reduce a character's level-gained benefits argues very strongly for the fact that it should probably impact spellcasting in a similar way.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done commenting here. I've got several behind-schedule lines of products to get out the door. We DO know about the confusion this rule has apparently caused, though, and it'll be addressed in the FAQ if/when we get one written, I hope.

Until then, there ya go.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
James Jacobs wrote:

I was asked. I gave my interpretation of the rules. It's the interpretation I'll be applying to every single Paizo release unless Jason steps in and tells me that's not how it's supposed to work, in which case I'll task him with including a more clearly-written bit of text for an upcoming errata.

If that doesn't sit well with you, fine. Houserule it. If my interpretation changes, I'm sure this thread will be among the first to hear about it. Certainly not having level drain impact spell access makes for a simpler game, and that's a VERY strong argument for saying that it doesn't hurt a spellcaster's access.

But the simple fact that negative levels DO reduce a character's level-gained benefits argues very strongly for the fact that it should probably impact spellcasting in a similar way.

Anyway, I'm pretty much done commenting here. I've got several behind-schedule lines of products to get out the door. We DO know about the confusion this rule has apparently caused, though, and it'll be addressed in the FAQ if/when we get one written, I hope.

Until then, there ya go.

That's it James! Don't let it get you down.


Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.

Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Funkytrip wrote:

Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.

Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?

This is an interesting point, but it sidesteps the issue. The effect that's causing the loss of access to higher level spells is not merely a lowered caster level... it's the accumulation of negative levels that we're talking about. So for this argument to actually be legit, it would have to use the opposite of this effect—gaining positive levels. Which DOES give you the ability to cast more spells.

Ugh... It's hard to escape from this thread! It's the new Paizo Black Hole!


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Funkytrip wrote:

Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.

Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?

If you gain caster levels, then yes, you can cast higher level spells. However, most abilities that give you bonus caster levels specifically state that it only applies to the spell variables (range, duration, damage, etc.) rather than giving you real spellcaster levels.


Gaining caster levels won't help you gain more spell slots or higher level spell slots if you don't have the class levels as well. This is why prestige classes don't give you caster levels alone. They give you new spells per day as if your spellcaster class had gone up a level.

A higher caster level just lets you, in a sense, supercharge the slot you've got and cast the spell from it with a bit more power (damage, range, duration, etc).

Negative levels don't remove the slots you got from your class levels, but if your caster level is weaker to the point in which you can no longer, in a sense, power the slot, you can't fire off the spell from it.


James Jacobs wrote:
Ugh... It's hard to escape from this thread! It's the new Paizo Black Hole!

It's also the illegitimate child of the Pathfinder Energy Drain thread!

It seems as though intent needs to be further examined here, and level-dependent variables defined more concretely.

(Perhaps a stray thought from Jason might slay all the dragons!)

RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16

A fireball's range, duration and dice of damage are level-dependent variables.

A third level spell slot, and the ability to cast from it, are class features.

Enervation does not take away a fighter's Weapon Training, and it does not take away a wizard's spellcasting.

Unless you listen to that OTHER guy. Look at the silly plastic figurine in his icon. It's not even a badger! Who lets these crackpots on the forums, anywEATEN


1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
meatrace wrote:

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure James Jacobs interpretation of "level dependent benefits" is completely wrong. The wording on negative levels was changed in PF so that casters don't lose memorized spells. It used to be (IIRC) that for every negative level a caster would lose ONE spell memorized at his highest castable spell level. Now if a 13th level wizard gains one negative level they lose the ability completely to cast 7th level spells, including any they had for a high Int modifier. Furthermore they would lose any spells from lower levels that they gained from going from 12th to 13th levels? This makes no sense to me, and counter to the language which I thought was rather straightforward, PF is actually harsher on casters in this regard than 3.5?

Can this be right?

So let's see if I got this right.

in 3.x
A 7 level sorcerer with 16 char hit with 3 temporary negativ levels would lose three spells. His caster level would still be 7 so his fireball would still be 7d6 his magic missile would still be 4d4+4 and haste would still last for 7 rounds.
He would still be able to cast 3 level spells and 2 level spells. but simply 3 less.

in Pathfinder his caster level would be 4.
he would not be able to cast any 3 level spells,
no 2 level spells
and he he would lose 10 spells per day.
On top of that his caster level would be 3. his magic missile would thus be 2d4+2, duration of spells, range, etc would all be based on a 4 level sorcerer.

sounds harsh.


Ravingdork wrote:


Also, negative levels and ability damage both are a lot like temporary hit points. They don't actually change your score, they are tracked separately.

MY bad.

Ravingdork wrote:
The "and statistics" part refers to the individual statistics specifically called out in the ability score sections below. Since Carrying Capacity is not called out in the Strength section, it is not affected by Strength damage or Strength penalties (but it is effected by Strength drain).

A) I don't read it that way. I might be wrong

B) they may have forgott to add Carrying Capacity, etc.
C) it doesn't make sence. Your weakness affects your swimming, how hard you hit, how you jump. All because you are weaker, but it doesn't affect strength checks or how much you can carry.
Agree it might not affect feats, but Carrying Capacity doesn't make sence.
So the same would go for bull's strength? That doesn'tr make sence either. Carrying Capacity should logicaly be affected.


Zark wrote:

in Pathfinder his caster level would be 4.

he would not be able to cast any 3 level spells,
no 2 level spells
and he he would lose 10 spells per day.
On top of that his caster level would be 3. his magic missile would thus be 2d4+2, duration of spells, range, etc would all be based on a 4 level sorcerer.

Why would he not be able to cast the 2nd level spells? They require caster level 4 and class level 4 - he has caster level 4 and class level 7.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Zark wrote:
So the same would go for bull's strength? That doesn't make sence either. Carrying Capacity should logically be affected.

Bull's Strength would increase your Strength score (rather than being tracked separately) and as a result would also increase your carrying capacity Bull's Strength provides an enhancement bonus and that's what enhancement bonuses do, they make the number's bigger (in this case, Strength is actually increased).

I also agree with points B & C. It does make little sense as written and may well have just been an omission error (everybody forgets about encumbrance, right?).


Zark wrote:
meatrace wrote:

I'm sorry but I'm pretty sure James Jacobs interpretation of "level dependent benefits" is completely wrong. The wording on negative levels was changed in PF so that casters don't lose memorized spells. It used to be (IIRC) that for every negative level a caster would lose ONE spell memorized at his highest castable spell level. Now if a 13th level wizard gains one negative level they lose the ability completely to cast 7th level spells, including any they had for a high Int modifier. Furthermore they would lose any spells from lower levels that they gained from going from 12th to 13th levels? This makes no sense to me, and counter to the language which I thought was rather straightforward, PF is actually harsher on casters in this regard than 3.5?

Can this be right?

So let's see if I got this right.

in 3.x
A 7 level sorcerer with 16 char hit with 3 temporary negativ levels would lose three spells. His caster level would still be 7 so his fireball would still be 7d6 his magic missile would still be 4d4+4 and haste would still last for 7 rounds.
He would still be able to cast 3 level spells and 2 level spells. but simply 3 less.

in Pathfinder his caster level would be 4.
he would not be able to cast any 3 level spells,
no 2 level spells
and he he would lose 10 spells per day.
On top of that his caster level would be 3. his magic missile would thus be 2d4+2, duration of spells, range, etc would all be based on a 4 level sorcerer.

sounds harsh.

1) Actually in 3.5 you did lose caster level, but you did not lose the ability to cast the spells, despite negative casting levels.

(at least that is what WotC ruled it)

2) temporary str loss is more of a quick and dirty ability adjustment, it is specifically mentioned which aspects of an ability are affected by the loss. not sure it is a good rule, but it works fine for battle, I might houserule it to include carrying capacity.


Zark wrote:
concerro wrote:


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.

concerro wrote:


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.

For most intents and purposes the level is lost. You just don't have to deal with the rebuild nonsense anymore. I might be a level 9 wizard with 4 levels of level drain, but I am sure it feels like level 5, and not level 9. When the levels are restored to normal I get my old abilities back.


Begins his enthralling belly dance wearing nothing but a firepelt thong, in the hopes of summoning Jason to the thread

*ching-ching-chinnnng* goes the finger cymbals


stringburka wrote:
Zark wrote:

in Pathfinder his caster level would be 4.

he would not be able to cast any 3 level spells,
no 2 level spells
and he he would lose 10 spells per day.
On top of that his caster level would be 3. his magic missile would thus be 2d4+2, duration of spells, range, etc would all be based on a 4 level sorcerer.

Why would he not be able to cast the 2nd level spells? They require caster level 4 and class level 4 - he has caster level 4 and class level 7.

Bad math. edit. I Started with a level 6 sorcerer then edited the text but didn't update it correct. So make it a level 7 sorcerer hit by 4 negativ levels.

PF: Lose al 2:nd and 3:ed level spells. Lose 12 spells
3.x: Lose 4 spells. Can cast 3:d and 2:nd level spells.


I'll just sum up my viewpoint on this.
From the negative levels section of the PFSRD:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed."

If spellcasting is itself a level-dependent variable then why wouldn't, say, a cleric's ability to burst or a fighter's BAB or a rogue's skills not also be considered such? And if this is the case, why ALSO have, as one of the effects, a -1 penalty to skills and attacks.

It seems to me as though the negative levels are meant to mimic the loss of a level (-1 to skills and attacks, loss of hit points, etc) without making you do any bookwork because they are merely temporary. If getting enervated makes you get out your book and see just how many spells your character had 2 or 4 levels past, or what feats or skills you chose, then it seems to not be any sort of convenience and we've gone back to the days of de-leveling your character.

My interpretation of the above quoted line, and that used by my gaming group, is that the level dependent variables OF spells (i.e. range, duration, dice of damage, etc) is counted as if you were levels lower. Furthermore since your effective caster level is reduced you get a penalty on concentration and spell penetration rolls, among other things.

James Jacobs' interpretation, valid though it may be which I concede because of the unclear verbiage in the PFSRD, would keep a 15th level wizard with 3 temporary negative levels due to a single Enervation spell from casting any prepared spells from his highest two levels of spells which is harsher than 3.x was.


meatrace wrote:

I'll just sum up my viewpoint on this.

From the negative levels section of the PFSRD:
"The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed."

If spellcasting is itself a level-dependent variable then why wouldn't, say, a cleric's ability to burst or a fighter's BAB or a rogue's skills not also be considered such? And if this is the case, why ALSO have, as one of the effects, a -1 penalty to skills and attacks.

It seems to me as though the negative levels are meant to mimic the loss of a level (-1 to skills and attacks, loss of hit points, etc) without making you do any bookwork because they are merely temporary. If getting enervated makes you get out your book and see just how many spells your character had 2 or 4 levels past, or what feats or skills you chose, then it seems to not be any sort of convenience and we've gone back to the days of de-leveling your character.

My interpretation of the above quoted line, and that used by my gaming group, is that the level dependent variables OF spells (i.e. range, duration, dice of damage, etc) is counted as if you were levels lower. Furthermore since your effective caster level is reduced you get a penalty on concentration and spell penetration rolls, among other things.

James Jacobs' interpretation, valid though it may be which I concede because of the unclear verbiage in the PFSRD, would keep a 15th level wizard with 3 temporary negative levels due to a single Enervation spell from casting any prepared spells from his highest two levels of spells which is harsher than 3.x was.

+1, though I still wonder what other level based variables besides casterlevel wouldbe reduced if any.

Liberty's Edge Contributor

After following this discussion for awhile, I decided to try my hand at framing the argument. On Sunday, I'll be starting up with a regular tabletop group (my first in a long time) and this seems like a topic that might come up in the future. Here's what I came up with:

The interpretation of "level-dependent variables" and its relation to spellcasting is really the source of the confusion.

As I understand James Jacobs' interpretation, the highest level of spells you can cast is a "level-dependent variable." As I read it, his interpretation is that, while spellcasting abilities are affected, other class abilities are not. By this reasoning:

  • An 8th Level Wizard (Conjurer) who gains two negative levels loses access to his 4th level spells, but would NOT lose his dimensional steps ability.
  • An 8th Level Rogue who gains two negative levels would NOT lose Improved Uncanny Dodge or the Rogue Talent he gained at 8th level or the additional 1d6 sneak attack damage he gained at 7th level.
  • An 8th Level Fighter who gains two negative levels would NOT lose a bonus feat and Armor Training 2.

The original purpose for the change in negative levels from 3.5e was to prevent re-builds of characters mid-game. Thus, while you can't use certain abilities, they aren't permanently gone. (As in, you don't need to erase them from your character sheet.) Spellcasters do not permanently lose prepared spells or slots, but if energy drain gives you enough negative levels to reduce you below minimum level to cast a spell, then you temporarily lose access to those spells. If you gain the benefit of a restoration spell or similar effect, you immediately regain the spells that you had prepared.

My thinking is, if that's the case, then it should apply for every ability a character learns at a given level--not just spellcasting. All of the above abilities would be inaccessible, not just the spellcaster's spells.

The alternate interpretation of the rule is that characters with negative levels retain access to every ability, but the variables (damage dice, save DCs, duration, etc.) associated with the character's level (as described within the ability description) are reduced.

Thus, the 8th Level Conjurer above could still cast summon monster IV, but the duration of the spell (1 rd/lvl + 1/2 rd/caster level for a conjurer) would be reduced from (8+4=) 12 to (6+3=) 9. He would retain access to his dimensional steps ability but its use would be limited to 180 feet per day rather than the usual 240 (30 feet per wizard level per day).

By the second interpretation, a player with negative levels will only need to keep track of his current effective level for the "per level" type variables and note the cumulative penalties (–1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks, plus -5 current and total hit ponts for each negative level it possesses).

While there is some logic and thematic feel to the first approach, the second option simplifies things at the table, so that's probably the one I'll go with.

However, James said that unless he is contradicted by his colleagues, future Paizo products will be designed with his interpretation in mind. To me, this means that encounters involving creatures or traps with energy drain effects will assume that spellcasters may not have access to their highest level spells. The question is, will groups who follow the "no spell loss" approach, find those encounters easier? I don't think it will be a huge difference, but it's something to consider.


Funkytrip wrote:

Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.

Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?

How might a person get positive caster levels?


Zark wrote:
Funkytrip wrote:

Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.

Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?

How might a person get positive caster levels?

Some feats and mainly PrC classes used to give them, only one I can think of now is deathknell

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Note that effects like death knell that increase your caster level do NOT give you access to more spells. An increase to caster level merely adjusts how your spells' level-dependent variables (such as range and damage) function.


James Jacobs wrote:

Note that effects like death knell that increase your caster level do NOT give you access to more spells. An increase to caster level merely adjusts how your spells' level-dependent variables (such as range and damage) function.

I agree with that, negative levels in 3.5 weren't intended to make you lose spells either (aside from the 1 for each negative level), not according to sage advice FAQ at least. I'll hold on to that ruling.


James Jacobs wrote:

Note that effects like death knell that increase your caster level do NOT give you access to more spells. An increase to caster level merely adjusts how your spells' level-dependent variables (such as range and damage) function.

Which is precisely how many had presumed the "level dependent variables" section of the negative levels description worked, in reverse of course. If positive levels don't give you extra spell slots let alone from higher levels why would negative levels take them away?


meatrace wrote:

Which is precisely how many had presumed the "level dependent variables" section of the negative levels description worked, in reverse of course. If positive levels don't give you extra spell slots let alone from higher levels why would negative levels take them away?

Exactly my same thinking. I know that it could be objected that 'since spells have a minimum caster level, if you have not that minimum caster level, you lose those spells'; however, Negative Level effects precisely describe that "Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."

Since specific beats generic in RPG Rules, it should be assumed (IMHO) that they do not lose their spells, only their effects are unnaturally low (after all, don't we have already Fireballs which deal 2d6 damage, thanks to Necklace of Fireballs ?). Not losing prepared spells or spells slots but not having access to them... is a strange thing to apply (and understand), ESPECIALLY for spontaneous casters. What, they have their 4th level slots but they cannot use them for 4th level spells? AND neither for 3rd, 2nd, or 1st level spells ? Wizard still have their 4th level spell slots (better yet, they are still filled with their previous spells) but they cannot use these slots for lower level spells ? Then what is the reason to keep them on the character's sheet?

After all, if the player has to be constantly reminded that such slots are unavailable, it would be faster simply to erase them (looking at the spell slots is the faster think to recalculate in a character's sheet - you pick the exact line and simply add the bonus spells gained from the relevant Ability Score). Worse yet, this leads to a stranger effect - the character is at risk of losing lower level spell slots, too.
A Wizard 8 (spells from high Int excluded) has 2 slots for 4th-level spells and 3 slots for 3rd-level spells; gaining 2 negative levels (caster level 6), by this reasonment, not only he loses his 2 4th-level slots, he even loses 1 slot for 3rd-level spells ! A Sorcerer 8 is even more screwed - not only he loses his slots, he has to remember which lower level spell he gained when he was 7th level and 8th level (since, by this reasonment, they are 'level-dependant' and unnaccessible, too). Oh, right, I forgot the 2 spells per level the Wizard gained - so he too has to remember if any of those spells were of low level (and making them inaccessible, too)...

Sorry, this is extremely more convoluted than the 3.x Grapple system IMHO (if this is the case)...


I'd consider it broken for a 4th level spell. I thought Pathfinder wanted to get rid of save-or-suck/die/lose spells (many spells now do damage or give you a new save each round).

As with the new ruling, you touch a wizard and it's a losing game for him,especially if the d4 turns up high. -3 or -4 on every roll and not being able to cast 3rd & 4th level spells as 7th level wizard basically means: you lose. Without the spell loss effect it would just be a : you suck. Which is what other spells do at 4th level.

Sure you can defend against it, but you can't count on having the party cleric cast deathward on you every battle.


Heres my take on this:

Judging by what James said, an enervated creature's caster level would drop. Thus a lvl 8 wizard hit by an Enervation that give him 3 negative levels would make his caster level a 5.

The wizard's problem is that there is a minimum caster level required to cast spells. The minimum caster level for a 4th level spell is 7. So because our wizard now has a caster level of 5, he can no longer cast 4th level spells. If his caster level drops to 4, he would not be able to cast 3rd level spells either because the minimum caster level to cast a 3rd level spell is 5.

He doesn't actually lose the spell slots or any prepared spells. They are still there. He just doesn't have the caster level to actually cast such spells.

Now this would affect different spells differently. If our 8th level wizard takes 3 negative levels and has a caster level of 5, but has prepared an Empowered Scorching Ray in a 4th lvl spell slot, he would still be able to cast it. Scorching Ray has a minimum caster level of 3, so our wizard still has the caster level to do this. (And an Empowered Scorching Ray still has the minimum caster level requirement of 3, since the wizard could choose to reduce the caster level of the spell down to 3 voluntarily, but not less than 3).

Spontaneous casters actually get off easier here, since they could still use the higher level spell slots to power lower level spells. For instance, a Sorcerer 8 taking 3 negative levels could use his 3rd and 4th level spell slots to power 2nd level spells and lower (and metamagic versions of them at that). Theyd still be only at 5th caster level, but he still has access to those spell slots. The prepared casters would generally have the spell slots already filled up, and if any of those prepared spells require a minimum caster level higher his current caster level then he can't cast those spells and thus can't make use of those spell slots.

Personally I've never been a big fan of the 'minimum caster level' requirement for spell casting. I think a caster should be able to do a caster level 1 fireball if he so chooses. And this is the mechanic thats really making the caster lose his spells when he suffers negative levels. If this were changed, then he shouldn't lose any spellcasting when taking negative levels (unless his caster level goes to 0, in which case he probably has more significant problems).


Remco Sommeling wrote:
Zark wrote:
Funkytrip wrote:

Ok, so now we established that getting negative caster levels drops the ability to cast certain level spells you do not qualify for anymore.

Does that mean that getting positive caster levels enables you to cast spells you qualify for using the new level? If not, why the difference?

How might a person get positive caster levels?
Some feats and mainly PrC classes used to give them, only one I can think of now is deathknell

Thanks for the information.

What feats and PrC Classes are there? Any in the core book?


At the moment none in the core book, Archmage, Hierophant, Red Wizard were in the 3.5 DMG granting spellpower as a class ability / option.

For multi-class characters there was the practised spellcaster feat, some feats I can not think of the names right now.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

3 people marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not to shake things up too much... but the more I've thought about this, the more I've started to think that maybe negative levels SHOULDN'T reduce your spells available. I mean... that does indeed start to make one wonder why, then, negative levels wouldn't also cause fighters to lose their bonus feats, rogues to lose sneak attack dice, bards to lose bardic performances, and so on. Too far down that road and suddenly you're back in 3.5's territory of rebuilding your character every time you gain negative levels, and that's something that we were trying to avoid. We were trying to keep the bite in negative levels without forcing complicated middle-of-the-game-session rebuilding of characters.

And negative levels would certainly still impact concentration checks and level checks to get through SR and all that. Which still stings, but isn't so complicated that the game will grind to a halt while the spellcaster reconfigures everything.

Thanks for the feedback and analysis and discussion, everyone! And now, I suppose, the thread's theme can change back to folks trying to convince me that negative levels SHOULD cause spellcasters to lose spells. :-)

BEGIN!


Let's convince him negative levels change your character's race one entry up in the index!

Dark Archive

James Jacobs wrote:

Not to shake things up too much... but the more I've thought about this, the more I've started to think that maybe negative levels SHOULDN'T reduce your spells available. I mean... that does indeed start to make one wonder why, then, negative levels wouldn't also cause fighters to lose their bonus feats, rogues to lose sneak attack dice, bards to lose bardic performances, and so on. Too far down that road and suddenly you're back in 3.5's territory of rebuilding your character every time you gain negative levels, and that's something that we were trying to avoid. We were trying to keep the bite in negative levels without forcing complicated middle-of-the-game-session rebuilding of characters.

And negative levels would certainly still impact concentration checks and level checks to get through SR and all that. Which still stings, but isn't so complicated that the game will grind to a halt while the spellcaster reconfigures everything.

Thanks for the feedback and analysis and discussion, everyone! And now, I suppose, the thread's theme can change back to folks trying to convince me that negative levels SHOULD cause spellcasters to lose spells. :-)

BEGIN!

Simple, as these are temporary negative levels (permanent negative levels having no effect on your actual level anymore [i.e. you no longer go down a level]) It doesn't actually make you lose out on the levels you have (I.E. Fighter Bonus feats ect. ect.)

Also since the game asks for maximum BAB and character level, and you don't lose either of those these variables remain at the level of whch you qualify.

Same with Strength Penalties, they don't lower your actual strength, merely reduce its effectiveness. Strength Damage and Drain however, lower the strength and can cause you to no longer qualify for feats.

However, the rules clearly state that the maximum caster level must be high enough to cast your highest spells. This is clearly in the rules, and hence why you cannot cast higher levels spells, despite the fact that you give everything else a penalty for negative levels you specifically state that the caster loses caster levels to negative levels.

That's why stuff doesn't change. You've given out penalties left and right, then state that the caster level physically decreases. Penalties don't make you disqualified for a feat, damage/drain would. If you said it physically lowers bab it would, if you stated that it lowers your effective character level, it would.

Dark Archive

Remco Sommeling wrote:

At the moment none in the core book, Archmage, Hierophant, Red Wizard were in the 3.5 DMG granting spellpower as a class ability / option.

For multi-class characters there was the practised spellcaster feat, some feats I can not think of the names right now.

There is a trait that gives you two spell catster levels but only up to your max hit dice, much like the practiced spellcaster feat, which also stated the maximum caster level was capped by your hit dice.


Dissinger wrote:


However, the rules clearly state that the maximum caster level must be high enough to cast your highest spells. This is clearly in the rules, and hence why you cannot cast higher levels spells, despite the fact that you give everything else a penalty for negative levels you specifically state that the caster loses caster levels to negative levels.

Exactly. Thats the real problem here.

I think the solution is simply to change the language on page 208 of the CRB that requires a minimum caster level to cast a spell. Is that really necessary? I can see no problem with allowing a caster to cast a CL 1 version of a fireball, or a CL 5 version of a Cone of Cold, or what have you. In fact, I can see some situational but strategic uses for deciding to cast a significantly lower CL version of a spell, such as dropping a CL 3 fireball on your party whose surrounded by a bunch of lower level skeletons. The party might get a little burned but should otherwise be OK, but the skeletons should suffer a great deal more. This type of strategic thinking should be rewarded and encouraged, and not prohibited.

Aside from setting this minimum required caster level, the only other thing that language used on page 208 does is it interacts with the negative level mechanics to take away spellcasting abilities for having a lowered caster level.

So really, I think removing this minimum caster level requirement would solve the 'negative levels removing spellcasting problem' and would provide a miniscule flexibility boost to spellcasting. I can otherwise see no real benefit to having the language on page 208 that requires a minimum caster level for casting spells.

1 to 50 of 150 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Rules Questions / Dear James, regarding Enervation... All Messageboards