Dear James, regarding Enervation...


Rules Questions

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

1 person marked this as FAQ candidate.
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!

Here is my take on it. I dont know if this is RAW or RAI:

Feats are kept unless the feat(Improved Critical as an example) depends on a level dependent variable such as BAB. Now I understand the negative levels dont really lower your BAB, but only give a penalty to it, but its effectively the same thing.
As for the casters the spells are still there, but you have to be X level caster to have enough power to cast certain spells. When you get energy drained you are no longer powerful enough to cast certain spells.
As far as class features I think you those should be affected. If you have to be a 5th level rogue to sneak attack for 3d6, and you get enervated your sneak attack damage should drop.
This keeps Energy Drain powerful, but still stops the character rebuilds.

PS: I think logic wise(ignoring game fun) the feats should be lost to, but for ease of play(which I sometimes value above common sense and even game balance), I think the feats should be kept. I also think errata should come out explaining the PF version of Energy Drain in much detail.


The easiest ruling for negative levels in my opinion would be this:

A negative level bestows on you
* -1 on the end result of every single roll you make.
* -1 on all variables directly or indirectly based on class level or caster level.
* -1 on your constitution (which extra affects your fort save!)
* 5 hitpoint damage

So if you have a player with 2 negative levels:

His fireballs will do 2d6 less damage
His greater invisibility will be 2 rounds shorter
His knowledge rolls will be 2 lower
His sneak attack will do 2d6 less
His hitrolls will be 2 less
His damage rolls will be 2 less
His saving throws will be 2 lower
His concentration check will be 2 lower

etc etc.

Rolls that the enemy must make and are based on players skills (opposed checks, DCs etc) are unaffected.

And the usual death rules for constitution loss/level loss still apply.


I wouldn't do the -1 Con, since it has effects on both Hit Points and Fort, which are already being penalized.


William Timmins wrote:

I wouldn't do the -1 Con, since it has effects on both Hit Points and Fort, which are already being penalized.

I agree. And the -2d6 to sneak attack damage is excessive, as you don't gain sneak attack damage dice every level.


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!

Hurrah!


wraithstrike wrote:


Here is my take on it. I dont know if this is RAW or RAI:

Feats are kept unless the feat(Improved Critical as an example) depends on a level dependent variable such as BAB. Now I understand the negative levels dont really lower your BAB, but only give a penalty to it, but its effectively the same thing.
As for the casters the spells are still there, but you have to be X level caster to have enough power to cast certain spells. When you get energy drained you are no longer powerful enough to cast certain spells.
As far as class features I think you those should be affected. If you have to be a 5th level rogue to sneak attack for 3d6, and you get enervated your sneak attack damage should drop.
This keeps Energy Drain powerful, but still stops the character rebuilds.

I agree with most of your analysis, but I would quibble about the penalty for negative levels being effectively the same as lowering your BAB. That's not really true. Actually lowering the BAB could cause a character to lose iterative attacks. Penalties to attacks never do this and the penalty for the negative levels is, as far as attacks go, just that.


It's just so much cleaner to not actually reduce levels. I think that's a good choice James (:


meabolex wrote:
It's just so much cleaner to not actually reduce levels. I think that's a good choice James (:

I agree with James' new line of thought, the - 1 penalty on skills / ability checks, attack rolls, saving throws and casterlevel (without loss f spells) in addition to losing 5 hp for every negative level seems enough of a penalty to me, for an ability that initially rarely allows for a save.


Yes. Easier and more consistent to say 'negative levels diminish the strength of everything you do' rather than pick and choose access to this or that.

It's also thematically coherent: the touch of the wight weakens my soul. My every action is palsied and more difficult, the power of what I do has been drained.


James Jacobs wrote:

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!

Well, here's my take on why losing access to spells is appropriate.

And that's simply that for many casters there is no other meaningful penalty to having negative levels. Evocation and Healing spells suffer a reduction in overall damage/effect of course, but for most other spell types all losing a caster level or two will do is reduce the duration. For example, there's effectively no difference at all between a caster level 10 Suggestion and a caster level 2 Suggestion.

Most of the time casters won't need to worry about the -1 to attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, or combat maneuver defense (as they're unlikely to be using the first two, and the third is probably low enough to begin with that it won't matter), the penalty to Saving Throws hurts a bit, but it hurts everyone equally, and the penalty to skill checks is, again, unlikely to matter as much for a caster, as the majority of their class skills are used out of combat. (It might really hurt rogue/bard types that want to use bluff, acrobatics and the like though.)

Without the loss of spells casters, and non-evoker arcane casters particularly, don't suffer nearly enough of a penalty.


James Jacobs wrote:

[...]

And negative levels would certainly still impact concentration checks and level checks to get through SR and all that.

Edit:

I hope "all that" mean a 7 level sorcerer hit with 4 negative levels will do 3d6 damage casting fireball and his haste would only last for 3 rounds. Likewise his Resist Energy would last for 30 minutes and would only give the subject resist energy 10 etc.


So... can anybody explain to me what use spell slots are if you can't cast spells at the level you've prepared those spell slots?


Boxy310 wrote:
So... can anybody explain to me what use spell slots are if you can't cast spells at the level you've prepared those spell slots?

They're still there should a caster be 'restored'. Sorcerers can still use higher level slots to cast lower level spells.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Brodiggan Gale wrote:
For example, there's effectively no difference at all between a caster level 10 Suggestion and a caster level 2 Suggestion.

Sure there is, shorter duration, and far less likely to break SR.

The fact that a spell doesn't scale much with caster level is typically considered a weakness of the spell, not a strength. This is an exception.

Plus Concentration checks are much harder now.

Brodiggan Gale wrote:
Without the loss of spells casters, and non-evoker arcane casters particularly, don't suffer nearly enough of a penalty.

That's debatable, but certainly different spells are affected in different ways. It does make spells such as slay living and ice storm (which do a set amount of dice) attractive options.


Given how common SR is in mid to high level scenarios, I think a caster level hit is PLENTY hard.

I can't think of any dangerous no-SR, fixed damage spells... anyone think of a good example?

Dark Archive

My opinion/interpretation throughout this whole thread has been that negative levels do not actually cause Caster Level to go down.

Caster Level is defined as "...equal to her class level in the class she’s using to cast the spell."

Since negative levels do not actually result in a loss of class level, CL remains unchanged.

The negative levels are meant to weaken the power of your existing spells (or other class abilities), not to deny access to them. It is merely a template that you apply to your character, which effects how powerful your spells (or abilities) are, not your ability to use them at all.

Part of the my thought process regarding this stems from the fact that caster's can indeed cast spells above their own CL. Spells cast from scrolls require a caster level check if the spell level is above the caster's CL. CL is not a universal hard requirement. Spell slots of the appropriate level are.

If you have the spell slot (which the rules re negative level clearly support) for a given spell level, and your class level is unchanged then it follows that you can still cast the spell, it is just made weaker by the negative level(s).

If you are meant to lose the ability to cast those spells then it would just seem to make sense to say that you lose the slots entirely (which is clearly not the case in the RAW) until those negative levels are removed. Why split the hair of having them but not really having access to them, or being able to use them only for lesser level spells. Seems like needless complication.

Of course you could combine the mechanics of negative levels and scroll usage and require caster level checks to cast spells effected by negative levels (ie. temporarily suppressed CL), rather than deny access to them entirely. This would be a new rule of course.

Does any of this make sense? I feel like I am talking in circles. I should have attempted this after some sleep. I will stop right here. :)

Cheers


Majuba wrote:
Brodiggan Gale wrote:
For example, there's effectively no difference at all between a caster level 10 Suggestion and a caster level 2 Suggestion.
Sure there is, shorter duration, and far less likely to break SR.

The duration on suggestion is an hour per caster level, in combat, the difference between 2 hours and 10 hours is meaningless, which was my point. Speaking from quite a bit of experience, most combat in Pathfinder/3.5 only lasts 3-5 rounds, which means, at least for the great majority of fights, anything longer than 5 rounds is "long enough."

As for SR... well, for certain fights that matters, yes, but SR isn't nearly as common as most people seem to think. With the exception of Dragons, Demons and Devils (who tend to show up rarely in most campaigns) and the various good outsiders (who, in most games, are almost never going to be engaging the players in combat), there really aren't that many foes with SR. (Golems of course, but their SR is effectively infinite, so level drain doesn't matter).

Just go through the list of monsters by CR and check them off:

CR 10, 7 foes without SR, 1 golem, 1 foe with SR (Rakshasa)
CR 11, 4 foes without SR, 1 foe with SR (Devourer)
CR 12, 3 foes without SR, 1 foe with SR (Roper)
... etc. Some levels there are more, some less.

(again, leaving aside the 3 D's, Demons, Devils, and Dragons)

Majuba wrote:
The fact that a spell doesn't scale much with caster level is typically considered a weakness of the spell, not a strength.

Heh, you should really tell that to the optimization folks. The fact that they're binary effects, and never really need to scale, is a big part of the reason spells like Glitterdust and Slow are considered top tier spells.

Majuba wrote:
Plus Concentration checks are much harder now.

Fair enough, when making concentration checks the lost levels will really matter. I just don't think that's all that comparable to the rather severe penalties non-caster classes take on almost every action while level drained.

Dark Archive

William Timmins wrote:

Given how common SR is in mid to high level scenarios, I think a caster level hit is PLENTY hard.

I can't think of any dangerous no-SR, fixed damage spells... anyone think of a good example?

Acid Fog?


Lord oKOyA wrote:
Acid Fog?

He did say dangerous.

Dark Archive

Robert Young wrote:

He did say dangerous.

I did put a question mark after it. :)

EDIT: and if coupled with a quickened grease or black tentacles or... ;)


To be honest, I *love* spellcasters more than other classes (my personal favorite being Sorceror), but putting it into context - why should a fighter lose a feat or rogue lose his sneak attack when struck with negative levels?, the concept of a negative level is to 'weaken' the character I agree.

I've never groaned about how or why my NPC Sorceress in my game I run for example has to lose access to higher level spells when weighed against what I can do (given time to prepare of course).

I am not advocating any class is better than another by any means, but a spellcaster given a few rounds to prepare can be extremely difficult for a fighter (even if hes tooled up and buffed out) to take down. Given a decent enough space to fight in, and with summonable bodies put in the fighters way to slow him down, the spellcaster could easily rain down various hazardous spells that affect the fighter even on a successful save (Ray Of Enfeeblement for example).

But I understand peoples point about what is a "level dependant variable" and why level drains should affect them - the penalties that other characters get hit with are frankly - bad enough without having to add more to them, and lets face it - Mages and Clerics are the LEAST likely characters to get hit with them being they are seldom at the front lines barring some crafty stragety by the level draining foe in question. But again very rare. Non-spellcasters suffer the most from level drains already existing penalties, spellcasters dont really feel the same impact as say a fighter who's lost a few levels so they need to feel 'something' of an impact that makes them wary to fight level draining foes.

Put into context - the 'Sneak Attack' doesnt really represent the same degree of training, or the Fighters bonus Feat when compared to the scale of 'learning' a whole tier of spells. In other games such as Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, mages were stuck in their schools while other careers were free to train and level up in non-spellcasting classes because of the amount of work involved.
I know Sorcerors dont really 'train' but they do 'learn', and they can learn whatever spells are in their vicinity or from fellow spellcasters.
So in essence, Arcane spellcasters should lose prepared spells/levels when drained. Divine spellcasters could be said to have had a bit of their 'divine connection' to whatever aspect or God they worship stolen away with the attack to represent this. It doesnt make much sense that a Rogue loses 1d6 of his sneak attack or a fighter loses a Bonus Feat he was using in the same battle, its two completely different types of learning for the characters.

Incase anyone disagrees then a compramise could be this - if they dont lose prepared spells/levels, then they could have their overall caster level affected (but not the spells they can cast) so their spells get weaker but they still have access to them.

But overall in my games, I agree that spellcasters lose spell levels and prepared spells when they get drained...I mean come on, its not really 'that' permanent...(you had to rebuild the WHOLE character in 3rd Ed and 2nd Ed), you only carry the penalties until you get it removed. So I dont understand the complaint - things could be ALOT worse trust me, this variant stops characters losing EXPERIENCE and thereby arent falling behind the rest of the party. I think Paizo did a fantastic job rejigging the level drain system, this is much friendlier but still has its nasty bite.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
Brodiggan Gale wrote:
The duration on suggestion is an hour per caster level, in combat, the difference between 2 hours and 10 hours is meaningless, which was my point. Speaking from quite a bit of experience, most combat in Pathfinder/3.5 only lasts 3-5 rounds, which means, at least for the great majority of fights, anything longer than 5 rounds is "long enough."
  • That's an interesting point to make on the offensive spell voted "Most likely to be used out of combat." :) However, for in combat use, the caster level also limits the range (30' vs. 50' in the above example).

    Brodiggan Gale wrote:
    With the exception of Dragons, Demons and Devils (who tend to show up rarely in most campaigns)
  • And Drow, and summoned creatures, and clerics, and monks. The only thing rare there are monks (and Drow depending on the campaign of course).

    Brodiggan Gale wrote:

    Just go through the list of monsters by CR and check them off:

    CR 10, 7 foes without SR, 1 golem, 1 foe with SR (Rakshasa)
    CR 11, 4 foes without SR, 1 foe with SR (Devourer)
    CR 12, 3 foes without SR, 1 foe with SR (Roper)
    ... etc. Some levels there are more, some less.

  • I wouldn't have expected you to notate *every* level... but it's worth pointing out that above CR 13 there is only one creature without SR, the Kraken.

    Brodiggan Gale wrote:
    Heh, you should really tell that to the optimization folks. The fact that they're binary effects, and never really need to scale, is a big part of the reason spells like Glitterdust and Slow are considered top tier spells.
  • The things I wish to tell the optimization folks are not allowed to be posted on these forums. That aside, both of those are 1 round/level spells, heavy impacted by caster level.

    Brodiggan Gale wrote:
    I just don't think that's all that comparable to the rather severe penalties non-caster take on almost every roll.
  • It is more situational, but far more severe in those situations. It *has* that nasty bite.


  • Brodiggan Gale wrote:

    As for SR... well, for certain fights that matters, yes, but SR isn't nearly as common as most people seem to think. With the exception of Dragons, Demons and Devils (who tend to show up rarely in most campaigns) and the various good outsiders (who, in most games, are almost never going to be engaging the players in combat), there really aren't that many foes with SR. (Golems of course, but their SR is effectively infinite, so level drain doesn't matter).

    I think it due to actual experience, rather than looking at bestiary listing. For one thing, bestiary listing doesn't show advanced versions of lower CR creatures.

    Which reminds me of another D... drow. There are some modules entirely filled with 'em, at every CR.

    As for dragons, demons, and devils... it's Dungeons and Dragons!! More seriously, I see demons and devils in campaigns all the time, up there with undead and random class-leveled guys in common threats, if not more commonly.

    Speaking of undead, there's Nightshades, which have pretty hefy SR.

    So, I have no idea what kind of weird campaigns you've been running in, but I'd wager money that 'many enemies have SR by CR 8, most of the important enemies after CR 10' is the norm.

    Dark Archive

    I don't quite follow the thinking that without denying spell casters their upper level spells that negative levels are somehow more detrimental to non-spell casters.

    Each class suffers the same penalties to ability checks, attack rolls, saves etc. I would argue that this is a fairly evenly distributed penalty across the classes. While the penalty to attack rolls are slightly more significant to fighters due to this being the their bread and butter, casters likewise use attack rolls to target many spells. On the flip side, the ability to deal damage by the fighter is not nearly as impacted, as much of the damage dealt by fighters, is not usually a level dependent variable.

    If you support the position, that spells aren't lost due to negative levels just diminished in power, then spell casters still suffer by having their ability to deal damage directly effected by level dependent variables. On top of the that, durations, save DC and spell penetration are likewise penalized. So spells are already penalized in a number of ways: target is possibly less likely to be hit (minus to attack roll), more likely to save versus the spell (reduced CL/DC), takes less damage (if spell deals level dependent damage), has the duration and/or range and/or area reduced (level dependent variable) etc etc etc

    Even if the spell caster retains the ability to cast all his spells, he still suffers the diminished power to all his spells across the board. It isn't just the loss of his highest spells, it is that AND a significant crippling of the spells he still can cast.

    On top of this, the flat rate penalty of -5 HP/negative level is IMO significantly more of a penalty to wizards, for example, due to the fact that wizards are already weak in that area. The -5/level easily outstrips the average HP a wizard gains per level. It is entirely possible for a wizard to succumb to HP loss due to negative levels before the negative levels actually equal his class level. Negative levels do not greatly effect how often a fighter will get hit in combat but it sure will hamper a wizards ability to avoid damage.

    As the rule is (re)interpreted by James, it is still killer to all classes equally IMO.

    Dark Archive

    Princess Of Canada wrote:

    I am not advocating any class is better than another by any means, but ...

    ...then you went ahead a basically did just that. ;)

    Princess Of Canada wrote:


    ... Mages and Clerics are the LEAST likely characters to get hit with them being they are seldom at the front lines barring some crafty stragety by the level draining foe in question. But again very rare.

    This is not my experience. By the time one has to worry significantly about the threat of negative levels, "front lines" don't usually exist. Creature and casters capable of causing negative levels are usually NOT hampered by mundane means of battlefield control (ie standing 10' behind the fighter). Negative levels are an equal opportunity threat. They usually don't care what type of armor you wear or where you are in relation to other party members.

    Princess Of Canada wrote:
    Non-spellcasters suffer the most from level drains already existing penalties, spellcasters dont really feel the same impact as say a fighter who's lost a few levels so they need to feel 'something' of an impact that makes them wary to fight level draining foes.

    See my above post for my thoughts on this.

    Princess Of Canada wrote:


    Put into context - the 'Sneak Attack' doesnt really represent the same degree of training, or the Fighters bonus Feat when compared to the scale of 'learning' a whole tier of spells.

    Say what? That might be your opinion....

    Princess Of Canada wrote:

    In case anyone disagrees then a compramise could be this - if they dont lose prepared spells/levels, then they could have their overall caster level affected (but not the spells they can cast) so their spells get weaker but they still have access to them.

    I think there are some us who do disagree :) and that IS what we are saying the intention of the rules are after Paizo made the changes.

    Princess Of Canada wrote:
    But overall in my games, I agree that spellcasters lose spell levels and prepared spells when they get drained...I mean come on, its not really 'that' permanent...(you had to rebuild the WHOLE character in 3rd Ed and 2nd Ed), you only carry the penalties until you get it removed. So I dont understand the complaint - things could be ALOT worse trust me, this variant stops characters losing EXPERIENCE and thereby arent falling behind the rest of the party. I think Paizo did a fantastic job rejigging the level drain system, this is much friendlier but still has its nasty bite.

    The inconvenience resulting from the duration/permanency of negative level loss is directly proportional to the situation or circumstances at the time. I don't care if the negative levels only last until tomorrow if I am in the middle of fighting the BBEG and saving the world today.

    We are in agreement that un-building characters is bad, that XP penalties are likewise bad and that Paizo is doing great job. :)

    Cheers


    That and Undead spellcasters never need to worry about this at the end of the day - and a prepared mage would use something like "Death Ward" at higher levels to keep this stuff at bay and protect their spells and themselves (since it doubly reduces your spellcasting ability and hp, saves, etc at well), thats an option for instance most fighters and non-spellcasters done have unless through an expensive item, etc.

    There are lower level alternatives to 'Death Ward' too, look up Libra Mortis or the 'Spell Compendium' 3.5 official sourcebook, contain lower level variants of 'Death Ward' that dont cover quite as much but offer some drawbacks, but universally, someone should cover themselves if they can.

    (And in the Magic Item Compendium sourcebook, I always invest in a Greater Screening Augment Crystal at +5000GP on armor that has to have a +3 enchantment at least (this means Bracers Of Armor +3 or better qualify by reading the crystals entry in the Magic Item Compendium or just by buying light armor with the Twilight quality at a +1 bonus which reduces Arcane Spell Failure by 10% permanently - reducing most light armor to 0%), means ALL incorporeal/etheral touch attacks take a -10 penalty automatically which is helpful vs those pesky etheral undead (Edit : There are Lesser (need +1 enchantment) and Least (need only masterwork armor) Crystals too (penalty to touch attacks is -5 and -2 respectively))

    So there is always ways to prepare vs level draining, since it is one of those serious threats all us spellcasters want to avoid.


    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    I don't quite follow the thinking that without denying spell casters their upper level spells that negative levels are somehow more detrimental to non-spell casters.

    Each class suffers the same penalties to ability checks, attack rolls, saves etc. I would argue that this is a fairly evenly distributed penalty across the classes. While the penalty to attack rolls are slightly more significant to fighters due to this being the their bread and butter, casters likewise use attack rolls to target many spells. On the flip side, the ability to deal damage by the fighter is not nearly as impacted, as much of the damage dealt by fighters, is not usually a level dependent variable.

    If you support the position, that spells aren't lost due to negative levels just diminished in power, then spell casters still suffer by having their ability to deal damage directly effected by level dependent variables. On top of the that, durations, save DC and spell penetration are likewise penalized. So spells are already penalized in a number of ways: target is possibly less likely to be hit (minus to attack roll), more likely to save versus the spell (reduced CL/DC), takes less damage (if spell deals level dependent damage), has the duration and/or range and/or area reduced (level dependent variable) etc etc etc

    Even if the spell caster retains the ability to cast all his spells, he still suffers the diminished power to all his spells across the board. It isn't just the loss of his highest spells, it is that AND a significant crippling of the spells he still can cast.

    On top of this, the flat rate penalty of -5 HP/negative level is IMO significantly more of a penalty to wizards, for example, due to the fact that wizards are already weak in that area. The -5/level easily outstrips the average HP a wizard gains per level. It is entirely possible for a wizard to succumb to HP loss due to negative levels before the negative levels actually equal his class level. Negative levels do not greatly effect how often a...

    Very well put.

    I'd also agree that losing spellcasting tiers is significantly more of a hindrance to a primary caster than losing attack bonus is to a physical combatant.

    A Fighter 9 hit with 3 negative levels (not an uncommon result from a single Enervation spell) is at -3 to hit and his damage is unchanged. That probably negates the temporary buffs that he has (bless, aid, haste, for instance).

    A Wizard 9 hit with 3 negative levels now casts as a 6th level wizard. He's lost all of his top two levels of spells, roughly 30% of his available spells per day, in addition to the reduction in his spellcaster level with regard to damage output and ability to overcome SR, plus reductions to range, area, duration, etc.. In fact, hes probably worse off than a 6th level wizard, since his saves will be worse and his hps could likely be as well.

    I'd venture to say that even if our fighter were to have lost his last 2 fighter feats, it would not be anywhere near as devastating as what the wizard has just lost. Likewise for the rogue who lost 2d6 sneak attack.

    For the fighter, negative levels make a fight tougher. For the wizard, they make it impossible.

    If its necessary to lose something more for the spellcaster, then it should go back to how it was in 3.5. One spell slot per negative level. That hurts, but isn't crippling. The way it is now, it is utterly devastating to a spellcaster to be hit by negative levels.

    And lets not overlook the effect this can have on encounters when its the NPC spellcasters getting zapped with negative levels. It can make the fight with the BBEG wizard trivial. As a DM, the last thing I want is for all the possible plans for the encounter I spent three hours putting together to be wiped clean by a single spell. With no save.


    You're only looking at this through the lens of a single class character, what about dual and tri class?

    What if you had a rogue 6/wiz 6? Do you equally lose 1 lvl of rogue and one of wiz? What if it was rogue 11/wiz 1? Do you lose the ability to cast spells or sneak attack dice? What about Rogue 10/wiz 2? What about Rogue 7/wiz 5/arcane trickster 1? Do you lose all arcane trickster abilities? In these cases, how much damage dice do you lose on say a fireball or lightning bolt? Is it possible to tell? Is it negative levels/2 or negative levels /3 in the arcane trickster case?

    All that's pretty sticky. I can live with the negative levels = -1 penatly per, but that just seems so, weak? Negative levels use to mean something, right? It was scary before...


    Majuba wrote:
    That's an interesting point to make on the offensive spell voted "Most likely to be used out of combat." :) However, for in combat use, the caster level also limits the range (30' vs. 50' in the above example).

    And this completely misses the point of what I said. To reiterate, my point was that for the majority of arcane caster types (particularly those that are at least somewhat optimized, and thus avoid direct damage spells in favor of binary save or die/suck spells) the loss of effective caster level is largely meaningless. Yes, 30' instead of 50' is a difference, but is it a meaningful one? At least in the majority of combats I've seen, not really. The only way it might make a difference is if moving within 30 feet means your foe can move and attack you the next round, and in that case, they probably could have reached you anyways with a charge.

    Majuba wrote:
    Brodiggan Gale wrote:
    With the exception of Dragons, Demons and Devils (who tend to show up rarely in most campaigns)
  • And Drow, and summoned creatures, and clerics, and monks. The only thing rare there are monks (and Drow depending on the campaign of course).
  • So how many campaigns have you played in that involve regularly running into dragons as anything but a boss/bbeg encounter?

    My point was that while you _do_ run into Dragons, Demons and Devils, you do not run into them in the numbers that just looking at the list of monsters might suggest.

    Admittedly, there are entire campaigns focused on the Drow, I'll give you that one. And in that circumstance, just losing caster level would be more significant.

    Majuba wrote:
  • I wouldn't have expected you to notate *every* level... but it's worth pointing out that above CR 13 there is only one creature without SR, the Kraken.
  • That's because the top of the CR charts is dominated by the three big D's I mentioned previously, and the good outsiders. Most published campaigns at that level either have the PCs facing large groups of lower level foes, advanced lower CR monsters, or foes with class levels.

    Majuba wrote:
  • The things I wish to tell the optimization folks are not allowed to be posted on these forums. That aside, both of those are 1 round/level spells, heavy impacted by caster level.
  • Unless the level drain is getting the caster down to 2nd or 3rd level, they are not heavily impacting the caster (As even 4-5 rounds as the duration of the spell is going to be long enough to last the entire combat). This is my entire point. Without some additional penalty, Save or Die/Suck casters (which like it or not are very, very common because of the optimization folks) just aren't suffering much of a downside in comparison to most classes.

    William Timmins wrote:
    I think it due to actual experience, rather than looking at bestiary listing.

    You mean like 20+ years of experience DMing everything under the sun just about every weekend, all the way back to 1st edition? Because that's the experience it's based on.

    William Timmins wrote:
    So, I have no idea what kind of weird campaigns you've been running in, but I'd wager money that 'many enemies have SR by CR 8, most of the important enemies after CR 10' is the norm.

    Then you'd lose your wager, if you had said 'some foes have SR by CR 8, and a fair number of major foes have it after CR 12' then you might have been correct.


    I'm not questioning your experience, you were questioning mine.

    As for dragons, I've seen a fair number of 'lieutenant' level dragons in campaigns; that is, they aren't foot soldiers, but not necessarily the big end boss.

    And I'd argue that the importance of enemies is more significant than numbers; if I face 5 scrub encounters of guys with no SR and one climactic battle with a bunch of guys with SR, I think it's fair to say SR is important.


    Well pathfinder has made some significant steps reducing the save or suck / die spells.

    Aside from the save or suck ability, I think spellcasters are actually not that well off at all, the negative levels can make them very vulnerable to many attacks, they actually have a fair chance to miss touch / ray attacks and damage potential in general is affected worse than other classes.

    I'd think the enervation spell quite powerful for it's level, though I'd recommend adding a monster feat that can drain a spell everytime a caster gets hit by an energy draining undead.


    TheDrone wrote:

    You're only looking at this through the lens of a single class character, what about dual and tri class?

    What if you had a rogue 6/wiz 6? Do you equally lose 1 lvl of rogue and one of wiz? What if it was rogue 11/wiz 1? Do you lose the ability to cast spells or sneak attack dice? What about Rogue 10/wiz 2? What about Rogue 7/wiz 5/arcane trickster 1? Do you lose all arcane trickster abilities? In these cases, how much damage dice do you lose on say a fireball or lightning bolt? Is it possible to tell? Is it negative levels/2 or negative levels /3 in the arcane trickster case?

    All that's pretty sticky. I can live with the negative levels = -1 penatly per, but that just seems so, weak? Negative levels use to mean something, right? It was scary before...

    I would think the last class taken would be loss first.

    Dark Archive

    Here are a few other questions I have after taking a closer look at negative levels.

    One, are ongoing spells (those with a duration other than instantaneous or permanent) effected by negative levels (by way of the level variable penalty)? For example, would a wizard's mage armor duration be shortened if he was hit with negative levels after it had already cast it?

    Two, what state of life or death is a character who is reduced to 0 or lower HP by virtue of the -5 HP penalty? It is entirely possible that a character could have his total HP reduced to 0 or less without actually having the negative levels equal his class level (ie a wizard who averaged less than 5 HP/level, say a 5 level wizard with 19 or 20 HP normally, hit with 4 negative levels). Are they dead? Dying? How can they be healed/raised? Do they get another save as the negative levels aren't permanent.

    I know I can rule however I want in my game. I'm just curious what others think. Your thoughts?

    Cheers

    Dark Archive

    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Here are a few other questions I have after taking a closer look at negative levels.

    One, are ongoing spells (those with a duration other than instantaneous or permanent) effected by negative levels (by way of the level variable penalty)? For example, would a wizard's mage armor duration be shortened if he was hit with negative levels after it had already cast it?

    Two, what state of life or death is a character who is reduced to 0 or lower HP by virtue of the -5 HP penalty? It is entirely possible that a character could have his total HP reduced to 0 or less without actually having the negative levels equal his class level (ie a wizard who averaged less than 5 HP/level, say a 5 level wizard with 19 or 20 HP normally, hit with 4 negative levels). Are they dead? Dying? How can they be healed/raised? Do they get another save as the negative levels aren't permanent.

    I know I can rule however I want in my game. I'm just curious what others think. Your thoughts?

    Cheers

    1) It is just like a wand. The caster level is set at the time of casting, and does not change in the interim even if the source of the spell (I.E. the caster) suddenly becomes less powerful.

    2) As for the HP problem? Treat it like Normal HP, its possible that a person just doesn't have enough willpower to fend off the negative energy and it eats him alive. While not damage per say, its still affecting you as if you were damaged.


    Lord oKOyA wrote:

    Here are a few other questions I have after taking a closer look at negative levels.

    One, are ongoing spells (those with a duration other than instantaneous or permanent) effected by negative levels (by way of the level variable penalty)? For example, would a wizard's mage armor duration be shortened if he was hit with negative levels after it had already cast it?

    Two, what state of life or death is a character who is reduced to 0 or lower HP by virtue of the -5 HP penalty? It is entirely possible that a character could have his total HP reduced to 0 or less without actually having the negative levels equal his class level (ie a wizard who averaged less than 5 HP/level, say a 5 level wizard with 19 or 20 HP normally, hit with 4 negative levels). Are they dead? Dying? How can they be healed/raised? Do they get another save as the negative levels aren't permanent.

    I know I can rule however I want in my game. I'm just curious what others think. Your thoughts?

    Cheers

    1) no they are set when cast

    2) I'd not reduce the maximum hp a creature has below 1, otherwise I would treat it as normal damage, if the wizard has suffered some physical damage as well and then gets hit with 4 negative levels he'd most likely be dying or maybe even dead.


    Dissinger wrote:
    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.

    Thanks for the information.

    Off topic. Do you use all traits in your game? Some of the traits seem to be too good.


    Jason is back. Perhaps we can now get an official ruling :-)


    Zark wrote:
    Dissinger wrote:
    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.

    Thanks for the information.

    Off topic. Do you use all traits in your game? Some of the traits seem to be too good.

    I only use traits I do not consider too unbalancing, same with feats, PrC or everything else.


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

    Has anyone managed to convince you to change your ruling James?

    I'm personally fine with either interpretation I suppose.


    Can someone let me know if Empowering Enervation and Ray of Enfeeblement is legal. As from my under standing of the feat description those two spells can be, but can i get a errata or actually reference if i'm wrong or right as proof to show my DM.

    Liberty's Edge

    Lyeesia wrote:
    Can someone let me know if Empowering Enervation and Ray of Enfeeblement is legal. As from my under standing of the feat description those two spells can be, but can i get a errata or actually reference if i'm wrong or right as proof to show my DM.

    Any spell with a variable effect (roll dice for effect) can be empowered and/or maximized. Those feats don't specify damage.


    So then what happens to enervation it turns to a 1d6 with empower. How does this work with ray of enfeeblement, 1d9?

    Liberty's Edge

    I think the best way is to just roll the original die and add 50% to whatever you get.

    Liberty's Edge

    Mistwalker wrote:

    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.

    James did indeed comment on this however, I believe his interpretation to be incorrect as per RAW. They went out of their way to say they didn't lose spells or slots, which indicates they are still technically full level. The text specifically states,

    Spoiler:
    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.

    Let's look at it from a logical point of view. Negative level, drains life, which I liken to a subject that loses alot of blood. They become weaker, lethargic, but they do not lose their knowledge. This of course ignores the fact that massive blood loss also brings on Shock and disorientation or confusion, but that is beside the point for the purpose of comparison. Energy Drain is a supernatural ability/effect, but I imagine it would be alot like massive blood loss. After all, wasn't it in Dracula that we are told the blood is the life?

    Liberty's Edge

    Of course, I commented before finishing the thread, lol :) I see now that James has seen the light :)


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

    I'm guessing this isn't true any longer due to feats like Spell Perfection?


    Ravingdork wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    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.
    I'm guessing this isn't true any longer due to feats like Spell Perfection?

    You are a mean, mean dork, RD.


    Does the Magical Knack trait counteract 2 negative levels for a straight caster?

    PRD: "Magical Knack: You were raised, either wholly or in part, by a magical creature, either after it found you abandoned in the woods or because your parents often left you in the care of a magical minion. This constant exposure to magic has made its mysteries easy for you to understand, even when you turn your mind to other devotions and tasks. Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn't raise your caster level above your current Hit Dice."


    Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
    Serisan wrote:
    Ravingdork wrote:
    James Jacobs wrote:
    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.
    I'm guessing this isn't true any longer due to feats like Spell Perfection?
    You are a mean, mean dork, RD.

    Honestly not my intent.

    Paizo Employee Director of Game Design

    Yeah.. this old thread is full of suppositions that I do not believe to be true. I am going to lock this one down. If folks want to discuss... start a new thread.

    Jason Bulmahn
    Lead Designer
    Paizo Publishing

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