I was in a game tonight in which my 15th-level sorcerer was firing maximized enervation rays and quickened enervation rays (via Spell Perfection) at the BBEG.
Apparently he had Spell Turning up and after dealing 10 negative levels to myself I said to my party mates "Sorry guys, it's been fun, but that's enough for me" and my character teleported to safety.
Or at least I would have had my GM let me. He thinks that negative levels takes away one's ability to cast spells, little by little.
Is this true?
Also, is my Maximized Enervation spell treated as 4th-level or 7th-level for the purposes of Spell Turning? (Please remember that I am getting the metamagic for free due to Spell Perfection.)
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.
Bold is mine. You would have a lower caster level, but you would not lose spells prepared or spell slots. You should have been able to teleport away.
You rays would be treated as 4th level.
First: You would notice the first spell being turned, so you could have avoided casting the second.
Second: You don't lose any prepared spells or spell slots from negative levels. Your DM is probably confused by the line "the creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed". That line simply means that for spells that have an effect or range that are based on level (such as Fireball), you are treated as having a lower level. Also, negative levels worked differently in 3.5, where they actually did cause you to lose spells and spell slots. Maybe he uses those rules.
Third: Spell Turning doesn't count the metamagic addition. (edited due to wrongness)
First: You would notice the first spell being turned, so you could have avoided casting the second.
Second: You don't lose any prepared spells or spell slots from negative levels. Your DM is probably confused by the line "the creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed". That line simply means that for spells that have an effect or range that are based on level (such as Fireball), you are treated as having a lower level. Also, negative levels worked differently in 3.5, where they actually did cause you to lose spells and spell slots. Maybe he uses those rules.
Third: Spell Turning counts the metamagic addition, regardless of how it is added to the spell.
Where did you get this? I don't see anything that says this in spell turning or metamagic feats.
EDIT:In all ways, a metamagic spell operates at its original spell level, even though it is prepared and cast as a higher-level spell. Saving throw modifications are not changed unless stated otherwise in the feat description.
IMHO it SHOULD work the way your GM ruled
(I´m not aware of his SPECFIC ruling, but in general terms you should lose access to spell slots IMHO)
but AFAIK Paizo has ruled that it does NOT affect spell slots in this way...
Just look up the RAW for negative levels, or search Jason or James´ posts on the subject.
I think the approach they take is flawed because it makes negative levels MUCH less a signifigant penalty for casters as opposed to ´melee´ classes, or those relying on BAB for much of their effect (AFAIK ´melee´ classes DO lose access to Feats they no longer qualify for, e.g. with BAB requirements). Paizo´s intent here was to reduce mid-game ability juggling, but given Feats can still be lost, they haven´t REALLY achieved that, they´ve just created another discrepancy between casters/non-casters. Non-casters are able to access their Class Abilities under Paizo´s method, which leaves them alot better off than otherwise (and PRPG Classes have alot more signifigant Class Abilities compared to 3.5), but that still doesn´t compare to Casters retaining their Class Abilities AND full Spell Slots.
I think ´crossing off´ spell slots that you can´t access because of level drain ISN´T an overly complicated thing to do mid-battle (hey, you´re already playing a caster, I think you can deal with it), you just reduce spell slots (randomly for prepared casters, with caveat that arcane/domain bonus slots are lost last due to how they are gained), and this is easy to do in a way that can be instantly ´undone´ if said level drain is ´healed´.
There´s also potential discrepacy for just Feats. Eg. Vital Strike is pretty clear if you no longer have the requisite BAB, but what happens when somebody loses Caster Levels necessary for their Improved Familiar?
IMHO it SHOULD work the way your GM ruled
(I´m not aware of his SPECFIC ruling, but in general terms you should lose access to spell slots IMHO)
but AFAIK Paizo has ruled that it does NOT affect spell slots in this way...
Just look up the RAW for negative levels, or search Jason or James´ posts on the subject.I think the approach they take is flawed because it makes negative levels MUCH less a signifigant penalty for casters as opposed to ´melee´ classes, or those relying on BAB for much of their effect (AFAIK ´melee´ classes DO lose access to Feats they no longer qualify for, e.g. with BAB requirements). Paizo´s intent here was to reduce mid-game ability juggling, but given Feats can still be lost, they haven´t REALLY achieved that, they´ve just created another discrepancy between casters/non-casters. Non-casters are able to access their Class Abilities under Paizo´s method, which leaves them alot better off than otherwise (and PRPG Classes have alot more signifigant Class Abilities compared to 3.5), but that still doesn´t compare to Casters retaining their Class Abilities AND full Spell Slots.
I think ´crossing off´ spell slots that you can´t access because of level drain ISN´T an overly complicated thing to do mid-battle (hey, you´re already playing a caster, I think you can deal with it), you just reduce spell slots (randomly for prepared casters, with caveat that arcane/domain bonus slots are lost last due to how they are gained), and this is easy to do in a way that can be instantly ´undone´ if said level drain is ´healed´.
Casters lose HP faster, -5 per negative level affects a d6 HD much more than a d10.
Where did you get this? I don't see anything that says this in spell turning or metamagic feats.
I was wrong, and have edited my post.
I think the approach they take is flawed because it makes negative levels MUCH less a signifigant penalty for casters as opposed to ´melee´ classes, or those relying on BAB for much of their effect (AFAIK ´melee´ classes DO lose access to Feats they no longer qualify for, e.g. with BAB requirements). Paizo´s intent here was to reduce mid-game ability juggling, but given Feats can still be lost, they haven´t REALLY achieved that, they´ve just created another discrepancy between casters/non-casters.
You don't lose feats due to negative levels either. Negative levels provide the penalties given in the description for negative levels. Nothing else. For instance, you don't lose BAB, you simply take a penalty to attack rolls.
I would think that, logically, sorcerors- who do not prepare, memorize or choose the spell they cast until the time it is actually cast do not have "prepared" spells as do wizards. They only have the potential to cast their known spells dependent upon their own level at the time of casting. Thus, it is logical that they could lose level dependent spells due to level draining.
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.
Casters lose HP faster, -5 per negative level affects a d6 HD much more than a d10.
Sure, but since this is D&D you still act at full capacity (barring other conditions) until yuo have 0 hps, while the other effects of level drain directly affect melee/ranged´s core schtick while not doing so much vs. max level spell casting... Even if Paizo wanted to avoid ´crossing off´ spell slots, they could have implemented a penalty to Spell DCs, although that leaves non-offensive spells (those with Saving Throws or SR:yes) unaffected, but they didn´t for whatever reason. Anyways, the RAW is pretty clear on this.
@Kierato: He was obviously pontificating on what ´makes sense´, not what the rules say... Though I really don´t understand advocating that spontaneous casters lose spell slots but prepared casters still have full access to all prepared slots, but hey, that´s his prerogative. (well, I can see a certain potential logic to it, but without game balance as well, I would defer to other potential logics which don´t create spontaneous/prepared discrepancies here)
Casters lose HP faster, -5 per negative level affects a d6 HD much more than a d10.Sure, but since this is D&D you still act at full capacity (barring other conditions) until yuo have 0 hps, while the other effects of level drain directly affect melee/ranged´s core schtick while not doing so much vs. max level spell casting... Even if Paizo wanted to avoid ´crossing off´ spell slots, they could have implemented a penalty to Spell DCs, although that leaves non-offensive spells (those with Saving Throws or SR:yes) unaffected, but they didn´t for whatever reason. Anyways, the RAW is pretty clear on this.
Lower caster level means reduced duration/effect of spells.
Lower caster level means reduced duration/effect of spells.
SOME spells :-)
In all fairness the way the GM was running it was precisely the way negative levels operated in 3.5. and lower, so he might have been running on old experience.
Yes, I´m pretty sure this what he was doing as well.
The PRPG is pretty clear-cut, even if I prefer the old way.
Thanks for the help everyone. We've got it straightened out now. He was thinking v3.5.
Unfortunately for you, your GM misunderstood how Spell Turning works.
Spell Turning:
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells. From seven to ten (1d4+6) spell levels are affected by the turning. The exact number is rolled secretly.
Enervation is an Effect spell that has no target, and requires a ranged touch attack.
Thus, spell Turning is no defense against Enervation. It worked this way in 3.5 and in 3.0 as well. BBEG should have suffered the full effect of the Enervation spells, barring any other protections he may have had.
Unfortunately for you, your GM misunderstood how Spell Turning works.
Spell Turning:
Spells and spell-like effects targeted on you are turned back upon the original caster. The abjuration turns only spells that have you as a target. Effect and area spells are not affected. Spell turning also fails to stop touch range spells. From seven to ten (1d4+6) spell levels are affected by the turning. The exact number is rolled secretly.Enervation is an Effect spell that has no target, and requires a ranged touch attack.
Thus, spell Turning is no defense against Enervation. It worked this way in 3.5 and in 3.0 as well. BBEG should have suffered the full effect of the Enervation spells, barring any other protections he may have had.
I was about to post this as well. Not even sure Spell Turning works against enervation.
It does. It's a ranged touch spell, not a touch range spell--a subtle difference. The former includes rays (which always have targets) whereas the latter includes melee touch attacks like shocking grasp or vampiric touch (touch range, get it?).
I don't know if anyone mentioned it, but you don't lose the spells until 24 hours pass and you start failing the fort saves to make them permanent.
Note:Enervation never does not last long enough for the level drains to be permanent.
It is another one of those rules changes that is easy to miss.
Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.
Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.
Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
EDIT: If it only effects spells that have you as target, what happens when someone casts magic missile against you AND your allies when you are thus protected?
Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
Father Dale pointed it out first, I was pointing it out that he pointed it out. I was looking through the book, there are still a few spells it blocks.
Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
EDIT: If it only effects spells that have you as target, what happens when someone casts magic missile against you AND your allies when you are thus protected?
Magic missile can have more than one target. Only the missiles targeting the protected person should be turned back.
Magic missile can have more than one target. Only the missiles targeting the protected person should be turned back.Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
EDIT: If it only effects spells that have you as target, what happens when someone casts magic missile against you AND your allies when you are thus protected?
Short of both caster having Spell Turning up, isn't it all or nothing though? It certainly seems implied to me.
Short of both caster having Spell Turning up, isn't it all or nothing though? It certainly seems implied to me.Magic missile can have more than one target. Only the missiles targeting the protected person should be turned back.Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
EDIT: If it only effects spells that have you as target, what happens when someone casts magic missile against you AND your allies when you are thus protected?
It seems the intent is to only block what directly targets the casters. Your buddies are on their own.
Most spells don't allow for multiple targets so it is normally not an issue. It is similar to chain lightening. If I choose your caster as a target that bolt goes back to me, but your buddies are out of luck.
Short of both caster having Spell Turning up, isn't it all or nothing though? It certainly seems implied to me.Magic missile can have more than one target. Only the missiles targeting the protected person should be turned back.Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
EDIT: If it only effects spells that have you as target, what happens when someone casts magic missile against you AND your allies when you are thus protected?
It seems the intent is to only block what directly targets the casters. Your buddies are on their own.
Most spells don't allow for multiple targets so it is normally not an issue. It is similar to chain lightening. If I choose your caster as a target that bolt goes back to me, but your buddies are out of luck.
Alright, so let's say I have Spell Turning up. You cast chain lightning at me (primary) and my allies (secondary) from long range.
Because of Spell Turning, you become the primary target. However, none of my allies are anywhere near you and no longer qualify as secondary targets.
So...what happens now?
Short of both caster having Spell Turning up, isn't it all or nothing though? It certainly seems implied to me.Magic missile can have more than one target. Only the missiles targeting the protected person should be turned back.Note, it says, "Effect and area spells are not affected." Enervation is an Effect: Ray spell. It would not have been affected.Hm...overlooked that one we did. Thanks for pointing it out.
Spell Turning kind of sucks, doesn't it?
EDIT: If it only effects spells that have you as target, what happens when someone casts magic missile against you AND your allies when you are thus protected?
It seems the intent is to only block what directly targets the casters. Your buddies are on their own.
Most spells don't allow for multiple targets so it is normally not an issue. It is similar to chain lightening. If I choose your caster as a target that bolt goes back to me, but your buddies are out of luck.
Alright, so let's say I have Spell Turning up. You cast chain lightning at me (primary) and my allies (secondary) from long range.
Because of Spell Turning, you become the primary target. However, none of my allies are anywhere near you and no longer qualify as secondary targets.
So...what happens now?
At the time of the casting I choose the primary and secondary targets. If you have spell turning and you are the primary target, that does not change the secondary targets. Your buddies are still hit if they are still within a rules legal distance of me.
If you are the secondary target then the secondary bolt that would have hit you goes to me.
edit:If I become the new primary and your buddies are to far away from me to be legal targets then I am the only one to get hit.
Related question, how would spell turning effect a reach shocking grasp? Keep in mind that shocking grasp would normally not be affected by spell turning.
Related question, how would spell turning effect a reach shocking grasp? Keep in mind that shocking grasp would normally not be affected by spell turning.
The feat changes how the spell works. The caster would end up shocking themselves since the spell would then be target based instead of touch attack based.
Or at least I would have had my GM let me. He thinks that negative levels takes away one's ability to cast spells, little by little.Is this true?
It does, you caster level is lowered, and a certain caster level is required to cast spells at a given level. So in your case, you would end up having caster level 5, being able to cast spells of level 3 or lower.
You don't loose the spell slots, because: A) you can have the negative levels removed, and B) you might actually use them with metamagic version of other spells.
Or at least I would have had my GM let me. He thinks that negative levels takes away one's ability to cast spells, little by little.Is this true?
It does, you caster level is lowered, and a certain caster level is required to cast spells at a given level. So in your case, you would end up having caster level 5, being able to cast spells of level 3 or lower.
You don't loose the spell slots, because: A) you can have the negative levels removed, and B) you might actually use them with metamagic version of other spells.
I thought James or Jason made a similar ruling a while back, but I can't seem to find the post. I seem to remember some posters complaining that it was unfair that casters got hurt more by the negative levels.
[
I thought James or Jason made a similar ruling a while back, but I can't seem to find the post. I seem to remember some posters complaining that it was unfair that casters got hurt more by the negative levels.
Just found it here.
I does make negative levels harder on caster in my experience (especially as a caster), but I don't think it is too much of an issue. There are fairly many effects that hits different types of characters more than others.
EDIT: Seems I was wrong about using higher than availiable slots for metamagic.
EDIT 2:Okay, later in the thread, James states that he has become unsure of the matter, so it is not definite.
[
I thought James or Jason made a similar ruling a while back, but I can't seem to find the post. I seem to remember some posters complaining that it was unfair that casters got hurt more by the negative levels.Just found it here.
I does make negative levels harder on caster in my experience (especially as a caster), but I don't think it is too much of an issue. There are fairly many effects that hits different types of characters more than others.
Thanks. I went ahead and listed it.
[
I thought James or Jason made a similar ruling a while back, but I can't seem to find the post. I seem to remember some posters complaining that it was unfair that casters got hurt more by the negative levels.Just found it here.
I does make negative levels harder on caster in my experience (especially as a caster), but I don't think it is too much of an issue. There are fairly many effects that hits different types of characters more than others.
Interesting.
You can NEVER metamagic a spell to a point beyond a spell level that you can cast. So yeah, level drain would indeed reduce or possibly make useless some metamagic feats.So it would also reason you can't use slots above your current caster level for metamagic?
An example is an energy drained 7th level wizard/sorcerer trying to metamagic up to a 4th level spell.
I know the answer, but I need it for reference.
It appears even metamagic spells are out.
Interesting.
Not to be snide, RD, but you actually participated in that thread :-)
[
I thought James or Jason made a similar ruling a while back, but I can't seem to find the post. I seem to remember some posters complaining that it was unfair that casters got hurt more by the negative levels.Just found it here.
I does make negative levels harder on caster in my experience (especially as a caster), but I don't think it is too much of an issue. There are fairly many effects that hits different types of characters more than others.
Interesting.
It appears even metamagic spells are out.You can NEVER metamagic a spell to a point beyond a spell level that you can cast. So yeah, level drain would indeed reduce or possibly make useless some metamagic feats.So it would also reason you can't use slots above your current caster level for metamagic?
An example is an energy drained 7th level wizard/sorcerer trying to metamagic up to a 4th level spell.
I know the answer, but I need it for reference.
I knew that would come up one day. I feel so useful. :)
For each negative level a creature has, it takes a cumulative –1 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks. In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses. The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed. Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels. If a creature's negative levels equal or exceed its total Hit Dice, it dies.Bold is mine. You would have a lower caster level, but you would not lose spells prepared or spell slots. You should have been able to teleport away.
You rays would be treated as 4th level.
A spell's power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to her class level in the class she's using to cast the spell.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question, and all level-dependent features must be based on the same caster level.
In the event that a class feature or other special ability provides an adjustment to your caster level, that adjustment applies not only to effects based on caster level (such as range, duration, and damage dealt), but also to your caster level check to overcome your target's spell resistance and to the caster level used in dispel checks (both the dispel check and the DC of the check).
(from the Magic section, bolding mine)
Teleport, as a 5th level spell has a minimum CL of 9. It seems to me that a 15th level wizard with 10 negative levels would be casting at CL 5, so should only be capable of 3rd level spells.
Just to clarify on Spell Turning.
It only works against spells that have a Target entry. That is the primary qualifier.
It does not work against effect spells (such as Interposing Hand), area effect spells (such as fireball), ray spells (such as disintegrate), or touch range spells (such as the Inflict spells).
It would work against things like Flesh to Stone, Insanity, Blindness/Deafness, and Dominate Person.
Interesting.Not to be snide, RD, but you actually participated in that thread :-)
Yes. I saw that too. Hence why it was interesting. :P
I'm quite well known for my terrible memory, and that was a LONG time ago. Guess I forgot about the details.