|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did haphazardly stumble in here, but even so it isn't at the top of my haphazard stumble queue yet with its small number of FAQ clicks. I actually do have a thread on my haphazard stumble queue that seems FAQable enough that I might be able to get us to look at it without the real queue being fixed, but I won't mention which one yet so as not to create false expectations / jinx it.Yeah, I suspect a lot of people flee in terror rather than hit the FAQ tag when they read 'negative level' in the thread title. :-/
Perhaps the previous threads that were unresolved despite serious confusion would provide evidence that this is a significant question?
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I disagree with CampinCarl9127.
First, I don't think there's good evidence that any ability that scales with level counts as a level-dependent variable except the ability to cast higher level spells. The text says you are "treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting)," not "such as caster level," which makes broader penalties to spellcasting plausible, even if your spell slots are specifically not touched.
Second, it's horribly unfair.
Many spells are either completely unaffected by caster level (eg Time Stop, Bestow Curse) or minimally affected (minute/level buffs like Shield often are effectively "one combat" buffs). DCs don't care about caster level, just spell level and casting stat. Depending on spell choice, a wizard or sorcerer could be at full or nearly full magical power even after taking multiple negative levels.
A magus, however, is going to have a heck of a time when every negative level strips damage from their bread-and-butter attack spells and reduces both the number of points in their arcane pool and the effect of each point for things like enhancing weapons. And they're much more affected by taking a -1 attack penalty per level when they're not even full BAB.
Similarly, the attack reduction and loss of sneak attack devastates the rogue; paladins suffer from greatly reduced smite damage and lay on hands uses/potency; and the monk is super duper hosed since you lose unarmed strike damage, AC bonus, and fast movement, not to mention the damage to features like Stunning Fist.
So basically, with this interpretation negative levels are terrible for everyone except for buffer/debuffer full casters (eg the God Wizard), the group that least needs its power level protected.
Receiving a negative level don't remove arcane pool point or rage point or perform points. At most it would lower your maximum pool and I doubt it applies to them. If you are already under your maximum value almost certainly you will not suffer a damage on that front.
Level dependent variable are something that is expressed as X*your level and the arcane pool and rounds of rage and perform are acquired when you get a new level, they aren't something that is multiplied by your current level. if you have some effect that change your current level, in a positive way you don't get them, so you don't lose them when there is a effect that lower your current level.Edit in italics
Energy Drain and Negative Levels
Some spells and a number of undead creatures have the ability to drain away life and energy; this dreadful attack results in "negative levels." These cause a character to take a number of penalties.
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.
A creature with temporary negative levels receives a new saving throw to remove the negative level each day. The DC of this save is the same as the effect that caused the negative levels.
Some abilities and spells (such as raise dead) bestow permanent level drain on a creature. These are treated just like temporary negative levels, but they do not allow a new save each day to remove them. Level drain can be removed through spells like restoration. Permanent negative levels remain after a dead creature is restored to life. A creature whose permanent negative levels equal its Hit Dice cannot be brought back to life through spells like raise dead and resurrection without also receiving a restoration spell, cast the round after it is restored to life.
Nothing about losing arcane pool or rage or perform rounds (and the latter two are in the CRB).
About the inability to cast a spell:
Caster 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.
Notice how it say "you can" and "you choose". The reduction to level dependent variable isn't something that you chose to do, it is mandatory.
Try to find a rule that say "you may never cast a spell unless your caster level is high enough to cast" or some such. There isn't any.Actually there is plenty of creatures that cast SLA with a caster level way lower than the minimum needed.
Genie, Efreeti
Spell-Like Abilities (CL 11th)
1/day—grant up to 3 wishes (to nongenies only
No CL 17 here, it is 11.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this is not a new question. Try searching previous threads before making a new one.
If you read my original post more closely you'd see I actually spent 20 minutes searching different threads and found no conclusive answers before I posted, asking first Mark for an unofficial answer and then posting here because I think it's a question that would benefit from a FAQ. A particularly memorable thread (and near as I can tell the only staff posts on the subject) was when James Jacobs first argued that the spellcaster would be unable to cast his highest level spells, then sort of changed his mind and suggested they should change it, then James Bulmahn posted, pointed out that apparently everyone in the thread was wrong and locked the thread without actually answering the question. Bonus points since JJ also states that rogues shouldn't lose sneak attack damage progression, which I believe you previously asserted that they do.
Since then there's been a new thread asking the question every couple of months that argues the question back and forth without ever really reaching any kind of conclusion.
Clearly there's confusion on this topic. It'd be nice if it was cleared up, ideally with a FAQ outlining exactly what is and is not affected by Negative levels. If we get a cheat sheet then maybe GMs like yourselves would be more inclined to use that rules section!
First printing of the CRB august 2009, JJ post Jan 14, 2010. The game wasn't even 6 month old and negative levels worked very differently in the 3.5, so it is comprehensible it there was still some doubt in JJ mind on how it worked.
Try to find something more recent to support your position.|
|
I didn't realize there was this much variation in how people interpret this!
Originally I ruled that class features were basically left alone. I'd penalize the attack/save/skill/ability rolls, the HP penalty Daniel mentioned as well as CL/Concentration/Spell Penetration checks, but leave max level spells, sneak attack/smite/bloodline powers etc. alone. Forcing people to recalculate sneak attack dice, weapon training bonuses or how many rage rounds they have left would be a massive pain in the ass for essentially no gain and something I had hoped to leave behind in 3.5. In that regard I completely agree with JJ that Negative Levels should be as easy as possible to use, not a chore where you have to tear down and then rebuild your character.
However, when my player challenged me to explain what things are and are not affected (several people at the table interpreted the rules differently) I really didn't have a good rules answer, and the more I dug into the rules the more frustrated I got. "That seems about right" is fine to say mid-session, but kind of flimsy as a foundation for a rules subsection that's used fairly frequently.
Touch of Idiocy is not a good comparison, mostly because it relies on express rules text in the spell to prevent casting. (Ability damage/penalty/drain is a mess in RAW.)This is a very good point, and one I had not considered. :)
Level dependent variable are something that is expressed as X*your level.
Sneak attack isn't a level defendant variable, it is something you acquire when you reach level X. What you have is defined in the nice "special" column on the right of the class table. Same for bloodline powers, fighters armor and weapon training and so on.Rage and perform round are borderline, you acquire them when you get your new level, they aren't a x value multiplied by your current level, so probably those too aren't touched by negative levels.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First printing of the CRB august 2009, JJ post Jan 14, 2010. The game wasn't even 6 month old and negative levels worked very differently in the 3.5, so it is comprehensible it there was still some doubt in JJ mind on how it worked.
Try to find something more recent to support your position.
Sure Thing!
Defining "level-dependent variables" is a good FAQ question for certain. The only thing we know for sure that gets hit is spellcasting, the listed example, which assuming it means caster level based on the context, can indeed take you below the minimum necessary to cast a spell (enervation is a nice opener against an enemy spellcaster for that reason).
A link to the original post (with the mentioned example quoted) can be found here.
Level dependent variable are something that is expressed as X*your level and the arcane pool and rounds of rage and perform are acquired when you get a new level, they aren't something that is multiplied by your current level. if you have some effect that change your current level, in a positive way you don't get them, so you don't lose them when there is a effect that lower your current level.
Level dependent variable are something that is expressed as X*your level.
Awesome! Can you tell me in what rules book you found that definition? I've been digging through the rules books for days now and I've yet to be able to find exactly what is and is not a level-dependent variable!
Try to find a rule that say "you may never cast a spell unless your caster level is high enough to cast" or some such. There isn't any.
There are quite a few actually. Kalindlara's excellent detective work found several references in Unchained. The language is also used in the Magic chapter and in language for crafting potions, wands and scrolls. All of this is quoted and referenced on the first page of this thread.
Actually there is plenty of creatures that cast SLA with a caster level way lower than the minimum needed.
This is a very interesting question! I suspect it might need its own FAQ, though.
It seems like a lot of people (including myself until very recently) are really convinced they know how Negative Levels works when really they're convinced how it's intended to work. A surprisingly large amount of those people disagree with one another. Diego, try to suspend your personal opinion, read the text objectively and think about it. Do you really think it's perfectly clear what the game does and does not consider a level-dependent variable?
|
|
Try to find a rule that say "you may never cast a spell unless your caster level is high enough to cast" or some such. There isn't any.There are quite a few actually. Kalindlara's excellent detective work found several references in Unchained. The language is also used in the Magic chapter and in language for crafting potions, wands and scrolls. All of this is quoted and referenced on the first page of this thread.
Actually most of these piece of text say something different or are irrelevant.
In case it hasn't been mentioned, the Wounds and Thresholds system from Pathfinder Unchained has some potentially relevant text as well.
The penalty to caster level from the grazed, wounded, or critical condition can make it so an injured spellcaster is unable to cast the highest levels of spells she would normally be able to. However, it doesn’t cause her to lose any prepared spells or spell slots. The penalty to caster level also reduces her bonus on concentration checks and lowers the range, duration, and effectiveness of her spells. The penalty can’t make her effective caster level lower than 1.
As it appears in a sidebar, it appears to be reminder text rather than additional rules text.
Hopefully this is useful to the discussion. ^_^
Totally irrelevant. It is for a optional system with specific alternative rules, it has no relevance on how the standard rules work.
And that is 1 reference, BTW.There is no caster level requirement to cast a certain level of spell. That correlation does not exist.Er... There is absolutely a minimum caster level requirement to cast a certain level of spell. It's referenced extensively, in the Magic chapter and in the magic item chapter for starters.
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.
I already replied to this one, it speak of voluntary lowering your caster level, it has no bearing on mandatory lowering of it.
Table: Wands gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class.Table: Potions gives sample prices for potions created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class.Table: Scrolls gives sample prices for scrolls created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class.A creator can create an item at a lower caster level than her own, but never lower than the minimum level needed to cast the needed spell.
And? No really, why the rules on how magic items are made and their limits have any influence on what a magic use cast his spells?
Following that logic we scan argue that, as a wand don't provoke, a spell that can be put in a wand don't provoke.
Finally, consider this FAQ:...However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a
Again, irrelevant, it is about magic item crafting.
And that is 1 reference, BTW.
When I looked up the rules section Kalindlara referenced I found additional rules covering the minimum caster level under Limited Magic ("The minimum caster level of a spell is fixed at 2 × the spell’s level – 1") and Mandatory Components ("She can’t lower her caster level to be lower than the level at which she could cast the spell.") I thought Kalindlara initially posted all three. My bad. :)
Rather than go through all the quotes and argue back and forth, I'll say this: We have provided extensive references to a minimum caster level scattered across the entire rules system, including a rules section that states point-blank that you can't cast a spell with a caster level lower than the minimum to cast the spell. I've provided a link to a post from a current member of the design team who appears to think that a negative level can impact your caster level to the point where you're unable to cast your highest level spells.
Unless you have a rules section we have yet to reference, I feel confident in my position that a sufficient number of negative levels can leave a spellcaster unable to use his high-level spell slots.
That said, I'd still welcome any and all FAQ clicks on what actually constitutes a level-based variable. Some GMs appear to be consider things like Sneak Attack is a level-based variable, while others think things like the damage portion of Smite Evil is not a level-based variable. Clearly there's different interpretations, so it'd be nice to have it clarified. :)
|
|
And that is 1 reference, BTW.When I looked up the rules section Kalindlara referenced I found additional rules covering the minimum caster level under Limited Magic ("The minimum caster level of a spell is fixed at 2 × the spell’s level – 1") and Mandatory Components ("She can’t lower her caster level to be lower than the level at which she could cast the spell.") I thought Kalindlara initially posted all three. My bad. :)
Again, irrelevant references from a optional system.
Rather than go through all the quotes and argue back and forth, I'll say this: We have provided extensive references to a minimum caster level scattered across the entire rules system, including a rules section that states point-blank that you can't cast a spell with a caster level lower than the minimum to cast the spell. I've provided a link to a post from a current member of the design team who appears to think that a negative level can impact your caster level to the point where you're unable to cast your highest level spells.Unless you have a rules section we have yet to reference, I feel confident in my position that a sufficient number of negative levels can leave a spellcaster unable to use his high-level spell slots.
That said, I'd still welcome any and all FAQ clicks on what actually constitutes a level-based variable. Some GMs appear to be consider things like Sneak Attack is a level-based variable, while others think things like the damage portion of Smite Evil is not a level-based variable. Clearly there's different interpretations, so it'd be nice to have it clarified. :)
You feel confident, but you can't find a way to reply to my confutations?
It seem that you need to re-evaluate your position.I feel that rules related to crafting magic items are no bearing on how a spellcaster cast his spells. Your position is that they affect him.
So what other rule about crafting magic items affect spellcasting?
It seem that you need to re-evaluate your position.
Barring a fresh rules section that contradicts the above, a FAQ, or another design team post, I feel pretty confident in my position. :)
I always feel left out when people quote other people who come in after me with the same argument I made, and argue with them, after skipping mine.
#I'mallalone