So as a GM I have always avoided including monsters or spells that could cause negative levels. This initially resulted in my playing of ADnD where negative levels were way too powerful and always permanent (at least to my understanding of the rules, ADnD is not known for its clarity) and this just naturally transitioned into future games.
Now I was recently playing an AP with a new group and we came across a wight that we at first didnt know was a wight. We were level 3 at the time. We tried to fight it and it resulted in 2 of our 3 party to be drained down to level one and consequently they became permanent. We could no longer deal with the enemies we faced and we had no way of removing these levels. This caused me to read into the rules and the more I read the more they confused me.
What role are negative levels supposed to fill in games?
I cant see what they can be used for. At low levels the power of negative levels is too much. They can instantly kill characters and even if they don't, the characters will be marred by that negative level for a long time. this doesnt seem like very fun for any players.
Then during the mid game negative levels are not too powerful as characters will have access to spells that remove them in almost no time and while the negative levels are in effect, they dont hinder the character in any meaningful way there is no threat of death unless fighting a huge mob of these creatures.
Finally during high levels these negative levels act like they do in the mid levels except for even more useless. I find ability drain similar to negative levels though they fit much better in my opinion as the consequences of these remain consistent through more levels of play
So oh wise messageboards, how do you deal with negative levels and what kind of experiences have you have with them?
Negative levels are a consequence of failure. Consequences can be used in interesting and creative ways to encourage success.
Success is fun. Everyone enjoys hitting the high points in the game. Being at the bottom of the heap makes success all the more sweet.
Got a competent character who rolled badly and now has a negative level? Use it as an opportunity to roleplay seeking out information on that undead; learning some secret that will make it more vulnerable to the hero. Every epic tale has the hero facing some dark moment in their careers where they have to purge themselves and learn anew in order to defeat evil.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like to make the spellcasters worry over a level of spellcasting and the barbarians fret over a few rounds of rage
Negative levels no longer actually remove levels.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels are very powerful. They are a pool if points that max at 20 for most PCs with only a few ways to negate level drain/damage. They also impose a -1 per negative level to nearly all d20 rolls. Even level 20s have to worry about level damage unless well prepared.
Edit: I also like negative levels way more than save or die. Save or die feel really cheap to me, oh look a bad roll and I'm dead. I don't feel that save or dies have a place in the game.
A question for 180degreesturn: Why do you feel that ability drain fits better and stays more relevant? The same things that cure negative levels generally cure ability drain as well. In fact, negative levels in Pathfinder are very close to "all-ability-score drain".
As for why they exist: So that adventurers have something to fear other than straight-up death. Without level drain, a wight is just a zombie that can make more zombies, and vampires have no teeth. With level drain, adventurers learn to be careful. Even if they have the means to cure permanent negative levels, it generally isn't free, so they may have to devote some resources to preventing temporary negative levels from becoming permanent.
Edit: I usually find this question asked when a party does poorly against shadows or specters for the first time, or when this particular adventure path comes up. The fact that it's frustrating is a feature, not a bug--level-draining monsters are dangerous and should be feared and treated as such.
@blahpers the reason ability drain isnt as bad is a low level spell fixes it so it is not permanent but rather a temporary hamper, unlike a lvl 7 spell like negative levels (i think its lvl 7 but dont quote me on that). Just to be clear I am fine with temporary negative levels, I just dont understand permanent ones
Ability drain generally requires restoration, the same as a permanent negative level. The spell is 4th level and costs 100 gp for ability drain or 1,000 gp per negative level. Is there a lower-level spell that cures ability drain that I'm unfamiliar with?
In any case, "permanent" negative levels in Pathfinder are anything but. As you stated, in older editions, they were much more serious.
@blahpers you are correct I was mistaken, though it is easier to deal with ability drain than level drain for fund purposes as you have stated. the 7th level spell was me thinking what level needed to cast that spell
Negative Levels, What is their Purpose?
To annoy. And to reduce party gold from 1/2 WBL to 1/4 WBL or worse.
IMO the worst and dumbest hold over from 3.5
|
@Xelnagahunter: I don't think you can cast a 3rd level spell if your effective caster level is below 5th level.
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.
So, since you have to be at least 5th level to cast a 3rd level spell, if your effective caster level is 4th, even if you don't lose the spells or slots, you cannot access them until you have the minimum caster level needed.
@My2Copper: Negative levels in PF are a lot less annoying, and a lot less wealth-affecting, than in 3.5. In 3.5, actually, they could be used to get your wealth above level norms.
Negative levels remove spellcasting slots tho, the highest levels.You sure about that? ;)
By my reading, you don't lose any slots but you can still lose the ability to cast higher level spells.
A 5th-level Wizard with 2 negative levels still has 3rd level spell slots but can't prepare 3rd level spells (he can use the slots to prepare meta-magicked spells).
I like to make the spellcasters worry over a level of spellcasting and the barbarians fret over a few rounds of rageNegative levels no longer actually remove levels.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.The funny thing here is that you don't lose the slots, but it effects all the level dependant variables. Italicised text represents the fact that you can still cast your third level spells, the bold text tells you that your 5d6 fireball is only doing 2d6. It still vexes spellcasters in a lot of ways.
As the Caster Level section in the Magic chapters notes, though, to cast a spell you must fulfill its minimum CL requirement, meaning that if you take enough negative levels you effectively lose casting capability, one whole spell level at a time.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
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).
I don't agree, and I think that's not the intent. Regardless, the specific overrides general, the Negative Levels description takes precedence.
That is not an opinion to which you can agree or disagree, it's a written rule. You can change it in your personal games, but that's a different matter.
Plus, negative level rules have nothing ovverriding that. They just say that your CL lowers. And lower CL = no spells that require a higher minimum CL. The fact that you don't lose spell slots means only that they aren't expended. If you remove the negative levels, they're all there, ready for use (unless you had already used them before). In fact, as already said, it's not the spell slots that you're losing, but the actual ability to access them.
Also (just for reminding the obvious), it's similar to what happens with ability damage or drain.
5th level Wizard (so, with access to level 3 spells) with Int 19 gets 8 points of Int damage/drain; now, with her current Int of 12, she can only access up to level 1 spells: 2nd and 3rd level slots are still there (expended or unexpended as they were before Int was reduced to 11), but can't be accessed.
Minimum caster level and minimum Int (or whichever the relevant stat is) are both mandatory requirements to cast spells. Reduce one of the two enough, and spells can't be accessed, even if slots are all ready for use.
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.The way I interpret the bold text is this: If you choose to cast at a lower CL then the level dependent variables are lowered as well. Not the other way around. Without it confirming the other way around I can't view it as RAW.
Because you're not linking that to the first part of the sentence.
"You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal", meaning you are using a lower CL, not that you use your normal caster level but things depending on it are lowered. If it was that latter case, there wouldn't even be need of mentioning CL.Negative levels: "The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed."
Notice that spellcasting as a whole is mentioned here, as an example (surely the most prominent) of all the abilities that are lowered by being considered one level lower. Barbarians' Rage rounds, Cleric's Channel Energy, and many other things are included.
Then, 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."
As you see from this, CL and actual level are two separate things, where CL is a variable dependent on level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is base attack bonus a level-dependent variable?
|
|
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
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).
Moved the bold to illustrate the place I am coming from. The minimum caster level needed to be able to case a fireball, for instance, would be 5, since that is the minimum caster level where 3rd level spells become available.
So, a 20th level caster could cast a 5th level CL fireball, doing only 5d6 damage, but not a 4th level CL one, since that is below the minimum caster level for the spell.
Developer commentary on the subject of losing spells when you get negative levels went something like, "Yes, that seems consistent... Actually now I think about it a bit more, no, you shouldn't lose spells, because the whole point of the way negative levels now work is that they should only give you simple penalties and not require you to rewrite your character sheet like in the old days."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The purpose of negative levels is to render moot the sole virtue of HP systems by re-enabling death spirals. Self-stacking debuffs are always poor game design.
That's a pretty extreme claim. As a counterexample, the threat of self-stacking debuffs can be a potent tool for encouraging solutions that avoid or mitigate the threat before it can spiral. The presence of allied actors can also mitigate the spiral. In fact, the game is founded largely on self-reinforcing death spirals in pretty much every combat--the first side to lose an important member is at an immediate and difficult-to-rectify disadvantage. So are we all playing a poorly-designed game?
|
|
I died and came back with a negative level which I have had for over a month now. I've gained a level and a half (at least) and while the impact of the negative level initially was less than trivial, it has been decisive in enforcing failures on important and not so important roles. Today, I tried identifying a magic staff we found. I rolled a 19 on the dice and got a 30. Had I not had the negative level, I would have had a 31 which was the DC to identify the item....
Today, we fought a bullette. It did not like me and wailed on me good. I blaster it but it dealt exactly 1 more point of damage than I had HP. Without the negative level, I would have had 4 more HP and could have easily killed it (I had flaming sphere up and plenty of fireballs left).
I have failed caster level checks to beat spell resistance by 1, several times. I have failed to spot or disable traps by rolling 1 shy of the number needed. I make a lot of rolls being the party rogue and artillery. And our gm doesn't shy away from traps. I have failed so many rolls by 1 that the negative level feels like a curse. The worst part is that we are nowhere near a place where I can get it removed (and haven't been for some time).
When a character has the opportunity to acquire a negative level or two but no more, the impact is in the long term, not anything immediate. They will fail checks. Their spell durations will be notably less long, damage dice fewer, etc.
Anything dishing out multiple negative levels is a death machine, though and a gold sink as anyone failing the saves needs to handle the issue quickly or die. As a gm, you want to use negative levels in a situation where the PC's have to spend money that they really need for other things or where they have little recourse besides simply dealing with the negative level for long enough to feel the impact. You have no idea how annoying it is to remember that everything you do is at -1. That scorching ray would have hit for 8d6+16 but I missed the touch ac because my ranged attack bonus is only +6 and I had to subtract 1 or 2. It's a friggin nightmare!!
That is just bad luck, more than a sign of a problem with negative levels if you only fail by one.
I don't consider being down by one level to be that bad, even if it is not desirable.
If the party has a cleric he might be able to summon an outsider that can get rid of it.
Negative levels are tools that attack the very life-source of the being it targets, assuming most beings are positive energy based, and are there as a penalty that is intended to make later encounters in the adventure more challenging.
Typically, they are extremely dangerous at low levels, and are capable of crippling characters at higher levels.
In short, monsters that bestow negative levels lose a lot in terms of defense and offence in order to be able to do so.
Compare a Wight to a Moss Troll.
As far as I understand regeneration, creatures with regeneration cannot die under any circumstances unless their regeneration turns off, to clarify, this would include negative levels. Death effects don't work.
Pitting the two against 1 another will only end one way.
Pitting them against a party will end with a dead wight and a maybe dead troll if the party succeeds on a knowledge check. Considering many parties have a Cleric, the Wight would be hard pressed to even stand up to them considering the potential for being dominated or turned.
Creatures that bestow negative levels are, in many cases, weaker than monsters that do not rely on that gimmick. Negative level bestowing creatures exist to make future creatures harder. If your level 3 front-line fighter is down 2 negative levels (-10 hp, -2 to essentially all rolls, any spells or SLAs are cast at -2 CL) is going to have a harder time staying alive in future encounters. The healers will have to keep him topped off if they want him to survive to protect the party.
Lets look at this fighter, shall we?
His total HP is probably around 31/28 (10+6+6+9/6[Con 16 or{/} Con 14]), which brings his total down to 21/18 after negative levels. If fighting an "epic" triple treasure monster at the end of a dungeon, we will use Wyrmling Red Dragon, the fighter could be incapacitated in 1 round of full attacking since the Wyrmling's average damage for a full attack is 18.5 damage. Add in that it is likely to deal 11 fire damage with its breath attack prior and we have 28.5 damage, which means the fighter with Con 14 is now dying and will probably die next round if something doesn't happen to prevent it, E.G. killing the dragon, healing the fighter to full, drawing the dragon's attention away, .etc.
Negative levels are also there to consume party resources as it costs 1,000 gp in material components to dispel a permanent negative level via restoration.
This is the big power of negative levels. They are extremely useful for managing party resources when you're not going by a strict WBL gold system. If you use the Treasure System and drop more coins than treasures to be sold at 1/2 value then your players will have more money than they are supposed to according to WBL. Negative levels and plain old fashioned roleplaying expenses will deplete these to where they are intended to be, thereby regulating power.
If you want all of the benefits of Negative Levels without costing players money then use enemies that bestow temporary penalties. Remember, Pathfinder, while it is a roleplaying system is also a game, and you should be designing in such a manner that portrays what you want to portray. Negative levels, ability damage, and other debuffs (ever use nightmare on a party for a month straight? Its hard to escape perpetual fatigue and exhaustion or memorize spells when you can't sleep) can be fantastic ways to show, thematically, that the players are up against devious and subversive enemies who will wear them down and then deliver the crippling blow.
You want to make the party feel helpless against certain things, as that will encourage them to be cautious. You want them to look at every brackish pool as if it might be filled with skeletons waiting to pull them under. You want the descent into the cave, cavern, crypt or dungeon to be both frightening and interesting. Negative levels allow you to do that without turning your game into a meat-grinder as you are able to debuff and weaken, over all, the players with weaker encounters that have no real ability to defeat them, but that is the glory of them: the players handily defeat the encounter but someone takes a negative level which impacts their character's ability to succeed quite greatly.
Negative level bestowing creatures exist to make future creatures harder.
Viewing it short term you are right. Long term they are like rust monsters. They make the party poorer and are annoying like hell. Unless you want to annoy your players I can't see any reason (even after reading this thread and thinking about it) to use either instead of other appropriate enemies.
Most battles aren't scary for players because their PCs are better at hit point attrition than the enemies, and they can always heal fully after the fight. When the paladin realizes that his HP and self-healing abilities aren't going to protect him, the tension rises. This can liven up a bland session. YMMV.
It should be like a curse, only worse. The fact that each negative level costs 1000gp and up to a week of downtime (if you've got several) means that it's a curse with really significant effects.
Still better than in previous editions, where the only way out was to re-earn the xp to get back the lost level(s).
Negative level bestowing creatures exist to make future creatures harder.Viewing it short term you are right. Long term they are like rust monsters. They make the party poorer and are annoying like hell. Unless you want to annoy your players I can't see any reason (even after reading this thread and thinking about it) to use either instead of other appropriate enemies.
This is why I use the treasure system as opposed to strict WBL.
Negative Levels become relevant if you force PCs to track material components with a gold cost when outside of town. In town it is easy to assume they somehow find something unless you have a plan for it being a quest (Revive an outsider when they hit level 17, quest to find a diamond worth the 25,000 gp) or force them to go to a larger town if they are in a village.Think about stories. Once the party passes the threshhold into the adventure at large they leave the world they knew behind. Traveling into this unknown land they are either highly prepared or are going to have troubles. If the party, on their way to the adventure's climax, are dogged and harassed by creatures that bestow negative levels and ability drain then the later encounters are going to be harder.
This is similar to Rust Monsters, save that there are options that negate Rust Monsters. Making all of your metal gear out of Silversheen makes you them immune to the rusting attacks while also defeating Silver DR. It is a small price to pay for immunity to certain enemies special attacks, especially to protect your gear from destruction.
Play a Dhampir that uses silversheen and fear neither negative levels (since you auto save and ignore them so long as you don't accrue an equal number to your HD) nor rust monsters as your silversheen gear is immune to corrosion.
Theme is direly important in terms of if negative levels and creatures that destroy gear. Rust Monsters can be a pain, but again, after a PC's gear is destroyed once or twice they should figure out that silversheen is really useful. Rust Monsters are also CR 3, they could be used at higher levels, but their purpose is to show PCs that their gear, much like their characters, are vulnerable to being damaged or destroyed.
This said, I have yet to ever run into a rust monster that destroyed any of the party's gear. They usually have never lived long enough to be a danger. The broken condition on weapons more or less give them a -2 penalty to hit and damage, and on armor reduces the AC from it by 1/2. These are bad, but a cantrip called "Mending" can repair the first round of damage done by a Rust Monster.
This more or less mitigates the danger of such beasts.
Negative level bestowing creatures exist to make future creatures harder.Viewing it short term you are right. Long term they are like rust monsters. They make the party poorer and are annoying like hell. Unless you want to annoy your players I can't see any reason (even after reading this thread and thinking about it) to use either instead of other appropriate enemies.
To each their own. I like 'em. But I also like rust monsters. : D
To each their own. I like 'em. But I also like rust monsters. : DNegative level bestowing creatures exist to make future creatures harder.Viewing it short term you are right. Long term they are like rust monsters. They make the party poorer and are annoying like hell. Unless you want to annoy your players I can't see any reason (even after reading this thread and thinking about it) to use either instead of other appropriate enemies.
"That's a nice sword you have there metal-man. I'll take it! *eats the fighter's sword.* Delicious!"
I think the problem some GMs do is just spring negative levels and expensive item destroying creatures/traps/hazards on players without alluding to the fact that these exist. Losing a 15 gp longsword isn't a problem while losing a 2015 gp longsword is a problem if the GM isn't ensuring this is balanced out with either extra money or drops.
|
That is just bad luck, more than a sign of a problem with negative levels if you only fail by one.
I don't consider being down by one level to be that bad, even if it is not desirable.
If the party has a cleric he might be able to summon an outsider that can get rid of it.
Luck and the GM making things difficult. Generally if you have access to raise dead and the required 5k gold for that, the restorations and additional 2k are usually not a problem. The death tax in Pathfinder is about 7k all told. Why couldn't you get a restoration?
Negative levels are a major improvement over actual lost levels as we had from level drains prior to D&D 3E. I think all we need now would be some usable and consistent rules on how to recover from negative levels without magical assistance. If you can gain 2 or more actual levels while suffering from a negative level, that should count for something.
To each their own. I like 'em. But I also like rust monsters. : DNegative level bestowing creatures exist to make future creatures harder.Viewing it short term you are right. Long term they are like rust monsters. They make the party poorer and are annoying like hell. Unless you want to annoy your players I can't see any reason (even after reading this thread and thinking about it) to use either instead of other appropriate enemies."That's a nice sword you have there metal-man. I'll take it! *eats the fighter's sword.* Delicious!"
I think the problem some GMs do is just spring negative levels and expensive item destroying creatures/traps/hazards on players without alluding to the fact that these exist. Losing a 15 gp longsword isn't a problem while losing a 2015 gp longsword is a problem if the GM isn't ensuring this is balanced out with either extra money or drops.
It can also depend on the GM's take on concepts like wealth by level. If the players are confident that they'll eventually recoup such losses, they're less likely to riot if their equipment gets stolen or destroyed or if they have to occasionally take a hit to the gem pouch to clear a negative level. (As an added bonus, they're more likely to use or purchase consumable items from time to time.)
|
|
That is just bad luck, more than a sign of a problem with negative levels if you only fail by one.
I don't consider being down by one level to be that bad, even if it is not desirable.
If the party has a cleric he might be able to summon an outsider that can get rid of it.
Um, what I described has nothing to do with luck. It has everything to do with how a 5% chance to fail at every task can become significant over a period of time or when multiple instances are triggered. Bad luck would have been if I only made 10 rolls and my first 3-4 all failed because of the negative levels -1 penalty. Bad luck would have been if this was only happening in a single session. But after nearly two months of real life time and I still have the penalty and I am rolling more dice and engaging in more instances, the negative levels impact is bound to come up at some point. And it does, every session, multiple times per session.
The negative levels aren't just me acquiring it and then quickly dismissing it with a spell or trip to the local cleric or otherwise contracting it halfway through a scenario and being a fighter so not having to deal with the impact at all or rarely due to ending the condition by scenario's end. I am living with this for entire sessions, back to back to back. During downtime when I try to spell craft items I failed the day before? That negative level is there. When I make a stealth check to hide and reduce the result by 1 and it was enough to get caught- there is that negative level again. But wait! I can bluff....at -1....or diplomacy when the bluff fails.....at -1. Maybe failing all three in a row is bad luck but surely breaking out of my manacles and jail cell shouldn't be a big deal.....with each and every possible skill check: stealth, disable device x2, even disguise, all being at -1. Most characters, even optimized ones don't have such a diverse skill set such as that on top of their core requirements like knowledge's or survival or fly or acrobatics, swim and climb. So at some point somewhere, someone is making just a raw ability check or using a skill they have only 1 to a few ranks in....and that -1 is significant when you're doing things you are only good at or average at and facing against someone else of similar skill or against a task of appropriate challenge. When 50/50 becomes 45/55 wanted against you, it will be noticeable given enough time or attempts that the 5% against you will hinder you.
I was just stating all the recent situations where a simple -1 has caused me to miss important dc's, not disable a level appropriate trap, or capitalized on a poor roll making what might have been a close call a definite failure. I use guidance before and after every skill check by default. But there are enough instances where I cannot cast it and the penalty is even worse.
A single negative level applied for any significant number of rolls or length of time is brutal. More can be crippling.
Even permanent negative levels normally shouldn't persist that long. Has your character sought out a means to cure them, or is the party stuck in a time-sensitive or secluded situation?
Even permanent negative levels normally shouldn't persist that long. Has your character sought out a means to cure them, or is the party stuck in a time-sensitive or secluded situation?
Honestly, negative levels should only persist until the party can find some sort of way to resolve them with Restoration. Finding someone to cast Restoration on a person shouldn't be a big deal considering Rich people want things done, towns like it when Adventurers owe them favors or are able to send them on a quest, and the built in treasure system gives roughly 1.4 times WBL on average if every monster is Standard Treasure.
Negative levels are intended to be used as something that is active in an adventure where the PCs cannot return to town without penalty. Same thing with Rust Monsters.
That lvl 7 Cleric would probably LOVE to help the party after they killed the Vampire that was accosting the town, however he might have to send to the cathedral in the capitol to remove more than 4 negative levels total.
Um, what I described has nothing to do with luck.That is just bad luck, more than a sign of a problem with negative levels if you only fail by one.
I don't consider being down by one level to be that bad, even if it is not desirable.
If the party has a cleric he might be able to summon an outsider that can get rid of it.
Failing specifically by 1 that much is a statistical anomaly. That is luck just as much as if you only had a 5% chance of success and succeeded that often.