Don't Like The Change To Negative Levels


GM Tools


Not one bit. Specifically the fact that spellcasters no longer lose a spell slot. I realize this was probably done to avoid clashing with the new raise dead rules (don't like them either), but spellcasters hardly suffer as much as less magic-dependent classes if things remain this way.

This is a simple plea. Nix the change to negative levels. They were simple and easy enough to handle in 3.5. They don't need to be "fixed." (Neither does raise dead and resurrection for that matter.)

Sovereign Court

See having had a player who's character died three times, I disagree with you that negative levels are simple. Now as to loosing a spell slot I agree that they should still loose spell slots. Though with raise dead spell, I'm changing it to a loss of 2 con, simple easy and puts a limit on the # of times a character can be brought back from the dead.


lastknightleft wrote:
See having had a player who's character died three times, I disagree with you that negative levels are simple. Now as to loosing a spell slot I agree that they should still loose spell slots. Though with raise dead spell, I'm changing it to a loss of 2 con, simple easy and puts a limit on the # of times a character can be brought back from the dead.

And even harsher than 2nd ed. Woah.

Sovereign Court

What did 2nd ed do? I learned with 3.5

I just want the increadible strain of having died and come back to be reflected and a negative level just doesn't do it for me.


lastknightleft wrote:

What did 2nd ed do? I learned with 3.5

I just want the increadible strain of having died and come back to be reflected and a negative level just doesn't do it for me.

In 2nd ed you lost a point of Con that couldn't be restored. Some DMs were amenable to a Wish spell (not limited) allowing you to restore all points of Con lost to resurrection, some weren't.

Of course, there was no gaining new ability points in 2nd ed except by magic book and magic "oh, look, the gods think you suck and want to fix that". You also had to make a resurrection survival check, which was, incidentally, Con-based. Can you imagine?

"Alright, he casts ressurect on you. Please make a Fortitude Save."
"I waive it. It's harmless."
"Alright. You fail to survive the ressurection. Mark two points of Con off your character."

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Count me on the side of the new. I hate negative levels. Even if the players survive the uphill battle against the undead draining their life away, they likely still end up way lower than they were before.

Then they gain experience and can rebuild their characters in a different direction than before they lost those levels. Same thing with raising from the dead. A temporary penalty is easier to handle than subtracting abilities, feats, etc. that are going to get added back later anyway.

Sovereign Court

Pneumonica wrote:
Of course, there was no gaining new ability points in 2nd ed

which is why i think I'll keep it two.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I'm not a fan of it myself. I don't know why they don't do the simplest thing.

You lose the level, the save modifiers, the spellslots, the feats, the abilities, and anything else that's static. Your XP get reset to the half way point of the previous level and your current level.

You keep your HP and skillpoints, but do not gain new ones when you regain the lost levels.

So instead of gimping characters, you just hit reset on them.


lastknightleft wrote:
Pneumonica wrote:
Of course, there was no gaining new ability points in 2nd ed
which is why i think I'll keep it two.

Which is when players choose to make new characters rather than be resurrected. Serious irremovable penalties makes resurrection always a bad choice (and no matter how many con you can gain, its not infinite, and your con would be higher with a new character who gained those points). They eliminated Con loss in 3e for a reason, it was punitive and made characters strictly worse than they would otherwise have been. (And in 2nd at least 'unlimited' stat gain was possible, because there was no cap on wishing your stats up to the maximum possible, it just took awhile at high stat levels. For those who don't know, each stat was capped at a number, usually 25, that was the highest possible anything could have. So if you lost a point of con to a resurrection, you could theoretically always get it wished back - it might take multiple wishes, but it was possible)

Sovereign Court

Squirrelloid wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Pneumonica wrote:
Of course, there was no gaining new ability points in 2nd ed
which is why i think I'll keep it two.
Which is when players choose to make new characters rather than be resurrected. Serious irremovable penalties makes resurrection always a bad choice (and no matter how many con you can gain, its not infinite, and your con would be higher with a new character who gained those points). They eliminated Con loss in 3e for a reason, it was punitive and made characters strictly worse than they would otherwise have been. (And in 2nd at least 'unlimited' stat gain was possible, because there was no cap on wishing your stats up to the maximum possible, it just took awhile at high stat levels. For those who don't know, each stat was capped at a number, usually 25, that was the highest possible anything could have. So if you lost a point of con to a resurrection, you could theoretically always get it wished back - it might take multiple wishes, but it was possible)

Most players I know would suck up that 2 point con loss for at least one or two resurections before giving up on a character. And without it, you get that lame oh bummer I died for the 8th time, resurrect me guys effect.


lastknightleft wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
lastknightleft wrote:
Pneumonica wrote:
Of course, there was no gaining new ability points in 2nd ed
which is why i think I'll keep it two.
Which is when players choose to make new characters rather than be resurrected. Serious irremovable penalties makes resurrection always a bad choice (and no matter how many con you can gain, its not infinite, and your con would be higher with a new character who gained those points). They eliminated Con loss in 3e for a reason, it was punitive and made characters strictly worse than they would otherwise have been. (And in 2nd at least 'unlimited' stat gain was possible, because there was no cap on wishing your stats up to the maximum possible, it just took awhile at high stat levels. For those who don't know, each stat was capped at a number, usually 25, that was the highest possible anything could have. So if you lost a point of con to a resurrection, you could theoretically always get it wished back - it might take multiple wishes, but it was possible)
Most players I know would suck up that 2 point con loss for at least one or two resurections before giving up on a character. And without it, you get that lame oh bummer I died for the 8th time, resurrect me guys effect.

I've also seen the 'Max XIV died? Don't worry, Max XV will be there soon!' phenomenon in 2nd edition, which is the ultimate consequence of long-term penalties for resurrection. People's stomach for taking a con hit is variable, I'll agree some will suck up one or two resurrections, but when you seriously expect to have someone die 1/3 encounters at high levels (minimum) against appropriate encounters, resurrection should be as common as candy and with no drawbacks.

Sovereign Court

Squirrelloid wrote:
but when you seriously expect to have someone die 1/3 encounters at high levels (minimum) against appropriate encounters, resurrection should be as common as candy and with no drawbacks.

Ah see there is the rub, I don't expect my players to die every 1/3 encounters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
lastknightleft wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
but when you seriously expect to have someone die 1/3 encounters at high levels (minimum) against appropriate encounters, resurrection should be as common as candy and with no drawbacks.
Ah see there is the rub, I don't expect my players to die every 1/3 encounters.

Ahh... I remember the Living Greyhawk standard which at initial release called for an expected 25% fatality rate at the table.


lastknightleft wrote:
Squirrelloid wrote:
but when you seriously expect to have someone die 1/3 encounters at high levels (minimum) against appropriate encounters, resurrection should be as common as candy and with no drawbacks.
Ah see there is the rub, I don't expect my players to die every 1/3 encounters.

Ultimately, high level D+D is rocket launcher tage. I've played and run campaigns up to and through 20th level. An encounter which seriously challenges high level parties usually kills someone in round 1 or 2 if its not dead/incapacitated by then. Average combat duration is ~1.5 rounds, with a distribution that has a few 3 round encounters and very few that take longer than that. These are the realities of the system, and rewrites of the system should be aware of that.


I agree that the spell slot loss should go back in there (though the loss of a caster level is interesting, I don't think it quite compares), but I like the change overall. I always despised losing an actual experience level and have included the (semi-)permanent negative level as a house rule for years.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 2 / GM Tools / Don't Like The Change To Negative Levels All Messageboards
Recent threads in GM Tools
Slow / Fast XP Table