Design Flaw with new Negative Levels rule

[Squirrelloid]

So, in 3.5 everyone cared about Negative Levels. Classes who actually wanted to hit things lost effectiveness linearly, and casters lost spell slots. The second of those no longer happens.

This means that casters really don't care how many negative levels they acquire until it kills them, which markedly changes the game casters are playing against level-draining undead. Contrast this to melee types for whom negative levels are really painful because it does reduce their effectiveness.

Ultimately, the point of negative levels is to make you perform like a lower level character. It works against characters who care about making d20 rolls. It doesn't work against characters who spend their time making their *opponents* make d20 rolls (saves) at present, because their level-appropriate abilities are tied up in their spells, which they can cast at full effectiveness. This asymetricality is a failure of design.

I'm not saying old negative level rules are the right answer, but something needs to be done which makes negative levels equally bad for all character types.

(Flaw discovered in playtesting here, see second page level 7 analysis).

[lastknightleft]

Awwww, nice to see that you took my advice, and here I said I wasn't gonna cry *sniff*. Anywho this is a serious issue, undead suddenly becoming something that sends any meleer running in fear, but the magic guys just sit there laughing and blasting.

[Jagyr Ebonwood]

lastknightleft wrote:

...something that sends any meleer running in fear, but the magic guys just sit there laughing and blasting.

Seems like 3.x had a lot of that...

<goes to check up on neg. level rules>

[Jagyr Ebonwood]

Okay, done looking over the neg level rules, and I don't like the imbalance.

Casters have a lot of bookkeeping already, and I know it makes it harder if we add the idea of "-1 spell slot per spell level" or somesuch, but something has to be done other than "-1 effective spellcaster level".

Now, of course, it needs to be clarified; if a 3rd level wizard has one negative level, and his CL is therefore 2, does he lose access to 2nd level spells? (Since wizards don't gain 2nd level spells until 3rd level)
If this is the case, I think it's not as unfair, but it does need to be clarified.

Sigh...if only we were operating under a spell point system in the core rules rather than this Vancian nonsense, it'd be so much easier, since you could treat spell points like hit points...but that's an argument for another day.

[Endier1]

Jagyr Ebonwood wrote:

Casters have a lot of bookkeeping already, and I know it makes it harder if we add the idea of "-1 spell slot per spell level" or somesuch, but something has to be done other than "-1 effective spellcaster level".

Now, of course, it needs to be clarified; if a 3rd level wizard has one negative level, and his CL is therefore 2, does he lose access to 2nd level spells? (Since wizards don't gain 2nd level spells until 3rd level)
If this is the case, I think it's not as unfair, but it does need to be clarified.

I was thinking about it, and when I search on the SRD, I found something about that. Because their caster level is not enough, they shouldn't cast their 2nd level spells with a negative level...

SRD; MagicalOverview wrote:

CASTER LEVEL
A spell’s power often depends on its caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re 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, domain granted power, 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).

[David Schwartz]

Squirrelloid wrote:

It works against characters who care about making d20 rolls. It doesn't work against characters who spend their time making their *opponents* make d20 rolls (saves) at present,

Seems like the easy answer would be to penalize save DCs.

[Neithan]

Maybe I am mistaken, but doesn't -2 effective caster level result in the loss of the ability to cast any of your highest level spells? That would be a really severe drawback, even though you still have all your lower level spells.
But imagine a 15th level wizard with 3 negative levels. That's lost access to all 7th and 8th level spells. I'm sure he doesn't like that. And fighters at least have some chance to make their fort save, while most casters probably won't.

[Ross Byers]

Penalizing save DCs of their spells would work, and would fall right in line with attack roll penalties. (It's the equivilent to giving their foes +1 save).

[lastknightleft]

Guys, we're talking pathfinder not srd, in the pathfinder section on negative levels it specifically says that the caster doesn't loose any spells or prepared slots, merely that any level dependant variables are lowered by one level, and there are tons of spells that makes no difference on whatsoever.

[Endier1]

From that I know, it says that the character is treated as one level lower for casting variables... Sure, the wizard doesn't lose any memorized spell, but he can't casting it because he hasn't the minimum caster level required to do it.
If later, his level drain is removed by another effect, he could cast it because he doesn't lose the spell.

It is not about the level drain's rule; it is about the minimum caster level's rule.

[KnightErrantJR]

If this is the intent of the rule, and not just a kind of misstated comment (I'll read through it again, I've only glanced over it so far since I've not had any level draining issues come up much), its a problem. The spellcaster really should have some lost spells over a negative level.