However, you still possess those spell slots, and thus could prepare and cast spells you are still able to cast (those of levels 1st - 3rd) using those slots. And the metamagic idea mentioned above is an interesting point. I don't see any reason why it can't be done.
Yes, I do believe this is true. I meant that the spell levels would be unusable, rather than the spell slots, I suppose.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I think you guys all read too much in it, same as caster level increases don't give a sorcerer more spellslots neither are they taken away.You're correct. Those spell slots are not taken away. They are unusable, however. If the negative levels were to be healed, those spell slots would immediately become usable again. This is in contrast to 3.5 negative levels, where you lose spell slots upon being afflicted and do not regain those spell slots if the negative levels are restored.They would not be totally unusable as you could prepare lower level spells in a higher level spell slot when you get the opportunity.
To add to the discussion:
Common sense would dictate that you cannot cast a spell if your caster level is not high enough to meet the minimum caster level at which a given spell may be gained. For instance, if you are a 9th level wizard, and you gained 4 negative levels, you would have CL 5th. In the spirit of "not having to rebuild your character," you would not have to retroactively unbuild your character (which would include figuring out what spells and spell slots are lost among other things). However, since your caster level is 5th, you would not be able to prepare and cast your 4th level spells (since the minimum caster level to cast these spells is 7th for you) and you would not be able to prepare and cast your 5th level spells (since the minimum caster level to cast these spells is 9th for you). It should work similar to not having a high enough Intelligence score to cast a given spell level.However, you still possess those spell slots, and thus could prepare and cast spells you are still able to cast (those of levels 1st - 3rd) using those slots. And the metamagic idea mentioned above is an interesting point. I don't see any reason why it can't be done.
You have to be a certain level to access those slots. That was covered in another thread on bonus slots with the same misunderstanding.
Ah, but the penalties you get immediately from a level drain are -not- the same as actually losing a level.
Losing a flat 5 hit points is vastly different than a Barbarian losing 1d12 + 4 (for example) hit points per level.
Losing -1 to hit per negative level is a lot worse for a spellcaster than the permanent Spellcaster BaB loss from actual permanent level loss.
Same thing with saves.
I'm just saying it'd be cool to get official clarification on this, because it's a bit ambiguous in regards to spellcasters.
Losing -1 to hit per negative level is a lot worse for a spellcaster than the permanent Spellcaster BaB loss from actual permanent level loss.
There is no difference between temporary negative levels and permanent negative levels except that you can't remove permanent negative levels with a saving throw. I have no clue where this quote is coming from.
Well, when a negative level becomes permanent, don't you then have to spend the time to "backtrack" your character and figure out what his BaB, saves, spells and such were at the (lower) level you're now at?
Ah, but the penalties you get immediately from a level drain are -not- the same as actually losing a level.
Losing a flat 5 hit points is vastly different than a Barbarian losing 1d12 + 4 (for example) hit points per level.
Losing -1 to hit per negative level is a lot worse for a spellcaster than the permanent Spellcaster BaB loss from actual permanent level loss.
Same thing with saves.
I'm just saying it'd be cool to get official clarification on this, because it's a bit ambiguous in regards to spellcasters.
I have nothing in the rules that differentiates between a temporary and permanent level loss, as far as loss of abilities go.
ninja'd by zurai
Well, when a negative level becomes permanent, don't you then have to spend the time to "backtrack" your character and figure out what his BaB, saves, spells and such were at the (lower) level you're now at?
Nope. That is why Pathfinder's version is different than 3.5's. You don't have to remake the character. You just take a penalty to your D20 rolls(simplistic way) equal to your negative levels. "Backtracking" is dead.
Energy Drain and Negative LevelsSome 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.
Wow.
So classes without a BaB equal to their level really do get screwed more than other classes by negative levels. A Wizard could easily end up with a BaB in the negatives. I so don't like that. I'd rather just remake the character at a lower level.
You have to be a certain level to access those slots. That was covered in another thread on bonus slots with the same misunderstanding.
Hmm... interesting point. However again, in the spirit of not having to unbuild your PC, I don't think the intent was that you lose use of those spell slots. Just as a high level fighter would not lose access to his feats which require a higher BAB (which was the case in 3.5; in fact he lost the feat period), a caster would not lose access to his higher level slots. A 9th level wizard is who gained 4 negative levels is still a 9th level wizard, but with a CL of 5th.
Hell, look on the bright side. That Globe of Invulnerability might actually be worth it if you can get the drop on the other spellcaster....
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
If you want to rebuild a PC once those levels become permanent, go for it. That DOES mean you should NEVER throw out a character sheet, and should make a new one each time you level up since if at some later date you get that negative level restored, you'd probably go right back to where you were. And what if you'd gained levels SINCE then? Would your restored levels suddenly bump you up to above where you used to be?
Simply having negative levels impart global penalties like they do in Pathfinder is a MUCH simpler way to handle them. And yes, this does mean that spellcasters are going to hate getting level drained more than fighters, and that does mean that lower BAB progressions could well drop into what is essentially a negative BAB. Turns out, spellcasters have a lot of advantages that nonspellcasters have as well. Pathfinder is NOT about making sure every class is equally harmed by every effect, or that every class is equally helped by every effect. That's a philosophy of game balance we don't adhere to at Paizo... if we did, we'd only have one or maybe two player character classes. No point in having 11 classes if they're all essentially the same when it comes to interacting with the world.
Wow.
So classes without a BaB equal to their level really do get screwed more than other classes by negative levels. A Wizard could easily end up with a BaB in the negatives. I so don't like that. I'd rather just remake the character at a lower level.
Really? I'd rather just figure out how to get rid of the negative levels (campaign-wise that is).
Yeah, but I'm making the whole party put in for my Scarab of Protection. Unless they really like walking home....
By having level drain not remove spells, the game runs more smoothly... and it doesn't overly penalize one kind of class.
Sorry, I'm justing having some fun here.
You have to be a certain level to access those slots. That was covered in another thread on bonus slots with the same misunderstanding.Hmm... interesting point. However again, in the spirit of not having to unbuild your PC, I don't think the intent was that you lose use of those spell slots. Just as a high level fighter would not lose access to his feats which require a higher BAB (which was the case in 3.5; in fact he lost the feat period), a caster would not lose access to his higher level slots. A 9th level wizard is who gained 4 negative levels is still a 9th level wizard, but with a CL of 5th.
Wish Energy Drain would just disappear. Or turn into 1d8 hp drain per level and Creature/Caster got healed for same amount back up to its max hp.
I am glad that many of the undead and Demons/Devil's lost Energy Drain as class ability and Gained something else in Pathfinder/3.0D&D.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
James was kind enough to solve the mystery in another thread. If you wish to see the other thread, see Concerro's CLICK ME link above. If you are too lazy, however, I have quoted much of the pertinent points below. Much thanks to you James!
Do spellcasters that gain negative levels lose the ability to cast their highest level spells as a result of those negative levels?
Say a 14th level Wizard gains 2 negative levels. Has he lost the ability to cast 7th level spells entirely?
Judging purely and strictly by the rules for energy drain on page 562 of the core rulebook, we see this:
"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."
So while your 14th level wizard who gains 2 negative levels would not lose any of his 7th level spells (they stay prepared in his mind), but since the ability to cast 14th level spells is a level dependent variable, he would lose the ability to actually cast those spells. They'd be locked in his head with nowhere to go until he got rid of a negative level, at which point they'd all be available for casting again.
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.
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.
I am so empowering [enervation]!
But how does this not nerf casters more than other classes? Fighters aren't losing feats due to a reduced attack....
Not every attack should equally affect every class. If we wanted that, we wouldn't have 11 different classes... we'd just have one class.
Taking a different route... ray of enfeeblement hurts fighters far more than wizards. There are plenty of effects that are worse to some classes than others, and that's fine.
Okay, how does Enervation effect a monster that casts spells as one of its special abilities but does not actually have class levels? For instance, a couple of the Lamia-kin from Runelords cast divine spells as an xth level caster. Would getting hit by an enervation effect these monster's abilities to cast spells? (I'm guessing not since they do not actually possess class levels)
If it gave them enough negutive levels to reduce their caster level below the caster level required to cast the spell they would lose the ability to cast the spell.
By my interpretation at least :)
This. [James is referring to kyrt-ryder's interpretation]
That means that some monsters might lose spellcasting ability entirely before they died from level drain, while others who have more HD than caster level would die before they lose access to all their spellcasting power.
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level...
We now have to take this line in the negative level effect description to its ultimate conclusion. If a spellcaster loses higher level spells due to a loss in a level-dependent variable (caster level here), then fighters do lose feats that are level-dependent (fighter level), and druids and monks lose class abilities that are level-dependent, etc. The level-dependent line in the effect description does exactly what James says it shouldn't do - it makes you deconstruct the character! How is spellcasting level-dependency any different from class ability and feat prereq level-dependency for other classes?
We now have to take this line in the negative level effect description to its ultimate conclusion. If a spellcaster loses higher level spells due to a loss in a level-dependent variable (caster level here), then fighters do lose feats that are level-dependent (fighter level), and druids and monks lose class abilities that are level-dependent, etc. The level-dependent line in the effect description does exactly what James says it shouldn't do - it makes you deconstruct the character! How is spellcasting level-dependency any different from class ability and feat prereq level-dependency for other classes?
One difference is: it's not clear that abilities you get at a higher level are truly level-dependent variables like spells are. Consider that spellcasters can voluntarily dial down their caster level when they cast spells (or scribe scrolls, craft wands) as long as they don't reduce it below the minimum level of the spell they're trying to cast. By comparison, the idea of a monk dialing down his monk levels so he doesn't have a class power in effect is a bit bizarre.
The main thing is that these are not really level-dependent variables. Class level is a prerequisite, but the energy drained character isn't actually losing them.
One difference is: it's not clear that abilities you get at a higher level are truly level-dependent variables like spells are. Consider that spellcasters can voluntarily dial down their caster level when they cast spells (or scribe scrolls, craft wands) as long as they don't reduce it below the minimum level of the spell they're trying to cast. By comparison, the idea of a monk dialing down his monk levels so he doesn't have a class power in effect is a bit bizarre.
The main thing is that these are not really level-dependent variables. Class level is a prerequisite, but the energy drained character isn't actually losing them.
A spellcaster dialing down a spell is a level-dependent EFFECT. We're talking spellcasting ABILITY here (which is being interpreted as a level-dependent variable). That interpretation is certainly the crux of the matter here. Again, how is it different than other level-dependent class abilities?
A spellcaster dialing down a spell is a level-dependent EFFECT. We're talking spellcasting ABILITY here (which is being interpreted as a level-dependent variable). That interpretation is certainly the crux of the matter here. Again, how is it different than other level-dependent class abilities?
I can't think of too many of them that I would consider variables. The 11th level monk with diamond body still has it even if he's got a few negative levels. He's still an 11th level monk and diamond body isn't a variable. His Ki pool has probably suffered a hit of a point or so...
But caster level is variable and it varies by more than just the gaining of levels. It also varies by choice. What negative levels do is take some of those choices (the ones at the top end) off the table.
I am never sure when James actually speaks on behalf of the staff or from his own perspective, still much appreciated effort ^^
Still I do disagree, I do not think characters should actually be treated as having lost levels.
In the case of caster level X having been inflicted with 5 negative levels, should still be level X with 5 negative levels.
Tossing up the argument not every spell or effect should affect every class equally is true to a point since some effects are specifically targeting a weakness of a class, basically characters of equal level are roughly as strong in lifeforce.
The question is rather, should negative levels cripple magic-users much more than a warrior type ?
Does a vampire that has the option to choose to attack either a warrior or a caster naturally attack the caster since he knows it will have much more impact on her ?
I do not see any compelling reason that should be an attack that drains especially upon magic-users, magic is not per definition tied to lifeforce, this weakness in casters seems arbitrary and
non-sensical.
A spellcaster dialing down a spell is a level-dependent EFFECT. We're talking spellcasting ABILITY here (which is being interpreted as a level-dependent variable). That interpretation is certainly the crux of the matter here. Again, how is it different than other level-dependent class abilities?I can't think of too many of them that I would consider variables. The 11th level monk with diamond body still has it even if he's got a few negative levels. He's still an 11th level monk and diamond body isn't a variable. His Ki pool has probably suffered a hit of a point or so...
But caster level is variable and it varies by more than just the gaining of levels. It also varies by choice. What negative levels do is take some of those choices (the ones at the top end) off the table.
At what level does a Wizard gain the ability to cast a 6th level spell? At what level does a Monk gain the ability to use diamond body? How is one a level-dependent variable and the other not?
Still I do disagree, I do not think characters should actually be treated as having lost levels.
They are not treated as if they had actually lost levels. The barbarian does not lost 1d12+5 hit points, the bard does not lose access to his latest performance, no character loses ranks in any skills, etc etc. Characters do, however, receive penalties that emulate lost levels. Reduced hit points, reduced d20 rolls, reduced caster level, etc.
How is one a level-dependent variable and the other not?
Wizards require caster level 11 to cast a 6th level spell. There is nothing resembling caster level for monks, no variables that depend on level.
Class level is not a level-dependent variable, in other words.
Does a vampire that has the option to choose to attack either a warrior or a caster naturally attack the caster since he knows it will have much more impact on her ?
Depends. A couple levels off the fighter will affect his every swing. A couple levels off a 12th level wizard and her 3rd level evocations do just as much damage as they did before and her save DCs are the same. Granted, she'll lose access to her 6th level spells, but her arsenal may still be pretty potent.
How is one a level-dependent variable and the other not?Wizards require caster level 11 to cast a 6th level spell. There is nothing resembling caster level for monks, no variables that depend on level.
Class level is not a level-dependent variable, in other words.
I'll buy that. Caster level and class level being two different concepts for the applicability of the negative level effects. Well done!
I'll buy that. Caster level and character level being two different concepts for the applicability of the negative level effects. Well done!How is one a level-dependent variable and the other not?Wizards require caster level 11 to cast a 6th level spell. There is nothing resembling caster level for monks, no variables that depend on level.
Class level is not a level-dependent variable, in other words.
I'll agree class level would not suffer, but if a character with negative levels would be affected by a holy word spell he would in my opinion be treated as a lower level character.
If only all internet debates were this easy to resolve!
EDIT: Whoops. Spoke too soon. But no matter.
Holy word has effects based on the target's hit dice, none of which change because of negative levels.
I am never sure when James actually speaks on behalf of the staff or from his own perspective, still much appreciated effort ^^
Still I do disagree, I do not think characters should actually be treated as having lost levels.
In the case of caster level X having been inflicted with 5 negative levels, should still be level X with 5 negative levels.
Tossing up the argument not every spell or effect should affect every class equally is true to a point since some effects are specifically targeting a weakness of a class, basically characters of equal level are roughly as strong in lifeforce.
The question is rather, should negative levels cripple magic-users much more than a warrior type ?
Does a vampire that has the option to choose to attack either a warrior or a caster naturally attack the caster since he knows it will have much more impact on her ?
I do not see any compelling reason that should be an attack that drains especially upon magic-users, magic is not per definition tied to lifeforce, this weakness in casters seems arbitrary and
non-sensical.
Out of curiosity what would you have energy drain do? Remember it should remain potent(scary) enough that nobody wants to deal with it, and not just an inconvenience.
pretty much what it does now Wraith, except I do not agree it should 'close' a character's highest level spells, I think negative levels are scary enough really. It gives pretty bad penalties without initial save, I just think this way it is way harsher on caster types.
If you wanted to be completely fair you'd drop the character back to the state he/she was prior to getting hit by the level drain. Spellcasters would lose access to their higher level spells, fighters would lose access to some of their feats, rogues would lose access to some of their sneak attack damage dice. I wouldn't necessarily penalize animal companions unless they were caught up in the spell effect as I don't like to think that it's the druid's lifeforce powering up the animal companion but rather some intrinsic spark to that animal.
The problem of course is that adjusting abilities is a complete timesink that kills sessions. There is also a problem with figuring out how does energy drain impact creatures with only monster HD. Does the DM need to adjust the dragon's age and size to account for his reduced number of HD? Basically the spell is a bookkeeping nightmare.
The solution that Pathfinder chooses to use is to apply some generic penalties that can be quickly added to the effected creatures statblock. Yes it's not exactly fair to all classes, Spellcasters will lose access to their high end spells and their spell penetration checks will take a big hit but as long as the cleric pops a restoration they get those spells back (instead of having to rememorize).
Sure energy drain is a pain in the ass, but it's always been a killer effect. If you aren't going to have some sort of level associated penalty you might as well change it to a ranged touch spell that does con ability damage.
If you wanted to be completely fair you'd drop the character back to the state he/she was prior to getting hit by the level drain. Spellcasters would lose access to their higher level spells, fighters would lose access to some of their feats, rogues would lose access to some of their sneak attack damage dice. I wouldn't necessarily penalize animal companions unless they were caught up in the spell effect as I don't like to think that it's the druid's lifeforce powering up the animal companion but rather some intrinsic spark to that animal.
The problem of course is that adjusting abilities is a complete timesink that kills sessions. There is also a problem with figuring out how does energy drain impact creatures with only monster HD. Does the DM need to adjust the dragon's age and size to account for his reduced number of HD? Basically the spell is a bookkeeping nightmare.
The solution that Pathfinder chooses to use is to apply some generic penalties that can be quickly added to the effected creatures statblock. Yes it's not exactly fair to all classes, Spellcasters will lose access to their high end spells and their spell penetration checks will take a big hit but as long as the cleric pops a restoration they get those spells back (instead of having to rememorize).
Sure energy drain is a pain in the ass, but it's always been a killer effect. If you aren't going to have some sort of level associated penalty you might as well change it to a ranged touch spell that does con ability damage.
well in this case it isn't the 'generic' penalties everyone gets, rather it is the specifically singled out casters, casters get penalized extra. that doesnt seem right for a generic lifeforce draining attack
I like that they're also doing it for ability damage too. Two points of damage inflict a penalty rather than sometimes one point of damage, sometimes two, depending on whether or not the target had an even or odd stat.
It's easier to deal with.
How is one a level-dependent variable and the other not?Wizards require caster level 11 to cast a 6th level spell. There is nothing resembling caster level for monks, no variables that depend on level.
Class level is not a level-dependent variable, in other words.
Wizards require level 11 to cast a 6th level spell, precisely according to the text that's been quoted below. And as you said, class level is not a level-dependent variable.
"In addition to having a high ability score, a spellcaster must be of a high enough class level to be able to cast spells of a given spell level."
- http://www.d20pfsrd.com/basics-ability-scores/ability-scores
It's true the rules also say you cannot willingly lower the caster level on a spell below "the minimum to cast it", but this is dealing with a very tiny corner case, included primarily to avoid things like wands of cure serious wounds made at caster level 1 (to make them much cheaper).
Edit: Sorry I edited on you Zurai (and mis-attributed the quote to you).
Wizards require level 11 to cast a 6th level spell, precisely according to the text you've been quoting.
Really? Because the only text I've been quoting is this bit:
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.
Caster level is a level-dependent variable. I don't think it's possible to logically dispute that. Thus, it is decreased by negative levels. You are only able to cast a spell if you can choose a caster level high enough for it to be cast. You cannot choose to cast a spell at a higher caster level than your current caster level (barring feats that aren't in Core); thus, you cannot cast a spell if you have negative levels sufficient enough to reduce your caster level below that required to cast the spell with minimum proficiency.
It seems you must be of sufficient caster level AND class level to cast level-appropriate spells.
|
Wizards require level 11 to cast a 6th level spell, precisely according to the text you've been quoting.Really? Because the only text I've been quoting is this bit:
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.Caster level is a level-dependent variable. I don't think it's possible to logically dispute that. Thus, it is decreased by negative levels. You are only able to cast a spell if you can choose a caster level high enough for it to be cast. You cannot choose to cast a spell at a higher caster level than your current caster level (barring feats that aren't in Core); thus, you cannot cast a spell if you have negative levels sufficient enough to reduce your caster level below that required to cast the spell with minimum proficiency.
That text is just regarding when you voluntarily lower your caster level for certain spells. I do not believe it covers negative levels. Note it says 'the caster level you choose'.
That text is just regarding when you voluntarily lower your caster level for certain spells. I do not believe it covers negative levels. Note it says 'the caster level you choose'.
So is it your claim that you can choose a higher caster level than your current caster level? Yes, it says "the caster level you choose". However, in the immortal words of Rush, "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice". In other words, you always have to choose what caster level you're casting a spell at; it's just that, 90% of the time, you're "choosing not to make a choice" and it goes to the default value, which is the maximum available.
That's still choosing a value, and you cannot choose a value higher than your maximum available caster level, nor can you choose a value lower than the required value to cast the specific spell.
That means you cannot cast a spell if your caster level has been reduced below the minimum for casting a spell of that level.
So is it your claim that you can choose a higher caster level than your current caster level?
Of course not.
In other words, you always have to choose what caster level you're casting a spell at; it's just that, 90% of the time, you're "choosing not to make a choice" and it goes to the default value, which is the maximum available.
That's still choosing a value, and you cannot choose a value higher than your maximum available caster level, nor can you choose a value lower than the required value to cast the specific spell.
It says you *can* cast it at a lower level. "Choosing" not to is indeed a choice. But it is the choice to cast at a lower level that invokes the specific requirement of having a high enough caster level.
That means you cannot cast a spell if your caster level has been reduced below the minimum for casting a spell of that level.
None of the above exacts that requirement.
However, I think we have certainly narrowed down the deciding factors here. Either:
Separate Topic:
I just wanted to point out that in Pathfinder, a temporary negative level never becomes a permanent negative level (unlike 3.5).
In 3.5, you made your save after 24 hours: Success removed it, failure made it permanent.
In Pathfinder, you make your save after 24 hours: Success removes it, failure leaves it until the next day's save. The relevant text was quoted a bit above.
|
|
I think the main reason I'm arguing this is because of the text in the whole negative level thing, the bit that says you don't lose prepared spells or spells known or whatnot. This seems pointless to put in if in fact you DID lose access to casting these spells (otherwise, why bother keeping them when you can just spend the 8 hours to re-memorize when you get rid of the negative level? or no time at all if you're a spontaneous class).
If you do lose access to casting the spells when under a negative level, that bit about keeping spells known/prepared should just be removed as its only confusing things. As it is, I firmly believe that the negative level as a whole was redone specifically to avoid confusion and this whole argument is getting pretty out of proportion. People under a negative level take a small penalty to d20 rolls, a penalty to hit points, and a penalty to variables based on level.
Oh, and the other point, the whole spell thing is only used as an example ("like spellcasting") which seems to even further imply that it's just meant to effect variables, not whole abilities. So the range/dice of spells, the save DC of channel energy, etc.
But it is the choice to cast at a lower level that invokes the specific requirement of having a high enough caster level.
Incorrect. The choice is not "lower caster level or not", it's "caster level". You always choose a caster level when casting a spell, it's just that 99% of the time it's "the highest I can", and thus "the highest I can" is assumed both in play and in the rules. Saying "you can choose a lower caster level" doesn't mean "if you choose not to artificially lower your caster level, you're immune to the effects of the following clause".
I think the main reason I'm arguing this is because of the text in the whole negative level thing, the bit that says you don't lose prepared spells or spells known or whatnot. This seems pointless to put in if in fact you DID lose access to casting these spells (otherwise, why bother keeping them when you can just spend the 8 hours to re-memorize when you get rid of the negative level? or no time at all if you're a spontaneous class).
Because restoration takes considerably less than 8 hours to cast, and because you're NOT losing spell slots or prepared spells. You're losing caster level, which has a side effect of making spell slots and prepared spells temporarily inaccessible.
|
I think the main reason I'm arguing this is because of the text in the whole negative level thing, the bit that says you don't lose prepared spells or spells known or whatnot. This seems pointless to put in if in fact you DID lose access to casting these spells (otherwise, why bother keeping them when you can just spend the 8 hours to re-memorize when you get rid of the negative level? or no time at all if you're a spontaneous class).
If you do lose access to casting the spells when under a negative level, that bit about keeping spells known/prepared should just be removed as its only confusing things. As it is, I firmly believe that the negative level as a whole was redone specifically to avoid confusion and this whole argument is getting pretty out of proportion. People under a negative level take a small penalty to d20 rolls, a penalty to hit points, and a penalty to variables based on level.
Its precisely for the reason of "Hey cleric memorized the spell Restoration. After that fight where the wraith hit me for five levels he cast it and I have my levels back! Horray!"
Heck if you have a scroll of restoration that counts as well. I know a few people who keep those for just in case. All that text means, which it has never been contradicted otherwise is, even though you lose access to the spell, it's still prepared and if you somehow get those slots back, you can resume casting them.
In 3.5 if you lost the spell slots you lost the spells. Meaning it didn't matter if the cleric memorized Restoration, you still got hosed for being energy drained.
And I don't know about you, but that made energy drain suck that much MORE.
Oh, and the other point, the whole spell thing is only used as an example ("like spellcasting") which seems to even further imply that it's just meant to effect variables, not whole abilities. So the range/dice of spells, the save DC of channel energy, etc.
Probably.
Separate Topic:
I just wanted to point out that in Pathfinder, a temporary negative level never becomes a permanent negative level (unlike 3.5).In 3.5, you made your save after 24 hours: Success removed it, failure made it permanent.
In Pathfinder, you make your save after 24 hours: Success removes it, failure leaves it until the next day's save. The relevant text was quoted a bit above.
Energy Drain and 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.
Energy Drain
School necromancy; Level cleric 9, sorcerer/wizard 9
Saving Throw Fortitude partial; see text for enervation
This spell functions like enervation, except that the creature struck gains 2d4 temporary negative levels. Twenty-four hours after gaining them, the subject must make a Fortitude saving throw (DC = energy drain spell's save DC) for each negative level. If the save succeeds, that negative level is removed. If it fails, that negative level becomes permanent.
An undead creature struck by the ray gains 2d4 × 5 temporary hit points for 1 hour.
How do negative levels affect the fighter's Weapon Training or the ranger's Favored Enemy/Terrain?
Are his bonuses reduced? Are his recent weapon/type/terrain selections lost?
How do negative levels affect the fighter's Weapon Training or the ranger's Favored Enemy/Terrain?
Are his bonuses reduced? Are his recent weapon/type/terrain selections lost?
Nope. It only adversely affects spellcasters in that way, apparently.