Paizo changed it for ease of play. It is a game, after all.
If you want to require the reworking of a character, refiguring of stat blocks, and recalculation of everything, then go ahead. Paizo choose ease of play, and they made the right call.
Paizo changed it for ease of play. It is a game, after all.
If you want to require the reworking of a character, refiguring of stat blocks, and recalculation of everything, then go ahead. Paizo choose ease of play, and they made the right call.
I agree, and I like their ruling, but I don't see how the intent they are claiming matches up to what's written in the book. *confused*
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.
stuff
there are some exceptions, but permanent is not permanent the same way anymore. Check out Restorationand Greater Restoration
Nope. It only adversely affects spellcasters in that way, apparently.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. The texts says:
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.
So channel energy would be affected, DC for stunning fist, etc.
Again. Saying you don't lose spells only the ability to cast them is like saing you don't lose feats only the ablity to use them.
Some feats have level prereq like Greater Weapon Focus.
I mean if you have power attack and str 16 and get hit by RoE. You fail your save and get your str drained by 6 you can't use power attack.
You don't lose the feat but you can't use it.
So Bye Bye feats and other level-dependent variables.
....you don't lose the feats, you just can't use them. Logical.
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.
stuff
there are some exceptions, but permanent is not permanent the same way anymore. Check out Restorationand Greater Restoration
I checked and I did not get what you were trying to say.
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.
Ki pool is based on level.
Stunningf fist DC is based on leveAbundant Step is based on level.
Nope. It only adversely affects spellcasters in that way, apparently.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. The texts says:
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.
So channel energy would be affected, DC for stunning fist, etc.
Again. Saying you don't lose spells only the ability to cast them is like saing you don't lose feats only the ablity to use them.
Some feats have level prereq like Greater Weapon Focus.
I mean if you have power attack and str 16 and get hit by RoE. You fail your save and get your str drained by 6 you can't use power attack.
You don't lose the feat but you can't use it.
So Bye Bye feats and other level-dependent variables.
....you don't lose the feats, you just can't use them. Logical.
That seems to be logical... but it's not what I took James to have ruled.
|
That seems to be logical... but it's not what I took James to have ruled.Nope. It only adversely affects spellcasters in that way, apparently.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. The texts says:
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.
So channel energy would be affected, DC for stunning fist, etc.
Again. Saying you don't lose spells only the ability to cast them is like saing you don't lose feats only the ablity to use them.
Some feats have level prereq like Greater Weapon Focus.
I mean if you have power attack and str 16 and get hit by RoE. You fail your save and get your str drained by 6 you can't use power attack.
You don't lose the feat but you can't use it.
So Bye Bye feats and other level-dependent variables.
....you don't lose the feats, you just can't use them. Logical.
That's pretty much what he's saying. You don't lose feats, you don't lose class features for having those class levels. You just might lose the ability to make USE of those things should something happen that makes you no longer qualify for them.
I checked and I did not get what you were trying to say.
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.
stuff
there are some exceptions, but permanent is not permanent the same way anymore. Check out Restorationand Greater Restoration
Both spells can remove permanent level loss. So permanent negative level is not permanent, ...unless you've died.
I checked and I did not get what you were trying to say.
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.
stuff
there are some exceptions, but permanent is not permanent the same way anymore. Check out Restorationand Greater Restoration
Both spells can remove permanent level loss. So permanent negative level is not permanent, ...unless you've died.
As far as I've read, not even then.
I checked and I did not get what you were trying to say.
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.
stuff
there are some exceptions, but permanent is not permanent the same way anymore. Check out Restorationand Greater Restoration
Both spells can remove permanent level loss. So permanent negative level is not permanent, ...unless you've died.
Permanent only means permanent until removed. You could get rid of permanent levels in 3.5 so nothing has really changed.
The only difference is PF took the time limit away before you had to resort to something like miracle or wish.
Ki pool is based on level.
Stunningf fist DC is based on leve
Abundant Step is based on level.
You're arguing out of context. The context was that monks should lose all their abilities when level drained, because the level you get them is a level-dependent variable (which I refuted). What you describe is a lessening of the strength of their abilities.
Some feats have level prereq like Greater Weapon Focus.
These are not affected. Class level is not a level-dependent variable.
Ki pool is based on level.
Stunningf fist DC is based on leve
Abundant Step is based on level.
You're arguing out of context. The context was that monks should lose all their abilities when level drained, because the level you get them is a level-dependent variable (which I refuted). What you describe is a lessening of the strength of their abilities.
Some feats have level prereq like Greater Weapon Focus.These are not affected. Class level is not a level-dependent variable.
Aside from the actual ruling, how is it considered fair for only spellcasters to lose their level based abilities ?
Level drain practically strips them of all their abilities and lessens most others. That is not something that seems fair, it comes down to other classes not losing much not because it is meant to work that way really, but rather it is too much bother to make it work.
I think reducing casterlevel (not spells / slots), saves, skillchecks, ability checks, BAB, CMB and CMD in itself is just about as hard for a caster as it is for any other class, no need to strip the spells along with that.
Negative Levels in Pathfinder are much better than 3.5. Anyone who was hit with Negative Levels in 3.5 knows exactly what it means.
There is nowhere in Pathfinder where you can lose 1 XP or more. You do not delevel, ever. However, Negative Levels give you a big hinderance, and this is reflected by quite a few things:
- Apply -1 to all rolls, period. This includes caster level, skills, attack rolls, damage, everything.
- Lose 5 Max HP. This is a flat amount per level.
Now, these two things will satisfy the negative level issue. If you are a spellcaster, you have one extra thing to look out for: your caster level. Look at your current level and minus one and look on your class's 'spells per day' list. If the new Class Level as a '-' on that Spell Level, you can no longer cast spells of that level.
Now, as for receiving Negative Levels, you do not receive a save automatically when you get a Negative Level. You must read the spell. If it says 'Save None', you get NO saves for 24 hours, and if the spell says 'It bestows 1 permanent negative level', you get no save after 24 hours. The Fortitude Save for Negative Levels are for Temporary Negative Levels that last for 24 hours or more.
Make sure you read your spells and take the appropriate actions when appropriate.
You don't take the penalty to damage rolls dude. It really only applies to d20 rolls.
no you do not get a penalty to damage rolls, besides.. a casterlevel isnt an actual roll, and in itself it is not a variable.
not anymore than character level is anyway,as I see how negative levels affect abilities I can see clearly how that would work for spells by making them less effective, it just shouldnt make casting them not possible.
by the way this was how it worked in 3.5 :
"If a spellcaster is subjected to the enervation spell and
gets two negative levels, does the character also lose the
ability to cast his highest level of spells? The descriptive text
for negative levels says that a spellcaster loses one spell or
spell slot (the highest) for each negative level. This would
imply that the spellcaster could still cast his highest level
spells so long as he hasn’t been enervated for more negative
levels than he has spells of his highest level.
You are correct. A spellcaster with a negative level loses
one spell of the highest level he currently has available to cast.
He does not necessarily lose his whole highest level of spells
(although that’s a real possibility when a spellcaster picks up
several negative levels)."
Aside from the actual ruling, how is it considered fair for only spellcasters to lose their level based abilities ?
It isn't only spellcasters. As has already been pointed out many times in this thread, other classes have level-based variables as well. For example, Rogues lose Sneak Attack dice, Clerics lose Channel Energy dice and DC, etc.
a casterlevel isnt an actual roll, and in itself it is not a variable.
How is caster level not a variable? It isn't set. It isn't even set at any given level. It can be changed at will. That's pretty much the definition of a variable.
Character level IS a variable. It is not, however, a level-based variable. Your character level does not derive its value from itself. It's not a circular construct.
You don't take the penalty to damage rolls dude. It really only applies to d20 rolls.It applies to damage rolls as well:
–1 penalty on all ability checksSince your Strength and Dexterity Mod (an ability check) goes down by 1, you lose 1 Damage.
Effectively, you lose 1 to Hit and 1 to Damage.
Damage is not an ability check. An ability check is when you roll a d20 and add your ability bonus to it. For example, Initiative rolls, Con checks to hold your breath, etc. While damage rolls do involve Strength to determine how much damage you deal, they are not ability checks.
You don't take the penalty to damage rolls dude. It really only applies to d20 rolls.It applies to damage rolls as well:
–1 penalty on all ability checksSince your Strength and Dexterity Mod (an ability check) goes down by 1, you lose 1 Damage.
Effectively, you lose 1 to Hit and 1 to Damage.
//
As for Permanent Negative Levels, you don't even get a save (unless it says you can).
First, no, ability checks =/= ability modifiers. An ability check is like a skill check, but with just the ability. Like a strength check to kick in a door. Penalties to strength cause penalties to strength checks, but not vice versa.
Secondly, there's nothing that gives permanent negative levels from the beginning. You gain temporary negative levels, and after 24 hours you get to save for them. If you fail, most of the time they become permanent negative levels.
Secondly, there's nothing that gives permanent negative levels from the beginning. You gain temporary negative levels, and after 24 hours you get to save for them. If you fail, most of the time they become permanent negative levels.
Not even close to true.
Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature.
In addition, very very few sources of temporary negative levels convert them to permanent negative levels after a failed save.
Secondly, there's nothing that gives permanent negative levels from the beginning. You gain temporary negative levels, and after 24 hours you get to save for them. If you fail, most of the time they become permanent negative levels.Not even close to true.
Coming back from the dead is an ordeal. The subject of the spell gains two permanent negative levels when it is raised, just as if it had been hit by an energy-draining creature.In addition, very very few sources of temporary negative levels convert them to permanent negative levels after a failed save.
Sorry, didn't even think about death, as we're so restrictive with raisings in my gaming groups >.< I retract my head in shame.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Aside from the actual ruling, how is it considered fair for only spellcasters to lose their level based abilities ?It isn't only spellcasters. As has already been pointed out many times in this thread, other classes have level-based variables as well. For example, Rogues lose Sneak Attack dice, Clerics lose Channel Energy dice and DC, etc.
a casterlevel isnt an actual roll, and in itself it is not a variable.How is caster level not a variable? It isn't set. It isn't even set at any given level. It can be changed at will. That's pretty much the definition of a variable.
Character level IS a variable. It is not, however, a level-based variable. Your character level does not derive its value from itself. It's not a circular construct.
I hardly think Sneak Attack would be affected, true you can convert it to a calculation which turns it in a level based variable, but unlikely
It still wouldn't balance anything, clerics is a caster class it does not qualify for 'other' class though everyone likes to kick a cleric down a notch more.
I think rather you have to look at any ability where level comes to play in number of dice per level or two levels, saving DC for stunning fist, channeling energy, some ragepowers that get better with level, some domain powers, bard's fascinate.. I'd like a list of this stuff from paizo, I am not sure what paizo's definition of a level-based variable is and for which classes.
I never considered the negative levels to double when critted, it is not damage in the traditional sense of the word in my opinion.
Actually, these are the rules for Energy Drain attacks in the Bestiary (under 'Universal Monster Rules'):
"If an attack that includes an energy drain scores a critical hit, it bestows twice the listed number of negative levels."
Now, you can basically say that the Enervation / Energy Drain spell IS an attack that 'includes' an energy drain (actually, it does only that, but you get the idea)... so the rule should still apply.
Just my 2c.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Some feats have level prereq like Greater Weapon Focus.These are not affected. Class level is not a level-dependent variable.
I may missunderstand level-dependent variable.
I would however say isn't class level a level-dependent variable if you look at armor training and weapon training. If not, I hardly think sneak attack should be affected. Again I may be wrongSo let's see if I got this right.
in 3.x
A 7 level sorcerer with 16 char is hit with 4 temporary negativ levels would:
lose of his highest spells (just as if they had been cast)
still be able to cast 2 level spells
still be able to cast 3 level spells
His caster level? Unclear i would say. I haven't seen anything about it in the FAQ.
in Pathfinder
he he would lose 12 spells per day.
he would not be able to cast any 2 level spells
he would not be able to cast any 3 level spells
his caster level would be 3. His magic missile would thus be 2d4+2, duration of spells, range, etc would all be based on a 4 level sorcerer.
Just doesn't seam right.
Edit:
Zurai could you explain to me what "level-dependent variable" means? (no irony)
Zurai could you explain to me what "level-dependent variable" means? (no irony)
No problem. I understand that English isn't your first language, and it's a very technical distinction.
There's two parts. The first is "variable". I'm pretty sure you know what a variable is, but I'll define it anyway to be sure. A variable is a mathematical or logical representation for a number that can be more than one actual number. In other words, it's a number that changes (why it changes isn't so important).
The second, and more relevant, part is "level-dependent". In this context, "level-dependent" means that the variable derives its value (ie, what number it is) based on the character's level.
A character's level cannot be a level-dependent variable because the character's level isn't determined by what level he is.
---
Now, thinking about this a bit deeper, I'm not sure what all should be considered a level-dependent variable, either. If it affects everything, then it seriously smashes multiclass characters. Take for example a (very sub-optimal, but still perfectly valid) Wiz1/Clr1/Rg1/Brd1/Drd1. Drain a single level from that character and it has basically nothing left, because it's quintuple dipping on the level dependent variable decreases.
Zurai could you explain to me what "level-dependent variable" means? (no irony)No problem. I understand that English isn't your first language, and it's a very technical distinction.
There's two parts. The first is "variable". I'm pretty sure you know what a variable is, but I'll define it anyway to be sure. A variable is a mathematical or logical representation for a number that can be more than one actual number. In other words, it's a number that changes (why it changes isn't so important).
The second, and more relevant, part is "level-dependent". In this context, "level-dependent" means that the variable derives its value (ie, what number it is) based on the character's level.
A character's level cannot be a level-dependent variable because the character's level isn't determined by what level he is.
---
Now, thinking about this a bit deeper, I'm not sure what all should be considered a level-dependent variable, either. If it affects everything, then it seriously smashes multiclass characters. Take for example a (very sub-optimal, but still perfectly valid) Wiz1/Clr1/Rg1/Brd1/Drd1. Drain a single level from that character and it has basically nothing left, because it's quintuple dipping on the level dependent variable decreases.
Thanx for the answer.
So does level-dependent variable mean character level-dependent variable or class level-dependent variable?Or does it mean a variable based on a level of an ability? Such as smite damage or caster level?
caster level is a class level-dependent variable not a character level-dependent variable, right?
A 2 level figher + 5 level wizard only has 5 caster levels.
What I was think is perhaps only the variables based on caster level is changed. That is, the character level remanins and the caster level remains but you get a penalty. A bit like a strength penalty.
So a level 7 sorcerer with 4 negativ levels casting spells would still have caster level 7 but he get a -4 penalty on the caster level. Like BAB. BAB doesn't change but you get -4 on the attack.
So duration of haste would be 3 etc.
He would still be able to cast 3 level spells but a fire ball sould deal 3d6 fire damage.
similar to 3.x
As for monk, they still keep all their cool stuff but the DC of stunning fist would change. So would their Ki-pool, etc.
Barbarians would keep greater rage but less rage points, etc.
Sigh. I thought Pathfinder was going to clear all this up.
There's two parts. The first is "variable". I'm pretty sure you know what a variable is, but I'll define it anyway to be sure. A variable is a mathematical or logical representation for a number that can be more than one actual number. In other words, it's a number that changes (why it changes isn't so important).
The second, and more relevant, part is "level-dependent". In this context, "level-dependent" means that the variable derives its value (ie, what number it is) based on the character's level.
A character's level cannot be a level-dependent variable because the character's level isn't determined by what level he is.
---
Now, thinking about this a bit deeper, I'm not sure what all should be considered a level-dependent variable, either. If it affects everything, then it seriously smashes multiclass characters. Take for example a (very sub-optimal, but still perfectly valid) Wiz1/Clr1/Rg1/Brd1/Drd1. Drain a single level from that character and it has basically nothing left, because it's quintuple dipping on the level dependent variable decreases.
I like this breakdown. You ask yourself 2 questions. Is it variable (yes/no)? Is it level-dependent (yes/no)? If you answer in the affirmative to both questions then you should apply the negative level penalties to that effect/ability.
The problem with spellcasters is in the language that gives spellcasters the ability to cast their spells. The language currently uses 'caster level' rather than 'class level', and thereby makes the ability to cast spells based upon a variable. Had 'class level' been used instead, the ability to cast spells would not have been based on a variable (and more like other classes in that class abilities are based on 'class level', and not a middle-man term such as 'caster level'). Then, spellcasters would have reduced effects for their spells, but not lose spellcasting ability, and be on the same playing field with all other classes in terms of how negative levels affect their abilities.
On a side note. How did we become married to the idea that a spellcaster of sufficient level to cast, say, Fireball, is not able to reduce its effectiveness below a minimum caster level? In other words, what's so horrible about allowing more diminished results from spellcasting to allow the 3d6 (or even 1d6) Fireball?
I hardly think Sneak Attack would be affected, true you can convert it to a calculation which turns it in a level based variable, but unlikely
Actually, no, it is a level based power. It's quite clear in the description of the power.
Sneak Attack: If a rogue can catch an opponent when he is unable to defend himself effectively from her attack, she can strike a vital spot for extra damage.The rogue's attack deals extra damage anytime her target would be denied a Dexterity bonus to AC (whether the target actually has a Dexterity bonus or not), or when the rogue flanks her target. This extra damage is 1d6 at 1st level, and increases by 1d6 every two rogue levels thereafter. Should the rogue score a critical hit with a sneak attack, this extra damage is not multiplied. Ranged attacks can count as sneak attacks only if the target is within 30 feet.
The formula is 1 + ((CL-1)/2). That's not 'converting it into a formula' that is the formula given in the power description. 1 + 1 per 2 levels beyond first. I taught algebra at both college and high-school level, and that is the very words I would use in word problems if I wanted to get 1 + ((Variable-1)/2). It's a more complicated formula than CL*2 or CL/2, but it's still a formula written directly into the power's description.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The more I think about this, the less I like it.
I think we have to restrict it to character level-dependent, rather than class level-dependent. Why?
Because BAB and Saving Throw Bonuses depend on class level, but not character level. If we apply the "level-dependent variable" text to class levels, any multiclass character is utterly and completely hosed.
So, I withdraw my statement that Caster Level is a level-dependent variable. It's a class level-dependent variable, but that way lies madness.
I can't think of any character level-dependent variables off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's some somewhere.
The more I think about this, the less I like it.
I think we have to restrict it to character level-dependent, rather than class level-dependent. Why?
Because BAB and Saving Throw Bonuses depend on class level, but not character level. If we apply the "level-dependent variable" text to class levels, any multiclass character is utterly and completely hosed.
So, I withdraw my statement that Caster Level is a level-dependent variable. It's a class level-dependent variable, but that way lies madness.
I can't think of any character level-dependent variables off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's some somewhere.
'Level-dependent variables' must be strictly limited in translation in order to not deconstruct all character types. I'm not so much worried about BAB and saves as the negative level effects already impose a specific penalty to those (and I am by no means arguing for negative levels to be MORE effective in penalizing its targets).
I like your assertion that class level is NOT a level-dependent variable, but it is a door through which we must pass to apply penalties to the effects of class abilities. To wit, your class level IS NOT penalized by negative levels, but any effect based upon your class level IS penalized. That's a subtle, but significant, difference that separates effects from abilities.
I can't think of any character level-dependent variables off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's some somewhere.
Stunning Fist DC is one of the few actually. And times per day technically (though more complicated).
I liked the way you phrased the definition of a "level-dependent variable". It's something level affects, not level itself.
So effects that directly include level in their calculation are definitely included. You could phrase it that none of character level, class level, and caster level are actually *reduced*, but anything dependent upon them are.
That's actually why I feel the ability to cast the spells are not lost - they are gained at certain levels, but you do not constantly calculate the possession of them based on level, just the use of them. Thank you to Remco for finding the 3.5 text on it, here is a related pertinent section of the SRD:
The text above is essentially how it is currently handled in Pathfinder, and the Sage Advice/FAQ entry indicates that even if a caster got two negative energy levels, they may still be able to cast their highest level spells.
The problem with spellcasters is in the language that gives spellcasters the ability to cast their spells. The language currently uses 'caster level' rather than 'class level', and thereby makes the ability to cast spells based upon a variable.
I do not believe this is accurate. Text in the Ability sections indicates Class level. Text regarding the willful lowering of caster level of course references caster level. The classes themselves reference the charts, which would be class level if anything.
To me the rule is fairly simple: if the variable of an ability includes level in the calculation, reduce it by the number of negative levels.
I don't see the acquisition of class abilities as a variable though. You can certainly construct an equation for them (heck, just about the entire game has been programmed into computer games), but that seems to be something else.
The more I think about this, the less I like it.
I think we have to restrict it to character level-dependent, rather than class level-dependent. Why?
Because BAB and Saving Throw Bonuses depend on class level, but not character level. If we apply the "level-dependent variable" text to class levels, any multiclass character is utterly and completely hosed.
So, I withdraw my statement that Caster Level is a level-dependent variable. It's a class level-dependent variable, but that way lies madness.
I can't think of any character level-dependent variables off the top of my head, but I'm sure there's some somewhere.
BAB depend on character level. Add level of class x to level of class Y and you get BAB. The progresion speed of BAB is depended on class.
I was going to add one more post before dinner, but didn't have the time. I was going to write: Zurai you are right and I'm wrong.
here is what I think. The text says: level-dependent variables
It doesn't say: Class level-dependent variables or character level-dependent variables.
What is a class feature and what is a level-dependent variable?
I would say anything that need you to make a calculation and isn't in the class table is a level-dependent variable.
The progression of sneak attack or weapon traing are not based on a level-dependent variable. They are just result of you hitting a specific class level. They are class features.
Is caster levels tied to class levels. Yes and no. They are some times but caster levels is just a part of the mechanics of magic.
Caster level is a level-dependent variable that usually follow a class level.
They way I see it. If it's in the class table it's a classs feature, if it's not it's a level-dependent variable.
Sneak attack; armor traing; greater rage; spells per day; spells known, Inspire competence; Channel energy, smite evil per day; etc are all class feature.
Trapfinding bonus; number of temporary hit points you get from the rogue talanet Resiliency; Bardic Performance per day; rage points; smite evil damage; healing/damage and DC from Channel energy; ki-pool points; stunning fist DC, etc are all based on level-dependent variable and should thus be affected.
from a spell caster POW I cry Unfair, but it that's the way it seams.
Edit:
A 15 level bard hit with 10 negativ levels would still be able to use all his abilties but spells would be affected. Nummer of Bardic Performance per day would also be affected. And Inspire greatness would only affect one person. Spells known or spells per day would not be affected but his caster level would drop making some spells impossible to cast.
edit
Three questions:
I would REALLY like Jason to clear up this mess.
BAB depend on character level. Add level of class x to level of class Y and you get BAB. The progresion speed of BAB is depended on class.
No, BAB (and saves) is definitely class level-dependent. The proof is simple: If you cannot answer "What is the Y bonus of a Xth level character" without involving character class, it's class level, not character level, that defines Y bonus.
Since you cannot define BAB or saves without involving individual class levels, it's not character level-dependent.
I stand corrected.
Text in the Ability sections indicates Class level. Text regarding the willful lowering of caster level of course references caster level. The classes themselves reference the charts, which would be class level if anything.
first: the text about level-dependent variables does not state character level-dependent variables nor does it say class level-dependent variables. It just states level-dependent variables.
second. 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.
In 3.5 it was specifically mentioned in the FAQ/Sage Advice that reduced casterlevel didn't keep you from casting spells of your highest 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.
now we just need to define level based variables.
I think stunning fist and some racial abilities DC are based on level (breathweapon, energydrain) might be affected.
I can't really think of other levelbased variables, I do not mind extending it to spellcasting as long as their spells are kept,
stands to reason they lose casting ability if their negative levels equal their casterlevel.
seriously I think this affects all classes more than enough like this.
all casters lose obviously
all warrior ish types types lose attack bonus
don't think it is perfect, but most workable and fair without completely negating the nastiness of leveldraining.
any suggestions to improve leveldrain ? (as in making it playable)
all warrior ish types types don't lose base attack, they only get –1 penalty on attack rolls.
I liked the way you phrased the definition of a "level-dependent variable". It's something level affects, not level itself.
So effects that directly include level in their calculation are definitely included. You could phrase it that none of character level, class level, and caster level are actually *reduced*, but anything dependent upon them are.
That's actually why I feel the ability to cast the spells are not lost - they are gained at certain levels, but you do not constantly calculate the possession of them based on level, just the use of them. Thank you to Remco for finding the 3.5 text on it, here is a related pertinent section of the SRD:
The text above is essentially how it is currently handled in Pathfinder, and the Sage Advice/FAQ entry indicates that even if a caster got two negative energy levels, they may still be able to cast their highest level spells.
The problem with spellcasters is in the language that gives spellcasters the ability to cast their spells. The language currently uses 'caster level' rather than 'class level', and thereby makes the ability to cast spells based upon a variable.I do not believe this is accurate. Text in the Ability sections indicates Class level. Text regarding the willful lowering of caster level of course references caster level. The classes themselves reference the charts, which would be class level if anything.
To me the rule is fairly simple: if the variable of an ability includes level in the calculation, reduce it by the number of negative levels.
...
And technically we agree on this issue. You are correct that the abilities sections do not use the term 'caster level' to determine the ability to cast spells of specific levels. That term (and condition on casting specific level spells) comes from:
Pathfinder Core Rulebook, page 208 wrote:
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.
It is this extrapolation that got us to the point where negative levels potentially remove a caster's ABILITY to cast higher level spells by defining caster level as a level-dependent variable. I don't want to retread down this road, however.
I agree with you that abilities you gain at a certain level are actually 'fixed' and not 'variable' level-dependent attributes. I also agree that the calculation and power of those abilities (the effects) would fall into the 'variable' category. Defining all class level abilities as level-dependent variables in and of themselves is to walk down that dark and lonely road of character deconstruction and, as Zurai put it, madness. I concur.
all warrior ish types types don't lose base attack, they only get –1 penalty on attack rolls.
yea true I know, it kinda slipped in there, post remains the same otherwise though.
Defining all class level abilities as level-dependent variables in and of themselves is to walk down that dark and lonely road of character deconstruction and, as Zurai put it, madness. I concur.
LOL
