| 9 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
I did a forum search on "negative levels" and didn't find anything that seemed to match what I was looking for.
In a recent game, one of the PCs (a sorcerer 5/dragon disciple 3) was hit by a gnoll sorcerer's enervation ray. He suffered from three negative levels for the next 10 hours.
My question is this: WHAT PENALTIES DOES HE SUFFER EXACTLY?
The glossary entry for negative levels makes some of them fairly obvious.
- -1 cumulative penalty on ability checks
- -1 cumulative penalty on attack rolls (including combat maneuvers as they are attack rolls*)
- -1 cumulative penalty to combat maneuver defense
- -1 cumulative penalty to saving throws
- -1 cumulative penalty to skill checks**
- -5 cumulative penalty to current and total hit points
* Or do you actually take the penalty to your combat maneuvers twice as they are both attack rolls AND combat maneuvers?
** Skill checks are also considered by some to also be ability checks. Do they then suffer from the double whammy as described above?
What really gets my goat, however, is the following:
What exactly ARE level dependent variables? Does this mean that the above dragon disciple (who is normally capable of casting 3rd-level spells with a caster level of 6th) can only cast 2nd-level spells with a caster level of 3rd? Does he loose all of his dragon disciple class abilities for those 3 lost levels since they depend on him being a certain level? (and by extension, much of his bloodline abilities since dragon disciple extends them?)
If so, what's with the "spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels" text?
If someone can give me a clear breakdown of what is and is not a "level-dependent variable" and why, I would be most grateful.
Since you did a search on our site, this would be a good time to plug the fact that you can set the menu directly below the search box to "PRD" to search the Pathfinder Reference Document.
Searching for "Negative Levels" gets you this page, with the first result being the glossary entry for "Energy Drain and Negative Levels".
You can rules-lawyer some crazy stuff out of that section, but this is how it reads to me.
Or do you actually take the penalty to your combat maneuvers twice as they are both attack rolls AND combat maneuvers
No.
Skill checks are also considered by some to also be ability checks. Do they then suffer from the double whammy as described above?
No.
What exactly ARE level dependent variables?
Example, say a 5th level wizard gets hit with one negative level. He still has full access to the 3rd level spells, but his CL is 4th. Casting Fireball does 4d6 damage, and an SR check is 1d20 + 4.
What exactly ARE level dependent variables?Example, say a 5th level wizard gets hit with one negative level. He still has full access to the 3rd level spells, but his CL is 4th. Casting Fireball does 4d6 damage, and an SR check is 1d20 + 4.
But what if not all his levels grant spellcasting, such as a ranger or multiclassed character?
Treat it as it actually reads
"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 the character is a R7 with caster level 4 with 1 negative level, his caster level is 3.
Yup. Also, if you were multiclassed, such as Wizard 4/Cleric 4, you'd have a CL of 3 for each of the classes if you had 1 negative level.
Negative levels are a shortcut to avoid temporarily or permanently rebuilding characters due to level drain. It's a bit of an approximation, and it turns out it hurts multiclass casters a bit more than other classes.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
So if his caster level becomes too low to cast a given spell, he doesn't lose his ability to cast that spell? Why not?
I was thinking about it, and when I search on the SRD [sic], I found something about that. Because their caster level is not enough, they shouldn't cast their 2nd level spells with a negative level...
PRD, Magical Overview: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).
Endier1 seems to make a good point. (I dredged him up from a thread so old it's been locked, otherwise, I would have simply resurrected his thread).
So if his caster level becomes too low to cast a given spell, he doesn't lose his ability to cast that spell? Why not?
To put it simply, because the rules for negative levels specifically state such characters do not lose the ability to cast spells. As this is specifically mentioned, it overrules any general game rules that might otherwise apply.
I think you mistake what it means to " not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels". This means that you, when you regain any lost levels, you don't have a bunch of blank spell slots. Those spell slots are filled with the same spells that they were before. However, if a reduction in level brings you below the caster level required to cast a certain spell, you cannot cast it. For example, if a 5th level cleric were given a single negative level making his caster level would be 4 and this he would no longer be able to cast prayer (assuming he had previously prepared it). When the negative level is restored, he may then cast prayer again.
I think you mistake what it means to " not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels". This means that you, when you regain any lost levels, you don't have a bunch of blank spell slots. Those spell slots are filled with the same spells that they were before. However, if a reduction in level brings you below the caster level required to cast a certain spell, you cannot cast it. For example, if a 5th level cleric were given a single negative level making his caster level would be 4 and this he would no longer be able to cast prayer (assuming he had previously prepared it). When the negative level is restored, he may then cast prayer again.
This is what I'm thinking as well. It would certainly go along way to balance spellcasters with negative levels against EVERYONE ELSE with negative levels.
This is what I'm thinking as well. It would certainly go along way to balance spellcasters with negative levels against EVERYONE ELSE with negative levels.
Actually, if spellcasters aren't able to cast their highest level spells due to negative levels, they would be the only classes singled out. No classes lose their class abilities when they receive a negative level.
- A 5th level fighter with 1 negative level can still use weapon training 1
- a 5th level rogue with 1 negative level still gets +3d6 sneak attack
- So, a 5th level wizard with 1 negative level still can cast 3rd level spells
I think I simplified it too much by calling a Wizard 5 as having a CL of 4. A 5th level wizard is CL 5, regardless of the number of negative levels he has (assuming he's still alive, that is).
Level-dependent variables (to me) are places where you use "level" in a computation.
Eg
Fireball does <level> x 6 damage
Range 100 ft + 10 ft/<level>
SR check is 1d20 + <level>
Rogue Resiliency gives the Rogue <level> temporary HP.
Barbarian's Strength surge gives the Barbarian +<level> to a single STR check
When you use <level> in this context, it should be replaced with <level - #negative levels> instead. Effectively you can think of that as the characters CL, but that isn't exactly accurate.
At least that is my understanding of the rules.
I think that whenever some ability's intensity/strength is dependant on your level, that is reduced, but you don't lose abilities because you're temporarily "too low-level for them."
Example: A paladin gets channel positive energy at 4th level. If that paladin now gains, say, 2 negative levels, his channel energy only heals 1d6 points of damage (or deals that damage to undead), but he'll still have his channel energy.
Now, things like number of uses get interesting: Do you lose stuff like uses of smite evil if your effective level drops? Will a drained monk lose ki points?
I'm not sure why a single negative level would lower your casting level in each of your multiple classes. Shouldn't it affect the one most recently acquired? Or is that simply considered too confusing?
Nope. You never lose XP in PF, and you never "unbuild" a char in PF. Negative levels just apply the penalties stated. Since even "permanent" level loss can be corrected by readily available magic, this isn't a bad compromise for an nice simplification.
No problem house ruling otherwise though.
I think you mistake what it means to " not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels". This means that you, when you regain any lost levels, you don't have a bunch of blank spell slots. Those spell slots are filled with the same spells that they were before. However, if a reduction in level brings you below the caster level required to cast a certain spell, you cannot cast it. For example, if a 5th level cleric were given a single negative level making his caster level would be 4 and this he would no longer be able to cast prayer (assuming he had previously prepared it). When the negative level is restored, he may then cast prayer again.
A caster with negative levels still has spells available to cast as if they had no negative levels. Negative levels do not actually decrease a character's caster level; such characters function in some ways as if they were at a lower caster level, but it doesn't inhibit what spells they have access to, nor how many spells they can prepare/cast in a day.
They key here is that negative levels do not impact a character's spell slots. A 5th-level wizard with two negative levels is still going to have one or more 3rd-level spell slots available to fill each day when he prepares spells. Additionally, negative levels do not impact what spells a character knows or has access to. A sorcerer's spells remain in her memory, a wizard's in his spellbook. As the slots remain available, and the character knows spells of the appropriate level, the 5th-level wizard can still prepare and cast 3rd-level spells. Any aspects of these spells that rely on level, however, function as if the character possessed a caster level of three. These factors would/could include spell durations, range, damage, etc.
Actually, if spellcasters aren't able to cast their highest level spells due to negative levels, they would be the only classes singled out. No classes lose their class abilities when they receive a negative level.
You picked a bad spell. Try Dominate Person or Power Word Kill.
By your method... A level 18 fighter with 15 negative levels will be -15 to hit (a stiff penalty) but a level 18 wizard with 15 negative levels can still cast many of his highest level spells with no loss of effectiveness.
My google-fu literally sucks, but I would have sworn either James or Jason had addressed this once before.
Either way, this question does need to be FAQ'd.
This is what I'm thinking as well. It would certainly go along way to balance spellcasters with negative levels against EVERYONE ELSE with negative levels.Actually, if spellcasters aren't able to cast their highest level spells due to negative levels, they would be the only classes singled out. No classes lose their class abilities when they receive a negative level.
- A 5th level fighter with 1 negative level can still use weapon training 1
- a 5th level rogue with 1 negative level still gets +3d6 sneak attack
- So, a 5th level wizard with 1 negative level still can cast 3rd level spells
However, if they had full access negative levels wouldn't bother them much. The HP damage is too small to matter, a penalty to caster level isn't that big of a deal when spell DC and the like aren't affected (because at the levels where you encounter negative levels, it doesn't matter if your Mass Command lasts 15 round or 13 rounds; combat will be far over anyway). Sure, it's a penalty, but FAR less than -1 attack bonus is for a fighter. Wizards are also less dependent on saving throws, as they can more often stay away from being targeted.
I think it's a great way of solving this. They aren't hit unfairly hard, like in 3.0 where even restoration didn't help them regain their spellcasting, but negative levels is still a big deal for them.
And, of course, the rules look neat that way.
Aha! I found the thread I was looking for. Namely this post by James Jacobs.
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.
They key here is that negative levels do not impact a character's spell slots. A 5th-level wizard with two negative levels is still going to have one or more 3rd-level spell slots available to fill each day when he prepares spells.
Spell slots =/= ability to cast spells. You even gain spell slots if your casting attribute isn't high enough.
A 5th level wizard with an intelligence of 11 has one 3rd level spell slot per day (if a universalist). He can't prepare 2nd or 3rd level spells though. He could still prepare an empowered Magic Missile in the slot, should he want to.
The same way I think it is with negative levels. The 5th level wizard you mentioned above will have his slots, but if he's gains 2 negative levels, his CL is 3 and he can't cast 3rd level spells. He can still prepare them, or prepare metamagiced spells of lower level, and cast any spell of 2nd level or lower regardless of the slot it takes.
Aha! I found the thread I was looking for. Namely this post by James Jacobs.
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.
Bummer! So, I interpret that to mean you *should* lose all features tied to the highest level of each of your classes if you lose a negative level. Boy, is that a can of worms if you consider that some of the class features are things such as bonus feats.
To apply the rules in this fashion, you still need to track all individual build decisions separately so you can unroll them for negative level purposes.
If your Fighter 5/Ranger 5/Barbarian 5/Rogue 5 takes a negative level, you'd lose:
Weapon Training 1
Improved Uncanny Dodge
2nd Favored Enemy
+3d6 Sneak attack
Since all of them are "level-dependent" for each of the classes, I guess.
Edit: Maybe it isn't that bad. These class features are granted at a specific level, but there is no dependency on your level to use them. That is different than caster level and spells.
Aha! I found the thread I was looking for. Namely this post by James Jacobs.
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.
Thanks Mauril! I knew they had made a ruling somewhere, but I couldn't find it.
And I wouldn't worry about it too much FarmerBob. I don't think many class abilities are dependent on a level calculation in the same way that spells are. Spells require a certain caster level, which in itself is a level-dependent variable. Without the requisite caster level you can't cast the appropriate spells. In other words, I don't think a fighter would lose his feats, or a paladin his smite evil (though in the latter case, he would be dealing less damage).
EDIT: I found this several posts into the linked thread. Though his ruling stands, after listenign to several posters try to refute it with logic, even James isn't so confident in it.
Not to shake things up too much... but the more I've thought about this, the more I've started to think that maybe negative levels SHOULDN'T reduce your spells available. I mean... that does indeed start to make one wonder why, then, negative levels wouldn't also cause fighters to lose their bonus feats, rogues to lose sneak attack dice, bards to lose bardic performances, and so on. Too far down that road and suddenly you're back in 3.5's territory of rebuilding your character every time you gain negative levels, and that's something that we were trying to avoid. We were trying to keep the bite in negative levels without forcing complicated middle-of-the-game-session rebuilding of characters.
And negative levels would certainly still impact concentration checks and level checks to get through SR and all that. Which still stings, but isn't so complicated that the game will grind to a halt while the spellcaster reconfigures everything.
Thanks for the feedback and analysis and discussion, everyone! And now, I suppose, the thread's theme can change back to folks trying to convince me that negative levels SHOULD cause spellcasters to lose spells. :-)
BEGIN!
Keep in mind that a fighter might loose temporary access to certain feats that have a requirement of "fighter level x", should his fighter level drop below x. He would regain use of the feat when the negative level was restored.
EDIT: I found this several posts into the linked thread. Though his ruling stands, after listenign to several posters try to refute it with logic, even James isn't so confident in it.
Hmmm, I guess if Paizo isn't entirely clear on what should happen, my musings have even less value. The actual details of what it does are left as an exercise to the reader, I guess.
Creative Director
|
EDIT: I found this several posts into the linked thread. Though his ruling stands, after listenign to several posters try to refute it with logic, even James isn't so confident in it.Hmmm, I guess if Paizo isn't entirely clear on what should happen, my musings have even less value. The actual details of what it does are left as an exercise to the reader, I guess.
Which is why our secret weapon—all of you GMs, who are skilled and imaginative and creative and more than capable of making rulings for your game—is so potent!
AKA: Try not to get hung up on the tough rules. It's okay to make a choice and roll with it in your game. In my games, I would probably come down on the "it hurts multiclassed characters more than single classed characters" UNLESS the game had only one or two players in it and multiclassing was necessary to cover all of the expected skills, in which case I'd ease back on it.
Coming onto the boards to get advice, both from us at Paizo and knowledgable/experienced GMs, is a great way to help work out these questions. It just saddens me to think that folks need an official ruling and can't just pick the one they like the best for their game.
Play the game, don't game the play, in other words.
Play the game, don't game the play, in other words.
You rock James!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Which is why our secret weapon—all of you GMs, who are skilled and imaginative and creative and more than capable of making rulings for your game—is so potent! ... It just saddens me to think that folks need an official ruling and can't just pick the one they like the best for their game.
James, almost all of my Pathfinder GMing is done through Organized Play, so it's not really my game.
If Pathfinder Society scenarios are going to have level-draining (sorry, Negative Level bestowing) undead -- and some do -- then we should know how that's supposed to work.
Three GMs are running PFS, each with 5th-Level wizard who has taken 3 negative levels. At one table, the wizard still casts a 5d6 lightning bolt. At the second table, it's a 2d6 bolt, and the wizard at the 3rd table doesn't have access to his spells at all.
That strikes me as unfair. Even if Paizo doesn't want to clarify the game rule in general, those PFS scenarios with debilitating undead should include a sidebar explaining how the OP team expects the GM to adjudicate Negative Levels in that environment.
James, almost all of my Pathfinder GMing is done through Organized Play, so it's not really my game.
Exactly. I run my normal games as I feel works best for myself and my players, but with Society play I rarely end up with the same GM; if things like this are strictly left up to the GM, then not only do I have to face the possibility of learning different sets of rules each time I sit down at a table, but I have to play my character differently each time as well.
... Even if Paizo doesn't want to clarify the game rule in general, those PFS scenarios with debilitating undead should include a sidebar explaining how the OP team expects the GM to adjudicate Negative Levels in that environment.
I would think such rulings would need to be described in the Guide to Organized Play; negative levels could conceivably persist over multiple scenarios.
Which is why our secret weapon—all of you GMs, who are skilled and imaginative and creative and more than capable of making rulings for your game—is so potent! ... It just saddens me to think that folks need an official ruling and can't just pick the one they like the best for their game.James, almost all of my Pathfinder GMing is done through Organized Play, so it's not really my game.
If Pathfinder Society scenarios are going to have level-draining (sorry, Negative Level bestowing) undead -- and some do -- then we should know how that's supposed to work.
Three GMs are running PFS, each with 5th-Level wizard who has taken 3 negative levels. At one table, the wizard still casts a 5d6 lightning bolt. At the second table, it's a 2d6 bolt, and the wizard at the 3rd table doesn't have access to his spells at all.
That strikes me as unfair. Even if Paizo doesn't want to clarify the game rule in general, those PFS scenarios with debilitating undead should include a sidebar explaining how the OP team expects the GM to adjudicate Negative Levels in that environment.
I don't see how this scenario causes any more trouble then it would in normal games. What exactly do the players at each table lose? All rulings are relatively balanced. All rulings make sense. All rulings adhere to the rules as written. All allow the various players to play the game and have a good time.
No matter how many rules clarifications the game designers put out, situations like this are going to occur in Organized Play anyways (often without anyone even realizing it). So why bother with the corner cases then? Just let the games go on and have fun rather than bogging things down for everybody.
I really hate that people on forums HAVE TO HAVE only one interpretation that is correct, when as written, a given rule can have a number of correct interpretations. Just ask your GM and fellow players which one they adhere to. Done. Now get back to the game and have some fun already!
I don't see how this scenario causes any more trouble then it would in normal games. What exactly do the players at each table lose? All rulings are relatively balanced. All rulings make sense. All rulings adhere to the rules as written. All allow the various players to play the game and have a good time.
It's actually very important to have a single ruling in organized play. You state that all rulings are relatively balanced, but in an organized play situation that is not always the case.
In a home game, a GM has the freedom to interpret the rules as needed, and is encouraged to do so. Any modifications are then shared with the group, and the players should know what to expect from the game and how different game mechanics interact with each other.
Now consider organized play; I don't have my materials on hand at the moment, and as such don't know if the following series of events are even possible, but it will suffice to illustrate the situation. Resources and the availability of those resources are inherently limited. Say a character at one table suffers a permanent negative level. Based on that GM's interpretation of negative level penalties, the player makes the decision to save his or her resources and play the game despite those negative levels. However, when the same player goes to a different table, the new GM's interpretation of negative level penalties differ significantly. Suddenly, the penalties that were manageable under one GM become overwhelming. Unfortunately, the means to alleviate these penalties may not be available within the confines of that second scenario.
Because the different GMs have different interpretations of the same mechanic, the player does not know what to expect from one table to the next. Balance in a GM's rulings are then thrown out the window. Said rulings may make sense to the GM, may even follow the rules as written, but the player is now being penalized because he or she did not know the conventions used by a GM that he or she may never have played with before. Based on my personal experience, not necessarily in PFS but in general, such situations not only inhibit my ability to play the game, but kill any fun I may have had.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Not losing spells prepared means you still have them prepared. If they're prepared, you can cast them. Nowhere in the PRD description of negative levels does it state or suggest otherwise. As previously quoted:
"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."
It specifically calls out what happens with spells and spell slots:
They don't lose them.
They don't lose the ability to cast them.
They don't lose the ability to use them.
They just cast them LESS EFFECTIVELY.
Level-dependent variables of class abilities or spells mean variable features of these abilities that are based on caster/character level. Dice of channel energy or lay on hands healing or spell damage, duration, range, etc. spell that change based on caster level.
The rule seems pretty clear to me. YMMV.
That's not what James Jacobs rule clarification indicated. Look at Mauril's post which has James quote. It says that you lose the ability to cast the spell if the level you drop makes it so you no longer have access to that level of spells. It's there in your head, prepared, you just can't cast it.
This really needs to get moved over to the PFS forum, since in normal play it seems to be an openly interpretable rule. Since PFS is stricter on those types of rules, it probably ought to have a clarification of how it works in PFS play.
Actually Jason, I have to disagree with you on several parts here when it comes to how the rules are written. Of course, you're on the Paizo team and are in a way "always right" and can change how the rules work, but as they are written your post has a few things I have to disagree with.
If they're prepared, you can cast them. Nowhere in the PRD description of negative levels does it state or suggest otherwise.
The first sentence, if we are to take that as a rule, also changes other situations. For example, take a 5th level wizard with a prepared Fireball. He gets Ability Drained in intelligence so he's got an intelligence of 4; normally, he wouldn't be close to even casting a cantrip, but with your ruling they could still cast the fireball even if they're only barely capable of human speech.
"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."
It specifically calls out what happens with spells and spell slots:
They don't lose them.
They don't lose the ability to cast them.
They don't lose the ability to use them.
I agree that it states that they don't lose the spells or slots, that hasn't been suggested by anyone. However, it makes no mention of the ability to use spells at all, except from stating that level-dependent variables are affected. Looking at the Magic section of the PRD, caster level is level dependent, and you have to have a sufficient caster level to cast a spell (RAW).
Now, I could see why you'd want to errata it; less book-keeping and less severe to the casters. But as the rules are written, Jacobs earlier ruling seem to be more in line with the book.
To summarize, this is what we know:
1. Level dependent variables are affected by NL (NL section)
2. Spell slots and prepared spells aren't lost (NL section)
3. Caster level is a level-dependent effect (Magic section)
4. You have to have high enough CL to cast a spell (Magic section)
By 1 and 3, Caster level is affected, and by 3 and 4, low caster level prevents spellcasting. 2 never really has to come into play, as spell slots differ from spell casting ability, spell level and caster level as seen on several different occasions. So, by a strict reading of the RAW, you can have slots of a certain level without being able to cast spells of that level.
The situation is very much alike that of casting ability scores, where the facts are:
1. Ability scores limit the spell level which you can cast (class entries)
2. Base spell slots aren't dependent on ability scores (class entries)
3. Spell levels aren't tied to spell slots (any metamagic feat or a dozen other locations)
coming to a similar conclusion that you can have 3rd level slots without being able to cast 3rd level spells (such as the 5th level wizard being ability drained).
It's actually very important to have a single ruling in organized play. You state that all rulings are relatively balanced, but in an organized play situation that is not always the case.
In a home game, a GM has the freedom to interpret the rules as needed, and is encouraged to do so. Any modifications are then shared with the group, and the players should know what to expect from the game and how different game mechanics interact with each other.
Now consider organized play; I don't have my materials on hand at the moment, and as such don't know if the following series of events are even possible, but it will suffice to illustrate the situation. Resources and the availability of those resources are inherently limited. Say a character at one table suffers a permanent negative level. Based on that GM's interpretation of negative level penalties, the player makes the decision to save his or her resources and play the game despite those negative levels. However, when the same player goes to a different table, the new GM's interpretation of negative level penalties differ significantly. Suddenly, the penalties that were manageable under one GM become overwhelming. Unfortunately, the means to alleviate these penalties may not be available within the confines of that second scenario.
Because the different GMs have different interpretations of the same mechanic, the player does not know what to expect from one table to the next. Balance in a GM's rulings are then thrown out the window. Said rulings may make sense to the GM, may even follow the rules as written, but the player is now being penalized because he or she did not know the conventions used by a GM that he or she may never...
What I don't get is why the player in your example didn't just tell the new GM how his old GM ran it and ask if he would/could run it the same way (since its a perfectly valid interpretation of the rule and the officials aren't willing to officially validate any one interpretation at this time anyways).
I honestly think you and others over think the whole organized play bit.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I don't get is why the player in your example didn't just tell the new GM how his old GM ran it and ask if he would/could run it the same way (since its a perfectly valid interpretation of the rule and the officials aren't willing to officially validate any one interpretation at this time anyways).
"But Mommy, Daddy lets me cast all my spells unhindered, even though I have 4 permanent Negative Levels." Wouldn't fly at my table. "Sorry, that's not how it works."
Well, RD, what if the GM at the first player is strict, doesn't allow the wizard to cast lightning bolt at all, which results in a TPK? Meanwhile, the folks at the next table over, in identical straits, don't have their spells affected at all.
(Which brings to light the question: what interpretations held for the guys who play-tested and developed the scenario? What's the right balance?)
"" WHAT, EXACTLY, ARE THE PENALTIES FOR NEGATIVE LEVELS? ""
I would say that the penalties for negative levels is that you have to figure out the penalties for negative levels.
~~what i held of three days posting this reply~~ :) hehehhe
Well, RD, what if the GM at the first player is strict, doesn't allow the wizard to cast lightning bolt at all, which results in a TPK? Meanwhile, the folks at the next table over, in identical straits, don't have their spells affected at all.
I'm still failing to see how that's a problem. In the end, everyone came to play a game, a few characters died, and hopefully everyone had a good time when all was said and done. Odds are, one table doesn't know what happened at another. Even if they did, they might not care, as its not their table.
|
I'm still failing to see how that's a problem. In the end, everyone came to play a game, a few characters died, and hopefully everyone had a good time when all was said and done. Odds are, one table doesn't know what happened at another. Even if they did, they might not care, as its not their table.
RD, there are a number of things that are different about organized play. While I agree that there is a tendency to push for a single possible ruling when one of several are perfectly playable, there are situations that, frankly, do need more care in organized play and for which a single rule IS needed. And, for better or worse, the organized play administrators generally defer to the game rules as written, in apparent denial of the fact that there can be substantial variances and consequences.
When a situation is transactional..such that it might only affect a single roll or the like...players get used to dealing with table variance. The problems at this level are minor and folks need to get used to the idea that variance happens.
Where there are problems are in matters that have significant impact on character development, regarding on-going negative conditions that carry from table to table, and in dealing with major effects (such as the effects of negative levels, ability drain, etc.) that have been designed with different expectations. These are situations that impact the career of the character, multiple adventures, or possibly the entire course of an adventure. There is a tendency in organized play that at least some encounters are at the strong end of the scale. When these are then paired with effects with a large degree of variance, the effect can be much more dangerous than the designer intended.
Take the situation of a fifth level spell caster taking 3 negative levels. In one situation, where the level-based variables are taken to mean reduced range, damage dice, etc., the character is of reduced effectiveness, but can still participate. In the situation where a DM interprets this to mean casting as a 2nd level character, it means no second or 3rd level spells, and the character is effectively going along for the ride. When 4 characters become 3 plus a gimped character, results can be quite bad.
Character death in organized play can be much more significant than you are making it to be with the flippant 'a few characters died.' This is the case because if a character dies, it often becomes the case that the player can no longer play with the same group of players. If Mary's character Dweezle dies in one game, maybe she shows up next week with the new character Nincompoop. In organized play, if the character cannot be raised, then the player may be shut out; in a small group, it may mean that the entire playing group is grounded.
It is a necessary fact of RPGs that characters die from time to die. When they die due to a disconnect between designer expectations and GM rulings at the table, this becomes a sore area that can result in loss of customer. And ultimately, organized play is about recruiting players and converting them to players who play a lot and who spend a lot of money on the game.
To have organized play administrators say "use the game rule, and discuss it in Rules Questions if needed...," to have a FAQ system that could provide those answers that do require a consistent answer (were it adequately staffed), and then to have another senior designer express criticism for those seeking such an answer; in sum this demonstrates a tremendous disconnect.
Character death in organized play can be much more significant than you are making it to be with the flippant 'a few characters died.' This is the case because if a character dies, it often becomes the case that the player can no longer play with the same group of players. If Mary's character Dweezle dies in one game, maybe she shows up next week with the new character Nincompoop. In organized play, if the character cannot be raised, then the player may be shut out; in a small group, it may mean that the entire playing group is grounded.
It sounds to me like the way the organizers set things up (forcing someone to sit out just because their PC died) is the problem, not the understanding of the rules (or lack thereof).
Something as simple as publicly declaring that people should show up with a backup character or some such would go a long ways towards solving the problem.
Something as simple as publicly declaring that people should show up with a backup character or some such would go a long ways towards solving the problem.
The Pathfinder Society Organized Play rules state that you can only play one character during a scenario session. So backup characters doesn't work very well (plus you have to register your characters online, and all characters start at level 1).
Also, if a character dies during one session and can't be raised during the same session, the character is retired from Organized Play (you can't get it raised in a different session). So, character death can have a lot steeper consequences than in a regular game.
I'm not sure why a single negative level would lower your casting level in each of your multiple classes. Shouldn't it affect the one most recently acquired? Or is that simply considered too confusing?Nope. You never lose XP in PF, and you never "unbuild" a char in PF. Negative levels just apply the penalties stated. Since even "permanent" level loss can be corrected by readily available magic, this isn't a bad compromise for an nice simplification.
Actually, permanent level loss could be corrected in some cases even in 3e.
I did a forum search on "negative levels" and didn't find anything that seemed to match what I was looking for.
In a recent game, one of the PCs (a sorcerer 5/dragon disciple 3) was hit by a gnoll sorcerer's enervation ray. He suffered from three negative levels for the next 10 hours.
My question is this: WHAT PENALTIES DOES HE SUFFER EXACTLY?
Don't we all wanna know.
Check out this thread and this thread
I really like these two quotes:
Not to shake things up too much... but the more I've thought about this, the more I've started to think that maybe negative levels SHOULDN'T reduce your spells available. I mean... that does indeed start to make one wonder why, then, negative levels wouldn't also cause fighters to lose their bonus feats, rogues to lose sneak attack dice, bards to lose bardic performances, and so on. Too far down that road and suddenly you're back in 3.5's territory of rebuilding your character every time you gain negative levels, and that's something that we were trying to avoid. We were trying to keep the bite in negative levels without forcing complicated middle-of-the-game-session rebuilding of characters.
And negative levels would certainly still impact concentration checks and level checks to get through SR and all that. Which still stings, but isn't so complicated that the game will grind to a halt while the spellcaster reconfigures everything.
Thanks for the feedback and analysis and discussion, everyone! And now, I suppose, the thread's theme can change back to folks trying to convince me that negative levels SHOULD cause spellcasters to lose spells. :-)
BEGIN!
and this one
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.
So what class level-dependent variable should be affected?
And what is a class level-dependent variable?Rage powers, rage points per day?
Smite damage?
Channel energy?
Bardic performance and round per day?
Ki pool? Ki powers? Stunning fist DC?
Sneak attack damage? Rogue talents?
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
It specifically calls out what happens with spells and spell slots:
They don't lose them.
They don't lose the ability to cast them.
They don't lose the ability to use them.They just cast them LESS EFFECTIVELY.
My bold. Not true.
Some have said you still need caster level X to cast spell with spell level Y.Check out the two threads above. :-)
you will find this quote is one of the threads,... although James later changed his mind its still not obvious.
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.
Again. James did change his mind, but an official FAQ answer would be nice.