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?
This was discussed at length in another thread, even had lots of developer input, but in the end, I'm not entirely convinced a clear answer was given (even the developers involved were second guessing themselves).
Has this been settled since then at all?
They do not lose any prepared spells or spell slots. This is a direct quote from the PRD and core rule book. So a sixth level wizard with fireball memorizes that has three negative levels would still be able to cast fireball... but only for 3d6 damage.
EDIT - Added link to PRD.
They do not lose any prepared spells or spell slots. This is a direct quote from the PRD and core rule book. So a sixth level wizard with fireball memorizes that has three negative levels would still be able to cast fireball... but only for 3d6 damage.
EDIT - Added link to PRD.
Sure they don't lose them, but do they lose access to them? I don't see how they wouldn't be considered a level dependent variables after all.
The language is pretty clear. You do not lose any spells. If there were an exception then it would of said so. Such as you do not forget any spells but you cannot cast them if you are not longer high enough in level.
You do not lose feats, abilities, rage, sneak attack, etc. The reason they spell out that fact you do not lose spells either is due to the fact in older versions of a similar game you DID lose your highest level spell. This is not longer the case.
As I said, the language looks pretty clear to me and does not need clarification.
Heh now that would be OP, enervation 4th level that can strip away your class abilities and feats XD
plus be a nightmare to calc those changes during combat, about on par with mass dispel magics and antimagic fields turning off everyone' myriad of equipment bonuses.
|
As awesome as it would be to let enervation and similar effects take away a caster's strongest spells, they don't. In fact, they pretty much don't interact in any direct way except that negative levels do lower your caster level.
So a 5th-level caster who takes two negative levels can cast a fireball for 3d6 damage.
Negative levels really are nasty enough as they are.
|
|
Sure they don't lose them, but do they lose access to them? I don't see how they wouldn't be considered a level dependent variables after all.
Level dependent variables only exist in the spell. The fact that it states those variables are affected presumes that the spell can be cast in the first place.
Now there's a thought
Magical Knack +2 caster level no higher than your HD
meaning the trait is insurance against 2 negative levels since it'll increase your CL back to you HD ?
Sure they don't lose them, but do they lose access to them? I don't see how they wouldn't be considered a level dependent variables after all.Level dependent variables only exist in the spell. The fact that it states those variables are affected presumes that the spell can be cast in the first place.
But James Jacobs writes:
"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."
As awesome as it would be to let enervation and similar effects take away a caster's strongest spells, they don't. In fact, they pretty much don't interact in any direct way except that negative levels do lower your caster level.
So a 5th-level caster who takes two negative levels can cast a fireball for 3d6 damage.
Negative levels really are nasty enough as they are.
He seems to disagree on spellcasting not being a "level dependent variable."
James went on to say:
"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.
...
And those non casters are suffering more from strength-draining attacks or slow spells or foes that can fly. Being a spellcaster gives you a LOT of advantages. It's only fair that some attacks hit you harder."
I think he makes a fair point here.
Sure they don't lose them, but do they lose access to them? I don't see how they wouldn't be considered a level dependent variables after all.Level dependent variables only exist in the spell. The fact that it states those variables are affected presumes that the spell can be cast in the first place.But James Jacobs writes:
"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.
...
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."
He seems to disagree on spellcasting not being a "level dependent variable."
so if you knew that why ask the question ?
So if you knew that why ask the question ?
Because I don't know.
The thread I pulled those quotes from had a lot of back and forth, eventually becoming locked.
I'm asking if it had ever been settled. Despite my quotes, I believe even James was second-guessing himself by the end of that thread, saying things like:
"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!"
Why do negative levels hurt spellcasters more than other people? The same reason Spell Resistance hurts spellcasters more than other people.
It's not a bug. It's a feature!
Heh now that would be OP, enervation 4th level that can strip away your class abilities and feats XD
plus be a nightmare to calc those changes during combat, about on par with mass dispel magics and antimagic fields turning off everyone' myriad of equipment bonuses.
"I was asked. I gave my interpretation of the rules. It's the interpretation I'll be applying to every single Paizo release unless Jason steps in and tells me that's not how it's supposed to work, in which case I'll task him with including a more clearly-written bit of text for an upcoming errata.
If that doesn't sit well with you, fine. Houserule it. If my interpretation changes, I'm sure this thread will be among the first to hear about it. Certainly not having level drain impact spell access makes for a simpler game, and that's a VERY strong argument for saying that it doesn't hurt a spellcaster's access.
But the simple fact that negative levels DO reduce a character's level-gained benefits argues very strongly for the fact that it should probably impact spellcasting in a similar way.
Anyway, I'm pretty much done commenting here. I've got several behind-schedule lines of products to get out the door. We DO know about the confusion this rule has apparently caused, though, and it'll be addressed in the FAQ if/when we get one written, I hope."
Seems to me he doesn't feel it is overpowered to strip people of their class abilities.
Perhaps it's a lack of imagination, but I don't see why it's hard to understand. It specifically says that it includes spellcasting (caster level) under level-dependent variables. When a spellcaster's Caster Level is no longer the minimum necessary to cast a spell (Magic chapter, Caster Level) he can no longer cast that spell; however, the spell is not lost, merely inaccessible.
As far as the other level-dependent variables, I initially imagine it to be in regard to things like spells which target certain amounts of Hit Dice, or whether or not a Rogue is 4 levels above another character for flanking ...
So yes, maybe it's weird for spellcasting to be included in level-dependent benefits when BAB and Sneak Attack progression aren't, and perhaps that's inconsistent and might deserve revision. But the current rules (to which I know of no revisions) seem to indicate that caster level drops and that some spells may become inaccessible.
Greetings, fellow travellers.
I think the fine line here divides not losing the spells and not being able to cast them while affected by negative levels.
I read the section about negative levels exactly as JJ has presented them:
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."
Undead are nasty, their energy drain is nasty and the negatives to attack, checks and the affect on level-dependent features are there to reflect that.
Considering how comparatively easy it is to get rid of those neg levels substracting single digits from a character's game statistics should not pose that big a problem and are a small price to pay. The same goes for substracting sneak attack dice or the benefits from a feat or two.Ruyan.
I posted quite a bit in the thread you're quoting, RD, and I still disagree with JJ on this. The entire point of the revision of the negative level mechanic in Pathfinder was to remove the necessity of redesigning your character every session.
If "level dependent benefits" refers to all changes made to your character when you level, they include allocation of skill points, hit die rolls, base attack progression, feat selection, and class ability progression.
Since the spirit of the rule was to simplify the process of gaining a negative level (which is wholly different than losing a level) I stick with my interpretation that, for a caster, the negative level means -5 HP from his total, a -1 caster level (meaning spells don't last as long, reach as far, or do as much damage) and a -1 on attack/skill rolls. Those penalties are supposed to replicate and approximate, without any bookwork, the state you would be in a level ago.
I do agree that this needs to be cleared up for the sake of posterity, but having a fundamental grasp of the rules and the philosophy behind the Pathfinder revisions makes me feel I'm on steady ground with my interpretation.
I posted quite a bit in the thread you're quoting, RD, and I still disagree with JJ on this. The entire point of the revision of the negative level mechanic in Pathfinder was to remove the necessity of redesigning your character every session.
If "level dependent benefits" refers to all changes made to your character when you level, they include allocation of skill points, hit die rolls, base attack progression, feat selection, and class ability progression.
Since the spirit of the rule was to simplify the process of gaining a negative level (which is wholly different than losing a level) I stick with my interpretation that, for a caster, the negative level means -5 HP from his total, a -1 caster level (meaning spells don't last as long, reach as far, or do as much damage) and a -1 on attack/skill rolls. Those penalties are supposed to replicate and approximate, without any bookwork, the state you would be in a level ago.
I do agree that this needs to be cleared up for the sake of posterity, but having a fundamental grasp of the rules and the philosophy behind the Pathfinder revisions makes me feel I'm on steady ground with my interpretation.
So you agree with JJ, but follow your own interpretation anyways?
Cause his interpretation included the loss of access to spells in addition to all that you listed.
I tried to start a thread on this too after they closed the other one, it seems that as yet there is no official word on whether or not it works one way or the other...
For myself I will rule that it doesn't prevent the spellcasting angle (as per the last thing JJ said) unless I hear official word otherwise.
JJ was nice enough to give us his thoughts on the subject. He is nice enough to do that, but as he has stated before... they are his thoughts. He does work for Paizo and he is the creative director and does great work. But he is not the main point of reference on the rules. There is no FAQ and the text is very clear in my mind.
So you do not lose the spells. You may feel free to take his advise and run it that way if you want in your home games. JJ puts out a lot of suggestions that are great and make for good house rules. But those are not FAQ's and the rules have not been amended.
Pointing out how the text of the book is not right because of a quote from a post from a Paizo Staff member on the forums is not a good way to get that Paizo person to continue to interact with the community. Until there is a FAQ with a rule comment in the forums by a Jason or Sean who have been identified as the "Rules" folks at Paizo then the comments are just thoughts and suggestions on ways to play an enjoy the game. Not a club to use against the poster or other players IMHO. :)
James - Please note this is not an attack on you or your comments. I like your posts and use many of your thoughts in our games. I would like to continue to see you post in the rules section when you see something worth commenting on. :)
So you agree with JJ, but follow your own interpretation anyways?
Cause his interpretation included the loss of access to spells in addition to all that you listed.
wut? I said I disagree with him. He interpreted level dependent benefits to include feats and spells and sneak attack and such. Since the language on level dependent benefits is thickly enmeshed in a discussion of only spells, I interpret that term meaning things that increase due to caster level of a spell, such as range, duration, and damage.
I agree with YOU that there ought to be a FAQ if only because it has come up before, it is very plain to me.
So you agree with JJ, but follow your own interpretation anyways?
Cause his interpretation included the loss of access to spells in addition to all that you listed.
wut? I said I disagree with him. He interpreted level dependent benefits to include feats and spells and sneak attack and such. Since the language on level dependent benefits is thickly enmeshed in a discussion of only spells, I interpret that term meaning things that increase due to caster level of a spell, such as range, duration, and damage.
I agree with YOU that there ought to be a FAQ if only because it has come up before, it is very plain to me.
Hm, must have misread your post.
Hm, must have misread your post.So you agree with JJ, but follow your own interpretation anyways?
Cause his interpretation included the loss of access to spells in addition to all that you listed.
wut? I said I disagree with him. He interpreted level dependent benefits to include feats and spells and sneak attack and such. Since the language on level dependent benefits is thickly enmeshed in a discussion of only spells, I interpret that term meaning things that increase due to caster level of a spell, such as range, duration, and damage.
I agree with YOU that there ought to be a FAQ if only because it has come up before, it is very plain to me.
Like. Hardcore.
As I was an avid participant in the prior thread, JJ left the discussion convinced that you would not lose spellcasting ability via negative levels, only spellcasting effect (and that was good enough for me). I don't want to rehash that now. Removing spellcasting ability and feats and basically deconstructing characters based on negative levels seems completely against the tenets of the Pathfinder game philosophy.
And it overpowers Enervation to a tremendous degree for a 4th level spell.
As I was an avid participant in the prior thread, JJ left the discussion convinced that you would not lose spellcasting ability via negative levels, only spellcasting effect (and that was good enough for me). I don't want to rehash that now. Removing spellcasting ability and feats and basically deconstructing characters based on negative levels seems completely against the tenets of the Pathfinder game philosophy.
And it overpowers Enervation to a tremendous degree for a 4th level spell.
Right. At that point, for a spell that only lasts minutes, to make you de-level your character then re-level? Rename the spell Hassle.
I completely agree with the above posters, and rule it in my games in the straightforward no hassle way :)