| 15 people marked this as FAQ candidate. |
I thought I knew how negative levels worked until I wanted to explain it to a player, but the more I searched for a conclusive answer the more confused I got. I've spent the past 20 minutes searching the Rules Questions forum for a clear reply and I'm stomped.
Negative Levels read as follows:
(...)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.Then, in the CRB...
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.
How do these two rules interact? Since you treat your level as lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables, does this mean you're limited to what spells your reduced caster level can cast? On a broader scale, do all your class features that scale based on level change as well? What is a 'level-dependent variable', when you get down to it?
Not sure if I explained that very well, let's try some examples:
Sam the level 10 Elemental Bloodline (Cold) sorcerer fails a save v a bodak's gaze attack and gains 4 temporary negative levels, reducing his caster level to 6. Can he cast Cone of Cold? Is the Elemental Resistance gained from his Bloodline now 10 or 20? Can he still use Elemental Blast, his 9th level sorcerer ability?
Randy the level 4 ranger (CL 1) is level drained 1 level by a wight. Can he cast Entangle? Can he use a scroll of Cure Light Wounds without needing to make a UMD check?
Kenny the level 4 magus Kensai has 18 INT. He takes two negative levels. What's his dodge bonus from Canny Defense?
Benny the 3rd level barbarian has 18 constitution, netting him 12 rage rounds each day. How many rage rounds does he have if he suffers two negative levels?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a level 20 wizard had 19 negative levels, he could still cast polar ray. However he only casts it as a 1st level caster, which means the spell only does 1d6 damage.
Not entirely sure on the elemental resistance question, but I'm inclined to say it would be only 10.
Yes he can still use his 9th level ability. Negative levels do not remove abilities, they only make them weaker as designated by level.
Yes the ranger can still cast and is still a spellcaster.
Canny defense is level dependent, so he would only have a dodge bonus of 2.
The barbarian would lose rage rounds since the gain of them is level dependent. He would have 8 rage rounds per day.
tl;dr: In my personal opinion, try not to use negative levels. Players hate them, they're very complicated, and it's time consuming to calculate all the changes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If a level 20 wizard had 19 negative levels, he could still cast polar ray. However he only casts it as a 1st level caster, which means the spell only does 1d6 damage.
It's not that I doubt your word, but I can't get that to add up with the rules section I quoted above. Can you walk me through how Sam can still cast Cone of Cold despite not having a high enough effective caster level to use the spell?
Not entirely sure on the elemental resistance question, but I'm inclined to say it would be only 10.
Fair enough. :)
Negative levels reduce the level used to determine variable effects. They do not reduce the level used to determine spells per day... note that it says, "Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels."
I see your point, but note that I'm not arguing that Sam the Sorcerer actually loses his 5th level spell slots. Instead I wonder if he might be unable to use them - akin to a spellcaster who's affected by Touch of Idiocy and is temporarily unable to cast spells he'd normally be able to because of his reduced casting stat.
Yes he can still use his 9th level ability. Negative levels do not remove abilities, they only make them weaker as designated by level.
Level based abilities are similar... you keep all the abilities for your actual level, but their effects are reduced as if your level were lower. (...)but the table of abilities at each level, feats by level, ability bonuses by level, et cetera are all unchanged.
These replies puzzle me, since you both seem very confident. How do you distinguish between what's a level-dependent variable and what is not? Why does Sam lose Cold Resistance but retain the use of Elemental Blast? It seems to me that both class features are variables based on Sam's sorcerer level. Why is one affected but the other one is not?
tl;dr: In my personal opinion, try not to use negative levels. Players hate them, they're very complicated, and it's time consuming to calculate all the changes.
This is good advice and I tend to agree with you, but that's also a really good reason to potentially revisit the negative level system and look for ways to make it more intuitive.
And don't forget that neg levels reduce your hit points by one HD per neg level too.
True, but the other penalties and the HP reduction are easy to parse. It's the level variable text that's tripping me up. :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels do not actually lower your caster level. It only makes level-dependent variables lowered. The ability to cast high level spells is not a variable.
Me and CBDunkerson are in agreement. I'm not sure where the confusion is coming from. If you gain an ability at level 9, and then you lose enough levels to be considered under level 9, you still have that ability granted at level 9. It's just that the level dependent variables are changed.
Yes, I agree. Negative levels should be made much simpler. I simply don't use them whenever I'm DMing, despite actually understanding how they work.
Negative levels do not actually lower your caster level. It only makes level-dependent variables lowered. The ability to cast high level spells is not a variable.
Why wouldn't a negative level reduce your caster level when a caster level is clearly a level-dependent variable...?
If you gain an ability at level 9, and then you lose enough levels to be considered under level 9, you still have that ability granted at level 9. It's just that the level dependent variables are changed.
But if you only get access to a class feature at level 9, wouldn't that class feature then be a level-dependent variable...?
This was my problem when I was trying to explain it to my player. I thought it worked exactly the way you and CBD think it does until I sat down to explain it to one of my players, and then tried to figure out what is and is not a level-dependent variable. Near as I can tell, it's not defined anywhere. Basically every class feature a character gains can be argued to be a level-dependent variable, which means it may or may not be affected by negative levels.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me rephrase: It does not lower your ability to cast higher level spells. The ability to cast higher level spells is granted separately from a caster level increase.
Because gaining an ability at level 9 is not a variable. Having an ability that scales with level (such as sneak attack or channel) is a variable. The strength of the ability would go down, but you cannot take away the actual ability.
Negative levels never remove your ability to do something. They simply make you worse at doing it.
Let me rephrase: It does not lower your ability to cast higher level spells. The ability to cast higher level spells is granted separately from a caster level increase.
Right, but you still need to meet the minimum caster level requirement to cast that spell, just like how Sam might have access to 5th level spell slots but he'd only be able to cast a 5th level spell if he had at least 15 charisma. Gaining 5th level spell slots or being able to prepare 5th level spells does not automatically equal the ability to cast 5th level spells, you still need to meet the prerequisites. From what I can tell, a penalty to caster level means you'd potentially be unable to qualify for the caster level prerequisite to cast a spell just like how hit by a Touch of Idiocy might mean Sam's charisma is too low to cast Cone of Cold.
Because gaining an ability at level 9 is not a variable. Having an ability that scales with level (such as sneak attack or channel) is a variable. The strength of the ability would go down, but you cannot take away the actual ability.
Isn't the presence or absence of a class feature based on what your level is a level-based variable? If Sam's level is 9 or higher, Sam has Cold Resistance. If Sam's level is 8 or lower, Sam does not have Cold Resistance. How is that not a level-dependent variable? I have no idea why a 5th level fighter's Weapon Training is unchanged, but a 5th level Ranger's primary Favored Enemy bonus is scaled down or why his secondary Favored Enemy bonus potentially even disappears? The presence or absence of those bonuses are clearly both level-dependent variables.
Negative levels never remove your ability to do something. They simply make you worse at doing it.
With respect, typing in caps or in bold does not make your argument more convincing. It just makes it louder.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Using bold text is a way to call attention to a key part. Capslock... That I try not to do very often. MAYBE a single word for emphasis, but even that I dislike doing much. I'd much rather use italics for such emphasis. It's easier on the eyes, yet calls attention to the word just as easily.
There is no caster level requirement to cast a certain level of spell. That correlation does not exist. The ability to cast higher level spells is granted by your class at each level. That is not a variable.
No, not it is not. They are level dependent. They are not level dependent variables. There is a significant difference. Please try to understand what the definition of variable is.
I was not typing in bold to make it more convincing, I was typing in bold for emphasis.
But I can see now that you are not here with an honest question, you are here trying to find people to agree with your side, which is actively seeking out confirmation bias. I have told you what myself and RAW says about negative levels. Have fun gaming.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hero lab is great for factoring in neg levels, but paper... not so easy. And don't forget that neg levels reduce your hit points by one HD per neg level too.
Quick point here -- negative levels don't affect your hit points quite like that.
. . . In addition, the creature reduces its current and total hit points by 5 for each negative level it possesses.
|
|
Which when using the "average HP per level" rule is typically 1 HD worth of hit points. Sure you keep your con bonus, and any from Toughness. But that may just mean you died with a few hit points still :)
Really, even a barbarian is getting only 6 or 7 HP per level using average HP per additional level (plus con and possibly favored class bonus) So 5 HP per neg level is almost an entire HD here too.
Hell, for a caster that may be MORE then they got per level.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which when using the "average HP per level" rule is typically 1 HD worth of hit points. Sure you keep your con bonus, and any from Toughness. But that may just mean you died with a few hit points still :)
Really, even a barbarian is getting only 6 or 7 HP per level using average HP per additional level (plus con and possibly favored class bonus) So 5 HP per neg level is almost an entire HD here too.
Hell, for a caster that may be MORE then they got per level.
That was my point, really.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is no caster level requirement to cast a certain level of spell. That correlation does not exist.
Er... There is absolutely a minimum caster level requirement to cast a certain level of spell. It's referenced extensively, in the Magic chapter and in the magic item chapter for starters.
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.
Table: Wands gives sample prices for wands created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class.
Table: Potions gives sample prices for potions created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class.
Table: Scrolls gives sample prices for scrolls created at the lowest possible caster level for each spellcasting class.
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.
Finally, consider this FAQ:
However, it makes sense that the minimum caster level of the pearl is the minimum caster level necessary to cast spells of that level--it would be strange for a 2nd-level pearl to be CL 1st.
For example, a 3rd-level wizard with Craft Wondrous Item can create a 1st-level pearl, with a minimum caster level of 1. He can set the caster level to whatever he wants (assuming he can meet the crafting DC), though the pearl's caster level has no effect on its powers (other than its ability to resist dispel magic). If he wants to make a 2nd-level pearl, the caster level has to be at least 3, as wizards can't cast 2nd-level spells until they reach character level 3. He can even try to make a 3rd-level pearl, though the minimum caster level is 5, and he adds +5 to the DC because he doesn't meet the "able to cast 3rd-level spells" requirement.
Again, there is absolutely a minimum caster level required to cast a spell. It's generally found to be the minimum level you'd need to be in order to qualify to cast the spell from your spell list. Let's say Sam the Sorcerer is not level drained, so he's level 10. He'd be able to cast Scorching Ray at CL 10 (gaining two rays) or CL 5 (only getting 1 ray) but not CL 11 (he doesn't have a high enough CL) and not 3 (the minimum CL for Scorching Ray is 4 for a sorcerer). What I'm asking is what happens when a character has the prerequisite spell slots/spells prepared, but is unable to qualify for the minimum caster level requirement?
They are level dependent. They are not level dependent variables. There is a significant difference. Please try to understand what the definition of variable is.
It could well be this is part of the problem, English is my second language. Here's the definition I've been working with: A variable (n) is something that may or may not vary or change; a variable feature or factor. Isn't the presence or absence of a class feature based on the level of a character a level-based variable?
But I can see now that you are not here with an honest question, you are here trying to find people to agree with your side, which is actively seeking out confirmation bias. I have told you what myself and RAW says about negative levels. Have fun gaming.
I have no idea where you're getting this from, I'm certainly not seeking confirmation bias. So far you've been giving me your opinion. It's even an opinion I agreed with until very recently when a player asked me some questions that I was unable to find answers for in the rules text. I'm looking to have someone help me find the rules text that clarifies how minimum caster level and negative level CL penalties interact, and what is and isn't a level-based variable in a more general sense. So far you've been doing neither. What you have been doing is presenting me with your opinion, and then getting flustered when I ask you to explain what rules sections you're basing it on. While I certainly respect your right to have one, simply repeating your opinion is not helping.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels are an exception to the general rule. Specific>general.
Isn't the presence or absence of a class feature based on the level of a character a level-based variable?
No.
I am neither expressing an opinion nor getting flustered. I have explained RAW and you rejected it despite actually agreeing with it. Your player is wrong.
All of the relevant rules to my position (which is RAW, not an opinion) have already been quoted by you, so I see no reason to quote them again. You were interpreting them correctly before this player confused you. Stick with your original interpretation.
But, quoted again for your reference.
Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels.
I don't know how I could make it any more obvious.
Also remember. Gaining negative levels is not equivalent to losing levels. There is a major difference between a level 10 character with 5 negative levels and a level 5 character.
Negative levels are an exception to the general rule. Specific>general.
I'm aware of the Specific>General policy, but I don't see how Negative Levels contradict the general rule that spells need to be cast at their minimum caster level or higher.
Isn't the presence or absence of a class feature based on the level of a character a level-based variable?No.
Why not?
I am neither expressing an opinion nor getting flustered.
Great! Glad to hear it. :)
Edit: Ah, just saw your second post.
But, quoted again for your reference.
Spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels.I don't know how I could make it any more obvious.
Not losing a spell slot or a prepared spell is not the same as being unable to use it. Think of it like having money in your bank account but being unable to spend it because you forgot your PIN code. See Touch of Idiocy for another example of a situation where a caster is unable to use a spell because he does not qualify to cast it, despite having it prepared.
Why not?
I have already explained this in my previous posts.
Touch of idiocy is different from negative levels. It uses different rules. The only reason you are unable to cast from touch of idiocy is because of the lowered mental scores. A completely different example that has no relevance.
Why not?I have already explained this in my previous posts.
Touch of idiocy is different from negative levels. It uses different rules. The only reason you are unable to cast from touch of idiocy is because of the lowered mental scores. A completely different example that has no relevance.
You don't see the relevance? Okay, let me explain my reasoning. :)
Touch of Idiocy affects your casting stat, which means you're potentially unable to cast a spell because you no longer meet the minimum ability score prerequisite to cast the spell.
Negative Levels affect your caster level, which means you're potentially unable to cast a spell because you no longer meet the minimum caster level prerequisite to cast the spell.
Do you see the similarity now?
No. Having a lowered mental stat is entirely different from having negative levels. The two are entirely unrelated.
Also, this is not a new question. Try searching previous threads before making a new one.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, I disagree with CampinCarl9127.
First, I don't think there's good evidence that any ability that scales with level counts as a level-dependent variable except the ability to cast higher level spells. The text says you are "treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting)," not "such as caster level," which makes broader penalties to spellcasting plausible, even if your spell slots are specifically not touched.
Second, it's horribly unfair.
Many spells are either completely unaffected by caster level (eg Time Stop, Bestow Curse) or minimally affected (minute/level buffs like Shield often are effectively "one combat" buffs). DCs don't care about caster level, just spell level and casting stat. Depending on spell choice, a wizard or sorcerer could be at full or nearly full magical power even after taking multiple negative levels.
A magus, however, is going to have a heck of a time when every negative level strips damage from their bread-and-butter attack spells and reduces both the number of points in their arcane pool and the effect of each point for things like enhancing weapons. And they're much more affected by taking a -1 attack penalty per level when they're not even full BAB.
Similarly, the attack reduction and loss of sneak attack devastates the rogue; paladins suffer from greatly reduced smite damage and lay on hands uses/potency; and the monk is super duper hosed since you lose unarmed strike damage, AC bonus, and fast movement, not to mention the damage to features like Stunning Fist.
So basically, with this interpretation negative levels are terrible for everyone except for buffer/debuffer full casters (eg the God Wizard), the group that least needs its power level protected.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Also, this is not a new question. Try searching previous threads before making a new one.
If you read my original post more closely you'd see I actually spent 20 minutes searching different threads and found no conclusive answers before I posted, asking first Mark for an unofficial answer and then posting here because I think it's a question that would benefit from a FAQ. A particularly memorable thread (and near as I can tell the only staff posts on the subject) was when James Jacobs first argued that the spellcaster would be unable to cast his highest level spells, then sort of changed his mind and suggested they should change it, then James Bulmahn posted, pointed out that apparently everyone in the thread was wrong and locked the thread without actually answering the question. Bonus points since JJ also states that rogues shouldn't lose sneak attack damage progression, which I believe you previously asserted that they do.
Since then there's been a new thread asking the question every couple of months that argues the question back and forth without ever really reaching any kind of conclusion.
Clearly there's confusion on this topic. It'd be nice if it was cleared up, ideally with a FAQ outlining exactly what is and is not affected by Negative levels. If we get a cheat sheet then maybe GMs like yourselves would be more inclined to use that rules section!
I would agree with that. Either way I think it's ambiguous enough that an official response would be nice. I have FAQd the original post.
For all the good it will do (we hardly ever get official responses anymore).
The rules aren't really explicit on what you should consider level-dependent variables. I would definitely consider caster level to be a level-dependent variable, and as you've brought up, you need to meet a minimum caster level to cast certain spells. If you're going to reduce the damage on evocation spells (which scales with caster level), it seems to follow that the caster level is being reduced (otherwise you'd be dealing full damage).
Touch of Idiocy is not a good comparison, mostly because it relies on express rules text in the spell to prevent casting. (Ability damage/penalty/drain is a mess in RAW.)
I would agree with that. Either way I think it's ambiguous enough that an official response would be nice. I have FAQd the original post.
Thank you. :)
For all the good it will do (we hardly ever get official responses anymore).
The team's been pretty busy lately but I'm holding out hope. The FAQ frequency picked up noticeably with Mark taking the brunt of work. :)
|
|
Yes, I agree that there is confusion on this topic and hit FAQ.
I personally favour a more minimal interpretation of "level dependent variables" which includes caster level, special ability DCs, and Smite damage, but not ability to cast higher-level spells, sneak attack die, monk unarmed damage, etc. Still probably going to affect people unevenly but a little less painfully skewed than as described above.
I didn't realize there was this much variation in how people interpret this!
Originally I ruled that class features were basically left alone. I'd penalize the attack/save/skill/ability rolls, the HP penalty Daniel mentioned as well as CL/Concentration/Spell Penetration checks, but leave max level spells, sneak attack/smite/bloodline powers etc. alone. Forcing people to recalculate sneak attack dice, weapon training bonuses or how many rage rounds they have left would be a massive pain in the ass for essentially no gain and something I had hoped to leave behind in 3.5. In that regard I completely agree with JJ that Negative Levels should be as easy as possible to use, not a chore where you have to tear down and then rebuild your character.
However, when my player challenged me to explain what things are and are not affected (several people at the table interpreted the rules differently) I really didn't have a good rules answer, and the more I dug into the rules the more frustrated I got. "That seems about right" is fine to say mid-session, but kind of flimsy as a foundation for a rules subsection that's used fairly frequently.
Touch of Idiocy is not a good comparison, mostly because it relies on express rules text in the spell to prevent casting. (Ability damage/penalty/drain is a mess in RAW.)
This is a very good point, and one I had not considered. :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Looks like sneak attack damage isn't affected by neg levels, but I could be wrong about that. To my knowledge what is affected is the following: Effective caster level for spell effects (not if you can cast the spell), BAB, Saves, HP, and you are that much closer to dying and coming back as a wraith, vampire, shadow, or whatever undead is draining your levels :)
I retract my original position. After talking with a local friend who is more experienced than I, I have a better understanding now.
I'm about 99% sure negative levels effect sneak attack die.
|
Contributor
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In case it hasn't been mentioned, the Wounds and Thresholds system from Pathfinder Unchained has some potentially relevant text as well.
The penalty to caster level from the grazed, wounded, or critical condition can make it so an injured spellcaster is unable to cast the highest levels of spells she would normally be able to. However, it doesn’t cause her to lose any prepared spells or spell slots. The penalty to caster level also reduces her bonus on concentration checks and lowers the range, duration, and effectiveness of her spells. The penalty can’t make her effective caster level lower than 1.
As it appears in a sidebar, it appears to be reminder text rather than additional rules text.
Hopefully this is useful to the discussion. ^_^
|
|
The HP loss and penalties to rolls are to account for the lower effective level. You don't lose a hit die worth of HP and an extra 5 HP. You just lose 5 HP. Your BAB doesn't go down by one level and you get a -1 to bab, you just get the -1 to BAB. Same for saves, you still only get the -2 (I think) to saves. It's things like sneak attack, highest spell able to be cast, and class abilities you got at X level that are a little fuzzy to me.
Yes, I retracted my original interpretation after some further reading.
|
|
Yet there's other abilities that may be iffy. Say I'm playing a level 11 kineticist. If I get a neg level, do I still keep the level 11 form of Elemental Overflow or does it drop down the next highest version? Do I lose access to utility and infusion wild talents if I take too many neg levels? Does the damage of my kinetic blasts go down or just the caster level of them? If neg levels drop me below level 7 (even temporarily) do I lose my expanded element? If neg levels drop me below level 8 do i lose my expanded elemental defense? Can I still use greater flame jet if neg levels drop me below effective level 6?
You get the idea.
Or an alchemist, why would neg levels prevent them from using an extract? After all, once it's mixed you just drink the extract to get the effect.
Negative levels are the debuhl! I personally don't care what the rules about them say, 1 negative level = -1 to hit/damage(including spells), saves, your con mod in HP, and CMD/CMB. You get as many as your character level and you die. I try to avoid using them, but I also like using undead things. Negative levels suck in every way, so I simplify. Other people I play with use this rule too when DMing.
Not that this will help with PFS, but I didn't see that anywhere in the topic, so my 2c.
Oh I forgot, nauseated when you first get one.
So!
Negative levels, caster level, spell level, and how they interact!
First, the relevant text, quoted per the OP:
(...)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.
(Linked)
- and -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.
(Linked)
Now, to the question:
How do these two rules interact? Since you treat your level as lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables, does this mean you're limited to what spells your reduced caster level can cast? On a broader scale, do all your class features that scale based on level change as well? What is a 'level-dependent variable', when you get down to it?
The short version is that, though I really like the thought process behind some of the other answers, I think CampinCarl's original answer (though lacking some explanation) is correct, and I'll explain why, shortly.
Not sure if I explained that very well, let's try some examples:
Let's do it!
Sam the level 10 Elemental Bloodline (Cold) sorcerer fails a save v a bodak's gaze attack and gains 4 temporary negative levels, reducing his caster level to 6. Can he cast Cone of Cold? Is the Elemental Resistance gained from his Bloodline now 10 or 20? Can he still use Elemental Blast, his 9th level sorcerer ability?
He takes a -4 penalty on all ability checks, attack rolls, combat maneuver checks, Combat Maneuver Defense, saving throws, and skill checks; reduces its current and total hit points by 20; and is treated as four level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.
Since spellcasters do not lose any prepared spells or slots as a result of negative levels, it still has those abilities, as noted by the text of the energy drain.
Randy the level 4 ranger (CL 1) is level drained 1 level by a wight. Can he cast Entangle? Can he use a scroll of Cure Light Wounds without needing to make a UMD check?
Yes, he can... but it ceases functioning. Not because he doesn't have the ability, but because it has a 0-minute duration (a 1-minute for each level * 0 is a 0-minute duration).
Kenny the level 4 magus Kensai has 18 INT. He takes two negative levels. What's his dodge bonus from Canny Defense?
Well, it would be 0, as-written, if we take RAW as absolute instead of suggestive... but that's because the Canny Defense under the Magus is poorly written, referring to a class ability that explicitly relies on levels in that class. In other words, because it says "identical to" and the original says "per Duelist class level"...
... but let's just pretend that it works, because it's pretty obvious what it means, and literally does nothing otherwise*.
Which would mean that the effect is 2. It is directly tied to class level.
* This feeds into my point, later.
Benny the 3rd level barbarian has 18 constitution, netting him 12 rage rounds each day. How many rage rounds does he have if he suffers two negative levels?
Looking at rage.
For me, it's just interpretation, but I would not call this a "level-dependent variable" because it's not a "variable" in any sort of equation. It is simply a number that is otherwise constant. While "variable" is, sadly, not defined in the terminology, under Google's definition, it can be read either to include everything - meaning that BAB, saves, and similar baseline "traits" of a character are reduced in addition to the penalty applied by the negative levels - or it's not a level-dependent variable, because it is a statistic that is as influenced as access to higher level spell slots, base attack, and base saves. In other words, while it is dependent on level, it is not a variable in game terms that must be calculated each time - once you have achieved "this many per day" it remains "this many per day" whether or not you supposedly "count" as the level in question anymore.
Otherwise, negative levels not only do not do what we think they do, they ruin everyone - everyone takes almost twice the penalty that they are indicated to take - and while some would like that, it would not be ruinous to martials but not to spellcasters.
Thus, in this case, I would posit that it must be taken from the same view as a Kensai's Canny Dodge ability - the RAW, when parsed absolutely, literally does nothing (or doesn't do what it is obviously trying to do), and thus must be taken by general implication by the rules.
So how does that tie into the ability to cast spells of certain levels with effective lower caster levels?
Because otherwise the ability to retain those higher slots is useless, and does not bear mentioning. If the ability to cast a spell was lost... you would lose the ability to cast the spell of that level. Thus the rule would lose all meaning in context of the game.
And while there are useless rules, this one actually has precedent. I've been talking - a lot - about creatures with caster levels that don't match up to their spell levels. This is mostly in the SLA-based creatures, like efreeti and hag covens. But, clearly, within the rules there are times when a spell-effect of a given level can be produced without meeting the "caster level prerequisites" thereof.
But how to reconcile the initial apparent conflict? Rather simply, I feel.
You can cast a spell at a lower caster level than normal, but the caster level you choose
That, right there. That bold part. "The caster level you choose" - what is clarified, here, is the option in casting lower than normal, rather than an outside effect acting upon you.
And, frankly, I can attest to something similar in real life.
Obviously, there are no negative levels, per se, in real life... but I've been enervated (in the real sense) in the past, and found myself capable of accomplishing things, but more weakly... and, interestingly, unable to accomplish some of those same things with as little strength when I'm at my normal capacity. Effectively, when so-weakened, I've found myself needing work "harder" to accomplish what I normally do, and am "weaker" at accomplishing those things, but when I'm at normal capacity, I can't artificially weaken myself to the same level... I either use a range of more "normal" strength or fail to accomplish the task at hand, despite being able to do so when weakened.
This, then, applies well enough to all arguments - when you're doing things healthily, there is a threshold that must normally be reached - but when you're dropped, there is an effort that you can put in to accomplish something more feebly than normally possible.
It also fits with SLAs having lower CLs, compared to the spell-levels themselves, and is generally consistent with creatures keeping their spell slots despite the lower caster levels, similar to allowing the Kensai ability to function, despite the technical wording.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Another real world example... I've had to go to work after being up 80 hours before. Yeah, it was my own fault I'd been up that long. But that's besides the point. The point is you could consider it a form of real world enervation, or temp neg level. I was able to do everything I normally do. But there were issues.
I preformed my duties at work to the same quality, it just took far longer to do it then normal. I still knew everything I normally do, but was not able to use that knowledge as effectively. Not to mention it could take me a bit to work through a problem. My spacial awareness was also down, causing me to miss details I normally wouldn't. You know, such as being startled that someone's in front of me talking even though I saw them approach. This could correlate to a wizard or sorcerer being able to cast a spell, but not do so as powerful as they normally can. Reduced speed (class bonus to movement speed being reduced?), temp loss of skill ranks, and so forth too.
But no actual skill, knowledge, or capability was gone. I just couldn't use it as well.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels never remove your ability to do something. They simply make you worse at doing it.With respect, typing in caps or in bold does not make your argument more convincing. It just makes it louder.
You missed the perfect opportunity to say:
"That's a bold statement, CampinCarl."
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Negative levels never remove your ability to do something. They simply make you worse at doing it.With respect, typing in caps or in bold does not make your argument more convincing. It just makes it louder.You missed the perfect opportunity to say:
"That's a bold statement, CampinCarl."
I must play too much munchkin.
Any other disputes should be settled by loud arguments...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would agree with that. Either way I think it's ambiguous enough that an official response would be nice. I have FAQd the original post.Thank you. :)
For all the good it will do (we hardly ever get official responses anymore).The team's been pretty busy lately but I'm holding out hope. The FAQ frequency picked up noticeably with Mark taking the brunt of work. :)
It's not even a matter of our busy-ness at this point. A tech glitch caused during the rollout of the anti-spammer measures has clobbered the FAQ queue. Until that is resolved (which sits in a very different place in the company than the PDT), for now we can't actually find threads with FAQ requests in any way except haphazardly stumbling upon them while browsing the forums.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not even a matter of our busy-ness at this point. A tech glitch caused during the rollout of the anti-spammer measures has clobbered the FAQ queue. Until that is resolved (which sits in a very different place in the company than the PDT), for now we can't actually find threads with FAQ requests in any way except haphazardly stumbling upon them while browsing the forums.I would agree with that. Either way I think it's ambiguous enough that an official response would be nice. I have FAQd the original post.Thank you. :)
For all the good it will do (we hardly ever get official responses anymore).The team's been pretty busy lately but I'm holding out hope. The FAQ frequency picked up noticeably with Mark taking the brunt of work. :)
In that case, any chance you could mention to the PDT that you haphazardly stumbled into this one? I really think hammering down exactly what negative levels do and don't affect might mean more GMs stop avoiding creatures and spells that rely on those mechanics. :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
In that case, any chance you could mention to the PDT that you haphazardly stumbled into this one? I really think hammering down exactly what negative levels do and don't affect might mean more GMs stop avoiding creatures and spells that rely on those mechanics. :)It's not even a matter of our busy-ness at this point. A tech glitch caused during the rollout of the anti-spammer measures has clobbered the FAQ queue. Until that is resolved (which sits in a very different place in the company than the PDT), for now we can't actually find threads with FAQ requests in any way except haphazardly stumbling upon them while browsing the forums.I would agree with that. Either way I think it's ambiguous enough that an official response would be nice. I have FAQd the original post.Thank you. :)
For all the good it will do (we hardly ever get official responses anymore).The team's been pretty busy lately but I'm holding out hope. The FAQ frequency picked up noticeably with Mark taking the brunt of work. :)
I did haphazardly stumble in here, but even so it isn't at the top of my haphazard stumble queue yet with its small number of FAQ clicks. I actually do have a thread on my haphazard stumble queue that seems FAQable enough that I might be able to get us to look at it without the real queue being fixed, but I won't mention which one yet so as not to create false expectations / jinx it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I did haphazardly stumble in here, but even so it isn't at the top of my haphazard stumble queue yet with its small number of FAQ clicks. I actually do have a thread on my haphazard stumble queue that seems FAQable enough that I might be able to get us to look at it without the real queue being fixed, but I won't mention which one yet so as not to create false expectations / jinx it.
Yeah, I suspect a lot of people flee in terror rather than hit the FAQ tag when they read 'negative level' in the thread title. :-/
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I did haphazardly stumble in here, but even so it isn't at the top of my haphazard stumble queue yet with its small number of FAQ clicks. I actually do have a thread on my haphazard stumble queue that seems FAQable enough that I might be able to get us to look at it without the real queue being fixed, but I won't mention which one yet so as not to create false expectations / jinx it.Yeah, I suspect a lot of people flee in terror rather than hit the FAQ tag when they read 'negative level' in the thread title. :-/
It has negative implications...
Another real world example... I've had to go to work after being up 80 hours before. Yeah, it was my own fault I'd been up that long. But that's besides the point. The point is you could consider it a form of real world enervation, or temp neg level. I was able to do everything I normally do. But there were issues.
I preformed my duties at work to the same quality, it just took far longer to do it then normal. I still knew everything I normally do, but was not able to use that knowledge as effectively. Not to mention it could take me a bit to work through a problem. My spacial awareness was also down, causing me to miss details I normally wouldn't. You know, such as being startled that someone's in front of me talking even though I saw them approach. This could correlate to a wizard or sorcerer being able to cast a spell, but not do so as powerful as they normally can. Reduced speed (class bonus to movement speed being reduced?), temp loss of skill ranks, and so forth too.
But no actual skill, knowledge, or capability was gone. I just couldn't use it as well.
Those same facts can also be argued the other way, however. Lack of awareness and missing details seems like it'd be quite important in spellcasting, where you are performing very complicated verbal incantations and somatic maneuvers. Presumably higher level spells have additional complexity in these incantations and maneuvers over lower level spells, which in turns requires you to be much more alert and in tune with what you're doing in addition to all of the time you had to practice. Muscle memory when typing on a keyboard only gets you so far if your hands aren't resting on the home row but you're too tired to notice that. I'd expect similar behavior with respect to casting spells.
Even though some may argue it's not strictly rules text due to appearing in a sidebar, the sidebar Kalindlara pointed out in Unchained seems like it shines the most light on this situation, as it implies that having a lower CL due to penalties makes you lose out on the ability to cast higher level spells. The spells and spell slots themselves are not lost, however, as if you get rid of those CL penalties the same day you would conceivably be alert enough to cast them again. It only affects your ability to do work, not your memory and knowledge.
Another sidebar in Unchained further reinforces that interpretation, where it says
Lowering Your Caster Level
A spellcaster user esoteric material components can voluntarily cast a spell as though she had a lower caster level. ... She can't lower her caster level to be lower than the level at which she could cast the spell.
In terms of actual rules text, the CRB has this to offer:
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.
This is actual rules text in the CRB as well as two sidebars in Unchained reinforcing that you need a minimum CL in order to cast a spell. It can logically be reasoned that said minimum CL is the CL at which you'd gain access to a spell of that level. So, in general, if your CL is lower then that minimum you cannot cast the spell.
It was stated above that specific trumps general, but I do not see any instance where the rules on negative levels contradict what was written above. Indeed, I see a subtle reinforcement that what is written above is meant to also be how it interacts with negative levels.
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.
Spellcasting is specifically called out as impacted by negative levels. While it does say you don't lose the spells or spell slots themselves, it does not say that you retain the ability to cast those spells. In fact, it insinuates the opposite.
How is spellcasting impacted? Well, it treats the spellcaster as one level lower. Normally, this would mean you look up your current level on your class table, go up by one, and apply whatever it says there. Normally, this would cause you to lose spell slots, which is why the CRB lists it as a specific exception that no spell slots are lost and nor are any prepared spells filling those slots. Due to the note about spell slots being the same (which would not be needed if CL was not impacted as in that case it'd automatically stay the same), it follows that your CL is also lowered because of negative levels. From CL being lowered, and due to lack of any specifics overruling the previous rule in the CRB about CL, it follows that you lose access to cast spell levels higher than your current CL allows until such a point where you can restore those negative levels or otherwise boost your CL.