|
Negative levels on page 562 of the CRB doesn't explicitly say "you are treated as having fewer hit die" but that is the way it reads. So you would have a CL of 3.
The actual text is
The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.
Being "one level lower" would include having one fewer HD.
Magical Knack is actually increasing your caster level. Gaining a negative level does not actually lower it, you are simply treated as if it were one level lower. So, with 4 actual caster levels and one gained from the trait that puts your normal caster level at 5. When you gain a negative level, you are treated as if it were 1 lower which puts it at 4. If you gained 2 negative levels it would be treated as 3.
I'm with Belafon and Mysterious Stranger with my answer. This isn't really an order of operations issue that works in you favor. Any other decrease to your caster level that doesn't directly impact what level you are considered, this would work in your favor.
|
in my experience GMs apply the negativel levels in the reverse order the actual levels are gained. If you went Rogue, Arganist, Arcanist... they would regress in a reverse order. GMs try to be fair using character history. Many envision it as an incremental experience loss by the character, an unravelling of sorts.
AFAIK RAW doesn't dictate an order, just penalties. The rule could be intrepreted to apply to all (spellcasting) classes for multiclassed characters (like Mystic Theurge that just qualified and gains 2 neg levels) but that would be seen as clearly unfair.
RAW isn't always specifically explicit and the Game relies on a sensible GM to iron out all the rough spots for their group. The GM has to be the adult in the room (usually, LoL).
What?
That was reasonable in earlier editions when negative levels actually removed a level, but in Pathfinder it doesn't touch your character level, it has its specific set of penalties.
Do you have multiple spellcasting classes? It reduces the casting level of each class.
You are a wizard or sorcerer with a BAB of 1/2? You still get a -1 o hit for each negative level, but your BAB doesn't change.
|
|
it's like I said in the specific example case RAW is clearly unfair...
Unfair? Let's compare the two systems.
RAW:
- Every time a single class spellcaster cast a spèell o make a caster level check he counts as 1 level lower.
- Every time a multiple classes spellcaster cast a spèell o make a caster level check he counts as 1 level lower
Your GM system:
- Every time a single class spellcaster cast a spèell o make a caster level check he counts as 1 level lower.
- About half of the time a multiple classes spellcaster cast a spèell o make a caster level check he counts as 1 level lower, the other half he is not penalized.
In one system both characters are equally penalized, in the other, the character with multiple classes is less penalized.
I find your GM system is unfair.
Deigo Rossi is right on this.
Multiclassing in Pathfinder usually results in weaker characters. Other than dipping for a few levels it rarely results in a stronger character. Even prestige classes tend to be less powerful than a single classed character. There are a few exceptions, but in that vast majority of cases multiclassing in Pathfinder is a trap.
As far as multi-classing, an Arcane Trickster build may not be the most optimal, but it works with the party and I'm having fun, and only screwing up the rules occasionally.
Being 'not' optimal is not the same as being 'bad', so don't worry about it. You'll do just fine as an Arcane Trickster. Just focus on touch attack spells that do not allow for spell resistances and pick up a metamagic feat (like Benthic Spell) to deal with any pesky elemental resistances (by turning the damage into physical/bludgeoning). Once you get improved invisibility, your damage output will more than make up for your lower caster level. When you eventually can sneak attack the entire field with a fireball, it'll all be worth it.