Do negative levels reduce caster level?

[Thanee]

The question basically boils down to this part here:

–1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).

And this:

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.

Is this already a calculation?

Or would the reduction only affect values, where the caster level is used in turn, like...

Telekinesis
...
Range: Long (400 ft. + 40 ft./level)
Duration: Concentration (up to 1 round/level) or instantaneous; see text
...
Resolve these attempts as normal, except that they don’t provoke attacks of opportunity, you use your caster level in place of your base attack bonus (for disarm and grapple), you use your Intelligence modifier (if a wizard) or Charisma modifier (if a sorcerer) in place of your Strength or Dexterity modifier, and a failed attempt doesn’t allow a reactive attempt by the target (such as for disarm or trip). No save is allowed against these attempts, but spell resistance applies normally. This version of the spell can last 1 round per caster level, but it ends if you cease concentration.

So, is the caster level itself reduced and then used here to calculate a result, or is the caster level not reduced but the result here instead?

Bye
Thanee

 

[TheGogmagog]

If a 20th level caster gets drained to 10th level... they lose 10 levels of the highest spells. Assuming a fresh sorcerer, that's all but two of his 8th level slots and 9th level spells.

Are you proposing that this 10th level caster can't cast anything higher than 5th level spells?

 

[diaglo]

Are you proposing that this 10th level caster can't cast anything higher than 5th level spells?

that sounds about right.

 

[Thanee]

Are you proposing that this 10th level caster can't cast anything higher than 5th level spells?

That would be the consequence, if the negative levels would directly reduce caster level, yes.

I'm not really proposing it, tho, I'm asking about opinions, what would or should be right.

I'm more leaning towards the second option, that is not reducing caster level itself, now.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Dr_Rictus]

Can anybody actually produce a calculation that would imply this? As far as I know, the reason why (for example) you need to be a 9th-level wizard to cast 5th level spells is simply that that's the point on the chart where you first get 5th-level spell slots.

A table lookup is (to me, pretty clearly) not a "calculation," and the rule for negative levels already includes a clause for what spell slots you lose.

 

[Thanee]

Like this?

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.

Bye
Thanee

 

[dcollins]

I would: (a) reduce caster level, (b) delete 1 spell per negative level. I would not re-compute maximum spell level known for effective level.

Similarly, I would not re-compute BAB or saves, etc; the negative level rule has all the penalties you need to apply.

 

[irdeggman]

A 20th level wizard (non-specialist) with a 20 Int gets the following spells per day:
20th level

9th level – 4
8th level – 4
7th level – 4
6th level – 4
5th level – 5
4th level – 5
3rd level – 5
2nd level – 5
1st level – 6
0th level – 4

So if a 20th level wizard gains 10 negative levels the results are:

CL – 10 = 20 –10 (-1 CL per negative level) {For all variables that involve die rolls or calculations}

Spells: (-1 one of highest level slot known per negative level) – loses the 10 highest level slots.

9th – 0
8th – 0
7th – 2
6th – 4
5th – 5
4th – 5
3rd – 5
2nd – 5
1st – 6
0th - 4


Now the hit point loss might kill the character regardless since it is a flat 5 hit points lost per negative level so the character in question would lose 50 hit points which may be more than a 20th level wizard has.

 

[Li Shenron]

I'm not really proposing it, tho, I'm asking about opinions, what would or should be right.

I am afraid that being in the rules forum, your question could spawn a looong thread with people supporting either way, possibly with insults and crying...

What should be right in this case IMHO isn't in the exact RAW. I seriously doubt that the writer wanted the effective level penalty to prevent you to cast high-level spells for two reasons:

1 - It takes too large stretch of knowledge of the rules to go from "ENERGY DRAIN: -1 effective character level" to "caster level ~ character level" and then to "needs a minimum caster level to cast spells of a certain level", and then realize that this means you can only cast lower-level spells. This is such a BIG penalty, that it would have been mentioned in the ENERGY DRAIN entry.

2 - There is already a spellcasting penalty from negative levels (the loss of 1 highest slot per negative level). Not that this is the same thing, but I think that it is the only penalty they intended to design.

 

[Nail]

The Energy Drain mechanic is meant to be simple (HA!); at least, it reads that way to me. There is just a flat penalty for each negative level, rather than a whole-sale re-calculation of the character sheet. This is as it should be (IMO), since anything other than a flat penalty slows down the game too much.

IOW, the negative level does not necessarily prevent a PC from casting his/her highest level spells. The "effective level" language used in the entry supports that interp.

Is Patryn wrong???????????