Enervation

[werk]

Negative levels don't affect class level abilities. If they did, you wouldn't lose one spell per negative level; you'd recalculate your spells per day based on your lowered class level.

I think the crux of that argument is that it is a negative level, not a lost level...or not immediately anyway. When you get a negative level, you get all the penalties described even if they don't make sense in their application. Penalty vs. loss.
If you later fail your save, you lose the level for good and have to go back and 'correct' everything. It makes it a lot easier to continue playing with the negative levels since you do not have to go back and de-build everything, be it advantageous or disadvantageous to the character.

As an example, say you have a level 1 cleric/5 barbarian, gained in that order. When he gets the negative level, he loses a spell, even though cleric was the first class he'd learned. He can still cast, but his CL is reduced from 1 to 0 for save DCs, etc.

He goes to bed, hoping to wash away that pesky negative level, wakes up, and fails his save. Now he has lost a level, and will need to remove everything that he gained on his last level increase...effectively returning his spell casting as it was before.

That is, if he remembers. If he doesn't remember, then he defaults to: "If the exact ability score or skill ranks increased from a level now lost is unknown (or the player has forgotten), lose 1 point from the highest ability score or ranks from the highest-ranked skills."

 

[ElectricDragon]

Hyp said:

Now I take a negative level. If "-1 effective level" refers to class level as well as character level or any other sort of level, then I subtract 1 from my Ranger level for calculations involving my Ranger level - 7. I subtract 1 from my Beastmaster level for calculations involving my Beastmaster level - 2. So my new effective druid level is 8. And presumably, I must subtract 1 from that effective druid level for any calculations involving that, such as the abilities my Dire Badger gains (based on effective druid level - 3), so I'd use 8 -1 -3, or 4.

So this isn't a calculation? Beastmasters have effective druid levels (-1) equal to their class level (-1) +3. Rangers have effective druid levels (-1) equal to half their class level (-1) Negative levels suck. So 3(-1)+3(-1) + 8(-1)/2(-1)=6, Dire Badger [-3 levels (-1)]=2. Is that silly enough for you? [Note, I do not work it this way; I am just trying to get to Hyp's point, debate has always been a fun exercise no matter which side you are on, IMHO -1 is just -1].

Does the class level in one class, for a multiclassed character, fit the concept of 'the creature's level'?

The creature's level in that class? Is this a concept? The creature's total level, the creature's level as a ranger, the creature's level as a beastmaster, the creature's level as an effective druid, the creature's level for determining caster level? I really do not see how "Creature's Level" is supposed to be only Character level (a game term) and not include Prestige class levels, class levels, effective class levels, racial class levels, substitution class levels or monster class levels. If they had meant Character Level, why not write it that way? Why use an ambigious term like "Creature Level" when a specific game term was meant?

In your example of the Dire Badger, does its HD decrease because its master gained some negative levels? For a Wizard or Sorcerer, does their Familiar get dumber because their master gained a few negative levels? What is the concept in that?

Ciao
Dave

 

[werk]

By that logic, anyone killed by a fireball should rise as a fire elemental.

I hear what you are saying, but there is no rules text supporting that creatures killed by application of elemental energy rise as creatures of that type.

There is a definite citation to support my claim...it was in the post that you quoted...you must have missed it: "A character with negative levels at least equal to her current level, or drained below 1st level, is instantly slain. Depending on the creature that killed her, she may rise the next night as a monster of that kind. If not, she rises as a wight. "

Had I made my claim completely unsupported, like "anyone killed by bludgeoning damage rises as an animated rock." then your analogy would be true. As it is, your analogy is completely unfounded and a bit insulting as it completely ignores my previous statemnt

Big difference.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't understand what your notation 'wizard-3' means. Are you saying "3rd level wizard" or "wizard with 3 negative levels?"

Sorry - wizard-3 as in Wiz3, as in 3rd level wizard.

-Hyp.

 

[Infiniti2000]

(not enervation)

How is caster level for a wizard-3 determined? How about for a paladin-4?

A 3rd level wizard's caster level is her class level. It is not a calculation. A 4th-level paladin's caster level is 4/2=2. That is a calculation.

Regardless, on spell per day for either you look up in the table based on the character level, not the caster level. For Pal4 (e.g. human so no more HD), with 1, 2, or even 3 negative levels, the paladin can still cast "0" 1st level spells and thus can still cast 1st level spells (aside from the fact that with more negative levels he likely doesn't have the ability score required for so many bonus spells).

Now, with enervation on the other hand, it has some extra text. It seems to be worse than normal energy drain attacks because it doesn't have the "die roll or calculation" caveat.

So, all questions on negative levels need to specify if they are from the broken enervation spell or somewhere else.

 

[Hypersmurf]

Regardless, on spell per day for either you look up in the table based on the character level, not the caster level. For Pal4 (e.g. human so no more HD), with 1, 2, or even 3 negative levels, the paladin can still cast "0" 1st level spells and thus can still cast 1st level spells (aside from the fact that with more negative levels he likely doesn't have the ability score required for so many bonus spells).

But remember - you can't cast a spell at a caster level below the minimum required. For example, a wizard cannot cast a fireball at caster level 4, because the minimum caster level for a wizard to cast a 3rd level spell is 5.

So if the Pal4 has one negative level, then if we calculate his caster level as (Pal level - 1) / 2, which is 1, it's below the minimum caster level for a Paladin to cast 1st level spells.

Now, I'm not convinced that "... caster level, which for most spellcasting characters is equal to your class level in the class you’re using to cast the spell" is not an extremely simple calculation. However, I am fairly certain that as soon as you add a "+1 level in spellcasting class" PrC, or Practised Spellcaster, you are using that spellcasting character's class level in a calculation to derive caster level.

So while a Wiz9 with one negative level may have a caster level of 9, a Wiz8/Loremaster1 with one negative level has a caster level of 8 (wizard level -1, +1 level in spellcasting class) and thus cannot cast 5th level spells, which for a wizard have a minimum caster level of 9.

... assuming we consider class level to be a fit for 'the creature's level', rather than just character level.

Apart from all that, we have the text of enervation (wherein 'level', since it's a spell description, refers to caster level unless otherwise noted):
... and effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities).

Now, if our Wiz5 has one negative level from Enervation, can he cast a Fly? What does 'power' refer to in the 'effective level' expanded description above?

We know:
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.

And we know that the duration, for example, of the Fly spell would be based on caster level 4 (since he takes a -1 penalty to effective level to determine duration), and we also know that all level-dependent features of the spell must be based on the same caster level - hence 4. So given that power depends on caster level, and the power is that of caster level 4, can we assume that the spell is being cast at caster level 4 (and hence illegal for a wizard)?

Or is it being cast at caster level 5, and simply behaving in all ways as if it had somehow been cast at the illegal caster level 4?

-Hyp.

 

[moritheil]

It's unhelpful if you are unwilling to be the first to answer your own questions. Posting the text of the relevant rules might be useful as well (like you did for the spell itself just now), as would offerring a specific example with average and min/max numbers as well.

If you think the answers to your questions change depending on one of two or three different stated answers to the Enervation question, then spell it out how you think it works for each of those options. I just don't think you should make others do your work just to participate in a discussion with you.

It seems a little unfair to demand that someone come up with all possible responses to a question - especially on the boards, where all kinds of wierd and unforeseeable interpretations turn up from time to time. Indeed, it is exactly because so many unusual interpretations turn up that Hyp (and many others) ask where people stand on related issues.

Just as an example, I personally have seen dozens of threads on negative levels, but I have never seen so many people who disagreed that negative energy created wights. Thus, if someone were to ask me to list the possible responses to what death due to negative levels does, my list would consist of something like:

- Corpse animates as vampire
- Corpse animtes as wight
- Corpse does not animate because of special spell or effect, such as burial on sanctified ground or blessing on grave

I would not even consider the possibility that the corpse does not animate outside of some special effect that prevents it from happening.

Thus it is essential to ask others how they think things should work.

 

[Infiniti2000]

all kinds of wierd and unforeseeable interpretations turn up from time to time

Hey! I resemble that remark!

 

[Caliban]

I'd like to state, I'm here asking for an answer, not a lesson. (Even if the answers are just opinions.)

Quasqueton

Then don't discuss it with Hypersmurf. That's pretty much all you get from him, if there's not a black and white rules quote that settles the issue. I find it pretty disagreeable (and borderline insulting), and am not shy about saying so, which is why Patryn made that rather petty reference about me.

The "I'm smarter than you" Question Game is why I avoid discussing things with Hyp these days, even though he seems compelled to make unsolicited pedantic comment/questions about minor points of almost any post I make.

 

[Matafuego]

I don't object to that idea. There has to be some reason so many undead seem to rise without someone around to control them, and that's one way to explain why at least those undead seem to be more common, and I don't think it would be unreasonable or unbalancing to have that effect in your game. I just don't think the spell was actually intended to do that by the authors of the spell.

Of course the author of the spell didn't intend that!
He just wanted a quick way of debilitating his ennemies in battle... And that's why he was surprised when a small army of wights came "knoching" at his door for retribution...

Seriously though: I believe this spell should create undead... Now the Holy sword wielded by bad guys is a completely different issue!