Is it worth it to spend your action to deal 1d3 Negative Levels?

[SangoProduction]

At level 11, that is.
I mean, an average of -2 to every roll, and a bit of hp damage is nice.
Of course, when you also factor in that they could make a saving throw, that makes it closer to -1.5 or lower, on average.

[Kurald Galain]

At level 11? No.

If you can pull off something like a Chained Empowered Enervation, sure. But 1d3? Not going to be worth it compared to other things you can do (such as either a 6th-level spell or a full attack for massive damage).

[Psyren]

I'd say it depends on where the foe currently is in relation to the group. If they're only missing you on a 1 or only failing their saves on a 1, then changing that to 3 is probably not going to matter much, you might be better off using those actions on something more impactful. Similarly, if they need an 18+ to hit you, raising that to needing a natural 20 to hit is probably unnecessary unless they do something really nasty if they land a blow. There's probably an optimal range in there somewhere where a small debuff is impactful, probably 9-15 or something like that, but again I'd say it depends on some other factors.

[Asmotherion]

Depends on your playstyle.

Remember: Negative levels stac and effectivelly lower your opponent's efficiency; Lower to-hit/ lower saves. And can also cause death when enough are gained.

You also drain enemy spellcasters of spell slots.

There are ways to deliver a lot more negative levels in an action depending on the degree of optimisation you're willing to go with.

[exelsisxax]

Against a recurring enemy, sure. They might stick around and drain resources until your next fight if the DM plays it straight. Otherwise, probably not as a spell or limited ability. If you can do that at-will or your whole party can do that you start being able to stack them high enough to outright kill.

[Quertus]

So, I think that this question is quite interesting.

Imagine it was a free Warlock invocation, in a party of 4 Warlocks. Would it be good then? If so, would you want to replace one of those warlocks? What with?

As a one-off single target debuff, it's kinda lackluster. Removing high-level spell slots can be handy, but IMO that's extremely situational.

I would probably only use it if I knew that my GM was into role-playing, and I wanted my character to have a reputation for using "scary" (as opposed to "tactically optimal") spells.

[Psyren]

That's a good point that I didn't call out. Because casters operate on a quadratic scale instead of a linear one, shaving off the top portion of their scale is going to hurt a heck of a lot more than it would for a martial. Negative levels are generally scarier for spellcasters for exactly this reason, albeit a bit less scary in PF.

[HouseRules]

In a theoretical discussion, I've proven that Temporary Level Adjustment is a harsher punishment than Negative Levels.

Instead of Permanent Level Lost, it became Permanent Level Adjustment gain.

For martial classes, they could easier come back, but for casters, the lost of spell slots is harsher for them.

[Ramza00]

No. But using your swift action to cast a 2nd level Fell Drain Cantrip (0th level spell+2 Metamagic Fell Drain) that removes 1 negative level is worth it.

You use a rod of quicken lesser or
the cheaper version with Circle of Rapid Casting to cast up 2nd level spells a day as a swift action, 3x a day for 15,000 gp market price or 7,500 gp if you craft it.
Spell Matrix Lesser (5th Level Wizard Spell, allows you to quicken 3rd level Wizard Spells in exchange for 1d6 and preparing Spell Matrix Lesser 10 Min per Caster Level prior to activating this spell.)


A swift action single negative level inducing is worth it for it allows you to use your move and standard actions to avoid a big guy you are whittling down, and trading actions for actions with your standard action spells.

Using a standard action 1d3 negative levels average 2 is not worth it at level 11. You are not contributing to the battle fast enough and you are making yourself wide open to be attacked, or you are relying on your party to protect you. And if there is no threat at level 11 to take that 1d3 negative level average 2 per standard action trade then the encounter level is not threatening enough and this may not be the best use of a 4th level spell slot at level.

-----


Just a reminder 2 negative levels loss is roughly equal to a CR -1, but with some monsters 2 negative levels is not even a single CR reduction. (Outsider and Dragon 2 negative levels is about CR - 1.)

[Mato]

Q: Is it worth a standard action to deal 1d3 negative levels at level 11?
A: Depends on how optimized the party is, for example an energy drainDotF chainmail shirt allows you to deal 1d4 per touch attack and melee focused creatures often attack three or more times per round.

[StevenC21]

If you can pull off something like a Chained Empowered Enervation, sure.

You can't use Chain Spell on Enervation.

[Yogibear41]

Out of curiosity how are you doing this? What is the range and saving throws etc. Is it at will? or limited to a certain # of times per day.

[Aharon]

That's a good point that I didn't call out. Because casters operate on a quadratic scale instead of a linear one, shaving off the top portion of their scale is going to hurt a heck of a lot more than it would for a martial. Negative levels are generally scarier for spellcasters for exactly this reason, albeit a bit less scary in PF.

How exactly do negative levels effect spell-casting, anyway?


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 would imply that in both systems, dealing 2 negative levels to a caster leads to them not being able to cast their highest spell level spells for the majority of the game, if I interpret it correctly?
Apparently, this wasn't intended, since 3.5 has a less harsh penalty, that's removed in Pathfinder - but going by RAW, loss of effective levels = loss of caster levels = loss of high level spell slots anyway.

[MaxiDuRaritry]

Would a sorcerer find it worth the full-round action casting time for, say, Twin, Repeating, Fell Drain arcane fusion (magic missile + magic missile) with a few metamagic reducers to reduce the levels a bit?

[Mr Adventurer]

Would a sorcerer find it worth the full-round action casting time for, say, Twin, Repeating, Fell Drain arcane fusion (magic missile + magic missile) with a few metamagic reducers to reduce the levels a bit?

...why would a sorcerer want to inflict 4 negative levels on themselves? :smallconfused:

[Telok]

Answer: it depends.

What does your usage of this look like? 1/day standard action for a spellcaster at level 11+, not worth it. 3/day "enchant your attacks" that lasts until the end of your next round, maybe if you're a many attack gish/warrior/whatevs. At-will as one of your attacks in a round, sure

What does the opposition look like? High hit die brute monsters, probably not. Low Con versatile casting sorcerers that spam their highest spell and warlocks, absolutely. Hordes of critters that the party mows down in four rounds, don't bother. Single bosses that escape at the end of a 20 round super fight, it's great.

[HouseRules]

How exactly do negative levels effect spell-casting, anyway?

This would imply that in both systems, dealing 2 negative levels to a caster leads to them not being able to cast their highest spell level spells for the majority of the game, if I interpret it correctly?
Apparently, this wasn't intended, since 3.5 has a less harsh penalty, that's removed in Pathfinder - but going by RAW, loss of effective levels = loss of caster levels = loss of high level spell slots anyway.

It's more along the lines that under 3.5, you could still use low level spells that are metamagic into high level spell slots because you don't lose your slots as much as permanent level lost.
A permanent level lost loses more than just 1 spell slot at highest level.

[Kurald Galain]

How exactly do negative levels effect spell-casting, anyway? This would imply that in both systems, dealing 2 negative levels to a caster leads to them not being able to cast their highest spell level spells for the majority of the game, if I interpret it correctly?
By my reading, they would deal (e.g.) 2d6 less damage with their fireballs, but not lose access to their highest spell level. In 3E, you reduce "power, duration, DC, and other details of spells" and lose one top-level slot or spells; in PF, you reduce "level-dependent variables" but neither of these does anything to your caster level.

[Aharon]

@Kurald and HouseRules:

I was referring to the interaction of the rule I quoted above with this line in the SRD/PFSRD:


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

The creature is also treated as one level lower for the purpose of level-dependent variables (such as spellcasting) for each negative level possessed.

in conjunction with


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 becomes a case where the question "Can an out-of-the-book Wizard cast a fireball at CL4, or does it have a minimum caster level of 5?" is relevant - I don't know if that has been conclusively solved.

[Kurald Galain]

@Kurald and HouseRules:

I was referring to the interaction of the rule I quoted above with this line in the SRD/PFSRD:
Yes, I get that. "Level-dependent variables" refers to a spell's range being (e.g.) 100 feet + 10 foot per level, or damage being 1d6 per level; not to a character's caster level.

[Mr Adventurer]

"is my caster level high enough" is a calculation you perform to see if you meet the minimum to cast a spell, though.

[DeTess]

"is my caster level high enough" is a calculation you perform to see if you meet the minimum to cast a spell, though.

This is an issue of some contention though, especially if we bring in the accelerated progression PRC's, such as ur-priest or divine crusader, both of which get 9th levels spells at CL9.

[Kurald Galain]

"is my caster level high enough" is a calculation you perform to see if you meet the minimum to cast a spell, though.

Yes, and such a calculation is neither "power, duration, DC, and other details of spells" (as in 3E) nor is it a "level-dependent variables" (as in PF).

[Mr Adventurer]

This is an issue of some contention though, especially if we bring in the accelerated progression PRC's, such as ur-priest or divine crusader, both of which get 9th levels spells at CL9.

Well, I think that makes sense that if they lost 2 caster levels they too wouldn't be able to cast 9th level spells.


Yes, and such a calculation is neither "power, duration, DC, and other details of spells" (as in 3E) nor is it a "level-dependent variables" (as in PF).

The quote I'm looking at (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/conditionSummary.htm#energyDrained) says:

"Each negative level gives a creature the following penalties: -1 penalty on attack rolls, saving throws, skill checks, ability checks; loss of 5 hit points; and -1 to effective level (for determining the power, duration, DC, and other details of spells or special abilities)."

Whether you can cast a spell level with your spellcasting ability seems like one of those 'other details'.

[HouseRules]

this becomes a case where the question "Can an out-of-the-book Wizard cast a fireball at CL4, or does it have a minimum caster level of 5?" is relevant - I don't know if that has been conclusively solved.

It cannot because there are specifics trump general examples.

Craft Magic Arms and Armor has exceptions to minimum caster level rules.
Magic Weapon (1st Level Spell), 3rd Caster Level -> +1 Magic Weapon (as a craft)
Greater Magic Weapon (3rd Level Spell), 3rd Caster Level -> +1 Magic Weapon (caster level too low to cast under normal circumstances)
Greater Magic Weapon, 5th to 7th Caster Level -> +1 Magic Weapon (as a spell)
Greater Magic Weapon, 6th Caster Level -> +2 Magic Weapon (as a craft)
Greater Magic Weapon, 8th to 11th Caster Level -> +2 Magic Weapon (as a spell)
Greater Magic Weapon, 9th Caster Level -> +3 Magic Weapon (as a craft)
Greater Magic Weapon, 12th to 15th Caster Level -> +3 Magic Weapon (as a spell)
Greater Magic Weapon, 12th Caster Level -> +4 Magic Weapon (as a craft)
Greater Magic Weapon, 16th to 19th Caster Level -> +4 Magic Weapon (as a spell)
Greater Magic Weapon, 15th Caster Level -> +5 Magic Weapon (as a craft)
Greater Magic Weapon, 20th Caster Level -> +5 Magic Weapon (as a spell)
Greater Magic Weapon, 18th Caster Level -> +6 Magic Weapon (as a craft, but x10 price because for some reason it is EPIC)

[Andreaz]

It's always about the action cost, ultimately.

Spending your round to do a minor debuff isn't worth it.
Spending your round to do a major debuff is worth it.
Spending a swift, especially early on, is.
Spending even less (say, it was pre-cast or a cheap contingency on hit) is even better.


Deleting major spell slots is good, a -2 penalty at that level not so much.

If you can stack multiple different penalties, the context of an enemy with overwhelming numbers might demand it, but that's a context both you and the gm want to avoid in the first place.

[Mr Adventurer]

It cannot because there are specifics trump general examples.


This is, surely, exactly the opposite of what specific-trumps-general means.

[HouseRules]

This is, surely, exactly the opposite of what specific-trumps-general means.

The specific rules is that spells have a minimum caster level.
Minimum Caster Level = 2 * Spell Level - 1 for full casters
Minimum Caster Level = 3 * Spell Level - 2 for 2/3 casters
Minimum Caster Level = 4 * Spell Level for some half casters, and 4 * Spell Level - 3 for other half casters.

So NO. You cannot cast Fireball at Caster Level 4, yet people still argue that it is possible.

Fire Ball, 3rd level spell, minimum caster level 5 for full casters!

Edit: Accelerated Spell Progression Prestige Class Non Issue.
They do not say that they could cast spells with a lower than minimum caster level, yet players always cheese the game by saying that they do cast at caster level = spell level - 1.
Therefore, these Prestige Class may have the spells known, and the spell slots, but cannot cast those spells because they do not have sufficient caster level.
Just like an even level sorcerer getting hit by a negative level and loses only 1 of their spell slots, and having 2 + bonus spell slots remaining, these prestige classes cannot cast those higher level spells.

[DeTess]

The specific rules is that spells have a minimum caster level.
Minimum Caster Level = 2 * Spell Level - 1 for full casters
Minimum Caster Level = 3 * Spell Level - 2 for 2/3 casters
Minimum Caster Level = 4 * Spell Level for some half casters, and 4 * Spell Level - 3 for other half casters.

So NO. You cannot cast Fireball at Caster Level 4, yet people still argue that it is possible.

Fire Ball, 3rd level spell, minimum caster level 5 for full casters!

Edit: Accelerated Spell Progression Prestige Class Non Issue.
They do not say that they could cast spells with a lower than minimum caster level, yet players always cheese the game by saying that they do cast at caster level = spell level - 1.
Therefore, these Prestige Class may have the spells known, and the spell slots, but cannot cast those spells because they do not have sufficient caster level.
Just like an even level sorcerer getting hit by a negative level and loses only 1 of their spell slots, and having 2 + bonus spell slots remaining, these prestige classes cannot cast those higher level spells.

Citation needed? According to what you're stating here, accelerated progression casters just don't work because... you think they're cheese?

[HouseRules]

Citation needed? According to what you're stating here, accelerated progression casters just don't work because... you think they're cheese?

They violate general rule without explicit specific rule stated that they could cast spells below minimum caster level.

[DeTess]

They violate general rule without explicit specific rule stated that they could cast spells below minimum caster level.

Can you quote me this general rule? I'm not familiar with it.

[Kurald Galain]

Can you quote me this general rule? I'm not familiar with it.

"The minimum caster level of a spell is fixed at 2 × the spell's level – 1, and does not change based on class levels." (http://pathfinder.d20srd.org/unchained/magic/spellAlterations.html)

[HouseRules]

"The minimum caster level of a spell is fixed at 2 × the spell's level – 1, and does not change based on class levels." (http://pathfinder.d20srd.org/unchained/magic/spellAlterations.html)

3.5 Defined it in a very indirect way.

Go look up crafting, where the term is first mention.
Then it indirectly says: If the spell is on a Cleric's or Wizard's spell list, assume that a Cleric or Wizard is crafting and use the possible minimum caster level...
Otherwise, the spell is on a Druid, Bard, Paladin, or Ranger spell list, and use those...

[Mr Adventurer]

So NO. You cannot cast Fireball at Caster Level 4, yet people still argue that it is possible.

Apologies, I didn't understand your post and thought you were taking the opposite position.

[HouseRules]

Apologies, I didn't understand your post and thought you were taking the opposite position.

People keep bogging down on the exception, and try to make the exception on everything and ignore the general rule.
Minimum Caster Level is a term that is not explicitly defined in 3rd Edition; only Pathfinder explicitly defines it as linked by Kurald Galain's previous post.

Minimum Caster Level is define in such an indirect way that it is difficult to rule how it should be generalized.
Because it is the issue of Primary Source Rule there are only 11 base classes known as the core classes, and then lots of arguments on base classes.

[Mato]

This is an issue of some contention though, especially if we bring in the accelerated progression PRC's, such as ur-priest or divine crusader, both of which get 9th levels spells at CL9.And while that doesn't really have anything to do with this, it does highlight the problem. For example, you don't read the cleric's spellcasting entry to determine how a wizard cast spells. So why would you look at how a divine crusader to claim how a bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, & wizard should cast their spells or vice versa?

And that's also what's actually being argued here. A wizard's spellcasting's minimum class and caster level may not be the same as another class and the rules are fully aware of and acknowledge this even if the reader does not. The general rules of spellcasting do not call out a specific value because it's based on the class. And this is also why if you tried to look up houserules's collapsing point you actually would have found this.

Since different classes get access to certain spells at different levels, the prices for two characters to make the same item might actually be different. Take hold person, for example. A cleric casts it as a 2nd-level spell, so a cleric-created wand of hold person costs 2 (2nd-level spell) × 3 (3rd-level caster) × 750 gp, divided in half, or 2,250 gp. However, a wizard casts hold person as a 3rd-level spell, so her wand costs 3 (3rd-level spell) × 5 (5th-level caster) × 750 gp, divided in half, or 5,625 gp. A sorcerer also casts hold person as a 3rd-level spell, but he doesn’t get the spell until 6th level, so his wand costs 3 (3rd-level spell) × 6 (6th-level caster) × 750 gp, divided in half, or 6,750 gp.The entry goes on to explain how to base the wand's market value only uses part of the above information in particular ways. But we are talking about minimum levels and spellcasting, not the pricing guidelines of magical items.

[DeTess]

And while that doesn't really have anything to do with this, it does highlight the problem. For example, you don't read the cleric's spellcasting entry to determine how a wizard cast spells. So why would you look at how a divine crusader to claim how a bard, cleric, druid, paladin, ranger, sorcerer, & wizard should cast their spells or vice versa?

And that's also what's actually being argued here. A wizard's spellcasting's minimum class and caster level may not be the same as another class and the rules are fully aware of and acknowledge this even if the reader does not. The general rules of spellcasting do not call out a specific value because it's based on the class. And this is also why if you tried to look up houserules's collapsing point you actually would have found this.
The entry goes on to explain how to base the wand's market value only uses part of the above information in particular ways. But we are talking about minimum levels and spellcasting, not the pricing guidelines of magical items.

So, I assume then that a sorcerer that took the mage-slayer feat would then be delayed into when they can actually cast the spells they learn and have spell slots for? Or, since they would still get both the spell slot and spell known at the same level, would they be allowed to create scrolls for spells at lower CL? After all, a level 6 sorcerer that takes the mage-slayer feat also till gets 3rd level spell slots and 3rd level spell's known, and the text you quoted only talks about 'getting access too', whatever that means.

I mean, I get the argument you're making, but I'm not really buying that some text on item creation that is not included in the actual rules for spellcasting somehow still has an effect on when you can and can't cast spells, as opposed to how you create items. If there was such as thing as a minimum caster level for casting spells I'd expect it to be covered in the rules for spells, not the rules for creating items.

[Mato]

I mean, I get the argument you're making, but I'm not really buying that some text on item creation that is not included in the actual rules for spellcastingAnd while that doesn't really have anything to do with this, it does highlight a problem.

People like to say "you are wrong", even if they have no idea what the rules say or what the thread has already covered. Like how my post went to magic items because, as it says, HouseRules brought it up. But you can have this again.

in conjunction with

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 of course if you had access to the actual rulebook instead of a secondary reference, you can also read about a 10th level wizard that "can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball)." that's part of the same entry.

[DeTess]

And while that doesn't really have anything to do with this, it does highlight a problem.

People like to say "you are wrong", even if they have no idea what the rules say or what the thread has already covered. Like how my post went to magic items because, as it says, HouseRules brought it up. But you can have this again.

And of course if you had access to the actual rulebook instead of a secondary reference, you can also read about a 10th level wizard that "can’t cast fireball with a caster level lower than 5th (the minimum level required for a wizard to cast fireball)." that's part of the same entry.

Huh, my apologies for being so stubborn. This really was a prime example of 'only lightly skimming the rules because I thought I knew what they said' on my part. Thanks for being so patient with me!

[Mato]

Huh, my apologies for being so stubborn. This really was a prime example of 'only lightly skimming the rules because I thought I knew what they said' on my part. Thanks for being so patient with me!You sir are a saint among devils.

:thumbsup: