Enervation

[ElectricDragon]

It says "-1 effective level"; in this case effective level would only use the total character level for effects that depended on total character level; it would use class level as normal for effects that depended on class level. In all cases level would be reduced by one.

So yes, the Paladin-4/Monk-7 with one negative level would be considered a 10th level character, too (for effects that depended on total character level); so Deep Slumber would now work on him.

Is that harsh? Not as much a earlier editions where level(s) were lost on the spot: hp, abilities, spells, skills, HD. And even regaining it sucked; as your xp over the level disappeared into the void.

Ciao
Dave

 

[PallidPatience]

Deep Slumber doesn't work on him. He's still an 11 HD creature. That's not a calculation.

However, he would have -1 to his chance to save vs. a similar spell.

 

[Mistwell]

Would you find it more acceptable if I started a new thread asking the same questions?

-Hyp.

Not really. I'm objecting to your methodology.

I object to you asking a question to a question, and then when people respond you become a moving target, playing devil's advocate to any response.

This method you are using inevitably feeds an unproductive cycle of debating that drifts further and further away from whatever point was trying to be made (and even if it were another thread, it would drift from that topic as well).

It also drives more and more people out of the thread, as fewer people are willing to follow the minutia and the responses to the responses to the responses. And eventually, you end up with the same 4-5 people who always post to the Rules forum, with everyone else moving on because there just isn't the time or even the interest to follow the thread anymore.

Which is why I am asking you to posit the options you feel are reasonable, and the ramifications you see of those options, and your opinion on the matter, first. I think that method would result in a lot more useful information, and a lot less useless debate for debate's sake. I'm just asking that you cut the didactic act and play it straight.

 

[Dracandross]

The Paladin-4's Smite Evil would deal +3 damage.

The Paladin-4/Monk-7's Smite Evil would deal +3 damage; the Wholeness of Body ability would heal 12 hp; assuming a 12 or higher Cha, Lay on Hands would heal 3 times the Cha bonus; Turn undead would work as if 0th level cleric; Aura of Good would be 3rd level; and he would lose his only spell (unless his Wisdom is 20 or higher, in which case his caster level would be 1). This is all in addition to:
as frankthedm said:
Dave

I think i saw somewhere rule that made multiclassed chars lose highest cl first if it matters counting (like which spell to lose or how level affects abilities). Though not sure was it DnD or wrong edition which is possible as none mentioned it before.

Anyway it would be logical, because above gives theoretically 2 level penalties (if drained by 4 paladin abilities would be gone even though real level would be still 7).

-Dracandross

 

[Hypersmurf]

It says "-1 effective level"; in this case effective level would only use the total character level for effects that depended on total character level; it would use class level as normal for effects that depended on class level. In all cases level would be reduced by one.

So do you take 1 from any variable that includes the word 'level'?

As an example, let's say I'm a Ranger-8/Beastmaster-3. My animal companion gains abilities based on my effective druid level, which is my half my ranger level, plus my beastmaster level, plus 3... or 10. As a Dire Badger, he uses druid level - 3, or 7.

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.

Now, that means that the one negative level has reduced the figure I use to consult the table of abilities from 7 to 4. I'm pinged 3 times for a single negative level, because "the creature's level" is referring to three separate concepts.

-Hyp.

 

[werk]

Actually, I disagree. It's the same source and it doesn't stack. The most you can do is 1d4 negative levels (sans maximize and empower) from enervation and that's it. It's the same concept as ray of enfeeblement, which doesn't stack with itself.

That's weird, I would have sworn yesterday that I read it stacks in one of the descriptions...can't find it now.

Yep, in enervation: "Negative levels stack."

 

[Infiniti2000]

That's weird, I would have sworn yesterday that I read it stacks in one of the descriptions...can't find it now.

Yep, in enervation: "Negative levels stack."

Good Spot check. I'm not sure why I missed that. I concede the point.

Even with considering that enervation doesn't stack and that the -1 doesn't remove the ability to cast higher level spells (that were not directly lost in the negative level), I still think that enervation is too powerful and I have banned it. Considering that they stack--even more so. If you buy into Hyp's and Frank's argument that entire spell levels are lost (which I don't, nor do I think anyone really plays it that way because it's ludicrous), it's WAY too powerful, even for a 9th level spell.

What level would you assign to a spell that, as a swift action, did nothing more than remove from your memory 1d4 of your highest level spells, no saving throw, SR applies? If you take this part out of enervation (and don't use Hyp's/Frank's rule), then I think enervation is balanced at 4th level. Now add this swift action spell in and tell me what level it would be.

 

[anon]

Not really. I'm objecting to your methodology.

I object to you asking a question to a question, and then when people respond you become a moving target, playing devil's advocate to any response.

This method you are using inevitably feeds an unproductive cycle of debating that drifts further and further away from whatever point was trying to be made (and even if it were another thread, it would drift from that topic as well).

It also drives more and more people out of the thread, as fewer people are willing to follow the minutia and the responses to the responses to the responses. And eventually, you end up with the same 4-5 people who always post to the Rules forum, with everyone else moving on because there just isn't the time or even the interest to follow the thread anymore.

Which is why I am asking you to posit the options you feel are reasonable, and the ramifications you see of those options, and your opinion on the matter, first. I think that method would result in a lot more useful information, and a lot less useless debate for debate's sake. I'm just asking that you cut the didactic act and play it straight.

I personally find Hyp's questions to rarely be off-topic, nor do they induce me to leave the thread. They tend, in fact, to deepen my understanding of the topic.

Further, I would suggest that if one evaluated Hyp's knowledge level objectively then one would see it is very often greater than most others. In which case your original statement that the Socratic method is for teachers not students means that it is fine for Hyp to engage in it.

 

[Infiniti2000]

Further, I would suggest that if one evaluated Hyp's knowledge level objectively then one would see it is very often greater than most others. In which case your original statement that the Socratic method is for teachers not students means that it is fine for Hyp to engage in it.

Whether he's a teacher or not, I doubt that those who consider the Socratic Method only for teachers has not considered debating techniques in purely written media. This method may be a good method to get your point across in a forum discussion, whether or not you're the teacher or your point is actually valid. Many times, debate here is merely about getting the opposition to understand your point before you try to get them to agree with your position. Any other information I could glean from Hyp's tone, body language, or anything else is completely unavailable. He could go off and write a 15-page paper discussing his points or he could try leading me through it one step at a time. I'm willing to do that, as I sometimes use the same approach (and Hyp has been kind enough to follow along on those occasions).

In this case it didn't help because I didn't want to make an assumption about the notation (of which Hyp hasn't answered).

 

[Ciaran]

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.