Enervation

[Hypersmurf]

5th is the minimum level the wizard has to be, not necessarily what his caster level has to be. And he's still higher than 5th level, no matter how many negative levels he currently has.

5th is the minimum caster level.

"The caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question".

Not "The caster level you choose must equal or exceed the class level at which you could cast the spell in question".

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

5th is the minimum caster level.

"The caster level you choose must be high enough for you to cast the spell in question".

Not "The caster level you choose must equal or exceed the class level at which you could cast the spell in question".

-Hyp.

Whatever works for you. As I have already said multiple times.

I don't find your arguement convincing, repeating it with minor variations isn't going to change that.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I don't find your arguement convincing, repeating it with minor variations isn't going to change that.

I wasn't varying the argument, I was highlighting the portion of the section that indicates that it's caster level, not class level, that the minimum was in reference to.

-Hyp.

 

[Caliban]

I wasn't varying the argument, I was highlighting the portion of the section that indicates that it's caster level, not class level, that the minimum was in reference to.

-Hyp.

You're right. You were just repeating yourself without varying your arguement.

Hey, I get it. I got it the first two times you said it. I'm not stupid. I just don't agree with you.

I think you are taking a minor passage out of the context in which it was written and applying it to another rules mechanic that doesn't refer to it. You don't think you are. I understand that. Really.

I simply don't agree with your basic premise, and I'm sorry if by explaining myself I gave you the impression that I wanted to continue the debate. I don't, because I have no real expectation of ever changing your mind, or of you changing mine.

We've both repeated ourselves a couple of times without convincing each other of anything, I don't see much point in going a few more rounds. We'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Hypersmurf]

I think you are taking a minor passage out of the context in which it was written and applying it to another rules mechanic that doesn't refer to it.

It worked for the Heavy Crossbow...

-Hyp.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Worth it? I'm not sure yet but it sounds like fun.......and it's a virtual guaranteed hit with a quickened True Strike beforehand

Would you believe my necromancer last week did True Strike followed by enervation... and rolled a 1.

First PC to *miss* when using truestrike

 

[Plane Sailing]

Let's take the example of a 6th level wizard with a 16 Intelligence. He has 3 3rd level spells available, and a caster level of 6.

He takes a negative level. This means he loses one of those 3 3rd level spells, and has an effective caster level of 5. He still has two 3rd level spells he can cast (at caster level 5).

Take the example of a 6th level sorcerer with a 16 Charisma. He has 4 3rd level spell slots available and 1 3rd level spell and a caster level of 6.

He takes a negative level. This would mean (under your ruling) that he loses one of those 4 3rd level slots and has a caster level of 5, thus being unable to use his 3rd level spell *at all* despite having 3 slots left.

This would be such a dramatic effect that I believe it would have been specifically called out in the negative level information if it had been intended.

I'll be sticking with the base information from the negative level description and not bother attempting to infer additional restrictions based upon 'minimum caster level' information written down elsewhere.

Cheers

 

[Rystil Arden]

I wasn't varying the argument, I was highlighting the portion of the section that indicates that it's caster level, not class level, that the minimum was in reference to.

-Hyp.

Not only do I find Hyp's argument convincing, even if I didn't, I would houserule it to work that way. Otherwise, negative levels are highly ineffective against Sorcerers (2 negative levels is not much more than the Doom spell and 10 damage), particularly compared to noncasters.

Of course, admittedly, I like my negative levels to be more dangerous, so I also houserule negative levels to go further and eliminate all class abilities picked up in the levels that are phantom-lost.

Nonetheless, I considered the caster level thing to be RAW. Of course, Practised Spellcaster, the ioun stone, and other friendly caster-level raising abilities can help you continue to cast spells through negative levels.

 

[Hypersmurf]

He takes a negative level. This would mean (under your ruling) that he loses one of those 4 3rd level slots and has a caster level of 5, thus being unable to use his 3rd level spell *at all* despite having 3 slots left.

Right - since the minimum level for a sorcerer to cast a 3rd level spell is 6.

"So I can cast my spells at a lower caster level than normal?"
"Right."
"Like a Fireball at caster level 5?"
"No - the minimum level for Fireball for a sorcerer is 6."
"So I can't cast a 5d6 Fireball like the wizard?"
"Sorcerers can't cast a Fireball at caster level 5."
"What if I had a negative level? How much damage would my Fireball do?"
"5d6."
"So I can't cast a 5d6 Fireball if I'm good at casting, only if I'm bad at casting?"
"Right."

I'm glad they put in the minimum level rule so that doesn't come up...

-Hyp.

 

[robberbaron]

Having must re-read Enervation I think I agree with Cal.

A caster's effective level is reduced for details of spells but whether or not a caster can cast a spell of a given level is a function of his class, not the spell.
Certainly, if a caster took a negative level then any detail of a spell that took level into account would be lowered, but I think that a 5th caster with a negative level would still be able to cast 3rd spells, if he had more than one to start with.

That is how I see it and how I will rule in my game. I don't expect anyone to agree but that doesn't matter - each GM does what he thinks is correct/best.

[Edit} as a support to my argument I quote from the DMG p.293:
"-1 effective level (whenever the creature's level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negetive level)"