Enervation

[lukelightning]

I loves me some sudden-empowered ennervation! Zapped a baddy with 5 negative levels recently.

And anyone who thinks it's overpowered, remember that it is only a bit better than a tanglefoot bag.

 

[GorTeX]

I think ya'll are overlooking something here.

6th level Wizard with 3x3rd level spells memorized. Takes 2 Negative levels, and loses 2 of those spells and has one that he can't cast now (CL not high enough). However, in X (Max15) number of hours, he loses those 2 Negative levels, and now can cast the one 3rd level spell he didn't lose.

6th level sorc with 4x3rd level slots gets one negative level..and can't use any of his other 3 slots until the NL goes away

 

[Caliban]

It worked for the Heavy Crossbow...

-Hyp.

You just won't let it drop will you?

That's not the same. Those are rules specific to using crossbows in a certain way. Same thing with the rules for shield bashing.

Do I think it was dumb to put combat rules in the equipment section? Yes. But they are not out of context - they are specifically in the context of using crossbows and shields.

You are taking a rule that doesn't refer to negative levels in any way, and forcing it into the negative level rules when they don't mention anything like that. The negative level rules never actually say that your caster level is reduced, for that matter.


Your ruling makes it more complicated, and a lot less fun.

"I took a negativel level, so I lose 1 spell, right?"

"Depends. What's your level and class. You might lose an entire level of spells, not just 1."

"But the Negative Level rules only say I lose 1 spell per negative level."

"Yeah, but this one sentance in another book, in a rules section that doesn't have anything to do with Negative Levels, can let me strip away an entire level of spells from you instead! At least we don't have to worry about that whole conundrum of only being able cast 5d6 fireballs voluntarily, but 3d6 fireballs if you have enough negative levels. "

"Yeah, that was keeping me up at nights."

as opposed to:

"I took a negative level, so I lose 1 spell, right?"

"Yup, You lose 1 spell per negativel level"

"That sucks, but at least I can still cast my remaining high level spell slots."


Your right, Hype. Your way is MUCH better.

 

[lukelightning]

Negative levels don't seem to reduce caster levels per se, but they do reduce your "caster effectiveness" in a very similar way:

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

I'd take that to mean a 7th level wizard with two negative levels cast fireballs that do 5d6 damage; that is a calculation. Similarly spell ranges, durations, etc. are all calculations and would suffer similarly. But his caster level is still 7th level for purposes of spell slots (albeit with two highest level spells removed by the negative levels).

 

[Elethiomel]

I want to disagree with Hypersmurf, I really do. I don't think the rules should work that way. But as far as RAW goes, I don't find any of the counterarguments in this thread - or the previous one I've seen where this was discussed - to be convincing. And I can't think of better counterarguments myself. So, to me, as far as RAW is concerned, Hypersmurf has it right.

If it were a game I was running, I'd have the minimum caster level apply to magic items only.

 

[Darmanicus]

I think I'm going to have to go with Cal on this one even though both arguements are very compelling.

Hypes arguement just makes it FAR too powerful a spell and that's not just in the hands of us PC's. I seriously wouldn't want to be hit by it at max or more if twinked based on Hypes ruling and that is just what would happen where our DM is concerned.

Thanks guys for your time.

Daar.

 

[moritheil]

My head hurts whenever I see balance arguments intermixed with RAW wording arguments.

Balance-wise, multiple negative levels are very scary. I can see why people might express their distaste for being made to completely suck until those negative levels are wiped away. However, I think we should be careful to differentiate what the RAW dictates from what we would like to see in our hearts.

Lukelightning, that's an interesting interpretation!

 

[Caliban]

Taking rules out of the context in which they were written and applying them to unlrelated rules mechanics doesn't make them RAW. It makes my head hurt when people insist that it is.

It just makes the game even more complicated than it already is.

Interesting how it's "an interesting intrepretation" when lukelightning says it, but not when I do.

 

[Hypersmurf]

That's not the same. Those are rules specific to using crossbows in a certain way. Same thing with the rules for shield bashing.

Do I think it was dumb to put combat rules in the equipment section? Yes. But they are not out of context - they are specifically in the context of using crossbows and shields.

I was referring to the Heavy Crossbow in 3E.

If I wanted to know whether I could use the TWF feat to reduce the penalties for throwing daggers with both hands in 3E, where did I look for the rule? Under Ranged Attacks? Under Thrown Weapons? Under Attacking With Two Weapons? Under the Two-Weapon Fighting feat? Under Daggers?

No - the only place that rule was found was under Crossbow, Heavy.

If I want to know in 3.5 whether a Wizard can cast a Fireball with a caster level of 4, where do I look? Hell, it's in the first place I'd look - under Caster Level. And it says caster level can't be too low to cast the spell, and it says 5th is the minimum level at which a wizard can cast fireball.

Compared to the Heavy Crossbow rule, this one's not out of context at all. It's the rule about Caster Level, found under the heading "Caster Level".

-Hyp.

 

[Darklone]

The spell enervation is problematic in more than one way... It does not mention that the victim loses hitpoints (as it does for the usual negative levels). Since it lists all other drawbacks, one might be inclined to think they did it with purpose.

As one might assume that they wrote it with purpose that you lose these spells ... because they did not mean it to lower the casterlevel in the way Hyp says.

Give or take, there's more than one thing wrong with that spell. But I love it. And it's my favorite reason to choose PCs with high touch AC.