Enervation

[IanB]

Personally I'm inclined to go with Caliban's reading here, not that we're really taking a poll I guess.

I find the RAW support for Hyp's position flimsy. The rules for negative levels already call out specifically what happens to casters when they are applied, and I see no reason to believe that the rules for voluntary caster level reduction should apply to these CL penalties.

Illogical results happen with either interpretation (Hyp's leads to negative levels at even levels being far, far worse than ones at odd ones (or the reverse depending on the class), Caliban's leads to voluntary 3d6 fireballs = no, involuntary 3d6 fireballs = yes), but Caliban's interpretation, to me, is more consistent with the effects of negative levels on non-spellcasting class features.

 

[frankthedm]

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.

I strongly suspect that the Text in the PHB enervation is a holdover from before that -5 HP was assigned to negative levels {first 3.0 printing of the $20 DMG or $20MM]

 

[moritheil]

Taking rules out of the context in which they were written and applying them to unlrelated rules mechanics doesn't make them RAW.

They don't need to be made RAW; the definition of the term "rules as written" is, well, as written. When I refer to RAW, I refer to what the rules themselves say. Note that the term is not "as interpreted." Context is a matter of interpretation; thus, my distaste for arguments that lean heavily on context is, I think, quite understandable.

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

Well, if you had directly addressed Hyp's concerns with careful reading of the text, the way lukelightning had, I would have been happy to say the same for your posts.

 

[lukelightning]

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.

Ah, but negative levels don't really reduce your caster level.

It's like the penalty to hit. You get a -1 to hit but your BAB doesn't actually go down as if you've lost a level, so you still qualify for that PrC or feat you took that required a minimum BAB.

Otherwise sadistic DMs would be like "BOO-yeah! you get enervated and get 3 negative levels... now you're no longer eligible for your Shining Fist PrC and your sacred save and AC bonuses go away and now you're gonna die!"

 

[Plane Sailing]

I think ya'll are overlooking something here.

I don't know - I think that was actually the point of my post.

 

[Caliban]

They don't need to be made RAW; the definition of the term "rules as written" is, well, as written. When I refer to RAW, I refer to what the rules themselves say. Note that the term is not "as interpreted." Context is a matter of interpretation; thus, my distaste for arguments that lean heavily on context is, I think, quite understandable.

Way to completely ignore my point.

Taking a single parenthetical comment from an example in a passage about spellcasting in the PHB and trying to apply it to the Negative Levels rules in the DMG doesn't really strike me as "RAW" in any case.

Well, if you had directly addressed Hyp's concerns with careful reading of the text, the way lukelightning had, I would have been happy to say the same for your posts.

I think I did, explicitly in post #43, and implied in my earlier posts. Not my fault if you are biased.

 

[Destil]

Ah, but negative levels don't really reduce your caster level.

This is the best argument, I think. It doesn't reduce your caster level, just your effective level (which would usually be the same as CL).

 

[Hypersmurf]

This is the best argument, I think. It doesn't reduce your caster level, just your effective level (which would usually be the same as CL).

I'm a 6th level wizard with one negative level.

I cast Dispel Magic. What do I add to my d20 roll for the caster level check?

I cast Shield, and someone else casts Dispel Magic. The DC to dispel my Shield is 11 + caster level of the spell. What's the DC?

I cast Fireball. What's my maximum range, and how much damage does the spell deal?

-Hyp.

 

[Michael Silverbane]

I'm a 6th level wizard with one negative level.

I cast Dispel Magic. What do I add to my d20 roll for the caster level check?

I cast Shield, and someone else casts Dispel Magic. The DC to dispel my Shield is 11 + caster level of the spell. What's the DC?

I cast Fireball. What's my maximum range, and how much damage does the spell deal?

-Hyp.

The answer to all of these things is the same... It is your Effective Level (or derived from your effective level). That is, your Caster Level minus the number of negative levels that you have. Since, you know, it doesn't actually say that your Caster Level is reduced.

Later
silver

 

[Hypersmurf]

The answer to all of these things is the same... It is your Effective Level (or derived from your effective level). That is, your Caster Level minus the number of negative levels that you have. Since, you know, it doesn't actually say that your Caster Level is reduced.

Right. So if your effective level is too low to cast the spell, then since it's the effective level that's used for the spell, it's your effective level that determines whether or not you can cast a spell.

If I have a BAB of +6, and take a penalty of -1 to my effective BAB (not to my attack rolls, but to my effective BAB), then I would assume that, effectively, I wouldn't get two iterative attacks, and effectively, I wouldn't have access to the ITWF feat.

-Hyp.