[FLPBCNFAIS]I don't like Energy Drain as written in the books. How about you?

[ForceUser]

I understand where you're coming from, mmadsen, and believe me, I understand the revulsion gamers have for level loss (insert evil DM laugh ). For me, though, I'm trying to run my current campaign by two simple principles:

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. House-rule as little as possible.

 

[mmadsen]

I'm trying to run my current campaign by two simple principles:

1. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
2. House-rule as little as possible.

Understandable, ForceUser. I'd say that my house-rule principle is to seek elegant, simple improvements, not extra complications. Replacing Negative Levels with Ability Drain actually reduces the number of different mechanics needed.

 

[Chimera]

I am very happy the the 3e level drain rules.

Previously, players avoided level draining undead like the plague (as someone else above noted, it'd be "No thanks, we'll skip the artifact guarded by the one single Spectre and go take on the entire Cloud Giant city. It's safer.").

Now they still terrify players, but they don't completely destroy characters and render them unplayable. ("My 9th level Fighter is now 1st level and the rest of the party is untouched? Guess I can either roll up a new character, or drop the game.")

 

[reiella]

Negative Energy Protection... Pre-emptive. Just keep that cast on the cleric so the cleric can cast restoration afterwards.

The book-keeping is frustrating I'll admit (-hp of levels is a pain, I'd typically just have it be subtract the average of the hit-die + con mod for each level lost), and not worry about skills.

BAB and Saves are easy enough to track.

 

[LordAO]

I think energy drain is senseless and cheap. A level isn't something tangible that can be drained. That's metagame thinking on D&D's part. I think it would make far more sense if undead drained Con or Hps instead. After all, if they're draining your life force/vitality then wouldn't that be con damage? And if it is negative energy it should just do normal damage, since positive energy heals you. No vampires in mythology drained levels by slamming you. That's just stupid, especially when just about every undead and evil outsider does it. If they think characters in D&D are too hard to kill by doing normal damage, they should fix whatever problems are in the normal combat/damage system, not invent some lame rule like level drain.

 

[Ristamar]

I think energy drain is senseless and cheap. A level isn't something tangible that can be drained. That's metagame thinking on D&D's part. I think it would make far more sense if undead drained Con or Hps instead. After all, if they're draining your life force/vitality then wouldn't that be con damage?

My understanding of level/energy draining is that it transcends the physical (Strength, Constitution, Hit Points, etc.) and attacks the metaphysical, clawing at the soul, sucking away the very essence of one's being. In D&D, and now more than ever in 3rd edition with the use of XP costs in spellcasting and magic item creation, a character's core essence is very much represented by the intangible property known as experience. Reducing levels gained through experience is still arguably the best way to represent this abstract concept, in my opinion.

 

[LordAO]

Fine, then have it take exp, but not levels. Spells take exp, not levels, because the exp for going up in level increases dramatically. Going from level 20 to 19 is a much bigger loss than going from level 2 to 1. So have it take away 100 xp per each level it would have drained. How's that?

 

[Ristamar]

Actually, under the CR system, the difference between levels 1 & 2 and levels 19 & 20 is approximately the same, in terms of number of encounters, relative to the strength of the party. It no longers takes months and months of adventuring to gain a mere level as it did in second edition once you entered double digit levels.

Also, you can't lose a level from casting spells or creating magic items, as far as I know. By the rules, the system forbids it. If a character wants to churn out a few items or cast a few hefty spells and raise his level, but he knows he won't have enough experience, he has to choose between gaining a level or saving the XP for other purposes. Of course, some people don't like this restriction, but that's what custom feats and/or Rule 0 is for.

The only real problem with energy drains is the meticulous backtracking of levels. For that reason, I am going to keep a copy of each character at each level in future campaigns. A little foresight should eliminate the problem.

Anyway, as a previous poster had mentioned, I think energy drains are far more lenient now (in terms of both restoration or simply making up lost ground the hard way) than they were in previous incarnations of the game. I'd to see what some folks thought of the possibility of losing levels in 2E. That could be really harsh. The possibilities were so harsh, in fact, that I never used energy drains in my 2E games. Now, however, I wouldn't have second thoughts about it.

 

[333 Dave]

I left negative levels alone, and if you fail your fort save then you just keep the negative level instead of losing a level. That way, if you fail your fort save every day, you could potentially keep the negative level for most of your career (like you get it at 4th level, and 10 years (gametime) later you still have the lingering effects of it at level 20), but I suppose thats a little odd...

 

[LordAO]

Keeping the negative level is MUCH worse than losing a level. It gives you a -1 to everything, and there is no class that gives you a +1 attack, saves, all skills etc at every level. Besides then you're preventing them from recovering what they lost. Level Drain is bad enough as it is, doing it that way is worse than even second edition's way of doing it!