Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Xeviat-DM 08-17-04, 05:49 PM	Yup, I've recently been considering a very drastic change to spellcasters. I'm considering having a caster's caster level be based on their character level, not their class level. Granted, their spells per day and/or spells known and such will still be based on the appropriate class level. But their damage, duration, range, SR, and Dispell penetration will be based on your character level. This might be what Multiclass characters need to be fixed. What do you think?
neroaster 08-17-04, 05:54 PM	Originally posted by Xeviat-DM Yup, I've recently been considering a very drastic change to spellcasters. I'm considering having a caster's caster level be based on their character level, not their class level. Granted, their spells per day and/or spells known and such will still be based on the appropriate class level. But their damage, duration, range, SR, and Dispell penetration will be based on your character level. This might be what Multiclass characters need to be fixed. What do you think? bad idea! and why wouldn't you multiclass a spellcaster anymore ?
Tony Vargas 08-17-04, 05:56 PM	It's not unlike the idea of BAB & saves stacking. You could have full-casting classes contribute thier entire class level to your overall Caster Level, casters like Paladins and Rangers contribute their usual CL (1/2), and non-casters like Fighters contribute, well, less than that (it'd have to be less than half). As long as it only counts towards CL, not spells/day or anything, it shouldn't be that bad.
neroaster 08-17-04, 05:59 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas It's not unlike the idea of BAB & saves stacking. You could have full-casting classes contribute thier entire class level to your overall Caster Level, casters like Paladins and Rangers contribute their usual CL (1/2), and non-casters like Fighters contribute, well, less than that (it'd have to be less than half). As long as it only counts towards CL, not spells/day or anything, it shouldn't be that bad. and if you take the Mystic theurge Prestige class ? what then ? (http://www.systemreferencedocuments.org/35/sovelior_sage/mysticTheurge.html )
bitnine 08-17-04, 06:07 PM	Originally posted by neroaster and if you take the Mystic theurge Prestige class ?You know, any time you compound multiple solutions to the same issue that were meant to be taken seperately, you can have some issues. If I take 50 indepent items that are meant to make multiclass casters more viable, and then apply them all at once, it might produce something crazy - but that doesn't mean that any particular item is itself problematic.
smrtgmp 08-17-04, 07:53 PM	Originally posted by Tony Vargas It's not unlike the idea of BAB & saves stacking. You could have full-casting classes contribute thier entire class level to your overall Caster Level, casters like Paladins and Rangers contribute their usual CL (1/2), and non-casters like Fighters contribute, well, less than that (it'd have to be less than half). As long as it only counts towards CL, not spells/day or anything, it shouldn't be that bad. this is almost exactly what I was thinking. The only difference is that I was going to suggest the pseudo-casters (ranger, paladin, etc) progress at the same rate as 3/4 BAB, while the noncasters (fighter/barb/rogue) progress at the same rate as 1/2 BAB. However, your idea might be more intune with the current system, since mine would involve increasing the rate at which paladins and rangers recieve new caster levels. and if you take the Mystic theurge Prestige class ? what then ?I think in a system like this it would be safe to assume that your caster level cant exceed your HD. A presige class like MT would only increase your access to new spells, not your caster level (any more than taking anyother spell casting class would, that is). Personally, I dont think its a bad idea. It would go along way to fix some of the problems with the current multiclass system.
LukiLoki 08-17-04, 08:02 PM	Seen Practiced Spellcaster? Same idea, but it's a feat, doesn't affect spells known/per day and you can only go 4 levels above your caster level, up to your total HD. So, as said, given that there's a PrC and a feat that head in the direction you're looking, I'd say bad idea. Stick with playtested mechanics. Cause we all know: If it's playtested, it CAN'T be broken. :rolleyes: But seriously, it would overpower spellcasting.
Nom 08-17-04, 08:07 PM	I would recommend against giving full CL credit for multiclassing. A Ftr/Wiz doesn't get +1 BAB from the Wiz levels, so why should he get +1 CL from the Ftr levels? You could easily say +1/2 CL from non-class levels. The main mechanical problem with this is record keeping, since you must calculate CL separately for each class. Ftr5/Wiz4/Clr6: Ftr CL: not applicable Wiz CL: 4 + (6+5)/2 = 9 Clr CL: 6 + (4+5)/2 = 10 This even works for a mystic theurge: Wiz3/Clr4/MT5: Wiz CL: 3+5+4/2 = 9 Clr CL: 4+5+3/2 = 10 Issue: do you use standard multiclass rules where each component is rounded down before adding, or do you add all the classes together and then round down? I'd strongly recommend against allowing other magic using classes to gain a full bonus. Consider this: Wiz1/Clr9. The character gets a full-powered magic missile after putting only a single level (relatively nothing) investment in it. Sure, he doesn't get more powerful spells, but those he does get operate at full power. Besides, why should a character who is half-wiz, half-cleric be any more or less effective at wizarding than half-wiz, half-ftr? The main gotcha I see is gameplay. My Ftr6 elf decides to gain a Wiz level (Ftr6/Wiz1). Suddenly, he casts spells as powerfully as a level 4 wizard. This feels slightly wrong to me, but I don't know if I've a legitimate complaint.
Sildatorak 08-17-04, 08:07 PM	Practiced Spellcaster and the various multi-class like PrC's make multi-classing a spellcaster feasible. Mystic theurge, arcane trickster, eldritch knight, the one from complete warrior that is more warrior like and less spellcastery…wizards and sorcs can utilize these pretty effectively to strike a medium between magic and another pursuit.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-17-04, 08:22 PM	Originally posted by Nom The main gotcha I see is gameplay. My Ftr6 elf decides to gain a Wiz level (Ftr6/Wiz1). Suddenly, he casts spells as powerfully as a level 4 wizard. This feels slightly wrong to me, but I don't know if I've a legitimate complaint. Perfectly legitimate. Xeviat, would this just be a "fix" to make multiclassed spellcasters more attractive? I honestly don't think there's a problem with the current mechanics. Loss of caster levels is one of the penalties to multiclassing, and as such it requires spellcasters to think carefully before taking a second (or third) class that doesn't advance their caster level. I really can't see the in-game rationale ("logic" in an illogical game) for a Ftr 5/Wiz 5 doing just as much damage with a fireball as a Wiz 10, or a Ftr 8/Wiz 3 getting just as much out of scorching ray as a Wiz 11. Just my 2cp.
meabolex 08-17-04, 10:29 PM	Originally posted by Sildatorak the one from complete warrior that is more warrior like and less spellcastery Spellsword? Practiced Spellcaster is the best thing to happen to this guy (: A spellsword still doesn't gain back ALL the precious caster levels he lost, but it does give you the ability to use PLENTY of armor with only a couple of caster levels lost. The "pre-Practiced Spellcaster" spellsword was often smacked by creatures with SR and dispel checks. . . but now it's not as bad as it was.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-17-04, 11:14 PM	What I'd suggest and am itching to playtest is to completely divorce Caster Level from Class Level. I'd just create a Base Casting Bonus that would run parrallel to the Base Attack Bonus. Meaning Full BAB/Half BCB, Med BAB/Med BCB, Half BAB/Full BCB. It all stacks, and against SR you add your spellcasting modifier. Your spells per day would remain class-dependent, but your BCB would determine qualifying for feats, PrCs, etc. This would probably work very well with classes like Geomancer, which were designed to compensate mutliclassed spellcasters but never managed to help the CL problem. As to the MT, make it a 5-level PrC, requiring BCB 10ish. It's purpose would be to help multiclassed casters catch up in terms of spells/day. Then there's no problems with epic progressions, either. So you could build a Clr3/Wiz3/PrC10/MT5, and them progressin your PrC at epic without worrying as much about not having high-level spells. All in all, while it may need tweaking, this would serve to seriously stream-line the spellcasting system, as well as making a "free multiclass system" a reality.
PhaedrusXY 08-18-04, 03:12 AM	I've toyed around with doing something like this in my games, and did in fact increase the caster level of the "half-casters" (palladins, rangers, etc) to equal their class level (as a separate issue). Since the higher level spells are where the real power starts coming in, you still lose alot if you go up as something besides your primary caster class. But you aren't an unplayable gimp. So I say go for it.
TheDarkLord 08-18-04, 06:02 AM	Unearthed Arcana has a magic system that add's to CL. Say you are a Wizard 6/FIghter 4. Your Caster level would be 8 according to this system. Not bad, i'd implement it in a heartbeat b/c the worse thing you can do to a caster is to take away levels. Secondly, the "Quarter" caster's as i like to call em, the Paladin and Ranger, i'd also suggest using the Variant Prestige Paladin and Prestige Ranger from UA. Both are very nice options, same class pretty much except spell's per day is +1 CL at certain Level's, you gain higher level spell's and can still draw spell's from both the Ranger's and Paladin's Spell List, along with the Cleric's and Druids.
Seeker95 08-18-04, 08:55 AM	Judging from the initial proposal and the comments, I'd say this is an idea that needs work, but is worth exploring. So far, I like Jaerom's suggestion the best.
Nom 08-18-04, 09:37 AM	I really dislike the "base caster level", for two reasons: (1) It homogenizes magic. Currently, the system makes it quite clear that arcane != divine, and moreover any two ways of practising magic are distinct. If you have a base caster level, then you're in effect saying that it doesn't matter whether you draw your power (ie CL) from a divine source or arcane learning, it's all just generic power. (2) It unfairly penalises multiclass to non-pure casters. What is the game balance rationale for a Clr8/Wiz2 being able to cast magic missile as a 10th level Wiz, but a Ftr8/Wiz2 casts as a 5th level wizard? It's mechanically equivalent to creating a class that's identical to a sorcerer but with a full BAB.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 09:48 AM	Originally posted by TheDarkLord Unearthed Arcana has a magic system that add's to CL. Say you are a Wizard 6/FIghter 4. Your Caster level would be 8 according to this system. Not bad, i'd implement it in a heartbeat b/c the worse thing you can do to a caster is to take away levels. I'm aware at UA's attempt to address this project, but I'd like to simplify things even more by making them distinct from the classes (as in, Bard grants this, Barbarian grants this, cleric grants this, etc). One ofthe great things about 3E is that so many things were made universal (for example, now fighters don't have different combat rules than other classes--all classes have one BAB that grants multiple attacks at defined levels and stacks between all classes). Caster levels are one of the few things that has not been standardized. To elaborate a little more: Among the core classes, BCB would go thusly: Barbarian 1/2 Paladin 1/2 Bard 3/4 Ranger 1/2 Cleric 3/4 Rogue 1/2 Druid 3/4 Sorcerer 1/1 Fighter 1/2 Wizard 1/1 Monk 1/2The only exception to the pattern I mentioned before is Rogue, which I really don't see as having a Medium (although I could be convinced otherwise, since they were the only class with UMD in 3.0). Cleric and Druid got 3/4 BCB. I hadn't considered this before, but I think I like it, since these classes are always considered to be the most powerful. This might take them down a notch, and put them more on a level with other classes, since their infamous buff spells now scale slower. On the topic of PrCs, we have a minor problem in that there now exist several that were designed to compensate for this same problem. Here's how I would alter them under this system: Mystic Theurge: As stated above, I would make it a 5-level PrC that grants the same benefits, full BCB, and requires BCB +10 and 4th-level arcane and divine. With this, instead of having a Clr10/Wiz10 with CL 17 and 5th-level spells in both, you could make a Clr7/Wiz8/Myt5, with CL 18, 6th-level divine and 7th-level arcane. If you threw in some Geomancer or similar class, you have all of that, plus some other abilities that round off the combination and make it fully viable. Eldritch Knight: I'd keep this class as written and grant a full BCB (perhaps scaling back the spells/day progression slightly). Arcane Trickster: I'd probably make this a 5-level, too, like MT. Spellsword: Full BCB, half spells/day progression. And so on.
Seeker95 08-18-04, 10:12 AM	Originally posted by Nom I really dislike the "base caster level", for two reasons: (2) It unfairly penalises multiclass to non-pure casters.Not in the least. It says that a Clr3/Sor6 can cast his magic missile as a Sor9, but he still suffers the multi-class penalty of never gaining access to 9th level spells. However, even this is over-stating it. As Jaerom noted, BCB need not be at a direct 1:1.
spike81101 08-18-04, 10:37 AM	I brought up this topic long ago. There were people who screamed in outrage that I would think such a thing. "Stacking divine and arcane caster levels, blasphemy!" And I commented on how a 13th level wizard could beat a 10 wizard/10 cleric. If the 13th level wiz won initiative, he definitely won. We even did it with 13th level having 13th level gear and 10/10 having 20th levle gear. The extra gear doesn't mean anything is the core class is broken. I simply said to them if the 10/10 was able to stack his classes, he would be much better off. People again shouted. "Stacking divine and arcane caster levels, blasphemy!" Then I thought to myself, "Being a wizard and cleric blasphemy!" Why wouldn't your God strengthen your wizard spells for you as an extra perk? You are mixing arcane spellcasting and divine spellcasting already just by taking the 2 classes with one character. What kind of god would awizard cleric worship? Mysta or equivilant most likely, and combining casters levels made sense to me as an easy fix. Again, people shouted about, What about the 19 cleric/1 wizard? Should he be able to cast magic missile as a 20th level caster? And I thought to myself, sure it seems a bit odd, but would it be broken? No, not really. A 19th level cleric taking the time to cast magic missile is probably a moron, and is missing out on extra 9th level cleric spells for 1st level wizard spells. What is better, a 1st level wizard magic missile with a caster level of 20, or a 9th level miracle for magic missile with a caster level or 20? The latter by a very small margin for magic missile at any rate. I challeneged people to "break" the stacking of caster levels. Not one showed me any proof that it would be broken. Again, I said max of your HD, to keep MT and such in check. Someone from WotC even showed up and said, "yeah, we know multiclassing with spellcasters is broken, the MT, EK, and AT are all to help improved this, but are definitely not fix, more like another tool to help it out." If this search feature wasn't broken I'd look it up for you guys. Now there is the practiced spellcaster feat, yet another temporary "fix" to patch the broken mechanic. I believe that what is suggested here will be implemented in 4e. Originally posted by Nom I really dislike the "base caster level", for two reasons: (1) It homogenizes magic. Currently, the system makes it quite clear that arcane != divine, and moreover any two ways of practising magic are distinct. If you have a base caster level, then you're in effect saying that it doesn't matter whether you draw your power (ie CL) from a divine source or arcane learning, it's all just generic power. Exactly, you can't stack the melee techniques you've learned while being a fighter with the ones you've learned while being a rogue on the streets. You're in effect saying that it doesn't matter whether you draw your power (ie BAB) from a fighters source or rogue learning, it's all just generic power. Replace a few words, that is all it takes, to see the light. (2) It unfairly penalises multiclass to non-pure casters. What is the game balance rationale for a Clr8/Wiz2 being able to cast magic missile as a 10th level Wiz, but a Ftr8/Wiz2 casts as a 5th level wizard? It's mechanically equivalent to creating a class that's identical to a sorcerer but with a full BAB. It unfairly penalises multiclass to non-pure melee. What is the game balance rationale for a ftr8/rog2 being able to have a bab of 9, but a rog8/ftr2 Having a bab of 8? It's mechanically equivalent to creating a class that's identical to a rogue but with a full BAB. This is the world of 3.5, where you add your class levels to get your character level. You don't split your XP into 2 pools, one for each class whose XP tables are different. BaB's stack, saves stack, uncanny dodge stacks, evasion stacks, rages stack, why not caster levels? Sorry if I took up too much room or wasted anyones time.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Not in the least. It says that a Clr3/Sor6 can cast his magic missile as a Sor9, but he still suffers the multi-class penalty of never gaining access to 9th level spells. However, even this is over-stating it. As Jaerom noted, BCB need not be at a direct 1:1. To elaborate a bit more. The advantage single-classed spellcasters will have is higher-level spells. They'll have more power to throw around. What would you rather cast, a fireball at 20th CL, or a meteor swarm at 20th CL? Yeah. What is unfair is leaving multiclassed charaters with pathetic CLS, because at epic everything's got SR, and multiclassed casters have no way of overcoming it. It's exactly like forcing a Fighter 5/Barbarian 10/PrC 10 to choose whether he wants to use his "Fighter BAB", his "Barbarian BAB", or his "[PrC] BAB" on his attack rolls. Would he ever hit anything? Obviously not. Of course, I think SR is unfair anyway, which is why I stated that SR would be opposed by a 1d20 + CL + ability modifier check, instead of a flat CL check.
tarkin 08-18-04, 11:08 AM	Multi-classers usually DO stack caster levels. But most classes do not HAVE caster levels. Taking levels in Mage makes you a slightly better fighter than someone with no levels at all, so therefore taking levels in mage makes a fighter slightly better. Note, a fighter's BAB does NOT go up 1 for 1 when a they take a Mage level. You are basically stating that being good at fighting should make you good at magic use. And that makes no sense whatsoever. ----------------------------------------------- Higher Casters get the following as compared to lower level casters: 1) SPell effects(Damage done, duration, range, etc.) 2) SR penetration. 3) Know more powerfull spells 4) Know more spells in general 5) Better saving throws via feats and Prestige Classes. 6) Better Prestige Classes available. When a Sorceror takes level in Cleric, he still gets #4,#5, and #6. Your system gives hims everything except #3, and also gives him an IMPROVED version of #4 (Cleric spells), Domain powers, better saves, Turning, better BAB. Your system and logic is tremoundously flawed. Worse, you are trying to fix a problem that WoTC already fixed, via the Prestige Classes. Yes, combining your flawed House Made method with the intelligent, unflawed Prestige Class system (Mystic Theurge, Eldertich Knight) is a bad idea. An intelligent person would therefore use only one of them, and the unflawed, official Prestige Class system is the one they would use.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 11:43 AM	Originally posted by tarkin Multi-classers usually DO stack caster levels. But most classes do not HAVE caster levels.When? How? Your system gives hims everything except #3, and also gives him an IMPROVED version of #4 (Cleric spells), Domain powers, better saves, Turning, better BAB. #3 is the only important one on your list, the rest is just gravy (except #2, which is vital, and I've already addressed why it's important that everyone get it--SR) Your system and logic is tremoundously flawed. Worse, you are trying to fix a problem that WoTC already fixed, via the Prestige Classes. Yes, combining your flawed House Made method with the intelligent, unflawed Prestige Class system (Mystic Theurge, Eldertich Knight) is a bad idea. An intelligent person would therefore use only one of them, and the unflawed, official Prestige Class system is the one they would use. Your statement that said PrCs are unflawed pretty much destroys the valdity of your argument. Those PrCs are probably the most problematic and broken aspect of 3.5. Espceially MT, and especially at epic.
spike81101 08-18-04, 11:51 AM	I'd hate to have to pick on your tarkin, because I do like you, Originally posted by tarkin Multi-classers usually DO stack caster levels. Can you show me this rule? But most classes do not HAVE caster levels. Most classes? BARBARIAN - no BARD - yes CLERIC - yes DRUID - yes FIGHTER - no MONK - no PALADIN - yes RANGER - yes ROGUE - no SORCERER - yes WIZARD - yes Percentage of core classes with caster levels 63% Thats 2 incorrect statements in a row there, sorry. Taking levels in Mage makes you a slightly better fighter than someone with no levels at all, so therefore taking levels in mage makes a fighter slightly better. Note, a fighter's BAB does NOT go up 1 for 1 when a they take a Mage level. You are basically stating that being good at fighting should make you good at magic use. Aren't you the one who just stated that levels in mage makes you a better fighter? Why can't it work the other way around too? A practiced spellcaster feat can make up for 4 levels, isn't that some indication of how broken the mechanic is for multiclassing? And THAT makes no sense whatsoever. Higher Casters get the following as compared to lower level casters: 1) SPell effects(Damage done, duration, range, etc.) 2) SR penetration. 3) Know more powerfull spells 4) Know more spells in general 5) Better saving throws via feats and Prestige Classes. 6) Better Prestige Classes available. When a Sorceror takes level in Cleric, he still gets #4,#5, and #6. Your system gives hims everything except #3, and also gives him an IMPROVED version of #4 (Cleric spells), Domain powers, better saves, Turning, better BAB. Your system and logic is tremoundously flawed. Worse, you are trying to fix a problem that WoTC already fixed, via the Prestige Classes. Oh, those problems were already fixed? Is that why so many different people use this method or variation or it? What is I want a sneaky wizard, that doens't have sneak attack dice? What about a rogue cleric? Where is the PrC for that? Oh that's right, there aren't any. Yes, combining your flawed House Made method with the intelligent, unflawed Prestige Class system (Mystic Theurge, Eldertich Knight) is a bad idea.For shame. You're calling those prestige classes unflawed? The whole system isn't perfect, people have shown broken stuff all over these forums. So to toss around the words unflawed and flaw is incredibly...obtuse. An intelligent person would therefore use only one of them, and the unflawed, official Prestige Class system is the one they would use. An intelligent person wouldn't have post a message so full of incorrect and offensive statements. All this system would do it give the MT, AT, and EK types an extra feat as they wouldn't have to take practived spellcaster. SOme people believe the MT to be underpowered, especially at lower levels, this would fix that a bit too. I suggested a feat like practiced spellcaster and people shot it down with the same type of crap you've posted here tarkin. Now that it's unflawed offical material, it's A.O.K. So, I'll ask again, where like I did last time, where is the game breaking ability of the caster levels stacking? Where is the game breaking ability of giving multiclass characaters a bonus to caster levels when taking a non-spellcasting class? Again, you can't, because it's not there. (**edit sorry if this was overly offensive tarkin, but you post was degrading and there is no need for it**)
spike81101 08-18-04, 12:02 PM	**double**
Seeker95 08-18-04, 12:20 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 Aren't you the one who just stated that levels in mage makes you a better fighter? Why can't it work the other way around too?Because while a mage can wield a dagger (albeit not as effectively as a fighter can), a fighter cannot cast a spell. If I were to allow spellcasting levels to stack at all (and I think it is still an idea worth exploring), I would not allow an improvement in spellcasting based on non-spellcasting class levels.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-18-04, 12:43 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 If I were to allow spellcasting levels to stack at all (and I think it is still an idea worth exploring), I would not allow an improvement in spellcasting based on non-spellcasting class levels. See, I think this is the only option that can be considered balanced. I can see how you could use knowledge of a different spellcasting tradition (wizard vs. cleric vs. bard) and translate some of that knowledge into a different tradition (i.e. caster levels in wizard contribute to caster levels in cleric, etc.), but I can't see how knowledge of Fighter, or Barbarian, or Rogue traditions would contribute to any spellcasting tradition. I don't think non-spellcasting classes should contribute to caster level, period. I can see a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 having a CL 15 in each class, but I'd even have trouble seeing them translate 100%. A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 with a CL 20 in each class? I'm not sold....
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 12:45 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Because while a mage can wield a dagger (albeit not as effectively as a fighter can), a fighter cannot cast a spell. If I were to allow spellcasting levels to stack at all (and I think it is still an idea worth exploring), I would not allow an improvement in spellcasting based on non-spellcasting class levels. And yet, I see no reason why a spellcaster can improve his ability to fight (via increased BAB), while a fighter cannot improve his ability to cast spells (via increased CL). Both are numerically equivalent, but the fact that BAB is universal where CL isn't seriously unbalances the multiclass system in favor of fighting classes. Any argument that could be made in favor of mages picking up combat skill could equally apply to fighters picking up magical skill. And if Use Magic Device were altered in such a way that it works off of the character's BCB (CL), then every character would have a use for it, even non-casters (since UMD is no longer restricted to Rogues in 3.5).
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 12:52 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade See, I think this is the only option that can be considered balanced. I can see how you could use knowledge of a different spellcasting tradition (wizard vs. cleric vs. bard) and translate some of that knowledge into a different tradition (i.e. caster levels in wizard contribute to caster levels in cleric, etc.), but I can't see how knowledge of Fighter, or Barbarian, or Rogue traditions would contribute to any spellcasting tradition. I don't think non-spellcasting classes should contribute to caster level, period. I can see a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 having a CL 15 in each class, but I'd even have trouble seeing them translate 100%. A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 with a CL 20 in each class? I'm not sold.... Now then, I have this character who's got 10 levels in fighter and 8 levels in paladin. By your logic, his combat ability (BAB) comes from two completely different martial traditions. How in the world could he add both together? Should he use his fighter BAB (+10/+5) when using fighter bonus feat like Power Attack and Improved Grapple, and his paladin BAB (+8/+3) when smiting evil or wielding his holy avenger?
Sildatorak 08-18-04, 01:17 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Among the core classes, BCB would go thusly: Barbarian 1/2 Paladin 1/2 Bard 3/4 Ranger 1/2 Cleric 3/4 Rogue 1/2 Druid 3/4 Sorcerer 1/1 Fighter 1/2 Wizard 1/1 Monk 3/4 I don't see why the monk (a class that gets no casting) has a higher BCB than a paladin or ranger. Yes, they get some nifty spell-like/supernatural abilities, but so do paladins and rangers.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 01:24 PM	Originally posted by Sildatorak I don't see why the monk (a class that gets no casting) has a higher BCB than a paladin or ranger. Yes, they get some nifty spell-like/supernatural abilities, but so do paladins and rangers. Or it could be 1/2. I had said that BCB would generally be matched up with BAB, and monks have 3/4 BAB. Rangers get 1/2 because they have full BAB and 1/2 CL anyway, so this changes nothing. But monks with 1/2 makes sense, yes.
spike81101 08-18-04, 01:30 PM	A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 with a CL 20 in each class? What if I told you I have a character whose level is 20, and his caster level is also 20? No big deal right? Now what if I told you that he was a cleric wizard? You'd probably think mystic theurge. 3 cleric/5 wizard/10 MT/2 arcmage with the practiced spellcasting feat gives you just that. What is more powerful: 3 cleric/5 wizard/10 MT/2 arcmage with the practiced spellcasting feat 10 wizard/10 cleric with caster levels stacking. This stacking would aid the MT character at it's lower levels, anyone who's played a 3 cleric/5 wizard knows how behind you are at that point. This idea not only fixes them at low levels, but at epic as well. Sure you only get +1 to wizard caster levels on the evens and cleric on the odds. Now this rather lame progression only reffers to spells per day rather than overall effective caster level. The other terrible mistake WoTC made was on how to break SR. It really should be skill related instead of actual caster level related. Rolling a spellcraft (with no int mod) check to beat SR has been suggested. The whole point of Jaerom's idea is to add flexability more than anything else. The terrible thing about those who oppose this is that you'll never playtest it to know for sure. While those of us who have playtested it know that it works pretty darn well.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-18-04, 01:34 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Now then, I have this character who's got 10 levels in fighter and 8 levels in paladin. By your logic, his combat ability (BAB) comes from two completely different martial traditions. How in the world could he add both together? Should he use his fighter BAB (+10/+5) when using fighter bonus feat like Power Attack and Improved Grapple, and his paladin BAB (+8/+3) when smiting evil or wielding his holy avenger? The big mistake in this argument is that BAB should be considered the equivalent of CL. That is a totally inappropriate comparison. BAB functions like HD and Saves. All classes have them, and you add your totals in each class together to get your total BAB, HD, or Saves. Caster Level is not the same. Caster Level is limited to spellcasting classes. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue are NOT a spellcasting class; therefore, they do not gain caster levels. It's part and parcel of having the ability to cast spells. Paladin and Ranger ARE spellcasting classes, with their own restricted caster level progression (2 levels less than total Paladin/Ranger levels). Bard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard ARE spellcasting classes, with their own unrestricted caster level progressions. Those are class features, in the same way that Fighters get a ton of bonus feats, Barbarians get Rage, Monks get lots of abilities, Rogues get sneak attack.
spike81101 08-18-04, 01:40 PM	Evasion stacks to form improved evasion and uncanny dodges stack together from different classes. These are class features that stack from one class to another. Sneak attack also stacks from one class to another. WoTC just missed the boat for caster levels. Also they made caster level count for too much, like SR and dispelling.
Someone 08-18-04, 01:43 PM	Don't forget the Ur-priest: his caster level is equal to his Ur-priest levels (limited to 10 because its a PrC) + half his arcane levels. So in some cases, arcane and divine CLs stack. My problem with comparing CL with BAB is that while BAB might go 1/2, 3/4, 1/1, CL would only go 0, 1/2, 1/1. And your CL can exceed your levels (through PrC abilities and such), BAB can't. My solution would be that any class or PrC that can grant spells/ day can function as a +CL of existing. I can't think of any PrCs that grant + to existing that don't have a spellcasting prereq. But you should be able to swap class granted spells/ day for improvment to existing spellcasting. Provided that its the same kind. An assasin's arcane spellcasting wouldn't stack with cleric spells, for example. But it would stack with a wizard's, as both use arcane spells based off Int. So long as its the same type (arcane/ divine) and based on the same attribute (Int, Wis, or Cha) then they should be compatible.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-18-04, 01:44 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 Evasion stacks to form improved evasion and uncanny dodges stack together from different classes. These are class features that stack from one class to another. Sneak attack also stacks from one class to another. WoTC just missed the boat for caster levels. Also they made caster level count for too much, like SR and dispelling. So here you have an argument for allowing caster level to stack if you already have it from a different class. Like I said in my previous post, I can see this happening. I can't, however, see non-spellcasting classes granting caster levels. That's like saying, "I have Rage from my Barbarian level, I should get Improved Evasion when I take Rogue 2." ??? They aren't the same thing at all.
Drachasor 08-18-04, 01:49 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade See, I think this is the only option that can be considered balanced. I can see how you could use knowledge of a different spellcasting tradition (wizard vs. cleric vs. bard) and translate some of that knowledge into a different tradition (i.e. caster levels in wizard contribute to caster levels in cleric, etc.), but I can't see how knowledge of Fighter, or Barbarian, or Rogue traditions would contribute to any spellcasting tradition. I don't think non-spellcasting classes should contribute to caster level, period. I can see a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 having a CL 15 in each class, but I'd even have trouble seeing them translate 100%. A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 with a CL 20 in each class? I'm not sold.... You're forgetting something. This is a game, the point of which is to have fun. Multi-classed casters are horribly weak, especially against SR. This simply fixes it; makes the game fun for those characters (as it would be for others). It also can't be abused or broken. How is that a bad thing? As for justifications for *why* BCB should stack among different classes? Why, those are ridiculously easy to make up ad hoc: Cleric and Wizardly casting systems, though different, share many similar themes of drawing upon for the forces in the world (one divine, the other arcane), and bringing them to bear in a particular way. As such, for caster level purposes (how well you are able to bring them to bear), those caster levels stack. Similarly, Fighters, unbeknownst to themselves, also use their will, cunning, personality, desire, etc to bear upon the world. They don't do this in nearly as an effective way as someone trying to do it (such as a Wizard) can, but nonetheless their trade gives them a knack for it. As such they get a reduced BCB increase, perhaps 1/3 or 1/4 (or some would have it be 1/2). Anyhow, for many such things it is easy to make up reasons for why it works, afterall the world is fiction. What one must decide is wether it should work; wether it is balanced, fun etc. Afterall, as it is now, a Wizard/Druid/Sorcerer 5/5/5 wouldn't stand up to a level 15 Wizard (or Druid, or Sorcerer, or Fighter...etc) in any way. If you give the former guy a BCB of 15 though, then he stands a better chance (but would probably still be slaughtered). If anything, something beyond stacking BCBs needs to be done, though I am not sure what that should be. Oh, and as people have noted, if you seperate BCB from spell progression, then the MT isn't a problem at all (they get full BCB progression...no one gets double)--though people have noted this already. -Drachasor
spike81101 08-18-04, 01:49 PM	Originally posted by Someone Don't forget the Ur-priest: his caster level is equal to his Ur-priest levels (limited to 10 because its a PrC) + half his arcane levels. So in some cases, arcane and divine CLs stack. It's not the only one either, True Necromancer does it for death and necromancy spells, as well as Monte Cook's Hallowed Mage for all spellcasting classes.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-18-04, 02:03 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor You're forgetting something. This is a game, the point of which is to have fun. Multi-classed casters are horribly weak, especially against SR. This simply fixes it; makes the game fun for those characters (as it would be for others). It also can't be abused or broken. How is that a bad thing? See, I tend to have fun when I'm challenged. And part of that challenge is when I have to decide to multiclass my caster and get all kinds of goodies (armor/weapon proficiencies, better BAB, more hit points, sneak attack, rage, Track and favored enemy, bonus feats, etc.) OR stick with my physically weak class but get more effective magic. The game was designed that way for a reason. As for justifications for *why* BCB should stack among different classes? Why, those are ridiculously easy to make up ad hoc: Which really proves nothing, when it comes down to it, particularly when it comes to fabricating a reason for non-spellcasting classes to grant caster levels. I can make up a "reason" for anything; that doesn't mean the idea is a good one. And I have yet to see one *sensible* reason why a nonspellcasting class would grant caster levels. Afterall, as it is now, a Wizard/Druid/Sorcerer 5/5/5 wouldn't stand up to a level 15 Wizard (or Druid, or Sorcerer, or Fighter...etc) in any way. Precisely. The character made the choice to give up a higher caster level and higher-level spells for the ability to gain: an animal companion, nature sense, wild empathy, woodland stride, trackless step, resist nature's lure, wild shape 1/day, cast nature spells, and cast some arcane spells spontaneously. Bottom line is, a diversified individual will never attain the mastery of an individual dedicated to a single area of study. And in this game, that mastery is reflected in caster level and spell level. In addition, if you allow caster level to stack from non-spellcasting classes, you're really just encouraging more multiclassing and min/maxing. I think the system is fine the way it is, although I wouldn't be averse to exploring the option of caster levels from spellcasting classes stacking.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 02:08 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade The big mistake in this argument is that BAB should be considered the equivalent of CL. That is a totally inappropriate comparison. BAB functions like HD and Saves. All classes have them, and you add your totals in each class together to get your total BAB, HD, or Saves. Caster Level is not the same. Caster Level is limited to spellcasting classes. Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue are NOT a spellcasting class; therefore, they do not gain caster levels. It's part and parcel of having the ability to cast spells. Paladin and Ranger ARE spellcasting classes, with their own restricted caster level progression (2 levels less than total Paladin/Ranger levels). Bard/Cleric/Druid/Sorcerer/Wizard ARE spellcasting classes, with their own unrestricted caster level progressions. Those are class features, in the same way that Fighters get a ton of bonus feats, Barbarians get Rage, Monks get lots of abilities, Rogues get sneak attack. You must love 2E then, with different systems that do the same thing for each class. That worked (kind of) when little or no multiclassing was possible. Now it's here, and we need to adjust to compensate for it. Having some classes that multiclass freely (those that depend on BAB) while others essentially commit suicide when they do (those that depend on CL) does not compensate for it. Caster Level is currently limited to spellcasting classes, but in the past what passed for BAB was likewise limited to Fighters. Now it's not. The generalization of CL is just another step on the same path, towards complete flexibility and equality in multiclassing. Another step in the right direction. I gave a solution for the "no spellcasting talent" issue you seem to have. UMD is now open to all. Make it depend on BCB. Though psionics have not yet been brought up, a Base Manifesting Bonus may or may not come into play (depending on whether or not there's transparency with magic), but they already pool their PSPs, so they're a lot closer to achieving decent multiclassing ability than spellcasters are.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 02:12 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Bottom line is, a diversified individual will never attain the mastery of an individual dedicated to a single area of study. Actually, this is only true with spellcasting classes. Fighting classes only get stronger the more they multiclass. There's never a case of classes with full BAB classes getting weaker by multiclassing. Which is why it should cease to be an issue with spellcasting classes. You still haven't addressed why a fighter who becomes a wizard continues to increase her fighting ability (BAB), but a wizard who becomes a fighter doesn't continue to increase her magic ability (CL). Even thopugh a wizard has a lower BAB, she still has one.
spike81101 08-18-04, 02:16 PM	Precisely. The character made the choice to give up a higher caster level and higher-level spells for the ability to gain: an animal companion, nature sense, wild empathy, woodland stride, trackless step, resist nature's lure, wild shape 1/day, cast nature spells, and cast some arcane spells spontaneously. Bottom line is, a diversified individual will never attain the mastery of an individual dedicated to a single area of study. Why because you have a character that likes to do a variety of different things does he have to suck? By multiclassing you are giving something up other than caster level. High level spells. Shouldn't that be enough?
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-18-04, 02:31 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind You still haven't addressed why a fighter who becomes a wizard continues to increase her fighting ability (BAB), but a wizard who becomes a fighter doesn't continue to increase her magic ability (CL). Even thopugh a wizard has a lower BAB, she still has one. Sure I did. BAB is the same as HD is the same as Saves. Do you select which class HD you'll use as a multiclassed character? Ftr 4/Wiz 2 -- do you only get 4d10 hp or 2d4 hp? No. Or which class saves? No, you add them all together and use the total. Caster Level is granted to spellcasting classes, and is representative of how many class levels the character has as a caster. Originally posted by Spike81101 Why because you have a character that likes to do a variety of different things does he have to suck? By multiclassing you are giving something up other than caster level. High level spells. Shouldn't that be enough? I don't see the point of allowing a nonspellcasting class to grant caster level. Mechanically, it doesn't work. In addition, if multiclassing to that extent is going to make you suck, why do it? If you want all the gravy low-level abilities of every class, of course you won't have a high caster level. You may be a high level low-level caster, but you're not a high-level caster. Am I the only one who sees things like this? :confused:
Drachasor 08-18-04, 02:31 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade See, I tend to have fun when I'm challenged. And part of that challenge is when I have to decide to multiclass my caster and get all kinds of goodies (armor/weapon proficiencies, better BAB, more hit points, sneak attack, rage, Track and favored enemy, bonus feats, etc.) OR stick with my physically weak class but get more effective magic. The game was designed that way for a reason. Oh yes, because all of those goodies are going to do a Wizard, Sorcerer, Bard, Druid, or Cleric so much good. Let's see, the first three can't use heavier armor than they normally are allowed without massive spell casting penalties. The Druid is pretty much in the same boat too. The Cleric already can use all the armor, and at most gains a few weapons. Hitpoints and the other things are alright, but they in no way make up for the fact those classes are ruining their spellcasting classes by multiclassing. Terrible damaging to overcoming SR and general effectiveness of the spells due to loss of any scaling. It simply doesn't add up to an intelligent decision. Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Which really proves nothing, when it comes down to it, particularly when it comes to fabricating a reason for non-spellcasting classes to grant caster levels. I can make up a "reason" for anything; that doesn't mean the idea is a good one. And I have yet to see one *sensible* reason why a nonspellcasting class would grant caster levels. Right, and how does one decide wether an idea is a good one in a game? Well, you have to think about how it affects the game balance, fun, etc. You aren't doing that (and my apologies for being forced to point this out to you). You are saying "I don't want to think up a good reason, and I will assume it is balanced, so I won't think of wether it should be there or not." Instead you need to seriously think about wether such things are balanced or not, and then if they aren't, think of ways to make it more balanced. Having choices that nerf your character are not true choices. Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Precisely. The character made the choice to give up a higher caster level and higher-level spells for the ability to gain: an animal companion, nature sense, wild empathy, woodland stride, trackless step, resist nature's lure, wild shape 1/day, cast nature spells, and cast some arcane spells spontaneously. Bottom line is, a diversified individual will never attain the mastery of an individual dedicated to a single area of study. And in this game, that mastery is reflected in caster level and spell level. It is simply the case that the gain doesn't match the loss at all. A 15th level Caster can do anything that 5/5/5 caster can do, for all intents and purposes. He can also do it better. Add to that the fact that if the 15th level Caster had to overcome SR, then he could do so. If the 5/5/5 had to overcome SR, he could, and if he had to deal damage, he couldn't do that as well as the 15th (even with the same level spells). Mastery of magic is better done by divorcing Caster Level and Spell Level, and instead letting you attain high levels of both, or sacrifice Spell Level for diversity. Sacrificing both for more low level spells (with low DCs) doesn't every make sense, unless your intention is to have an underpowered character. You will still have the Wizard being a master of Wizardry in this scenerio, he'll have the high level spells which are the true symbol of wizardly power. Giving more diversified (in terms of classes) casters stacking BCBs doesn't not damage the game in any way. Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade In addition, if you allow caster level to stack from non-spellcasting classes, you're really just encouraging more multiclassing and min/maxing. I think the system is fine the way it is, although I wouldn't be averse to exploring the option of caster levels from spellcasting classes stacking. How doesn't it really encourage much min-maxing? It improves some options that were sub-par before, and it improves other options that were HORRID before. Only opening up options to the players that aren't overpowering is not opening up min-maxing. If you really think there is a problem with these then show us the problem. I have never seen nor heard of anyone ever demonstrating how you could break this system. If there was a problem (say Fighters adding a couple levels of Cleric gained too much), then adjusting the BCB progression for the classes should solve things. Throwing out the entire idea won't be necessary. -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-18-04, 02:36 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade I don't see the point of allowing a nonspellcasting class to grant caster level. Mechanically, it doesn't work. In addition, if multiclassing to that extent is going to make you suck, why do it? If you want all the gravy low-level abilities of every class, of course you won't have a high caster level. You may be a high level low-level caster, but you're not a high-level caster. Am I the only one who sees things like this? :confused: More options => More fun, that is reason enough to consider it. As for mechanically it not working...I think you must have meant something else because *mechanically* it works just fine. The mechanics is addition and progression...easy stuff. Now, in the systems people have largely proposed, getting 1 level in 10 different classes is not going to get you a casting level of 10. Rather, the non-casting classes won't give you anything yet (like taking 1 level in Wizard with regards to BAB). And even the half-casters won't get you anything. For example, in one book the non-casters gave nothing until level 4, when they gave a +1 (and they gave a +2 at level 7). This would unbalance nothing. It would only open up some more options for people. -Drachasor
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 03:23 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Sure I did. BAB is the same as HD is the same as Saves. Do you select which class HD you'll use as a multiclassed character? Ftr 4/Wiz 2 -- do you only get 4d10 hp or 2d4 hp? No. Or which class saves? No, you add them all together and use the total. Caster Level is granted to spellcasting classes, and is representative of how many class levels the character has as a caster. I don't see the point of allowing a nonspellcasting class to grant caster level. Perhaps your confusion tems from the fact that you misunderstand the purpose of this project. We (or at least some of us) are proposing to make CL similar to BAB, HD, et al. I'm not saying that under the current system it is. Under the current system it's analogous, but uses different mechanics. We want to change the system, and are looking for reasons not to. Thus far, I haven't seen any good ones. Granted that Caster level is currently restricted to spellcasting classes. But I'm not talking about Caster Level. Im talking about dumping the entire concept of Caster Level and replacing it with a Base Casting Bonus that every class gets and that determines the power level of any and all spells they can cast (including, in most cases, racial spell-like abilities). Caster Level is restricted to spellcasters. We want a Base Casting Bonus that isn't--a system that doesn't descriminate against spellcasters. In short, you're completely right that Caster LEvel =/= Base Attack Bonus. But the Base Casting Bonus we're discussing does (or would). Now then, with that said, why shouldn't we do this?
Jaerom Darkwind 08-18-04, 03:36 PM	Now then, let's look at a few examples under my proposed system. Keep in mind that Clerics don't have a full BCB at present (I'd rather drop them to 1/2 BAB and full BCB, but as written they're more balanced with 3/4). OLD NEW CHARACTER BUILD SYSTEM SYSTEM SPELLS PER DAY Wizard 1/Cleric 1 CL 1/1 CL 1 L1 wiz/L1 clr Wizard 5/Cleric 5 CL 5/5 CL 8 L3 wiz/L3 clr Wizard 10/Cleric 10 CL 10/10 CL 17 L5 wiz/L5 clr Mystic Theurge 20 * CL 15/15 -- L7 wiz/L7 clr -- CL 18 L7 wiz/L6 clr Wizard 1/Fighter 1 CL 1 CL 1 L1 wiz Wizard 5/Fighter 5 CL 5 CL 7 L3 wiz Wizard 10/Fighter 10 CL 10 CL 15 L5 wiz Wizard 5/Fighter 5/EK 10 CL 14 CL 17 L7 wiz * Under the old system, Wizard 5/Cleric 5/Mystic Theurge 10. Under the new system, Wizard 8/Cleric 7/Mystic Theurge 5.
Draco Argentum 08-18-04, 09:20 PM	Xeviat, caster level = character level is a great idea. Expect to have to not read at least half of the posts on this thread though.
Loren Pechtel 08-18-04, 11:00 PM	Originally posted by LukiLoki Seen Practiced Spellcaster? Same idea, but it's a feat, doesn't affect spells known/per day and you can only go 4 levels above your caster level, up to your total HD. So, as said, given that there's a PrC and a feat that head in the direction you're looking, I'd say bad idea. Stick with playtested mechanics. Cause we all know: If it's playtested, it CAN'T be broken. :rolleyes: But seriously, it would overpower spellcasting. Is there some good reason you can't stack that feat?
Loren Pechtel 08-18-04, 11:03 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind What I'd suggest and am itching to playtest is to completely divorce Caster Level from Class Level. I'd just create a Base Casting Bonus that would run parrallel to the Base Attack Bonus. Meaning Full BAB/Half BCB, Med BAB/Med BCB, Half BAB/Full BCB. It all stacks, and against SR you add your spellcasting modifier. Your spells per day would remain class-dependent, but your BCB would determine qualifying for feats, PrCs, etc. I've been thinking along the same lines. Once SR enters into the picture, multi-classed spellcasters are really hosed otherwise. Giving up some higher level slots in exchange for more and a greater variety of lower level slots is one thing. Giving up much of any chance of actually doing anything to your opponent is quite another.
TheGnomishWizard 08-18-04, 11:48 PM	I house rule that for every 3 levels gain outside of your caster class you add +1 to your caster level... Example: a wiz3/ftr5 would have a caster level of 4 (3 from wiz, and 1 from ftr [5/3=1.66]) this would not effect his spells per day or anything... just things that rely on the caster level. Example: a sorc3/dru3 would have a caster level a 4sorc and 4 dru [3 from either class and an additional 1 for 3 levels of any other class])
toomre 08-19-04, 12:50 AM	I like the goal here, you know, trying to create a general method of advancing spell potency to parallel what BAB has done for axiomatizing fighting prowess. The full implications though are too broad and too deep for any one DM to fully predict, no matter how competent s/he is. The implications include: archetypes which might become extinct, most builds would change, spells, items, feats, and base and prestige classes that would need modifying or removing, and so on. If any of you think that you can drop such a significant rule change into the middle of this already precariously held-together house of cards called D20, then you've got another thing coming. If you are serious about making this seed bear fruit, then you should dedicate a seperate forum to it (perhaps outside of these boards even), and get some dedicated and experienced people to contribute their time to iron it all out. If the whole point was to drop the seed here and hope WotC picks it up in some future release, then good luck. The only thing they will do with it is to include it, or some elements of it, in an optional poorly integrated rule in an obscure accessory book.
Nom 08-19-04, 02:17 AM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind but in the past what passed for BAB was likewise limited to Fighters.All classes improved their THACO, but the rate of improvement varied by class.
Nom 08-19-04, 02:48 AM	Precendents for this run in all sorts of wierd directions. In general, character level is supposed to be an overall measurement of a character's capabilities. Although the exact quantity varies, HD, BAB, saves, skills, and maxium skill ranks all increase with character level. Certain spells (eg sleep, holy word, divine power) evaluate their effect based on character level. Special abilities are odd. The default DC for an effect is 10 + HD/2 + stat, but many creatures have fixed DCs unrelated to their HD. Sometimes caster level is fixed, other times it is HD based, and other times it is class based. Drow have spell resistance based on character level, while monk SR is based on monk level and spell resistance uses caster level. One extreme solution, the ultimate in homogenization, would be to have a "generic power level", which is equal to the character's HD. This bonus is used in some manner for just about everything. However, the ruleset tends to steer away from this, encouraging specialisation to decide which areas your "generic power level" is fully effective and which it is not. Multiclassing rules allow you to spread it around a bit. On top of this "generic power level" are capbilities. Capabilities either enable you to do something (martial weapons proficiencies, wizard spells, turn undead) or enable you to do it better (weapon focus, spell focus, extra turning). Some capabilities are class exclusive, some are not. In most cases, a capability is somewhat binary (you can do it or you can't), and your generic power level is used to determine how well you can do it. Which leads us to BAB and caster level/s. Currently, fighter classes get full BAB, and other classes get lesser BAB. If you gain the capability to use a particular weapon, you can do it at whatever your BAB allows, though some bonuses (feats) may not apply to some weapons. In contrast, each spell using class has an exclusive power level for its spell list, and no other class even gains partial power levels. If I, as a wizard, gain the ability to cast cure light wounds at character (generic power) level 17, I still cast it based solely on my cleric (or appropriate class) power level. Most other classes have effects whose ability is based on specialist power levels, or failing that gain additional capabilities or enhancements as a reward for specialisation. In fact, the Fighter class is unique in that it is the only base class that gains no specific benefit for increasing specialisation (exception: Weapon Focus / Weapon Spec feats). So, the question is whether caster level should be a specialist power level or base more on generic power level. The current rules tend to hamper multiclass casters, as a multiclass caster forfeits both capabilities (better spells) and power level. However, the same can be said for most other classes. If we compensate casters for multiclassing, should we also compensate monks for reduced SR, bards and paladins for reduced uses of their special abilities, and so on? Finally, there is the question of whether a generic power level for spells is a good idea. Is it appropriate or unbalancing that a Wiz17 can gain Clr1 and suddenly get full benefit from divine favour and shield of faith as if an 18th level cleric? An example like the above makes one leery of generic caster level. However, when we consider that spell resistance and the like is often based on the generic power level of the target, then it becomes harder to see why a character with 5 wizard levels and 5 cleric levels couldn't be as effective as a 10th level cleric.
Someone 08-19-04, 03:06 AM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Am I the only one who sees things like this?:confused:I'm with H_M_B on this one. I don't think caster level would stack unless it is the same kind (arcane/ divine/ nature; prepared/ spontaneous). Your thaumaturgical {sp?} knowleage (i.e. wizard levels) isn't of use when it comes to interposing for a divine power to empower you. Likewise, just because you know the magical formulas to turn some sulfur into a fireball, you can't use that knowleage to bring that kind of power out of you spontaneously. The practiced spellcaster feat represents devoting more time and practice to your spellcasting, instead of developing something else. But if you want to truly become a better spellcaster, you will have to take levels in that spellcasting class. Taking a PrC can be the same thing, but some don't allow you to get as sophisticated as if you took a 1/1 class. There is already something that stacks across spellcasting classes, and can be improved with levels in non-spellcasting classes, albeit not 1/1: Spellcraft checks. Though I don't think it should be used to determine things like duration and SR checks.
Shatteredtower 08-19-04, 08:26 AM	I can see some rationale behind the idea proposed here. If my character starts off by taking two levels of bard, the procedes to take the next eight levels as a rogue, that character has spent as long as his companion, the 10th level sorcerer, casting those spells. In the sense that level can equal time served, I can see the argument for allowing overall character level to contribute to caster level. On the other hand, I still have qualms about the idea that my character could go up twelve levels as a barbarian and then take a single wizard level to become significantly better at it than some other neophyte mageling. Hey, the three-to-one magic missile advantage does not lie. It might be different if the lower level character was going to be gaining class levels faster than the higher level character, but unless they're travelling in the same group*, the 3rd Ed xp system as it stands lends itself to them progressing at exactly the same rate. Once again, Spellcraft seems the most viable system for balancing multi-class casters against the challenges they'll face, especially in regard to the matter of spell resistance. However, the systems being discussed want more than that for the multi-class caster, and I can understand the desire -- or the need -- to cast something that causes a bit more than 1d4+1 hp of damage to a single target at higher levels. But once again, I think that the solution lies with Spellcraft. Have the spellcaster make a check to try to cast spells at a caster level equal to no higher than the character's character level (or hit dice -- more on that in a minute). For every 5 points that the Spellcraft check exceeds 10, the character may apply two levels from other classes or one racial hit die to the spell's caster level. Failure on the check results the spell being cast at the character's base caster level, though, like a Jump check, it is possible to reach lesser levels of success. For example, a 5th/4th level bard/rogue with +10 on Spellcraft checks could cast spells as well as a 9th level character with a check result of 20 or better, a 7th level caster with a check result of 15-19, and at 5th level with a check of 14 or lower. A 5th level ogre adept could cast spells as a 7th level caster with a result of 20 on the check, 6th level with a result of 15, and at the base 5th level otherwise. This might seem too generous -- a human cleric/fighter with 12 Int who splits levels easily and only takes Spellcraft (but two ranks each time) with the cleric levels will have at least +24 on the checks by level 10/10 (assuming no use of feats to boost Spellcraft checks or items to boost Int), guaranteeing that the character casts at least as well as a 16th level caster with a 75% chance of 18th level ability and 50% chance of 20th. Others could find ways to pull it off even with a 5th or 3rd level caster, and might find the idea quite cost efffective. I suspect that anyone who would object on the grounds of this being too good would object to the ideas being proposed anyway, however, which leads to the next question: Is the Spellcraft option for increasing effective caster level too weak, unreliable, or unwieldy for those who are looking for alternatives to the current system of caster level equalling only caster level? There are a few other things to consider with this system. To keep it simple -- well, okay, to avoid further complicating it -- within this system, even single-classed paladins and rangers should be allowed Spellcraft checks to boost their caster level toward their class level. They're paying for the privilege and it's not like the chance to double their caster level is going to make them excessively powerful. (In some cases, it might even be argued that it just about makes them powerful enough.) I included racial hit dice in the system for balance reasons, though I admit that the thought of a 1st level troll sorcerer being possibly a bit more dangerous in the spellcasting department than a 1st level gnome might seem a bit peculiar. I might not have included it at all, except that if barbarian levels may be able to contribute to caster level, leaving non-standard races with racial hit dice out of the system puts them further behind even standard multi-class casters, let alone single classed casters from standard races. Having the racial hit dice worth only half as much as class levels seemed a reasonable concession, though perhaps there should be exceptions for creatures that have innate caster levels, such as aranea, rakshasa, and dragons. (This might seem excessive in the case of dragons, as they could reasonably expect to have an effective caster level close to their hit dice by the older ages. The only place that it might really be broken, however, is with holy word and its equivalents, which several types of dragons are capable of casting as sorcerer spells. Otherwise, you're just looking at dragons getting remarkably longer ranges and durations with their spells, with a few gaining slightly more generous damage caps.) Finally, if one does switch the mechanics for spell resistance to have it opposed by a Spellcraft check, I'd recommend adjusting the spell resistance of all creatures possessing it by +5. Even then, spell resistance is going to prove easier to overcome for all spellcasters (especially wizards) in the long run. I should mention that I won't be using this system. Then again, I wasn't looking to use any system for bringing casting level closer to class level for multi-class casters. I don't have a stake in the results of my efforts here, so it might be prudent for those of you considering my suggestions to test them a bit more thoroughly than you normally would before introducing them into your game(s). The potential for twinkery here shouldn't be too hard to spot, but I'm not sure that a player who exploits this system for all its worth is going to wind up any better off than winding up more effective, rather than gaining abusive power. (It might still be a good idea to test how effective this can make dragons, whether you allow them as players or not.) * And facing the same challenges, which may be impossible to manage -- either the low level character is picking up gobs of experience for witnessing the carnage from the sidelines most of the time, or the higher level guy is stuck playing the equivalent of whack-a-mole, or else the only way the low level character is going to advance is because the party has unlimited access to true resurrection.
Seeker95 08-19-04, 09:18 AM	Shatteredtower wrote: If my character starts off by taking two levels of bard, the procedes to take the next eight levels as a rogue, that character has spent as long as his companion, the 10th level sorcerer, casting those spells. In the sense that level can equal time served, I can see the argument for allowing overall character level to contribute to caster level. and On the other hand, I still have qualms about the idea that my character could go up twelve levels as a barbarian and then take a single wizard level to become significantly better at it than some other neophyte mageling.I think there is a solution to this that incorporates BOTH ideas. Instead of "caster level = character level" (which creates both of the examples identified above) perhaps "caster level = time served". In the Examples above... the Brd2/Rog8 would have an "effective caster level " of 10, because he has spent 10 character levels as a bard. He gets no additional spells, but the spells he does get he casts with the same proficiency as any other bard who spent ten levels casting those same spells. the Brb12/Wiz1 casts as a 1st level wizard because he has spent only 1 character level as a wizard. This approach allows casters to benefit from the experience they have with the spells they can cast based on the amount of time they have had the class. Is this more suitable?
Shatteredtower 08-19-04, 09:35 AM	It works for my sensibilities, I admit, and addresses my major concern. It's also a lot simpler than the idea I put forward. The only concern some people might have is balance, since two levels in bard followed by six in rogue is significantly more powerful than six in rogue and then two in bard. The player does have a choice in the matter, of course, and the idea does make a lot of sense. My only concern with it is that it seems to lend itself more to building a character, rather than raising or growing one. Then again, that's a general issue I have with D&D rules anyway, and my opinion on the matter is probably not shared by a lot of people. It may be the best way to go about it for other reasons as well, since most people would prefer to start off with several levels as a tank and then enter magedom if they could do so without falling too far behind the curve, rather than starting as a wizard and going into the fighter levels. Your system, Seeker, suggests a trade-off that might make the idea feasible: greater spellcasting efficacy in the long run vs. greater combat efficacy at early levels where the warriors tend to dominate in any conflict. Maybe that's enough.
spike81101 08-19-04, 09:59 AM	Then again, on the flip side of "caster level = time served". You're hiring for a new executive administrative assistant. You have 2 applicants coming in, looking at the resumes the first one is just out of college with an associates degree, they've just graduated from high school 2 years ago and have very little if any job experiance. The second resume is someone who graduated from high school 20 years ago, was a nurse for several years, went back to college and like the first applicant just graduated. Which one is most likely to make the better assistant?
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 10:38 AM	Originally posted by spike81101 Which one is most likely to make the better assistant? Flawed analogy. :nonono: A better analogy: You're hiring for a new executive administrative assistant. You have 2 applicants coming in. From looking at the resumes, you see that the first one graduated from high school 20 years ago and has a variety of job experience, but has just graduated from college with an Associate's degree [reflects the Ftr 4/Wiz 1]. The second resume is of someone who graduated from high school 20 years ago, graduated from college with an Associate's degree shortly thereafter, worked at a variety of jobs at which he applied his college degree, and is now looking for a salaried position [reflects the Wiz 1/Ftr 4]. (I.e. One has general experience but is new to specialized knowledge; the other has general experience but has applied his specialized knowledge over the past 20 years.)* Which one is most likely to make the better assistant? * Advances in technology and education (as we see in the real world) are not relevant to this example since D&D's system doesn't reflect those changes: skill/ability-wise, a 40-year-old Ftr4 is no better than a 20-year-old Ftr4.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 11:14 AM	So....trying to bring this back to what was being discussed before... Is there any reason why allowing all caster classes to stack for casting, and other classes to provide a lesser bonus, would be unbalanced? Maybe you don't like how the system would work, but that doesn't make it unbalanced. Frankly, I think the "time served" system penalizes players too much. I think something that was more fair is better. (As I said, you can make up whatever reasons you want to justifty it, the primary concerns are fun and balance). -Drachsor
spike81101 08-19-04, 11:18 AM	Not flawed, maybe you didn't understand. Let me make it a little more clear. Then again, on the flip side of "caster level = time served". You're hiring for a new executive administrative assistant. You have 2 applicants coming in, looking at the resumes: The first one (1st level wizard) is just out of college with an associates degree, they've just graduated from high school 2 years ago and have very little if any job experiance. The second resume (5th level cleric) is someone who graduated from high school 20 years ago, was a nurse for several years, went back to college and like the first applicant just graduated. Which would be the better wizard (spellcasting terms only), a 5th level cleric of mystra who decides to try magic or the 1st level wizard? All I'm saying is that experience is experience and sometimes there is more synergy than you realize. I definitely see the arguement in a 2 wiz/6 fighter having a better caster level than a 6 fighter/2 wiz. It makes total sense. However for the sake of mechanics there are a lot of things that don't make sense in this game. I can see how a 19 wiz/1 cleric can cast a 20th level divine favor is a bit strange. I'm not "blind" to the errors in the proposed fix, but the errors in the proposed fix are definitely a lot better than the ones without the fix. You've got to remember that going wizard 19/cleric 1 is an opportunity cost. What is the cost of that 20th level divine favor? The answer is a horrid wilting and a timestop. You really can't compare the 2. You're definitely making yourself weaker by selecting that level of cleric at level 19, even with caster level stacking. So you've got to ask yourself why a person would take that level of cleric? Either A. He did not realize the opportunity cost. B. He did it for flavor rather than power. C. He wanted some healing to help out his group, but level 1 heals don't cut it and a staff with use magic device or potion is the better way to do.
Seeker95 08-19-04, 12:07 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor Is there any reason why allowing all caster classes to stack for casting, and other classes to provide a lesser bonus, would be unbalanced? Caster levels only? No major balance issue. Caster with Non-caster? Balance issue. Practicing water skiing does not make a statistician better at statistics.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 12:16 PM	(In case my position is confusing for some of you readers, I don't have a problem with allowing caster levels from different classes to stack. I think that makes [a sort of] sense. I just can't see my way to allowing non-casting classes to stack with caster classes for the purpose of total caster levels.)
spike81101 08-19-04, 12:24 PM	Another thing I wanted to remind everyone about is the SR issue. This is a huge part of this debate and I wanted to roll this subject back about a decade or so. Magic Resistance Drow magic resistance was 50% +2% per level if I recall correctly. Magic resistance was something to be feared for sure. Some elder drow had MR 90% or higher. It was almost impossible to nail them with a spell. In 2nd edition if you wanted to be a cleric/wizard you'd be say level 15/15 while the rest of the party was 17 or 18. However, you already had the highest spells possible for a cleric and almost the highest for a wizard. Now you had the same chance of breaking MR as a 1st level wizard, 5th level wizard, 50th level wizard. Your level vs MR was not important. There were a few spells like penetrate magic resistance that allowed your next spell to break MR automatically, but you could never cast more than one spell per round anyway, so that was it and you were done for the round. Now with 3e you get a double slap in the face. Not only are your buddies 17th level wizards or clerics, but you are now reduced to 5 cleric/5 wizard/7MT which is 12 cleric/12 wizard. Now the double slap in the face is that you are at a -25% chance to break SR. The tripple slap in the face is that you're nowhere near the highest level cleric spells. I know that this is an isloated instance (simply due to level) for that third slap in the face, but anyone would has tried to convert any type of mult-classed caster has faced the horror of this. When they changed MR to SR, they failed to take multi-classing into account when they worked dynamics. Had they worked it off of spellcraft to begin with no one would question that is "it isn't right". After all, what is spellcraft? 1. identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place. Use this skill to identify spells as they are cast or spells already in place. Spellcraft DC Task 13 When using read magic, identify a glyph of warding. No action required. 15 + spell level Identify a spell being cast. (You must see or hear the spell’s verbal or somatic components.) No action required. No retry. 15 + spell level Learn a spell from a spellbook or scroll (wizard only). No retry for that spell until you gain at least 1 rank in Spellcraft (even if you find another source to try to learn the spell from). Requires 8 hours. 15 + spell level Prepare a spell from a borrowed spellbook (wizard only). One try per day. No extra time required. 15 + spell level When casting detect magic, determine the school of magic involved in the aura of a single item or creature you can see. (If the aura is not a spell effect, the DC is 15 + one-half caster level.) No action required. 19 When using read magic, identify a symbol. No action required. 20 + spell level Identify a spell that’s already in place and in effect. You must be able to see or detect the effects of the spell. No action required. No retry. 20 + spell level Identify materials created or shaped by magic, such as noting that an iron wall is the result of a wall of iron spell. No action required. No retry. 20 + spell level Decipher a written spell (such as a scroll) without using read magic. One try per day. Requires a full-round action. 25 + spell level After rolling a saving throw against a spell targeted on you, determine what that spell was. No action required. No retry. 25 Identify a potion. Requires 1 minute. No retry. 20 Draw a diagram to allow dimensional anchor to be cast on a magic circle spell. Requires 10 minutes. No retry. This check is made secretly so you do not know the result. 30 or higher Understand a strange or unique magical effect, such as the effects of a magic stream. Time required varies. No retry. They should have probably added: 3 + SR level Penetrate a creatures spell resistance. You gain no additional bonus to this roll from intelligence or magic item. Or, why not just have it be a separate skill (called spell peneetration)with no modifier to it? Instead of spell pen feat, you'd have skill focus spell penetration. This would allow characters the chance to decide if they want to have a high chance of beating SR. If you're a combat ranger and you don't cast on anyone then don't use the skill points, or if you're a druid/ranger and you like to do touch melee spells, crank up that spell pen skill. You could even use the same skill for dispel magic checks etc. I just hope to see something like this in 4e. Thanks for listening to me ramble.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 12:33 PM	All classes improved their THACO, but the rate of improvement varied by class. But only fighters got iterative attacks. Originally posted by Seeker95 Caster levels only? No major balance issue. Caster with Non-caster? Balance issue. Practicing water skiing does not make a statistician better at statistics. Should we take away a wizard's BAB, then? Statistics don't make a water skier better at water skiing.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 12:39 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 They should have probably added: 3 + SR level Penetrate a creatures spell resistance. You gain no additional bonus to this roll from intelligence or magic item. Or, why not just have it be a separate skill (called spell peneetration)with no modifier to it? Instead of spell pen feat, you'd have skill focus spell penetration. This would allow characters the chance to decide if they want to have a high chance of beating SR. If you're a combat ranger and you don't cast on anyone then don't use the skill points, or if you're a druid/ranger and you like to do touch melee spells, crank up that spell pen skill. You could even use the same skill for dispel magic checks etc. I just hope to see something like this in 4e. Thanks for listening to me ramble. For that matter, why bother restricitng the skill? Add your Int modifier, and whatever else you want. SR is extremely powerful. If worse comes to worse, you could always bump SR up 5 or 10 to compensate.
spike81101 08-19-04, 01:09 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind For that matter, why bother restricitng the skill? Add your Int modifier, and whatever else you want. SR is extremely powerful. If worse comes to worse, you could always bump SR up 5 or 10 to compensate. I agree with you, just add in but SR as a whole would have to be written more exponentially than linear. SR of 11 of level would not longer be sufficient as a forumla. It would have to be figured by CR CR 1-5 SR of CR+15 CR 6-10 SR of CR+17 CR 11-15 SR of CR+19 CR 16-20 SR of CR+21 In order to compensate for a wizards insteasing int bonus. The other thing is that your spellcraft modifier should use whatever stat you use to cast with. Clerics use wisdom to cast spells but needs to use int to identify a spell from a fellow cleric? Spellcraft may seem to be a function of intelligence but it you could make a case for wisdom too.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 01:25 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Caster levels only? No major balance issue. Caster with Non-caster? Balance issue. Practicing water skiing does not make a statistician better at statistics. You need to name the balance issue, you can't just say it exists. I see none. -Drachasor
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 01:54 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Should we take away a wizard's BAB, then? Statistics don't make a water skier better at water skiing. Let's talk about who uses what. Does a fighter have to penetrate spell resistance, ever? No. Does a wizard have to make ranged attacks for his spells to land? Yes. BAB =/= Caster Level. Let's move away from that comparison, because it doesn't stand up. In my experience, a multiclassed character is stronger at lower levels but weaker at higher levels, when things like # of attacks, higher level abilities, higher level spells, and spell resistance come into play. I think that's fine. I don't see a problem with that. Jack of all trades = Master of none. A multiclassed (spellcasting) character is trading some effectiveness at later levels for increased surviveability/effectiveness at lower levels. That seems appropriate to me.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 02:09 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Let's talk about who uses what. Does a fighter have to penetrate spell resistance, ever? No. Does a wizard have to make ranged attacks for his spells to land? Yes. BAB =/= Caster Level. Let's move away from that comparison, because it doesn't stand up. In my experience, a multiclassed character is stronger at lower levels but weaker at higher levels, when things like # of attacks, higher level abilities, higher level spells, and spell resistance come into play. I think that's fine. I don't see a problem with that. Jack of all trades = Master of none. A multiclassed (spellcasting) character is trading some effectiveness at later levels for increased surviveability/effectiveness at lower levels. That seems appropriate to me. What is combat based on? BAB. What is spellcasting based on? CL. I see a strong correlation. The two are the cornerstones of their aspects of the game. A fighter has to penetrate spell resistance if he magics something. A wizard has to make an attack roll if he attacks something. There are plenty of ways to make an effective spellcaster who never makes an attack roll. There are plenty of ways to make a fighter who never needs to cast a single spell. We're not talking about those characters. You ask for a reason for a fighter to have a CL. This is difficult, because the system wasn't set up with this in mind. Everything I've said about BAB was based on a different way they might have designed the combat system--they might have made it the same way the spellcasting system is now. But they didn't. THey made it the right way, so that's it's fair to all. We'd like to see the same thing happen to the spellcasting system. Therefore, in order to give a fighter a reason to use his BCB, other changes might be needed, so smooth out the whole system. I understand this. My suggestion was to alter the Use Magic Device skill to use BCB. Anyone who wants a little bit of spellcasting power can take ranks in UMD and Spellcraft. Just as a wizard who's itching to engage in melee combat can take related skills and feats and try to hit something with his staff. If you really want to go all out, you can always base the more supernatural feats and abilities on BCB as well. Monks, for example, might get a lot of milage out of it.
Someone 08-19-04, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind But [in 2e] only fighters got iterative attacks.No, paladins and rangers did too. And they were additional attacks, not iterative (your second attack wasn't less likely to hit). ...Should we take away a wizard's BAB, then? Statistics don't make a water skier better at water skiing.A wizards BAB stacks with a fighters BAB because they are the exact same thing. There aren't different kinds of BAB. But there are different kinds of spells. Cleric spells are not the same thing a wizard spells, though they are the same thing a paladin spells. I don't have a problem with letting cleric and pally CLs stack. The same goes with druid/ ranger and scorc/ bard. But wizard/ cleric should not, neither should wizard/ scorc, for example. Which is the balance issue. In order for a class to provide a bonus to CL, it should have some familiarity with the spellcasting in question (i.e. the ability to cast those kind of spells). Classes that aren't familiar with that kind of spellcasting can't really contribute anything meaningful to that kind of casting. And fighters, rogues, monks, and barbarians aren't familiar with any kind of casting. So they shouldn't be able to contribute to your CL. The disparity in multiclassing is why they made all of the "gestalt" PrCs (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, mystic theurge, etc). I also think that the order shouldn't matter. A ftr6/ wiz1 should be the same as a wiz1/ ftr 6 or a ftr3/ wiz1/ ftr3. Yes I know hitpoints at first level makes a difference, but other than that, they're the same.
Seeker95 08-19-04, 02:41 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Should we take away a wizard's BAB, then? Statistics don't make a water skier better at water skiing. Wanna bet? :D
Drachasor 08-19-04, 02:44 PM	Originally posted by Someone A wizards BAB stacks with a fighters BAB because they are the exact same thing. There aren't different kinds of BAB. So I am supposed to buy that that the fighting techniques of a 3rd level Wizard (his BAB), somehow can add to the abilities of a 10th level Fighter? Seems to me the fighter's training would have covered everything in so much more detail...as you say, there aren't different kinds of BAB, and the same sort of bonus doesn't stack in 3E. I am not saying such a system should be used (it's unfun and worsens multiclassing), just that the above is a perfectly 'valid' arguement against some BAB stacking. Originally posted by Someone Which is the balance issue. In order for a class to provide a bonus to CL, it should have some familiarity with the spellcasting in question (i.e. the ability to cast those kind of spells). Classes that aren't familiar with that kind of spellcasting can't really contribute anything meaningful to that kind of casting. And fighters, rogues, monks, and barbarians aren't familiar with any kind of casting. So they shouldn't be able to contribute to your CL. That isn't a balance issue. No one has yet to give any example of how balance can go awry. You have a philosophical issue with the change, not a game balance issue, not a fun issue. As I have said, however, there are MANY ways you can justify things, and as Jaerom Darkwind has said, there are other small changes you can make to help justify BCBs for everyone. (Use Magic Device is one, and I am sure there are others). -Drachasor
Seeker95 08-19-04, 02:46 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Should we take away a wizard's BAB, then? Statistics don't make a water skier better at water skiing. And... No. A wizard can swing a sword. A fighter cannot cast a spell. So whatever sword knowledge a wizard has can make the fighter better at swinging a sword. Add the fighter's spellcasting ability to the wizard's, and you get the same as the wizard alone. Assume Ftr5/Wiz5 Add a wizard's swordfighting experience to a fighter's swordfighting experience, and you get 5 + 2 = 7. Adding a fighter's spellcasting experience to a wizard's spellcasting experience gives you 5 + 0 = 5.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 02:47 PM	If anyone has a game balance issue with a BCB (Base Caster Bonus, like BAB, but for caster levels) modification to the game, then please share it. As of now I have only heard issues that are more philosophical in nature...and those issues are, quite frankly, trivial, when you can easily explain such things away with a little flavor text and perhaps a minor modification or two to the game beyond BCB. Anyhow, I am awaiting balance concerns. Does anyone have even one? -Drachasor Edit: Spelling
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 02:52 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor Anyhow, I am awaiting balance concerns. Does anyone have even one? You're first of all going to need to define what constitutes "balance" to you. From where I'm looking at this issue, there's a clear shifting of balance. I'm defining "balance" here as "power over time." I.e. A low-level wizard's weakness at low levels + his power at high levels == A low-level fighter's power at low levels + his weakness at high levels. Part of the wizard's power at high levels is his ability to affect creatures with his spells. Give that ability to nonspellcasting classes and you change the balance. How do you define "balance"?
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 02:53 PM	Originally posted by Someone No, paladins and rangers did too. And they were additional attacks, not iterative (your second attack wasn't less likely to hit).I'm sure you're right. Truthfully, my memory is quite fuzzy on 2E stuff--I never learned it very well before 3E came out. A wizards BAB stacks with a fighters BAB because they are the exact same thing. There aren't different kinds of BAB. But there are different kinds of spells. Cleric spells are not the same thing a wizard spells, though they are the same thing a paladin spells. I don't have a problem with letting cleric and pally CLs stack. The same goes with druid/ ranger and scorc/ bard. But wizard/ cleric should not, neither should wizard/ scorc, for example. Which is the balance issue. In order for a class to provide a bonus to CL, it should have some familiarity with the spellcasting in question (i.e. the ability to cast those kind of spells). Classes that aren't familiar with that kind of spellcasting can't really contribute anything meaningful to that kind of casting. And fighters, rogues, monks, and barbarians aren't familiar with any kind of casting. So they shouldn't be able to contribute to your CL. The disparity in multiclassing is why they made all of the "gestalt" PrCs (eldritch knight, arcane trickster, mystic theurge, etc). I also think that the order shouldn't matter. A ftr6/ wiz1 should be the same as a wiz1/ ftr 6 or a ftr3/ wiz1/ ftr3. Yes I know hitpoints at first level makes a difference, but other than that, they're the same. A barbarian's fighting style is very different from a paladin's. Why should they have the same type of BAB? If you guys like the idea of distinct CLs so much, why not finish the job and seperate the BABs of the different classes. How will learning to fight like a savage beast (barbarian) help a monk in his quest for perfection and greater understanding of his ki or a gallant knight astride his tall steed? The two are as dissimilar as a cleric's divine miracles and a wizards arcane secrets, and yet you happily accept that they stack perfectly. Really, what's the difference between drastically different schools of martial arts and drastically different magical traditions? Why should one be seperate where the other is completely unified?
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 02:56 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind How will learning to fight like a savage beast (barbarian) help a monk in his quest for perfection and greater understanding of his ki or a gallant knight astride his tall steed?Don't confuse the Rage ability with BAB. Rage is the "savage beast" part. BAB is combat ability. Everyone gets some combat ability. Not everyone can cast spells. BAB =/= Spellcasting. Is there an echo in here? Really, what's the difference between drastically different schools of martial arts and drastically different magical traditions? Why should one be seperate where the other is completely unified? Also keep in mind that you don't stack a monk's BAB with his flurry ability. Again, BAB is not the same as a class ability. It's like saves and HD (I feel like I'm repeating myself here....).
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 02:58 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade You're first of all going to need to define what constitutes "balance" to you. From where I'm looking at this issue, there's a clear shifting of balance. I'm defining "balance" here as "power over time." I.e. A low-level wizard's weakness at low levels + his power at high levels == A low-level fighter's power at low levels + his weakness at high levels. Part of the wizard's power at high levels is his ability to affect creatures with his spells. Give that ability to nonspellcasting classes and you change the balance. How do you define "balance"? To clarify, you believe that "balance" necessitates that a spellcasting class become completely invalid when one attempts to multiclass, and that anything else overpowers the class? Wheras "balance" allows and accomodates the multiclassing possibilities of fighting classes by granting them an increase in power when they do so?
Seeker95 08-19-04, 03:02 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor Anyhow, I am awaiting balance concerns. Does anyone have even one? Here is a balance issue. Ftr19 takes one level of wizard for his 20th caster level. Now he can: 1. Cast 5 magic missiles for 1d4+5 points of damage each. 2. Successfully use a scroll of any wizard spell. 3. Use a staff of polar ray or greater shout for 20d6 points of damage. 4. Shapechange (from scroll) into a 20HD creature for over three hours. A first level wizard can't do any of those things.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 03:03 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Don't confuse the Rage ability with BAB. Rage is the "savage beast" part. BAB is combat ability. Everyone gets some combat ability. Not everyone can cast spells. BAB =/= Spellcasting. Is there an echo in here? You're making my case for me, and you don't even hear it. Why should a barbarian's "combat ability" (your words, not mine), or BAB, be completely unconnected to his class features, where a wizard's spellcasting ability, or CL/BCB, be completely inseperable from his class features? Note that I didn't ask "why are they," I asked "why should they be?" Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Also keep in mind that you don't stack a monk's BAB with his flurry ability. Again, BAB is not the same as a class ability. It's like saves and HD (I feel like I'm repeating myself here....). Yes you do. In 3.5 FoB is a class feature, and operates on the monk's full BAB. Skipping monk levels just delays your more powerful FoB abilities. But I said "martial arts" as encompassing all types of melee combat.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 03:09 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Here is a balance issue. Ftr19 takes one level of wizard for his 20th caster level. Now he can: 1. Cast 5 magic missiles for 1d4+5 points of damage each. 2. Successfully use a scroll of any wizard spell. 3. Use a staff of polar ray or greater shout for 20d6 points of damage. 4. Shapechange (from scroll) into a 20HD creature for over three hours. A first level wizard can't do any of those things. Under my system, he'd only have a "CL" of 10. And at his level, those 5 magic missiles will really mean something, won't they :rolleyes: To continue with what has become my favorite analogy for its perfection in this debate, Wiz19 takes one level of fighter for his 20th character level. Now he can: 1. Attack twice in a full-attack action. 2. Use Power Attack to gain up to a +10 (or +20 if he two-hands) to damage. 3. Use Combat Expertise to get up to a +5 to his AC. 4. Take a bonus feat like Improved Critical (scimitar) and go crit-happy. A first level fighter can't do any of those things.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 03:17 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Under my system, he'd only have a "CL" of 10. And at his level, those 5 magic missiles will really mean something, won't they :rolleyes: And under other systems he might only have 7 or 8 "CL"/BCB. Also, in general the Fighter 19/Wiz 1 would lose more than he gained, especially without any Fighter-based increase in CL. For instance, he is giving up 3 or more hitpoints, he'd have to remove his armor to cast spells, no increase in BAB, etc, etc. Most of the scaling 1st level spells are also only so useful at level 20...especially when fighters and other classes have various ranged weapons available to them and melee combat abilities that exceed first level spell powers. Sure, that Magic Missle might come in handy now and then, but it isn't unbalancing. As for Magic Items, Staves use the CL of the wielder, so he isn't all that much better off than before. Few other items are Wizard-only...wands, true, but many a Rogue can use those...it is just a better way to use *Wizard Items* than UMD is, but people with UMD can avoid taking a level in every spell-casting class. -Drachasor
spike81101 08-19-04, 03:32 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Here is a balance issue. Ftr19 takes one level of wizard for his 20th caster level. Now he can: 1. Cast 5 magic missiles for 1d4+5 points of damage each. 2. Successfully use a scroll of any wizard spell. 3. Use a staff of polar ray or greater shout for 20d6 points of damage. 4. Shapechange (from scroll) into a 20HD creature for over three hours. A first level wizard can't do any of those things. Someone brought up this issue last time I suggested a system like this. My solution to this problem was that you don't make a caster level check, you make a class level check. A fighter 20 can do those things as well using UMD. Plus a fighter 20 would be taking a bab hit to do that.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 04:44 PM	I'd love to see the system you guys come up with. Why don't you work on it for a bit and post it up here? I'd particularly like to see how it affects the current relationship between multiclassed vs. single-classed characters at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20.
spike81101 08-19-04, 04:47 PM	Sure, it can be found here for the time being... http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=294471&perpage=50&pagenumber=1
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-19-04, 04:55 PM	:whatsthis
Drachasor 08-19-04, 05:06 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade :whatsthis OMG, he caught you in an infinite loop! *pulls you out* You need to be more careful. Anyhow, here's the basics of my proposed system: Fighters and Barbarians: 1/3 Class level (rounded down) goes to BCB Monks, Paladins, and Rangers: 1/2 Class Levels, rounded down, go to BCB. Clerics, Wizards, Druids, and Sorcerers: Class levels, rounded down (I don't think the rounded will be an issue there, though), go to BCB. Those are the basics, I am considering one other thing though. That is allowing ranks in UMD to increase your BCB up to your character level. If I did this, then Rogue would join Fighters and Barbarians, and Bards would join Monks, Paladins, and Rangers. If I didn't, then I'd put Bards into a 3/4 progression slot, and I am not quite sure what I'd do with Rogues (might just stick them with Fighters anyway). Anyhow, the BCB replaces CL for all intents and purposes, and you add it up from various classes just like you do with BAB. I think that the basic info I have there is enough for you to think about, and after some more thought I'll figure out what to do with UMD, Rogues, and Bards. Edit: Oh, and I think prestige classes can pretty easily be fit into one of the three catagories I have up there. If it has +1 Caster Level, then each +1 is +1 BCB, and if it has a special, smaller spell list, then it is a 1/2-er, pure fighter stuff with no mystic qualities are 1/3. Monks are in the 1/2 because of their mystic qualities, but maybe they should be in the 1/3...it probably doesn't matter a great deal though. -Drachasor
smrtgmp 08-19-04, 05:48 PM	I think a well though out system along the lines of what has been proposed here would go a long way to rectify the problems with the current multiclassing system. Honestly, I would be suprised if something similar didnt make it into the next edition of D&D.
LukiLoki 08-19-04, 07:47 PM	I don't understand why the existence of the feat Practiced Spellcaster has been all but ignored in this thread. (along with Spell Penetration) Seems to me, that takes care of the "problem", and if it's balanced then the proposal outlined here can't be. If it were a feat, it'd be called "Everyone in the World is an Outrageously Prodigal Spellcaster so Why be a Fighter" Broken even in FR.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 08:01 PM	Originally posted by LukiLoki I don't understand why the existence of the feat Practiced Spellcaster has been all but ignored in this thread. (along with Spell Penetration) Seems to me, that takes care of the "problem", and if it's balanced then the proposal outlined here can't be. Please read the entire thread if you are going to make a post like this. NO ONE HAS BEEN ABLE TO SHOW HOW MY PROPOSAL IS UNBALANCED (or Jaerom Darkwind's for that matter). It has been potentially shown that having a full CL progression on non-spellcasting classes is unbalanced...potentially. No one is proposing that though. Jaerom's proposal is similar to mine, but everythong is either 1/2, 3/4, or full BCB progressions. He knocks Clerics and Druids down to 3/4, which I disagree with, but I think that a half BCB progression as a min might not be bad. Oh, and I don't think it is balanced to force mutli-classing casters to burn all/most of their feats is fair or balanced. -Drachasor
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 08:02 PM	Originally posted by LukiLoki I don't understand why the existence of the feat Practiced Spellcaster has been all but ignored in this thread. (along with Spell Penetration) Seems to me, that takes care of the "problem", and if it's balanced then the proposal outlined here can't be. If it were a feat, it'd be called "Everyone in the World is an Outrageously Prodigal Spellcaster so Why be a Fighter" Broken even in FR. It only fixes the problem for 4 levels. That almost covers non-epic, but fails miserably to even make a dent in the problem in epic play. And it requires a feat, something that's usually in short supply. Not to mention the fact that it's always appeared broken to me, since its way better then Spell Penetration. My system would assign a BCB based on the class's BAB, matching low to high, high to low, and medium to medium (except that as noted, rogue and maybe monk should have low instead of medium). The progressions would be identical to those of BAB. Exceptions in PrCs should be made on a case by case basis (like giving Eldritch Knight high BAB and BCB, for example).
LukiLoki 08-19-04, 08:16 PM	originally posted by Drachasor Please read the entire thread if you are going to make a post like this. Well I followed it closely for 2 pages, and then came back and read 3 & 4 hurriedly, so if I missed some subtleties, my bad. But I think I understand what's being proposed, and yes, I do think giving out caster levels for non-spellcasting classes is unbalanced. Specifically, it makes one wizard level added to a fighter of any level a great deal more attractive than it would be in the RAW. And it would all but eliminate the trade-offs inherent in multiclassing as a spellcaster. IMO "balance" is all about equivalence, and the attendant indecision; if there's no reason not to do something, i.e. every character in the same position would be actually hurting themselves mechanically by NOT doing (X), then (X) is too good. Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind <snip>it requires a feat, something that's usually in short supply.<snip> Exceptions in PrCs should be made on a case by case Well exactly. It requires a TRADEOFF of one resource for another. And a stated necessity for case-by-case fudging for this and that circumstance doesn't strike me as a hallmark of elegant, balanced game design.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-19-04, 08:28 PM	Originally posted by LukiLoki Specifically, it makes one wizard level added to a fighter of any level a great deal more attractive than it would be in the RAW. And it would all but eliminate the trade-offs inherent in multiclassing as a spellcaster. IMO "balance" is all about equivalence, and the attendant indecision; if there's no reason not to do something, i.e. every character in the same position would be actually hurting themselves mechanically by NOT doing (X), then (X) is too good.All right, I'm all ears. How are you planning on fixing the multiclass system so that fighter types have to sacrifice? There's no reason for a fighter not to take 2 levels of ranger or 4 levels of Barbarian. They lose nothing and get lots. It's as simple as this: if the current method of gimping spellcasters when they multiclass is "balanced", then you must devise mechanics to likewise gimp fighters when they multiclass. If the system whereby fighters can multiclass with impunity and stack everything--including and especially BAB, the basis of all combat prowess--is balanced, then you must devise mechanics to allow spellcasters the same ability. "Balance" demands that both types of characters be treated equally. So if you reject BCB, how are you going to nerf fighters to restore balance? Originally posted by LukiLoki And a stated necessity for case-by-case fudging for this and that circumstance doesn't strike me as a hallmark of elegant, balanced game design. It's a rough-draft, not a finished work. Were I ever to write it up, I'd include a comprehensive conversion guide.
Drachasor 08-19-04, 08:34 PM	<snip>it requires a feat, something that's usually in short supply.<snip> Exceptions in PrCs should be made on a case by case Well exactly. It requires a TRADEOFF of one resource for another. And a stated necessity for case-by-case fudging for this and that circumstance doesn't strike me as a hallmark of elegant, balanced game design. You just took his statement ENTIRELY out of context to support your position. He said that if you change how the system works for standard Classes, then you will need to adjust how it works for Prestige Classes too. This is an obvious fact. A house rule that is on such a large scale is naturally going to affect everything. For instance, let's say that various classes did not having stacking BAB, but instead you could take a "practiced warrior" feat that would increase your BAB by 4, up to your Character Level. Futhermore, suppose Wizards didn't have a BAB at all...they just stunk hitting melee, and you either had full BAB (use Class LeveL) or you had none. Well, then adjusting the system to a BAB state like ours would require looking at each PrC and changing it as you thought best. That's just how it would be. Thankfully the BAB situation is handled well already. Specifically, it makes one wizard level added to a fighter of any level a great deal more attractive than it would be in the RAW. And it would all but eliminate the trade-offs inherent in multiclassing as a spellcaster. IMO "balance" is all about equivalence, and the attendant indecision; if there's no reason not to do something, i.e. every character in the same position would be actually hurting themselves mechanically by NOT doing (X), then (X) is too good. Ok, how about you give an example of HOW this is unbalanced. You only said what it would do in an abstract way, and then said it was unbalanced. You haven't said how this effect would be unbalanced. The trade-offs as they are now for casters are simply way, way too high. This is especially the case when overcoming SR, but still the case in many other levels. A Druid 5/Wizard 5/Sorcerer 5 is a horrible, horrible character to play. The trade-offs don't balance out, you lose a ton and don't gain enough to justify anything remotely like this. On the other hand, a Fighter 5/Barbarian 5/Paladin 5 isn't a bad choice, and you get many abilities at full effectiveness. Naturally a PrC probably would be better, but that's often the nature of PrCs. However, even PrCs don't fix the multi-classing caster problems. Anyhow, give me some examples of how doing this would be bad...don't just say that it is. I don't see how the current choices are "equivalent"....it's just darn stupid to multi-class a caster in almost every instance, and even PrCs such as the Mystic Theurge suffer from it. -Drachasor
smrtgmp 08-19-04, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Not to mention the fact that it's always appeared broken to me, since its way better then Spell Penetration. This I disagree with. The two feats are for different things, so comparing them is difficult. Practiced Spellcaster is worthless for the single class caster, while Spell Penetration allows your caster level to exceed your character for the purpose of overcoming spell resistance. Seems pretty useful in my book, especially if you are an enchanter or evoker.
Nom 08-19-04, 11:07 PM	I buy the SR argument, for monsters at least. However, spell resistance and monk SR are both class based. Any proposal that provides casters with full BCB and non-casters with reduced BCB basically divides the game into to progressions, physical and magical. Currently, fighter stacks with ranger stacks with barbarian stacks with paladin (alignment restrictions aside). Which you choose affects whether you get a spread of capabilities, or a few more powerful ones. Your core power level (BAB) increases regardless. Introducing BCB does exactly the same for spellcasters. Your core power level increases regardless of which class you take; again the choice is for your mix of capabilities. In some ways this is even more true than for the fighter classes, since most fighter capabilities act as modifiers to your core power level, while most magic capabilities (ie spells) are either on or off, with their power a direct function of core power level. The classes that fail to gain much are the mixed classes. Multiclassing between spellcasting classes is now quite attractive, since you don't sacrifice core power level. Multiclassing between a fighter class and a spellcasting class is more attractive than before, but you still end up with diluted core power levels.
lanilifar 08-20-04, 01:07 AM	I can see how you could use knowledge of a different spellcasting tradition (wizard vs. cleric vs. bard) and translate some of that knowledge into a different tradition (i.e. caster levels in wizard contribute to caster levels in cleric, etc.), but I can't see how knowledge of Fighter, or Barbarian, or Rogue traditions would contribute to any spellcasting tradition. If one wants to truly examine the above one needs to consider why damage, overcoming spell resistance, beating dispel checks, etc. is a random thing. Why can a 10th level wizard cast a fireball one time and do 10 points of damage, and another time deal 60? To an inanimate object 100' away. I've always viewed this randomness as a variety of factors as follows: imperfect placement failure to draw full power not taking all magical influences into account (weather, proximity to ley lines, phase of the moon, etc) imperfect execution of verbal and somatic components, but not bad enough for failure material components that aren't the most perfect others I can't remember as I type, probably others I haven't thought of as well Most of these are due to the need to cast quickly, under dangerous and often unknown circumstances. If you get everything right (through knowledge (or proper guesses) of all the right circumstances and the perfect casting and perfect components and enough time to properly draw all power and place the spell) then you should be able to cast your spell to maximum effect (max damage, max caster level check, etc.) The increasing damage/effect, range and other factors affected by caster level to me were a combination of study/knowledge and the poise to handle that extra power. A 10th level fighter has more poise to handle power than a 1st level mage. He has more poise to stay calm in dangerous circumstances in order to more perfectly complete his spell. He has more experience and skill in the world to handle unknown circumstances. He has probably seen a spell battle or two and has also probably seen dozens, if not hundreds of spells cast, both in battle and in calmer circumstances. There are legitimate reasons why one could argue that a 10th level fighter/1st level mage should be a better spellcaster than a 1st level mage. There are also legitimate reasons why one could argue that they should be no better.
Someone 08-20-04, 02:10 AM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind There's no reason for a fighter not to take 2 levels of ranger or 4 levels of Barbarian. They lose nothing and get lots. Bonus feats aren't nothing. And they are what a pure fighter would give up if he took levels in any of the warrior-type classes (barbarian, pally, ranger). He'd also give up his good BAB if he took the other classes like rogue or monk. What class you have a majority of levels in is a pretty good definition/ description of what your character is. If a 10th lvl character is a ftr9/ wiz1, he's still predominantly a fighter. Effective spellcasting shouldn't come to mind when you think of that character. But if he was a ftr1/ wiz6/ eldritch3, then he could be known for both fighting and spellcasting. Though in this case it would be spellcasting first, fighting second. My balance issue is that you shouldn't get so much benefit for deviating 1 level off a strait singleclass progression. You should have to deviate more to qualify for a benefit. And in most cases, the reward would be a PrC. There are plenty of PrCs (or core classes) that do two things- combat, stealth, arcane, divine, nature, or special ability, at the same time, just not as well as a class dedicated to just one thing. Balance is: "if I took a level of this instead, what would I give up for what I would gain?" If a ftr19 took 1 level of wizard, he would give up a single point of BAB, a bonus feat, a point of base fort save, and a few max hp. Compared to what he already has, that's minor. So he should get some minor spellcasting as a benefit. And minor spellcasting = low CL.
Shatteredtower 08-20-04, 02:36 AM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind To continue with what has become my favorite analogy for its perfection in this debate, Wiz19 takes one level of fighter for his 20th character level. Now he can: 1. Attack twice in a full-attack action. 2. Use Power Attack to gain up to a +10 (or +20 if he two-hands) to damage. 3. Use Combat Expertise to get up to a +5 to his AC. 4. Take a bonus feat like Improved Critical (scimitar) and go crit-happy. A first level fighter can't do any of those things. But a 19th level wizard can do all of those things even without a single fighter level, whereas a 19th level fighter could do none of the things Seeker noted. (And let's not forget that no number of wizard levels grant a 1st level fighter the right to select the Weapon Specialization feat -- among other examples. Similar comparisons exist for rogues and other classes as well.) If we make a partial progression to have a 19th/1st level fighter/wizard casting at 10th level, you've got a wizard who can still use 5th level scrolls and a staff at 10th level of ability. Maybe that doesn't seem excessive to you, but that one wizard level is being made to account for an awful lot more than that one fighter level will count for with your 19th level wizard. The ability to use 5th level spells from scrolls vs. a +1 bonus to BAB, 3 extra hp, and a bonus feat -- doesn't sound like an even trade, especially since the feat is a moot advantage for the wizard, who'd get one for having 20 wizard levels instead of 19 and a fighter level. Show me what such a system gives to non-casters, single or multi-classed, and then we can talk about balance.
neroaster 08-20-04, 03:36 AM	Why stop at this? why not let ALL class abilitites improve even if u are leveling in another class? let your 1 level with rouge give u more sneak attack as u increase your character as a wizard ! let your 1 level with bard give you 20 times usage of bardic song at level 20 and let your 1 level of monk give you improved speed, armor class and stunnig attack like you where lvl 20 (at lvl 20) ? why stop at spell levels while we first are messing with the already quite delicate balance in the system! BUT there is 1 really good suggestion here! let SR be countered by spellcraft ranks! not the highest spell caster level. (all that is needed to do, to balance the SR, is adding 3 to all current SR's)
Draco Argentum 08-20-04, 03:42 AM	Originally posted by neroaster why not let ALL class abilitites improve even if u are leveling in another class? You say it as a joke but it has been proposed before.
Drachasor 08-20-04, 04:18 AM	Spell Completion: This is the activation method for scrolls. A scroll is a spell that is mostly finished. The preparation is done for the caster, so no preparation time is needed beforehand as with normal spellcasting. All that’s left to do is perform the finishing parts of the spellcasting (the final gestures, words, and so on). To use a spell completion item safely, a character must be of high enough level in the right class to cast the spell already. If he can’t already cast the spell, there’s a chance he’ll make a mistake. Activating a spell completion item is a standard action and provokes attacks of opportunity exactly as casting a spell does. Spell Trigger: Spell trigger activation is similar to spell completion, but it’s even simpler. No gestures or spell finishing is needed, just a special knowledge of spellcasting that an appropriate character would know, and a single word that must be spoken. Anyone with a spell on his or her spell list knows how to use a spell trigger item that stores that spell. (This is the case even for a character who can’t actually cast spells, such as a 3rd-level paladin.) The user must still determine what spell is stored in the item before she can activate it. Activating a spell trigger item is a standard action and does not provoke attacks of opportunity. Originally posted by Seeker95 Here is a balance issue. Ftr19 takes one level of wizard for his 20th caster level. Now he can: 1. Cast 5 magic missiles for 1d4+5 points of damage each. 2. Successfully use a scroll of any wizard spell. 3. Use a staff of polar ray or greater shout for 20d6 points of damage. 4. Shapechange (from scroll) into a 20HD creature for over three hours. A first level wizard can't do any of those things. 1. True, but it isn't unbalancing for a 20th level Character to cast a couple magic missles. 2. As proposed, you need only make a small modification to eliminate this*. Requiring a Caster Level check on any scroll that has a spell that can't yet cast is one way. Also, they can't even attempt to use the scroll without the necessary intelligence to cast the spell. This is to compensate for the change to the rules being made. True, the Fighter 19/Wizard 1 would have a better chance than a level 1 Wizard, but he'd still suffer a 25% chance of failure if Fighter levels counted as .5 BCB each, and a 45% chance of failure on 5th level scrolls. Good enough for me. 3. No one is proposing a 1-1 gain, so they can only use things slightly more effectively. 4. Same as the above. I used your post (even though it is old), because it goes over what a lot of people are complaining about. -Drachasor *This modification is in the spirit of the rules, at they assume you can cast (theoretically) any spell you don't need to roll a check for.
neroaster 08-20-04, 06:29 AM	Oh, I got a really great suggestion! lets just eliminate all classes and all heroes can cast whatever spell (s)he wants!, and lets not discriminate between divine and arcane spells, after all this is fanatcy ?!? oh and I really love the idea of a 5 lvl wizard 15 fighter casting vampiric touch HO HO 10d6 in healing/damage I want I want, who wants to play a pure class anymore ? OR a 1 lvl wiz/sor 19 fighter with a big nasty familiar and a mage armor lasting 20 hours. Yeah that sounds really nice wouldn't it be simpler to give your players an artifact that just let them cast any spell they want, OR ! a limited wish as a spell like ability? OR since you have lots of feats as a fighter u could do the following: spend some feats for extra spell slots, one above the level u currently know how to cast, so by the time u are lvl 20 you should as a 1 lvl spell caster/19 lvl fighter be able to cast atleast lvl 5 spells as well as any lvl 20 wizard! holly molly me want me want... if you cannot see that this idea is broken... I don't know what to say. BUT this is fantacy and you are your own lords... ehm DM/GM so do whatever u want! ah and it is Friday! have fun! Nero
spike81101 08-20-04, 08:59 AM	Originally posted by neroaster Oh, I got a really great suggestion! lets just eliminate all classes and all heroes can cast whatever spell (s)he wants!, and lets not discriminate between divine and arcane spells, after all this is fanatcy ?!? First off, you're really hurting your sides case by acting like a 5 year old. Second of all, if you want to be taken seriously in this debate, don't type the nonsense garbage that you just did here. Regardless, I'll answer your e-mail, this time. oh and I really love the idea of a 5 lvl wizard 15 fighter casting vampiric touch HO HO 10d6 in healing/damage Where in the world did you make this up? Even with the fixes proposed here, it would be 5d6. Let me also introduce you to Cain, my 2 fighter/6 wizard/10 EK/2 Archmage. He can do this now WITH the rules, and even more. He is a fighter with a caster level of 20. I want I want, who wants to play a pure class anymore ? Some of the pure classes are still the most powerful (excluding PrCs). People like variety, some people have played all of the core classes, and yes, simply want more. OR a 1 lvl wiz/sor 19 fighter with a big nasty familiar and a mage armor lasting 20 hours. Yeah that sounds really nice I'll refrain from insulting you once again and just post some common sense. The chart for increasing a familiar is Master Class Level, not caster level or even PrC level. wouldn't it be simpler to give your players an artifact that just let them cast any spell they want, OR ! a limited wish as a spell like ability? That's it! That's the answer we've been looking for! We never would have found it without you! since you have lots of feats as a fighter u could do the following: spend some feats for extra spell slots, one above the level u currently know how to cast, so by the time u are lvl 20 you should as a 1 lvl spell caster/19 lvl fighter be able to cast atleast lvl 5 spells as well as any lvl 20 wizard! holly molly me want me want... Interesting...holly molly me want me want... Sounds like someone has been watching too much seaseme street. if you cannot see that this idea is broken... I don't know what to say. Back up your arguement that it is broken with facts and examples from what he have proposed, not simply make stuff up for starters. The only one who has attempted to do so is seeker, which is why I'll listen to what he has to say. I hope him or someone else finds something "broken" so we can discuss it. BUT this is fantacy and you are your own lords... ehm DM/GM so do whatever u want! ah and it is Friday! have fun! Nero Yeah, happy friend day everyone. Oh btw: Nero was a Roman Emperor notorious for his monstrous vice and fantastic luxury (was said to have started a fire that destroyed much of Rome in 64) but the Empire remained prosperous during his rule (37-68)
neroaster 08-20-04, 09:25 AM	Hi Spike I really liked your reply! but you are serious I am not. Anyway I really, really liked my idea about buffing a fighter with 1 lvl of wizard and spending some of the easy coming feats of the fighter class to add levels of spellcasting to him/her. _______________ PS. and I thought Nero was a buring Rome utility, a very popular one...
Seeker95 08-20-04, 09:35 AM	If non-caster contributions to casting is going to be considered, then I would suggest: Clr/Drd/Wiz/Sor: 1/1 for same type (eg. arcane to divine) Clr/Drd/Wiz/Sor: 1/2 for opposite type (eg. arcane to arcane) Pal/RgrBrd: 1/3 (ignore type) Mnk/Ftr/Brb: 1/4 Divine magic ability would be less useful to an arcane caster (and vice versa), but pure caster classes would still have the highest contribution ration. "Half-caster" classes would contribute less effectively, while non-casters would contribute very little. I still like the idea of "effective caster level" being determined based on how long you have been in a class. A Wiz3/Ftr17 would be a fantastic caster of 1st and 2nd level spells, since he has been doing it for 20 levels of his career.
Draco Argentum 08-20-04, 09:58 AM	Originally posted by Drachasor 3. No one is proposing a 1-1 gain, so they can only use things slightly more effectively. Want to bet? A wiz 1 /ftr 19 should have a caster level of 20. If someone can make that build more powerful than a wiz 20 I'll be impressed.
spike81101 08-20-04, 09:59 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 If non-caster contributions to casting is going to be considered, then I would suggest: :OMG! WE GOT ONE TO CONVERT!
Drachasor 08-20-04, 10:17 AM	Originally posted by spike81101 :OMG! WE GOT ONE TO CONVERT! Don't be so hasty...he said "If non-caster contributions to casting is going to be considered, then I would suggest:" Maybe he is just giving up the fight but not his position. Afterall, if you have a friend that is intent on shooting themselves with a gun, and you cannot talk them out of it, then you might say "If you are going to shoot yourself with a gun, then I would suggest aiming for your foot or some other non-vital area" You don't need to agree to offer suggestions. Anyhow, I don't see what is unbalanced about having one BCB stat for all types of magic. Sure, maybe from some viewpoints it is a bit innaccurate (divine and arcane are too different), but from others it works just fine (focus and concentration determine how well you cast). If it isn't unbalanced, then I see no reason to tone it down unnecessarily. I do realize it is in some ways a large change to current rules, and some will bulk at such a change. However, in my next campaign, I think I will either implement my idea I previously posted, or power that idea up a bit (the 1/2, 3/4, 1/1 splits for classes). Unless someone can indicate some imbalance in this. It isn't for everyone, perhaps, but it fits me just fine. -Drachasor
spike81101 08-20-04, 11:15 AM	I'm just glad people are seeing what we are talking about, even if they don't agree or don't believe it should be implemented in 3e.
RogerWilco 08-20-04, 11:41 AM	A few points I like to make: - I like the idea that for non-casters multiclassing is a little easier. I think it makes them more interesting at high levels, where they are otherwise somewhat overshadowed by the casters. - I could envisage a system where you add (number of different levels)/(number of classes) to your CL. It would give Wiz10/Cle10 = CL 15 for both classes Wiz2/CLe18 = CL 19 for Cleric, CL 11 for Wizard. Ftr10/Wiz10 = CL 15 for wizard. Wiz2/Sor10/Ftr8 = CL 8 for Wizard, CL 13 for Sorcerer. Maybe classes with the same type (arcane/divine) and ability (INT/WIS/CHA) don't count for number of classes. I think that would not be a good idea, given Drd10/Cle10 would get to powerfull compared to the other examples above. I don't know much about PrC's, so I'll not comment on them.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-20-04, 02:23 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 I'm just glad people are seeing what we are talking about, even if they don't agree or don't believe it should be implemented in 3e. Cheer for me. I see what you're talking about, I don't agree, and I don't believe it should be implemented in 3E. :ayyyy!: What you're getting at, beyond this whole BCB thing, is getting rid of classes entirely and moving toward a GURPs-style game, where you can take whichever abilities you want (and can pay for). No multiclassing. No problem. If you want that, go play GURPS. However, in the current D&D incarnation, I really don't see how this proposed idea (and I have yet to the fully-fleshed idea presented [so far it's been "what about this?" or "this might work," but I assume that's what you're working on right now] *waits interestedly*) can be implemented without rewriting the entire system. There are so many areas that changing CL will affect, that I don't think you'll (we'll) realize the full ramifications until it's playtested. That's what I'm waiting for. I know you're saying "Spell Resistance! Spell Resistance!", but caster level has so much more effect on the game than just that. Spell Resistance doesn't come into the game until 12th+ level. And let's not talk about Epic. The game breaks down so much at that level (especially spellcasters and magic) that Spell Resistance is the least of your worries. The easiest solution to Spell Resistance that I can think of is to allow your primary spellcasting modifier to be added to your SR penetration roll. d20+CL+INT (for wizards), etc.
LukiLoki 08-20-04, 02:33 PM	GRRRRRR. Long post lost in the ether as I am timed out by the gods-fosaken boards. So.... Yeah, what Heron said. I've got work to do. ;)
Someone 08-20-04, 02:44 PM	There is only so much the character can focus on as he advances. Multiclassing represents shifting focus to something else, not working on two things at the same time. PrCs are a way to spread your focus, but you won't be as good at either compared to one who stayed focus on only one of those things. But you can still do a little of both, which was the intent, right? Some of the combinations: ftr/ clr: paladin ftr/ druid: ranger ftr/ wiz: eldritch knight ftr/ sorc: bard (sort of) wiz/ sorc: sorc with the arcane preparation feat I'd say that fighter is the most core of the core classes. Sort of like the center of a circle. Radiating out in different directions would be classes that are less combat technique, more other ability. The other abilities being: arcane spells, divine spells, nature, spontaneous spells, and special abilities. The progressions would be: arcane: ftr -> PrC (there are more than one) -> wizard divine: ftr -> paladin -> cleric nature: ftr -> ranger -> druid spontaneous: ftr -> bard -> sorc specal abilites: ftr -> barbarian -> monk -> rogue (or maybe rogue -> monk, not sure) What I'm saying about CL is that you shouldn't be able to work on two things without taking some sort of "bridge" class/ PrC. Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade ...The easiest solution to Spell Resistance that I can think of is to allow your primary spellcasting modifier to be added to your SR penetration roll. d20+CL+INT (for wizards), etc.But I thought that what you already do...
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-20-04, 02:51 PM	Originally posted by Someone But I thought that what you already do... It's usually just a straight CL check: d20+CL vs. target's SR. I also think the spellcaster's primary attribute modifier should be applied to counterspelling as well (both in trying to counterspell and trying to resist counterspelling), but that's not the way things are written.
spike81101 08-20-04, 03:02 PM	Originally posted by Someone What I'm saying about CL is that you shouldn't be able to work on two things without taking some sort of "bridge" class/ PrC. I see what you are saying but there are quite a few bridge classes missing: Cleric/rogue druid/rogue (LOL) monk/wizard barbarian/cleric etc...the list goes on and on. A universal rule would be a lot less work as well as be less rigid.
Drachasor 08-20-04, 03:29 PM	Heron, it isn't as complicated as you think, one just needs to go through and find out what aspects should use BCB, and what should use Class Level. Most of the time it is obvious which to use...and as far as I have seen and looked up, you only need to change the rule on scrolls; you must make a check if you couldn't learn and cast the spell. A small change, which is blatantly what was the spirit of the system. I can't see or think of any other necessary change, though perhaps some feats that improved class skills would be a good idea. Something like practiced spellcaster (which would still have a place), but for other class abilities. This is a seperate issue, however. Everyone: Anyhow, I haven't heard of any way in which this is overpowered or one potential breaking point here. Just fears that somehow, someway improving something that is horribly underpowered will break the game. That and people that let their personal prejudices influence a fair and balanced rule system (no offense, but as there are reasons for Arcane and Divine caster levels to stack, then the issue becomes one of balance; if full stacking is balanced, then nerfing that is underpowered). Heron, if you want a full system, there here is what I propose: Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian and Monk classes give 1/3 their level in BCB, rounded down. Paladin and Ranger classes give 1/2 their level in BCB, rounded down. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, and Bard classes give full BCB. When casting a spell from a scroll, you must roll a check if you couldn't learn and/or cast the spell. Now someone show me how to break this. (Yes, a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 could cast 9th level spells from scroll without much trouble-5% failure chance, but since they can't make these scrolls and they can still fail, then it is as large an issue as some would think). Naturally PRCs would need to be adjusted a bit, but this is basically always obvious how it would work (MT's have full BCB progression, Assassins have half, etc). Edit: And bridge classes aren't always what is wanted. Afterall sometimes you want to advance the special abilities of the core class more than a little. Bridge Classes don't do that (maybe you want more turning "oomph!" than a MT grants, or more useful animal companion, or better songs, etc.... -Drachasor
Twisted Puppy 08-20-04, 03:37 PM	I'm with Heron on this, I think letting caster level equal character level is unbalancing without making significant alterations in other rules. It's all about trade-offs, and not getting something for nothing. If a fighter wants to increase his ability to do damage, he takes the Power Attack feat - in lieu of some other feat like Improved Bull Rush. If a wizard chooses to gain the ability to craft wondrous items, he's taking that feat instead of a metamagic feat or something like Weapon Focus-Ray. If a wizard chooses to mulitclass to a Rogue for two or three levels, to gain the evasion ability, then he is apparently of the opinion that the evasion ability, improved Reflex save, marginally better HD and attack bonus, and the sneak attack bonuses (which do apply to some of his spells) are worth sacrificing some of his effectiveness as a spellcaster. If the decision is a hard one to make, so much the better, that means (to me) that the system is balanced as it is. Giving the additional caster levels to the character makes this almost a no brainer to multiclass.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-20-04, 03:53 PM	Drachasor, I've written those ideas down and will play with them for a bit. You could be on to something here -- time will tell. ;) However, this basically makes the only reason to continue in a single spellcasting class access to higher level spells, whereas before it was higher level spells and increased caster level (i.e. greater range, more damage on scalable spells, better chance of penetrating SR). Implementation of BCB suddenly makes continuing in a single spellcaster class much less appealing. If you can gain access to certain higher level spells through staves and scrolls, why not take levels of Cleric to gain access to Cure spells? Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10* suddenly becomes the most powerful build out there. 9th-level arcane spells @ CL 20 and 7th-level divine spells @ CL 20! This obviously goes way beyond simply penetrating Spell Resistance. What's the point of taking a Wizard class to 20th-level now? 3 metamagic feats? A smarter familiar? Or even staying with a single arcane/divine class and arcane/divine PrCs? A character who doesn't multiclass into different magic types in this scenario is suddenly the weaker build. Compare this build above to a class that has stayed in the melee classes. With as much disparity as there is currently at higher levels between magic classes and melee classes, all of a sudden there's MORE?? The character who isn't multiclassing into some sort of spellcasting class is now getting hosed even more in this scenario. I can see my way to allowing certain classes to grant CL bonuses on spell resistance penetration rolls only. I don't think that's too unbalancing (although I still don't think it's broken -- go buy a Robe of the Archmage, or a +CL item). I'm still not convinced that this sweeping change to the system is necessary. * Edit: For simplicity, using a standard MT build. The MT/Archmage build requires non-core feats and/or houserules.
spike81101 08-20-04, 04:16 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade If you can gain access to certain higher level spells through staves and scrolls, why not take levels of Cleric to gain access to Cure spells? Cleric 3/Wizard 7/Mystic Theurge 10* suddenly becomes the most powerful build out there. 9th-level arcane spells @ CL 20 and 7th-level divine spells @ CL 20! Don't you realize that the MT can do this anyway? We've already discussed this, all he needs to the practiced spellcaster feat.
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-20-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 Don't you realize that the MT can do this anyway? We've already discussed this, all he needs to the practiced spellcaster feat. Right. He needs to spend a feat to get his divine CL to 17. If you want to approach this change through a series of feats, that's more workable (and Practiced Spellcaster only affects a single spellcasting class and can't be taken twice for the same class). Feats are precious and limited, and if you want to spend them to increase your CL, go for it. But to give the character CL 20 for free -- that's a different situation. And what about the poor fool who sticks with melee classes into higher levels? Can you see how much farther he falls behind in this situation?
Pentar 08-20-04, 04:24 PM	Drachasor, I have to say that you keep repeating how you don't see how it is at all over-powered to make Character Level = Caster Level. I suspect it's because you don't -want- to see how dangerous such a change can be. My view on it is simple: Non-caster level classes have absolutely nothing to do with your caster abilities. A Wizard taking a level in Fighter is learning how to -fight-, not how to cast spells better or learning to make use of magic in more powerful ways. Simultaneaously, a Fighter taking a level in Paladin is simply focusing his combat into a different class type - fighting for the forces of good against the denizens of evil. They are similarly related character classes and thus their benefits stack. People are arguing up and down these boards about how overpowered spellcasters are at higher levels. Now, giving them ability to add all their character levels together for purposes of caster level determination just makes it that much more broken. Now a spellcaster can dip into PrCs and other classes as often as he likes without ever detrimenting his caster level, something that spell casters would normally have to seriously consider when they're choosing character levels. Yes, this means it makes it better to multiclass melee classes than it does to multiclass spellcasters. My response: Too Bad. High level magic allows for a lot of power and flexibility. It gives the spellcaster a huge range of abilities that most melee classes can't touch at equal level. Melee class advocates are constantly saying they're not powerful enough at high levels, and now, this is truly going to create a disparaty. You can't look at it from the perspective of how much more it gives the spellcaster. You have to look at it from the perspective of what the spellcaster now doesn't have to consider as a problem. This just opens up the character for more flexibility, which is not necessarily a balancing thing. Feats like Spell Penetration, and abilities like Spell Power may not be useful anymore, and thus they go ignored. This of course, now frees up a spellcaster to take another feat in place of that one - something that they may have considered necessary in the past suddenly becomes trivial. No, I don't think that's a good idea.
Drachasor 08-20-04, 04:25 PM	But that build casts far fewer 9th level spells than a full Wizard can, and yes he *does* lose feats (that is not insignicant). Also, there are fewer 8th and 7th level magics available than a full Wizard would get. Lastly, they miss out on many of the options a primary wizard would get in regards to other Prestige Classes, such as the Archmage. They gain versatility via more low level spells, but they lose many powerful magics. Also, imho, free scrying on the familiar is a handy ability. Though some don't like to admit it, many PrCs are simply better in nearly every way than the base class. However, I admit that might be broken, and in the changed system you might have to modify some of the PrCs more than I previously indicated. I'll mess around with this and see what I think. Perhaps MTs will have to have a reduced progression (while maintaining full BCB). Though, personally, I always favored the MT having the older requirement of being able to cast 3rd level arcane and divine spells. That solves the problem rather neatly. Requiring only 2nd level spells makes it too easy to get to, and is much less necessary with BCB (you aren't nerfed spell-wise to anywhere near the same extent). That's probably the change I would make. At that point you are limited to one 8th level spell in each class (and the domain spell if you are a cleric). However, there might need to be more reworking than this. Anyhow, you have made it clear that this does potentially break some of the Caster-Caster Prestige Classes, I'll look into them. I would say that this is a relatively small matter though, as nearly all of the other rules stand firm and intact (and those are the majority of the rules). -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-20-04, 04:37 PM	Originally posted by Pentar Drachasor, I have to say that you keep repeating how you don't see how it is at all over-powered to make Character Level = Caster Level. I suspect it's because you don't -want- to see how dangerous such a change can be. Well, Character Level = Caster level only works in my system if they are all full BCB classes. I have said I haven't seen how it is overpowered MANY times and only now has Heron shown a potential abuse. Why'd I repeat it? Because no one was addressing it, and now they are. I am happy this is happening. I am going to ignore you setting and background talk on how Fighter levels should help Caster levels, for it has already been demonstrated in numerous ways that you can find and use explanations to the contrary. I care about ONE thing in this discussion: balance. Originally posted by Pentar People are arguing up and down these boards about how overpowered spellcasters are at higher levels. Now, giving them ability to add all their character levels together for purposes of caster level determination just makes it that much more broken. Now a spellcaster can dip into PrCs and other classes as often as he likes without ever detrimenting his caster level, something that spell casters would normally have to seriously consider when they're choosing character levels. Point, and in my campaign I am going to work on improving the capabilities of the warrior classes, though many of them can do pretty well on their own. A few high level feats should help things along quite well. Anyhow, the primary purpose of this was so that they can add casting classes and so that you can have a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 with being horribly nerfed by your choice. Heron has pointed out the PrCs cause some issues to rise here, and I must concur with his assessment. I shall find some way to address this fact. If a system is worked out wherein the multiclassing casters are kept within the current power limitations of Casters, then it shall be balanced, and Fighters and the like will not be any worse off. High level magic allows for a lot of power and flexibility. It gives the spellcaster a huge range of abilities that most melee classes can't touch at equal level. Melee class advocates are constantly saying they're not powerful enough at high levels, and now, this is truly going to create a disparaty. Which is why I want to work on BALANCE (how many times have I had to say this in the bloody thread, and still it passes by people *sigh*), and if it is balanced with current casters, then it will be as balanced with fighter-types as the current casters are. Not perfect, but the system shouldn't be penalized because fighter-types need a boost. You can't look at it from the perspective of how much more it gives the spellcaster. You have to look at it from the perspective of what the spellcaster now doesn't have to consider as a problem. This just opens up the character for more flexibility, which is not necessarily a balancing thing. Feats like Spell Penetration, and abilities like Spell Power may not be useful anymore, and thus they go ignored.[/B] Not true, even a Full-on Wizard would consider things like Spell Penetration, as SR is simply THAT annoying. And this is an issue of balance and how to not damage the current game situation. Ideally it adds flexibility to character growth while maintaining the current balance, and that is what I am working towards. -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-20-04, 04:43 PM	Ok, I have about 3 ideas regarding things like the Mystic Theurge: 1. Increase the requirements; This may not be a solution, as even requiring the character to be at least level 10 (Divine 5/Arcane 5), still gives them 8th level spells; though admittedly just barely. 2. Change it to a 5 level Prestige Class; This certainly eliminates many potential issues. I doubt a Wizard 8/Cleric 7/MT 5 is overpowered; they simply have the spells of a Wizard 13/Cleric 12....1 7th level spell for the Wizard, and not even that for the Cleric. 3. Get rid of it and replace it with something extensively redone that doesn't grant spell progression in two classes every level. This may have to be done, as one of the main points of the MT, CL progression, is now handled by the new system. Sometimes the old must give way to the new. I don't think a Cleric 10/ Wizard 10 is overpowered in this new system, and if anything they are underpowered. I shall think over this options, and I hope some of you will too. A 10 level progression could still potentially be done, perhaps with a special ability or two, and the net effect of option 2 (every other level gives increased progression to both). Any problems that are not MT related? (Or Ur-Priest, though I'd argue that its special rules would override this new system). -Drachasor Edit: Mispelled a word (that I saw...I probably have other horrors in spelling and grammar hidden above).
Pentar 08-20-04, 04:55 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor I am going to ignore you setting and background talk on how Fighter levels should help Caster levels, for it has already been demonstrated in numerous ways that you can find and use explanations to the contrary. I care about ONE thing in this discussion: balance. That's precisely it, it's not balanced. The whole idea of taking total character levels as caster level is -not- balanced. Anyhow, the primary purpose of this was so that they can add casting classes and so that you can have a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 with being horribly nerfed by your choice. Heron has pointed out the PrCs cause some issues to rise here, and I must concur with his assessment. I shall find some way to address this fact. If a system is worked out wherein the multiclassing casters are kept within the current power limitations of Casters, then it shall be balanced, and Fighters and the like will not be any worse off. Ok... forgive me and my logic here a second. Why would you worry about a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 character being nerfed, when that person should have reasonably selected the Mystic Theurge PrC? I'm just wondering why you would want to alter an entire working system just so that someone can play a class that is actually covered better in a PrC? Which is why I want to work on BALANCE (how many times have I had to say this in the bloody thread, and still it passes by people *sigh*), and if it is balanced with current casters, then it will be as balanced with fighter-types as the current casters are. Not perfect, but the system shouldn't be penalized because fighter-types need a boost. And again, that's the point. You say you want to work on balance? Simple - leave it the way it is. That is relatively balanced. Setting it so that Caster level = Character level (even with just BCB classes) = Broken. Not true, even a Full-on Wizard would consider things like Spell Penetration, as SR is simply THAT annoying. And this is an issue of balance and how to not damage the current game situation. Ideally it adds flexibility to character growth while maintaining the current balance, and that is what I am working towards. -Drachasor [/B] SR in v3.5 has been lowered quite a bit from v3.0. The fact is, some class combinations just don't work well together. Druid/Wizard = ugly. Cleric/Sorcerer not too bright. That's just the fact of the matter. Sometimes you just can't find a recipe to make turnip and feta cheese stirfry, tasty. Allowing a Wizard to take a level in Cleric, retain his caster level going up, and gain the benefits of a cleric's domain, all the weapon feats and armour feats in addition to casting Cleric spells at his own full caster level... I mean... Duh? It's just BEGGING to allow casters to class-dip.
Seeker95 08-20-04, 04:56 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor that build casts far fewer 9th level spells than a full WizardNo. He can prepare far fewer 9th level spells. He can *cast* as many as he can afford to buy, beg, borrow, steal or store. With no additional penalty. No additional risk of failure. By giving him equal access to 9th level spells, you are indeed making him more powerful than a pure caster, encouraging multi-classing, and removing the fundamental incentive to play a pure class.
Drachasor 08-20-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 No. He can prepare far fewer 9th level spells. He can *cast* as many as he can afford to buy, beg, borrow, steal or store. With no additional penalty. No additional risk of failure. By giving him equal access to 9th level spells, you are indeed making him more powerful than a pure caster, encouraging multi-classing, and removing the fundamental incentive to play a pure class. Ok, but the 20th level Wizard is going to be able to *cast* more because he can get as many scrolls, and has more spells per day. Maybe they can know the same amount of spells, but there is still a difference. Anyhow, Seeker, Pentar, I have acknowledge that the MT is a problem, and I have proposed 3 possible remedies. One of them will surely work (for one of them is getting rid of the PrC!) Anyhow, beyond the MT, are there any other issues? -Drachasor
Seeker95 08-20-04, 11:19 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor Anyhow, beyond the MT, are there any other issues? You're not really interested in issues except to discount them. You have the method you like. You disagree with the objections we have raised. Why seek additional input when you have already decided the outcome of this "consultation"? Just tell us the opinion you want us to have.
Loren Pechtel 08-21-04, 12:13 AM	I think there are two issues here. Caster level as spell power, and caster level for overcoming SR. I can see the arguments for caster level = class level making sense for the latter but I don't agree. However, adding all caster levels (including things like Paladin even if they don't give you any spells) for purposes of overcoming SR makes a *LOT* of sense to me. Beyond that there's Practiced Spellcaster, which seems to me that it should stack. For the purposes of spell power, I think there should only be arcane and divine spells. A Wiz3/Sor3 should get the spells of a Wiz3 and a Sor3, but the caster level should be 6.
spike81101 08-21-04, 12:18 AM	And again, that's the point. You say you want to work on balance? Simple - leave it the way it is. That is relatively balanced. 10 wizard/10 cleric relatively balanced? Make up a 10 wizard/10 cleric you'll see how "relatively balanced" it is. Should have taken MT? What is your DM doesn't allow the horrible broken MT? There are other balance/flexibility issues as well. I've already stated the lack of "glue" holding multiclassing together. Oh yeah, and where exactly is this BCB thing broken again? I've been waiting for almost a year...
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-21-04, 12:59 AM	Originally posted by spike81101 10 wizard/10 cleric relatively balanced? Make up a 10 wizard/10 cleric you'll see how "relatively balanced" it is. Should have taken MT? What is your DM doesn't allow the horrible broken MT? There are other balance/flexibility issues as well. I've already stated the lack of "glue" holding multiclassing together. Oh yeah, and where exactly is this BCB thing broken again? I've been waiting for almost a year... Okay....now the MT is "horrible broken"? Anything else you want to call "broken" before I give you more examples? I'd hate to give you an example with another class that no one currently takes because it makes for a weak character and then be told it's broken because using your rules it becomes the equivalent of a Gestalt character. God forbid. I still don't see why you think a character that studies a little bit in divine magic and a little bit in arcane magic should be just as good at casting the spells he can cast as a dedicated divine or dedicated arcane spellcaster. Tell you what. Get a Master's degree in Literature and a Master's degree in Electrical Engineering. Two Master's degrees -- you've spent just as long in school as a PhD. Then go talk about literature (whatever area you had emphasized) with someone who has a PhD in literature (assume he didn't write his PhD on your subject, but knows the same information about it that you do). Think you can keep up with him? Even if he didn't study in your area, he'll be able to do so much more with the information you acquired. Sure, you can talk circles around him when it comes to Electrical Engineering (divine magic), but in Literature (arcane magic) he's clearly better -- and that's not counting the area he got his PhD in (higher-level spells). If you prefer, go talk to someone with a PhD in Engineering. You'll find the result is the same. This analogy is not, of course, exact in all regards, but I think it suffices to get my point across.
Someone 08-21-04, 01:06 AM	I know a wiz10/ clr10 is weak for a 20th lvl, you know a wiz10/ clr10 is weak for a 20th lvl, I think just about everyone knows a wiz10/ clr10 is weak for a 20th lvl. So who would want to play one? If they are doing it for RP reasons- a wizard who converted, or a cleric who took up arcane studies- the relative loss of power isn't an issue. If they truly beleive that's what their character would do, there's nothing stopping them. But they shouldn't benefit from it, apart from the flexibility of being able to do two completely different things. Here's a balance issue for you: item creation feats. A low lvl wizard shouldn't be able to take the forge ring feat just because he has levels in cleric. If he had enough levels in cleric, he could take forge ring and make some divine rings. But he wouldn't be able to make an arcane ring, as his arcane spellcasting isn't good enought to qualify for forge ring. Another balancing factor: attributes. Its a capable character indeed that can be good at more than one thing. You can't always have two (or more) good stats. Its okay to "play against type", but that's a RP reason. To me, one cannot separate CL from spells/ day. Sure you can use a magic item or a feat to affect CL, but only to a limited application of CL such as duration/ variable numetrics or SR checks. The only thing that can improve your base spells/ day is taking levels in that class. And improving your base spells/ day improves your CL for casting those spells. If you want to have a single CL, you would have to have a single set of spells/ day. Which could be a problem- which attribute would provide bonus spells?
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-21-04, 01:18 AM	It really isn't all that drastic a change actually. Basically it's only going to help -Buffing clerics (because divine favor continues to scale) -Psionics (since your manifester level is your cap for augmentation) Besides that it's kinda useless for anything but small token multiclassing. Because you just can't get by with only 4th level spells when you're 20th level, even if they are at caster level 20. What you will see more of however is dipping 1 level cleric for buffs. What fighter wouldnt' want a couple of domain benefits, and the ability to get a +6/+6 luck bonus with a round of buffing. Couple that with a metamagic quicken rod and the buffing is free. Psionics may be the ones most affected by it, because it allows them to augment things better. The problem here is that they won't have many power points, so it's quite possible they'll blow through all their PP in one battle, which probably isn't good for the game, because it makes rest frequency too much of an issue.
Drachasor 08-21-04, 01:32 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 You're not really interested in issues except to discount them. You have the method you like. You disagree with the objections we have raised. Why seek additional input when you have already decided the outcome of this "consultation"? Just tell us the opinion you want us to have. You are being grossly unfair to me. I have acknowledge that the MT IS a significant problem. Nonetheless, there are ways to adjust this PrC and the system to eliminate the problem. Worst case: you get rid of the PrC (since I don't think a Wiz 10/Clr 10 with a CL of 20 in both classes is in any way unbalanced). To say I have acted like there are no problems is therefore unfair. I have dealt with the problems and tried my best to find solutions. You say there is a problem with scroll reading, then I propose a change to how the scroll rules work; a change that fits the spirit of those rules. Yes, I *have* decided there should be some sort of CL stacking, because I haven't seen any fundamental way it is broken. All the ways it breaks are fairly easily fixable. If someone can show me a fundamental brokenness to the change, then I will change my mind. No one has done so. -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-21-04, 01:38 AM	Originally posted by Someone I know a wiz10/ clr10 is weak for a 20th lvl, you know a wiz10/ clr10 is weak for a 20th lvl, I think just about everyone knows a wiz10/ clr10 is weak for a 20th lvl. So who would want to play one? If they are doing it for RP reasons- a wizard who converted, or a cleric who took up arcane studies- the relative loss of power isn't an issue. If they truly beleive that's what their character would do, there's nothing stopping them. But they shouldn't benefit from it, apart from the flexibility of being able to do two completely different things. Which is why I am discussing ways to balance out this weakness. The CL issue alone probably doesn't balance it, but it makes the situation better. Enough to make it more attractive for some. As you say though, it isn't unbalanced. Originally posted by Someone Here's a balance issue for you: item creation feats. A low lvl wizard shouldn't be able to take the forge ring feat just because he has levels in cleric. If he had enough levels in cleric, he could take forge ring and make some divine rings. But he wouldn't be able to make an arcane ring, as his arcane spellcasting isn't good enought to qualify for forge ring. And you need the right spells to do the enchantment if it requires spells. If you don't have those, you can't do it (and if you get them from scrolls, you have to make the caster check and need a scroll for each day of creation). It wouldn't be broken to allow this character to make a ring when he has the spells, if another, pure class, character can make rings. Originally posted by Someone Another balancing factor: attributes. Its a capable character indeed that can be good at more than one thing. You can't always have two (or more) good stats. Its okay to "play against type", but that's a RP reason. Well, that sort of implies they need a boost then, right? This is such a boost. Originally posted by Someone To me, one cannot separate CL from spells/ day. Sure you can use a magic item or a feat to affect CL, but only to a limited application of CL such as duration/ variable numetrics or SR checks. The only thing that can improve your base spells/ day is taking levels in that class. And improving your base spells/ day improves your CL for casting those spells. If you want to have a single CL, you would have to have a single set of spells/ day. Which could be a problem- which attribute would provide bonus spells? Class Level grants your spells per day. That's how it works now, and that is how it continues to work. Caster Level determines the effectiveness of those spells. If you recall, the Archmage used to have a special ability to give +1 *Caster Level* as an option you could choose. "Spell Power" this was, but it didn't grant you more spells per day. So they have already been seperated for quite a while. -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-21-04, 01:42 AM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Okay....now the MT is "horrible broken"? Anything else you want to call "broken" before I give you more examples? I'd hate to give you an example with another class that no one currently takes because it makes for a weak character and then be told it's broken because using your rules it becomes the equivalent of a Gestalt character. God forbid. As you pointed out, it is probably broken with the modified CL rules. Not definitely, but quite possibly. I think that is what he was getting at. Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade I still don't see why you think a character that studies a little bit in divine magic and a little bit in arcane magic should be just as good at casting the spells he can cast as a dedicated divine or dedicated arcane spellcaster. .... There are ways to explain this. The concentration and focus you need could be quite similar, even if the ultimate source is different. Class Level allows you the finesse to cast the spells themselves, but concentration, focus, and being used to working with magic in general allows you to cast those spells more effectively. With more time, even better justifications can be made. Anyhow, since I feel you can thematically argue the issue from both sides, I am largely interested in balance concerns. I do thank you for the balance issues you have brought up, and I hope you see I have been trying my best to address them. I like to think I have proposed some workable modifications. -Drachasor
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-21-04, 07:56 AM	Originally posted by Drachasor I do thank you for the balance issues you have brought up, and I hope you see I have been trying my best to address them. I like to think I have proposed some workable modifications.] I do see that, and I'm interested in seeing this system when its more fleshed out and playtested.
Draco Argentum 08-21-04, 08:04 AM	If caster level equals character level is unbalenced then you can obviously tell me a specific example. Lets hear one. (No the MT, AT and EK don't count. A DM useing a different fix for MC casters wouldn't allow those.)
Nom 08-21-04, 09:43 AM	Originally posted by Draco Argentum If caster level equals character level is unbalenced then you can obviously tell me a specific example. Lets hear one.Rather, let me show you a problematic case that this proposal does nothing to fix. Existing rules: * spell resistance (Clr 5): SR 12 + CL (1 min per CL) * Monk diamond soul: SR 10 + monk levels * Drow: SR 11 + "class levels" (which in this context must mean character levels; you can't have "class levels" in Drow) Drow SR is based on character level, monk or cleric SR on class level, which hurts monk or clerics if they multiclass. Proposed rules: * spell resistance (Clr 5): SR 12 + character level (1 min per character level) * Monk diamond soul: SR 10 + monk levels * Drow: SR 11 + "class levels" So now multiclass spellcasters gain full benefit despite mixing abilities, while monks do not. As things stand, the rules are at least consistent. Core scores (BAB, saves, HP, skills) gained from class levels stack, almost everything else doesn't. Racial abilities instead use character level. The character level = caster level (if they're both primary casters) help pure spellcasters, but they don't provide comparable benefit to mixed combat / casters and fail to deal with any class based abilities (bard song, several monk abilities, barbarian rage, ...) except spellcasting. As currently proposed, it's a partial fix that benefits some combinations more than others, and the combinations it helps most are those combining two pure casters, who are already quite potent at high levels.
Someone 08-21-04, 01:52 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor ...Caster Level determines the effectiveness of those spells. If you recall, the Archmage used to have a special ability to give +1 *Caster Level* as an option you could choose. "Spell Power" this was, but it didn't grant you more spells per day. So they have already been seperated for quite a while. from the SRD Spell Power: This ability increases the archmages effective caster level by +1 (for purposes of determining level-dependent spell variables such as damage dice or range, and caster level checks only). This ability costs one 5th-level spell slot.I should have included class abilities in my list of things that can affect CL. My mistake. And like the other things that can affect CL, spell power doesn't affect everything that is CL based. Not to mention the AM has to give up a 5th lvl spell/ day to get it. A fighter wouldn't give up anything to provide a bounus to CL under your system. But back to my balance issue: if you are going to have only 1 universal CL, you should have only 1 set of spells/ day. Don't get me wrong, I have no problem with a pal10/ clr10 being able to cast spells equivalent to a clr15- that is, the spells/ day and CL of a clr15- but only because pal and clr cast the same kind of spells. Same with a rng/ dru. Brd/ sorc is a bit wierd because a brd has 1/1 CL and 2/3 the spell progression of a sorc.... However, I do have a problem with a ftr10/ clr10 casting spells as a clr12 (or clr13, depending on whether its 1/4 or 1/3). If you want to improve your divine spellcasting, take levels in a class or PrC that provides divine spellcasting. Such as paladin.
Etiquette_Gnome 08-21-04, 01:53 PM	Originally posted by Nom Rather, let me show you a problematic case that this proposal does nothing to fix. Well, if that isn't a prime example of a fallacial argument, I don't know what is. Because it doesn't fix a particular element, doesn't mean it must therefore not fix the element it was concerning itself with. Also, Mystic Theurge and its brood don't fix monk SR either. Now, from what I can tell, there have been several versions of this rule popping about. The one I'm in favor for is the Caster Level = Character Level (no partials). If you think about it, that spellcaster who takes levels in a non-spellcasting class is still using his magic while he adventures, and one could argue thematically that it's odd that his continuation of using magic ends up with him not getting any better. It has been plainly stated that multi-classing with spellcasters is an inferior choice. The current PrCs were created to help alleviate this problem. However, a number of people feel that those PrCs are overpowered and inappropriate for their job (I be one of 'em), and if anything create more problems than they solve. Therefore, rather than using them, another option needs to be created to help. What I am confused by is how one could think the idea of character level = caster level is so overpowered; yet consider the Mystic Theurge perfectly fine. Unless of course the reason is because it's core, and therefore it must be balanced, or some junk like that. The only issue this even slightly brings up is the concept of a 19th level fighter taking his last level in wizard and suddenly getting a 20th CL with a couple 1st level spells. While odd, it's also odd that the Fighter never took the time to train into Wizardry, which requires almost a decade more training compared the other classes for starting characters. Since one can gain a level in wizard after the game's started in a span of a day or two (In Game), might as well help make the 1 level in wizard (or any other spellcaster) worthwhile.
Xeviat-DM 08-21-04, 04:39 PM	Wow, I entirely forgot that I actually posted this thread: I remember writing it, but I had briefly considered not posting it. Good thing that I did, this thread is on fire. I have read to the third page, but stopped because the same arguments keep getting repeated. So forgive me if these have already been stated: First things first, spells have damage caps. Fireball can only deal 10d6 at maximum, while Delayed Blast Fireball can deal 20d6. There are many more examples, but the point is that a level 3 spell at caster level 20 is no where near as powerful as a level 7 spell at a caster level 20. As for some answers, yes, I am doing this to make multiclass spellcasters more effective and fun. A Rogue looses nothing but more options by taking four levels of fighter (they must wait for their high level specials and their sneak attack won't go as high), where a Wizard would loose access to 9th level spells, 4 dice worth of damage, spell resistance, dispell checks, and will delay their spell aquasition. As for an explanation as to why it would make sense in my world: Magic is described as an innate energy in the world. There are four modes of controling it; Arcane: wielding the elemental energy of the outside world through understanding or innate talent; Natural: wielding the elemental energy of the outside would through kinship and closeness with it (druids have a similar tradition as wizards in my world, but the druid never attempts to break nature, they bend and wield it); Divine: wielding the elemental energy gifted to you by the spirits; Psionics: wielding the elemental energy drawn from your own body. Because ones ability to wield magic depends on how powerful your own bodies energy centers (chakras) are, it makes sense that multiclass spellcasters would be able to command spells with the same potency as single classed spellcasters; the difference is that single classed spellcasters can command more powerful spells, and have many more spells per day. I do use the PrC versions of the Ranger and Bard, and I have based my world's Templar (Fighter/Cleric) and Channeler (Barbarian/Sorcerer) on the PrC Paladin/Ranger model, and have created my own version of the Monk (Psion/warrior) after the Bard model. But these PrCs still currently end up with a caster level 10 (ranger/templar/channeler) or a caster level 14 (bard/monk), and are hurt when it comes to dispell magic and spell resistance. If I do choose to do something of this sort, be it straight caster level = character level or treating caster level like BAB, I will revise the multiclass spellcaster PrCs, and take a look at my "Advanced Classes" (the classes listed in the above paragraph, which are 15 level PrCs) for possible balance issues. I have been working on my setting, from classes to races to monsters to feats and skills and combat manuvers, for the last 2 years; more work is nothing new to me.
Draco Argentum 08-21-04, 11:56 PM	Originally posted by Nom As things stand, the rules are at least consistent. Core scores (BAB, saves, HP, skills) gained from class levels stack, almost everything else doesn't. Racial abilities instead use character level. Caster level is a core score just as much as BAB is. Etiquette_Gnome covered the rest nicely. Xeviat, damage caps need to go too. If the point of the exercise is to make MC casters have useful spells then haveing a cap that says "your spells are pointless" defeats the purpose. SoDs don't have capped DCs.
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-22-04, 12:03 AM	Originally posted by Draco Argentum Xeviat, damage caps need to go too. If the point of the exercise is to make MC casters have useful spells then haveing a cap that says "your spells are pointless" defeats the purpose. SoDs don't have capped DCs. See, I don't know about this one. Because that just fixes the battlemage, and often that's not even what people want to do when they multiclass. For a cleric/mage it is, but for a fighter/mage they probably dont' care. When you multiclass as a fighter/mage for instance, you're generally doing so for utility spells. You want to fight and kill stuff with your sword and cast spells for either buffs or out of combat versatility. And simply making Caster level = character level doesn't solve that. Some people really don't care how much damage their fireball can do, they want stuff like scrying, dimension door, and stoneskin and don't really care that much about caster level. They just want it without hurting Hp and fighting ability too much. And that IMO is the more important MC caster archetype to fix. You can always create a prestige class to handle the other kind who wants to be a wizard as his primary offense.
Someone 08-22-04, 03:26 AM	Xeviat, forgive me for not using the quote function as I respond to your post (which, I may add, was well written) in an effort to keep my post length down. With fireball and DB fireball, not every spell has a higher level higher dice limit equivalent- though the enhance spell epic metamagic feat might be a place to start. You mentioned that there are four modes of magic in your world, why not have four CLs? This could still work with your system- that while you get +1 CL every level, regardless of class, you can only improve one of the four CLs at a time. For example, a wiz/ clr that takes lvls in ftr would have to say which of the CLs he is improving each time he takes a level of ftr. He could put all of it in to one of the CLs, letting the other fall behind, or he could try to have a balanced distribution. Classes that grant a particular kind of casting would be "locked" in what CL they improve. One could not improve his divine CL by taking levels of arcane (a CL 0 wiz would be rather odd). As I proposed earlier, if classes grant the same kind of spellcasting, they should be able to stack. For another example, a clr6/ pal 6 would have the spells/ day of a clr9 and a divine CL of 12.
Draco Argentum 08-22-04, 03:57 AM	Originally posted by Archtyrant Terevoth And that IMO is the more important MC caster archetype to fix. You can always create a prestige class to handle the other kind who wants to be a wizard as his primary offense. Why make a PrC when you can do something simpler? If you want combat buffs or attack spells increased caster level is important. If you don't want those then you're stuck in a hole without much more drastic changes to magic.
Shatteredtower 08-22-04, 04:29 AM	Originally posted by Draco Argentum If caster level equals character level is unbalenced then you can obviously tell me a specific example. Lets hear one. The resulting system automatically defines any multi-level character without at least one level in a spellcasting class as weak. Do you wish to advocate a system in which a mid-to-high level character without at least one level as a cleric or perhaps wizard is a poor build? I certainly can't support a system that would allow spellcasters to have it all, and insists that the game can't be fun unless they do have it all. If you can't milk several gallons of advantage out of a single level of cleric or wizard at 10th level, it's because you're approaching the problem no differently than you would with a 10th level cleric or wizard. Comparing each casting level (regardless of spell's gained) to an increase in BAB is a misleading comparison. One casting level opens up anywhere from four to at least a score of options, depending on whether you've taken that level as a bard, a cleric, or something else. How many options do you gain with each point added to your BAB? Are you going to try to claim that adding 2 hp to melee damage from Power Attack is worth as much as the ability to create water, produce light, and detect magic?
Pentar 08-22-04, 01:16 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 10 wizard/10 cleric relatively balanced? Make up a 10 wizard/10 cleric you'll see how "relatively balanced" it is. Should have taken MT? What is your DM doesn't allow the horrible broken MT? There are other balance/flexibility issues as well. I've already stated the lack of "glue" holding multiclassing together. Oh yeah, and where exactly is this BCB thing broken again? I've been waiting for almost a year... If the Mystic Theurge is horribly broken, then how is allowing character levels = caster level for a Wizard 10/cleric 10 going to -not- broken? It's the exact same class concept, except this time, you're still getting the benefits of going up in class levels for both Cleric and Wizard (including bonus feats, familiars, turning undead power, etc.). If anything, this idea makes the MT obsolete because it would be -more- powerful to have a Wizard 10/Cleric 10.
Pentar 08-22-04, 01:24 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor You are being grossly unfair to me. I have acknowledge that the MT IS a significant problem. Nonetheless, there are ways to adjust this PrC and the system to eliminate the problem. Worst case: you get rid of the PrC (since I don't think a Wiz 10/Clr 10 with a CL of 20 in both classes is in any way unbalanced). To say I have acted like there are no problems is therefore unfair. I have dealt with the problems and tried my best to find solutions. You say there is a problem with scroll reading, then I propose a change to how the scroll rules work; a change that fits the spirit of those rules. Yes, I *have* decided there should be some sort of CL stacking, because I haven't seen any fundamental way it is broken. All the ways it breaks are fairly easily fixable. If someone can show me a fundamental brokenness to the change, then I will change my mind. No one has done so. -Drachasor Actually, I agree entirely with Seeker95. Your efforts in this discussion seems largely based around asking for opinions and then shooting them down without real due consideration, or simply waving your hand to brush the concerns aside if they cannot be addressed. But, if you really want a concern, I have another one. What about classes that cast spell at a lower class level? Say, a Paladin or a Ranger. A paladin casts spells like a cleric, yet at a lower caster level (1/2 her paladin level, to be precise). With your new rules now, this limitation is gone. A paladin casting a Cure Light Wounds at level 5, casts it at the same level as a Cleric of the same level. Does this make sense? Sure, the Cleric has more spells, spontaneous casting, etc... but that brings the power level of classes like Paladins and Rangers, who typically casted spells at lower caster levels, and brings them up to the same level. If the Paladin class is considered balanced now, how does this throw off the balance? Now, a Paladin at level 9, casting Divine Favour on himself gains +3 to hit/damage, the -exact- same way as a Cleric level 9 would cast the spell. That doesn't seem right to me. Another point of a problem: What about racial character levels - do they count towards caster levels? So a creature (like Drow) that adds +2 character levels, are those added to their caster level?
Archtyrant Terevoth 08-22-04, 01:38 PM	Originally posted by Draco Argentum Why make a PrC when you can do something simpler? If you want combat buffs or attack spells increased caster level is important. If you don't want those then you're stuck in a hole without much more drastic changes to magic. Because it's really not simpler, and it doesn't do all that much. Further, it doesn't exactly fix many archetypes either. Basically you've got two types of fighter/mages, the first is the swordsman who casts spells. This guy doesn't benefit at all from the change, as he just wants buff spells, and general utility spells, stuff that comes by getting high spell levels, not from caster level. If he's going to attack with his sword, he could care less if his fireball was weak. The second type is the wizard in armor. Now he needs a PrC anyway to compete, since there's no way to cast armor in the core. So you might as well just handle balancing him within the spellsword class or whatever wizard in armor PrC you create, because you'll still need a PrC. Now as for the cleric/wizard, you're better off handling him with the MyTh. A cleric 10/ wiz 10 is still going to suck even if he has caster level 20. The rogue/mage? I'd still rather take the Arcane trickster. That way I improve my spellcasting and my rogue skills at the same time. The fact of the matter is that caster level really isn't all that important except for buff spells and direct damage. What's more important is getting higher level spells, not just getting a bigger fireball. So I don't see any extra archetypes you're creating wtih the change beyond the fighter with 1 level of cleric who casts divine favor. Beyond that, I dont' see it actually fixing anything important. If you're going to sacrifice something as a caster, caster level is the first thing I'd sacrifice really. Losing access to high level spells is the big one, and giving someone a token benefit like caster level doesn't mean that much. IMO the mechanic has to work the opposite way. Give them higher level spells than normal, but have their caster level suck.
Someone 08-22-04, 01:42 PM	Originally posted by Pentar ...If anything, this idea makes the MT obsolete because it would be -more- powerful to have a Wizard 10/Cleric 10.Only if 1/1 CL also adds spells/ day at 1/1. A wiz5/ clr5/ MT10 has the CL and spells/ day of a wiz15 and clr 15. A wiz10/ clr10 under this system would have the CL of a wiz20 and a clr20, and the spells/ day of a wiz10 and clr10. And I'm not convinced MT is "broken", by the time you can soonest qualify for it (6th lvl with a wiz3/ clr 3) you have spent half of your career to that point on a completely in conflicting (i.e. not complimenting) studies. There should be a reward for that kind of devotion, and the reward is a PrC that lets you work on both- albeit not as well as if you had studied only one. Theurgy: n. art of working so-called miracles by supernatural agency. Okay, doesn't have much to do with the MT, but its still a rather obscure word, like thaumaturgist.
Pentar 08-23-04, 12:14 AM	Originally posted by Someone [B]Only if 1/1 CL also adds spells/ day at 1/1. A wiz5/ clr5/ MT10 has the CL and spells/ day of a wiz15 and clr 15. A wiz10/ clr10 under this system would have the CL of a wiz20 and a clr20, and the spells/ day of a wiz10 and clr10. And the special abilities of a Wiz 10 and Clr 10 which the MT wouldn't have (i.e. familiar powers, extra feats, undead turning level, etc.). Caster level controls a lot of things - from cap of damage, range increments, duration, spell resistance, dispel power, etc. You have to take into consideration that it would make multiclassing -far- more desireable for most casters than it already is. And we're talking about multiclassing in areas that wouldn't have normally been that advantageous. A Wizard who sacrifices 1 level to become a Fighter immediately gets better fort saves that would have normally taken him an entire feat to get. Notwithstanding, immediately gains the usage of all armour types, martial weapon proficiencies, an extra free-fighter feat, and d10 hit points. And at the same time, still retains his caster level for his previous spells. To me, that's just ludricously good. There -has- to be some sacrifice made to going outside your normal class, and especially, outside of your classes professional field. And that sacrifice has to be more than spells per day, because that can be compensated for via magical items. There are very few (any?) magical items that increases effective caster level. There are very few abilities that do it too - you practically have to be an Archmage and take the Spell Power arcana multiple times. Other than that, it is sheer level gaining - there is a reason for that, and that reason is balance. Suddenly being able to bypass that and being able to class-dip all over the place, yet retaining your caster level is simply a bad idea. It's too open ended for a caster to manipulate his power level. Pick up a Pearl of Power or two and suddenly, you can cast as many spells as a caster of equal level, at the same spell power, only you have an entirely different class level under your belt. And I'm not convinced MT is "broken", by the time you can soonest qualify for it (6th lvl with a wiz3/ clr 3) you have spent half of your career to that point on a completely in conflicting (i.e. not complimenting) studies. There should be a reward for that kind of devotion, and the reward is a PrC that lets you work on both- albeit not as well as if you had studied only one. ACtually, I don't think the MT is broken either. I was merely arguing that point from the original author I quoted, who did feel it was broken.
Draco Argentum 08-23-04, 04:31 AM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower The resulting system automatically defines any multi-level character without at least one level in a spellcasting class as weak. Do you wish to advocate a system in which a mid-to-high level character without at least one level as a cleric or perhaps wizard is a poor build? 1) What use do you get out of first levels spells in a fight with the current system? (At lvl 9/1 ftr/wiz) 2) Who made that definition? Other than the fighter, who really does suck, you give up something. Compare a 9/1 ftr/barbarian to a 10 ftr. Dipping into anything is better than being a straight fighter, thats the fighter's fault.
Nom 08-23-04, 08:41 AM	Originally posted by Etiquette_Gnome Well, if that isn't a prime example of a fallacial argument, I don't know what is.Because it's clearly better to have an inconsistent system with notable flaws than to have a consistent system with much the same flaws? I am concerned that by giving pure multiclass casters a big boost, hybrid multiclass casters a small boost, and supernatural abilities of multiclass characters no boost at all, you aren't really fixing the problem as much as rearranging the deck chairs to favour a different set of classes. I'd like to see a much more coherent proposal.
spike81101 08-23-04, 09:34 AM	Originally posted by Pentar And the special abilities of a Wiz 10 and Clr 10 which the MT wouldn't have (i.e. familiar powers, extra feats, undead turning level, etc.). Caster level controls a lot of things - from cap of damage, range increments, duration, spell resistance, dispel power, etc. Well all I have to say about this is...turning undead as a 10th level cleric at level 20 is laughable. Having your familiar as a level 10 wizard as compared to a level 3 wizard with mystic theurge isn't a big deal either. True caster level controls many things, which is why this change needs to take place. You have to take into consideration that it would make multiclassing -far- more desireable for most casters than it already is. And we're talking about multiclassing in areas that wouldn't have normally been that advantageous. Why is this a bad thing? The straight caster has been overpowered for quite some time now. I think we all might agree on that. A Wizard who sacrifices 1 level to become a Fighter immediately gets better fort saves that would have normally taken him an entire feat to get. Notwithstanding, immediately gains the usage of all armour types, martial weapon proficiencies, an extra free-fighter feat, and d10 hit points. And at the same time, still retains his caster level for his previous spells. So? Take a level in pale master and you get +2 natural armor class, +2 to fort saves AND will saves, +1 to existing spellcasting class, d6 hit points all for free! Give me a break, the wizard still can't wear armor without arcane spell failure and there are easier ways to "learn to use a sword" than delaying your next highest spell level another level. Anyone who takes the level of fighter isn't doing it for a gain in power, they are doing it for a gain in making their character more like what they want it to be, a fighter/wizard. To me, that's just ludricously good. There -has- to be some sacrifice made to going outside your normal class, and especially, outside of your classes professional field. And that sacrifice has to be more than spells per day, because that can be compensated for via magical items. There are very few (any?) magical items that increases effective caster level. There are very few abilities that do it too - you practically have to be an Archmage and take the Spell Power arcana multiple times. Other than that, it is sheer level gaining - there is a reason for that, and that reason is balance. Sacrifice has to be more than spells per day? This is the MAIN power of a wizard, not his caster level, without spells per day, there is nothing. Compensated with magical items? Wow, rogues must be really powerful in your campaigns if you play that way. There may not be many magical items that increase your caster level (although there is an ioun stone), but there is the practice spellcaster feat, you'd know that if you'd read this whole thread. Suddenly being able to bypass that and being able to class-dip all over the placeYou don't see melee's doing this? , yet retaining your caster level is simply a bad idea. . already mentioned, you can do this already. It's too open ended for a caster to manipulate his power level. Pick up a Pearl of Power or two and suddenly, you can cast as many spells as a caster of equal level, at the same spell power, only you have an entirely different class level under your belt.. Who cares about having another "class level" under their belt? If you want to make a 5 druid/5 sorcerer/5 wizard/5 cleric go right ahead. Just because they can cast as a 20th level caster doesn't make them powerful. So what if he can cast 4 different types of 3rd level spells at a caster level of 20. What he can do if just a faction of what a 20 wizard can do. What would you rather face? A 20 wizard, or a 17 wizard/3 cleric? Even with caster levels stacking, the wizard 20 still outways the wizard 17/3 cleric. The same can be said for 3 fighter/17 wizard. This is where the strength of my arguement lies, this is what no one has been able to disprove. ACtually, I don't think the MT is broken either. I was merely arguing that point from the original author I quoted, who did feel it was broken. I don't think the MT is broken either. I italicized it, because that was what people said when it first came out. People called it the broken MT. There was a new thread a day about it. Then it was half and half. Now, after people have been playing them for a while they realize that it isn't broken. If min/maxed it can be powerful, but most people don't consider it broken. Oh btw, still waiting to hear how stacking caster levels is broken...hmm...that is probably too harsh because it is impossible. Let's go to an easier challenge and say, how would caster level = character level broken. Maybe someone can answer that instead.
spike81101 08-23-04, 09:53 AM	Originally posted by Nom Because it's clearly better to have an inconsistent system with notable flaws than to have a consistent system with much the same flaws? A playable system with flaw is better than an unplayable system with flaws, no? I am concerned that by giving pure multiclass casters a big boost, hybrid multiclass casters a small boost, and supernatural abilities of multiclass characters no boost at all, you aren't really fixing the problem as much as rearranging the deck chairs to favour a different set of classes. I'd like to see a much more coherent proposal. Please explain this. Give examples, that is how you win a debate, not by giving the theory with nothing to back it up.
Seeker95 08-23-04, 10:38 AM	Here's a novel idea: The folks who are in favor of any version of this, go playtest it, and come back to us with your experiences.
Drachasor 08-23-04, 10:40 AM	Originally posted by Pentar Actually, I agree entirely with Seeker95. Your efforts in this discussion seems largely based around asking for opinions and then shooting them down without real due consideration, or simply waving your hand to brush the concerns aside if they cannot be addressed. An easy thing to say when you haven't been reading what I have written, as your following comments quite easily show. The MT issue came up, and I addressed it with 3 methods of dealing with it (make it a 5 level PrC, rewrite it so not all levels increase spells per day in both classes, or get rid of it). Clearly one of those options, at least, would take care of the MT problem. The issue of a 19 Fighter/1 Wiz using items as a 20th level Caster came up, and I addressed this. You seemed to completely ignore my 2 posts wherein a detail a system that handily takes care of this, and my many other posts were I reference to such system. The answer you have missed, is that Fighter levels don't provide a 1-1 BCB, but instead provide a 3-1 bonus (every 3 full levels give you 1 bonus, fractions rounded down). Also, if you can't theoretically learn and cast the spell on a scroll without gaining any levels, then you must make a Caster check. Addressing those two topics fixed so many other things, largely of the same catagory, that were brought up. Apparently you and Seeker don't read my posts or ignore them. Originally posted by Pentar But, if you really want a concern, I have another one. What about classes that cast spell at a lower class level? Say, a Paladin or a Ranger. A paladin casts spells like a cleric, yet at a lower caster level (1/2 her paladin level, to be precise). With your new rules now, this limitation is gone. A paladin casting a Cure Light Wounds at level 5, casts it at the same level as a Cleric of the same level. Read my darn posts. Paladins would get the SAME BCB they currently have, for Paladins would have a 1/2 BCB progression, as would Rangers. You bring up a non-issue, and then say I haven't addressed problems that I HAVE addressed. I say again, this is unfair. I have never dismissed out of hand any issues that someone has brought up (to the best of my knowledge). I have done my best to look at them, and then decide wether I find them unbalancing. Maybe you find a 19 Fighter/1 Wizard Caster-Checking on 5th level scrolls as a 7th level Caster unbalancing, but I do not. Even if there was a problem, it would not be that hard to adjust the rules to accomadate this one issue (increase the DC by some amount). Originally posted by Pentar Another point of a problem: What about racial character levels - do they count towards caster levels? So a creature (like Drow) that adds +2 character levels, are those added to their caster level? For one, the Drow have no racial levels, they just have an Level Adjustment, so this is a non-issue. They'd work the same as before. For creatures with Racial Levels, one can decide wether or not they deserve some modifier..though giving all of them the standard 1 BCB for 3 Racial Levels (rounded down) wouldn't unbalance anything, as best I can see. Of course, some Races might take magic aptitude into account and give a bonus to CL, in which case you'd work that bonus into the new system (perhaps raising the racial levels to 1 BC B for 2, or in some cases higher). -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-23-04, 10:42 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Here's a novel idea: The folks who are in favor of any version of this, go playtest it, and come back to us with your experiences. That's my plan, I've just been a bit busy lately so it might take a week or so to try out some scenerios with my brother. I won't be able to test it in a campaign for quite some time however, as my gaming group is currently using another DM, but I plan on DMing next (might take a couple months or so). -Drachasor
spike81101 08-23-04, 10:47 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Here's a novel idea: The folks who are in favor of any version of this, go playtest it, and come back to us with your experiences. It's in the works...
Pentar 08-23-04, 12:10 PM	Originally posted by spike81101 Well all I have to say about this is...turning undead as a 10th level cleric at level 20 is laughable. Having your familiar as a level 10 wizard as compared to a level 3 wizard with mystic theurge isn't a big deal either. True caster level controls many things, which is why this change needs to take place. No, quite the opposite conclusion. It is exactly the reason why this change needs to be far better considered than it currently is before it can take place. It seems to me you're not at all interested in maintaining game balance, but rather, are more interested in trying to make one ridiculous character concept become powerful enough to be viable - meanwhile, completely neglecting the problems it causes for all other classes. Why is this a bad thing? The straight caster has been overpowered for quite some time now. I think we all might agree on that. Uhm... perhaps because it now makes multiclassing a Caster both -more- powerful with less downsides? So, not only are you saying you are already aware that casters are very powerful at higher levels, you're also aware that allowing them to multiclass to get MORE powerful, without suffering the normal penalties for multiclassing is... OK with you? So? Take a level in pale master and you get +2 natural armor class, +2 to fort saves AND will saves, +1 to existing spellcasting class, d6 hit points all for free! What, pray tell is the pre-requisites to become a Palemaster? And what, pray tell, are the pre-requisites to be a Fighter? Give me a break, the wizard still can't wear armor without arcane spell failure and there are easier ways to "learn to use a sword" than delaying your next highest spell level another level. Anyone who takes the level of fighter isn't doing it for a gain in power, they are doing it for a gain in making their character more like what they want it to be, a fighter/wizard. On the contrary, it gives the Wizard more powerful without sacrificing his spell power. Spell power is arguably 50% of a Wizard's effective power level. And having the flexibility to add levels in another class to get the immediate benefits, without losing that caster level penalty is... frankly, broken. I'm sorry if you fail to see that. Sacrifice has to be more than spells per day? This is the MAIN power of a wizard, not his caster level, without spells per day, there is nothing. I disagree entirely. Because MAGICAL ITEMS can replicate spells per day. Rings of Wizardry, Pearls of Power, boost in Intelligence, Spell Storing devices, scrolls, wands and staves and any number of other magical items that can replicate multiple spell or spell-like effects can cover off your spell-per-day needs. Spell Power is not as readily reproduced as spells-per-day. Name the number of items from Core books that you know of that gives a Wizard or any spell caster a +to his effective caster level. Compensated with magical items? Wow, rogues must be really powerful in your campaigns if you play that way. There may not be many magical items that increase your caster level (although there is an ioun stone), but there is the practice spellcaster feat, you'd know that if you'd read this whole thread. Right, but then you have to TAKE that feat in order to gain that benefit, which is (I'll say it slowly for your benefit, since you obviously need it) limited in its effectiveness. Wow... isn't this interesting? Your change in the rules doesn't even require a caster to take that feat - in fact, that feat entirely becomes OBSOLETE!! Gee, I guess that's not broken at all, is it? You don't see melee's doing this?[B] already mentioned, you can do this already. [B] Who cares about having another "class level" under their belt? If you want to make a 5 druid/5 sorcerer/5 wizard/5 cleric go right ahead. Just because they can cast as a 20th level caster doesn't make them powerful. So what if he can cast 4 different types of 3rd level spells at a caster level of 20. What he can do if just a faction of what a 20 wizard can do. What would you rather face? A 20 wizard, or a 17 wizard/3 cleric? Even with caster levels stacking, the wizard 20 still outways the wizard 17/3 cleric. The same can be said for 3 fighter/17 wizard. This is where the strength of my arguement lies, this is what no one has been able to disprove. The problem is you're using unbroken examples to try to prove your rule is not broken and that is the weakness of your argument. Rather than trying to prove you're right by creating a retardedly weak character using your rule set, why not try to min/max a character out and create one as powerful as you can and see what happens? Oh btw, still waiting to hear how stacking caster levels is broken...hmm...that is probably too harsh because it is impossible. Let's go to an easier challenge and say, how would caster level = character level broken. Maybe someone can answer that instead. I've already answered that, but maybe I was typing too quickly for you.
Jaerom Darkwind 08-23-04, 12:59 PM	Just for the record, I see that this thread is going nowhere, so I'm pulling out. I've posted my system, explained my reasons for designing it as I did, and defended it from the major complaints that have been made. I'm done now. Thanks for the feedback everyone.
Pentar 08-23-04, 01:31 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor An easy thing to say when you haven't been reading what I have written, as your following comments quite easily show. The MT issue came up, and I addressed it with 3 methods of dealing with it (make it a 5 level PrC, rewrite it so not all levels increase spells per day in both classes, or get rid of it). Clearly one of those options, at least, would take care of the MT problem. Your entire train of this "discussion" has been dismissive at best. You are creating an ever increasingly complex system to address what you preceive to be an imbalance in creating (frankly) ridiculous character concepts. See below. The issue of a 19 Fighter/1 Wiz using items as a 20th level Caster came up, and I addressed this. You seemed to completely ignore my 2 posts wherein a detail a system that handily takes care of this, and my many other posts were I reference to such system. The answer you have missed, is that Fighter levels don't provide a 1-1 BCB, but instead provide a 3-1 bonus (every 3 full levels give you 1 bonus, fractions rounded down). Also, if you can't theoretically learn and cast the spell on a scroll without gaining any levels, then you must make a Caster check. First off, you're not the only person proposing changes here. There are, last I counted, about 3 different methods people are proposing. Yours is but one, which, from what I've read, is probably the most confusing. Others are advocating a far simplier (although equally broken) 1 for 1 caster level = character level. We're addressing our points generically to all you folks. If you've already addressed the issue, then here's a golf clap for you. IMHO, you're now patching a system together for a lot of potential flaws for very little benefit. But then again, you're spending your time doing this, and not mine, so I guess I don't really care. Read my darn posts. Paladins would get the SAME BCB they currently have, for Paladins would have a 1/2 BCB progression, as would Rangers. You bring up a non-issue, and then say I haven't addressed problems that I HAVE addressed. In YOUR system you've addressed this in your complex fractional formula of equating caster level with BAB. Again, I was addressing more the people who are advocating the straight 1:1. I say again, this is unfair. I have never dismissed out of hand any issues that someone has brought up (to the best of my knowledge). I have done my best to look at them, and then decide wether I find them unbalancing. Maybe you find a 19 Fighter/1 Wizard Caster-Checking on 5th level scrolls as a 7th level Caster unbalancing, but I do not. Even if there was a problem, it would not be that hard to adjust the rules to accomadate this one issue (increase the DC by some amount). No, but I would find a 19 Fighter/1 Wizard two-weapon fighting quarter staff with a Staff of Power to be fairly broken though. For one, the Drow have no racial levels, they just have an Level Adjustment, so this is a non-issue. They'd work the same as before. For creatures with Racial Levels, one can decide wether or not they deserve some modifier..though giving all of them the standard 1 BCB for 3 Racial Levels (rounded down) wouldn't unbalance anything, as best I can see. Of course, some Races might take magic aptitude into account and give a bonus to CL, in which case you'd work that bonus into the new system (perhaps raising the racial levels to 1 BC B for 2, or in some cases higher). I suppose the bottom line for me is I don't see any problem with the current caster level system. There are enough PrCs for casters to take that increases their caster level and gives them diversity of character without sacrificing their spell power and spells-per-day that renders your system obsolete before launch. The only reason to do this is to create some hybrid Druid 5/Cleric 5/Ranger 3/Wizard 7 type character and still maintain effectiveness at character level 20. Not only is that a stupidly weak character to base your design decisions on, but you clearly haven't considered what people can do to -min/max- and exploit the system to its full potential. Why not try doing a comparison for a Fighter 10/Paladin 10? Or a Paladin 15/Cleric 5? Or a Ranger 10/Druid 10? These are all character combinations that are -presently- viable and can arguably become -too- powerful under your new system. Not everyone playing your system will be like, "Hey great, now I can make that Barbarian/Sorcerer/Wizard/Cleric I've always wanted!!!!"
Someone 08-23-04, 02:39 PM	Originally posted by Pentar ...There are, last I counted, about 3 different methods people are proposing.Ooh, ooh, ooh, am I one of those? :D And does that list of methods include "do nothing"? The same goes for the MT, one of the things you could do about it is... nothing. Don't get me wrong, I'm not entirely opposed to having CLs stack, I'm opposed to having unrelated spellcasting or non spellcasting classes stack. I wouldn't mind an assasin picking up levels in wizard in order to improve his (comparatively weak) arcane spellcasting. A rog5/ asn10/ wiz5 would cast spells as a 10th lvl wizard (1/2 10 lvls of asn + 5 lvls wiz), for example. And fighter isn't a weak class! A bonus feat every other level is nothing to scoff at. When a non-human only gets 7 feats over 20 levels, the 11 bonus feats from fighter help a LOT. Okay, so they have to be martial, you're a fighter for crying out loud! Fighters fight! To me, a character who tries to go three or four directions at once is weak at best, munchkin at worst. A "jack of all trades" isn't a "jack of all abilities".
spike81101 08-23-04, 02:50 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Just for the record, I see that this thread is going nowhere, so I'm pulling out. I've posted my system, explained my reasons for designing it as I did, and defended it from the major complaints that have been made. I'm done now. Thanks for the feedback everyone. I'm going to have to agree with you. Pentar is now attacking us instead of debating which won't get anyone anywhere. It's supposed to be a friendly debate and comments like(I'll say it slowly for your benefit, since you obviously need it) and I've already answered that, but maybe I was typing too quickly for you. with no examples of anything in sight. I've had to retype too many things and gotten no answers. Seeker brought up a good point of being able to use scrolls and such and I sighted the fix to that, but people keep bringing it up. Drachasor gave easy fixes to make the MT work, and again they were ignored for outright attacks. This was pretty much the way my last debate about this went so I'm not really surprised. Here's the link to it if you wanna see it. http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=114401
FreeTheSlaves 08-23-04, 02:50 PM	We play that CL stacks just like BAB. No PrC is allowed that gives full spell casting progression (at most 9/10, 1st level delayed) except archmage. I haven't noticed any problems.
Seeker95 08-23-04, 02:56 PM	spike... clean up your PM box, including sent items. Nobody can send you a PM (not even a friendly one!) :P
Drachasor 08-23-04, 03:37 PM	Originally posted by Pentar Actually, I agree entirely with Seeker95. Your efforts in this discussion seems largely based around asking for opinions and then shooting them down without real due consideration, or simply waving your hand to brush the concerns aside if they cannot be addressed. But, if you really want a concern, I have another one. Originally posted by Pentar In YOUR system you've addressed this in your complex fractional formula of equating caster level with BAB. Again, I was addressing more the people who are advocating the straight 1:1. Err, you were CLEARLY addressing me, and agreeing with Seeker that I hadn't attempted to seriously address the problems. Except that I have, and now you are backpedeling. Anyhow, if you do this again I will just ignore you future posts, as repeatedly doing this sort of thing is a clear sign of a Troll. Originally posted by Pentar Your entire train of this "discussion" has been dismissive at best. You are creating an ever increasingly complex system to address what you preceive to be an imbalance in creating (frankly) ridiculous character concepts. See below. First off, BCB is no more complicated than BAB, which everyone seems to grasp. I thought the members of this forum might be able to handle fractions, which nearly everyone that plays D&D has studied (you go over it in Elementary school). Apparently it is too confusing and complicated for you though. I guess BAB should stack either, and it should just be called "Attack Bonus" or "Attack Level", and you use the best one you have from all of your Classes. There could even be a feat called "Practiced Warrior" that gives you a "+4 to your Attack Level," but it can't push it over your character level. Anyhow, on a less mocking note, the BCB charts would be next to every character class, just like BAB is, and then you would just add all the numbers up to get your total BCB. It's very easy. I was just proposing the rates at which they'd improve (for your information the Wizard has a 1/2 BAB and the Rogue has a 3/4 BAB--compared to a Warriors "Full" or 1/1 BAB). Originally posted by Pentar First off, you're not the only person proposing changes here. There are, last I counted, about 3 different methods people are proposing. Yours is but one, which, from what I've read, is probably the most confusing. Others are advocating a far simplier (although equally broken) 1 for 1 caster level = character level. We're addressing our points generically to all you folks. If you've already addressed the issue, then here's a golf clap for you. If you can't comprehend what I have said then you should say so. If you can comprehend it, then don't lump me in the same catagory as those that pop up and say "character level = caster level!" If you have paid attention to the thread you'd realize that all of the people that had been sticking around and talking about this issue weren't advocating a "character level = caster level" system. The thread starter did, but he's made two posts. Spike, Jaerom, and I have all advocated a system that gives some classes better BCB than others (though at least all Caster Classes fulling stacking for CL/BCB purposes). Originally posted by Pentar IMHO, you're now patching a system together for a lot of potential flaws for very little benefit. But then again, you're spending your time doing this, and not mine, so I guess I don't really care. It would be just as much work to deal with taking a system where classes either had "attack bonus = class level" or no attack bonus, attack boni between classes didn't stack. There'd be a plethora of PrCs to deal with this, and other such fluff (to say nothing of how the feats would be!) You do need to do some modifications and change things around here and there, but when all is said and done, everything can fit onto less than a page of text (2 pages if you need a chart that shows the BCB increases over 20 levels). Originally posted by Pentar No, but I would find a 19 Fighter/1 Wizard two-weapon fighting quarter staff with a Staff of Power to be fairly broken though. Well, that's how it works now! It just so happens that the Staff of Power would throw out 8d6 fireballs and whatnot...well, what I have proposed wouldn't change ANYTHING here. If you are going to address ME and say I haven't addressed concerns, then you should actually figure out what I have said. Otherwise you shouldn't comment on my posts (except, perhaps, alluding to your lack of comprehension or care to analyze them). Originally posted by Pentar but you clearly haven't considered what people can do to -min/max- and exploit the system to its full potential. Hence the use of this thread, to use the community to help find problems and RESOLVE them. If I could do everything myself, then I would merely propose the full system, but I admit the insight of others is very helpful, and I do make use of it. Originally posted by Pentar Why not try doing a comparison for a Fighter 10/Paladin 10? Or a Paladin 15/Cleric 5? Or a Ranger 10/Druid 10? Alright, Let's look at the changes for each of these combinations. The Fighter 10/Paladin 10 will now cast Paladin spells as a 8th level Caster (before it was as a 5th level Caster). It is still one 1st level and one 2nd level spell, with ability bonuses. Divine Favor now gives them an additional +1 (+2 total) to hit and damage. That is the only significant change. A Fighter 20 largely has this thanks to their feats (Greater Weapon Specialization gives +2 damage all the time). A Paladin 20 would have +6 to Hit/Damage from this spell. Seems balanced to me. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Paladin 15/Cleric 5 casts all of his spells with a Caster Level of 12 under my system (15/2 -> 7, plus 5). This gives a +2 Boost to Divine Favor, +4 to Hit/Damage, which is again the most significant change. Their Spiritual Weapon now lasts another 3 rounds and is +4, not +1. This is a fairly significant boost, though it is short in duration. Searing Light is more powerful, but there is no third level Spell that gets a huge boost otherwise (as best I can see), though the Monster Summoning Spells get a handy duration increase. Compared to a Paladin 20, this character still suffers a -2 Penalty on every attack roll. The Pal 15/Clr 5 has a Caster level 2 higher, so that's only a relative boost of +1 to Divine Favor...which doesn't make up the loss of hitting ability, and is only a small boost to damage. The Paladin 20 can also cast Divin Favor nearly as much as the multi-class, and can cast spells such as Holy Sword 3 times (or more) as often. It doesn't seem to imbalance things really, but fill me in if I am wrong. (Of Course the Cleric 20 can hit as well as a Paladin with the right spells, and can boost that damage more. So I don't think the Pal 15/Clr 5 "beats" them). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ranger 10/Druid 10 I'll just compare this to the Ranger 20, as opposed to the Druid 20 (which is probably superior in most important ways). Ranger 20 has Combat Style Mastery. He he also has 3 spells per day of each Spell Level and every Ranger spell. He casts as a 10th level Caster, and has a +20 to hit. He has the very handy Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage abilities. Lastly he has Also he has 5 favored Enemies with Bonuses ranging from +2 to +10 in them. The Ranger 10/Druid 10 does not have Combat Style Mastery. He casts as a 12th level Caster, but can cast some spells (such as Tree Stride) less often that a Ranger 20 can. He has a slightly better Barkskin, and a few spell bonuses. Stoneskin gets a nice boost, and some other spells as well. However, I see no powerful boosts. He doesn't get significantly better Animal Companions than the Ranger 20, since the abilities between these Classes are different and are treated differently. I don't see anything that overpowering about this combination compared to the Ranger 20, that gets more high level spells compared to the Druid (many of the Ranger 4 spells are Druid 5 spells, for instance). Hope that helps, point out any holes I have. -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-23-04, 03:54 PM	Originally posted by Jaerom Darkwind Just for the record, I see that this thread is going nowhere, so I'm pulling out. I've posted my system, explained my reasons for designing it as I did, and defended it from the major complaints that have been made. I'm done now. Thanks for the feedback everyone. Tell us how it progresses and works once it is play-tested. I am sure we would all like to know how it turns out. Well, many of us at least. I plan on play-testing a system with my brother some...running various class combinations in parties through combats and such. Later I'll test it in a campaign. It would be nice to share notes, and I think doing so in this thread would be helpful. People that are unnecessarily and unreasonably critical we can ignore. Since Spike is going to test some things out on his own too (I believe), then we can all share our findings here. I understand your frustration with this thread though, so take it easy for now. (Just get back to us later) -Drachasor
spike81101 08-23-04, 04:36 PM	All cleaned out for you seeker :) Drachasor's post really sums it up quite well :D I'll also be playesting this stuff, my new campaign starts in 2 weeks so we'll see how it goes. I'm also doing an epic level the same way in about 6 months.
Twisted Puppy 08-23-04, 05:24 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor The issue of a 19 Fighter/1 Wiz using items as a 20th level Caster came up, and I addressed this. You seemed to completely ignore my 2 posts wherein a detail a system that handily takes care of this, and my many other posts were I reference to such system. The answer you have missed, is that Fighter levels don't provide a 1-1 BCB, but instead provide a 3-1 bonus (every 3 full levels give you 1 bonus, fractions rounded down). Also, if you can't theoretically learn and cast the spell on a scroll without gaining any levels, then you must make a Caster check. -Drachasor Here is where I (and apparently several others) have a very serious disagreement with the system. Just what, in the training of a fighter, justifies adding even a third of a fighter level to the so-called BCB? Answer: absolutely nothing. Does a fighter learn about spells and means to counter them? Yes, those are reflected in his improved saves as he progresses. It does not imply any knowledge of casting spells. Sorry, none of the arguments here have convinced me that multiclassed characters need any modification to their caster levels. I can understand how someone might houserule that caster levels stack for purposes of SR - I wouldn't myself, but I understand the reasoning behind it and wouldn't object. Doing more than that simply smacks of wanting something for nothing. If you want to increase your caster level, stick with your base class or take a PrC that allows your caster level to continue to increase. If you want a certain skill or benefit that you will get from multiclassing, then do it - but don't complain that it hurts your caster level when you do. The decision is the player's to make - and just like your PC, you'll have to live with that decision.
Pentar 08-23-04, 05:43 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor Err, you were CLEARLY addressing me, and agreeing with Seeker that [b]I hadn't attempted to seriously address the problems. Except that I have, and now you are backpedeling. Anyhow, if you do this again I will just ignore you future posts, as repeatedly doing this sort of thing is a clear sign of a Troll. Riiiight - and your repeated, "I still haven't seen a single reason to not do this!" isn't a clear sign of someone completely obfsucating the truth from themselves? Sorry, Seeker's contention I still agree with. You see what you want to see. First off, BCB is no more complicated than BAB, which everyone seems to grasp. I thought the members of this forum might be able to handle fractions, which nearly everyone that plays D&D has studied (you go over it in Elementary school). Apparently it is too confusing and complicated for you though. I guess BAB should stack either, and it should just be called "Attack Bonus" or "Attack Level", and you use the best one you have from all of your Classes. There could even be a feat called "Practiced Warrior" that gives you a "+4 to your Attack Level," but it can't push it over your character level. BCB is just another factor you now have to figure out for your character. An unnecessary endeavour if you didn't have the entirely broken notion that caster levels should be based off more than associated caster class levels. Your insistance on creating a system for a broken mechanic is what I find amusing, not so much your grade 4 level usage of fractions. Anyhow, on a less mocking note, the BCB charts would be next to every character class, just like BAB is, and then you would just add all the numbers up to get your total BCB. It's very easy. I was just proposing the rates at which they'd improve (for your information the Wizard has a 1/2 BAB and the Rogue has a 3/4 BAB--compared to a Warriors "Full" or 1/1 BAB). I'm quite aware of the BAB system although I thank you for taking the time to type it out. If you can't comprehend what I have said then you should say so. If you can comprehend it, then don't lump me in the same catagory as those that pop up and say "character level = caster level!" If you have paid attention to the thread you'd realize that all of the people that had been sticking around and talking about this issue weren't advocating a "character level = caster level" system. The thread starter did, but he's made two posts. Spike, Jaerom, and I have all advocated a system that gives some classes better BCB than others (though at least all Caster Classes fulling stacking for CL/BCB purposes). I comprehend it quite fully - on the contrary, I don't believe you're fully seeing the problems this entails with the potential for unbalanced characters. Well, that's how it works now! It just so happens that the Staff of Power would throw out 8d6 fireballs and whatnot...well, what I have proposed wouldn't change ANYTHING here. If you are going to address ME and say I haven't addressed concerns, then you should actually figure out what I have said. Otherwise you shouldn't comment on my posts (except, perhaps, alluding to your lack of comprehension or care to analyze them). And this is a clear example of what I mean when I say you are dismissive of problems. A Warrior throwing out 8d6 Fireballs with 1 level in Wizard is not a problem in your eyes? Even though it's through a magical item that is clearly not intended to be used at full power by a class that is -not at all specialized- in magic? You completely waived it aside as if it was nothing. Why should a Staff of Power effectively work 12 caster levels lower for a 20th level Wizard than it does for a 19 Fighter/1 Wizard? Are you seriously telling me you have no issues with this? What if we went a little farther and made if 15 Fighter/5 Wizard? Now the Staff of Power effectively works at caster level 10, which means full effect for all the 3rd-level damage capped spell effects. Hell, let's go a different route and just take a 19 Fighter/1 Cleric with a Staff of Life. Now this Fighter can Heal himself 70 hitpoints with that staff, something that he would not have been able to do at all without your system. This is... OK with you? The Fighter 10/Paladin 10 will now cast Paladin spells as a 8th level Caster (before it was as a 5th level Caster). It is still one 1st level and one 2nd level spell, with ability bonuses. Divine Favor now gives them an additional +1 (+2 total) to hit and damage. That is the only significant change. A Fighter 20 largely has this thanks to their feats (Greater Weapon Specialization gives +2 damage all the time). A Paladin 20 would have +6 to Hit/Damage from this spell. Seems balanced to me. Several problems; A lot of the powers that make a Paladin's buff spells useful now have a longer duration. This is not just about stacking to-hit/damage bonuses. This goes from Shield Other to the entire line of Bull's Strength... Cat's Grace... spells. Second, Weapon Specialization is to a specific weapon. If that weapon is unavailable, that bonus is negated. Divine Favour grants that bonus regardless of weapon being used. I don't have the books handy now, but the Paladin's Sourcebook had more spells in there that were pretty nifty (I think one was called Divine Sacrifice - I wish I had the book with me...) A Paladin 15/Cleric 5 casts all of his spells with a Caster Level of 12 under my system (15/2 -> 7, plus 5). This gives a +2 Boost to Divine Favor, +4 to Hit/Damage, which is again the most significant change. Their Spiritual Weapon now lasts another 3 rounds and is +4, not +1. This is a fairly significant boost, though it is short in duration. Searing Light is more powerful, but there is no third level Spell that gets a huge boost otherwise (as best I can see), though the Monster Summoning Spells get a handy duration increase. Compared to a Paladin 20, this character still suffers a -2 Penalty on every attack roll. The Pal 15/Clr 5 has a Caster level 2 higher, so that's only a relative boost of +1 to Divine Favor...which doesn't make up the loss of hitting ability, and is only a small boost to damage. The Paladin 20 can also cast Divin Favor nearly as much as the multi-class, and can cast spells such as Holy Sword 3 times (or more) as often. It doesn't seem to imbalance things really, but fill me in if I am wrong. There are more significant changes you didn't consider here - Break Enchantment works off Caster level. The Paladin is effective +2 caster levels now when attempting to break enemy enchantment effects with this spell (compared to a 20 Paladin). His Cure line of spells now are either capped or closer to reaching cap. Prior to this change, he was just capped when using a Cure Moderate..., now he's at +12 for a Cure Serious.... In addition to which his Heal Mount spell is now 120 hit points over the previous 100 hit points. Restoration effects are more powerful - able to restore lost levels from 12 days previous rather than 10. Conversely, you have to consider now that the Paladin may also prepare spells as a 5th level cleric, yet those spells are at effectively caster level 12 as well. So the Paladin has a LOT more spell slots to play with suddenly, but at a much greater caster level. What you are looking at is individual bonuses to combat alone, an in addition to which, you're looking at each individual bonus and seeing it's a relatively "small" benefit and therefore discounting it entirely. But yet, if you add all these small benefits up, you suddenly have a character who's a LOT better for having multiclassed than he would -ever- have been otherwise. And the game wasn't necessarily designed for that type of power shift. No one can ever deny that the Paladin was a powerful character. Now, given all these boosts, he's -that- much more powerful for having multiclassed as well. Ranger 10/Druid 10 I'll just compare this to the Ranger 20, as opposed to the Druid 20 (which is probably superior in most important ways). Ranger 20 has Combat Style Mastery. He he also has 3 spells per day of each Spell Level and every Ranger spell. He casts as a 10th level Caster, and has a +20 to hit. He has the very handy Hide in Plain Sight and Camouflage abilities. Lastly he has Also he has 5 favored Enemies with Bonuses ranging from +2 to +10 in them. The Ranger 10/Druid 10 does not have Combat Style Mastery. He casts as a 12th level Caster, but can cast some spells (such as Tree Stride) less often that a Ranger 20 can. He has a slightly better Barkskin, and a few spell bonuses. Stoneskin gets a nice boost, and some other spells as well. However, I see no powerful boosts. He doesn't get significantly better Animal Companions than the Ranger 20, since the abilities between these Classes are different and are treated differently. I don't see anything that overpowering about this combination compared to the Ranger 20, that gets more high level spells compared to the Druid (many of the Ranger 4 spells are Druid 5 spells, for instance). I'm not going to go into the analysis here, because I'm running out of time (funny enough, I'm actually going to play D&D... HARHAR). But again, you wave aside a spell benefit like Stoneskin and simply dismiss it as if it is of no real consieration. I think that is my inherit problem with the way you're presenting your argument. You don't actually take seriously the real benefits characters would be gaining. The second problem I have with your argument is you're looking at it only from the perspective of spellcasting. You aren't considering the -other- benefits for multiclassing that already exists and compounding it with the fact that the character's BCB is going up as well. Multiclassing is already desireable for many classes (I've argued this a lot in other threads). In my opinion, some classes are designed specifically to be multiclassed (like the Fighter, Rogue, Sorcerer and to some extent, the Wizard). By making multiclassing more effective, you're effectively removing any desireability to remain in a single class. Why would you? There's no reason to, because you are universally more powerful if you multiclass than if you stick with a single class. This makes single-class characters obsolete. To a player, even a +1 benefit overall is STILL a benefit and therefore, better than not having it at all. From the Paladin/Cleric analysis alone, I would say using your system, no one should ever single-class in Paladin for game-power reasons. There's absolutely no reason for it. You have -far- more powerful multiclassing into a Cleric than staying in Paladin, because not only does your BCB go up, you get more spells, casted at the -an increased power level- while still retaining your old Paladin abilities. You are looking at it and saying, "Well, only a +1 benefit overall... using this spell, and 10 minutes longer duration using this spell, and +50 foot range using this spell..." Add it all together. These benefits add up to the point where players simply know that single-class characters are outclassed in every way possible to a multiclassed character. Now, maybe this IS desireable for you and your campaign. But in my mind, that is not the way D&D was supposed to be balanced. Some classes are better off multiclassing. But not all classes are better off multiclassing. In this new BCB rule, all classes are better off for multiclassing than if they stayed in their original profession to level 20.
Drachasor 08-23-04, 05:43 PM	Twisted Puppy: If there are no balance issues with making a change (like the 1/3 BCB rating for Fighters in the system I proposed), and there are ways to justify it (increase concentration, ability to focus, force of will, etc, then if it increases player options I see no reason not to make that change. You might not like the reasoning I just mentioned, but I think it works more than well enough to explain how a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 can cast 1st level spells better than a Wizard 1 (who is new to life in so many ways). The largest reason to stick to the Caster classes still remain; increase number of spells and high level spells. These are the most powerful source of power for a caster, and this system just lets someone multiclass a bit and not make a class completely useless. It isn't getting something for nothing, that Fighter 19/Wizard 1 went through 19 levels of Fighter to get that measly +6 BCB, it is a small gain over so many levels. Perhaps this Player wants a Fighter that very rarely uses a Spell or two to help them in battle or out of battle. An Eldritch Knight or other Fighter-Mage PrC is not going to do the job they want properly, and the Fighter BCB bonus is just there to make it a decent investment (note that the above Fighter will never catch up to a Wizard in BCB, spells per day, spell level, or any other wizardly ability...they are only get a small boost). A PrC has a tough time showing a small level of devotion to something, as in the above example, and it is silly to make PrC's for every player concept. As such increasing options by adjusting the basic system is a good thing, and one should do it so long as it doesn't damage the balance of the game. As for other possibilities such as a Cleric 10/Wizard 10, there are some reasons to choose this over a MT. For instance, what if you want to develop your familiar and Cleric special abilities? A MT is not going to do that for you. IMHO, it is stupid to make a PrC that would just allow you to develop each of those at half rate and keep your Caster Level up. Hence, the adjustment of the rules to make such a character more viable. -Drachasor
Twisted Puppy 08-23-04, 06:24 PM	Originally posted by Drachasor Twisted Puppy: If there are no balance issues with making a change (like the 1/3 BCB rating for Fighters in the system I proposed), and there are ways to justify it (increase concentration, ability to focus, force of will, etc, then if it increases player options I see no reason not to make that change. You might not like the reasoning I just mentioned, but I think it works more than well enough to explain how a Fighter 19/Wizard 1 can cast 1st level spells better than a Wizard 1 (who is new to life in so many ways). -Drachasor Sadly, there ARE balance issues. At the same time, no, there is no way to justify the change without twisting logic into a knot. The fighter's experience will show in knowing what spell will be more effective in a given situation. As far as being able to cast a spell, he has exactly as much experience as a plain level 1 wizard fresh out of the guild academy. Originally posted by Pentar Your efforts in this discussion seems largely based around asking for opinions and then shooting them down without real due consideration, or simply waving your hand to brush the concerns aside if they cannot be addressed. And you're proving Pentar's point. Apologies, but in my opinion you simply want to make multiclassing too easy. You don't want there to be penalties. Another point, which has not been mentioned here: sometimes people multiclass because it fits their character concept, for roleplaying purposes!! They don't CARE if they aren't optimized or as powerful as they can possibly get. If you want to justify having the characters in your campaign so twinked out that nothing can possibly challenge them, that is your prerogative, go ahead and I hope (sincerely) that you and your group enjoy it. Just don't try to convince me that what you're doing makes sense, because it doesn't. I'm outta here...
Heron_Marked_Blade 08-23-04, 07:10 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Here's a novel idea: The folks who are in favor of any version of this, go playtest it, and come back to us with your experiences. Hmm, seems like I've seen this idea somewhere before.... ;)
Seeker95 08-23-04, 07:46 PM	Originally posted by Heron_Marked_Blade Hmm, seems like I've seen this idea somewhere before.... ;) I didn't say it was an original novel. More a of a re-release! :D
Nom 08-24-04, 01:32 AM	Originally posted by spike81101 A playable system with flaw is better than an unplayable system with flaws, no?I'd agree. Though I am certainly not convinced that the current system is unplayable. I do admit that a multiclass Wiz10/Clr10 probably loses more in power than he gains in flexibility, though I'd contend that's just as true of a Wiz10/Ftr10 or Wiz10/Mnk10 (though perhaps harder to quantify). My concern is that the proposed changes provide a simplistic fix for the easily seen problems without really thinking about how they exacerbate the more nebulous ones.
TheDarkLord 08-24-04, 02:54 AM	I've already stated this, Unearthed Arcana has a system similar to the one you are proposing. It's called the Magic Rating on page 135-136. We have started using it in our campaigns thus far, and it really hasn't been a problem. Take the example 19 ftr/1 Wiz. He would basically have a CL of 6. That's it. Only able to cast first level spells, and cant be able to beat SR if his life depended on it. The Variant so far hasn't been overpowered, it's only nominally better than the average character's in DnD. so a Wiz 19/ Ftr 1 wouldnt' have a CL of 20, only 19, while a Wiz 16/ ftr 4 would have a CL of 17. Check out the Version. It doesn't look bad if you want something to base a starting point on.
Someone 08-24-04, 03:14 AM	Originally posted by Drachasor ...A Paladin 15/Cleric 5 casts all of his spells with a Caster Level of 12 under my system (15/2 -> 7, plus 5).Wait, this can't be happening... I agree. But only because pal and clr cast the same kind of spells, and that pal normally provides spellcasting. And that they would only have 1 supply of spells/ day- they wouldn't have pal spells/ day and clr spells/ day, only a divine spells/ day pool. So, a pal15/ clr5 with practiced spellcaster would have a CL of 16, and the spells/ day of a clr12. I just don't think classes without any spellcasting ability should contribute, nor should differnent kinds of spellcasting stack. If you were to have only 1 kind of CL, you should only have 1 set of spells/ day.
Draco Argentum 08-24-04, 08:17 AM	Originally posted by Pentar Hell, let's go a different route and just take a 19 Fighter/1 Cleric with a Staff of Life. Now this Fighter can Heal himself 70 hitpoints with that staff, something that he would not have been able to do at all without your system. Since when does the caster's caster level affect the item's caster level?
Shatteredtower 08-24-04, 08:43 AM	Originally posted by Draco Argentum 1) What use do you get out of first levels spells in a fight with the current system? (At lvl 9/1 ftr/wiz) The benefit lies elsewhere, in much the same way that a monk's slow fall or a ranger's animal empathy have nothing to do with combat. Asking for it to always translate into a combat advantage is just shortsightedness. 2) Who made that definition? Other than the fighter, who really does suck, you give up something. Compare a 9/1 ftr/barbarian to a 10 ftr. Dipping into anything is better than being a straight fighter, that's the fighter's fault. So let's make things worse for the fighter, hmm? :nonono: Why advance solely as a barbarian when you can get so much more mileage out of three cleric levels added to the build? Why go straight rogue when three levels of wizard will more than make up for the lost sneak attack die and special ability? The choice isn't so impressive right now, but with the change, three caster levels become worth more than three non-caster levels to any character build. Save ranks on Use Magic Device (and other skills) and stock up on scrolls -- or make wondrous items. Hey, with effective caster level being allowed to expand this way, you could even create wands or maybe a staff. The 2nd level spells offer so many options when caster level keeps improving even when you neglect it. I'd have fewer concerns with tying this sort of benefit to skills or feats, but the benefit of tying it directly to character level comes at too low a price.
Shatteredtower 08-24-04, 08:45 AM	Originally posted by Draco Argentum Since when does the caster's caster level affect the item's caster level? Since the 3.5 rules for staves were written. The minimum casting level for a staff is 8th level -- the maximum is the wielder's level.
Draco Argentum 08-24-04, 09:06 AM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower [B]The benefit lies elsewhere, in much the same way that a monk's slow fall or a ranger's animal empathy have nothing to do with combat. Asking for it to always translate into a combat advantage is just shortsightedness. You're giving up combat power (fighter bonus feat), the only balenced trade is combat power. Being able to trade combat power for non-combat power or vice versa is the soul of brokeness. So let's make things worse for the fighter, hmm? :nonono: The class is completely useless except as a stepping stone to another class or a dip. Fix the problem at the scource. Why advance solely as a barbarian when you can get so much more mileage out of three cleric levels added to the build? Why go straight rogue when three levels of wizard will more than make up for the lost sneak attack die and special ability? The caster abilities are nice. But this is a team game. You likely have a straight caster in your party who can spare low level slots on you. You don't need wizard levels for out of combat stuff or long term buffs. If you want to cast third level spells during a combat at high level they need to be as worth your time as whatever your other options are. This means multiple sneak attacks or a raging full attack. Hey, with effective caster level being allowed to expand this way, you could even create wands or maybe a staff. The 2nd level spells offer so many options when caster level keeps improving even when you neglect it. A single caster level already gives you full wand use. Staves admittedly were changed for 3.5. In 3.0 you could get the party caster to make wands or staves for you and use them to full effect. In 3.5 the party caster needs to be willing to make staves with the highest caster level he can.
Drachasor 08-24-04, 09:59 AM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower Since the 3.5 rules for staves were written. The minimum casting level for a staff is 8th level -- the maximum is the wielder's level. This is something Pentar seems to have forgotten. Anyone with one level in Wizard can use all Wizardly staves, and they all throw spells with a CL of 8, and similarly with a cleric level and clerical staves. So Staff-use is not significantly changes if the Fighter gives you a little CL (or BCB as we are calling it in this thread). -Drachasor
Drachasor 08-24-04, 10:59 AM	Pentar did raise some good points, and I will try to address them as best I can. As Seeker and Heron say though, this will require play testing and some adjusting to fit in perfectly with the current system. Originally posted by Pentar What if we went a little farther and made if 15 Fighter/5 Wizard? Now the Staff of Power effectively works at caster level 10, which means full effect for all the 3rd-level damage capped spell effects. Hell, let's go a different route and just take a 19 Fighter/1 Cleric with a Staff of Life. Now this Fighter can Heal himself 70 hitpoints with that staff, something that he would not have been able to do at all without your system. This is... OK with you? Largely this is how the system currently works. As it has been said, the CL on all staves is 8, so that Fighter/Cleric would Heal for 80 Hitpoints now, and in the future. You only use the CL of the user when they are *better* than the Staff's. As for the Fighter 15/Wizard 5, well, they are trading 4 Fighter Levels, that's a fair bit of BAB and Hit Points, for the ability to use Staves that do 10d6 damage, and--if they are unarmored, cast one 3rd level spell of the same. Generally not worth it at all. This is especially true in a party that needs a tank and meleer (which is the Fighter's role). Originally posted by Pentar Several problems; A lot of the powers that make a Paladin's buff spells useful now have a longer duration. This is not just about stacking to-hit/damage bonuses. This goes from Shield Other to the entire line of Bull's Strength... Cat's Grace... spells. They only have a slightly longer duration. This is only 2 caster levels higher. I will play test this next week, but I don't think this is going to break game balance. However, let me enumerate some of the things a Paladin loses by multi-classing with a Cleric: 1. They can never again level their Paladin (that'll hurt if they go Epic). 2. They have less instant healing power from Lay on Hands--a Paladin 15/Cleric 5 loses 25% of the healing power a Paladin 20 has from this, which can quite easily be over 30 hitpoints. 3. Smite Evil is useable less, and does less damage. 4. They have less Remove Diseases each weak. 5. Their BAB takes a hit. 6. Their Hitpoints take a hit. 7. Their Paladin Spells take a massive hit, and some of this, such as Holy Sword, are not on the Cleric list. A 20th level Paladin casts more than twice as many Paladin spells as a 15th level one. Sure, these are a lot of small things, but I think the small things tend to all cancel out. Originally posted by Pentar Second, Weapon Specialization is to a specific weapon. If that weapon is unavailable, that bonus is negated. Divine Favour grants that bonus regardless of weapon being used. Of course, a Fighter is going to be using that weapon 95%+ of the time. Originally posted by Pentar I don't have the books handy now, but the Paladin's Sourcebook had more spells in there that were pretty nifty (I think one was called Divine Sacrifice - I wish I had the book with me...) Those aren't Core and can only be used with DM permission. However, I do see your point and I will look over this. I do intend on playtesting this out, but I simply don't have a lot of time this week. I'd rather not engage in too much more debate without trying things out in combat. Originally posted by Pentar There are more significant changes you didn't consider here - Break Enchantment works off Caster level. The Paladin is effective +2 caster levels now when attempting to break enemy enchantment effects with this spell (compared to a 20 Paladin). They get a boost here, but against the BBEG it is still going to be quite difficult. This is a job for the Wizard of the party (or the Cleric). Besides, they only get one Break Enchantment each day, assuming they prepare it every day. A 20th level Paladin can prepare 3, and even adding in Wisdom bonuses, the 20th level Paladin still has an overall Paladin-spell advantage. Originally posted by Pentar His Cure line of spells now are either capped or closer to reaching cap. Prior to this change, he was just capped when using a Cure Moderate..., now he's at +12 for a Cure Serious.... In addition to which his Heal Mount spell is now 120 hit points over the previous 100 hit points. Err...ok, so his Cure Serious now heals 2 more hitpoints....this is small stuff. Heal Mount gets a decent boost, but the Mount isn't even going to have 100 hitpoints! Those extra 20 Hitpoints do nothing. Originally posted by Pentar Restoration effects are more powerful - able to restore lost levels from 12 days previous rather than 10. Wow, and the party's Cleric can do it 20 days previously. 2 days for a spell like this (when you have days and days to cast it) is not a big deal. Originally posted by Pentar Conversely, you have to consider now that the Paladin may also prepare spells as a 5th level cleric, yet those spells are at effectively caster level 12 as well. So the Paladin has a LOT more spell slots to play with suddenly, but at a much greater caster level. And while a higher Caster Level is nice, it doesn't boost anything into brokenness. Yes, the Paladin can play around with boosted Clerical spells, but he'd have a higher number of more powerful spells if he had stuck to being a Paladin. He trades 3 4th level Paladin spells (which are largely 4th *and* 5th level Cleric spells) for some 1 or so 3rd level Cleric spells. He trades 2 second and 2 third level spells for some clerical spells too. Add 1 first level Paladin spell, and that is a significant amount of Paladin spell-power. True, he does gain +2 CL for this, but that CL boost doesn't give his spells that much of a boost. Yes, that boost adds up in a sense, but so do all the Paladin abilities a 20th level Paladin gains over a 15th. Anyhow, I will look at this combo and the other combos you suggested, but I don't think they are inherently or obviously broken. Perhaps I will find one or two spells that are simply too powerful (Divine Favor has long been a worrisome spell on the Cleric Spell-list, as have some other Clerical combat-boosters), or maybe I'll find it works just fine. Yes, I do understand that I am making multi-classing easier, and I have no problem with this. Someone suggested that sometimes people multi-class for RP reasons, and don't mind the nerf to the capabilities of their character, well, that is fine, but I *do* mind the nerf. I see no reason to not seek an adjustment to the system to address this. Multi-classing will be less painful, true, but there will still be reasons to stick to the same class for 20 levels. I would note that many melee classes have little reason *not* to multiclass. Oh, as for the Fighter 20, as I noted elsewhere, this characer is pretty nerfed on its own, since 20th level Fighters gain very, very few benefits a 15th level Fighter doesn't have. 3 feats, but that isn't a lot (and no feat chains a 15th level Fighter couldn't get). So, in a related, but different, note, I do see that the melee classes need a boost. The Fighter most of all. I realize this doesn't alleviate concerns about changing BCB, but I hope you realize I do understand there are other issues raised, and I hope with the eventual set of house-rules I develop, to address them all. Btw, my last long posts directed towards you was perhaps overly emotional, and if you took offense at my language or something of that nature, then I apologize--my aplogies for brushing through the Ranger/Druid combo too, as I was running out of time and I should have mentioned that. -Drachasor
Oberoni 08-31-04, 12:29 PM	I'm finding a lot of the stuff in this thread humorous, particularly the sentiment that a non-caster who picks up a couple caster levels really should suck. If we're trying to discuss what should be a balanced game, the sentiment that certain combinations really should suck is ludicrous. Second, I have yet to see a genuine problem with caster level simply equaling class level. Period. Well, I'll take that back--Divine Favor might be an issue. It might not. Staffs and such might be an issue too. Frankly, if it's the only real problem, I'd say just fix Divine Favor and charged magic items, and go ahead setting caster level equal to class level. Third, some people are pointing out that under this revised system, taking some spellcaster levels is superior to taking higher-level combat levels. Well, gee. Maybe we should make higher-level melee class levels more worthwhile? It's just a thought, but if you'd rather take your 16th level as a 1st level wizard instead of as a 16th level barbarian, then maybe...just maybe...the barbarian levels need improved. (note that the classes used in the last level are simply chosen for example's sake, I don't have my book open, so I am making no claim about the usefullness of the 16th level of barbarian)
Drachasor 08-31-04, 12:37 PM	It is true that warrior levels need to be better at higher levels. They are lacking in power increases. -Drachasor
TheDarkLord 08-31-04, 07:50 PM	I agree with ya Oberoni. BTW awesome sig :D
markhaus 09-01-04, 10:50 AM	Practiced Spellcaster feat in Complete Divine (sry if this has been said but i havent read the posts :embarrass )
Drachasor 09-01-04, 11:31 AM	Practiced Spellcaster feat in Complete Divine (sry if this has been said but i havent read the posts :embarrass ) It has been said and addressed. Next time you *should* read the posts. (Wether or not you'd disagree with how it was addressed would then make your post more useful). -Drachasor
Razorblade Smile 09-01-04, 11:57 AM	Personally I liked the recommendation of treating caster level as another group of class traits; poor, average, and good. Poor has the same progression as a Wizard's BAB, average is equivalent to that of a Rogue's BAB, and good is equivalent to that of a Fighter's BAB. You then make that completely seperate from spell progression and it works nicely. Non-spellcasters would have the poor caster progression, obviously. This would include Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarians. Minor spellcasters (including any prestige class that doesn't normally offer full spellcasting progression) like Paladins, Bards, and Rangers would have the average caster progression. And, finally, the big guns like Wizards, Sorcers, Clerics, and Druids would get the good caster progression. Spell progression would continue on as per each class's normal limit. This doesn't ruin the Mystic Theurge class (they'd only good caster progression while still limiting the number of spells you can cast and know as per the standard rules), but makes it a lot easier to justify multiclassing to a non-spellcasting class for flavor or style without having to be a drain on your team. Example 1: Fighter 10/Wizard 10: Effective caster level of 15 but only with access to 5th level spells and a base of 4/4/4/3/3/2 spells per day. Example 2: Cleric 5/Wizard 5/Mystic Theurge 20: Effective caster level of 20 but only with access to 8th-level spells and the standard base spells per day for a 15th-level character in either class. So yay, their Delayed Blast Fireball is now doing the same damage as that of a Wizard 20... too bad they still don't have access to Wish, Miracle, or any other 9th-level spells... the same 9th-level spells their compatriots got three levels earlier while they just got 8th-level ones. (Sorry, ranting a bit.) Example 3: Bard 10/Druid 10: Effective caster level of 17th, but with access to the normal limit of spells as a 10th level Bard and a 10th level Druid. Example 4: Wizard 10: Effective caster level of 20 with access to 9th-level spells and the full available spells for a 20th level Wizard. It's not broken in the least. It only improves the effect of any spells they cast (which has diminishing returns when caster level outperforms spell level by a significant degree). Example 1 becomes a very playable option, Example 2 only changes in that spells gain a relatively small boost in the power (but not number or spell level) of their spells,and Example 3 gets the largest boost for playablity out of all the examples -- as well they should since it would be an all but useless combo under the standard rules. Just because WotC has a horrible tendency to view game balance in a very bizarre "if people like it, it must be broken -- in no way does it mean all the other stuff we came up with simply sucks" fashion, that doesn't mean anything contrary to their way of doing things isn't balanced in and of itself. They don't even bother to stay consistant within their own rules, and their much-tooted "most playtested game ever" certainly didn't help make 3.0 a solid game system. Don't let an "official" or "playtested" label dictate what's actually balanced versus what actually is balanced when you look at it for yourself. WotC produces far more broken and abusable rules than this recommended house rule.
Someone 09-01-04, 01:58 PM	I disagree on the numbers. I don't think it should be 1/2, 3/4, and 1/1- it should be 0, 1/2, and 1/1. Which is what the current classes and PrCs do with the "+1 existing" for spellcasting. Some are 1/2, some are 1/1, and some have none. I think it would be fair to allow any class or PrC that grants spells to function as a "+1 existing", provided its the correct kind of spells (arcane/ divine, ect.).
Oberoni 09-01-04, 08:02 PM	The problem with this variable caster level idea is that it sounds nice, but ignores the reality of what caster level effects. The basic list, which I assume has been posted already: 1. Chances of overcoming SR. Each caster level gives a 5% increase. 2. Dice of damage: Damage spells do more damage as you gain more caster levels. 3. Length of time: Some spells increase duration substantially as your caster level increases. 4. Miscellaneous: This includes stuff like the number of people you can squeeze into a Teleport. In the current rules set, there is just way too much dependent on caster level. Unless you fix that, you jack anyone who does not have caster levels equal to class levels. You seriously, seriously handicap a character if he doesn't have caster and class levels equal. Why pick up a level (or 5) of Wizard if you're already in the teens? Not only are you throwing tiny spells, but those spells are severely limited in effect and in overcoming SR. In most manners, a 15th level character picking up the 1st level in Wizard is practially a 15th level character throwing away his 16th level. Heck, even when caster level does equal class level, low-level spells aren't impressive? Magic Missile? Meh. Mage Armor? Probably outdated. Cure Light Wounds? Riiiiiiiiiight. A variable caster level system is as doomed to fail as the current caster level system in terms of producing viable multiclass options. There is just way, way too much based on caster level right now to make anything less than full caster levels viable.
Razorblade Smile 09-01-04, 09:30 PM	I must be missing something. Practically everything you just stated is a prime example of why there should be variable caster levels! As you say, a 15th-level Fighter who picks up Wizard 1 is pretty much wasting that level since he's not only getting only a piddly number of spells, but all of them are functioning at a piddly level of ability. At least in a variable caster system his spells will be the equivalence of an 8th-level caster which is just enough to almost make it a viable choice since it'll extend the duration of his Shield spell to a useable amount (just to pull a single example out of my nether region). He's still going to need to gain a few more levels to have a hope of casting anything even remotely challenging, but at least that first level isn't a complete waste. But that aside, I'm not sure how your arguments are proving that it's a bad thing. The problem with this variable caster level idea is that it sounds nice, but ignores the reality of what caster level effects. The basic list, which I assume has been posted already: 1. Chances of overcoming SR. Each caster level gives a 5% increase. 2. Dice of damage: Damage spells do more damage as you gain more caster levels. 3. Length of time: Some spells increase duration substantially as your caster level increases. 4. Miscellaneous: This includes stuff like the number of people you can squeeze into a Teleport. In the current rules set, there is just way too much dependent on caster level. Unless you fix that, you jack anyone who does not have caster levels equal to class levels. You seriously, seriously handicap a character if he doesn't have caster and class levels equal. Why pick up a level (or 5) of Wizard if you're already in the teens? Not only are you throwing tiny spells, but those spells are severely limited in effect and in overcoming SR. In most manners, a 15th level character picking up the 1st level in Wizard is practially a 15th level character throwing away his 16th level. Heck, even when caster level does equal class level, low-level spells aren't impressive? Magic Missile? Meh. Mage Armor? Probably outdated. Cure Light Wounds? Riiiiiiiiiight. A variable caster level system is as doomed to fail as the current caster level system in terms of producing viable multiclass options. There is just way, way too much based on caster level right now to make anything less than full caster levels viable.
Oberoni 09-01-04, 11:01 PM	Um...yeah. You didn't really refute my claim that caster level should equal class level, you just said you support an alternate system which doesn't work as well. So I think you are missing something as you suggested.
Someone 09-02-04, 02:10 AM	Not sure if I'm agreeing or disagreeing, but 16th lvl with wiz1 doesn't seem like a problem to me. 1/16 of his ability is arcane casting. If 1/16 of your ability at 1st lvl was arcane casting, it would be really, really, weak. And 15/16 of his ability would be beating the :censored: out of things. At 16th lvl, thats a lot of :censored:. At 1st lvl, not as much. So for spellcasting to be a significant part of your character's ability, spellcasting classes should be a significant proportion of your levels.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-02-04, 02:36 AM	So for spellcasting to be a significant part of your character's ability, spellcasting classes should be a significant proportion of your levels. That's what the proponents of this change are trying to get around. They're arguing that a 15 Fighter/1 Wizard should get just as much mileage out of magic missile or shield as a 16 Wizard does (or if not just as much as a 16 Wizard, at least as much mileage as an 8 Wizard would). *shrug* I have yet to see results of playtesting. Although even if playtesting proves that it's not a problem, it still doesn't make sense to me logically, why when a Fighter 15 takes a level of Wizard he suddenly casts those 1st level spells at more than a single caster level.
Roxlimn 09-02-04, 05:04 AM	I've playtested both basic character level = caster level and many other variations of the same , mostly along the 3-12 level range. I've found that while character level = caster level is really quite acceptable as far as balance is concerned, it does strange things to the class system. For example, no Human or Half Elf would ever want to do without a Wizard level or 3, just because spells at character level are too useful to do without, even if it's just Magic Missile. Eventually, you'd max out the level you want and get back to progressing the concept you really are after, but you will almost alway want some caster levels in there. This tells me that the system makes casters too powerful, yet this is not a bad thing if you like a magic heavy campaign. Specific characters don't hog the spotlight since everyone eventually takes a caster level anyway, one way or another, and everyone just ends up magic-proficient to a greater or lesser degree. Definitely a good flavor if your party's from Halruaa. At the same time, I didn't find it applicable to everything. I wanted some concepts to be magic-ability free, so doing that didn't help. Later on I based caster level on skill level with Arcane caster level being based on Spellcraft and Divine caster level being based on Concentration. It made more sense and the players appreciated the in-game tie-in. A Fighter would suddenly took 1 Wizard level wouldn't be that good at Magic Missile unless he's been investing in Spellcraft skill all this time. It worked better, but it still isn't what I was looking for.
Seeker95 09-02-04, 08:20 AM	Would a modified character level = caster level work? Another suggestion included "time in office" advancement. Your caster level would count as tthe number of levels you spend having a spellcasting class. It would prevent the late entry - instant mastery concerns that have been raised. Job experience continues to apply, without promotions. :D
TheDarkLord 09-02-04, 08:46 AM	Meh, i'm still using Unearthed Arcana's variant magic rating system. It's working well for us, and other than the fact that UMD pretty much doesn't mean as much to us anymore, it's going pretty good.
Oberoni 09-03-04, 04:26 AM	That's what the proponents of this change are trying to get around. They're arguing that a 15 Fighter/1 Wizard should get just as much mileage out of magic missile or shield as a 16 Wizard does (or if not just as much as a 16 Wizard, at least as much mileage as an 8 Wizard would). *shrug* I have yet to see results of playtesting. Although even if playtesting proves that it's not a problem, it still doesn't make sense to me logically, why when a Fighter 15 takes a level of Wizard he suddenly casts those 1st level spells at more than a single caster level. Right, to you, it makes sense logically that a Fighter 15 that picks up a level of wizard should suck. I have no problem with such a character shooting 5 magic missiles off right off the bat. Just change the paradigm so that the strength of individual spells is based off of your "potential life force" or something, and that the variety and strength of your pool of spells is based on, of course, how many levels you've taken in caster classes. There you go. Easy paradigm shift, and the Fighter 15/Wizard1 isn't getting kicked as bad for his decision. Me, I find it logically painful that we are presented with two options: 1) one that makes multiclass casters suck hugely, and 2) one that makes multiclass casters suck less, and some people are leaning towards the 1st. You're playing a cooperative game, folks! You don't want more suck, you want less!
Shatteredtower 09-03-04, 06:23 AM	Me, I find it logically painful that we are presented with two options: 1) one that makes multiclass casters suck hugely, and 2) one that makes multiclass casters suck less, and some people are leaning towards the 1st. You're playing a cooperative game, folks! You don't want more suck, you want less! What's so cooperative about a system that would actively punish single-classing or not multi-classing as a spellcaster? All you'd be doing is exchanging one model for defining suckage into another, one bar for "balanced" with another. Zero sum game, and you're misrepresenting your position to claim otherwise. Having said that, I'm going to eat crow on a certain point. In general, "monsters" have a casting level equal to their hit dice. This argues a point for Oberoni's "life force." The counterargument is that the casting level does not increase for advanced creatures. The system ends up running both ways on this point, and before we tinker with it to make creature HD = caster level, we'd better examine the consequences. I've left my Monster Manual at home, and downloading the SRD isn't an option here, but perhaps someone could tell us what the CR for a 30 HD balor is? Oh, and for one with 40 HD, please. It's low enough, by the book, that if we allowed it to use blasphemy against a party of equal level to said CR, said party would die, would it not? I admit it's a broken example, but it's one of the big ones you'll need to fix before you make an adjustment like that. Present a good, valid reason -- one that does not pretend to have anything to do with play balance (because it doesn't; it just moves things around) -- why someone who enters a magical career late, without the background, should be leaps and bounds ahead of the other neophytes, who are probably brighter and haven't been distracting themselves with other concerns (class levels) during those developmental years. I could also point out that the single-classed wizard paid the price for higher casting ability by starting a spellcasting career, on average, at a later age (if you use that PHB option), while the multi-class caster pays the price for sneaking into the spellcasting profession early by... not being so good at it. Story balance, and it works. Show me the play balance reasons that require a single level in a spellcasting class to equal your character level (or a higher fraction than 1/x, where x is character level). Spell resistance? Nope. You want that, but you don't need it. Greater resistance to dispel magic? Nice, but why are you punishing the guy who spent the last 10 levels in class while you were perfecting your Great Cleave? Call it what it is: a power grab, whereby spellcasters wish to gain something for nothing. If you want to talk play balance, then give something.
Shatteredtower 09-03-04, 07:58 AM	Oh, one other point that caught my eye just now: Right, to you, it makes sense logically that a Fighter 15 that picks up a level of wizard should suck. This is misleading. The character does not suck as a fighter. The character sucks as a wizard -- and don't 1st level wizards suck as a rule? Now it could be argued that the character sucks as a 16th level character, but to most people, the 15 fighter levels suggest that the damage has already been done. I've seen the argument that this is about spell durations and dispel checks and SR checks -- and that still strikes me as smoke and mirrors. Draco Argentum argued that 1st and 2nd level spells are close to worthless at 15th level anyway, and if we assume this is correct, nothing about increased SR checks changes that. The benefit of the proposed system goes to spellcasters who take a one or two level dip into another class. Anything more, and you're two spell levels behind the curve until you reach at least 20th level -- which is only acceptable if you do not subscribe to the theory that only the highest level spells available for characters of that level count for anything. In other words, the proposed change still ends up sucking -- at least as either Oberoni or Draco Argentum would define something to suck. If it's excessive and defies logic by one set of standards and sucks by the other set of standards (assuming only two camps, for the sake of convenience)... what good is it? I'm not asking for much. Let's examine a few alternatives for giving spellcasters this "freebie" in such a way that they at least paid a token fee for it. A character with 5 ranks in Spellcraft gains a +2 synergy to the character's effective casting level, for the purpose of spell resistance, dispel checks, and all other effects with the exception of spells known and spell slots available. For every 5 additional ranks in Spellcraft, this synergy increases by +1. The effective casting level may not exceed the character's total number of hit dice, and does not stack with prestige class levels that grant the character +1 level in that particular spellcasting class. An arcane spellcaster with 5 ranks in Knowledge (arcana) gains a +2 synergy to the character's effective casting level, for the purpose of spell resistance, dispel checks, and all other effects with the exception of spells known and spell slots available. Clerics, adepts, and paladins with 5 ranks in Knowledge (religion) gain a similar bonus, while for druids and rangers, 5 ranks in Knowledge (nature) will serve. As with the effective increase gained with Spellcraft, the effective casting level may not exceed the character's overall level (or hit dice total). If you want to be really generous, you can go one step further, and allow these bonuses to also apply to the number of spells known and spell slots available, gaining, in effect, +1 level in a single spellcasting class with each new level gained -- once again subject to the limit of the character's overall level. So if you've got a 15th level fighter with 5 ranks each in Spellcraft and Knowledge (arcana) who then goes on to take a single wizard level, said character's effective casting level is 5th. Regardless of what class the character selects to advance in the 17th character level, the character will effectively aquire the spellcasting ability of a 2nd level spellcaster, though the effective casting level will remain at 5th level -- unless the character advanced as a wizard, in which case the character has gained the ability to cast the same number of spells as a 3rd level wizard and has casts the spells as the equivalent of a 6th level caster. Too complicated? Maybe (and it could certainly be better worded), but at least I know that the character worked for what was earned, and while the reward might not be as generous as some might like in one direction, it's more generous than what they requested in the other. The question is whether it's all about effective class level or whether it's about earning progression. Yes, the system mentioned does end up allowing an epic character to eventually gain 9th level spell use with only one spellcasting level, but that's not until well past 50th level. Consider another option. For every 2 sorcerer levels, a character gains +1 level to spellcasting in the sorcerer class, subject to the limit of the character's total hit dice or character level. These bonus levels do not stack with sorcerer levels the character already has, nor with prestige class levels that grant +1 level to the character's sorcerer spellcasting. This doesn't "fix" the sorcerer class, of course, but it does address Oberoni's "life force" concept through the character class which should be most geared around something resembling spell-like abilities (several druid, monk, and paladin abilities notwithstanding). It also makes some sense from a story balance perspective, as a multi-class sorcerer can be anyone who acquired innate spellcasting. The stronger the character wishes to be at that ability, however, the more they're going to have to give up in progression elsewhere, but is that not balance as well? I know that this can be abused easily enough, since a character is likely to take two sorcerer levels to every one level of any other class, but is the 12th/6th level sorcerer/rogue (or sorcerer/barbarian or...) with the spellcasting ability of an 18th level sorcerer either a) unbalanced or b) hard for some of us to swallow as a concept in the same way that any other spellcaster might be? Could you use both the skill boost and the additional sorcerer benefit in the same game? Probably not, at least not if you use the more generous option. While it's true that they're prone to rapidly cancelling each other out after a certain point, and the character never does better than cast spells as a sorcerer of a level equal to the character's hit dice, there is a recipe for disaster in the mix. With sorcerer/other spellcaster mixes, you can have a 20th level character casting spells as an 18th level sorcerer (but 20th level casting ability) and, if done just right, a 15th level wizard (casting at 15th level of ability). Those who consider the mystic theurge weak might consider this balanced, but only if the game doesn't go into epic rules, whereupon the less generous option might still be seen as balanced. Those who consider the mystic theurge broken will certainly find this ideal unacceptable, even if the "generous option" is not applied. So there you have it: one system that (if the generous option is taken) allows characters to use the skill system to improve their spellcasting as they continue to progress (whether in a spellcasting class or not), and another that arguably makes sorcerer levels the best option for multiclass characters. The systems may be more generous than anything anyone here had in mind, but there's an effort to balance flavour and mechanics within both. Maybe they're both entirely unworkable -- but you can't say I didn't try to be at least a little bit accomodating. :P
Razorblade Smile 09-03-04, 10:58 AM	Although even if playtesting proves that it's not a problem, it still doesn't make sense to me logically, why when a Fighter 15 takes a level of Wizard he suddenly casts those 1st level spells at more than a single caster level. So why should a 15th-level Wizard who takes a level of Fighter suddenly fight with the same chance of hitting his opponent with his greatsword (which he didn't even have as a proficiency a few days ago) as an 8th-level Fighter instead of the sucky 1st-level Fighter he is? Same exact difference. He's learned things during his career, even if not an active warrior (or spellcaster), and his experience is reflected in knowing a few more things than a true 1st-level character. Instead, the Wizard 15/Fighter 1 has fewer feats to take advantage of all the nifty tricks he could have learned if he were a true 8th-level Fighter... and for the Fighter 15/Wizard 1, he has only a couple of spells he can cast each day instead of all the powerful ones he could cast if he hwere a true 8th-level Wizard. Again, same difference.
Pentar 09-03-04, 11:42 AM	In most manners, a 15th level character picking up the 1st level in Wizard is practially a 15th level character throwing away his 16th level. Reverse your question. If you use this modified system, why wouldn't you want to pick up levels in Wizard and Cleric and Druid, etc...? You just become that much more powerful and flexible with it. Short of roleplaying reasons, you take away any reason behind staying single-class. So effectively, you are swapping out normally pointless and stupid multiclass characters, for an entire world of multiclass characters without any single-class ones. Riiiiiight, that's because everyone is capable of picking up multiple professions - any time we like! Don't be naive. You aren't making multiclassing more desireable - you're making multiclassing a requirement.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-03-04, 11:52 AM	Again, same difference.Not the same difference at all. It seems that way to you because you insist on looking at BAB as the same as CL. They are not equal. They're not even related. You're talking apples and oranges here. Let me repeat myself: There is not and should not be any correlation between BAB and CL. They are two entirely separate mechanics. One reflects the ability to hit a target with something. Fighters learn how to do that better than anyone, but spellcasters still learn how to strike targets with spells. The other reflects the ability to get the most out of spells, which is something you can't do unless you cast spells. This seems so clear, but somehow I fear we aren't even on the same page. I'll refer you, then, to Shatteredtower's posts -- he's got the right of it when he says "All you'd be doing is exchanging one model for defining suckage into another, one bar for "balanced" with another" and later on "If it's excessive and defies logic by one set of standards and sucks by the other set of standards (assuming only two camps, for the sake of convenience)... what good is it?" Hear, hear.
TheDarkLord 09-03-04, 12:01 PM	Riiiiiight, that's because everyone is capable of picking up multiple professions - any time we like! Don't be naive. You aren't making multiclassing more desireable - you're making multiclassing a requirement. Um, you don't have to multiclass into a Caster even with this system. Even now don't 90%+ of DnD player's multiclass at some point in time? Those that don't are the Die Hard gamer's who use core only. So basically instead, using this system, 91% of the user's are going to want to multiclass now. How is that a Requirement.
Razorblade Smile 09-03-04, 12:24 PM	Not the same difference at all. It seems that way to you because you insist on looking at BAB as the same as CL. They are not equal. They're not even related. You're talking apples and oranges here. Let me repeat myself: There is not and should not be any correlation between BAB and CL. They are two entirely separate mechanics. One reflects the ability to hit a target with something. Fighters learn how to do that better than anyone, but spellcasters still learn how to strike targets with spells. The other reflects the ability to get the most out of spells, which is something you can't do unless you cast spells. Right. And yet that Wizard 15, who never once even picked up a greatsword, is suddenly as proficient with one as an 8th-level Fighter when he takes a single level in Fighter. It is the same difference. I'm well aware that the mechanics (and the function) of both are different, but the concept behind both are the same. The Wizard picked up a few tricks during the course of his career when it came to fighting; most likely from seeing his opponents and teammates doing amazing things and learning from that. The same is true of the Fighter 15 who, obviously, has had interest in becoming a Wizard. He's seen and experienced things no 1st-level character could even dream of, and in the course of that experience he, too, has picked up quite a few tricks of the trade from seeing enemy or fiendly wizards in action to experiencing their handiwork first hand when used against him. Thus when he takes that Wizard 1 level, he's going to fare better than a genuine 1st-level Wizard even though he, much like the Wizard turned Fighter above, never cast a spell/picked up a greatsword in his life. Yet the Wizard 15/Fighter 1 still pales in comparison to a Fighter 16 in both attack bonus effectiveness *and* the number of combat tricks he can employ, just as the Fighter 15/Wizard 1 pales in comparison to a Wizard 16 in both the spells he can cast and the number of spells in his employ. Yet both SHOULD be superior to a 1st-level Fighter or a 1st-level Wizard respectively because, that's right, they've experienced and learned more during their career. So again, yes, it is the same difference. Emphasis on the word "difference." This seems so clear, but somehow I fear we aren't even on the same page. My sentiments exactly.
Seeker95 09-03-04, 01:22 PM	So why should a 15th-level Wizard who takes a level of Fighter suddenly fight with the same chance of hitting his opponent with his greatsword (which he didn't even have as a proficiency a few days ago) as an 8th-level Fighter instead of the sucky 1st-level Fighter he is?Because a 15th level Wizard can fight as effectively as an 8th level Wizard. The only "benefit" he gains is the loss of -4 proficiency... something a 1st level fighter gets. What he *can't* do is suddenly fight as effectively as a 15th level fighter.
Pentar 09-03-04, 01:43 PM	Um, you don't have to multiclass into a Caster even with this system. Even now don't 90%+ of DnD player's multiclass at some point in time? Those that don't are the Die Hard gamer's who use core only. So basically instead, using this system, 91% of the user's are going to want to multiclass now. How is that a Requirement. Multiclassing tends to be popular for taking PrCs or other core classes in line with the original class profession. That is to say, you won't find too many Wizards taking levels in Ranger, any more than you would see Barbarians taking levels in Sorcerer. What I mean by requirement is that multiclassing becomes so good with this new system, you'd practically have to in order to keep your character on par with any other character that does. Effectively, you're giving all classes the ability to do everything, almost equally well. Gone are people who specialize in what they do - instead, you have Fighters who can heal at level 8 cleric and wizards who can still cast 8th level spells, but are buffed up with melee abilities. How is this balanced? Given this new system, name one class that would benefit more from remaining the same class to level 20 rather than multiclassing. I can't think of one - all classes would be better off class dipping. I mean taking one level in one class to get all the base benefits and bonus feats and then running off to advance another class. This may be somewhat prevalent for melee classes - but it was not prevalent for caster classes, since caster classes do have to worry about their castetr level and therefore would normally only multiclass other classes that continued to increase that for them. Hence, requirement.
Someone 09-03-04, 01:54 PM	Originally posted by Shatteredtower ...I've left my Monster Manual at home, and downloading the SRD isn't an option here, but perhaps someone could tell us what the CR for a 30 HD balor is? Oh, and for one with 40 HD, please.CR 25 and 30, respectively. And their CL is only for their spell-like abilities. If a balor took up a level of sorceror, they would be a really sucky sorceror. My take on the ftr15/ wiz1 is look at the wiz15/ ftr1: they don't suddely go from no BAB to BAB 8 (7 from wiz +1 from ftr), they always had BAB, ftr just adds to it better. So, a ftr15/ wiz1 either gains CL suddely and retroactively, or had an inaccessible CL all the time. Neither of those are approaches I like.
Razorblade Smile 09-03-04, 03:12 PM	Because a 15th level Wizard can fight as effectively as an 8th level Wizard. The only "benefit" he gains is the loss of -4 proficiency... something a 1st level fighter gets. A few minor mistakes there, but I won't touch on those. Especially since it would only prove my point further. What he *can't* do is suddenly fight as effectively as a 15th level fighter. And I didn't propose that a Fighter 15/Wizard 1 could cast spells as effectively as a Wizard 15 either, did I? Note that I'm not talking about using character level for caster level, I was only backing up the proposition to use a varied stage of effective caster level progression along the same lines as BAB progression. I don't understand how anyone can defend the current way this is handled in the game. A Wizard 15/Fighter 1 should easily defeat a Fighter 1 in an archery competition without breaking a sweat due to everything he's experienced up to that point in his life. Yet, by defending the current state of affairs, you're also saying that a Fighter 15/Wizard 1 should be on the exact same ground as a Wizard 1 in all ways when it comes to shooting some flames from their fingertips. To quote John Tuttoro in O! Brother Where Art Thou, "that [game logic] don't make NO sense." Just because you have an easier time understanding combat prowess over magical affinity (because one's somewhat realistic while the other's a work of complete fiction), that doesn't mean characters within a fictional setting where magic is as real as combat would have the same difficulty.
Razorblade Smile 09-03-04, 03:16 PM	My take on the ftr15/ wiz1 is look at the wiz15/ ftr1: they don't suddely go from no BAB to BAB 8 (7 from wiz +1 from ftr), they always had BAB, ftr just adds to it better. So, a ftr15/ wiz1 either gains CL suddely and retroactively, or had an inaccessible CL all the time. Neither of those are approaches I like. But look at it in reverse. Are you saying a Wizard 1/Fighter 15 should have stopped gaining any experience and improvement in his magical abilities simply because he changed classes (but still continued to use his magical abilities all throughout his career)? Also, a Wizard only gains BAB because the game designers chose to allow them to. That's the sole reason. Using it as an excuse is silly in my opinion; Wizards are intended to be horrible combatants in a straight up fight should they gain proficiency with a weapon, just as Fighters are intended to be poor spellcasters should they gain proficiency with magic.
Seeker95 09-03-04, 06:43 PM	And I didn't propose that a Fighter 15/Wizard 1 could cast spells as effectively as a Wizard 15 either, did I?I never claimed you did. You asked why a Wiz15/Ftr1 can suddenly swing a greatsword as well as an 8th level fighter. I answered. Although I should amend my statement a little. He probably can't swing it exactly the same as an 8th level fighter. But the only benefit he gains over the 16th level wizard is proficiency in the greatsword. He can't swing the greatsword as if he were a 16th level fighter. The "caster level = character level" argument says that a Ftr15 who picks up a single level of wizard should be able to cast magic missile just as effectively as a 15th level wizard. You through out an apple when the discussion was about oranges. Your apple got sliced in half. No biggie.
Razorblade Smile 09-03-04, 06:48 PM	You through out an apple when the discussion was about oranges. Your apple got sliced in half. No biggie. Correction: You were replying to my post, which from the beginning has been about a variant caster level mechanic. You were the one throwing the orange in a discussion about an orange. The fault is in your lap for not paying attention to the conversation. "No biggie."
Seeker95 09-03-04, 07:07 PM	Correction: You were replying to my post, which from the beginning has been about a variant caster level mechanic.Yup. I was replying to your post. It is not my fault that your post ignored the rest of your argument, strayed away from your intended point, and lead to a point that did not further the argument you were trying to make. Your post was the apple. I sliced the apple. Now get back to your orange. :P
Oberoni 09-03-04, 07:16 PM	What's so cooperative about a system that would actively punish single-classing or not multi-classing as a spellcaster? All you'd be doing is exchanging one model for defining suckage into another, one bar for "balanced" with another. Zero sum game, and you're misrepresenting your position to claim otherwise. Having said that, I'm going to eat crow on a certain point. In general, "monsters" have a casting level equal to their hit dice. This argues a point for Oberoni's "life force." <snip> Call it what it is: a power grab, whereby spellcasters wish to gain something for nothing. If you want to talk play balance, then give something. Yay melodrama! You totally out-melodrama'ed me, so I guess you're right. Or not. Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that a melee guy that picks up 3 levels of wizard that don't suck as much as they used to is power-gaming? Give me a break! Helping multiclass casters catch up to other characters does not create an overpowered option; it removes an underpowered one. This is the goal of game balance. In short, your entire point that letting all casters have caster level equal to character level would overpower them is ridiculous and invalid.
Shatteredtower 09-03-04, 07:43 PM	Helping multiclass casters catch up to other characters does not create an overpowered option; it removes an underpowered one. It does nothing of the sort. Your goal is to make multi-class casters suck less at the expense of those with no caster levels at all. And you fail. Badly. Really, what more needs to be said? Either go whole hog or abandon the project. In short, your entire point that letting all casters have caster level equal to character level would overpower them is ridiculous and invalid. Ah, yes... why make an argument when you can just say, "It doesn't count!" and leave it at that? Excellent work. All right, I'll admit that the notion that caster level = class level doesn't make for overpowered characters. Let's start there. I believe it makes for conceptually absurd characters, and I'm not alone in this. What are you bringing to the table to address that point? Nothing. Likewise, you don't balance things out, because the character with the single caster level still sucks -- based on the fact that said character has brought a pellet gun to fight tanks. I addressed this point before, but it was glossed over in the blanket dismissal. The only thing that pretty much doesn't end up sucking with this change is the spellcaster with one or two levels of any other class. I still don't see how this improves the game or addresses balance in anything but a superficial manner. Again, the result is conceptually unsound for me and doesn't give you what you want it to. Would you care to address the alternative systems I threw your way? (Upon reconsideration of the sorcerer levels, I thought of another possibility -- make that +1 level gained with each two levels apply to any single spellcasting class. That way, a 4th/4th level cleric could cast at 6th/4th, 4th/6th, or 5th/5th level.)
Razorblade Smile 09-03-04, 08:08 PM	All right, I'll admit that the notion that caster level = class level doesn't make for overpowered characters. Let's start there. I believe it makes for conceptually absurd characters, and I'm not alone in this. What are you bringing to the table to address that point? I don't know about the person you were replying to, but as far as I'm concerned it reflects at least in some degree the character's experience as an adventurer... which the current rules do precious little. Likewise, you don't balance things out, because the character with the single caster level still sucks -- based on the fact that said character has brought a pellet gun to fight tanks. I addressed this point before, but it was glossed over in the blanket dismissal. Only at the very start and only with offensive magicks. With spells that only affect the spellcaster or friendly allies, his heightened caster level improves the power of his magic significantly. Spells like Shield, Haste, and Invisibility will all be more effective in that they last longer, have a larger area of effect, and/or affect more targets simultaneously. As he advances and gains access to more spells and more spells per day, his effectiveness only improves. A Fighter 10/Wizard 10 under the current rules suck almost universally. But with either the character level = caster level or a BAB-style progression, that's not necessarily true at all. Sure, you can still make some really poor decisions (such as the much referred to Fighter 15 who picks up Wizard 1 late in life where it's not going to mean much), but that's true of all things in the game. But even then, he's not completely crippled as a magician, he's just not going to be able to hold up against a dedicated one. Whereas under the current rules, a Wizard 3 would walk all over him with his superior magical talents. (Which is just as absurd as a Wizard 15/Fighter 1 getting walked all over by a Fighter 3 in the combat department.) Again, the result is conceptually unsound for me and doesn't give you what [he] want[s] it to. Fair enough. Personally I can see it being quite effective for plenty of builds. A Druidic Bard (Bard 10/Druid 10), for instance, reeks to high heaven under the current rules even though the concept is not only simple and believable, but one where they should be an effective spellcaster having studied (and benefited from that study) both sides of the magical fence. Yet the end result is someone who has next to no chance of standing up against any other 20th-level character. At least with a progressive/equal caster level mechanic, their spells will be just as potent as the dedicated 20th-level caster's with the only difference being that they have versatility in exchange for high level spells.
Seeker95 09-03-04, 10:04 PM	In short, your entire point that letting all casters have caster level equal to character level would overpower them is ridiculous and invalid.And you were doing so well... all the way until this comment. :nonono:
Someone 09-04-04, 12:55 AM	I don't think a multiclasser should "catch up" with anything- if they want to be as good as a lvl <blah> wiz, then they should be a lvl <blah> wiz. As for the wiz1/ ftr15, if they had really been gaining experience with spellcasting, they would have gotten levels in wizard. And if they wanted to merge the two approaches, there are PrCs for that. If a DM doesn't want to allow the "gestalt" PrCs, then they should also reign in multiclassing- at least multiclassing in divergent studies, like fighter/ mage. The could say that characters just can't keep track of that much stuff at the same time. To me, classes grant spells/ day first, CL second. To allow non-spellcasting to grant CL, you would have to say they grant spells/ day, even if its 0 spells/ day. Which is not what they do- there is a difference between granting 0 and not granting at all.
Oberoni 09-04-04, 03:52 AM	It does nothing of the sort. Your goal is to make multi-class casters suck less at the expense of those with no caster levels at all. And you fail. Badly. Bolding mine. By definition, in order to improve A at the cost of B, you need to take something away from B to improve A. Since my proposal does nothing of the sort, you are quite literally wrong. It's simple enough. But I'm sure that you're going to try and nevertheless say that, comparatively, multiclass casters will outdo decently-built noncasters, which is preposterous. (even though I use Fighter in my next example, it's just for shorthand's sake; assume I'm saying "Decently Built Combination of Melee Classes" or something) A Fighter 9/Wizard 3 that shoots 12d6 Scorching Rays is not overpowered. He doesn't fight as well as a 12 level fighter, and even though (in my system) he would cast Scorching Ray as well as a 12th level wizard, he won't be casting 6th level spells like a 12th level wizard would. This is as it should be. The game is designed so that by the time you hit CR 12 monsters, you will have damage spells that do at least 10 dice of damage. It's as simple as that. Make no mistakes about it--the top tier of character types is probably still going to be held by full casters and Frenzied Berzerkers and whatnot, even with my proposed change. However, my change will make multiclass casters more viable, and in a balance discussion, this is a very, very good thing.
Shatteredtower 09-04-04, 10:04 AM	Overpowered? No. Conceptually ridiculous? You bet your fallacy. Oberoni, your system unduly rewards characters for dipping, and yet it does it inadequately to justify the change at all. That certainly sounds like failure to me, no matter which direction you're facing. You still fail to address the conceptual problems because you're blinded by this holy grail of "game balance", consistently ignoring the fact that if you want the power, you pay the price. Allowing your system means I should be justified in creating 1st level characters who have the ability to cast their spells at any level of casting ability, conceptually speaking. Why not? I mean, maybe the character was just a lazy wizard who's spent the last ten years getting better at magic missile, but never bothering to learn anything new, hmm? One day, you're nobody when it comes to spellcasting, but tomorrow -- blam! You can hurl around magic missile as well as an archmage, and you can use a staff just as well as him too. Bravo, bravo... This is not the same as BAB progression. If you can find a DM willing to tailor a game to allow for a party to all play wizards, BAB still progresses as they advance in level, even with no "expert" to guide them in improving their martial skills. None of them suddenly gain full fighter BAB progression for taking a fighter level at 15th level, which is the equivalent of what you're demanding for spellcasters. I hear you objecting already. It is the same thing. After all, it's not like the wizard is gaining all of the fighter's feats, or the fighter's hit points. Don't like the fighter? Tell me what kind of rage abilities the wizard would gain for taking a level of barbarian instead. How about roguish sneak attack? There we go. The spellcasters are being offered something for nothing -- and it's still a sham, because it doesn't, in fact, achieve what you want it to, unless you're a spellcaster making a one-level grab in a noncasting class. You can claim otherwise, but it's all nonsense until you can explain why the one level of rogue only grants +1d6 sneak attack (real handy at 15th level) or the one level of barbarian is worth only one use of the most basic rage ability (oh, and fast movement -- hurrah). And again, am I asking too much to insist that if this thing is going to be done, it ought to be done relative to a system of magical training? I could handle being told that I went too far with it, but ignoring it is damning to your case.
Oberoni 09-04-04, 01:32 PM	Overpowered? No. Conceptually ridiculous? You bet your fallacy. Oberoni, your system unduly rewards characters for dipping, Stop right there. Balance-wise, you should never be overly rewarded or penalized for dipping. In a perfect world, a Fighter 15 (remember, I use Fighter as shorthand for "decent melee character) taking a level of Wizard should be just as rewarded as one that takes one more level of Fighter. Why? Because they're each the same-level character, requiring the same amount of XP to advance to the next level, expected to fight the same kinds of monsters, etc. Now, we know that this isn't a perfect world. However, we can strive towards a better system all the same. So, balance-wise, my proposal is extremely sound. You're still probably jacked if you dip into spellcasting classes, let's be honest here. However, you're less jacked, which is a step in the right direction. Concept-wise, I already gave a proposal where you simply envision the strength of any individual spell as based on the user's life force (Hit Dice or character level), but the strength of their spell pool in total is based on their devotion to study (gaining additional levels in spellcasting classes, so as to get more and higher-level spells). I already proposed this concept, and then you chose to ignore the proposal and then call my idea "conceptually ridiculous." Good job!
Kirin Corrigan 09-04-04, 02:16 PM	Stop right there. Well, it sure looks like you really stopped reading ST's post after the first two lines, since you just went on rehearse your proposal and pontificating on balance and the ideal of a perfect world. In doing so, you completely ignored ST's rationale and his questions, that I'll sum up here shortly: You're giving an edge to spellcasters introducing a mechanic that benefits only them. What about the other classes? What about Ftr 15/Brb 1? Why doesn't the guy get to rage like a 16th level Barbarian? What about Ftr 15/Rog 1? Why doesn't the guy get to sneak attack like a 16th level Rogue? What about Rog 15/Ftr 1? Why doesn't the guy get a full BAB like a 16th level Fighter? What about the fact that a Ftr 15 who takes 1 level of Wiz at 16th level and gets a caster level of 16 all of a sudden is not actually justifiable even resorting to the idea that the strenght of a spell is tied to "life force" (which has no rationale behind it, being just an excuse at best)? Why Rage, SA and BAB are not "based on the user's life force" too?
Oberoni 09-04-04, 02:32 PM	Sorry you don't like my justification for tying individual spell power to caster level, Kirin. Actually, I take that back. I'm not sorry about it. Most of the rest of Shatteredtower's post involves him pointing out how ridiculous it is that a fighter who dips into wizard can cast a magic missile as well as an archmage. My response: Yep, casting that basic spell as well as an archmage is great. Can you cast Maze, though? 'Why doesn't one level of rogue grant a huge amount of sneak attack using your logic, Oberoni' seems to be another point. Well, you know what? If a level 15 fighter picking up a level of wizard suddenly granted 8th level spells, then we could talk. It doesn't. Shatteredtower sets up a false analogy. As for you, you talk about this giving an edge to spellcasters. You're being too broad, it only gives an edge to multiclass casters, which is, you know, much more narrow. I've noticed people like to take out their hatred of primary casters onto all casters, which is poisonous if you're trying to balance the game. Yeah, a druid 16 is the shizzle. A druid 8/barbarian 8 is not. My whole change benefits the latter. You're giving an edge to spellcasters introducing a mechanic that benefits only them. What about the other classes? I do this because I can't spout every single balance change I would ever propose onto each and every thread that discusses any one balance change, duh. I could probably name about 10 other things I would do to balance the game that would be utterly irrelevant to this discussion, so I chose to actually do something crazy and stay on topic. Got it?
Oberoni 09-04-04, 02:37 PM	Oh, and lest I forget, there is some precedence for balancing individual ability power off of level: Many monsters and some classes have some abilities where the equation to calculate the DC is (10+1/2 character level or Hit Dice+ability modifier). This isn't the same way that I propose to base caster level off of HD; however, the concept of trying the power of an individual ability in some way to Hit Dice is already existent. If you think this 'rationale' is stupid, the Monster Manual must really tick you off.
Seeker95 09-04-04, 03:33 PM	Oberoni, Go playtest it. Come back with some results. Tell us how many of your players elected NOT to take a caster level.
Kirin Corrigan 09-04-04, 04:37 PM	you talk about this giving an edge to spellcasters. You're being too broad, it only gives an edge to multiclass casters, which is, you know, much more narrow. Not once you've introduced your suggestion into the equation. There's going to be a noticeable rise in people dipping a few levels into a spellcaster class. You're gonna love your Fighter 15/Cleric 1 getting a free +5 to attack and damage that stacks with everything else two or three times a day (Divine Favor, anyone?). I've noticed people like to take out their hatred of primary casters onto all casters, which is poisonous if you're trying to balance the game. Unfortunately for you, I don't have any hatred for "primary casters". I quite like them. I even like them having powerful high level spells. I just don't like incentivating dipping a level or two into spellcasting classes. Yeah, a druid 16 is the shizzle. A druid 8/barbarian 8 is not. My whole change benefits the latter. Or "Whatever X/Cleric 3": access to two domains (along with the respective domain powers), to Align Weapon, to Divine Favor, to several buff spells and to spontaneous casting of cure spells at level "X+3". And since your caster level is your total HD or levels, you won't have any problems with casting higher spells from scrolls and such. And no drawbacks. Can you say "swiss army knife"? You essentially just want to gain something whatever choice you make when multiclassing. You only want to get a system where no matter what happens, you can't make a wrong choice or to pay the price for your choices. This has nothing to do with game balance, it's pure and simple lazyness of mind coupled with the strange notion that you don't have to pay anything to gain something. I do this because I can't spout every single balance change I would ever propose onto each and every thread that discusses any one balance change, duh. I could probably name about 10 other things I would do to balance the game that would be utterly irrelevant to this discussion, so I chose to actually do something crazy and stay on topic. Got it? So, it's something that should be balanced by other changes to the game. In other words what you propose isn't really needed under the system as it is. 'Nuff said.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-04-04, 05:19 PM	Go playtest it.*Makes another mark in the "Number of Suggestions to Go Playtest It" column.* Hmm, we're not hearing back from the playtesters. Care to hazard a guess as to why not? ;)
ConfusedUs 09-04-04, 08:17 PM	Hmm, we're not hearing back from the playtesters. Care to hazard a guess as to why not? ;) They're not done yet? :D Really, this stupid squabbling and all the personal insults are really starting to annoy me. Discussion is fine. Insults aren't. Stop derailing the topic; I'm really interested in the outcome of this.
Razorblade Smile 09-04-04, 09:47 PM	Hmm, we're not hearing back from the playtesters. Care to hazard a guess as to why not? ;) Two main reasons: 1) Because [[SNIPPED for CoC violation]] only asked it a few hours ago. 2) Because it wouldn't matter to the opposed side one iota what the results were.
TheDarkLord 09-04-04, 10:38 PM	Ahem. Playtester's you say? Well as I have stated I am using the Unearthed Arcana Variant Magic ratings. For Spellcasting classes it's a 1-1 base for CL. For Fighter's and the like it's a 1-4 type deal. So a 19th level fighter wizard 1 is casting 1st level spell's as a 5th level wizard. As far as playtesting goe's. We hav ehad no problem's wwhatsoever in the boosting of power. Yay, the fighter can help buff himself and whatnot. WooHoo :rolleyes: . That's better for the party b/c the wizard and cleric can help out more in other area's. Anyway's. To most of you, you are dead set against changing it to anything. There's a reason magic user's more powerful right? After all I believe an Idiot swinging a sword is a lot less fearful than a mighty spellcaster slinging around spell's that could destroy half the known world and whatnot.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-05-04, 12:10 AM	Two main reasons: 1) Because the troll only asked it a few hours ago.So derogatory so soon. *tsk tsk* The first suggestion to playtest it and get back with results was posted on 08-19-04, 02:44 PM (post #85 on p. 3 of this thread). Have you even read this thread? 2) Because it wouldn't matter to the opposed side one iota what the results were.Au contraire. A number of us are quite interested in the results. But we're not interested in hearing the same "reasons" again and again why this change should be implemented without any solid playtesting to show that this actually is an equable change that doesn't simply trade one problem for another.
Failut 09-05-04, 12:39 AM	I personally would allow a 10Fighter/10Rogue to SA as a lvl 15 rogue before I would allow a 10Fighter/10Wizard cast as a 15 Wizard. After all, a fighter will have some training in hitting someone where it hurts, but he would have no training maniputaling the cosmos. While I do think that the idea would assist in balancing out the multiclass issues, I can not see any roleplaying reasons for it to exist in any gaming world that I run. Not unless all classes have some access to magic (AKA EarthDawn and thread weaving)
Razorblade Smile 09-05-04, 07:52 AM	The first suggestion to playtest it and get back with results was posted on 08-19-04, 02:44 PM (post #85 on p. 3 of this thread). [[SNIPPED for CoC violation.]] Au contraire. A number of us are quite interested in the results. But we're not interested in hearing the same "reasons" again and again why this change should be implemented without any solid playtesting to show that this actually is an equable change that doesn't simply trade one problem for another. Fine. I've been playtesting a similiar mechanic since not long after the release of 3.0, and it has been a full, rewarding experience for everyone involved. It has not caused any problems in the slightest, dedicated spellcasters do not feel cheated (and in fact are quite relieved to have some of their spellcasting duties spread out amongst the group), nor has it lead to any multiclassing abuses since there's nothing to abuse (while what few spells you have are capable of keeping up somewhat with the curve, you still only have a grossly limited number of spells from lower spell levels to cast). The only real impact it has had on the game is that it allows players to come up with more interesting and playable character concepts. There. Let's see if your opinion changes whatsoever now. I'm guessing it won't.
TheDarkLord 09-05-04, 11:27 AM	It has not caused any problems in the slightest, dedicated spellcasters do not feel cheated (and in fact are quite relieved to have some of their spellcasting duties spread out amongst the group), nor has it lead to any multiclassing abuses since there's nothing to abuse (while what few spells you have are capable of keeping up somewhat with the curve, you still only have a grossly limited number of spells from lower spell levels to cast). Emphasis Mine. My player's feel the exact same way. Glad the Fighter can buff himself a little when needed so the spellcaster's can focus more on an enemy.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-05-04, 11:37 AM	This is really tough for you, isn't it? You've really invested yourself personally in this topic. Alas.Unfortunately, that wasn't the request you were replying to. Unfortunately, that was the request I was replying to. That and every other request that's been made for hard evidence, of which Seeker's was the latest, beginning on the date I mentioned. I've been playtesting a similiar mechanic since not long after the release of 3.0, and it has been a full, rewarding experience for everyone involved. What mechanic? CL = character level? And how does this prove anything? Break it down for us. What class combinations have you played with? What has your experience been with divine favor, divine power, and cure spells? What about scorching ray and other damage spells? This is simply another opinion, not real playtesting. There. Let's see if your opinion changes whatsoever now. I'm guessing it won't.Poor Razorblade Smile. Welcome to the boards. I predict a long and rewarding experience for you here. :rolleyes:
Oberoni 09-05-04, 12:25 PM	All quoted passages were originally posted by Kirin. Not once you've introduced your suggestion into the equation. There's going to be a noticeable rise in people dipping a few levels into a spellcaster class. You're gonna love your Fighter 15/Cleric 1 getting a free +5 to attack and damage that stacks with everything else two or three times a day (Divine Favor, anyone?). I addressed this issue a page or two ago. Unfortunately for you, I don't have any hatred for "primary casters". I quite like them. I even like them having powerful high level spells. I just don't like incentivating dipping a level or two into spellcasting classes. Incentivating, that's a new one. Outside of Divine Favor (which I already addressed), please tell me what spells you see as being worth it to the point where people would dip a level or two into a spellcasting class. Furthermore, please tell me how taking 2 spellcaster levels is still "dipping." Assuming a game that ends around 12th level, that's 1/6 of your entire character. Assuming a game that ends around 16th level, that's 1/8 of your entire character. Once you go past a single level, that's hardly dipping. And I'm still not sure how dipping for a fun, low-level spell is bad. But anyways... Or "Whatever X/Cleric 3": access to two domains (along with the respective domain powers), to Align Weapon, to Divine Favor, to several buff spells and to spontaneous casting of cure spells at level "X+3". And since your caster level is your total HD or levels, you won't have any problems with casting higher spells from scrolls and such. And no drawbacks. Oh, wow. First of all, you're still probably going to be weaker than a straight Cleric. Second of all, Align Weapon and the buff spells would still be a perk even without my proposal. Third, who cares if you can spontaneously convert your spells to cure spells? Is this game-breaking? Forth, yeah, scroll use generally sucks, being able to use scrolls appropriate for your character level (instead of scrolls that were appropriate many levels ago) is something we should encourage, not discourage. Fifth, do you have any examples of what scrolls you can use at high levels that aren't just good, but game-breaking? I'm willing to entertain the notion that there might be some high-level scroll that would be just too good for a high-level character with only 3 levels of Cleric to cast, but I would like an example to think about first. Finally, what sort of drawbacks are you expecting!? Crap, you notice how many drawbacks a fighter 1 gets from picking up another fighter level? None! Wizard 8 going to Wizard 9? None! Rogue 4 to Rogue 5? None! Bard 11 to Bard 12? Other than the fact you're still a bard, none! The whole game is built around gaining nothing but bonuses when you level up, so your last little "and no drawbacks" comment doesn't even make sense in the context of the game. You essentially just want to gain something whatever choice you make when multiclassing. You only want to get a system where no matter what happens, you can't make a wrong choice or to pay the price for your choices. This has nothing to do with game balance, it's pure and simple lazyness of mind coupled with the strange notion that you don't have to pay anything to gain something. Wow. Thanks for playing. You literally want people who don't know how to min/max like I do to pay the price if they dare make a wrong character level choice! You call it "lazy" if John Q. AverageGamer picks up a level of Wizard to go with his 5 levels of Fighter because his character has lately become interested in the mystical arts, or because he thinks it would simply be neat. Just...wow. That's it, you're done. As soon as you can yell at the in-depth roleplayers for chosing levels based on the world affecting them while also yelling at the average non-power-gamer that sometimes just picks up levels 'just because,' you should stop yelling, pack up your dice bag, and go home. Don't come back to a discussion about game balance. Oh, and your last, ridiculous parting comment: So, it's something that should be balanced by other changes to the game. In other words what you propose isn't really needed under the system as it is. If I can think about 10 or 20 things to bring the game closer to balanced, and I only discuss 1 because it's the only one on-topic, I am doing the right thing. It's not like all of my balance ideas only make sense when balanced against each other, in some sort of bizarre, delicate system. They would actually also improve the game even if just one or two of them were implimented. I think you're actually saying that anyone that would do more than one thing to change the game shouldn't bother posting their proposals at all because you automatically assume that all of that person's changes need to be addressed simultaneously to be sensible. Which is the biggest load I've read in ages. It's literally nonsensical to try and discuss 10 or 20 balance changes at once, and on a message board, it is also off-topic! So please don't make any other nonsensical claims like that, ever again. Thanks!
Oberoni 09-05-04, 12:32 PM	Seeker95, the playtesting results were great! Magic Missiles didn't roll off of SR, so it wasn't an automatically stupid action! Oh, and they did more than 2-5 damage to a CR 15 monster! Mage Armors lasted for more than an hour! Cure Light Wounds cured 4 more points of damage! And, of course, they all took place in my mind! The day I'm going to playtest for hours, unpaid, on the weekend, to appease some people on a message board (who still won't actually be appeased) for something that I, as a person well-versed in the rules, knows to be sensible is the day I'm going to breakdance on a bear trap! The first person to respond with something even vaguely similar to "that's what I thought, Oberoni doesn't really believe what he's saying, so his idea is obviously dumb" needs to get a life! Just a preemptive warning. Now, I could go do some futile playtesting right now, or I could do...anything else, which will most likely be to go meet up with my dad and visit my grandparents. Guess which one I'm choosing?
Seeker95 09-05-04, 01:04 PM	Seeker95, the playtesting results were great!How many of the characters opted NOT to take a level or two in spellcaster?
Seeker95 09-05-04, 01:05 PM	My player's feel the exact same way. Glad the Fighter can buff himself a little when needed so the spellcaster's can focus more on an enemy.How many of your players choose NOT to take a level or two of spellcaster to gain the same advantage?
Seeker95 09-05-04, 01:07 PM	I've been playtesting a similiar mechanic since not long after the release of 3.0, and it has been a full, rewarding experience for everyone involved.How does the mechanic you are using differ from the mechanic being proposed (in various forms) here? If it is quite similar, how many of your players have chosen NOT to take a few levels of spellcaster?
Seeker95 09-05-04, 01:18 PM	Insults and argument repeat ad naseum aside, the balance concern raised by those who have doubts about the viability of this approach (in any of its numerous forms) lies in its obvious advantage. Why would any non-spellcasting class NOT take a level of spellcaster? Every otherise "pure" non-spellcaster can gain a huge advantage by taking a single level of sorcerer. Cantrips and 1st level spells are great. Staff use becomes incredible. The experience point penalty is no problem, especially if either is your favored class. Being able to cast these as an equal-level caster (or a "scaled level") is an advantage you would have to be truly hard-core "purist" to ignore. If those who find the proposal appealing could address this balance aspect, the objections of the naysayers would be preferential only. Imaginary playtesting demonstrates nothing. Saying your players liked it is obvious. Who wouldn't? The balance concern is not that nobody will like it. The balance concern is that *everybody* will do it.
Razorblade Smile 09-05-04, 01:46 PM	What mechanic? CL = character level? No. The one closer to the BAB progression (with the only difference that it's at -1 for each additional class (and prestige class) you take which only doesn't occur if multiclassing into a class of the same type of magic; ie, Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order progress normally in BAB-type caster level, while a Wizard/Sorcerer or a Wizard/Cleric is at -1 to his BAB-type value for purposes of caster level; non-caster levels don't have the penalty). Or to put it more soundly, a Wizard 10/Mage of the Arcane Order 10 has a caster level of 20, a Cleric 10/Sorcerer 10 has a caster level of 19, and a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 has a caster level of 15. And how does this prove anything? Thanks for proving my point in the last message. Break it down for us. What class combinations have you played with? Just about every combination under the sun. As I said, we've been doing it almost since the start (and a stepped progression was actually something I recommended when we first learned about how they were handling spellcasters for the year 3e was still in development on the old, old, old newgroup-style boards -- I didn't realize that they had a mechanic built into the game that already accounted for it, but for whatever reason only chose to apply it to combat). What has your experience been with divine favor, divine power, and cure spells? Divine Favor and Divine Power are no more abused or neglected than they were before. Hell, it gets tons more abuse on these boards under the standard rules than they ever did in our campaigns. As for Cure spells, those that were cast *were* actually somewhat helpful since level increase = more hit points = more damage inflicted. So having healing scale with it is hardly broken (even though it doesn't -- it's still far, far behind the curve), but at least it does help the dedicated cleric out a bit when there are multiple healing casters in the group. What about scorching ray and other damage spells? This is simply another opinion, not real playtesting. See the response to Cure above. Reverse it. Same result. As to the question by whoever along the lines of "did it cause more multiclassing problems?" the answer is "no." The only thing it changed is that it allowed players to play combos that are pretty much completely unplayable but conceptually sound. The Druidic Bard being the most notable example of this. It has also allowed players to customize their classes so that it fits their concept more than the forced requirements of some of the established built-in-multiclassed character types like the Paladin (Fighter/Cleric).
Kirin Corrigan 09-05-04, 02:05 PM	Incentivating, that's a new one. It's a neologism... Or something Furthermore, please tell me how taking 2 spellcaster levels is still "dipping." Assuming a game that ends around 12th level, that's 1/6 of your entire character. Assuming a game that ends around 16th level, that's 1/8 of your entire character. Once you go past a single level, that's hardly dipping. Nonsense. Taking a couple levels in a class when you have 5 times as many levels in another class is still dipping. It's not like you're interested in the class or anything. You want that cool gizmo that that couple of levels will give you. That's "dipping", by definition. And I'm still not sure how dipping for a fun, low-level spell is bad. But anyways... The "bad" part is that nothing else works the same way. Not even IRL. Or, rather, expecially not IRL. It all just points to a "that makes little sense" conclusion. Oh, wow. First of all, you're still probably going to be weaker than a straight Cleric. How amusing. :bored: What's not going to be weaker than a straight cleric? Second of all, Align Weapon and the buff spells would still be a perk even without my proposal. Third, who cares if you can spontaneously convert your spells to cure spells? Is this game-breaking? So tilting the balance in your direction is "good" as long as it's not game-breaking"? How does it make any sense? Forth, yeah, scroll use generally sucks, being able to use scrolls appropriate for your character level (instead of scrolls that were appropriate many levels ago) is something we should encourage, not discourage. In previous editions anyone could use a scroll without a problem. Now you have to be of the right spellcasting class and high level enough to cast it without a problem. If you don't meet the second prerequisite you just have to make a successful CLC and an easy Will Save. Nothing to write home about. And personally find that the first restriction makes a lot of sense, so I don't really see what's your problem with scrolls. Fifth, do you have any examples of what scrolls you can use at high levels that aren't just good, but game-breaking? Today you're really entertining, dude. The answer is simple: any scroll of an already game-breaking spell. I know that you feel there are a lot of game breaking spells, so just pick your favourite ones and put them in a scroll. Et Voilŕ... Seriously, since you believe there are problematinc spells in the first place, you can do better than just arguing for the sake of it... Finally, what sort of drawbacks are you expecting!? The same ones I expect when I pick up a magic item that I don't know how it's supposed to work, or a weapon for which I don't have the appropriate proficiency. If Matt the Wiz "finds" a super-cool Greatsword (or whatever) he can't use (yet really wants to), he'll have to wait fo the next time he get a feat or must take a Fighter level to be able to wield it properly. Even then, I'm not expecting him to wield it like a Fighter with WF, WS, GWF and GWS (which is the equivalent of your proprosal). Crap, you notice how many drawbacks a fighter 1 gets from picking up another fighter level? None! Wizard 8 going to Wizard 9? None! Rogue 4 to Rogue 5? None! Bard 11 to Bard 12? Other than the fact you're still a bard, none! The whole game is built around gaining nothing but bonuses when you level up, so your last little "and no drawbacks" comment doesn't even make sense in the context of the game. That's called "specializing" in your job. How can you not understand the simple logic behind "you keep on getting better in doing something by devoting yourself to it" is completely beyond me. The drawback is that you get specialized in your job at the price of not getting the small cool little things that the other classes get. It's extremely simple. You literally want people who don't know how to min/max like I do to pay the price if they dare make a wrong character level choice! People can learn. If they find out that a given combination of classes doesn't prove useful or fun to play, they will find a better build. It's part of the game too, you know. If I can think about 10 or 20 things to bring the game closer to balanced, and I only discuss 1 because it's the only one on-topic, I am doing the right thing. For starters, if you're not contextualizing, you're doing something wrong. What's more, no amount of chit-chat will change the fact that you have to introduce other changes to the game to make this stuff balanced, and that by definition makes the whole idea unbalanced. Get over it. You admitted yourself that you want to get "neat", "cool" stuff by implementing this. You just want the spells that make you character more "Oberoni-cool". Still, you claim it's for "game balance". The two, amazingly enough, are not the same thing. It's not like all of my balance ideas only make sense when balanced against each other, in some sort of bizarre, delicate system. They would actually also improve the game even if just one or two of them were implimented. "Implimented", that's a new one too. Anyway... Says who? You? That's not different from sayig "It's better because I say so" (something you do all too often). Incidentally, such things have no bearing at all in a debate. I think you're actually saying that anyone that would do more than one thing to change the game shouldn't bother posting their proposals at all because you automatically assume that all of that person's changes need to be addressed simultaneously to be sensible. Not exactly. I just believe that you shouldn't fix something that's not broken. Or, at least, not "fix" it with something that's not any better. It's only common sense.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-05-04, 02:38 PM	No. The one closer to the BAB progression (with the only difference that it's at -1 for each additional class (and prestige class) you take which only doesn't occur if multiclassing into a class of the same type of magic; ie, Wizard/Mage of the Arcane Order progress normally in BAB-type caster level, while a Wizard/Sorcerer or a Wizard/Cleric is at -1 to his BAB-type value for purposes of caster level; non-caster levels don't have the penalty). Or to put it more soundly, a Wizard 10/Mage of the Arcane Order 10 has a caster level of 20, a Cleric 10/Sorcerer 10 has a caster level of 19, and a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 has a caster level of 15. Bold mine. I like your first suggestion (see my post #63 in this thread). It makes more sense to me that spellcasting classes would stack (with more or less success) for the purpose of caster level. I'm still not sold on the second suggestion, although I think your method is better than the CL = character level suggestion. I am still very much against that. I think Seeker asked the question above, but let me ask it as well: How many players in your campaign did not take levels in a spellcasting class under these changes, even with your slower CL progression? What your method (which is the same as proposed by Drachasor and a couple other people earlier in this thread) avoids (or at least makes less of a problem) is the character who dips briefly into multiple spellcasting classes in order to have CL 20 in multiple spellcasting classes, such as, say, a Ftr 18/Wiz 1/Clr 1 build. This is what's wrong with the CL = character level position. Does this character lose much in those last two levels compared to a Ftr 20? NO. His spells per day suck, BUT he now uses arcane and divine staves at CL 20. With the amount of money 20th level characters acquire during the course of an adventure, he'll easily be able to afford those staves. I personally have a problem with a Ftr 18/Wiz 1/Clr 1 using a Staff of Life at full efficiency (heal for 150 hp), or a Staff of Transmutation at full power (disintegrate for 40d6 damage). What 20th-level melee character won't take a single level in multiple spellcasting classes if this is what they get for it? Hell, take a level in Druid while you're at it. With items, you won't have a problem getting your INT and WIS high enough to use these staves.
ORC_Tuhteth 09-05-04, 03:23 PM	Here are the rules: * Restrict your comments to the topic. Do not make comments about other patrons (this includes name-calling). * Try answering each other with data instead of rhetoric. Just saying "Yuh-huh!" and "Nuh-uh!" doesn't get you very far, so people get frustrated; once people get frustrated, they start sniping at each other; once that starts, the hammer comes down. * If a thread reaches the "Yuh-huh!"/"Nuh-uh!" point, do yourself and everyone else a favor and stop posting to that thread. All you're doing is eating up your own time and our bandwidth by repeating the same rhetoric with a little rephrasing or a new spin. In other words, if something has reached the point of diminishing returns, go do something else! * If I see any further CoC violations on this thread, official disciplinary action will be taken against the offending patron.
RaspK FOG 09-05-04, 03:39 PM	OK, can I request we keep some order here? Many who have already posted did some positively big errors in their arguments, which is not what I want to comment here. That is the delusion you all seem to have when it comes to having a discussion. A discussion is held under the assumption that others will hear your opinion, evaluate it, then tell what they think; this process has a very important step to it, that of one's personal judgement on a personal opinion. These are two subjective pieces of information in only one sentence! If you cannot handle criticism to the point of being dismissive, accept you cannot hold a conversation. Now, I would like to discuss the logical issues behind what has been mentioned... It would be possible to use an altogether BAB-logic system and be done with it. That's good: it would make d20 a lot more realistic and enjoyable. What people don't realise are the true implications and level of complexity imposed by such a choice. First, I would suggest you take a look at the BAB system I plan to use in my next campaign: each character gains a fractional increase in his BAB as per the PHB's instructions, which so happens to be a 1-to-1 (BAB-to-HD) increase for major combatants, 3/4-to-1 for average ones, and 1/2-to-1 for minor ones. Instead of standard rules, I grant the bonus based on those three scales, but independently of seperate classes. Thus, a 5th-level Bard/5th-level Rogue would have a BAB of +7 instead of +6. ;) Now, this could be applied to BSB as well! All's well, especially if you use average saves! But we are not done yet: if we want to be fair, this bonuses should be accounted for as fractional to the END!, not as 3 scales. Thus, a 5th-level Bard/5th-level Rogue/1st-level Sorcerer should have a BAB of +8 instead of +6, under core rules, or +7, under above method! Now, consider the matter of magic: how should this be handled? My true argument here is this: why should a 15th-level Fighter who takes a level in the Wizard class be the same person, or even equated to for that, as a 1st level Wizard who progresses up to 16th level and acquires only Fighter levels? In any case, the assumption is based on "life force", you say? Then you misunderstand the work put behind Savage Species, which went on great length to make obvious that a CR 1 minotaur or troll or ogre can exist, but that does not mean it has to be the same thing as its typical MM counterpart. An obvious example are true dragons, who gain more levels in the sorcerer class in terms of spellcasting capacity as they age; they can even add any effective and actual sorcerer levels they have! So you see, your point is largely false: player characters are not magical creatures (well, most of them :D ), so your assumption regarding "life-force" is just an explanation given as an excuse, not the reasoning behind your idea. Or so it seems. However, one could use the above outlines to work a similar mechanic, with exception: a character would have to gain spellcasting levels before getting others levels to benefit from them. In other words, a 1st-level Wizard/15th-level Fighter might well count as a 5th-level Wizard (more than that would be grossly unbalanced!), while a 15th-level Fighter/1st-level Wizard would be a 1st-level caster by all means. Isn't this unbalancing as well, though? In the end, level-based systems have this disadvantage. Live with it.
TheDarkLord 09-05-04, 03:41 PM	How many of your players choose NOT to take a level or two of spellcaster to gain the same advantage? Six player's in the party. Two did not elect to have spellcasting thus far even with this variant. The rogue who already had UMD, and the Barbarian b/c it didn't fit his concept. We have two Primary Caster's, a Psion and a Cleric. Then we have two other's. A Druid/Prestige Ranger and a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight. So, Since he's 4 fighter, 2 Wizard 6 Eldritch Knight he can cast up to 4th level spells as a caster level of 9. We started the Campaign at around Level 5. And the Rogue was talking about taking a couple of Level's of Psion then perhap's modifying the Arcane trickster a little bit to add to manifester level. Eh. It's working. It does make UMD a so-so skill but as far as we can't find anything wrong or broken with it yet. We arent true Power-Gamer's mind you, but we do tend to like above average strength character's. Even more-so if they fit the concept we are going for. That's just my 2 cp's.
TheDarkLord 09-05-04, 03:54 PM	I would also like to point out one small overlooked factor I never get seen mention on any of these boards. The Average player. This change, in the Hand's of the Average player is not going to break any balance within the game. Plain and simple. The reason I point this out is that I and probably 80%+ of the player's who play DnD are average player's. Not powergamer's, not ruleslawyers, not munchkins. I take this into account whenever I make any suggestions or post any Change's that I may make onto the boards. I just thought it was important enough to mention this b/c of all the "averages" i see on these boards.
Seeker95 09-05-04, 06:01 PM	I and probably 80%+ of the player's who play DnD are average player's. Not powergamer's, not ruleslawyers, not munchkins. I take this into account whenever I make any suggestions or post any Change's that I may make onto the boards.I am not disputing your claim. Merely acknowledging it. I would add to it by noting that the average player described by you is not participating as actively on these boards. The min-maxers, rules-lawyers, and powergamers are present in what I would assume are very disproportionate numbers. If a spell, feat, or mechanic does pass muster on these boards, it is usually because the powergamers, min-maxers and rules-lawyers have not found a way to systematically abuse it. For that purpose (and that purpose only) I value the input of some of the aforementioned player types. The drawback I see in this thread is that the proposed mechanic change makes me (a non-powergamer) see the directly game-altering advantage in taking even one or two levels in a spellcasting class, even if my character concept does not require it. The only concept that would not readily take a level of spellcaster is one that *rejects* magic.
Pentar 09-05-04, 07:19 PM	I would also like to point out one small overlooked factor I never get seen mention on any of these boards. The Average player. This change, in the Hand's of the Average player is not going to break any balance within the game. Plain and simple. The reason I point this out is that I and probably 80%+ of the player's who play DnD are average player's. Not powergamer's, not ruleslawyers, not munchkins. I take this into account whenever I make any suggestions or post any Change's that I may make onto the boards. I just thought it was important enough to mention this b/c of all the "averages" i see on these boards. The problem with your assumption is that you have to build rules to prevent power-gaming, even if 80% of the populace does not necessarily practise it, sometimes it can happen by mere accident. A non-powergaming player could easily have a concept that accidentally falls into a character class-combination that is "broken". This throws and disrupts the balance of your game, as suddenly, one character is far and above more effective than all other players. Regardless of how non-powergaming players are, they still have egos, and those get bruised easily in D&D. The point is simpe - this system invites the possibility of people class-dipping even more, because they don't lose one thing that they fundamentally lost before - caster levels. Take an example; the Mystic Knight PrC. The first level of Mystic Knight you pick up does not grant you an additional caster level or spell-level progression. Yet with this system, (depending on what you rank a Mystic knight to be, but I imagine a straight caster, so therefore, 1:1 caster level progression), technically, the first level of Mystic Knight would still grant them caster level +1, even if they don't get new spells, or more spells slots from it. All these little bonuses that didn't exist before will add up and someone can unwittingly create a powerful monster character without knowing it. It just happens that the combination makes for a powerful character.
Oberoni 09-05-04, 07:33 PM	Ok, so here's a recap of why I want caster level = character level. 1. Too many variables are based off of caster level currently. SR penetration, spell duration, damage dice, etc. work off of caster level. You lose out so much by not keeping up a max caster level that it really punishes someone for falling even a few caster levels behind. 2. It makes caster multiclassing more viable. This is good--in a perfect world, any combination of classes would be a viable character. This is not a perfect world. That said, there's no reason not to strive towards increasing the number of viable combinations--this benefits in-depth roleplayers (who often chose levels based on their current situation) and average/non-min/max gamers (i.e. the "average gamer") who will often chose a level just because it's neat. Since those people paid just as much money for their core books as I did, there's no reason that the system should actively punish them for the way they play. 3. It can easily be thematically justified. While some people on this thread are against the idea of basing the strength of individual magic based on the user's life force (Hit Dice), it's an easy enough system to grasp. The Monster Manual already does this, but in a different way, for monster abilities. 4. There's still incentive to be a straight caster / straight non-caster. Primary casters are still at the top of the heap, but multiclass casters get a power boost. Currently, playing a multiclass caster is such a kick in the pants that it's not really fun or worth it. While I currently feel that noncasters have some problems, that's a problem for another thread (and I'm sure that you could find me commenting in Fighter threads here and there). However, if you really want to be a melee bruiser, there are a couple of viable builds out there that aren't any less viable if my idea is implemented (there, I fixed that typo just for Kirin, what a sport I am). ..... Now, all that said, here are some other things that might have to be fixed, and that I've already commented on in this thread: A. Divine Favor. This spell is problematic anyway in how good it is, and how it scales so well. I would favor either scrapping this spell or cutting down on its bonus significantly so that it isn't so blasted good. B. Magic items that generate spell effects. This one I might still keep tied into "levels in caster classes." The reason for this is that 3.5 staffs can throw out spells at your caster level and ability bonus to DC, if I recall. Hence, dipping into a caster class just to use staffs might be a bit too good. I'm not sure if I would have as much of a problem with the other magic items that generate spell effects, such as scrolls and wands, because they don't act as near-perfect substitutes for the actual spell like staffs do. The jury's still out on this. ..... That's about the highlight of my position right now. I don't honestly see any genuine down side to implementing this change. Some things that are considered downsides (for example, this change actually punishes average gamers less for building suboptimal, multiclass casters) by other individuals are not actually downsides from a game balance perspective. Heck, they're not downsides to a "let's all sit around the table, throw dice, eat Doritos and have fun for 6 hours every other week" perspective, which is by far the most important perspective to me.
Oberoni 09-05-04, 07:40 PM	The drawback I see in this thread is that the proposed mechanic change makes me (a non-powergamer) see the directly game-altering advantage in taking even one or two levels in a spellcasting class, even if my character concept does not require it. The only concept that would not readily take a level of spellcaster is one that *rejects* magic. You'll honestly have to believe me that when I say I, a card-carrying min/maxxer, do not see huge powergaming potential in this proposed change. There of course is an advantage to taking a level or two in a caster class. There should be. You of course should be "two levels stronger" than you were before you picked up two wizard levels. However, the advantage is not so strong that I can virtually ignore the opportunity cost in grabbing those levels. If I choose to give Conan a level in sorcerer, I'm not giving him a level in the melee class that will make him kick that much more tail with his greatsword. Levels are precious in D&D; you really only get a few to play around with. Having to cut out two levels of your sword-swinging savage warrior to work in some spellcaster levels is not without a price. Would I ever build a character to dip into spellcaster classes under my proposed change? Possibly; I still think that such a character has a lower maximum potential than a straight caster. But at least I'd consider it, which is a step in the right direction.
ConfusedUs 09-05-04, 09:36 PM	I really like the idea of a Base Caster Bonus. Every class, in my opinion, can easily get SOME form of BCB. I'll explain below. Primary Casters: 1/1 Secondary Caster: 3/4 Non-casters with magical/supernatural affinity (rogue, monk): 1/2 Non-casters: 1/4 Some ask "How can every class get some form of BCB progression?" Casting spells requires concentration and mental focus. In my opinion, any high-level character will have superior powers of concentration and focus, when compared to a low-level character. Of course, casting a spell is a completely different thing than dodging arrows or parrying blows, but the base idea of mental focus is still there. Hence the four levels of BCB. Primary casters are a no-brainer. They cast spells. They know how to cast spells. They're the best at it. Secondary casters are just that. Secondary. Sure, they cast spells, but not nearly to the extent of a primary caster. Some classes, namely the rogue and monk, seem to have an affinity for magic and supernatural powers. Rogue gets UMD as a class skill and can detect magical traps. Monks do so many superhuman things and have always seemed just a tad magical to me. (Yes I know they're not, but if we can implement BCB, we can change this too, eh? Or just make them a 1/4 BCB, 1/2 psion progression, if you apply the same idea to psionics). These classes get a 1/2 BCB. Fighters/Barbs are non-casters. They have no true magical affinity, and as such only get a 1/4 BCB. That's only +4 caster levels for a FTR 19/WIZ 1. Of course, the whole "They should, they shouldn't" arguement is completely pointless. It'll either make sense to you or it wont. A variable BCB progression, based on class, makes sense to me. Is it possible to implement? Yes Will doing so be easy? No There's simply too many variables in standard 3(.5) D&D to make this a simple change. Taking a single caster level grants access to such things as staves, wands, and scrolls, among other things. This would have to change, of course. A simple spellcraft check/caster level check would be simple to implement. Then there's spells such as Divine Favor, and the other cleric buffs that allow the cleric to out-fight ANY class. I already put them on the 'problematic' list, and would definately re-work them in such a system. Then there's the current class structure. Most of the classes are fairly 'front-loaded'. Fighter grants a huge number of armor/weapon proficiencies. Barbarian grants rage/fast movement/a few proficiencies. Rogue grants sneak attack, and Rogue 2 grants Evasion. The classes would need a bit of re-structuring, to avoid excess 'dipping'. Or perhaps if the favored class system were tweaked a bit instead. Many PRCs would need changed, such as the Mystic Theurge (for which changes HAVE been suggested). I like the concept. I really, really do. I hope to see it for 4th ed. But I'm sure as hell not holding my breath for a fully-playtested fully-implemented tweaked user-made version for 3.5. There's just too much work involved.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-05-04, 10:54 PM	It seems the CL = Character Level position would be more viable (IMO) if, over the course of 20 levels, each level was worth 1/20 of the sum of those levels. That's not the way it works, though. At low levels, a single level of Wizard is not as valuable as a single level of Fighter. Spellcasting classes count for more as those levels accumulate (more spells, higher caster level, etc), while a Fighter's 16th level doesn't add much to that 15th-level Fighter. A better change to the system, I feel, would be to make lower levels more worthwhile for spellcasters and higher levels more worthwhile for Fighters. 1. Too many variables are based off of caster level currently. SR penetration, spell duration, damage dice, etc. work off of caster level. You lose out so much by not keeping up a max caster level that it really punishes someone for falling even a few caster levels behind. So why don't we fix this instead? Cut down the number of things caster level impacts, rather than overhauling the entire caster level system. 2. It makes caster multiclassing more viable. This is good--in a perfect world, any combination of classes would be a viable character. This is not a perfect world. That said, there's no reason not to strive towards increasing the number of viable combinations--this benefits in-depth roleplayers (who often chose levels based on their current situation) and average/non-min/max gamers (i.e. the "average gamer") who will often chose a level just because it's neat. Since those people paid just as much money for their core books as I did, there's no reason that the system should actively punish them for the way they play.I don't think I agree with this. I don't think the system "actively punish[es]" players any more than real life actively punishes us for the decisions we make. I could get a master's in literature and a master's in electrical engineering (multiclassing), but I'm clearly going to be better at analyzing that same piece of literature if I get a master's degree and a Ph.D. in literature (i.e. I can do more with what I have as a PhD than as a master's). The analogy is not exact, but splitting my attention over a number of fields will make me more versatile but less capable in each field than if I stay focused in one field. I don't see how studying as an electrician and then taking a class on Shakespeare will make me as knowledgeable in Shakespeare as the man who's studied literature (including Shakespeare) for most of his life. 3. It can easily be thematically justified. While some people on this thread are against the idea of basing the strength of individual magic based on the user's life force (Hit Dice), it's an easy enough system to grasp. The Monster Manual already does this, but in a different way, for monster abilities. It can just as easily be justified thematically in the other direction. Besides which, the Monster Manual assumes that the monster abilities are part of being a monster, and are part of growing up as a monster, and are therefore tied directly to a monster's life force (HD). The current system has no such assumption about magical forces in the lives of humans or nonspellcasting classes, nor, IMO, should there be any such assumptions made. Humans aren't inherently magical, as are many monsters whose powers are based off of HD. 4. There's still incentive to be a straight caster / straight non-caster. Primary casters are still at the top of the heap, but multiclass casters get a power boost. Currently, playing a multiclass caster is such a kick in the pants that it's not really fun or worth it. I agree that noncasters have issues that need to be addressed (particularly at higher levels where pure casters begin pulling away). However, it is as true in the current game system as in real life that certain choices aren't as effective as others. Spreading yourself around just doesn't lead to as much strength in a specific area as does single-minded focus, and I would argue that it shouldn't. I'm sorry, but a Bard 2/Barbarian 4/Rogue 3/Cleric 4/Wizard 3/Fighter 4 should in no way be as powerful as any one of those classes taken to 20th level. Sure, that character misses out on higher level spells, but it's more than that. If you want to take it from a thematic viewpoint, that character also miss out on learning to apply advanced spellcasting techniques to lower level spells in order to get more out of them. THAT, I feel, is why lower level spells increase in damage as your caster level increases. Classes should get more powerful as they increase in level, and the imbalance here that I think this change to caster level does not address is the fact that certain classes start weak and get stronger while other classes start strong and get weaker. We're taking a class that starts strong (fighter) and, as it gets weaker (comparatively), we're taking a level in a class that starts weak and trying to power up that weak level to make it equivalent to a "16th level". That's not the right approach. We should rather be trying to make classes scale at the same rate, or make each level worth exactly 1/20th of a 20-level class. I think that would balance out the power discrepancies more than changing caster level would, and we might actually have some melee classes that decide not to multiclass once they've reached 4th or 8th level.
Someone 09-06-04, 02:19 AM	Ugh, that'll teach me to not check the boards for an entire day- a page and a half of posts popped up.... Responses, in no particular regard to the chronological order to which the point was raised: If you beleive too many mechanics are based on CL, how does replacing the CL number with the char lvl number change anything? You're still basing too many mechanics off one number. There is a big advantage between ftr15 and ftr16: a fourth iterative attack. Only the classes that have a good BAB progression can get a fourth iterative attack (which shall henceforth be abbreviated itr att). Average BAB classes top out at 3 itr att, unless they take some levels in a good BAB class. And poor BAB classes are stuck with 2 itr att. My point is that if you want to gain one of the powerful features of a class, you should have to take levels in that class, or at least one that contributes (PrCs). And CL is a powerful feature of the spellcasting classes. Don't get me wrong, I do think there are times spellcasting from different classes should stack- pal/ clr, for example. But as I mentioned before, they would also draw upon a single set of spells day. Which is why I think that if you had only 1 "generic" CL, you should only have 1 supply of spells/ day. [:rant:]While these boards may be a place for discussion, they are also a place for debate. And a public debate has nothing to do with convincing your peers (the others who have posted on this thread), though doing so helps your efforts. The goal of a public debate is to persuade the listeners (in this case, people who read the thread without posting) of your view. Also, please quit saying "I've already addressed that" or "reread my post". If you believe that one of your points was missed, speak up about it- say "as I said before..." (I'm guilty of that- in this post, no less). A discussion can't move forward if it keeps refering to the past.[/:rant:] p.s.: uh-oh, my rant was almost longer than my response... that's not a good thing...
Seeker95 09-06-04, 09:02 AM	p.s.: uh-oh, my rant was almost longer than my response... that's not a good thing...But acknowleding that you have a problem is half the battle. :D (Good rant. Well presented.)
Shatteredtower 09-06-04, 03:22 PM	1. Too many variables are based off of caster level currently. SR penetration, spell duration, damage dice, etc. work off of caster level. You lose out so much by not keeping up a max caster level that it really punishes someone for falling even a few caster levels behind. Let's be a bit more thorough: Range: Well, the difference between levels 1 and 20 is 50 feet for short range spells, 190 feet for medium range spells, and 760 feet for long range spells. Considering the fact that 100 feet is usually going to be far more than enough, the short range spells are the one you might regularly have problems with. Duration: This really only applies for measures of rounds, and not even then once you clear 3rd level in most cases. Yeah, yeah, "What about mage armor and rope trick?" I've got no sympathy for the latter type of example, and if you took the level of wizard to get the former at 8th level, I'd respectfully suggest that it's not worth my effort to keep you from shooting yourself in the face every fifteen minutes. It's a useful spell, but seriously. Getting back to the real issue of rounds, though, where does that one go wrong? Summon monster I. Could anyone seriously claim that they need a boost in caster level because otherwise this won't be a viable option at any level above... well, above 1st, really, when you think about it. I'm not sure anyone's trying to make a case for the viability of chill touch here either. Maybe this is more of a cleric issue where rounds are concerned, but the clerics and druids already have the option to make more prudent spell choices anyway. SR Penetration: This is the big one for some people, but I think it's being overstated. How often are you throwing low level spells at creatures with high SR? Yes, it can happen, and it can happen regularly, but if it's happening in every single fight and against every single opponent, something is wrong. Do you really suck because you can't cast magic missile at one opponent in four? But if your game is regularly pitting you against the forces of the Abyss, what were you hoping to accomplish with the greater ability to penetrate SR anyway? The final nail in the coffin for the SR issue would seem to be the fact that "Don't try to go through it when you can go around it," should be SOP for SR anyway. Damage Dice: A difference in power of 4d4 to 4d6 for your 1st level spells suggests to me that they'd have been the wrong choice anyway, but I'm going to assume that the real issue here is with scorching ray and higher level spells, where the difference is... oh, wait. It's still 5d6 for most of these at best, isn't it? Okay, so there's scorching ray gaining a potential +8d6, but really, if you're an 8th/4th level barbarian/sorcerer, you're already getting +4 on your attack roll with the spell, which means that the damage difference between you and the 11th level sorcerer isn't likely to be worth the full 8d6. Now maybe there's some objective to me shrugging off 5d6 of extra damage on these 1st-3rd level spells, but think about it: that's an average of an extra 17 hp of damage to a target on a failed save. Granted, 34 hp per target is nicer than 17 hp per target when you can hit them by the dozen, but we've hit 10th level here. If the extra 17 hp (assuming failed saves) is enough to win the fight, you didn't need to waste the spell on it. Cure spells would only be netting an extra 4 hp at 1st level, 7 at 2nd, 10 at 3rd, and 13 at 4th. It doesn't sound as impressive when you look at the numbers. Targets: Area and effect tend to be static, so targets it is. If you play with anything beyond the basic four-person team, then I can see why this could be an issue, since 1st and 2nd spells aren't really big on multi-targetting. Still, this one strikes me as exaggerated as well. Ten targets is better than five, sure, but is five too weak for most situations? In those situations where it isn't satisfactory, doesn't this call for selecting other options anyway? Metamagic: This isn't a factor here, and perhaps it should be. After all, if you can cast a spell "better" than a trained wizard who's spent the last three levels plucking away at it, surely you ought to be able to really let loose with a good old empowering option by now? 2. It makes caster multiclassing more viable. This is good--in a perfect world, any combination of classes would be a viable character. There's an obvious difference in definitions of perfection here, because this one leaves out an essential ingredient: what it does for characters that never deviate from a single class. Again, we're back to exchanging (or reinforcing) one model of suckage for another. Since those people paid just as much money for their core books as I did, there's no reason that the system should actively punish them for the way they play. So instead, let's punish other people who didn't do it this way. Put simply, there are always going to be bad choices. With the change proposed above, one level of a spellcasting class is always a good choice for a non-spellcaster -- a much better choice than one level of non-caster would be for a spellcaster. "I'm a 4th level fighter with a level of wizard. This wand of lightning bolts is a good investment." "I'm a 4th level wizard with a level of fighter. I can use simple and martial weapons without a -4 penalty on attack rolls now. And I could wear armor, but that would suck right now. Oh, and I got a feat, just like the other guy did, but at least I get to pick which one it will be." Okay, so maybe if the fighter level was any other class (rogue would be nice), the comparison wouldn't suck as much, but let's make it 9 levels in one class and 3 in another. Now let's make caster level equal character level: "I'm a 9th/3rd level rogue/wizard. I don't have many spells, but I get good mileage out of them -- especially that scorching ray, these scrolls, and this staff." "I'm a 9th/3rd level wizard/rogue. I can use simple weapons, the short sword, a sap, or a handcrossbow without a -4 penalty on attack rolls now. I can find traps, I have the evasion ability, and I can add +2d6 sneak attack damage to attacks within 30 feet -- sometimes. Oh, and I can find and disarm complex traps." Who gained more? Character A can do up to 16d6 damage to a target with scorching ray, while Character B does only 14d6 at best, barring the use of the Empower Feat and a 4th level spell slot. Whenever sneak attack is a factor, the higher level rogue beats the higher level wizard for spell damage if an attack roll is involved, and otherwise it's an even match. But the thing is that this change means spellcasting levels will count for more and more as the character level advances, even if the character never takes another level of wizard. Noncasting levels held at a static position do not offer the same or even similar returns. One level of fighter grants a +4 bonus to longbow and glaive (for example) use to a 1st level wizard and also a 17th level wizard. How does that compare to one level of wizard granting a 1st level fighter a 2d4 burning hands and a 17th level fighter one that causes 5d4 damage? 3. It can easily be thematically justified. While some people on this thread are against the idea of basing the strength of individual magic based on the user's life force (Hit Dice), it's an easy enough system to grasp. The Monster Manual already does this, but in a different way, for monster abilities. Misleading argument. It does not do this for spell-like abilities -- and you'll want to fix blasphemy before you allow that to change. And the thematic justification is built on sand. If your 5th/1st level fighter/cleric is capable of casting 1st level spells at 6th level of ability, why stop there? The cleric is granted these spells after all, and if the power or belief that grants them at that kind of power, where are the 3rd level spells that go with it? If this change is implemented, shouldn't it then apply to all class abilities? I'm not talking about a monk's stunning fist -- that's tied to a bonus feat, and any character gains the exact same benefit from that feat. Turn undead is class level based, wild shape limitations are class level based, animal companion and familiar abilities are class level based (with some exceptions for familiars), several feats have class level prerequisites... where do you draw the line? It's all well and good to say that the matter of non-caster changes should be discussed elsewhere, but this can't be isolated; it must be treated as a gestalt issue, or it's simply favouring multi-classed casters and letting anyone else go hang. 4. There's still incentive to be a straight caster / straight non-caster. Primary casters are still at the top of the heap, but multiclass casters get a power boost. Currently, playing a multiclass caster is such a kick in the pants that it's not really fun or worth it. Some things aren't going to be fun. I know enough people who've gone for this option and been fine with the results that I consider point four to be groundless speculation. That's just my experience, of course, but since either a) it doesn't suck for a number of people after all, or b) something is going to suck for people anyway, I'm not sure there's an issue worth addressing. To go at this, you have to go at spells like divine favour (generously done by Oberoni), the staff and scroll options, and spell-like abilities for advanced monsters -- particularly blasphemy and its ilk. (Balor. Advance it to at least 24 HD and give it Quicken Spell-Like Ability. Kiss parties of equal level to its CR goodbye. Try this with more powerful balors, until you've got the CR 40 model with 60 HD, killing 50th level characters on the spot, with no saving throw. It's an extreme case, I admit, but this sort of thing will come crawling out of the game woodwork if the change is implemented.) And once again, am I really asking too much to tie any gain in caster level beyond spellcasting class level to either skill or feat selection? Seriously, if anyone thinks the idea is insane, feel free to say so: I can write the whole thing off as feverish delusions from the last week of whatever this thing is, if it comes to that. ;) Otherwise, though, I still see the system as going too far without proper thematic justification from one side (as approached from the argument that if the powers-that-be feel you're ready to handle low level spells at higher level of ability, why don't they think you can handle more and higher level spells that would normally be gained along with that benefit) and not far enough to satisfy the objective (make multi-class casters not suck -- making them suck less is not a solution worth the effort involved) on the other.
Kirin Corrigan 09-06-04, 07:20 PM	And once again, am I really asking too much to tie any gain in caster level beyond spellcasting class level to either skill or feat selection? Seriously, if anyone thinks the idea is insane, feel free to say so: I can write the whole thing off as feverish delusions from the last week of whatever this thing is, if it comes to that. ;) Tying caster level to skill is somewhat similar to what WotC did when they introduced the Spellcraft DC to cast epic spells. It's not a bad idea per se, but it has to be implemented with caution. There are a couple of things to consider about WotC's implementation: epic spells don't actually scale and overcoming SR is "still" tied to caster levels. While the former may even be desirable, the latter doesn't really mix with the whole idea of basing spellcasting off of a skill. To be honest, I've been toying with the idea of the following variant (mostly for fun): spellcasting is spontaneous for all classes, but you have no limits on the number of spells known or on the number of spells you may cast in a day spells don't scale with level or skill, they are improved via feats spellcasters get a set of a few "basic" metamagic feats at 1st level applying metamagic feats to a spell doesn't increase the casting time (unless the feat states otherwise) to successfully cast a spell you must beat a Spellcraft DC of at least 12 + Spell Level * 2.5 (ad hoc DCs may be worked out); taking 10 is allowed some feats lower the DC of the spell being cast, increasing the casting time the amount by which you fail (or make) your "Spellcraft Check" (SC) imply a different status: SC <= (DC -10) = you become exhausted (DC -10) < SC < (DC +10) = you become fatigued SC >= (DC +10) = your current status doesn't change while exhausted you can't cast spells; 1 minute after your last casting you become fatigued while fatigued you can cast spells; 1 minute after your last casting you fully recover SR is completely out of the equation; in its place you get invulnerability to all spells of a given level and lower (like a Rakshasa) and/or invulnerability to spells with a specific descriptor some monsters may list a few spells that bypass their invulnerability some feats raise the actual level of the spell they're applied to Last, but not least, Spellcraft will be a Class Skill only for primary spellcasters
Oberoni 09-06-04, 11:54 PM	Heron, yeah, ideally I'd like to see caster level reworked. However, the solution that myself and Xeviat are favoring requires far less work and is still better than the current situation. But yeah, I'd rather redo the caster level system entirely. Shatteredtower, I'm honestly not even sure where you were going with your last post. I think you started off by saying "well, the benefit your system grants isn't too big." Yeah, that's correct, I agree that CL=CL doesn't create enormous jumps in power, but it DOES create some jump. Then, you started saying "why stop at caster levels? Why don't we apply this to other class features?" Ummmmm...once again, this is a thread discussing just one idea, setting CL=CL. When I start talking about the actual topic, you can't argue that a) This is the only change I would make (It's not, it's just the only on-topic change I'd make), b) This change only benefits multiclass casters (it's literally nonsensical to expect every balance change to benefit everyone), or c) The changes I propose are incomplete (actually, I don't believe it was you saying this, ST, but yeah, we can and should only discuss one balance issue at a time, since it's on-topic and the only sane way to hold a discussion). I mean...if someone starts a thread saying "I want to power up the sorcerer by giving him a bonus feat every 5 levels," you just can't go on and say "the problem here is that this only benefits the sorcerer." No duh! Instead, you have to analyze the change, see if it improves the game, and move on. Finally, I'm still not sure why everyone thinks that setting CL=CL will create an irresistible urge for everyone to dip into spellcaster classes. That's just...odd. I mean, I'm sure someone out there would do it that wouldn't otherwise do so, but that's kind of the point. Meanwhile, I'm sure that the game would remain 98% unchanged. In other words, the worries of "Oberoni's proposed change will make spellcaster level dipping irresistable!" smacks of Chicken Littling; it's making a mountain out of a molehill; and it's probably doing some other cliché too. Keep in mind, of course, that everything I've said about this proposal is colored by the warnings and potential solutions about Divine Favor and magic items that generate spell effects (staffs, scrolls, etc) that I mentioned earlier.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-07-04, 12:10 AM	And once again, am I really asking too much to tie any gain in caster level beyond spellcasting class level to either skill or feat selection? This might be the most workable solution yet offered. What if Caster Level was equal to (Spellcraft ranks - 3)? That would require a full spellcaster to keep his Spellcraft skill maxed out. That would also require non-spellcasting classes to invest crossclass ranks in it if they're serious about it, and it wouldn't automatically give a 15th-level character 16 caster levels when he dips into a spellcasting class. As a 15th level Fighter, he'd have 9 ranks in Spellcraft, which would (at 9-3) give him a caster level of 6. If he took one level of Wizard, he'd be able to increase his ranks in Spellcraft (if he had 10 skill points) all the way up to 19 if he wanted, which would give him a caster level of 16. But this way he'd have earned it. I still don't like the idea, honestly, after thinking about it.... It may be a better idea, and the easiest solution, to allow multiple selections of Practiced Spellcaster to stack. That allows the Wizard 1/Fighter 15 to have a caster level of 16 by taking Practiced Spellcaster at 3rd, 6th, 9th, and 12th level. That is the most workable solution, I think. It represents an investment that the previous suggestions did not represent.
Someone 09-07-04, 02:59 AM	No, really, that word fits exactly. I HAVE found it. Or at least I think so... There are actually THREE things that the abbreviation "CL" can mean: caster level, character level, and... class level. I had forgotten about that one. What does this have to do with caster level you might ask? Well, in the section on multiclassing... from the SRD ...Spells: The character gains spells from all of his or her spellcasting classes and keeps a separate spell list for each class. If a spells effect is based on the class level of the caster, the player must keep track of which class's spell list the character is casting the spell from.To me, this means caster level is just a subset of class level, specificly levels in a class with spellcasting. And the only way one can improve a class level feature is to gain levels in that class, or at least something that specificly stacks with it. So, BABs stack, BSBs stack, things link uncanny dodge stack to IUD, and such. Which is why I'm saying that similar spellcasting types (arcane, spontaneous, divine, and nature) should stack, in the "+1 existing" sort of way most PrCs contribute spells. But the class in question has to have the ability in order to stack- non spellcasting classes are just that: they don't have any spellcasting, so wouldn't be able to stack. Now if you'll excuse me, I have to go running naked through the streets....
Razorblade Smile 09-07-04, 07:05 AM	I think there's one huge difference between the two sides of the coin here. Some of us place waaaaaaaaay more value on what Caster Level provides than the rest of us. Way more. Because, if you honestly think that giving up four of your six level feats as a Wizard 1/Fighter 15 just so you can cast your 1st level spells as a 15th-level Wizard (and note that you're still behind the spellcasting curve despite that huge investment) is true game balance (as opposed to WotC-style overcompensation)... well... that just proves the point. As such, I don't see how there'd ever be any agreement between the two sides.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-07-04, 09:55 AM	I think there's one huge difference between the two sides of the coin here. Some of us place waaaaaaaaay more value on what Caster Level provides than the rest of us. Way more. Because, if you honestly think that giving up four of your six level feats as a Wizard 1/Fighter 15 just so you can cast your 1st level spells as a 15th-level Wizard (and note that you're still behind the spellcasting curve despite that huge investment) is true game balance (as opposed to WotC-style overcompensation)... well... that just proves the point.Bold mine. You'd be casting as a 16th-level wizard, and when you take another level of a nonspellcasting class you'd be casting as a 17th-level wizard. The feat grants +4 CL. 4x4+1 = 17. But that's as it may be. You're right when you say some of us place more value on Caster Level than others do. I happen to think it's an integral part of spellcasting classes, as much as bonus feats are an integral part of the Fighter class. The benefit of being a spellcaster isn't just higher level spells as you advance; it's also a higher casting level and getting more out of lower-level spells. Just as you don't get bonus feats and d10 hit points per level if you stop advancing in Fighter levels, you don't get higher level spells and a higher caster level if you stop advancing in a particular spellcasting class. Note that I'm interested in pursuing the idea of caster levels from different spellcasting classes stacking. That makes a little sense to me. But Caster Level is an integral part of spellcasting classes. To treat it otherwise is like saying for every two levels of a non-Fighter class, you get a bonus feat. Or for every non-Fighter level you use d10 for hit points. Why don't we do that? Because those are integral elements of the Fighter class that you need to take levels in Fighter to acquire. As such, I don't see how there'd ever be any agreement between the two sides.Hmmm, you might be on to something here. I think 9 pages of posts supports your position. ;)
Landrain 09-07-04, 10:24 AM	Been reading and thinking about this and reading the thread... There was a huge change in BAB with 3.0, this change did not carry over to casters, ie your Thac0 goes up for every class and stacks in 3.0+.... I like the idea of the BCB bonus for all classes. I also can see where CL = Character level -1 or -2 for every NON-Caster class level would also work, and be easy to keep track of
Roxlimn 09-08-04, 03:10 AM	Again: I've playtested both basic character level = caster level and many other variations of the same , mostly along the 3-12 level range. I've found that while character level = caster level is really quite acceptable as far as balance is concerned, it does strange things to the class system. For example, no Human or Half Elf would ever want to do without a Wizard level or 3, just because spells at character level are too useful to do without, even if it's just Magic Missile. Eventually, you'd max out the level you want and get back to progressing the concept you really are after, but you will almost alway want some caster levels in there. I used the dungeon crawls from Dungeon mag to create a linked campaign and playtested character level = caster level on one 2 month series and another system on the Twilight Hollow adventure a little later on. I had posted these suggestions way back in Tom Jackson's Bard threads and actually tried to implement these then, before WotC had decided to do anything about it. Bard builds in that thread convinced me that caster level (and caster multiclassing in general) were fatally flawed in 3e and that it needed to be changed. This tells me that the system makes casters too powerful, yet this is not a bad thing if you like a magic heavy campaign. Specific characters don't hog the spotlight since everyone eventually takes a caster level anyway, one way or another, and everyone just ends up magic-proficient to a greater or lesser degree. Definitely a good flavor if your party's from Halruaa. This will not be a problem for some people. Several months back, I decided that with the buffs given to Paladin, Barbarian and Ranger classes, and how they performed vis a vis the Casters in a recent high level adventure I ran, that the problem wasn't in the casters but in the warrior classes. It seemed to me that Casters were just all around much more useful to have than a Fighter or even a Barbarian, and that the slew of caster level dips I got in the CL = character level test were due to an inherent weakness in the warrior classes and not that that particular option was inherently very powerful. For me, as I play 3e D&D more and more, the more I see the current Fighter as a mistake. Eberron provides, for me, a very good indication of what's wrong. D&D is a magical setting. It has magic. This means that local people have heard of it, expect it, and use it. No one functions in a D&D world like in a historical setting because D&D isn't a historical setting at heart. d20 Modern might actually handle those kinds of campaigns better. In order for a Fighter to work, you must compare him quite directly with an equal leveled Wizard and he must compare favorably. Any other paradigm simply creates a flawed Fighter. The converse is also true. If a Ranger can only do so much at level 13, then a Wizard must have a comparable power level only. An 11th level Cleric has access to Harm, doing potentially more than a hundred damage with a single action. True, he can only do this a couple times a day, but a Fighter, whose function purportedly is to provide damage and tanking directly, can't even do this at all with any certainty. If a 10th level Fighter prefers to take a level of Cleric, even with 11th level caster level, then the problem is with the 11th level of Fighter and how it compares with Cleric 1, caster level 11. On the surface, this seems only obvious, but the assumption I had was that the problem was with that the Cleric level was too powerful. It isn't, really. An Cleric 11 going from Cleric 10 gets much more. The reality dawned on me that that 1 Cleric level was simply more powerful than the 11th level of Fighter, not that it was all around an absolute power choice for all class progressions. Fixing the caster problem must be twofold. First, the warrior classes must be fixed. Their capabilities must be weighed against (not copied from) spells and magical abilities, and they must pull their weight. Second, D&D must take magic by the horns and address this problem head on: either all characters are inherently capable of magic (like in Final Fantasy), or it must quite bluntly state that some class progressions are anathema to other class progressions. An updated Fighter class that might have great saves and fantastic non-magical powers might be built up as an "non-magic" character, having little to no magical ability development, but compensating with non-magic sources of power. Taking a wizard level in this case which "sucked" would be completely in line with the concept.
RaspK FOG 09-08-04, 09:28 PM	Regarding different caster levels stacking together, I have worked on such a system based on Codex Mysterium; check out the book at your local store, then tell me if you don't get ideas of sorcerers who have studied the Art and made their magic more powerful instead of just taking more low-level slots. :rolleyes:
Oberoni 09-09-04, 12:26 AM	I actually agree with a huge majority of Roxlimn's last post. And if you have two people with very, very different outlooks on things reaching similar conclusions, that definitely bears a closer look.
Nom 09-09-04, 01:14 AM	Roxlinn, I sympathise with your argument to this point: If a 10th level Fighter prefers to take a level of Cleric, even with 11th level caster level, then the problem is with the 11th level of Fighter and how it compares with Cleric 1, caster level 11.Your example here seems to run against the rest of your argument. It seems to me quite clear that if caster level = CL then taking the 11th level as Clr1 rather than Ftr11 is a better option. Actually, I'd argue that for almost any character caster level = CL would strongly push them to take Clr1 and Wiz1 somewhere along the line. So you seem to be saying that it's a balanced change except that it makes multiclassing into a pure caster a no-brainer. Which immediately triggers the 'broken' flag in my thinking. Or have I completely missed your point?
Kakerate 09-10-04, 11:34 AM	I made a format that works dang well.... read and learn. All Pc's start out with commoner everything. The only difference is you have no wep arm proficiency. Sort all player characteristics into groups. I dont have time to list them here. The point of this is that the character will buy his skills even ones from other classes with exp. It works well. It also fixes some of the balancing issues. The problem comes from when you calculate the better buy. When the group munchkin says,"that +1 longsword is a better buy for your Barbarian half-orc, trust me it adds up that way!". You can actually calculate the value of items vs exp and that is not how your suppost to play. I actually believe D&D was made to be played this way but when they found out you could do this they shyed away from it. If you want to read about my system it is in the classes section of the boards.
Twisted Puppy 09-10-04, 01:20 PM	So you seem to be saying that it's a balanced change except that it makes multiclassing into a pure caster a no-brainer. Which immediately triggers the 'broken' flag in my thinking. Agreed, anything that is so obviously advantageous that you can't think of a reason NOT to do it is unbalanced. Spellcasters are tough enough in the game with the rules as written. If someone complains that their wizard 10/cleric 10 seems underpowered, then perhaps the reason was not flawed rules regarding caster level but flawed character creation. Here's another question, which has not come up on the thread: How are the players going to like it when the DM lets the BBEG do the same thing? My BBEG Wizard 15/Tainted Spellcaster 9 suddenly has a CL of 24 instead of 19 with the systems being touted by the CL jeune ecole. Want to tell me that doesn't make him FAR more formidable than he already was? How about a Wizard 15/Cleric 5? Now all his spells are at 20th level for casting, and even the third level cleric spells are maxed out. While the proposed systems will be only moderately beneficial to a character that was poorly constructed to begin with, they make an intelligently created character incredibly more powerful. It doesn't seem like much, either, at low or mid levels (up to say 10th), but past that it gets out of hand quickly. The only conclusion I can come to based on that is that the proposed changes to CL are absolutely broken.
Razorblade Smile 09-10-04, 02:08 PM	Agreed, anything that is so obviously advantageous that you can't think of a reason NOT to do it is unbalanced. Spellcasters are tough enough in the game with the rules as written. If someone complains that their wizard 10/cleric 10 seems underpowered, then perhaps the reason was not flawed rules regarding caster level but flawed character creation. Or it's actually flawed rules. A multiclassed Wizard/Cleric is hardly some obscure, silly, ridiculous character concept, and a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 should be able to hold his own against any other 20th-level character. Not any worse, not any better. Yet, by the rules, they are worse. Significantly so. WotC's design philosophy of "if everyone likes it, it must be broken" is what's screwy. If everything was equally appealing, every concept would be valid *and* roughly equal in power. Take the recently published but generally chastised rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana. It's almost impossible to build a poor character using those rules unless you go out of your way to do so, yet it's equally almost impossible to build a character that's significantly more powerful than any other character (unless, again, you get all weird and go out of your way to try and break the game). That is -- despite the way most gamers on these boards look at those rules -- an example of sound game design. Crippling everything in the game is *poor* game design, especially if you don't do it equally across the board. Compare a feat like Run or Endurance to a feat like Improved Initiative or, to go into the Realms (also published by WotC) ones like Initiate of Mystra or Initiate of Bane. I know there's better examples to show the vast range of usable feats, but I'm having a complete mental block at the moment, so that'll have to do. Not that it matters, because I appear to be delving into yet another rant. <smacks himself around a few times until he gets over it> There. Sorry. Here's another question, which has not come up on the thread: How are the players going to like it when the DM lets the BBEG do the same thing? I fail to see how that's a bad thing in any way, shape, or form. How about a Wizard 15/Cleric 5? Now all his spells are at 20th level for casting, and even the third level cleric spells are maxed out. Oh no! That's so much worse than a Wizard 20! Oh wait, no, it's not. The big difference is this guy can't dish out a single Mordenkainen's disjunction, time stop, or miracle, and in exchange he gets to throw down a couple of low-level clerical spells that any 5th-level Cleric could hurl, albeit with a little more juice added in. Gosh, which would I rather face? Mordenkainen's disjunction at CL 20, or dispel magic (the Cleric 5 equivalence) with its max of a +10 bonus at CL 20. Yeah, that dispel magic is much more scary, man... While the proposed systems will be only moderately beneficial to a character that was poorly constructed to begin with, they make an intelligently created character incredibly more powerful. It doesn't seem like much, either, at low or mid levels (up to say 10th), but past that it gets out of hand quickly. No they don't. They simple allow any character a better chance to keep up with their peers. No extra spells are granted. No higher spells are granted. The only change is that the spells they could already cast will have a better result, and only up to their normal maximum limits. The only conclusion I can come to based on that is that the proposed changes to CL are absolutely broken. That's certainly your right to conclude.
Seeker95 09-10-04, 03:08 PM	Quote: The only conclusion I can come to based on that is that the proposed changes to CL are absolutely broken. That's certainly your right to conclude.And in light of this conclusion resulting in the status quo, it is not only his right, but the default victor in the "war of ideas". He can't force anyone to NOT use the proposed changes, but it also reduces the efficacy of the proposed ideas. This is further reinforced by the wide variation in the proposed changes. It has been a fun discussion, but in the end, the proponents of change are not unified in what the change would look like, while the opponents of the change are not only unified, but "victorious" by default. No single argument appears to have swayed the opinions of anyone else.
Razorblade Smile 09-10-04, 03:14 PM	And in light of this conclusion resulting in the status quo, it is not only his right, but the default victor in the "war of ideas". He can't force anyone to NOT use the proposed changes, but it also reduces the efficacy of the proposed ideas. This is further reinforced by the wide variation in the proposed changes. Yeah, okay, whatever. Think what you like. Your opinion is not as weighty as you seem to believe it is in your own little world. <pat pat> It has been a fun discussion, but in the end, the proponents of change are not unified in what the change would look like, while the opponents of the change are not only unified, but "victorious" by default. No, what you have are at least two major ideas for a rules change being discussed by people who see a problem in the rules as they exist, and then you see a bunch of pig-headed people who have no interest in any kind of rules change on the subject sticking their nose in, claiming all kinds of absurd examples of how it's broken (yet never providing an actual working example that stands up), and then believing that because they don't like it, their opinion is clearly the superior one and everyone else is a simple-minded fool for believing otherwise. No single argument appears to have swayed the opinions of anyone else. I could have sworn I said the same thing earlier in the conversation. But believe it or not, some of us are here trying to discuss what is clearly intended to be a house rule (while pointing out why it isn't broken whenever one of the aforementioned individuals pipes up with their non-examples of why it is) rather than trying to shove their elitist foot down the mouths of those interested in the rules change. So it's not really about a debate (anymore) of if it's balanced or not, it's more about finding a working method for including it in the game. At least when the opportunity arises rather than having to defend one's opinion from individuals such as yourself.
Twisted Puppy 09-10-04, 04:15 PM	Or it's actually flawed rules. A multiclassed Wizard/Cleric is hardly some obscure, silly, ridiculous character concept, and a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 should be able to hold his own against any other 20th-level character. Not any worse, not any better. Yet, by the rules, they are worse. Significantly so. Actually, the Wiz10/Cleric10 would be dependent on how effectively he chose his spells and put them to use. Spellcasting duels usually come down to who uses the spells they have most efficiently, and who can gain the initiative. By initiative, not necessarily go first, but force the other spellcaster to react to what you are doing. WotC's design philosophy of "if everyone likes it, it must be broken" is what's screwy. If everything was equally appealing, every concept would be valid *and* roughly equal in power.. I disagree with your interpretation of their philosophy. To me, it seems they are simply saying that you have choices, and you have to weigh those. When you choose to multiclass, you are choosing to accept diminished abilities in one class for the benefits of the other. The idea that you don't get something for nothing is fine with me. Take the recently published but generally chastised rules for gestalt characters in Unearthed Arcana. It's almost impossible to build a poor character using those rules unless you go out of your way to do so, yet it's equally almost impossible to build a character that's significantly more powerful than any other character (unless, again, you get all weird and go out of your way to try and break the game). That is -- despite the way most gamers on these boards look at those rules -- an example of sound game design. Crippling everything in the game is *poor* game design, especially if you don't do it equally across the board. Compare a feat like Run or Endurance to a feat like Improved Initiative or, to go into the Realms (also published by WotC) ones like Initiate of Mystra or Initiate of Bane. I know there's better examples to show the vast range of usable feats, but I'm having a complete mental block at the moment, so that'll have to do.. I'm talking about core rules, don't have any FR, and the only reason I have a copy of Unearthed Arcana is because it's going to be a door prize at one of our club meetings. Oh no! That's so much worse than a Wizard 20! Oh wait, no, it's not. The big difference is this guy can't dish out a single Mordenkainen's disjunction, time stop, or miracle, and in exchange he gets to throw down a couple of low-level clerical spells that any 5th-level Cleric could hurl, albeit with a little more juice added in. Gosh, which would I rather face? Mordenkainen's disjunction at CL 20, or dispel magic (the Cleric 5 equivalence) with its max of a +10 bonus at CL 20. Yeah, that dispel magic is much more scary, man.... That would be perfectly true if there were no other benefits from the cleric levels other than the spellcasting. How about the ability to turn undead? Improved Fortitude saves, better Hit Dice? Maybe that isn't worth the spells you lose, but again, the player is allowed to decide that for himself. No they don't. They simple allow any character a better chance to keep up with their peers. No extra spells are granted. No higher spells are granted. The only change is that the spells they could already cast will have a better result, and only up to their normal maximum limits.. I would agree if you were talking about letting classes of spellcasters stacking for purposes of overcoming SR. Heck, for spellcasters only I might go ahead and throw you a bone and say fine - I don't agree with it, but on the other hand it's something I can go along with just to get along. However, I can't see any justification for allowing levels of non-spellcasting classes add to a spellcaster's level. There simply isn't any justification for those other classes to improve one's ability to cast spells. (I could see paladin/cleric and ranger/druid combos stacking in some way - maybe add half or a third of the pally/ranger level to the cleric/druid for purposes of caster level and spells available, doing away with the spells from the pally/ranger. I don't agree with it, but I can see the reasoning and it's a fair argument.)
EshuunDara 09-10-04, 07:02 PM	THe problem here is that levels of the wizard class are disproportionate in terms of power. The latter 10 levels of wizard is a *LOT* more power than the first 10 levels. Why? Because the level 10 wizard only has level 5 spells, and his spells are 4 4 4 3 2 2. That said, the level 10 wizard has half the experience and half the levels of a level 20 wizard, so accordingly they should be half as powerful. They aren't, and that's what breaks wizards as multilclassed spellcasters. A level 20 wizard has access to level 9 spells, and uses the following spells per day: 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4. A level 20 wizard is significantly more powerful than a level 10 wizard/level 10 cleric because of this. The level 20 wizard casts globe of invulnerability, and renders himself immune to virtually anything the level 20 wizard/cleric can cast. Sure there are some work arounds that can be used, but the point of the matter is they've spent the same amount of XP, and one character grossly outshadows the other in terms of power. I see two imbalances: Caster Level: the level 10 wizard/level 10 cleric casts like a level 10 character. He sucks. Spell Level: The level 10 wizard/10 cleric only has access to level 5 spells, compared to his level 20 wizard and level 20 cleric counterparts that cast level 9s. Unfortunately, I don't see a good way to balance spell level. If spells per day were proportional that might help, but then if a level 10 wizard, you get half the spells of a level 20 wizard. Thus: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2. A level 10 character with powerword kill does seem overpowering. I think I'd add to the complexity and say that while you get those extra spells per day, you're not allowed to actually use them until your caster level is high enough to cast those normally. So a level 10 wizard would have 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2, but only would be able to cast up to level 5 spells. Unfortunately, this is a nerf to single classed spellcasters -- because the level 10 wizard normally has 4 4 4 3 2 2 -- because of that, you might limit this to multiclassed characters for their own good. Now if you're a multi-classed spellcaster and you let caster levels stack for purposes of spellcasting and deciding access to higher level spells... A level 10 cleric/10 wizard is a level 20 caster (just like a level 10 barbarian/level 10 fighter hits like a level 20 melee character). You'd also have access to the higher level spells, but you'd have a lot fewer of them, and that does strike me as balanced. A level 10 wizard/10 cleric under this model would be: arcane: 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 divine: 3 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 and that doesn't seem too bad. You'd have 4 level 9 spells total, and a level 20 cleric has 4. So does the level 20 wizard. You sacrifice some of your arcane spells for divine spells (or vise versa).
Seeker95 09-10-04, 07:37 PM	So it's not really about a debate (anymore) of if it's balanced or not, it's more about finding a working method for including it in the game. At least when the opportunity arises rather than having to defend one's opinion from individuals such as yourself.I'd agree with this statement if anyone supporting a change in Caster Level Rules had deviated even a hair's breadth from the statements they had made in the initial presentation. You don't have to defend yourself at all. You don't even need to offend as much as you have demonstrated comfort in doing. If you had offered even a single variation on the theme (where "you" is anyone besides Roxlimn, who has at least offered evidence of playtesting and variation of ideas) those who doubt it would work could see some evidence that the discussion is a discussion, rather than a soapbox for competing egos to prove that their idea about how it can be changed is the way it should be changed. You've heard the objections. You've heard the request for playtesting. And you've continued to recite the same litany of ideas, without addressing the concerns. You're too busy "defending yourself" to notice that those with objections about the ideas have actually focused their criticisms on the ideas. You (this time meaning Razorblade_Smile in particular) and Oberoni have consistently attacked the objector instead of addressing the objection. If you feel a need to be defensive, perhaps it is because you have been little more than offensive.
smrtgmp 09-10-04, 07:44 PM	my, what an interesting read.
Razorblade Smile 09-10-04, 07:51 PM	You've heard the objections. You've heard the request for playtesting. You mean like the response to the request in which I discussed the results? And you've continued to recite the same litany of ideas, without addressing the concerns. No, I've addressed them. The problem is you've dismissed them because they are apparently beneath your infinite wisdom. You're too busy "defending yourself" to notice that those with objections about the ideas have actually focused their criticisms on the ideas. And the responses have been focused on those criticisms about the ideas and why, in most cases, they don't seem to be valid both logically and through experience. What's your point? You (this time meaning Razorblade_Smile in particular) and Oberoni have consistently attacked the objector instead of addressing the objection. The only time I've "attacked" anyone is when they behave in your snobbish, holier-than-thou attitude. Otherwise, I've consistantly stated focus on the topic and the criticisms thereof. Apparently, however, pointing out the flaws in those criticisms must constitute an "attack" or something. Get over it. If you feel a need to be defensive, perhaps it is because you have been little more than offensive. No more than you. I just don't try and sugar coat mine to make me feel better.
Seeker95 09-10-04, 08:07 PM	The only time I've "attacked" anyone is when they behave in your snobbish, holier-than-thou attitude. But it doesn't help your argument any. It hides your argument, and makes it all the easier to ignore whatever point you think you were trying to make. In most sports, the second foul gets the whistle. If you think you've been attacked, you gain nothing by attacking back.
Seeker95 09-10-04, 08:15 PM	Method One: The thread started out proposing that Caster Level = Character Level. Pretty much everyone who disagreed with it felt it was too broken. A few people have continued to present it as a viable option. Various alternative versions have been promoted. Method Two: The first is "scaled class BCB" where each class has a different contribution to Caster Level. This has some merit, but has been criticized for allowing a 19th level fighter to cast as a 20th level wizard by taking his final pre-epic level as a wizard. This proposal has been deemed "too much too fast" by those opposing the initial concept. It creates an "instant master" for those who take a single level in a caster class along the way. ********** Method Three: A third method is "caster level = time in class". It increases caster level on the basis of how many character levels have been spent practicing as a caster. A Wiz1/Ftr19* will cast much better (at CL20) than a Ftr19/Wiz1* (CL1), because the Wiz1 has spent 20 class levels casting spells. A Clr10/Wiz10 who alternated every other level would be a better caster than a Clr10/Wiz10 who switched paths midway through his career. The former would have caster levels of Clr20, Wiz19 respectively with respect to caster level dependent effects. The spell rewards the balanced advancement character while removing the "instant master" characteristic that is at the heart of most of the naysayers' objections. So... what holes can be punched in this third approach? *Note: The first class listed is the class that a character began his adventuring career in.
smrtgmp 09-10-04, 08:19 PM	So... what holes can be punched in this third approach? Other than the extra bookwork, it seems like a more balanced approach, IMO.
Oberoni 09-10-04, 09:48 PM	Method Three: A third method is "caster level = time in class". It increases caster level on the basis of how many character levels have been spent practicing as a caster. A Wiz1/Ftr19* will cast much better (at CL20) than a Ftr19/Wiz1* (CL1), because the Wiz1 has spent 20 class levels casting spells. A Clr10/Wiz10 who alternated every other level would be a better caster than a Clr10/Wiz10 who switched paths midway through his career. The former would have caster levels of Clr20, Wiz19 respectively with respect to caster level dependent effects. [/b] At this point, we have one Clr10/Wiz10 that is objectively far better than another Clr10/Wiz10. They have the same levels. Exact same levels. And one is vastly, objectively better than the other. That's not even vaguely balanced.
ConfusedUs 09-10-04, 11:11 PM	Method Four, and my favorite. Each class gets a BCB that works exactly the same as BAB, with the same fractional progressions: 1:1, 3/4, or 1/2. FTR19/WIZ1 would be a 10th level caster, assuming that a FTR would get a 1/2 BCB progression, and the WIZ a 1:1 BCB.
Razorblade Smile 09-10-04, 11:18 PM	Method One: The thread started out proposing that Caster Level = Character Level. Pretty much everyone who disagreed with it felt it was too broken. A few people have continued to present it as a viable option. Various alternative versions have been promoted. No, not "pretty much everyone" agreed to that. I, for one, didn't think it was broken so much as completely illogical, and based upon comments from several other people in the thread, I'm not alone there. Caster level is not the uber-powerful-God's-gift-to-munchkinhood that some of you seem to think it is. Method Two: The first is "scaled class BCB" where each class has a different contribution to Caster Level. This has some merit, but has been criticized for allowing a 19th level fighter to cast as a 20th level wizard by taking his final pre-epic level as a wizard. This proposal has been deemed "too much too fast" by those opposing the initial concept. It creates an "instant master" for those who take a single level in a caster class along the way. Wrong. He would have a Caster Level of 10, just as if he had taken Wizard 1 and then Fighter 19. It's identical to BAB progression, just reversed. A Wizard 19/Fighter 1 would have a BAB of +10 as much as a Fighter 1/Wizard 19 would. A Clr10/Wiz10 who alternated every other level would be a better caster than a Clr10/Wiz10 who switched paths midway through his career. The former would have caster levels of Clr20, Wiz19 respectively with respect to caster level dependent effects. That's ten thousand ways to broken. It's like saying a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 should have a BAB of +10 while a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 should have a BAB of +20. Yes. It is that ridiculous sounding. :rolleyes:
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-11-04, 01:11 AM	That's ten thousand ways to broken. It's like saying a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 should have a BAB of +10 while a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 should have a BAB of +20. Yes. It is that ridiculous sounding. :rolleyes: No, because a Ranger has a 1:1 BAB just like a Fighter has a 1:1 BAB. Your comparison is ridiculous. You'd be accurate if you compared a Fighter 10/class-with-no-BAB-progression 10. Let's at least be accurate when we're making comparisons here. :rolleyes:
Twisted Puppy 09-11-04, 02:44 AM	THe problem here is that levels of the wizard class are disproportionate in terms of power. The latter 10 levels of wizard is a *LOT* more power than the first 10 levels. Why? Because the level 10 wizard only has level 5 spells, and his spells are 4 4 4 3 2 2. That said, the level 10 wizard has half the experience and half the levels of a level 20 wizard, so accordingly they should be half as powerful. They aren't, and that's what breaks wizards as multilclassed spellcasters. Better check your math before you use that in your argument. A 20th level caster has over THREE AND A HALF TIMES the experience of a 10th level caster (199K to 54K XP). The game designers were very well aware that multiclassed characters would have some disadvantages when faced with single classed opponents. That is because you are taking time and effort away from learning a specialty to learn something else. If you multiclass, you simply need to learn to maximize the advantages you get from doing it. Put it this way: After being trained and spending X number of years as a Combat Engineer, and making the rank of (let's just say) Lieutenant Colonel, I decide to change my Branch and become an Armor officer. Assuming the Army would allow it, and I go to the appropriate course for field grade armor officers, I'm now a lieutenant colonel in charge of a tank battalion. Do I have anywhere near the tactical experience and capability of a lieutenant colonel that spent his entire career in armor? No. But we're both lieutenant colonels, aren't we? He specialized, and I didn't. Yes, it's simplified, but I think it illustrates the reason caster level is fine as the rules are written. :teach:
Seeker95 09-11-04, 08:38 AM	No, not "pretty much everyone" agreed to that.My mistake. I forgot that there are hyperliteralists on the board. Wrong. He would have a Caster Level of 10My mistake. This time for real. Except for the "instant master" part. That's ten thousand ways to broken. It's like saying a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 should have a BAB of +10 while a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 should have a BAB of +20. Yes. It is that ridiculous sounding. :rolleyes::rofl: You're funny when you are doing your best to denounce anything you can about what someone says. Razorblade_Smile and Oberoni are replying in a manner that indictes they are more concerned with proving they are right than with discussing the concept. So, to anyone who has ideas about Base-Caster-Bonus, you should all probably just smile, nod, and agree with them. They've managed to change my mind by their well-reasoned, calmly presented arguments.
Razorblade Smile 09-11-04, 09:32 AM	No, because a Ranger has a 1:1 BAB just like a Fighter has a 1:1 BAB. Your comparison is ridiculous. You'd be accurate if you compared a Fighter 10/class-with-no-BAB-progression 10. Let's at least be accurate when we're making comparisons here. :rolleyes: Wow, really? And in the rule being discussed, Clerics have a +1 caster level progression and Wizards have a +1 caster level progression. 10+10 = 20, but with the broken set of rules whatshisname was listing, that only works sometimes. Other times, 10+10 = 10. So yes, it is identical to saying that a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 has a BAB of +20 sometimes, while othertimes a Fighter 10/Ranger 10 has a BAB of +10. No wonder you guys are having so much trouble with the discussion. You can't even keep up with basic principles and concepts, even when you guys are the ones coming up with them.
RaspK FOG 09-11-04, 10:11 AM	And I suppose your being insulting is better than being holier-than-thou? How so? And how do you go out and speak of "pigheaded" people like this? Need I report anyone around here for insulting others? If need be, I will do it. Anyway, back to the argument at hand. I believe that Seeker had a valid argument; even I have mentioned it: under logic, a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 COULD be considered to be either a Cleric 20/Wizard 10 caster, or, if planning properly and taking alternating levels, Cleric 20/Wizard 19. However, isn't that the meaning of gaining levels in a class? To put it simply, it drives towards one character build over another. And, on top of that, none has even considered my idea; if you think someone should feel insulted, that should be me! Under my modified based on Codex Mysterium version of D&D core classes, arcane casters have stacking caster levels for common spells, and so do divine casters. Thus, a Cleric 10/Druid 10 would cast Flamestrike as a 20th-level caster, while he would cast his cleric-/druid-only spells as a 10th-level caster. Of course, there were some few universal spells as well, and clerics of deities of magic can cast some spells using their cleric level as well. How do you like that? And behave within the boards. :weep:
Kirin Corrigan 09-11-04, 12:02 PM	Under my modified based on Codex Mysterium version of D&D core classes, arcane casters have stacking caster levels for common spells, and so do divine casters. Thus, a Cleric 10/Druid 10 would cast Flamestrike as a 20th-level caster, while he would cast his cleric-/druid-only spells as a 10th-level caster. Of course, there were some few universal spells as well, and clerics of deities of magic can cast some spells using their cleric level as well. I find the idea interesting. Really. It makes sense. Would it work even if the setup was druid 10 / Cleric 1 ? In other words, would the cleric levels contribute as far as casting Flamestrike goes even if the levels of cleric are not enough to cast the spell itself?
Oberoni 09-11-04, 05:49 PM	Razorblade_Smile and Oberoni are replying in a manner that indictes they are more concerned with proving they are right than with discussing the concept.. Riiiiiiight, that's a cool way to attack people that disagree with you that you have going on. Since we already got warned on the matter of making personal attacks, if you're going to insist on continuing to post to this thread, why don't you stop doing making said attacks and get back to discussing the topic at hand?
Seeker95 09-11-04, 07:11 PM	why don't you stop doing making said attacks and get back to discussing the topic at hand?You mean like: Method Three: A third method is "caster level = time in class". It increases caster level on the basis of how many character levels have been spent practicing as a caster. A Wiz1/Ftr19* will cast much better (at CL20) than a Ftr19/Wiz1* (CL1), because the Wiz1 has spent 20 class levels casting spells. A Clr10/Wiz10 who alternated every other level would be a better caster than a Clr10/Wiz10 who switched paths midway through his career. The former would have caster levels of Clr20, Wiz19 respectively with respect to caster level dependent effects. The spell rewards the balanced advancement character while removing the "instant master" characteristic that is at the heart of most of the naysayers' objections. To which you replied: At this point, we have one Clr10/Wiz10 that is objectively far better than another Clr10/Wiz10. They have the same levels. Exact same levels. And one is vastly, objectively better than the other. That's not even vaguely balanced. Doesn't matter. You've presented the change you endorse, and have attacked everyone who disagrees with you. So like I said: Razorblade_Smile and Oberoni are replying in a manner that indicates they are more concerned with proving they are right than with discussing the concept. So, to anyone who has ideas about Base-Caster-Bonus, you should all probably just smile, nod, and agree with them. They've managed to change my mind by their well-reasoned, calmly presented arguments. Are you upset that I said you changed my mind with your calmly presented arguments?
Oberoni 09-11-04, 09:14 PM	I disagreed with you (which is, y'know, something you do in a discussion), and presented a reason for it (i.e. two characters that would otherwise have equal class levels, spells, stats, feats, and skills would still have very different levels of power). You have to accept that if I champion one idea and find a problem with another idea, I'm going to defend the idea I champion and point out flaws in the idea with which I find a problem. This isn't all that revolutionary a thing to do--in fact, that's how discussions tend to go. Unless I say something like "Seeker95 is a poopyhead for his idea," I'm pretty much doing exactly what one does in a discussion of ideas. Savvy?
ConfusedUs 09-11-04, 09:53 PM	For the love of Moses please stop the all the veiled insults and constant whining in this thread. Is it so freakin' hard to show some maturity and just ignore the pathetic little jabs various posters are throwing around at each other? Does it truely matter if so-and-so said such-and-such about poster X's intelligence? Who's dumber, the guy who starts the arguement on the internet, or the one who perpetuates it? Back on topic people. Please.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-12-04, 12:13 AM	I think this is a situation in which those who like the idea of making Caster Level = Character Level, or like the idea of implementing a variant Caster Level system, are going to make that change. Those who don't think the change is either balanced or realistic are not going to make that change. And that's perfectly okay, because there is no One Right Way to play this game, and neither of the two ways are Wrong. Can we all agree on that? And then let this thread die?
RaspK FOG 09-12-04, 01:28 AM	I think this is a situation in which those who like the idea of making Caster Level = Character Level, or like the idea of implementing a variant Caster Level system, are going to make that change. Those who don't think the change is either balanced or realistic are not going to make that change. And that's perfectly okay, because there is no One Right Way to play this game, and neither of the two ways are Wrong. Can we all agree on that? And then let this thread die? Interestingly enough, what makes each of us unique is also what makes us stubborn, foolish, romantic, childish, and so on; it's called "ego" for one reason only: that's the greek word for "I" (pronounced as "e-WO", where "wo" sounds as in "wonder" without the "u" sound in "w"; enough with greek :D )... I agree with you; to each his own. If any of us has convinced another, that's fine, and let us stay at that. :)
Shatteredtower 09-12-04, 02:33 AM	Can we all agree on that? And then let this thread die? Well, give me a minute first, please. I wrote this up yesterday, but couldn't get it to the board. Ignore most of it, if you wish, but I think the first sentence and the section on paladins and rangers in regard to this system bears some attention. :) And here we go: First of all, to those who commented on the skill-based system for determining caster level, thank you. Yes, it could certainly do with simplifying. I think you started off by saying "well, the benefit your system grants isn't too big." Yeah, that's correct, I agree that CL=CL doesn't create enormous jumps in power, but it DOES create some jump. I'm not sure why you misunderstand it. Yes, the change is better than what exists now, and I still think it's something for nothing. At the same time, it's not enough of something, by your own standards, to merit such a change. Either stay on first or steal second already. ;) Then, you started saying "why stop at caster levels? Why don't we apply this to other class features?" Ummmmm...once again, this is a thread discussing just one idea, setting CL=CL. You cannot discuss this in a vaccuum. That would be irresponsible game design. A universal system is required, or you're playing favourites. When I start talking about the actual topic, you can't argue that... Your focus is too tight to meet the demand of the situation. And since I apparently can't argue against any of this, here comes some more non-arguing. ;) a) This is the only change I would make (It's not, it's just the only on-topic change I'd make) If you're looking to overhaul the entire system -- and going contrary to your position on the model you emulate -- then you have to be prepared to show the entire thing. This change can't occur by itself, and it is essential to know what gets changed alongside it to "balance" the system out. The concern is valid, relevant to the proposed change, and thus on topic, even if it requires a broader view of that topic. b) This change only benefits multiclass casters (it's literally nonsensical to expect every balance change to benefit everyone) I argued that it comes at the expense of single-classed characters, anathema as they are to so many players. That's an entirely different matter to me, even if you don't see it that way. It's one thing to make a change to the sorcerer that improves the sorcerer, and makes people more inclined to try out the sorcerer class. It's another thing if it makes them less inclined to play wizards at all. As Roxlimm's examples point out, you throw non-casters out the window entirely with this system. Those four levels of fighter, those five levels of rogue, those two levels of barbarian... they only exist to assist in spellcasting builds, meaning any build that takes spellcasting levels. And if that's what the game is about for you and your group, I suppose it's fine. It sucks worse than ever for anyone who's attempted to build a character around an entirely non-casting premise, though. Does it suck worse than it does for multi-classed casters now? If yes, then the change is a bad idea. If it's no better and no worse, then the change is a waste of time, fixing something that isn't broken. I haven't seen any indication that it's not either one or the other of the two options listed above. I mean...if someone starts a thread saying "I want to power up the sorcerer by giving him a bonus feat every 5 levels," you just can't go on and say "the problem here is that this only benefits the sorcerer." No duh! Instead, you have to analyze the change, see if it improves the game, and move on. Once again, the problem here is that the system uses a HD-based mechanic for one purpose only, and does not apply it universally. Worse, it actually does not follow the HD-based mechanic, instead jealously grabbing for one of the big perks of the warrior classes (+1 BAB/HD), and arguing that caster level should be treated exactly the same way instead. How much harder than what is being requested is it to present a universal solution? Caster level = (ranks in Spellcraft -3). Rage level = (ranks in Intimidate -3). Sneak attack level = (ranks in Bluff -3). Bardic music = (ranks in Perform -3). Caster level = 1/2 HD, with your level in the spellcasting class in question counting for two levels for this purpose only. This equation also applies for class-level based features for all other classes. Neither of the above may prove workable, but surely you're looking for one method that works equally for every class. Wasn't the subject finding a "balanced" system, after all? How do you determine balance when one side of the scale gets ignored? However, if you don't see any of that as an issue -- if my points remain non-points or some other such nonsense -- then there are a few other things that should be changed as part of the caster level = character level (or character hit dice, really, since I'm pretty sure this system would want a 3rd level bugbear cleric to cast at 6th level of ability) system that appear to have been overlooked: paladins, rangers, and PrCs that don't offer "+1 level of spell-casting class" progression. The latter group is probably a non-issue. This change would almost be just what the doctor ordered for the arcane archer and dragon disciple. Not quite, but yes, the idea would be a big step in the right direction for those PrCs and others like them. It would also go some distance toward addressing needing to spend five to seven levels to qualify for a class and only gaining 1st level spellcasting out of the deal. However, the real issues are the paladin and ranger. In a system where casting level = class level, the same model must be applied for both of these classes, or the model must at least be changed to "character level -3)". If a level 20 character with one level in sorcerer casts at 20th level, it makes no sense for a 20th ranger wizard to cast at 10th level -- the discrepancy is just too large. This could instead lend itself well to the casting level = 1/2 character level and the casting class' level counting for twice as many levels, even if that benefit was not applied to paladins and rangers. Even if it was, at the rate of "caster level = ranger/paladin level - 3," that would still be the equivalent of 17th level vs. a 20th level singled-classed spellcaster -- and 15th level vs. a 20th level multi-classed caster (with levels evenly split between two classes). Is that unbalanced, to have a 10th/10th level caster take a 5 point hit on SR checks vs. the straight caster -- or a 2 point hit vs. the paladin? Consider that the 5th/5th/10th level cleric/wizard/mystic theurge would be casting spells with only a 3 point hit (and a 6/4/10 would be a 3 point hit to one spellcasting class and 2 point hit to the other). Is this unbalanced? Do they all have to match up perfectly in this specific regard? Or is the loss a reasonable price to pay for branching out? In the end, though, if any change of this sort is implemented, the system for single-classed paladins and rangers must likewise be changed.
Oberoni 09-12-04, 07:46 AM	Shatteredtower, I'll make this brief, since I think I should be eating Cocoa Pebbles right about now. You want another example of what I'd do to balance things out? I'd make lots of feats stronger. Weapon Focus, Dodge, Skill Focus, etc. They'd be great, defining feats worth taking. Now, what if I were to post that in this thread? Caster level = character level, feats become better...I could add in some stuff like revamping the saving throw system so that the large disparities don't exist anymore. Maybe add in how I'd expand the sorcerer's skill list, up his skill points to 4, give him maybe either bloodlines or bonus feats, and eliminate the one-level "lag" he faces in getting new spells compared to a wizard. I could literally have us discuss 20 different things, and this thread would be all over the place. This would be a disservice to everyone involved in the thread. While I will certainly agree with you that game balance changes cannot be examined solely in a vacuum, you can only ever sensibly examine the system as a whole after you've tinkered and improved the individual parts. Notice that I haven't asked you and anyone else in this thread what other changes they'd make to the system? I could have. I could say "if you have a houserule or balance change idea, lay it on the table so that I know where you're coming from." But I didn't, since as I've said, all it does would create a confusing mess of a thread that will get us nowhere. In conclusion, I will assert that if the only change you make from core D&D rules is to always set caster level equal to character levels, the game will be more balanced than it was before. There are other changes you could make to further balance the game, but even that one change would help by making the multiclassing of spellcasters more viable.
Landrain 09-12-04, 02:13 PM	Here is an interesting thought... While melee do get extra attacks as they go up, ie, the BAB goes up, Many casters get extra DICE as they go up in level, fireballs, magic missle etc. As well as their spells getting better chances to hit due to levels etc etc. But in most cases for example at level 15 fighter is STILL only doing 1d8 + X with a hit with a longsword, While a level 15 wizard will do 10d6 damage with a fireball... granted the fighter will get 3 chances to hit but the lesser ones are at much lower probabilities.... Why do not melee get a + Dam based upon levels or + dice? That would seem consistent with the caster vs melee issues
Razorblade Smile 09-12-04, 02:28 PM	Why do not melee get a + Dam based upon levels or + dice? Because damage is limited by the weapon you're weilding. In most cases, the damage for spells is set (such as 1d4+1 points of damage for a magic missile). However, like a character with a high BAB, the higher your Caster Level the more dice you inflict through the use of multiple attacks or, in the case of a spell like magic missile, the number of missiles. So Fighter 20 is getting four base attacks with his longsword, each one doing 1d8 points of damage (4d8) while the Wizard 20 is shooting five magic missiles (5d4+5). But the reason spells get a bigger bang out of their buck is because they have a limited number of uses per day (though he has a good number of other spells at his disposal, most of which are still limited by his caster level as far as their effect is concerned). Wizard 20 can only cast magic missle little more than a half dozen times per day, whereas Fighter 20 can throw down his four attacks up to 14,400 times per day (one full attack every round for a 24 hour period) as an extreme example. Both, however, are directly tied to the Fighter's BAB and the Wizard's Caster Level.
Landrain 09-12-04, 05:51 PM	When combats last 3-4 rounds...? And you do 3-4 combats a 'day'? See this was a huge issue when I was writing and editing adventures, how do you effectively challenge a party? Do you plan on a fully rested party? or do you use attrition? Most adventurers are cautious, and will stop to maintain full combat abilities as much as possible. When you have these fast quick encounters, 3 -5 rounds max, the balance of power swings abruptly to the casters with their massive spell damage. Sure if the fighter could go 10-20 rounds he would out produce the casters, when was the last time you fought a 15 round combat? My guess not for a very long time. 10th level warrior does (1d8+x)x2 10th level wizard does (10d6)x X not even close... and that would only exxagerate as Caster level = character level I do see significant issues with SR and DR for both also
Shatteredtower 09-12-04, 06:17 PM	In regard to the opening statement from the post to which I'm replying, I will agree that breakfast is certainly more important than my opinion. I'd like to think I rated something healthier in consumer choices, mind you. ;) In conclusion, I will assert that if the only change you make from core D&D rules is to always set caster level equal to character levels, the game will be more balanced than it was before. There are other changes you could make to further balance the game, but even that one change would help by making the multiclassing of spellcasters more viable. See, where my bone of contention is with this is that it's a component of a greater change, unlike shifts in how saving throws work, the sorcerer's tendency to fall behind, and what a feat grants. You're advocating a character level-based system for spellcasting, and I'm saying that it would have to be presented as part of a system that accounts for basing other, non-spellcasting character abilities on character level as well. I don't think the change can be justified without it. Now if the issue you bring up in regard to feat changes is to make many (if not necessarily all) of them more level-based (for example, folding chains into a single feat in some cases), not only do I agree with you, not only do I think it would balance wonderfully with the change proposed in what determines spellcasting level, but I am forced to concede that we could not cover that subject in this thread as anything more than a side note. I don't need that described in detail -- it's enough to note that the change would have to address what abilities feats grant and leave it at that for the purposes of this discussion. Anything more, and the tangent would take over the discussion. However, I would still like to hear your intentions toward paladins and rangers, who would lose out if their caster level remains 1/2 character level. Would it be changed to equalling character level or character level -3?
Oberoni 09-12-04, 07:09 PM	To answer your question, Shatteredtower, I can't figure out a single good reason why pallys and rangers have neutered caster levels. At all. They should certainly have full caster level, just like a bard or cleric would.
Twisted Puppy 09-12-04, 07:44 PM	But the reason spells get a bigger bang out of their buck is because they have a limited number of uses per day (though he has a good number of other spells at his disposal, most of which are still limited by his caster level as far as their effect is concerned). Wizard 20 can only cast magic missle little more than a half dozen times per day, whereas Fighter 20 can throw down his four attacks up to 14,400 times per day (one full attack every round for a 24 hour period) as an extreme example. Just curious, how often does a 16th level caster (the level a fighter must be to have four base attacks) RUN OUT of spells? In my experience, by the time a spellcaster is out of spells most of the fighters are going to be out of hit points - you know, from standing toe to toe with opponents to deliver those 14,400 attacks. The game is designed - realistically, i believe - to reward characters that specialize in a single class. Spellcasting, to me, is something that requires either rigid mental discipline (wizards), extreme force of personality (bards and sorcerors), or deep personal conviction (clerics, druids, rangers, paladins). When the character delves into other classes, they are taking away time spent in that pursuit. For example, by taking a level of rogue, they are learning how to perform a sneak attack and a wide range of skills - just what is learning all that doing to help the character's ability to cast spells? (Some other answer than "that isn't fair to characters that multiclass" would be appreciated.)
Roxlimn 09-17-04, 02:52 PM	Nom: Well, you get the point exactly, up to a certain point. You have to believe that "balance" is a catch phrase that Wizards like to use to give a semblance of technical objectivity to D&D. The truth of the matter is, a game is "balanced" when you say it is. If the game does what you want it to, then it is "balanced". If it does not, then it isn't. The point here though, is that not everyone wants the same thing. It is clear to me and to many of my players that if caster level = character level, then taking any sort of primary caster level sometime during their careers is definitely a good move, no matter what your primary profession (character class concept) may be. If your campagin is set in Halruaa (a place where magic is commonplace and expected), then this is absolutely desireable. In a setting where everyone is expected to have some sort of magical power, having a mechanic in place that promotes players doing so delienates the setting better. Ditto for a "Final Fantasy" style campaign wherein almost everyone (in some FFs) is assumed to have some proficiency with "Materia" or "Energies." Same for Suikoden-style campaigns. The point is, such a thing isn't necessarily undesireable or "uinbalanced". At the same time, you should acknowledge that this promotion and power of caster classes over noncaster classes does exist. The other main point in that statement is that if Fighters choose Clr1 over Ftr 11, then Clr 1 is obviously more powerful than Ftr11 but whether it is Ftr11 that is too weak or Clr11 that is too strong is a matter of personal preference and campaign suitability. I do not favor this state, in any case. Twisted Puppy: Such a basic change as caster level = character level is sure to reverberate throughout the system, particularly for things like the Eldritch Knight and most caster PrCs that are externally modified to function within the fundamentally flawed multiclassing caster function. If you are to implement such a basic and fundamental modification, then you should be prepared to remodel everything that is spellcaster-related, even going so far as reviewing spells and spell impact on the game. Seeker95: The point of these discussions is to elucidate and investigate, not to "convince" anyone of anything. If I get you to look into mulicaster multiclassing in a new way, then that's great. Maybe you can do the same for me. Ultimately, we all make the game better for everyone, individually. What did you think of the skill ranks - 3 = caster level idea? I've also been toying with the Psionic/WoT concept of tying power level to spell level on a more fundamental level, removing caster level dependency altogether. EshuunDara: The fundamental problem isn't really with casters. Shocking, I know. The fundamental problem is with nonspellcasters. Barbarian BAB, Fighter BAB, Wizard BAB, and Rogue BAB; in fact all BAB, stacks. And it stacks arithmically, not logarithmically. This is in direct comparison with Wizard power levels that don't stack and progress exponentially. In reality, we have 2 separate tracks of character power that are not reconcilable and this creates all the problems. Ideally, you should unite the 2 tracks so that they at least behave similarly, even if they don't progress using the same classes. d20 Modern and how it handles magic is a good illustration. While magic there is fundamentally the same as magic in D&D, it is different on 2 important points: it caps at level 5 spells, and it's a prestige class, meaning you can't begin in it. This means that Wizards and Clerics in d20 Modern rely almost as much on their skills and BAB as they do on their spells. What spells they do have get capped before their exponential progression gets too far away. This solves the balance problem, but it does not really solve the multiclass problem, since it does not deal with either rate of power progression or synchonicity of progression.
Landrain 09-17-04, 04:38 PM	Nonsense. Taking a couple levels in a class when you have 5 times as many levels in another class is still dipping. It's not like you're interested in the class or anything. You want that cool gizmo that that couple of levels will give you. That's "dipping", by definition. D&D 3.0+ is ALLLLL about dipping.....unless you are a spellcaster, then its bad. If dipping wasn't intended why prestige classes? why favored classes? why allow multi-classing at all?
Someone 09-18-04, 12:24 AM	If dipping wasn't intended why prestige classes?PrCs aren't dipping- its "give up this class feature for another feature" or "focus on this aspect of a class, to the exclusion of other aspects". But you can still dip into a PrC- only take 1 or 2 levels in it, instead of finishing the progression out. Usually for some low level ability- classes that have powerful abilites at comparatively low level are know as "top-heavy".
Xeviat-DM 09-21-04, 05:59 PM	I'm back, glad to see that the thread is still floating around, though it seems that several people backed out. I had two reasons to propose this idea. The first is that the strength of one's magic in my world is related to the strength of one's spirit and body. I am working on a Chakra system in which people will have the ability to gain ranks in their 5 Chakras, and these Chakra ranks (possibly combined with other factors) would be used to determine your caster level. Under normal circumstances, any one character will not be able to maximize more than 3 Chakras, limiting their spell selection. The second was to correct the flaw in the multiclassing of spellcaster's department. A non-lawful Fighter hardly looses anything if he begins to level up as a Barbarian starting at 11th character level. Almost anyone who cares about combat dips 2 or 4 Fighter levels. Sure, a 19th fighter can take 1 level of wizard for the dip, but level 1 spells are capped at 5 dice of damage anyway. As a reply to someone's post earlier that warriors deal 1d8+X damage while wizards deal Xd6 damage: This is because it is much easier for warriors to purchase feats or equipment to increase their damage. Aside from a few items, the wizard's only option is leveling up and using metamagic.
Heron_Marked_Blade 09-21-04, 08:39 PM	I'm back, glad to see that the thread is still floating around, though it seems that several people backed out.In the immortal and invariably misrepresented words of John Paul Jones, "I have not yet begun to fight!" :fight!: :D
Xeviat-DM 11-29-04, 01:42 PM	This thread has sat idle for just over two months, and in that time I have done a lot of thinking. In a show of selfishness, my original post here was designed primarily for my world, though posters like Oberoni and Razorbladesmile have shown many of my very thoughts on the issue. Yes, the proposed change would create a "high magic world", but not in the sense of Forgotten Realms and other high magic worlds. In such a setting, most adventurers would have some magic at their fingertips, cast under their own power. Interestingly enough, I do not see this as too different from simply stocking up on helpful potions; potions of divine power can be made and set with a decent caster level mind you. That is one of the very goals I am searching for in my setting. In my setting, every living creature has four energy centers in their body. Spellcasters cast their spells by syphoning this energy and using it to fuel their spells. A more powerful individual can store more energy, and survive discharging more as well. Due to the way the system is being set up, an individual character can only maximize their caster level in two elements; if they did so they'd have 0 caster level in the other two. The Fighter 19/Wizard 1 example will have some 5 dice damage spells, or some long lasting buffs (most of which are pointless at this point because many wizard buffs do not scale in use). Cleric dipping requires more RPing, since you have to be accepted (As a DM, I'd be much more willing to allow a dip into sorcerer than wizard). Ability score requirements are also an issue here. Lastly, the Fighter 19/Non-Caster 1 didn't just gain some awesome casting capability that they never had before. Simply, they now know the method of releasing the energy they've had stored up the whole time (ooh, maybe 3 first level spells, tops). PS: Don't bring up PrCs please, especially ones designed to fix this problem themselves. I had assumed it was quite obvious, but things like this will need to be entirely rebalanced since they are no longer giving up as much for loosing caster levels (all they give up now are spell slots, spells known, and higher level spell aquasition; though those aren't anything to spit at).
neroaster 11-29-04, 02:30 PM	since my last respons, I might have developed a more relaxed view on it... in a source book; complete divine, there is a feat called "Practiced spellcaster" which will give you +4 to effective caster level, but no higher than than your HD... this sounds quite reasonable to me...
Xeviat-DM 11-29-04, 02:37 PM	since my last respons, I might have developed a more relaxed view on it... in a source book; complete divine, there is a feat called "Practiced spellcaster" which will give you +4 to effective caster level, but no higher than than your HD... this sounds quite reasonable to me... So a Wizard10/Fighter10 could cast spells at 14th caster level ... alone it doesn't do much. Where it is useful is when used in conjuction with Multiclass spellcaster fixer PrCs. A Rogue4/Wizard6/Arcane Trickster10 with the practiced spellcaster feat is a sight to behold, the feat is actually useful to them (who actually has 8th level spells). It might be wonderful in the hands of a 5/5/10 Wizard/Cleric/Mystic Theurge, who gains the benefits of the feat twice (I don't know the precise wording of the feat, so I'm just guessing). But going by core rules only (as in the 11 classes from the PHB only), only certain builds will benefit substantially from it (The Fighter4/Wizard16 gains something for it; I've never considered this character to be horribly underpowered; but I believe they are lacking). Letting your caster level drop 5 below your level at high levels is suicide against spell resistance. The worse part is that if you drop your caster level, familiar and item SR will actually become a problem for you, something that it never was before, or the SR of little swarm creatures and summoned creatures. Those are numerous enough to consider.
mytchFR 11-29-04, 04:37 PM	I like the progression caster level with others classes but the pb of cleric/mage could be a heartache. So Why not 2 differents progession In Arcane and in Divine A ranger will be 1/2 advanced only in divine progession A rogue will be 1/2 advanced at his choice A paladin will be 1/2 advanced in divine too A fighter like rogue choose between divine and arcane with a progession of 1/3 and so on -- Sorry for my english
RogerWilco 11-29-04, 07:08 PM	First of all: I would like to play a Rogue/Druid, but this isn't a valid option in the current system. I would like to play a deepwood sniper like class with (some) spell and wildshape progression. I therefore find this thread interesting. I find to types of reasoning in this thread: - Those who want to weight a new mechanic, and will only consider the RP effects after they have established a new mechanic. - Those that think that RP should go first, and mostly think multiclassing is bad. You don't seem to be able to agree because you've got fundamentally different starting points. I think both have valid points. I do think there should be a more general mechanic for multiclassing spellcasters. I also see the problem with RP wise with having nonspellcaster classes contribute. I'm no expert on this kind of discussion, but I have the following contribution to make: I am wondering if both of you could live with a system where other class levels only contribute to a spellcaster class you already have. I think this would make sense roleplaying wise and allow CL progression. The big drawback is that it's very complex and 2nd. edition like. Maybe you can come up with something less convoluted. In this system a Fgt8/Wiz2 would cast as Wiz2, but a Wiz2/Fgt8, would maybe cast as Wiz6, because he kept using his magic, while practicing as a fighter. Now only to come up with an easy mechanic for this. Oh, and multiclassing in 2nd ed. was bad, I'm currently in a party with my 7th level rogue, and a 7/7 rogue/wizard, it's not funny.
Roxlimn 11-30-04, 11:14 AM	Xeviat-DM: I think your 4 Chakra idea should work fine. I used a 3 spell progression model: arcane, priest, and druidic, and it turned out quite a bit better than the caster level = caster level thing. For those who invested the skill points, it was actually worthwhile to take caster levels every so often. For those who didn't they took other skills. On this note, I should advise you to begin thinking about which characters have the Chakra (whatever) as class skills, as those characters would be able to maintain their magical energies better and easier. Also, putting in an additional 2 skillpoints per level probably wouldn't be a bad thing. That way, those who chose to invest in magical skill don't take a hit on skillpoints from baseline, and those who choose not to invest in magical skill at all have significantly more SP to play around with. *** for tat. Here's another idea for you: I've already toyed around with this multicaster problem for quite a while now but I haven't quite fixed it to my satisfaction. Around last year, I experimented with a unfied caster progression in response to my would-be Mage/Cleric would complained that he had to keep track of whole sheets of prepared spells. He never ever really used all of it and he told me was a pain to switch up. I though about what his character could do under the skillrank/caster level scheme and came to two conclusions: 1) Keeping track of and coordinating 2 caster prepared lists is no fun. 2) His decreased firepower but increased buffing and healing ability was making him into such a background character some NPCs had more time center stage. In evaluating this one character, I came to the conclusion that delaying his spell progression along the wizard table (the less favorable table) by one level and using the result as his total spells per day and maximum spell level allocation (including one perforce domain spell) while keeping his Spells Known list between Wizard and Cleric made his list easier to manage without making his power level astronomical. In effect, he was trading one level's worth of spell progression in Wizard for the option to prepare Cleric spells and use these spells to heal spontaneously. Many Cleric and Wizard spells overlaped anyway, and he was, moreover, forced to prepare one spell per level as a domain spell, so I thought it a fair trade. The issue of unequal Wizard/Cleric levels never really came up as he never made unequal advancements. I imagine that if it did ever come up, I would not allow him to prepare Wizard or Cleric spells (whichever one he shafted) at the highest spell levels he could cast, if he ever neglected to advance either one. It seemed to work OK for me so I thought you might be able to use it.
spike81101 12-01-04, 04:11 PM	Wow this thread won't die will it? LOL. It's funny that the practiced spellcaster feat came out after this thread died. The ranger/bard PrC's out of the unearthed arcana are pretty cool and fill in some of the empty holes in this the multiclassed spellcaster.