|
I was looking at the traits and I understood why every other trait, such as rich parents, hedge magician, and Natural born leader were banned. All of these were logical and reasonable. However I felt just the opposite about magical knack.
1)Spellcasters who multiclass already suffer from reduced caster level which, over time, leads to players of such characters being accused of 'not keeping up'. This trait was a remedy to this situation.
2)It is not overpowered. Spells are cast at a higher level but no more levels are added or gained. It is limited to two levels which is prevents it from getting out control.
3) Like other traits it is limited to being of use in a specific situation, Multiclassing into arcane classes, much like traits that grant extra skills are useful in very specific situations.
4) It does not cover any one catagory not used the pathfinder society game, like Hedge Magician and Natural-Born Leader.
5) It does not give an overwhelming advantage to the character at any one time, like Rich Parents does at character creation.
6) Allowing I would argue it encourages more character concepts which are dabblers i.e. arcane rogues and classic Fighter/Magic Users in way that has been discouraged since 3.0.
Basically, there seems to be no reason to ban it, so why is it banned?
All the Best,
Kerney
|
Maybe to discourage multiclassing casters, in order to help people avoid disappointment ? :)
I suspect that it's purely intended to discourage multiclassing casters. I'm not sure whether they still exist in Pathfinder, but 3.5 had prestige classes that required X caster level.
If your intention is that a prestige class requires arcane caster level 5 and someone qualifies with wizard 3/rogue 2 with magical knack - it may have unforseen consequences. If you change it to must be able to cast 3rd level spells, then you correct this, but you also make it harder for sorcerers and bards to qualify.
|
Maybe to discourage multiclassing casters, in order to help people avoid disappointment ? :)I suspect that it's purely intended to discourage multiclassing casters. I'm not sure whether they still exist in Pathfinder, but 3.5 had prestige classes that required X caster level.
If your intention is that a prestige class requires arcane caster level 5 and someone qualifies with wizard 3/rogue 2 with magical knack - it may have unforseen consequences. If you change it to must be able to cast 3rd level spells, then you correct this, but you also make it harder for sorcerers and bards to qualify.
Thing is, in a 12 level game, I've found many of the X Class/Spellcaster PrCs don't do too well as you don't get a whole lot out of them before reaching cap (Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, so forth).
|
|
Thing is, in a 12 level game, I've found many of the X Class/Spellcaster PrCs don't do too well as you don't get a whole lot out of them before reaching cap (Arcane Trickster, Arcane Archer, so forth).
I certainly agree with you. The changes PF made to the base classes have made multiclassing far more painful than they were in 3.0/3.5. Even prestige classes are painful for most builds. The limitation on magical knack could well be a leftover from the 3.5 Pathfinder Society days that doesn't serve the purpose it once did.
I know that I asked my DM what level we'd reach in the Council of Thieves AP when I was considering a prestige class (Heirophant?) and decided that it wasn't worth the effort to complete the requirements when I wouldn't have enough levels to enjoy the benefits.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Magical Knack is a trait, and traits represent "half" a feat. Magical Knack is "half" of the feat Practiced Spellcaster, which was a non-OGL source. So, without the actual feat around anymore to balance the trait against, the trait becomes overpowered.
If Pathfinder brought back Practiced Spellcaster, then I suspect Magical Knack would come back, too.
-Matt
|
|
Maybe to discourage multiclassing casters, in order to help people avoid disappointment ? :)
Pick a class when you gain this trait—your caster level in that class gains a +2 trait bonus as long as this bonus doesn’t increase your caster level higher than your current Hit Dice.
The whole point of the trait is to help avoid disappointment.
If your intention is that a prestige class requires arcane caster level 5 and someone qualifies with wizard 3/rogue 2 with magical knack - it may have unforseen consequences. If you change it to must be able to cast 3rd level spells, then you correct this, but you also make it harder for sorcerers and bards to qualify.
It effects your effective caster level but not the number of levels in a class. As I understand it you would not gain additional spells nor would you be able to qualify for a prestige class "early".
On the other hand it would make those 'proto' Arcane Archers and Arcane Tricksters more effective earlier. Including it would encourage such characters, and allow them to be effective as such even if they were not 'offical' members of those prestige classes yet.
Both of those reasons are good reasons to include it rather then to exclude it, creating a greater variety of character type in a way that comes closer to actual balance.
Magical Knack is a trait, and traits represent "half" a feat. Magical Knack is "half" of the feat Practiced Spellcaster, which was a non-OGL source. So, without the actual feat around anymore to balance the trait against, the trait becomes overpowered.
If Pathfinder brought back Practiced Spellcaster, then I suspect Magical Knack would come back, too.
-Matt
Avoiding OGL copywrite violations certainly makes the most sense of anything I've heard. But then, why publish it in the first place?
I would love to here something offical.
All the Best,
Kerney
Avoiding OGL copywrite violations certainly makes the most sense of anything I've heard. But then, why publish it in the first place?
I would love to here something offical.
Well, as a freelancer I can't give you anything "official" beyond the fact that Magical Knack is still part of the character traits document still available on the resource page.
I would suspect it's banned from Society play for balance reasons, not copyright issues, since the second are obviously not the case.
I would suspect it's banned from Society play for balance reasons, not copyright issues, since the second are obviously not the case.
Yeah, I suspect Josh just considers it "too good to be true", like Rich Parents. I disagree, but it is on the strong side for what a trait can do.
|
|
I think it is a pretty strong trait (being limited to level 12 is actually a big plus for the power of the trait, with most of the play being at lower level where it would be strongest).
But, honestly, I think it was banned simply to avoid confusion for those who might think it granted additional spells as well. It would mightily suck to find that out at say level 3-4, when you can't change it. Avoiding the arguments over it is a big plus.
|
|
Yeah, I suspect Josh just considers it "too good to be true", like Rich Parents. I disagree, but it is on the strong side for what a trait can do.
I would suspect it's banned from Society play for balance reasons, not copyright issues, since the second are obviously not the case.
Agreed. I think it's the one trait (or feat) that specifically deals with a mechanical flaw that's been around since 3.0 and addresses it.That's why it's so important to me.
It is strong, but I still fail to see anything to make it unbalancing. Rather, I think it helps characters 'keep up' rather then end up too powerful.
But, honestly, I think it was banned simply to avoid confusion for those who might think it granted additional spells as well. It would mightily suck to find that out at say level 3-4, when you can't change it. Avoiding the arguments over it is a big plus.
That could be taken care of with some explicit wording.
All the Best,
Kerney
|
Hi
I agree with Kerney.
I've got a Paladin 2/Sorceror 3, going Dragon Disciple. The problem is that Ive lost BAB and/or spells, in the hope for future gains. Trouble is the PrC barely gets going before he retires. (I didn't know about the level cap before multiclassing).
Since the level cap is fixed at 12, Magical Knack would help with multiclassing PrC's. Or are they discouraged?
Thanks
Paul H
The problem I see with this trait is the advantage it gives while a character is in the low to mid levels. If you have a group of 4th level characters, the one that is, for example, wizard2/anything else2 will be casting spells at the same power level as a wizard4 while ALSO having the extra advantage of the 2 levels in their other class. Yeah, this advantage pretty much disappears at higher levels, but for a few levels at least this character could dominate tables. Pathfinder Society is supposed to have as level a playing field as possible and anything that gives a player an unfair advantage with their character, even if it is only for only a couple of levels, is generally not going to be allowed, especially at the lower end where most players still are if they play more than one character.
|
|
The problem I see with this trait is the advantage it gives while a character is in the low to mid levels. If you have a group of 4th level characters, the one that is, for example, wizard2/anything else2 will be casting spells at the same power level as a wizard4 while ALSO having the extra advantage of the 2 levels in their other class. Yeah, this advantage pretty much disappears at higher levels, but for a few levels at least this character could dominate tables. Pathfinder Society is supposed to have as level a playing field as possible and anything that gives a player an unfair advantage with their character, even if it is only for only a couple of levels, is generally not going to be allowed, especially at the lower end where most players still are if they play more than one character.
It only effects caster level; not spells known, HD, skills, etc. Lacking all those other things, along with the limited power of 1st level spells, I don't feel it's that much more powerful.
All the Best,
Kerney
I personally believe it because the advantage it gives paladins and rangers by changing them from level-3 to level-1 especially when looking at the new paladin and ranger spells in the APG. This is a benefit which kicks in at 4th level and has minimal downside for the character.
One more comment: I highly suspect that it wouldn't have been banned if there were a corresponding feat that gave you a +4 caster level. But since there's no such (PFRPG) feat, it's hard to claim that the trait version is worth "half a feat".
|
|
Hi
I don't understand the problem - saying it is too powerful?
IMHO traits that:
grant bonuses to Fort or Reflex saves,
free mastercrafted weapons at first level, (and weapon proficiency with it)
+2 bonus to initiative,
grant extra class skills, and bonuses to boot
- are far more imbalanced at the earlier levels.
Just my opinion
Thanks
Paul H
Edit PS as for 'Practiced Spellcaster' being non-OGL. What about changing the name to, say, 'Versatile Spellcaster'? It's a far more accurate description.
It only effects caster level; not spells known, HD, skills, etc. Lacking all those other things, along with the limited power of 1st level spells, I don't feel it's that much more powerful.
All the Best,
Kerney
The "not much more" is more than enough.
It would be easy enough to make up a list of spells that would greatly profit from this at certain levels or you could just jump to the chase: magic missile. Make a Rogue 2/Wizard 3 or Barbarian 2/Wizard 3, pop on Magical Knack, and watch the Magic Missiles go from 2 per spell to 3, which is a huge tactical advantage for a 5th level character. Yes, you're out you're one fireball, but you've got your bouncing rogue ability to dodge fireballs or your barbarian hit points that let you take them.
At higher levels? Not so much of an advantage, but it's very easy to twink things for a tactical "sweet spot" at certain levels.
I think that has to be why it was banned, even if the banning does bork other non-twinky character concepts.
|
|
I think that has to be why it was banned, even if the banning does bork other non-twinky character concepts.I'm sorry.. I'm not getting how this is overpowered in any way.
If you are taking a suboptimal combination of classes and this trait mitigates it somewhat.. what's the harm?
Sorry a rogue2/Wizard3 is NOT a 'power' character. It might be lots of FUN to play, but doesn't stand up as a 5th level character. Sure you can dodge fireballs and the wizard5 cannot, but the wizard5 is throwing back his own..
-James
I think this is where I stand on the issue. It is basically mitigating an underpowered combination.
I also helps limit bad behavior. Several time on board and in person, both in 3.5 and in Pathfinder I've heard players be called stupid, cheap, 'not doing their duty' and other such things to players who multiclassed suboptimalbly in order to create a character concept.
All the Best,
Kerney
|
|
I also helps limit bad behavior. Several time on board and in person, both in 3.5 and in Pathfinder I've heard players be called stupid, cheap, 'not doing their duty' and other such things to players who multiclassed suboptimalbly in order to create a character concept.
Something that everyone needs to keep in mind is that a living campaign like Pathfinder Society is not a home game. You don't know who is going to be seated at your table, so there is a certain amount of trust that anyone who shows up will be able to contribute in the roleplaying as well as the combat encounters.
If there are quirks to your character which might surprise people, you should let them know when you are mustering. The one that I've seen most often is the cleric who refuses to cast healing spells - maybe he follows a god of the dead, maybe he's focused on combat, whatever. But you don't want the party to discover this when you are in the middle of the adventure.
Let me give you can example. One player in a home game with me has decided that his RP quirk is that he's scared of dogs and has a 50/50 chance of running away if he sees one. I'm not pleased that he is taking a limitation that could lead to a TPK when he doesn't get anything in return, but it's his character and I hope the DM will take this into account in future games. Something like this is unacceptable (IMO) in a Pathfinder Society game. The shadow mastiffs attack the party and you voluntarily run away with those who fail their saving throws and characters end up dying and blame you.
Your character concept is up to you and whatever you want to do is fine, as long as you can pull your weight in combat.
I personally believe it because the advantage it gives paladins and rangers by changing them from level-3 to level-1 especially when looking at the new paladin and ranger spells in the APG. This is a benefit which kicks in at 4th level and has minimal downside for the character.
I have thought about what I have posted before on this topic and what others have posted and I think this is probably the primary reason, except I would expand it to any character class with delayed spell casting benefits and a reduced casting level. If this trait were allowed, I do not see how any player with a paladin, ranger, etc, who plans on making use of their casting ability would not take this trait. A 4th level paladin casting spells as if he were 3rd level instead of 1st level is a pretty decent power boost and a big advantage over another paladin without this trait.
Just remember that sometimes things get banned not because they are unbalanced or broken, but because it is something that becomes a "must have" for your character to be considered functional and starts making certain classes too cookie cutter. After all, PFS is about individuality for the players, not "everyone must make their characters this way in order to do well."
|
|
Hi
As to the 'Must Have' argument, what about Master Crafted weapins that grant proficiency with them? That's worth at least 300gp, at 1st level!
Then there's the Arcane Bond spell storing item, except it's better than a storing item, since it lets you use it with any spell known, regardless of level, without preparation. How much is a ring like that worth? Or even a master crafted staff of spell storing, which you can get for free? In 3.5 there's a crystal that does a similar thing.
Costs 1000GP x[spell level squared] x 1.5
If there is an argument about balance, then balance there should be. Including other feats and class abilities.
Thanks
Paul H
PS The free 'Master Crafted Spell Storing Staff' is at least thematic. Remember Gandalf vs Saruman? (No staff equals no power).
|
|
Surely the loss of higher-level spells offsets any potential gain from multiclassing. A Wizard(1)/Barbarian(2) with the trait has basically traded a cantrip, a 1st-level spell and a 2nd-level spell for +1bab, 6hp and +1 to Fort & Ref. Not to mention that her mage-college buddies will be showing off their 3rd-level spells when she's only just getting her 2nd-level ones, and so on.
Without it, she not only trades away her extra spells, but also loses relevancy on the ones she does have. Her damage spells are being cast against creatures with 3xHP and better saves than they're supposed to be, her range suffers, and her non-damage spells suffer from decreased duration.
If Magical Knack granted caster-level, spellslots AND spells known, then I'd agree it was overpowered. As it stands, it's basically just a trait-tax to keep multiclassed casters relevant.
EDIT: My apologies, I didn't notice that this was thread necromancy.
|
|
To get ahead of another 100+ post argument, this is not changing. Bringing back an old thread is not going to change my mind. Check this link for the same answer I will give here as I did there. It is still the same as it was 10 days ago. This thread is locked. We have another, more recent post about the same topic. You may continue discussing there if you wish.