As the thread title says, why are Caster Levels (CL), so good? Why does having a few less caster levels hurt any spell caster so much? Is it possible to design a casting character that is not totally dependent on their CL?
I'm assuming you mean +1 in effective caster level as printed in prestige classes and things of this nature. Otherwise there's not a straight class way to make you have less caster levels than your character level.
Your caster level determines 1)what max level spell you can cast. A 10th level wizard 3 level fighter still only casts 5th level spells. Stink town, because the higher level spells are more powerful. 2)It determines how powerful your spells are. Both in level dependent variables (duration, range, etc.) and in Spell Penetration rolls.
Yes you can make a caster who has fewer CLs, as in you are multiclassing for some reason, and still be effective. But he is better off concentrating on things like buffs and battlefield control which won't have a save or SR because otherwise you won't be able to meaningfully contribute to a level appropriate encounter.
The point is that whatever extra abilities you get from losing some spellcasting ability are usually worse than what you lose by not having access to your highest spell level.
For instance, a wizard 7/non-spellcaster 2 is usually not getting an ability from his non-spellcaster class that's as good as casting 5th level spells.
Magic circumvents problems, including other magic. Nonmagical solutions to a problem may exist, but magic is more powerful, in general, than the feats and skills others may bring to bear. Look at the Stealth modifiers for invisibility for example.
From another perspective: magic alters the fundamental rules of the world. To paraphrase a certain androgynous mage, magic lets you tell the laws of physics to shut up and heel. Spells increase in power from one spell level to the next significantly. Feats, not so much. Skills, not at all. So if you want power, why delay access to more powerful tools?
Mechanics: every CL you lack compared to a single-classed caster is a -1 penalty on caster level checks and concentration checks. It's that much less damage, that much less duration, that much less area of effect. Spell resistance can be compensated for by being an elf or through the Spell Penetration feats, but you might not be elven and there are other feats you just might want. These feats don't deal with reduction of your odds on concentration checks or the overall power of your spells. Spell resistance normally sits around monster CR+11, arguably higher. So losing 3 caster levels (e.g. cleric 3/ wizard 3, going into mystic theurge next level), is actually vying to beat CR+14.
Also, yes, you're delaying access to more potent magics, which means that you give monsters a free +1 on saves for every spell level you're not using on them. That is just one more thing that helps your enemy out.
All this said, one must always take the campaign into consideration. My current game has us all at 17th level, and I've had to deal with SR a good bit, so I'm glad I'm a full caster. Our arcane archer has given up on using spells against any foe with SR, as his caster level is only 8. At higher levels, everybody and his cousin has SR. Couple that with the phenomenal saves of monsters, and full caster levels are needed to maximize your chances of affecting a foe with spells.
But a wizard 9 would only get 1-2 level 5 spells. Doesn't valuing a single or two high level spells over everything else assume a nova-style gameplay. Does the game become unplayable with any reasonable chance of success if the players have anything less than the maximum possible effective caster level (CL)?
Alternatively, it seems like spellcasting is basically valued over everything else. If this is the case then why are people bothering to even look at other classes besides a generic "Magic User"? Why build parties containing anything other than "Magic User" x5? Does the game become unplayable if people do not use parties composed of "Magic User" x5?
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.
Look at what a 2nd-level character can do in terms of class abilities. Try the barbarian, the fighter, the rogue, and the monk. Is anything they can do of equal utility to the ability to teleport, to continue with our example? Teleport gets you past an encounter; can any abilities of a 2nd-level character do that? Can that 2nd-level class ability revive the dead? Kill a group of monsters at a time?
Yes, you can only use those abilities 1-2 times per day. If those abilities get you past an encounter, then you've saved resources for the entire party. And many spells can end an encounter just that easily.
Also, look around for information regarding the "Tier" system here on the boards and elsewhere, as well as the Treantmonk guides. The characters that can handle the most challenges? Spellcasters. Fighters, rogues, and other non-casters can do various things, but if one spell completely negates what they do-and one spell of an appropriate level often can-then that one spell can be worth as much to the party as an entire character!
There's also spell slots/day to consider. After the initial few caster levels, you would be giving up 1 or 2 Wizard or 2 or 4 Sorcerer slots/day of your highest caster levels, usually your top two spell levels (even excluding bonus slots). Those highest level spell slots are golden, as they open up your metamagic and could be used to cast even lower level spells should the need ever arise.
Magic power grows exponentionally. Melee power grows linearly.
+1 to existing caster class gives you 3 things. It gives you access to new spells, it gives you more spells per day, and it makes all of your spells stronger.
1. Access to new spells. Look at a level wizard 4/rogue 1, they are nice, but the lack access to level 3 spells. A wizard 5 on the other hand cas cast fireball, haste, Dispel Magic, Fly, etc. A level 5 wizard can do things a level 4 wizard cannot.
2. More spells per day. A level 6 wizard can cast 1 more level 3 spell than a level 5 wizard. This makes a big difference.
3. More powerful spells. At some point, this becomes less important, but not until you get up above level 10. Up til level 10, every dice of damage you do, and the durations of spells can make a differrence.
But a wizard 9 would only get 1-2 level 5 spells. Doesn't valuing a single or two high level spells over everything else assume a nova-style gameplay. Does the game become unplayable with any reasonable chance of success if the players have anything less than the maximum possible effective caster level (CL)?
Alternatively, it seems like spellcasting is basically valued over everything else. If this is the case then why are people bothering to even look at other classes besides a generic "Magic User"? Why build parties containing anything other than "Magic User" x5? Does the game become unplayable if people do not use parties composed of "Magic User" x5?
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.
The problem may be synergy. What are you gaining by bypassing a caster level? Caster levels are entirely synergistic with your spellcasting ability. What you gain by bypassing a caster level may already be (significantly) surpassed by someone else in the party.
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.
It's not. Some people are convinced it is, and they'll never think otherwise.
I like multiclassing and PrCs. Having other abilities besides spellcasting makes you less dependent on spellcasting.
|
The point is that whatever extra abilities you get from losing some spellcasting ability are usually worse than what you lose by not having access to your highest spell level.
For instance, a wizard 7/non-spellcaster 2 is usually not getting an ability from his non-spellcaster class that's as good as casting 5th level spells.
But a wizard 9 would only get 1-2 level 5 spells. Doesn't valuing a single or two high level spells over everything else assume a nova-style gameplay. Does the game become unplayable with any reasonable chance of success if the players have anything less than the maximum possible effective caster level (CL)?
Alternatively, it seems like spellcasting is basically valued over everything else. If this is the case then why are people bothering to even look at other classes besides a generic "Magic User"? Why build parties containing anything other than "Magic User" x5? Does the game become unplayable if people do not use parties composed of "Magic User" x5?
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.
okay. Assuming a 9th level wizard versus a 7th level wizard / 2nd level anything else:
First, it's three fifth level spells; one from wizard 9, one from int 20 (a safe assumption at level 9), and one from specialization (the generalist abilities are very boring compared to any of the specialization choices AND you give up one spell per level, not worth it).
Second, it's significantly fewer spells in total; the 9th level wizard has roughly 3 5th, 5 4th, and 6 of 3rd, 2nd, and 1st, which is 26 spells. The wizard 7 / ??? 2 has roughly 3 4th, 5 3rd, and 6 of 2nd and 1st, which is only 20 spells. So you aren't just giving up access to the most powerful group of spells you could cast, you are giving up a full 5th of your spellcasting ability.
Third, and most important, each new level of spells is almost exponentially better than the previous level. Compare Remove Curse to Break Enchantment. Compare Dimension Door to Teleport. Compare Enervation to Magic Jar. All are good spells for thier level, but the 5th level one are much, much better than the 4th level ones.
It's also important to note that just about everything in the game is easier to make up for then CL. Increasing CL other then through a class is almost impossible.
But a wizard 9 would only get 1-2 level 5 spells. Doesn't valuing a single or two high level spells over everything else assume a nova-style gameplay. Does the game become unplayable with any reasonable chance of success if the players have anything less than the maximum possible effective caster level (CL)?The point is that whatever extra abilities you get from losing some spellcasting ability are usually worse than what you lose by not having access to your highest spell level.
For instance, a wizard 7/non-spellcaster 2 is usually not getting an ability from his non-spellcaster class that's as good as casting 5th level spells.
I didn't say anything about the character being "unplayable". It's just that one is generally better than the other. They can both be playable, of course.
I'm just saying that suppose those two levels of a non-spellcasting class gave something as good as two 5th level spells (say, Teleport 1/day and Baleful Polymorph 1/day, to pick two spells at random) -- unlikely, but possible. Then two levels later, the wizard 9/non-spellcaster 2 is behind the wizard 11 because he only has 5th level spell abilities and the wizard 11 has 6th level spell abilities.
Alternatively, it seems like spellcasting is basically valued over everything else. If this is the case then why are people bothering to even look at other classes besides a generic "Magic User"? Why build parties containing anything other than "Magic User" x5?
Because some people don't like playing spellcasters. More power to 'em.
The point is that whatever extra abilities you get from losing some spellcasting ability are usually worse than what you lose by not having access to your highest spell level.
For instance, a wizard 7/non-spellcaster 2 is usually not getting an ability from his non-spellcaster class that's as good as casting 5th level spells.
But a wizard 9 would only get 1-2 level 5 spells. Doesn't valuing a single or two high level spells over everything else assume a nova-style gameplay. Does the game become unplayable with any reasonable chance of success if the players have anything less than the maximum possible effective caster level (CL)?
Alternatively, it seems like spellcasting is basically valued over everything else. If this is the case then why are people bothering to even look at other classes besides a generic "Magic User"? Why build parties containing anything other than "Magic User" x5? Does the game become unplayable if people do not use parties composed of "Magic User" x5?
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.
Generally losing 1 or 2 levels of caster doesnt cripple a caster, but it certainly hurts. Any primary spell caster is literally itching to get to use their higher level spells. There is a significant jump in general power spell level to spell level.
And most PRC's where you lose a caster level, you lose more then one or two, or have to take levels in other classes to qualify. Once you lose more then 2 caster levels, you are now 2 spell levels behind. This is a massive gap power wise. Is that character unplayable? Ofcourse not. But their individual contribution to specific situation will be dramatically less.
Lets look at the classic shall we? Endorsed by admiral akbar himself (Its a Trap!) the Mystic Theurge. This class requires a minimup of 3 caster levels loss in each of it's spell casting classes.
So lets look at it, Wizard3/Cleric3/Mystic Theurge 3 vs Wizard 9 and cleric 9.
The ME is effectively a level 6 cleric and level 6 wizard. He has access to things like (off the top of my head) Cure serious wounds, Bestow Curse, Blindness Deafness Dispell Magic, on the cleric side and Heroism, suggestion, fireball, haste and fly on the wizard side.
All good spells, but lets look at what he is missing out on.
Divine Power, Dismissal, Dimensional Anchor, Cure critical wounds, Restoration, Break enchantment, Greater Command, Raise dead, Scrying, Slay living and True Seeing.
Stoneskin, dimension door, locate crature, charm monster, confusion, fire shield, wall of fire, greater invisibility, enervation, fear, teleport, dominate person, hold monster, mind fog, wall of force, waves of fatigue, baleful polymorph.
Now think of the encounters you have faced around level 9. Consider their difficulty with and without the above spells. Will the wizard or cleric be casting all these spell in every fight, ofcourse not. But thats not what they are there for. They are there for the big hard fights, you generally dont get lots of these in succssion.
Imagine lets say, the fighter needs some backup in the front lines, C3/W3/ME3 isnt going to be of alot of help. But C9 with divine power may be. Being attacked by a large enemy force? Wall of stone/force to split them up, dimension door to get around them, mind fog to take their wits.
The truth is there is a huge jump in capability between each spell level. That is why the spellcasting classes have fewer class features then every other class. Spell levels are in general better then any class feature you could come up with. And they just keep getting better. It isnt really the loss of a caster level or three that makes people not consider it a good choice, it is the loss of higher level spells. Is it nice to be able to have a good store of both cleric and wizard spells? Sure, but your save dc's are lower, and your spells are of a lower level. In the end, a higher level single class caster would be better in every situation. The same goes for things like eldritch knight and dragon disciple.
As for favoring spellcasting over everything else, for a caster, absolutely. There is nothing you could give a caster that he cant get from spells and that he actually wants to do. As for why there arent 4 casters in every party, well that my answer is twofold.
1 - not everyone LIKES playing a caster, and certainly few like always playing a caster. Some just dont want to have to manage with all the spells and tracking them. Others have character ideas they prefer not to be flinging magic about.
2 - most casters are more effective when they work with at least some non-casters. A cleric or wizard's buff spells are often better served cast on fighter types then other casters (though druids and summoners are something of an exception). Not to mention, while casters can with the right spell accomplish anything, they cant do it all the time, eventually they run out of spells, rogues and fighters dont run out of sword swipes, and the rogue can pick locks and search for traps all day long. That endurance is neccessary if you are going to have more then one or two encounters per day. It lets the caster save their spells for the more challenging encounters.
That said, I have seen parties made up of mostly casters. Particularly if you allow the beguiler or spell theif it is definately doable.
|
It's worth noting that the importance of caster levels is dependent on your character's role in your game.
If you are looking at a primary spellcaster, then of course your character should be bent toward being the best spellcaster possible. And the best way to do that is to cast at as high a level you can. Anytime you trade off a caster level, you are taking a big hit in performance, and there had better be some pretty major benefits to offset this.
On the other hand, maybe you just want to run a character that does some spellcasting on the side, like a fighter type who can do a bit of healing or maybe a true strike on himself when the occasion demands. In that case, caster level becomes much less important--generally one to three or so is all you'll need.
Caster level is also rather less important in classes where spellcasting is not a primary feature, notably rangers and paladins. In those cases, the spellcasting is again an added perk, not the main purpose of the class, so losing some or even all of your caster levels is not necessarily crippling.
The answer is simple. Someone in your group will be a full caster and you will feel weak in comparison, especially when your spells start failing SR often. My Cleric has full caster levels and a 20 WIS and usually has to roll at least a 14 to penetrate SR. You pretty much have to be totally dedicated to spellcasting and have spell penetration to make your SR check more than half the time.
The answer is simple. Someone in your group will be a full caster and you will feel weak in comparison, especially when your spells start failing SR often. My Cleric has full caster levels and a 20 WIS and usually has to roll at least a 14 to penetrate SR. You pretty much have to be totally dedicated to spellcasting and have spell penetration to make your SR check more than half the time.
What's a 20 WIS got to do with SR?
The answer is simple. Someone in your group will be a full caster and you will feel weak in comparison, especially when your spells start failing SR often. My Cleric has full caster levels and a 20 WIS and usually has to roll at least a 14 to penetrate SR. You pretty much have to be totally dedicated to spellcasting and have spell penetration to make your SR check more than half the time.What's a 20 WIS got to do with SR?
Thanks for bringing attention to my blond moment. Must've been thinking of casting on the defensive or something.
Thanks for bringing attention to my blond moment. Must've been thinking of casting on the defensive or something.
If only the casting stat modifier applied to SR checks! I hate SR....it turns me into a summon and buff caster only.
|
|
I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.It's not. Some people are convinced it is, and they'll never think otherwise.
I like multiclassing and PrCs. Having other abilities besides spellcasting makes you less dependent on spellcasting.
I like multiclassing too and this is STILL wrong. Especially in PF with capstone abilities...which makes MC even less desirable.
As far as less dependent on spell casting...that like going well I have a machine gun, but instead of brining extra ammo, I´ll bring this knife instead...just in case. The knife maybe better then your fists...but not by much. Where as the extra ammo will keep that from happening in more cases then not.
|
|
So what you are saying is that playing anything less than a caster who has maximized their effective caster level is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay? That the entire party should be nothing but casters built this way?I'm trying to understand the reasoning behind the vigorous arguments that choosing anything but the maximum effective caster level (CL) is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay.It's not. Some people are convinced it is, and they'll never think otherwise.
I like multiclassing and PrCs. Having other abilities besides spellcasting makes you less dependent on spellcasting.
I like multiclassing too and this is STILL wrong. Especially in PF with capstone abilities...which makes MC even less desirable.
As far as less dependent on spell casting...that like going well I have a machine gun, but instead of brining extra ammo, I´ll bring this knife instead...just in case. The knife maybe better then your fists...but not by much. Where as the extra ammo will keep that from happening in more cases then not.
No I´m saying the system is set up in a way that if you don´t you are penalized. Using the PF modules as a standard of core difficulty of gameplay, having a party of casters makes the game too easy. Having a balanced party of single classed characters makes the game pretty easy. Having everyone be hybrids makes the game challenging...and we TPKed twice. Same game, same players. Before you say that it´s because we have favorites...yes we do...we all like MC characters over single actually...and 2 of the 4 players liked none casters over casters. I would say that for standard difficulty that losing CL IS crippling. For a game that a DM is making up...who cares, if the DM is a good one, the difficulty will be scaled to the players characters and abilities and there is no issue.
So what you are saying is that playing anything less than a caster who has maximized their effective caster level is the wrong choice and crippling in gameplay? That the entire party should be nothing but casters built this way?
No. I don't know where you're drawing this conclusion, but lets go back to basics.
Pathfinder is balanced around the idea of a party of 4 adventurers typically filling four roles in a group - the tank/beat stick, the sneak, the healer, and the arcane caster. When any of the above roles is absent the game is much harder.
Pathfinder promotes specialization and penalizes diversification, both within any given classes options and on the whole. This doesn't apply only to spellcasting classes, though it does apply more to them (more in a moment). A fighter is penalized for taking levels in wizard, because it dilutes their focus. They have lower base attack, fewer feats, and less advanced fighter features, and generally are a poorer fighter than they would be had they taken more levels in fighter.
The same is true of spellcasters to take levels in other classes, but the penalties are often amplified, because unlike the fighter who gains some base attack bonus from other classes or who might gain something that makes him a better fighter (say sneak attack to increase his damage when flanking, or favorite enemy against a given foe, or some minor buff he can cast before combat), the spellcaster gains nothing to benefit his spellcasting abilities. If I am a spellcaster, why would I take levels in things that don't help me cast spells? Being able to use a weapon, or sneak attack, or rage to a small extent doesn't help you to the same extent that another level in spellcasting would, because whenever you are doing one of those things you are being ineffective by not playing to your strength (spellcasting).
This isn't a product of spellcasters being better, it is a product of spellcasters being more penalized by being things other than spellcasters than meleers are for being things other than meleers.
Caster level is not the same as spell casting class level or spell casting level. Caster level doesn't give more spells or spells of higher level. Spell casting class level does that as well spell casting class level increases your caster level. There are ways to increase you caster level without increasing you spell casting class level. There are some feats in 3.5 and in Pathfinder there are two traits that do it that I've seen so far. One gives you +2 caster level up to you character level, so only useful if you multiclass. The other gives you +1 caster level on one spell.
The bonuses to caster level do boost you class spell casting level so no new spell levels or additional spells per day. You do calculate damage, range, and such as per the caster level though. So some bonus.
So for example taking the "Magical Knack Trait" for +2 caster level that doesn't exceed you character level you could go wizard 1 level, fighter for 2 levels and have caster level or 3 but spell casting level of 1. So you could cast magic missle once per day but get 2 missiles. Then progress to level 6 fighter to qualify for the arcane archer. At 8th level you'd have caster level 4 and 2 spell casting levels.
So caster level is nice but spell casting level is much better.
I'm also confused by the insistence that if a character has any casting levels, that doing anything other than maximizing them is crippling.
Who exactly is insisting that this is crippling?
EDIT: I guess Cold Napalm supported that claim in this particular thread, but nobody else.
|
First, if you are specialized you can do your job better, so odds of said fall is far less liekly.
If sneaky falls, life goes on; his primary role is actually outside combat, in combat he can be effective but is the least worried. In fact, truly life can work without sneaky; if you are the 3 man party he is first to go. But when he is valuable he is really valuable.
Tank falling is a pain, but divine can get him back up; or in the absolute worst cases start buffing and take over. Summoning augments his need, but tanks are a lot more effective now, especially at low-to-mid levels.
Divine augments the powers of the others "buffing" and even occassionally channel-healing. If dropped, sneaky should have some form of backup healing to get him back "on".
Arcane either has the highest damage or the battlefield control; the latter is typically considered better. He usually has his best control spells down early, so if he falls the others can push on.
The point is, the party can push on if a role falls; but makig the roles weaker withdivetsity simply makes it more likely they fall. Eldrich knights are horrid on the front line tanking (about as bad as sneaky), so can't really fill that role and are weaker arcanes. Amy weakening of your divine means worsening spells. Changing tank from his Fighter or Paladin specialty costs Either valuable AC or valuable free-action HP healing; to say nothing of BAB.
DND, like most games involving groups, rewards being very good at the role you are assigned. For larger groups, you can add "diverse", but even they are better soloists (Druid, Bard, Inquisitor being the best of these).
Caedwyr:
Pathfinder mechanically is a far cry from 2nd edition. I played a lot of 2E, I remember it fondly, but there are design differences. In 2E, a multiclass character would have the average of his classes in HP give or take while still having most of the to-hit bonus, be only a little behind in spellcasting overall, and overall be pretty viable. In those days, monsters didn't have as many HP and weren't as hard to hit as they are now. Now, high-level monsters are harder to hit, more easily make saves, and can chew up your HP in the blink of an eye (1-2 rounds). The current system rewards specialization more than it did in 2E. That doesn't mean it's absolutely required in every game or else you die, but the odds of survival increase if everyone is "the best there is at what they do" to quote a short furry Canadian. That means spellcasters need to have the most powerful spells available to them based on character level. I think I've made my point clear on that upthread.
Redundancy:
By definition, in order to be redundant, you need to actually have something first. So a backup caster would only exist if you already had a caster. The four roles in the party need to be established before you can have a redundant role. So a multiclassed character that is, say, a fighter/wizard would be redundant to the fighter or the wizard-in theory, at least. You've admitted to reading the Eldritch Knight thread and can make up your own mind on this. But if your party is missing one of these roles, it hurts your survivability in combat as a group. No rogue=no trapfinding, no healer=no healing, no tank=no protection for casters, etc. Multiclass characters do not function as well as single-classed characters in these roles when compared to characters of the same overall character level, broadly speaking. I like having a backup plan as much as the next guy, but you first have to establish the main plan, which are specialists in these main roles.
Now, the problem with redundancy and spellcasters is that the backup caster would have to be within a level of the original spellcaster, arguably 2-3 levels at most, in order to function as well as the main caster. That means you're still penalized by 1-3 points vs. SR, which the main caster apparently already had problems with-you expect to get past it when the big guns didn't? Same penalty for save DCs as you're using weaker spells, making it easier for monsters to save vs. your spells. Less damage, if you're blasting, so less crippling. Less duration. And so on.
Here's an exercise for you to think about. Figure out what stats you'd give a single-classed spellcaster that you're generating for a campaign. Cleric, wizard, sorcerer, druid, or bard-a primary caster. Assign them however is normal for your game. Figure out what the save DCs would be for their spells and compare that to typical monsters of the character's level. Advance a few levels at a time, adjust their feats and equipment-no need to be too specific, just things they might have to make their spellcasting better. Repeat this experiment a few times. Compare the save DCs of your spells to the saves of monsters in the Bestiary. Note SR, if any, as well as energy resistance. Repeat this experiment with a multiclassed spellcaster of your choice. I looked at the monster's saves compared to those my current character can generate for myself at one point; I think you might be surprised at the differences. Remember that multiclassed characters will need multiple good ability scores, so you may not have your casting stat as your highest stat or may not advance it as fast as a single-classed character.
EDIT: I guess Cold Napalm supported that claim in this particular thread, but nobody else.
I'm about to as well, so here goes.
Part of the basic concern of the Vancian casting system, and the Caster Level scaled effects on spells, and most specifically the way that arcane spells known work, especially for the wizard, is that losing spell slots is a very difficult challenge to the versatility that is the core strength of the wizard. When an arcanist is assumed, it is frequently assumed that the arcanist within the scope of the adventure will have access to a certain number of spells per encounter. Because arcanists who lose Caster Levels cannot ever have the same versatility of an arcanist who has all caster levels, there ability to address challenges as an arcanist is lowered. Likewise, an arcanist that, after a certain point, has not invested WBL into being a useful arcanist will not be able to bypass level appropriate arcane challenges.
This becomes true whether we are talking about wizards, where it has no real effect on spells known, and a higher effect on socerors and bards, where it directly impacts not just power, but also versatility.
|
|
I'm also confused by the insistence that if a character has any casting levels, that doing anything other than maximizing them is crippling.Who exactly is insisting that this is crippling?
EDIT: I guess Cold Napalm supported that claim in this particular thread, but nobody else.
I maybe the only one to explicitly say it...but as others have said, even losing 2 CL makes you unable to do your primary role...that is crippling. This assumes a standard of 4 players at core difficulty. This doesn´t apply if you are not playing at those standards.
I played a fair bit of 2nd edition, and what I found was that although pure casters could be powerful, a group with multi-class characters could also do just as well, and tended to be more durable and adaptable if something went wrong. What I'm confused about, is the insistence I've seen that seems to advocate putting everything in the basket of maximizing your effective caster level at all costs. For example, in the Eldritch Knight thread, I've seen many posts suggesting that having 2 less caster levels (not spell levels) than the maximum possible number of caster levels is somehow crippling. What I'm confused, is that in my experience the greater survivability and increased number of viable tactics available by multi-classing tends to make up for the loss of theoretical maximum effective caster level.
I agree that losing a couple of levels of spell casting over the 20 level life of a PC isn't that huge a problem. But losing much more than a couple can be a big disappointment. And that's why you have to be careful about the role you intend to play when multiclassing in 3e variations including PF. You must be comfortable with being a non-premier spellcaster in the party. You must be comfortable with using your spells in conjunction with other supporting abilities, looking for combinations to mix and artful use rather than wielding the next-higher magical power like a hammer.
In 1e/2e, a multiclass character with 2 classes tended to be only 1 level behind his single-class peers. His classes advanced roughly simultaneously. But in 3e, advancement is more by alternating between classes. This works just fine for fighting classes like fighters, barbarians, rangers, paladins, and even rogues because the most important ability in doing your job - your BAB - synergizes well between those classes. Hell, the BAB advancement you get taking a level as a full caster class even helps that out. That's not so for any sort of spellcasting. They don't synergize with any other class advancement at all. While that makes sense conceptually, it's got some gamist drawbacks.
I think the eldritch knight does a reasonably good job of getting a multiclass of a fighter and wizard/sorcerer to a level of synergy that hurts neither focus in any significant way. You lose a couple of caster levels, which may be a bummer when you miss out on getting teleport as early as a single class wizard might get it, but it's not breaking the character's back. Moreover, the eldritch knight has a very easy requirement to meet for one of the prerequisite classes. One level of fighter is enough to qualify for the prestige class. Mystic theurge doesn't do nearly as well in that regard and maybe it should. I wouldn't characterize it as a trap, but it has got some player-frustrating levels to slog through before it really starts to pay off.
As a remedy, I'd seriously consider crafting prestige classes (or building a general structure) that blends multiclass options similar to the eldritch knight. I'd advocate setting any non-spellcasting classes's requirements low (1-2 levels max) and incorporate spellcasting advancement in 8-9 of the 10 levels of the prestige class. I'd also pick the most important advances of the non-spellcasting class and find a way to work in at least half of them (like the eldritch knight works in 3 bonus combat feats out of the 5 a fighter could normally expect to get over 10 levels).
|
|
Specifically with the EK, it is a horribly done prestige class because it makes you fail at BOTH roles. It is better then if you have just the fighter and wizard...but better then truly awful doesn´t make it GOOD. The reason that MC in 2nd ed was so good was because you maybe a level or 2 behind but you got the BEST of BOTH classes besides HP...which you got the average of. So it´s like having a class at level 8 that has the casting of an 8th level wizard, the BAB of an 8th level fighter, all the fighter and wizard bonus feats and class abilities, having a good fort and will saves...vs a level 9 fighter or wizard. If MC worked that way in 3.x derived systems, then yes you could MC and make viable chatacters...more then viable actually...but it doesn´t.
In anycase, you can play however you want, but if you play a PF module and you play a certain way, it will lead to TPKs barring extreme luck or the DM pulling punches...we tend to ignore both when talking about balance in game mechanics.
With about 5-10 minutes of looking on the first page of the paizo boards I got the following. I'm sure if I looked other places like the Gaming Den, Brilliant Gameologists, or Giant in the Playground Boards I could find many other examples[examples deleted]
Ah; that gives me something to comment on.
A) The problem with the Eldritch Knight class is that it takes too much spellcasting to enter; in order to enter it, you're expected to be mostly a spellcaster. If you're mostly a spellcaster, then you're falling behind someone who's completely a spellcaster (for instance).
B) The same does not apply to a character who is mostly a non-spellcaster with a little bit of spellcasting. For instance, a Fighter 5/Cleric 3 is not really any worse than a Fighter 8; he's still basically a fighter.
C) A half-spellcaster, half-non-spellcaster can be a reasonably good character, and yet is still probably not a very good substitute for a full spellcaster. So in that sense a Fighter 5/Cleric 3 is a "crippled" cleric because it's not really a cleric at all; it's not a "crippled" fighter, though.
|
|
Try it out yourself. Build the very best multi-class caster you can. Put him in a group with 3 other characters( I recommend using the pregens for warrior, rogue and cleric). Send them against a lvl appropriate encounter. Then make the very best single-class caster that you can. Put him in with the same group and run the exact same encounter. Make sure the encounter isn't biased toward non-casters or casters. See how it plays out. I would bet that the second run would be easier for the party to handle.
It's worth noting that the discrepancy of caster level would be more pronounced the higher your lvl. Your test party so I'd probably aim for 9th lvl.
|
|
I don't think the Cleric 3 / Fighter 5 isn't losing out anymore; especially with a decent number of fighter - only things you miss out on, most notably weapon and armor versitility. I guess Fighter loses the LEAST as well; the pally (my preferred tank, since saves and hp are so important) loses a ton, since he has more level-dependent abilities.
So it's not just casters, pretty much everyone degrades and sucks. And that's before you count the loss of 1 hp or skill point per level for lack of favored class.
So this feeds back into the thread "why is multiclass so penalized in Pathfinder". It just is; they wanted people to stay one class, they succeeded in their job. They left the option open; but you're much better off not executing it. If you feel differently, you can house-rule changes to make them act in a different manner.
Try it out yourself.
Whom are you talking to?