| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Or any other trait/feat that allows characters to make up caster level loss that makes prestige classes that have caster levels not so awful?
I mean an arcane trickster or eldritch knight can be fun, but they're decidedly behind the power curve without traits that make up for caster level loss when played at level.
I'm still confused why this is banned from PFS organized play, or how PFS members can petition for this to be changed.
Venture-Captain, Massachusetts—Central & West
|
Magical Knack is not allowed, currently.
Pathfinder Character Traits Web Enhancement (Available at paizo.com/traits)
Feat: Additional Traits; Traits: all traits are legal except for the following: Hedge Magician, Magical Knack, Natural-Born Leader, and Rich Parents
It is OFTEN petitioned for its inclusion in the rules. See threads like this one for some talk about why. I'm not sure if it's being re-evaluated, but it's always brought up for the reasons you talked about.
Better yet, here's Mike Brock's final answer: LINK
Yeah I read those links, but there never was any reason why it was banned given in those links. Just "We talked about it and said no." As far as I could tell Joshua Frost originally didn't like it for some reason or other and no one else really wanted to think too much about it so they kept it banned. No one's ever given a satisfactory reason why, and any time anyone asks the answer seems to be "just because." I especially liked the answer where one of the people involved suggested if they didn't like it, maybe they shouldn't be involved in Pathfinder Society.
I'd like to know if there's any way PFS members can petition for it to be changed, because I can't see any reason for it to stay banned, unless part of the reasoning is that PFS wants to discourage prestige and multiclass characters.
|
|
Yeah I read those links, but there never was any reason why it was banned given in those links. Just "We talked about it and said no." As far as I could tell Joshua Frost originally didn't like it for some reason or other and no one else really wanted to think too much about it so they kept it banned. No one's ever given a satisfactory reason why, and any time anyone asks the answer seems to be "just because." I especially liked the answer where one of the people involved suggested if they didn't like it, maybe they shouldn't be involved in Pathfinder Society.
I'd like to know if there's any way PFS members can petition for it to be changed, because I can't see any reason for it to stay banned, unless part of the reasoning is that PFS wants to discourage prestige and multiclass characters.
I'm not sure if there is a formal way to petition on getting something changed. Being as that thread is from January of this year I would seriously doubt that the powers that be are going to look at it again this soon.
I'm sure they have very valid reasons and as they've stated that if they have to justify each and every decision that they make that they wouldn't have time for anything else, so other than the answers we've already been given I'm not sure we're going to get a better answer.
However, I wish you luck on your endeavor
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One issue is, it's been looked at, and Mark and Mike can't re-evaluate a decision every time a new person has the same question.
My guess is, a +2 caster level bump for a half-feat is powerful enough that
it would encourage too much level dipping i to a caster class. With PFS combats usually lasting a few rounds at best, if auddenly everyone can get 2 rounds of 2 magic missiles each, suddenly it's a lot harder to design against aPC's weaknesses.
Besides, does PFS really need something that makes casters more effective?
Huh? It only works with multiclass characters.
If you have two level 3 characters, one 1 wiz/2rog, and one 3 wiz
The one that has rogue levels spends a trait to have 2 magic missiles just like the primary caster and can cast it probably twice, maybe 3 times if evocation is the specialist school. A total of 3d4 +3 per day extra. I can't see this worth the extra d6 of sneak attack die unless you're going for the explicit purpose of building an arcane trickster.
The primary caster can cast it 4 or 5 times, has an extra trait to spend, and can cast three second level spells as well. And has more bonuses for school powers on top of that.
This doesn't make caster's more effective, it only makes multiclassed characters balanced with the rest of the encounters.
Magical Knack's only point is to make multiclassing effectively not change your caster level, which isnt the point of multiclassing.
Huh? It is the point if you're making a multiclassed caster of any point at all. It's the entire point of an arcane trickster, where you do sneak attack touch spells. Even more so with mystic theurge, where you sacrifice higher level spells for lower level spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think your reasoning entirely omits the reason why something like mystic theurge is a terrible terrible class.
It actual gameplay your caster level isn't just behind, but your spell access is behind. Having a caster level equal to your character level is in no way unbalancing towards multiclassed casters compared to pure casters and pure melees.
Adding a feat tax on top of it is just plain silly. Yeah you can play flavorful arcane tricksters, but they will never be as powerful as pure rogues or pure casters even with a full caster level. At higher levels when things like spell resistance and the like come into play, its just plain silly, as your spells become mostly for show and a few buffs and your character concept is all flavor and no punch.
Why wouldn't you take magical knack? Power attack is a must have feat for anything that hits stuff with strength, why wouldn't you take that? Weapons finesse is a must have feat for anything that melee's with dex, why wouldn't you take that? Magical knack is likewise a must have for anything that is a multiclassed caster and depriving multiclassed casters of feats to make them more convenient to play when they're already the weakest sort of class to play doesn't make much sense to me.
IIAK, they have refused to tell us exactly why they made the choice, only that they "talked about it".
Whats IIAK? I looked it up and all I got was independent insurance agents of Kentucky
The mystic theurge is mechanically viable if you actually take the time to decide which spells you want and which ones you dont, you must remember though most prestige classes dont give their best abilities till level 15 (5 levels to enter and 10 levels in the class) so your comparing what is a slow starter with a decent mid level range and a powerful finish with classes that are strong all the way through (as pure caster levels are strong at all levels).
The supposed powerful finish for mystic theurge, or any other prestige capstone, is meaningless for PFS play. You don't go to level 16 in PFS.
The idea that the mystic theurge is mechanically viable is ludicrous for PFS play. The only thing it can do is be the waste of space that casts a bunch of 1st and 2nd level spells, even if they did have full caster level. That they don't makes them nothing but a walking collection of scrolls that anyone with use magic device could imitate.
You're trying to sell the notion that multiclassed characters aren't awful without magical knack. Sure, I guess they can be something other than terrible if they only cast spells that don't respect caster level like true strike or endure elements.
But you're not convincing at all that any feat or trait that raises caster level to something closer to hit dice is inappropriate for PFS play at low levels when you actually need those caster levels, let alone overpowered. Further, crippling caster levels by multiclassing when most of the actual power from casters is in spell access adds nothing to game balance. It does make multiclassing less desirable if you really hate multiclassing though.
Yeah, I can make an arcane trickster or eldritch knight for PFS play that's playable. It won't ever be level appropriate compared to any pure class though, and offering feats or traits that makes it closer wouldn't unbalance the game or make multiclassing desirable, let alone a no brainer. All it would do is make the characters a little more fun and a little less useless at the table; Which sort of is the point of the game.
|
I love the trait for all the things it is - an overpowered boon to multi-classed spell chuckers.
But I'm glad it's prohibited in PFS because it is overpowered (in my humble opinion) as a trait. If a particular power (trait/feat/spell) becomes a 'must have' for a particular type of build then it's time to take a look at why. In this case it's because it's extremely powerful, for a trait.
If there were a similar feat, some might say it's a little underpowered, but many would still take it I think.
|
|
I love the trait for all the things it is - an overpowered boon to multi-classed spell chuckers.
But I'm glad it's prohibited in PFS because it is overpowered (in my humble opinion) as a trait. If a particular power (trait/feat/spell) becomes a 'must have' for a particular type of build then it's time to take a look at why. In this case it's because it's extremely powerful, for a trait.
If there were a similar feat, some might say it's a little underpowered, but many would still take it I think.
Disagree, seriously.
Magical Knack is, obviously, weaker than staying pure caster. Magical Knack is weaker, obviously, than someof the options Michael Foster brings up that are legal for PFS.
The feat that Magical Knack is designed as half of existed, and was useful for multi-classed/PrCed casters, as it could be taken multiple times, once for each casting class, and added up to 4 levels for CL calculations, but was still not as good as staying a pure caster. Magical Knack can only be taken once, so it only partly offsets the disadvantages of trying for a PrC like Mystic Theurge.
Best case scenario: Mystic Theurge is down 3 class levels in two different casting classes (Cleric/Wizard). Odds are that the MT is actually going to be down 7 or even 8 levels in casting ability. MK doesn't come close to offsetting that kind of pinch.
So, what kind of traits are available to boost caster level for Clerics? And which ones can be stacked?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the trait for all the things it is - an overpowered boon to multi-classed spell chuckers.
But I'm glad it's prohibited in PFS because it is overpowered (in my humble opinion) as a trait. If a particular power (trait/feat/spell) becomes a 'must have' for a particular type of build then it's time to take a look at why. In this case it's because it's extremely powerful, for a trait.
If there were a similar feat, some might say it's a little underpowered, but many would still take it I think.
Would you also consider Two Weapon Fighting to be overpowered, by the same logic? It's a 'must have' for any build that wants to effectively use two weapons (except a monk, of course).
Similarly, I've yet to see an archer build not take Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot... these are hardly overpowered options, they just serve to mitigate the penalties that would be suffered without them.
|
I love the trait for all the things it is - an overpowered boon to multi-classed spell chuckers.
But I'm glad it's prohibited in PFS because it is overpowered (in my humble opinion) as a trait. If a particular power (trait/feat/spell) becomes a 'must have' for a particular type of build then it's time to take a look at why. In this case it's because it's extremely powerful, for a trait.
If there were a similar feat, some might say it's a little underpowered, but many would still take it I think.
Would you also consider Two Weapon Fighting to be overpowered, by the same logic? It's a 'must have' for any build that wants to effectively use two weapons (except a monk, of course).
Similarly, I've yet to see an archer build not take Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot... these are hardly overpowered options, they just serve to mitigate the penalties that would be suffered without them.
TWF, point blank, and precise are feats, and should be twice as powerful as traits. It is therefore OK for some of them to be staples
|
|
As far as I'm concerned, when discussing whether a trait is over-powered or not, one has to compare it to other traits. In my opinion, +2 caster levels far outweighs the benefits of any other trait. This is how I came to the opinion that it is "over-powered".
I'm afraid I must disagree. You don't even get a benefit from this trait until you're 2nd level, and even then, you only get half its possible benefit until you hit third level, provided you are classing correctly. Now compared to something like +2 to initiative (granted by the Reactionary trait, very popular in my area) or +1 to saving throws against spells, spell-like abilities, and poisons (which is a dwarf regional that can be taken by any player via Adopted), both of which grant solid bonuses which help you throughout your career, Magical Knack is roughly on par, and only really kicks in when you're a 3rd level character with one level of a casting class, and two more levels of something else. And keep in mind that it doesn't grant more spells, just increase the effectiveness of current spells of which you can cast. The only way I can see this being overpowered is if somebody rolls a magus/fighter or magus/rogue, pairing either bonus feats and a decent BaB or sneak attack damage with a shocking grasp/corrosive touch spellstrike. Even then, magi get a very small number of spells per day at any given level, and very slow progression in their spell accessibility, which would be even further crippled by multi-classing.
As far as what I suspect the purpose of Magical Knack's banning is, as I've stated above, is that it takes a third-level character to even get an effect from a trait which, by definition, is supposed to be a boon you have based on your upbringing, which defeats the (role-playing) purpose of Magical Knack being a 1st-level available trait to begin with. The fact that it only serves a very specialized sort of character is just another nail in the coffin.|
|
I think we should ban the trait 'Vagabond Child: (Escape Artist)' because I feel it is a 'must-take' feat for casters who would normally be crushed in any grapples. It removes a fundamental weakness in casters, and is simply too good an option and should be removed from organised play immediately.
I am using the same logic and yet I'm being ridiculous.
|
|
As far as what I suspect the purpose of Magical Knack's banning is, as I've stated above, is that it takes a third-level character to even get an effect from a trait which, by definition, is supposed to be a boon you have based on your upbringing, which defeats the (role-playing) purpose of Magical Knack being a 1st-level available trait to begin with. The fact that it only serves a very specialized sort of character is just another nail in the coffin.
So it would be ok if we allowed it to be picked only by taking "Additional traits" feat at 3rd level?
|
As I recall, the original reason given (by Josh Frost?) why this trait was banned was to discourage multi-classing (i.e. level dipping into a caster class). I am not making a value statement, just relaying my understanding. I am not sure if, in reality, it does discourage it, or if lifting the ban would encourage it.
|
|
I never understood the resistance to multiclassing coming out of Paizo, except as a backlash against the 3.5 era. I think that it has been long enough that they should reexamine that.
I can sort of see why they might want to discourage dipping a caster class, but allowing Magical Knack would really help people who like the hybrid Caster/Non-caster prestige classes (Arcane Trickster, Rage Prophet, Eldrich Knight). As it stands now, those classes are niche because they take such a massive amount of system mastery and optimization to be played at a level which is fun.
|
|
This is false logic. It is not 'over-powered', just desired by those whose niche it was made expressly for.. That should be no surprise, or cause for alarm. As you, yourself are saying, those with it won't be over-powered.. so how are you making the leap that this trait is? I think you're confusing 'over-powered' with 'desperately needed'.As far as I'm concerned, when discussing whether a trait is over-powered or not, one has to compare it to other traits. In my opinion, +2 caster levels far outweighs the benefits of any other trait. This is how I came to the opinion that it is "over-powered".
I also wouldn't say that it is desperately needed. Many folks play multi-classed casters within PFS without it. They may desire this trait, but have sacrificed caster level willingly for concept or other benefit.
Were it offered, I'm sure it would become a staple for a lot of builds, just as vagabond child is for archaeologist bards or dangerously curious for oracles. However, while those traits can also be argued to be "desperately needed" by certain builds, they are very comparable in power to other traits. I don't think the same can be said for Magical Knack.
I agree there are traits that give you a +1 CL to a single spell. The trait is too powrful as written it should be used as a feat. IMO i always thought that the old 3.5 practised spellcaster feat was OP as well.
I can't for the life of me understand why you think practiced spellcaster was overpowered. The only way that's possible is if multiclassed casters that used spells that depended on caster level were overpowered; which sort of implies to me not a whole lot of system mastery.
A level 12 character that's 4 level's of sorcerer, 4 levels of rogue, and 4 levels of arcane trickster without practiced spellcaster has a caster level of 8. The scorching ray that she depends on does 1 step less damage, wont overcome any SR if its there. Its pointless for most buffs unless combat lasts longer than 8 rounds.
Meanwhile the level 12 rogue moves into flank and destroys the bad guy with a zillion sneak attacks and the level 12 sorcerer says "forget this" and turns the guy into a statue.
Worrying that a feat that makes very underpowered flavor options suck less is overpowered because it has utility for suboptimal choices just strikes me as odd.
|
I can't for the life of me understand why you think practiced spellcaster was overpowered. The only way that's possible is if multiclassed casters that used spells that depended on caster level were overpowered; which sort of implies to me not a whole lot of system mastery.
A level 12 character that's 4 level's of sorcerer, 4 levels of rogue, and 4 levels of arcane trickster without practiced spellcaster has a caster level of 8. The scorching ray that she depends on does 1 step less damage, wont overcome any SR if its there. Its pointless for most buffs unless combat lasts longer than 8 rounds.
Meanwhile the level 12 rogue moves into flank and destroys the bad guy with a zillion sneak attacks and the level 12 sorcerer says "forget this" and turns the guy into a statue.
Worrying that a feat that makes very underpowered flavor options suck less is overpowered because it has utility for suboptimal choices just strikes me as odd.
Actually, that scorching ray does more damage than an 8th level normal SR due to possible sneak attack :)
|
|
Actually, that scorching ray does more damage than an 8th level normal SR due to possible sneak attack :)I can't for the life of me understand why you think practiced spellcaster was overpowered. The only way that's possible is if multiclassed casters that used spells that depended on caster level were overpowered; which sort of implies to me not a whole lot of system mastery.
A level 12 character that's 4 level's of sorcerer, 4 levels of rogue, and 4 levels of arcane trickster without practiced spellcaster has a caster level of 8. The scorching ray that she depends on does 1 step less damage, wont overcome any SR if its there. Its pointless for most buffs unless combat lasts longer than 8 rounds.
Meanwhile the level 12 rogue moves into flank and destroys the bad guy with a zillion sneak attacks and the level 12 sorcerer says "forget this" and turns the guy into a statue.
Worrying that a feat that makes very underpowered flavor options suck less is overpowered because it has utility for suboptimal choices just strikes me as odd.
Unlikely. In order to do sneak attack with a spell, you have to do a heck of a lot more than that 12th level rogue needs to do. Since it is a ray, it won't benefit from flanking. And even to get flanking while casting means you have to make a concentration check to cast defensively. And, probably, spend feats getting the Improved Feint feat chain, or some other way to get attacks on flat-footed opponents with a ranged spell.
I guess that MC caster might be able to spend a slot for Greater Invisibility, but I suspect that they wouldn't get as many third level spells as that puyre Sorcerer would. And they still have to burn a round's attacks casting the GI to begin with.
Meh.
Overall, lesser chance of overcoming any SR, fewer spells available, missing higher spell slots. Multi-classing any spellcaster hurts. Magical knack would help to reduce that pain by a little it, not much.
Ona side note, would Rice Runner/Captain's Blade be overpowered if taken by a Lore Warden Fighter? Both of those add Acrobatics as a class skill, and a +1 trait bonus to Acrobatics; and a Lore Warden gets a class ability at 11th level that lets them use Acrobatics to try and prevent a critical hit.
No one's ever given a satisfactory reason why, and any time anyone asks the answer seems to be "just because."
Suppose they gave a reason, for instance "It's cheesy". Some people would agree and some would disagree, and the people who disagree could keep arguing and arguing about it ad nauseam. Arguing might be fun for you and me, but it's kind of tiresome for the folks in charge, I suspect.
But if they say "Just because", then there's nothing to argue with. Well, that's the theory. In reality, people just come up with their own ideas about why it's banned and still keep on arguing and arguing about it ad nauseam. But at least for the folks in charge, it's quicker to just point to an old post saying "Just because" instead of opening up the same whole can of worms again for the umpteenth time.
|
|
I don't care about magical knack one way or the other, I just want to thank you for the links to my new BEST POST EVER!
We live in a world that has rules, and those rules have to be guarded by men with dice. Who's gonna do it? You? I have a greater responsibility than you could possibly fathom. You weep for Magical Knack, and you curse the society. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know. That Magical Knack's banning, while tragic, probably saved characters. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves characters. You don't want the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me in this role, you need me in this role. We use words like explore, report, cooperate. We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very rules that I provide, and then questions the manner in which I provide them. I would rather you just said thank you, and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up some dice, and play. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you are entitled to."
|
|
So it would be ok if we allowed it to be picked only by taking "Additional traits" feat at 3rd level?
I wouldn't see why not. Though the idea of the "Additional Traits" feat kind of irks me flavor-wise, as long as there's proper justification (such as suddenly finding out that your great-grandfather was a powerful mage) I could see it working. That, of course, is my home-game opinion and it really doesn't hold any water in PFS Organized Play.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hay people, what's the problem here?
the question was... "Is magical knack allowed yet?"
the answer is... "No."
now all the, ah, discussion about "WHY" or "WHY NOT"?
this has been hashed out several times.
"No reason given to the public" - basicly, it boils down to "cause the DM said so".
I'm not happy with that answer. But I'm not getting stuck on it. the final athurity said so, so that's the way it is. The only other response would be:
"Sir, I would respectfully request you to re-consider this ruling. Please."
there... that work for you?
(who am I kidding. No one posting here is going to be effected by my post. lol!)
As much as I'd like to confirm or deny my suspicions, it would seem that the discussion of a single trait for Organized Play legality is on the bottom of the list of priorities for the upper management. I can't really hold that against them, between finishing up Season 3 and beginning work on Season 4, and all the conventions (and related preparations) that come with it. Despite this, it is my hope that they will discuss this when they start planning for the next release of the organized play guide, and when they do, share their reasoning for either the continued ban on this trait or for why they chose to allow it. We can discuss this in circles and circles, but unless they choose to disclose their reasoning, we're stuck on mere conjecture.
As much as I'd like to confirm or deny my suspicions, it would seem that the discussion of a single trait for Organized Play legality is on the bottom of the list of priorities for the upper management.
As noted, it already made it to the top of the list of priorities in the sense that they have already discussed it in recent memory. The answer was: "no change".
Right, so I present some encounter's and how any multiclassed caster is significantly below power compared to full caster or full melee, and note that one trait that makes it less awful, and now I'm a whiner. Way to keep it mature.
Sheesh. It's pretty obvious to anyone that actually bothers doing head to head comparisons. Missing two caster levels is awful. They don't synergize well the way something like feats, rogue talents, and barb rage powers do with each other.