These changes, you may find, are actually presented in Unearthed Arcana optional rule book. It is a very well conceived notion: One that I have thought about, as well.
I use a feat that allows you to pick one spellcasting class and add half the number of all your levels in other classes to the caster level for that class.
You have to take the feat and it's not for free for everyone, and you have to take it multiple times if you want the effect for more than one spellcasting class.
Much less effective, but I prefer it because it doesn't change the basic rules too much.
Neceros was referring to Magic Rating from the Unearthed Arcana and in the SRD. It's similar, but provies 1/4, 1/2, and full caster level based on classes. It's possible that is insufficient and your method would be an improvement.
*Very* nice summary by the way.
I like the proposal, but it still doesn't address the save DC of spells cast by the spellcasting player, which is my problem area.
I like your idea. However, as much as I might complain about this, I also might just be comfortable assigning this to the category of "Oh well, that's how the game works."
Anyone who is building a fighter/wizard needs to understand that they are trying to build a character that has classes that are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Without taking a prestige class, it's very difficult to achieve.
Anyone who is building a fighter/wizard needs to understand that they are trying to build a character that has classes that are at the extreme ends of the spectrum. Without taking a prestige class, it's very difficult to achieve.
That's the problem. Prestige classes are awesome. So very awesome, in-fact, that they took over D&D. Prestige classes are meant for specializing or changing your focus through your career, not letting you become 9/10ths of 2-3 classes, losing barely a caster level if you do it right (I have.)
That leaves everyone else in the dust, because they didn't crunch so much.
To quote the previous poster:
"prestige classes are meant for specializing.. "
Being a wizard/fighter is a specialty. It's not the normal, its a special thing. Its not something every John Dick and Harry can accomplish very easily. It requires dedication and special training to pull off sucessfully.
Sure, any schmo can go 10/10 F/W but that's why we call him a schmo. He doesn't know what he's doing, and he sucks at it.
What it needs, is a specialist. A prestige class grants such a specialty.
I understand people don't like the Multiclass rules, but basically you are trying to get something for nothing. I understand you don't see it that way- but it is eseentially what you are trying to do. You want to be a 15wiz while only putting 10 into it. You want to increase bab without choosing a good bab class. Things do not come for free. And pardon- but spending 1 feat to get half-level spell casting added on constitutes "free".
Some prestige classes are over the top. The principle ones that combine the classes though, generally aren't. They aren't particularly powerful- but they do get the job done.
(eldritch disciple, for example. Mystic theurge for another- tho arguably this one needs a boost and always has, but that's a discussion for another thread)
In short, I do not believe Multiclassing needs a boost. Either you multiclass synergistic classes, or you take a prestige class to shore up whatever odd combination you've tried to piece together. This makes sense, and doesn't need to be "fixed".
-S
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Sorry I'm with Selgard here... If you multiclass you split your training and attention to different skill sets. Doing so means you are less adept than someone who focuses. When you multiclass you give up certain things to gain access to others. Now this does hurt spellcasters the most, but that's the choice you make.
Picking prestige classes can alleviate this as can taking the practiced spellcaster feat. In any event you must pay for play, if you want the full abilities of a class you stay in that class or pick up a PrC that allows you to continue advancing in said class.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
Just because Practiced Spellcaster isn't in the beta doesn't mean the beta doesn't take it into consideration. Pathfinder RPG is updating D&D 3.5 and can't specifically include any non ogl material but it's also supporting the system as a whole. All those books we have on our shelves are still, by design choice, are backward compatible with PFRPG.
So why are so much more conservative if there's a better alternative in the ruleset already?
In any event you must pay for play, if you want the full abilities of a class you stay in that class or pick up a PrC that allows you to continue advancing in said class.
I believe that this is not a great use for prestige classes. You shouldn't have to take a prestige class to make a class combination be anywhere as useful as the other characters.
If there is a way to make it so that prestige classes and half and half multiclassers can coexist without one being much worse than the other, I want to see that. I don't think we should say, well, there are prestige classes so lets just say that this is good enough.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
|
I agree it's not a great use for PrC's but that's the bastardization they become since their inception. What was once a DM tool to enhance the flavor of a setting or homebrew world became a player goodie no different than the next crunchy feat, spell, or skill trick.
-Vrock the Vote
I am opposed to any change that makes any kind of spell casting class better. They already dominate the game. Allowing them to melee as well is not something that we should support. I am in favor of removing spell casting from the paladin and ranger classes and giving them something that's actually worth a darn, however.
Wrong. Prestige classes are meant to help you specialize, not broaden, your abilities. There is a big difference.
The issue here isn't that you're getting something for free. The issue in 3.5 is it's inherent flaw in the way it assigns abilities based on class levels. We can't change that.
However, we can change the fact that your direct power comes directly from class levels. A normal 10 Fighter/10 Wizard will suck. That's no fun, it's not a balance system, and will ruin a character.
I don't believe it is the player's fault to want to be half and half, but the way this exponential system works is wrong. It's not truly half and half, as each level you gain you become exponentially stronger than the last.
You are not getting anything for free if everyone runs by the same rules. We aren't trying to munchkin bonus stuff out of the system, hiding behind your back giggling and making snark remarks. We are truly trying to make it a better system where everyone can get the character they want without cheaping to prestige classes that are obviously not balanced.
As much as we cringe to hear it prestige classes broke 3.5. We need to find a way to unbreak them and bring balance back to base classes.
Just to make sure there's not confusion going on...
pardon- but spending 1 feat to get half-level spell casting added on constitutes "free".
I just want to make sure everyone's clear that his proposal is not to provide half-level *spell casting* added for free, but merely *caster level*, for purposes such as range, duration, effect, etc. No spell slots, no spell access. The 10Ftr/10Wiz described would cast a 15 die Cone of Cold, but could not cast Disintegrate or Greater Dispel Magic.
I fully agree that stacking actual spell progression for free is insanity waiting to happen.
I really feel like this makes Prestige Classes more powerful. They benefit from this solution just as much as people who only multi-class. That makes for strike two for me.
Good proposal structure though.
I fully agree that stacking actual spell progression for free is insanity waiting to happen.
I disagree slightly. I think that with sort of stacking you get something like what a generic prestige class would give without needing the generic prestige class.
I fully agree that stacking actual spell progression for free is insanity waiting to happen.I disagree slightly. I think that with sort of stacking you get something like what a generic prestige class would give without needing the generic prestige class.
Exactly. Everyone would be on the same boat.
/agree with Selgard
If you pick a non-spellcasting class to swap, you usually do, because they offer you character concept some advantage, that otherwise he/she/it would not have enjoyed. The price for this is a lessened degree of skill in you spell-casting venue, and the lack of access to much more potent higher-tier spells. I consider that a very reasonable balance and a purposeful check on "class-jumping" for power grabbing
Frankly, power/ability should not come for free, so for a gain, there needs to be be an equivalent price to pay. Nothing comes for free, ever (even if someone else pays the checks, someone pays^^) !
Plus, you truly lessen the strength of characters sticking with a singl class for any length - and I heartily applaud the trend of strengthening the upper level powers of classes in orders to encourage characters to actually go for them - something that hardly ever happened in 3.5 except with druids.
BTW, as for "casting-level" adjustment, the "proficient caster" feat (CD or CA) resolved just that problem specifically and did so well, I expect a "renamed" variant in the final version of "Pathfinder"
As for "prestige-class" solutions, the "Spellsword" offers a pretty reasonable and balanced approach to that, and lo' and behold, it sacrifices spell-casting level increase to balance out the increased melee capability it provides. The "Duskblade" has a slowed casting progression and limited spell selection instead....
Frankly, power/ability should not come for free, so for a gain, there needs to be be an equivalent price to pay. Nothing comes for free, ever (even if someone else pays the checks, someone pays^^) !
I don't think anyone was asking anything for free. They just want to get an amount of gain near what they paid.
Currently the gain from multiclassing is often much less than what you pay for if you just go half and half. To get a good value you have to invest in some sort of prestige class instead.
So. Stop overcharging me.
Plus, you truly lessen the strength of characters sticking with a singl class for any length - and I heartily applaud the trend of strengthening the upper level powers of classes in orders to encourage characters to actually go for them - something that hardly ever happened in 3.5 except with druids.
I would love people sticking with single classes. But often, multiclassing into other base classes has had very little hand in that. They went into specialist prestige classes!
All I want is that the multiclassers get the same chance. That their choices don't become, take a prestige class or suck.
As for "prestige-class" solutions, the "Spellsword" offers a pretty reasonable and balanced approach to that, and lo' and behold, it sacrifices spell-casting level increase to balance out the increased melee capability it provides.
I'm not even suggesting that a multiclassed character shouldn't sacrifice spell-casting level! Who is saying that? I'm just saying without an appropriate prestige class that the sacrifice is humongous compared the power gained.
I should not be held hostage by the fact that they haven't put out a prestige class I need yet, or that the feat doesn't exist yet.
I think it is the melee multi-class characters who are getting something for free. They get BAB stacking, which is essential for them. How would they like if BAB never stacked and you had to take the highest BAB instead of adding? Just because a Fighter 10 / Rogue 10 doesnt get his level 11+ feats and skills from his classes does NOT mean he isnt getting something for free. He is getting BAB
There should be a new column called CL next to BAB and Fort that uses the same numbers as BAB, but only with high or low progression. You cast? You get high progression. You dont cast? You get low.
A Fighter 9 / Wizard 11 has a Caster Level of 13 (4 + 9) but still gets only level 6 spells. A Ranger 11 / Fighter 9 has a caster level of 13 as well but only gets level 2 spells. A Ranger 9 / Wizard 11 has a caster level of 20, but still only gets level 2 Ranger spells and level 6 Wizard spells. The caster level is justified because you have 20 levels of casting-based progression. Oh, and a Fighter 16 / Sorcerer 4 gets a CL of 12 (8 + 4). It makes perfect sense, and the durations are actually useful for a character of that power level.
I think something of that nature is fair, and it isnt "for free" and it isnt a "something for nothing." This is something that always should have applied, as much as BAB stacking has always been around.
Lewis
Being a wizard/fighter is a specialty.
The gish is hardly a "specialty."
Being a wizard/fighter is a specialty.The gish is hardly a "specialty."
It's a subset of wizardy, i.e. a specialisation.
|
|
There should be a new column called CL next to BAB and Fort that uses the same numbers as BAB, but only with high or low progression. You cast? You get high progression. You dont cast? You get low.
Lewis
THIS.
You could argue for High (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, Sorceror), Med (Ranger, Paladin) and Low (Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue) caster level progressions as well. ^_^
It's a subset of wizardy, i.e. a specialisation.Being a wizard/fighter is a specialty.The gish is hardly a "specialty."
But calling it a specialty is a bit overboard. I mean, a positive energy channeling cleric with the sun and healing domains is a subset of clerics in general and also a specialty. Repeat argument for every type of cleric).
I just think that it is a bit excessive.
It's a subset of wizardy, i.e. a specialisation.
No, it's its very own role. The fighter-type with support spellcasting. Just because it isn't one of the core 11 (the bard doesn't count) doesn't mean it's not it's own niche (as opposed to a niche inside a niche).
It's a subset of wizardy, i.e. a specialisation.
That's like saying a Druid who takes a level of Fighter is a specialty druid. Huh?
People voting against it aren't really listening.
To quote the previous poster:
"prestige classes are meant for specializing.. "
Being a wizard/fighter is a specialty. It's not the normal, its a special thing. Its not something every John Dick and Harry can accomplish very easily. It requires dedication and special training to pull off sucessfully.
Sure, any schmo can go 10/10 F/W but that's why we call him a schmo. He doesn't know what he's doing, and he sucks at it.
What it needs, is a specialist. A prestige class grants such a specialty.
I understand people don't like the Multiclass rules, but basically you are trying to get something for nothing. I understand you don't see it that way but it is essentially what you are trying to do. You want to be a 15wiz while only putting 10 into it. You want to increase bab without choosing a good bab class. Things do not come for free. And pardon but spending 1 feat to get half-level spell casting added on constitutes "free".
Some prestige classes are over the top. The principle ones that combine the classes though, generally aren't. They aren't particularly powerful but they do get the job done.
(eldritch disciple, for example. Mystic theurge for another tho arguably this one needs a boost and always has, but that's a discussion for another thread)In short, I do not believe Multiclassing needs a boost. Either you multiclass synergistic classes, or you take a prestige class to shore up whatever odd combination you've tried to piece together. This makes sense, and doesn't need to be "fixed".
-S
I still long for the days (mentioned in another thread, actually) of 1e/2e, where a) there was no level cap (who thought _that_ one up?!), and b) any multiple classes you took (granted, you had to be non-human to multiclass, but let's not get into the restrictions on the races yet <G>) AVERAGED, they did not STACK (this could still be done today; the rate at which various player uber-powers are acquired would just be spread out a bit, that's all)!!! If one was a 6th level fighter/6th level mage, one could run with his/her 6th level party members and be just fine (as a matter of fact, this came in very handy when we found ourselves short of players; would just need a cleric type and rogue type. If one other player wanted to be a cleric/rogue of Hermes or someone similar, there you go). It was NOT considered weird, strange, lazy, twinking, etc., etc., etc., it was relatively normal.
In 3.x, if you tried that (which we did in 3.0; that had--unfortunate--results), you'd be considered 12th level, and the DM, if he/she did not cut teeth on the earlier editions, would have no problem gleefully throwing you against 12th level monsters...if he/she were a malicious bastich who really, really liked killing players for jollies ("TPK again! Woot!! I win, you suk!"), or penalizing them for a choice they made for their character's development. Hmm...would've liked to be a fly on the wall in that development committee room...
There are things I like about 3.x; chief among them is that anyone can play anything (not that our house rules didn't ignore the prejudiced racial stuff in 1e/2e anyway, but it made playing convention games difficult ["I can't be an elven monk? Half-orc paladin?"]), but I have never liked the way they "fixed" the class system (and don't even get me started on the CR disaster).
I do like Pathfinder, though; even with some things kept from 3.0 that I still wince at, it does try to solve a lot of issues, which I can appreciate. For one thing, you aren't penalized up the yin-yang for not keeping your various classes at exactly the same level, even if one of them isn't one of the two favored classes (sweet!) for your race (at least, I don't think so, but there haven't been any multi-classing rules _listed_ in the PF Beta book); you just don't get all the bennies you might be entitled to if you'd single-classed. Correct?
And if, for instance, being an elven fighter/wizard (ah, those were the days) is weird, unusual, freaky, etc., why would it even be possible to do?
P.S. I detest 4e, and do not intend to waste my money buying (make that _investing in_) it. There's gotta be a better way, and 4th ain't it. ;->