How about making it just a generic version of the Practiced Spellcaster feat? Take the feat, pick one class feature (excluding HD, BAB, saves, skill points) of any class you currently possess, bump it by +3 lvls not to exceed your character level.
I don't know.
It kind of defeats the purpose of having those class features advancing with class level as incentives to stick with the base classes. With those feats (and PF is more generous with them) prestige class dipping for up to your suggested modifier would be a no brainer.
Example : Wiz 14 archmage 3 with such a feat for his school powers/bonus spells loses nothing, gains high arcanas...
Yet it's interesting for a (truly) multiclass character, that's for sure.
They are losing something though.. They are losing feats.
They are also only gaining *one* ability.
For example- a universalist wizard could take the feat to progress his Metamagic ability (forget the specific name), but not one feat to just increase all his universalist powers.
The Cleric could take a feat to keep one domain but would have to burn 3 feats to get both domains And channeling- and even then it's only a 2-3 level bump per feat.
If a character really wants to keep that chaneling going, burning *every extra feat they get* to keep it up to par, doesn't seem like a bad thing to me.
think I'd keep it at 2 per feat.. that would let them burn every single feat to keep any One ability at full power. Certainly not over powered.
at least.. i can't think of any single class ability that would be worth all of your feats to keep.
-S
I really like it. A lot! If it could be playtested against potential abuse, then I would absolutely LOVE to see a feat like this made core -- it would neatly supercede Practiced Spellcaster, and also all of the Complete X feats such as Accetic Rogue, Swift Hunter, Devoted Performer, et al. (my favorite 3.5 edition feats).
+3 levels, rather than Practiced Spellcaster's +4 (or the Complete feats' potential +19), seems like a good benchmark; it removes potential abuse like a rogue 1/fighter 4 having a +3d6 sneak attack for the price of 1 feat.
Yet all classes were not created using the same mold. Some rely less on class features advancement, like the wizard. If a players choses the bonded item instead of the familiar in the first place, his only class dependant powers are his bonus spells and school powers. Which, according to the table, progress as a single entity via class levels. A PrC that advances his spellcasting would only leave him short of this class feature advancement, possibly taken care of by a single feat if the "dip" is not extensive.
Whereas the cleric would need at least 2 feats to keep the same benefit the wizard would be enjoying. Namely, you condense all domain progression in one class feature (domain powers and spells), the other one being the channeling. It gets worst if you separate the powers and the bonus spells, or the domains altogether.
How about the babarian? You could design a feat to keep up his rage powers, but would he be able to qualify for greater rage, if short only 1 or two levels in the class? All the other bonuses the class gain aren't tied to a domain/school/heritage, so obviously he'd be left behind.
Although I'm not saying it's a bad idea, looks to me like some classes will benefit from such a feat much more than others. And it can become a cheap way to circumvent a basic design goal, incentives to stick with base classes.
It might just be the only way to make multiclassing interesting though, sort of a feat tax. Balance-wise, I can't say if +2/3/4 level is adequate though.
Yet all classes were not created using the same mold. Some rely less on class features advancement, like the wizard. If a players choses the bonded item instead of the familiar in the first place, his only class dependant powers are his bonus spells and school powers. Which, according to the table, progress as a single entity via class levels. A PrC that advances his spellcasting would only leave him short of this class feature advancement, possibly taken care of by a single feat if the "dip" is not extensive.
On reflection, I'd make it +2 levels, not +3. This means that fighters get no net gain in feats, and rogues get ony 1 rogue talent max per time they select it. Caster level improvement of +2 means that clerics or wizards are getting, at most, one (1) additional bonus spell or domain/school power -- making this feat half as effective as the existing Practiced Spellcaster feat in that regard. +2 levels for channeling translates nicely to +1d6 for that. +2 levels for sneak attack translates nicely to +1d6 for that as well.
Yet all classes were not created using the same mold. Some rely less on class features advancement, like the wizard. If a players choses the bonded item instead of the familiar in the first place, his only class dependant powers are his bonus spells and school powers. Which, according to the table, progress as a single entity via class levels. A PrC that advances his spellcasting would only leave him short of this class feature advancement, possibly taken care of by a single feat if the "dip" is not extensive.On reflection, I'd make it +2 levels, not +3. This means that fighters get no net gain in feats, and rogues get ony 1 rogue talent max per time they select it. Caster level improvement of +2 means that clerics or wizards are getting, at most, one (1) additional bonus spell or domain/school power -- making this feat half as effective as the existing Practiced Spellcaster feat in that regard. +2 levels for channeling translates nicely to +1d6 for that. +2 levels for sneak attack translates nicely to +1d6 for that as well.
I didn't understand it that way with your first post. Thought you meant an increase in specific class features. Now this looks more like an overall -across the board- class' characteristics increase. So no one gets left behind.
It's kind or tricky though, you say it halves the former benefit of practised spellcaster, but this version would indeed also affect the number of spellknown/slots all around, not just the the caster level as it used to be.
I feel it might be very abusable, but I like it non the less. Sort of buying class level with feats. Might be the very best way to create truly adequate multiclassed character. As for power creep, you do not get HP bumps/skill pts/save increase. Its just class abilities for feats. With a maximum fixed by your HD. I like this very much.
Wait up... are we saying a feat is worth 2 levels in class features?
Wait up... are we saying a feat is worth 2 levels in class features?
Sorry -- not at all. I'm thinking a feat is worth 2 levels in any one (1) class feature. Each sold separately.
Thought you meant an increase in specific class features. Now this looks more like an overall -across the board- class' characteristics increase. So no one gets left behind.
No; improving sneak attack would still require a separate selection of the feat from improving rogue talents, for example. Each class feature sold separately.
It's kind or tricky though, you say it halves the former benefit of practised spellcaster, but this version would indeed also affect the number of spellknown/slots all around, not just the the caster level as it used to be.
No, no, no -- bonus spells only, not class-based spells known/spells per day! (Whether to allow a SEPARATE purchase of the feat to improve those, too, would be a separate discussion). I'm kind of torn on the bonus spells & domains -- in 3.5, Practiced Spellcaster gave you +4 CL AND all domain/school bonus spells. That seems like too much in Pathfinder, but +2 CL or +2 for purposes of bonus spell acquisition seems too weak in comparison.
Dunno. Still a lot of thought needed.
The problem I have with this fragmentaion of class features is the relative powers of one versus another.
On the other hand, class re-design is bringing balance between classes (it's much better than it was, some still need love ---> Paladin). So any class full bundle of class features for one level is the metric. How much is that worth? Way more than a feat? I dunno.
Such feats would not be taken out of the blue, they are very situationnal. Suppose we have: 1 feat gives you 1 level worth of all class features of a class you have levels in, up to your HD.
A wiz 10/clr 10 could've spent up to 9 feats to increase his class features, so that's only effective wiz 15/clr14. And he used all his feats to do so.
Willing to get 9th level arcane spell, that'd be 17-12. Not exactly game breaking. Many dual casting/gish classes give similar return, without having to expend all your feats.
Just saying, is there a way to make viable mutlticlass characters with this? I think yes, and it might give a basic way to do so for anyone, not just fancy prestige classes.
Just saying, is there a way to make viable mutlticlass characters with this? I think yes, and it might give a basic way to do so for anyone, not just fancy prestige classes.
Yes, I see where you're headed with that -- more ambitious than I had assumed. You'd have to be careful so that fighter 1/wizard 19 and wizard 1/fighter 19 came out even, in terms of feats required.
Fighter 1/wizard 19: +2 levels for BAB (shouldn't be allowed at all, but for the sake of argument, say x5 = +10 to BAB, for BAB +20. +2 levels for bonus feats and/or weapon/armor training x10. BAB +20, CL 19th, total feat expenditure = 15 (more than the character gets).
Fighter 19/wizard 1: +2 levels for CL x 9, +2 levels for spells known x9. BAB +19, CL 19th, total feat expenditure = 18 (more than his wizard-heavy counterpart). Already the system is broken.
I think, in terms of a realistic feat, keeping the scope to simple improvement of specific class features might be the way to go for now.
Your exemple follows the +2 effective level for (1) or a bundle of class features, for one feat. I wrote down the equivalent for the "1 feat gives class features for 1 level". It's broken.
As such, class features bundle worth 1 feat is not overwhelming considering you only get 9 feats to invest in such things. But it makes certain classes way more tempting than others. Namely the casters. Simply because those classes have class features (including spells) that are more potent than martial classes, which in return have higher HD and or saves and or BAB progression.
By then, trying to fit the bab in the equation simply breaks everything down, as you've pointed out.
mumble mumble...
A simpler feat, less ambitious in scope, would be something like this:
Practiced Class Feature
Prerequisite: At least 1 level in the listed class.
Benefit: Choose one (1) class feature from any of the following class lists (e.g., sneak attack or rogue talents, but not both). Your effective class level for that class feature is 2 higher than normal, to a maximum level equivalent equal to your total HD.
Bard: Bardic performances known and uses per day; or caster level (but not spells known or spells per day); or bonus to knowledge skills and bonus knowledge skill ranks.
Cleric: Caster level (but not spells per day); or bonus spells/powers from domains; or channeling energy.
Druid: Caster level (but not spells per day); or wild shape; or nature's bond.
Paladin: Smite; or holy bond; or lay on hands (and associated effects); or auras.
Rogue: Sneak attack; or rogue talents.
Sorcerer: Caster level (but not spells known or spells per day); or bloodline abilities/feats.
(etc.)
The problem is that some class efatures are better than others, and improve at different rates. Therefore, rather than a single feat (which would be elegant but problematic), a separate feat would probably be needed for each class feature to be improved. And that's a boatload of work.
I had this idea while thinking about improving multiclassing. My idea was that other classes counted 1/2 for the power of some abilities, but not all. With Improved Multiclassing (CLASS), you can get some more abilities for CLASS (but still not everything, I think).
I never got that far into thinking which abilities would scale like that, which abilities required the feat, and which were off limits.