Several people have posted with the assumption/need for such a feat. I'm not one of them, but I've seen no one concerned about the feat being any more powerful than usual.
{Other than confusion over when school powers, domain powers, etc. are granted (class level vs. caster level - it should be class level.)}
We (my game group) is starting out first Pathfinder game this weekend (and I am really sorry I did not find out about this wonderful thing earlier one, like during actual beta testing) and already the question of Practiced Spellcaster has come up.
My ruling on it was that it increases your relative caster level, but does not grant you the benifits of having levels in the class. Meaning: a 4th level Wizard/4th level Fighter could take Practiced Spellcaster: Wizard and be considered an 8th level Wizard/4th level Fighter in terms of how much damage his Burning Hands spell will do, but he does not get the benifit of having those Wizard levels for determining what abilities he has from his chosen specialty in magic or the powers of his familiar.
This ruling has worked so far.
I tend to agree that this is the intent of the feat.
I tend to agree that this is the intent of the feat.We (my game group) is starting out first Pathfinder game this weekend (and I am really sorry I did not find out about this wonderful thing earlier one, like during actual beta testing) and already the question of Practiced Spellcaster has come up.
My ruling on it was that it increases your relative caster level, but does not grant you the benifits of having levels in the class. Meaning: a 4th level Wizard/4th level Fighter could take Practiced Spellcaster: Wizard and be considered an 8th level Wizard/4th level Fighter in terms of how much damage his Burning Hands spell will do, but he does not get the benifit of having those Wizard levels for determining what abilities he has from his chosen specialty in magic or the powers of his familiar.
This ruling has worked so far.
Also agreed, although I'm of the opinion that it *will* increase the effect of abilities already achieved, including additional uses of 1st level bonus spells (from school or domain). I consider this the nicest interpretation though.
|
Considering Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is trying to encourage single class characters be more commonplace than previously seen in 3rd edition (an emphasis I completely support), I would assume that feats such as these that encourage multi-classing min/maxing are those meant to be forgotten. But thats just my take on it. I wouldn't include it in my pathfinder games, personally - but that's just me, and the encouragement of multi-classing is why I'll refrain from their inclusion (and I hope that Pathfinder continues that trend).
Robert
Considering Paizo's Pathfinder RPG is trying to encourage single class characters be more commonplace than previously seen in 3rd edition (an emphasis I completely support), I would assume that feats such as these that encourage multi-classing min/maxing are those meant to be forgotten. But thats just my take on it. I wouldn't include it in my pathfinder games, personally - but that's just me, and the encouragement of multi-classing is why I'll refrain from their inclusion (and I hope that Pathfinder continues that trend).
Robert
Paizo has stated they want the core classes to be worth taking all the way through the level range, I too agree with that. However it doesn't include the discouraging of multiclassing or PrC'ing, which is a very different "animal", if that were the case they wouldn't be producing PrC's in their AP's. Multiclassing has basically been around since the game's beginning (the elf for instance), I seriously doubt they are attempting to remove or downplay it, even if they were they would have to know the players of the game aren't going to go that way whatever they decide on for Pathfinder.
With that being said with the distinction of the classes abilities being limited to "class level" and not "caster level", these feats for the "mult classing" crowd are not as good as they were in 3.5E. If the poster above is correct in saying that it is supposed to be Class Level... Not getting your school abilities, or bloodline abilities, or domain abilities as you get higher in level AND not increasing the abilities you already have, makes choosing to multiclass (or PrC for that matter now) a significantly painful choice. The feats still give you a nice casting bump, but in reality you are still lagging behind even if you are keeping a comparable caster level and spell selection. As such they don't threaten the "encourage Core Class" direction Paizo is taking.
The only thing I might suggest is now that feats are more plentiful, maybe drop the bonus from +4 to caster level and make it +2 to caster level. This would ensure that someone who is trying to keep their caster level up makes an investment to do so, while still allowing them to max out the caster level (every other level you take and use your bonus feat to increase your caster level in essence). I personally would want to play test it some before doing that, but my gut feeling is that it would play out alright.
I'm quite sure that Paizo has absolutely no problem with the Practised Spellcaster feat (even if I do). They could not include it as it is not Open Game Content.
The feat is helpful, nothing extreme, I just don't like the flavor of it. (I do use Magic Rating in most of my games though, contradictory as that may seem).
Did anyone tested the "Practiced Spellcaster feat" in Pathfinder RPG?
Is it compatible with the Pathfinder multiclassing rules?
It's a shame they simply don't incorporate this into a new multiclassing rule rather than having to fix it with a feat.
For example something along the lines of +1 level/ 2 levels in classes that don't advance that casting.
But then again I'd do it with full casting rather than just augmenting caster level.
Thus a Fighter4/Wizard1 would cast as a 3rd level wizard, etc.
Likewise I was really hoping that Pathfinder would do something with stacking BAB and saves via multiclassing, but alas it doesn't seem to be the case,
James
Unfortunately giving away caster levels for free, it makes the casters more powerful. When making a melee type it isn't uncommon to multiclass to a caster of some sort to gain the low level buffs or options available to casters, doing something like this just makes it that much more attractive at no cost, even more so when a caster can take more levels of something else and feel fewer drawbacks. Most of the broken builds out there come from multiclassing and don't get end level spells anyways. There should be a cost for multiclassing, a feat every couple of levels to keep your caster level capped isn't a big deal, especially with everyone getting more feats. It is a small investment for a big return as the feat is written. Not to mention why should just casters get a bump as you suggest? Why not allow sneak attack to stack or turning/channeling or bardic music at that rate?
As it stands the full progression casters are probably (I feel they are, others may disagree) the most powerful classes end game, they don't need "buffs" to make multiclassing more attractive so they can "dip" more easily. Not to say the feat wasn't powerful in the first place but it at least represented a cost which at the time it was written wasn't negligible. I would welcome a feat for PFRPG that did the same thing with a lesser bonus to caster level (as I'm fairly sure it would still get used with a lower bonus, a caster level bump is just that good) but I don't think that having it built into the multiclassing structure is in anyway balanced. I think limiting caster levels is less "a shame" and more a necessary check to avoid powergaming and every adventurer taking a few levels of a caster class.
This is a tough call for me.
On the one hand, I absolutely and automatically deplore any feat that certain classes, or worse, everyone, must take.
Such a "must have" feat is poor game design, and it's really more of a penalty to the classes that don't get many feats.
For example, if we made a stupid feat that gives you +10 to all your saving throws, then everyone would take it. Everyone.
For fighters, they would find it no big deal, they get 20+ feats by the time they're 20th level. The worst thing that happens is the have to wait one extra level to take the next feat they wanted to take.
But sorcerers might find it harder to take, since they get less than half the number of feats a fighter gets. Sure, they would still take that overpowered feat, but it might mean that they never get Greater Spell Penetration, or they never get that one remaining Metamagic feat they wanted. At the very least, it means they have to wait 2 extra levels for the next feat they wanted to take.
Such a feat would benefit everyone, but classes with few feats must pay more of a price to take the "must have" feat than classes that have lots of feats.
This is my main argument against any feat that is "must have". I truly believe that such feats should be turned into game mechanics for everyone, or at worst, they should be turned into class features for specific classes for which they are appropriate.
On the other hand, the loss or delay of spell power is the main reason primary classes don't dip into things like rogue or monk.
There is a definite balance between spell power they lose and benefits they gain, and this balance is usually quite heavily tipped such that the power lost is greater than the benefits gained.
I feel that the reason for this is that primary spellcasters are already immensely powerful, certainly the most powerful classes in the high-end game.
Practiced Spellcaster gives these classes a tool to regain some of the balance and justify the benefits of dipping into other classes without paying such a heavy penalty in lost spell power.
The end result is that the most powerful classes in the game get an option to gain extra power from other classes, becoming more versatile without losing much in raw power.
Used cleverly, these powerful classes can become even more powerful than they already are.
As such, making them pay the added cost of a feat slot for Practiced Spellcaster seems very well justified to keep the power level in check.
It's a tough call, but I think in the end, I prefer leaving it as a feat, especially since Pathfinder gives every spellcaster more feats than 3.x gave them.