|
And even if the AT had magical knack, the full caster WOULD be better at doing what they're designed to do.
To be fair, those full casters SHOULD be better at doing what they're designed to do, cast spells. They don't get the option for sneak attack or disarming traps at range like your AT does.
Was anyone saying that they wouldn't be?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So give me a logical reason why multi class non caster combos should be designed to be effective and non (primarilly) caster combos should not work? There is none.
What makes you think classes are *designed* around multi-classing at all?
Classes are designed to be self contained and complete. Whether they multi-class well is a token consideration at best. The biggest concern with regards to multi-classing is minimizing the unintended consequences on the game.
Combat oriented classes multi-class well because they lean on generic abilities (BAB). Classes which lean on class specific abilities don't multi-class as well. To make spellcasters as multi-class friendly you would need to replace spellcasting with a more generic system which is not class dependent. That's not going to happen in Pathfinder RPG.
|
So give me a logical reason why multi class non caster combos should be designed to be effective and non (primarilly) caster combos should not work? There is none.What makes you think classes are *designed* around multi-classing at all?
Classes are designed to be self contained and complete. Whether they multi-class well is a token consideration at best. The biggest concern with regards to multi-classing is minimizing the unintended consequences on the game.
I never said any class was designed for multiclassing. I realise they were designed to be self contained. However, the fact remains that you can find many non caster multi-class options that are competitive or even superior to many single class options.
It is irrelvant as to what something was designed to do. What is important is what it can do?
Combat oriented classes multi-class well because they lean on generic abilities (BAB). Classes which lean on class specific abilities don't multi-class as well. To make spellcasters as multi-class friendly you would need to replace spellcasting with a more generic system which is not class dependent. That's not going to happen in Pathfinder RPG.
I never said I wanted to make spellcaster multi-class 'as well' and I agree that mechanically, they can't. I simply don't want spellcaster multiclassing to be so onerous that some options, for example Mystic Themerge and Arcane Trickster, are discouraged out of existance, which they are right now.
That is why I'm in favor of magical knack and suspect that there is no rules balance reason why it is disallowed.
Aside: Finished Godsmarket Gamble a week and a half ago. As I was printing it out last night I noticed you were the author. I felt it was the single best adventure of season three.
|
|
And really there's nothing grossly overpowered about this trait to merit a prohibition either. This has some opposition, but I can't follow the logic (if any) to this opposition.
James,
The way I see it is by comparing this triat to several other traits that are similar (i.e. precocious caster, gifted adept,etc) Most traits allow the CL of a single spell to be raised by +1.
Magical Knack on the other hand allows a +2 CL for ALL spells. This clearly shows an imbalance in comparison to the other traits. For this reason alone I would like it banned as a trait.
However if the developer's are listening this trait should be completely abolished as a trait and converted to a Feat at +3 CL. Since Specialized Spell exists as a feat (giving +2 to a single spell) I dont see even this being converted to a feat.
|
Guys, please give this argument a rest. The only comments I can recall from Paizo regarding the banning of the trait had nothing to do with its mechanics. AFAIK, the decision was based on an attempt to discourage multi-classing and encouraging single-classed character. I think most everyone can agree that in 3E, multi-classing was extremely popular, possibly too popular. This, at least in part, influenced the rebuilding of some classes for PFRPG to make them more attractive for start to capstone play without level dipping. Again, AFAIK, the current PFS leadership has no stated any issues with the mechanical aspects of the trait being over/under-powered, they have simple said they have reviewed the opinions of players and decided to keep the ban in place. We can continue to blather on about, but it will no change the fact that the trait is banned and will remain banned, presumably for the foreseeable future. And as I said, no one is going to change any minds regarding this topic. This thread is just a circular argument between the same people who have clearly different styles of play.
|
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8
|
Yes, I am derailing this thread...
A 1st level sorcerer that casts burning hands for 4d4+8 of damageWhat is the class/feat/trait/etc combo's that allow a 1st level sorcerer to cast burning hands as a 4th level caster?
Gnome pyromaniac racial is part of it... you kids figure out the rest ;)
|
|
Gnome pyromaniac racial is part of it... you kids figure out the rest ;)
The reason I ask is because it sounds too good to be true...and over-powered IMO. But I admit to being on the conservative side of optimization and "power" gaming, so to each his own.
NOTE--yes, I am aware that barbarians, fighters, etc can do more damage than that at first level with a weapon, so please do not infer anything from my comment or try to argue that my opinion is wrong...please, focus on answering the question. Thx
|
|
Bob,
a Human Wizard(admixture)
Trait: Precocious Caster: Acid Splash, Burning Hands +1CL
or
Trait: gifted adept: Burning Hands +1CL
Human feat: Spell Specialization: Burning Hands +2CL
Lvl 1 Wizard Feat: Spell Focus (evocation)
lvl 1 Character feat: Varisian Tattoo (Evocation) +1CL
with the above you can cast Burning Hands at 5th lvl as a 1st level character and convert it to Acid/Cold/Electricity.
or do as mike foster said and add a level of wizard at 2nd level and dmg will be something like 5d4+11 for BH.
|
|
true but thats only 5d4 which is 5-20 damage rather than 4d4+8 which is 12-24 damage, plus you cant attain intensify till level 3 so maxing out at level 1 is unwise
You're right Mike, I dont have this build but I have one very similar and he can reach shocking grasp at 5d6+11 pts of dmg as a1st lvl spell.
I plan on getting intesified spell at around 3rd lvl to do 8d6+17 dmg as a 4th lvl character. Wiz3/Sor1
|
|
I plan on getting intesified spell at around 3rd lvl to do 8d6+17 dmg as a 4th lvl character. Wiz3/Sor1
8d6+17...average 45(?) damage, plus eligible for crits?!?
Isn't that a bit excessive? I mean in a time when one of the biggest complaints is PC's cake-walking encounters, aren't you just exacerbating the problem with a build like this? Sure it may be on par with what an optimized barbarian can do, but the same questions applies.
|
When you multiclass, expect to lose something.
This is utterly false. A fighter for example, instead of getting your next fighter level, you choose to get a d6 in sneak attack, rage, animal empathy or whatever.
And with the non caster classes there are many, many examples of combos which are both effective and fun and argueably as a effective as their non caster, single class countparts.
And that's the way it it should be. Nowhere in the rules does it say you need to suffer some sort of mythological 'penalty' for multiclassing.
With very few and only one notable exception (rage chemist), is there a casting class that gains more or stays fairly close to equal footing to their single class counterpart.
So give me a logical reason why multi class non caster combos should be designed to be effective and non (primarilly) caster combos should not work? There is none.
Magical knack is the only thing that counters that.
And, as usual, actual play experience is not an any character that would want or have actual benefits from the trait being discussed.But there are players who have chosen to dump some character concepts simply because of that lack. I know many people who love the idea of playing an Arcane Trickster, but when they did the math they chose not to go for it because of magical knack being banned means they won't be able to keep up in effectiveness. That covers 'want' or 'actual benefits' right there.
Am I missing something here?
You quoted me saying something. Say its absolutely false, and then go on to describe a bunch of things that actually support what I said.
I'm perplexed.
If I'm a 7th level fighter, and I go Rogue to get the 1d6 sneak attack. Sure, I gain a Rogue's skill points and sneak attack (forget if rogue adds anything else at 1st level, but it doesn't really matter).
They lose BAB progression.
So if a 5th level fighter did the same, they would have to wait until 7th level to get their iterative attack.
You lose something when you multiclass.
Do you get other things? Yes. But that doesn't mitigate the fact that you lose something.
|
|
I plan on getting intesified spell at around 3rd lvl to do 8d6+17 dmg as a 4th lvl character. Wiz3/Sor18d6+17...average 45(?) damage, plus eligible for crits?!?
Isn't that a bit excessive? I mean in a time when one of the biggest complaints is PC's cake-walking encounters, aren't you just exacerbating the problem with a build like this? Sure it may be on par with what an optimized barbarian can do, but the same questions applies.
Actually its 7d6+15 dmg
It is excessive! but I dont write the books, I just play with them.
Besides the problem existed way before I came around and quite honestly will be here after I'm gone.
I'm not here to discourage players from using material to the best of their ability if its found in books they've purchased.
This is the cycle of a game edition: Balanced Rules ->Rules Bloat->New Edition. I'm sure you know where we are in the cycle.
As for fixing it in PFS: I favor GM Adaptability and Encounters designed for 6 players not 4.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
So give me a logical reason why multi class non caster combos should be designed to be effective and non (primarilly) caster combos should not work? There is none.What makes you think classes are *designed* around multi-classing at all?
Classes are designed to be self contained and complete. Whether they multi-class well is a token consideration at best. The biggest concern with regards to multi-classing is minimizing the unintended consequences on the game.
I never said any class was designed for multiclassing. I realise they were designed to be self contained. However, the fact remains that you can find many non caster multi-class options that are competitive or even superior to many single class options.
It is irrelvant as to what something was designed to do. What is important is what it can do?
I was answering your request for a 'logical explanation' why the game was designed that way. The answer is: It just fell out that way. There was no evil conspiracy against multi-classing spellcasters, the multi class system just rewards classes with generic powers more.
When they decide to allow or ban a trait the PFS crew are almost certainly trying to limit abuse. Magical Knack affects a wide swath of class combinations, not just mystic theurge and arcane trickster. My suspicion is the decision has little to do with those specific combinations.