|
I've been reading the various discussions brought about by the new ACG playtest and two concepts keep coming up that are mentioned in passing so often, but that I don't quite understand. I consider myself mildly intelligent and I've been playing RPGs for a bit, but I've been scratching my head on these. I'm hoping for some non-flaming answers from the board members:
1.) What is "Vancian" casting? I'm assuming it has something to do with the wizard's "fire and forget" spellcasting but I feel like I'm missing some kind of context here. Any additional info on this would be awesome (like, for instance...who's Vance?)
2.) I've seen the idea from several posters that "multi-classing is crippling" to a character. While this might be typical discussion board hyperbole, I'm assuming it's rooted in some kind of truth or perception of truth. Would someone be so kind as to enlighten me on why multi-class is crippling to a character. BTW, I'm not a huge mathematics wizard so if you could make your answer more verbal than formulaic I would greatly appreciate it.
Thanks, in advance, for whatever information you guys can give me on this topic.
|
1) "Vancian" refers to the writer Jack Vance, who created the idea of wizards who forgot their spells after casting (see Appendix N).
2) Multi-class is crippling is a reaction to Paizo's stated goal of discouraging the "level dips" common to 3.5-era character builds. It's mostly message board hyperbole, but it does have a point that Multi-class characters won't get access to the most powerful class abilities (like 9th level spells or the "capstone" powers)
Uriel is quite correct, Vancian magic is named after the writer Jack Vance who inspired the current system of magic that has existed in all version of magic where you have discrete spell slots and the power of spells can't easily be adjusted. For example there is no general "flame" spell. There is a spell that makes a spark, a spell that creates a cone of flame, and a spell that creates an explosive ball of fire. They usually get more powerful with your caster level, but you can't tone down that power and conserve your "energy".
As far as addressing the disparity of multi-classing. I would say it is generally correct, that looking at characters in the long term a single classed character is usually more powerful that a character with multiple dips. Paizo has changed the classes such that they've eliminated (or tried to eliminate) dead levels in any classes. The rewards for sticking with a single class character usually far outstrip the gains from multiclassing. However, there are some specific character concepts or certain combinations that can be very powerful. But I would say more often then not unless you have a specific goal and build in mind, that you are better not multiclassing in Pathfinder.
Also 2) While multiclassing isnt "crippling" the nature of level advancement by tables (for bab& saves) can make multiclassing "punishing". Example: A monk 1/bard 1 has bab +0, while everyone else has at least +1.
There are a number of cases where multiclassing is preferable (like aiming for a prestige class) but most of the time it's worth sticking with a single class. As another example of useful 1-level dips: 1 monk (any) basically gives you +2 on each save, improved unarmed strike & a bonus feat. This is great to qualify for some abilities (like "style" feats, which can often bu used even while armed).
2) In the past (3.5) a lot of classes were front loaded as in most of their best abilities came at the beginning, now there are consistently better and better class abilities for in a single class, and thus make it more rewarding to stay with your current class than multiclassing. Though casters have always been this way aside from prestige class abuse. There are some exceptions as well, for example many people multiclass away from gunslinger at lvl 5 having received everything they want from the class.