General RPG Rules DiscussionDiscuss the rules of any game except D&D or Pathfinder, such as Arcana Evolved, Mutants & Masterminds, Star Wars Saga, d20 Modern, and the like.
A 10th level caster (Wizard, in your version) has a spell slot load of 4/4/4/3/3/2.
Just giving the Fighter two spells known throws away most of his slots. It invalidates the entire point behind the fix.
What is the difference between a Fighter who takes a level of Wizard and gains access to dozens of spells, and a Wizard who takes a level of Fighter and is suddenly proficient with all martial weapons, all armors, and tower shields? Would you change that?
A fighter who takes a level of wizard can use staves and wands and scrolls. He is not a great spellcaster but he can do a bunch of magical things, many while tanked up in heavy armor.
The benefit for the fighter is generally access to the spell items and a will save boost.
A wizard who takes a level of fighter can wear armor and use weapons without incurring non proficiency penalties. He will still generally suck at weapon combat and will incur arcane failure chances if he uses his spell slots while wearing armor.
The benefit for the wizard is generally a few extra hp, a feat such as dodge, deflect arrows, or improved initiative that synergizes well with a wizard's typical role, a bonus on fort saves, and +.5 BAB increase for touch attack/ray spells.
These both seem roughly comparable to a fighter picking up a level of rogue. +1d6 sneak attack and some good reflex save increase.
I would say the ftr 1/wiz 19 and ftr 19/wiz 1 dip routes are not the problem with standard 3.5 spellcasting multiclassing.
I believe that, given the existing spell lists, access to high level spells are defining class features for wizards and Cleric. For this reason alone, I feel giving multiclass spellcasters access to 9th level spells in two or more spell lists cheapens the single classed ones.
Pardon my mess. Meant to hit preview.
Not even counting Miracle as an analog of Wish, I count 5 spells on the 9th level Cleric list that aren't on the Wizard list. Which ones are defining features of the Cleric class-- just the healing and resurrecting?
Code:
Astral Projection M: Astral Projection M:
Crushing Hand:
Dominate Monster:
Energy Drain: Energy Drain:
Etherealness: Etherealness:
Foresight:
Freedom:
Gate X: Gate X:
Heal, Mass:
Hold Monster, Mass:
Implosion:
Imprisonment:
Miracle X:
Mage’s Disjunction:
Meteor Swarm:
Power Word Kill:
Prismatic Sphere:
Refuge M:
Shades:
Shapechange F:
Soul Bind F: Soul Bind F:
Storm of Vengeance:
Summon Monster IX: Summon Monster IX:
True Resurrection M:
Teleportation Circle M:
Time Stop:
Wail of the Banshee:
Weird:
Wish X:
Last edited by Wulf Ratbane; 3rd September 2008 at 03:51 AM..
I want to submit something to Pathfinder, and I want it accepted, so what will work?
I agree with Voadam that one level of dipping into a spellcasting class can be pretty leet for the purpose of using magic items, so here's the next iteration, which I think would be more acceptable to the people who want more backwards compatibility.
1. We need a unified spells per day chart. I think most people could accept it.
2. I also think stacking Base Magic Bonus is a good idea.
3. We clarify that BMB is just how familiar you are with magic, not how good you are at using magic. Someone who's very familiar with magic could pick up spellcasting pretty quickly because they've been experiencing magic for many levels, but one level alone shouldn't get you tons of benefits.
4. This needs to be fairly flexible so that people who want to convert shugenja, wu-jen, duskblades, and spellthieves can do it. Classes with their own mini spellcasting thing, like assassins, should probably just stay stand-alone.
Everyone gets spell slots from their caster level. You can fill those spell slots with any spell you have access to from any class, but instead of requiring an ability score of 10 + spell level in the requisite ability score to cast a spell from a given class, you just need to have a number of levels equal to the spell's level.
So if you're Fighter 14/Cleric 6, your caster level is 13, but you can only cast 6th level spells. If you're Wizard 14/Cleric 4/Druid 2, you can cast 9th level wizard but only 4th level cleric and 2nd level druid spells. If you're Fighter 18/Wizard 2, you get a lot of spell slots, but only 2nd level spells.
Clerics get access to all spells from their spell list.
Druids too.
Wizards prepare from a spellbook.
Sorcerers get bonus spell slots, and can't prepare spells, but they learn 2 spells per level they can cast spontaneously. Beyond 3rd level, at least one of these spells has to be of a level below your highest spell level.
Bards work about the same way.
Is this better?
__________________ Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock
Author of the War of the Burning Sky serialized novel, free at EN World. Part Two, The Irons Have Tolled, now available.
Before I start commenting specifically, here is my assumption -- and it is just an assumption, albeit based on stuff I've read on Paizo's boards -- about the minimum JB wants for B-C in Pathfinder.
I think he would want a DM to be able to take a 3.5 stat block and run it, easily, on the fly. Absolutely no conversion time required, pre-encounter.
So the question becomes, is a change so radical that a stat-block just wouldn't work? Does this system fail that test?
Arguably, and I suppose obviously, it depends on just how free-wheeling the DM is willing to be when it comes to interpreting the stat-block. If a DM (and JB) is willing to accept that, "Hey, the fighter 8/wizard 8 in this 3.5 stat-block is significantly weaker than the fighter 7/wizard 7 in the PCs' group," and just play the stat-block as written, it's got a shot. JB has shown that he'll go out on that limb to at least some length, because Pathfinder PCs (core, anyway) are noticeably stronger than 3.5 PCs.
Me, I'd accept that tradeoff for better multiclassing rules. In a heartbeat. (Either tradeoff, actually. Either weaker stat-blocks, or some conversion time.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by RangerWickett
1. We need a unified spells per day chart. I think most people could accept it.
We need it for this system to work? I agree, and I agree that most people would accept it in principle.
Quote:
2. I also think stacking Base Magic Bonus is a good idea.
I absolutely agree here, but I prefer Base Caster Level. This is the number you're going to use when you make a "caster level check," right? Plus, "BCL" is easier to say, and not as easily confused in speech with "BAB."
Quote:
3. We clarify that BMB is just how familiar you are with magic, not how good you are at using magic.
But it is how good you are with magic, isn't it? Clarify that it encompasses both, as familiarity certainly informs skill.
Quote:
4. This needs to be fairly flexible so that people who want to convert shugenja, wu-jen, duskblades, and spellthieves can do it. Classes with their own mini spellcasting thing, like assassins, should probably just stay stand-alone.
Does "mini spellcasting" include rangers and paladins?
Quote:
Everyone gets spell slots from their caster level.
"Caster level" or "BMB"? I assume you're using them synonymously, which is another argument for "BCL."
Quote:
You can fill those spell slots with any spell you have access to from any class, but instead of requiring an ability score of 10 + spell level in the requisite ability score to cast a spell from a given class, you just need to have a number of levels equal to the spell's level.
This is obviously the key to the system, and I like it. However, I don't like divorcing max spell level from the stat. I think this needs to be the lower of either.
If you're worried about MAD, screw it. Multiclassing is a choice. If you wanna be competent at two distinct skill sets, have the raw talent to back it up. Also, remember that, e.g., 5th level slots that couldn't be filled by a wizard 8/cleric 8 with a WIS of 14 can still be filled with wizard spells.
(As an aside, I assume bonus spells would only apply to the class with the applicable stat?)
Quote:
So if you're Fighter 14/Cleric 6, your caster level is 13, but you can only cast 6th level spells. If you're Wizard 14/Cleric 4/Druid 2, you can cast 9th level wizard but only 4th level cleric and 2nd level druid spells. If you're Fighter 18/Wizard 2, you get a lot of spell slots, but only 2nd level spells.
Quote:
Sorcerers get bonus spell slots, and can't prepare spells, but they learn 2 spells per level they can cast spontaneously. Beyond 3rd level, at least one of these spells has to be of a level below your highest spell level.
Okay. Starting to get a little creaky, but I get it.
Quote:
Is this better?
Much. IMO, if anything more radical than "multiclass feats" can make it into Pathfinder, it'll have to be something like this.
How does it interact with, e.g., the mystic theurge, which is, after all, a core prestige class? (If the answer is, "The mystic theurge and similar hybrid PrCs become redundant and get struck from the rules," BTW, I'm okay with that. Not sure JB would feel the same, natch.)
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Last edited by Jeff Wilder; 3rd September 2008 at 08:52 AM..
Not even counting Miracle as an analog of Wish, I count 5 spells on the 9th level Cleric list that aren't on the Wizard list. Which ones are defining features of the Cleric class-- just the healing and resurrecting?
Fair question.
I took the lists from level 7 to 9 and looked up every non-wizard spells
Spells that are also druid spells are in italics.
Besides these, I underlined the spells that are not defining class features for cleric in my own subjective opinion. All others contribute in the definition of clerics as much as the turn undead ability.
7th-Level Cleric Spells
Blasphemy: Kills, paralyzes, weakens, or dazes nonevil subjects.
Cure Serious Wounds, Mass: Cures 3d8 damage +1/level for many creatures.
Destruction F: Kills subject and destroys remains.
Dictum: Kills, paralyzes, slows, or deafens nonlawful subjects.
Holy Word: Kills, paralyzes, blinds, or deafens nongood subjects.
Inflict Serious Wounds, Mass: Deals 3d8 damage +1/level to many creatures.
If a DM (and JB) is willing to accept that, "Hey, the fighter 8/wizard 8 in this 3.5 stat-block is significantly weaker than the fighter 7/wizard 7 in the PCs' group," and just play the stat-block as written, it's got a shot.
IMO, if a ftr7/wiz7 is in a 3.5 module, the encounter is designed to be specifically at this power level, and not as a ftr 14 or wiz 14. It is also designed to be met by a number of "average" PCs of a given level, and not PCs that are "underpowered" given their multiclass choice.
So I would trust the intended power level of a multiclassed NPC as much as the one from a single classed NPCs. In short, it isn't necessary to convert him beyond a small boost in hp and a few abilities if it's put up against PF PCs.
On the spell level cap
Quote:
Quote:
You can fill those spell slots with any spell you have access to from any class, but instead of requiring an ability score of 10 + spell level in the requisite ability score to cast a spell from a given class, you just need to have a number of levels equal to the spell's level.
This is obviously the key to the system, and I like it. However, I don't like divorcing max spell level from the stat. I think this needs to be the lower of either.
I agree. This is much less of a MAD problem than the DCs problem. I believe you already fixed the biggest offender.
I also looked at max spell level = class level. It works, at least.
There may be another way of expressing this mechanically that is more in-tune with existing mechanics (since normally max spell level = 1/2 class level, round up).
I want to submit something to Pathfinder, and I want it accepted, so what will work?
I am not sure that proposing a major overhaul to the multi-classing/spell-casting system will work at all. I might be wrong, but I think that's a little beyond the scope of a play-test.
But if it works, the best thing you can do is: Do things that don't invalidate existing stat-blocks. (Though changing HD can do this already).
So maybe the multi-class caster should still have the possibility to have all the spells prepared he has in his stat-block. I suppose it's okay if it is not the optimum combination of spells (in most proposals, the highest level of available spells for each class would go up).
---
I find it interesting how the arrival of 4E and the announcement of Pathfinder motivates people to _really_ look into the problematic issues and not just post stuff intended as a mere house-rule, but actually consider ways to publish them. You guys should have been active 4-6 years ago (perhaps before 3.5 was in the works!)
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
It's just an interesting example how perceptions change... Now that we know that 3E is no longer supported (by WotC), suddenly all kinds of house-rules and fixes get interesting and move into the spot-light.
It's too late for me, but it's still nice seeing it discussed and handled now...
Though I must admit I am still not happy with the solutions (including the ones I had in mind or writing - that's why I never really followed up on them or play-tested them). Some things just still look too... clunky to me.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
It's just an interesting example how perceptions change... Now that we know that 3E is no longer supported (by WotC), suddenly all kinds of house-rules and fixes get interesting and move into the spot-light.
It's too late for me, but it's still nice seeing it discussed and handled now...
Though I must admit I am still not happy with the solutions (including the ones I had in mind or writing - that's why I never really followed up on them or play-tested them). Some things just still look too... clunky to me.
Just to be clear, here is Wulf's big book of rules tinkering from 2004
It's just an interesting example how perceptions change... Now that we know that 3E is no longer supported (by WotC), suddenly all kinds of house-rules and fixes get interesting and move into the spot-light.
Um, did you examine much third party material while WOTC was publishing 3e? Many people have introduced alternative mechanics and interesting fixes. It's one of the major reasons that I find it hard to get excited about the changes to 4e or most of WOTC's 3e supplements.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
I'm almost afraid of how much tinkering I'll end up doing on 4e in the long run. But no consequence! We must correct this wound upon the Pathfinder rules by fixing multiclassing.
So, to cast a spell from a given class you need a) a prime ability score of 10 + spell level, and b) at least as many levels in that class as the spell's level. (We'd make a note that this second rule only ever actually matters to multiclass casters.)
I think we've hashed out the rest of the system fairly well. Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?
__________________ Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock
Author of the War of the Burning Sky serialized novel, free at EN World. Part Two, The Irons Have Tolled, now available.
I think we've hashed out the rest of the system fairly well. Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?
If you're talking about showing some support for it, I'll put my name on it. If you're talking about any sort of design credit, obviously I didn't do anything to justify that.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?
I think you should formulate it as a proposal on the paizo boards WHEN the section for discussing classes will be opened by JB.
You'll have to repeat some arguments and face an environment that you might find less friendly than ENworld. But doing otherwise will be probably seen as bypassing their community process and poorly received.
Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?
Yeah, I basically think you're pissing in the wind, here.
I wouldn't expect much more credit than a playtest credit. It's an open playtest after all. So there isn't much point in attaching any names to the idea.
At any rate, for whatever it's worth, if individual credits are in their planning, then my name would probably be "credited" for the Encounter calculation bit, so I'm all set.
Yeah, I basically think you're pissing in the wind, here.
I wouldn't expect much more credit than a playtest credit. It's an open playtest after all. So there isn't much point in attaching any names to the idea.
At any rate, for whatever it's worth, if individual credits are in their planning, then my name would probably be "credited" for the Encounter calculation bit, so I'm all set.
Well, names might help to give credibility. But I agree that it might be a good idea to post the idea first on the Pathfinder forum itself, to give it some exposition and to avoid anyone rejecting it due to the famous "not-invented-here"-syndrome.
Thoughts of the Arch Chancellor - My weblog on EN World - containing game related material, like: house rules, design theories, reviews, play reports, adventure ideas
Secret Member of <Think we would just hide our secret with a spoiler tag, eh?>
Bards, do they get a full spellcaster progression now? How does their single classed spellcasting compare to 3.5? Spell levels attained, number of slots, spells known.
How do single classed paladin and rangers under this system compare to 3.5 straight ones?
BtW I like the class level limits on spells known, it is an easily implemented straightforward mechanic producing acceptable results.
Bards, do they get a full spellcaster progression now? How does their single classed spellcasting compare to 3.5? Spell levels attained, number of slots, spells known.
As per Wulf's suggestion, they'd get slightly less than a 2/3 caster level increase. So by 20th level they'd have caster level 12 and 6th level spells. They'd have as many spell slots as a 12th level wizard, and would know 30 spells (3 every 2 levels) that they can cast on the fly. So basically the same as they are now, but with a lower caster level.
We might want to give them something extra to balance that slight decrease (though, looking at bard spells, it would only affect durations, ranges, and the ability to punch through spell resistance, since I don't think any bard spell has a dice-per-level sort of effect).
Quote:
How do single classed paladin and rangers under this system compare to 3.5 straight ones?
Basically as a cleric or druid of half their level. Yes, this gives them 5th level spells when they're 18th level, and lets them access 1st level spells a little earlier than before. I don't think that's a huge power boost, comparably.
Actually, hm. We might change the base caster level progression just a smidge.
This is not as clean numerically, but it keeps people at a closer power level to current.
__________________ Ryan "RangerWickett" Nock
Author of the War of the Burning Sky serialized novel, free at EN World. Part Two, The Irons Have Tolled, now available.
Amazon.com: Grim Tales: High Adventure, Low Magic... 
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
