Proposed fix for spellcaster multiclassing
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
What, no love for the Druid? Or did you just give the Cleric a Wildshape Domain?
Your mention of druids reminds me... Nobody plays gnomes.
In fact since everybody knows that there's one race that is numerically superior on paper in practically every way, I'm gonna go ahead and pare down the race list to: Dwarf.
I thought we were talking about rules here, and the fact that some people will always be willing to play certain classes because of personal preferences, or that it's possible to remove undesirable choices through flavor-based restrictions did NOT make up for rule deficiencies.
I wasn't going for "Gotcha! How come you didn't think of something so simple?", but whatever.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
You are correct-- "personal preference" and flavor enticements do not make up for deficiencies built into the rules. I will back you on that 100%.
I don't concede that non-spellcasters are deficient.
You think that (for example) the mechanical trade-off between a Fighter 20 and a Fighter 18/Cleric 2 (under your system) is worth it? Unless I'm misunderstanding how the system works (which is why I've asked) it seems to me like in that situation (granted, about as extreme as it gets) you trade 1 point of BAB, 2 HP (on average) and a feat for a significant boost to saves, domain abilities, the ability to use scrolls and wands, and up to 4th level spells. (and a couple of other things of marginal value) Granted, you need a slightly above-average score to put in Wisdom, but mechanically it's the most useful mental stat for most fighter-types anyway.
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
(Based on the feedback in this thread, you'd be limited to 2nd level spells.)
To me the question you are asking is fundamentally no different than asking why anyone would currently take Ftr20 instead of Rog2/Ftr18, Bbn1/Ftr19, Rgr2/Ftr18, etc.
Sure, it's not fundamentally different, but the degree of the problem definitely makes a difference.
I assume that's why you revised it so that they'd be limited to 2nd level spells, isn't it?
Wulf Ratbane
Adventurer
When the Fighter takes those two levels of Cleric makes all the difference.
If he takes them early, he sets himself back from the rest of the melee classes in terms of iterative attacks, and he may also be setting himself back 1-3 levels in terms of picking up the feats he needs to complete a certain feat chain. (The same hold true for Rogue builds.)
If an 18th level Fighter chooses to pick up two levels of Cleric at the end of his career, the ability to cast 2nd (or even 4th) level spells is going to be a small fraction of his total CR at 20th level. (It's about 1/3 of 1 CR.)
I will happily concede that Trailblazer is not designed for play that begins at 20th level and ignores twenty prior levels of character development and meaningful choices along the way.
Not really. The concession was easier to make than the argument.
EDIT: I apologize for my earlier snarkiness. Teasing this argument out of me is certainly worthwhile.
If he takes them early, he sets himself back from the rest of the melee classes in terms of iterative attacks, and he may also be setting himself back 1-3 levels in terms of picking up the feats he needs to complete a certain feat chain. (The same hold true for Rogue builds.)
If an 18th level Fighter chooses to pick up two levels of Cleric at the end of his career, the ability to cast 2nd (or even 4th) level spells is going to be a small fraction of his total CR at 20th level. (It's about 1/3 of 1 CR.)
I will happily concede that Trailblazer is not designed for play that begins at 20th level and ignores twenty prior levels of character development and meaningful choices along the way.
mmu1 said:
Not really. The concession was easier to make than the argument.
EDIT: I apologize for my earlier snarkiness. Teasing this argument out of me is certainly worthwhile.
This is something I've been meaning to try in my own game but haven't had a chance to as yet; how about taking a page from the old NeverwinterNights game? If I remember correct it had the standard spells DCs, but it also included later on via expasions a +1 to spells DC based on every 5 ranks the character had in either Concentration or Spellcraft. Couldn't the same thing be implemented in the Pathfinder system? I think it'd work for single & multiclass characters.
Potential advantages:
Potential advantages:
- Spells DCs would go up & keep on an even level/scale with saving throws.
- Spellcasters wouldn't be wasting any ranks since they'd be adding to a skill they use normally anyway.
- No feats/abilities would be rendered useless. I.E.: Heighten Spell, Spell Focus & a few others I can't think of are still useful.
- Possibilities for abuse of this system: none that I can think of right now.
- One more thing to remember/add-on. Spells now being: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate Modifier + Misc Modfiers + every 5 ranks in Spellcraft.
- Better for single-class Spellcasters.
- "Why every 5 ranks?" Anything lower brings the potential for abuse of this system & spells DCs start exceeding the saves of potential victims. This is especially true for those "powerhouses of spellcasting" such as Demons, Dragons & various other beings Who already have dangerously high spells DCs as is.
Max Money AWA
First Post
Great idea!
There might be an issue here. Sorcerers and Wizards are now essentially the same as each other as well as Psions and Wilders. Although with this idea you could use all lists (arcane, divine and psionic) and just adjudicate what you will or will not allow spell-wise in your game.
It sure opens up a lot more flexibility, and I like the Vancian casting system. But this is an established mechanic and your proposal makes multi-classed casters of any sort much more in line with single-classed casters.
Yoink! I'll take this, thank you very much.
Brilliant!
There might be an issue here. Sorcerers and Wizards are now essentially the same as each other as well as Psions and Wilders. Although with this idea you could use all lists (arcane, divine and psionic) and just adjudicate what you will or will not allow spell-wise in your game.
It sure opens up a lot more flexibility, and I like the Vancian casting system. But this is an established mechanic and your proposal makes multi-classed casters of any sort much more in line with single-classed casters.
Yoink! I'll take this, thank you very much.
Similar Threads
