Practiced Spellcaster feat

Methos of Aundair · Jul 20, 2004

Quote:
Originally Posted by Methos of Aundair
...One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character...

Not a penalty? Seriously?

glass.

I do not mind you quoting my statements but when you do please include the whole sentence, not just the part you want.

Liquidsabre · Jul 20, 2004

Vrecknidj said:
But, there might be a way to house-rule this so that feats and prestige classes aren't required.

Yes, that would be interesting. Somehow to tie caster level to character level when multiclassing as a matter of core rules.

"Multi-classed spellcasters, either a spellcaster taking a level in a non-caster class or PrC, or a non-caster who multiclasses into a spellcasting class, determines their caster level as 2/3 of their character level for all spell effects, durations, ranges, etc."

I see the Practised Spellcaster feat as a nice "live" testing ground for such a concept and WotC designers will be watching and learning how it affects gameplay for multi-classed spellcasters. We'll likely see something like this done in D&D's next rules incarnation. But for now, well, that's a topic for another forum.

Thanee · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character, that is a choice the player had to make during character creation. If the player sought access to higher level spells (7th-9th) than a pure spellcasting class should have been a more viable option.

Yeah, you trade in high level spell power for something else.

But by lowering your spellcasting class level this way, you obtain three "penalties"... lower spell level (surely the biggest one), lower spells per day and lower caster level.

You listed the Arcane Trickster as an example of how multiclassed spellcasters work fine, if I got you right there. But isn't that what you actually complain about? That there are feats and PrC to increase the capability of multiclassed spellcasters. The Arcane Trickster is one of those. It's purely meant to make the rogue/wizard concepts more viable, as much as the Eldritch Knight makes the fighter/wizard (or sorcerer) concepts more viable and the Mystic Theurge makes the cleric/wizard concepts more viable. And the Practiced Spellcaster feat makes all multiclassed spellcaster concepts more viable.

Of course, it is a very good feat choice for a character like the Arcane Trickster, who is already quite good, as it gives him more choices for spells, which will be useful (offensive spells). Does this make the character overpowered? I don't think so. Having played two Arcane Tricksters from 1st to 19th and 15th level respectively, I think I have a fair share of experience with that class. And I think, that the spellcasting ability is not enough at higher levels without a feat like this. And the Arcane Trickster is surely one of the best PrC for multiclassed spellcasters out there.

For the Mystic Theurge, it's probably even necessary to have him even keep up with a pure cleric or wizard. Mystic Theurge really isn't one of the hottest character concepts out there. We currently have a Mystic Theurge in our campaign, and the character was incredibly weak until now (a lot weaker than the paladin, bard, barbarian, or sorceress). With Practiced Spellcaster, the character suddenly became capable of achieving something, which he was pretty much unable to do so before.

I think that's a good thing.

Tough enough, that he has to spend one of his precious feats to actually get there!

Bye
Thanee

P.S. I also think that the multiclassing rules will have to be changed in 4.0, there is more than enough evidence, that they don't work properly when it comes to spellcasting.

glass · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
I do not mind you quoting my statements but when you do please include the whole sentence, not just the part you want.

I quoted the part I had an issue with, and indicated with ellipses that it was a partial quote. And I reapeat the question. Seriously?

glass.

Thanee · Jul 20, 2004

He just meant that the loss of spell level is not a penalty in the way, that it penalizes the character as a whole, but just some part that is removed and replaced by something else.

It's a disadvantage compared to a pure caster, but a pure caster does not get what you have gained instead either.

So, I guess, you two are just talking about two different things here.

Bye
Thanee

glass · Jul 20, 2004

Thanee said:
He just meant that the loss of spell level is not a penalty in the way, that it penalizes the character as a whole, but just some part that is removed and replaced by something else.

It's a disadvantage compared to a pure caster, but a pure caster does not get what you have gained instead either.

I suppose it's a philosophical question as to whether a penalty balanced by a comparable advantage is no longer a penalty.

Of course, I (and apparently most other people) believe a multiclassed spellcaster gives up far more than he gets back, so there is still a penalty, however you cut it.

glass.

ARandomGod · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character, that is a choice the player had to make during character creation. If the player sought access to higher level spells (7th-9th) than a pure spellcasting class should have been a more viable option.

Wait...
It's not a penalty of multiclassing because you should have known of this penalty to multiclassing before you multiclassed, therefore making it not a penalty...
But, since no penalty exists you couldn't have known about it before getting it, but then it WOULD exist, so it couldn't have existed in the first place.

"I *need* taco's. Or my head will explode. That happens to me sometimes."

Particle_Man · Jul 20, 2004

Another use for this feat is for single classed rangers, paladins or hexblades (who cast as if 1/2 their level normally). An 8th level paladin with this feat would cast as if an 8th level spellcaster, which would be useful for some spells, and for magic item creation.

Methos of Aundair · Jul 20, 2004

@thanee

You partially understand what I am saying but let me try and clarify. I have no problems with the Arcane Trickster, I merely used him as an example since a character in my campaign is playing one. So far, we are at 12th level currently, he hasn't complained about his spell capability nor that he is lagging behind the party's wizard. He seems to be enjoying his character and his primary focus isn't spellcasting. I was joking how his focus was on the accumulation of wealth, or that he didn't have enough of it. My "complaint" has more to do with all the benefits gained by the Practiced Spellcaster feat. I believe the player gains more benefit from this feat than is deserved by the purchase of a single feat. Most feats in the core books have one benefit, whereas the PS feat has multiple benefits.

Sorry if this is choppy, I work graveyard shift and since I can't sleep thought I'd check the thread.

apsuman · Jul 20, 2004

I don't know EXACTLY what Practiced Spellcaster does as I don't have the book. But let me say the following:

I personally have no problem with feats that allow certain features of the next higher character level now. For example, a feat that gives +1 BAB, not a +1 luck/insight/enhancement bonus, but +1 BAB. So a first level fighter could have a +2 bab for the cost of a feat.

Or a feat that gives the next level's saves now.

Or a feat that gives the next level's skill points now.

Or a feat that gives the next level's hit points now.

Or a feat that give higher turning level to a cleric type now.

Or a feat that gives one level higher spell caster for purposes of learning/casting spells now.

And even make these feats so you can take them more than once.

All that to say, multiclass or not I could see (in spirit) how to make the feat work and I could see how it would be a miserable failure.