Practiced Spellcaster feat

Methos of Aundair · Jul 20, 2004

@glass

And yes, I agree with my statement seriously. Basically what I am saying is if I choose to play a multiclassed spellcaster I go into it knowing that more than likely I will never have access to high level spells. I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus. If I choose to play a multiclassed character I understand the above statements and therefore how can I consider not having access to high level spells a penalty when it was a choice I made at character creation with the full knowledge of what that would entail.

Basically, how can I penalize myself when it was a choice I made with the full understanding of its consequences? Obviously, this is my opinion.

Methos of Aundair · Jul 20, 2004

It seems like this thread is turning more into the disadvantages of a multiclassed spellcaster and how the Practiced Spellcaster feat helps alleviate that. I would like to instead point out the benefits of the PS feat and how those benefits replicate other feats.

1. Caster level receives a bonus of up to +4. This bonus is included with checks versus Dispel, Greater Dispel, and SR. In terms of SR it resembles the Spell Penetration and its greater version.

2. Effects duration as if the caster were up to 4 levels higher. At lower levels this could increase your duration up to 5x normal (when actual level is 1), though as you rise in level this drops (at 16th level the percentage increase is only 25%). This benefit resembles that of the Extend Spell feat, though the difference in duration isn’t the same, with the Extend Spell feat you have to cast the spell at 1 level higher.

3. Range of spell, same as #2 only resembles the Enlarge Spell feat.

4. Spell damage. Though not quit like the Empower Spell feat it does somewhat resemble it. You are not getting quite the bonus of Empower but you are still able to add in up to 4 extra caster levels which affects damage dice.

This may or may not be all the benefits of this spell, as stated earlier I’m tired and can’t sleep, but even if it is the whole list that is quite a lot for one single feat. Most feats in the core book grant one benefit, not 4. And this feat provides benefits that greatly resemble benefits from other feats, I don’t think that is balanced in my opinion. The player is gaining multiple benefits similar to other feats at the price of one feat and the player does not have to cast the spell at a higher level.

I mentioned earlier how it seems like everyone is leaning towards attempting to balance a multiclassed spellcaster in some way, but in my opinion I do not believe by granting this feat it would be done in a way that is balanced. I understand people saying that they feel these disadvantages (in their opinion) should be fixed but not this way, and no, I don’t know how. Another topic maybe.

Disclaimer: I ask these questions and bring up my points or observations because I wish to see how others view it, or so that I can see the topic in a different light. I am not attempting to state any of you are wrong, I’m just curious if there is something I am not seeing. Everything I say is in my opinion, and though I debate my opinion without appearing to consider that of yours I am in truth attempting to understand it.

Laman Stahros · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
@glass

And yes, I agree with my statement seriously. Basically what I am saying is if I choose to play a multiclassed spellcaster I go into it knowing that more than likely I will never have access to high level spells. I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus. If I choose to play a multiclassed character I understand the above statements and therefore how can I consider not having access to high level spells a penalty when it was a choice I made at character creation with the full knowledge of what that would entail.

Basically, how can I penalize myself when it was a choice I made with the full understanding of its consequences? Obviously, this is my opinion.

What I think you are missing here is that a Druid 5/Sorcerer 5 is still primarily a spellcaster and this feat (which I have allowed in my campaign and I have not seen any problems with it) would allow such a character to operate (within limits, of course) in his/her primary focus without severe and unreasonable limitations.

Scion · Jul 20, 2004

Remember, all this feat does is alleviate part of a disadvantage. Feats that get rid of a disadvantage are almost invariably stronger than ones that give a benefit above and beyond.

Sure, someone who has taken four levels or more away from their casting class will get the most benefit out of it, but then all it is doing is helping them catch up a bit in usefulness. Trading a precious feat in for a bit of relaxing on the major penalties that was already set up.

Once you have given up 4 levels or more of a primary caster class anyway those spells are effectively not very useful in combat. There are exceptions of course, but most of the time you need the higher level spells to really be able to use them effectively. The main things that this feat gives you are: Better resistance to being dispelled, longer durations, and ability to actually penetrate SR sometimes.

Since it only helps to alleviate one of the penalties of multiclassing a spellcaster (and is by far not the worst penalty) I see no problem with it at all. Spending a feat (precious resource) to alleviate part of a penalty seems like a decent choice to make.

In the extreme examples above (1 level of caster/ X levels of some other class) taking this feat simply gives you enough duration to actually matter as levels go up. The character traded his feat simply to be able to use his abilities slightly more often. I see no problem. For this combo to work the character had to give up a level of whatever he was really going for in order to get one in the caster, this hit his performance in other areas, and then he had to spend a feat just to keep it somewhat useful as levels increased, adding to the cost even more. Sure it is worth it to some builds, but is it overpowered? nah, I think it is completely warrented. A great idea for a feat really.

Particle_Man · Jul 20, 2004

Practiced Spellcaster

Prerequisite: YOu must teh suCk at speLlcasTing

Benefit: YOu teh suCk stiLl, but noT so bAD.

Thanee · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
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.

Can't really agree with that. Neither from my understanding of the rules, nor from practice.

Most feats in the core books have one benefit, whereas the PS feat has multiple benefits.

Really? I think it has exactly one benefit.

It matches your caster level with your hit dice, as long as they are no more than 4 steps apart.

Bye
Thanee

Thanee · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
It seems like this thread is turning more into the disadvantages of a multiclassed spellcaster and how the Practiced Spellcaster feat helps alleviate that. I would like to instead point out the benefits of the PS feat and how those benefits replicate other feats.

fine.

1. Caster level receives a bonus of up to +4. This bonus is included with checks versus Dispel, Greater Dispel, and SR. In terms of SR it resembles the Spell Penetration and its greater version.

Yeah, something that is badly necessary, if you face these things. Otherwise your magic is pretty ineffective. Been there, done that.

2. Effects duration as if the caster were up to 4 levels higher. At lower levels this could increase your duration up to 5x normal (when actual level is 1), though as you rise in level this drops (at 16th level the percentage increase is only 25%). This benefit resembles that of the Extend Spell feat, though the difference in duration isn’t the same, with the Extend Spell feat you have to cast the spell at 1 level higher.

This just raises the effect to an appropriate level.

3. Range of spell, same as #2 only resembles the Enlarge Spell feat.

Help me there... where does it allow you to break your (character) level limit? Enlarge Spell makes spells larger than they normally are. Practiced Spellcaster makes spells as large as they normally are.

4. Spell damage. Though not quit like the Empower Spell feat it does somewhat resemble it. You are not getting quite the bonus of Empower but you are still able to add in up to 4 extra caster levels which affects damage dice.

Again, it just raises your spells to the appropriate level, and does not allow you to surpass it.

This may or may not be all the benefits of this spell, as stated earlier I’m tired and can’t sleep, but even if it is the whole list that is quite a lot for one single feat.

...

If you see it like this, you surely agree with me that Weapon Focus is broken.

It allows you to add +1 to a melee attack roll with a weapon, it allows you to resist disarm attempts easier, it allows you to Power Attack for more damage, it allows you to make trip attack easier (with some weapons only), and so on.

In fact, tho, it has just one effect, it gives you a +1 to hit.

In the same light Practiced Spellcaster has just one effect, it raises your caster level up to the number of your hit dice (limit of +4).

It is very purposefully chosen to be that powerful in comparison with other feats, that allow you to increase your abilities beyond your level limit, since it does not do that, it only raises them to your level limit, but not beyond, which is what most other feats do.

That's the little difference here, which is so important.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. If you want to complain about a broken feat, complain about Skill Focus (Concentration), it's so much better than Combat Casting!

Thanee · Jul 20, 2004

Methos of Aundair said:
I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus.

This is one option, but I guess there are about as many characters (if not more) that are the other way around, with spellcasting their primary focus and the "other class" (i.e. fighter, rogue, monk, paladin, ranger) their secondary focus. Usually you can afford only one or two levels in another class, but with prestige classes specifically tailored to your needs, or with Practiced Spellcaster (or both) you can afford more than that and go for a more natural multiclassing, where you increase your abilities in both, just slower (away from the 1/x multiclassing).

Examples how these characters can work are in the DMG in the Prestige Class section (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight). Those are most definitely not secondary spellcasters, since their casting ability surpasses their other abilities (and their spellcaster levels surpass their other class levels usually). They are not pure spellcasters, however.

Bye
Thanee

ruleslawyer · Jul 20, 2004

While I generally agree that multiclassed spellcasters are weak, even with the workarounds allowed by the MT and EK (though some others didn't seem to agree last time this came up; whew!), I do think Pax has an excellent point. Just as 3.5 slapped down save DCs (nerfing Spell Focus/GSF), then slapped them down again (nerfing spell power), thereby probably going too far, 3.5 has also seemed to add perhaps one too many options to make multiclassing viable.

For example, as it stands, the MT is weaker than a straight wizard for the following reasons:

1) Lack of bonus feats
2) Lack of familiar progression
3) Multiple stat dependency
4) Lack of access to higher-level spells
5) Lower caster level

In return, the MT gets the following:

1) extra hit points
2) domain powers
3) 10 levels of cleric spellcasting

What does that really mean? Well, the important advantages/disadvantages really mean the following:

ADVANTAGES OF MT:
Flexibility of spellcasting, arcane/divine spell synergies, lots of lower-level spells

DISADVANTAGES OF MT:
Trouble beating SR, lack of access to higher-level spells

Practiced Spellcaster means that one of the MT's two major disadvantages goes away. That's a big deal. With PS, the MT only loses out on access to higher-level spells. At low levels, that's probably a big enough deal to balance the class out (spell penetration's also not so important at those levels), but by Clr3/Wiz3/MT 10, the only disadvantage of the class is lack of access to 8th-level spells. That seems a bit sketchy to me, though I don't know how it'd play out in practice. But anyway, I think Pax has a good point in that it may be imprudent to allow multiple options for improving multiclassed spellcasting; picking one and sticking to it seems safer.

Mr. Kaze · Jul 20, 2004

Giving away my $.02 opinion for free, IMC, I made "Practiced Spellcaster" a 1st-level only feat (no prereqs) for characters who wanted to develop multi-class casters. This makes it a tougher choice for folks who aren't entirely serious about the spellcasting ability at the start of the game and ensures that a Mystic Theurge can't take it for each of their base classes so that they're still almost as limited as originally intended. So far, we've got one PC and one NPC with it and -- other than giving us way too many numbers to keep track of with regards to HD vs. Casting Spells As vs. Caster Level -- I think it's a great feat to make otherwise painful cross-class PrCs (like Arcane Trickster, especially) more attainable.

My only question would be... Could I take a Rogue 5/Assassin 7 and, getting Craft Wonderous Item from his assassin spells and using Practiced Spellcaster to boost his Assassin caster level to 11, turn him into a Lich? That'd be fun! But also horribly horribly unbalanced and wrong with regards as to who all is supposed to be able to become a lich and who all isn't.

Cheers,
::Kaze