Practiced Spellcaster Breaks D20

[Malimar]

Weapon Finess Choice

Do you allow Weapon Finesse? Because there's a similar issue.

If you were a swashbuckler with Strength 10 and Dexterity 18, why wouldn't you take Weapon Finesse?

If I was a swashbuckler who emphasized my wit (bluff, diplomacy, gather information) or missile weapons (daggers, crossbows, shuriken, etc.) over melee confrontation, then I would not take it.

If I was a rogue swashbuckler ("what's a rogue swashbuckler?") who emphasized my infiltration skills (sneaking, picking locks, disabling devices, etc.) and trying to avoid combat altogether, then I would not take Weapon Finess.

But if I was a multiclassed spellcaster, and Practiced Spellcaster was available to me, then the benefits of taking it would apply to many different character personalities/archetypes.

- Malimar

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

He wanted to use Practiced Spellcaster, but I nixed it. I do agree that multiclassed spellcasters are significantly weaker in the spellcasting department than a single class caster. I kind of miss the days when I would see an elven fighter/mage/thief (1E & 2E staples). But in 3.x, you don't have many spells if you multiclass, and they're not very powerful. 1E/2E multiclass spellcasters would have a 2-3 level drop in their spellcasting abilities.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

The best blaster wizard I ever played was a 1e/2e Cleric/Wizard. Because I had full array of good defensive Cleric spells, I had the luxury of loading to the gills with offensive wizard spells. I was trailing exactly one level behind the single classed characters in the party. I did not get the highest level spells in the party, but my formidable depth and variety more than made up for it.

 

[Nail]

If I was a swashbuckler who emphasized my wit.....

Stop right there, bucko.

Emphasizing one trait over another is fine. Nerfing your combat ability is NOT necessary, nor is it an inevitable outcome. Try again.


The preponderance of the evidence is against you, Malimar. The Mystic Theurge has been extensively play-tested (by more than WotC!), and has been found wanting. Thus: the Practiced Spellcaster feat.

 

[IcyCool]

If I was a swashbuckler who emphasized my wit (bluff, diplomacy, gather information) or missile weapons (daggers, crossbows, shuriken, etc.) over melee confrontation, then I would not take it.

If I was a rogue swashbuckler ("what's a rogue swashbuckler?") who emphasized my infiltration skills (sneaking, picking locks, disabling devices, etc.) and trying to avoid combat altogether, then I would not take Weapon Finess.

But if I was a multiclassed spellcaster, and Practiced Spellcaster was available to me, then the benefits of taking it would apply to many different character personalities/archetypes.

- Malimar

If I was a rogue/arcane caster who emphasized my infiltration skills (augmented with knock, and maybe invisibility) and trying to avoid combat altogether, then I would not take Practiced Spellcaster.

If I was a swashbuckler/arcane caster who emphasized my wit (mmm, Glibness) (bluff, diplomacy, gather information) or missile weapons (true strike) (daggers, crossbows, shuriken, etc.) over melee confrontation, then I would not take Practiced Spellcaster.

There's two multiclassed spellcasters with no real need for Practiced Spellcaster, because they don't rely on their caster levels. Now, if they relied on their spellcasting ability like say a combat oriented swashbuckler or rogue relied on their DEX, then the feats helping to shore up those weaknesses would be no brainers.

So my question to you is, do you think that the practiced spellcaster feat is a no brainer choice for ALL multiclassed casters?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

A few more notes about practiced spellcaster:

1. Contrary to popular belief, it's not a gimme for every multiclassed spellcaster. Properly played, a multiclass spellcaster is multiclass because he wants to do something other than cast spells. If you're a fighter/wizard and your solution to every problem is fireball, then you should have just been a wizard and then you'd be able to fireball more often and wouldn't have to spend a feat to fireball at character level. Consequently, a multiclass spellcaster will often be designed to do things other than cast direct damage and targetted spells. For instance, I play a fighter/wizard/Eldritch Knight/Spellsword in Living Greyhawk and, while I would make a few changes if I constructed the character from ground up in 3.5 (for one thing, I'd trade 4 wizard levels for Eldritch Knight levels which I wasn't able to do during the 3.5 conversion), I don't think I'd take Practiced Spellcaster. Practiced Spellcaster would give me +2 on SR checks, and an additional +1 on GMW (from level 16 to retirement at level 18). It would make Bigby's Grasping Hand marginally more effective (though in my observation, it's generally more of a "got Freedom of Movement?" than an actual grapple check). And that's about it. Scorching Ray is capped out. Ray of Enfeeblement is capped out. I don't use fireball, chain lightning, disintegrate, cone of cold, etc. (Mostly because all of those spells have saves and spreading stats about and spending my feats on combat makes my DCs suck).

More to the point, I'd have to give up something for it? Power Attack? Heck no. Cleave? Maybe now, but it was very useful in the early levels. Even at 15th level, it still comes up occasionally. Quickdraw? Nope. Switching weapons as the situation requires is more valuable. Combat Expertise? Not likely. It's a good feat and an important prerequisite. Improved Trip? Are you nuts? Combat Reflexes? Not likely. (I use a reach weapon and it's an important prereq). Expert Tactician? No way! (It's the single most often used feat on the character). Craft Wondrous Item? My bonus spells from the +6 headband and my Boots of Speed say "no." Scribe Scroll? Sure, but it's not an option. Still Spell? Well, this is the feat I'd ditch for losing the Wizard 10 bonus feat. Spellsword lets me wear a mithral chain shirt without ASF so I don't need it any more. (The comparitive advantage between mithral fullplate and a mithral chain shirt is much less than between mithral fullplate and mage armor). Quicken Spell? Not on your life. Arcane Strike? Heck no! (The ability to turn unuseful spells (for instance Enervation when I'm fighting undead or Greater Invis when I'm in an unhallowed area with Invis Purge attached) into attack and damage bonusses is far more useful than anything I'd get out of practiced spellcaster). If I had another feat, I think I'd be better off using it for Improved Critical than for Practiced Spellcaster.

For my character, and a number of others, Practiced Spellcaster simply isn't as valuable as the alternatives. For characters like a Mystic Theurge whose contribution to the party must come in the form of spells or characters like the "I just grabbed two levels of sorcerer for shield and chill touch" rogue (who gets iterative sneak attacks with chill touch from practiced spellcaster), Practiced Spellcaster makes sense. For my fighter/mage (and probably for fighter/clerics built along similar lines) it doesn't.

2. In the discussion of Mystic Theurge, some posters have pointed out MAD (multiple attribute dependencey). This, however, effects more than just spells/day and spell DCs. It also has an impact on secondary stats. Depending upon the chargen method, a Mystic Theurge will typically have a lower constitution and dexterity than a normal wizard since wisdom will push con from stat # 2 to stat #3, etc. This means that a Mystic Theurge will not generally have significantly more hit points than a normal wizard. (For reasons explored later, he may often have fewer hit points). The dex loss makes ray spells less effective. Furthermore, a mystic theurge will generally want a periapt of wisdom which fills the slot typically used for an amulet of health. There are belts of dwarvenkind, but they're not as good.

Finally, Mystic Theurges feel a lot of feat pressure which is why practiced Spellcaster for both classes isn't always an obvious choice even for a mystic theurge. A normal character has 7 feats (8 if human) over his entire career. A wizard has scribe scroll and 4 other bonus metamagic and item creation feats. If the Mystic Theurge takes Practiced Spellcaster twice, Improved Initiative, and Quicken Spell, that only leaves three slots for things like Spell Focus, Empower Spell, and Spell Penetration. OTOH, a wizard can have Greater Spell Focus, Greater Spell Penetration, Improved Initiative, Quicken Spell, Empower Spell, Sculpt Spell, Craft Wondrous Item, and still have that same number of free feats as the Mystic Theurge to work with. That means that the difference in spellcasting potential is not just in spells per day and caster level and the difference in DCs is not just from MAD. Even with all of that, the wizard will probably have better spells available (through metamagic), +4 to spell penetration rolls, and +2 to the DCs of his favorite spells in addition to whatever advantages he has due to the Theurge spreading his attributes more thinly. (In play, this difference is only amplified by the fact that the wizard can take levels of prestige classes too so the proper comparison probably isn't Wiz 7/Clr 3/Mystic Theurge 10 to Wiz 20 but more likely to Wiz 5/MotAO 10/Archmage 5).

I think a Mystic Theurge can be made effective, but even at 20th level, Practiced Spellcaster isn't a magic bullet that automatically makes a Mystic Theurge better than a normal wizard or cleric. It's a good feat for certain characters (and any feat that isn't good for "certain characters" isn't worth printing), but even in its target market, there are a number of characters who can do without it or who benefit more from something else.

 

[Malimar]

If I was a rogue/arcane caster who emphasized my infiltration skills (augmented with knock, and maybe invisibility) and trying to avoid combat altogether, then I would not take Practiced Spellcaster.

Practiced Spellcaster would allow your Knock spell to affect ever larger doors (10 square feet per caster level) from an ever safter distance (100 feet + 10 feet per level) and you would be able to stay invisible for longer (1 minute per caster level). Other infiltration spells that would benefit from higher caster level: disguise self (duration), silent image (area effect), ventriloquism (range), rope trick (duration), etc.

And that's just 1st level spells. Practiced spellcaster looks pretty tempting even with infiltration emphasized.

If I was a swashbuckler/arcane caster who emphasized my wit (mmm, Glibness) (bluff, diplomacy, gather information) or missile weapons (true strike) (daggers, crossbows, shuriken, etc.) over melee confrontation, then I would not take Practiced Spellcaster.

Glibness lasts 10 minutes per caster level. 10 minutes can get you past the guards. 60 minutes can get you past the guards, the doorman, the maid, and talkative butler, and straight to the fair maiden.

And other witty spells that greatly improve with caster level: disguise self, silent image, charm person (duration), eagle's splendor (duration)...

The feat still sounds pretty good in that scenario too.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

There are few characters who wouldn't get some benefit from an extra few caster levels. The thing to consider, however, is the opportunity cost.

For instance, for both rogues, it competes with Stealthy and Nimble Fingers. In combat situations, it also competes with improved initiative, weapon finesse, weapon focus, two weapon fighting, improved buckler defense, dodge, mobility, spring attack, and elusive target. It also competes with the various social feats for the social-skill based rogue as well as things like Disguise Spell. (The ability to work a charm person into what appears to be ordinary conversation could be more important than the extra duration on a heroism or invisibility spell). And, it competes with the combat options too. Even social rogues get into fights every now and then.

Depending upon the class makeup of the rogue in question, the benefits might not be too significant either. If the majority of the character is in rogue levels with only 4-6 caster levels total, then the difference between a 40 square foot door (about 6x6 feet) and a 100 square foot door (10x10) may or may not be sufficient to be worth a feat for the rogue/wizard. The lower number is big enough for enlarged doors and some double doors anyway. The higher number still isn't big enough for castle gates. So, the benefit consists of being usable on doors somewhere between double sized house entryways and castle gates. Since sneaking generally isn't done through the front door anyway, it's a relatively minor benefit.

Similarly with a glibness type spell (Glibness is bard only so it doesn't properly belong here, but heroism offers skill bonusses that might be valuable), the difference between 50 minutes and 90 minutes (as a 3rd level spell, there's a minimum caster level) is significant. However, 50 minutes is often enough to get in and out and finish. 90 minutes is sometimes not enough. A lesser metamagic rod of extend spell can solve some of the duration problem making the un-feated spell last 100 minutes and the feated one 180 minutes. Still, it's a limited number of situations where 180 minutes is good but 100 minutes is not. And there are other ways around most of those situations.

Both of those characters have to ask themselves not "would an extra 2-4 caster levels be useful?" but rather "is the ability to affect 10x10 doors instead of 6x6 doors or 180 min extended heroism rather than 100 minute extended heroism going to be more helpful in avoiding trouble than Improved Initiative, Iron Will, Weapon Finesse, or Elusive Target would be in helping me survive trouble?" The answer won't always be yes.

Practiced Spellcaster is a good feat for a character who wants to do something useful with one or two levels in a casting class. It's also good for a character who wants to use ordinary spells in combat but lost a lot of caster levels for some reason. Mystic Theurges and Arcane Tricksters will often fall into this category. For a character with middling spell skill (like a roge with 4 or 6 levels or wizard), it doesn't make as much sense. Their caster level is already high enough to do most of what they want to do and the feat won't push it high enough for them to function like a real caster. For spellcasting characters whose combat contribution is not straightforward spellcasting (like my eldritch knight character), it's not a particularly good feat either. Their caster level is already good enough to do most of what they want in combat and it isn't caster level that keeps them from effectively using attack spells anyway.

Practiced Spellcaster would allow your Knock spell to affect ever larger doors (10 square feet per caster level) from an ever safter distance (100 feet + 10 feet per level) and you would be able to stay invisible for longer (1 minute per caster level). Other infiltration spells that would benefit from higher caster level: disguise self (duration), silent image (area effect), ventriloquism (range), rope trick (duration), etc.

And that's just 1st level spells. Practiced spellcaster looks pretty tempting even with infiltration emphasized.

Glibness lasts 10 minutes per caster level. 10 minutes can get you past the guards. 60 minutes can get you past the guards, the doorman, the maid, and talkative butler, and straight to the fair maiden.

And other witty spells that greatly improve with caster level: disguise self, silent image, charm person (duration), eagle's splendor (duration)...

The feat still sounds pretty good in that scenario too.

 

[AeroDm]

Practised Spellcaster seems most attractive for clerics imo simply because the other class can then proceed to cast in armor. A fighter with Cleric 1 tacked on looks pretty attractive...

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Practised Spellcaster seems most attractive for clerics imo simply because the other class can then proceed to cast in armor. A fighter with Cleric 1 tacked on looks pretty attractive...

Yes, I do not mean to be rude, but so what?

A Fighter with Cleric 1 tacked on already looks pretty attractive. As does a higher level Fighter with Cleric 3 tacked on. Give up 1 BAB, 3 HPs, and 1 1/2 fighter feats for +2 Will, +2 Fort, access to Divine feats, two Domain abilities, and 0th, 1st, and 2nd level spells. That is a very good deal.

Practised Spellcaster would be a perfectly reasonable feat to take for such a character, but is it all that much better than other options? There are a lot of feats chains to choose from for a Fighter, some of those Divine feats look mighty juicy if you can boost your Cha up to 14...

 

[Victim]

Actually, Practiced Spellcaster would be pretty useless for a Fighter X/Cleric 1. Most of the good cleric spells aren't going to be helped much by 5 caster levels versus one. Neither Shield of Faith or Divine Favor will grant bigger bonuses, and the durations are still very short - essentially one fight. By the time his CLW is maxed out, it will be pretty inadequate for in combat healing, and out of combat healing is usually done with wands.

Plus a fighter cleric is probably going to be wanting fighter or divine feats. This brings up another issue; multiclass characters are generally going to be wanting feats for each class, yet will probably have fewer feats than a single classed counterpart. Even though a fighter/wizard/EK will have more feats than normal characters, he'd have fewer fighting feats than a fighter and fewer magic feats than a wizard. Therefore, with a diminished number of total feats yet a greater demand for feats, the opportunity cost for Practiced Spellcaster is high. Sure, many of them could use a nice +4 CL to divy up, but they could use a lot of other things too. While doubling the duration on Glibness might be nice, it still lasts at least 30 min without the feat. Quick moves might get you to the intended target before the shorter duration elapses. A higher Bluff without the spell would let you talk your way past the guard normally, then cast the spell when needed. A caster who doesn't take PS might pick spells that aren't as reliant on caster level as others. Slow will affect decent numbers of enemies at the min caster level, the only hangup is SR. Caster level only effects range and SR checks for Enervation. You can pick other spells to avoid SR too - Cloudkill is caster level dependent on duration and not much else. However, the main difficulty is keeping someone in the cloud the entire time, not making it last a couple rounds after it blows past the enemies. If you can get the full time on someone, 9 rounds of Cloudkill is nasty enough. Similarly, Divine Power will probably last 1 fight at most caster levels, and the temp Hp aren't anything to write home about. Proper spell selection minimizes the need the practiced spellcaster and thus frees up feats for other things.

While additional caster levels are always going to have at least some utility, they won't always be worth a feat.