Practiced Spellcaster Breaks D20

[ARandomGod]

Not only is your G/F correct, but in reality the feat doesn't do enough to fully balance the caster classes with the non caster classes when it comes to the multiclass system currently in place.


Oh, and I'm playing a caster now who doesn't take Practiced Spellcaster, and won't. It's just not good enough for him to bother.

Likely that's because he only has two levels of non caster, but hey... you KNOW that every level of non caster increases your suckage exponentially! I wouldn't take two more levels of non caster if you gave me the feat for FREE. It simply wouldn't make up for the cost.

 

[FireLance]

After flipping through the newspaper this morning and looking at a few slimming centre ads, I realized that Practised Spellcaster is similar. It takes something that isn't all that great (a multi-classed spellcaster), makes it look decent for a price (a feat), but doesn't make it better than someone who didn't need it in the first place (a single-classed spellcaster).

The "before" and "after" pictures can show a startling improvement, but D&D isn't a competition between a multiclassed spellcaster with the feat and the same multiclassed spellcaster without it (unless your party composition is very interesting). It isn't even a competition between the multiclassed spellcasters and the single-classed spellcasters in the party (unless that's how you want to play the game). But even if it is, the single-classed spellcaster will still have an edge over the multi-classed ones in terms of spell access and spells per day - in particular, the higher level spell slots.

Think about the various kinds of multi-classed spellcasters. There's the dabbler, who only has a few levels in a spellcaster class. He gets the full effect of the caster level increase, but the power of the feat is limited by the number of spells that he can cast per day and the low-level spells that he has access to.

There's the majority spellcaster who has only a few levels in another class. He has almost as many spells and almost the same level of access to powerful spells as a single-classed spellcaster, and Practised Spellcaster would improve most of them. However, since he is so close to being a single-classed spellcaster, the actual caster level increase that he enjoys is small.

Finally, there's the balanced spellcaster who keeps his levels in spellcaster classes even with those of another class (possibly another spellcaster class). He gets the full effect of the caster level increase on a wider number and variety of spells, including some powerful ones, but in doing so he almost certainly misses out on the most powerful spells at less than epic levels.

Practised Spellcaster is a good feat and a good fix for a multiclassing system that shortchanges spellcasters. It gives the most benefit to those who need it most without allowing them to overshadow or outdo single-classed spellcasters. Of course, it would be better if the multiclassing system was fixed in the first place.

 

[Malimar]

Agreed...

Of course, it would be better if the multiclassing system was fixed in the first place.

Agreed.

 

[Antoine]

Practised Spellcaster is a good feat and a good fix for a multiclassing system that shortchanges spellcasters.

Multiclassing shortchanging spellcasters is as old a debate as D&D : try a 1st or 2nd E Cleric/Wizard 14/14 vs. an 18th level Archmage. With exactly the same experience. We're pretty close to the Mystic Theurge vs. Wiz17 comparison.
Multiclassing, by essence, is you fall behind specialists in their own domain. Characters don't multiclass for no reason. They do it because of their background, or because of their tactics, or because they find an advantage at multi-classing… you name it. I do have Ftr4/Wiz9 archer type elf character. Why ? I loose BAB and a shot par round to the fighter, 2 spell levels to a mage. But I can craft all my equipment to my needs. A rebuild almost any magic item I need if I loose them. I don't depend on anyone to have the bow I dream of; don't need to convince any wizard of the utility of greater bracers of archery. My character feels he's a better archer this way. ARCHER : that's the point of multiclassing, i.e. not being a fighter, or a wizard, but something else. Coherent with its own skills.

Practiced spellcaster is not a bad feat. People here seem to split in two camps : either 'shame it won't make my character as powerful a mage as a single class wizard'; or 'it's broken'.
Point is : if you want a character to be the most powerful mage, play one, single classed. Or else you'll expect the Complete Adventurer to provide a feat so that bards and rogue get +4 BAB to the limit of their hit dice, and so on… It probably wouldn't be "gamebreaking", but it would deprive D&D classes of their sense and flavour a little more.
As for PC being "broken" : hard to tell. It certainly outranks PHB feats like Spell Penetration. +2 levels would have been more in line with these IMHO. But it's the point of each new book published : either it's (often excellent) background, stories and descriptions, such as most FR and Eberron products. Or it has to sell to many players with different arguments. Expect more (worse) broken feats in the books to come… or you won't buy them.

 

[hong]

I do have Ftr4/Wiz9 archer type elf character. Why ? I loose BAB and a shot par round to the fighter, 2 spell levels to a mage. But I can craft all my equipment to my needs. A rebuild almost any magic item I need if I loose them. I don't depend on anyone to have the bow I dream of; don't need to convince any wizard of the utility of greater bracers of archery. My character feels he's a better archer this way. ARCHER : that's the point of multiclassing, i.e. not being a fighter, or a wizard, but something else. Coherent with its own skills.

Ah. Kinda like North Korea.

 

[jmucchiello]

Multiclassing shortchanging spellcasters is as old a debate as D&D : try a 1st or 2nd E Cleric/Wizard 14/14 vs. an 18th level Archmage. With exactly the same experience. We're pretty close to the Mystic Theurge vs. Wiz17 comparison.

That's a strawman argument. Most people didn't play 1st/2nd AD&D at those levels. They played at 5th and 6th level where the Cleric/Wizard was 5/4 or 5/5 vs the 6th level wizard. I played many Clr/Wiz in 1E/2E and I was never a secondary spellcaster. The 3E multiclassing system helped fighter builds immensely and eviscerated the spellcaster builds. My solution was a clr/wiz core class. YMMV.

 

[FireLance]

Multiclassing shortchanging spellcasters is as old a debate as D&D : try a 1st or 2nd E Cleric/Wizard 14/14 vs. an 18th level Archmage. With exactly the same experience. We're pretty close to the Mystic Theurge vs. Wiz17 comparison.

Well, I personally feel that the Mystic Theurge is just another fix to the problem of multi-classed spellcasters, because a balanced divine spellcaster/arcane spellcaster character is noticably less effective than a single-classed character of either type. Without the Mystic Theurge fix, the comparison would be between a Wiz17 and a Wiz9/Clr8, not a Wiz17 and a Wiz4/Clr3/MT10 (effectively Wiz14/Clr13).

Multiclassing, by essence, is you fall behind specialists in their own domain. Characters don't multiclass for no reason. They do it because of their background, or because of their tactics, or because they find an advantage at multi-classing… you name it.

True, but some multi-classed combinations are less viable than others. This can be a bug or a feature. I recall debating this issue with someone who was happy that multi-classed spellcasters were less effective because he didn't want to encourage characters of this type. My dream system would be one that allowed multi-classed characters of any combination to be roughly equal in power to each other, but that doesn't seem likely to happen at any time soon.

People here seem to split in two camps : either 'shame it won't make my character as powerful a mage as a single class wizard'; or 'it's broken'.

As I don't agree with either view, I hope that none of my statements can be interpreted as supporting either perspective.

 

[ARandomGod]

That's a strawman argument. Most people didn't play 1st/2nd AD&D at those levels. They played at 5th and 6th level where the Cleric/Wizard was 5/4 or 5/5 vs the 6th level wizard. I played many Clr/Wiz in 1E/2E and I was never a secondary spellcaster. The 3E multiclassing system helped fighter builds immensely and eviscerated the spellcaster builds. My solution was a clr/wiz core class. YMMV.

You beat me! Early first edition didn't even HAVE 20 levels. And for a system with ten levels a 10/10 cleric wizard was immensely more powerful than a 10 wizard or a 10 cleric.

When they added an additional 5 levels... well, that 14/14 was still better than the 15.

 

[Thanee]

Practiced spellcaster is not a bad feat. People here seem to split in two camps : either 'shame it won't make my character as powerful a mage as a single class wizard'; or 'it's broken'.

I would consider myself to be part of neither of these groups.

As for PC being "broken" : hard to tell. It certainly outranks PHB feats like Spell Penetration. +2 levels would have been more in line with these IMHO.

In fact, it is a lot worse than Spell Penetration as it provides absolutely no bonus on top of your caster level. It only removes a penalty, it does not provide any bonus at all. Spell Penetration, however, gives an actual +2 bonus on top of your regular caster level.

That's the big difference, and that's why +4 is not too much at all.

Comparisons with Two-Weapon Fighting as compared to Weapon Focus (both being CORE feats) have been mentioned by others above already.

Bye
Thanee

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

regards to wifes and girlfriends! may they never meet!
Sue

Boy...there's a scary thought.