Except they don't. A Paladin 3/Sorcerer 1 doesn't have Paladin 4 features, nor does it have the same features as a Sorcerer 3, let alone a Sorcerer 4.
Why deciding to round down multiclassing spellcaster levels was stupid
Except they don't. A Paladin 3/Sorcerer 1 doesn't have Paladin 4 features, nor does it have the same features as a Sorcerer 3, let alone a Sorcerer 4.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Except that you're debating things I never said.
Let's take it from the top.
Are a paladin in the PHB, and the exact same paladin except with full casting the same power?
If you say yes, there's no point in continuing this conversation, so I assume you're going to say no.
Yet by your round up, when you combine an odd number of levels of paladin with any full caster, one of their levels becomes a "full caster" level in addition to all the rest that paladin gives you. Paladin 3 is caster level 1.5, while Paladin 3 / Sorcerer 1 gains two whole casting levels from Paladin.
Last edited:
All the Paladin odd levels are already full caster levels. A Paladin 3 has the same spell slots as a full caster 2. It's only when multiclassed that they're not.
That was... kinda the whole point of the thread.
Last edited:
TwoSix
Dirty, realism-hating munchkin powergamer
Even using Yunru's rule, a Paladin 1/Sorcerer 1 only has Sorc 1 casting, as a Paladin 1 is not a spellcaster, and doesn't qualify for the multiclass spellcasting rules.
Blue
Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal
Yes, I put up a bad example. Doesn't change the main trust of the argument.
Ummm... what?
It also applies to any other example possible.
All the 1/2 and 1/3 casters round up in their personal tracks.
And I don't see the argument. A Paladin taking a level in a full caster goes up by... 1 caster level. I see no issue?
FrogReaver
As long as i get to be the frog
If you're playing without optional rules, then multiclassing is out anyway
Captain obvious much?
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Oh come on, my reply was well in line with yours. If you want to play the "But no feats" game then don't play the "But no muticlassing" game with me. My point stands that you can in fact simulate a wizard with a champion fighter using feats, which they get more of than anyone else. In fact I was kinda impressed just how much magic you can produce with that build I outlined, and was thinking about which cantrips and first level spell make the most sense and if Charisma is needed for the build despite it being the key ability for their racial spells (was unsure if any actually needed a DC or spell attack roll). The Sage or Cloistered Scholar backgrounds both fit pretty well also. In Waterdeep, Guild Artisan: Watchful Order of Magists and Protectors would work as well.
Last edited:
Xeviat
Hero
[MENTION=6780961]Yunru[/MENTION], I'm entirely onboard with you here. If I have a multiclasser, I'll be rounding up after dividing levels and adding them together. The Eldritch Knight and Paladin progressions are rounding up. There's nothing a Paladin/Ranger gains that should require them to loose "caster levels". The Spell Point system does this to characters too.
G
Guest 6801328
Guest
This sounds to me a bit like saying that tying ASIs to class instead of character is "stupid".
I mean, you clearly disagree with their intentional design decision, but it's kind of hard to take you seriously when you jump on adjectives like "stupid", just because you think multi-classing shouldn't have any penalties.
I mean, you clearly disagree with their intentional design decision, but it's kind of hard to take you seriously when you jump on adjectives like "stupid", just because you think multi-classing shouldn't have any penalties.
Similar Threads
