• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

[3.5] WotC theory on multi-class spellcasters

Marshall said:


Thats weird. Something in the change in font must have changed text size too. Look at the spot in the middle where you have "arcane trickster" in one font over the same in the other, thats not the same text size.

Well, it's the same point size...

Get your favourite word-processor, and write "Hello" in Times new roman 12 point font. Then compare to "Hello" in Arial font.

Times new roman looks smaller at the same point size.

Weird, huh?

I've changed the original post to Century Gothic... I might also change the colour.

Cheers!
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Well, I know one system that would work that, like Andy said, probably wouldn't be suitable because it would change things too much for some folks. We use this system in E.N. Publishing's The Elements of Magic, but it does shift away from the D&D standard quite a bit. I'm jury-rigging it a bit so you don't need EOM to actually use it.

Y'know how everyone has a base attack bonus, and BAB from different classes stack? Well, in this system, every magic-using class has a caster level bonus, and caster levels from different classes stack. Your caster level determines what power level of spells you can learn and cast, and how many spell slots you have.

Different classes have different lists of spells they can learn. Unlike clerics and druids, you don't gain access to all the spells from your spell list automatically. At at level you learn 6 cantrips and 4 1st level spells, and each level thereafter you learn any 4 spells from levels you can cast. The spells that you learn must be available on your class's spell list.

For example, you're a Cleric 2. You know 6 cleric cantrips and 8 cleric 1st level spells. Then you add a level of wizard, and since your caster level is 3, you can cast up to 2nd level spells. So you choose any 4 wizard spells from 0th to 2nd level, and you learn those. You'd have all the spell slots of a 3rd-level caster, and could use them for any spells you know. You could cast cleric spells in armor.

Obviously, this system would require a few changes, the least of which would be having just one table of spells per day. Also, you'd have a table that goes up by 1/2-levels, because some classes would only grant fractional caster level advancement. For instance, it'd be too powerful to go Cleric 19, then add a level of wizard for the 9th level attack spells, since you'd have Cleric hp, bab, and saves. Bards, clerics, and druids would have to have fractional caster level advancement.

For spontaneous spellcasters, it's kinda hard to fit them into the same rules as preparation-based casters, but not impossible. Whenever you prepare spells for the day, you can choose to leave slots open. These open slots can only be used for spells you know from a spontaneous-casting class.

Caster Level Advancement:
There are three rates of advancement for spellcasters.

Good. +1 caster level per level. Sorcerers and wizards.
Average. +3 caster level per 4 levels. Bards, clerics, druids.
Poor. +1 caster level per 2 levels. Paladins and rangers.

So let's imagine a hypothetical character, whom we'll call Merlin. He's a Bard 2/Cleric 2/Druid 7/Sorcerer 4/Wizard 5. His caster level is (8 from the bard, cleric, and druid levels, plus 9 from his sorcerer and wizard levels) a total of 17. He'd know a few spells from each class.

Like I said, a lot of little things would need to change, but I think it wouldn't be too hard for them to fit together. Then again, we decided that for The Elements of Magic we would more enjoy creating our own new spellcasting system that's even more flexible, and doesn't rely on standard D&D spellcasting archetypes. We let you make the type of caster you want, but I just wanted to show that the core rules could be made flexible pretty easily.
 

A bit on Fonts...

Different fonts with the same POINT size will look VERY differently on different machines...even the SAME font with the same pont size will look differently on different types of machines (Mac/PC)...It's all very abitrary based on the font designer....Which is why everyone should have Verdana and Georgia (I think that's the one) THEY were designed specifically with web browsing in mind (For ease of readin on screen).

I've been out of the graphic design loop for a while...so my info isn't nessissarily up to date. I think the good font designers(Adobe and others) were looking for a new cross-platform, easy-to-read-on-screens(and e-book) format. to keep this type of thing from happening too much.
 

ToddSchumacher said:
A bit on Fonts...

I've been out of the graphic design loop for a while...so my info isn't nessissarily up to date. I think the good font designers(Adobe and others) were looking for a new cross-platform, easy-to-read-on-screens(and e-book) format. to keep this type of thing from happening too much.

Meanwhile, we're mainly stuck with Arial and Times New Roman... ergh.

Okay, Normal Font, White colour.

(If you're getting the idea that I didn't want to use "quote" tags, you're right. :))

Cheers!
 

Adobe's page on OpenType:

http://www.adobe.com/type/opentype/main.html;jsessionid=TGBK5UGQUYDE5QFI0ILB2SOAVDJBIIV1

Only really skimmed it. Didn't see anything speciffically on web design but it looks cool to me. One of the most frustrating things about doing pre-press (Checking files to see if they print correctly) was dealing with Font issues!

I'd imagine in this day and age of computer dependancy they're thinking ahead about these issues. After all, we're using fonts designed for PRINT media, hundreds of years old. The web is what, 10 years old? and only the last 5 or so has it exploded to what it is today. Until the tech catches up I keep on planning to use Verdana, I actaully like the way it looks and it reads good too.
 

2RangerWicket:
Your system isn`t bad, I think.
A further alternative would also to be caster level and spells per day into two different things (like someone already proposed it a while ago). Spells per day stack "horizontal", basically as it is now - if you are cleric1/wizard1, you can cast (3+1) + (3+1) 1st level spells, but you could also use your cleric slots for wizard spells. You add caster levels, so a cleric 5/wizard5 would cast a fireball with 10d6 points of damage and could penetrate spell resistance as a 10th level caster.

Still, your level in Cleric, Druid, Wizard and so on would determine to what level you can cast spells from your spells. So a Wizard10/Cleric10 could only cast 5th level cleric and wizard spells, but much more than a 20th level wizard or 20th level cleric could. I wonder if, using this way, a cleric/wizard combo would still be weaker than a single classed.
Unfortunately, some problems still occur if you mix spontaneous casters with preparing casters - or maybe not(?) :
A Cleric/sorcerer could decide to leave some of his cleric slots open to cast spontaneously sorceror spells, or he prepares some cleric spells in his sorcerer slots, for which he can no longer use sorcerer spells...

But on the other hand, this was very easy to think of, and maybe the guys at WotC already figured it out and found also thousands way to abuse it... But since we have some of the best min-maxers here, somebody will certainly find the weakness in this system...

Mustrum Ridcully
 
Last edited:



Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Your system isn`t bad, I think.

His system makes me wonder why one would want to have more than one "primary spellcasting class" rather than the 4 we have now. It would simplify further if you simply bundled druids, clerics, wizards, and sorcerers into one "spellcaster" class. Take spellcasting out of all other classes. Deal with all spellcasting as multiclassing with this class.

I, personally, would dislike it, but it's only about a half-step away from what they've got anyway, with all classes using the same spell tables.

The only real issue becomes muticlassing XP penalties. Being a Cleric/Wizard/Druid to get access to spells from different lists might start incurring XP penalties. But, since the caster levels stack, you have little need to do other than keep the three classes in step. So why have different classes?
 

I guess I just don't get it.

Why does a Wiz10/Clr10 have to be on par in spell casting ability to a Wiz20 or a Clr20? I mean, as this multi-class combo works now, it is pretty frightening. I mean it is an arcane/divine spellcaster with a lot of martial capability. Sure, he looses out on the really big spells from each class. But he has more HP and better combat capability than a straight Wiz; has a better selection of damage dealing and general utility spells than a straight Clr. And he has an impressive set of saves.

But my question boils down to this: why should a generallist be on par at anything with a pair (or more) of specialists?

Consider that one could make the argument that a Bar2/Clr3/Ftr3/Rgr3/Rog3/Sor3/Wiz3 does not stand as equal in a fight against a Bar20, or a Clr20, or a Ftr20, or a Rgr20, or a Rog20 or a Sor20 or a Wiz20. Does this mean that the multiclass system is broken? No, it means that the character took a sub-optimal career path.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top