Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Nonlethal Force" data-source="post: 4459775" data-attributes="member: 35788">Thanks.  I appreciate it!Okay, well, I definately agree with you that the difference is significantly more pronounced in spellcasting classes.  That is absolutely true and I wouldn't argue that.As for the others, perhaps rogue and fighter are bad choices because few of their abilities (if any) rely on class level.  Perhaps your reflection has caused me to refine my point more accurately.  The more class abilities a class has that is based on their class level, the more poorly multiclassing works.  If you count caster level as a class ability, this sentence even includes spellcasting.  Take a Ranger 10 / Paladin 10.  Yes, they immediately have decreased casting ... but we both agree that's a problem so I don't think more needs to be said.  The combo character has depleted abilities in almost everthing they get.  Favored enemy is weaker.  Ability to hide is weaker.  Animal Companion is weaker.  Aura of good is weaker, Smite is weaker, Lay on hands is weaker, Turn Undead is weaker, Special Mount is weaker, Remove Disease is weaker.  One might argue that the blended character has the same BAB, roughly the same HP, reasonably close saves, etc to the straight character.  One might argue that their versatility makes up for their general weaker abilities, but I lift up the Theurge spellcasting as a reasonable illustration that if it isn't true for spellcasting it probably isn't true for class-level based class abilities.  The fact that almost all the class abilities gained (except for Divine Grace and all the ranger abilities that emulate feats) are significantly weaker really hampers the character.  And this isn't even going into the lack of spellcasting lost/gained.I think perhaps a better proposal might beto take my original suggestion and change it to:Class Ability Level = Character Level - 1 per three levels not in the class.So, a Paladin 10 / Ranger 10 would have an ability level of 16 for all the abilities that are based on class level - including caster level. In the specific case of casting spells that wouldn't gain them extra slots or spells known ... it would just raise their caster level to 16.I know that you weren't talking about spells known and spell slots.  I wasn't either! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />  I thnk there is something inherently wrong with someone being able to say that they are gaining caster level strength equal to a character who is actually taking a level in a said class.  There has to be a consequence for taking levels in a different class, and I don't think that reduced spells known and reduced spell slots is adequate.  That's just my opinion.  I think that a reduced caster level should also be part of the trade-off.  The fact is that the character is not pursuing the casting class in any way shape or form.Now, I also agree that the multiclassing system penalizes multiclassed characters too much.  But I like the above level I suggested.  A rogue 3 / sorcerer 12 would cast their spells at a caster level of 14, not 15.  A rogue 6 / sorcer 9 would cast their spells at acaster level of 13, not 15.  For me, that is a more than adequate penalty for multiclassing.  It more adequately says that the character has not allocated their full attention to their casting pursuits without completely neutering the caster's ability.I do firmly believe that a penalty to caster level should be imposed.  Just not one as harsh as the core rules indicates.</blockquote>

Verification