Balancing Spellcasting PrCs [updated with multiclass rule]

[Chacal]

[UPDATE]
The multi class rule is in this post
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?p=1100659#post1218697

[/UPDATE]

Spellcasting Progression is so almost everything to wizards and sorcerers.
Any PrC with full spellcasting progression and some powers, but without significative restrictions will be strictly superior to the base classes.

As a DM and as a player, I think that such PrCs are not opening new choices to the game, because they just become must-haves replacing the base classes and weaken pre existing NPCs and PCs.

Not giving spellcasting progression at some levels of the PrCs can solve this pb, but it doesn't work for all PrC concepts.

Sean K Reynolds proposed alternative half level progression tables as a way to break the all-in-one power that is the "+1 spellcasting level".

I found his idea inspiring, but aimed at a greater flexibility, without having to write new tables for every spellcasting class. I wrote this with arcane spellcasters in mind but I think it could work for divine spellcasters too.



I propose to break down the spellcasting level into 3 aspects:
- Caster Level (CL): the level at which the spells are cast.

- Knowledge Level (KL): which is, for spontaneous casters, the level determining the number of known spells, and for non-spontaneous casters, the level determining the highest spell they can know, and the highest level of possible free known spells.

- Spell Use Level (SUL): which is the level determining how many slot of each level they can use by day.


Drawbacks of the separation: you might have to consider three different levels instead of one upon levelling. That doesn't strike me as difficult since there are always effects, feats, domain powers that affect the caster level, on a spell by spell basis, which needs much more bookkeeping.



The first benefit of this separation is that you can spread more evenly the progression of non-full spellcasting progression PrC, thus avoiding the "boring empty level" effect.


The second benefit is that you break the all in one power, thus permitting other restrictions than the classical "your familiar doesn't improve". (This is more useful for the arcane than the divine base spellcasting classes, the last having much more abilities/goodies to remove)

3 examples:

-You can have a PrC with full KL and SUL, but not full CL progression. It's still nice to have the high level spells and to cats more spells, but you have a lesser chance to bypass SR and spells are less effective.

-You can have a PrC with full CL and SUL, but not full KL progression. It will cast as much spells as the base class and with the same efficiency, but of lesser level. It will work quite well with PrC that give free metamagic feats. (The spontaneous casters will suffer more from the loss of known spells but will have a better use of the metamagics)

-You can have a PrC with full CL and KL, but not full SUL progression.
This can be a serious hit, but it's still nice to have new spells and have them work at full power. You can know spells that you can't cast with your slots, but can cast from scrolls without chance of failure. By adding some power/feat to the PrC, or a house rule, you can even let characters with such PrC create magic items with his known spells.
Another power/house rule could be : You can cast known spells higher than your highest slots if you use your highest level slot plus at least as much slot levels as the spell you want to cast would require. (ie casting an 8th level spell if your highest slots are 6th level costs one 6 level slot + 8 slots level (ie two 3rd level slots)). Overcasting is a full round action if the casting time is one action or less, and double the casting time otherwise.




The third benefit is that you can also be better than the base class at an aspect of spellcasting, at the expense of others:

2 archetypal examples (without prereq, BAB...) :

The "My Loremaster" (to be taken at least after 8th level)
1 +1CL, +2KL
2 +1KL, +1 SUL
3 +1CL, +1KL, +1 SUL
4 +1KL, +1 SUL
5 +1CL, +2KL
...

The "Meta Battle Mage" (to be taken at least after 5th level)
1 +1CL, , +2 SUL, enhance spell
2 +1CL, +1KL, +1 SUL free metamagic
3 +1CL, , +1 SUL, free enhancement of 1 level for metamagicked spells(*)
4 +1CL, +1KL, +1 SUL
5 +2CL, , +2 SUL, free enhancement of 2 levels for metamagicked spells(*)
...

(*) provided the metamagics raise the spell level enough.



The "magic crafter" (to be taken at least after 5th level)
1 +1CL, +1KL, free magic creation feat
2 +2CL, +1KL,
3 +1CL, +1KL, +1SUL, reduce craft costs
4 +2CL, +1KL,
5 +1CL, +1KL, +1SUL reduce craft time





Another benefit is that you can use this as a basis for houseruling
multiclassing progression for example by giving for every spellcasting class
a +1 CL for every (1) 2 levels that the character has in other (spellcasting ?) classes and even some SUL ...




Comments , opinions, flaws ?

I hope this will be useful to someone


Chacal

 

[Merlion]

Sounds interesting, although I think a class that adds to Knowledge Level and not Spell Use level would be kind of unpleasant.
The idea of breaking up "caster level" is an excellent one though.

 

[Chacal]

Sounds interesting, although I think a class that adds to Knowledge Level and not Spell Use level would be kind of unpleasant.
The idea of breaking up "caster level" is an excellent one though.

The KL >SUL could be unpleasant unless you add some house rules/ or powers.

What do you think about those I suggested ? any ideas ?


Chacal

 

[Merlion]

The last one you mentioned could work. The idea of knowing spells of levels that you cant cast just doesnt sit right with me. Finding a mechanic to get around that such as you suggested might work.
Alternately, I would tend to say just breaking caster level up into 1) the level at which spells are cast(and the number you use for caster level checks) and 2) Spell-use ability, encompassing both gaining more slots, and higher levels.

 

[Chacal]

This is a more simple and limited way but I guess it could work for some cases. I still like the flexibility given by the 3 part decomposition. Even without the house rules for KL >SUL, it can work because you don't get only spells that you can't cast. It 's probably less interesting, but it's still more than not having spell progression at all.


The KL <SUL is probably more useful and can be a more attractive way to simulate some classes with alternative low level spell progression. When I'll have more time, I 'll put some rules for alternate multiclassing rules using this.

I don't remember exactly where I put them , but IIRC, a wiz 10 ftr10 had a Cl of 15, a KL of 10 and a SUL of 13, and a wiz 4 ftr 10 had a CL of 8, a KL of 4 and a SUL of 7.




Chacal

 

[Li Shenron]

The Hierophant already does something like this separation: it gives +1 Caster Level in your base spellcaster class without increasing the spells known or the spells/day.

I also think the separation between KL and SUL has many problems: apart the fact of knowing spells you can't cast, an increase in KL for divine caster is worth only half of the time (because they learn new spells only every 2 levels of base class). Instead, arcane casters could just decide to learn new spells of the highest level they can cast (for ex. if a Wiz2 gains a +1 KL not SUL, the 2 new spells must be 1st level).

If you keep together KL+SUL and just separate CL, it has many problems less.

 

[kreynolds]

Sean K Reynolds proposed alternative half level progression tables as a way to break the all-in-one power that is the "+1 spellcasting level".

You wouldn't happen to have a link to this would you? Is it on his site?

 

[Chacal]

You wouldn't happen to have a link to this would you? Is it on his site?

Here it is:
http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/fractionalspellcasting_adv.html


Chacal

 

[Chacal]

The Hierophant already does something like this separation: it gives +1 Caster Level in your base spellcaster class without increasing the spells known or the spells/day.

Interesting. I didn't knew that.

I also think the separation between KL and SUL has many problems: apart the fact of knowing spells you can't cast, an increase in KL for divine caster is worth only half of the time (because they learn new spells only every 2 levels of base class).

It seems less beneficial for divine casters (who I didn't have in mind when making these rules), but keep in mind that access to new spells represents much more spells than for arcane spellcasters. I would even say that raising KL for divine spellcasters (provided they raise it by an even kevel) is more beneficial than for arcane spellcasters. I don't see it as a problem. Fighters have levels without feats. Still, in their case the solution isn't really useful in levels where they only raise KL. So a good advice would be that Divine PrC should give more than just KL at one level. (KL+power, KL CL, KL SUL, ...).

Instead, arcane casters could just decide to learn new spells of the highest level they can cast (for ex. if a Wiz2 gains a +1 KL not SUL, the 2 new spells must be 1st level).

That seems a reasonable solution that most of the players would use in this situation.That doesn't means every player have to do this.

If you keep together KL+SUL and just separate CL, it has many problems less.

So far I only see the interpretation of KL >SUL as a real problem. I think that the added flexibility and its applications are worth it.


Chacal

 

[Li Shenron]

Interesting. I didn't knew that.

I can see you didn't know, because I overlooked it too some time ago, and many people have (there is a thread about it in Rules Forum).

I guess it must be because the Hierophant progression table doesn't have "+1 level in existing spellcasting class", but also doesn't say "+1 caster level"; the description is under "Spells and caster level" below, but not on the table...