BCL - an idea for multiclassed spellcasters
- Thread starter Thanee
- Start date
Thanee
First Post
I would simply have it inherit the progression from the class you advance via the PrC (if any, otherwise it's always poor progression).
Biggest question there is how to do it with classes that grant like 5 or 7 out of 10 levels of spellcasting ability. Do you still get full caster level progression? I'd do that intuitively, I think, since the loss of spell levels is enough of a penalty, usually.
In some special cases, like the Dragon Disciple, who has a very weird "spellcasting progression", it might be reasonable to give the class their own BCL progression. I'd give the DD a 0.75/lvl (average) A-BCL and a 0.5/lvl (poor) D-BCL, since it is obviously spellcasting related, but does not normally advance caster level in any way.
The Arcane Archer, I'd also rate as a special case, and give him good or average A-BCL and poor D-BCL, I think.
Classes that have their own spellcasting (like the Assassin) should normally have their own (good/average) BCL progression, too.
Bye
Thanee
Biggest question there is how to do it with classes that grant like 5 or 7 out of 10 levels of spellcasting ability. Do you still get full caster level progression? I'd do that intuitively, I think, since the loss of spell levels is enough of a penalty, usually.
In some special cases, like the Dragon Disciple, who has a very weird "spellcasting progression", it might be reasonable to give the class their own BCL progression. I'd give the DD a 0.75/lvl (average) A-BCL and a 0.5/lvl (poor) D-BCL, since it is obviously spellcasting related, but does not normally advance caster level in any way.
The Arcane Archer, I'd also rate as a special case, and give him good or average A-BCL and poor D-BCL, I think.
Classes that have their own spellcasting (like the Assassin) should normally have their own (good/average) BCL progression, too.
Bye
Thanee
Last edited:
Thanee,
Okay, next issue. What to do about monsters?
Here's a rough sketch of an initial plan.
Type..............BACL............BDCL
Humanoid........poor.............poor
Outsider..........avg..............avg
Outsider(a)......good............avg
Outsider(d)......avg..............good
Outsider(a/d)...good............good
Dragon............good............avg
Undead(mind)...poor.............poor
Undead(a)........good............avg
Undead(d)........avg.............good
Undead(a/d).....good............good
Animal(awake)...poor............poor
Notes: (a) = arcane caster levels, (d) = divine caster levels, (a/d) = both, (awake) = awakened, (mind) = not mindless
I'm thinking it's a no brainer to say that contructs, plants, animals, vermin and mindless undead have no BACL or BDCL.
Does this look like a reasonable way to proceed? I'm thinking humanoid is too broad, and that we have to be more careful. For example, creatures that have innate spellcasting ability might have a BACL or BDCL even without any class levels.
Dave
Okay, next issue. What to do about monsters?
Here's a rough sketch of an initial plan.
Type..............BACL............BDCL
Humanoid........poor.............poor
Outsider..........avg..............avg
Outsider(a)......good............avg
Outsider(d)......avg..............good
Outsider(a/d)...good............good
Dragon............good............avg
Undead(mind)...poor.............poor
Undead(a)........good............avg
Undead(d)........avg.............good
Undead(a/d).....good............good
Animal(awake)...poor............poor
Notes: (a) = arcane caster levels, (d) = divine caster levels, (a/d) = both, (awake) = awakened, (mind) = not mindless
I'm thinking it's a no brainer to say that contructs, plants, animals, vermin and mindless undead have no BACL or BDCL.
Does this look like a reasonable way to proceed? I'm thinking humanoid is too broad, and that we have to be more careful. For example, creatures that have innate spellcasting ability might have a BACL or BDCL even without any class levels.
Dave
Thanee
First Post
Hmm... monsters are tricky, but going by innate casting ability, they should then get a good A-BCL and an average (maybe even poor?) D-BCL (innate is always arcane IIRC).
Others with no spellcasting ability should get both poor, I think.
And then there surely are some special cases, which have to be decided upon on a case-by-case basis given the plethora of different monsters out there.
Bye
Thanee
Others with no spellcasting ability should get both poor, I think.
And then there surely are some special cases, which have to be decided upon on a case-by-case basis given the plethora of different monsters out there.
Bye
Thanee
Last edited:
This whole line of thought has been marinating in my brain lately, and I believe it's about to spawn another.
The idea of spells having their own levels, and having a range from 0 to 9 is, of course, a hold-over from previous editions. Also, it, like everything else in the game, is a contrivance for the game's sake. So, changing it is just a matter of volition, as is evidenced by all the alternative systems (spell points, skills-and-feats based casting, etc.).
Here's yet another suggestion. Let's consider the wizard to be the archetype of magic spell casting, the way a fighter is the archetype of combat. Instead of spells being levels 0 through 9, why not 1 through 20? In other words, a 1st level wizard can cast (up to) 1st level spells, a 5th level wizard casts (up to) 5th level spells. After all, just doubling all the existing spell levels comes pretty close to the same thing. There have to be, say, some 5th level spells that are a bit more powerful than others, and some 6th level spells that are a bit less powerful than others; these would comprise the 11th level spells on this system (the other 5th would be 10th, the other 6th would be 12th, etc.).
This would take a little tweaking, because all the spells that exist would have to be "stretched" from a 0 to 9 template onto a 1 to 20 template, but then there would be a straight progression. A 15th level wizard could know and cast, at best, a 15th level spell (which would, of course, be roughly equivalent to one of the current high-end 7th level, or low-end 8th level spells). A similar thing could be done for other spell casting classes.
What about the bard? What about the paladin? Etc. Either we have spells as we do now, that can be cast as different level spells by different classes, or, we use something similar to the BACL, BDCL sytem that you've proposed, or we combine them.
Perhaps this isn't a good idea for the 3rd edition of the game, I don't know. Maybe it's too drastic a change. But, another thing I like about it is that it provides a framework for spells beyond 20th level (or, in current terminology, beyond 9th). I don't much like epic spells. I think that meta-magicked spells taking up slots beyond the 9th level slots is a good idea, but I see no reason why we can't extend the damage dice caps found in the DMG, and just create more powerful spells (including things like Greater Wish, that would be proportionately more powerful than a Wish, as a Wish is to Limited Wish, etc.).
Dave
The idea of spells having their own levels, and having a range from 0 to 9 is, of course, a hold-over from previous editions. Also, it, like everything else in the game, is a contrivance for the game's sake. So, changing it is just a matter of volition, as is evidenced by all the alternative systems (spell points, skills-and-feats based casting, etc.).
Here's yet another suggestion. Let's consider the wizard to be the archetype of magic spell casting, the way a fighter is the archetype of combat. Instead of spells being levels 0 through 9, why not 1 through 20? In other words, a 1st level wizard can cast (up to) 1st level spells, a 5th level wizard casts (up to) 5th level spells. After all, just doubling all the existing spell levels comes pretty close to the same thing. There have to be, say, some 5th level spells that are a bit more powerful than others, and some 6th level spells that are a bit less powerful than others; these would comprise the 11th level spells on this system (the other 5th would be 10th, the other 6th would be 12th, etc.).
This would take a little tweaking, because all the spells that exist would have to be "stretched" from a 0 to 9 template onto a 1 to 20 template, but then there would be a straight progression. A 15th level wizard could know and cast, at best, a 15th level spell (which would, of course, be roughly equivalent to one of the current high-end 7th level, or low-end 8th level spells). A similar thing could be done for other spell casting classes.
What about the bard? What about the paladin? Etc. Either we have spells as we do now, that can be cast as different level spells by different classes, or, we use something similar to the BACL, BDCL sytem that you've proposed, or we combine them.
Perhaps this isn't a good idea for the 3rd edition of the game, I don't know. Maybe it's too drastic a change. But, another thing I like about it is that it provides a framework for spells beyond 20th level (or, in current terminology, beyond 9th). I don't much like epic spells. I think that meta-magicked spells taking up slots beyond the 9th level slots is a good idea, but I see no reason why we can't extend the damage dice caps found in the DMG, and just create more powerful spells (including things like Greater Wish, that would be proportionately more powerful than a Wish, as a Wish is to Limited Wish, etc.).
Dave
RangerWickett
Legend
Well, I know this probably won't help Thanee, but for other folks, the revised Elements of Magic has a single magic system that is designed to work across the board for all spellcasters. It lets you keep or ditch the arcane-divine division as you choose, and, with the hopefully imminent release of the expansion book Lyceian Arcana, provides rules for combining different spellcasting classes, even those from the core rules.
Thanee
First Post
Yep, with your system it probably wouldn't be needed, though under the original it seems pretty reasonable to help multiclassing spellcasters out a bit.
I really like your ideas in Elements of Magic, as you should know, even though it won't be of much use for me, since we like to play with as few 3rd party rules as possible. But it's definitely one of the better systems out there with a lot of nice ideas.
Bye
Thanee
I really like your ideas in Elements of Magic, as you should know, even though it won't be of much use for me, since we like to play with as few 3rd party rules as possible. But it's definitely one of the better systems out there with a lot of nice ideas.
Bye
Thanee
FireLance
Legend
Would just like to chime in my support for the BCL system as it's quite similar to one that I've been advocating for some time.
I say forget the distinction between arcane and divine spellcasting levels, though. To me, it would be like making a distinction between melee and ranged base attack bonuses.
I say forget the distinction between arcane and divine spellcasting levels, though. To me, it would be like making a distinction between melee and ranged base attack bonuses.
Thanee
First Post
Vrecknidj said:
Well, that's way too much of a change IMHO. I still want to play D&D.
It might work as an optional rules set, but this is meant to work well with the official rules mostly, not turn the whole magic system upside down.
I fully expect to see something along these lines in the 4th edition core rules, btw.
Bye
Thanee
