Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thanee" data-source="post: 1667595" data-attributes="member: 478">Concept viability.    In most cases, the slow progression doesn't make up for the loss of spellcasting power.   I based my idea on the Practiced Spellcaster feat somewhat, which also grants a huge bonus to multiclassed casters. That feat was introduced, because multiclassed spellcasters are too weak, and it usually puts them on par with pure casters in terms of caster level.    Therefore, I think that the caster level shouldn't drop too low.    A high caster level is simply required to have your spells on a level, which is appropriate to your character level.   Don't forget, that you still lose the faster access to higher level spells!  A large discrepancy in caster level makes spellcasting extremely underpowered at higher levels. This is, of course, especially true for characters that are primarily spellcasters and who absolutely need the caster level to keep up with other characters, to get through spell resistance, to have their scaled spells have an appropriate effect.   For example, take a Wizard 10 / Sorcerer 1. With full caster level, the Sorcerer spells are actually useful for him, even though they are only first level spells. He can cast some effective magic missiles per day, but loses (delays) access to 6th level spells for now. Even with full caster level, this is a bad trade, really, but it can be a nice conceptual idea for a wizard, who has a little spellcasting talent, but who otherwise needed to learn to wield magic the hard way, and which at least is somewhat viable this way.   Or the classic Mystic Theurge. This way he is just one point below a pure caster in terms of caster level, but still three levels behind in terms of spell level accumulation. That seems like a fair trade to me, and my experience also says, that the MT is way underpowered otherwise. This way, he doesn't even need to pick up a feat (Practiced Spellcaster) to become viable, he is viable already, and that's something every class should be without the need to pick up some feat first.   Or the Fighter 12 / Wizard 1. What's the problem with a caster level of 7? This is still way below the norm for that level, but spells are at least somewhat useful with a decent duration. Why penalize such a character even further?   The Fighter 6 / Wizard 1 casting 1st level spells as a 4th level spellcaster likewise seems to be no problem to me. Pure spellcasters have access to 4th level spells by then and cast them at 7th level.  I really see nothing, which speaks against a higher caster level (ranging somewhere between half and full character level that way). However, I see a lot of interesting character concepts which go right to the trashcan (as they do with the normal rules, which overpenalize multiclassed spellcasters), if the caster level is even lower than that.    And that's the reason, why I feel the caster level should be higher.    More viable concepts, but surely no new broken ones.    Can only be good, or not? <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />    Bye  Thanee</blockquote>

Verification