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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4422982" data-attributes="member: 5122">There are two separate caster level issues: (1) The power of spells you can cast, and (2) the ability to cast higher level spells.The problem with caster/caster or caster/non-caster multiclassing is that (2) is already easily enough of a price to pay for the versatility you gain.    Penalizing the multiclasser with (1) is pushing the combination into ... well, I won't say "unplayability," but certainly into a markedly lower competence level.  If a DM's or player's concern is some level of power parity between players, multiclassing sucks.(For some DMs and players, that won't matter. either due to player personality or due to the nature of the campaign.  But for some it will, and IMO it's understandable.  Most people IME don't want to their PCs to be gimped compared to other PCs.)In RAW, BAB -- "skill at arms" -- is already a function of experience.  Even the most cloistered wizard gets better at fighting as he gains levels.  Adding in a similar mechanic for caster level is nicely symmetrical ... one gets better at casting the spells one can already cast with experience, regardless of which class one is pursuing when the experience is gained.  You don't learn new, more powerful spells ... you just learn to use the ones you already know with greater proficiency.Or, to put it another way, a fighter who switches to wizard continues to get better at fighting (albeit slowly), why can't a wizard who switches to fighter get better at casting, even if slowly?</blockquote>

Verification