Is this feat a bad idea?

[AnthonyJ]

First of all, an observation: in my experience, multi-class wizards (and, to a lesser degree, clerics) suck; you wind up with a character who's dramatically inferior at everything. The following is a sudden idea I had for making multiclass spellcasters playable, but hopefully without being unreasonable:

Feat: Improved Spellcasting
Prerequisite: multi-class spellcaster

Increases your spellcaster level by 1 (in one subclass, if multiple types of spellcaster) for purposes of spells known and effects of spells (i.e. same as the PrC '+1 level to existing class' ability). May be taken multiple times, with the following restrictions:
1) Spellcaster level must always be lower than character level (note: this means the feat cannot be taken at first level).
2) You may not take this feat more times than the actual number of class levels you have.

Now, I admit that +1 caster level is, in general, way overpowered for a feat -- but it seems like it might be a fair way to balance out something that's otherwise really discouraged.

Thus, a 10th level character (Ftr5/Wiz5) might take this feat three times, in which case he casts spells as an 8th level wizard, has an attack bonus of +7 (roughly equivalent to a 7th level fighter), and, assuming a +2 con bonus, probably has 64 hp, equivalent to an 8th level fighter.

 

[dcollins]

House Rules, please.

 

[hong]

Whydirt suggested something similar about a year ago, which I put on my web page:

http://www.zipworld.com.au/~hong/dnd/miscfeats.htm#improved_spellcasting

 

[Darklone]

If you use that feat... keep it away from your MTs!!!

 

[Fester]

If you use that feat... keep it away from your MTs!!!

Exactly. This is a totally unbalancing feat. And why is that multi-class wizards, who aren't specialist in their field can raise their spell caster level, while those that have dedicated themselves to the single art can't? I always thought that the price you paid for multiclassing was to be not as good as the specialist?

Why not a feat that allows you to get those extra rogue abilties that you're not actually entitled to, or, better yet, a feat which allows you to take feats, for multi-classed fighters...

It's arbitrary and way overpowered imho.

 

[gariig]

The best rule I've seen is to let spellcasting levels stack for determining effects. So like a Wiz8/Clr2 would cast a fireball as a casterlevel 10. I would assign the classes a casting level bonus(just like BAB) and let them stack. So Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are good. The Bard, Paladin, and Ranger and medium. While the Rogue, Barbarian, and Fighter are poor. It also doesn't really unbalance MTs either.

Gariig

 

[DreamChaser]

The name of this feat should be "Have Your Cake and Eat It, Too"

Every few months this comes up and every few month I read people talk about how m/c spellcasters suck and every few months I wonder the same things.

Do these people think that a multiclassed character should be able to be played exactly as though there were two single classed characters rolled into one? Should a person who has taking time out to learn sword play be able to cast fireballs that are as potent as a person who has focused only on magic? When will the shadow of the simply munchkin 2e multiclass rules leave us?

I don't think it's broken; it doesnt need fixing.

DC

 

[Tywyll]

Every few months this comes up and every few month I read people talk about how m/c spellcasters suck and every few months I wonder the same things.

Do these people think that a multiclassed character should be able to be played exactly as though there were two single classed characters rolled into one?

DC

Actually... yes, a lot of people do. See, they are still used to the old system whereby a multiclass character might be, say, 5/5 while the single class character would only be 6 or possibly 7. There was not a huge difference in power level.

But with 3e, and the whole stupid CR system based around the idea that all characters are, essentially, equal at any given level, people are discovering that multiclassing is a far cry from making classes 'equal'. Now, that 5/5 is nowhere near a 10th level straight character. And if your encounters are based around the idea that they are equivalent, the multiclassed character really takes the shaft.

Should multiclassed characters be as good as a straight character? No, they shouldn't. But they should be able to hold their own, which at high levels they barely can (depending on what you split class, of course).

I'm not sure that I agree the feat is incredibly unbalanced. Why? Because the straight caster will be taking item creation and metamagic feats, spell focus, et al while the split caster will be using up their valuable feat slots just to keep up with the casting level and abilities of that straight caster.
Now, that doesn't mean I would use the feat. I find it problematic to allow the main class benefits from advancing a level to be solely the province of a feat, but I think the idea is workable.

Bare in mind, at low levels, feats do effectively give the 'class benefits' of various classes: Weapon Focus gives someone a bonus to hit making them more fighter like. Toughness gives them more HP, effectively increasing their HD size for one level. Cosmopolitan gives someone an additional class skill they would normally be denied. So there is a precedence for it.

 

[Spatzimaus]

There was not a huge difference in power level.

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA.... you get the idea.

In AD&D a straight 15th-level Fighter took as much XP as a Fighter/Cleric/Mage at around 12th in each (I don't have the books with me, though). They weren't even CLOSE to being balanced. The multiclasser lost a few hit points and THAC0, but in exchange had a ton of spells available.

There are four basic ways to multiclass in 3E/3.5E:

1> Mix two or more noncaster classes together: No real drawback. A Ranger 2/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2 compares well to a Fighter 6. In fact, this is often stronger than taking a straight class.
2> Mix a few spellcaster levels into a noncaster character (Fighter 12/Wizard 2): This usually works just fine. You don't lose much combat effectiveness, and certain low-level spells like True Strike can come in very handy for a weapon user.
3> Mix one or two noncaster levels into a spellcaster character (Wizard 10/Rogue 2). There's a lot more debate on this one; personally I've always liked this style. You end up being kind of like a Bard; not the best caster in the group, but still respectable. Some people don't like it, though.
4> Mix two caster classes together: Okay, this one sucks in 3E.

So, only situation #4 doesn't work well in 3E, and coincidentally it was the one that was completely broken in AD&D. I have no problem with this.
For the people who REALLY want this sort of character, the Mystic Theurge was created, but the MT's balance issues are another topic entirely. For those who want 2 or 3, there are PrCs like the Eldritch Knight.

Anyway, to the original topic: Broken. Giving "+1 spellcasting level" is WAY more powerful than any one Feat. Just making it "+1 caster level" (no extra spells/day, just increases the effectiveness of your existing spells) is worth a Feat in its own right.

 

[AnthonyJ]

BAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHHA.... you get the idea.
There are four basic ways to multiclass in 3E/3.5E:

Five, actually.

4> Mix two caster classes together: Okay, this one sucks in 3E.

5> Mix a caster class and a non-caster class, with a moderate level in each. This one also typically sucks.

Anyway, I was not exactly wedded to the idea, I was just pondering whether something like this was a credible solution. I suspect much of my annoyance is that there's the need for PrCs such as Mystic Knight and Arcane Trickster; I'd rather see a similar net power level built into the base rules.

Would anyone interested in a rogue/wizard do anything _other_ than play Rog-3/Wiz-5/Arcane Trickster? (for a net -3 to caster level) Would anyone interested in a fighter/wizard do anything other than play (fighter-type)-1/Wiz-5/Eldritch knight (for a net -2 to caster level)?