Limited spellcasting: Only every other level. Effect?

[apsuman]

Sounds as though there would still be plenty of players who would multiclass into another spellcasting profession only for the purpose of gaining more spells - not necessarily as a roleplaying goal.

I was interested in the mechanic primarily for slowing down magic progression for to make a less mana-based campaign. It really didn't cross my mind that the average player would want to multiclass that way. Bummer.

How about revamping the initial guideline, then?: At any point in your career, no more than half your character levels can be able to cast spells.

Then be prepared for the following:

No spell caster will feel the need to have his spell casting stat higher than 15 (possibly 13, using levels 4, 8, 12, or 16 to move it up) because they can only cast 5th level spells, ever.

Also be prepared for a horde of wizards or sorcerers that multi into rogue just so that they may specialize in rays (hey, I know where they would put that 18 now -- dex) just so they can cast spells that will allow them to do the sneak attack damage.

 

[Driddle]

Then be prepared for the following...

Hmmm. That's the sort of feedback I was hoping for.
Well ... Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Different, sure - but bad overall?

 

[JimAde]

I don't think any of these consequences are inherently bad. One bit of resistance you might get from players is someone who wants their character to be a dedicated wizard. The classic cerebral academic type. The character concept just doesn't support levels in fighting, sneaking, singing or praying classes. Such a player's only option would be to multi-class into expert or something. If you had some kind of "academic" class (like an expert but more balanced against other PC classes somehow) it might alleviate this problem.

Hmmm.. *toddles off to do class design*

 

[Conaill]

Magic item prices would need to be revised. Sure, you could say that magic simply isn't for sale. But fact is, *anything* is for sale, given the correct price. "Not for sale" might simply translate into "much more valuable than the DMG prices would indicate".

So, assuming magic items *are* still present in your world, how much should they cost? If we stuck to the DMG market prices, no sane mage would prefer to craft an item himself, rather than buy it "on the market". That's because PC buying power increases exponentially with level, but XP only increases quadratically. So if a mage has to be twice as high in level in order to craft an item, at that point he'll have plenty of moolah to just buy one instead.

So the magic item market price should scale with the buying power of the crafter, otherwise he's not going to bother crafting one in the first place. Let's assume that in a standard D&D setting, the "average" magical item price is roughly proportional to the treasure value per encounter (I could have taken a fraction of the total wealth per level, but I only have the SRD at hand right now.) That means that PCs will be finding or crafting +1 items at around 3rd-4th level. Treasure per encounter increases exponentially with level, but if we compare treasure T1 at level L with treasure T2 level 2L, we see that the two scale approximately quadratically, with T2 = T1^2 / 400. I propose the new market prices should scale similarly.

For example, a 6th level PC in standard D&D will routinely be finding / buying / selling / crafting magical items worth around 2000 gp (6th level encounter value/encounter = 2000 gp). In the new "multiclassed spellcaster" system, a PC would have to be 12th level to craft these items. So a reasonable item market price should be around 2000^2 / 4000 = 10,000 gp (12th level encounter value/encounter = 9,800 gp).

Note that this calculation only depends on the internal consistency between market price and relative crafting cost. In particular, it is independent of the *utility* of the item at higher levels. For example, a low-level wand of magic missile will not be as useful in a 10th level part as in a 5th level party, so they may not want to pay as much for it. That simply means there will be less demand for such an expensive item than in standard D&D, but the price should still be as calculated above.

 

[Kaodi]

Money For Magic

I don't really see that. It would still be cheaper to create an item than it would to buy it, and you don't have lots of moolah for long if you spend it frivolously...
Every copper your average wizened old wizard didn't spend on magic, would be a copper he could spend on housing, research materials, rare specimens, booze and women.

 

[apsuman]

Hmmm. That's the sort of feedback I was hoping for.
Well ... Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Different, sure - but bad overall?

I wouldn't want to play in this campaign.

But I like spell casters (sorcerers esp.).

If such a thing as "balance" exists, then 3.5 is balanced for spell casters of the power they are in the PHB. Allowing spell casting advancement only every odd level would have a profound effect upon the game. Fighters would always rule the roost.

Now if that's what you want, go for it. On the other hand if you simply want to make sure that fighters are more competitive at the higher levels, I think there are better ways to do that.

 

[Sir Whiskers]

Hmmm. That's the sort of feedback I was hoping for.
Well ... Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Different, sure - but bad overall?

I don't think you'll see any playability problems if someone multi's as wiz/sor, cle/wiz, etc. The spellcasting will still be low-level, which seems to be where you're going with this idea. I would strongly suggest eliminating the mystic theurge PrC - with this system, you don't need a mechanism to allow casters to gain spellcasting in two classes simultaneously.

As for spellcasters always multiclassing into the same class (say rogue), I don't think that will happen. Some will pick rogue, some a fighter-type class, others will mix divine/arcane. There are enough concepts to keep everyone happy.

My concern is more basic: will non-spellcasters outshine the spellcasters? Would a half-orc barbarian/fighter blow away opposition that the rogue/sorcerer has to run away from? I think this would take a bit of playtesting to determine.

 

[Kaodi]

Hmm...

On second thought, Conail, you may be right but for the wrong reasons. Spellcasters would be just as motivated to create magic items I believe (if they don't no magic items exist after all), but the problem lies more in that there aren't enough high level spellcasters to make as many items as there are in the default levels, unless you decide to use a campaign world that assumes lots of high level characters...

 

[Driddle]

Allowing spell casting advancement only every odd level would have a profound effect. ... Fighters would always rule the roost.

I don't see that generalization.
In campaigns now, sans Driddle limits, there are multiclassed (10/10) spellcasters who do very well for themselves.

 

[Qualir]

I think that your idea could work, but not with my players. Every time I have considered limiting magic, it has met serious opposition from the players.

A big concern would be favored class, I think. At a glance this does not seem apparent, but you are strongly encouraging MC characters. I would probably remove the favored class rule in this type of campaign.

You could consider just limiting all classes to level 10 period. This would cut back on the apparent bias against spellcasters by limiting every class.

You could just make spellcasting classes into prestige classes rather than core classes. This would still limit your magic while adding some amount of prestige to those who wish to cast spells.

I think I would leave monsters alone, except for SR. Why shouldn't demons and dragons be capable of using far greater mystical abilities than puny mortals.