Mandating multiclassing for spellcasters

[EyeontheMountain]

I currently do this in a PBEM I run.

You can only gain spellcasting improvements on even levels, though you can take a spellcasting class full levels and get the caster level benefit, plus class abilities, even if the spellcasting is very low.

So if you were a 5th level druid, you could wildshape, and cast spells at 5th level power, though you would have not yet gotten 2nd level spells to cast.

Of course you could have taken fighter/cleric/fighter/cleric and gotten bonus feats and such even though your spells known are the same as the aforementioned druid (Though in this case you would be only a second level caster.

To make spellcasters mroe attractive they ahve two pchoices, and can enever change

1. cast metamagics at -1 spell level per spell, not per metamagic feats

2. Create magic items with no xp cost.

It owrks out well.

 

[Quartz]

If I mandated that, I wouldn't have any casters in my game. You'd be a fool to hamper yourself that way. If I may ask, why are you considering this restriction?

Why shouldn't I consider it? I'm looking to initially de-emphasise spellcasters while making them more rounded, which will make monsters that much more serious, while keeping the human power level up while keeping high-level spellcasters playable. There are certain natural combos here, like fighter / cleric, rogue / wizard, and rogue / bard.

 

[Thanee]

Multiclass spellcasters work well, if you keep the spellcasting side low and only use it in a supportive fashion. They are not really spellcasters, though, more like fighters (or whatever) with some spells, kinda like the Paladin or Hexblade.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

no experienced player would ever want to play a spellcaster under this situation because its a virtual death sentence

Huh? Don't you think you are a weeeeee bit exaggerating here?

Sure, the character would not be strong as a spellcaster, which looks like it is the intention, basically banning all pure spellcaster characters, putting more emphasis on mundane abilities, but that doesn't mean the character as a whole would be utter crap.

Bye
Thanee

 

[irdeggman]

Why shouldn't I consider it? I'm looking to initially de-emphasise spellcasters while making them more rounded, which will make monsters that much more serious, while keeping the human power level up while keeping high-level spellcasters playable. There are certain natural combos here, like fighter / cleric, rogue / wizard, and rogue / bard.

Are you maintaining the multiclassing restrictions or allowing free multiclassing with spell casting classes? This can be huge if not handled carefully.

Personally I think you might acually be better off trying to go d20 Modern here instead. Even the Urban Arcana "setting" has a much slower/weaker magic prgression than D&D. If you want less firearms then use d20 Past to create the setting.

 

[hong]

If I mandated that, I wouldn't have any casters in my game.

And thus, my fiendish plan is complete!

HAW HAW!

 

[Votan]

Huh? Don't you think you are a weeeeee bit exaggerating here?

Sure, the character would not be strong as a spellcaster, which looks like it is the intention, basically banning all pure spellcaster characters, putting more emphasis on mundane abilities, but that doesn't mean the character as a whole would be utter crap.

Bye
Thanee

In fact, it would be good proof that spellcasting classes are systematically overpowered if this type of restriction destroyed the game by weakening the players excessively. While a Fighter/Cleric isn't the best possible build, it should be able to contribute to a party at it's CR. If it can't match a pure Fighter that would be one thing, but likely the complaint will be that it lags a pure cleric.

If you want to get to medium/high levels without spellcasting dominating, D&D probably does require tweaking in some way. This is a very low impact way to do it as it bans nothing and uses existing mechanics.

 

[Kalshane]

I think it would be an interesting experiment to try.

Andy Collins actually did something pretty similar for his Umber campaign: http://www.andycollins.net/Campaigns/Umber/c02_Magic.htm Note that he does give non-spellcasting class levels a caster level progression to make up for it, though.

CRs are going to be kind of screwy, as others have mentioned, because of the less access to magical, particularly healing. I would recommend making "magical" monsters rare, otherwise I see a lot of dead PCs.

 

[Infiniti2000]

IMO the biggest change will be the loss of all 9th-level spells. Sorcerers will also lose all 8th-level spells. This is not a delay, it's a loss. That may not be a bad thing, of course, but it is significant. This change also pretty much means that anyone with a spellcasting class will take practiced spellcaster. And druids will take Natural Bond.

Overall, you will not see differences until mid-levels, and at high levels there will be significant differences, especially against non-classed monsters.

 

[iceifur]

Well, you'd end up in a situation similar to that of D20 Modern's spellcasters. Granted, they only get a max of 5th-lvl spells, but the effect is almost identical: a greater emphasis on non-spellcasting solutions to your problems. You HAVE to get a bit more creative when you can't rely on Wizzy McBangbang to end the encounter with a single spell.

With the Practiced Spellcaster feat, the casters won't be too far behind in CL (if at all), removing a lot of the worry when dealing with high-SR monsters. Personally, I wouldn't modify the CRs at all. YMMV.