Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Elder-Basilisk" data-source="post: 2869013" data-attributes="member: 3146">I'm going to venture out on a limb here and disagree. You will still see caster classes if you adopt this proposed rule--you just won't see wizards or sorcerers. Taking four levels of cleric doesn't hurt a fighter very much at all: he can still fight nearly as well as a fighter 8. On the other hand, taking four levels of wizard will seriously gimp a fighter or rogue (limited armor, reduced BAB, and seriously reduced hit points) and four levels of wizard is not enough to be a competent arcane caster in an 8th level party. (IME, fighter mages are most effective when they only take one or two fighter levels and then take prestige classes like Eldritch Knight, etc, which only minimally impact their spellcasting ability).One thing that would greatly impact this is how you decided to treat bards--if they are treated as a full caster class and forced to multiclass 1/1, they would be very weak, but if you allowed single classed bards alongside single classed paladins, I could see them being a very attractive choice in a world of fighter 4/cleric 4s.The impact on class selection, however, will not be the most serious impact it has on your game. You will also find that the challenge posed by various creatures changes pretty dramatically. A troll, for instance, is much more deadly at level 8 when you don't have haste to increase your damage output and you don't have cure serious and cure critical wounds spells to cover you when the troll gets a lucky rend in. Likewise, grappling monsters become much more deadly when the party does not have any capability to use freedom of movement, dimension door, or gaseous form to help party members escape a grapple. On the other hand, certain encounters that are readily solved by swords will be far less challenging.</blockquote>

Verification