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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fuindordm" data-source="post: 324234" data-attributes="member: 5435">Your idea of spending a feat to get +1 spellcasting level is pretty interesting!  I'm interested in hearing how it plays out.  If it seems too powerful, you could make the feat give you a "half-level" of spellcasting instead (see Sean Reynolds' website for the OGL rules on this).Personally, my only peeve with 3e multiclassing is the effect on spellcasters.  I don't really have a problem with the F4/MU6 being equivalent to a 10th level character, that makes sense.  Spellcasting is much weaker but still significant, and combat potential is higher than in 2nd edition because the character can specialize. Great!But then they had to go and stick in Arcane Failure.  Why?  There was no such thing in first edition, and 2nd edition simply disallowed armor to wizards who were multiclassed for no good reason. An armored wizard isn't any more unbalanced than an armored cleric, as years of playing 1st edition attests to. In 3rd edition,if I want to play a F/MU type (or even a F/Bard!),with just as much training in armor use as a cleric, I lose a significant fraction of my spells to arcane failure *in addition* to giving up the powerful magic.  This design choice baffles me.If they hadn't beefed up divine magic to be almost as powerful as arcane magic (domains taking lots of the best combat spells), I would have less of a problem with it.  But since cleric and wizard spells are now formally identical down to the components, it just doesn't sit well with me that clerics don't have to worry about armor and wizards do.I know, it's easy enough to Rule 0, and I have.  I think this is a case of making the rules enforce a rather feeble archetype (the robed/aged/puny wizard) when it wasn't really necessary.  Kind of like the dual-wielding ranger--I see a lot of archer-ranger variants out there.--Ben</blockquote>

Verification