Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hong" data-source="post: 1275226" data-attributes="member: 537">Not really, no. The wizard is exceedingly generic, and any flavour is handled by spell selection and feat selection.Not really, no. See wizard above, and add domains and alignment/turning/rebuking undead into the mix.Not really, no.If so, the solution to the useless multiclassed character is to fix the multiclassing rules. This is _not hard_, people. I proposed something along these lines more than a year ago, to make caster level == character level, for the purpose of figuring spell effects. Or you can make up feats to give bonuses to caster level, or something else. There are tons of ways to handle it -- Monte's method, of starting the PrC spellcasting progression at a higher level, is a particularly innovative one.Using prestige classes to fix the problem is a kludgy, cumbersome, awkward hand-hack by comparison. Are you really going to have one prestige class for every combination of spellcaster around? I suppose the next tomato sauce PrC is going to be the divine theurge or something, giving +1 divine caster level/+1 divine caster level, for the cleric/druid characters. Or maybe the arcane theurge, giving +1 arcane caster level/+1 arcane caster level, for the wizard/sorcs or bard/sorcs.Fixing the multiclassing rules also means you're free to use PrCs to represent something that actually does exist in the game world, instead of being some weird system hack. Instead of having to use a mystic theurge to represent a true necromancer or hallowed mage (both examples of multiclassed caster concepts), you can actually make up new PrCs tailored to each schtick. That would make a lot more sense, and be a lot more interesting.</blockquote>

Verification