new rule: Caster Level = Character Level

[Loren Pechtel]

Too powerful.

I favor two fixes:

1) Practiced Spellcaster. It should also be stackable.

2) Your caster level should be the sum of your caster levels. +1 for full casters, + 1/2 for partial casters like Paladins.

The results would be capped at your ECL and would have a privisio that you can't get more than one caster level from a level. (Otherwise the MT goes up two points for each level.)

 

[Sigurd]

Next I want to take only one level of fighter and then nine levels of wizard but have the fighters full BAB!

 

[Jhaelen]

Next I want to take only one level of fighter and then nine levels of wizard but have the fighters full BAB!

Well, how about taking one level of fighter and then 11 levels of wizard to get full BAB: Transformation ;-)

 

[Ryujin]

With all the effort that has gone into fixing the various issues from 3.5 in Pathfinder, purposely breaking something seems counter intuitive. The classes are much better balanced than they were in the past. Multi-classing and obtaining the full level dependant benefits of any of the alt classes could be game breaking.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

With all the effort that has gone into fixing the various issues from 3.5 in Pathfinder, purposely breaking something seems counter intuitive. The classes are much better balanced than they were in the past. Multi-classing and obtaining the full level dependant benefits of any of the alt classes could be game breaking.

The thing is at present multi-class casters are basically non-viable. You don't see them except in a few circumstances with PrCs. Thus something that boosts the power of a multi-class caster isn't inherently breaking.

 

[Maidhc O Casain]

The thing is at present multi-class casters are basically non-viable. You don't see them except in a few circumstances with PrCs. Thus something that boosts the power of a multi-class caster isn't inherently breaking.

I disagree. I have several multiclass characters that are both viable and fun to play. That said, I'm definitely NOT a 'power gamer,' so for me 'viable' means 'they'll live if you play them smartly.'

IMHO, boosting the diversity and abilities of the core classes doesn't make multi-classing unviable. Rather, it moves both PrCs and Multi-Class characters more into the realm of 'played for flavor' than 'played for advantage.'

If you want the benefits of a 5th level cleric, play a character to Cleric level 5. Want to play a 4th level Wizard? Play a character to Wizard level 4. Want both? Put in the time and effort - as you would in 'real life' to learn two professions - and work your character up to 9th level.

All that being said, I also recognize that D&D is a game - by definition, to be played and enjoyed. The above opinions are the ones I enjoy. If you can sell your group on a game where progression in one spell casting class means increased ability in all of them, go for it! The game is not broken if everyone involved is having a good time - it is fulfilling it's ultimate purpose!

 

[Ryujin]

The thing is at present multi-class casters are basically non-viable. You don't see them except in a few circumstances with PrCs. Thus something that boosts the power of a multi-class caster isn't inherently breaking.

Actually I find multi-casters to be quite viable, even leaving out the obvious routes of Arcane Archer and Eldritch Knight. Who wouldn't want a thief who could create his own illusionary walls to hide behind? Or what about a fighter who can do a war chant, that gives him the ability to stride through harpy song with virtual impunity?

You just have to ask yourself what it is that you really want. Do you want to play a powerful magic engine of destruction? Well then multi-classing, for more than a level or two, runs counter to that goal. Are you doing it because you want to have a game-breakingly powerful character that lays waste to all enemies before him? Go back to 3.5 and play a Cleric then.

 

[Voadam]

The idea is for multiclass characters to be combat balanced with straightclassed characters.

Characters of level X should be about equal when thrown against a monster of CR X.

I think multiclass caster level power dilution generally leaves them a bit lower on the combat power curve than straight classed characters. For casters multiclassing is generally a combat power dilution. I think leaving their caster level at their character level brings them closer to balanced and able to handle CR appropriate monsters better.

Otherwise multiclass casters are equal on the flat effect spells (such as divinations) and vary on effectiveness of level dependent spells (varying with the specific numbers involved).

 

[Falling Icicle]

Next I want to take only one level of fighter and then nine levels of wizard but have the fighters full BAB!

There's much more involved than caster level. Much more important is the number of spells per day and the level of those spells. A 1st level wizard/19th level fighter still has only a couple of 1st level spells he can cast per day. So what if he can actually use those 2-3 spells to full effect? Without having a CL of 20, he'll never have a prayer of beating spell resistance of the creatures he faces at that level, making those spell slots worthless for anything but utility spells. The 20th level wizard is still a FAR superior spellcaster (having, you know, 9th level spells and 4+ spells of each level per day), even if the multiclass wizard has the same caster level.

 

[Sigurd]

It currently is the mirror image of the fighter 1 wizard 19.

He has expanded weapons but can't use them well.

Wizard 1 \ Fighter 19 has some useful spells and a spell list that lets him\her use wands etc etc... but can't cast as well or with as much power as a full caster.

I don't think you can make the amateur more powerful without insulting the dedicated caster. I don't think it's different from wanting to keep fighter BAB even though you left that class.


YMMV but I think its simply a power up for those who don't like their choices. The pure wizard has to keep some advantages. With all the extra classes giving out spellcasting etc.... I don't think they were hard done by to have a lower caster level.

Yes there are other elements concerned beyond caster level but I don't see why someone who hasn't studied like a pure caster should cast like one. An aberration for a particular encounter - not a problem. A change to sweeten paths, already taken they because had their own benefits, is just power creep. It hurts the game because it reduces variety and makes player choice less important.

But of course that would only be a ruling in my game world. I've certainly said my piece, Good luck whatever you decide.


Sigurd