new rule: Caster Level = Character Level

[Dannyalcatraz]

Casters losing something by multiclassing makes RW sense and game balance sense to me. I see this as a feature, not a bug.

And, FWIW, something like 80% of my PCs are multiclassed spellcasters. I'd say 15% are multiclassed non-casters and 5% are single-classed whatevers.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Casters losing something by multiclassing makes RW sense and game balance sense to me. I see this as a feature, not a bug.

And, FWIW, something like 80% of my PCs are multiclassed spellcasters. I'd say 15% are multiclassed non-casters and 5% are single-classed whatevers.

Multiclass spellcasters, even with full caster level, ARE losing something. Alot of somethings. Just compare the spells per day/known of a 1st level wizard and a 20th level wizard and tell me that the 1st level wizard has lost nothing by getting 19 levels of fighter instead.

 

[Glade Riven]

I suppose one would have to look at what exactly it effects on the power curve. Say, a Wizard 1/Fighter 19 - most low-level spells max out around caster level 10-15.

Now, to define Character level = Caster level. No new spells could be learned through this method, nor is there an increase in spells/day. What would be effected is 1. how powerful the spell is; 2. caster checks; and 3. saving throws vs. the spell.

In this instance, the Wizard 1/Fighter 19 is able to cast a very small selection of spells a very small number of times per day, but it isn't necessarally completly useless.

A full Wizard is far, far more powerful - he has access to far more spells, can cast more powerful spells, and do so more times per day than the Fighter who took a class at a communitiy college in wizardry.

Is that a fair offset? Dunno. Maybe making the wizfighter spend a feat for it would balance it out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Multiclass spellcasters, even with full caster level, ARE losing something. Alot of somethings. Just compare the spells per day/known of a 1st level wizard and a 20th level wizard and tell me that the 1st level wizard has lost nothing by getting 19 levels of fighter instead.

I think that someone who has spent 19x more of his lifetime swinging a sword than casting spells (both in terms of practice and in "live combat") being a lousy spellcaster in all aspects makes sense.

Under Caster Level = PC level, it makes no difference when the Wiz1/Ftr19 PC gained his Wizard level. The guy who started off as a Wizard and then chucked the spellbooks for a sword, but kept practicing his small repertoire of spells for the next decade of his life is mechanically identical to the guy who has been a sword-slinging mercenary for 17 years and just learned his first few spells yesterday. Each of those PCs is equally powerful as a spellcaster under that HR, and that, to me, is 100% nonsense.

So again, I say feature not bug.

 

[Steel_Wind]

Under Caster Level = PC level, it makes no difference when the Wiz1/Ftr19 PC gained his Wizard level. The guy who started off as a Wizard and then chucked the spellbooks for a sword, but kept practicing his small repertoire of spells for the next decade of his life is mechanically identical to the guy who has been a sword-slinging mercenary for 17 years and just learned his first few spells yesterday. Each of those PCs is equally powerful as a spellcaster under that HR, and that, to me, is 100% nonsense.

"You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Dannyalcatraz again."

+2 Persuasive argument.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

FWIW, there ARE systems that don't have that issue.

If you look at the RuneQuest system- at least as implemented in games like Stormbringer- you have the potential to improve any ability you actually use.

Translating that into D20 concepts, the guy who had been the mage and gave it up for swordplay would have done enough spellcasting over his career that he'd be virtually assured of having improved his spellcasting ability. In contrast, the warrior/mage-noob would not have had any practical experience casting spells, so would not be quite as proficient a spellcaster as his comrade. He would, however, be a bettter warrior, because he had spent more time relying on his weapon skills exclusively.

Now, it would be possible to translate this concept into D20 based games, but realize that for balance, you'd need to apply it to non-spellcasting abilities as well, as RuneQuest did.

 

[ruemere]

I think that someone who has spent 19x more of his lifetime swinging a sword than casting spells (both in terms of practice and in "live combat") being a lousy spellcaster in all aspects makes sense. [...]

So again, I say feature not bug.

With regard to multiclassing spellcasters, what do you think about Arcana Evolved?

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

While I own the game, I haven't had the opportunity to play it (just managed a few yoinks), so I'm fuzzy on the details.

To what are you referring?

 

[Glade Riven]

I think that someone who has spent 19x more of his lifetime swinging a sword than casting spells (both in terms of practice and in "live combat") being a lousy spellcaster in all aspects makes sense.

Under Caster Level = PC level, it makes no difference when the Wiz1/Ftr19 PC gained his Wizard level. The guy who started off as a Wizard and then chucked the spellbooks for a sword, but kept practicing his small repertoire of spells for the next decade of his life is mechanically identical to the guy who has been a sword-slinging mercenary for 17 years and just learned his first few spells yesterday. Each of those PCs is equally powerful as a spellcaster under that HR, and that, to me, is 100% nonsense.

So again, I say feature not bug.

So's the beholder's design...and many, many monsters from 2nd Ed.

Like anything, it can be explained away with decent roleplaying. The wizard who didn't keep up on his wizardry studies gets really good at practicing the same spells, or the fighter finds that he's actually pretty talented at this magic stuff and wonders if he's wasted his life focusing on swordplay.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So's the beholder's design...and many, many monsters from 2nd Ed.

Like anything, it can be explained away with decent roleplaying. The wizard who didn't keep up on his wizardry studies gets really good at practicing the same spells, or the fighter finds that he's actually pretty talented at this magic stuff and wonders if he's wasted his life focusing on swordplay.

And I still maintain that neither should be as accomplished as a pure mage, even within their own limited repertoire of spells.

To me, increasing in spellcasting power is not just about repetition and practice, its about gaining broader and deeper understanding of just what it is you do.

I personally have been told by music educators that I have a gift for playing stringed instruments. And at times, its been quite evident. However, I don't put nearly as much into practicing guitar as a professional guitarist. i guarantee you that even though I've been playing guitar since 1985, a pro who knows the same songs I do will be able to bring MUCH more to the performance of any of them than I could...even if he just learned last week what I learned 2 decades ago.

To extend this thought, my Mom is actually a former voice & piano music teacher (she doesn't teach strings). A friend of ours is a professional studio & performing jazz pianist. Despite having decades of experience on him, my Mom can't match some of his skills. During a discussion of the great jazz piece, "Take 5"- a song written in 5/4- while sitting at my Mom's baby grand, he and I discussed a bad cover of the song done in 4/4. That time signature robbed the piece of much of its power. I asserted that if you were going to cover "Take 5" and change the time signature, you should go in the opposite direction, "like playing it in 6/4 I said.

So he did.

"Or 7/4"

So he did...and he did so with every time signature change I suggested.

That's a reflection not just of his mastery of "Take 5," but of all the other music theory he's learned and applied over the course of his career.