new rule: Caster Level = Character Level

[Glade Riven]

Made for 4e, but still applies:

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Funny, but I have to disagree.

Reality forms the infrastructure upon which fantasy is built. With each change to the rules of reality, the world becomes a little less believable, incrementally, until at some point, the lzsxidt yo245 tjnclw toswlerj lsaiet...and I really mean that. Some changes are more damaging to the suspension of disbelief than others. And some changes are more damaging to the suspension of disbelief of certain people than others.

Dragonboobs, for example, are annoying to a lot of people...but not so much that it keeps them from including Dragonborn in their games. (It may, however, keep them from illustrating Dragonborn in the "official WotC style.") And some people don't give a damn about dragonboobs at all.

For me, Caster Level = Character Level is that point in D&D that I won't cross as a DM.

 

[ruemere]

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?

Check Arcana Unearthed review, Magic section. It gives a good overview of the changes.

What is your opinion of spellcaster multiclassing under AU/AE system?

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you're just talking about the lack of favored classes, I can see either side of that mechanic.

With favored classes, you recognize that some races are simply better suited to the rigors of a particular class. They have a natural aptitude for that profession. But that also means that the rules ignore that there may be more than one build type within a class, and the races that have it as a favored class may not be particularly well suited for any but one build type.

OTOH, without them, you're asserting that the differences between the races are, essentially, not important in regards to becoming a member of a class. Your PC's stats and Feat choices are all that will determine your relative facility with success in a given profession. Aptitude is recognized at more of an individual than racial level.

Both recognize variability.

A Watusi and a Pygmy would have vastly different odds of becoming a player in the NBA. If you look at those two different people as if they were analogous to different D&D races, you'd favor the favored class rules. If, OTOH, you simply view those as they are IRL- that is to say, exemplars of the extremes within a race- you'll be a fan of the AU/AE rules.

 

[mach1.9pants]

The problem with favoured class is it only applies to multi class characters. If you gained an XP bonus in certain classes (multi or not) or penalties in the others; then that would cover your scenario A above. However in the rules it only penalises Pygmy pilot/NBA players, not Pygmy NBA players

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I won't argue with that assertion at all, except with this: giving the XP bonus could- depending upon the structure & size of the bonus- be troublesome when it interacts with the unified XP chart.

Better than an XP bonus would be a racial benefit that only PCs who take the favored class get. It could be minor. It could be something that scales (with levels in that class). Whatever it is, it wouldn't mess with XP, it would just make you better in your class in some way...which is conceptually what favored class is trying to simulate.

 

[ruemere]

If you're just talking about the lack of favored classes, I can see either side of that mechanic.

[...]

Sorry, not quite the thing I meant.

AU/AE caster system relies on unified caster progression and division of spells into several types... aww, what the hell, I'll quote entire section:

Magic

I saved this for last, because this was the single most significant change from 3rd edition, and the best.

First of all, all spells were combined into a single master list, that are subdivided into three classifications of Simple, Complex, and Exotic spells (Still keeping 0-9th level though).

All spellcasting classes get a certain availability of spells, first in levels, then in simple to exotic.

For example, the Magister gets access up to level 9 spells, and learns all simple and complex spells. Greenbonds also learn up to level 9 spells, but only learn simple spells... and spells of any type that possess the Plant or Positive Energy descriptors.

Meanwhile Mageblades get up to level 7 spells, of simple only.

Second, each class specifies what kinds of components they use. If they use somatic components, they worry about armor spell failure. For example, the Greenbond uses verbal only; the mageblade uses verbal and somatic, although he can ignore spell failure while using his athame; the magister uses verbal and somatic, and is penalized without his staff; and the witch uses verbal, somatic, and material, although they can make a spell effectively psionic by quadrupling the spellcasting time and ignoring all components needed.

Thirdly, almost all spells in their descriptions have a diminished and heightened version; a diminished version is weaker but burns a spell slot one level lower, while the heightened one is more powerful but burns a slot one level higher.

Fourthly, and this is the very cool part: spellcasters, all of them, prepare spells somewhat like wizards, but cast spells like sorcerers!

Let me explain. A spellcaster may take an hour (and not just once a day, but any time) to prepare a number of spells as dictated for their class. Due to how spellcasting works, they never prepare more than one copy of a spell.

A second chart shows how many spells they can cast per day. Each time, they burn a spell slot and select the spell they will cast. The prepared spell doesnt disappear, just the slot. So, you could cast one spell multiple times or a different spell each.

In other words, you are like a sorcerer that can change his spells from day to day - or even hour to hour.

Also, there are a wide variety of feats that let you play around with the spells, usually at a cost. For example, the Psion feat says you get enhanced access to spells with the psionic descriptors: this means a greenbond would gain access to complex psionic spells instead of just simple psionic spells.

Then, it lets you apply the Psionic template to any spell; the psionic template lets you cast the spell with no components, just conentrating and firing off. This ladens the spell unless the spell already had the psionic descriptor. Ladened spells burn two slots of their level instead of 1.

Finally, spellcasters can do whats called Spellweaving: a spellcater can weave three slots of a lower level to gain a higher slot of the next higher level, or break up a slot of one level to gain two slots of the next lower.

Between all of these, the flexibility of the spellcasters are nothing short of phenominal!

This flexibility comes at a cost, however. In general, the spells are weaker. There are no instant-death spells (although a few come real close), healing spells are weaker, etc.

For instance... there is no magic missile. the attack spells of first level exist, but are weaker without a doubt. This allows you to keep these guys balanced with Core classes should you ever mix the two.

Also, the idea of true names: if you chose to be unbound, certain hostile magics cannot attack you. For instance, most curses require your knowing someone's true name (which is hard, but not impossible, to learn); if they are unbound, this is obviously impossible. However, most curses are also INCREDIBLY long duration, many in essence never going away unless a remove curse is cast - which also requires a true name.

By the same token, however, if you are unbound, you don't get access to the better Ceremonial feats, and you cannot be targetted by certain beneficial spells... such as any spell that would raise you from the dead.

Finally, spellcasters can do whats called Spellweaving: a spellcater can weave three slots of a lower level to gain a higher slot of the next higher level, or break up a slot of one level to gain two slots of the next lower.

My question is:
What is your opinion on spellcaster multiclassing under this system?

Regards,
Ruemere

PS. I have already experienced the changes introduced in AE/AU, however I'd like to know how your RAW-based stance is affected by this alternative.

 

[Psychotic Jim]

Unearthed Arcana (for 3e, and not Arcana Unearthed) had an optional rule for partial spellcasting progression for noncaster levels. Perhaps this might be a good compromise if full spellcasting level progression was too powerful?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

What is your opinion on spellcaster multiclassing under this system?


PS. I have already experienced the changes introduced in AE/AU, however I'd like to know how your RAW-based stance is affected by this alternative.

First, I wouldn't call my approach RAW-based. Its actually based on the way people actually learn things, game balance, and the game's internal logic.

Second, I fail to see how the Simple/Complex/Exotic mechanic should influence my opinion on multiclassing. Its a mechanic very divorced from actual learning/practice; very artificial. AU/AE spellcasters learn entire classes of spells at once (as if they have a security passkey that opens all doors of a specific clearance level), whereas D&D spellcasters are learning specific spells (they have to acquire a distinct key for each and every door they can access). I see it as a consequence of the different underlying nature of magic itself in the AU/AE setting, like the lack of an arcane/divine dichotomy. There are different expectations. I'd expect "multiclassing" to look different in a variety of settings, each depending upon its own internal logic. Magic in D&D is different (slightly) from magic in AU/AE, both of which differ from magic in Harry Turtledove's Darkness novels or of a typical comic book spellcaster.

Look at the magic system in Stormbringer. You can "multiclass" and your spellcasting isn't really limited by what other skills you chose to learn, just by what you choose to use or lie fallow. And furthermore, if you don't start out with the ability to do magic, its incredibly unlikely that you'll ever be able to work even the simplest of spells- you either "have it" or you don't.

Third (having looked over my AU but not my AE rulebooks, which are still out on loan) even in this system, Caster Level ≠ PC level. Your Caster Level = your levels in all casting classes (p71). IOW, a Magister5/Akashik15 casts as a 5th level caster. A Magister5/Mage Blade10 casts as a 15th level caster. Furthermore, that Mage Blade would only have access to Complex spells of 5th level.

 

[BryonD]

I have elected not to tinker too much yet in Pathfinder.
But my last 3X campaign used the following house rule:

For all classes your caster level and level for determining "special" abilities was equal to your class level + 1/2 all other class levels combined, or double the actual class level, whichever was less.

Thus a wizard4/Fighter2 could cast spells as a 5th level wizard AND would get the bonus feat due a 4th level fighter. He could not take Weapon Specialization because he still did not meet the prereq. He would not gain further fighter bonus feats if he continued to advance as a wizard because his fighter specials were capped at 8. Similarly, if he switched to fighter only, he would continue to gain wizard caster levels every other level until he hit caster level 8 (at wizard4/fighter8). After that he would need to gain at least one wizard level to continue advancing in spell casting.

I found that CL = char level was too much. Plus I very much agree with DA that some price should be paid. But I also found that the price being paid was excessive. This "split the difference" approach was fun and seemed to make the choice between being able to cast spells of the highest level or being diverse in ability a valid comparison of concepts without having to worry about making highly inferior choices.