new rule: Caster Level = Character Level

[ruemere]

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.

Your approach appears to match that of intent of d20 designers - that's why I called RAW-based approach.
Learning stuff is quite often non-linear, non-granular and non-deterministic.
Also, d20 is yet another incarnation of the system - internal game logic changes from one edition to another.

Second, I fail to see how the Simple/Complex/Exotic mechanic should influence my opinion on multiclassing.

Under a game system with all abilities working in the same manner (under AU, AE it applies only to magic classes - that's why my question was restricted to spellcaster multiclassing), switching from one class to another is not necessarily equal to gimping abilities from previous classes.

Its a mechanic very divorced from actual learning/practice; very artificial.

Let's not go there. I can quote you a ton of real life examples, where learning a single thing opened door to a whole world of new abilities (ok, just one example: programming).

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).

Clerics.
Fighter and Martial Weapons proficiency.
Heavy Armors.
Linguistics.

This is RAW. The principle is the same, only the content is a little different (well, Clerics are not that different).

Also, you learn only Simple spells automatically. Complex and Exotic spells follow rules similar to Martial and Exotic Weapon Proficiencies.

[...]

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.

Again, that's why I was asking about spellcaster multiclassing only.

Thank you for your reply.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Under a game system with all abilities working in the same manner (under AU, AE it applies only to magic classes - that's why my question was restricted to spellcaster multiclassing), switching from one class to another is not necessarily equal to gimping abilities from previous classes.

Even in AU/AE, multiclassing causes gimping in some way to any given class. Multiclassed warriors don't get full BAB, and most classes have some kind of ability based on class level.

Let's not go there. I can quote you a ton of real life examples, where learning a single thing opened door to a whole world of new abilities (ok, just one example: programming).

Programming essentially lets you rewrite/manipulate an entirely artificial environment- you're effectively a divine being. And even within a given programming language, there are radical differences in knowledge and proficiency. The guy who learned C++ yesterday is not going to be able to do everything the guy who learned it 5 years ago can.

Learning a single thing opens a door to a whole world of new things to learn.

Clerics.
Fighter and Martial Weapons proficiency.
Heavy Armors.
Linguistics.

This is RAW. The principle is the same, only the content is a little different (well, Clerics are not that different).

Clerics learn nothing except devotion to a divine being or philosophy, which then spoons power into their psyche. Everyone else is learning things from scratch.

A Cleric has effectively been given the keys to a Formula 1 car by someone/thing that knows all about such things. A Wizard is learning how to build one, one piece at a time.

Fighters? I always preferred the earlier rules on weapon proficiency...at least up to the Weapon Groups of 2Ed.

And languages...well, those are amazingly complex, but Skills in D&D have always been more abstract than in other games. While to reflect this, they could have made them like other skills (with ranks, etc.) the problem then becomes the scarcity of skill points. Give out too many, and you make it too easy to level-up "more useful" skills, like Search, UMD and the like, while languages continue to languish.

Unless, of course, you get rid of/limit "Common" and powerful linguistics magics.

 

[ruemere]

Even in AU/AE, multiclassing causes gimping in some way to any given class. Multiclassed warriors don't get full BAB, and most classes have some kind of ability based on class level.

That's why I have explicitly omitted non-spellcasters in my question. Sigh.

Programming essentially lets you rewrite/manipulate an entirely artificial environment- you're effectively a divine being. And even within a given programming language, there are radical differences in knowledge and proficiency. The guy who learned C++ yesterday is not going to be able to do everything the guy who learned it 5 years ago can.

Uh-oh. The point is that by learning to do one thing, you have learnt to do several others. For example, learning to program in a language, teaches you basics of content management, methodology associated with algorithm generation and improves your research skills.
You're not going to become automatically a grand master of these new arts, yet, the connections are in place providing new benefits.

Learning a single thing opens a door to a whole world of new things to learn.

Extremely simplistic view - I have not claimed skill to be binary. Merely that sometimes learning to do one thing, you get to learn several others too. The degree to which you learn something, is difficult to represent under straight vancian system, but it is there (for example, spell benefits depend on caster level).

Clerics learn nothing except devotion to a divine being or philosophy, which then spoons power into their psyche. Everyone else is learning things from scratch.

A Cleric has effectively been given the keys to a Formula 1 car by someone/thing that knows all about such things. A Wizard is learning how to build one, one piece at a time.

Ok, all classes in AE/AU are sponsored by cosmic beings to certain degree. Do you find the AU/AE system less artificial now? Let me remind you that you have called the system artificial, and now you are using in-game excuse to excuse Cleric's spell learning mechanic

Fighters? I always preferred the earlier rules on weapon proficiency...at least up to the Weapon Groups of 2Ed.

Still, superfast learning exists in 3.5. AE/AU just takes the same concept one step further in order to unify the systems.

And languages...well, those are amazingly complex, but Skills in D&D have always been more abstract than in other games. While to reflect this, they could have made them like other skills (with ranks, etc.) the problem then becomes the scarcity of skill points. Give out too many, and you make it too easy to level-up "more useful" skills, like Search, UMD and the like, while languages continue to languish.

Unless, of course, you get rid of/limit "Common" and powerful linguistics magics.

Precisely.

To sum it up: you're fine with superfast learning and a single step to multiple abilities as long as it is a part of a system you already use and (pick one):
- there is a cosmic entity to provide it
- it is a skill
- it's for the sake of Fighters

Otherwise, your inner sense of decency tells you that something is wrong and you follow your intuition.

Fair enough.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Uh-oh. The point is that by learning to do one thing, you have learnt to do several others. For example, learning to program in a language, teaches you basics of content management, methodology associated with algorithm generation and improves your research skills.

I would argue that you have to learn those subskills in order to learn how to program.

Ok, all classes in AE/AU are sponsored by cosmic beings to certain degree. Do you find the AU/AE system less artificial now? Let me remind you that you have called the system artificial, and now you are using in-game excuse to excuse Cleric's spell learning mechanic

No, its not any less artificial. Its just the way it is.

Still, superfast learning exists in 3.5. AE/AU just takes the same concept one step further in order to unify the systems.

To sum it up: you're fine with superfast learning and a single step to multiple abilities as long as it is a part of a system you already use and (pick one):
- there is a cosmic entity to provide it
- it is a skill
- it's for the sake of Fighters

Not quite.

Cosmic entities (henceforth covering philosophies as well, for 3.X Clerics' sake) are rules-breakers/makers. Clerics don't learn spells, they learn prayers to cosmic entities which they reinforce with pledges of loyalty. Cosmic entities, in response to those prayers and promises of loyalty (if they're found to be satisfactory), give them access to what they prayed for- spells, power over the undead, etc...all while not forcing them to put in the same kind of effort as arcane spellcasters who then don't have time to learn how to fight or wear armor (and thus, have lower BABs, ASF, and non-existent armor proficiency). Clerics are just borrowing a bit of power, they don't actually have it. Everybody else has to start from scratch.

Or, to put it a different way, Clerics and similar classes don't follow the normal rules of the world because cosmic entities are giving them a loophole. However, it is entirely conceivable that cosmic entities have their OWN rules by which they must abide...but those rules are not within the purview of D&D. You'd have to look at something like The Primal Order to examine the campaign world at that level.

Skills...personally, I think they're over-abstracted, and always have been in D&D. I've always preferred the "use & improve" skill systems that exist out there.

And as I pointed out, I'm "satisfied" with 3.X's weapon proficiency rules only insofar as I don't think its a good use of my time to convert a 2Ed system into the varous 3.X games out there. I greatly prefer the 2Ed version of narrow weapon proficiencies.

Otherwise, your inner sense of decency tells you that something is wrong and you follow your intuition.

My intuition is against abstracting things further- one reason (among many) I don't particularly care for 4Ed- so I don't go for HRs that go in that direction.

But just to be perfectly clear:

1. I also don't want to change 3.X into 2Ed. IMHO, 3.X is the best incarnation of D&D to date.
2. I have to be pragmatic about abstraction- every RPG system abstracts SOMETHING. Look at HERO, my favorite system: no shortage of abstraction there.
3. Multiclassing- especially that which involves some kind of stunt powers (magic, psionics, racial abilities, etc.) works in a variety of different ways in different systems...and is completely absent in some.

 

[White Wizard]

Not to break up your debate but I was sort of interested in ruemere's experience with the spellcasting system he proposed under AU. As written it seems like an interesting concept that would be hard to incorporate.

 

[ruemere]

Not to break up your debate but I was sort of interested in ruemere's experience with the spellcasting system he proposed under AU. As written it seems like an interesting concept that would be hard to incorporate.

No problem. Danny has explained his views - I was goading him into making a bit more detailed post, and I am satisfied with his latest reply.

Regarding your question, Arcana Unearthed/Arcana Evolved is a d20 variant by Monte Cook. Chief differences from standard 3.x are:
- canonical four (warrior, thief, priest, wizard) has been disbanded (each class is capable of fighting, using skills, healing or using area attacks, just to different extent) - for example, warrior equivalent of fireball would be a feat granting ability to take a move action and then perform a full attack action
- still, you do want to have a good spellcaster
- almost no dead levels (Pathfinder RPG took a step further, removing dead levels completely), i.e. almost every level yields a new ability
- spellcasters are multiclassing freely (i.e. there is a unified slot progression, and when you multiclass, you simply add new slots to previous ones)
- spellcasters, at the beginning of each day, choose spells they want to ready, however, they do not assign spells to slot - a readied spell is used in the same manner as sorcerer's
- when casting a spell, you may choose to do change its effect in several ways: by applying a template (for example: arcane, psionic, divine), by choosing a higher slot to power the spell (heightened spell), lower slot (diminished spell)
- also, you may combine several slots to cast the spell as normal or in heightened way
- spells come are assigned to one of three different complexity types: simple (known automatically), complex (learnt by expenditure of feat or by advancing a level in more specialized class) and exotic (feat only). While there is no magic missile in AU/AE, it would fall definitely into exotic category
- in general, spell effects were toned down (no automatic superkills)

In a similar manner, other classes were also changed:
- classes have special abilities which allow them to shine in new ways
- weapons and armors can receive templates now (instead of being masterwork)
- there are feats which allow martial and skill classes to be more effective and counter spellcasters (i.e. standard action of a martial class may be also as effective as standard action of a caster)

There are almost no permanent magic items (magic items with charges are more common).

And so on. Our campaign took place in Oathbound, my character was an Unfettered (light armored skirmisher with sneak attacks). Our party featured also a Greenbond (plant girl, a healer and killer caster), Warmain (heavy armor/heavy weapon guy) and Magister (dedicated caster). We've had ups and downs (from slaves to slave owners, from wannabe spies to traitors, from travelers to excavators), but each of characters was refreshingly self-sufficient.

Regards,
Ruemere

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Two of the niftier things about the spell system in AU/AE were, IMHO:

1. Most spells have a Lesser and/or Greater form, so a given spell may have as many as 3 power levels.
2. Monte was prescient and patient enough to include rules for using alternative material components in spells.

 

[Votan]

Trailblazer had a good compromise system. Caster level was treated like BAB and advanced by different classes at different rates.

So a Fighter had a 1/3 progression in caster levels so a Fighter 9/Wizard 1 would have a caster level of 4.

In a Similar sense, a Wizard 9/Fighter 1 would have a BAB of +5; less than the pure fighter but more than a pure Fighter 1.

It's a slightly different idea: that magic ability advances in general with experience just like melee ability but focus still matters.

It's a nice compromise.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Trailblazer had a good compromise system. Caster level was treated like BAB and advanced by different classes at different rates.

So a Fighter had a 1/3 progression in caster levels so a Fighter 9/Wizard 1 would have a caster level of 4.

In a Similar sense, a Wizard 9/Fighter 1 would have a BAB of +5; less than the pure fighter but more than a pure Fighter 1.

It's a slightly different idea: that magic ability advances in general with experience just like melee ability but focus still matters.

It's a nice compromise.

Yeah, that seems like a reasonable approach.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I agree: that is better than Caster Level = Character Level.