"Practice Spellcaster" Feat - Huh ?

[Tiberius]

Also, it's a great feat for those who take the Wild Mage prestige class, since it appears to check your caster level after all other modifiers.

 

[FireLance]

I am a voice of dissent on this one. It is illogical, 4 levels worth of spellcasting competence? Where the frag from? What's next? A feat that adds 4 to your BAB?!

Well, if I was playing a Fighter 4/Barbarian 4, and BAB from different classes didn't stack, then I would definitely want a feat that adds 4 to my BAB.

 

[Abstraction]

To the original poster:

It all depends on how you convert the 2E character to 3E. In 2E, an 8th level wizard would have the same XP as about a 7th/7th Fighter/Wizard. I would recommend that you do not allow straight level conversions. Rather, all characters should have the same XP total. This would make for a 4th/4th Fighter/Wizard in 3E which is a very lackluster character. The player should not only take the practiced spellcaster feat, but also get into Eldritch Knight as soon as possible (or other allowed PrC). In fact, a kind DM might allow a 2E 8th level character to be interpreted as a Ftr1/Wiz5/EK2.

Out of curiousity, what level will the group be?

 

[rowport]

To Melkor: there are some better options for a Fighter/Magic User in 3E than in earlier editions. Instead of multiclassing Fighter/Wizard, I would suggest a hard look at the Duskblade core class (in PHB II). If you would rather have a more martial-oriented Fighter/MU, then the Hexblade (Complete Adventurer) might work for you. Either way, Fighter/Wizard is probably not the best choice.

PS - Practiced Spellcaster is *not* overpowered. It just helps make multiclassed spellcasters viable.

 

[BadMojo]

PS - Practiced Spellcaster is *not* overpowered. It just helps make multiclassed spellcasters viable.

I'd say it's absolutely required for a Bladesinger character, which is really unfortunate since the prestige class really has steep feat requirements.

As I recall, earlier versions of the Practised Spellcaster feat were much more powerful. I *think* it actually did increase # of spells cast originally.

 

[Shoel Sweeny]

I am a voice of dissent on this one. It is illogical, 4 levels worth of spellcasting competence? Where the frag from? What's next? A feat that adds 4 to your BAB?!

BAB damage is fixed, spell damage increases by level, as does potency. When you cannot overcome an opponets spell resistance it renders your spell caster levels moot. This doesn't just affect your fireball either; dispels, counterspells, and duration are all torn to moot by multiclassing.

Additionally, BAB always increases no matter what class your taking. While a wizard will never have the BAB of a fighter, it does increase in efectiveness slowly, a caster level will never improve for the multiclass fighter/wizard that continues in fighter. This helps even the balance.

Practiced spellcaster is also one of those feats smart players ask the DM NOT to allow.

players get spread over the map by monstrous spellcasters.

It's the Dungeon Masters job to make sure his game is playable. If a feat throws the balance of a monster it's the DM's job to recognize this fact, and then not apply the feat to his monster. What's the sense in removing a perfectly viable player centric feat on the off chance the DM lacks enough common sense to recognize a monsters abilities?

I get enough rebalancing the rule books down to the dumbest denominator, thank you very much.

 

[Vanye]

As I recall, earlier versions of the Practised Spellcaster feat were much more powerful. I *think* it actually did increase # of spells cast originally.

I believe you're actually thinking of the SPELLCASTNIG PRODIGY feat, which originally increased the effective specllcasting attribute by +2 for purposes of Save DC's and # of spells castable per day. Later nerfed to only allow for additional spells/day.

 

[BadMojo]

I believe you're actually thinking of the SPELLCASTNIG PRODIGY feat, which originally increased the effective specllcasting attribute by +2 for purposes of Save DC's and # of spells castable per day. Later nerfed to only allow for additional spells/day.

Ah, that could be. The feat I was thinking of was originally in a Forgotten Realms book. That's probably it. My mistake.

 

[Bad Paper]

Practiced spellcaster is also one of those feats smart players ask the DM NOT to allow. The fact the feat is worded using hit die rather than character level is a hint the PCs won't be the ones benefiting from it the most.

You say this a lot, and I still wrinkle my nose and frown when you do. I just don't agree.

For one thing, I have yet to abuse the nonassociated class rules when levelling up monsters. I pretty much say "PC levels = associated" and "NPC levels = nonassociated." I realize that's not the way it's supposed to work, but that's my smoothing over the rough edges.

A +4 CL on casting is...boring... As a DM, I like it for my monsters simply because it makes my job easier when running the 1 round / level spells. It goes from "this spell will run out soon" to "this spell lasts beyond the death of its caster."

And as for turning fireballs from 5d6 to 9d6 or whatever... ugh, that extra damage simply keeps the party's cleric busier, hence more valuable to the party and less in the DM's hair. I have to say, PS is a nice feat on both sides of the table.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Except that monstrous spellcasters tend to be even more of a waste of levels than multiclass spellcasters.

The Hill Giant Wizard may only increase his CR by 1 for every 2 wizard levels, but that's because those wizard levels don't really make him much scarier. Practiced Spellcaster doesn't change that.

Yup.

In practice, even that fudge of 1/2 CR per level is pretty debatable.

Take a Hill Giant. How many levels of Wizard or Sorceror must that Hill Giant have before it is noticeably more dangerous than a normal Hill Giant?

Probably about 5 or 6. Because he can already drink potions to provide 1st and 2nd level buffs on the cheap if he really wants to, so he needs a decent level spell to make a noticeable improvement on his already impressive options.

I would much rather fight a Hill Giant with 5 Wizard level and Practiced Spellcaster than 2 vanilla Hill Giants nstead. IMO this boosted Hill Giant is only +1 CR over book value. More of a minor fun variant for the DM to play with than a genuinely significantly bigger threat.

Same story for other critters with LA, just to a lesser degree. Most monsters are inherently more like Fighters or Rogues in combat style than spellcasters, so synergies tend to be weak to nonexistent. Practiced Spellcaster only means that these beasties are not laughed at when they cast a spell.