Practiced Spellcaster Breaks D20

[Antoine]

In fact, it is a lot worse than Spell Penetration as it provides absolutely no bonus on top of your caster level. It only removes a penalty, it does not provide any bonus at all. Spell Penetration, however, gives an actual +2 bonus on top of your regular caster level.

That's argumentative ! It does provide a bonus up to +4 on top of your regular caster level. Unless 4 fighter levels are stated as a penalty to your caster level.
Furthermore, it doesn't just apply to overcoming spell resistance.

 

[Antoine]

You beat me! Early first edition didn't even HAVE 20 levels. And for a system with ten levels a 10/10 cleric wizard was immensely more powerful than a 10 wizard or a 10 cleric.

When they added an additional 5 levels... well, that 14/14 was still better than the 15.

So what's the point ? That the game needs a spellcasting character built more powerful a spellcaster than a single class cleric or mage ?

 

[hong]

So what's the point ? That the game needs a spellcasting character built more powerful a spellcaster than a single class cleric or mage ?

It doesn't. Your point is?

 

[Antoine]

It doesn't. Your point is?

Point is : why accumulate feats and prestige classes that fill the logical gap between multi- and single classed casters ?
Looks like the only good excuse is to sell paper.

Why is it suddenly brilliant to print a feat with +4 (possible) CL, when spell-power, one level at a time, is the sought after benefit of high level prestige classes of the same game ?

 

[hong]

Point is : why accumulate feats and prestige classes that fill the logical gap between multi- and single classed casters ?

What?

1) What on earth is a "logical gap"?

2) What on earth does Practiced Spellcaster have to do with this thing called a "logical gap"?

Looks like the only good excuse is to sell paper.

Your point is?

 

[MerricB]

You beat me! Early first edition didn't even HAVE 20 levels. And for a system with ten levels a 10/10 cleric wizard was immensely more powerful than a 10 wizard or a 10 cleric..

Huh? Early 1st edition AD&D was unlimited in level - although wizards topped out at about 29th level for their spell-casting tables, IIRC.

However, in practice, AD&D characters retired at 12th level or slightly before; the "name" levels of multi-class advancement didn't occur. In addition, multiclass characters were much more limited in level - I think you might get a half-elf Cleric/Wizard of about 5th/9th level and that was it!

AD&D 2nd edition broke the multi-class/XP system by allowing progression to 16th level+ for multi-classes. Because the PCs had reached the "name" levels and flat advancement, the gap between multi-classes and single-classes became very wide indeed.

Cheers!

 

[Antoine]

1) What on earth is a "logical gap"?
2) What on earth does Practiced Spellcaster have to do with this thing called a "logical gap"?

OK, bad phrasing
What I mean is, it seems logical to me that multi-class spellcaster are far less powerful spellcasters than single classed spellcasters (that's my gap).
Prestige classes from 3.5, then feats like Practiced Spellcaster (or worse Precocious Apprentice) fall in and provide repeated and combinatory options which reduce that difference in power; i.e., the more books printed, the less you have to pay for versatility against specialization.
Doesn't that damage balance between classes ? What about classes which pay a dear cost for versatility, such as bards ?
Again, it seems to me that the various Mystic Theurge + feat options provide character builts more powerful than plain arcanists or divine spellcasters, which, by core rules, are the most powerful characters of the game. Doesn't it alter game balance ?
And what is the purpose of this escalation ?

Regarding Practiced Spellcaster : in a way, it's not a bad feat. Authorizes players to try some characters that didn't stand a chance before. Is balanced for many campaigns (especially when the DM goes heavy on high-HP or SR monsters). But while legitimate, in its design, to help otherwise hopeless character builts, it also open options for reinforcing or creating characters at the high end of the scale of power. In this, it damages balance. IMHO.

 

[Victim]

Point is : why accumulate feats and prestige classes that fill the logical gap between multi- and single classed casters ?
Looks like the only good excuse is to sell paper.

Why is it suddenly brilliant to print a feat with +4 (possible) CL, when spell-power, one level at a time, is the sought after benefit of high level prestige classes of the same game ?

Because a bonus that's designed to make an ability decent is always more than an ability that enhances something a character is already good at. A character with Practiced Spellcaster brings his chances up to standard for the CR (usually about 50/50). The Archmage will be like "Eh, those guys had SR? Oops."

It's like the difference between weapon proficiency (effective +4 to hit) and weapon focus.

 

[Antoine]

It's like the difference between weapon proficiency (effective +4 to hit) and weapon focus.

Now that's a good point. But I can't tell if PC falls in this category or is closer to "add 4 to your BAB, to the limit of your hit dice". I certainly have some bards and clerics who would spend one of their really few feats to get something like that.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Now that's a good point. But I can't tell if PC falls in this category or is closer to "add 4 to your BAB, to the limit of your hit dice". I certainly have some bards and clerics who would spend one of their really few feats to get something like that.

I think maybe if practised caster added the other benefits that come with a higher level in a casting class (like more spells and spell slots) you might have a point here.