Practiced Spellcaster

[Hypersmurf]

The wizard would probably only have lost 2 caster levels because of Eldritch Knight. That means he's only one spell level behind his straight wizard counterpart.

Which means he only gets half the possible benefit of the Practised Spellcaster feat...

-Hyp.

 

[James McMurray]

rangerjohn: I don't think that multiclassing spellcasters is necessarily subpar, especially with Practiced Spellcaster. Multiclassing two casting classes is tough, but you end up with more versatility than any other caster. Multiclassing warrior and spellcaster can be very nice if your spell selection is right.

You won't have the offensive firepower of a straight caster, but nobody multiclasses casters for the offensive firepower (unless they have a broken combo to exploit).

hypersmurf: Right. He probably wouldn't take practiced spellcaster. It wouldn't really be worth it unless he is trying to use offensive spells instead of buffs and defenses like most EKs.

 

[Derren]

Imo this feat should not exist.

It is more powerfull compared to other feats and its only intend is to make certain multiclass combination stronger (which are covered by PRCs anyway).

Whats next? A sneak attack feat for multiclassed rogues? A BAB feat for multiclassed fighters?

Multiclassing makes a character stronger in some areas and weaker an other areas and this is how it should be.

It should be clear that a multiclassed caster isn't good with combat spells, but there is no need to change that.

 

[Thanee]

Or in other words... Practiced Spellcaster is exactly right.

It makes a sub-par character choice more on par with other characters.
It is not a must-have, since there are multiclass spellcaster concepts which would not benefit enough from it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

@Derren: There's a very big difference. Spellcasting is working a lot different when it comes to multiclassing, compared to stuff like BAB. The big difference is non-linearity. BAB progression is linear, while spellcasting progression (spell level aquisition and total power) is clearly non-linear.

Bye
Thanee

 

[uzagi_akimbo]

At the earliset point where it matters, the difference is between 25' and 35'. That's the movement rate of most creatures low level characters face. At its most useful point it is the difference between 65' and 75'. That can easily be the difference between a charge and not a charge.

Hmm, lets just do the math where or when this occurs and check the relevancy of those claims.
25'-35' range ? Hmm are we talking a 1st level caster with four levels of fluff here ? So, a fifth level character, who has a single level of caster - I daresay, when such a character faces excessive danger from casting a spell in a balanced fight, and exposing himself to a single move approach, _and_ cannot stand it, thereby getting an _excessive_ benefit from "Professional Spellcaster" extra 10' of spell range....... Well, what sort of fifth level character are we talking about here ? That PC has 4 levels of something tougher than a pure caster besides his single caster level - and should be fine. If not, he shouldn't be in this fight at all. Probably not even out of the house, adventuring.

65'-75' : That would be a 16th level caster casting a spell with the range of a 20th level caster. I wonder who or what he is fighting, that could not cover the extra 10'. There is an arsenal of movement increasing spells, items, classes and effects - free for NPC use, and methinks, anything that is a 20th level challenge either has access to this stuff (and gotten it) or is naturally able to do better. There is also reach. There are mounts. If the target survives the spell and still is unable to close with the caster, it (and the GM ) deserves everything happening to it, sorry. The CR 20 encounters I have run usually never had a problem moving 80' or more in a single round if they wanted to go there at all. Or cast something wicked back in return.

Of those spells, only heal is valuable to a melee cleric. You'll also note that I said "especially if there's a straight cleric in the party". Multiclassing for any non-warrior type is generally a bad idea unless there's someone in the party to fill the role that your primary class would have filled.

Oh, I see, Righteous Might, Visage of the Deity, Harm or even an Extended Divine Power are not something useful for a melee cleric. Besides me not understanding the inherent uselessness of being able to slay wizard types fairly easily with a touch attack Slay Living. I guess we _do_ have a very differing attitude to spell power and usefulness.

Then your campaign is not very multiclass friendly, and therefore this feat will probably never see use. So why do you care what ohers think about it?

I fail to see the logic of your argument. Just why won't there be multiclassed PCs IMC ? Strangely enough we have a lot of multiclass characters, in fact, we haven't had a purebreed, straight character in years (well, we had that barbarian with lycanthrophic tendencies, but I disgress ), except for an alienist conjurer (so this guy was definitely not into dealing direct damage or worrying about SR ) - but not of the type requiring to buff themselves up for ages ahead of a fight, only to find themselves at the mercy of a Dispel Magic. The important thing about multi-classing IMHO is versatility, cancelling out vulnerabilities and not getting blindsided. It's a matter of GM style, I guess. But we don't play our NPCs stupid, leaving the PCs their advantages without challenge.
Oh, and btw, a lot of people multiclass, because they like the feel, attitude and style of a certain class.

I guess your take on "Practised Spellcaster" varies, but your reasons for that are far from conclusive. Whatever.

 

[Vraister]

Some of you said that the longer range, duration and so is not that big of a deal. So what would you say to a feat which lets you use your character level for the purpose of overcoming Spell Resistance but not for range and so one.
I think this feat would still be pretty good.
But I think multiclassed casters don't need a huge bump. I think the added flexibility makes up for the pure casting power.
And if you specialise in one area (pure caster) you should be better at this than someone who has training in more than one area. This is why I think the feat is to strong because it gives you the same range, duration and caster level as a pure caster. The only thing you miss out is spell levels and spell per day but you gain the benefits of a second class.


Vraister

 

[James McMurray]

uzagi: What point of "agree to disagree" did you not understand?

 

[FireLance]

It is a fact that not all feats will be equally useful to all characters. A rapier-weilding fighter with Strength 10 and Dexterity 14 (or more) will obviously choose Weapon Finesse over Weapon Focus (Rapier) any day, and I haven't yet seen a thread complaining that Weapon Finesse is too good. Either that or I missed the "What were they thinking, how can any feat grant +2 (or more) to hit when Weapon Focus only gives a +1, and it applies to several weapons when Weapon Focus only applies to one" rant.

So yes, Practised Spellcaster is good for multi-classed characters. Does it make them overpowered? I don't know. But I'm willing to allow it and see how it works out in play before deciding.

 

[Kem]

And if you specialise in one area (pure caster) you should be better at this than someone who has training in more than one area. This is why I think the feat is to strong because it gives you the same range, duration and caster level as a pure caster. The only thing you miss out is spell levels and spell per day but you gain the benefits of a second class.

You ARE better then them. You have a full spell level on them at least, AND if you spend the same feat on Spell Penetration, then you are ahead of them in SR penetration.

They have to spend DOUBLE the number of feats to be able to match you in just SR penetration if you take that one feat.

I feel that trading a spell level for a couple levels of fighter is enough of a trade off.

Thats like saying that its okay that you picked up 2 levels of fighter, you don't really need Wish and those 2 levels of fighter make up for it.