Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="uzagi_akimbo" data-source="post: 1636928" data-attributes="member: 15945">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.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. 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 <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> ), 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.</blockquote>

Verification