Proposed fix for spellcaster multiclassing

[Voadam]

*waves hand* Hello!

It's just an interesting example how perceptions change... Now that we know that 3E is no longer supported (by WotC), suddenly all kinds of house-rules and fixes get interesting and move into the spot-light.

It's too late for me, but it's still nice seeing it discussed and handled now...

Though I must admit I am still not happy with the solutions (including the ones I had in mind or writing - that's why I never really followed up on them or play-tested them). Some things just still look too... clunky to me.

Just to be clear, here is Wulf's big book of rules tinkering from 2004

[ame=http://www.amazon.com/Grim-Tales-Adventure-Magic-BAG03201/dp/0972041699/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220458803&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Grim Tales: High Adventure, Low Magic (BAG03201): Benjamin R. Durbin: Books[/ame]

His first book was in 2002 [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Heroes-High-Favor-Dwarves/dp/0972041605/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1220459189&sr=1-1]Amazon.com: Heroes of High Favor: Dwarves (Heroes of High Favor): Benjamin Durbin: Books[/ame]

 

[Greg K]

*waves hand* Hello!

It's just an interesting example how perceptions change... Now that we know that 3E is no longer supported (by WotC), suddenly all kinds of house-rules and fixes get interesting and move into the spot-light.

Um, did you examine much third party material while WOTC was publishing 3e? Many people have introduced alternative mechanics and interesting fixes. It's one of the major reasons that I find it hard to get excited about the changes to 4e or most of WOTC's 3e supplements.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Just to be clear, here is Wulf's big book of rules tinkering from 2004

Let's also not forget RangerWickett's's not-inconsequentional tinkering of his own. He's been at it for years as well.

 

[RangerWickett]

I'm almost afraid of how much tinkering I'll end up doing on 4e in the long run. But no consequence! We must correct this wound upon the Pathfinder rules by fixing multiclassing.

So, to cast a spell from a given class you need a) a prime ability score of 10 + spell level, and b) at least as many levels in that class as the spell's level. (We'd make a note that this second rule only ever actually matters to multiclass casters.)

I think we've hashed out the rest of the system fairly well. Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?

 

[Jeff Wilder]

I think we've hashed out the rest of the system fairly well. Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?

If you're talking about showing some support for it, I'll put my name on it. If you're talking about any sort of design credit, obviously I didn't do anything to justify that.

 

[Chacal]

Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?

I think you should formulate it as a proposal on the paizo boards WHEN the section for discussing classes will be opened by JB.
You'll have to repeat some arguments and face an environment that you might find less friendly than ENworld. But doing otherwise will be probably seen as bypassing their community process and poorly received.

A similar thread on Paizo boards

Chacal

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Shall I write up a document and post it here for final review before sending it to Paizo. Wulf, others, would you like to include your name in the proposal?

Yeah, I basically think you're pissing in the wind, here.

I wouldn't expect much more credit than a playtest credit. It's an open playtest after all. So there isn't much point in attaching any names to the idea.

At any rate, for whatever it's worth, if individual credits are in their planning, then my name would probably be "credited" for the Encounter calculation bit, so I'm all set.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Yeah, I basically think you're pissing in the wind, here.

I wouldn't expect much more credit than a playtest credit. It's an open playtest after all. So there isn't much point in attaching any names to the idea.

At any rate, for whatever it's worth, if individual credits are in their planning, then my name would probably be "credited" for the Encounter calculation bit, so I'm all set.

Well, names might help to give credibility. But I agree that it might be a good idea to post the idea first on the Pathfinder forum itself, to give it some exposition and to avoid anyone rejecting it due to the famous "not-invented-here"-syndrome.

 

[Voadam]

A couple question on details

Bards, do they get a full spellcaster progression now? How does their single classed spellcasting compare to 3.5? Spell levels attained, number of slots, spells known.

How do single classed paladin and rangers under this system compare to 3.5 straight ones?

BtW I like the class level limits on spells known, it is an easily implemented straightforward mechanic producing acceptable results.

 

[RangerWickett]

A couple question on details

Bards, do they get a full spellcaster progression now? How does their single classed spellcasting compare to 3.5? Spell levels attained, number of slots, spells known.

As per Wulf's suggestion, they'd get slightly less than a 2/3 caster level increase. So by 20th level they'd have caster level 12 and 6th level spells. They'd have as many spell slots as a 12th level wizard, and would know 30 spells (3 every 2 levels) that they can cast on the fly. So basically the same as they are now, but with a lower caster level.

We might want to give them something extra to balance that slight decrease (though, looking at bard spells, it would only affect durations, ranges, and the ability to punch through spell resistance, since I don't think any bard spell has a dice-per-level sort of effect).

How do single classed paladin and rangers under this system compare to 3.5 straight ones?

Basically as a cleric or druid of half their level. Yes, this gives them 5th level spells when they're 18th level, and lets them access 1st level spells a little earlier than before. I don't think that's a huge power boost, comparably.

Actually, hm. We might change the base caster level progression just a smidge.

Level --- Poor --- Avg --- Good
1 ------- +0 ---- +0 ----- +1
2 ------- +0 ---- +1 ----- +2
3 ------- +0 ---- +2 ----- +3
4 ------- +1 ---- +2 ----- +4
5 ------- +1 ---- +3 ----- +5
6 ------- +2 ---- +3 ----- +6
7 ------- +2 ---- +4 ----- +7
8 ------- +3 ---- +5 ----- +8
9 ------- +3 ---- +5 ----- +9
10 ------ +4 ---- +6 ----- +10
11 ------ +4 ---- +6 ----- +11
12 ------ +5 ---- +7 ----- +12
13 ------ +5 ---- +8 ----- +13
14 ------ +6 ---- +8 ----- +14
15 ------ +6 ---- +9 ----- +15
16 ------ +7 ---- +9 ----- +16
17 ------ +7 ---- +10 ---- +17
18 ------ +8 ---- +11 ---- +18
19 ------ +8 ---- +11 ---- +19
20 ------ +9 ---- +12 ---- +20

This is not as clean numerically, but it keeps people at a closer power level to current.