Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Jeff Wilder" data-source="post: 4451308" data-attributes="member: 5122">Before I start commenting specifically, here is my assumption -- and it is just an assumption, albeit based on stuff I've read on Paizo's boards -- about the minimum JB wants for B-C in Pathfinder.I think he would want a DM to be able to take a 3.5 stat block and run it, easily, on the fly.&nbsp; Absolutely no conversion time required, pre-encounter.So the question becomes, is a change so radical that a stat-block just wouldn't work?&nbsp; Does this system fail that test?Arguably, and I suppose obviously, it depends on just how free-wheeling the DM is willing to be when it comes to interpreting the stat-block.&nbsp; If a DM (and JB) is willing to accept that, &quot;Hey, the fighter 8/wizard 8 in this 3.5 stat-block is significantly weaker than the fighter 7/wizard 7 in the PCs' group,&quot; and just play the stat-block as written, it's got a shot.&nbsp; JB has shown that he'll go out on that limb to at least some length, because Pathfinder PCs (core, anyway) are noticeably stronger than 3.5 PCs.Me, I'd accept that tradeoff for better multiclassing rules.&nbsp; In a heartbeat.&nbsp; (Either tradeoff, actually.&nbsp; Either weaker stat-blocks, or some conversion time.)We need it for this system to work?&nbsp; I agree, and I agree that most people would accept it in principle.I absolutely agree here, but I prefer Base Caster Level.&nbsp; This is the number you're going to use when you make a &quot;caster level check,&quot; right?&nbsp; Plus, &quot;BCL&quot; is easier to say, and not as easily confused in speech with &quot;BAB.&quot;But it is how good you are with magic, isn't it?&nbsp; Clarify that it encompasses both, as familiarity certainly informs skill.Does &quot;mini spellcasting&quot; include rangers and paladins?&quot;Caster level&quot; or &quot;BMB&quot;?&nbsp; I assume you're using them synonymously, which is another argument for &quot;BCL.&quot;This is obviously the key to the system, and I like it.&nbsp; However, I don't like divorcing max spell level from the stat.&nbsp; I think this needs to be the lower of either.If you're worried about MAD, screw it.&nbsp; Multiclassing is a choice.&nbsp; If you wanna be competent at two distinct skill sets, have the raw talent to back it up.&nbsp; Also, remember that, e.g., 5th level slots that couldn't be filled by a wizard 8/cleric 8 with a WIS of 14 can still be filled with wizard spells.(As an aside, I assume bonus spells would only apply to the class with the applicable stat?)&nbsp;Okay.&nbsp; Starting to get a little creaky, but I get it.Much.&nbsp; IMO, if anything more radical than &quot;multiclass feats&quot; can make it into Pathfinder, it'll have to be something like this.How does it interact with, e.g., the mystic theurge, which is, after all, a core prestige class?&nbsp; (If the answer is, &quot;The mystic theurge and similar hybrid PrCs become redundant and get struck from the rules,&quot; BTW, I'm okay with that.&nbsp; Not sure JB would feel the same, natch.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Jeff Wilder, post: 4451308, member: 5122"] Before I start commenting specifically, here is my assumption -- and it is just an assumption, albeit based on stuff I've read on Paizo's boards -- about the minimum JB wants for B-C in Pathfinder. I think he would want a DM to be able to take a 3.5 stat block and run it, easily, on the fly. Absolutely no conversion time required, pre-encounter. So the question becomes, is a change so radical that a stat-block just wouldn't work? Does this system fail that test? Arguably, and I suppose obviously, it depends on just how free-wheeling the DM is willing to be when it comes to interpreting the stat-block. If a DM (and JB) is willing to accept that, "Hey, the fighter 8/wizard 8 in this 3.5 stat-block is significantly weaker than the fighter 7/wizard 7 in the PCs' group," and just play the stat-block as written, it's got a shot. JB has shown that he'll go out on that limb to at least some length, because Pathfinder PCs (core, anyway) are noticeably stronger than 3.5 PCs. Me, I'd accept that tradeoff for better multiclassing rules. In a heartbeat. (Either tradeoff, actually. Either weaker stat-blocks, or some conversion time.) We need it for this system to work? I agree, and I agree that most people would accept it in principle. I absolutely agree here, but I prefer Base Caster Level. This is the number you're going to use when you make a "caster level check," right? Plus, "BCL" is easier to say, and not as easily confused in speech with "BAB." But it is how good you are with magic, isn't it? Clarify that it encompasses both, as familiarity certainly informs skill. Does "mini spellcasting" include rangers and paladins? "Caster level" or "BMB"? I assume you're using them synonymously, which is another argument for "BCL." This is obviously the key to the system, and I like it. However, I don't like divorcing max spell level from the stat. I think this needs to be the lower of either. If you're worried about MAD, screw it. Multiclassing is a choice. If you wanna be competent at two distinct skill sets, have the raw talent to back it up. Also, remember that, e.g., 5th level slots that couldn't be filled by a wizard 8/cleric 8 with a WIS of 14 can still be filled with wizard spells. (As an aside, I assume bonus spells would only apply to the class with the applicable stat?) Okay. Starting to get a little creaky, but I get it. Much. IMO, if anything more radical than "multiclass feats" can make it into Pathfinder, it'll have to be something like this. How does it interact with, e.g., the mystic theurge, which is, after all, a core prestige class? (If the answer is, "The mystic theurge and similar hybrid PrCs become redundant and get struck from the rules," BTW, I'm okay with that. Not sure JB would feel the same, natch.) [/QUOTE]

Verification