When is it okay to lose a caster level?

[Kobold Stew]

If you need more HP, you're best off point-buying higher Con or taking some kind of Toughness type feat (Hopefully Improved Toughness if you are level 3 or higher).

See, Toughness I just don't get in this context. Everyone needs more hitpoints eventually: This seems to be to be burning a feat, given the alternatives (such as others have suggested). Feats are so few for spellcasters. Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks, though.

Stew.

 

[Rystil Arden]

See, Toughness I just don't get in this context. Everyone needs more hitpoints eventually: This seems to be to be burning a feat, given the alternatives (such as others have suggested). Feats are so few for spellcasters. Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks, though.

Stew.

Burning a feat is worth it compared to losing a caster level. To put it another way: If you gave me a character with not full caster level and told me that I could take a feat that raised my caster level as if I gained a level in wizard (so it gives me my news spells unlike Practised Spellcaster), I would take it without blinking.

 

[Thanee]

Or in other words... it's not worth to lose caster level only to gain more hit points, there are other ways to achieve that, without losing a caster level.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Rystil Arden]

Or in other words... it's not worth to lose caster level only to gain more hit points, there are other ways to achieve that, without losing a caster level.

Bye
Thanee

Precisely, and probably stated better than I did.

 

[ThoughtfulOwl]

See, Toughness I just don't get in this context. Everyone needs more hitpoints eventually: This seems to be to be burning a feat, given the alternatives (such as others have suggested). Feats are so few for spellcasters. Maybe I'm missing something.

Thanks, though.

Stew.

Feats are few, granted, but no feat can really match a couple spellcasting levels in terms of power. You must also consider all the things that spellcasting can achieve; do you want more hitpoints? A single casting of False Life will give you more extra HPs than a level of barbarian or the toughness feat and a single casting of Bear's Endurance will give you as much extra Con as a rage, for several minutes instead of less than a dozen rounds.

 

[Stalker0]

Since you are starting out at 1st level...its really a question of do you mind losing that power?

As a sorc, that means when you are 4th level you COULD have had 2nd levels spells....if you hadn't taken that level of barb. You would have had more spells known...if you had taken that level of barb.

That loss in caster level is going to effect you for your entire career...much more so than a -1 BAB to a fighter because fighters can boost attack bonuses in a myriad of ways.

Now early on, you will probably be more powerful than a straight sorc. This will start to really change around 4th level. If that's alright to you go for it. If not...pay the piper now with pure sorc and enjoy the power later.

 

[Rackhir]

Now early on, you will probably be more powerful than a straight sorc. This will start to really change around 4th level. If that's alright to you go for it. If not...pay the piper now with pure sorc and enjoy the power later.

This hits the problem with loosing caster levels on the nose. Those extra HP and such will help early on, but will become almost irrelevent as you get up in levels. Even in mid levels the loss can be a significant penalty.

 

[moritheil]

As others have said, it really depends on what you get in return.

Looking at the midgame, a barb 1/sorc 10 won't gain that much from his barbarian level, but a barb 1/druid 10 gains slightly more, provided that your DM doesn't freak out at the idea of a raging brown bear who moves 10' faster than normal. In either case, if you've exhausted your useful spells for the day or for the situation, you can always rage and beat up on anyone who comes too close. And wielding a fighter-type weapon makes you look less like a soft target and more like a cash-deprived warrior who couldn't afford armor. Depending on your DM's willingness to play dumb with NPCs and enemies, that might be worth something.

Of course, it can be argued that a druid gives up even more than a sorc does by giving up one class level, because of the wild shape progression. There is no 100% right, easy answer to this question, because so much depends on the DM allowing things to work together.

 

[Votan]

For wizards and sorcerers, I like to look at 4th level spells (as most prestige class builds delay these spells).

So I look at: Polymorph, Evard's Black Tentacles and Ennervation. Am I willing to let these spells go or be substantively delayed? Mostly the answetr is now no!

I used to really like the idea of a ranger 1/wizard X to improve some saves and get a lot of nice first level skill points (as well as being able to shoot a bow). But the delay in spell ability became really annoying, really fast.

If you are playing up from level 1 this is actually more important. The "benefit period" of a level of Barbarian ends fast (by 5th level at the latest) and the long term consequences are pretty painful. This is especially true as there are using prestige classes that can toughen a caster without losing caster levels (see Sacred Exorcist).

 

[Bront]

It all depends on what you are planning.

Not just with spellcasters, but almost any base class, you lose something unique to that class by not taking it 100% (Well, anything that's not a fighter), from spells, to other level dependant abilities, like shapechange, monk unarmed abilites, favored enemy bonuses, extra rages, etc. It all depends on if you feel the gains are worth it.

I've had 2 caster characters who were split classed. One, I brought up from a 2nd level char (3.0 Barb/Cleric), and he split levels till he later went along a druidic path. End result at 18th level, I missed out on higher level spells in both cleric and druid, but I enjoyed the character immensely for the RP value (Barb 4, Cleric 5, Druid 9, and other strangeness thrown in), and given that ultimately the character was more of a meele fighter than a spell caster, it never seemed like a huge loss (Especialy since GM allowed me to add Druid and Cleric levels for effective casting level (but not spell selection/number) since it was a decision based on a vision from my god).

The other, a character I am currently playing, started as a first level Wizard, and branched into Fighter for 1 level so he could become an Elderich Knight. He's an Elven Archer, and will also pick up a few levels of Arcane Archer, though I am unsure of how many. Much of what he has done is for RP reasons (Always wanted to be a noble warior of ledgened, but his parents sent him to train as a wizard, meanwhile, he was excelent with a bow so he sort of melded them togeather). Now, I did feal the loss of the caster level, mostly at 2nd level wizard, but the other combat abilities have helped out tremendously.

So, if for character reasons you miss a few levels, you'll likely not miss them as much because you'll be playing in character. If you're loosing them to "Buff up" your caster, you'll ultimately miss them for what you can do as a pure caster later.

I would avoid taking a level or two in a class specificly for mechanical bonuses without RP reasons to do so. Otherwise, why not take a level or two in monk to get uber saves, some cool bonuses if unarmored (Helps aleviate ambush readyness issues), and get evasion?