# Practiced Spellcaster feat



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 20, 2004)

The Practiced Spellcaster feat in The Complete Divine (page 82) came up in a thread and when I read up on the feat I realized how unbalanced it was in my opinion. Out of curiosity I emailed my players and asked them and they all agreed. I was curious what the readers on this board thought. First off, this feat is useless towards any non-multiclassed spellcaster, so remember I am talking about multiclassed characters since this would be the only one capable of using it. Also, please read the feat description before posting, if you would like (and it’s legal) I can post the feat on this thread.

     Using a character out of my personal campaign I’m running (Rog4/Wiz5/Arcane Trickster3) who just reached 12th level and chose Spell Penetration as his feat. Spell Penetration grants a caster a +2 on his checks to defeat an opponents SR. If at 12th he would have instead taken the Practiced Spellcaster feat it would have granted him a bonus of +4 caster level (not effecting spells cast per day or known, but effecting checks versus SR) which is basically as if he had received a doubled Spell Penetration feat at the cost of a single feat! That seems way too much. Feats shouldn’t exist that allow you to take one and receive the benefits of two others. And what is worse is the player could still choose to take Spell Penetration and the Greater version at a later level and they would all stack.

     Also, for some reason I’ve noticed a lot of players who play fighters like to take one level of sorcerer so they can cast shield and mage armor. So let’s use a Ftr5/Sor1 (with minimum charisma required, so a Cha11) as an example. Without the Practiced Spellcaster feat this character can cast his mage armor up to 3 times a day at an hour apiece, or for a total of 3hours a day if he uses all his spells for mage armor. At 6th level this character takes the Practiced Spellcaster feat which allows him to cast his spells as if he were 4 levels higher (purposes of duration, range, effect only). So now he can still only cast mage armor 3/day but the duration of each casting is 5 hours apiece, or a total of 15 hours a day! A single feat just quintupled his duration. At this rate why would a multiclassed spellcaster ever need to take the extend spell feat.

     Now that I have brought up the Extend Spell feat, in a way isn’t the Practiced Spellcaster feat basically affecting the Extend Spell feat the same way the Haste spell was towards Quicken Spell in 3rd edition? There are a lot of ways to use the Quicken spell feat but I heard a lot of “why take that feat when I can just cast haste?” This same approach can be taken in regards to the Extend Spell feat and Practiced Spellcaster for a multiclassed character. The Extend Spell feat allows you to cast a spell with its duration doubled if you memorize the spell at one level higher than its actual level. With the Practiced Spellcaster feat you automatically cast it at 4 levels higher for duration, range, damage, and all effects related to caster level, and still being able to cast it at its current level. In a way this takes away from several of the metamagic feats, not just the Extend Spell feat.

     When I asked my players about what they thought of this feat this was one of the responses I got from them, and I quote:

“Since the advent of 3.5 WotC has been trying to take away most of the disadvantages of multiclassing through feats (like this one), prestige classes (Mystic Theurge) and other rule changes.  I think it's completely ridiculous and over-powered.  Multiclassing is SUPPOSED to have disadvantages to offset the advantages of greater versatility.  This is especially important for spellcasting classes, where multiclassing in two or more gives you a MUCH wider range of spells and more spells per day (though of a lower level).  In my opinion it's driven by the company's (mostly correct) assumption that players seeking new and better advantages for their characters drive a large portion of the sales, so each new edition, book, etc. has something slightly MORE powerful or slightly MORE advantageous than everything that's come before to tempt people into buying. ”

     I think he says it very well.


----------



## welby (Jul 20, 2004)

I too, think he said it very well.


----------



## Scion (Jul 20, 2004)

I'll repost my response to this on your other thread 

''
Of course the feat only works if you are lacking in levels of caster. doing any sort of multiclassing really destroys the abilities of a caster.

In order to make use of the feat you have to give up several levels of spellcaster, the primary loss of which is spell levels. This feat does nothing for that.

Vs the primary caster the person with this feat is one feat down just to maybe be caught up in spell penetration and pick up some other benefits, all of which could be gained by the necklace of prayer beads without needing to give up a feat or levels.

I think it is pretty strong, but the stronger it gets then the weaker caster you are to begin with. A feat to let your single level of whatever caster be able to actually be useful at higher levels sounds good. Being able to get mage armor to last longer is pretty much a nonissue though, there are many ways around this that are cheaper than spending a feat.

Anyway though, here is another thread you may find interesting.

http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=93231
''

In addition to that though, your players response the multiclassed character is paying for the extra power, with a feat. They get some extra range, some more penetration, and other such things.. but they have to just keep on paying.

For the theurge he might have to spend two feats simply to get his spells up to the penetrating level that the primary caster has anyway. So again he has to just keep on paying just to keep up in some ways. He is still behind in spell levels though and that is the huge cost that they continue to suffer.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> Multiclassing is SUPPOSED to have disadvantages to offset the advantages of greater versatility.  This is especially important for spellcasting classes, where multiclassing in two or more gives you a MUCH wider range of spells and more spells per day (though of a lower level).




The thing is that the wider range of spells just doesn't compensate for what you're losing.

A Cleric8/Wizard8 is casting Cure Critical Wounds and Dimension Door.  A Clr16 is casting _Mass_ Cure Critical Wounds and Earthquake.  A Wiz16 is casting Polymorph Any Object and Greater Teleport.

Compare that to a multiclassed non-caster.  A Ftr8/Rog8 or Bbn8/Rgr8 isn't really any weaker than a straight-classed non-caster.  

Multiclassing a caster using the PHB only doesn't give advantages commensurate with the loss of both caster levels and spell levels.  The Theurge, Eldritch Knight, and Arcane Trickster help,  Practised Spellcaster helps, to redress this.

Comparing PS to Spell Penetration doesn't really apply.

Let's say I have a halfling rogue, 8 Strength, 16 Dex.  I take Weapon Finesse.

My attack bonus with finessable weapons just jumped 4 points!  That's four times the bonus Weapon Focus gives... twice as much as if I had _Greater_ Weapon Focus as well, a high-level Fighter feat!  Does that make Weapon Finesse overpowered?

Well, let's see.  Third level rogue - BAB +2.  Weapon Finesse, +3.  Size bonus, +1.  Total, +6.

Compare that to the fighter.  BAB +3.  Weapon Focus, +1.  Str bonus, +3.  Total +6.

So the rogue's attack bonus is not unbalanced for his level.

The Practised Spellcaster may gain a +4 bonus to his Spell Penetration checks... but only if his Spell Penetration bonus was already at least 4 less than a straight-class caster.  For a character of his level, his Spell Penetration check is not unbalanced.

Sure, it's better than a straight-PHB multiclassed caster.  But he's still not casting Trap the Soul, and that's the true advantage of the straight-class caster.

-Hyp.


----------



## Pax (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> First off, this feat is useless towards any non-multiclassed spellcaster, so remember I am talking about multiclassed characters since this would be the only one capable of using it.



  However, as it is intended solely to help ease the expense of *being* a multiclass spellcaster, compariosn _to_ single-class casters is still relevant.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> Using a character out of my personal campaign I’m running (Rog4/Wiz5/Arcane Trickster3) who just reached 12th level and chose Spell Penetration as his feat. Spell Penetration grants a caster a +2 on his checks to defeat an opponents SR. If at 12th he would have instead taken the Practiced Spellcaster feat it would have granted him a bonus of +4 caster level (not effecting spells cast per day or known, but effecting checks versus SR) which is basically as if he had received a doubled Spell Penetration feat at the cost of a single feat! That seems way too much.



  It may seemlike it, but it's not.  You are essentially, sans _practised spellcaster_, already 4 points *behind* everyone else in terms of penetrating SR - as well as in terms of dispelling others' spells, and resisting their attempts to dispel *your* spells.

  All this, on *top* of the loss of spells-per-day and maximum spell level - in the case of yoru example, that character can only cast spells of 4th level or lower, while his peers are casting fifth and *sixth* level spells- *and* they get more of the 1st-through-4th level spells per day than you do, *besides*.

  Compare your Roge/Wizard/Twinkster with Practised Spellcaster ... to a Wizard(12) with Spell Penetration (the "other" choice for 12th level, in your example).  The single-class wizard has two extra levels of spells, an extra Wizard bonus feat, a much better familiar, and rolls 1d20+14 to penetrate spell resistance.  Further, he has slightly more spells of 1st to 4th level to playwith, as well.  Meanwhile, the multiclass Twinkster gives those higher spell levels up in return for some sneak attack, uncanny dodge, and evasion; he rolls 1d20+12 to penetrate SR.

_Practised Spellcaster_ is meant to be useful to multiclassed spellcasters; it's one of *several* _options_ available to allow GMs to make playing a multiclassed spellcaster more tenable/viable.

  One is to allow such Prestige Classes as the Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, and so on.

  A second option is to use the Magic Rating rules from Unearthed Arcana.

  The _third_ option is to permit the _Practised Spellcaster_ feat.

  And IMO, no GM should ever allow _multiple_ solutions from the above list to be taken.  Pick *one*, and onlyone, and _stick_ with it for your campaign.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> Feats shouldn’t exist that allow you to take one and receive the benefits of two others. And what is worse is the player could still choose to take Spell Penetration and the Greater version at a later level and they would all stack.



  Okay, so for three *or more* feats, such a character can _merely equal_ what takes the single-classed spellcaster only two feats to accomplish.  And they're _still_ down in spells-per-day and maximum spell level castable.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> Also, for some reason I’ve noticed a lot of players who play fighters like to take one level of sorcerer so they can cast shield and mage armor. So let’s use a Ftr5/Sor1 (with minimum charisma required, so a Cha11) as an example.



My response to this is ... *so what?*  And that's all well and good for _mage armor_, but you *claimed* the multiclass selection occurred so that the character could cast _shield_, not _mage armor_.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> Now that I have brought up the Extend Spell feat, in a way isn’t the Practiced Spellcaster feat basically affecting the Extend Spell feat the same way the Haste spell was towards Quicken Spell in 3rd edition?



  Only with such abysmally low innate casterlevels.  At caster level 4 (pre-feat), you get the same benefit on X/level duration spells.  At caster level 10, you get much less.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> There are a lot of ways to use the Quicken spell feat but I heard a lot of “why take that feat when I can just cast haste?”



  That occurred only because Quicken's cost is greater than the un-metamagicked spell level of Haste.  IF haste were an 8th level spell ro such, you'd've seen far fewer people prefer haste to Quicken.  Similarly, if quicken had cost only +2.  *shrug*



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> In a way this takes away from several of the metamagic feats, not just the Extend Spell feat.



  And most multiclassed spellcasters that *care* about their spellcasting, will take *both* the metamagics _and_ the _Practised Spellcaster_ feat.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> “Since the advent of 3.5 WotC has been trying to take away most of the disadvantages of multiclassing through feats (like this one), prestige classes (Mystic Theurge) and other rule changes.  I think it's completely ridiculous and over-powered.  Multiclassing is SUPPOSED to have disadvantages to offset the advantages of greater versatility.



  The problem with this assumption is this: Base Attack Bonus.

  A Fighter who multiclasses into Rogue _gets to stack their base attack bonus_.  Fighter(8)/Rogue(12) doesn't have a lot of "disadvantages" associated with it.

  But Fighter(8)/Wizard(12) is an emasculated waste of time; can't fight very well, can't cast offensive spells worth *diddly*, and generally isn't worth the levels.  Seriously.

  Give him Practised Spellcaster - even *twice* - and he's still not going to be casting the high-end attack spells the Wizard(20) can pull off.  But at least his lower-end spells ar as likely to *connect* despite SR, and at least his lower-level buffs and protective spells won't wear off in just over half the time of the dedicated spellcaster.

  Trade 7th through 9th level spells for a big BAB increase, more hitpoints, and muchbetter weapon proficiency options?  Heck, yeah - *if* my spellcasting will still _matter_, and *if* multiclassing is the way I want to go with the character.

  But if doing so makes my ability to cast spells pointless ... no, I'd *never* take that route.  Period.  End of story.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> This is especially important for spellcasting classes, where multiclassing in two or more gives you a MUCH wider range of spells and more spells per day (though of a lower level).



  Ten, twenty, or even FIFTY second-level spells won't equal a SINGLE eighth or ninth level spell, whencompounded by a six-or-more point disadvantage in penetrating SR.

  Sure, sure, a Cleric(3)/Wizard(3)/Theurge(5) has a LOT more first-level spells than either the Cleric(11) or Wizard(11).  But he doesn't have 5th or 6th level spells, _and_ is 3 points behind on SR rolls for *both* "flavors" of magic, as well as having slightly lower per-spell healing potential, slightly less damage per offensive spell (8d6 per fireball, instead of 10d6 (11d6 with the right feat, in fact).

  Also keep in mind, IMO, the Theurge class should *not* be allowed in the same campaign as _Practised Spellcaster_.  Disregarding that, however, Spell Penetration woudl STILL be the preferable spell for them to select ... since it'd benefit BOTH spellcasting classes, where Practised Spellcaster would benefit only one.




			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> I think he says it very well.



  And I disagree - at least as regards the _Practised Spellcaster_ feat.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 20, 2004)

First off, let me apologize for starting this thread without first searching to see if there was one already started. I am new to this board and failed to think of this. My apologies.

     Secondly, in regards to not being able to cast the higher level spells as a multiclassed character, I would think that at the time of character creation the player would have thought of this beforehand. Let’s say I want to make a multiclassed character and go the route of Arcane Trickster, Bladesinger, Spellsword, or whatever. My main focus isn’t primarily spells, granted I’m not saying I don’t want access to the higher level spells, but when I created the character I should have known or realized I may never have access to them due to my choice of multiclassing. The fact that I may never cast Wish, Permanency, Heal, and the other high level spells  shouldn’t be considered as a penalty to being multiclassed, the player should know that when he/she made their choice to play a multiclassed character. That was the players’ choice. And typically when a player multiclassed it is usually for the versatility of spellcasting they wish to add to their character. Such as a ftr/wiz, rog/sor, clr/ftr, and so on. Usually their primary focus isn’t spellcasting, though this isn’t always the case.

     Take for instance the Arcane Trickster in my campaign that I have already mentioned. His primary focus is the accumulation of wealth, in whatever means, and he tends to use his spellcasting abilities to benefit this goal.  That is not to say he doesn’t use his spells offensively, this is the case versus opponents he doesn’t wish to move into melee with or when there is a lot of lesser opponents he can blast. He doesn’t complain about his lesser casting ability, it doesn’t seem to bother him. Lack of more gold though does.

@Pax
  “   but you claimed the multiclass selection occurred so that the character could cast shield, not mage armor. “

     Reread what you quoted me as saying, it specifically says they take one level of sorcerer so they can cast shield and mage armor, no where did I say they could only cast shield.

@Hypersmurf

     Though your make a good point with your Weapon Finesse example, it isn’t the same. The Practiced Spellcasting feat gives a lot more bonuses than just the +4 to SR. It adjusts damage, duration, range, and other effects related to caster level. Using your example in comparison would be like saying Weapon Finesse also changes the damage of the weapon, BAB, and size. The Practiced Spellcaster feat has benefits that resemble Spell Penetration, Extend Spell, Heighten Spell, Enlarge Spell, and probably a few others I can’t think of right now. Weapon Finesse deals only in which ability you use, not multiple benefits that could be gained by several other feats. This one feat grants the player benefits in multiple ways, and that is way too much in my opinion.

     One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character, that is a choice the player had to make during character creation. If the player sought access to higher level spells (7th-9th) than a pure spellcasting class should have been a more viable option.


----------



## Caliban (Jul 20, 2004)

I've seen multi-classed casters without the feat.   They are pretty nifty up until about 7th level or so.    After that, they become less and less enjoyable to play, because you simply cannot pull your weight in most dungeon crawling/combat situations.   Outside of combat they can still be effective, if they are built correctly, but often not even then.

The practised spellcaster feat looks powerful on paper, but in practice it is not.  It simply makes multi-classed spellcasters playable at higher levels, instead of underpowered.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character, that is a choice the player had to make during character creation.




Let's say I take a Commoner all the way through to level 15.

It's pretty much a given that I'll be weaker than the Wiz15, the Ftr15, and the Rog15.

Now let's say we create a feat that grants +3 to BAB and to all saves.

This is obviously supremely overpowered.

But let's say we give it a prerequisite of "15th level Commoner".

Even with that feat, the character still has a lower BAB and lower saves than a 15th level monk... and lower hit dice... and no class features... etc, etc.

Sure, it grants the equivalent (and better) of the Iron Will, Lightning Reflexes, and Great Fortitude feats.  It's _better_ than Greater Weapon Focus with all weapons.

Nevertheless, with the prerequisite, it _still_ results in a 15th level character who'll get his ass kicked by any other 15th level PC in town.

But hey... I chose to be a Commoner, so that's not a penalty.

Allowing a Fighter to take this feat would be lunacy.  But he can't.

Allowing a straight-class caster to take a feat for +4 caster levels would be crazy.  But he can't.  Practised Spellcaster _doesn't_ give him the equivalent of Spell Penetration, Extend Spell, Widen Spell, Empower Spell, etc, etc.  It gives him nothing.

It only provides a benefit to a character who is otherwise weak.  Just like my hypothetical SuperCommoner feat.

-Hyp.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jul 20, 2004)

I'd love to know what this feat is doing in a game where the Eldritch Knight can be found in a core book.

This takes away most of the only real disadvantage of being an eldritch knight. Did they think it was too weak? Wasn't that something that should have been discovered when they playtested the eldritch knight?


----------



## Ourph (Jul 20, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> It only provides a benefit to a character who is otherwise weak.




The only multiclass spellcasters who are "weak" are those who expect to have the benefits of levels in some other class and still perform as well in spell combat as a single classed caster.

Most multiclass casters I've seen use their spellcasting abilities to enhance the abilities of their primary class, NOT as direct attacks.  Used that way, their spell abilities are exactly where they should be.  The one level sorcerer casting Mage Armor and Shield is a good example.  So is the Wizard/Rogue casting Mage Armor, Shield, Cat's Grace and Invisibility.  A Wiz3/Rog7 is much better at Rogueish stuff than a 10th level Wizard and much better at powering himself up with spells than a 10th level Rogue, but he's not as good at Rogue stuff as a 10th level Rogue and he's not as good at spellcasting as a 10th level Wizard.  Guess what?  That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be!  Specialization = Power and Generlization = Flexibility.  It's supposed to be a trade-off.  Any multiclass caster who expects to be performing just as well (or nearly as well) as a single class caster in straight up spell combat vs. a creature with SR is asking to have his cake and eat it too.

Complaining that a Wiz/Rog isn't as good at overcoming SR as a straight Wiz is like complaining that a Ftr/Rog doesn't have as high a BAB as a straight Ftr or a Clr/Ftr isn't as good at turning undead as a straight Clr.  Of course they aren't, you have to give up SOMETHING when you get sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge.  You have to give up SOMETHING when you're getting extra feats, extra HP and martial weapon proficiencies.  

If this feat is balanced, then the next Rogue book should contain a feat giving a +4 bonus to all Rogue class skills for multiclass Rogues.  The next Fighter book should contain a feat giving a +2 BAB for multiclass Fighters.  The next Druid book should contain a feat giving a +4 equivalent class level for determining the HD of animal companions for multiclass Druids.

If the goal is to take away the drawbacks to multi-classing, let's at least be thorough.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jul 20, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If the goal is to take away the drawbacks to multi-classing, let's at least be thorough.




You seem to be missing the point, non-caster/non-caster multi-classing combos aren't as debilitating as the caster/non-caster multi-classed characters. 

Nothing wrong with this feat at all, though perhaps the fundamental need for such a feat to make caster/non-caster multiclassing more viable does appear to be a flaw in the system...

edit- instead of just bantering all day I'd like to see someone *show * how this feat is broken by posting a character build using this feat for all to peruse and look at. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke fellas.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 20, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If this feat is balanced, then the next Rogue book should contain a feat giving a +4 bonus to all Rogue class skills for multiclass Rogues.



Skill ranks stack. Caster level doesn't.




> The next Fighter book should contain a feat giving a +2 BAB for multiclass Fighters.



BAB stacks. Caster level doesn't.




> The next Druid book should contain a feat giving a +4 equivalent class level for determining the HD of animal companions for multiclass Druids.



This at least makes sense, and would be useful to a high level multiclassed druid, so that his animal companion doesn't die in the first round of combat.  Same for paladins and their special mounts.




> If the goal is to take away the drawbacks to multi-classing, let's at least be thorough.



My experience (and of course, YMMV) is that spellcasters lose more than other classes when multiclassing because they get hit in three areas:

1. Caster level
2. Spells per day
3. Access to higher level spells

Practised Spellcaster only solves the first problem.  Multiclassed spellcasters still face a trade-off because they have fewer and less powerful spells than a straight spellcaster.

However, if you are using some kind of Magic Rating system (such as the one in Unearthed Arcana) so that fighter levels increase your spellcaster levels in the same way that wizard levels increase your BAB, then I would agree there is no need for such a feat.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 20, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> If this feat is balanced, then the next Rogue book should contain a feat giving a +4 bonus to all Rogue class skills for multiclass Rogues.  The next Fighter book should contain a feat giving a +2 BAB for multiclass Fighters.




If I multiclass a rogue with a high-skill class like a bard or ranger, you hardly notice the difference.

If I multiclass a fighter with a full-BAB class like a ranger or barbarian, he doesn't feel a thing.

If I multiclass a wizard with a primary arcane caster like a sorcerer... oops!  He still loses out on everything that makes a high-level wizard powerful.

-Hyp.


----------



## hong (Jul 20, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Most multiclass casters I've seen use their spellcasting abilities to enhance the abilities of their primary class, NOT as direct attacks.




And they still suck.



> Used that way, their spell abilities are exactly where they should be.  The one level sorcerer casting Mage Armor and Shield is a good example.  So is the Wizard/Rogue casting Mage Armor, Shield, Cat's Grace and Invisibility.




The only spell worth keeping there for the long term is shield. Everything else becomes irrelevant by about 10th level or so.



> A Wiz3/Rog7 is much better at Rogueish stuff than a 10th level Wizard and much better at powering himself up with spells than a 10th level Rogue, but he's not as good at Rogue stuff as a 10th level Rogue and he's not as good at spellcasting as a 10th level Wizard.




Which, in a game as devoted to niche specialisation as D&D, is pretty much tantamount to saying that character is crap.



> Guess what?  That's the way it's SUPPOSED to be!  Specialization = Power and Generlization = Flexibility.




The measure of interest, most of the time, is not individual flexibility. It's group flexibility, meaning what the _party as a whole_ can do. From that point of view, a party with a multiclassed spellcaster is very often less flexible than if that character was replaced by a specialised one. It doesn't matter how many times you can cast expeditious retreat, lesser restoration or invisibility, it doesn't make up for not being able to cast teleport, greater restoration, or greater invisibility. Even if a party already has all these bases covered, it never hurts to have more people who can do the job.



> It's supposed to be a trade-off.  Any multiclass caster who expects to be performing just as well (or nearly as well) as a single class caster in straight up spell combat vs. a creature with SR is asking to have his cake and eat it too.




It appears to have escaped your attention that caster level affects more than just SR checks.



> Complaining that a Wiz/Rog isn't as good at overcoming SR as a straight Wiz is like complaining that a Ftr/Rog doesn't have as high a BAB as a straight Ftr or a Clr/Ftr isn't as good at turning undead as a straight Clr.  Of course they aren't, you have to give up SOMETHING when you get sneak attack, evasion, uncanny dodge.




And you do. You give up higher level spells. Being able to cast a zillion invisibility spells just doesn't really make up for not casting greater invis.



> You have to give up SOMETHING when you're getting extra feats, extra HP and martial weapon proficiencies.




Clr/ftr is one of the multiclass spellcasting combos that probably doesn't suck as hard as most, due to the strong synergy between cleric and fighter. You can't say that about most others.


----------



## Darklone (Jul 20, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I'd love to know what this feat is doing in a game where the Eldritch Knight can be found in a core book.
> 
> This takes away most of the only real disadvantage of being an eldritch knight. Did they think it was too weak? Wasn't that something that should have been discovered when they playtested the eldritch knight?



Ehem... the Eldritch knight IS in a corebook???


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> “Since the advent of 3.5 WotC has been trying to take away most of the disadvantages of multiclassing through feats (like this one), prestige classes (Mystic Theurge) and other rule changes. I think it's completely ridiculous and over-powered. Multiclassing is SUPPOSED to have disadvantages to offset the advantages of greater versatility. This is especially important for spellcasting classes, where multiclassing in two or more gives you a MUCH wider range of spells and more spells per day (though of a lower level). In my opinion it's driven by the company's (mostly correct) assumption that players seeking new and better advantages for their characters drive a large portion of the sales, so each new edition, book, etc. has something slightly MORE powerful or slightly MORE advantageous than everything that's come before to tempt people into buying. ”
> 
> I think he says it very well.



 I think he completely missed the point. 

 Yes, there are plenty options to make multiclassed spellcasters better via feats or prestige classes.

 There is a reason, why these are especially aimed towards multiclassed spellcasters, and that is, simply put, that multiclassed spellcasters suck.

 Ok, now that's a bit harsh and surely not true for every single multiclassed spellcaster, but take for example a cleric/wizard, who takes both classes at an equal level. This character will be about as good as a 14th level character at level 20.

 Yes, multiclassing adds versatility and takes away specialization, but multiclassing normally stacks. Hit points, BAB, saves, skills, feats, all these just add up, if you go towards a fighting class, BAB and hit points increase faster, if you go towards a skill class, skills increase faster. With multiclassing you control how fast these aspects of your character improve, and which you want to give more weight to.

 However, spellcasting does not stack in any way with any other class, even other spellcasting classes.

 There is no improvement, if you advance in other classes, and without an increase in caster level, many of the spells become completely useless later.

 That's why there are so many options to improve multiclassed spellcasters, because they are needed to make like 80% of the multiclassed spellcasters viable (pretty much everything but the 1-2 levels of one and 18-19 levels of the other, which works fine without any such options).

 Yes, Practiced Spellcaster is obviously better than Spell Penetration, if you have at least two levels of a non-spellcaster class, but that doesn't make it a better feat. For every pure caster it isn't even an option, because the feat won't do anything at all. A multiclassed spellcaster would pick Spell Penetration for the sole reason to keep his offensive spells useful at higher levels, but it isn't really enough to achieve this. In fact, these two feats aren't even compareable, since they are something completely different. Spell Penetration lets you increase your ability to punch through spell resistance beyond your level limit, while Practiced Spellcaster allows you to keep your ability at your level limit, so that the loss of spell levels doesn't result in too many penalties, as it would otherwise (lower caster level, lower spell level, lower spells per day).

 Practiced Spellcaster is meant to lessen the impact of multiclassing on the spellcasters, since that impact is *too high* normally.

 And it achieves this in a very sensible and balanced way, I might add.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Darklone said:
			
		

> Ehem... the Eldritch knight IS in a corebook???



  Uhm... maybe you should reread that post... 

 EDIT: And yes, the DMG is considered a core book. 

  Bye
  Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I'd love to know what this feat is doing in a game where the Eldritch Knight can be found in a core book.
> 
> This takes away most of the only real disadvantage of being an eldritch knight. Did they think it was too weak? Wasn't that something that should have been discovered when they playtested the eldritch knight?



 Practiced Spellcaster does _not_ take away the real disadvantage of being an Eldritch Knight, which is, that you are always two levels below a pure caster in terms of spell level and spells per day.

 What it does (and that wouldn't even apply to every Eldritch Knight), is, to keep the caster level high, so your spells will have the appropriate effect for your character level.

 With buffs that are highly dependant on level, this is very important, since otherwise the benefit of being an Eldritch Knight is lessened too much compared to the still huge and continuously increasing disadvantage of being one full spell level behind in spellcasting ability.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## glass (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> ...One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character...




Not a penalty? Seriously?


glass.


----------



## Vrecknidj (Jul 20, 2004)

So BAB and saves have this "stackability" feature that makes multiclassing so simple for certain combinations (fighter/rogue, etc.).  And, there is no such similar "stackability" for spells (per day, known, or caster level).

There's no need for a Ftr/Rog to take a prestige class (compare to mystic theurge) or a feat (compare to practised spellcaster) to continue to take full advantage of the two classes.  Sure, a Ftr5/Rog4 doesn't have as good a BAB as a Ftr9, but it's better than a Rog9's BAB.

Since so much rides on caster level for spellcasters, there should be a similar progression system.  It may seem that this is a bad idea, that a Clr5/Wiz5 shouldn't have a caster level of 10.  But, a Rgr5/Ftr5 has a "fighter level" of 10 (as does a Bbn6/Rgr4, etc., etc.).

Similarly, a Clr8/Pal8 might have a caster level of 12.  Perhaps the bard's "effective caster level" should be 2/3 of his level since his top spell is 6th level--I'm not sure about the poor bard.

But, there might be a way to house-rule this so that feats and prestige classes aren't required.

In the campaigns I run, there are far fewer PC spellcasters than there were in 2e or 1e.

Dave


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 20, 2004)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Methos of Aundair
> ...One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character...
> 
> ...




     I do not mind you quoting my statements but when you do please include the whole sentence, not just the part you want.


----------



## Liquidsabre (Jul 20, 2004)

Vrecknidj said:
			
		

> But, there might be a way to house-rule this so that feats and prestige classes aren't required.




Yes, that would be interesting.  Somehow to tie caster level to character level when multiclassing as a matter of core rules. 

"Multi-classed spellcasters, either a spellcaster taking a level in a non-caster class or PrC, or a non-caster who multiclasses into a spellcasting class, determines their caster level as 2/3 of their character level for all spell effects, durations, ranges, etc." 

I see the Practised Spellcaster feat as a nice "live" testing ground for such a concept and WotC designers will be watching and learning how it affects gameplay for multi-classed spellcasters. We'll likely see something like this done in D&D's next rules incarnation. But for now, well, that's a topic for another forum.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character, that is a choice the player had to make during character creation. If the player sought access to higher level spells (7th-9th) than a pure spellcasting class should have been a more viable option.



  Yeah, you trade in high level spell power for something else.

 But by lowering your spellcasting class level this way, you obtain three "penalties"... lower spell level (surely the biggest one), lower spells per day and lower caster level.

 You listed the Arcane Trickster as an example of how multiclassed spellcasters work fine, if I got you right there. But isn't that what you actually complain about? That there are feats and PrC to increase the capability of multiclassed spellcasters. The Arcane Trickster is one of those. It's purely meant to make the rogue/wizard concepts more viable, as much as the Eldritch Knight makes the fighter/wizard (or sorcerer) concepts more viable and the Mystic Theurge makes the cleric/wizard concepts more viable. And the Practiced Spellcaster feat makes all multiclassed spellcaster concepts more viable.

 Of course, it is a very good feat choice for a character like the Arcane Trickster, who is already quite good, as it gives him more choices for spells, which will be useful (offensive spells). Does this make the character overpowered? I don't think so. Having played two Arcane Tricksters from 1st to 19th and 15th level respectively, I think I have a fair share of experience with that class. And I think, that the spellcasting ability is not enough at higher levels without a feat like this. And the Arcane Trickster is surely one of the best PrC for multiclassed spellcasters out there.

 For the Mystic Theurge, it's probably even necessary to have him even keep up with a pure cleric or wizard. Mystic Theurge really isn't one of the hottest character concepts out there. We currently have a Mystic Theurge in our campaign, and the character was incredibly weak until now (a lot weaker than the paladin, bard, barbarian, or sorceress). With Practiced Spellcaster, the character suddenly became capable of achieving something, which he was pretty much unable to do so before.

  I think that's a good thing. 

  Tough enough, that he has to spend one of his precious feats to actually get there!

  Bye
  Thanee

 P.S. I also think that the multiclassing rules will have to be changed in 4.0, there is more than enough evidence, that they don't work properly when it comes to spellcasting.


----------



## glass (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> I do not mind you quoting my statements but when you do please include the whole sentence, not just the part you want.




I quoted the part I had an issue with, and indicated with ellipses that it was a partial quote. And I reapeat the question. Seriously?


glass.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

He just meant that the loss of spell level is not a penalty in the way, that it penalizes the character as a whole, but just some part that is removed and replaced by something else.

 It's a disadvantage compared to a pure caster, but a pure caster does not get what you have gained instead either.

 So, I guess, you two are just talking about two different things here. 

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## glass (Jul 20, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> He just meant that the loss of spell level is not a penalty in the way, that it penalizes the character as a whole, but just some part that is removed and replaced by something else.
> 
> It's a disadvantage compared to a pure caster, but a pure caster does not get what you have gained instead either.




I suppose it's a philosophical question as to whether a penalty balanced by a comparable advantage is no longer a penalty.

Of course, I (and apparently most other people) believe a multiclassed spellcaster gives up far more than he gets back, so there is still a penalty, however you cut it.


glass.


----------



## ARandomGod (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> One last time, I do not feel that not having access to the higher level spells is a penalty to a multiclassed character, that is a choice the player had to make during character creation. If the player sought access to higher level spells (7th-9th) than a pure spellcasting class should have been a more viable option.




Wait...
It's not a penalty of multiclassing because you should have known of this penalty to multiclassing before you multiclassed, therefore making it not a penalty...
But, since no penalty exists you couldn't have known about it before getting it, but then it WOULD exist, so it couldn't have existed in the first place.

"I *need* taco's. Or my head will explode. That happens to me sometimes."


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 20, 2004)

Another use for this feat is for single classed rangers, paladins or hexblades (who cast as if 1/2 their level normally).  An 8th level paladin with this feat would  cast as if an 8th level spellcaster, which would be useful for some spells, and for magic item creation.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 20, 2004)

@thanee

     You partially understand what I am saying but let me try and clarify. I have no problems with the Arcane Trickster, I merely used him as an example since a character in my campaign is playing one. So far, we are at 12th level currently, he hasn't complained about his spell capability nor that he is lagging behind the party's wizard. He seems to be enjoying his character and his primary focus isn't spellcasting. I was joking how his focus was on the accumulation of wealth, or that he didn't have enough of it. My "complaint" has more to do with all the benefits gained by the Practiced Spellcaster feat. I believe the player gains more benefit from this feat than is deserved by the purchase of a single feat. Most feats in the core books have one benefit, whereas the PS feat has multiple benefits.

     Sorry if this is choppy, I work graveyard shift and since I can't sleep thought I'd check the thread.


----------



## apsuman (Jul 20, 2004)

I don't know EXACTLY what Practiced Spellcaster does as I don't have the book.  But let me say the following:

I personally have no problem with feats that allow certain features of the next higher character level now.  For example, a feat that gives +1 BAB, not a +1 luck/insight/enhancement bonus, but +1 BAB.  So a first level fighter could have a +2 bab for the cost of a feat.  

Or a feat that gives the next level's saves now.

Or a feat that gives the next level's skill points now.

Or a feat that gives the next level's hit points now.

Or a feat that give higher turning level to a cleric type now.

Or a feat that gives one level higher spell caster for purposes of learning/casting spells now.

And even make these feats so you can take them more than once.

All that to say, multiclass or not I could see (in spirit) how to make the feat work and I could see how it would be a miserable failure.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 20, 2004)

@glass

     And yes, I agree with my statement seriously. Basically what I am saying is if I choose to play a multiclassed spellcaster I go into it knowing that more than likely I will never have access to high level spells. I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus. If I choose to play a multiclassed character I understand the above statements and therefore how can I consider not having access to high level spells a penalty when it was a choice I made at character creation with the full knowledge of what that would entail.

     Basically, how can I penalize myself when it was a choice I made with the full understanding of its consequences? Obviously, this is my opinion.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 20, 2004)

It seems like this thread is turning more into the disadvantages of a multiclassed spellcaster and how the Practiced Spellcaster feat helps alleviate that. I would like to instead point out the benefits of the PS feat and how those benefits replicate other feats.

1. Caster level receives a bonus of up to +4. This bonus is included with checks versus Dispel, Greater Dispel, and SR. In terms of SR it resembles the Spell Penetration and its greater version.

2. Effects duration as if the caster were up to 4 levels higher. At lower levels this could increase your duration up to 5x normal (when actual level is 1), though as you rise in level this drops (at 16th level the percentage increase is only 25%). This benefit resembles that of the Extend Spell feat, though the difference in duration isn’t the same, with the Extend Spell feat you have to cast the spell at 1 level higher.

3. Range of spell, same as #2 only resembles the Enlarge Spell feat.

4. Spell damage. Though not quit like the Empower Spell feat it does somewhat resemble it. You are not getting quite the bonus of Empower but you are still able to add in up to 4 extra caster levels which affects damage dice.

     This may or may not be all the benefits of this spell, as stated earlier I’m tired and can’t sleep, but even if it is the whole list that is quite a lot for one single feat. Most feats in the core book grant one benefit, not 4. And this feat provides benefits that greatly resemble benefits from other feats, I don’t think that is balanced in my opinion. The player is gaining multiple benefits similar to other feats at the price of one feat and the player does not have to cast the spell at a higher level.

     I mentioned earlier how it seems like everyone is leaning towards attempting to balance a multiclassed spellcaster in some way, but in my opinion I do not believe by granting this feat it would be done in a way that is balanced. I understand people saying that they feel these disadvantages (in their opinion) should be fixed but not this way, and no, I don’t know how. Another topic maybe.

     Disclaimer: I ask these questions and bring up my points or observations because I wish to see how others view it, or so that I can see the topic in a different light. I am not attempting to state any of you are wrong, I’m just curious if there is something I am not seeing. Everything I say is in my opinion, and though I debate my opinion without appearing to consider that of yours I am in truth attempting to understand it.


----------



## Laman Stahros (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> @glass
> 
> And yes, I agree with my statement seriously. Basically what I am saying is if I choose to play a multiclassed spellcaster I go into it knowing that more than likely I will never have access to high level spells. I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus. If I choose to play a multiclassed character I understand the above statements and therefore how can I consider not having access to high level spells a penalty when it was a choice I made at character creation with the full knowledge of what that would entail.
> 
> Basically, how can I penalize myself when it was a choice I made with the full understanding of its consequences? Obviously, this is my opinion.



What I think you are missing here is that a Druid 5/Sorcerer 5 is still primarily a spellcaster and this feat (which I have allowed in my campaign and I have not seen any problems with it) would allow such a character to operate (within limits, of course) in his/her primary focus without severe and unreasonable limitations.


----------



## Scion (Jul 20, 2004)

Remember, all this feat does is alleviate part of a disadvantage. Feats that get rid of a disadvantage are almost invariably stronger than ones that give a benefit above and beyond.

Sure, someone who has taken four levels or more away from their casting class will get the most benefit out of it, but then all it is doing is helping them catch up a bit in usefulness. Trading a precious feat in for a bit of relaxing on the major penalties that was already set up.

Once you have given up 4 levels or more of a primary caster class anyway those spells are effectively not very useful in combat. There are exceptions of course, but most of the time you need the higher level spells to really be able to use them effectively. The main things that this feat gives you are: Better resistance to being dispelled, longer durations, and ability to actually penetrate SR sometimes.

Since it only helps to alleviate one of the penalties of multiclassing a spellcaster (and is by far not the worst penalty) I see no problem with it at all. Spending a feat (precious resource) to alleviate part of a penalty seems like a decent choice to make.

In the extreme examples above (1 level of caster/ X levels of some other class) taking this feat simply gives you enough duration to actually matter as levels go up. The character traded his feat simply to be able to use his abilities slightly more often. I see no problem. For this combo to work the character had to give up a level of whatever he was really going for in order to get one in the caster, this hit his performance in other areas, and then he had to spend a feat just to keep it somewhat useful as levels increased, adding to the cost even more. Sure it is worth it to some builds, but is it overpowered? nah, I think it is completely warrented. A great idea for a feat really.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 20, 2004)

Practiced Spellcaster

Prerequisite: YOu must teh suCk at speLlcasTing

Benefit: YOu teh suCk stiLl, but noT so bAD.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> My "complaint" has more to do with all the benefits gained by the Practiced Spellcaster feat. I believe the player gains more benefit from this feat than is deserved by the purchase of a single feat.




Can't really agree with that. Neither from my understanding of the rules, nor from practice.



> Most feats in the core books have one benefit, whereas the PS feat has multiple benefits.




Really? I think it has exactly one benefit.

It matches your caster level with your hit dice, as long as they are no more than 4 steps apart.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> It seems like this thread is turning more into the disadvantages of a multiclassed spellcaster and how the Practiced Spellcaster feat helps alleviate that. I would like to instead point out the benefits of the PS feat and how those benefits replicate other feats.




fine.



> 1. Caster level receives a bonus of up to +4. This bonus is included with checks versus Dispel, Greater Dispel, and SR. In terms of SR it resembles the Spell Penetration and its greater version.




Yeah, something that is badly necessary, if you face these things. Otherwise your magic is pretty ineffective. Been there, done that.



> 2. Effects duration as if the caster were up to 4 levels higher. At lower levels this could increase your duration up to 5x normal (when actual level is 1), though as you rise in level this drops (at 16th level the percentage increase is only 25%). This benefit resembles that of the Extend Spell feat, though the difference in duration isn’t the same, with the Extend Spell feat you have to cast the spell at 1 level higher.




This just raises the effect to an appropriate level.



> 3. Range of spell, same as #2 only resembles the Enlarge Spell feat.




Help me there... where does it allow you to break your (character) level limit? Enlarge Spell makes spells larger than they normally are. Practiced Spellcaster makes spells _as large_ as they normally are.



> 4. Spell damage. Though not quit like the Empower Spell feat it does somewhat resemble it. You are not getting quite the bonus of Empower but you are still able to add in up to 4 extra caster levels which affects damage dice.




Again, it just raises your spells to the appropriate level, and does not allow you to surpass it.



> This may or may not be all the benefits of this spell, as stated earlier I’m tired and can’t sleep, but even if it is the whole list that is quite a lot for one single feat.
> 
> ...




If you see it like this, you surely agree with me that Weapon Focus is broken.

It allows you to add +1 to a melee attack roll with a weapon, it allows you to resist disarm attempts easier, it allows you to Power Attack for more damage, it allows you to make trip attack easier (with some weapons only), and so on.

In fact, tho, it has just one effect, it gives you a +1 to hit.

In the same light Practiced Spellcaster has just one effect, it raises your caster level up to the number of your hit dice (limit of +4).

It is very purposefully chosen to be that powerful in comparison with other feats, that allow you to increase your abilities _beyond_ your level limit, since it does not do that, it only raises them to your level limit, but not beyond, which is what most other feats do.

That's the little difference here, which is so important.

Bye
Thanee

P.S. If you want to complain about a broken feat, complain about Skill Focus (Concentration), it's so much better than Combat Casting!


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus.




This is one option, but I guess there are about as many characters (if not more) that are the other way around, with spellcasting their primary focus and the "other class" (i.e. fighter, rogue, monk, paladin, ranger) their secondary focus. Usually you can afford only one or two levels in another class, but with prestige classes specifically tailored to your needs, or with Practiced Spellcaster (or both) you can afford more than that and go for a more natural multiclassing, where you increase your abilities in both, just slower (away from the 1/x multiclassing).

Examples how these characters can work are in the DMG in the Prestige Class section (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight). Those are most definitely not secondary spellcasters, since their casting ability surpasses their other abilities (and their spellcaster levels surpass their other class levels usually). They are not pure spellcasters, however.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 20, 2004)

While I generally agree that multiclassed spellcasters are weak, even with the workarounds allowed by the MT and EK (though some others didn't seem to agree last time this came up; whew!), I do think Pax has an excellent point. Just as 3.5 slapped down save DCs (nerfing Spell Focus/GSF), then slapped them down again (nerfing spell power), thereby probably going too far, 3.5 has also seemed to add perhaps one too many options to make multiclassing viable. 

For example, as it stands, the MT is weaker than a straight wizard for the following reasons:

1) Lack of bonus feats
2) Lack of familiar progression
3) Multiple stat dependency
4) Lack of access to higher-level spells
5) Lower caster level

In return, the MT gets the following:

1) extra hit points
2) domain powers
3) 10 levels of cleric spellcasting

What does that really mean? Well, the important advantages/disadvantages really _mean_ the following:

ADVANTAGES OF MT:
Flexibility of spellcasting, arcane/divine spell synergies, lots of lower-level spells

DISADVANTAGES OF MT:
Trouble beating SR, lack of access to higher-level spells

Practiced Spellcaster means that one of the MT's two major disadvantages goes away. That's a big deal. With PS, the MT only loses out on access to higher-level spells. At low levels, that's probably a big enough deal to balance the class out (spell penetration's also not so important at those levels), but by Clr3/Wiz3/MT 10, the only disadvantage of the class is lack of access to 8th-level spells. That seems a bit sketchy to me, though I don't know how it'd play out in practice. But anyway, I think Pax has a good point in that it may be imprudent to allow multiple options for improving multiclassed spellcasting; picking one and sticking to it seems safer.


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Jul 20, 2004)

Giving away my $.02 opinion for free, IMC, I made "Practiced Spellcaster" a 1st-level only feat (no prereqs) for characters who wanted to develop multi-class casters.  This makes it a tougher choice for folks who aren't entirely serious about the spellcasting ability at the start of the game and ensures that a Mystic Theurge can't take it for each of their base classes so that they're still almost as limited as originally intended.  So far, we've got one PC and one NPC with it and -- other than giving us way too many numbers to keep track of with regards to HD vs. Casting Spells As vs. Caster Level -- I think it's a great feat to make otherwise painful cross-class PrCs (like Arcane Trickster, especially) more attainable.

My only question would be... Could I take a Rogue 5/Assassin 7 and, getting Craft Wonderous Item from his assassin spells and using Practiced Spellcaster to boost his Assassin caster level to 11, turn him into a Lich?  That'd be fun!  But also horribly horribly unbalanced and wrong with regards as to who all is supposed to be able to become a lich and who all _isn't_.

Cheers,
::Kaze


----------



## Greatwyrm (Jul 20, 2004)

I don't think Practiced Spellcaster is all that bad, but I think the fact that it needed to be made is the problem in the first place.  I think if the spellcasting system was more unified, like in _Midnight_  or _Arcana Unearthed_ , things would be a little easier for the multiclassed spellcaster.

For example, if you had spellcaster levels stack in the first place (+1 for full casters like Wizards, +1/2 for others like Rangers), this would work better.  If you had a Wiz 5/Clr 3, you'd have access to spells as a Wiz 5 and a Clr 3, but cast all your spells as if you were 8th level.

Of course, this doesn't really help the Ftr/Wiz.  Oh well, back to the notepad...


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> Practiced Spellcaster means that one of the MT's two major disadvantages goes away. That's a big deal. With PS, the MT only loses out on access to higher-level spells.




Erm, you are aware that a Mystic Theurge can do _nothing_ but cast spells, aren't you?

Nothing, at all.

Their primary and only ability is to cast spells. They _should_ at least be decent doing it, and they simply are not with a caster level lagging three points behind that of real spellcasters.

In our campaign (started before Complete Divine was out), my Sorceress was easily twice as powerful as our Mystic Theurge (and that is not an overstatement). Now he has replaced one of his two Spell Foci with Practiced Spellcaster and suddenly became a character that can at least halfway keep up with the rest of the party. No, he's far from being overpowered, I'd still say his casting ability is overall weaker than that of my Sorceress, but that's a fair price to pay for the added flexibility, whereas before it was just laughable.

A Mystic Theurge without Practiced Spellcaster is a complete whimp!

Even with Practiced Spellcaster they lack access to higher level spells (always 1.5 spell levels behind), and this is not "only lack", because that _is_ a big deal for a primary and pure spellcaster. It's about the biggest penalty you could assign to them.



> ...but by Clr3/Wiz3/MT 10, the only disadvantage of the class is lack of access to 8th-level spells.




You don't seem to realize how much of a difference one spell level makes at these levels. It's huge, really.

Bye
Thanee

@Mr. Kaze: A human could still pick it twice then, or not?


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Greatwyrm said:
			
		

> Of course, this doesn't really help the Ftr/Wiz.  Oh well, back to the notepad...




Heh. Check the house rules forum. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 20, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> You don't seem to realize how much of a difference one spell level makes at these levels. It's huge, really.



Thanee: I tend to be on the side of feeling like the MT is plenty weak; however, there's a bunch of debate on both sides about whether the class isn't in fact actually quite tough at higher levels. There's at least one poster who nearly bit my head off for daring to suggest that the MT had problems beyond being unable to beat SR! (See this thread , starting at the bottom of p.4). (I must say that if your MT player took two spell focus feats, he wasn't quite going the right route, unless it was toward archmage!) However, I think that PS goes a bit too far the other way when combined with the MT. The MT may be all about spellcasting, but it's all about _versatile_ spellcasting as opposed to _specialized_ spellcasting. Of course, that's a weak archetype, since D&D rewards specialization over versatility in the four-person party context. However, I think that allowing the MT to match a single-classed spellcaster in caster level is a bit powerful, specifically because it allows an MT to neglect his Wis score, max out his Int score, and use the wizard save-or-dies along with the cleric and wizard buffs.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 20, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Remember, all this feat does is alleviate part of a disadvantage. Feats that get rid of a disadvantage are almost invariably stronger than ones that give a benefit above and beyond.




Yeah.  Take Two-Weapon Fighting.

If I use two weapons without the feat, my off-hand attack takes a -10 penalty.  With the feat, it's a -4 penalty.

_That's the equivalent of a +6 bonus to attack rolls!_  It's _six times_ as strong as the Weapon Focus feat... and it applies to _any_ off-hand weapon, not just one particular weapon like Weapon Focus.

... except it doesn't actually increase my total attack bonus beyond what someone with one weapon could have.  It's just reducing the deficit I already have.

Likewise, PS does not increase caster level beyond what a straight-class caster could have.  It just reduces the multi-classed caster's deficit.

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> (I must say that if your MT player took two spell focus feats, he wasn't quite going the right route, unless it was toward archmage!)




I better don't tell you what his other feats are... 

But what is that _right_ route you are talking about, anyways?



> The MT may be all about spellcasting, but it's all about _versatile_ spellcasting as opposed to _specialized_ spellcasting.




Yeah, but that doesn't change, since the MT will still have the lower maximum spell level and the high amount of low level spells per day.

The only change is, that his spells are cast at a level appropriate for his character level. Nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, their versatility/flexibility is much more of a bonus at higher levels, but the lack of high level spells is a huge disadvantage. While low to medium level spells still are good and can achieve something, the highest level spells are where the real power lies. And this power is something the Mystic Theurge completely lacks.

At 20th level and beyond, they are probably better than pure wizards, when they also have 9th level arcane spells. But that's a long way to go.



> However, I think that allowing the MT to match a single-classed spellcaster in caster level is a bit powerful, specifically because it allows an MT to neglect his Wis score, max out his Int score, and use the wizard save-or-dies along with the cleric and wizard buffs.




I fail to see the connection here. What does that have to do with caster level!?

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 20, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> ... except it doesn't actually increase my total attack bonus beyond what someone with one weapon could have.  It's just reducing the deficit I already have.
> 
> Likewise, PS does not increase caster level beyond what a straight-class caster could have.  It just reduces the multi-classed caster's deficit.




Exactly. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Scion (Jul 21, 2004)

Also, in comparison with the mystic theurge who takes practiced spellcaster vs one who takes spell penetration.

The practiced chooses one of the two and gets +3 on his sr checks (and some other benefits, that tend to be fairly minor such as an extra 30' of distance or something, but I'll just stick to sr in this example).

The spell penetration guy gets +2 vs sr for all of his spells.

So +2 to all or +3 to half.. and since practiced 'should' be stronger (as it is merely alleviating a penalty rather than giving a bonus) it also drops some extra range and such for the guy as well.

Taking two practiced vs two spell penetration gives one guy who has +3 to sr for all of his spells vs a guy who has +4 for all of his spells.

So for this example at least just going straight by the base sr it looks like taking spell penetration is actually a 'better' bet.

I still think practiced is just fine as is


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 21, 2004)

> as quoted by Thanee
> 
> 3. Range of spell, same as #2 only resembles the Enlarge Spell feat.
> 
> ...




     I believe you are confusing your feats. Enlarge Spell doubles the range of the spell, not its size. Widen Spell adjusts size. Believe me, I had to double check the PHB before I made my post.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

LOL, oops. 

But that doesn't change anything, just replace it with the following:

"Enlarge Spell makes spells reach farther than they normally do. Practiced Spellcaster makes spells reach as far as they normally do."

Bye
Thanee

P.S. They should call that feat Far Spell.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 21, 2004)

> _quoted by Thanee_
> 
> LOL, oops.
> 
> ...




     I agree with you on that, but the enlarge spell feat when used in conjuction with a spell requires that you cast the spell at 1 level higher than the actual level, the majority of metamagic feats do. Yet with the PS feat you cast the spells at their normal spell level. This seems to take away from the balance.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 21, 2004)

> _quoted by Laman Stahros_
> 
> What I think you are missing here is that a Druid 5/Sorcerer 5 is still primarily a spellcaster and this feat (which I have allowed in my campaign and I have not seen any problems with it) would allow such a character to operate (within limits, of course) in his/her primary focus without severe and unreasonable limitations.





     Good point Laman Stahros, and to be honest with you I would not play a multiclassed spellcaster as to the simple fact that yes, they are way to disadvantaged. In that I agree. When create a multiclassed character I tend to make sure my primary focus is *not* spellcasting. I agree that a multiclassed character (both classes spellcasters) would fall way behind, but once again, that is because this characters basis is still spellcasting.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 21, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> Good point Laman Stahros, and to be honest with you I would not play a multiclassed spellcaster as to the simple fact that yes, they are way to disadvantaged.




Yup.

Wouldn't it be nice if there was a feat that made it a viable concept?

... oh, wait!

-Hyp.


----------



## atra2 (Jul 21, 2004)

Methos, the post on TWF is the most clear analogy I've seen.

Practiced Spellcaster REDUCES a penalty.

Spell Penetration gives a REAL BONUS.

a pure warrior bends all his feats to combat (for the sake of argument).

a pure caster bends all his feats to casting/crafting (again for the sake of argument)

a warrior/caster splits his feats, and now he has to consider giving up one of his
few feats just to have his LOWER LEVEL spells on par with the LOWER LEVEL spells
of the rest of the party.

Thanee nails it on the head in pointing out that having the highest level of spells
trumps any perceived advantage over a mutt caster having practiced spellcaster
feat.

TWF for warrior types, Practiced Spellcaster for caster mutts. Same thing.

You know, you could make a deal with the ArcTrick in your game and see if
the feat actually makes the character too powerful. If it doesn't, well, your
problem is solved and you can stop reading this thread 

the ftr5/sor1 w/ practiced spellcaster? Ooh, so powerful. Maybe he just gets
a 1st level pearl of power, asks the 6th wizard to cast mage armor on him,
and he'll give the spell slot right back 

1000gp, 6 hours mage armor, no feat wasted.

mage armor + shield + dex = nice AC at level 2, even 4.

At level 6 to 8 you can face stone giants with +18 to hit.

In fact, monster bonus to hit (including strength) tends to add up to +5 per
two PC levels, if not more.

at level 10, see if fire giants aren't +20 to hit with a greatsword.

Your problem is self-solving, and in fact the ftr5/sor1 has nerfed himself for high
level because he probably could do a lot better if he were a pure fighter wearing
chain shirt +4, which is +8 AC, all the time. (Ok, so it's not a force effect, and
incorporeals ignore it. Wah.)

Mage Armor and Shield? he'd get more mileage as:

Ftr4/bard2. wear light armor with no arcane failure. Be able to activate a wand of
cure light wounds (which all clerics make dozens of over their career  and have
some decent spell choices, plus contribute a bard song twice a day, freeing up the
cleric from casting bless and doing prayer instead before beginning the flame strikes 

With one level of sorc, I'd be a fighter in full plate with these two spells:

True Strike
Feather Fall

both are verbal-only, suffer no arcane failure, and you can skip practiced spellcaster.

(True Strike = auto-disarm, auto-hit with a maxed power attack, etc.)

Sounds like you have a good gaming group, but they aren't even close to powergaming
3e/3.5, and they probably don't care to.

Practiced Spellcaster won't make your campaign world any worse. Multiclassed
casters were always too weak for the few spells they got. A straight fighter with
a good rack of potions or caster support behind him is much better than a caster
mutt, so let the mutts have their practiced spellcaster bone.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 21, 2004)

> _quoted by atra2_
> 
> Sounds like you have a good gaming group, but they aren't even close to powergaming
> 3e/3.5, and they probably don't care to.




     Thanks for the compliment atra2, it is a very good group. The average age of my players is probably around the mid to upper 30’s, and most of the players have been playing since basic DnD, with the least experienced player starting at 1st ed. And yes, I will have to agree that are group isn’t power gamers. Recently my wizard players stated one of the spells he wanted, out of a non-core book, was too weak for it’s 5th level and had no problem with me house ruling it to a 6th level spell, without me even mentioning it, so yes, they aren’t power gamers and don’t want to be. My players like keeping things very balanced. Also, most of them don’t typically multiclass. Your suggestion about letting the Arcane Trickster in our group have the PS feat and playtest it may work but the consensus of our group is that it is unbalanced and they don’t want it in our campaign. This wasn’t just my opinion, but an overall opinion made by the group. Truthfully, none of the group has stated they believed this feat was balanced. Also, as you may be able to understand from the posting I quoted from one of my players is that my group tends to stick to the core books, with occasionally bringing in stuff from supplements or accessories. There is nothing wrong with this, it’s just how we like to play. I have heard on multiple occasions (from our group) about how the gaming industry puts out all these books and we pay for them, only to come back, create another edition and reprint everything with a few modifications. How many of us have boxes and boxes of previous editions stacked away in closets. Many of my players won’t buy the 3.5 books since we have mostly houseruled what we felt were unbalanced and they don't wish to donate more money to WizCo. Neither will they buy the supplements or accessories, I have no problem with this and understand their reasoning. We spent all this money on 3.0 books, now that 3.5 has come out WizCo is reprinting the 3rd ed books for the new edition, more ways to take our money.

     Sorry about going off on a tangent, just trying to point out our groups’ style.

     Due to our groups’ style, I brought this feat up for debate on this board so as to see what others thought of it, I’m definitely getting a lot of opinions and suggestions. Hopefully the above references to our gaming style may help you all understand why I think the way I do. My problem isn’t as much with the unbalance of the PS feat, but with the so-called disadvantages of multiclassing. The choice was made, the player knew. Are Arcane Trickster has no problem with his current spellcaster level, and thoroughly enjoys his character.


----------



## Scion (Jul 21, 2004)

Just because they all agree it is unbalancing does not make it so, sometimes it takes a lot of looking and some playing to really get a feel for something.

Lots of people thought that the thuerge was highly overpowered when it first came out.. now most people think it is actually pretty far under par.. views change.

See what they have to say about this thread  Maybe it will help them.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 21, 2004)

@scion

     I will have to agree with you on the MT. When I first saw it I thought it was way overpowered, but to try it out I ran one against my players when they were average 10th level. The MT was Wiz3/Clr3/MT7, a CR rating 3 higher than that of the pc's. Though I did kill one of the players, power from the death domain, it wasn't as challenging as it should have been for as high of a CR as it had, plus the MT had a CR 10 bodyguard. So after the fight, I realized how underpowered the MT is.

     I don't know if reading this thread will as much as help them or just give them a different outlook. I'm sure they might be willing to playtest this feat in another campaign, I'm actually tempted to now, for playtest purposes, but they don't want it in this particular campaign.


----------



## Methos of Aundair (Jul 21, 2004)

@scion

     Interesting thing scion, you might know most of my players. We play in Columbia, MO and originally met several years ago while playing at Valhalla's Gate on Nifong. Several of my players, including me, were co-DM's in the Ashes campaign (which consisted of approx. 25 to 30 players) that used to play every other Saturday at the Gate.


----------



## Pax (Jul 21, 2004)

Apsuman said:
			
		

> I don't know EXACTLY what Practiced Spellcaster does as I don't have the book. But let me say the following:



  The feat gives a +4 bonus to caster level (for all purposes *except* spells per day and spell levels castable), to a maximum caster level equal to the character's current HD.  So, a fighter(1)/Wizard(3)/Eldritch Knight(6), with an innate caster level of 8 (3 from wizard, 5 from eldritch knight) and a total character level of 10, will only get a +2 bonus, since they have only 10 HD.



			
				Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> And yes, I agree with my statement seriously. Basically what I am saying is if I choose to play a multiclassed spellcaster I go into it knowing that more than likely I will never have access to high level spells.



  Thepoint, however, is that those lost spell levels are *in and of themselves* a sufficient penalty / cost / "price paid" / whatever, to offset any other class abilities you gain through the process *of* multiclassing.  And then, on *top* of those lost spell levels, you *also* lose sheer ability to effectively cast the spells you *can* use, as well as sheer numbers per day *of* those spells.

  Practised Spellcaster only addresses *one* of those three reductions in spellcasting capacity - it [p]partially[/b] offsets the cost of multiclassing out of a Spellcasting class.  *Just* like the one-for-two BAB of a Wizard *partially* offsets the loss of combat prowess a _fighter_ suffers for multiclassing out of a combat-oriented class.



			
				Methos said:
			
		

> I make the choice of being a multiclassed spellcaster with the full knowledge that spellcasting will more than likely be a secondary focus of my character, not his primary focus.



  The problemis, for every multiclass option *except* those involving spellcasting, you can *choose* which "side" of yoru character willbe primary, and which will be secondary.

  As soon as one side of your character involves spellcasting, however ... _you no longer have that choice_.  Why?  Why can't I be a Sorceror with just a _splash_ of fighter, without *having* to make combat my "primary focus" ... ?  Try a vanilla Sorceror(10)/Fighter(10) some day, and see if you even *can* be more effective at spellcasting than you are at melee combat.

  I *guarantee* youwill find that it is *impossible* to emphasise spellcasting instead of combat - that's because the 10 sorceror levels are 5 levels of fighter in terms of BAB.  Yep, you guessed it, that character is able to connect blows as well as a 15th level Fighter ... but is *not* as able to connect with _spells_ as a 15th-level Sorceror.

  Practised Spellcaster seeks to redress that balance; the character gets no new spells-per-day, no access to higher-level spells - but it *does* let his spells have _nearly_ as good a chance to get past the spellcaster-equivalent to AC (Spell Resistance), and incidentally makes his spells _nearly_ that effective in general, as well.



			
				Methos said:
			
		

> I agree with you on that, but the enlarge spell feat when used in conjuction with a spell requires that you cast the spell at 1 level higher than the actual level, the majority of metamagic feats do. Yet with the PS feat you cast the spells at their normal spell level. This seems to take away from the balance.



  So, answer me this: if my Sorceror(10)/Fighter(10) casts a Close-range spell, it could reach 50' away (25', plus 5' per two caster levels).

  If I use _enlarge spell_, my range *doubles*, to 100' - costing me +1 spell level.

  OTOH, if I picked up Practised Spellcaster instead of Enlarge Spell, my range goes up ... by all of 10', to 60' total.

  Could you show me *how* it is that Practised Spellcaster is _just as good as_ Enlarge Spell, again?  *Outside* of artificial and misleading cases where only one or two levels of a spellcasting class are taken, mind.


----------



## Psiblade (Jul 21, 2004)

In my experience even with this feat a multiclassed caster is still a significantly weaker caster than his single classed brethren. My 16th level MT is in awe of how damage and havoc our 17th level wizard can do with shapechange and Otto's Irresistible Dance. His favorite tactic is to change to a different dragon form every round and use his new breath weapon.   

The power level of every campaign is different. Detect evil at will by a Paladin made my mystery / noir campaign have problems, so I ruled 0 that ability  . The feat removes a penalty, but still leaves a character without access to the appropriate spells for their level. For, a standard D&D game this feat is nice, but not overpowering.

-Psiblade


----------



## Scion (Jul 21, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> @scion
> 
> Interesting thing scion, you might know most of my players. We play in Columbia, MO and originally met several years ago while playing at Valhalla's Gate on Nifong. Several of my players, including me, were co-DM's in the Ashes campaign (which consisted of approx. 25 to 30 players) that used to play every other Saturday at the Gate.




I have only been to the gate a couple of times.. havent lived here long.. I think I have pm's turned on.. feel free to pm me or email me, I think I have that on my profile.


----------



## Ourph (Jul 21, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> I *guarantee* youwill find that it is *impossible* to emphasise spellcasting instead of combat - that's because the 10 sorceror levels are 5 levels of fighter in terms of BAB.  Yep, you guessed it, that character is able to connect blows as well as a 15th level Fighter ... but is *not* as able to connect with _spells_ as a 15th-level Sorceror.




Yet he can increase his ability in melee to the equivalent of a 35th level Fighter with a simple 1st level spell (that he can cast over and over again) called _True Strike_; something neither a single classed Sorcerer (who lacks the combat prowess) or a single classed Fighter (who can't cast the spell) is able to do.

The trade-off for that power is that the character will NEVER be good at using spells offensively.  Offensive use of spells is the single most powerful ability in D&D.  The fact that you give that up when multiclassing is (at least in my opinion) inherently necessary to making multiclass spellcasters balanced.

There seems to be a general consensus in this thread that multiclass spellcasters are underpowered when using the core rules only.  I vehemently disagree with that idea.  Spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game and any option that provides a character with the ability to cast AND perform other class functions SHOULD severely cripple the character's casting ability in order to preserve balance.  IMO only single classed spellcasters should be good at casting, period.  Any multiclass option should be forced to focus on the non-casting class because the alternative is just too powerful compared to the single classed caster (again, IMO).


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 21, 2004)

y'know, if you think that the feat is too powerful, what do you think of Leadership?  This gives a fighter lvl 6-18 a fair level spellcaster cohort that can take independant actions(!).  Or a Wizard (or better, a sorceror) lvl 6-18 a cleric cohort, same benefits.  Even a multi-classed caster would benefit far more from Leadership than from Practised Spellcaster.  Surely that is more of a power boost than the Practised Spellcaster feat could ever be, and Leadership is 3.0 and 3.5 core.  

I recommend you try Practised Spellcaster out.  I think it highly unlikely that this feat will unbalance your player's character in practice.  If it does, I owe you a cracker.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 21, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Yet he can increase his ability in melee to the equivalent of a 35th level Fighter with a simple 1st level spell (that he can cast over and over again) called _True Strike_; something neither a single classed Sorcerer (who lacks the combat prowess) or a single classed Fighter (who can't cast the spell) is able to do.




Don't forget, that fighter is giving up a standard action (and thus, the ability for a 20th level fighter to make 4 attacks!) in the first round to get that bonus to one, and only one, attack in the second round (notably, the one that would likely have hit anyhow, not the lesser iterative attacks that could actually have benefitted from it).  In power attack terms, it usually works out to 20 extra damage.  Is it really worth it to give up 4 attacks?  A nice little trick, but you sure pay for it.


----------



## FireLance (Jul 21, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> There seems to be a general consensus in this thread that multiclass spellcasters are underpowered when using the core rules only.  I vehemently disagree with that idea.  Spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game and any option that provides a character with the ability to cast AND perform other class functions SHOULD severely cripple the character's casting ability in order to preserve balance.  IMO only single classed spellcasters should be good at casting, period.  Any multiclass option should be forced to focus on the non-casting class because the alternative is just too powerful compared to the single classed caster (again, IMO).



If spellcasting is the most powerful ability in the game, then the logical conclusion is that the spellcasting classes are all too powerful and should be scaled back.

When the individual classes are properly balanced, i.e. once a Wiz20 = a Clr20 = a Ftr20, then we should set up a multiclassing system so that a Wiz10/Ftr10 or Wiz10/Clr10 should also equal a Wiz20, Clr20 or a Ftr20. 

Personally, I like the 3.xe philosophy that choices should be approximately equal.  This allows me the flexibility to play a variety of characters that are roughly equally effective. If I was "forced" to play a single-classed character in order to be an effective spellcaster, it would get boring, in my view.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Methos of Aundair said:
			
		

> I agree with you on that, but the enlarge spell feat when used in conjuction with a spell requires that you cast the spell at 1 level higher than the actual level, the majority of metamagic feats do. Yet with the PS feat you cast the spells at their normal spell level. This seems to take away from the balance.




I have no idea what this is supposed to mean... 

PS makes a spell half as good as an enlarged spell normally is, but doesn't cost an additional spell level. Well, that seems fairly reasonable to me, since the effect is only half as much in the end.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Yet he can increase his ability in melee to the equivalent of a 35th level Fighter with a simple 1st level spell (that he can cast over and over again) called _True Strike_;




Right*, if he can cast it as a free action _non-quickened_ at will. 

Didn't know sorcerers can do that, that will make my character a lot more powerful, thank you! 

Bye
Thanee

* Well, not really, since a 35th level fighter does have a few more abilities, like... uhm... a couple feats (many of those epic), 4 attacks per round, etc.


----------



## Malin Genie (Jul 21, 2004)

A lot of the 'anti-PS' posters do not seem to have considered the impact of metamagic use by a single-class caster.

Compare a Rog4/Sor6 (just about to start ArT) with Practised Spellcaster as a 9th level Feat, with a Sor10 who takes Empower Spell instead.

Each uses their highest level slot to deal damage to a group of enemies.  The Rog4/Sor6 casts Fireball.  With the extra caster levels he deals 10d6 damage.  The Sor10 uses her highest level slot to cast Empowered Fireball, dealing (at the same caster level, mind you) 15d6 damage!

I think this brings out even more clearly the basic fact that _higher level spells - at the same caster level - are much more effective than lower level spells._  The multiclass caster will _still_ suffer lower save DCs (compounded my the fact that they will have multiple stat dependency) as well as spells having less effect, _despite_ equal Caster Level.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> The trade-off for that power is that the character will NEVER be good at using spells offensively.  Offensive use of spells is the single most powerful ability in D&D.  The fact that you give that up when multiclassing is (at least in my opinion) inherently necessary to making multiclass spellcasters balanced.




I've got news for you: A multiclass spellcaster with Practiced Spellcaster is not as good at using spells offensively as a pure spellcaster.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

@Malin Genie: When I played a multiclass spellcaster (Arcane Trickster), I had the same caster attribute as a pure spellcaster. Intelligence was my primary attribute (nice synergy with the rogue's skills even).

And one other note: In your comparison, just add up the number of available 3rd level slots and higher...

Rogue 4/Sorcerer 6 has four
Sorcerer 10 has *eighteen*

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Stalker0 (Jul 21, 2004)

I think most people don't understand just how underpowered a multiclassed caster can be.

By losing caster levels, I have effectively neutered myself against things that have SR. But because I have lower spell levels, my saves are also lower, meaning I can't hit things with decent saves either. And with globes of invulnerability and the like, many of my spells just don't work. So a multiclass spellcaster can't use offensive spells.

Okay, I'll use defensive ones. But unfortunately, at higher levels many of those become obsolete. Invisibility is easily negated at high levels, buffs spells (because of your low caster level) are easily stripped away by dispels, spells that give +1 or +2 benefits just don't cut it anymore in a world where +4 and +5 are now the norm. In short, low level spells don't cut it in the high level world.

Now going back to the arcane trickster example, where the person kept saying their player had no problems with the weaknesses of his spells. For a person whose already willing to take the penalties of multiclassing and such, then the argument is pointless. If your already willing to multiclass as a spellcaster go ahead. The problem is that the majority of people once they have a little experience under their belt, recognize that multiclasses casters are much weaker than most archetypes and so will never play them. This feat at least gives them some incentive.

The feat is not overpowered, it just that the archetype is so weak in general.


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 21, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> But what is that _right_ route you are talking about, anyways?



Archmage, usually! But seriously, an MT should not be casting spells that require saves, due to the fact that those spells require ability score specialization (to get the save DCs up) and the fact that save-or -consequences and SR penetration tend to be hand-in-hand issue.


> _The only change is, that his spells are cast at a level appropriate for his character level. Nothing more, nothing less._



But my point is that there are only two disadvantages to the MT: Lack of access to higher-level spells and lack of spell penetration capability. PS removes one of those two advantages.


> _Of course, their versatility/flexibility is much more of a bonus at higher levels, but the lack of high level spells is a huge disadvantage. While low to medium level spells still are good and can achieve something, the highest level spells are where the real power lies. And this power is something the Mystic Theurge completely lacks._



I tend to agree, though others don't always, as I pointed out.


> _I fail to see the connection here. What does that have to do with caster level!?_



Because, well, save-or-consequences spells are highly caster-level dependent at high levels, due to SR penetration issues.

However, I'm just trying to make a devil's advocate argument for my own purposes, and failing utterly. Given that PS adds to only one caster class, I really don't think it's a big deal, and I'd say that it's balanced, possibly even in combination with the MT.


----------



## Scion (Jul 21, 2004)

ruleslawyer said:
			
		

> But my point is that there are only two disadvantages to the MT: Lack of access to higher-level spells and lack of spell penetration capability. PS removes one of those two advantages.




Of course, if those are the only two then my example above showing that spell penetration is still a better bet for the theurge for the purpose of SR would make practiced spellcaster to weak of a feat! lol


----------



## Mr. Kaze (Jul 21, 2004)

Re: Taken as a 1st level feat for concept characters rather than whenever the player feels like it...



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> @Mr. Kaze: A human could still pick it twice then, or not?




No -- it's treated as an unnamed bonus that doesn't stack with itself.  Since they can't have 2 spellcasting classes at 1st level, they can't deem that one instance of the feat applies to one and the other to the other at that point.

Cheers,
::Kaze (wonders if he's right about the whole lich thing.   )


----------



## ruleslawyer (Jul 21, 2004)

Scion said:
			
		

> Of course, if those are the only two then my example above showing that spell penetration is still a better bet for the theurge for the purpose of SR would make practiced spellcaster to weak of a feat! lol



Yuppers; although they DO stack, it's still on the weak side because of the fewer feats that an MT gets, compared to a straight caster.


----------



## Pax (Jul 21, 2004)

Ourph said:
			
		

> Yet he can increase his ability in melee to the equivalent of a 35th level Fighter with a simple 1st level spell (that he can cast over and over again) called _True Strike_; something neither a single classed Sorcerer (who lacks the combat prowess) or a single classed Fighter (who can't cast the spell) is able to do.



  That's not quite true - True Strike provides an _insight_ bonus, not an increase to Base Attack.  Besides which, a single-classed Fighter(20) can drink a Potion of True Strike ... or cast a True Strike from a Ring of Spell Storing.  Equivalent of 40th level in terms of to-hit.

  Or the Sorceror(20) can cast the spell, and have a +30 total to hit, the equivalent of a 30th level fighter in terms of being able to connect with a blow.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The trade-off for that power is that the character will NEVER be good at using spells offensively.



  Why?

*Why* can't I give up, say, 8th and 9th level spells in order to be significantly better than my pure-spellcasting peers at hitting with rays, energy missiles, and the like?  And why can't I do that without *also* eviscerating my ability to get through SR with the lower-level spells that are left to me ... ?!?



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> Offensive use of spells is the single most powerful ability in D&D.



  My Arena experiences say otherwise.  It's just as possible to twinkout a ranged- or melee-combat character as it is to twink out a spellcaster.  *Easier*, even, given the greater ability to multiclass and cherry-pick for class abilities _without evenlosing a single point of BAB!_



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> The fact that you give that up when multiclassing is (at least in my opinion) inherently necessary to making multiclass spellcasters balanced.



  As has been pointedout multiple times, by multiple people, spellcasters give up *more* for multiclassing than *any* other class: a fighter, barbarian, or ranger who multiclasses gives up one thing and one thing only: specific class abilities.  Meanwhile, a spellcaster, gives up (A) higher level spells, (B) spell penetration, (C) spell range, (D) spell duration, (E) spell area, (F) spell damage, (G) resistance to dispel magic, (H) ability to dispel hostile spells, (I) spells-per-day of the levels still available to him, *and* (J) specific class abilities (i.e. familiar improvement, turning of undead, wildshape, etc, etc).

  So spellcasters are affected in *ten* ways, compared to the *one* way that others are affected when multiclassing.  Practised Spellcaster _ameliorates_ seven of those ways.

  That still leaves a three-to-one disadvantage squarelyin hte lapof hte multiclass spellcaster in terms of what s/he givesup in return for the other class' abilities.



			
				Ourph said:
			
		

> There seems to be a general consensus in this thread that multiclass spellcasters are underpowered when using the core rules only.  I vehemently disagree with that idea.



  Sow me any mixture of classes, *other* than the lame-duck "mostly X with a level or three of spellcaster", which *isn't* readily drop-kicked by a non-multiclassed spellcaster of ANY stripe.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> My Arena experiences say otherwise.  It's just as possible to twinkout a ranged- or melee-combat character as it is to twink out a spellcaster.  *Easier*, even, given the greater ability to multiclass and cherry-pick for class abilities _without evenlosing a single point of BAB!_




Well, these arena fights operate under quite a number of house rules, tho, which mostly deal with limiting spellcasters (AFAIK), since otherwise they would totally dominate the arena fights, obviously. 

Other than that, I agree, tho, that it's very well possible to make really powerful non-spellcasters at high levels now in 3.5.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pax (Jul 21, 2004)

Not entirely, Thanee. While spellcasters in general have needed limits, it's mostly to specific and especial spells, rather than to the class itself - and more to reflect the "one fight per day" nature of an Arena, which is not the situation the spells were originally balanced for.

I've seen ECL25 fighter-types able to consistently deal upwards of 700hp of damage in a single full attack - sadly, my wee little character was on the *receiving* end of said damage, which only served to make the event all the more memorable.  At that point, it doesn't matter if you used a spell, or a big honing sword, to deal that damage ... dead is dead, and precious little will survive THAT level of damage. ^_^


----------



## ARandomGod (Jul 21, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Show me any mixture of classes, *other* than the lame-duck "mostly X with a level or three of spellcaster", which *isn't* readily drop-kicked by a non-multiclassed spellcaster of ANY stripe.




Multiclassed:
Ranger 11
Paladin 2
Monk 4
Fighter 2
Barbarian 2 (Yes, barb and monk, together at last! With enough ranger levels in between it's easy to come up with a reason. And paladin... well, I didn't say THAT was easy. You gotta give up something there. OK, Fine, drop the paladin or the barbarian, and pick whichever suits your style better)

That's ranger spellcasting right there. ^_^. Change it to paladin four for two types of spell casting. 

Although, really, would this character wast time on the practiced spellcaster feat?


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Everyone with Hide Life... 

Ok, that's _really_ a broken spell. 

I've heard plenty such limits so far, tho. Like Freedom of Movement not working (because then Grappling suddenly isn't working anymore), or Combatants not allowed to leave the arena, thus limiting the characters with better movement (aka Teleport ), Mordenkainen's Disjunction nerfed, and so on.

Hey, who cares if someone can deal 700 points of damage in a full attack, if they never get to do one? 

Anyways, just wanted to point out, that there are quite a few house rules, which make these experiences a bit different, of course.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pax (Jul 21, 2004)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> Multiclassed:
> Ranger 11
> Paladin 2
> Monk 4
> ...



  Hmm, 21 levels, eh?  Fine - Epic Wizard(21) to match.  First up, a Quickened Forcecage around wherever you're standing, with the Wizard outside of it (7th level spell, metamagiced via a Greater Rod).  Then, follow up with a normal Dimensional Lock (yes Lock, not Anchor, so you don't get to claim high Touch AC or Save Bonusses as a negating factor).

  After that, *shrug* I've got *days* to figure out which spells to use to kill you.



> That's ranger spellcasting right there. ^_^. Change it to paladin four for two types of spell casting.



  Very funny.  Now try it with one of the _primary_ spellcasting classes (cleric, druid, sorceror, wizard).  You know, folks for whom spellcasitng is their FIRST role, not an afterthought ...?



			
				Thanee said:
			
		

> I've heard plenty such limits so far, tho. Like Freedom of Movement not working (because then Grappling suddenly isn't working anymore), or Combatants not allowed to leave the arena, thus limiting the characters with better movement (aka Teleport ), Mordenkainen's Disjunction nerfed, and so on.



  It's debateable wether or not Freedom of Movement should actually render you *immune* to grappling, anyway.  In the Exodus, it provides a +1/level unnamed bonus to resist or escape a grapple - which means a +25 bonus for any dedicated spellcaster who self-casts the spell.  Not aninsignificant boost.

  Leaving the arena is a forfeit, because it's an *arena* - and teleport is STILL vastly superior to any other form of movement.  The Exodus, for example, uses arenas about 100 feet on a side, on average.  Some of them are much bigger.

  Mordenkainen's Disjunction was nerfed because, even spellcaster-versus-spellcaster, _fights boiled down to who Disjunctioned first_.  No save, no hope, all your buff spells gone, *and* make saves for each of yoru magic items ... ?  *Awfully* powerful for a 9th level spell, in and of itself.  Then factor in, an Arena does _not_ have the standard-campaign impetus *not* to drop an MDJ at first sight of hte enemy: in an arena, your rewards/loot are *not* dependant on the wealth left on your enemy's carcass after you win the fight.  And when characters have 2,100,000gp of equipment, those magic items and buffs (potion, rune, scroll, however you get them) constitute a *big* portion of your personal power.

  And again, those are nerfs to especial *spells*, not to the spellcasting classes themselves.  ^_^


----------



## ARandomGod (Jul 21, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Hmm, 21 levels, eh?  Fine - Epic Wizard(21) to match.  First up, a Quickened Forcecage around wherever you're standing, with the Wizard outside of it (7th level spell, metamagiced via a Greater Rod).  Then, follow up with a normal Dimensional Lock (yes Lock, not Anchor, so you don't get to claim high Touch AC or Save Bonusses as a negating factor).
> 
> After that, *shrug* I've got *days* to figure out which spells to use to kill you.
> 
> ...



Yea 21 levels, reason number two to have to drop either the paladin or the barbarian (as suggested)
Although, of course, I chose a non-primary spellcaster on purpose... mainly because the point (that even with the feat, people who would benifit from it are "underpowered" )is pretty plain.

On the other hand, some ppl see a thing and just don't want to playtest it, kneejerk reaction saying it's too powerful. That's the feel I'm getting for this statement that the feat is too powerful, a kneejerk reaction without actual playtesting to experiment. 
There are a number of things that will strike a person one way or another, new feats, ideas, potential PrC's or spells that I've seen strike some people as superpowerful, while playtesting on my part (or on other people's part) has shown the concept to be either well balanced or even generally weaker (Like MT). And the people who refuse to test it for themselves can and sometimes will continue to say that it's overpowered... and noone can be made to see that which they won't look at objectively.


----------



## Pax (Jul 21, 2004)

ARandomGod said:
			
		

> On the other hand, some ppl see a thing and just don't want to playtest it, kneejerk reaction saying it's too powerful. That's the feel I'm getting for this statement that the feat is too powerful, a kneejerk reaction without actual playtesting to experiment.



  I concur, 100%.



> There are a number of things that will strike a person one way or another, new feats, ideas, potential PrC's or spells that I've seen strike some people as superpowerful, while playtesting on my part (or on other people's part) has shown the concept to be either well balanced or even generally weaker (Like MT). And the people who refuse to test it for themselves can and sometimes will continue to say that it's overpowered... and noone can be made to see that which they won't look at objectively.



  I agree.  Origionally, I saw the Vow of Poverty and thought to myself, "no way in the nine hells is that anything _but_ grossly overpowered!"

  Then I built Demetian, an epic-level Ascetic Druid/Warshaper/Shifter in the Exodus.  And learned that, really, the Vow is potentially a bit *underpowered* in some key ways.  At first, you see, I'd stripped out the bonus feats entirely - on the basis of "ix-nay on the wishing for more wishes", IOW, "no feat should give you more feats later".

  I've put the bonus feats back in, slightly watered down (only one bonus feat per five levels, starting at 5th level), and added inherent bonusses ('cause it's an arena, and tomes/manuals are a "goes without question" staple _anyway_).  At present, it's balanced enough that in most campaigns, I'd have no problem with the feat as I've slightly reworked it.

  Or for simplicity's sake, I'd also happily let a player use the version in the BoED, as-printed, without too much worry about it being unbalanced.

  IOW ... as you suggest, playtesting disproved that first impression.  The Vow of Poverty _is_ (surprisingly enough) reasonably well-balanced for the average, by-the-book campaign.

  And being, now, a multi-year veteran of GMing Arena style campaigns DOEs give me one advantage, IMO, when it comes to evaluating most feats, spells, etc: I'm accustomed to seeing the worst possible abuses of things, the first time I look at them.

  In the case of PRactised Spellcaster, the WORST abuse I can see is the splash-of-spellcasting model [Fighter(x)/Spellcaster(1 or 2)], or the Cleric(5)/Wizard(5)/Mystic Theurge(10) with dual Practised Spellcaster feats, one per "type" of spellcaster ...

  ... and neither of those "abuses" strikes me as especially, well, _abusive_.  Useful, yes.  Desireable, yes.  Must-have, you're-an-idiot-if-you-don't-do-this?

  Hardly.


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 21, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Besides which, a single-classed Fighter(20) can drink a Potion of True Strike ...




Come now, you know better than that.

"Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."

-Hyp.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> I agree.  Origionally, I saw the Vow of Poverty and thought to myself, "no way in the nine hells is that anything _but_ grossly overpowered!"
> 
> ...
> 
> Or for simplicity's sake, I'd also happily let a player use the version in the BoED, as-printed, without too much worry about it being unbalanced.




Heh. Yeah, you've been quite adamant about the Vow being overpowered back then. 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Thanee (Jul 21, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Come now, you know better than that.




That was surely a _suggestion_. 

“Here drink this, it's a pois... uhm... potion of de... uhm... _true strike_!” 

Bye
Thanee


----------



## Pax (Jul 22, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Come now, you know better than that.
> 
> "Spells with a range of personal cannot be made into potions."
> 
> -Hyp.




  Which limitation I have never truly understood. *shrug*  Then again, some of the designers have even said there's no *balance* reason not to be able to make a potion of *any* first-to-third level spell - regardless of target.

  Oil of Fiery Burning, a la 1E/2E?  A "Potion of Fireball", simple enough.

  Oil of Slipperiness?  A "Potion of Grease", also simple enough.

  *shrug*


----------



## Hypersmurf (Jul 22, 2004)

Pax said:
			
		

> Which limitation I have never truly understood.




Fair enough.  Nevertheless, it means the Potion of True Strike isn't an option for the fighter, though his Ring of Lesser Spell Storing still works.

-Hyp.


----------



## ARandomGod (Jul 22, 2004)

Hypersmurf said:
			
		

> Fair enough.  Nevertheless, it means the Potion of True Strike isn't an option for the fighter, though his Ring of Lesser Spell Storing still works.
> 
> -Hyp.




True. No potions. By the rules you'd need a ring of spellstoring, a wonderous (or other) item of X castings of true strike per day... an **elixer** of spellcasting. All those would be viable options. But no potions By core rules.

Of course, by core rules you're a fool for ever taking create potions with it's arbitrary restrictions. After all, an elixer of cure light wounds costs the same to make as a potion of the same, and you can also make all kinds of other nifty items with the same feat. And all within core rules.


----------



## Pax (Jul 22, 2004)

All too true.

Me, IMC ... I allow any first-to-third level spell to be made in "potion" form.  And I don't count metamagiclevels towards that (so, yes, you canget a potion of _maximised cure moderate wounds_, though it'll be pricey).

Not only that, but "potion" doesn't have to mean "drinkable liquid in a tiny vial".  A pill/pastille, a packet of powder to add to a cup of water or wine, a salve or ointment ... whatever seems appropriate, fits the player's desires, and so on.  Themechancis of use remain the same - though the packet of powder logically would take more time to get ready and then use, so I *might* give it a small price discount and/or other benefit - say, 10% and, sans supply of liquid(s), half normal encumbrance for carrying it.  Useful for post-battle healing potions, perhaps.  ^_^

If the spell is hostile in nature, you throw the "potion" at your intended victim (think "tanglefoot bag" / "alchemist's fire" / &c), and make a ranged touch attack to get the potion to have effect.

Thus,  "potion of magic missile" wouldn't be very useful ... but a "potion of melf's acid arrow" might be ... an acidic, longer-lasting, truly _magical_ version of alchemist's fire.

But anyway ... I'll stop this threadjack right now.  If anyone else wants to banter with me about the relative merits of Brew Potion in RAW versus "Pax's way" forms, just post in House Rules, and drop a pointer here in this thread so I'll know you've done so.  ^_^


----------



## Thanee (Jul 22, 2004)

Yep, the potion limitation is a bit weird.

 They should just make them cost more for personal spells (x2 or x4) and allow only spells, which could affect the caster (maybe only spells with no range greater than touch even), and they automatically affect the one who drinks the potion, of course.

 Bye
 Thanee


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 23, 2004)

Is Practiced Spellcaster available to a straight Ranger, or Paladin (or any of the PrC's w/ their own spell list), assuming you have the 4 ranks in spellcraft... in order to get your caster level to 1/2 class level +4??

Sorry if this was brought up already...

Mike


----------



## Thanee (Jul 23, 2004)

While that certainly isn't what the feat is about, it would work, yes.

PS gives a straight +4 to caster level with one spellcasting class, but it cannot get higher than your hit dice.

Bye
Thanee


----------



## mikebr99 (Jul 23, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> While that certainly isn't what the feat is about, it would work, yes.
> 
> PS gives a straight +4 to caster level with one spellcasting class, but it cannot get higher than your hit dice.
> 
> ...



Great, thanks Thannee.

Mike


----------



## Particle_Man (Jul 24, 2004)

Thanee said:
			
		

> While that certainly isn't what the feat is about, it would work, yes.
> 
> PS gives a straight +4 to caster level with one spellcasting class, but it cannot get higher than your hit dice.
> 
> ...




Hmmm...I wonder if that would affect a) Caster level for the purposes of being able to get feats that allow one to make magic items, and b) caster level for the purposes of familiar powers (this would be for the hexblade).  I don't think it would affect c) level for the purpose of turning undead (for the paladin)


----------



## Pax (Jul 24, 2004)

PS is also useful for a single-classed caster with a prestige class at less than 1:1 progressionof caster level (_e.g._ Fatespinner).

However, the abilities of a Hexblade's familiar are *not* dependant on caster level - they're based on the same abilities granted to a sorceror of three levels lower.  For spellcasting, however, his caster levelis one-half his hexblade level.

Which means a hexblade would like that spell, regardless.  Hexblade(8) with Practised Spellcaster ... no more spells per day than normal, but more able to get through SR, and more resistant to dispelling as well.


----------



## Thanee (Jul 24, 2004)

Since when is the familiar or turn undead dependant on caster level? 

That would mean that all spellcasting PrC would improve the familiar also, which they surely do not.

Item creation should work, however.



> Your caster level for the chosen spellcasting class increases by +4. This can't increase your caster level beyond your HD.




So a) yes b) no c) no.

Bye
Thanee


----------

