# Proposed fix for spellcaster multiclassing



## RangerWickett (Aug 31, 2008)

This is copied over from another thread, for a proposed revision to Pathfinder for multiclass spellcasters. It's a little radical, but I think it keeps the power level at where we want it, fixes the problems of multiclass casters being handicapped, and maintains each class's distinctive feel.


*Spellcasting*
Magic pervades the world, but many traditions for tapping its power exist. While most adventurers either choose one way of spellcasting or none at all, some mix styles of spellcraft, or dabble in these powers to accent their other talents.


*Caster Level*
Every class provides you with a caster level bonus, the way it provides a base attack bonus. 

Poor (+1 per 2 levels): Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue
Average (+3 per 4 levels): Bard
Good (+1 per 1 level): Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard

Your caster level determines how many spells you can cast per day, and what spell level you have access to. For spells that have effects based on your level, you use this total caster level, not the class level of the class that granted you the spell. 

[[Sidebar]]Chart 1 - Spells Per Day Progression
This chart looks like the wizard spells per day chart. (Subject to change after playtesting.)
[[End Sidebar]]

You use spell slots to cast your spells. You only have one pool of spell slots, which you can use to cast any spell you know, regardless of which class it is from.

The save DC for your spells is 10 + spell level + appropriate ability score modifier. If you have levels of more than one spellcasting class, you can choose which class's primary ability score to base your save DCs on.

(Note: We do this to reduce Multiple Ability Dependency (MAD) for multiclass casters. However, I see the potential for abuse, such as with a cleric 1/sorcerer 19, who has an 8 Charisma and gets all the benefit of a high Wisdom. Wisdom is, in my opinion, the strongest mental stat. I'm not sure how to fix this problem yet.)


*Spells Known*
When you gain a level in a spellcasting class, choose 2 spells from that class's spell list. These spells can be any spell level you have access to, based on your caster level. 

Whenever you gain a level, you can choose one spell you know and replace it with another spell that can be of the same level, any lower level, or one level higher. The spell must be from the same class, however.

(We do this so that when you go Wizard 1/Fighter 19 you're not totally different from  Fighter 19/Wizard 1. Either way, you can end up with two 5th level spells if that's what you want. However, since you can only step up one level at a time, if you're a devoted spellcaster with caster level 15+, you have to have a wide spread of powers across levels.)




> *Examples*
> 
> 
> Wiz 1/Ftr 19 has caster level 10, and knows 2 spells of up to 5th level.
> ...





*Spellcasting Classes*
Each class has special rules that influence how its spellcasting functions.

*Cleric:*
You gain domain powers based on your cleric class level. Level-based effects of those powers, however, use your total caster level.

_Channel Energy_ - Should this be class level or caster level based?

_Spontaneous Casting_ - A cleric gains bonus spells known based on his class level (cure if he channels positive, inflict if negative). He can cast these spells at will, as with his normal spells known.

1st - cure/inflict light wounds
3rd - cure/inflict moderate wounds 
5th - cure/inflict serious wounds 
7th - cure/inflict serious wounds 
9th - mass cure/inflict light wounds 
11th - mass cure/inflict moderate wounds 
13th - mass cure/inflict serious wounds 
15th - mass cure/inflict critical wounds 

_Ritual Casting_ - You can spend ten minutes in prayer to cast any spell from your cleric class list, by spending a spell slot of the appropriate level. If the spell's casting time is longer than ten minutes, use its normal casting time. Each day you can perform a number of ritual spells equal to your prime spellcasting ability score modifier. If you have multiple classes that grant ritual casting, the benefits must be split among your classes, and are not cumulative.


*Druid:*
_Spontaneous Casting_ - Like cleric, but for summon nature's ally.

_Ritual Cleric_ - As cleric, but for the druid spell list.


*Paladin:*
Paladins only learn 1 spell per level, not 2. If their caster level is less than 1 (like at 1st level), then can't actually cast any of these spells.

(I suggest we bundle the paladin spell list into the cleric spell list, and just let paladins pick spells as clerics. Otherwise, we have the slight issue of a sorcerer 6/paladin 2 taking holy sword, and being able to have a +5 sword at 8th level. Or I guess we could just revise the holy sword spell. Either way, paladin spellcasting is crap, and could use a boost.)


*Ranger:*
Like paladins, rangers only learn 1 spell per level, not 2, and can't cast until their caster level is at least 1.

(Likewise, I sorta feel rangers could just use the druid spell list. I don't think it's necessary for either paladins or rangers to get 'ritual casting.')


*Sorcerer:*
_Inner Power:_ Sorcerers gain extra spell slots based on their class level.

(There'd be a chart showing that at 1st level, sorcerers get 2 bonus 1st level spell slots. At 3rd level they get 2 bonus 2nd level spell slots. At 5th it's 3rd level slots, at 7th it's 4th, etc. Basically this gets them up to the number of spell slots they normally would have.)


*Wizard:*
In addition to the spells you know and can cast at will, you can acquire new spells in a spell book, which you can use for ritual casting. 

_Ritual Casting:_ As per cleric, only for wizard spells, and you have to study your spellbook. 



What do you think?


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Sep 1, 2008)

I like it it as a variant.
I think Pathfinder needs to just evolve into a Unearthed Arcana like book. Tons of optional rules, all keeping compatible with 3.5 with minor on the fly adjustments.


----------



## Orius (Sep 1, 2008)

This is an interesting idea, and I think it would work pretty well with the spell point ideas I've been toying with.  That doesn't mean this system _has_ to use spell points, but I've been considering the idea of spell points as an antidote to the "problem" of wizards being "useless" once they use up their spell slots.  You ideas might work well with it, and I may adapt them.

My ideas on spell points already incorporated something like the ritual casting. I was thinking something like a wizard can cast any spell he knows out of his spellbook by using spell points, but he must spend 1 round + 1 round/spell level to fully cast the spell.  Cleric works similarly but has a prayerbook, hadn't figured out how druids work.  Wizards, clerics, and druids still prep spells ahead of time, for the sake of fast casting the spells in an emergency (like combat).

The biggest issue I had with my work was that I adapted the basic spell point totals from the 2e book _Spells and Magic_.  Works ok when adjusted to the spells/day for wizard and cleric, and when the 3e bonus spells are factored in, however, the sorcerer got way too many points. I see however, there's a spell point variant on the Hypetext SRD which I assume was in UA.  I'll have to take a close look at that and port it in if it's better balanced.  

Speaking of which, even if you go with base spells/day, I wouldn't base it on the wizard class.  Go with the cleric/druid progression, I think they're about the same, the wizard gets the fewest slots of all the main spellcasters. I think it's better balanced if wizard, cleric, and druid, all have the same casting potential.  Your idea on the sorcerer bonus slots looks good too.

I don't agree that non-magic using classes like Fighter or Barbarian should grant a spell level bonus, but YMMV.  I'd also make sure prestige classes which grant spells or bonus spell levels give level bonuses as well.

The cleric's channel energy ability should be based on cleric level, not spell or character level.

You'll probably need to take into account how this affects metamagic feats as well.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Sep 1, 2008)

First (in the interest of full disclosure) let me restate what most people probably know about me- I don't see multiclassing's effect on spellcasters to be a problem, but rather as a feature.

That said:



RangerWickett said:


> *Spellcasting*
> 
> 
> *Caster Level*
> ...




I think that's rather clever.  Even with my personal opinion above, I could see that as an acceptable rule: the penalty remains, but is reduced, and it has a mirrored symmetry with the main feature of the warrior classes.

However, since spells still increase damage with caster levels, that means spellslingers- even multiclassed- quickly outstrip the warriors in "importance."  In fact with this rule, multiclassed spellcasters now do it even faster, since even their non-caster class levels contribute to the power of the spells they cast.



> The save DC for your spells is 10 + spell level + appropriate ability score modifier. If you have levels of more than one spellcasting class, you can choose which class's primary ability score to base your save DCs on.




I don't like this- its too easy to abuse and I don't like the flavor.  I don't like the idea of a PC who is a marginal caster in one hand suddenly improving because of multiclassing in another spellcaster class which uses a different stat.

If I allowed this in my campaign, it would be at the cost of a Feat or a power of a specific PrCl.



> Whenever you gain a level, you can choose one spell you know and replace it with another spell that can be of the same level, any lower level, or one level higher. The spell must be from the same class, however.




I don't particularly care for this in Wis or Int based casters.  I don't generally have a problem with this for Cha based casters.



> _Channel Energy_ - Should this be class level or caster level based?




Class level.


> _Spontaneous Casting_ - A cleric gains bonus spells known based on his class level (cure if he channels positive, inflict if negative). He can cast these spells at will, as with his normal spells known.
> 
> 1st - cure/inflict light wounds
> 3rd - cure/inflict moderate wounds
> ...




Ideally, this would differ from god to god, not merely between pos/neg energy, and as such, would be broader than being limited to heals or harms.   A cleric of a nature deity might Spontaneously channel like a Druid...

Perhaps they'd be based on Domains...

Of course, that would mean certain kinds of spell types would have to have their lists fleshed out.  A _lot._



> *Paladin:*
> Paladins only learn 1 spell per level, not 2. If their caster level is less than 1 (like at 1st level), then can't actually cast any of these spells.
> 
> (I suggest we bundle the paladin spell list into the cleric spell list, and just let paladins pick spells as clerics. Otherwise, we have the slight issue of a sorcerer 6/paladin 2 taking holy sword, and being able to have a +5 sword at 8th level. Or I guess we could just revise the holy sword spell. Either way, paladin spellcasting is crap, and could use a boost.)




I liked Green Ronin's take on Holy Warriors in Book of the Righteous, and something similar could work here.  Essentially, Paladins would get only Domain spells, plus a few powers (and if you're really tweeking things, variant auras as well).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 1, 2008)

The bard's advancement rate is closer to 2/3-- and a "massaged" 2/3 at that. The 3/4 advancement rate tops a pure bard out at CL15-- 8th level spells.

You've chosen to err on the side of fewer known spells; I went the opposite end. In your model, a Cleric or Druid loses access to "all spells" known and starts picking them up like a Wizard. Is one model "better" than the other? Dunno. They're both radically different from the status quo, so somebody will squeal one way or the other.

I'm on vacation but I'll see if I can put together a PDF with my notes to help.


----------



## rgard (Sep 1, 2008)

Arashi Ravenblade said:


> I like it it as a variant.
> I think Pathfinder needs to just evolve into a Unearthed Arcana like book. Tons of optional rules, all keeping compatible with 3.5 with minor on the fly adjustments.





That is what I'd like to see as well.

Thanks,
Rich


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 1, 2008)

*Multiclass Spellcasters (Unified Spell Progression)*

*Multiclass Spellcasters*

This alternate system attempts to rebalance all the basic classes to allow spellcasters to multiclass more freely. In 3rd edition, multiclass spellcasters kept two (or more!) distinct caster progressions: caster level, spells known, and spell slots per day. In practice—and particularly in the case of the Mystic Theurge prestige class—this generally meant giving up your highest level spells in exchange for twice as many lower level spell slots. And the Mystic Theurge was the best case scenario.

It is our contention that _higher level spell slots_ are more valuable than _more lower level spell slots_ and the unified spell progression works nicely for this philosophy.

All classes have a Base Magic Bonus. There are four progressions: 
•	+1/3 levels (barbarian, fighter, rogue), 
•	+1/2 levels (monk, paladin, ranger), 
•	+2/3 levels (bard), 
•	+1/level (cleric, druid, sorcerer, wizard)

The Base Magic Bonus (BMB) from each class adds together, just as the Base Attack Bonus combines for melee characters.

The character’s total Base Magic Bonus determines his caster level, his spell slots per day, and the number of spells he may ready each day. A character will generally have one more spell readied per day than he has spell slots, which allows some versatility in spellcasting. 

At 1st level in any spellcasting class, the character gains access to *all spells* on a given spell list, adding them to his list of spells known. After a suitable rest period, the spellcaster chooses the spells he will ready from his list of spells known. 

When he casts a spell, he may only cast a spell that he has readied; however, he may cast any spell he has readied, using his available spell slots, in any combination.

_Example: Johannes is a 1st level druid. He gains access to all spells on the druid spell list. At 1st level, his Base Magic Bonus (BMB) is +1. Consulting the table, he notes that he receives three 0-level spell slots (and thus readies four 0-level spells); and he receives one 1st level spell slot (and thus readies two 1st level spells). 

Johannes readies detect magic, guidance, know direction, and resistance as his 0-level spells; he readies entangle and shillelagh as his 1st level spells. Checking the table for his spell slots, he notes that he receives three 0-level spell slots and one 1st level spell slot. Due to his high Wisdom, he receives an extra 1st level spell slot.

Until Johannes rests again, he can cast three 0-level spells, chosen from any of the four he readied, and two 1st level spells, chosen from the two he readied, in any combination. In the course of reaching the dungeon itself, he’s called upon to cast know direction twice, and he casts resistance once as well, using up the last of his three 0-level spell slots. A patrol of goblins catches the party just outside the dungeon, and Johannes casts entangle. He saves his last 1st level spell slot for later, but he’ll be able to cast either entangle or shillelagh as the situation warrants.​_
A spellcaster may always opt to use a higher-level spell slot to power a lower level spell. He also has much greater flexibility with regards to metamagic. A spellcaster need not ready the metamagic version of any spell; rather, if he has the spell readied, and he has access to a metamagic feat, and he has a sufficiently high spell slot available, he may apply the effects of metamagic as he casts.

Characters who multiclass into another spellcasting class gain access to all of the spells on the spell list of the new class. However, although this adds considerable versatility, their spells readied and spell slots per day are still calculated solely on their Base Magic Bonus.

In addition, each spell list carries with it certain restrictions. A multiclass character may have access to spells from many different lists, but he must meet all criteria and abide by all restrictions when casting a spell from that list.

Bard spells are arcane spells, and require a minimum Charisma equal to 10 + spell level to ready or cast. In addition, all bard spells have a somatic component (playing an instrument) and a verbal component (singing, chanting, etc.) Bards are able to ignore the arcane spell failure chance on their spells when wearing no armor or light armor. Heavier armors interfere with their playing and thus carry a chance of arcane spell failure.

Cleric spells are divine spells, and require a mimimum Wisdom equal to 10 + spell level to ready or cast. Clerics and paladins both gain access to all cleric spells at 1st level. In addition, clerics (but not paladins) may gain access to additional spells through their chosen domains.

Druid spells are divine spells, and require a minimum Wisdom equal to 10 + spell level to ready or cast. In addition, no character can cast druidic spells while wearing metal armor of any kind. Such attempts automatically fail.

Wizard spells are arcane spells, and require a minimum Intelligence equal to 10 + spell level to ready or cast. Wizard spells with somantic components require intricate hand gestures, and armor of any kind interferes with casting. Any character wearing armor suffers from a chance of arcane spell failure.

Sorcerers cast wizard spells, and their spells are the same in all respects, including arcane spell failure. However, sorcerers cast arcane spells through innate power (often derived from a fey, draconic, or even infernal bloodline), as opposed to study and research. A sorcerer can meet the ability score criteria of wizard spells using his Charisma rather than his Intelligence. A sorcerer must have a minimum Charisma of 10 + spell level to cast his spells.

Multiclass spellcasters use only their highest applicable ability score to determine bonus spell slots per day and the DC of their spells, regardless of which spell list they use to ready and cast spells.

(Note: Wide table, use scroll bar.)


```
[SIZE="4"][B]Base Spell Slots/Spells Readied* Per Day[/B][/SIZE]
[B][U]BMB	0	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th[/U][/B]
+0**	3	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
+1	3	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
+2	4	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
+3	4	2	1	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
+4	4	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—	—
+5	4	3	2	1	—	—	—	—	—	—
+6	4	3	3	2	—	—	—	—	—	—
+7	4	4	3	2	1	—	—	—	—	—
+8	4	4	3	3	2	—	—	—	—	—
+9	4	4	4	3	2	1	—	—	—	—
+10	4	4	4	3	3	2	—	—	—	—
+11	5	4	4	4	3	2	1	—	—	—
+12	5	4	4	4	3	3	2	—	—	—
+13	5	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	—	—
+14	5	4	4	4	4	3	3	2	—	—
+15	5	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1	—
+16	5	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	2	—
+17	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	2	1
+18	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3	2
+19	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	3	3
+20	5	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4	4
```
* A spellcaster’s base Ready Spells Per Day is always one more than the number of base spell slots listed. 
** A character must be a spellcaster in order to cast spells.

We’re going to walk through the individual classes in a logical progression, starting with the comparison of Sorcerers to Wizards.
Please note that in order to keep the table sizes down, I’ve eliminated all extraneous information (BAB, Saves, existing class information) in order to focus on the changes.


*Sorcerer*
[sblock]

Charismatic Caster: Sorcerers cast wizard spells, and their spells are the same in all respects, including arcane spell failure. However, sorcerers cast arcane spells through innate power (often derived from a fey, draconic, or even infernal bloodline), as opposed to study and research. A sorcerer can meet the ability score criteria of wizard spells using his Charisma rather than his Intelligence. 

At 1st level, a sorcerer gains access to all the spells on the wizard spell list. To learn or cast an arcane spell, a sorcerer must have a Charisma score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a sorcerer’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the sorcerer’s Charisma modifier. He receives bonus spells per day if he has a high Charisma score.

A sorcerer’s selection of spells is limited. He does not ready as many spells per day as the wizard; however he gains many more spell slots per day. The sorcerer may only use his bonus spell slots to cast arcane spells.


```
[B][U]Level	BMB	Class Features[/U][/B]
1	+1	Bonus spell slot (0th, 1st)
2	+2	Bonus spell slot (1st)
3	+3	Bonus spell slot (1st)
4	+4	Bonus spell slot (0th, 1st, 2nd)
5	+5	Bonus spell slot (2nd)
6	+6	Bonus spell slot (2nd, 3rd)
7	+7	Bonus spell slot (3rd)
8	+8	Bonus spell slot (3rd, 4th)
9	+9	Bonus spell slot (4th)
10	+10	Bonus spell slot (4th, 5th)
11	+11	Bonus spell slot (5th)
12	+12	Bonus spell slot (5th, 6th)
13	+13	Bonus spell slot (6th)
14	+14	Bonus spell slot (6th, 7th)
15	+15	Bonus spell slot (7th)
16	+16	Bonus spell slot (7th, 8th)
17	+17	Bonus spell slot (8th)
18	+18	Bonus spell slot (8th, 9th)
19	+19	Bonus spell slot (9th)
20	+20	Bonus spell slot (9th)
```
[/sblock]
*Wizard*
[sblock]
Wizards are versatile spellcasters. They do not have as many spell slots per day as the sorcerer, but he may ready many more spells. This allows the wizard much greater utility and flexibility to prepare for the unexpected. 

Bonus Ready Spell: At 1st level, the wizard may ready one additional 1st level spell in addition to those normally gained through his Base Magic Bonus. At every level thereafter, the wizard continues to gain bonus readied spells, as shown on the table. The wizard may only use this class feature to Ready bonus arcane spells.

Read Magic: The 0-level read magic spell is always considered ready for a wizard.

Spellbooks: A wizard must study his spellbook each day to ready his spells. He cannot ready wizard spells if for any reason he is denied access to his spellbook (with the exception of read magic, as above). A multiclass wizard may ready spells as normal for his other classes, but if he loses his spellbook, he loses access to any bonus ready spells granted by his wizard class.

School Specialization
A specialist wizard can ready one additional spell of his specialty school per spell level each day, over and above all his other ready spells, and he gains an additional spell slot which he may only use to cast that spell. 


```
[B][U]Level	BMB	Class Features[/U][/B]
1	+1	Bonus feat, bonus Ready spell (1st),
		read magic, spellbooks, familiar
2	+2	Bonus Ready (1st)
3	+3	Bonus Ready (2nd)
4	+4	Bonus Ready (2nd)
5	+5	Bonus feat, bonus Ready (3rd)
6	+6	Bonus Ready (3rd)
7	+7	Bonus Ready (4th)
8	+8	Bonus Ready (4th)
9	+9	Bonus Ready (5th)
10	+10	Bonus feat, bonus Ready (5th)
11	+11	Bonus Ready (1st, 6th)
12	+12	Bonus Ready (1st, 6th)
13	+13	Bonus readied (2nd, 7th)
14	+14	Bonus Ready (2nd, 7th)
15	+15	Bonus feat, bonus Ready (3rd, 8th)
16	+16	Bonus Ready (3rd, 8th)
17	+17	Bonus Ready (4th, 9th)
18	+18	Bonus Ready (4th, 9th)
19	+19	Bonus Ready (5th)
20	+20	Bonus feat, bonus Ready (5th)
```
[/sblock]
The wizard and the sorcerer best demonstrate the counterbalance between readied spells and spell slots. A sorcerer will typically have 3 more spell slots than the wizard, but the wizard will have 3-4 more readied spells to choose from than the sorcerer.

*Cleric *
[sblock]
Cleric Domains: A 1st level cleric chooses two domains from among those belonging to his deity. A cleric can select an alignment domain (Chaos, Evil, Good, or Law) only if his alignment matches that domain.

If a cleric is not devoted to a particular deity, he still selects two domains to represent his spiritual inclinations and abilities. The restriction on alignment domains still applies.

The cleric gains the granted power from each domain. His chosen domains also grant him access to all the spells listed for each domain, in addition to the normal cleric spell list.

At 11th level, the cleric gains a third domain chosen from his deity’s domains (or according to his spiritual inclinations, if he has no specific deity). He gains access to all the spells on his 3rd domain in addition to a 3rd granted power.

Spells: A cleric casts divine spells from the cleric spell list. At 1st level, the cleric gains access to all of the spells on the cleric spell list. 
To ready or cast a cleric spell, a cleric must have a Wisdom score equal to at least 10 + the spell level. The Difficulty Class for a saving throw against a cleric’s spell is 10 + the spell level + the cleric’s Wisdom modifier. He receives bonus spell slots per day if he has a high Wisdom score. 

Domain Spells: A cleric’s domain spells are always readied. In addition, beginning at 1st level, the cleric gets one bonus spell slot per day. The bonus spell slot may only be used to cast one of his 1st level domain spells. As the cleric advances in level, he gains additional bonus spell slots, which he must use to cast his domain spells. A cleric may not cast the same domain spell twice from a bonus slot; if he has more than one bonus slot, he must cast a different domain spell from each. 

Spontaneous Casting: A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not ready ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any readied spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name, including the mass cure spells of higher levels). The cleric may not use his bonus domain spell slots for spontaneous casting. Once a readied spell is used in this way for spontaneous casting, the prior spell is no longer considered ready. 


```
[B][U]Level	BMB	Class Features[/U][/B]
1	+1	Aura, cleric domains, domain spell (1st), spontaneous casting (1st), turn or rebuke undead
2	+2	Domain spell (1st)
3	+3	Domain spell (2nd), spontaneous casting (2nd)
4	+4	Domain spell (2nd)
5	+5	Domain spell (3rd), spontaneous casting (3rd)
6	+6	Domain spell (3rd)
7	+7	Domain spell (4th), spontaneous casting (4th)
8	+8	Domain spell (4th)
9	+9	Domain spell (5th), spontaneous casting (5th)
10	+10	Domain spell (5th)
11	+11	Domain spell (1st, 6th), spontaneous casting (6th), third domain
12	+12	Domain spell (1st, 6th)
13	+13	Domain spell (2nd, 7th), spontaneous casting (7th)
14	+14	Domain spell (2nd, 7th)
15	+15	Domain spell (3rd, 8th), spontaneous casting (8th)
16	+16	Domain spell (3rd, 8th)
17	+17	Domain spell (4th, 9th)
18	+18	Domain spell (4th, 9th)
19	+19	Domain Spell (5th)
20	+20	Domain Spell (5th)
```
[/sblock]

*Druids*
The druid’s existing class features are unchanged. The druid gains no bonus spell slots nor bonus readied spells as class features. The druid gains a spontaneous casting ability to convert readied spells into Summon Nature’s Ally I thru IX.

*Bards*
The bard’s Base Magic Bonus progression is “approximately” 2/3. The progression has been jiggled slightly at some levels (to account for the bard’s prior “0” entries on his spell list, and to grant new spell levels at the existing, expected break points) and is capped at +12. The extended progression (to +13) is shown for completeness.

The bard has no additional class features under this system.

[sblock]

```
[U][B]Level	BMB[/B][/U]
1	+0
2	+1
3	+2
4	+3
5	+3
6	+4
7	+5
8	+5 
9	+6
10	+7
11	+7 
12	+8 
13	+9 
14	+9
15	+10
16	+11
17	+11
18	+12
19	+12 (+13)
20	+12 (+13)
```
[/sblock]


*Paladins and Rangers*
The paladin has exactly two spells that don’t already appear on the cleric spell list: Bless Weapon and Holy Sword. Our solution is to add these spells as spell-like abilities, and to otherwise grant the paladin full access to the cleric spell list. This has the added (desirable) effect of making the paladin feel more like a holy warrior.

Similarly for Rangers, we recommend simply rolling the ranger spells into the druid spell list, and giving the Ranger access to the entire druid spell list as his spells known.

Both Paladins and Rangers have a BMB of ½; thus they will gain access to spellcasting abilities sooner than under the existing rules. Both are considered “spellcasters” and thus under these rules, they’ll gain access to 0 level spells beginning at 1st level with a BMB of +0. Ultimately they will be able to cast 5th level spells.

*Monks*
We’ve also given the monk a +½ BMB advancement. Though they are not considered spellcasters, their mystical abilities blend well with spellcasters. Needless to say, we’re in favor of boosting the monk’s abilities overall and lifting any multiclassing restrictions.

*
Barbarian, Fighter, Rogue*
These classes have a +1/3 BMB progression.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 2, 2008)

Not to shoot down your idea (I think it is quite good). I am not sure that it fits in the mold of the types of changes that they would like to make to the 3.5e game. A stated goal was compatibility and this seems pretty different. Can you explain how the compatibility issue is dealt with in your mod at least more so than any other less extensive changes?


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 2, 2008)

Wulf, your and my suggestions are pretty similar. But where I tried to tone down spellcaster power by reducing spells available, you've greatly increased it for sorcerers and wizards. What's your logic for that? Also, if you want to cast a spell twice in a day, do you have to prepare it twice, or can you prepare it once and just spend a spell slot each time you want to cast it?

I think 3/4 spellcasting progression is aesthetically better than 2/3, but for balance sake, and to minimize fiddling, I think your idea works.

My version is easier in gameplay, I feel. I've never liked having to write down prepared spells, and I prefer spontaneous casting. Less book-keeping. Likewise, despite my work on Elements of Magic, I sorta hate spell points. A little too fiddly.



Sadrik, I don't see how either my or Wulf's version are 'incompatible' with existing 3.5 products. Sure, there would be niche case problems: for instance, what do assassins get (I recommend that if a prestige class gets its own mini spell list, it is independent of this system, but if a prestige class provides a caster level boost, well that's easy to work into this system). And how would you qualify for prestige classes that require divine caster level 5 (easy revision, you need to be able to cast 3rd level divine spells).

What problem do you see with the systems being compatible? When it comes to NPCs, I'm pretty sure even the Paizo folks have admitted the best thing to do is to run them as they're written, and not try to convert them to the new ruleset. I mean, few people complain that now all the NPC fighters in their games will need to have extra feats and stuff; you just run them as they were previously written and don't sweat the small stuff.



As an aside, one idea I always liked was to directly equate BAB with attack power. So a Fighter 20's attacks would be 20x as damaging as a Fighter 1's, or at least 20x as versatile. The idea came from Elements of Magic, where it was easy for you to design spells at high level that did lots of things at once, because you had lots of Magic Points to play around with. I wanted to someday create a Elements of Battle system where fighters got Battle Points for pulling off cool maneuvers in combat.

But I suppose that's a development for a different game.


Anyway, back to this one. We both like the unified spells per day based on caster level, and stacking caster level based on class. We disagree on how people should get access to spells. Which solution do you think is better? Which would be better accepted by the Pathfinder community, and which is better for game balance and gameplay?

We should come up with a unified proposal and show it to the guys at Paizo.


----------



## Sadrik (Sep 2, 2008)

I didn't say it was incompatible I said it was different. Different just means that you have to do some learning to get it to work in Pathfinder. By the way this is very, very similar to what was a popular line of thinking post Arcana Unearthed. I myself had a very similar concept to this back in the day. So I know it is good.  

Here is my rule for multi-classing that I think pathfinder should adopt:
You add 1/2 your other levels to your class to advance *all* of your class features but no more than double.

Example:
Rogue 2/Wizard 6
Counts as a 7th level wizard
Counts as a 4th level rogue

They get all bonuses and class features as though they were of the particular class and level.

Note this is highly simple and portable. Nothing extra is really needed to be known to make this work. What do you think?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 2, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> Wulf, your and my suggestions are pretty similar. But where I tried to tone down spellcaster power by reducing spells available, you've greatly increased it for sorcerers and wizards.




I'm not sure I've really increased it for wizards since they had access to every spell they could purchase-- which is effectively every spell they want beyond L3 or so. 

But I'll concede the point on sorcerers-- and bards-- AND effectively every multiclass spellcaster who'll get access to all the known spells on every class he takes. As I said upthread, I went the exact complete opposite end of the spectrum than you did.

No doubt it makes spellcasters more versatile. Versatility _is_ power of a fashion, of course.

It's especially powerful ("Broken!" says BryonD) in the case of a Clr1/Wiz19 who picks up all the divine spells (all the way to Miracle and True Resurrection) as a cleric as well as all the Wizard spells (all the way to Wish). (Or vice versa for the Clr19/Wiz1).

It's very different and so therefore very scary.

Ultimately there are not such vast differences between the arcane and divine spell lists that mixing them breaks the system (though it may very well break the sacred cow "feel" of the game for you). In the end the spell list is already very nearly universal, and you have a 20th level character who can cast Wish OR Miracle OR True Resurrection, which taken by itself isn't really so scary after all.

Compared to the status quo? Well, all he's given up are the 20th level Wizard perks (one bonus Feat and one bonus 5th level Ready spell).

This makes him much more useful as a healer but not more useful than a true cleric-- he lacks the bonus divine spells and spontaneous casting ability of the true cleric. So he'll have to actually Ready his healing spells.

Conversely the Clr19/Wiz1 can have a grand time blasting his foes apart with arcane magic, _and_ he'll more than pull his weight as a healer-- but he cannot Ready arcane spells in his bonus domain slots, and he'll lack the bonus feats and bonus readied spells of the true wizard.

All of that now presented for discussion, I will admit I would be much happier if this system included a Universal spell list that is divided into (at most) Divine and Arcane spells. 

You certainly _could_ do exactly that by throwing out the 3.5 spell list and using a more unified spell list such as that found in the AE spell treasury.

This is a variation on what I mentioned in the other thread-- that the key was to make class abilities for the spellcasters that were _attractive_ and yet on par with the other class features (such as the Bbn features). 

Successful? I guess that depends on how you feel about the Rog2/Ftr4/Bbn14. Those classes synergize pretty well, too.



> Also, if you want to cast a spell twice in a day, do you have to prepare it twice, or can you prepare it once and just spend a spell slot each time you want to cast it?




The Ready spell mechanic appears in AU/AE. I recommend checking it out.

Basically you start the day by Readying every spell you want to have access to-- think of it as a miniature "spells known" list. You can then cast any spell you have Readied using any available spell slots. You don't need to Ready the same spell twice. 

The example section in orange in the middle explains this.



> I think 3/4 spellcasting progression is aesthetically better than 2/3, but for balance sake, and to minimize fiddling, I think your idea works.




I started with 3/4 on bards as well. It would work just fine if you want to add 7th and 8th level spells to the bard spell list.



> My version is easier in gameplay, I feel. I've never liked having to write down prepared spells, and I prefer spontaneous casting.




Give the Ready spells mechanic a fair shake. It's an excellent mix between "prepared" and "spontaneous" casting. I'd certainly take versatility at the expense of a bit of simplicity.

At any rate I didn't post to compete with your version, only to share the path I'd gone down. We may yet converge.



> Sadrik, I don't see how either my or Wulf's version are 'incompatible' with existing 3.5 products. When it comes to NPCs, I'm pretty sure even the Paizo folks have admitted the best thing to do is to run them as they're written, and not try to convert them to the new ruleset; you just run them as they were previously written and don't sweat the small stuff.




Exactly. I have no compunctions whatsoever about changing the mechanics behind the PCs and leaving the NPCs behind.



> Anyway, back to this one. We both like the unified spells per day based on caster level, and stacking caster level based on class. We disagree on how people should get access to spells. Which solution do you think is better?




I'm still not sure. Jury's out. Presented here for discussion. I will say I am generally comfortable giving more power to the PCs/players and I'll worry about challenging them from my side of the screen.



> Which would be better accepted by the Pathfinder community, and which is better for game balance and gameplay?




I think it's impossible to please all Pathfinder fans. I especially doubt that I am the man for the job. My wants and needs have already diverged too far from Pathfinder-- I don't particularly want the changes that they made and the changes that I need, they haven't touched yet.


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 2, 2008)

Well in that case, since I might end up writing for Pathfinder products in the future, I prefer my version ( :-D ), where the ratio of spells you know depends on the ratio of your different spellcasting classes. 

It's late, but I'll try to work something up later this week.

I'm sure you've mentioned it elsewhere, but what are the particular changes you need that they haven't touched yet? Monster design?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 2, 2008)

Multiclass spellcasters for starters.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 2, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> Well in that case, since I might end up writing for Pathfinder products in the future, I prefer my version ( :-D ), where the ratio of spells you know depends on the ratio of your different spellcasting classes.




The answer is probably somewhere in the middle, because this:



> Wiz 1/Ftr 19 has caster level 10, and knows 2 spells of up to 5th level.




is almost as bad as the status quo. Why bother stacking caster level and spell slots if the CL10 Ftr/Wiz only knows two spells? He's throwing away most of his spell slots.

(Sorry if that sounds blunt!)


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 2, 2008)

He could get magic missile and fireball, and take a metamagic feat or two, and have a ton of mook-killing power. Or he might go for, say, minor image and teleport. Either is better than the current version and, I feel, better than your system which would let a 19th level fighter pick up dozens of spells by investing just one level in wizard.

Maybe make spells known a function of your total caster level, and have a universal spell list. If your caster level goes up due to a nonspellcasting class's level, you have to pick spells from the universal list. 

What if your caster level increases when you haven't yet taken any spellcasting classes yet, though? Hm. Maybe you don't select any spells, and whenever you take a spellcasting class, you have to fill in all the backlog with spells from your current class. Iffy.


----------



## Chacal (Sep 2, 2008)

I really like the Readied spells mechanism from AU/AE, so I'm more inclined to like Wulf's proposal.
However, while I'll refrain myself from screaming "Broken !", I would probably add one of the following limitations

 a cap on the highest level of spell known, something like class level x2.
 Every full spellcasting class after the first gives a -1 to BMB

A side effect to the Readied spell mechanisms is that it blurs the differences between sorcerers and wizards casting styles (and replaces them advantageously). 
Looking at  their progression tables, I wondered if one class wouldn't be enough to represent both archetypes. Let's call him the Magic User 
The Magic User chooses between two mutually exclusive (or not ?) feats:
The first one allows the Magic user to convert up to one spell slot of every level into two readied spells of the same level. 
The second one allows the Magic User to convert up to one readied spell of every level into two spell slots of the same level.

Both feats can only be used upon readying spells.

Additionally, I would give a feat every 5 levels. I would  add several feat chains or feat trees for representing school specializations or sorcerous bloodlines.


Chacal


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 2, 2008)

While I think what you guys are working on is pretty cool from a design perspective, there's _no way_ it makes it into Pathfinder (if you're considering that as a goal).  It's simply too dissimilar to 3.5.  Even I, as big an amateur design wonk as I am, got a little "eyes glazed over" thing as I was reading through this.  There's just no way Pathfinder goes in a direction that will freak out so many players.

Not that that should stop you.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 2, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> He could get magic missile and fireball, and take a metamagic feat or two, and have a ton of mook-killing power. Or he might go for, say, minor image and teleport.




A 10th level caster (Wizard, in your version) has a spell slot load of 4/4/4/3/3/2. 

Just giving the Fighter two spells known throws away most of his slots. It invalidates the entire point behind the fix.



> Either is better than the current version and, I feel, better than your system which would let a 19th level fighter pick up dozens of spells by investing just one level in wizard.




What is the difference between a Fighter who takes a level of Wizard and gains access to dozens of spells, and a Wizard who takes a level of Fighter and is suddenly proficient with all martial weapons, all armors, and tower shields? Would you change that?



> Maybe make spells known a function of your total caster level, and have a universal spell list. If your caster level goes up due to a nonspellcasting class's level, you have to pick spells from the universal list.




I'm more inclined to define a Universal list that everyone gets complete and instant access to as soon as they pick up 1 spellcasting level, and then carve out more restricted class-based lists that you have to choose from when you level up.

At the end of the day the Clr10/Wiz10 deserves access to 9th level spells in both classes. Period. He's a "full" spellcaster with an even split, he deserves every bit of power coming to a 20th level character-- just as the Wiz20, the Clr20, or the synergy enjoyed by a Ftr10/Bbn10 (who gives up nothing other than class features).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 2, 2008)

Jeff Wilder said:


> There's _no way_ it makes it into Pathfinder (if you're considering that as a goal). There's just no way Pathfinder goes in a direction that will freak out so many players.
> 
> Not that that should stop you.




I know.

It won't.


----------



## Chacal (Sep 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> At the end of the day the Clr10/Wiz10 deserves access to 9th level spells in both classes. Period. He's a "full" spellcaster with an even split, he deserves every bit of power coming to a 20th level character-- just as the Wiz20, the Clr20, or the synergy enjoyed by a Ftr10/Bbn10 (who gives up nothing other than class features).



I believe that, given the existing spell lists, access to high level spells are *defining* class features for wizards and Cleric. For this reason alone, I feel giving multiclass spellcasters access to 9th level spells in two or more spell lists  cheapens the single classed ones.

As you mentioned, it will work much better with a universal spell list. It would also need other defining class features  at high levels IMO. 


Chacal


----------



## Voadam (Sep 2, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> A 10th level caster (Wizard, in your version) has a spell slot load of 4/4/4/3/3/2.
> 
> Just giving the Fighter two spells known throws away most of his slots. It invalidates the entire point behind the fix.
> 
> ...




A fighter who takes a level of wizard can use staves and wands and scrolls. He is not a great spellcaster but he can do a bunch of magical things, many while tanked up in heavy armor.

The benefit for the fighter is generally access to the spell items and a will save boost.

A wizard who takes a level of fighter can wear armor and use weapons without incurring non proficiency penalties. He will still generally suck at weapon combat and will incur arcane failure chances if he uses his spell slots while wearing armor.

The benefit for the wizard is generally a few extra hp, a feat such as dodge, deflect arrows, or improved initiative that synergizes well with a wizard's typical role, a bonus on fort saves, and +.5 BAB increase for touch attack/ray spells.

These both seem roughly comparable to a fighter picking up a level of rogue. +1d6 sneak attack and some good reflex save increase.


I would say the ftr 1/wiz 19 and ftr 19/wiz 1 dip routes are not the problem with standard 3.5 spellcasting multiclassing.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 3, 2008)

Chacal said:


> I believe that, given the existing spell lists, access to high level spells are *defining* class features for wizards and Cleric. For this reason alone, I feel giving multiclass spellcasters access to 9th level spells in two or more spell lists  cheapens the single classed ones.




Pardon my mess. Meant to hit preview. 

Not even counting Miracle as an analog of Wish, I count 5 spells on the 9th level Cleric list that aren't on the Wizard list. Which ones are _defining_ features of the Cleric class-- just the healing and resurrecting?


```
Astral Projection M:	Astral Projection M:
	Crushing Hand:
	Dominate Monster:
Energy Drain:	Energy Drain:
Etherealness:	Etherealness:
	Foresight:
	Freedom:
Gate X:	Gate X:
Heal, Mass:
	Hold Monster, Mass:
Implosion:
	Imprisonment:
Miracle X:
	Mage’s Disjunction:
	Meteor Swarm:
	Power Word Kill:
	Prismatic Sphere:
	Refuge M:
	Shades:
	Shapechange F:
Soul Bind F:	Soul Bind F:
Storm of Vengeance:
Summon Monster IX:	Summon Monster IX:
True Resurrection M:
	Teleportation Circle M:
	Time Stop:
	Wail of the Banshee:
	Weird:
	Wish X:
```


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 3, 2008)

I want to submit something to Pathfinder, and I want it accepted, so what will work?

I agree with Voadam that one level of dipping into a spellcasting class can be pretty leet for the purpose of using magic items, so here's the next iteration, which I think would be more acceptable to the people who want more backwards compatibility.

1. We need a unified spells per day chart. I think most people could accept it.

2. I also think stacking Base Magic Bonus is a good idea.

3. We clarify that BMB is just how familiar you are with magic, not how good you are at using magic. Someone who's very familiar with magic could pick up spellcasting pretty quickly because they've been experiencing magic for many levels, but one level alone shouldn't get you tons of benefits.

4. This needs to be fairly flexible so that people who want to convert shugenja, wu-jen, duskblades, and spellthieves can do it. Classes with their own mini spellcasting thing, like assassins, should probably just stay stand-alone.


Everyone gets spell slots from their caster level. You can fill those spell slots with any spell you have access to from any class, but instead of requiring an ability score of 10 + spell level in the requisite ability score to cast a spell from a given class, you just need to have a number of levels equal to the spell's level. 

So if you're Fighter 14/Cleric 6, your caster level is 13, but you can only cast 6th level spells. If you're Wizard 14/Cleric 4/Druid 2, you can cast 9th level wizard but only 4th level cleric and 2nd level druid spells. If you're Fighter 18/Wizard 2, you get a lot of spell slots, but only 2nd level spells.



Clerics get access to all spells from their spell list.

Druids too.

Wizards prepare from a spellbook.

Sorcerers get bonus spell slots, and can't prepare spells, but they learn 2 spells per level they can cast spontaneously. Beyond 3rd level, at least one of these spells has to be of a level below your highest spell level.

Bards work about the same way.

Is this better?


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 3, 2008)

Before I start commenting specifically, here is my assumption -- and it is just an assumption, albeit based on stuff I've read on Paizo's boards -- about the minimum JB wants for B-C in Pathfinder.

I think he would want a DM to be able to take a 3.5 stat block and run it, easily, on the fly.  Absolutely no conversion time required, pre-encounter.

So the question becomes, is a change so radical that a stat-block just wouldn't work?  Does this system fail that test?

Arguably, and I suppose obviously, it depends on just how free-wheeling the DM is willing to be when it comes to interpreting the stat-block.  If a DM (and JB) is willing to accept that, "Hey, the fighter 8/wizard 8 in this 3.5 stat-block is significantly weaker than the fighter 7/wizard 7 in the PCs' group," and just play the stat-block as written, it's got a shot.  JB has shown that he'll go out on that limb to at least some length, because Pathfinder PCs (core, anyway) are noticeably stronger than 3.5 PCs.

Me, I'd accept that tradeoff for better multiclassing rules.  In a heartbeat.  (Either tradeoff, actually.  Either weaker stat-blocks, or some conversion time.)



RangerWickett said:


> 1. We need a unified spells per day chart. I think most people could accept it.



We need it for this system to work?  I agree, and I agree that most people would accept it in principle.



> 2. I also think stacking Base Magic Bonus is a good idea.



I absolutely agree here, but I prefer Base Caster Level.  This is the number you're going to use when you make a "caster level check," right?  Plus, "BCL" is easier to say, and not as easily confused in speech with "BAB."



> 3. We clarify that BMB is just how familiar you are with magic, not how good you are at using magic.



But it is how good you are with magic, isn't it?  Clarify that it encompasses both, as familiarity certainly informs skill.



> 4. This needs to be fairly flexible so that people who want to convert shugenja, wu-jen, duskblades, and spellthieves can do it. Classes with their own mini spellcasting thing, like assassins, should probably just stay stand-alone.



Does "mini spellcasting" include rangers and paladins?



> Everyone gets spell slots from their caster level.



"Caster level" or "BMB"?  I assume you're using them synonymously, which is another argument for "BCL."



> You can fill those spell slots with any spell you have access to from any class, but instead of requiring an ability score of 10 + spell level in the requisite ability score to cast a spell from a given class, you just need to have a number of levels equal to the spell's level.



This is obviously the key to the system, and I like it.  However, I don't like divorcing max spell level from the stat.  I think this needs to be the lower of either.

If you're worried about MAD, screw it.  Multiclassing is a choice.  If you wanna be competent at two distinct skill sets, have the raw talent to back it up.  Also, remember that, e.g., 5th level slots that couldn't be filled by a wizard 8/cleric 8 with a WIS of 14 can still be filled with wizard spells.

(As an aside, I assume bonus spells would only apply to the class with the applicable stat?)



> So if you're Fighter 14/Cleric 6, your caster level is 13, but you can only cast 6th level spells. If you're Wizard 14/Cleric 4/Druid 2, you can cast 9th level wizard but only 4th level cleric and 2nd level druid spells. If you're Fighter 18/Wizard 2, you get a lot of spell slots, but only 2nd level spells.






> Sorcerers get bonus spell slots, and can't prepare spells, but they learn 2 spells per level they can cast spontaneously. Beyond 3rd level, at least one of these spells has to be of a level below your highest spell level.



Okay.  Starting to get a little creaky, but I get it.



> Is this better?



Much.  IMO, if anything more radical than "multiclass feats" can make it into Pathfinder, it'll have to be something like this.

How does it interact with, e.g., the mystic theurge, which is, after all, a core prestige class?  (If the answer is, "The mystic theurge and similar hybrid PrCs become redundant and get struck from the rules," BTW, I'm okay with that.  Not sure JB would feel the same, natch.)


----------



## Chacal (Sep 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Not even counting Miracle as an analog of Wish, I count 5 spells on the 9th level Cleric list that aren't on the Wizard list. Which ones are _defining_ features of the Cleric class-- just the healing and resurrecting?




Fair question.
I took the lists from level 7 to 9 and looked  up every non-wizard spells


Spells that are also druid spells are in _italics_.
Besides these, I underlined the spells that are not defining class features for cleric in my own subjective opinion. All others contribute in the definition of clerics as much as the turn undead ability.


*7th-Level Cleric Spells*

 Blasphemy: Kills, paralyzes, weakens, or dazes nonevil subjects.
_Cure Serious Wounds, Mass: Cures 3d8 damage +1/level for many creatures._
Destruction F: Kills subject and destroys remains.
Dictum: Kills, paralyzes, slows, or deafens nonlawful subjects.
Holy Word: Kills, paralyzes, blinds, or deafens nongood subjects.
Inflict Serious Wounds, Mass: Deals 3d8 damage +1/level to many creatures.
_Regenerate: Subject’s severed limbs grow back, cures 4d8 damage +1/level (max +35). _

Restoration, Greater X: As restoration, plus restores all levels and ability scores.
Resurrection M: Fully restore dead subject.
Word of Chaos: Kills, confuses, stuns, or deafens nonchaotic subjects.
*8th-Level Cleric Spells*


Cloak of Chaos F: +4 to AC, +4 resistance, and SR 25 against lawful spells.
_Cure Critical Wounds, Mass: Cures 4d8 damage +1/level for many creatures._
_Earthquake: Intense tremor shakes 80-ft.-radius._
_Fire Storm: Deals 1d6/level fire damage._
Holy Aura F: +4 to AC, +4 resistance, and SR 25 against evil spells.
Inflict Critical Wounds, Mass: Deals 4d8 damage +1/level to many creatures.
Planar Ally, Greater X: As lesser planar ally, but up to 18 HD.
Shield of Law F: +4 to AC, +4 resistance, and SR 25 against chaotic spells.
Spell Immunity, Greater: As spell immunity, but up to 8th-level spells.
Unholy Aura F: +4 to AC, +4 resistance, and SR 25 against good spells.
*9th-Level Cleric Spells*

Heal, Mass: As heal, but with several subjects.
Implosion: Kills one creature/round.
Miracle X: Requests a deity’s intercession.
_Storm of Vengeance: Storm rains acid, lightning, and hail._
True Resurrection M: As resurrection, plus remains aren’t needed.



Chacal


----------



## Chacal (Sep 3, 2008)

*On backward compatibility*


Jeff Wilder said:


> If a DM (and JB) is willing to accept that, "Hey, the fighter 8/wizard 8 in this 3.5 stat-block is significantly weaker than the fighter 7/wizard 7 in the PCs' group," and just play the stat-block as written, it's got a shot.



IMO, if a ftr7/wiz7 is in a 3.5 module, the encounter is designed to be specifically at this power level, and not as a ftr 14 or wiz 14. It is also   designed to be met by a  number of "average" PCs of a given level, and not PCs that are "underpowered" given their multiclass choice.

 So I would trust the intended power level of a multiclassed NPC as much as the one from a single classed NPCs.  In short, it isn't necessary to convert him beyond a small boost in hp and a few abilities if it's put up against  PF PCs. 




*On the spell level cap *


> > You can fill those spell slots with any spell you have access to from any class, but instead of requiring an ability score of 10 + spell level in the requisite ability score to cast a spell from a given class, you just need to have a number of levels equal to the spell's level.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I agree. This is much less of a MAD problem than the DCs problem. I believe you already fixed the biggest offender.


Chacal


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 3, 2008)

I also looked at max spell level = class level. It _works_, at least.

There may be another way of expressing this mechanically that is more in-tune with existing mechanics (since normally max spell level = 1/2 class level, round up).


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> I want to submit something to Pathfinder, and I want it accepted, so what will work?



I am not sure that proposing a major overhaul to the multi-classing/spell-casting system will work at all. I might be wrong, but I think that's a little beyond the scope of a play-test. 

But if it works, the best thing you can do is: Do things that don't invalidate existing stat-blocks. (Though changing HD can do this already). 
So maybe the multi-class caster should still have the possibility to have all the spells prepared he has in his stat-block. I suppose it's okay if it is not the optimum combination of spells (in most proposals, the highest level of available spells for each class would go up).

---
I find it interesting how the arrival of 4E and the announcement of Pathfinder motivates people to _really_ look into the problematic issues and not just post stuff intended as a mere house-rule, but actually consider ways to publish them. You guys should have been active 4-6 years ago (perhaps before 3.5 was in the works!)


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> You guys should have been active 4-6 years ago (perhaps before 3.5 was in the works!)




Um, hello?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 3, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Um, hello?



*waves hand* Hello! 

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

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

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


----------



## Voadam (Sep 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


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




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

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

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


----------



## Greg K (Sep 3, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


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




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


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 3, 2008)

Voadam said:


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




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


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 3, 2008)

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

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

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


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Sep 4, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


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



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


----------



## Chacal (Sep 4, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


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



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

  A similar thread on Paizo boards

Chacal


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 4, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


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




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

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

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


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Sep 4, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Yeah, I basically think you're pissing in the wind, here.
> 
> I wouldn't expect much more credit than a playtest credit. It's an open playtest after all. So there isn't much point in attaching _any_ names to the idea.
> 
> At any rate, for whatever it's worth, if individual credits are in their planning, then my name would probably be "credited" for the Encounter calculation bit, so I'm all set.




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


----------



## Voadam (Sep 4, 2008)

A couple question on details

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

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

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


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 4, 2008)

Voadam said:


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




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

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



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




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

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

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

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


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 4, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


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




One thing I considered, but did not develop, was a class feature that allowed bards to select a school/subtype of spell (enchantments, illusions, healing, sonic, etc.) for which their caster level is boosted to their class level.

At 20th level the bard would have conceivably mastered all of the basic types of spells on his list. But a "dipping" bard wouldn't get the same "full educations."

Remember here I'm talking about the usual, old definition of caster level-- the Practiced Spellcaster type. It would affect spell durations, effect, etc. but not spells known, etc.

It felt a little weird to scale them back and power them up, which is why I didn't pursue it, but I still might.


----------



## Colonelpuddinhead (Sep 6, 2008)

Since the Paizo is trying to make core classes that will steer people fropm multiclassing, I'm curious to see how you guys would handle non-spellcasting multiclassing?  Would you leave as it is in 3.5?


----------



## RangerWickett (Sep 6, 2008)

Colonelpuddinhead said:


> Since the Paizo is trying to make core classes that will steer people fropm multiclassing, I'm curious to see how you guys would handle non-spellcasting multiclassing?  Would you leave as it is in 3.5?




I don't really see that big of a multiclassing problem with non-spellcasters. Was there something in particular you see as a weakness in multiclassing, say, a fighter with a rogue, or a sohei with a swordsage?


----------



## Banshee16 (Sep 6, 2008)

I like a lot of what both Ranger Wickett and Wulf suggest.....I like the idea of a spellcasting BAB....but I don't like Ranger's idea that a multiclass spellcaster only gets one pool of spell points, and all spells have to come from it.  A Cleric 10/Wizard10, for instance, would seem to lose a lot.

Wulf's suggestion seems to be very similar to the spellcasting method of the Magister from Arcana Unearthed...which in turn was similar to the Channeler in Spells and Magic, from 2nd Ed.

My concern is that those two suggestions are greater departures from the standard, and might break the backwards compatibility limitations that have been set for Pathfinder.

Personally, I was thinking more of something inspired by what FFG did with the spellcasting in Midnight.

Basically, have the level at which a spell is cast, and spell power be determined by character level, rather than caster level.

Thus, a Fighter 10/Wizard10 would cast spells as a lvl 20 Wizard.

However, his choice of spells.....spells per day, maximum spell level etc. will be determined by his caster level.

Maybe this could be combined with some kind of spellcasting BAB implementation that allows a multiclasser to cast spells of a higher lvl than determined by his caster level.  Maybe it could be ability dependent....

Like, say, a Fighter10/Wizard10 with INT of 15 gets the spells per day of a Wizard 12, while a Fighter10/Wizard10 with INT of 18 gets the spells per day of a Wizard 14.  This part I'm not as sold on.....you don't necessarioly want a Fighter10/Wizard10 to be as good a spellcaster as a Wizard20.....while at the same time, the spells available to a Fighter10/Wizard10, if he's limited to lvl 5, are of very limited use to a character facing lvl 20 encounters.

Banshee


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 6, 2008)

Colonelpuddinhead said:


> Since the Paizo is trying to make core classes that will steer people fropm multiclassing, I'm curious to see how you guys would handle non-spellcasting multiclassing?  Would you leave as it is in 3.5?




Yes, I would.

I'd also like to reiterate that I think, "Discourage people from multiclassing" is a spurious design goal.

The correct approach is to make them equally appealing-- and no, the solution to that is not to just stick a huge "prize" at 20th level.


----------



## Kerrick (Sep 6, 2008)

> Not even counting Miracle as an analog of Wish, I count 5 spells on the 9th level Cleric list that aren't on the Wizard list. Which ones are defining features of the Cleric class-- just the healing and resurrecting?



I'm not exactly sure why you're asking that question, but why not reverse it? Wizards get quite a few spells that aren't on the cleric list (17, to be exact). Clerics are arguably powerful enough, and giving them access to wizard spells as well would be a bit much, IMO.



> I find it interesting how the arrival of 4E and the announcement of Pathfinder motivates people to _really_ look into the problematic issues and not just post stuff intended as a mere house-rule, but actually consider ways to publish them. You guys should have been active 4-6 years ago (perhaps before 3.5 was in the works!)



As has been pointed out, some of us _have_ been around since before 3.5 came out. The fact that WotC's stopped support of 3.5 is what has really allowed us to mess with larger rules issues (like the skill system) than modular bits and pieces like crafting, turning, and base classes. I can't speak for anyone else here, but only the (very likely) probability of a future Wizards release invalidating any work I've done prevented me from doing large-scale revisions before.



> Since the Paizo is trying to make core classes that will steer people fropm multiclassing...



It's not to discourage multiclassing so much as to _en_courage staying in a single class longer. Rampant multiclassing is usually the result of base classes having no features (or none worth taking), so the player chooses levels in another class for the desired features or because it fits the concept. With base classes having more features and being more clearly defined, it makes it more likely that players will be able to develop their PC within the scope of that class alone instead of a mix of umpteen different classes. 

Getting on to the discussion at hand... if I'm understanding this right, all spell slots will just go into a big pool and you choose what spells you want from a given class list (assuming you're high enough level)? I think it could work (especially with the restrictions), but unfortunately for me, it invalidates the changes I made to the sorcerer - I gave sorcerers the ability to learn and cast any spell from any list, though they keep their spells known/per day. It greatly enhances what kind of sorcerer you want to play without seriously increasing their power, and makes them completely unique from wizards.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 7, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Multiclass spellcasters use only their highest applicable ability score to determine [...] the DC of their spells, regardless of which spell list they use to ready and cast spells.



I would instead use the appropriate stat for each spell list.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 8, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> I would instead use the appropriate stat for each spell list.




Since some spells cross lists, that's not as clean/easy.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 8, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Since some spells cross lists, that's not as clean/easy.



I see what you mean... perhaps one could use the best applicable stat. It's an extra step, but it's a piece of information that can be written down along with the other info for each spell (duration, range, etc...). Of course, if the players normally just use the spells out of the PHB without writing down the basic stats, it doesn't work as well.


----------



## Colonelpuddinhead (Sep 9, 2008)

RangerWickett said:


> I don't really see that big of a multiclassing problem with non-spellcasters. Was there something in particular you see as a weakness in multiclassing, say, a fighter with a rogue, or a sohei with a swordsage?




No... to be honest I've only recently picked up the Beta version of the PFRPG and found very little in there about multiclassing.  And since my friends and I are going to be playtesting soon... I was seeking opinions.

thanks,  CP


----------



## Colonelpuddinhead (Sep 9, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Yes, I would.
> 
> I'd also like to reiterate that I think, "Discourage people from multiclassing" is a spurious design goal.
> 
> ...


----------



## Kaisoku (Sep 9, 2008)

Since Bards are said to be somewhat weak... wouldn't it be a good idea to take this opportunity to boost the Bard's ability and give it 3/4 casting?

That way you can have the same as BAB (+10, +15 and +20)... keeps the math cleaner too.

Or... you could just say that the Bard is a half caster with a little bonus... so +1/2 levels and every couple levels or so he gets an extra boost (based on class features, not BMB or BCL or whatever you call it).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 9, 2008)

Kaisoku said:


> Since Bards are said to be somewhat weak... wouldn't it be a good idea to take this opportunity to boost the Bard's ability and give it 3/4 casting?




Sure. Let me know what 7th and 8th level Bard spells you want to add.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 9, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Spontaneous Casting: A good cleric (or a neutral cleric of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that the cleric did not ready ahead of time. The cleric can “lose” any readied spell in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower (a cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name, including the mass cure spells of higher levels). The cleric may not use his bonus domain spell slots for spontaneous casting. Once a readied spell is used in this way for spontaneous casting, the prior spell is no longer considered ready.



Why are you requiring the cleric to lose a readied spell in addition to using a slot?

BTW, let me add that I really like your system!


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 9, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> Why are you requiring the cleric to lose a readied spell in addition to using a slot?
> 
> BTW, let me add that I really like your system!




It more closely simulates the old system. The "cost" of spontaneous casting was choosing which of your "useful" spells you could afford to lose to cast emergency healing.

So in this instance, if you have readied (for example) Bless, Magic Weapon, Shield of Faith, and Sanctuary, you have to choose one of those readied spells you won't have access to again until you rest and ready new spells.

You could, of course, drop that restriction if you find it too draconian.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 9, 2008)

Yes, I would probably let clerics have cure spells as extra prepared spells.

OTOH, I would add some stipulation about only adding spells to the known spell list if they are the same level or less as the level in the corresponding class, so that a character would need to have 6 levels as cleric before adding 6th level spells (of course, he would still need to be at least 11th level character in order to actually cast them). I don't like too much the idea of a Wiz 16/Clr 1 being able to cast 9th level clerical spells.

Thoughts? One could certainly fiddle with the numbers a bit, but I feel that some kind of restriction of that sort is warranted...


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 9, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> Yes, I would probably let clerics have cure spells as extra prepared readied spells.




FIFY-- I assume that's what you mean. I'd tie the free "Readied" cure spell to the cleric class levels.



> OTOH, I would add some stipulation about only adding spells to the known spell list if they are the same level or less as the level in the corresponding class, so that a character would need to have 6 levels as cleric before adding 6th level spells.




Support for that seems to be firming up.


----------



## Voadam (Sep 9, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Sure. Let me know what 7th and 8th level Bard spells you want to add.




Illusion and charm spells from the sorcerer list come to mind as a thematically appropriate group open to expansions from both open and closed expansion sources.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 9, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> FIFY-- I assume that's what you mean. I'd tie the free "Readied" cure spell to the cleric class levels.



Yes, readied is what I meant and I agree with tying the free spells to the cleric class level.


Wulf Ratbane said:


> Support for that seems to be firming up.



Is there a discussion going on somewhere else besides this thread and your blog here on EN World?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Sep 9, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> Is there a discussion going on somewhere else besides this thread and your blog here on EN World?




No, I just meant here in this thread and uhh... in my pants.


----------



## Nikosandros (Sep 10, 2008)

I had missed the fact that *RangerWickett* had made the same suggestion a few posts upthread...


----------



## Eridanis (Oct 7, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Sure. Let me know what 7th and 8th level Bard spells you want to add.




Sorry that I'm a bit late to this party...

I'm not sure that adding more levels of spells to the bard list is a bad or good idea, but since bards are fairly underpowered, I think it would be worth playtesting.

Looking at the SRD, there are a few obvious candidates to extrapolate:

Possible 7th Level Bard Spells
Antipathy
Cure Serious Wounds, Mass
Hold Person, Mass
Mord's Magnificent Mansion (more because it seems in flavor than anything else)
Screen
Scintillating Pattern
Shadow Conjuration, Greater
Summon Monster VII
Sympathy

Possible 8th Level Bard Spells
Charm Monster, Mass
Cure Critical Wounds, Mass
Dominate Monster
Hold Monster, Mass
Invisibility, Mass
Shadow Evocation, Greater
Summon Monster VIII
Time Stop (again, for flavor reasons)

None of these, except maybe for Time Stop, scream bah-roken to me for a high-level bard to have available.


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 8, 2008)

While I can appreciate what this thread is trying to accomplish, I think I agree with Dannyalcatraz in that I see multiclassing and the loss of casters' abilities as a feature they're willingly giving up to gain the abilities of some other class. Yeah, it sucks when your wizard 5/ fighter 15 tries to cast a spell on a monster of appropriate CR, but I think that multiclassing represents flexibility, not power.
     Something else I find amusing is the fact that so many people on the forums here complain that many spellcasters are overpowered at high levels compared to fighter types and yet here we are trying to make multiclass spellcasters more powerful. Amusing.


----------



## Nikosandros (Oct 11, 2008)

Angrydad said:


> Something else I find amusing is the fact that so many people on the forums here complain that many spellcasters are overpowered at high levels compared to fighter types and yet here we are trying to make multiclass spellcasters more powerful. Amusing.



I never complained about high level casters.

Also, the issue for me and others, is that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable, while a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 is an extremely viable choice.


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 13, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> I never complained about high level casters.
> 
> Also, the issue for me and others, is that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable, while a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 is an extremely viable choice.




I don't think a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable at all. It just requires a different approach than a purely divine/arcane spellcaster of equal level on both the part of the player and the DM. If your DM is truly collaborating with you and your party, a cleric/wizard should still be an effective party member. It's really just a matter of finding a role/niche in the party dynamic.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 16, 2008)

Angrydad said:


> I don't think a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable at all.




Then why would you be in this thread-- other than to threadcrap?


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 17, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Then why would you be in this thread-- other than to threadcrap?




Threadcrap? I'm not here to shoot down the idea per se, I'm just trying to get a handle on why people think multiclass spellcasters suck so bad. I know they're less effective against SR and all that, since they have a lower caster level, but I still think they can be done effectively. Admittedly, it does require some effort on the part of player and DM to make it work, but I find that's half the fun. Sorry if it seemed like I was critiquing the thread in a harsh way.

Personally, if I'm going to multiclass a spellcasting class I focus more on buff up spells or spells where only the duration matters due to caster level. While a lower CL may mean a shorter duration, the spells aren't really any less effective. When one tries to do direct damage type spells while multiclassing it can lead to significant weakness relative to level.


----------



## Covetous (Oct 18, 2008)

Can I join? Anyway, my issue with spellcasters under 3e was/is that spell strength is based too much on the modifiers instead of the caster (DC = _10 + spell level + appropriate modifiers + misc modifiers_). If you wanted to play a subtle spellcastrer (_one who defeats foes through spells like *Ray of Enfeeblement*, *Charm* & similar, as opposed to blowing them away_) you are screwed. Will the Pathfinder system offer spellcasting alternatives at a future date? The *Heighten Spell *feat helps _some_, but for those classes that don't have the spell slots that a Sorcerer has it was more of a hinderance then a help (_imho_). 

Here's some of the stuff I toyed with: 

DC = 10 + spell level + half caster level, rounded down + Appropriate modifier + misc modifiers. The problem here was that it was better at lower levels but once spellcasters went mid (_6+ to be exact_) & higher it went too much in their favor.

DC = 10 + half caster level, rounded down + appropriate modifer + misc modifiers. Was better in keeping up with the saves; but all the spells, regardless of their level, wound up having the same saving throws. It also wound up making quite a few metamagic feats worthless. 

Anyone who can come up with a simple way of having Spell Strength be based more on the Spellcaster while still keeping the core 3e (_or in this case, Pathfinder_) mechanic I'm all ears.


----------



## NerfedWizard (Oct 23, 2008)

*Has this been suggested?*

The obvious solution to multiclassed casters in d20 systems seems to me to be to make a nice 20 x 20 table with your specific class level down the left hand side and your total effective character level across the top. The table entries show a "compromise" level usually somewhere between your class level and effective character level. This compromise level applies for class features of a non-stacking variety (including spells known, spells memorised per day, etc.), but not (obviously) for base attack bonuses, saving throws, hit points etc.

Constructing the table would be relatively simple (but involve some arithmetic). The formula I suggest would be that your compromise level equals the square root of the product of your specific class level and effective character level, rounding down. In other words:-

CompLvl = (ClassLevel x ECL)^0.5

Here are some illustrative examples for a 10th level character:-

Fighter 1, Wizard 9 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 9
(unchanged from original d20 system)

Fighter 2, Wizard 8 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 8
(unchanged from original d20 system)

Fighter 3, Wizard 7 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 8
(you cast spells just like an 8th level wizard, including number memorised; your fireballs are 8HD, etc.)

Fighter 4, Wizard 6 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 7

Fighter 5, Wizard 5 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 7

Fighter 6, Wizard 4 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 6

Fighter 7, Wizard 3 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 5

Fighter 8, Wizard 2 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 4

Fighter 9, Wizard 1 (human), compromise level for spellcasting of 3

Funky Weird Race (+4 ECL), Wizard 6, compromise level [edit] 7 [/edit]
(you cast spells like a [edit] 7th [/edit] level wizard)

Funky Weird Race (+2 ECL), Fighter 5, Wizard 3, compromise level 5
(you cast spells like a 5th level wizard)

The solution is mathematically elegant, but by building a 20x20 table, it can be easy to implement.

However all cleric and druid spells per level badly need to be halved, and spontaneous cleric casting got rid of completely.

The table would look a bit like this, but twice as broad and deep

____Effective Character Level__
_________1__2__3__4__5__6__7__8__9__10__
Class 
Level
1________1__1__1__2__2__2__2__2__3__3__
2________1__2__2__2__3__3__3__4__4__4__
3________1__2__3__3__3__4__4__4__5__5__
4________2__2__3__4__4__4__5__5__6__6__
5________2__3__3__4__5__5__5__6__6__7__
6________2__3__4__4__5__6__6__6__7__7__
7________2__3__4__5__5__6__7__7__7__8__
8________2__4__4__5__6__6__7__8__8__8__
9________3__4__5__6__6__7__7__8__9__9__
10_______3__4__5__6__7__7__8__8__9__10_

Note that this table also means that if you belong to a weak
race with a negative ECL modifier, your spellcasting is actually
lower than your class level. For instance, if I played a slime
goblin (-4 Str, -4 Con, -4 Cha, -4 Int, -4 Wis, +2 Dex, dark
vision, bad body odour offends all within 5', -3 ECL)
and began life as a 4th level wizard (ECL 4-3 = 1, equivalent
to a 1st level character), I would get saving throw modifiers,
BAB etc. as a 4th level wizard, but cast spells as a 2nd level
wizard. I would have all the arrogance of a 4th level wizard
among slime-goblin kind, and be just as important as a 4th
level slime-goblin fighter, but I would have rubbish spellcasting
like a 2nd level human wizard.

Kind of neat, isn't it?


----------



## NerfedWizard (Oct 23, 2008)

And this system would mean for example, you could be
a "learned bard" character statted as a 2nd level wizard, 
1st level sorcerer, 3rd level druid, 4th level bard, and 
cast spells as:- 4th level wizard, 3rd level sorcerer, 
5th level druid AND 6th level bard... but bearing in
mind that this character has to be useful on 10th level
dungeons, seems fair enough to me


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 23, 2008)

Interesting take, Nerfed Wizard. It doesn't solve the problem of losing out on your highest spell level (which IMO is the biggest drawback) but it's certainly functional. (Your 20x20 table would be absolutely required-- nobody wants to perform square root calculations. )


----------



## NerfedWizard (Oct 23, 2008)

If you were say, a 17th level fighter and you took 1 level in wizard, could it really be justified from a plausibility / storytelling point of view to let you get 9th level spells straight away? To go from no talent to super talent with the flick of a level?

With my system you would get 4th level casting straight away, which might be of some limited utility; when you were Fighter 17, Wizard 2 you would have 5th level casting (so Fly becomes possible); at Fighter 17, Wizard 3 you would have 7th level casting (giving you access to 4th level spells).


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 23, 2008)

NerfedWizard said:


> If you were say, a 17th level fighter and you took 1 level in wizard, could it really be justified from a plausibility / storytelling point of view to let you get 9th level spells straight away? To go from no talent to super talent with the flick of a level?




No, and it was suggested upthread a ways to cap the spell level at the class level.

The real issue is the Wiz10/Clr10. This is one of the indispensable benchmark cases for me-- two "full" spellcasting classes in perfect balance.


----------



## NerfedWizard (Oct 23, 2008)

Well, I don't like the Wizard/Cleric combination for flavour reasons, but supposing it were Wizard/Druid... my system would give 14th level casting in each. Which I think is OK, isn't it? 

It doesn't make sense to me from a flavour point of view if a Wizard/Druid 10/10 is as skilled at casting the wizard spells he can cast as a Wizard 20.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 24, 2008)

NerfedWizard said:


> Well, I don't like the Wizard/Cleric combination for flavour reasons, but supposing it were Wizard/Druid... my system would give 14th level casting in each. Which I think is OK, isn't it?




Not to me, no, and not to the large portion of anybody who has a vested interest in "fixing" multiclass spellcasters.

I'm not sure if it's in this thread or not, but I am pretty sure I laid out my reasoning previously.

And even if such a fix was ok, then (for Pathfinder or otherwise) it is better to just use the Mystic Theurge, which has the advantage of pre-existing establishment, and would get you 15/15 anyhow.



> It doesn't make sense to me from a flavour point of view if a Wizard/Druid 10/10 is as skilled at casting the wizard spells he can cast as a Wizard 20.




Flavor has no appropriate role in d20 design. If I wanted my D&D game mechanics balanced around flavor, I would just play 1e.


----------



## el-remmen (Oct 24, 2008)

Angrydad said:


> I don't think a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable at all. It just requires a different approach than a purely divine/arcane spellcaster of equal level on both the part of the player and the DM. If your DM is truly collaborating with you and your party, a cleric/wizard should still be an effective party member. It's really just a matter of finding a role/niche in the party dynamic.




I'm with you on this A.D.

I check out these threads out of curiosity and for a general sense of people's views on rules/power levels, but I think saying it is "unplayable" is a stretch. . . Less than ideal?  I could see that. . .  But I feel there should always be some less than ideal choices.


----------



## thecasualoblivion (Oct 24, 2008)

There is a solution to this, though on its most basic level it drops vancian casting/memorization. The solution is to combine the Psion's power's known/highest level powers known/Power points chart with Tome of Battle Martial Adept Multiclassing where you add half your level in other classes to your Martial Adept level to calculate the highest level powers you can learn. Use Unearthed Arcana to convert Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Sorcerer to the power point system.

The only system of "spellcasting" that multiclasses well is the Tome of Battle's martial adept power system. IMO, it'd be easier to adapt the power point system to that.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 24, 2008)

el-remmen said:


> I think saying it is "unplayable" is a stretch. . .




I agree. Who said it was unplayable?


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 24, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> I never complained about high level casters.
> 
> Also, the issue for me and others, is that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable, while a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 is an extremely viable choice.




Here's where it was stated that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable. I'm glad someone does agree with me on this, since so much of this thread is negativity towards multiclass spellcasting. While taking levels in other classes may cause a wizard, or cleric, druid, etc. to lose out on caster levels, I think the point of multiclassing into something else is to provide flexibility. Besides, if you were a multiclass cleric/wizard, why on earth would you not take the Mystic Theurge (I think it's called. In the DMG) PrC to continue advancing both classes' caster levels? You'd be a 20th level character who could cast spells as both a 17th level wizard and cleric.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 24, 2008)

Nikosandros said:


> I never complained about high level casters.
> 
> Also, the issue for me and others, is that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable, while a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 is an extremely viable choice.






Angrydad said:


> Here's where it was stated that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable. I'm glad someone does agree with me on this, since so much of this thread is negativity towards multiclass spellcasting. While taking levels in other classes may cause a wizard, or cleric, druid, etc. to lose out on caster levels, I think the point of multiclassing into something else is to provide flexibility. Besides, if you were a multiclass cleric/wizard, why on earth would you not take the Mystic Theurge (I think it's called. In the DMG) PrC to continue advancing both classes' caster levels? You'd be a 20th level character who could cast spells as both a 17th level wizard and cleric.




Warrior and expert classes are playable too. They are not as capable of taking on CR challenges expected of their level, but they are playable and you can make interesting characters with them.

I don't think a 10/10 spellcaster can deal with level appropriate challenges as well as a 10/10 martial character can.

The 10/10 martial character has different flavors of hitting things but is roughly as powerful as a character of either of his component classes taken straight classed.

A Fighter 10/Barbarian 10 can fight a CR 20 foe about as well as a 20 level fighter or a 20 level barbarian. He is just a different mix of combat tricks and pure raging toughness.

A wizard 10/druid 10 is a lot less useful to a party against a CR 20 foe than either a level 20 wizard or a level 20 druid. The mixed caster's personal ability to cast more lower level spells from two disciplines at the cost of higher level spells and slots and caster levels does not roughly compare to a straight classed caster or substantially stand up to level appropriate challenges. It is more like the fighter multiclassing with expert to gain skill points and will save at the cost of fighting powess. A fighter 10/expert 10 is playable, and provides more flexibility than a Fighter 20, but he does not handle combat as well as a level 20 fighter or a fighter 10/rogue 10.

The goal is to have the multiclass caster handle level appropriate combats and balance with other characters of his level.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Oct 25, 2008)

Voadam said:


> I don't think a 10/10 spellcaster can deal with level appropriate challenges as well as a 10/10 martial character can.




Bingo.

You could even say that a 10/10 multiclass spellcaster suffers from the same problems you would expect a melee character to suffer from if he were to spend his money across multiple +1 weapons instead of investing all his money into a single top-of-the-line weapon.

Options _do not_ equal top-tier power.


----------



## el-remmen (Oct 26, 2008)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I agree. Who said it was unplayable?




Nikosandros. 



Nikosandros said:


> a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable,


----------



## el-remmen (Oct 26, 2008)

I think I tend to forget that the style of play my friends and I tend to prefer mitigates a lot these issues.  Maybe if we ever had anyone ever actually get to be a 10/10 level character we might come to the same conclusion.

Carry on.


----------



## freyar (Oct 26, 2008)

Kind of random question:

Everyone says that Theurge PrCs are something of a band-aid, rather than a real solution.  As far as I understand, the major problem is that it doesn't get the high-level spells.  What if, instead of reworking all the multiclassing rules, which either doesn't give the Wiz 10/Clr 10 enough (according to some) or gives them (or Ftr 19/Wiz 1) too much, you just rewrite the spell progression of the MT and similar PrCs?  You could strip out some of the lower-level spells per day and put in a few higher level spells.  I guess this would take some work, but maybe not any more than what you're already expending on the multiclassing rules.


----------



## Bladesong (Oct 26, 2008)

We did the following from 3.0 through 3.5. The game never derailed and everyone always had a great time. It worked fine from 1st level through 20th level and I lost count of how many characters made that journey through 20 levels. I have posted this in several threads in the past and there were always those negative Nellies who would say “but that means a 15th level fighter could fall to a charm person spell!" We always thought “why shouldn’t a 15th level fighter be afraid of falling to a charm person spell from a 20th level wizard?”
The DC for spells is 10 + ½ the caster’s level + relevant ability bonus. The DC of a spell from a 20th level wizard with a 20 Int would be 25.
For multiclass casters where all classes are of the spell-casting variety, the DCs worked as if they were single classed…so a 10/10 wizard cleric with a 20 Int and an 18 Wis would have a DC of 25 against his arcane spells and a DC 24 against his divine spells. 
Multiclassing with a martial class gave you 1 level for every 2 levels of the martial class (by martial class we included everything but cleric, druid and wizard)…so a 10/10 fighter/wizard with an 18 Int would have a DC 21 for his spells (10 + 2 for fighter +5 for caster + 4 for Int).
The “penalty” if you will in such cases is that the caster never gets a spell higher than 5th level (assuming he stops at 10th level). “DC 21!!!” you might say “the fighter cannot make a reflex save that high at 15 level!!!) Yeah, so?! That 30 or so points (MAYBE) of damage he is going to take is going to make a BIG impression on that 15th level fighter…yeah, right.
We also used the same principal for SR and it worked just as well.


----------



## Angrydad (Oct 27, 2008)

bladesong said:


> we did the following from 3.0 through 3.5. The game never derailed and everyone always had a great time. It worked fine from 1st level through 20th level and i lost count of how many characters made that journey through 20 levels. I have posted this in several threads in the past and there were always those negative nellies who would say “but that means a 15th level fighter could fall to a charm person spell!" we always thought “why shouldn’t a 15th level fighter be afraid of falling to a charm person spell from a 20th level wizard?”
> the dc for spells is 10 + ½ the caster’s level + relevant ability bonus. The dc of a spell from a 20th level wizard with a 20 int would be 25.
> For multiclass casters where all classes are of the spell-casting variety, the dcs worked as if they were single classed…so a 10/10 wizard cleric with a 20 int and an 18 wis would have a dc of 25 against his arcane spells and a dc 24 against his divine spells.
> Multiclassing with a martial class gave you 1 level for every 2 levels of the martial class (by martial class we included everything but cleric, druid and wizard)…so a 10/10 fighter/wizard with an 18 int would have a dc 21 for his spells (10 + 2 for fighter +5 for caster + 4 for int).
> ...




yoink!


----------



## Covetous (Oct 27, 2008)

bladesong said:


> ...The DC for spells is 10 + ½ the caster’s level + relevant ability bonus. The DC of a spell from a 20th level wizard with a 20 Int would be 25...




While that sounds reasonable, I'm a little leery of having a 1st level spell be just as powerful as a 9th level spell though (_or a 9th level spell being weakened, depending on how you look at it_).  This also removes certain feat(s) from the equation, don't it;  specifically _Heighten Spell_?


----------



## Elodan (Oct 27, 2008)

bladesong said:


> We also used the same principal for SR and it worked just as well.




Can you elaborate on this?

Also, yoink!


----------



## Bladesong (Oct 27, 2008)

Covetous said:


> While that sounds reasonable, I'm a little leery of having a 1st level spell be just as powerful as a 9th level spell though (_or a 9th level spell being weakened, depending on how you look at it_).  This also removes certain feat(s) from the equation, don't it;  specifically _Heighten Spell_?




All I can tell you, as I stated before, we have never run into a problem with it; no problem at all, zip, nada. Been doing it for years; working great.
It never makes the spell "more powerful" just more challenging to save against, and it NEVER EVER weakens a high level spell, even from saving against (of course also remember, you are never going to get a high level spell if you are multiclassing).
Few examples: 1st level DC for spell normally is 11 whether the caster is first level or 20th, and 15 if you add an ability bonus assuming an 18 Int. With what I mentioned he would still have DC 15 at first level, but at 20th he casts it better and the DC is 25. Wow! He really puts those 1 HD goblins to sleep for sure! The fire giant doesn't seem to care though! A caster would normally get a 9th level spell at 19th level and normally the DC would be 19 or 23 if you add the ability bonus and assuming an 18 Int; with what I proposed, at 19th level the DC would be...23! 
Anyone who might want to use this is not going to care if it removes 1 feat from the equation or even 5...just don't use those feats; let's face it there are only about 500 other feats to choose from...I mean really, if you don't like the idea don't use it, but it works just fine. That is the nice thing about all roleplaying games...use what you like, don't what you don't, and make however many house rules you like.

Looking back over this it looks a bit combative. I do not mean to offend so please just take the informative parts with you when you read it.


----------



## Bladesong (Oct 27, 2008)

Elodan said:


> Can you elaborate on this?
> 
> Also, yoink!




Let's see...SR works by adding your caster level to a d20 roll to try to break it right? So a 16th level wizard rolls a d20 and adds 16 to the roll to try to break through SR.
All we did, and remember COMPLETELY OPTIONAL, is that if all of the classes of a multiclassed character were caster classes, they all totaled for the roll against SR...that is a 10/6 wizard/cleric also added 16 to their d20 roll. Remember, the highest level spell we are talking here is 5th level so it won't be earth shattering.
If the classes were 10/6 wizard/fighter he would add 13 to his roll; martial classes still only add 1 per 2 levels.
If it helps answer the question "why did you do all this?" the answer is: we did it because we wanted the character to be the deciding factor here, not spells. In other words, we thought the power level of the caster should be more important than the power level of the spells and we did this because the power level of the fighter was more important than the power level of his sword.
If you want the toys to be more important than the characters, I strongly recommend that you don't use the method I proposed.


----------



## RangerWickett (Oct 27, 2008)

So do we have a finalized version we can show to Paizo, now that they have the 'intense arcane playtest' going on?


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 7, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> So do we have a finalized version we can show to Paizo, now that they have the 'intense arcane playtest' going on?



Was anything submitted to Paizo?


----------



## RangerWickett (Jan 8, 2009)

Nope, sorry. I lost my interest in Pathfinder as a ruleset.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2009)

RangerWickett said:


> Nope, sorry. I lost my interest in Pathfinder as a ruleset.



Well, I'm still grateful to you and Wulf for the ideas in this thread.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2009)

I'm still planning to have something in Trailblazer, and I definitely took away some good ideas from this thread.


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> I'm still planning to have something in Trailblazer, and I definitely took away some good ideas from this thread.



Forgive my ignorance, but is this a system that you are developing?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2009)

Nikosandros said:


> Forgive my ignorance, but is this a system that you are developing?




Yes, sir.

Bad Axe Games » Bad Axe Announces Trailblazer “System Optimizer”


----------



## Nikosandros (Jan 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> Yes, sir.
> 
> Bad Axe Games » Bad Axe Announces Trailblazer “System Optimizer”



Very intriguing. Looking forward to it.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 9, 2009)

Maybe I missed some nuances of this, Wulf, but looking over the system you posted earlier in the thread, the following question occurs to me:

Do you think that under the system you propose, a player has ANY real incentive to play a single or multi-classed non-caster?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> Maybe I missed some nuances of this, Wulf, but looking over the system you posted earlier in the thread, the following question occurs to me:
> 
> Do you think that under the system you propose, a player has ANY real incentive to play a single or multi-classed non-caster?




None at all. In fact Trailblazer is just going to go ahead and remove every class other than the Cleric. 

Talk about optimized!


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Jan 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> None at all. In fact Trailblazer is just going to go ahead and remove every class other than the Cleric.
> 
> Talk about optimized!



What, no love for the Druid? Or did you just give the Cleric a Wildshape Domain?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 9, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> What, no love for the Druid? Or did you just give the Cleric a Wildshape Domain?




Your mention of druids reminds me... Nobody plays gnomes. 

In fact since everybody knows that there's one race that is numerically superior on paper in practically every way, I'm gonna go ahead and pare down the race list to: Dwarf.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 9, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> None at all. In fact Trailblazer is just going to go ahead and remove every class other than the Cleric.
> 
> Talk about optimized!




I thought we were talking about rules here, and the fact that some people will always be willing to play certain classes because of personal preferences, or that it's possible to remove undesirable choices through flavor-based restrictions did NOT make up for rule deficiencies.

I wasn't going for "Gotcha! How come you didn't think of something so simple?", but whatever.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 10, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> I thought we were talking about rules here, and the fact that some people will always be willing to play certain classes because of personal preferences, or that it's possible to remove undesirable choices through flavor-based restrictions did NOT make up for rule deficiencies.




You are correct-- "personal preference" and flavor enticements do not make up for deficiencies built into the rules. I will back you on that 100%.

I don't concede that non-spellcasters are deficient.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> You are correct-- "personal preference" and flavor enticements do not make up for deficiencies built into the rules. I will back you on that 100%.
> 
> I don't concede that non-spellcasters are deficient.




You think that (for example) the mechanical trade-off between a Fighter 20 and a Fighter 18/Cleric 2 (under your system) is worth it? Unless I'm misunderstanding how the system works (which is why I've asked) it seems to me like in that situation (granted, about as extreme as it gets) you trade 1 point of BAB, 2 HP (on average) and a feat for a significant boost to saves, domain abilities, the ability to use scrolls and wands, and up to 4th level spells. (and a couple of other things of marginal value) Granted, you need a slightly above-average score to put in Wisdom, but mechanically it's the most useful mental stat for most fighter-types anyway.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 10, 2009)

mmu1 said:


> You think that (for example) the mechanical trade-off between a Fighter 20 and a Fighter 18/Cleric 2 (under your system) is worth it? Unless I'm misunderstanding how the system works (which is why I've asked) it seems to me like in that situation (granted, about as extreme as it gets) you trade 1 point of BAB, 2 HP (on average) and a feat for a significant boost to saves, domain abilities, the ability to use scrolls and wands, and up to 4th level spells.




(Based on the feedback in this thread, you'd be limited to 2nd level spells.)

To me the question you are asking is fundamentally no different than asking why anyone would currently take Ftr20 instead of Rog2/Ftr18, Bbn1/Ftr19, Rgr2/Ftr18, etc.


----------



## mmu1 (Jan 10, 2009)

Wulf Ratbane said:


> (Based on the feedback in this thread, you'd be limited to 2nd level spells.)
> 
> To me the question you are asking is fundamentally no different than asking why anyone would currently take Ftr20 instead of Rog2/Ftr18, Bbn1/Ftr19, Rgr2/Ftr18, etc.




Sure, it's not fundamentally different, but the degree of the problem definitely makes a difference. 

I assume that's why you revised it so that they'd be limited to 2nd level spells, isn't it?


----------



## Wulf Ratbane (Jan 10, 2009)

*When *the Fighter takes those two levels of Cleric makes all the difference.

If he takes them early, he sets himself back from the rest of the melee classes in terms of iterative attacks, and he may also be setting himself back 1-3 levels in terms of picking up the feats he needs to complete a certain feat chain. (The same hold true for Rogue builds.)

If an 18th level Fighter chooses to pick up two levels of Cleric at the end of his career, the ability to cast 2nd (or even 4th) level spells is going to be a small fraction of his total CR at 20th level. (It's about 1/3 of 1 CR.)

I will happily concede that Trailblazer is not designed for play that begins at 20th level and ignores twenty prior levels of character development and meaningful choices along the way.



			
				mmu1 said:
			
		

> I assume that's why you revised it so that they'd be limited to 2nd level spells, isn't it?




Not really. The concession was easier to make than the argument.


EDIT: I apologize for my earlier snarkiness. Teasing this argument out of me is certainly worthwhile.


----------



## Covetous (Jan 12, 2009)

This is something I've been meaning to try in my own game but haven't had a chance to as yet; how about taking a page from the old NeverwinterNights game?  If I remember correct it had the standard spells DCs, but it also included later on via expasions a +1 to spells DC based on every 5 ranks the character had in either Concentration or Spellcraft.  Couldn't the same thing be implemented in the Pathfinder system?  I think it'd work for single & multiclass characters.   

*Potential advantages:* 


Spells DCs would go up & keep on an even level/scale with saving throws.
Spellcasters wouldn't be wasting any ranks since they'd be adding to a skill they use normally anyway.
No feats/abilities would be rendered useless.  I.E.: Heighten Spell, Spell Focus & a few others I can't think of are still useful.
Possibilities for abuse of this system:  none that I can think of right now.
*Potential Disadvantages*:  

One more thing to remember/add-on.  Spells now being: 10 + Spell level + Appropriate Modifier + Misc Modfiers + every 5 ranks in Spellcraft.
Better for single-class Spellcasters.
"Why every 5 ranks?"  Anything lower brings the potential for abuse of this system & spells DCs start exceeding the saves of potential victims.   This is especially true for those "powerhouses of spellcasting"  such as Demons, Dragons & various other beings Who already have dangerously high spells DCs as is.


----------



## Max Money AWA (Jan 28, 2009)

*Great idea!*



thecasualoblivion said:


> There is a solution to this, though on its most basic level it drops vancian casting/memorization. The solution is to combine the Psion's power's known/highest level powers known/Power points chart with Tome of Battle Martial Adept Multiclassing where you add half your level in other classes to your Martial Adept level to calculate the highest level powers you can learn. Use Unearthed Arcana to convert Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Sorcerer to the power point system.
> 
> The only system of "spellcasting" that multiclasses well is the Tome of Battle's martial adept power system. IMO, it'd be easier to adapt the power point system to that.



Brilliant!

There might be an issue here. Sorcerers and Wizards are now essentially the same as each other as well as Psions and Wilders. Although with this idea you could use all lists (arcane, divine and psionic) and just adjudicate what you will or will not allow spell-wise in your game.

It sure opens up a lot more flexibility, and I like the Vancian casting system. But this is an established mechanic and your proposal makes multi-classed casters of any sort much more in line with single-classed casters.

Yoink! I'll take this, thank you very much.


----------



## Leif (Feb 9, 2009)

Not to throw too much of a monkey wrench into this discussion, but has anyone considered the kind of solution that Monte Cook's old Arcana Unearthed proposed?  It's sorta like a cross between the DnD Wizard and Sorcerer.  While a wizard can know, theoretically, an infinite number of spells he can only PREPARE a certain number for use each day.  But, his magical potential exists each day as just open spell slots (similar to a Sorcerer), with which he can cast any PREPARED spell (NOT any known spell) of that level or lower.  (I may be making up the "or lower" part, but it makes sense to me.)  This adds another layer into the equation:  Spells known, spells prepared, and spells cast.  I think it's kinda nifty.

So, a wizard could prepare some fun, useful utility spells, but if a combat he is in lasts longer than anticipated, he could theoretically burn all of his slots on offensive *bang, bang* spells, instead of being forced to try to use _Comprehend Languages_ to kill a monster.


----------



## Nikosandros (Feb 9, 2009)

Leif said:


> While a wizard can know, theoretically, an infinite number of spells he can only PREPARE a certain number for use each day.  But, his magical potential exists each day as just open spell slots (similar to a Sorcerer), with which he can cast any PREPARED spell (NOT any known spell) of that level or lower.



This is part of Wulf's suggested method.


----------



## Leif (Feb 9, 2009)

Ooops, I guess that's what I get for trying to jump into the conversation this late.  Pardon my repetition, then.

But, you said, "part of his solution."  May I ask what the rest of the solution is, or should I go diving through the thread to locate it for myself?


----------

