PDA

View Full Version : [3.5]What if all classes counted for spellcasting capacity?



Oslecamo
2010-04-21, 02:04 PM
As you may or may not know I've created a long term project of creating improved monster classes heavily inspired in Savage Species, in wich in order to become a monster you take levels in the respective monster class.

One problem I found was that altough it seemed relatively good for noncasters and monsters with actual spellcasting, "pseudo-casters" like the mind flayer and ogre mage wich have just SLAs don't synergize at all with spellcasting classes. You're an ogre mage, but if you pick up a caster class you must start from 1st level spells, wich isn't that fun at level 9.

So I added a clause to those pseudo-spellcaster monsters in wich their old levels count as fullcasting levels for purposes of gaining new spells.

For example, if you have 3 levels of pseudo-spellcaster you don't actualy cast spells or gain anything from it. But if you then level up and pick a level of, let's say, sorceror, then you gain the same new spells known and spells per day as if you were a sorceror leveling up from level 3 to level 4, and your caster level is equal to your full HD.

In this case you would get one 2nd level spell known and a cantrip, plus 3 2nd level spell slots and 1 1st level spell slot, and cast them at Cl 4.

Thus, a pseudo spellcaster monster that multiclasses as a fullcaster will know less spells and have less spell slots, but casts at full power, and then benefits from the effects he gained already.

But what if this worked for everyone? With, let's say a feat?

You're a barbarian for 6 levels. You just picked the pseudo-spellcaster feat. You now multiclass as cleric and BANG, instead of two puny 1st level spells and 3 cantrips, you get 2 fourth level spell slots, one 1st level spell slot and one cantrip. And cast them at CL7.

If you keep taking cleric levels you'll hardly notice the lost caster levels since all you "lost" in practise are some 3rd and lower spell slots. You'll be casting 9th level spells by 17th level just like a fullcaster.

Clearly however classes that have huge natural spell lists benefit a lot more from this. A sorceror is more hurt because he will get less spells known. A wizard can make up for the lost known spells with some gold and time.

But I do believe it makes multiclassing between noncasters and casters much more atractive, even "gasp" viable in medium-high power games whitout need of juggling gish prcs around.

Your toughts? Would it be an improvement? A useable fix for caster multiclassing? Nobody would use it? Broken hidden potential? (like being a cleric 17 then picking up one level of sorceror for shapechange or some other cheesy 9th level spell)

WarKitty
2010-04-21, 02:14 PM
Honestly I think it would break a lot of things. You'd be in effect creating a gestalt character, combining the base saves and hit die of, say, a barbarian, with the pure destructive power of a wizard.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 02:15 PM
I can't exactly put my finger on it, but...

I feel a great disturbance in the force. My cheese-alarm is going off big time. Its a good idea, but needs a lot more work.

However... It would make level 1 dips very, very profitable.

Odd Levels -> Prepared caster
Even Levels -> Spontaneous Casters

Oh, the spells.

Gan The Grey
2010-04-21, 05:45 PM
I believed Unearthed Arcana has rules for this, or maybe PHBII.

EDIT Yeah, Magic Rating in the SRD under variant magic rules.

TheYoungKing
2010-04-21, 05:56 PM
http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm

This is the rule he mentioned.

I personally think the tables should be just like BAB.

Meaning, a "poor" magic rating character (like Fighter, Barbarian and Rogue) would, if they dipped in for 20th level get treated as a 10th level Wizard.

Eldonauran
2010-04-21, 05:57 PM
I believed Unearthed Arcana has rules for this, or maybe PHBII.

EDIT Yeah, Magic Rating in the SRD under variant magic rules.

Yeah, but that is only for caster level, not actual spell progression, like the TC is talking about

Ernir
2010-04-21, 06:17 PM
It would represent a massive power increase. Hello, 9th level casting with a 1 level dip. :smalleek:

May I at least suggest doing it the ToB-way, where non-initiator classes only increase your initiator level at half the normal rate?

Oslecamo
2010-04-21, 06:52 PM
It would represent a massive power increase. Hello, 9th level casting with a 1 level dip. :smalleek:

Yes it's powerfull, but the main question here is, having a couple 9th level spells with one dip makes you stronger than the pure caster with a couple 9th level spells backed up by dozens of lower level spells?



May I at least suggest doing it the ToB-way, where non-initiator classes only increase your initiator level at half the normal rate?

You may, but the problem here is that maneuvers were designed so that even if you have half IL they're usefull, while spells, not so much.

Look at the ranger/paladin wich suffer a lot from casting at half caster level.

For example, their buffs are much more easily dispellable. They can't hope to bypass SR. There's not such thing as "maneuver resistance", or "dispel stance", and most maneuvers don't even care about your actual IL.

More important, the power gap is much bigger between 1st and 9th level in spells than maneuvers.

A 1st level maneuver can actualy be as usefull as a 9th level one (sudden leap vs strike of perfect clarity). Actualy most 9th level maneuvers are more flashy than exactly stronger than lower level ones. Time Stands Still is the only one wich's really stronger. Otherwise stuff like girallon's wind mill, IHS, white raven tactics and others are lower level maneuvers that keep powerfull all during your career.

On spells? Ray of enfeeblement is good all around, ditto for gltterdust, but give me time stop/wish/gate/dominate monster/shapechange instead if possible any time of the week.

Anxe
2010-04-21, 07:00 PM
You'd be creating a feat that is clearly better than Practiced Spellcaster, a feat I consider to already be pretty good. Up to you whether you want to change your game's balance that way.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-21, 07:03 PM
You may, but the problem here is that maneuvers were designed so that even if you have half IL they're usefull, while spells, not so much.

I'm pretty sure he means 1/2 level for spells, not caster level. The example creature with 3 levels of pseudo casting wouldn't count as going to 4th from 3rd, but to 2nd (4/2) from 1st. A 17th-level cleric picking up a level of sorcerer would count as a level 8 -> 9 sorcerer rather than a level 17 ->18 sorcerer, which is significantly more balanced. Even one or two 9th level spells from a different list can be a massive jump in power.

Oslecamo
2010-04-21, 07:09 PM
Even one or two 9th level spells from a different list can be a massive jump in power.

But doesn't the extra known spell already does that? And then there's ways to gain extra domains with feats for several extra spells altough not so cherry-picking.

What if the pseudo-spellcaster feat just worked for one caster class? If you already have an actual caster class, pseudo-spellcaster just works for that one, so no cleric 17/sorceror 1, or warblade 16/wizard 1/sorceror 1

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-21, 07:27 PM
But doesn't the extra known spell already does that? And then there's ways to gain extra domains with feats for several extra spells altough not so cherry-picking.

Giving a cleric 1 9th-level wizard spell (or vice versa) is much better than giving him 1 5th-level spell.


What if the pseudo-spellcaster feat just worked for one caster class? If you already have an actual caster class, pseudo-spellcaster just works for that one, so no cleric 17/sorceror 1, or warblade 16/wizard 1/sorceror 1

Do you mean it only works for the lower-level one or the higher-level one? If the higher, the only thing it does is make mystic theurge not suck as much; if the lower, that's exactly the problem I mentioned.

Kalirren
2010-04-21, 09:22 PM
I think this is how D&D -should- work. Make poor caster level advancement like poor BAB advancement, and have it count both for spells known and spell slots.

Instant Fighter Balance! (okay, maybe not quite, but it gets rid of 90% of the problem. You're talking about 2 or 3 tiers instead of 6.)

Oslecamo
2010-04-22, 02:45 PM
Giving a cleric 1 9th-level wizard spell (or vice versa) is much better than giving him 1 5th-level spell.

Notice however:
A-The cleric/wizard would need to raise a dump mental stat(wis for wizards and int for clerics) to 19 to be able to use said spell, since it wouldn't be added directly to their list of spells known. It's doable, but it will cost a significant amount of resources.
B-there's already a feat to add any spell to your spell list, not to mention whole domains.
C-Archivist/artificer wich can literally use any spell out there. Would the pseudo spellcaster be stronger than them? Granted those two classes are best among the best, but pseudo-spellcaster would be intended for higher power games anyway.

Oh, and the second interpretation of my last post.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-22, 03:09 PM
Notice however:
A-The cleric/wizard would need to raise a dump mental stat(wis for wizards and int for clerics) to 19 to be able to use said spell, since it wouldn't be added directly to their list of spells known. It's doable, but it will cost a significant amount of resources.
B-there's already a feat to add any spell to your spell list, not to mention whole domains.
C-Archivist/artificer wich can literally use any spell out there. Would the pseudo spellcaster be stronger than them? Granted those two classes are best among the best, but pseudo-spellcaster would be intended for higher power games anyway.

Oh, and the second interpretation of my last post.

On (A), buying a periapt of wisdom +6 to let my 14 Wis wizard cast miracle or true resurrection is a small price to pay.

On (B), while I do rule in my games that Extra Spell lets you pick from every list, it's somewhat debated whether that works, plus it only lets you pick up spells up to one level lower than your max.

On (C), do you really think that expanding the archivist's and artificer's capabilities to all other full casters is a good idea?

Oslecamo
2010-04-22, 03:15 PM
Then what if pseudo-spellcaster demands you to don't have any fullcaster levels before taking it, and then it only works for the first fullcaster class you pick? It kills the whole dual-caster thingy, but still allows for Mr fighter-wizard or paladin-sorceror.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-04-22, 03:31 PM
Then what if pseudo-spellcaster demands you to don't have any fullcaster levels before taking it, and then it only works for the first fullcaster class you pick? It kills the whole dual-caster thingy, but still allows for Mr fighter-wizard or paladin-sorceror.

The abuses mostly lie with casters stacking, so that would probably do it. It would also probably be fine if you could take a level in a casting class, take levels in a noncasting class, and then come back to the casting class with the noncasting levels taken into account.