Not all +1 level of existing spellcasting class are not created equal

[Incriptus]

How do we make that feature more attractive to 1/2 casters?

+1 to Wizard Spellcasting is superior to +1 to Hexblade Spellcasting.
+1 to Cleric Spellcasting is superior to +1 to Paladin Spellcasting.

Has anyone worked out a method of improving the discrepancy in the past?

Would offering someone +2 to existing levels, if they had a 1/2 caster have an unintended consequence that i'm not seeing? Would accelerated access to class specific spells have too much an affect on the game?

What if instead i allowed them to be considered a level zero in an appropriate full caster class. For example if a Spell Thief took a level in Unseen Seer treat them as a level 1 sorcerer. In most cases Sorcerer 10 is superior to Spell Thief 20, when considering pure spell casting.

[hushblade]

I don't see it being too horribly unbalanced assuming it doesn't double advance the caster level as well.

[Coidzor]

Just add a clause that states that half-CL spell casting progressions are increased by one full caster level in the class and everything else will proceed as normal, but their CL dependent effects will be somewhat more in line with their ECL.

As far as I can tell, unless one phrased that really badly, there'd be very little downside, since even if they've got something like Holy Word, they're still 2 CL behind a full-caster of the same ECL, even with CL raising tricks. I don't think paladins get holy word though or anything that raising the CL on by much would actually constitute abuse...

[KillianHawkeye]

I don't see why this would be necessary. Prestige classes with full spellcasting progression are designed to advance another class' spellcasting at the same rate as if the character had stayed in their original class. This works out the same way whether the original class is a full spellcaster or a half spellcaster or whatever. In other words, the lack of equality is coming from the original class, not from the prestige class used to advance it.

Why do you think a Paladin or Ranger 5/Prestige Class 10 should have better spellcasting than a Paladin 15 or a Ranger 15? :smallconfused:

[Coidzor]

Why do you think a Paladin or Ranger 5/Prestige Class 10 should have better spellcasting than a Paladin 15 or a Ranger 15? :smallconfused:

I imagine that the situation where the PrC's focus is spellcasting is the biggest concern there.

Frankly though, the CL = HD/2 thing never really made much sense to me, since they've already got horrible spells per day and spell progression rates and hard ceilings.

[Incriptus]

I don't see why this would be necessary. Prestige classes with full spellcasting progression are designed to advance another class' spellcasting at the same rate as if the character had stayed in their original class. This works out the same way whether the original class is a full spellcaster or a half spellcaster or whatever. In other words, the lack of equality is coming from the original class, not from the prestige class used to advance it.

Why do you think a Paladin or Ranger 5/Prestige Class 10 should have better spellcasting than a Paladin 15 or a Ranger 15? :smallconfused:

Because Hypothetical Prestige Class doesn't have the other class features that the Paladin & Ranger have that [theoretically should, but in reality don't] make up that difference.

Lets stick with the Unseen Seer example.

First Person enters as a level 5 Beguiler
Second Person enters as a level 5 SpellThief

The Beguiler gains: +1d4 HP/+0 BAB/+0 Fort/+0 Ref/+2 Will/+1d6 Damage Bonus*. . . 1 Additional level 2 spell, 3 New Level 3 spells and +1 Caster Level

The Spelltheif gains: +1d4 HP/+0 BAB/+0 Fort/+0 Ref/+2 Will/+1d6 Damage Bonus. . . 1 Additional level 1 spell and +1 Caster Level.

You can see how painfully obviously the discrepancy is. Why should a prestige class grant one class 1 Additional level 2 spell, 3 New Level 3 spells and +1 Caster Level and the other 1 Additional level 1 spell and +1 Caster Level. If you continue all 10 levels Beguiler gets far more from what should be an identical class feature.

*Yes I recognise that this may not be the best example due to begilers not having a precision attack that can benefit from Damage Bonus but if I change the Beguiler to [Beguiler 4/Rogue 1] he's still gaining 1 Additional level 2 spell where the Spelltheif only gained a level 1 spell.

[dextercorvia]

This is a problem with the chassis, not the PrC. Why should one level of Spellthief only provide 1/2 a CL, etc.

[FMArthur]

Yeah this issue seems to be mostly about advancing semi-casters, who usually have better HD, BAB and skills, in prestige classes that have typically terrible stats in all those categories because they expect full-caster entry.

The most direct way to solve that problem is to improve those aspects of the prestige class, not a strange better-than-original casting solution. Mystic Theurge for instance could be modified so that its BAB, HD and skill points are each equal to those of the poorest class you entered it with. So the Mystic Theurge a Duskblade/Ranger would get has full BAB, d8 HD and 2 skill points per level.

Half-casters actually have class features besides spells and chassis that they lose by multiclassing and prestiging out, so it's not too bad to just offer the same chassis, or one that is only a single step down.

[T.G. Oskar]

While this is more a method of handling homebrewing, I typically allow half-casters to advance at least their CL as if it were full, as they desperately need that buff. The boost in CL doesn't offset that much the fact that they still have access only to four spell levels, and that their list is at least half as short as that of the cleric or druid they "draw" their powers from. Hence, why I usually say that "half-casters" are really "one-eighth casters" (because they are halved in pretty much everything).

I tend to go one step further, and if for some reason the PrC loses spellcasting level progression (a 7/10ths progression, for example), I also tend to grant paladins and rangers (again, in 'brews) full progression of their spellcasting ability, particularly if the class is, heaven forbid, only able to progress half casting level (for example, a non-'brewed version of Shining Blade of Heironeous which advances only half your levels in casting, which just spits in the casting of these classes).

Whether I would allow this as a minor houserule? Why, certainly: this doesn't disrupt the progression a bit, particularly when they're meant to disrupt a bit the casting progression of full spellcasters but are open to half-casters in order to grant them some abilities. Just upping their CL to full when PrC'ing won't make them broken, and you can handwave that as "their access to the order/organization makes their spellcasting a bit more focused, but they lose some traits of their old class" (moreso for Paladins, whom if you may remember well have a multiclass penalty).

Though, I'd rather make Paladins and Rangers (and Hexblades and Spellthieves) have full CL, since in the end it doesn't disrupt anything (it buffs them a bit, which they desperately need). That brings them a bit more in-line with proper half-casting. Since, aside from Spellthieves whom can choose from a longer list of spells, the spells of the three earlier classes rarely depend on CL (and those whom do are often shared with Clerics, Druids or Sorcerer/Wizards), the boost is really minor, so no matter the result, the outcome will tend to be the same.

[zlefin]

it woudlnt' be that hard to homebrew a system that corrects this issue;
but of course it's just going to apply to the few people who choose to use it.
So, do you want a homebrew fix that will do this (and people who will actually use it)?

this will require other overall changes to the system to integrate everything so it works properly, are you prepared to accept that?

[ericgrau]

I'd say either homebrew double speed progression or homebrew a new prestige class for them.

It's like switching an arcane prestige class into a psionic prestige class but with different issues to fix. It shouldn't take too long to convert.

[Urpriest]

If you want a prestige class that lets partial casters improve their spellcasting, why not give it an increased casting progression? Knight of the Weave, Sublime Chord, and Divine Crusader are all examples of this (for Paladin, Bard, and Paladin again respectively).

[KillianHawkeye]

Because Hypothetical Prestige Class doesn't have the other class features that the Paladin & Ranger have that [theoretically should, but in reality don't] make up that difference.

Lets stick with the Unseen Seer example.

First Person enters as a level 5 Beguiler
Second Person enters as a level 5 SpellThief

The Beguiler gains: +1d4 HP/+0 BAB/+0 Fort/+0 Ref/+2 Will/+1d6 Damage Bonus*. . . 1 Additional level 2 spell, 3 New Level 3 spells and +1 Caster Level

The Spelltheif gains: +1d4 HP/+0 BAB/+0 Fort/+0 Ref/+2 Will/+1d6 Damage Bonus. . . 1 Additional level 1 spell and +1 Caster Level.

You can see how painfully obviously the discrepancy is. Why should a prestige class grant one class 1 Additional level 2 spell, 3 New Level 3 spells and +1 Caster Level and the other 1 Additional level 1 spell and +1 Caster Level. If you continue all 10 levels Beguiler gets far more from what should be an identical class feature.

*Yes I recognise that this may not be the best example due to begilers not having a precision attack that can benefit from Damage Bonus but if I change the Beguiler to [Beguiler 4/Rogue 1] he's still gaining 1 Additional level 2 spell where the Spelltheif only gained a level 1 spell.

Again, that is because of the different base classes. I see that you ignored my own question:

Why do you think a Paladin or Ranger 5/Prestige Class 10 should have better spellcasting than a Paladin 15 or a Ranger 15? :smallconfused:

[Ancient Mage]

The purpose of the Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, Spellthief, etc. was to let the character sample arcane or divine magic, while still being a warrior or a thief, which is more fun to many players.
The magic granted to these classes is so weak it wouldn't matter either way, but remember that they have weak spells because they are strong in other facets of game play.

-Ancient Mage

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Why go Paladin 5/ PrC 10 when you could go Paladin 4/ Cleric 1/ PrC 10, with Practiced Spellcaster even... or instead of Ranger 5/ PrC 10, you could go Ranger 4/ Druid 1/ PrC 10, again with Practiced Spellcaster.

Using '+1 level of existing class' to advance a subpar spellcasting ability is a mistake on the player's part, one that I don't see any reason to reward.

[chadmeister]

I imagine that the situation where the PrC's focus is spellcasting is the biggest concern there.

That sounds like the class is not a good fit for a paladin or Hexblade, then.

[Treblain]

Why go Paladin 5/ PrC 10 when you could go Paladin 4/ Cleric 1/ PrC 10, with Practiced Spellcaster even... or instead of Ranger 5/ PrC 10, you could go Ranger 4/ Druid 1/ PrC 10, again with Practiced Spellcaster.

Using '+1 level of existing class' to advance a subpar spellcasting ability is a mistake on the player's part, one that I don't see any reason to reward.

Uh, because we shouldn't have to solve every problem by using T1 classes?

And because if half-casting classes can't effectively use '+1 level of existing class' PrCs, they have zero decent options for prestige classes unless they find one specifically tailored for the original class, because all other PrCs cost them their spellcasting. There are no hexblade PrCs, which means that virtually all multiclass options for hexblades make them even worse.

[Psyren]

Uh, because we shouldn't have to solve every problem by using T1 classes?

You're missing his point, which could just as easily be made without T1s: Ranger 4/Spirit Shaman 1/PrC 10, or Ranger 4/Shugenja 1/PrC 10, for instance. Both would have better casting than Ranger 15.

[Coidzor]

The purpose of the Paladin, Ranger, Hexblade, Spellthief, etc. was to let the character sample arcane or divine magic, while still being a warrior or a thief, which is more fun to many players.
The magic granted to these classes is so weak it wouldn't matter either way, but remember that they have weak spells because they are strong in other facets of game play.

-Ancient Mage

And remember that they have such weak casting because the developers didn't really value things right.

[Ancient Mage]

Very much so. Spells should be the main focus of the class, or they should not be in the class. The spells of the ranger, paladin, hexblade, etc. are so weak, that it is almost worthless to have those spells.
The hexblade in particular is a problem. A fighter will kill him in combat, and a sorcerer will slay him in a mage-duel. The duskblade was a much better fighter/mage base class.

-Ancient Mage

[Snowbluff]

If you want a prestige class that lets partial casters improve their spellcasting, why not give it an increased casting progression? Knight of the Weave, Sublime Chord, and Divine Crusader are all examples of this (for Paladin, Bard, and Paladin again respectively).

Ur Priest lets anyone Progress Full Spell Casting! :smallbiggrin:

While we are at it, can we fix the discrepancies for Invocation user, maybe let them qualify for spell casting requirements, and let them benefit from +spells per day?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

Uh, because we shouldn't have to solve every problem by using T1 classes?

And because if half-casting classes can't effectively use '+1 level of existing class' PrCs, they have zero decent options for prestige classes unless they find one specifically tailored for the original class, because all other PrCs cost them their spellcasting. There are no hexblade PrCs, which means that virtually all multiclass options for hexblades make them even worse.

It depends on what a given character wants to do, and why he's prestige classing in the first place. If he wants to be better at combat, then he sacrifices his spellcasting advancement to take a prestige class that makes him better at combat. There's an opportunity cost, a class that's already spread thin has to sacrifice something to be better at something else.

Some classes only do one thing (spellcasting), so if you want to use a prestige class that's designed for one of those, then maybe you should look into dipping one to make that prestige class more worthwhile. For example, you could go Paladin 4/ Bone Knight 10, or you can do something like Paladin 4/ Bone Knight 3/ Divine Crusader 1/ Bone Knight 7, and be far better off even if you don't gain access to more domains/spells as long as your first one has a useful list (I'd pick Wrath).

There are plenty of options for giving any given character whatever capabilities would be fitting. The built-in flavor of every class is entirely optional, apart from alignment restrictions, so pick your classes based on what you want the character to do and he can call himself whatever he wants to.

[Person_Man]

Since we're in the realm of homebrew anyway, you can just make a house rule that all half caster base classes fully progress their spell casting regardless of their multi-class and PrC choices, but you may only do so for one (and only one) spell casting class or PrC.

Thus Ranger 2/Paladin 4/Kensai 10 has the spellcasting of either a 16th level Ranger or a 16th level Paladin (your choice).

Since all half-casters are Tier 4 or lower anyway, and virtually all half-casters multi-class or PrC by level 5 or earlier, there's really no reason not to help them out. There might be a few exceptions to the rule (I'm not sure I would feel comfortable fully progressing Hexblade if they intend to abuse Alter Self and Polymorph), but overall I think it's a nifty idea.

[Treblain]

You're missing his point, which could just as easily be made without T1s: Ranger 4/Spirit Shaman 1/PrC 10, or Ranger 4/Shugenja 1/PrC 10, for instance. Both would have better casting than Ranger 15.

Okay, change "T1" to "Full-casting". You know exactly what I mean; it's still "solving" the problem of half-casters by changing class.


It depends on what a given character wants to do, and why he's prestige classing in the first place. If he wants to be better at combat, then he sacrifices his spellcasting advancement to take a prestige class that makes him better at combat. There's an opportunity cost, a class that's already spread thin has to sacrifice something to be better at something else.

Some classes only do one thing (spellcasting), so if you want to use a prestige class that's designed for one of those, then maybe you should look into dipping one to make that prestige class more worthwhile. For example, you could go Paladin 4/ Bone Knight 10, or you can do something like Paladin 4/ Bone Knight 3/ Divine Crusader 1/ Bone Knight 7, and be far better off even if you don't gain access to more domains/spells as long as your first one has a useful list (I'd pick Wrath).

There are plenty of options for giving any given character whatever capabilities would be fitting. The built-in flavor of every class is entirely optional, apart from alignment restrictions, so pick your classes based on what you want the character to do and he can call himself whatever he wants to.

If you assume that prestige classes are always a tradeoff, you're acting on a false premise that the game designers assured you was true. They are only a tradeoff for classes with multiple aspects that can't advance them all.

PrCs are good for martial classes because full BAB classes tend to have dead levels that can be avoided by multiclassing out. Casters, even half-casters have no real dead levels, because every level advances spellcasting. Full casters rarely lose anything by PrCing, because there is an excess of classes that progress their only significant ability. The most it costs them is feats, and casting feats used as prereqs are actually useful, unlike martial PrCs that tend to require crap like Dodge and Toughness. If full casters, which are already quite powerful, are improved by PrCs without serious drawbacks, then why should classes who already "spread themselves thin" be punished further by the multiclassing system?

[Urpriest]

Ok, so it seems like this is a better statement of the problem:

Paladins and Rangers get decent spells. As such, it would be nice if they could have prestige classes that advance them. But any prestige class that advances their spells must have a weak chassis, since it would also advance the casting of a full caster. But Paladins and Rangers are good in part because of their chassises, and they want prestige classes that are good in that regard. Thus, there are fewer options for good prestige classes for Paladins and Rangers.

This is easy to fix: just make classes that only advance Paladin or Ranger casting. A few already exist: Stalker of Kharash is full-casting and full-BAB, but only accessible to Rangers.

[Arbitrarious]

If you assume that prestige classes are always a tradeoff, you're acting on a false premise that the game designers assured you was true. They are only a tradeoff for classes with multiple aspects that can't advance them all.

PrCs are good for martial classes because full BAB classes tend to have dead levels that can be avoided by multiclassing out. Casters, even half-casters have no real dead levels, because every level advances spellcasting. Full casters rarely lose anything by PrCing, because there is an excess of classes that progress their only significant ability. The most it costs them is feats, and casting feats used as prereqs are actually useful, unlike martial PrCs that tend to require crap like Dodge and Toughness. If full casters, which are already quite powerful, are improved by PrCs without serious drawbacks, then why should classes who already "spread themselves thin" be punished further by the multiclassing system?

This. I had a friend making an acrobatic rogue and it was staggering that thief-acrobat didn't advance rogue sneak attack at all. Really it would be best if there was a system where all prc staggered class ability advancement based on what it gave you on top of your chassis without replacing it outright. For example a powerful class might dock 3 levels of advancement while weaker classes might dock only 1. Theurge/Gish classes might average the chassis elements while taking a page from Ultimate magus in forcing a split in advancement, though we'd need a clause to prevent abuse via things like practiced caster. So a rogue 10/thief acrobat 5 would have the chassis elements of a 15th level rogue the class features of a 14th level rogue and all the abilities of thief acrobat.

After thought: perhaps some prc do influence the chassis by saying "HD up one step" or "skill points: +2" etc.

[Coidzor]

Since we're in the realm of homebrew anyway, you can just make a house rule that all half caster base classes fully progress their spell casting regardless of their multi-class and PrC choices, but you may only do so for one (and only one) spell casting class or PrC.

Thus Ranger 2/Paladin 4/Kensai 10 has the spellcasting of either a 16th level Ranger or a 16th level Paladin (your choice).

Hmm, Interesting idea.

[hex0]

This is easy to fix: just make classes that only advance Paladin or Ranger casting. A few already exist: Stalker of Kharash is full-casting and full-BAB, but only accessible to Rangers.

Add Dragon Slayer to +1 Ranger at all even levels. :smallbiggrin:

Add Platinum Knight to +1 Paladin at all even levels :smallbiggrin:

Change Pious Templar to +1 Divine at odd levels and +1 Paladin at even levels. :smallbiggrin: