What would it take for you to give up caster levels on a character?

[gooddragon1]

Inspired by: This thread. (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?403843-how-many-caster-level-losses-can-you-take-as-a-full-caster-for-optimisation)

This is an open ended question rather than a strictly optimization question so any answers work. For myself, I'll have to think about it and post later perhaps.

So, what would a prc or other thing have to give you in order for you to give up caster levels. How many would you give up and for what? One for X, two for Y, etc...

Or is your reaction to having a caster level removed... never (http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=MbiNfN4eo-o&p=n#/12;17)?

[eggynack]

Honestly, as long as it's not after I already have all the spell levels, I think it might be never. Intellectually I know that there are some things more valuable than faster magic, but I just love getting access to more and more powerful magic too much to slow it down.

[Troacctid]

It would have to be in the interest of adding full-casting to a character that otherwise wouldn't have it--for example, if I wanted to play a Stormsinger Bard, I would be fine losing a caster level by entering as a Wizard 4/Bard 1, because the alternative is entering as a Bard 5 and being stuck with Bard casting, which is just worse than Wizard casting. Similarly, if I want to play a Paladin type, Cleric into Ordained Champion into Prestige Paladin is just, like, strictly better than being an actual Paladin.

[Shoat]

Cool lore fluff is all it takes.
Yes, that means I would already take Dragon Disciple as-is (if it fits into that character's personality and story).

I care very little about optimization. Sometimes I'd even go out of my way to avoid some of the optimized bullsh stuff I see discussed online.

[Necroticplague]

For the things I get in exchange to be of greater utility. A dip into mindbender or sand shaper are both acceptable because they give me a nice benefit in exchange for that lost level. And shadowcraft mage and incantrix would both still be pretty good classes if they were 4/5ths casting (the fact they're full casting shows someone at R&D balance was asleep on the job).

[gooddragon1]

And now I'll give it a shot...

My expectations are unrealistic, but it would have to grant my character the ability to spontaneously change prepared spell slots at will with no action requirement (so, the benefits of both prepared and spontaneous casting with none of the drawbacks (also scribing more and more spells)).

[sideswipe]

And now I'll give it a shot...

My expectations are unrealistic, but it would have to grant my character the ability to spontaneously change prepared spell slots at will with no action requirement (so, the benefits of both prepared and spontaneous casting with none of the drawbacks (also scribing more and more spells)).

see i would take a loss for things like action economy abuse, free metamagics and possibly expanded spell lists or more spells known.

[bjoern]

My table being overpowered by a full caster. Ive given up to 4 caster levels to fit into the group better.

[Gemini476]

And now I'll give it a shot...

My expectations are unrealistic, but it would have to grant my character the ability to spontaneously change prepared spell slots at will with no action requirement (so, the benefits of both prepared and spontaneous casting with none of the drawbacks (also scribing more and more spells)).

Personally I'd probably consider taking Mage of the Arcane Order even if they removed the full CL advancement - and that's with limited spell options and full-round preparation into empty slots.

Other classes I'd take even with lost caster levels... well, a hypothetical Planar Shepard would probably do it. Also, some of the more ridiculous theurges do make it somewhat worth losing three or so caster levels, like the Noctumancer/Mystic Theurge combo.


More seriously, though, it really depends on how long I can expect the campaign to run and at what level I'm starting. If I'm starting at a high enough level, I could skip everything past CL 17 or 21 and grab more unique and interesting abilities from PrCs or races, if I'm in an E6 campaign then losing a caster level is perfectly fine on a prepared caster, if I'm only playing to level 12 or something falling behind in the magic game seems inadvisable...


I'd also consider losing a whole bunch of caster levels if it lets me do something suitably ridiculous, like combining the Fell Drain version of the Locate City Bomb with nine levels of Soul Eater. Do note that it needs to be something extremely ridiculous to warrant losing so many caster levels, though, and that's the only thing I can think of that warrants nine of them. And even then it's kind of a one trick pony.

[Aegis013]

It depends on my purpose and intent for the character and the game the character will be playing in. Swiftblade is widely regarded as cool/awesome, but loses quite a number of caster levels for example.

From an optimization standpoint? It has to be something central to the concept, so much so that to not have it as early as possible would be a failure to achieve the concept in itself.

From a theoretical optimization standpoint? It simply has to be a better (faster, less disputable, higher final results) way to achieve the goal at hand.

From a pure pros and cons standpoint for game play? Likely never, I mean, it'd have to be better than spells, and if you homebrew something better than spells people won't take too kindly to it, I suspect.

[bjoern]

It depends on my purpose and intent for the character and the game the character will be playing in. Swiftblade is widely regarded as cool/awesome, but loses quite a number of caster levels for example.

From an optimization standpoint? It has to be something central to the concept, so much so that to not have it as early as possible would be a failure to achieve the concept in itself.

From a theoretical optimization standpoint? It simply has to be a better (faster, less disputable, higher final results) way to achieve the goal at hand.

From a pure pros and cons standpoint for game play? Likely never, I mean, it'd have to be better than spells, and if you homebrew something better than spells people won't take too kindly to it, I suspect.

That sure seems to be the case. Anything that a wizard doesn't trump 100% of the time is OP.

[atemu1234]

Depends. Do ToB classes count? Or psions?

[Gemini476]

Depends. Do ToB classes count? Or psions?

Psions care about Manifester Level more than casters do Caster Level, due to how psionics works. Astral Construct might scale all the way to 17th level, but you can't actually make it scale unless you have enough ML to be able to augment it.

...Initiators probably want ninth-level maneuvers, but since non-Initiator classes still add +1/2 IL you can get away with six non-initiator levels by level 20.

Personally I'd rank it as something like Manifester Level > Caster Level > Initiator Level in terms of how important it is to get more of it.

[Karl Aegis]

You need to get something that is level relevant and continues to be relevant at later levels. More relevant than spells.

[Mr. Bitter]

A well-designed prestige class. Can't think of any.

[Crake]

If i'm playing a non-caster, all of them, if i'm playing a caster, none. All or nothing for me.

[Pex]

When 3.0 was new I tried a fighter/cleric character. I had fun with it but probably wouldn't do again. I rarely multiclass. I have done a couple of prestige classes in 3E, but generally I prefer sticking to one class. That's just personal preference.

As for multiclassing a spellcaster in general, it's important to keep in mind you are not The Suck for not casting 9th level spells by level 20. You are not doing anything wrong. Obviously by multiclassing you aren't going to be as strong a spellcaster in spellcasting as a single class spellcaster, but that is irrelevant. Only two things are important when you multiclass: you are having a fun and the character is still effective. It does not need to be the Absolute Best In Everything. If that lack of 9th level or even 8th level spellcasting is going to bother you so much, the problem is not the character but your perspective. Stop thinking of your character as a spellcaster with more nonspellcasting abilities. Instead, think of your character as that nonspellcasting class who uses spellcasting to augment what he does.

[graeylin]

For the things I get in exchange to be of greater utility.

Sums up my reasoning as well... Is what I am giving up less than what I am getting?

I just made this choice, actually... doing a paladin build, into a bone knight, and chose the holy warrior ACF... I looked at the odds of me actually using my couple of spells (with my low point buy scores, I couldn't pump wisdom much, DM banned battle blessing feat, etc.) versus what I could get in exchange (more rebuking/day, power attack, cleave, glorious weapon, etc.), I dumped my spells, and took the feats.

it made sense. I lost no Zero level spells, two 1st, and two 2nd levels. In exchange, I got nearly double the feats.