For a pure caster, when is losing caster levels worth it?

[Endarire]

Greetings, all!

For a pure caster, when is losing caster levels worth it? The most obvious answer is, "When you're gaining much more than you lose!" followed by "When you have no great choice about it!"

For a multiclass or partial caster (gish, etc.), losing caster levels is usually required for the sake of the character and sometimes makes the character notably stronger in the short term. However, losing caster levels on a full caster, even for some spiffy-sounding class features, has not convinced me such is a good trade. It's kinda like trying to be the world's fattest man but purposely eating celery sometimes. There are benefits, but they're counterproductive to your overall goal.

I'm aware that for casting, a bunch of the most powerful caster PrCs are full casting, like Planar Shepherd, Spelldancer, Incantatrix, Contemplative, Dweomerkeeper, Veil, Master Specialist, and Anima Mage.

[timeeater14]

In my opinion, it's almost never worth it in high-op games. It is in the Ten Commandments of Optimization! However, IIRC, there's a PRC called Swiftblade that has, to steal a quote from the Gish Handbook, "A whole heretical church around it". Look into that, maybe.

[StreamOfTheSky]

Thrallherd is worth it, maybe.

Sand Shaper is arguably worth it for spontaneous arcane casters, since it gives you so many extra spells known at various spell levels.

I think dipping Binder 1 and spending a feat to get 2nd level vestiges is worth it for Anima Mage, to fully advance both casting and vestiges.

[noce]

A common measure to evaluate level loss is "Do I get better spells if I enter the PRC?"

Anima Mage, for example, gives you free metamagic at the cost of a caster level. And even immediate casting. You will be obviously stronger, even not counting binder advancement.

Another example is Walker in the Waste. It gives you a lot of immunities and +4 wisdom, at the cost of 2 caster levels. You will be a spell level behind, but all your spells will have a +2 DC, and you will be a lot more survivable thanks to a formidable template. Still, this PRC is not always a good choice. In my opinion, this is an example of well balanced caster level loss.

[Cosi]

It's complicated.

On the one hand, the power of casters is such that you care far less about the class features you gain than the spell levels you lose. Even if your goal is to beat people up in melee, you are going to be more effective in doing that by recruiting, dominating, summoning, or reanimating a bunch of goons to fight for you and then spending you spell slots on something more effective like buffing your team or controlling the battlefield. Yes, you can still get 9ths after giving up three caster levels, but let's not pretend that getting spells at the speed of someone's Sorcerer cohort is the same as getting them at the speed of a Wizard.

On the other hand, the power of caster is such that even losing caster levels you are still going to outperform people who aren't casters. Spending a bunch of levels trying to combine Gish PrCs to form Voltron is not going to do better than being an Incantatrix or Dweomerkeeper, but it's still going to do better than something like "being a Fighter".

On the gripping hand, most of the classes that cost caster levels aren't worth it. Being a Green Star Adept would be fairly marginal choice if it just cost "not taking a better PrC", but also tanking your casting takes it from "niche flavor" to "hot garbage". Even the good partial casting PrCs like Swiftblade or Ultimate Magus are still worse than the good full casting PrCs like Incantatrix and Shadowcraft Mage.

In summary, I wouldn't fault you for showing up with a War Weaver or something (especially if the group is set up so that it's particularly useful), but it's never going to be better than just getting full casting.

As a result of this, my recommendation is that you just make all casting PrCs full progression and have done. Nothing breaks if you let people just be Mindbenders or whatever.


Another example is Walker in the Waste. It gives you a lot of immunities and +4 wisdom, at the cost of 2 caster levels. You will be a spell level behind, but all your spells will have a +2 DC, and you will be a lot more survivable thanks to a formidable template. Still, this PRC is not always a good choice. In my opinion, this is an example of well balanced caster level loss.

"balanced caster level loss" is not a thing that exists. The mechanic fundamentally does not work. A caster level is worth different things at different times in a character's career, and so giving them up cannot be a fair price to pay for a class's abilities. The workable paradigms are the Archmage (which pays fixed-value spell slots for fixed-value abilities) and the Mage of the Arcane Order (which accepts that casters are going to be slightly better than what is printed in the PHB, but will be commensurately more diverse in their ability suites).

[Pex]

When you don't care about having the highest level spell you can as quickly as possible. Not having 5th level spells at 9th level does not make you The Suck How Dare You Turn In Your Dice And Go Play Monopoly.

Play what you want.

[Anthrowhale]

The following classes are worth losing a level of spell advancement in my opinion: Iot7v, Dweomerkeeper, Incantatrix, Hathran, Halruuan Elder, Red Wizard, Spelldancer, Anima Mage, and maybe Sacred Exorcist. Each of these has extraordinarily strong class features granting persistomancy, circle magic, supernatural spell, or similar that make spells much more potent than they would otherwise be. The irony is that none of them require this...

[Hellpyre]

On the gripping hand, most of the classes that cost caster levels aren't worth it. Being a Green Star Adept would be fairly marginal choice if it just cost "not taking a better PrC", but also tanking your casting takes it from "niche flavor" to "hot garbage". Even the good partial casting PrCs like Swiftblade or Ultimate Magus are still worse than the good full casting PrCs like Incantatrix and Shadowcraft Mage.
First off, props for the Motie terminology. Overall, this is the big point from an optimization viewpoint. Most class features aren't worth later access to demigodhood, and that's what you get from higher level spells. Strictly from high-op to TO viewpoints, the mechanical power of spells is higher than anything else you get from most partial progression classes.

The only real reason to lose fast spell access is if you make for stronger spells than getting to the next spell level (Cheesing DMM for example).

[Nifft]

What's your game like?

Do you need multiple Persistent spells at level 8, or you'd be uncompetitive with the other PCs in your group, and drag them down during combat?

Do you need to be able to personally manufacture every type of magical item at level 13, or your group would be unequipped and die to the next encounter?


Most games I've run have NOT been like that.

In most games I've run, any of the typical GitP rules-stretching monstrosities would feel out of place -- that character would blow past the other PCs so fast, the other PCs would feel worthless, and the players would have had less fun.


So:

- If you're in a game of highly competitive expert players who need to push the envelope to feel anything, then you want to keep all the caster levels, plus throw Loredrake + Spellhoard psychosis on your Kobold, and go have a great time with your bros the Planar Shepherd, the Rainbow Warsnake, and the Ur-Priest Theurge.

- If you're in a game where the PCs are not being played to their fullest potential, then it probably doesn't matter much if you lose one or two caster levels. In those games, you can be a Sorcerer / Dracolexi / Dread Witch and feel good about your character even though you lost 2 caster levels from Sorcerer progression.


tl;dr - We can tell you about our experiences, but we can't tell you what you will experience. Get a feel for your group's optimization level and try matching it. If it's not high enough -- if you need more to get your thrill -- then teach them to play better, and raise your game while you help them raise theirs.

[tiercel]

Some of the answer may well be determined by what classes/resources your game has access to. In “high-optimization” games (a subjective term, to be sure), some of the “best” (i.e. arguably strictly-better-than-wizard) PrCs may seem like no-brainer choices, since you gain much for no loss at all in caster levels (or even no loss at all in entry requirements compared to what you would have taken for skills/feats anyway).

Other games may find certain classes (e.g. Incantatrix, IotSV, etc.) overpowered for the style of gameplay, and if “something for nothing” classes aren’t in play, then “something for something” classes become more worthwhile.

The real point here, I suppose, is what do you want your character to be, mechanically speaking? If there is a particular theme or concept driving your character design — and especially if the “least expensive” options are off the table — it is possible that some “something for something” caster-level-loss PrCs may be worth it, if they fit exactly what you want your character to be able to do.

If the primary consideration is “I want to have as much power/as many options as possible” above all else, then it is generally pretty rare to find class features that (as previously stated, *at all levels*) will do so more effectively than increased access to more and higher level spells.

One of the common examples cited on the divine side is Ordained Champion (Complete Champion): if you really want to be a “fightin’ cleric,” the abilities the PrC doles out are arguably worth losing at least one caster level (or two, if you take the whole PrC) — assuming you aren’t mooting the whole class by using DMM Persistomancy. That is, if you are in a group whose playstyle assumes that clerics can basically have all their most important buffs up 24 hours a day because of large numbers of Turn Undead uses powering Divine Metamagic giving Persistent Spell to all such spells, you don’t really need Ordained Champion. If DMM: Persist (or nightstick stacking or other Turn Undead shenanigans) is too “cheesy” for you / your group’s playstyle, then Ordained Champion presents a highly functional alternative — provided “fightin’ cleric” is the mechanical theme/niche you want your character to have.

So, basically, mostly ninja’d by Nifft above ;)

[TotallyNotEvil]

In my experience, there's a fine balance point.

For example, a Sorcadin usually sucks if starting bellow sixth level or so. Even the Mystic Theurge has a narrow band in which it shines, at tenth level you have 4th level Divine and Arcane while a straight caster is merely up to 5th level in one of those.

Honestly, it usually hurts far less than you'd think, especially on a Wizard/Cleric/Druid. You merely get kicked to Sorc progression.

That is, assuming you are getting something good for it.

[Thurbane]

Whenever it adds something of interest to your character concept?

I've never been able to reconcile the two forum mantras of "Never lose caster levels, ever, no, not even then" and "Tier 1 casters make the game virtually unplayable at mid and higher levels".

But I'm just odd that way...

[ryu]

Whenever it adds something of interest to your character concept?

I've never been able to reconcile the two forum mantras of "Never lose caster levels, ever, no, not even then" and "Tier 1 casters make the game virtually unplayable at mid and higher levels".

But I'm just odd that way...

It's almost as though entirely separate groups of people linked to talk about one of the most popular tabletop rpgs of all time may come at the game with entirely different, and even directly opposed, goals. Who ever would've thought it right?

[Mystral]

First of all, you have to define "worth it". If you have an awesome character concept in mind and the best or only way to realise it is by losing one or two caster levels, it is definetly worth it, unless your campaign is so hardcore it puts your character in peril. Full casters are generally tier 1 or 2, so losing 2 caster levels should still result in a viable character, even if you gain nothing but glorified fluff in return.

In more general terms and considering optimisation, you have to look at what the "sweet spot" or the end point of the campaign is. Let's say that you're a wizard in a huge adventure path that goes all the way to level 20 and ends with saving (or not saving) the world. So your end point is level 20. That means that what you lose by losing 2 caster levels would be everything a wizard gains in casting from level 18 to 20, so 1 level 7 spell, 1 level 8 spell and 2 level 9 spells per day. Also, your spells are about 10% less effective overall thanks to caster level (you can ignore that if you're not that kind of wizard). You also lose 1 bonus feat.

In other words, those prestige class levels that "cost" you two caster levels would need to give you the equivalent of a level 7 spell, a level 8 spell, 2 level 9 spells, a 10% increase in casting power and a bonus feat. A tall order for any prestige class.

If, on the other hand. your campaign is of a lower level, the lost power is also of a lower degree. As an example for a prestige class that costs caster level (indirectly), I'd present to you with the master of shrouds. It's from liber mortis and has an entry requirement of a base will save of +5. You can enter it at level 4 by taking 2 levels as a cleric and 1 level as a wizard (or other good willsave class, but wizard is best). It costs you 1 caster level, so at level 5, you'll be casting like a level 3 cleric. That's a big loss, but as a return, you get the ability to summon shadows (and more powerfull incorporeal undead as you progress). At level 5, your opponents will be utterly helpless against shadows (especially if you also manage to command one of your shadows and use it as a pet and then command his spawns through him).

Totally worth it at levels 5-8, but after a while, it gets lower in effectiveness and when you cap out your master of shrouds, your summons quickly loose relevance and you're playing with a gimped cleric with a few fluff tricks. (Though a gimped cleric is still a force to reckoned with).

To summarise my long-winded ramblings: Look at the relevant opportunity cost of your caster level loss and weigh against what you gain through the prestige class at the relevant point.

[noce]

As an example for a prestige class that costs caster level (indirectly), I'd present to you with the master of shrouds. It's from liber mortis and has an entry requirement of a base will save of +5. You can enter it at level 4 by taking 2 levels as a cleric and 1 level as a wizard (or other good willsave class, but wizard is best).

Or you know, you could be a LN Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 1/Master of Shrouds 10.
Still, at lvl 1 MoS doesn't advance casting, so with this entry it is barely decent, but losing a grand total of 2 caster levels is too much for what it offers.

[Mystral]

Or you know, you could be a LN Cleric 3/Church Inquisitor 1/Master of Shrouds 10.
Still, at lvl 1 MoS doesn't advance casting, so with this entry it is barely decent, but losing a grand total of 2 caster levels is too much for what it offers.

My build offers the advantage of entry at level 4 instead of level 5, so you get your shadow summons one level earlier. The sweet spot truly is at level 5-8, when your incorporeal undead are dominating. At level 14, you're already pretty bad.

As I said, it really depends on the circumstances of the campaign, one shouldn't only look at the end point of class for the benchmark.

[Svata]

A common measure to evaluate level loss is "Do I get better spells if I enter the PRC?"

Anima Mage, for example, gives you free metamagic at the cost of a caster level. And even immediate casting. You will be obviously stronger, even not counting binder advancement.

Another example is Walker in the Waste. It gives you a lot of immunities and +4 wisdom, at the cost of 2 caster levels. You will be a spell level behind, but all your spells will have a +2 DC, and you will be a lot more survivable thanks to a formidable template. Still, this PRC is not always a good choice. In my opinion, this is an example of well balanced caster level loss.

And when you hit tenth, you become a Dry Lich, and about as close to immortality as is possible outside of genesis+astral projection or transferring into the body of an ice assassin of an aleax of yourself cheese (and those are powerfully stinky cheese). In addition to the canopic jars (which is like having 5 phylacteries) get Unholy Toughness which gives you CHA bonus to HP, and between that and the upgrade to a D12 HD from a D8 (cleric, druid) you should have more hit points than you did before, unless you dumped charisma. But in that case, why are you going for a Walker in the Waste build, silly? Dump Dexterity instead. (Seriously, it's the least useful stat for both of them. Clerics wear heavy armor, and Druids can replace their DEX with that of whatever the heck they wild shape into.)

[FocusWolf413]

Statistically, you're probably not going to play a high optimization, ruthless, 15-20 level game. You're more likely to play more casual games somewhere between 3 and 10.

If you have a character idea, and there's a prestige class that fits the character idea, go for it, even if you lose a couple caster levels. Discuss the type of game you want beforehand. Trust the party not to be ***** who will try to turn the game into rocket tag. Trust the DM to throw acceptable encounters at you. Come to terms with the fact that you're not all powerful, numbers aren't everything, and sometimes you won't succeed.

Just play the game and don't worry about it.

[Cosi]

First of all, you have to define "worth it".

I agree. And I think that as a result, many of the answers in this thread aren't really responsive to the question. Saying "it's worth it if it makes your concept work better" is fine, but it's not really answering the question "is the trade-off balanced". It's saying that you don't care (or at least, don't exclusively care) about power, not that the power tradeoff is fair.


And when you hit tenth, you become a Dry Lich, and about as close to immortality as is possible outside of genesis+astral projection or transferring into the body of an ice assassin of an aleax of yourself cheese (and those are powerfully stinky cheese).

But do you actually need immortality? You're a PC, your friends can just cast raise dead or buy a true resurrection when you die (hell, even with 4th level entry, you still only have a relatively small chunk of the game with Dry Lich but without true resurrection being a PC option). I think you'd probably do better improving your survivability by getting a bunch of persisted buffs or something.

[Grod_The_Giant]

"No more then one spell level behind a straight classed Wizard" is a decent practical-op rule of thumb, I think.

[Anthrowhale]

For high level campaigns, losing several levels of spell advancement or caster level is relatively ok after 9th level spells have been reached. One feat (Practiced Spellcaster) makes up for 4 lost caster levels and there is no spell advancement anyways beyond 20th level. I've sometimes finished off builds with Hierophant (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/prestigeClasses/hierophant.htm). Comparing a wizard 27 to a Wizard 17/Green Star Adept 10 the latter seems like a flavorful choice which is tolerably suboptimal rather than the career-limiting decision it would be comparing a Wizard 15 to a Wizard 5/Green Star Adept 10.

[Endarire]

@Cosi: I appreciate your sentiment. What made you decide that all PrCs should be full casting?

[Thurbane]

It's almost as though entirely separate groups of people linked to talk about one of the most popular tabletop rpgs of all time may come at the game with entirely different, and even directly opposed, goals. Who ever would've thought it right?

Snark aside, I generally agree with your point. It still amuses me, through.


When doing is justified by your character's personality, or lets them excel at the roles you want them to fulfill. Just because you're a bodybuilding health nut doesn't mean that you'll never slack off for a month and eat junk food.

Well said. :smallsmile:

[Quertus]

When is it worth it? When the game is more fun that way.

When is it statistically optimal? At epic levels.

[Cosi]

@Cosi: I appreciate your sentiment. What made you decide that all PrCs should be full casting?

I don't know that I can point to a specific thing that changed by mind, but if I had to guess where it started, I'd probably say the discussion of why the True Necromancer is bad (from K's Revised Necromancer Handbook (http://www.ruleofcool.com/smf/index.php?topic=725.0)):


You are not going to play a True Necromancer! A lot of people love the True Necromancer, even though it’s a completely crippled class. Even a Mystic Theurge is better, and that’s saying quite a bit because that class is a dog with fleas. You’re 5 real caster levels behind the curve. If you just took Leadership, and then your cohort took Leadership, both of the cohorts would have better casting than you (being 2 levels behind and 4 levels behind respectively). You can provide the party better and more powerful Necromancy as a single classed Fighter that happens to have Leadership than you would if you were a “True” Necromancer.

I also gave a rundown of why lost caster levels don't work in a previous thread on this topic, which I would link to, but this forum makes it weirdly difficult to go through my old posts.

I think the primary reasons are:

1. Currently, lots of PrCs are dead content. It would be better if they weren't.
2. The power available from most casting PrCs (particularly partial casting ones) is a very small fraction of caster power, but represents a very large gain in terms of differentiation.
3. There's no good place to put lost caster levels if you do include them. Frontloading them hurts people who want to take multiple PrCs, backloading them effectively means they don't exist.
4. Even if casters are currently too good, that's a separate issue from casting PrCs and should be fixed separately.