Removing Max Power Level Known

[Hish]

The ardent is notable for having the powers it can cast be dependent on ML, which means you can multiclass and take Practiced Manifester in order to not lose any power levels.

Would it be unbalanced to remove the max power level known column from psions and wilders? They still can't manifest powers with a cost greater than their ML. Also, there would still be a cost to multiclassing in the form of lost PP and powers known.

The goal of this change is to encourage multiclassing for full manifesters and provide more options without affecting game balance much.

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

I don't like it, Overchannel or Wild Surge could be used to manifest powers of a higher level than a single-classed character would be able to use.

[DeTess]

The ardent is notable for having the powers it can cast be dependent on ML, which means you can multiclass and take Practiced Manifester in order to not lose any power levels.

Would it be unbalanced to remove the max power level known column from psions and wilders? They still can't manifest powers with a cost greater than their ML. Also, there would still be a cost to multiclassing in the form of lost PP and powers known.

The goal of this change is to encourage multiclassing for full manifesters and provide more options without affecting game balance much.

That depends on your balance level. Full casters like psions and wilders are generally considered significantly more powerful than martials like fighters and barbarians, or even half-casters like rangers or paladins. The proposed change will further increase the power ceiling on these casters by allowing them to be even more versatile, but it most probably won't lead to things becoming more broken than they already are. However, if this house-rule is supposed to be for a table where fighters and barbarians are supposed to be playable, then I don't think it's a good idea.