Odd effects of leveling up, got any?

[MarkVIIIMarc]

At level 20 my +5 Charisma having Bard may switch Healing Word over to a Cleric spell and only have +2 on it actually making it worse!

That back story is that for several levels now I've kept a projection of where my Bard is going with level ups. I got caught wanting to change out a couple spells at a time and could not so "never again" I thought.

Every soo often my Elf Bard PC makes references to Pelor or tries to use Sending to talk with him since the party actually met and got thanked for Pelor a few levels back.

As Bard 20 isn't real exciting and my character has this personality quirk where, "Corellon doesn't help, but I've seen Pelor" I plan on taking a level of Cleric @ 20.

Any of you all have similar comical quirks come up on leveling.

[returnToThePast]

Before errata added a minimum of one, it was possible to actually lose hit points from leveling up if you had a negative Constitution modifier.

[clash]

If an ek multi classes with an arcane trickster at the wrong level you can actually lose spell slots on level up.

[Dork_Forge]

If an ek multi classes with an arcane trickster at the wrong level you can actually lose spell slots on level up.

How is that possible? It wouldn't decrease your caster level, or do you mean less slots then they could potentially have had?

[Anymage]

How is that possible? It wouldn't decrease your caster level, or do you mean less slots then they could potentially have had?

On a moment's thought, this is a good point.

If you had a thirdcaster who got their subclass at 1 or 2, the point would stand; thirdcasters like the AT or EK get their slots as 1/3 level round up, but if they multiclass they round their level down to see how many slots they get. Adding 1/3 but rounding down can be worse than just rounding up.

Since the only way to become an AT or EK requires subclassing at third level, though, all existing thirdcasters add at least 3/3 to the total caster level. I can't think of any cases where going from rounding up to rounding down and then adding 1 results in a net loss.

[Contrast]

If you had a thirdcaster who got their subclass at 1 or 2, the point would stand; thirdcasters like the AT or EK get their slots as 1/3 level round up, but if they multiclass they round their level down to see how many slots they get. Adding 1/3 but rounding down can be worse than just rounding up.

Since the only way to become an AT or EK requires subclassing at third level, though, all existing thirdcasters add at least 3/3 to the total caster level. I can't think of any cases where going from rounding up to rounding down and then adding 1 results in a net loss.

This was an issue with the artificer class which is why they added a special rule that you round up for the artificer.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Debatable how odd it is, but by RAW you don't gain current hit points along with maximum, so if a level up doesn't coincide with regaining full HP, you become wounded/unlucky/scorned by the gods.

[VonDragon]

This is actually not an issue, although alot of people track current and max hit point as ease the game is actually set up for you to track damage taken so if your max goes up your damage taken is the same so the current hp would increase

[Coffee_Dragon]

This is actually not an issue, although alot of people track current and max hit point as ease the game is actually set up for you to track damage taken

I would disagree with that:

"A creature's current hit points (usually just called hit points) can be any number from the creature's hit point maximum down to 0. [..] Whenever a creature takes damage, that damage is subtracted from its hit points." (PHB 196)

[Catullus64]

Any subclass which is flavored as linking your character to some sort of in-universe tradition or organization can have some weird implications; Bladesingers, Battleragers, Arcane Archers, Purple Dragon Knights, Druid Circles, etc. Unless you've got a pretty great DM who alters the structure of his whole campaign to allow you to meet or train with these people in downtime, it usually requires some hand-waving to explain why you only now have the abilities of these supposedly ancient and prestigious traditions that you are a part of.

Bladesinging especially jumps out at me, since the fluff specifies that the form takes upwards of a century to learn, but you pick it up in the gap between Wizard 1 and 2. I guess the Bladesinger home office only just sent your membership card in the mail?

[Dork_Forge]

Any subclass which is flavored as linking your character to some sort of in-universe tradition or organization can have some weird implications; Bladesingers, Battleragers, Arcane Archers, Purple Dragon Knights, Druid Circles, etc. Unless you've got a pretty great DM who alters the structure of his whole campaign to allow you to meet or train with these people in downtime, it usually requires some hand-waving to explain why you only now have the abilities of these supposedly ancient and prestigious traditions that you are a part of.

Bladesinging especially jumps out at me, since the fluff specifies that the form takes upwards of a century to learn, but you pick it up in the gap between Wizard 1 and 2. I guess the Bladesinger home office only just sent your membership card in the mail?

To the first part, it can be assumed upon gaining the subclass you've actually only just achieved the start of those abilities, it's hardly unreasonable to assume you are trained in general before the specific style of a group.

To the second, no it doesn't. The only mention of time in relation to Bladesinging is how old the various styles are and how long a Master can teach because of the long life of an Elf, at no point does it say how long it takes to learn, specific or vague.

[Particle_Man]

Conversely, samurai does not require service to any master or code. You just need “fighting spirit”.

[Greywander]

How is that possible? It wouldn't decrease your caster level, or do you mean less slots then they could potentially have had?
Third casters actually gain more spell slots when straight-classed than their multiclass caster level would suggest. Using their mutliclass caster level, the maximum caster level they can reach is 6th level (when they reach 18th level), which means they should top out at 3rd level spells. And yet they get a 4th level slot at 19th level.

In fact, I've noticed that third casters somewhat weirdly "round up" when determining spell slots. A 6th level EK or AT is only a 2nd level caster, and doesn't hit 3rd level caster until 9th level, but they get 2nd level slots at 7th level, the level immediately after they hit 2nd caster level.

I double-checked, and this seems to be true for half casters as well. Although the multiclass rules say to round down, the class tables themselves round up. I don't think this can actually cause you to lose spell slots, but it can result in not getting additional spell slots after multiclassing into a half or third caster class. There's currently no way to get only 1 level in a third caster class, as all third casters are subclasses that only unlock after you've already invested 3 levels (enough to earn an extra caster level, which will offset switching from rounding up to rounding down).

In a hypothetical situation where we could just dip one level into a third caster class, then we could imagine a scenario where we are a 13th level EK (with a 3rd level spell slot) who then dips one level into AT. With only 14 levels in third caster classes, we round down to a 4th level caster and lose our 3rd level spell slot. This would only ever become a real issue if we get either a third caster class (not a subclass), or a third caster subclass that unlocks before 3rd level. In either case, a simple fix is to rule that it "doesn't count" until you reach 3rd level in that class (or just let them round up instead of down).

[Dork_Forge]

Third casters actually gain more spell slots when straight-classed than their multiclass caster level would suggest. Using their mutliclass caster level, the maximum caster level they can reach is 6th level (when they reach 18th level), which means they should top out at 3rd level spells. And yet they get a 4th level slot at 19th level.

In fact, I've noticed that third casters somewhat weirdly "round up" when determining spell slots. A 6th level EK or AT is only a 2nd level caster, and doesn't hit 3rd level caster until 9th level, but they get 2nd level slots at 7th level, the level immediately after they hit 2nd caster level.

I double-checked, and this seems to be true for half casters as well. Although the multiclass rules say to round down, the class tables themselves round up. I don't think this can actually cause you to lose spell slots, but it can result in not getting additional spell slots after multiclassing into a half or third caster class. There's currently no way to get only 1 level in a third caster class, as all third casters are subclasses that only unlock after you've already invested 3 levels (enough to earn an extra caster level, which will offset switching from rounding up to rounding down).

In a hypothetical situation where we could just dip one level into a third caster class, then we could imagine a scenario where we are a 13th level EK (with a 3rd level spell slot) who then dips one level into AT. With only 14 levels in third caster classes, we round down to a 4th level caster and lose our 3rd level spell slot. This would only ever become a real issue if we get either a third caster class (not a subclass), or a third caster subclass that unlocks before 3rd level. In either case, a simple fix is to rule that it "doesn't count" until you reach 3rd level in that class (or just let them round up instead of down).

So in summary, no it isn't possible for a third caster to lose slots on a multiclass into another third caster. Whilst we are seeing a 3/4 caster in the form of the Artificer, I don't think we will ever see a third caster that gains access before 3rd (at that point they wouldn't be a third caster).

[Anymage]

So in summary, no it isn't possible for a third caster to lose slots on a multiclass into another third caster. Whilst we are seeing a 3/4 caster in the form of the Artificer, I don't think we will ever see a third caster that gains access before 3rd (at that point they wouldn't be a third caster).

Artificer is only a halfcaster. And while the current version has a special exception telling you to round multiclass artificer levels up instead of down, I would not be surprised if the official release delayed their casting to second level in order to bring them in line with the other partial casters.

Which is an agreement that in practice, there will never be a situation where someone loses a spell slot due to multiclassing.

[Dork_Forge]

Artificer is only a halfcaster. And while the current version has a special exception telling you to round multiclass artificer levels up instead of down, I would not be surprised if the official release delayed their casting to second level in order to bring them in line with the other partial casters.

Which is an agreement that in practice, there will never be a situation where someone loses a spell slot due to multiclassing.

Artificers also get cantrips, which half casters do not. If their casting was delayed to second it would not only break tradition with the other half casters you essentially have nothing but magical tinkering, which would make playing a 1st level Artificer unsatisfying, a chore and make you a burden to the rest of your party. At that point you're a martial character with nothing besides proficiencies and a d8 hit die. They'll likely keep the rounding up rule and frankly they should, they're more casting dependent than a Ranger or a Paladin, hence 3/4 caster.

[Greywander]

Cantrips are dealt with separately from caster level and spell slots, so an artificer could still get cantrips at 1st level and have their leveled spells delayed until 2nd level. Imagine just taking the Cantrips column from, say, the warlock table and slapping it onto the paladin table. The paladin still doesn't get spell slots until 2nd level, but would be able to use cantrips at 1st level. It would be kind of like that.

[Anymage]

A 3/4 caster would wind up with eighth level spells at the end of their career. Artificer tops out with a couple of fifths, and their spell slots improve every other level. That lines up with a tenth level caster, not fifteenth. So halfcaster, not 3/4.

And paladins only get one of their defining features, smites, at second level. Move Infuse Item to first, artificers will still have something to do out the gate. (Even if that is very likely to be "+1 armor, +1 weapon".) Which isn't to say that I'd be horribly put out if artificers did wind up being oddities who rounded up, just that I'd be surprised if they weren't brought in line with the other partial casters when they see full release.

Edit for offtopic add:

In fact, I've noticed that third casters somewhat weirdly "round up" when determining spell slots. A 6th level EK or AT is only a 2nd level caster, and doesn't hit 3rd level caster until 9th level, but they get 2nd level slots at 7th level, the level immediately after they hit 2nd caster level.

Pure classed halfcasters also round up. Paladins and rangers (and artificers, if you want to include them) all improve their spell slots at odd levels. I don't know why multiclass partial casters round down when all straight classed partial casters round up.

[Greywander]

Huh, I guess that technically if you take one level of paladin and one of ranger, you become a 1st level caster and get two 1st level spell slots. Despite not having the Spellcasting feature or knowing/being able to prepare any spells.


A 3/4 caster would wind up with eighth level spells at the end of their career. Artificer tops out with a couple of fifths, and their spell slots improve every other level. That lines up with a tenth level caster, not fifteenth. So halfcaster, not 3/4.
A 2/3rds caster would be interesting. Easiest way to do it would be to simply skip every third level, i.e. for 1st and 2nd level you are also that caster level, but you skip 3rd level and become a 3rd level caster at 4th level. You'd end up as a 14th level caster with access to 7th level spells.

One would think a 2/3rds caster would only get up to 6th level, i.e. two thirds of 9th level (the highest level full casters get), but then again you'd also think third casters would only get up to 3rd level, yet they get 4th level spells. This is probably because if the progression stayed consistent, then full casters would get 10th level spells at 19th level, but they don't. For multiclass caster level, you might only be able to get up to 12th level with all 2/3rds caster levels depending on how it's calculated, which would put you topping out at 6th level spells (same as third casters top out at 3rd level spells when multiclassing).

[Dork_Forge]

Cantrips are dealt with separately from caster level and spell slots, so an artificer could still get cantrips at 1st level and have their leveled spells delayed until 2nd level. Imagine just taking the Cantrips column from, say, the warlock table and slapping it onto the paladin table. The paladin still doesn't get spell slots until 2nd level, but would be able to use cantrips at 1st level. It would be kind of like that.


A 3/4 caster would wind up with eighth level spells at the end of their career. Artificer tops out with a couple of fifths, and their spell slots improve every other level. That lines up with a tenth level caster, not fifteenth. So halfcaster, not 3/4.

And paladins only get one of their defining features, smites, at second level. Move Infuse Item to first, artificers will still have something to do out the gate. (Even if that is very likely to be "+1 armor, +1 weapon".) Which isn't to say that I'd be horribly put out if artificers did wind up being oddities who rounded up, just that I'd be surprised if they weren't brought in line with the other partial casters when they see full release.

Let me clarify, by half caster I do not simply mean that 2 levels in multiclassing equals a full level, there is currently 3 clearly defined templates in current publication:

Full casters, which get the Spell Casting feature at first level and full progression

Half casters, which get it at second level minus cantrips but are gishs

Third casters, which get it (including cantrips) at 3rd level as a subclass choice.

On the topic of cantrips, no you can't just divorce it from spell slots. It is part of the Spell Casting feature and gained at the same time as slots and spells known (if it is gained by that class at all), this is the case for all types of casters (even Warlocks). And whilst yes Rangers and Paladins get defining features at second level, they both get multiple features at 1st level that allow them to be played largely the same. Just gaining infusions wouldn't really help the issue of Artificers being subpar martials for their first level.

Artificers do not fit into the above, they gain slots and cantrips at first level but do not gain full progression. As they are between a full and a half caster, the term 3/4 caster makes sense.


Huh, I guess that technically if you take one level of paladin and one of ranger, you become a 1st level caster and get two 1st level spell slots. Despite not having the Spellcasting feature or knowing/being able to prepare any spells.

No, you don't. The multiclass spellcasting rules only apply once you gain the spellcasting feature, without it you have no slots as it is the feature that give them to you.

[Greywander]

On the topic of cantrips, no you can't just divorce it from spell slots.
You can. Quite easily, in fact. For example, just tell a paladin they learn X cantrips from the cleric list and use Charisma as their spellcasting ability score for those cantrips. Done.

If you really need to, you can give them the Spellcasting feature at 1st level, but just not have them learn any leveled spells or get spell slots until 2nd level. That's also easy to do.


It is part of the Spell Casting feature and gained at the same time as slots and spells known (if it is gained by that class at all), this is the case for all types of casters (even Warlocks).
Only because those classes all get cantrips and leveled spells at the same level. So does the UA artificer. If they change the artificer to be in line with other half casters, then either they don't get cantrips until 2nd level or they get cantrips before leveled spells. Or they just won't change it. Either way, the artificer will be breaking from the established parameters for half casters (which it already is by getting cantrips in the first place).


Artificers do not fit into the above, they gain slots and cantrips at first level but do not gain full progression. As they are between a full and a half caster, the term 3/4 caster makes sense.
It might make sense to you, but it will confuse a lot of other people. The assumption would be that a 3/4 caster gets spell slots at 3/4 the rate of a full caster, which the artificer does not. The artificer is a half caster, albeit different from existing half casters.


No, you don't. The multiclass spellcasting rules only apply once you gain the spellcasting feature, without it you have no slots as it is the feature that give them to you.
It only applies to EKs and ATs when you take those subclasses, but it clearly states that it's half your paladin and ranger levels. Period. It doesn't say anything about not counting until you hit 2nd level in those classes. Presumably, a paladin 3/ranger 1 would count as a 2nd level caster, rather than a 1st level caster, otherwise you would lose spell slots.

I think this is one of those cases where the RAW and the RAI don't quite match up. I don't think it's intended to be able to go paladin 1/ranger 1 and count as a 1st level caster. But you need for one level of paladin or ranger to count toward your caster level, otherwise you can lose spell slots on a level up. Besides, it's not like it actually breaks the game. It's like a glitch giving you ammo for a gun you don't have, and by the time you get that gun you're supposed to have that ammo anyway.


On topic of the OP, what about something like leveling as a sorcerer or bard and replacing all your spells as you level until you have nothing to use your 1st or 2nd level spell slots on? Not sure why you'd do this, as there are a lot of useful low level spells, but it's something you could do. Prepared casters could do something similar by not preparing any low level spells, but they can always change it after a rest so it's not as big of a deal.

You can get the Relentless Hex invocation, then replace Hex on your list of spells known. Of course, you could also switch to a different invocation at the same time, I just wanted to point out that it was possible to end up with an "illegal" invocation.

[Dork_Forge]

You can. Quite easily, in fact. For example, just tell a paladin they learn X cantrips from the cleric list and use Charisma as their spellcasting ability score for those cantrips. Done.

If you really need to, you can give them the Spellcasting feature at 1st level, but just not have them learn any leveled spells or get spell slots until 2nd level. That's also easy to do.

It would be the ONLY case of separating receiving cantrips and slots at the same time, which the Artificer follows. What you're saying just amounts to homebrew rules rather than following the conventions set by the game.


Only because those classes all get cantrips and leveled spells at the same level. So does the UA artificer. If they change the artificer to be in line with other half casters, then either they don't get cantrips until 2nd level or they get cantrips before leveled spells. Or they just won't change it. Either way, the artificer will be breaking from the established parameters for half casters (which it already is by getting cantrips in the first place).

There is NO precedent for separating getting cantrips and levelled spells, and outside of arguing this point it doesn't really make sense to, it fragments the system.


It might make sense to you, but it will confuse a lot of other people. The assumption would be that a 3/4 caster gets spell slots at 3/4 the rate of a full caster, which the artificer does not. The artificer is a half caster, albeit different from existing half casters.

Any confusion can be cleared up by actually reading the multiclassing sidebar of the Artificer. On the same principle, people could assume that if they're labelled half casters they won't get cantrips period and won't get slots and spells until second.


It only applies to EKs and ATs when you take those subclasses, but it clearly states that it's half your paladin and ranger levels. Period. It doesn't say anything about not counting until you hit 2nd level in those classes. Presumably, a paladin 3/ranger 1 would count as a 2nd level caster, rather than a 1st level caster, otherwise you would lose spell slots.

No, what it says is: "Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below." You need to hit 2nd level in both Paladin and Ranger to get the Spellcasting feature from both. A Paladin 3/Ranger 1 is a 1st level caster, you're not losing spell slots at all, you're just not counting Ranger as a spellcasting class because at that level, it isn't.


I think this is one of those cases where the RAW and the RAI don't quite match up. I don't think it's intended to be able to go paladin 1/ranger 1 and count as a 1st level caster. But you need for one level of paladin or ranger to count toward your caster level, otherwise you can lose spell slots on a level up. Besides, it's not like it actually breaks the game. It's like a glitch giving you ammo for a gun you don't have, and by the time you get that gun you're supposed to have that ammo anyway.

Covered above, P 1/R 1 making a full caster level is neither RAW nor RAI.

[Keravath]

So in summary, no it isn't possible for a third caster to lose slots on a multiclass into another third caster. Whilst we are seeing a 3/4 caster in the form of the Artificer, I don't think we will ever see a third caster that gains access before 3rd (at that point they wouldn't be a third caster).

EDIT: LOL. You can't be an EK until 3rd level .. so my example doesn't work. As a multi-classed AT/EK you will have fewer spell slots than a straight class in either but you will never LOSE slots when leveling up.

Just curious ...

A 7th level AT has 4 first level slots and 2 second level slots in the PHB.

The 7th level AT adds a level of EK so it is 8th level character with 7 AT and 1EK levels.

Total 1/3 caster levels is 8 divided by 3 and round down is 2. A second level caster has 3 first level spell slots.

"a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down)" PHB 164

Doesn't this mean that a 7th level AT goes from 4 first and 2 second level slots to just 3 first level slots when they add a level of EK or is there errata to prevent this from happening?

P.S.

Neither paladin nor ranger get the spellcasting feature until level 2 .. until they do, they don't count as spell casting classes. (I must have been more than half asleep when I posted this one).

"half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes" PHB 164

The PHB does not specify the order of operations but it does say "levels" which could imply adding before dividing.

In the case of Paladin1/Ranger1 ... the character has 2 levels of 1/2 caster classes. If you add "levels" before dividing and rounding then the combination is 2/2 = 1 ... which has first level spell slots. However, they have no spells known from either class so it is just an oddity.

[Anymage]

If you could be a first level EK, you'd be right on the money. Since the only way to become an EK is to be a third level fighter, that situation will never happen.

[Greywander]

It would be the ONLY case of separating receiving cantrips and slots at the same time, which the Artificer follows. What you're saying just amounts to homebrew rules rather than following the conventions set by the game.
It's speculation of what they might do should they make the artificer work like other half casters and get leveled spells at 2nd level instead of 1st. It could also be applied to homebrew, but I feel like that's beyond the scope of this thread.


There is NO precedent for separating getting cantrips and levelled spells, and outside of arguing this point it doesn't really make sense to, it fragments the system.
But you could do it. If you wanted to. I agree that it might not make sense to do so in the case of the artificer.


Any confusion can be cleared up by actually reading the multiclassing sidebar of the Artificer. On the same principle, people could assume that if they're labelled half casters they won't get cantrips period and won't get slots and spells until second.
It still doesn't make sense to call it a 3/4 caster, because that's not what they are. They're a modified half caster. This is like calling a monk a "caster" and then saying "any confusion will be cleared up if they just read the class". There's no reason to make things more complicated than they need to be. It's easier to explain how they differ from half casters than to explain what you mean by "3/4 caster". Heck, if someone asks you what a "3/4 caster" is, your response will probably be along the lines of, "It's like a half caster, but..." Sure, it's a modified half caster, but it's also the only class like this so far, so I don't think it will need it's own special term just yet.


No, what it says is: "Once you have the Spellcasting feature from more than one class, use the rules below."
Huh, so it does. And this means a paladin 3/ranger 1 would only use the spell slots of a 3rd level paladin, rather than using the multiclass spell slots, so no spell slot loss. Very well, I shall concede this point.

[Keravath]

If you could be a first level EK, you'd be right on the money. Since the only way to become an EK is to be a third level fighter, that situation will never happen.

Duh <face palm>. Thanks for that ... you are absolutely correct. :)

[Dork_Forge]

Just curious ...

A 7th level AT has 4 first level slots and 2 second level slots in the PHB.

The 7th level AT adds a level of EK so it is 8th level character with 7 AT and 1EK levels.

Total 1/3 caster levels is 8 divided by 3 and round down is 2. A second level caster has 3 first level spell slots.

"a third of your fighter or rogue levels (rounded down)" PHB 164

Doesn't this mean that a 7th level AT goes from 4 first and 2 second level slots to just 3 first level slots when they add a level of EK or is there errata to prevent this from happening?

P.S.

"half your levels (rounded down) in the paladin and ranger classes" PHB 164

The PHB does not specify the order of operations but it does say "levels" which could imply adding before dividing.

In the case of Paladin1/Ranger1 ... the character has 2 levels of 1/2 caster classes. If you add "levels" before dividing and rounding then the combination is 2/2 = 1 ... which has first level spell slots. However, they have no spells known from either class so it is just an oddity.

You can't make that split as you wouldn't become an Eldritch Knight until character level 10, leaving you as a 3rd level caster.

For Paladin1/Ranger1 I addressed this in the post above, you need to have the spellcasting feature from both classes, so it would be a minimum of 2 Paladin/2 Ranger to use the multiclass rules.

[Dork_Forge]

But you could do it. If you wanted to. I agree that it might not make sense to do so in the case of the artificer.


You could do anything you want, it doesn't mean it makes sense or that it will be a likely change from the UA. If people complained about the rounding up in the survey then sure, they may do something different.


It still doesn't make sense to call it a 3/4 caster, because that's not what they are. They're a modified half caster. This is like calling a monk a "caster" and then saying "any confusion will be cleared up if they just read the class". There's no reason to make things more complicated than they need to be. It's easier to explain how they differ from half casters than to explain what you mean by "3/4 caster". Heck, if someone asks you what a "3/4 caster" is, your response will probably be along the lines of, "It's like a half caster, but..." Sure, it's a modified half caster, but it's also the only class like this so far, so I don't think it will need it's own special term just yet.

Full caster, half caster, and third caster aren't actually official terms, they're shorthand categories used by people discussing the game. I don't really see an issue with the logic for a board term, or why it really needs to be argued, if someone asked what I meant, I'd happily clarify for them. But no, in no way shape or form is it like calling a Monk a caster, that's ridiculous hyperbole because we are in a back and forth.


Huh, so it does. And this means a paladin 3/ranger 1 would only use the spell slots of a 3rd level paladin, rather than using the multiclass spell slots, so no spell slot loss. Very well, I shall concede this point.

Glad we can agree on what the rule says.

[Yunru]

Full caster, half caster, and third caster aren't actually official terms, they're shorthand categories used by people discussing the game.

Yes, they are.
And they're solely based on how they progress on the multiclass table.
So the Artificer is not a 3/4 caster.

[Dork_Forge]

Yes, they are.
And they're solely based on how they progress on the multiclass table.
So the Artificer is not a 3/4 caster.

Then please direct me to where they are used officially, if I'm incorrect then I will concede and apologise for the fuss on that point, but I didn't see those terms in the multiclass spell casting section at all.

The Artificer doesn't progress the same way, 3 levels in Artificer gives you 2 caster levels. I really don't understand all the pushback against a term I used, if you don't like or agree with it then don't use it yourself. If you or anyone else doesn't know what I mean then I'll happily clarify.

[Yunru]

Then please direct me to where they are used officially, if I'm incorrect then I will concede and apologise for the fuss on that point, but I didn't see those terms in the multiclass spell casting section at all.I was agreeing that they're unofficial :P


The Artificer doesn't progress the same way, 3 levels in Artificer gives you 2 caster levels. I really don't understand all the pushback against a term I used, if you don't like or agree with it then don't use it yourself. If you or anyone else doesn't know what I mean then I'll happily clarify.
Okay, so not quite the MC table, because it rounds down unlike the class that round up. The MC table is just a perfect match (with that exception).

A Paladin is a half caster. Why? Because it gains spell slots at half the rate of a full caster.
A Eldritch Knight is a third caster. Why? Because it gains spell slots at a third the rate of a full caster.

That's all there is to it. Nothing to do with cantrips or proficiencies.

It's also why you're getting such pushback, because you're using the term wrong.
A 3/4 caster would gain spell slots at 3/4 the rate of a full caster.

Just because something is unofficial, doesn't mean it isn't standardised.

[Dork_Forge]

I was agreeing that they're unofficial :P


Okay, so not quite the MC table, because it rounds down unlike the class that round up. The MC table is just a perfect match (with that exception).

A Paladin is a half caster. Why? Because it gains spell slots at half the rate of a full caster.
A Eldritch Knight is a third caster. Why? Because it gains spell slots at a third the rate of a full caster.

That's all there is to it. Nothing to do with cantrips or proficiencies.

It's also why you're getting such pushback, because you're using the term wrong.
A 3/4 caster would gain spell slots at 3/4 the rate of a full caster.

Just because something is unofficial, doesn't mean it isn't standardised.

Sorry for the misunderstanding, a wee bit tired! :P

Half casters don't progress at half the rate outside of the multiclass table, if that was the case then Paladins would get 2nd level spells 6th not at 5th. I understand where it comes from, but there is clearly a template (thus far at least) regarding which get cantrips and that third casters are subclasses not full classes.

If the specific 3/4 isn't to peoples liking then I'm open to whatever ratio it actually works out as, but it isn't the same as Paladin and Ranger.

[Yunru]

Half casters don't progress at half the rate outside of the multiclass tableSure they do. A full caster gets a new spell slot level (henceforth SSL) every 2 levels. A half caster like the Paladin or Ranger gets a new SSL every 4 levels. A third caster gets a new SSL every 6 levels. Note that all of these count from first level, regardless of whether or not they have access to spells yet.


If the specific 3/4 isn't to peoples liking then I'm open to whatever ratio it actually works out as, but it isn't the same as Paladin and Ranger.
It actually is, with the exception of first level. If the Paladin or Ranger got spells at first level, they'd look identical.

[Amechra]

Let's say you have a Barbarian character who wields a battleaxe/greataxe. Taking a level in Monk almost literally gives you nothing but a d8 hit-die (you already have Unarmored Defense, you have all of the proficiencies the Monk grants you already, and Martial Arts shuts down if you wield anything that isn't a Monk weapon).

If you're taking average HP per level (and apply Constitution boosts retroactively when calculating HP¹), a Draconic Sorcerer 4 who takes +2 Con at 4th level has more HP than a Draconic Sorcerer 3/Barbarian 1 (the pure Sorcerer effectively has +2 HP)

¹I'll be honest here - I can't recall if this is the actual rule or just a houserule I've been running with for simplicity.

[Dork_Forge]

Sure they do. A full caster gets a new spell slot level (henceforth SSL) every 2 levels. A half caster like the Paladin or Ranger gets a new SSL every 4 levels. A third caster gets a new SSL every 6 levels. Note that all of these count from first level, regardless of whether or not they have access to spells yet.


It actually is, with the exception of first level. If the Paladin or Ranger got spells at first level, they'd look identical.

A class doesn't count towards the multiclass table until you get the spellcasting feature from it, so it doesn't aply from first level in terms of multiclassing.

3 Artificer levels makes 2 spellcaster levels, the same cannot be said of Paladin and Ranger, so how can the progression be the same when multiclassing Artificer would get you SSL faster every odd multiple of 3?

[Yunru]

A class doesn't count towards the multiclass table until you get the spellcasting feature from it, so it doesn't aply from first level in terms of multiclassing.Who cares about the multiclass table? As I said, it's used for reference because it (almost) perfectly lines up.


3 Artificer levels makes 2 spellcaster levels, the same cannot be said of Paladin and Ranger, so how can the progression be the same when multiclassing Artificer would get you SSL faster every odd multiple of 3?
What?
Paladins and Rangers get new SSL at 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th, just like the Artificer.

[Manipulo]

Verdan at level 5 change from size Small to Medium.... its not clear what happens if you got the squat nimbleness feat which has a requirement of small.....

[Particle_Man]

One odd effect, deals with multi-classing.

I could play Merlin the Wizard, who has studied at the foot of masters in arcane universities, poring over texts, for years, before embarking on my adventure, and thus learn magic that "slow" way.

or

I could play a smart barbarian, kill some goblins, and on leveling up learn some magic the "quick" way. :smallbiggrin:

Similarly for Monks and monasteries, Fighters and military academies, Clerics and temples, Bards and musical teachers, Rogues and Thieves' Guilds (or at least a trainer of some kind), etc.

[HouseRules]

One odd effect, deals with multi-classing.

I could play Merlin the Wizard, who has studied at the foot of masters in arcane universities, poring over texts, for years, before embarking on my adventure, and thus learn magic that "slow" way.

or

I could play a smart barbarian, kill some goblins, and on leveling up learn some magic the "quick" way. :smallbiggrin:

Similarly for Monks and monasteries, Fighters and military academies, Clerics and temples, Bards and musical teachers, Rogues and Thieves' Guilds (or at least a trainer of some kind), etc.

Like Elves need 100+ years to gain 1st level, but only experience to gain other levels?

[Particle_Man]

My head canon is that younger elves just keep learning and forgetting things and that they start their adventuring career once their brains settle on one class idea and it “sticks”.

[Dork_Forge]

Who cares about the multiclass table? As I said, it's used for reference because it (almost) perfectly lines up.


What?
Paladins and Rangers get new SSL at 5th, 9th, 13th and 17th, just like the Artificer.

The multiclassing rules are the only place where half caster actually lines up, otherwise it'd be a new SSL at 6th, 10th etc. Unless it comes from a past edition, the only part of the PHB to support the terms is in the multiclassing section where it says half your x and y levels or a third of your a and b levels.

They get access to casting earlier and round up (if you have 3 paladin levels, you're a 1st level caster, an Artificer would be 2nd level under the multiclassing rules, not single class. Again, the MC rules is where that term actually makes the most sense besides "well it's basically half as fast in the class table"), they get cantrips and ritual casting (unlike Paladin and Ranger). To say they're just modified half casters is an understatement--they're clearly more centered around casting than P/R are.

Ultimately, I don't think these semantics are worth continuing to debate this, I know what you (and others) mean by half caster, and you know what I mean. If you don't like the term then please feel free to ignore it and not use it, I think that it is very much appropriate for where the Artificer sits in the grand scheme of casters and will continue to refer to them as such.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Like Elves need 100+ years to gain 1st level, but only experience to gain other levels?

I understood elves aren't considered to be adults until they were 100 but not that they couldn't gain levels. Is that Cannon?

[HouseRules]

I understood elves aren't considered to be adults until they were 100 but not that they couldn't gain levels. Is that Cannon?

It's not cannon because a character could start at any level.
Unless a DM forces all characters to start at level 1, then it becomes cannon with that particular DM.

[Vorpalchicken]

Most individuals don't gain character levels at all. Ever. Your characters are heroes for a reason.

[Yakmala]

Bards getting access to 5th level Ranger and Paladin Spells 7 levels earlier than actual Rangers and Paladins.

[Yunru]

A sorcerer can put all their sorcery points into creating a 5th level spell slot at level 7. Then if they gain a level, can choose a 5th level spell one level early.

[BarneyBent]

The multiclassing rules are the only place where half caster actually lines up, otherwise it'd be a new SSL at 6th, 10th etc. Unless it comes from a past edition, the only part of the PHB to support the terms is in the multiclassing section where it says half your x and y levels or a third of your a and b levels.

They get access to casting earlier and round up (if you have 3 paladin levels, you're a 1st level caster, an Artificer would be 2nd level under the multiclassing rules, not single class. Again, the MC rules is where that term actually makes the most sense besides "well it's basically half as fast in the class table"), they get cantrips and ritual casting (unlike Paladin and Ranger). To say they're just modified half casters is an understatement--they're clearly more centered around casting than P/R are.

Ultimately, I don't think these semantics are worth continuing to debate this, I know what you (and others) mean by half caster, and you know what I mean. If you don't like the term then please feel free to ignore it and not use it, I think that it is very much appropriate for where the Artificer sits in the grand scheme of casters and will continue to refer to them as such.

A 3rd level Paladin is a 2nd level spellcaster. Single classed Paladins and Rangers use half their level rounded up to determine their spellcasting level, just like Artificers.

The ONLY difference is that Artificers round up when multiclassing, and they get spellcasting and cantrips at level 1 (spending both level 1 and 2 as a first level faster).

[Vorpalchicken]

A sorcerer can put all their sorcery points into creating a 5th level spell slot at level 7. Then if they gain a level, can choose a 5th level spell one level early.

Cute idea but spell slots created like that vanish with a long rest and a long rest is needed to level up.

[Dork_Forge]

A 3rd level Paladin is a 2nd level spellcaster. Single classed Paladins and Rangers use half their level rounded up to determine their spellcasting level, just like Artificers.

The ONLY difference is that Artificers round up when multiclassing, and they get spellcasting and cantrips at level 1 (spending both level 1 and 2 as a first level faster).

They don't determine their spellcasting level at all, they follow the table provided in their class section. The ONLY place that terminology can be extrapolated from is the multiclassing section, as that's the only place where you have to work out your caster level.

So sure, they're exactly the same, except they get casting at first, and cantrips, and ritual casting, oh and they round up in multiclassing calculations. I deem those four substantial changes enough to warrant a different term, if you don't agree then... Okay?

As I've already said in this thread I don't think it's worth going back and forth constantly, if people don't like the term then don't use it. I used it in this thread casually because it's how I think of them, I didn't start petitioning people to adopt it.

[Yunru]

and a long rest is needed to level up.

And your source for that is?
By the books, as soon as your reach the XP threshold, you level up.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Most individuals don't gain character levels at all. Ever. Your characters are heroes for a reason.

Ok. So nothing prevents someone from playing a 50 year old level 3 elf.

[Greywander]

Ok. So nothing prevents someone from playing a 50 year old level 3 elf.
Well, levels are already a gaming abstraction. You can choose to begin play as a 70 year old man, knowing that you're starting at 1st level. Or you can play as a 9 year old child and hit 20th level before you hit puberty.


a long rest is needed to level up.
What is this, Morrowind?

As far as I'm aware, there's no such rule, but I can see it making sense as a house rule. It would be a bit awkward if you gained a level mid-combat, and suddenly started busting out abilities you didn't have mere seconds ago.

[BarneyBent]

As far as I'm aware, there's no such rule, but I can see it making sense as a house rule. It would be a bit awkward if you gained a level mid-combat, and suddenly started busting out abilities you didn't have mere seconds ago.

Sudden inspiration mid battle!