The Gaming Den

If your base caster level is > 1/2 your character level, you cast at character level -1. If your base caster level is > 1/4 your character level, you cast at character level -2. If your base caster level > 1/8 your character level, you cast at character level -3. The progression continues. The minimum is always your actual base caster level.

This does not apply to prestige classes with their own spellcasting progressions.

Example:
Wizard 1/Druid 1 casts as Wizard 1, Druid 1.
Wizard 1/Druid 3 casts as Wizard 2, Druid 3.
Wizard 2/Druid 2 casts as Wizard 2, Druid 2.
Wizard 3/Druid 7 casts as Wizard 8, Druid 9.
Yes, this means that there are breakpoints. It's not totally balanced or fair, but it's more balanced and fair.

Finally, I'm sorry if this is your idea and I'm just regurgitating it because my mind filed off the serial numbers when it was committed to memory.

looks pretty good, I'd be interested to see it tested.

I'm trying something similar in a game I'm running, but I just started it and everyone's still first level. Also, only one of the four players is even interested in multiclassing, so only time will tell...

Why just not say that you cast at your character level ? The main problem with multiclassing is not that you lose casting level, is that you lose on higher level slots and spells and that you suffer from a bad case of MAD. I see not particular problem in saying that a wiz10/dru10 cast at 20 level because a) he is casting 5th level spells at top and b) his casting stats (and his SoD/SoS saving throws) are lower than a 20 level single class caster.

TL,DR The extra balance is IMHO not worth the aggravament(sp?)

Prak_Anima wrote:looks pretty good, I'd be interested to see it tested.

Thanks, so would I.

RobbyPants wrote:I'm trying something similar in a game I'm running, but I just started it and everyone's still first level. Also, only one of the four players is even interested in multiclassing, so only time will tell...

If it does become relevant, please tell us how it works out.

Just another user wrote:Why just not say that you cast at your character level ? The main problem with multiclassing is not that you lose casting level, is that you lose on higher level slots and spells and that you suffer from a bad case of MAD. I see not particular problem in saying that a wiz10/dru10 cast at 20 level because a) he is casting 5th level spells at top and b) his casting stats (and his SoD/SoS saving throws) are lower than a 20 level single class caster.

TL,DR The extra balance is IMHO not worth the aggravament(sp?)

Right, I'm trying to address the problem of having shitty spells more than the problem of shitty 'levels that level-dependent variables of spells depend on'. The latter tend to be very easy to boost. However, I have no problem with integrating our proposals.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Right, I'm trying to address the problem of having shitty spells more than the problem of shitty 'levels that level-dependent variables of spells depend on'. The latter tend to be very easy to boost. However, I have no problem with integrating our proposals.

Ah, so you're saying that your Wizard 3/Druid 7 has spell slots and casts as a Wizard 8/Druid 9, though they only have the hit dice, BAB, saves, feats, and skills that they would have from Wizard 3/Druid 7. Is that a correct interpretation of what you meant?

violence in the media wrote:

CatharzGodfoot wrote: Right, I'm trying to address the problem of having shitty spells more than the problem of shitty 'levels that level-dependent variables of spells depend on'. The latter tend to be very easy to boost. However, I have no problem with integrating our proposals.

Ah, so you're saying that your Wizard 3/Druid 7 has spell slots and casts as a Wizard 8/Druid 9, though they only have the hit dice, BAB, saves, feats, and skills that they would have from Wizard 3/Druid 7. Is that a correct interpretation of what you meant?

That would indeed be the correct interpretation of what I wrote.

It seems a little odd that a cleric 1/wizard 1/other 18 would have 16th level cleric/16th level wizard casting. That's a lot of return with not much investment.

More investment than a feat, and if you don't use Tome, then your other 18 means very little on its own anyway.

hogarth wrote:It seems a little odd that a cleric 1/wizard 1/other 18 would have 16th level cleric/16th level wizard casting. That's a lot of return with not much investment.

1/16 > 1/20 > 1/32, so you're looking at character level -5 for both wizard and cleric casting (15/15). In the case of a Cleric 1/Wizard 1/Fighter 18, I think it's questionable whether the spell casting (and attendant MAD) is worth the lower BAB and lost class abilities. In some cases it certainly will be, but if anything I worry that the casting is too weak.

Yeah, if you cast worse than the cohort's cohort, you're not stealing anyone's thunder.

But that's 20th-level shenanigans that no-one cares about. Can't do math right now, is it worse at more moderate levels?

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Yeah, if you cast worse than the cohort's cohort, you're not stealing anyone's thunder.

I'm not saying that it's stealing someone else's thunder. It just seems like an odd way of fixing things; one level in one non-caster class isn't usually equivalent to 15 levels' worth of spellcasting.

It's like saying "Our Legion of Superheroes game didn't work out very well, so in our new game everyone will be the Composite Superman".

angelfromanotherpin wrote:Yeah, if you cast worse than the cohort's cohort, you're not stealing anyone's thunder.

But that's 20th-level shenanigans that no-one cares about. Can't do math right now, is it worse at more moderate levels?

A Druid 1/Monk 9 is at 1/10 -> -4, casting as a druid 5.
A Druid 2/Monk 8 is at 1/5 -> -3, casting as a druid 6.
A Druid 3/Monk 7 is at 3/10 -> -2, casting as a druid 7.
A Druid 6/Monk 4 is at 3/5 -> -1, casting as a druid 8.

As you can see, it have very clear break points. Things are perhaps clustered a bit too much around the low levels. I think that in each case the spell casting ability granted is roughly commensurate with the investment.

For comparison, an 'organic' Druid/Monk has the following decision points:
[*] If she maintains druid level > monk level, she keeps her casting at TL -1. The progression will be approximately 1/1, 2/1, 3/1, 3/2, 4/2, ...
[*] If she maintains druid level > TL/4, she keeps her casting at TL -2. The progression is something like 1/2, 2/2, 2/3, 2/4, 2/5, 3/5, ...
[*] If she maintains druid level > TL/8, she stays at TL -3. The progression is something like 1/3, 1/4, ..., 1/6, 2/6, ...

At the low levels there are plenty of points where it's possible to play 'catch up' with very little investment. You can also simply let yourself fall behind, which means that every few levels your CL doesn't advance. The worst case is when you add a new casting class level without hitting a break point. That hurts, especially when you're advancing sorcerer or something. On the other hand, you're still free to use prestige classes (which will be better if not ideal).


TL is used to mean "total levels".
CL is used to mean "[spell]casting level".

---

I was also thinking of applying this rule to all class abilities which should be scaling with level to be relevant. This is why I used a druid in my examples above: she should also probably be getting an animal companion with an effective level equal to her druid spellcasting level. Same deal with turn undead. Thoughts?

---

hogarth wrote:It just seems like an odd way of fixing things; one level in one non-caster class isn't usually equivalent to 15 levels' worth of spellcasting.

It's like saying "Our Legion of Superheroes game didn't work out very well, so in our new game everyone will be the Composite Superman".

Try thinking of it this way: a fighter with one level of wizard is a fighter who dabbles in arcane magics. That level investment represents a lifelong investment, and should come with life-long benefits. In the case of a character who starts out as a wizard 1/fighter 1, it isn't 'Bam! I get big wizard casting for no investment'. It's a case of very slowly advancing a side-interest. In the case of a fighter 19 who decides to start learning magic, its a matter of knowing a lot already, being a huge badass already, and therefore being able to tackle more hardcore spells than an apprentice.

angelfromanotherpin wrote: But that's 20th-level shenanigans that no-one cares about. Can't do math right now, is it worse at more moderate levels?

Consider a 12th level character, then. On the one hand you have a 12th level wizard, and on the other hand you have a wizard 7/beguiler 1/archivist 2/wu jen 2 (you can substitute some prestige class levels in instead of wizard levels, it doesn't matter).

So one is casting as a 12th level wizard and one is casting as an 11th level wizard (plus a 9th level wu jen, a 9th level archivist and an 8th level beguiler). Even if you think those two characters are equal in usefulness (debatable), the second one is fugly (IMO). I don't want to encourage players to make fugly characters with a bunch of different base classes. YMMV, of course.

hogarth wrote:

angelfromanotherpin wrote: But that's 20th-level shenanigans that no-one cares about. Can't do math right now, is it worse at more moderate levels?

Consider a 12th level character, then. On the one hand you have a 12th level wizard, and on the other hand you have a wizard 7/beguiler 1/archivist 2/wu jen 2 (you can substitute some prestige class levels in instead of wizard levels, it doesn't matter).

So one is casting as a 12th level wizard and one is casting as an 11th level wizard (plus a 9th level wu jen, a 9th level archivist and an 8th level beguiler). Even if you think those two characters are equal in usefulness (debatable), the second one is fugly (IMO). I don't want to encourage players to make fugly characters with a bunch of different base classes. YMMV, of course.

Alright, let's look at the fugly multi vs vanilla wizard. Basically, the wizard gets one more spell at the highest level she can cast, while the fugly gets increasingly more spells in the lower slots. That's probably tilted in favor of the fugly. However, for a more realistic example consider a Wizard 3/Master Specialist 9 vs. fugly, or some similar prestige class example. To make it fair, make fugly a wizard 3/beguiler 1/archivist 2/wu jen 2/Master Specialist 4. Now vanilla is behind a bit more in spell casting (because of the specialization bonus), but the class abilities begin to offset the disadvantage. If you start looking at Tome prestige classes, I think it becomes even more evident that there are benefits to 'staying the course'.

Still, it's a problem. The complexity of dealing with four sets of spells known alone is perhaps a strike against the idea.

It's totally okay for a Fighter 19 to learn more spellcraft in 1 level than a Fighter 1 from even the most stringent fluff perspectives. That's because by Fighter 19, conceptually you're supposed to be The Determinator. You don't have magic or anything cool like that, but you have such focus and resolve that you're (supposed to be able to) stab a mountain with a sword and make it die. If one can apply that focus and resolve to his studies of the arcane, they can advance prodigiously quickly in a chosen field. It's also notable that 19-20 represents a lot more of a gain than 1-2. The perception that you shouldn't be getting more out of 1 level is totally a result of metagaming derived directly from the semantics of the mechanical structure of the game. I can demonstrate this with a very simple example: the XP gained from level 19-20 is a helluva lot more than 1-2. Imagine for a moment if, like some other game systems, you simply purchased features with *XP* as opposed to in bulk by level. Suddenly, you realize that the 19-20 XP load is going to buy you a lot more features in such a system, and you wouldn't have any fluff issues with buying features with XP, right? Yet another way to look at it is through media parity. When people learn new abilities in shows that have a very perceptible level advancement, like, say, Avatar, you don't see people slowly picking up new material from a new master that they can only use on sub-par challenges. They do it quickly, and then they can immediately apply it in a level-appropriate manner (not always the case, of course, but it's something that happens a lot and no one seems to take issues with the fluff in that context).

So yeah, not only is it far more appropriate from a mechanical perspective to have a benefit from a level be proportionate in some way to your total level (not just a straight linear buy), it also is perfectly reasonable from a fluff perspective and fits in with the way people expect things to work once you can tear them away from their metagame associations.

Caedrus wrote: Imagine for a moment if, like some other game systems, you simply purchased features with *XP* as opposed to in bulk by level.

http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ ... id=47.html

Highly related, and is a D&D product. They have vancian casters, spont casters, psionics and even a free add-on for Weaboo Fightan Majick.

The question is, is it any good?

I've heard mostly good things about it, but I haven't used it myself. The math behind it seemed fairly good, I guess.

It's thread:
http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ ... t=438.html

Articles about it:
http://dreamscarredpress.com/dragonfly/ ... cat=6.html

I figured it would be worth giving a few more examples of how this setup works and running some character comparisons and Same Game tests. First of all, let's take a quick look at the Tome series gold standard of multiclass spell casting: the Conduit of the Lower Planes. First of all, the conduit itself grants minor spell casting as the 10th level ability. 6 levels of sorcerer spell casting, to be exact. Now let's look at a Conduit 9/Sorcerer 1 as per the SSCLH. 1/10 -> casting at TL -4, for 6 levels. Nice!

Now for another comparison. We've got a pair of half-sisters. The first is an Aasimar (baatezu) 'Antipaladin': Knight 3/Conduit of the Lower Planes 2. The second is an Aasimar (angel) 'Paladin': Knight 3/Cleric 2.

Antipaladin

Code: Select all

Knight 3/CotLP 2
S 16, Ch 15, C 14, I 12, D 10, W 10.
Sphere: Carnage.
Feats: Mounted Combat (B), Combat School, Blitz.
Spell-like abilities
3/day: Seething Eyebane (DC 13)
2/day: Blade of Fear and Pain
1/day: Lahm's Finger Darts

Armor: full plate (AC+8, DR 5/lethal)
Shield: kite shield (AC+4, mount gains AC bonus)
AC: 22. DR: 1/-. HP: 44.
Ranged: +4 longbow 1d8+3 [+3d6], crit x3.
Melee: +9 lance 1d8+5 [+4] [x2] [+1d6] [+3d6], crit x3.
       +9 morning star 1d8+5 [+4] [+3d6].

At this point a heavy warhorse makes a good mount:
Speed: 50'.
AC 18 = 10 -1 size +1 Dex +4 natural +4 shield.
Saves: 7/5/2.
HP: 30.
Melee: +6/+6 hoof 1d6+4, +1 bite 1d4+2.

Paladin

Code: Select all

Knight 3/Cleric 2
Attributes: W 18, C 14, S 13, I 12, D 10, Ch 10.

Feats: Mounted Combat (B), Insightful Strike, Zen Archery
Domains: Strength, Travel.

Spells 1:2+1+1, 2:1+1+1.
1 (3+1): Bless, Enlarge Person (D), Obscuring Mist, Protection from Evil.
2 (2+1): Bull's Strength (D), Hold Person, Silence.

Armor: full plate (AC+8, DR 5/lethal)
Shield: kite shield (AC+4, mount gains AC bonus)
AC: 22 = 10 +8 +4. Saves: +6/+1/+8. HP: 44 = 3d12+2d8+10.
Attack: +8
    longbow 1d8+1 [+3d6], crit x3.
    lance 1d8+1 [x2] [+3d6], crit x3.
    longsword 1d8+1 [+3d6], crit 19+.

At this point a heavy warhorse makes a good mount:
Speed: 50'.
AC 18 = 10 -1 size +1 Dex +4 natural +4 shield.
Saves: 7/5/2.
HP: 30.
Melee: +6/+6 hoof 1d6+4, +1 bite 1d4+2.

So, each arrives at a (different, but uncannily similar) ancient tomb. As she clip-clops her through the large entry chamber, a huge iron statue of an ancient warrior animates and attacks!

Huge Animated Iron Statue in an entry chamber
Initiative: -1. Speed: 30'.
AC: 13. Saves: +2/+1/-3. Hardness: 10. HP: 84.
Melee: +9 slam 2d6+7 (15' reach).
Trample: DC 19, 2d6+7.
Grapple: +19.
Special: Construct traits.

The paladin:

It, of course, tries to lift her off her horse. This can't fail (Touch attack +9 vs. 10, Grapple +19 vs. DC 15). If she gains initiative (55%) next round, she activates her Travel domain power, hops back on her horse, calls out the gingerbread challenge, and rides the fuck out. If the statue gains initiative, it coup de graces for 4d6+14 (average 27). Ouch. If she survives, see above. The statue stays guarding the door, and probably gets hit (75%) for 1d8+1+3d6 (average 5). The statue then takes cover behind the curve of the entry way, and readies an action to attack if she gets close enough. The paladin gets close (but stays out of reach) and casts obscuring mist. A round goes by. If the statue gets close to the entry, she can now hit it with Zen archery. Otherwise she goes charging past the statue concealed by the mist.

About 50/50.

Antipaladin:

...might have a higher grapple bonus, but is still proper fucked. This is a problem, because she has no good way to escape the grapple. Even if she does, she can't effectively engage it in melee (it will just grapple her again). She can help her war horse grapple it (!), but it really is looking hopeless.

Near-certain loss.


Somehow each makes it through the entry chamber, and finds herself in a long passage. She takes a step forwards, walking her horse (the ceiling is too low to ride). DC 20 reflex save!

Both:

She probably falls into a pit, which it will take a while to get out of. To say nothing of the locked door at the end of the hallway. Side note: the horse has better chance of climbing out than she does.

Near-certain loss.


None the less, she manages to press on and makes her way to the central burial chamber. From the sarcophagus in the center comes a terrifying groan, and the stone cap is pushed aside as a mummy appears!

Mummy in a tomb
Tomb is 20' long, 15' wide, 10' high; 10'x5'x5' sarcophagus in center, two 5' exits along walls.
Initiative: +0. Speed: 20'.
AC: 20. Saves: +4/+2/+8. DR: 5/-. HP: 55.
Melee: +11 slam 1d6+10 +DC 16 mummy rot.
Special: Despair (DC 16 paralysis 1d4 rounds on first sight), Fire vulnerability, Undead traits.

Paladin:

She has a 65% chance of making her save against despair. Her mount, on the other hand, probably becomes very depressed (25% chance of passing). There is no chance of turning the creature. She is also hard-pressed to out-damage it. The best bet is to cast obscuring mist and use Zen archery again--I'm surprised how often that's been the optimal tactic.

Let's call it about 50/50.

Antipaladin

She has only a +5 will save, so 55% of the time she bites it. If she doesn't, she lights herself on fire. Then she casts blade of fear and pain and starts going to town with the touch attacks.

Slightly less than 50/50.


That's it so far, join me next time as their wondrous adventures continue!

The [anti]paladin is soundly sleeping off the day's bruises, with her trusty steed tied to a nearby tree. However, it is interrupted by a raiding party of 6 hungry grimlocks!

6 Grimlocks sneak up on camp on a moonless night (DC 21 listen check)
Initiative: +1. Speed: 30'.
AC: 15. Saves: +1/+4/+2. HP: 11.
Melee: +4 stone battleaxe 1d8+3, crit x3.
Special: Blind, Blindsight 40', scent.

Paladin:

With her Listen of +18, the paladin is likely to hear the creatures sneaking up before they coup de grace her and her horse. She leaps onto her horse bareback and cuts the rope tying it to the tree. They were trying to be quiet? Fine: she calls out her challenge and then drops a silence in their midst. Next round she charges. They don't stand a chance.

Overwhelming win.

Antipaladin:

With a Listen of +0, she is unlikely to hear the approaching danger. However, her horse will hear them about a quarter of the time, saving her from a trio of coup de graces. Seething eyebane isn't going to be of much help, but she can easily kite them and kills one per round

Call it even.

When the next day dawns, she sets out, having recovered the mummy's macguffan. Riding to the top of a hill to ascertain the lay of the land, she is surprised when a manticore crests the rise and fires a volley of spikes down at her.

Manticore on a hill
Initiative: +2. Speed: 30', fly 50' (clumsy).
AC: 17. Saves: +9/+7/+3. HP: 57.
Melee: +10/+10 claw 2d4+5, +8 bite 1d8+2.
Ranged: +8/+8/+8/+8/+8/+8 spikes 1d8+2, crit 19+.
Grapple: +15.
Special: Flyby attack, scent.

Paladin

Each spike has a 35% chance of hitting. She'll take 2d8+4 -> 12 damage on average. Then she calls out a challenge and casts obscuring mist. The manticore looks down with interest, waiting for its prey to come out of the cloud. She smacks it in the face with an arrow for 1d8+3d6+1 (average 16). Enraged, the manticore glides down the hillside, covering 100', and then (assuming it can locate her square with Listen +5) launches another volley of spikes The spikes have a 50% miss chance, so on average she'll only take 4 damage. She sticks it with another arrow, which has a fairly good chance of dealing Designate damage, dealing around 10 damage. The manticore moves into melee range and launches another volley. This is getting a bit long, so I'll cut it short. The battle starts to turn back towards the manticore, but it's almost out of spikes. It can't effectively grapple her, or make more than a single attack per round if she kites it. The manticore most likely dies.

Very likely win.

Antipaladin:

The initial volley hurts, so she calls out a challenge, moves 50' back, and launches two of her fingers at it. The manticore most likely takes 5 dexterity damage. Take that volley, bitch!. The manticore follows and launches another volley, but with a reduced attack bonus (+6), having only a 25% chance of hitting. She looses another arrow and then rides 50' perpendicular to its flight path. The manticore can't continue flying without going out of its own spike range, which it does. She looses another arrow and rides away again...
If the manticore had tried to kill the horse when it had the chance, maybe things would have turned out differently.

Probable win.


Trekking back towards town, she ends up in a swamp. Trying to stay in the 'path' takes her right by a tiny hillock, covered in brambles, which hide a basilisk...