If you find yourself saying...

[Username17]

If you find yourself reading a prestige class and saying "This isn't worth giving up spellcaster levels for, but it is worth picking up as a fighter." then something is obviously wrong, OK?

If it isn't worth giving up caster levels for, it isn't balanced. Period. And if those Fighter levels aren't worth giving up spellcaster levels for - they aren't balanced either.

Thank you for your time.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

The question of whether its worth a caster level is highly relative. For a full caster character, practically nothing is worth giving up a caster level. For Krusk the 10th level half orc barbarian, gaining his first caster level just doesn't mean that much to him.

And you really can't make comparisons based off if a 10th level wizard or a 10th level barbarian would want to take the same class. Obviously a fighter class won't appeal to a caster, so he's not going to want to burn a caster level to take it... ever. And there's no way to meaningfully compare this. A caster doesn't want rage or power attack at all.

How would you even start to figure out the value of a caster level with regards to a fighter PrC?

[User3]

Is a level of cleric worth giving up a caster level for for a Wizard? I think not.

-Catharz Godsfoot

[Username17]

Is a level of cleric worth giving up a caster level for for a Wizard? I think not.

And that is a serious balance issue. It should be if the D&D XP chart is to mean anything. It should be if the CR chart is to mean anything.

It costs just as much to be a Wizard 4/ Cleric 1 as it does to be a Wizard 5. If both of those options are to exist, they should be vaguely equivalent.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

I agree in present D&D - but they don't have to in theory. You could require a level of two of crap to then be equal. You could have, for instance, a Wizard4/cleric1 that sucked, but a wizard4/cleric2 that worked fine. I see nothing wrong with making a PC pay a price for, say, versatility, as long as eventually that price is paid - and you don't pay that price forever. IMO, that's the problem w/ multiclassing. You don't just make a one-time payment, like a feat or a few crappy spells. You pay that price for as long as you play that PC.

[RandomCasualty]

I don't think you will ever balance out multiclassing so that a level of wizard equals a level of cleric for a wizard 4. It just doesn't work that way.

Spellcasters are all about maximizing their craft, they aren't about dipping into other disciplines.

The only possible way you can fix this is to allow people to cast a spell from each spellcasting class per round as a full action, and also do a full attack. This way it becomes much easier to mix types.

If a wizard 4/cleric 2 can cast a wizard and a cleric spell in the same action, then his cleric levels are a bit more useful. A fighter 2/wizard 3 could cast a spell and attack in the same round.

Obviously this solution requires you get rid of PrCs like the MyTh.

And this solution is way too invasive I think to really seriously consider.

[The_Hanged_Man]

1084841398[/unixtime]]Spellcasters are all about maximizing their craft, they aren't about dipping into other disciplines.

why?

[Username17]

1084897206[/unixtime]]

1084841398[/unixtime]]Spellcasters are all about maximizing their craft, they aren't about dipping into other disciplines.

why?

A good question. The Cleric Concept is one of being a Spellcaster/warrior, the Paladin Concept is one of being a Warrior/spellcaster, the Wizard Concept is one of being a SPELLCASTER, the Fighter Concept is one of being a WARRIOR.

So conceptually, if you want your Cleric to be more of a Warrior, doesn't it make sense to take a level or two of Fighter or Paladin? If you want your Cleric to be more of a Spellcaster, doesn't it make sense conceptually to take a dip into Wizard?

As it is, in order to be more of a Warrior, you should take levels of Cleric. If you want to be more of a Spellcaster you take levels of Cleric. Taking levels of Fighter or Wizard makes you less of a Warrior and less of a Spellcaster.

Conceptually, that makes no sense at all.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

Just thinking. What about a simple change - getting rid of mid BAB for all serious casters, and getting rid of all combat buffs for casters?

I wonder how much of the multiclass problem comes from casters being good fighters. For example, there's this myth that arcane casters can't be good in melee b/c of poor BAB and hp. Which is ridiculous.

Give arcane casters and divine casters weak bab to begin with, don't allow magic to increase it except through multiclassing, and don't allow buffs to compensate for otherwise-weak combat abilities. Or make the buffs weaker - Divine Power gives 3/4 BAB, not full BAB; Polymorph str and dex bonuses only translate partially to combat ability; get rid of GMW and so on.

IOW, make a level of spellcasting truly different from a level of fighting ability. Perhaps the problem is that casting gets you full combat abilities, and full casting abilities, meaning taking a fighter level just means giving up casting ability.

Hmm.

[Username17]

That's part of it.

Of course, you know what the number one argument against the cleric archer is, right?

"But that would require giving up almost all of your spellcasting!"



Being a better Fighter than the Fighter is is generally valued significantly less than the ability to cast combat and utility spells appropriate to your level.

In adidition to removing the combat buffs from the primary spellcasters, they should be given to the primary warriors. GMW should exist, but it should exist as an ability that Fighters have.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

Well, OK. I wasn't aware there were any arguments against cleric archer/basher/whatevers. They're better than fighters. End of story.

But as bad as the cleric archer is, the fighter was, IMO, still better overall at fighting. If the cleric archer truly had no/few spells left (which I don't get, since the core build requires what, 4? 5? the rest is cheese), fighters could just change tactics, since they could max archery, max a melee style, and add a few special attacks w/o sweating.

Just IMO and IMX. It's the spell options that make the cleric archer rampage.

* * *

I'm going to see if I can flesh out something that would make sense.

[Username17]

Well, OK. I wasn't aware there were any arguments against cleric archer/basher/whatevers. They're better than fighters. End of story.

Oh yeah, I got that argument all the time when I first wrote the Cleric Archer and coined the term.

People who had the "Cleric Class" were unwilling to give up even a small amount of their "Clericness" to be better at Fighting than Fighters are. My debut of the Cleric Archer write-up (which didn't even have Persistent Spell) turned into a 5 page flame war about how that style of fighting should be left to Arcane Archers.

Arcane Archers! I mean, back then I was just pointing out that a Cleric with Quicken could prepare all of their 8th level slots as Quickened Divine Power (which Fighters and Arcane Archers wouldn't even have), and extend a +5 bonus on all of their arrows and their bow - thereby outshooting any Arcane Archer build possible.

The later printing of Persistent Spell made that even easier, and I submitted that it was then better than any Warrior build - and still people had arguments against it based entirely around not wanting to change the perceived flavor of the class or something.

The acceptance of the Cleric Archer as a valid combat mode probably wasn't very widespread until the days of 3.5 were near.

Odd, but true.

This is one of the reasons I think classes probably shouldn't have names. People shouldn't be given better access to ability A with the assumption that people won't use it much because it is out of flavor for the class to use ability A. People should only get better access to ability A if that's what you want them to actually do.

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1084897206[/unixtime]]

1084841398[/unixtime]]Spellcasters are all about maximizing their craft, they aren't about dipping into other disciplines.

why?

Because nobody is willing to give up casting for more fighting ability or a few skill points. Spellcasting is something totally exclusive from fighting, and basically the two don't mix very much, at all.

As a caster you might as well use buffs to boost your combat effectiveness as opposed to taking fighter levels, since the buffs are basically just as good anyway. If you take away the buffs then that just means spellcasters don't fight except with spells.

Until you can cast a spell and attack (or cast 2 spells of differerent disciplines) as a multiclass character, like the Race of Faerun bladesinger can, there's no reason to ever do anything but boost your casting.

Because you still get only one action per round, so having fighting ability is never worth losing caster power. The only reason you can multiclass fighter types and rogues somewhat is that you can sneak attack, rage and use smite evil all while using the attack action. You can't cast a spell while using the attack action, so it's relatively pointless to even bother trying to improve your ability to attack as a caster.

[The_Hanged_Man]

That's a good description of 3.5 rules. But shouldn't D&D be better?

[RandomCasualty]

1084918486[/unixtime]]That's a good description of 3.5 rules. But shouldn't D&D be better?

The problem is there isn't a hell of a lot you can do to make it better.

You've got a few options, and most of them require huge invasive changes.

a) Diminishing returns magic ability: You get less and less the more you put in. Basically it takes too many caster levels to actually produce much better effects, so you're more likely to put it into something else.

b) Combined actions: All your class abilities synergize to the point you can use them all in one round. If you're a cleric/wizard/fighter, you can attack, cast a divine spell and cast an arcane spell, all in one action.

c) Truly separated abilities: Basically this one says that you can't fight at all without fighter levels, so if you ever want your character to make melee attacks, you're forced to take fighter levels. Even with buffs, it doesnt' make much of a difference if you've got a +0 BaB.

Really, I'm not sure any of these will actually work in play. I have yet to truly see a game system that encourages wizards to multiclass. Even in systems like White wolf and GURPS, with diminishing returns systems, it's still almost always worth it to boost your magic skill because magic is like the swiss army knife of abilities. It can do anything.

Sadly enough, I think the current 3.5 system of dealing with multiclass casters is the best we're going to get. Basically just create a quasi-gestalt PrC that has the abilities of both. Whatever the option, it has to involve casters still getting lots of caster levels, because that's about all they care about.

The only real solution is to nerf magic to the point that it's no longer the swiss army knife, and that will leave you with something that just isn't D&D anymore.

[The_Hanged_Man]

I don't think that's true. It can work, but it doesn't work.

[User3]

1084919067[/unixtime]]
The only real solution is to nerf magic to the point that it's no longer the swiss army knife, and that will leave you with something that just isn't D&D anymore.

You can return the Fighter to his place as a better Fighter then the Cleric by getting rid of spells that grake the game-roles. If you think that it is broken to give a Fighter a feat that lets him cast spells as a cleric of his character level, then it follows that Clerics shoulden't be able to cast a spell that lets them fight as a Fighter of their character level.

Self-buffs that improve combat ability are a dumb idea for any class that isn't purely martial arcane (like a Bladesinger or Hexblade). There shoulden't be any combat-related Cleric or Wizard buffs with a range of Personal.
Once you can cast Persistant Righteous might and favor on the Fighter, it becomes a better idea to do that then to cast them on yourself.
And GMW should probably supress and pre-existing enchantments on a weapon, just like Holy sword.

I have never played a game where self-buffs were as broken as in D&D. I think it is a symptom of the old 'delayed gratification' rule, where your power in the end game was based on how much you sucked in the beginning.

-Catharz Godsfoot

[RandomCasualty]

The thing with self buffs is that they should all have durations of 1 round/level. There's no problem with a cleric being able to fight as well as a fighter after wasting one round or more to buff himself. The problem comes when he can get away without ever spending that round.

Also low level buffs scale too much. Buffs should always be static bonuses like bull's strength, not "I scale from level 1 to 20" crap like divine favor. This would prevent people from gaining too much from quickening them. I mean really, clerics don't have to learn spells.. they automatically get all spells they can cast without doing a damn thing. Their spells shouldn't scale... at all.

[Username17]

here's no problem with a cleric being able to fight as well as a fighter after wasting one round or more to buff himself. The problem comes when he can get away without ever spending that round.

That doesn't address the fact of the Teleport Ambush, for example.

Also low level buffs scale too much.

I completely and totally disagree. Buffs don't scale enough.

I would have abilities be meaningful whenever you get them. You shouldn't necessarily have 15 levels of Wizard to cast spells that people care about at character level 15.

-Username17

[User3]

1084938407[/unixtime]]There's no problem with a cleric being able to fight as well as a fighter after wasting one round or more to buff himself. The problem comes when he can get away without ever spending that round.

There is a huge problem: Nobody should fight better then the Fighter. Buffs might be able to get you *close.* But those buffs would be better spent buffing the Fighter. If this relegates Clerics to cohort status, so be it.

There is also a minor problem: You would encourage Cleric players to be assholes, buffing themselves every encounter, kicking ass, and then leaving no room to cast restorative spells or demanding that the party rest so they can re-memorize. This is a minor problem because the cleric dosen't *have* to play like that.

-Catharz Godsfoot

[RandomCasualty]

1084944955[/unixtime]]
There is a huge problem: Nobody should fight better then the Fighter. Buffs might be able to get you *close.* But those buffs would be better spent buffing the Fighter. If this relegates Clerics to cohort status, so be it.

You are by definition *close* when you take a round to become the fighter, because that's one round you aren't attacking. And remember you still lack the feats, you'd just have the attack bonus and damage. But given that you're always wasting a round, and using up a lot of spell slots doing it, it shouldn't be overpowered.

I don't really see how allowing buffs to affect the fighter would help much. Even if you could divine power or divine favor the fighter, clerics will still use it on themselves anyway. Unless the spell specifically gives more benefits to a fighter type instead of a static bonus, there's no reason not to cast it on yourself.

There is also a minor problem: You would encourage Cleric players to be assholes, buffing themselves every encounter, kicking ass, and then leaving no room to cast restorative spells or demanding that the party rest so they can re-memorize. This is a minor problem because the cleric dosen't *have* to play like that.

Well, the caster always stopping to remorize is a big problem in D&D, and I'm not quite sure how to stop it. The rest is all dependant on the player himself. And actually buffs will likely save spell slots as opposed to casting 3-4 flame strikes per battle.

[Username17]

You are by definition *close* when you take a round to become the fighter, because that's one round you aren't attacking.

What if that round is just before you teleport in (or otherwise ambush your enemies), so the Fighter can't be attacking either?

-Username17

[RandomCasualty]

1084976319[/unixtime]]
What if that round is just before you teleport in (or otherwise ambush your enemies), so the Fighter can't be attacking either?

Then it doesn't work.

Though IMO teleport should have a 10 minute casting time to prevent that stuff.

Buffs don't work at all in a game where you can teleport halfway across the map to attack someone in one round. By the time your TP goes off your buffs should be timed out.

And if you insist on having instant teleportation then clearly buffs need to go.

[Username17]

What about just hiding in an Illusion? Or putting your enemies into a Solid Fog?

Or in any other way altering the battlefield so that your opponents can't get to you or don't know about you until you damn well want them to?

I don't know that there's any way you can stop that, since you could always just close and lock a door and cast buffs from behind it.

-Username17

[The_Hanged_Man]

Or the old standby of making a wall or going ethereal and dropping below ground. It's way too easy for any caster to buff if they want to.