Practiced Spellcaster unbalancing or just right?

[dameron]

Take the 16Sorc/2Pal/2Monk example with Practiced Spellcaster:

Lose:
No Capstone -20% Damage
No Tier 3 PRe
A few spells...mostly worthless but not all (1-7th, 2-8th, 3-9th i think)
Some Spell Points

Gains:
Full Level-based damage
Full duration
+12ish or so to all saves
1 Lay on hands for 100+
+30 hps
+2 more to saves from aura if no full paly around
1 net feat gain from Monk level
Evasion

It's more than likely I missed a few things on both sides but IMO that trade-off is slightly over-powered. It doesn't sound like you will. I'd prefer to not see that feat without some modifications to it

The only things they gain from Practiced Spellcaster are:

Full Level-based damage (which only help spells that don't max out at level 15)
Full Duration (which would be, in this case amount to extending a spell by 25%)

and

+4 to Spell Penetration

I don't think that's overpowered, especially since it doesn't give you what you're really missing from not taking those Sorcerer levels: the capstone, the level 18 PrEs, a 7th, two 8th, and three 9th level spell slots, and tons of mana.

So even if I can only take it once, that still raised my Wall of Fire to L16, a Noticeable Improvement, Maxes out Spells like Fireball, Provides extra Missles for my Force missle type spells, Extends my Buffs further, and increses my Spell penn and caster level checks to a Useable level.

Still overpowering.

I think I see your problem, you think the feat shouldn't provide a noticeable effect or make things more usable. What, do all your barbarian builds load up on Skill Focus: Perform?

[kurand]

edited.

[Calebro]

Take the 16Sorc/2Pal/2Monk example with Practiced Spellcaster:

Lose:
No Capstone -20% Damage
No Tier 3 PRe
A few spells...mostly worthless but not all (1-7th, 2-8th, 3-9th i think)
Some Spell Points

Gains:
Full Level-based damage
Full duration
+12ish or so to all saves
1 Lay on hands for 100+
+30 hps
+2 more to saves from aura if no full paly around
1 net feat gain from Monk level
Evasion

It's more than likely I missed a few things on both sides but IMO that trade-off is slightly over-powered. It doesn't sound like you will. I'd prefer to not see that feat without some modifications to it

This is a misleading example.
You haven't shown us what *practiced spellcaster* has given us, you've shown us what the *multiclass* has given us.
Only the orange was a result of the feat in question, but look at what you've given up.
The loss of the actual spells themselves is what's important.
Not to mention that this is a feat STARVED build to begin with! What would you be dropping in order to get this? That's also very important. Remember, this costs a feat, which are EXTREMELY valuable to casters (with the exception of Wizards, who have tons). This is even more true to the point on a multiclass caster, and these are the only ones that benefit from this feat.
So (with the exception of Wiz) an already feat starved build has to find a way to fit yet another feat in.
Not overpowered.

[noinfo]

This is a misleading example.
You haven't shown us what *practiced spellcaster* has given us, you've shown us what the *multiclass* has given us.
Only the orange was a result of the feat in question, but look at what you've given up.
The loss of the actual spells themselves is what's important.
Not to mention that this is a feat STARVED build to begin with! What would you be dropping in order to get this? That's also very important. Remember, this costs a feat, which are EXTREMELY valuable to casters (with the exception of Wizards, who have tons). This is even more true to the point on a multiclass caster, and these are the only ones that benefit from this feat.
So (with the exception of Wiz) an already feat starved build has to find a way to fit yet another feat in.
Not overpowered.

And while the wizard may not be feat starved by comparrison he is sp starved, not being pure gives up quite a few of those.

[TreknaQudane]

Practiced Spell Caster eliminates the need for going beyond 17 Wizard/Cleric or 18 Sorcerer/Favored Soul

You can then end up a fully evasive caster with full DCs and such. The loss in spell points is barely a hiccup given the number of items we have that grant more SP and the easy, now, of acquiring potions to restore SP.

[winsom]

I'm pretty sure Practiced Spell-caster is only +3 caster levels, not the +4 you guys are calculating.

I hope I'm remembering that correctly as I've leveled-up several Rogue/Wizard/Arcane-Tricksters in D&D.

That class-combo would be seriously-gimped without Practiced Spell-caster, as would others like Mystic Theurge. This is why the Practiced Spell-caster feat was created, to fix the character power "problem" that results in D&D when you multi-class a caster. It's not over-powered. It is necessary for the typical challenge-level that I see D&D played at.

[transtemporal]

Of course you lose dc, you can only cast level 8 spells so a heighten spell is 8 not 9, provided you keep heighten because you have to find room for another feat (but who wouldn't) would you drop spell pen? quicken? max? Something in there has got to go and that is the ballance.

Good catch, knew there was a -1 DC lurking around in there somewhere. I guess the 16th level caster would still need to pick up at least one of the spell pen feats in addition to PSC to be effective at endgame...

I guess what it basically comes down to are those 4 levels. What do you gain and what do you give up?

OK, I'm convinced. Not overpowered.

[QuantumFX]

OP: I think the developers either don’t know how to code this and are looking for an excuse or they truly don't understand how the feat works. In fact, the feat would be more balanced in DDO than in P&P thanks to 6/12/18 PrE splits and capstones.

[Letrii]

I'm pretty sure Practiced Spell-caster is only +3 caster levels, not the +4 you guys are calculating.

I hope I'm remembering that correctly as I've leveled-up several Rogue/Wizard/Arcane-Tricksters in D&D.

That class-combo would be seriously-gimped without Practiced Spell-caster, as would others like Mystic Theurge. This is why the Practiced Spell-caster feat was created, to fix the character power "problem" that results in D&D when you multi-class a caster. It's not over-powered. It is necessary for the typical challenge-level that I see D&D played at.

It is up to +4.

Anyone remember what book it is from?

[sephiroth1084]

Personally, I think that there is already too much incentive to multiclass, where the benefits gained tend to outweigh those that are given up. This feat would just further emphasize that.

Would it be horribly broken? Probably not, but it doesn't need to be egregiously excessive for it to still be too much.

[Hecore]

It is up to +4.

Anyone remember what book it is from?

^
|
Complete Arcane

IMO, the feat isn't overpowered - the most powerful example I can think of is a character with an 11 Cleric levels (Full Heal/BB, better Divine Favor and Divine Power duration) - and I still don't think it will make that combination OP. It would, however, make high level casters with a dip slightly better (though less powerful than their pure counterparts), and characters that dipped a casting class will be less gimped. It'll basically let some of the weakest characters become slightly more viable.

[Letrii]

^
|
Complete Arcane

IMO, the feat isn't overpowered - the most powerful example I can think of is a character with an 11 Cleric levels (Full Heal/BB, better Divine Favor and Divine Power duration) - and I still don't think it will make that combination OP. It would, however, make high level casters with a dip slightly better (though less powerful than their pure counterparts), and characters that dipped a casting class will be less gimped. It'll basically let some of the weakest characters become slightly more viable.

Thanks.

[aerieon]

Personally, I think that there is already too much incentive to multiclass, where the benefits gained tend to outweigh those that are given up. This feat would just further emphasize that.

Would it be horribly broken? Probably not, but it doesn't need to be egregiously excessive for it to still be too much.

I think the dev's are more concerned about not making an Overpowered mistake. Does that mean this is overpowered no, but after they did greensteel I'm sure they don't want to dip that heavy again. Maybe (shrug) the dev's don't want multiclassing to be very powerful, although after thinking and reading I don't see this feat doing that. Then again maybe the way the dev's would implement it is different then what the feat description should do.

[sephiroth1084]

I think the dev's are more concerned about not making an Overpowered mistake. Does that mean this is overpowered no, but after they did greensteel I'm sure they don't want to dip that heavy again. Maybe (shrug) the dev's don't want multiclassing to be very powerful, although after thinking and reading I don't see this feat doing that. Then again maybe the way the dev's would implement it is different then what the feat description should do.

I doubt that that is the case.

[Calebro]

And while the wizard may not be feat starved by comparrison he is sp starved, not being pure gives up quite a few of those.

Good point.

OP: I think the developers either don’t know how to code this and are looking for an excuse or they truly don't understand how the feat works. In fact, the feat would be more balanced in DDO than in P&P thanks to 6/12/18 PrE splits and capstones.

They know how to code it.
The proof is the Robes of Duality, which (I would imagine) are actually more complex to code because they only apply a caster increase to level 1 spells instead of all of them.

It is up to +4.

Anyone remember what book it is from?

Check it out.

[Aesop]

Personally, I think that there is already too much incentive to multiclass, where the benefits gained tend to outweigh those that are given up. This feat would just further emphasize that.

Would it be horribly broken? Probably not, but it doesn't need to be egregiously excessive for it to still be too much.

I feel the opposite.

Multiclassing spellcasters is almost uniformly a bad idea. You lose spell slots, castings, possibly spell levels, duration, damage, spell penetration...

DDO has gone out of the way to weaken Multi Classing relative pure. Every update has some other reason to stay pure. Capstones and PrEs being the big ones. In PnP Multi Classing is significantly more powerful than it is here and if you want some of those nifty PrCs you are multiclassing.

The way its done here you are actively encouraged to stay the same.


Its coming to the point where the only real reasons people multiclass is for skill usage (usually UMD), Evasion, and personal taste. Those lower abilities are fairly set butthe Devs keep adding more to the top end of the classes because they feel that they aren't powerful enough relative to the lower levels. Which btw I feel is only true for non casters because of the DnD power scales

I mean +25% extra RoA with ranged vs EVERY other character in game is only balanced by the fact that Ranged combat is so **** slow that 25% is equivelent to maybe 10% for melee.

and don't splash more than 2 levels of anything or else you lose out on the many time OP third tier PrE abilities.

For people that like to build characters this is becoming rapidly more difficult to actually make characters that are fun viable and different. Its becoming very narrow in its scope... I don't like that. Maybe there needs to be more balance at the back end but I don't want the game to become about pretend choices where, yeah you could do something different but if you do you just gimped your character.

Aesop

[TheDjinnFor]

Many, many replies, of course, so in case I'm too late with this...

But +4 spell penetration for one feat would free up a feat slot for most sorcerers and clerics, assuming of course it turns a lvl 20 cleric/sorceror into an EL 24 clr/sor. If not, I would call it fairly useless except to take it low and then retrain out once you hit level 20.

[Noctus]

I feel the opposite.

Multiclassing spellcasters is almost uniformly a bad idea. You lose spell slots, castings, possibly spell levels, duration, damage, spell penetration...

DDO has gone out of the way to weaken Multi Classing relative pure. Every update has some other reason to stay pure. Capstones and PrEs being the big ones. In PnP Multi Classing is significantly more powerful than it is here and if you want some of those nifty PrCs you are multiclassing.

The way its done here you are actively encouraged to stay the same.


Its coming to the point where the only real reasons people multiclass is for skill usage (usually UMD), Evasion, and personal taste. Those lower abilities are fairly set butthe Devs keep adding more to the top end of the classes because they feel that they aren't powerful enough relative to the lower levels. Which btw I feel is only true for non casters because of the DnD power scales

I mean +25% extra RoA with ranged vs EVERY other character in game is only balanced by the fact that Ranged combat is so **** slow that 25% is equivelent to maybe 10% for melee.

and don't splash more than 2 levels of anything or else you lose out on the many time OP third tier PrE abilities.

For people that like to build characters this is becoming rapidly more difficult to actually make characters that are fun viable and different. Its becoming very narrow in its scope... I don't like that. Maybe there needs to be more balance at the back end but I don't want the game to become about pretend choices where, yeah you could do something different but if you do you just gimped your character.

Aesop

You are speaking right out of my Mind. Couldnt have expressed it better.

[Noctus]

But +4 spell penetration for one feat would free up a feat slot for most sorcerers and clerics, assuming of course it turns a lvl 20 cleric/sorceror into an EL 24 clr/sor. If not, I would call it fairly useless except to take it low and then retrain out once you hit level 20.

It does not.

It partially compensates some prohibitively high losses to your spellcasting power you incure through deviating from the path of the pure spell caster.

[kaidendager]

This is a misleading example.Not to mention that this is a feat STARVED build to begin with! What would you be dropping in order to get this? That's also very important. Remember, this costs a feat, which are EXTREMELY valuable to casters

Just wanted to point out that the two levels of monk would provide two feats (limited to monk abilities of course), but would allow for a swap of the sorc's toughness for the monk's class feat toughness and add practiced spellcaster for free in this case. The second monk feat is negligible and would likely have to be toughness again for a gain of 22 hp as well.