Property talk:Class Ability Progression

Full was a better call Surgo. Do you want to stick with moderate and poor for the other two still, or something more evocative like two-thirds and one-third? Or even just replace the progression with a maximum spell level number? I don't particularly like either of those more, just thinking aloud. - TarkisFlux 15:56, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

When talking about classes, people usually refer to them as "full spellcasting" (Loremaster), "separate spellcasting" (Assassin), "no spellcasting", or "partial spellcasting" (anything that isn't the other three). Why not use that as the property values? ie: full, separate, partial, none. --Andrew Arnott (talk, email) 16:52, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Where do the Bard and Ranger fall in that terminology? - TarkisFlux 17:14, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

Full, Separate, Partial, and No work for Prestige Classes. Base classes should have something like Full (9-level), Medium (6-level), Half (Ranger, Paladin), and No Casting. You could draw correspondences; I'd say Medium to Partial and Half to Separate, so you'd have Full, Partial (Prestige class that loses more than one in five caster levels, or base class that casts spells up to level 6 or 7), Separate (Prestige class with own spell progression, or base class that gets a half-casting progression like the Ranger or Paladin), and None. Maybe split Separate and Half, actually; they only go together as ranks of power. Also, Separate Spellcasting like an Assassin is a lot different from Separate Spellcasting like a Sublime Chord or Ur-Priest. Maybe call Ur-Priest style Independent, as an indicator for whether or not your spells are level-appropriate. --IGTN 17:31, September 25, 2009 (UTC)

On the actual property values, I could see Full (base class like wiz or sorc, or prestige class that loses no more than 1 level), Partial (base class like Bard, or prestige class that loses more than 1 in 5 levels), Minor (base class like Ranger, or prestige class that loses more than 2 in 5 levels), Separate (prestige class that doesn't continue required spellcasting for entry, or continues it in an odd way), and Other for the bizarre cases. We don't need an entry for None unless we specifically want to state that it loses casting, otherwise just not defining the property will be as close to None as we care about for search purposes.

Past that though, this is probably going to be renamed special ability progression, so it covers the progression of psionics and maneuvers and invocations and everything else under the sun (the type of special ability being defined under special ability type, which will replace spellcasting type, and which you would have to define before you could even specify this entry for searches).