Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Leatherhead]

I would think that someone who only dips into being a Wizard should just be interested in the utility spells. Only a full-fledged (or almost so) Wizard should be allowed to get the full-powered blasts. Most good Wizards concentrate on control and utility, not on damage anyways (see Treant's guides to Pathfinder for example).
.

As Tallifer says, if you multiclass for just a few caster levels, you are probably not using the spells as your primary attack, but for utility. That said, even that lowly fireball could be of situational use if the character is a melee specialist with no other good options for ranged attacks.

If FireLance is correct, and utility scales the same way fireball does (with escalating DCs), then utility spells will be just as useful as a fireball is.

It's setting up to be like 3.X's caster levels all over again.

 

[Mattachine]

I think 5e simply needs to start, out of the gate, with a multiclassed fighter/wizard. The idea has been around since Elves appeared in BD&D. It is such a commonly used/desired/discussed multiclass--just design one from the outset. It could be useful on its own, and as a standard for other multiclasses.

 

[amerigoV]

As Tallifer says, if you multiclass for just a few caster levels, you are probably not using the spells as your primary attack, but for utility. That said, even that lowly fireball could be of situational use if the character is a melee specialist with no other good options for ranged attacks.

I have not followed this new-fangled 5N all that close, but if they keep the minion concept/mechanics a fixed-damage Fireball is still a very good spell to take out the trash.

OTOH, the whole fun of Fireball was scoping of a fist-full of d6s...

 

[Psikus]

That's kind of troubling, though - it might balance direct damage spells, but if certain types of lower-level spells become next to useless against high-level challenges (say having low fixed DCs that are easily overcome or insufficient to match the challenges) then it limits the scope of multiclassed characters somewhat.

If FireLance is correct, and utility scales the same way fireball does (with escalating DCs), then utility spells will be just as useful as a fireball is.

It's setting up to be like 3.X's caster levels all over again.

Keep in mind that, if all goes according to plan, it will be possible to have low-level monsters as a (relevant) element of high-level challenges. So an invisibility with low DC could still be extremely useful for, say, a level 20 PC facing 50 orcs.

On the other hand, this introduces significant variance with encounter composition. I expect a typical high level encounter to consist on a few high level threats, plus maybe a handful of lower level monsters (performing a similar role as minions in 4E). There, low level effects with fixed DCs would have a moderate impact, at best. The most extreme scenario is the solo fight, where such effects would be mostly useless - but as long as the 50 orc encounter is about as likely (and threatening!) as the solo fight, low level spells should be worthwhile.

At any rate, the difference with 3.x caster levels is huge. Having spells improve with caster level was almost as important as getting higher level slots, and that is gone now.

 

[Ahnehnois]

i think it is a typo. My guess is he meant to say 3e (which isnt much of a surprise if the case, as i think 3e style multiclassing is a must to win back the pathfinder crowd). Personally, while i like the simplicity and straightforward nature of 3e multiclassing it had issues. I think there should be more hard in play requirements to gain levels in a given class, so there is less disruption to the setting.

You're probably right about the typo.

I think those kinds of training requirements are hard to quantify and hard to do well, but I would like to see them try. I certainly could imagine 3e multiclassing being abused to the point of farce, but I didn't actually see it happen.

 

[Bedrockgames]

You're probably right about the typo.

I think those kinds of training requirements are hard to quantify and hard to do well, but I would like to see them try. I certainly could imagine 3e multiclassing being abused to the point of farce, but I didn't actually see it happen.

I think hardcoding training into a mechanical subsystem would be a mistake, as those generally fail to apture the scope and nuance of ingame actions. But I think a general hard rule of, you must have a valid in-game explanation for taking the class level approved by the GM is a good guideline.

In my own experience I saw it more as a player than Gm in 3E. In my own games, I always made sure there was a valid ingame explanation for taking a class level or prestige class (and many were flat out not allowed because they didn't exists in the setting). Generally I prefer it as a player when Gms do this.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I think hardcoding training into a mechanical subsystem would be a mistake, as those generally fail to apture the scope and nuance of ingame actions. But I think a general hard rule of, you must have a valid in-game explanation for taking the class level approved by the GM is a good guideline.

In my own experience I saw it more as a player than Gm in 3E. In my own games, I always made sure there was a valid ingame explanation for taking a class level or prestige class (and many were flat out not allowed because they didn't exists in the setting). Generally I prefer it as a player when Gms do this.

I think that's a good way of looking at it.

 

[MatthewJHanson]

Extra actions (relative to PCs) - Comes from higher level.

The action economy is the trickiest thing in my opinion. Solos need ways to damage multiple PCs every round. I don't think this is something that should scale by level.

Take the 4e beholder, which gets a free eye ray any time somebody activates within 5. Great for a solo, but can you imagine fighting against five of those?

 

[Grazzt]

Well, as I mentioned previously, I hope that spell power will scale with spell level which will scale with character level. So, a 20th-level wizard and a 10/10 fighter/wizard will both be capable of casting 9th-level spells. However, the 20th-level wizard might have four 9th-level spells per day while the 10/10 fighter/wizard might have only two (but would make up for it by being able to make multiple attacks in the rounds that he isn't casting spells).

Don't like this. A 10/10 fighter/wizard shouldn't be able to cast 9th-level spells at all. Should cast spells as a 10th-level wizard (max spell level 5). Want to cast 9th-level spells as a 20th-level wizard? Stay in the wizard class, don't multiclass into something else. That's the price you pay. (Not saying anything is wrong with multiclassing, but it's a choice. You choose to branch out, you aren't as good in your primary class anymore.)

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Don't like this. A 10/10 fighter/wizard shouldn't be able to cast 9th-level spells at all. Should cast spells as a 10th-level wizard (max spell level 5). Want to cast 9th-level spells as a 20th-level wizard? Stay in the wizard class, don't multiclass into something else. That's the price you pay. (Not saying anything is wrong with multiclassing, but it's a choice. You choose to branch out, you aren't as good in your primary class anymore.)

I agree with this to a point. The math has to stay relatively balanced.

For instance, if 5th level spells do 5d6 points of damage and 9th level spells do 20d6 points of damage then being able to cast 5th level spells at 20th level is next to useless. In almost every version of D&D, if you wasted your action of something that was less than half as effective as what the person beside you did on their action, it was a waste of time and effort.

So, I agree, you shouldn't be as good. But having that 10 levels of wizard should provide some sort of synergy that means you aren't horrible. Maybe instead of being able to cast 9th level spells you can use your spell slots to increase the damage from your melee attacks. Which somewhat balances out the damage you lost by losing 10 levels of fighter. Plus, you get the ability to use the utility of your spells as well, making you more versatile but not more powerful.

To me, multiclassing should always give you MORE powers at the expense of less powerful abilities. But once again, not so little power that you can no longer provide value to your party.

It's a very difficult balance to maintain. And, IMHO, nearly impossible to pull off correctly. Which is why the news that 3.5e multiclassing is back in its entirety doesn't fill me with hope.