Pathfinder 1E What is Pathfinder doing about multi-classing?

[Jeff Wilder]

Perhaps make Practiced Spellcaster another prerequisite?

That wouldn't be my preference. One, caster level and spellcasting progression are separate; why force them back together again? Two (and my main objection), why make it harder to correct -- as a previous poster correctly called it -- a mechanical flaw?

And ECL 4 should be 'Can cast 2nd level spells' instead.

No ... that's not the intent at all. A fighter 6/wizard 1 (for instance) should be able to take this feat.

That said, the prerequisites don't exactly match my intent. I'd like it to work for creatures with limited spellcasting, in addition to classed characters. But I'm not sure how to express the creature equivalents of "multiclassed spellcaster" or "ECL 4," nor the limit of taking the feat once for every four levels.

 

[Phlebas]

That wouldn't be my preference. One, caster level and spellcasting progression are separate; why force them back together again? Two (and my main objection), why make it harder to correct -- as a previous poster correctly called it -- a mechanical flaw?

No ... that's not the intent at all. A fighter 6/wizard 1 (for instance) should be able to take this feat.

That said, the prerequisites don't exactly match my intent. I'd like it to work for creatures with limited spellcasting, in addition to classed characters. But I'm not sure how to express the creature equivalents of "multiclassed spellcaster" or "ECL 4," nor the limit of taking the feat once for every four levels.

f6/w1 taking this feat would worry me as it looks like dipping as opposed to 'true' multi-classing. that goes away from the PF philosophy of making single classing able to stand on their own without PrC or dipping

I appreciate the intent to seperate caster level and casting ability but this runs the risk of getting needlessly complex....... a single feat (giving +1 caster level, +1 casting progression, with the restriction that Caster level can never be higher than ECL or 1.5 x spellcasting class level) seems a simpler and more elegant solution.

this means that you must have at least 2 levels in the class to get the effective 3rd level but in extremis ie ECL20, you could be casting as a Cleric 15, Wiz 15 for a total cost of ten (ie all) your feats. or as a F10, Wiz 15 at the cost of 5 feats. that to me looks like an effective character. any more and you'd be heading towards gestalt.

(I do like the concept of BCL btw, just dont think that fractional advancement is ever going to be more than an optional rule...sadly)

 

[Jeff Wilder]

f6/w1 taking this feat would worry me as it looks like dipping as opposed to 'true' multi-classing. that goes away from the PF philosophy of making single classing able to stand on their own without PrC or dipping

What is actually the problem with it, though? Pathfinder is trying to dissuade dipping for optimization, not dipping for conceptual reasons. And Pathfinder is trying to do it by making it worthwhile to stick with each class. I'm not sure I see becoming a "hedge wizard" as being something to cause anxiety.

I appreciate the intent to seperate caster level and casting ability but this runs the risk of getting needlessly complex....... a single feat (giving +1 caster level, +1 casting progression, with the restriction that Caster level can never be higher than ECL or 1.5 x spellcasting class level) seems a simpler and more elegant solution.

While I agree that avoiding complexity is good, I don't think +1 caster level as part of the feat is going to be enough by itself. I think that if Pathfinder really wants to nudge multiclassed casters toward playability, it's going to have to be with BCL, or something like it. Having a caster level relevant to challenges faced is just too important. And if BCL exists, giving +1 caster level along with +1 spell progression is gonna be too much. (I agree that fractional BAB/BCL/saves isn't likely to happen, and I agree it's a shame.)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

You need to check every "solution" against these three cases, at minimum:

Wiz1/Clr19 (Or Clr1/Wiz19)
What should this character's total spell package look like?

Bbn10/Clr10
Two classes with no bonus feats, one non-caster, one full caster, in an even split.

Wiz10/Clr10
I think most folks agree that this caster should have the functional power of at least Wiz15/Clr15 (Mystic Theurge power level).

I don't think the "Feat" solution has enough feats to keep up with what a more in-depth, but straight up mechanical solution should provide.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the BCL but I don't think fixing a mechanical flaw should cost something like a feat.

Chacal

Well, I suppose there should be one drawback when multiclassing spellcasters. For most spellcasters, the spells itself are the defining class feature, and that you lose something compared to being single-classed in each class should be expected. A Fighter multiclassing into Rogue doesn't gain any more bonus feats, the Rogue doesn't get more sneak attack dice for gaining Fighter levels, and so on.

Of course, maybe it would be enough if non-class levels are added at a 1:2 rate to your class level for spells.

The problem is really figuring out what the "fair" loss is. I think stacking caster levels for beating Spell Resistance or increasing durations/damage dice is okay. And maybe losing 1-2 levels of spells for each multiclass you make is also okay?

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, I suppose there should be one drawback when multiclassing spellcasters. For most spellcasters, the spells itself are the defining class feature, and that you lose something compared to being single-classed in each class should be expected. A Fighter multiclassing into Rogue doesn't gain any more bonus feats, the Rogue doesn't get more sneak attack dice for gaining Fighter levels, and so on.

The problem is that you're equating the Ftr loss of bonus feats-- the only class feature of the Ftr-- to caster levels and spell levels, and that comparison isn't even close.

Upthread I compared BAB to caster levels and still that isn't even close-- but it's closer.

If a Bbn10/Ftr10 didn't get to stack BAB from each class, you think he'd reconsider?

But otherwise a Bbn10/Ftr 10 is perfectly compatible in every way; in ways that any spellcaster multiclass doesn't even approach.

The solution needs to be two-fold:

1) More class features for spellcasters. The barbarian is such a good example here because it has a class feature at every level.

2) A mechanical change to caster level/spell level that permits "Magic Bonus" stacking to parallel BAB stacking.

For what it's worth, I absolutely DO NOT agree with Pathfinder and some folks here that multiclass characters should be discouraged, or that single classed characters deserve some sort of special protected status. I reject that entirely as a design goal.

 

[DaveMage]

For what it's worth, I absolutely DO NOT agree with Pathfinder and some folks here that multiclass characters should be discouraged, or that single classed characters deserve some sort of special protected status. I reject that entirely as a design goal.

Would you prefer a classless system that essentially lets a player create their own unique build of powers?

Also, just out of curiosity, have you played with gestalt characters as discussed in Unearthed Arcana? (And whether you have or not, what do you think of the concept?)

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Would you prefer a classless system that essentially lets a player create their own unique build of powers?

No. Classes are useful suitcases for bundling a suite of abilities. They work well as is.

There's just no reason to tell a player that his Rog/Ftr concept must be kept subjugated to the pure Rogue or pure Fighter.

Also, just out of curiosity, have you played with gestalt characters as discussed in Unearthed Arcana? (And whether you have or not, what do you think of the concept?)

No, I have not. I recall skimming the information and finding nothing I wanted to use.

 

[billd91]

The problem is that you're equating the Ftr loss of bonus feats-- the only class feature of the Ftr-- to caster levels and spell levels, and that comparison isn't even close.

Upthread I compared BAB to caster levels and still that isn't even close-- but it's closer.

You're preaching to the choir in this case. I'd say that the high BAB is the primary class feature of fighter-types just like spell-casting is the primary class feature of the casters. I'd very much prefer a system in which a caster level can rise even if the PC multiclasses into something else just like a fighter's BAB increases even if he multiclasses into a class that eschews lots of combat (like wizard).

For what it's worth, I absolutely DO NOT agree with Pathfinder and some folks here that multiclass characters should be discouraged, or that single classed characters deserve some sort of special protected status. I reject that entirely as a design goal.

I don't think that Pathfinder is really discouraging multiclassing. Rather, I think it is going about some things the right way - by encouraging staying in a class for higher level benefits tied to class level in the core classes. The main goal should be avoiding a single dominant strategy for any particular character class. And I think the steps Pathfinder has taken so far goes some distance along that road. I hope to see more additions to multiclassing, like ways to increase caster level like BAB.

 

[Roman]

Well, if caster level and BAB have a degree of equivalence, why not require the loss of BAB to increase caster level, when multiclassing? Since a direct loss of BAB would lead to major problems, how about losing the extra attacks that high BAB grants?

Perhaps a loss of each extra attack can count as 5 caster levels.