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

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.
agreed, Pathfinder is going in the right direction for the spellcasters too.
2) A mechanical change to caster level/spell level that permits "Magic Bonus" stacking to parallel BAB stacking.

The proposed BCL is quite straightforward. I believe it actually makes playing a multiclassed spellcaster easier. It doesn't cost much time when converting characters, which might be taken into account considering the context of this thread.

In addition, for the spell progression, I would use this for every spellcasting class if it weren't too cumbersome to apply.
SpellProgression(class) =Min ( classlevel*2, (characterlevel/2 +classlevel/2)) )

Let see what it does for some examples:
  • Wiz1/Clr19 (Or Clr1/Wiz19) -> BCL 20 , SPL = wiz2 /Clr 19
  • Bbn 10/Clr10 -> BCL 15, SPL= Clr 15
  • Wiz 10/Clr 10 -> BCL 20, SPL = wiz15 /Clr 15 (this is more powerful than
  • wiz15/Clr 15 BCL 15 achieved by the mystic theurge)
  • Wiz 8/Drd 6/Brd 6 -> BCL 20, SPL =Wiz 14 Drd 12 Brd 12
  • Rgr 2 Clr 6 -> BCL 7, SPL = Rgr 4, Clr 7 (too good especially with combination of even levels)

BCL + half progression is too much, let's try 1/3 progression:

Another try with
SpellProgression(class) =Min ( classlevel*2, (characterlevel +classlevel*2)/3 )


  • Wiz1/Clr19 (Or Clr1/Wiz19) -> BCL 20 , SPL = wiz2 /Clr 19
  • Bbn 10/Clr10 -> BCL 15, SPL= Clr 13
  • Wiz 10/Clr 10 -> BCL 20, SPL = wiz13 /Clr 13 (7th level spells are cool enough IMO )
  • Wiz 8/Drd 6/Brd 6 -> BCL 20, SPL =Wiz 12 Drd 10 Brd 10
  • Rgr 2 Clr 6 -> BCL 7, SPL = Rgr 4, Clr 6

I kinda like it, but I know it's far too complicated for most player's tastes.


Chacal
 

log in or register to remove this ad

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 like to gut systems and rework them from the ground up, as I did with Elements of Magic (Revised, and Mythic Earth).

My ideal solution would be for Pathfinder to be a class-based system, but with the core 12-ish classes covering nigh all the powers you'd need in a game. You build those classes from the ground up to provide 3.5-esque gameplay, and to use the same core mechanics, but you can fix all the problems. As with many Pathfinder fixes I would like, though, the bulk of the gaming public says they don't want them because they don't want the crunch in their dozens of books to become obsolete.

Now, we can either keep all the existing classes in place and try to make a fix that works using those classes, or we can be a little outside the box.

My whacky proposal
Make the core classes good. Real good. Good enough that you really don't want to multiclass out of them. Indeed, the core classes, and other 20-level classes like them from various other sources, are intended to be primarily used as your character's whole career arc.

The trick is that for those who want to come up with their own concept, we have a "build yer own" class. More on that in a moment.

Now, some people want to mix concepts. You can multiclass freely, and we'll use the Base Caster Level idea that's been bandied about for those wanting to be cleric/wizards and such.

For refresher, for each spellcasting class, you take that class level, and add 1/2 of all your other character levels to determine your spells per day and spells known (but that cannot exceed twice your class level). Your actual caster level (for determining variable effects) is always equal to your character level.

A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 has the spell access of a 15th level cleric and 15th level wizard, but with 'caster level' of 20 for both.

A Cleric 2/Wizard 18 has the spell access of a 3rd level Cleric and 19th level wizard, with 'caster level' 20 for both.


That's the stop-gap solution. It's workable, but it's not great for all classes, and it really doesn't, y'know, feel like you ever learn to combine your two power sources. You're just a little of column A, and a little of column B, with no interesting synthesis.

Where we get interesting, now, is by adding a new class. The Pathfinder class.

Pathfinder
Where other heroes pursue established roads to power, you find your own path.

Philosophically, in 3.5 there are three styles of power characters pursue: skill, battle, and sorcery.

  • Skill involves defeating challenges through clever exploitation of your environment, your allies' strengths, and your enemies' weaknesses.
  • Battle involves harming your foes with weapons and magic, and protecting against the same.
  • Sorcery involves influencing the world and breaking the normal rules of reality.

Mechanically, there are three things that characters develop as they grow in level: power, finesse, and resistance.
  • Power is how good you are at affecting people. 'Affecting' means hurting, or forcing them to do something, or successfully reshaping reality. (Represented by Str and Cha)
  • Finesse is how good you are at avoiding being affected. (Represented by Dex and Int)
  • Resistance is how good you are surviving when you're affected. (Represented by Con and Wis)

When you take the Pathfinder class, you decide your two arrays. For both style and mechanics, you can either pick:

1. Good at one, average at another, poor at the third; or
2. Good at two, untrained in the third; or
3. Great at one, poor at another, untrained in the third.

So you can make, say, a swordmage who is good at battle and sorcery, and poor at skills; and who is good at power, average at resistance, and poor at finesse.

Or you could make a meditative telepath who is great at sorcery, poor at skills, and untrained in battle; and who is great with finesse, poor at resistance, and untrained in power.

A fighter is basically great battle, poor skills, no sorcery, with good power, good resistance, and no finesse. A blaster-based mage is great battle, no skills, poor sorcery (in the sense that while he uses magic, he mostly just uses it to hurt stuff), with great power, poor resistance, and no finesse. A 'warlord' would be good skills, good battle, no sorcery, with good finesse, average power, and poor resistance.

Now just what do these ratings mean?

Well, you'd divide character abilities into whether they are skills, battle, or sorcery, and just have a big ol' chart of what's what. And each ability would have an associated character level requirement. You can take things at that level if you're good at that style, or at that level +x if you're average, or that level +y if you're poor, and never if you're untrained.

At 1st level you pick a couple abilities, and then another at every X levels thereafter, building up a unique suite of powers. Stuff like "fighter focus" would emulate the bonus fighters get, and "sneak attack" would give you sneak attack. "Fire magic" would give you access to spells with the fire descriptor. Having more than one "magic" ability doesn't give you more spells per day, but it gives you more versatility.

How highly you rate Power determines your base attack bonus and what caster level you use for damaging attacks. Finesse determines what sorts of defensive abilities you can take (evasion, monk's AC, etc.), the caster level for your manipulative magic, and the extent of your skill tricks. Resistance determines how many good saves you can have, your hit die, and your caster level with defensive magic.

I just came up with this idea off the top of my head, so it's still a little loosey-goosey, but I'm sure I'll come up with a way to fit it all together.
 

As I wrangle with fixing multiclassing, I'm struck over and over by how complex the issue is. Wulf Ratbane made a great point (intended or not) that spellcasters, while the most visible victims of multiclassing, aren't the only victims, and I felt the complexity ratchet up again.

I'm no longer sure that the issue is fixable while maintaining B-C. Patchable, maybe, but not very well. I think RangerWickett's suggestion shows that he reached the same conclusion.

My most recent thought experiments have been along the lines of combining concepts behind gestalt classing and ECL (or "dead levels," as seen in UA's bloodlines rules), in a manner that's somewhat reminiscent of multiclassing in 1E and 2E.

The building blocks:

(1) Classes in a multiclass no longer have their own levels. A character isn't a fighter 4/wizard 4. He's a multiclassed fighter/wizard 4.

(2) Multiclassing must be decided as early as possible. If a PC gains a level without adding a new class to a multiclass, that decision can't be changed. (EDIT: Giving this some thought, I'm not sure it's absolutely necessary. As long as the player pays the ECL before gaining the additional class, it may work fine. For instance, say a fighter 6 wants to multiclass into a fighter/wizard at the next available chance. The ECL for a fighter/wizard 6 is 8, so the player has to stay at fighter 6 until he gains enough XP for 8th level, at which point he becomes a fighter/wizard 6.)

(3) A multiclassed character is fully functional in all classes. For every class, you gain all features. For those features in common (e.g., BAB), the PC gains the most favorable from among all classes.

(4) Multiclassing itself has an ECL cost. This ECL is +1 per five character levels (counting the ECL itself), plus 1 per additional class.

An example ... a fighter/wizard:

At 1st level, the player starts as either a fighter or wizard. Doesn't matter which, mechanically. At 2nd level, the player decides to multiclass. The PC is now a fighter/wizard 1(ECL +1). The PC has all of the abilities of a fighter 1 and a wizard 1. The player forgoes further multiclassing. At 5th character level, the PC is a fighter/wizard 3 (ECL +2). The same thing happens at 10th level (fighter/wizard 7 (ECL +3)), 15th level (fighter/wizard 11 (ECL +4), and 20th level (fighter/wizard 15 (ECL +5).)

At every level, the PC has full BAB, good Will and Fort saves, fighter HD, all his fighter feats and proficiencies, full spellcasting, wizard bonus proficiencies and familiar abilities, and so on.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to provide more examples, but I've gone through many in my head, and it seems to reach a power level I personally like.

Problems with it? Well, I already noted that it's not B-C, which in itself is probably enough to disqualify it from this thread. Also, I haven't given a lot of thought to how it will work with prestige classes. (The prestige class issue, BTW, affects pretty much every fix so far suggested, including something as simple as BCL.) Anything else?
 
Last edited:

For refresher, for each spellcasting class, you take that class level, and add 1/2 of all your other character levels to determine your spells per day and spells known (but that cannot exceed twice your class level). Your actual caster level (for determining variable effects) is always equal to your character level.

A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 has the spell access of a 15th level cleric and 15th level wizard, but with 'caster level' of 20 for both.

A Cleric 2/Wizard 18 has the spell access of a 3rd level Cleric and 19th level wizard, with 'caster level' 20 for both.

It seems almost fine like it but I'm wondering if the 1/2 progression isn't overpowered. It certainly is at lower levels (see the Rgr 2 Clrc 6 or Wiz2/Clr 6).


As for the reconstruction option, I admit I haven't give it a thought yet. It's usually flexible but hard to foolproof. It's still interesting as a variant construction.



Chacal
 
Last edited:

Unfortunately, I don't have time to provide more examples, but I've gone through many in my head, and it seems to reach a power level I personally like.

It's a bit higher than what I 'm comfortable with. I think the cost for multi classing is not enough with this system, but it's quite easy to adjust it to other tastes by raising the ECL cost.

It's a simple and interesting solution for even biclassing and I can see it being a variant progression mechanism in this case (with a higher cost ;) ).

Chacal
 

Here's another take with the following goals:
- toning down the 1/2 level progression which I find too big
- converting NPCs and PCs statblocks in less than a minute (even ones with 3+ spellcasting classes). This one means that you haven't got the time to change its spell progression

To illustrate this last point, I describe the rule as a conversion process

Step 1:
Compute BCL (Full spellcast+ 3/4 +1/2levels of non spellcasting classes)
5-10 seconds ?

Step 2:

for each spellcasting class X of the PC/NPC, look up
  • HS the highest level spell it can cast at its current level (1 second)
  • THS the "theoretical" highest level spell it could cast if its level was the BCL (2 seconds except for ranger and paladins, I never remember this)
  • MB : The magical bonus that should be given in order to reach the average between HS and TCS. (3 seconds)

Step 3:
consider that all spells for a class are metamagicked of Magical Bonus Level (give Heightened for free if necessary). This step can be as simple or as complex as you want if the NPC has several metamagic feats.


For instance, a wiz 5 Clr 3 Ftr 6 with extended spell
Step 1: BCL of 11
Step 2: Wiz (3-6) MBL 1, Clr (2-6) MBL 2
Step 3: Apply extented spell to every spell where it can be applied, add Heightened on top if needed.

Voila !

Chacal
 

How about making Caster Level progression the inverse of Base Attack Bonus progression?

Consider:

Low BAB --> Two Thirds Caster Level progression
Medium BAB --> Half Caster Level progression
High BAB --> One Third Caster Level progression

Or if thirds are too difficult to calculate for most gamers, perhaps:

Low BAB --> Three Quarters Caster Level progression
Medium BAB --> Half Caster Level progression
High BAB --> Quarter Caster Level progression

(Note: I recommend always rounding down. When more than two classes are combined, possibilities include rounding down or using fractional Caster Level boni, though the latter (although more accurate) may be too complex for most players.)

Of course, a classes own progression overries the above formula.

Hence, using the second formula:

Druid 10: Druid CL 10
Druid 10/Cleric 10: Druid CL 15, Cleric CL 15
Druid 19/Cleric 1: Druid CL 19, Cleric CL 10
Sorcerer 19/Cleric 1: Socerer 19, Cleric 13
Sorcerer 10/Cleric 10: Sorcerer 15, Cleric 17
Sorcerer 10/Fighter 10: Sorcerer 12
Fighter 19, Sorcerer 1: Sorcerer 5
 


On second thought, this would penalize spellcaster/warrior multiclassing when compared to spellcaster/spellcaster multiclassing.

Perhaps having a point system to rank classes would work instead:

Low BAB --> 1 point
Medium BAB --> 2 points
High BAB --> 3 points

Own Full Caster Progression --> +2 points
Sneak Attack Progression --> +1 point

(Sneak Attack Progression could count be used for other major feature progressions too)

Results:

5+ points: No CL bonus
4 points: 1/4 level CL bonus
3 points: 1/2 level CL bonus
2 points: 3/4 level CL bonus
1 point: Full-level CL bonus

Note: In practice only 4 points and and 3 points appear in the core rules.

Druid 10: Druid CL 10
Druid 10/Cleric 10: Druid CL 12, Cleric CL 12
Druid 19/Cleric 1: Druid CL 19, Cleric CL 5
Sorcerer 19/Cleric 1: Socerer CL 19, Cleric CL 10
Sorcerer 10/Cleric 10: Sorcerer CL 12, Cleric CL 15
Sorcerer 10/Fighter 10: Sorcerer CL 15
Fighter 19, Sorcerer 1: Sorcerer 10
 

I think tying it to the BAB has the unfortunate effect to give more power to classes that already have medium BAB on top of full spellcasting, as shown by this:

Yep, I realized this and was posting a new version when you posted. But yes, I agree.
 

Remove ads

Top