Proposed fix for spellcaster multiclassing

[Wulf Ratbane]

Interesting take, Nerfed Wizard. It doesn't solve the problem of losing out on your highest spell level (which IMO is the biggest drawback) but it's certainly functional. (Your 20x20 table would be absolutely required-- nobody wants to perform square root calculations. )

 

[NerfedWizard]

If you were say, a 17th level fighter and you took 1 level in wizard, could it really be justified from a plausibility / storytelling point of view to let you get 9th level spells straight away? To go from no talent to super talent with the flick of a level?

With my system you would get 4th level casting straight away, which might be of some limited utility; when you were Fighter 17, Wizard 2 you would have 5th level casting (so Fly becomes possible); at Fighter 17, Wizard 3 you would have 7th level casting (giving you access to 4th level spells).

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

If you were say, a 17th level fighter and you took 1 level in wizard, could it really be justified from a plausibility / storytelling point of view to let you get 9th level spells straight away? To go from no talent to super talent with the flick of a level?

No, and it was suggested upthread a ways to cap the spell level at the class level.

The real issue is the Wiz10/Clr10. This is one of the indispensable benchmark cases for me-- two "full" spellcasting classes in perfect balance.

 

[NerfedWizard]

Well, I don't like the Wizard/Cleric combination for flavour reasons, but supposing it were Wizard/Druid... my system would give 14th level casting in each. Which I think is OK, isn't it?

It doesn't make sense to me from a flavour point of view if a Wizard/Druid 10/10 is as skilled at casting the wizard spells he can cast as a Wizard 20.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Well, I don't like the Wizard/Cleric combination for flavour reasons, but supposing it were Wizard/Druid... my system would give 14th level casting in each. Which I think is OK, isn't it?

Not to me, no, and not to the large portion of anybody who has a vested interest in "fixing" multiclass spellcasters.

I'm not sure if it's in this thread or not, but I am pretty sure I laid out my reasoning previously.

And even if such a fix was ok, then (for Pathfinder or otherwise) it is better to just use the Mystic Theurge, which has the advantage of pre-existing establishment, and would get you 15/15 anyhow.

It doesn't make sense to me from a flavour point of view if a Wizard/Druid 10/10 is as skilled at casting the wizard spells he can cast as a Wizard 20.

Flavor has no appropriate role in d20 design. If I wanted my D&D game mechanics balanced around flavor, I would just play 1e.

 

[el-remmen]

I don't think a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable at all. It just requires a different approach than a purely divine/arcane spellcaster of equal level on both the part of the player and the DM. If your DM is truly collaborating with you and your party, a cleric/wizard should still be an effective party member. It's really just a matter of finding a role/niche in the party dynamic.

I'm with you on this A.D.

I check out these threads out of curiosity and for a general sense of people's views on rules/power levels, but I think saying it is "unplayable" is a stretch. . . Less than ideal? I could see that. . . But I feel there should always be some less than ideal choices.

 

[thecasualoblivion]

There is a solution to this, though on its most basic level it drops vancian casting/memorization. The solution is to combine the Psion's power's known/highest level powers known/Power points chart with Tome of Battle Martial Adept Multiclassing where you add half your level in other classes to your Martial Adept level to calculate the highest level powers you can learn. Use Unearthed Arcana to convert Wizard/Druid/Cleric/Sorcerer to the power point system.

The only system of "spellcasting" that multiclasses well is the Tome of Battle's martial adept power system. IMO, it'd be easier to adapt the power point system to that.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I think saying it is "unplayable" is a stretch. . .

I agree. Who said it was unplayable?

 

[Angrydad]

I never complained about high level casters.

Also, the issue for me and others, is that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable, while a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 is an extremely viable choice.

Here's where it was stated that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable. I'm glad someone does agree with me on this, since so much of this thread is negativity towards multiclass spellcasting. While taking levels in other classes may cause a wizard, or cleric, druid, etc. to lose out on caster levels, I think the point of multiclassing into something else is to provide flexibility. Besides, if you were a multiclass cleric/wizard, why on earth would you not take the Mystic Theurge (I think it's called. In the DMG) PrC to continue advancing both classes' caster levels? You'd be a 20th level character who could cast spells as both a 17th level wizard and cleric.

 

[Voadam]

I never complained about high level casters.

Also, the issue for me and others, is that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is, quite simply, unplayable, while a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 is an extremely viable choice.

Here's where it was stated that a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is unplayable. I'm glad someone does agree with me on this, since so much of this thread is negativity towards multiclass spellcasting. While taking levels in other classes may cause a wizard, or cleric, druid, etc. to lose out on caster levels, I think the point of multiclassing into something else is to provide flexibility. Besides, if you were a multiclass cleric/wizard, why on earth would you not take the Mystic Theurge (I think it's called. In the DMG) PrC to continue advancing both classes' caster levels? You'd be a 20th level character who could cast spells as both a 17th level wizard and cleric.

Warrior and expert classes are playable too. They are not as capable of taking on CR challenges expected of their level, but they are playable and you can make interesting characters with them.

I don't think a 10/10 spellcaster can deal with level appropriate challenges as well as a 10/10 martial character can.

The 10/10 martial character has different flavors of hitting things but is roughly as powerful as a character of either of his component classes taken straight classed.

A Fighter 10/Barbarian 10 can fight a CR 20 foe about as well as a 20 level fighter or a 20 level barbarian. He is just a different mix of combat tricks and pure raging toughness.

A wizard 10/druid 10 is a lot less useful to a party against a CR 20 foe than either a level 20 wizard or a level 20 druid. The mixed caster's personal ability to cast more lower level spells from two disciplines at the cost of higher level spells and slots and caster levels does not roughly compare to a straight classed caster or substantially stand up to level appropriate challenges. It is more like the fighter multiclassing with expert to gain skill points and will save at the cost of fighting powess. A fighter 10/expert 10 is playable, and provides more flexibility than a Fighter 20, but he does not handle combat as well as a level 20 fighter or a fighter 10/rogue 10.

The goal is to have the multiclass caster handle level appropriate combats and balance with other characters of his level.