John Hough
First Post
I find myself, against my will, engaged in a pissing match. So, the question: Are muticlassed spellcasters too weak? too powerful? Just fine?
Are multiclass spellcasters broken?
- Thread starter John Hough
- Start date
- Status
John Hough
First Post
Oh, crap, I should have included an 'other' choice. Well, if you'd vote 'other', just post and say what you think.
Ozmar
First Post
Man! I thought the whole world was with me for a moment when I saw that 100% had voted that multiclassed spellcasters are too weak. Then I saw that I was the only one who had voted! Doh!
Well, multiclassed spellcasters are too weak! Not that I see a need to fix it, I just don't play Wiz/Clrs.
But a good fix (seems to me) is to add half the other class to each classes effective level for determining spells per day, and to sum the levels for overcoming SR. This is basically what everyone is suggesting on another thread... lets see if I can find it...
Ah! here it is...
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=54587
Ozmar the Quick Voter
Well, multiclassed spellcasters are too weak! Not that I see a need to fix it, I just don't play Wiz/Clrs.
But a good fix (seems to me) is to add half the other class to each classes effective level for determining spells per day, and to sum the levels for overcoming SR. This is basically what everyone is suggesting on another thread... lets see if I can find it...
Ah! here it is...
http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?threadid=54587
Ozmar the Quick Voter
Sanackranib
First Post
MULTICLASSED CHARACTERS
multiclassed spellcasters are much weaker because while they have more spells they are all lower level and esaier to save aginst
I didn't realize how much this was the case until I tried to qualify for the true necromancer PrC.
multiclassed spellcasters are much weaker because while they have more spells they are all lower level and esaier to save aginst
I didn't realize how much this was the case until I tried to qualify for the true necromancer PrC.
Emiricol
Registered User
It is a mistake to compare a 10/10 caster to a 20 caster. Compare it to a 20 fighter or a 20 Paladin. 10/10 doesn't look so lame anymore.
IMHO, if you stop studying wizardly matters at Wiz10 so you can also study clericly spells to Clr10, it is silly to expect that PC to cast wizard spells as well as the Wiz20. He's got 10 levels of wiz on ya.
IMHO, if you stop studying wizardly matters at Wiz10 so you can also study clericly spells to Clr10, it is silly to expect that PC to cast wizard spells as well as the Wiz20. He's got 10 levels of wiz on ya.
Ravellion
serves Gnome Master
Errr... You are being outclassed by the paladin on the healing front at least. You "can't" wear armour, have a worse to hit progression than a cleric, etc.Emiricol said:
Your argument makes no sense. Sorry, but it doesn't. Show me a 10/10 caster build that is somewhat close in power to the Paladin from the DMG, and perhaps I'll agree with you. No prestige classes. Your best bet might be Druid/Cleric, but that still leaves the Arcane classes wide open for the same argument.
I'd be really impressed if you could show how a sorcerer/Wzard would compare to Barbarian 20.
Rav
Ycore Rixle
First Post
I play a Cleric/Wizard (Necro specialist) 5/3. I am going to take him to 5/5, but only because that was my original plan and I want to stay true to the concept. It is very frustrating to look at the character and realize that, except for variety, his spell-casting really won't become more "powerful" for a long, long time.
Broken? I don't know. Too weak? I'd say yes. The worst is dispel magic with its caster level checks. The guy will be tenth level - every one of those levels devoted to a class that can cast dispel magic - yet he will only be able to dispel with the effectiveness of a fifth-level caster.
And there is no way that if he were 10/10 he'd be able to compare to a 20th level barbarian, fighter, rogue, what have you - in their respective areas of excellence. What I mean is this: A barbarian's area of excellence is combat. A cleric/wizard's area of excellence is spellcasting. And a 20 barbarian is much, much better at combat than a 10/10 cleric/wizard is at spellcasting. I mean, have you ever seen a 20 barbarian? The damage they can dish out and absorb is boggling. There are far fewer monsters and NPCs that can compete in melee with a 20 barbarian than there are monsters and NPCs that can compete in spellcasting with a 10/10 cleric/wizard.
Broken? I don't know. Too weak? I'd say yes. The worst is dispel magic with its caster level checks. The guy will be tenth level - every one of those levels devoted to a class that can cast dispel magic - yet he will only be able to dispel with the effectiveness of a fifth-level caster.
And there is no way that if he were 10/10 he'd be able to compare to a 20th level barbarian, fighter, rogue, what have you - in their respective areas of excellence. What I mean is this: A barbarian's area of excellence is combat. A cleric/wizard's area of excellence is spellcasting. And a 20 barbarian is much, much better at combat than a 10/10 cleric/wizard is at spellcasting. I mean, have you ever seen a 20 barbarian? The damage they can dish out and absorb is boggling. There are far fewer monsters and NPCs that can compete in melee with a 20 barbarian than there are monsters and NPCs that can compete in spellcasting with a 10/10 cleric/wizard.
G'day
I think that multiclassed spellcasters are weaker than straight-classed characters, and that this is the way things ought to be.
D&D ought to encourage characters to specialise, and the fact that the current system does so while providing diminishing returns to scale in experience points is a triumph of game design.
The actual problem (IMHO) is that multi-classed non-spellcasters are too strong. This is a result of (1) highly-inappropriate front-loading of some classes and (2) inappropriate profusion of fighter-subtypes. Convert paladins, rangers, barbarians, and perhaps monks to fighters with particular feat chains and you'd fix a lot of things up.
TWITA. YDA. YMMV. YDWYDWP.
[edited to add![:]](http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/devious.png "Devious :]")
By the way, I think that the experience penalty for 'excessive' multiclassing is unnecessary and undesirably complicated, and that it fails in its apparent goal of making specified multiclassing the forte of elves, dwarves, etc..
Regards,
Agback
I think that multiclassed spellcasters are weaker than straight-classed characters, and that this is the way things ought to be.
D&D ought to encourage characters to specialise, and the fact that the current system does so while providing diminishing returns to scale in experience points is a triumph of game design.
The actual problem (IMHO) is that multi-classed non-spellcasters are too strong. This is a result of (1) highly-inappropriate front-loading of some classes and (2) inappropriate profusion of fighter-subtypes. Convert paladins, rangers, barbarians, and perhaps monks to fighters with particular feat chains and you'd fix a lot of things up.
TWITA. YDA. YMMV. YDWYDWP.
[edited to add
By the way, I think that the experience penalty for 'excessive' multiclassing is unnecessary and undesirably complicated, and that it fails in its apparent goal of making specified multiclassing the forte of elves, dwarves, etc..Regards,
Agback
Last edited:
... except that fighter-type/Rogue and non-spellcaster/Bard, and even highly unbalanced major spellcaster/nonspellcaster multiclass combos work fine. The only two class multiclass combos that really suck (other than those forced to be class/Ex-class by alignment rules) are those involve two major spellcasting classes.
Too Weak, but it Depends
I voted too weak, but that answer needs some qualification.
This same debate is raging ( and I *do* mean raging ) on the WotC boards. And in that raging, a couple of points are getting lost there, so I will try to make them here.
The degree to which the multi-classed character is too weak depends a lot on the campaign where the character is running.
In a combat-heavy campaign, there are more saving throws made, more Spell resistance checks made, more targeted dispel magic checks made, and so on. These are the areas where the multi-class caster suffers more than is balanced (IMHO).
In a campaign where there is more "utility" spellcasting going on, this is less of an issue.
The standard designs of monsters, and their CRs, are geared around the "assumed normal party" : 1 each of single-classed Fighter, Wizard or Sorcerer, Cleric, and Rogue.
What that means is this: the monster designs (including their save bonuses and SR) are geared around a single-classed spellcaster delivering spells at it.
Nobody disputes that the multi-classed character's spells should be weaker than the single-classed spellcaster's. A fireball lobbed by a 10 wizard/ 10 something-else *should* be weaker than that of a 20 wizard.
Nobody disputes that the multi-classed character gains some powerful augmentation from the combination of spells and the other class' abilities. A 10 wizard/10 Fighter has a better BAB and Fort Save than a 20 wizard.
However, *all* classes benefit from improved saves and improving BAB. They all stack, for a composite ability that increases with the character's level. The Wizard's BAB does not rise as fast as the Fighter's, nor should it -- but it does rise. Wizards get a better Will save than a Fighter, but they still get some increases in Fortitude and Reflex saves.
For all non-spellcasters, these attributes merge well and augment each other. The Fighter who takes some levels of Rogue sacrifice some BAB, hit points, a bonus feat, and Fortitude saves for some extra Reflex saves, more skill points, access to more skills, and some abilities (depending on how many levels).
Spellcasters, however, sacrifice all advancement in what is arguably their primary function: spellcasting.
The Fighter 10/Rogue 10's attacks are not halted at +10 BAB, but the Wizard 10/Rogue 10's spells are halted at 10 Caster level. Yes, the Rog/Wiz has a better chance of delivering his touch spells because he has a better BAB, and he can sneak attack with them... but his opponents will almost always save against them because he is not getting the extra 4 points of save DC from using higher level spells. Or, the creature will just ignore them because the Wiz 10/ Rog 10 will fail to penetrate the Spell Resistance.
Even 3 or 4 levels, in a combat-heavy campaign, is enough to make a serious difference. The lost dice of damage is expected, but the increased likelihood of failing the SR check, and then of the save being made, is a killer "double-whammy".
As it stands now, the multi-classed caster can only be successful in a support role. The more levels spent in another class, the more this is true. If there is a single-classed spellcaster in the party with the multi-classed, the problem is less visible, as the pressure to deliver the heavy artillery effect is taken care of.
A slight multi-class, like 17/3, is less noticeably penalized. But talking about 20th level characters is silly, actually, because it ignores the difficulties of surviving to get there as a multiclass caster. If those 3 levels happen to be 18, 19, and 20, the picture of game play is very different than if they had been levels 6, 12, and 18.
I don't think letting Caster Levels stack is the right fix, by the way... that returns us to the (admittedly evil) case where the multi-class spellcaster is too potent.
One thing I think might work is taking the level effects out of the save DCs for spells ... and out of SR penetration checks. That, of course, would mean that all monster save Bonuses would need to be re-evaluated, as would all monster SR numbers (kind of like they did woth DR for 3.5).
Thanks for the soapbox...
I voted too weak, but that answer needs some qualification.
This same debate is raging ( and I *do* mean raging ) on the WotC boards. And in that raging, a couple of points are getting lost there, so I will try to make them here.
The degree to which the multi-classed character is too weak depends a lot on the campaign where the character is running.
In a combat-heavy campaign, there are more saving throws made, more Spell resistance checks made, more targeted dispel magic checks made, and so on. These are the areas where the multi-class caster suffers more than is balanced (IMHO).
In a campaign where there is more "utility" spellcasting going on, this is less of an issue.
The standard designs of monsters, and their CRs, are geared around the "assumed normal party" : 1 each of single-classed Fighter, Wizard or Sorcerer, Cleric, and Rogue.
What that means is this: the monster designs (including their save bonuses and SR) are geared around a single-classed spellcaster delivering spells at it.
Nobody disputes that the multi-classed character's spells should be weaker than the single-classed spellcaster's. A fireball lobbed by a 10 wizard/ 10 something-else *should* be weaker than that of a 20 wizard.
Nobody disputes that the multi-classed character gains some powerful augmentation from the combination of spells and the other class' abilities. A 10 wizard/10 Fighter has a better BAB and Fort Save than a 20 wizard.
However, *all* classes benefit from improved saves and improving BAB. They all stack, for a composite ability that increases with the character's level. The Wizard's BAB does not rise as fast as the Fighter's, nor should it -- but it does rise. Wizards get a better Will save than a Fighter, but they still get some increases in Fortitude and Reflex saves.
For all non-spellcasters, these attributes merge well and augment each other. The Fighter who takes some levels of Rogue sacrifice some BAB, hit points, a bonus feat, and Fortitude saves for some extra Reflex saves, more skill points, access to more skills, and some abilities (depending on how many levels).
Spellcasters, however, sacrifice all advancement in what is arguably their primary function: spellcasting.
The Fighter 10/Rogue 10's attacks are not halted at +10 BAB, but the Wizard 10/Rogue 10's spells are halted at 10 Caster level. Yes, the Rog/Wiz has a better chance of delivering his touch spells because he has a better BAB, and he can sneak attack with them... but his opponents will almost always save against them because he is not getting the extra 4 points of save DC from using higher level spells. Or, the creature will just ignore them because the Wiz 10/ Rog 10 will fail to penetrate the Spell Resistance.
Even 3 or 4 levels, in a combat-heavy campaign, is enough to make a serious difference. The lost dice of damage is expected, but the increased likelihood of failing the SR check, and then of the save being made, is a killer "double-whammy".
As it stands now, the multi-classed caster can only be successful in a support role. The more levels spent in another class, the more this is true. If there is a single-classed spellcaster in the party with the multi-classed, the problem is less visible, as the pressure to deliver the heavy artillery effect is taken care of.
A slight multi-class, like 17/3, is less noticeably penalized. But talking about 20th level characters is silly, actually, because it ignores the difficulties of surviving to get there as a multiclass caster. If those 3 levels happen to be 18, 19, and 20, the picture of game play is very different than if they had been levels 6, 12, and 18.
I don't think letting Caster Levels stack is the right fix, by the way... that returns us to the (admittedly evil) case where the multi-class spellcaster is too potent.
One thing I think might work is taking the level effects out of the save DCs for spells ... and out of SR penetration checks. That, of course, would mean that all monster save Bonuses would need to be re-evaluated, as would all monster SR numbers (kind of like they did woth DR for 3.5).
Thanks for the soapbox...
- Status
