Are multiclass spellcasters really a non-viable choice?

[Li Shenron]

I have always thought they are underpowered, and so my fellow players think. But for this reason we actually never played any! If some of you has tried them, please post your experience on the following cases:

- 2 spellcaster classes, about same levels each
- 2 spellcaster classes, one major and one minor
- 1 spellcaster major class, 1 non-spellcaster minor class
- 1 spellcaster minor class, 1 non-spellcaster major class

By major/minor, let's assume that you take almost all levels in the major and from 1 level to not more than 25% levels in the minor.

I know that losing even 1 level in a spellcasting class makes you delay the acquisition of next-level spells which is of course something you may regret. But can't you really live without? Lower-level spells also become more per day, but top-level ones are usually 1 or 2 per day when you reach them the first time.

The caster level also does not increase, but there are many spells for which CL increases only the range and/or the duration, but this does not always make a huge difference, especially at low levels: Summon Monster at CL 1 is in fact a poor spell, but over CL 10 it doesn't make much difference at all.

Spell Resistance is a minor deal IMHO, and with Spell Penetration you can make up for 2 caster levels lost.

What I am trying to understand is: can I play an effective spellcaster with some levels in something else? Perhaps it's too difficult to make him a combat caster, which relies on heavy damage, high DCs and SR penetration, but what about all the other spells, beneficial spells?

-------------------------------------------------------------------

Before summer I had this idea to play a Drow Rogue/Wizard. Beside the race, which I could just rule out from the start since its ECL is absurd - but that's another story - I was thinking about the different possibilities in mixing up levels of Rogue with Wizard.

A main Rogue with few levels of Wizard could just know a few spells to buff himself before combat or to boost his skills when really success is needed. Maybe giving up some sneak attack and skill points is a feasible trade-off for 2-3 levels of Wizards to get 8-12 spells per day?

Or the other way around: main Wizard with 1-3 levels of Rogue?

 

[Rel]

I think that it is fairly easy to see from a strictly mathematical point of view that trying to maintain equal caster levels in (for example) Wizard and Cleric is going to leave you weak by comparison over the long haul. So far, all of our 3E campaigns have been low level (topped out at 8th) before we decided to move on to something different. In those cases, I think the weakness of the Caster-Caster would be less pronounced but it still stinks when you are 7th level and are still stuck casting 2nd level spells.

That said, I've seen some combos that have worked well under the circumstances:

My first 3E character was a Cleric1/WizardX (Cleric of Boccob) and the ability to cast 1st level Cleric spells (especially CLW), the armor feats, the domain abilities and the extra hit points seemed well worth giving up one caster level. And I got access to higher level spells at the same point a Sorcerer would have. That character didn't feel underpowered.

A player in our current campaign started off with a Wizard1/ClericX. This character eventually got killed but not as a direct result of being underpowered. For him, getting Scribe Scroll as well as the zero level and first level Wizard spells were nice, plus he got a familiar. He was an archer-Cleric so he tended to prepare a couple of True Strikes (which doesn't require ASF checks) for those tough-to-hit bad guys.

Another character in our current campaign is a multiclassing nightmare: Barbarian2/Fighter2/Rogue1/Sorcerer1. And you know what? He completely rocks. His Sorcerer spells are Shield and Expeditious Retreat. When Shield is up, he has the best AC in the party. With Ex Retreat and the Barbarian Fast Movement, he is incredibly fast, which lets him move into position for Sneak Attacks. Not that the extra d6 is that big a deal next to his 2d6+9 raging-greatsword attacks.

Make of that what you will.

 

[Darklone]

Another character in our current campaign is a multiclassing nightmare: Barbarian2/Fighter2/Rogue1/Sorcerer1. And you know what? He completely rocks. His Sorcerer spells are Shield and Expeditious Retreat. When Shield is up, he has the best AC in the party. With Ex Retreat and the Barbarian Fast Movement, he is incredibly fast, which lets him move into position for Sneak Attacks. Not that the extra d6 is that big a deal next to his 2d6+9 raging-greatsword attacks.

Make of that what you will.

Wait till he gets two more rogue levels

I love to play a bbn2/rog2/rgr2/bard X. He sucks spellswise... but see invisibility and other nice little utility spells saved him and the group more than once. He relies on his skills and is a strong secondary support fighter. I'd love to have taken another rogue level though

In that group we had a wiz7/cleric5 character. He was four, sometimes 5 levels ahead of the average of the group... but MAAAN was he weak, except for his BAB which was better than mine . The cleric 9 (second best char) was much stronger.

Any spellcaster combination with one level in a high hitpoint class so far was worth it in low levels... Right now, we have a bbn1/sor5 halforc with a greataxe. He would have been dead since a long time without the extra hitpoints and the possibility to rage and chop his way out of melee and grapples.

We have another ftr2/rog3 dwarf who took a level of wizard now. He does not want to miss the nice utility things (Spiderclimb, Shield, True Strike). He plans on taking two more levels of wizard at all...
He's not effective, but only due to BAD luck with his dice. As a dwarf with CON 20 and fighter levels, he never made ANY Fort save against filth fever, poison or anything else.

 

[Voadam]

I've played a wizard with two levels of nonspellcasting classes (he was a conversion of a 2e human switch class character in a longterm campaign).

Multiclassing across niches (warrior, spellcaster, scout) dilutes your power. Splitting between spellcaster types dilutes your combat power as well. In a party with straight classed characters you will generally notice the difference in power levels. However, the filling of multiple niches really can be great if you are in a smaller party or if nobody else fills those niches.

I played my rgr1 mnk1 wizX character in a banewarrens game where the only other PC was a paladin. We both had to fight hand to hand a bunch but we did fine and got through the whole megamodule (the traps hurt a lot though). As I played I originally thought I'd split between warrior and spellcaster pretty evenly, but the lure of magic ended up with me taking a spellcaster level every level as we went along.

 

[Spatzimaus]

I've played four characters for more than a one-shot since 3E came out. Two of those fall into the categories you mentioned.

Character 1: Rogue 2/Sorcerer X
A conversion of my old 2E Blade kit Bard. He played like a Bard, but with a bit more offensive spellcasting. And True Strike. As long as you stay away from level-based offensive spells you're fine; spells without saves are good for this character.

Character 2: Aristocrat 1/Psion X
No, I'm not kidding. I took an NPC class level. It's actually the conversion of the first character once we got access to the psionic rules; it just fit the concept better. He went for the Constructor PrC. I managed to talk the DM into giving the Aristocrat level a minor class ability or two, but I would have done without.

My third character was a Psychic Warrior, which is kinda like a Fighter/Psion multiclass. The fourth is a Ranger/Barbarian/Horizon Walker I'm trying out in 3.5E, totally nonmagical.

Anyway, if you're completely obsessed with offensive spellcasting, then yes, you should stay single-class. But, it's not the crippling thing many people seem to think. There's a period around level 4-5 that's really uncomfortable for multiclasses like this, but once you get to level 7 or 8 it's a great alternative to the usual casters.

 

[Metallian]

In my campaign, there's a Barbarian/Cleric and he rocks pretty hard. He can cast a variety of Buffs on himself before combat, whip ass, then cure himself afterwards. In non-combat situations, he can cast handy utility spells. He's damn-near indestructible, and deals almost as much damage as the melee-maxed Half-Orc Paladin.

We also have a Wizard with a few levels of Fighter (he is going to give up on Fighter levels and proceed with Wizard from now on) and it works out for him, too. He can survive dangerous situations better than a straight Wizard can, and he also plays a very valuable support role (Improved Trip + Longspear in a Glove of Storing + 18 Strength) in combat.

It probably helps that we don't have any single-class Wizards to compare him against, however...he's the only source of Arcane magic in the party, so as long as I don't write scenarios that assume the party has high-level arcane magic, we're okay.

Here's my overall opinion of multiclass spellcasters (I'll restrict myself to the primary spellcasting classes):

1) Clerics can mix pretty well with other classes (especially combat classes), because the spells complement other classes, and the hit dice and BAB don't suck too much. I think you can afford to mix and match pretty much however you like.

2) Lots of other classes can benfit from a little bit of Wizard or Sorceror, because some of those low-level spells are just handy no matter who you are. A Wizard and a Sorceror can sometimes benefit from a little bit of another class. However, I'd be leery of trying to keep Wizard and Sorceror levels even with levels in another class, because I think they'd "dilute" one another too much.

The Metallian

 

[Corporal_Cupcake]

Metallian makes a good point regarding spellcasting power. If the DM is actively designing scenarios for the party, it shouldn't really matter if there is a "less-pure" spellcaster PC. If, however, the DM is running published adventures with little or no change, the PC (and the party) will likely be hard pressed to excel.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

As a DM, I had a fighter 4/Wizard 3 (when he died) in my party. He was very weak for his level and survived as long as he did primarily due to luck. However, he was also constructed using 2e think (8 con is fine--there's no difference between 8 and 14; if I have an 18 dex, I'll never get hit) so he isn't a good example.

As a player, I've got a Fighter 2/Wizard 7/Spellsword 2 kicking around. I've exploited nearly every advantage I can get from the class and he's just barely competent as a fighter. (He can dish out a lot of damage quickly if everything goes perfectly for him (given 3 rounds of prep and movement (rd 1: Haste, Imp Invis; Rd 2: Fly, Dispel Magic; Rd. 3: Glitterdust, Slow), he once managed to dish out 96 points of damage to a frost giant in one round (4 attacks (2 BAB, 1 haste, 1 expert tactician), including two crits, and a channelled magic missile)) but no more effective than an ordinary fighter/barbarian (who doesn't need prep time)--he tends to be more vulnerable than the ordinary fighter/barbarian at the beginning of a surprise conflict (because of his lower hit points) and less vulnerable if he has time to prepare (he gets quite good AC)). He's viable in 3.0; In 3.5, the only thing that will keep him viable is the Eldritch Knight class. (Since his fully prepared AC is going down by around six points and he will be unable to either use his spells as long term enhancements the way he used to or get his short term buffs in place quickly (due to the changes to durations and Haste)).

I also have a Bbn 2/Ftr 2/Clr 3
He's definitely a viable character. (And is MUCH more powerful than the Fighter/wizard was at his level although he's merely comparable to any of the cleric 7's I've played). I'm not sure that he is a better character than a Ftr 4/Bbn 3 though. And in 3.5, I know that the Ftr 4/Bbn 3 would be the more effective choice. (Since most of the time, the cleric levels will be dead weight without the ability to cast Bull's Strength).

In 3.0, I've also seen Ftr 6/Sor 1 and similar builds. (Ftr 4/Bbn 1/Rgr 1/Rog 3/Wiz 2/Devoted Defender 1) It was quite effective due to the ability to cast Shield from a scroll or wand and increase his AC to high levels and still retain offensive effectiveness.

I've also seen Bbn 1/Wiz 3. That build worked pretty well although it depended on the long duration of Bull's Strength and won't work nearly as well in 3.5

Rgr 1/Monk 1/Wiz 4. This character was designed to be a survivor. Unfortunately, he wasn't designed to keep his enemies from surviving. Doubly unfortunately for him, his "survivor" status only worked when facing lots of weak foes. Toss him into a combat against a dire bear a bugbear with four levels of fighter, or a sixth level barbarian and not only did he lack the ability to hurt the them, all of his defensive "maximization" was irrelevant.

The Bbn 2/Sor 4 character I've seen was one of the least effective characters I've played with. Low hit points. Low armor class (light armor + shield spell doesn't stop you from being hit). And no spellcasting power to speak of. Clearly a compensation character. The player had previously played a sorceror who died twice in one weekend. The new character took barbarian levels for hit points and uncanny dodge but didn't end up with the ability to do much that was constructive.

The key difference between the effective characters and the ineffective characters here is that the effective characters take only enough levels of the secondary class to get whatever secondary ability they want and then they focus on classes that enhance their role in the party. In general, they build on their strengths and take either as few non-BAB granting levels or as few spellcasting levels as possible.

My fighter/Wizard, for instance, knows that his role is melee. His feats are chosen for that (and for compatibility with his spells). His equipment is chosen for that. And his spells are chosen for that. If he decided he wanted to cast fireballs and Ice Storms, he'd go from being an example of an effective multiclass to an example of a marvellously ineffective one.

 

[bret]

My own experience is with arcane casters in 3.0.

If you are the main arcane caster in the group, the group is not likely to be able to hand things of your own CR because you will not have the spell power. This is especially true of anything with SR. SR is tough on the normal caster, being down another 1-3 caster levels makes it almost impossible.

I do not believe that multiclassing is feasable in 3.0 for the character that is primarily a spellcaster.


When going in the other direction, 1/3 or less spellcaster, it depends heavily on the campaign type and how you are using your spells. A low caster level is going to prevent some of your spells from working because they can't cover the duration or area. Knock at 3rd level doesn't open some normal doors. See Invisible at 3rd level doesn't last long, you would probably be better off buying a magical item to provide this. True Strike is one of your best spells for anyone multiclassing -- who can't find a use for +20 to hit with a one round setup? Resist Elements isn't going to protect you very well against a Dragon of near your own CR.

Count me amoung the people who thinks that arcane spellcasters need some help when multiclassing.

I've no experience with the Cleric. Since the BAB doesn't suck as much and the hit points are decent, I would expect them to work better than arcane spellcasters. Druids could have problems because of the arms and armor restrictions, although I believe that 3.5 relaxed the weapons restrictions.

 

[Methos]

If some of you has tried them, please post your experience on the following cases:

- 1 spellcaster major class, 1 non-spellcaster minor class

What I am trying to understand is: can I play an effective spellcaster with some levels in something else? Perhaps it's too difficult to make him a combat caster, which relies on heavy damage, high DCs and SR penetration, but what about all the other spells, beneficial spells?

Ok. I have some personal experience from my existing campaign, and I think if you read the “Mystic Theurge” thread you will also see some more generic comments about mixing spellcasting classes.

First off, let me say, that I personally think that it depends on the style of the campaign and what YOU want/envision for your character. If you want to play a Halfling Fighter/Wizard who is say 4/9 at 13th level with quick draw, weapon focus and weapon specialization in throwing axes, and improved critical in touch attacks, go ahead!! Come to think of it, that could be an interesting character, especially if he has cat’s grace, mage armor, shield, bull’s strength, haste, heroism, and expeditious retreat cast on him. Fun!!

In our current campaign, I’m playing a Cleric/Fighter/Wizard 1/1/4. The party has no cleric, and also has a party tank (Fighter/Barbarian), a pure wizard (5th level), and a couple of other characters.

In our campaign, the 1 level of cleric has been important for the minimal healing that I can provide, and the 1 level of Fighter has been good from the standpoint that I took Spiked Chain, Combat Expertise, and Improved Disarm. So, although, he isn’t a party tank, he has been able to mix it up a bit for support in melee. Also, the Cleric and Fighter levels were good from a hp perspective. With his 14 Con, he has 41 hps at 6th level. Not bad for survivability. Also, he is a bit behind the other wizard in spell levels already, but not so much so, that he is useless. In fact, at the next level, I will take Fireball and Fly, and I’ll probably swap spells with him to get Dispel Magic and Lightning Bolt. He could be pretty effective as a spellcaster before he runs out of spells…….But, when that happens, he could still be somewhat effective in melee, once the enemy has been softened up a bit.

In summary, there are always tradeoffs, but you can create an interesting and effective character out of virtually any combination.