Are multiclass spellcasters really a non-viable choice?

[Metallian]

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.

Yeah. If one of your classes really "dilutes" the other class (in Spellcasting levels or Hit Points/BAB), try to keep one of them as low-level as possible...just enough to get some cool enhancements/versatility for the primary class.

As it's been said, Wizards and Sorcerors mix partiularly poorly, because they "dilute" the other classes more (because they're bad at everything the other classes are good at) and they are easily diluted by other classes (because if they lose spellcasting levels, they lose their only good feature).

It's too bad...Clerics get spellcasting + Hit Dice/BAB so they can complement warrior types. Wizards and Sorcerors only get Spellcasting. It's too bad they don't get more Skill Points, as that would allow them to complement Rogues, Rangers and Bards.

The Metallian

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

It's too bad...Clerics get spellcasting + Hit Dice/BAB so they can complement warrior types. Wizards and Sorcerors only get Spellcasting. It's too bad they don't get more Skill Points, as that would allow them to complement Rogues, Rangers and Bards.

Actually I think Wizard CAN complement rogue in limited capacity. Since wizards' prime attribute is int, they (especially human wizards) tend to get as many skill points per level as ordinary int rangers or bards. Int also helps out with some of the rogue's most difficult skills (Disable Device). The best device disabler in the game is actually a Grey Elf or Sun Elf Rogue 1/Wizard X with maxed cross-class search and disable device checks. Given a +4 headband and a vest of escape (craftable by a wizard), such a rogue/wizard can easily have +25 (24 int=17+3level+4 enhancement, +14 ranks, +4 tools) to his disable device roll at 11th level. Such a character just needs to cast Heroism on himself to be able to disarm a greater glyph of warding without any chance of setting it off.

Wizard spells can also complement other rogue abilities--Invisibility, gaseous form, etc for hide; Spider Climb, Fly, etc for Climb, Disguise Self for disguise, Detect Thoughts for Sense motive (and to help with bluff), Charm Person, Charm Monster, and Suggestion for Bluff and Diplomacy.

The difficulty is that wizards don't have enough skill points to keep many skills high through cross-class skill points.

 

[reapersaurus]

What the heck does "Viable character" MEAN?!

If you're comparing PC's to a min-maxed, single-class mid-to-high-level wizard, than I really don't think that's a very solid reference point.

Look around at almost any campaign in the world, and you'll see tons of 'non-viable characters' under those criteria!
If the DM is going to run the encounters assuming that there's a single-classed wizard in the party, and there isn't, than I don't know if pointing the finger at 3E multiclassing is the best place to assign blame here.

I remember reading a couple years ago some radical suggestions about how to combat the magic-drenched mid-to-higher levels in D&D, and the best suggestion I heard was to require that any prime spellcaster HAD to alternate spellcaster levels with some other class (so Wiz, then Ftr, then Wiz, then Rog etc.). That would certainly fix the perceived 'spellcaster multiclassing problem' in D&D.

I'm just having terrible difficulty swallowing a premise that is caused by the geometric progression of prime spellcasting classes as being much of a problem. If wizards didn't become so overwhelmingly powerful at higher levels, than noone would have this skewed yardstick to measure multi-classed spellcasters against.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Wizard spells can also complement other rogue abilities--Invisibility, gaseous form, etc for hide; Spider Climb, Fly, etc for Climb, Disguise Self for disguise, Detect Thoughts for Sense motive (and to help with bluff), Charm Person, Charm Monster, and Suggestion for Bluff and Diplomacy.

The difficulty is that wizards don't have enough skill points to keep many skills high through cross-class skill points.

The key difference isn't that they don't have the skill points, it's that they don't have a good enough skill list. If the wizard skill list included just 1/3rd of the rogue skills, then he'd make a very effective addition to those classes.

 

[Tidus4444]

In 3.5 multiclassed wizards or sorcs are much better. Why? Even at higher levels, Enlarge Person is terrific for your average fighter. Plus, who would say no to being able to use spells from wands or scrolls?

 

[Darklone]

The key difference isn't that they don't have the skill points, it's that they don't have a good enough skill list. If the wizard skill list included just 1/3rd of the rogue skills, then he'd make a very effective addition to those classes.

Rogues with 3 levels of wizard are VERY effective and very good to spare a lot of potions, cash and scrolls/wands. They lose:
3hp, 1 point BAB, some skillpoints (does not matter since the guys going for this combo usually has a HIGH int), 1.5 d6 sneak attack damage (does not matter IMHO at high levels if you can sneak attack with a ray of frost then).

 

[Velmont]

Multiclassing with a caster can do original concept and cool character. Majority of combo, personnally, would be viable. Yes, you are weaker as a caster, but your a stronger on another aspect, and there is prestige class to compensate some bad combo (any arcane spellcaster with fighter, you have arcane failure, but the spellsword is there for that).

I think the only thing, don't do an offensive caster if your caster class is not your major class. At low level, it have almost no difference, but when you'll start to enter combat where dispel magic is cast every 5 rounds and creature have strong magic resistance, you'll see most of your spells being useless, that will be your big weak point.

 

[MarauderX]

Multiclassing weakens you. That fact is something that I had to deal with when making my Wiz1/F2/Mnk1.

He may be weaker than the average PC at 4th level, but he has a few tricks that make him a difficult adversary, such as high tumble and Great Throw. He doesn't deal out massive damage like a wizard his level could, but he is self sufficient in that he can cast mage armor on himself to make his AC the best in the party. If he were to face a mage 1-on-1, he would win simply because he is a more of a melee fighter, but in a few levels he won't be as useful as a wizard of equal level nor as dangerous to most character types.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Multiclassing weakens you.

Tell that to Tattoo, the Rogue/Cleric/Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Assassin/Shadow Dancer/Blackguard I threw at my players. No more than 2 levels in any one class. If anything, he was substantially stronger than the party members, which is why he made such a good bad guy.

Multiclassing weakens the spellcasting ability of pure casters. That's all. It doesn't hurt melee classes, or spellcasters who have other options besides raw spellcasting.

A Sorcerer/Rogue multiclass is basically a Bard. Bard spellcasting isn't useless; they get plenty of good spells, good skills, and the occasional armor or weapon proficiency. They just can't fill the "offensive caster" role in a group, but that's okay because it's not what they're supposed to do.
My Sorcerer/Rogue didn't have a single offensive pure damage spell. When he wanted offense he tended to use the Shadow Conjuration/Evocation lines. The Gnome Wizard in the group took care off the offense spells, while I did all the utility stuff.

 

[wolfen]

Character 1: Rogue 2/Sorcerer X
... As long as you stay away from level-based offensive spells you're fine; spells without saves are good for this character.

I agree, particularly at low levels. But a Fireball is a Fireball, and it's still the first 3rd lvl spell I take.

I play a Halfling Rogue 2 Sorc X. I agree with the comment above. I took the Rogue level 1 for the extra Skill pts, Sneak attack, and HP. I dumped most of the skill pts into charisma-based skills and my character is an effective diplomat/armtwister as a result.

Level 2 Rogue gets you Evasion, and that is a wonderful thing for a spellcaster, especially a dexterous Halfling. The d6 HD don't hurt.

Get Improved Initiative early on. If you've got a decent DEX, you will usually avoid a lot of danger and make much more use of your spells by getting to act before the other guys. This fact is underrated in my opinion.

Recently a couple members of my group and I were attacked and my little guy dealt more damage than either of them, and probably prevented their deaths.

Don't let your team whine at you because you're 2 spell levels behind -- remind them that you're still alive after the Fireball/Lightning Bolt/whatever because you took 2 Rogue levels.

wolfen