Are multiclass spellcasters really a non-viable choice?

[dcollins]

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...

Haven't read the whole thread, and I may not be the most hard-core of min-maxers. However, I think multiclassing spellcasters gives many nice options.

- I'll agree that equal-level, Clr/Wiz multiclassing is underpowered. Radically so when contrasted with the overpower it provided in all previous versions of the game.

- I planned out a multiclassed Drd/Sor that was very nice. The plan was to take equal levels up to 3rd, then the rest in Sorcerer. (I only got to play him up to 4th level total.) This radically increased the total number of spells I had at low levels, and I was able to constantly be casting spells every round, and had a nice mix of prepared vs. spontaneous options. I felt he was quite effective.

- I've found, like your drow Rog/Wiz, that spellcasting/nonspellcasting multiclassing can work pretty well in a combination of about 1/3 levels nonspellcasting, 2/3 in spellcasting. This keeps your spells within range of par, but you pick up a lot of advantages from the first few levels of Ftr or Rog or what have you. I've used this rule of thumb for converted NPCs in many cases.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

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.

I agree. Certainly a mid-level non-spellcaster can benefit from 1 or 3 levels of cleric. Or 1 level of wiz if you plan out your tactics appropriately.

Losing 1 BAB is not that big a deal, even for a combat specialist. My experience is that 1 level of cleric helps any low level character in a rough and tumble campaign -- having any extra healer, even a weak one, gives the party a lot more staying power.

I think a well crafted Fighter4/Cleric3 is a more robust than any Fighter7 -- although perhaps not as flashy. Negative: ~3 HPs, -1 BAB, -1 1/2 feats. Positive: +2 Fort, +2 Will, 2 domain abilities (e.g. War (Weapon Focus), Luck (re-roll a failed save!), Travel (time enough to cast Remove Paralysis on myself), etc.), 1st & 2nd level cleric spells.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I don't know about what everyone else takes viable to mean but I take it to mean "not completely outclassed in a party of iconic style characters"--meaning single classed and reasonably well constructed but not completely min-maxed. (25 point buy means a high score of 15, 28-32 point buy means a high score of 16 etc.)

An alternate meaning of viable would be capable of significant contributions in battles appropriate to the party's level. (A troll vs. 5th level characters, an ogre vs. 3rd level characters, a Half-fiend Barbarian 12 vs. 14th level characters, a Balor vs. 20th level characters, or an Ossyluth vs. 9th level characters for instance). It also strongly implies the ability to fight effectively against creatures somewhat higher than party level and suitable for "big boss" roles. (An Ossyluth against a 7th level party or a 13th level wizard against an 11th level party for instance).

As to the rest of the post, it's clear that you dislike the D&D magic system and has been for some time. However, I think that you've allowed that dislike to cloud your judgement. Power increases exponentially for all PCs, not just single-classed spellcasters. 11th level fighter barbarians are easily capable of dealing 90 points of damage/round to AC 20 if tweaked a little. I think they compare almost as favorably to 1st level fighters or barbarians as 11th level wizards compare to 1st level wizards. (The power increase comes from higher strength, more magic items (weapons, armor, etc), more base attack bonus, and more feats, all of which have a cumulative effect). (And as to your suggestion that D&D would be more balanced if the most caster levels a spellcaster could have were 1/2, IMO that's ludicrous. A 5th level spellcaster might as well go home as try to make a meaningful contribution to a fight against most CR 10 monsters. (Except maybe a cleric healing the characters able to make real contributions). Any kind of redistribution of spellcasting power on that magnitude would necessitate re-evalutating every CR 4+ creature in the monster manual (as well as rewriting the sor/wiz, druid, and cleric spell lists (a 5d6 fireball is laughable when the barbarian is dealing 90 hp damage/round and has great cleave)).

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.

 

[reapersaurus]

As to the rest of the post, it's clear that you dislike the D&D magic system and has been for some time.

Correct

Any kind of redistribution of spellcasting power on that magnitude would necessitate re-evalutating every CR 4+ creature in the monster manual

god forbid
If people took the approach that a house rule shouldn't be considered or done, if it required a change to the way you play the game, or it required extra work... well, you could safely throw out almost all house rules, since the core rules would have to be tweaked.

So I guess we all should play D&D exactly the way that WotC has written in their rulebooks, eh, basilisk?
Why bother trying to make it work better for you/your group?

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Maybe I'm just wierd but it seems that D&D is built for a world where mid to high level characters have a lot of magical powers. If that's not what you want, it seems that it would be a lot easier to find another system that requires less work to be functional for the play-style you want than to do the kind of work necessary to make Ftr 10/Wiz 10's viable characters.

Either that, or find a less invasive way to make the D&D magic system feel more "low magic." The difficulty is that any foe capable of presenting a challenge to a 20th level fighter, paladin, or barbarian will shrug off nearly anything that a clvl 10 sorceror, cleric, or wizard can toss at them. Simply eliminating the school of evocation or banning the cleric, wizard, and druid classes entirely (leaving bards, paladins, and rangers) would probably be a better way of making a low-magic D&D.

god forbid
If people took the approach that a house rule shouldn't be considered or done, if it required a change to the way you play the game, or it required extra work... well, you could safely throw out almost all house rules, since the core rules would have to be tweaked.

So I guess we all should play D&D exactly the way that WotC has written in their rulebooks, eh, basilisk?
Why bother trying to make it work better for you/your group?

 

[Creamsteak]

I think they are viable from a players perspective, and from a DMs perspective they would do fine in a campaign I run...

To quote a particularly 'neat' cartoon character, "When all your attributes are maxed out, it still won't matter unless you have more passion than your opponent. Passion is what wins the game!"

This is something I try to make true in my games.

 

[Altalazar]

I think from a fun perspective, they are certainly viable, but from a power perspective, they will be way underpowered compared to others in the group.

It is just something you will have to keep in mind when running the game.

 

[Gnimish88]

Thank you Basilisk. I have had this arguement a number of times with people who seemed to think that magic was out of control in D&D. Anytime I suggested they try another system with a lower magic emphisis, a get a strange hostility to the idea. I have played a number of excellent low magic systems (Harn Master comes to mind) and enjoyed them thoroughly, so why is it some people seem intent on making rather dramatic changes to D&D rather then playing another sytem more geared toward there interests?

Maybe I'm just wierd but it seems that D&D is built for a world where mid to high level characters have a lot of magical powers. If that's not what you want, it seems that it would be a lot easier to find another system that requires less work to be functional for the play-style you want than to do the kind of work necessary to make Ftr 10/Wiz 10's viable characters.

Either that, or find a less invasive way to make the D&D magic system feel more "low magic." The difficulty is that any foe capable of presenting a challenge to a 20th level fighter, paladin, or barbarian will shrug off nearly anything that a clvl 10 sorceror, cleric, or wizard can toss at them. Simply eliminating the school of evocation or banning the cleric, wizard, and druid classes entirely (leaving bards, paladins, and rangers) would probably be a better way of making a low-magic D&D.

 

[KarinsDad]

Thank you Basilisk. I have had this arguement a number of times with people who seemed to think that magic was out of control in D&D. Anytime I suggested they try another system with a lower magic emphisis, a get a strange hostility to the idea. I have played a number of excellent low magic systems (Harn Master comes to mind) and enjoyed them thoroughly, so why is it some people seem intent on making rather dramatic changes to D&D rather then playing another sytem more geared toward there interests?

It's called choice.

Just like you have the choice to play other game systems if you want a lower powered magic system without drastically changing the system.

 

[wocky]

I have a very cool Wiz(Transmuter)5/Rogue 5 Halfling.

Yeah... it's probably underpowered compared to a pure 10th level wizard or Rogue, but consider:

- He uses blink to Sneak Attack every round and avoid 50% of enemy blows, and half the damage of area attacks.
- With the "Expert Tactician" he can make that TWO Sneak attacks every round!
- He has a Spell Storing dagger with a "Hold Person" inside he can deliver as a free action on a strike... you certainly don't wanna be held next to a Rogue.
- Silent Spell for sneak casting
- Other useful spells in his repertoire: Invisibility, Blindsight, Haste, Feather Fall, Watchamacallit Skitish Nerves (raises Initiative)... he used to have Shelgarn's Persistent Blade (flying dagger that flanks) but my DM decided it can't flank my own enemies, only my allies'.

I decided to play it mostly as an ubber-rogue, with all the handy spells, always leaning towards flavour and having fun with the concept. I guess min/max-wise he would be better off as a Sorcerer rather than a Wizard, but I'm playing in a campaign full of elven mages and he's supposed to have been taught by one.