Are multiclass spellcasters really a non-viable choice?

[jerichothebard]

I played a gnomish rogue 3 wiz 9 (at campaign's end). He was very cool. Evasion, a 2nd level rogue ability, saved his life at least twice by actual count.

Once, An adversarial cleric cast Flame strike specifically at him, and hit everyone in the party except him. It did enough damage to them that it would have vaporized him at that point. I later looked at the math - with my roll (which was high), had he been a full wizard, he wouldn't have made the ref save, and he certainly wouldn't have had evasion.

There were a couple times when I mourned the loss of the sixth level spels, but not often. More than made up for by the survivability factor.


I don't know that I would play a fully wizard character.


Conversely, I am running a bard3/cleric3 now as an NPC to pad the party, and he is pretty weak. Great interpersonal skills - Diplomacy is a class skill for both - but spellcasting ability has suffered. His cohort, a fourth level Adept (or cleric, I haven't decided just yet), is a more powerful spellcaster than he.

Were he not an NPC, I don't know that I would consider him a particularly viable character. Mediocre hit points and BAB, pretty good saves, decent skill points, but spread very thin on spellcasting.

I guess he would be a good character in a very intrigue-heavy campaign, but pretty useless in a dungeon-crawl.


jtb

 

[Darklone]

Another point of view: Forcing spellcasters to multiclass so that no more than half of their levels is a spellcasting class is a nice way to keep a campaign rather low magic.

 

[Li Shenron]

Actually, this was discussed extensively on the WotC message boards as 3.5 was coming out. The designers weighed in to say that it *is* a problem, and they are aware of it, but fixing it would have been too big a change for 3.5. The best they could do was add the Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Warrior, and Arcane Trickster Prestige Classes to give multi-classed characters a "path" that developed the core of both sets of abilities.

Other players also discussed allowing caster levels to stack for purposes of penetrating SR and/or the overall effectiveness of the spells. There was no consensus reached before I lost track of the discussion, although there may have been after.

I can imagine that WotC designers themselves have been discussing it a lot. I don't think that letting caster level stack between different casters would have been too big a change: after all, it would have been compatible with existing characters, you just increased your spell's effect when you cast them and use a higher bonus for SR, but your character sheet would look just the same!

What is too much a change is to try address the full spellcasting advancement (spells known and per day). After all BAB stacks easily because fighting is fighting, whether you are a Fighter or a Rogue or a Wizard. But casting spells is different for different classes, since each has its own spell list which has different spells or spells at different levels. Trying to merge spellcasting to a single thing (for example, letting spells known and per day depend on sum of levels in all spellcasting classes) now THAT would have been too much for 3.5.

 

[Silveras]

I can imagine that WotC designers themselves have been discussing it a lot. I don't think that letting caster level stack between different casters would have been too big a change: after all, it would have been compatible with existing characters, you just increased your spell's effect when you cast them and use a higher bonus for SR, but your character sheet would look just the same!

They considered it and rejected it as too big a change.

And, I disagree with you there. The change may be fine in your eyes, for your campaign. Looking at the big picture, it is not an answer that will work for all campaigns, and it will actually ruin some. There are balance issues when it comes to making such a subtle but profound change. With published adventures and setting materials, there are enormous shifts in power for the NPCs.

For some campaign worlds, including mine, there is a fundamental separation between Divine and Arcane spellcasting. Letting those caster levels stack, except under very specific circumstances (a PrC class ability), violates that principle by implying that "they're really the same thing". The mechanics may be similar, but that does not mean the underlying "flavor" rationale is at all related, any more than saying that because attack rolls and skill checks are handled using the same mechanic they should also "stack".

My point, at the moment, is not that the levels should not stack. My point is that making the levels stack is a bigger question than you are giving it credit, and I agree that it should *not* have been in 3.5. On that point, I think the designers tried to "do no harm", and made the right call. On the matter of Paladin's mounts, I may not agree with them, but that's another thread .

What is too much a change is to try address the full spellcasting advancement (spells known and per day). After all BAB stacks easily because fighting is fighting, whether you are a Fighter or a Rogue or a Wizard. But casting spells is different for different classes, since each has its own spell list which has different spells or spells at different levels. Trying to merge spellcasting to a single thing (for example, letting spells known and per day depend on sum of levels in all spellcasting classes) now THAT would have been too much for 3.5.

Personally, I believe that the number and effects of spells (caster level for purposes of damage dice, range, duration, etc.) should be (as it is) what suffers from multi-classing. I just don't think penetrating Spell Resistance or Saving Throw difficulties should be affected the same way.

My proposed solution, which was admittedly not the best, was along the lines of:

• Use Spellcraft ranks to set the save DC when casting a spell.
• Use Spellcraft ranks rather than Caster level for SR and dispel checks.

The value is that characters can spend their skill points to keep their spells at "top form". Naturally, all spellcasters will want to max out Spellcraft, and that was criticized on the Wizards boards. I do not think it is such a bad thing, though, if a spellcaster has to decide between increasing Spellcraft or Concentration.

 

[Thanee]

Another point of view: Forcing spellcasters to multiclass so that no more than half of their levels is a spellcasting class is a nice way to keep a campaign rather low magic.

Yeah, I thought about that, too, once, but the others didn't like the idea!

It's also hard to balance in the Bard here.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Thanee]

If anyone's interested, I have posted my 3.0 Rogue/Cleric Archer HERE.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Li Shenron]

For some campaign worlds, including mine, there is a fundamental separation between Divine and Arcane spellcasting. Letting those caster levels stack, except under very specific circumstances (a PrC class ability), violates that principle by implying that "they're really the same thing". The mechanics may be similar, but that does not mean the underlying "flavor" rationale is at all related, any more than saying that because attack rolls and skill checks are handled using the same mechanic they should also "stack".

You could always say that the caster level comes from the character's personal experience in spellcasting, while the highest level of spells known/cast comes from the divine or arcane source.

Personally, I believe that the number and effects of spells (caster level for purposes of damage dice, range, duration, etc.) should be (as it is) what suffers from multi-classing. I just don't think penetrating Spell Resistance or Saving Throw difficulties should be affected the same way.

Talking about what "should" be separate between different casting classes, I think the rules are fine as they are now, just like you keep different skills separate. But some skills have synergies, and there could be synergies in spellcasting too. Anyway, the point is that 99% of people who plays D&D believe that multiclassing spellcasters can be done only for RP reason, and that's a pity.

 

[Philip]

You could always say that the caster level comes from the character's personal experience in spellcasting, while the highest level of spells known/cast comes from the divine or arcane source.

You can also sort of 'synchronize' the caster level. For example: if you are a wizard9 who becomes a Clr1, you could rule that for each Cleric level gained, the spellcasting level of the Divine spells is raised by 2 (or some other factor). This may be easier on the flavor: experienced wizards are better at picking up how to efficiently channel the divine powers given to them.

So that a Wiz9/Clr1 casts his Wizard spells at 10th lvl and his Cleric spells at 2nd. When he becomes a Wiz9/Clr2 he casts his Wizard spells at 11th lvl and his Cleric spells at 4th.

 

[Silveras]

You could always say that the caster level comes from the character's personal experience in spellcasting, while the highest level of spells known/cast comes from the divine or arcane source.

You've missed my point. I am saying that in my campaign, the two are different enough that skill with one means little or nothing in terms of skill with the other. Divine spells are sourced partially externally, and involve (flavor-wise) opening yourself to be a somewhat-passive conduit for the divine. Arcane spells are sourced wholly externally, and involve (flavor-wise) exerting your will actively on the external forces. The words and gestures are similar enough for spellcraft to identify the spell, but on a deeper level they are entirely different. Thus, they do not stack in any way.

Talking about what "should" be separate between different casting classes, I think the rules are fine as they are now, just like you keep different skills separate. But some skills have synergies, and there could be synergies in spellcasting too. Anyway, the point is that 99% of people who plays D&D believe that multiclassing spellcasters can be done only for RP reason, and that's a pity.

I would hesitate to say that 99% believe that. I think it is more accurate to say that a majority of the games out there are combat-oriented, and the combat-oriented players are disappointed with the lack of firepower their multi-classed spellcasters wind up with. In more story-oriented games, I think it tends to be less of an issue. Also, gamers playing through published modules written with the "standard party" in mind will tend to have more trouble unless their multi-classed spellcaster is a "fifth member" or "backup spellcaster".

 

[Cheiromancer]

My thoughts on the issue of multi-classed spellcasters led me to develop the idea of Advanced Classes. The description is here.

Comments are more than welcome.