Casters and Multiclassing

[RangerWickett]

I would love it if a 10th level fighter did just as much damage as a 1st level fighter, but he had more tricks up his sleeve. And a 10th level wizard's fireball did just as much damage as a 1st level wizard's burning hands, but farther away and against more targets.

And so a fighter 9/wizard 1 might pick up a useful trick like making his swords become flaming (instead of taking a level of fighter and learning, for instance, the ability to rampage -- move his speed and make an attack against everyone he passes by), and a wizard 9/fighter 1 might pick up a useful trick like being able to disengage from melee without provoking an opportunity attack (instead of learning another wizard spell).

But in both cases, their basic damage stays the same.

 

[fuindordm]

No one ever talks about it, but 1/2e style multiclassing actually works very well with the 3E experience point table. In fact, it works better than it did in 1/2e. Ssh!

Imagine a character with 91000 xp. They're 14th level. A wizard has 7th level spells. A fighter has +14 BAB.

Now imagine a F/MU with 45500 xp in each class. That's a 10/10 level character, with +10 BAB and 5th level spells. Give the character 10d7 hit dice and the better savng throw from both classes.

This is a character with slightly lower HP and saves, but more options. Plus they used two high scores on Str and Int, so the support ability scores suffer compared to either single-class. I think this character could keep up with the party pretty well, and their highest-level spells would still be useful in the big fight.

And best of all, no need for a prestige class hack!

 

[tlantl]

[MENTION=32164]JohnSnow[/MENTION].

I see where you're coming from.

The way 3e took thieves skills and lumped them in with the other skills and the way the whole skills thing works took away from their concept. Thieves became rogues that were skills monkeys and high damage from behind combatants. Where the original thief never got to backstab more than once or twice in a combat, and could never out shine the cleric or wizard in the fields of knowledge and religion.

I never liked the dual classed character so never made the connection. I was disappointed when I tried to convert my old multi-classed characters to 3e. They lost way too much of their power. Gestalt characters feel too artificial in 3e.

I did have issue with level dipping and would have been an ass where multi-classing into a caster class other than sorcerer or favored soul was concerned. I believe that clerics and wizards need training, lots of training, to use their powers.

 

[Primal]

I think hybrids worked really well in 4th ed - one of the little unsung successes in 4th ed. Agree that the feat system was over the top and a little messy but mostly worked.

I also agree with your concern about powergaming - MC rules should be enabling players to customize or develop archetypes not covered in the rules. But the ultimate balancer on this should be the action economy, which in 4th ed imposed limits on what any character could do in a round and given the sharp reduction in buffs put MC characters on a level playing field with single classed PCs.

Even though I think that 4E multiclassing and hybrids worked better than freeform multiclassing in 4E, I'd still prefer themes or Pathfinder archetypes to them (probably archetypes since themes will apparently be related/restricted to your background).