Casters and Multiclassing

[Charleois]

In 4e, you could spend most of your life dedicated to one way of life and then wake-up one morning to trade your Epic tier ability for some other classes Epic tier ability. You never knew how to cast magic as Heroic or Paragon Fighter but suddenly you can cast a Cleric level 27 Sunburst?

It takes a fair number of feats and levels to be able to do that. It is not as cheap as you make it sound. A straight Cleric will be much effective as a cleric and even just with his Sunburst because he will have other features, feats and stuff which compliment that Prayer.

 

[FireLance]

I would be really angry if some other player that had been a fighter for 16 levels turned around and cried 'look what I can do' and was able to do a Meteor Storm as good as I could do it.

You know, it took over 25 years and three new editions, but I think I've finally figured out why Raistlin was so mad at Caramon during his Test.

 

[Ratskinner]

There's a simpler way to do this:

For each class, have a progression by CHARACTER LEVEL. Spells are then always cast at character level.

So if Bob takes 10th level as a Cleric, he'll get 10th level Cleric spells. If he takes 11th level as a Wizard, he'll get 11th level Wizard spells. And when he's 20th level, he cast ALL of his spells as a 20th level caster.

Consider the legendary warrior who takes a level of wizard late in the game. He'll only have a few spells, but they'll be extremely powerful, as befitting someone of his stature.

This would keep everything balanced throughout, so I assume they'll do something else...

I'm not sure I'm into this system. "Yes, I am a Warrior. Although I can't cast light or lesser magics, I do know fireball!"

I think I'd prefer some kind of unified magical progression scheme like Trailblazer set up. (If we're keeping the 9-level Vancian stuff.)

 

[Grazzt]

I'm not sure I'm into this system. "Yes, I am a Warrior. Although I can't cast light or lesser magics, I do know fireball!"

Same here. I'm not a fan of a fighter suddenly grabbing a level of wizard and being just as powerful (magic-wise) as the PC that spent his whole career as a spellcaster.

 

[JohnSnow]

Same here. I'm not a fan of a fighter suddenly grabbing a level of wizard and being just as powerful (magic-wise) as the PC that spent his whole career as a spellcaster.

I agree, the multiclass spellcaster who unlocks his magic potential should be a little bit behind the wizard.

As an example from an earlier edition, I think we can all agree that the Second Edition bard wasn't quite as powerful a spellcaster as the wizard, but that his spellcasting ability was certainly potent enough to be useful. I certainly don't recall anyone complaining back then that bards were underpowered.

Like the multiclass character, the bard had other abilities to fall back on, so it seems like a good class to use as a benchmark. Looking at my 2e PHB, I see that the bard was 1-2 spell levels (max 6th) and a few "slots" behind the mage. Interestingly enough, his casting level was equal to his character level.

That seems about right to me for dabblers and secondary casters - whether they be multiclass characters or actually belong to a "dabbler" class - like the bard.

 

[Hassassin]

The main problem with 3e multi-classing is that character growth is exponential. The flatter power curve of 5e should go a long way toward fixing the issue.

 

[Incenjucar]

As an example from an earlier edition, I think we can all agree that the Second Edition bard wasn't quite as powerful a spellcaster as the wizard, but that his spellcasting ability was certainly potent enough to be useful. I certainly don't recall anyone complaining back then that bards were underpowered.

Whut.

Wasn't bard basically treated like a joke class in 2E?

4E is the first time I've ever seen anyone impressed with bards. Perhaps you're thinking of an older edition than 2E?

 

[JohnSnow]

Whut.

Wasn't bard basically treated like a joke class in 2E?

4E is the first time I've ever seen anyone impressed with bards. Perhaps you're thinking of an older edition than 2E?

Well, there were a few 1e players who were annoyed that their overpowered prestige class got nerfed. But other than that? Not that I recall.

Among the groups I played with, there was a discussion about whether the 2nd-Edition bard was TOO capable. It had the combat ability of a thief combined with the ability to use any weapon and wear chainmail, plus 4 of the 8 thief skills, magic spells, and the bardic lore abilities on top of that.

I remember it being a very popular and capable class. Granted, some people couldn't get past the flavor and found it silly, but I think they were few and far between.

IIRC, the Harpers in the Forgotten Realms were largely due to the absurd popularity of bards as a character class. Or maybe it was just because Ed liked 'em.

What I do recall is the wailing and gnashing of teeth when 3e came along - and basically wrecked the bard as a class. Like rangers (another very popular 2e class), bards after the edition change were a pale shadow of their former selves. People kept playing them out of nostalgia, but the 3e versions of both classes were pretty weak (I grant the rampant abuse by min-maxers who took 1 level of ranger).

 

[tlantl]

I agree, the multiclass spellcaster who unlocks his magic potential should be a little bit behind the wizard.

As an example from an earlier edition, I think we can all agree that the Second Edition bard wasn't quite as powerful a spellcaster as the wizard, but that his spellcasting ability was certainly potent enough to be useful. I certainly don't recall anyone complaining back then that bards were underpowered.

Like the multiclass character, the bard had other abilities to fall back on, so it seems like a good class to use as a benchmark. Looking at my 2e PHB, I see that the bard was 1-2 spell levels (max 6th) and a few "slots" behind the mage. Interestingly enough, his casting level was equal to his character level.

That seems about right to me for dabblers and secondary casters - whether they be multiclass characters or actually belong to a "dabbler" class - like the bard.

Bards weren't multi classed, they were three classed. They started play as fighters to a minimum of 5th level but could advance to 8th level. They stopped gaining fighter levels, dropped to 0 xp and started again as 1st level thieves. The only thing they could use from their fighter levels was their hit points. They earned levels as thieves until they reached 5th level but could go as far as 8th level before having to stop once more and start as a druid, using the bard tables for their bardic abilities.

The bard class was so hard to earn that people were in awe of you if you had one. Especially since it took years to gain ten levels in any AD&D class. Once you were a bard you gained no more attacks beyond those you earned as a fighter and couldn't get any better as a thief. They were by no means over powered. Ten or twelve levels later they were very powerful, but so was everyone else.


I took a quick look at the 2e bard and it looks a lot different than the 1e bard so I can't say how it played. From the looks of it the hard work and dedication necessary to gain the class was done away with. That alone would change it from the something special it was originally to something else entirely.

Since I only stole stuff from 2e and never really adopted the entire rules set I can't comment on how the game play changed.

 

[JohnSnow]

Bards weren't multi classed, they were three classed. They started play as fighters to a minimum of 5th level but could advance to 8th level. They stopped gaining fighter levels, dropped to 0 xp and started again as 1st level thieves. The only thing they could use from their fighter levels was their hit points.

Yes, and 3e "multiclassing" was the same as the dual-classing of earlier editions, except that you could go back and forth.

I deliberately used the 2nd Edition Bard as an example of a well done jack-of-all-trades class. Because it was. Unlike the 1st edition bard, which had to grow into its role, the second edition bard started out as a versatile character class. And, as far as I can recall, it worked very well. It was unique, but in my experience was reasonably well-balanced with the other character classes (within the somewhat looser "balance" requirements of 2e). Even when playing a bard as the 5th member of the classic 4-man-band (cleric, fighter, mage, & thief) adventuring group, you felt like a special snowflake, not a 5th wheel.

The bard was effectively a core class that had shades of a "multiclass" - fighter weapons, thief attacks and hit points, armor up to chain, decent access to magic, and a variety of special abilities to draw on - some of them duplicating those of thieves, but others unique.

The point I was making is that iteration of the bard class didn't seem to suffer from the problem of being either "weaksauce" or "overpowered" that seems to have played every jack-of-all-trades class since.

And no, it wasn't as powerful or unusual as being a bard back in 1e. But it also seemed a lot more viable to use.