fixing spellcaster multiclass?

[John Hough]

The stuff about the mystic theurge brings this up, and we mostly agree it's a problem that multiclass spellcasters are too weak.

So I had the thought: as far as I see it, the problem is that higher level spellcasters get more spell levels per character level than lower level spellcasters. That is, a 5th level wizard gets 3/2/1, 10 spell levels, 2 spell levels per level, while a 10th level wizard (4/4/3/3/2) gets 43 spell levels, 4.3 per level. And our 5/5 cleric/wizard is still (minus domain spells) getting 2 spell levels per level.

So what happens if we, say, give the cleric/wizard 4 spell levels per level at character level 10? That's 20 spell levels in each, enough to buy the 4/3/2/1 row of the chart in each, equivalent to a 7/7 cleric/wizard now. Level 14 at 7/7 (6.3 wizard, 6.4 cleric) buys 44 spell levels for each, the equivalent of a 10/10 now. That's a 4/4/3/3/2 in two classes rather than a 4(5)/4(5)/4/4/3/3/2 in one (cleric in parentheses). Which is a fairly significant power hit, losing the top two spell levels, but you get a lot of flexibility for it, and it's far better than the 4/3/2/1 in two classes you'd get now.

You'd add on domain spells and specialization as appropriate for the spell levels you can cast.

Now, I haven't really thought out exactly the numbers you'd have to use for different classes, and this does require a bit more math, but I think the power levels would probably come out just about right.

What do y'all think?

 

[John Hough]

No comments? Sigh. I guess that what I get for posting it on a weekend.

On second thought, I'd be inclined to simplify this system a bit, and just make up a big chart to get effective spellcaster level from class level and character level.

I'm still not sure what you'd want to do about level for DCs, fireball power, and such.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I'm not sure what you mean, here, exactly -- maybe that big chart would help?

Are you saying, instead exactly giving a spell list, you give people a number of spell levels per level, and then they construct the spell list (presumeably following the rule that it has to be a "triangle," to prevent abuse)?

That might work. I'd suggest concentrating on something other than a Wizard/Cleric as your example case -- what about Wizard/Fighters or the like?

There has to be a reason why it's not inevitably a good idea to take one level of Wizard for all characters, of course...

 

[John Hough]

That's pretty much exactly what I'm saying. I'd probably make players buy a row off their spells/level chart, and then spend extra points on anything below the highest level, for the sake of 'triangularity'. Or do the simplified method with a chart assigning effective level, probably using Sean Reynolds' half-level thing.

What about the fighter/wizard? At 2/2 he fights like a 3rd level fighter and, at 1.75 spell levels/level, I'd give him 2/1 or 3/0, 3rd level or just short. At 4/4, he fights like a 6th level fighter, having just gotten a second attack, and casts somewhere between 5th and 6th (probably 4/3/1). At 8/8, he fights like a 12th level fighter, and casts somewhere between 11th and 12th. Seems reasonable, no?

As for why everyone wouldn't take one level of wizard: at 20th level, a wizard has just short of 10 spell levels per level. So, being generous, the most a fighter 19/wizard 1 has is the 3/2/1 of a 5th level wizard. And I'd make him cast them as either a 5th level wizard, or a 1st, I'm not sure. Which is not all that impressive. Two levels of wizard make him cast like a 7th level wizard, again being generous, and still only costs a +1 BAB and a feat. Oh, and an extra 3 hit points. That probably stats being worth it, power-wise. But maybe not compared to 2d6 sneak attack, or rage, or two-weapon fighting.

And it makes it possible to play a fighter/wizard, for flavor reasons, without being weaker than your companions.