Is Multiclassing Balanced?

[Herremann the Wise]

I was thinking about this whole multiclassing spellcasting dilemma and came up with the following idea - admittedly, I've had a long day and I shouldn't post things like this without a real sturdy edit. It's rough as guts but I'm sure it could be polished up to work very neatly.

Imagine a Metamagic Feat Chain like this:

MINOR SPELLCASTING ADEPT
Prerequisite: 3rd Level Caster, 3rd level Non-Caster
Benefit: For the purpose of gaining, preparing and casting spells, you are considered to be of a caster level one level higher than normal. For example, if you are a 3rd level Wizard/3rd Level Fighter, you may prepare and cast spells the same as a 4th level Wizard.

SPELLCASTING ADEPT
Prerequisite: 6th Level Caster, Minor Spellcasting Adept, 4th Level Non-Caster
Benefit: For the purpose of gaining, preparing and casting spells, you are considered to be of a caster level two levels higher than normal. For example, if you are a 6th level Wizard/4th Level Fighter, you may prepare and cast spells the same as an 8th level Wizard.

GREATER SPELLCASTING ADEPT
Prerequisite: 9th Level Caster, Minor Spellcasting Adept, Spellcasting Adept, 5th level Non-Caster
Benefit: For the purpose of gaining, preparing and casting spells, you are considered to be of a caster level three levels higher than normal. For example, if you are a 9th level Wizard/5th Level Fighter, you may prepare and cast spells the same as a 12th level Wizard.

I'm just not too sure on the balance with this but from the few scenarios I have played with in my head, it seems passable. Having to give up feats for advancement may be a little too generous but I'm not sure. Anyway, up the flagpole we go.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Ravellion]

A patch for the jump from no spells at all to "look at me slinging fireballs!" could be that you would at most gain use of 2 spellcaster levels per character level.

A fighter 8 (and every fighter level giving half arcane spellcasting), who takes his next level as wiz 1, would have a spellcasting ability of a 2nd level wizard. If he then takes two more Fighter levels, he cast as a 6th level wizard, which, as an 11 level character, is his maximum (5 from 10 levels of fighter, 1 from 1 level of wizard).

Rav

 

[Plane Sailing]

Wouldn't this mean that a Ftr10 who takes a level of cleric or sorcerer immediately gains access to 3rd level spells, and a Ftr18 who does the same immediately gains access to 5th level spells? Even if the balance is not too far off, the sudden jump in spell access (not just spell slot access or caster level) might be too much for some players and DMs to swallow.

OK, granted that is a potential glitch

For some reason a 1st level wizard that gains 10 ftr levels and getting caster level 6 spells doesn't seem as strange as a 10th fighter taking 1 wiz level and getting caster level 6 spells. Rules wise it shouldn't matter which order they come in, in practice though it 'feels' very different.

So, a refinement of my rule would be called for. It seems to work OK for balanced classes (the typical worst case scenario) but breaks down for wildly imbalanced classes. Perhaps there could be a limit that your caster level can be no more than 50% more than your casting class level.

That leaves the 10/10 multiclass in the position that works OK, it stops the 18/1 multiclass from getting absurd... where is the effective breakpoint?
Wiz20 = CL20
Ftr2/Wiz18 = CL19
Ftr4/Wiz16 = CL18
Ftr6/Wiz14 = CL17
Ftr8/Wiz12 = CL16
Ftr10/Wiz10 = CL15
Ftr11/Wiz9 = CL14
Ftr12/Wiz8 = CL12
Ftr13/Wiz7 = CL10
Ftr14/Wiz6 = CL9
Ftr16/Wiz4 = CL6
Ftr18/Wiz2 = CL3
Ftr19/Wiz1 = CL1
Ftr20 = CL0

That looks pretty good to me.

I believe that whatever fixes there are should be BUILT IN to multiclassing BTW, not purchased at the cost of (precious) feats.

 

[MonsterMash]

Overall it is balanced, but you could certainly find ways to munchkin a character with multiclassing in 3e if that was your intent. I tend to discourage it a bit myself when I GM, but more because I like archetypal characters.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

So a Clr4/PalX is terrible then, is it? You get quite a few slots for bonafide healing (which paladin spellcasting never really provides) you get a step up on the undead turning than other paladins, you lose out only on +1 BAB, you get self-buff spells like Eagle's Splendor and Bull's Strenth, you get ally-boosting stuff like Lesser Restoration and Shield Other, you get a +4 to Will Saves (which, as a melee type, is the first kind of save spellcaster will throw at you until they realize your paladinhood), you get two domain powers, and you get a limited ability to cast cleric scrolls you wouldn't otherwise.

If I were to simply forget progression on three major Paladin class abilities (Lay on Hands, Special Mount, Smite Evil), read the Turning rules incorrectly, wanted to make a big deal about spells the Paladin of the level you are presuambly talking about can already cast himself or get cheaply from scrolls/wands (all the ones you mentioned by name), and felt a desperate need to raise my Will save (which happens to be the 2nd highest in the whole party already and trails even the single-classed Cleric only slightly) you might be right. But those would be silly errors.

But I concede that the Paladin class could be chalked up to a specific glitch that does not necessarily illuminate the larger picture. So I will drop the subject.

Not all multiclass combinations are created equal. You should not be able to make a viable Brb1/Brd1/Clr1/Dru1/Ftr1/Mnk1/Pal1/Rgr1/Rog1/Sor1/Wiz1.

Let me speak more plainly.

All the variants of Brb/Ftr/Rgr/Rog mix together work approximately as well as the Brb, Ftr, Rgr, or Rog work as straight classes. Some mixes happen to be outright superior if built correctly. FREX, Brb1/FtrX is simply better for most concepts at every level to the plain Ftr. I deny that building a strong Brb/Ftr/Rgr/Rog is any more difficult mechanically than building a decent Ftr.

Many, but far from all, variants of Caster1/Non-casterX work pretty well. A few Caster3/Non-casterX work well, too. But more generally speaking, mixing Brd, Clr, Dru, Sor, Wiz with any other classes tend to suck and suck badly -- the examples that actually work are the outliers.

Now it is true that some mixes will inevitably be less optimal than others. But we have a clear pattern here: non-caster classes mix together with zero effort, it is only the spellcasters that tend to have issues (both with each other and with non-spellcasting classes).

That is a clear flaw in the multiclassing rules. The asymmetry itself strongly indicates that the multiclassing rules favor non-spellcasters. Experience supports that hypothesis.

If the multiclass rules were truly balanced across all classes then every single possible combination would be viable, even if not optimal. That is plainly not the case.

 

[The_Gneech]

Anyway, as an honest question I might ask: What business does the fighter 9/wizard 1 have casting magic missle? I mean, I agree that your character concet with the EK about a mostly melee guy who occasionally casts a spell is a neat one. but if a fighter 9 level dips for one level, it shouldn't be for the damaging spells! At least, not in my mind.

I understand your point. At ECL 1, 1st level MM is a legitimate spell. At ECL 10, 1st level MM is more like a nonlethal damage spell than a legitimate attack! I gert it, and I certainly agree with it.

But to me that goes back to a flaw in the character design and not a flaw in the system. If a character wants to have powerful spells, then they should be taking feats like Practised Spellcaster. [Although in the fighter 9/wizard 1 I think even Practised Spellcaster would be a waste!]

I was just using magic missile as an example, really. But you pretty much explained my problem right there -- at first level magic missile can kill a single foe outright, depending on the foe. At 10th level, the same magic missile merely scorches the eyebrows of any critter you're going to encounter. So in essence, as the campaign goes on, a Wiz 1/Ftr 9 actually becomes a weaker wizard.

Re: Practised Spellcaster, I'd never heard of it before this thread; but I don't think something like that should be necessary. If my guy's magic missile was based on character level instead of class level, it would still be an effective single-shot weapon at 10th, instead of just a wasted Attack Action. Characters shouldn't lose effectiveness as time goes on.

-The Gneech

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Characters shouldn't lose effectiveness as time goes on.

-The Gneech

Tell that to the 20th level character who thought Toughness was a big deal feat at 1st level.

What's even weirder, I don't hear many players complain that they cannot cause the same amount of damage with the short sword they started out with anymore when they reach high levels because most critters that high have some DR or similar nasty quality. They simply go and get the correct magical weapon. I'd say if you reduce low-level spells to a wizard's starting weaponry akin to a short sword, it makes more sense that they simply won't cut it anymore at high levels.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What's even weirder, I don't hear many players complain that they cannot cause the same amount of damage with the short sword they started out with anymore when they reach high levels because most critters that high have some DR or similar nasty quality. They simply go and get the correct magical weapon. I'd say if you reduce low-level spells to a wizard's starting weaponry akin to a short sword, it makes more sense that they simply won't cut it anymore at high levels.

Yes, but there's a key difference in movable items like magic items, which (in general) can be baught, sold, traded, and designed so that you get the right one, and inherent abilities like feats or levels where you can't change that investment. Magic items are an award, a level or a feat slot is a cost (and one of the most valuable costs in the game as it stands).

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

What's even weirder, I don't hear many players complain that they cannot cause the same amount of damage with the short sword they started out with anymore when they reach high levels because most critters that high have some DR or similar nasty quality. They simply go and get the correct magical weapon. I'd say if you reduce low-level spells to a wizard's starting weaponry akin to a short sword, it makes more sense that they simply won't cut it anymore at high levels.

Well, if it were as easy as spending 72k gp for a +5 Shocking Spellbook of 1st levels spells, then there would not really be a problem would there?

Also, while it is not necessarily a big deal that a higher level character who dipped a few levels cannot effectively cast Magic Missile, the problem of caster level goes well beyond that single spell.

In fact, if I take your argument here at face value, you would seem to be implicitly endorsing the idea that a Wizard1/Fighter19 should be able to cast Magic Missile as a 20th level spellcaster. After all, we do not bother to put mechanical limits on a high level Fighter using all his BAB with a cruddy old mundane dagger, right?

 

[Felix]

The presumption that a Clr10/Wiz10 is a 20th-level character is simply inaccurate.

He is a 20th level character. He had 20 levels of opportunity, and this is what he's produced. He is just as much a 20th level character as the 20th level fighter who didn't take any fighting feats. And neither of them will stand up to a balor. Doesn't mean the rules should make it so that sub-optimal choices should be made par, nor does it mean that the system should be designed such that there are no sub-optimal choices.

Just because something can be built badly does not mean that is should be made equal.

And if we're arguing apples and oranges, then there's the crux of it. I don't care that an unfocused Wiz/Clr can't fight Balors. If the character's theme was, "do a lot, but nothing powerfully" then he's succeeded. Good for him. Don't fight balors.

isn't that what you get with a Mystic Theurge?

Almost. That's the spellcasting power you get, but you also lose out on 5 levels of familar power-ups, 5 levels of 2 free spells in spellbook when leveling, 5 levels of undead turning, 5 levels of domain powers, 5 levels of favored fort save, and 5 levels of d8 HD.

Might not seem like too much, but it adds up.

But those would be silly errors.

Yes, you lose things when you multiclass. You gain other things.

• 4 levels of cleric will net you a losts 4xCha Lay on Hands.
  -- It will provide 7 spells slots from which to cast all healing spells if you need to. That'll be more than 4xCha.

• 4 levels of cleric will delay and weaken your mount. I would recommend that this multiclass not try to be a mounted charger as its strengths lie elsewhere.

• 4 levels of cleric will lose you a Smite Evil per day and 4 points of damage.
  --Bull's Strength will provide a +2/+2 on every attack, not just one, for 4 minutes. Take your pick.

• Turning: quite right. Unless he picks up Cleric levels before 4th Character level. Thus a "step up".

• Spells: Paladin spells at 10th are 1 1st and 1 2nd. A Pal6/Clr4 has 1st (from Pal) 4 1st and 3 2nd (from Clr). And spontaneous healing. If the straight paladin casts those spells himself he won't be able to cast anything more himself.

• Will Save. Because having a +4 to Will saves is a bad thing? As a melee character, that's exactly what he'll be targeted with. I don't think this really qualifies as something you need a "desperate need" for to see a benefit to.

You conceded that Paladin and Cleric multiclass combinations might not be good support for unbalanced multiclass arguments. We agree.

That is a clear flaw in the multiclassing rules. The asymmetry itself strongly indicates that the multiclassing rules favor non-spellcasters.

In 20-level power curve charts, clearly spellcaster overtake an early lead by martial classes by the mid levels and later extend that lead.

Is it possible that the assymmetry you find in the multiclassing rules is balanced by the assymmetry found inherent in the progression of the base classes?

Or perhaps, there is a greater reward given to those who maintain their focus on spellcasting instead of dividing it between casting and meleeing?

Or perhaps, because martial classes tend to be high on HPs and Fort saves, avoiding an even split Ftr/Wiz who can cast near as well as a straight Wiz means also having to deal with a spellcasting threat who has a much reduced vulnerability when it comes to things casters are usually vulnerable to (HPs and Fort saves)?

Current multiclassing rules encourage casters to either dip into casting (which will help, but not overpower, their martial capabilities) or to dip into martial classes (which will help them do whatever it is that class does). It also encourages them to stay single-classed. Focused. Determined. And by doing that, it ensures that those focused characters will all have weaknesses comparable to the power they gain in their higher level spells.

And I think that is in all ways a good thing.

Maybe it's me who remembers 2e multiclassed characters being more powerful than striaght classed characters, but I really don't think we need to do anything to make a Ftr10/Wiz10 a viable multiclass combination. It's lack of focus, it's attempt to do two divergent playstyles work seamlessly, and the flashbacks to 2e, land of imbalance, clunky rules, and binders of house-rules, render it as satirical as the Ecology of the Adventurer article.

Practised Spellcaster, I'd never heard of it before this thread

It appeared in Complete Arcane. It boosts caster level by 4, with the restraint that your caster level can not be higher than your character level. So a Sor1/Rog4 with that feat will have a caster level of 5, even though he'll have spells per day of a Sor1.

Actually, that I don't mind too much. If you want non-casting classes to increase effective casting level by some degree (1/2?) but not increase spells per day, that seems reasonable to me.