Is Multiclassing Balanced?

[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.

Anyone who takes Toughness is a sucker, regardless of level, unless it's a necessary speedbump for something else. Improved Toughness, on the other hand, does scale with level nicely.

And re: the short sword, that's because they can cause more damage with shortsword assuming they have Power Attack, or failing that, they can upgrade their shortsword, unlike the magic missile which is just the same as it ever was.

-The Gneech

 

[Felix]

cause more damage with shortsword assuming they have Power Attack

Power Attack does not add damage to light weapons.

And a character with the same kind of dedication to short swords will "upgrade" thier magic missile... by taking more levels in a casting class. Better spells.

 

[The_Gneech]

Okay, so strike Power Attack. But it doesn't require dedication (nor burning levels) to upgrade a short sword, all it takes is loot. Add in the fact that BAB and iterative attacks come naturally to all characters over time, it doesn't even really take loot. A wiz 9/ftr 1 with a mundane shortsword is much more fearsome fighter than a ftr 1 ... but a ftr 9/wiz 1 with a magic missile is no better a spellcaster than a wiz 1.

I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks that a ftr 10/wiz 10 should be as good a fighter as a ftr 20 or as powerful a wizard as a wiz 20 -- but it's not an unreasonable desire that they should be comparable in overall capability!

-The Gneech

 

[Geron Raveneye]

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?

a) It is that easy. A scroll with a Magic Missile at caster level 5 (3 missiles) costs 12.5gp x spell level (1st) x caster level (5th) = 62.5gp. The caster level check DC for a 1st level wizard to cast this is 6. If you feel a little more daring, you can buy it at CL 7 or 9 for 78/113gp, with the respective caster level checks a bit higher. If you have 72k gold pieces to burn, you can get a nearly unlimited supply of scrolls that way, if you find enough wizards to scribe them for you. Not that different from burning that cash on a magical weapon. And yeah, you need to make a caster level check to effectively use them...but you also need to make an attack roll to effectively bring that magical weapon into play.

b) I don't know how you got the idea I was implicitly endorsing this weird idea. What I was saying was that a Magic Missile for the wizard is similar (NOT equal) to the short sword for a fighter. Instead of needing to roll attacks each time and having 1d6+Str points of damage, it hits automatically, causes 1d4+1 points of damage, and can be used only a half-handful of times. Both will lose effectiveness with time. A 20th level fighter with the right feats might still do some nice damage with his old short sword overall, but the common creatures at his level will simply shrug and wonder about the toothpick. A 20th level wizard will still do some nice damage with his old spell, but the common creature at his level will laugh at these beginner magics thrown at it. For that (admittedly meta-game) reason, I'm not surprised that a high-level fighter who takes his 1st level wizard and casts Magic Missile finds it lacking in potential against his usual enemies. It's like a high-level wizard taking his first fighter level, starts swinging a short sword around and then is a bit consternated that his usual enemies are not impressed by his new prowess.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Okay, so strike Power Attack. But it doesn't require dedication (nor burning levels) to upgrade a short sword, all it takes is loot. Add in the fact that BAB and iterative attacks come naturally to all characters over time, it doesn't even really take loot. A wiz 9/ftr 1 with a mundane shortsword is much more fearsome fighter than a ftr 1 ... but a ftr 9/wiz 1 with a magic missile is no better a spellcaster than a wiz 1.

I don't think you'll find anybody who thinks that a ftr 10/wiz 10 should be as good a fighter as a ftr 20 or as powerful a wizard as a wiz 20 -- but it's not an unreasonable desire that they should be comparable in overall capability!

-The Gneech

Get scrolls! The big advantage of having a wizard level is that it opens up a heap of items that a straight fighter can't use. Scrolls are the crossbow and longsword of a wizard...want more power with the spells, risk a caster level check and get them at a higher caster level.

 

[The_Gneech]

Get scrolls! The big advantage of having a wizard level is that it opens up a heap of items that a straight fighter can't use. Scrolls are the crossbow and longsword of a wizard...want more power with the spells, risk a caster level check and get them at a higher caster level.

Yup, scrolls and wands were my ftr/wiz/eldrkn's main saving grace. These had downsides of course -- he couldn't create them himself, and if/when they were available was purely up to gamemaster whim -- but they were pretty much all that made me willing to stick with the character as far as 10th level.

-The Gneech

 

[airwalkrr]

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.

With all due respect, you're still missing the point. The point is that you can build a good Bbn10/Ftr10 and you can build a good Rgr10/Rog10, but you CAN'T build a good Clr10/Wiz10. Using the core rules alone, a Clr10/Wiz10 will always be an inferior 20th level build, and even using extra feats like practiced spellcaster still doesn't put you on par with 20th level characters.

You are turning my argument into something that it is not. You seem to believe what I am advocating is that no matter what I build my character to be, he should be just as good as every other character of the same level. You seem to think I am saying a Brd5/Clr5/Drd5/Sor5 should be just as powerful as a Clr20 every day of the week every build of the week. That is not what I am saying at all. My point is that all kinds of multiclass characters should have POTENTIAL viability. Anyone can build a bad fighter as easily as they can build a bad multiclass spellcaster character. But the problem is that anyone can also build a good fighter, but NO ONE can build a good multiclass spellcaster character without wonky feats and prestige classes (and even then they aren't that great), and THAT is the problem that people want to rectify. I want to be able to build a minimal multiclass character (i.e. just two classes) that is capable of standing with the big boys without being totally hosed. I don't mind a reduction in power for the added versatility. But there is an inherent bias in the system when a fighter really doesn't trade any significant power besides his ability to have a lawful alignment when he multiclasses into barbarian, but a wizard has to trade his very livelihood to multiclass into ANY other class.

 

[Felix]

With all due respect, you're still missing the point.

No, just asking a different question.

1. Can you build a Ftr10/Wiz10 to be as effective as a Wiz20?
2. Should you be able to build a Ftr10/Wiz10 to be as effective as a Wiz20?

(Same goes for Clr10/Wiz10)

I'm arguging that the answer "no" to the first question doesn't matter because the answer to the second question is also, "no".

My point is that all kinds of multiclass characters should have POTENTIAL viability.

All kinds of multiclass characters do have potential viability. Just not the one you want: effective caster/caster multiclasses was a domain of 2e, which was a multiclassing system that was wonky in every other regard.

The 3e system works in every other regard to create characters but that one, and even does provide for that one via PrCs. (By the way, why are PrCs anathema; they are core, and not wonky at all. Wiz7/Clr3/MT10 with two Practiced Spellcaster [and why is that feat wonky then, when it fixes a problem you have?] casts as a 20th level wizard, a 17th level cleric, with the spells per day of a 17th level wizard and a 13th level cleric?)

The nice thing about the PrC is that when it fuses the power of two spellcasting classes (which is powerful) it ensures that you lose a subsequent amount of power to keep you on par with other classes (HD, Fort save, Turning, Spellbook spells, etc).

a wizard has to trade his very livelihood to multiclass into ANY other class.

Hyperbole. The wizard can give up a few levels and still work out ok, he just won't be the Meteor Swarm throwing monster a Wiz20 is. He'll have to have a different balliwick. A Wiz13/Rog7 for example will be one sneaky blaggard. No, he won't have the spellpower of a Wiz20. So what? He now has SA and skill points. It means he can't do the same stuff, but what he does do, he'll do better than the wizard.

Using the core rules alone, a Clr10/Wiz10 will always be an inferior 20th level build

Perhaps I go after my character differently, but when I want to create one, I think: "I want to have a guy who can do XYZ, and these classes will let me do that, so that's how I'll build him". What is it you want your character to do that you want to be modeled by a Clr10/Wiz10?

If you can give me a purpose for the character, and something you'd like him to be effective at, I'll do my best to see if I can't find a build, using core for one build and other stuff for another build, that does what you want.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

This thread moved me to the conclusion that the system is intentionally balanced to discouraged 1/2 levels in Caster classes and the Mth/ArH and such were the right patch.

 

[Arnwyn]

It's balanced for all. A multiclassed spellcaster shouldn't be as powerful as a single-classed one, because he makes up for loss of spell power with flexibility.

Agreed. Flexibility (inside and outside of combat - during a campaign) is far too often overlooked.