Is Multiclassing Balanced?

[DragonLancer]

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.

Absolutely.

If you want to play a wizard/fighter be prepared to accept that you won't be as good as a single classed either, but you have something else (spells or BAB) to balance it.

 

[Varianor Abroad]

If you want to play a wizard/fighter be prepared to accept that you won't be as good as a single classed either, but you have something else (spells or BAB) to balance it.

That's right. 3E multiclassing fixed the multitude of sins with prior versions, all of which were clunky, inelegant and problematic. Except for the multi-classed caster. I agree that a fighter/wizard, or a thief/sorceror, or a whatever/whatever are dabblers. But there is a built-in expectation in the system that if you are a caster you're going to stay a single-class all the way through. Loss of spell levels (ie you can only cast 5th level spells when the NPCs are blasting 7th and 8th) creates problems for a party trying to hold its own.

 

[Psion]

It was weak for spellcasters in 3.0. Since 3.5 has the "bridge PrCs", which is a perfectly valid solution, it is more or less balanced for all characters.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I did not vote as my opinion is not included...

If you want to play a wizard/fighter be prepared to accept that you won't be as good as a single classed either, but you have something else (spells or BAB) to balance it.

Change that to "If you want to play a class X/Class Y be prepared..." and you have the truth of it.

Spellcasters have more of a negative impact as their mainstay as spell abilities dont stack. If you use another spell system, say Elements of Magic {EoM}, where caster levels *do* stack.. its all good.

Any multiclassing should create the 'jack of many trades, master of none' feel and *should* be less effective than a single classed character at that classes schtick.

So, for fixing, I vote one of two things:
Use EoM
-or-
Dissect all class abilities into feats and have 3 classes: Strong, Fast, and Smart

 

[DragonLancer]

Change that to "If you want to play a class X/Class Y be prepared..." and you have the truth of it.

Yep. I used wizard/fighter as an example.

Spellcasters have more of a negative impact as their mainstay as spell abilities dont stack.

Thats the point though. If a spellcaster is going to multiclass they lose something. True, that its a bit more than any other class but its there as a fair balance IMO.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I think the system is fine how it is. A fighter 5/caster 5 shouldn't be able to take on a caster 10 in a duel of magic only and compete. They've only spent half their time and energy at it.

Yes, casters get hosed ... if you think that only a full level caster is what you want. But I've seen many valuable casting concepts come out from players who didn't really use their spells against others but as buffs, heals, divinations, etc and in that case multiclass casting characters can shine just as much because of their versatility.

I like it the way it is. Besides, there are plenty of PrCs out there to help you get the proper blend.

 

[Hussar]

I heartily agree that a multiclassed character should be weaker within the specific balliwack of a single classed character. That's true. Otherwise, what would be the benefit of sticking with a class?

However, it shouldn't result in a character which is so much weaker that he becomes inneffective. Less effective, I have no beefs with, but, when the character is so much baggage because he can't do anything, then there is a problem.

The bridge PrC's and certain feats mitigate this quite a bit.

 

[Nonlethal Force]

I think a lot of the blame goes into the character designer. I personally think it is good that you can't have an expert fireball slinger and an expert swordsman all wrapped up into one. (Without Gestalt) The fact that multiclassing hinders some character concepts in my mind is a good thing.

But say a character wants to only cast beneficial spells and be a good swordsman. Then they don't care about things like DCs (and to some extent) spell level because typically the only thing effected is duration. And while a longer duration is always nice, scaling duration and scaling damage are not quite of the same necessity.

If a person wants to multiclass, they need to think about it. I think there should be limits on effectiveness. Take the Beguiler or the Duskblade for example. Even though they do get full spellcasting progression of a sort ... their spells are inherently limited. The warmage is a good example of an evocation limited class. While they are still effective within their class, the added effects of armor and such means they're less versatile in their spell selection.

That's really what multiclassing does. The difference (and this is significant) is that rather than taking away schools of spells, it takes away levels of spells.

Me, I like that. But then again I love games where it is RP 90% and combat 10% (or even 95/5). When you take combat out of the picture, multiclassing is a much better (more legit, I suppose) option. An X 5/Caster 5 can be just as good in a minimal combat oriented campaign as a caster 10.

But ... to pull off a combat-minimal campaign you have to have good, dedicated Roleplayers. My kind of folk!

 

[Glyfair]

Spellcasters get pretty heavily hosed in multiclassing. Unless you are only dipping a level or two that is. Otherwise, because most of the spells scale by level, you get too badly burned with the loss of caster level.

I agree with this. Non-spellcasters work well when taking a level or two of a spellcasting class. The opposite is rarely true, unless aiming specifically for prestige classes designed to mitagate this.

However, when everything is looked at, I think multi-classing is far better than it has ever been. Yes, multi-class spellcasters worked better in the old days, everything else is better. The ability to customize your character to fit your concept is great.

The only thing I would really like to see is the turn of "apprentice levels." Certain concepts require a character to have two classes at first level, and it isn't always easy to find a way to do so. Fighter/Magic-users are the big ones. If Duskblade isn't your concept (or isn't allowed in the campaign), you suddenly learn how to fight at 2nd level, or suddenly learn how to cast spells.

 

[drothgery]

The big problem with caster multiclassing isn't that a fighter 5/wizard 5 can't cast spells as well as a wizard 10. And it's not that they can't fight as well as a fighter 10. It's that the only way for a fighter 5/wizard 5 to be even modestly effective when up against a fighter 10 or a wizard 10 is to be a self-buffing specialist. In which case he's a lot better off as a straight cleric (roughly the same BAB, better HPs, better armor, much better spellcasting).