Is Multiclassing Balanced?

[ruleslawyer]

But Wizard 16/Fighter 4 is not going to be that much less powerful spell-wise than a Wizard 20.

Yeah he is. No 9th-level spells? That is a *major* power loss. More to the point, those 4 fighter levels are basically useless compared with, say, wizard levels instead. What 20th-level spellcaster wants to be able to dish out an extra +2 damage with ray spells or wield a sword when he can do an extra 4d6 damage with evocations or summon a leonal to wield that sword for him?

But the point is otherwise valid. Even multiclassing is almost always the mechanically most inferior choice; level-dipping tends to be best.

 

[Felix]

That is a *major* power loss.

True, but he'll have a better BAB for when he targets the Wizard with his Disintegrate, and have a better Fort save when the Wiz20 targets him with his Fort or Die spells.

And at this point, Practiced Spellcaster can make up for those 4d6 evocation damages. And not that it's the optimal way to go, it does make Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack for Touch spells more feasable.

So yeah, the Wiz16/Ftr4 doesn't have the big flashy 9th level spells, but he can still lay down the hurt against a single target, and he does have some benefits (3 iterative attacks, much better Fort save, many more HPs, better weapon profs) from those Fighter levels.

So I don't think it's as big a power loss as you suggest. Besides, at that level the guy who gets the drop on the other guy is the one who wins, no matter the classes involved.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There are three distinct cases:
(1) Spellcasting multiclass combos, e.g. Wizard/Cleric
(2) Spellcasting/non-spellcasting multiclass combos, e.g. Wizard/Fighter
(3) Non-spellcasting multiclass combos, e.g. Fighter/Barbarian

#1 and #2 requires extremely careful design to make viable characters. #3 is darn near effortless.

In fact, #1 and #2 are sufficiently problematic that the designers have created about a dozen PrCs and a similar number of feats as a bandaid. That is a lot of overhead and hassle for something a number of posters here are claiming is balanced. If the multiclass system actually worked in a truly balanced manner then Fighter/Wizard should be comparable overall (with some tradeoffs) to Fighter/Wizard/PrC. That is plainly not the case.

I would also note that the Monk and Paladin are extremely touchy when it comes to multiclassing. Paladin/Fighter is a so-so combo that requires careful building and Paladin/Cleric outright sucks -- thematically these should have synergies, but they do not. Similar story for the Monk.

 

[Aaron L]

A bit too weak for nospellcasters. If you are a fighter ad take a few levels in a casting class, you still get a BAB, even if it is a bit low. But if a caster takes a non castig level, they dot get ay caster level increase at all. I really like the Unearthed Arcana caster level increases and use them to help fix the problem. I think it works very well.

 

[Felix]

#1 and #2 are sufficiently problematic

If you spread your levels evenly, yes.

If you're a sorcerer with a bit of healing, you're OK. If you're a Priest with the ability to cast Identify, you're also OK.

Similarly, Paladin/Fighter works out great if there are only a few Fighter levels to augment the Paladin's feat-starved abilities with those feats.

Paladin/Cleric outright sucks

Again, if the levels are even.

Similar story for the Monk.

I disagree. Monk multiclasses well with the Rogue for instance.

No, not every multiclass combination will be optimal. But then you have to ask, should every multiclass combination be perfectly equal? If the purpose and application of two classes are totally divergent (Fighter + Wizard), shouldn't you expect trouble combining the two of them?

A Bard5/Rog5 is going to synergize much more than a Ftr5/Wiz5. Yes. I agree.

So?

---

The multiclass options presented in 2e (and by that I mean even leveling [as far as the unequal XP levels would allow] accross several classes) don't exist in 3e. And I think that is altogether a good thing.

As is the human-only dual classing, which I never did spend enough time with to work out wether it was good or not.

Instead of those two, 3e created a very good system for Base-class Dim-sum. A little Fighter for some melee prowess and HP, a little Rogue for trapfinding and SA, and the rest bard for spells and skills. This option did not exist in 2e.

1e grognards (Casts Summon diaglo IV) can chime in if the same was true in OD&D.

But the option now exists in 3e. As does something similar to even leveling, which is the PrC route in which case the PrC contains elements of both classes, but not the full power of either. And that is also a good thing. Otherwise you'd end up with Gestalting instead of Multiclassing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

A Fighter 3 who takes 3 levels of Wizard gets slightly better at fighting. Not as good as he'd be with a Fighter, but that's part of the trade-off. This is an example of how the system works near-perfectly.

A Wizard 3 who takes 3 levels of Fighter gets NO better at spellcasting. Not just worse than a Wiz 6, but equal in all magical ways to a Wizard 3. This is an example of how the system falls apart. You can't add versatility without becoming functionally useless in your main category.

There's a middle ground between No Advancement and Full Advancement that the current magic system does not cater to very well. Even the caster level increases are kind of missing the mark, though they don't do too shabby.

It's hard to fix without re-writing the way spellcasters work. I wouldn't expect a true fix until 4e.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Table 4-4 in the Monster Manual recommends increasing the CR by 1 for every associated class level or by 1 for every 2 non-associated class levels. To my way of thinking, this is the closest thing I can thing of in terms of primary spellcasters (Druid, Cleric, Sorcerer or Wizard) mixed with non-spellcasters. If the blend is focused in one direction, I don't see too much of a problem but when the classes are split (like the above fighter 5/ wizard 5) there is a noticeable power drop.

By the table in the MM, the Fighter 5/wizard 5 would be a CR 7. To my way of thinking, this disparity is quite evident in play.

This was my first thought when I started reading the thread too. The evenly split caster/noncaster PC is really less effective than either of the specialised classes and pulls his weight less effectively in the party (by observation in adventures I've run or played in).

In fact sans prestige classes like Mystic Theurge any caster class multiclassing with any other class is pretty much non-associated, while noncaster classes multiclassing with any other noncaster class is effectively associated - everything they get is of direct benefit to their primary concerns.

How to take that into account in the character/class design process though - heh.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

If you spread your levels evenly, yes.

Um. No. Not even close. Pretty much any mix or Paladin/Cleric outright sucks. As one of the major benefits of the Paladin class is to weakly replicate major Cleric class features, a mix gets reverse synergies -- the sum is less than the separate parts.

Similarly, Paladin/Fighter works out great if there are only a few Fighter levels to augment the Paladin's feat-starved abilities with those feats.

Which is another way of saying you agree with what I wrote above: it is a so-so combination that requires careful building to work.

No, not every multiclass combination will be optimal. But then you have to ask, should every multiclass combination be perfectly equal? If the purpose and application of two classes are totally divergent (Fighter + Wizard), shouldn't you expect trouble combining the two of them?

Obviously not every combination is optimal. But if multiclassing is overall balanced than almost any combination would be viable without a massive powergaming opimization exercize plus a narrowly focused PrC plus some funky feats not included in the PhB.

XP penalty issues aside, any combination of Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue is easily viable, very powerful if built correctly. Any. Every...single...one. Yes, all of them.

But for some reason the fact that many, many, many, many of the possible combinations of spellcaster classes absolutely suck somehow does not matter in the balance equation?

Indeed balanced multiclass combinations are balanced against other balanced multiclassed combinations...if you carefully forget about all those unbalanced ones (that happen to involve spellcasting classes) first. If you want to use circular reasoning.

A Bard5/Rog5 is going to synergize much more than a Ftr5/Wiz5. Yes. I agree.

So?

Neither combination synergizes at all. So one bad combination supporting my point being slightly better than another example supporting my point proves what exactly?

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

There's a middle ground between No Advancement and Full Advancement that the current magic system does not cater to very well. Even the caster level increases are kind of missing the mark, though they don't do too shabby.

It's hard to fix without re-writing the way spellcasters work. I wouldn't expect a true fix until 4e.

The middle ground would be something along the line of letting the caster level equal the character level and tweaking spells to still increase in utility as you climb levels (especially the low level ones). That way a Fighter5/Wizard5 would still be able to cast Fireballs, Magic Missiles, etc. that are fully useful to a 10th level character. Practiced Spellcaster does not go far enough, nor do I see the necessity of dinging the PC a feat for the privilege of not totally sucking.

 

[Plane Sailing]

The only real solution to the probnlem - if you even think a problem exists - is to do away with classes.

I think that is more drastic than is needed. You would only really need to revise the way that magic worked.

For instance, you could perhaps get a solution to the problem with a magic system that relied upon skill ranks... you gain ranks in skills, they can be class skills or cross-class skills, maybe with certain feats to open up a series of skills (like the way star wars d20 does it).

That is only one example, but there are a lot of other non-vancian options existing in other games that could be opened up, if someone had the will and desire to do it.

(how does Black Company do it? Sovereign Stone? True20?)

Cheers