Mandating multiclassing for spellcasters

[Quartz]

How will it affect things if spellcasters have to multiclass for the first 6 / 8 / 10 levels such that every other level must be a non-spellcasting class? What if this were extended to all characters such that all characters up to that point can have no more than half their levels in one class and cannot take two consecutive levels in one class? After that point, the character can take consecutive levels.

For example, with a breakpoint of 10th level, a 10th level character might be Ftr5 / Clr 5 or Ftr 2 / Rog 4 / Clr 4

Now, obviously spell availability is going to be delayed, which is going to put the emphasis on physical effort rather than magical effort, and CRs would be changed, but what else?

 

[jcfiala]

How will it affect things if spellcasters have to multiclass for the first 6 / 8 / 10 levels such that every other level must be a non-spellcasting class? What if this were extended to all characters such that all characters up to that point can have no more than half their levels in one class and cannot take two consecutive levels in one class? After that point, the character can take consecutive levels.

For example, with a breakpoint of 10th level, a 10th level character might be Ftr5 / Clr 5 or Ftr 2 / Rog 4 / Clr 4

Now, obviously spell availability is going to be delayed, which is going to put the emphasis on physical effort rather than magical effort, and CRs would be changed, but what else?

Well, for one, physical fighting actions would have an advantage over magic-weilding. Someone who is Ftr 4 / Rog 4 is going to have a BAB of 7 - almost as good as a full on fighter, and can work in full armor. Someone who's Ftr 4 / Clr 4 is going to have the same BAB and armor abilities, but is going to be restricted to using low amounts of healing or boosting himself, and probably wouldn't be as effective as the first one. Someone who's Ftr 4 / Wiz 4 is going to be pretty restricted - BAB of 6, an inability to wear armor and cast well, and his spells aren't going to be damaging enough to CR 8 monsters.

So you'll see a lot of combat, and not a lot of spellcasting, and almost no wizards. Might get a fair amount of Rog 4/ Brd 4 and such - multiclassing with casters who can wear armor is going to be a lot more popular.

 

[Votan]

How will it affect things if spellcasters have to multiclass for the first 6 / 8 / 10 levels such that every other level must be a non-spellcasting class? What if this were extended to all characters such that all characters up to that point can have no more than half their levels in one class and cannot take two consecutive levels in one class? After that point, the character can take consecutive levels.

For example, with a breakpoint of 10th level, a 10th level character might be Ftr5 / Clr 5 or Ftr 2 / Rog 4 / Clr 4

Now, obviously spell availability is going to be delayed, which is going to put the emphasis on physical effort rather than magical effort, and CRs would be changed, but what else?

This slows magic item crafting quite a bit as you need to be higher level to craft items.

It also removes standard buff and obstacle removal spells. Important examples inlcude fly being available at 9th or 10th level instead of 5th or 6th, Teleport being greatly delayed, see invisibility and/or glitterdust being much highter level and so forth. Also realizae the spells that remove conditions will be seriously delayed (such as neutralize poison).

It also makes the half caster classes much more attractive if they do not have to multi-class. A Paladin 10 is actually interesting if the alternative is a Cleric 5/fighter 5.

 

[Krelios]

If I mandated that, I wouldn't have any casters in my game. You'd be a fool to hamper yourself that way. If I may ask, why are you considering this restriction?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It is one way to ensure a low-magic campaign without banning any classes or messing with the classes' internal dynamics, for one.

OTOH, you could get similar effects by saying that no more than 1/2 of a PCs levels may be spellcasting levels at any time (period)...or maxing out spellcasting classes at level 10.

 

[AZNtrogdor]

How will it affect things if spellcasters have to multiclass for the first 6 / 8 / 10 levels such that every other level must be a non-spellcasting class? What if this were extended to all characters such that all characters up to that point can have no more than half their levels in one class and cannot take two consecutive levels in one class? After that point, the character can take consecutive levels.

For example, with a breakpoint of 10th level, a 10th level character might be Ftr5 / Clr 5 or Ftr 2 / Rog 4 / Clr 4

Now, obviously spell availability is going to be delayed, which is going to put the emphasis on physical effort rather than magical effort, and CRs would be changed, but what else?

no experienced player would ever want to play a spellcaster under this situation because its a virtual death sentence

 

[jcfiala]

Now, one different option would be to not have the restriction on the half-casting classes. Palladins, Rangers, Bards, for instance, and continuing with some of the semi-casters in the expansion books.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I'm going to venture out on a limb here and disagree. You will still see caster classes if you adopt this proposed rule--you just won't see wizards or sorcerers. Taking four levels of cleric doesn't hurt a fighter very much at all: he can still fight nearly as well as a fighter 8. On the other hand, taking four levels of wizard will seriously gimp a fighter or rogue (limited armor, reduced BAB, and seriously reduced hit points) and four levels of wizard is not enough to be a competent arcane caster in an 8th level party. (IME, fighter mages are most effective when they only take one or two fighter levels and then take prestige classes like Eldritch Knight, etc, which only minimally impact their spellcasting ability).

One thing that would greatly impact this is how you decided to treat bards--if they are treated as a full caster class and forced to multiclass 1/1, they would be very weak, but if you allowed single classed bards alongside single classed paladins, I could see them being a very attractive choice in a world of fighter 4/cleric 4s.

The impact on class selection, however, will not be the most serious impact it has on your game. You will also find that the challenge posed by various creatures changes pretty dramatically. A troll, for instance, is much more deadly at level 8 when you don't have haste to increase your damage output and you don't have cure serious and cure critical wounds spells to cover you when the troll gets a lucky rend in. Likewise, grappling monsters become much more deadly when the party does not have any capability to use freedom of movement, dimension door, or gaseous form to help party members escape a grapple. On the other hand, certain encounters that are readily solved by swords will be far less challenging.

 

[Drowbane]

You would see Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Barbarian / Fighter / Rogues dominating your game... even more than they could without such a mandate.

Personally if a DM mandated such... I'd possibly start looking for a new DM.

If at the time I could see a valid reason for such nerfing, I'd just make three or four back up characters.

 

[Dracandross]

Id say if you and players want to play low magic 1/2 is not the way. Try different restrictions like cleric 1/2 max, sorcs/mages 3/4 max or something like that. Maybe mages forced to go ek/spellsword/similar routes would be restricting enought to encourage low magic. As pointed out mages suffer more than others, specially fighting class/fighting class doesnt lose barely anything.

But as player i'd stay out of that style of game unless you have really strong campaing for that style. D&d is high magic. Play Conan/similar if you want low magic

-Dracandross