Mandating multiclassing for spellcasters

[Abraxas]

I have to agree with el-remmen. Its not messy. It actually requires less work from the DM than planning for a game that lacks one or more of the core classes (although he could still have this problem if everyone in his group bails on spellcasters cause they think the system won't work - or he'll have no problem cause he won't have players) and you don't hear people saying the DM should run a different game when that happens.

Monte Cook created mechanics to capture a game style he was interested in - that doesn't automatically make it a match for the game style the OP is interested in. I get the feeling the OP isn't interested in buying and learning the mechanics of a whole new setting - something his multiclassing idea circumvents.

The OP should trust himself, try it and see how it works.

 

[Votan]

I have to agree with el-remmen. Its not messy. It actually requires less work from the DM than planning for a game that lacks one or more of the core classes (although he could still have this problem if everyone in his group bails on spellcasters cause they think the system won't work - or he'll have no problem cause he won't have players) and you don't hear people saying the DM should run a different game when that happens.

Monte Cook created mechanics to capture a game style he was interested in - that doesn't automatically make it a match for the game style the OP is interested in. I get the feeling the OP isn't interested in buying and learning the mechanics of a whole new setting - something his multiclassing idea circumvents.

The OP should trust himself, try it and see how it works.

True. I have DMed a 17th level party with only a psion in it as a caster. Well, unless you count the Paladin or the Ranger but I never really saw either as makin a critical spell based contribution.

No rogue around, either, making the single traps based encounter that I ever did somewhat more lethal then expected. Needless to say, with the D&D rules on traps (where there is no remedy that is not a rogue or a cleric with "Find Traps") it was the last time that I could do that type of encounter.

 

[Agent Oracle]

You're missing the 5/5 restriction, after which the spellcaster can progress normally: with the 5/5 restriction, a 20th level character could be Rog 2 / Pal 3 / Wiz 15. That's 8th level spells available.

Okay, so then they will never be able to kill the tarrasque.

 

[Krelios]

You're missing the 5/5 restriction, after which the spellcaster can progress normally: with the 5/5 restriction, a 20th level character could be Rog 2 / Pal 3 / Wiz 15. That's 8th level spells available.

You know, I missed that too. I take back my comment about not having spellcasters. You would, but I agree that most wizards/sorcerers wouldn't want to do it. You might see some sorcerer/monks, but you definately make spellcasting harder.

What about just saying flat out, "9th level spells do not exist in my campaign" and maybe giving extra bonus spells to the lower level slots once a wizard hits 17th (or a sorcerer 18th)?

Okay, so then they will never be able to kill the tarrasque.

Neither will my players, but that's because they'll never see it since the Tarrasque is dumb.

 

[el-remmen]

It's messy because it requires retooling virtually every encounter, hundreds of trap types, and even some plot devices. I think if you really think it through, you will find it seriously impacts the way a DM has to plan out an adventure. Encounter CRs assume access to a certain level of spells, and that CR will be thrown off by this change.

You have to plan either way - and since CRs are about as reliable as the bus schedule on a Sunday I don' think it would be any harder than the usual eyeballing once must always do when designing encounters - or at least that I and most DMs I know do.

Again, trust in people like Monte Cook who really sat down and thought this issue through. A change like this might seem simple, but it changes fundamental ways that D&D works.

I think we have a fundamental difference in the way we view D&D and adhering to its guidelines. It is not that I don't trust Monte - it is that what he came up with does not match my prefered style of play so I trust myself to come up with a way of doing it.

 

[el-remmen]

BTW - I'm gonna pop this over to house rules.

 

[FreeXenon]

I have tried something similar in a short game with my group, but the method was a little bit different. To be a spell caster you had to take a feat which unlocked the skills Spell Craft and either Knowledge (Arcana) or Knowledge (Religion). Once they had a certain amount of ranks in one of the Knowledges and Spell craft they could take a spell casting class. The average first level of a spell casting class was 10th level. If another feat was taken your could start taking your first level of a spell casting class by about 7th. This method was very similar to a prestige class.

My players found this a great challenge and we have one player that sunk his feats to be able to start as a caster by 7th. He is the type of player that will take a concept or class combination that sucks or is challenging and make it work just because he can.

These type modifications really changes the dynamics of the game. Casters become very, very rare as you have to be much higher to to be able to get flashy effects such as invisibility and Fireball. Healing and buffing are a precious commodity even more so than they were before. Magic is very rare and most likely casters in the world are a very special, elite and secretive breed either hunted or worshiped. As long as you keep in mind the changes to not having strong caster support and are consistent with the NPC's as well to maintain a the feel for the campaign it can work well. If your players are not up to challenges like this it could really backfire.

Good luck!

 

[Quartz]

As yet, this is purely a mental exercise. How about we turn the discussion more to the the differences between mandating a split of 3/3 vs 4/4 vs 5/5? To me, the first seems almost the same as regular D&D - characters will often take that many levels in another class to qualify for a prestige class - but it gets dicier at 4/4 and 5/5.

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that without alteration, these make a class like Divine Crusader much more desireable. I'd have to adjust the prerequisites.

 

[TheYeti1775]

I wouldn't overtly dismissed this a prespective game if all the players were agreeable to it.
A couple of things you might consider since you are forcing the every other aspect.

1 -Is to allow full progression to 20 Caster Levels. (i.e. 20th Level doesn't cut it off)
I think that would keep it slow and multi-classed balanced. Just don't let them to go
cherry picking style. I.e. Fighter 5 / Rogue 5 / Barb 5 / Wizard or Sorc 20 , have no multi-class penalty for one other class but have it incremental for 3 / 4 / 5 classes.

2 - Allow single classing full progressions with a 'single' class penalty. Nothing more than 30% or else you go insane with falling behind. But there is no penalty for Multi-classing.

3 - Go through alter the spell lists to your liking, talk with the players about it before PC creation time.

As long as you and the players agree and it's fun, change it as you like. Heck it's a game and meant to be enjoyed.

In one campaign I was in after talking with DM, we implemented a house-rule for Epic-ness. Only the 21st level of a class was considered 'Epic' as far as Feats and and whatnot.

 

[Votan]

One thing I haven't seen mentioned is that without alteration, these make a class like Divine Crusader much more desireable. I'd have to adjust the prerequisites.

I love the Divine Crusader. However, one domain is an enormous penalty. This class is very unlikely to cause you trouble regardless of which Domain is picked or level split is used.

Now, Ur-Priest, on the other hand, could very well be a problem.