Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ruleslawyer" data-source="post: 1664198" data-attributes="member: 1757">While I generally agree that multiclassed spellcasters are weak, even with the workarounds allowed by the MT and EK (though some others didn't seem to agree last time this came up; whew!), I do think Pax has an excellent point. Just as 3.5 slapped down save DCs (nerfing Spell Focus/GSF), then slapped them down again (nerfing spell power), thereby probably going too far, 3.5 has also seemed to add perhaps one too many options to make multiclassing viable. For example, as it stands, the MT is weaker than a straight wizard for the following reasons:1) Lack of bonus feats2) Lack of familiar progression3) Multiple stat dependency4) Lack of access to higher-level spells5) Lower caster levelIn return, the MT gets the following:1) extra hit points2) domain powers3) 10 levels of cleric spellcastingWhat does that really mean? Well, the important advantages/disadvantages really mean the following:ADVANTAGES OF MT:Flexibility of spellcasting, arcane/divine spell synergies, lots of lower-level spellsDISADVANTAGES OF MT:Trouble beating SR, lack of access to higher-level spellsPracticed Spellcaster means that one of the MT's two major disadvantages goes away. That's a big deal. With PS, the MT only loses out on access to higher-level spells. At low levels, that's probably a big enough deal to balance the class out (spell penetration's also not so important at those levels), but by Clr3/Wiz3/MT 10, the only disadvantage of the class is lack of access to 8th-level spells. That seems a bit sketchy to me, though I don't know how it'd play out in practice. But anyway, I think Pax has a good point in that it may be imprudent to allow multiple options for improving multiclassed spellcasting; picking one and sticking to it seems safer.</blockquote>

Verification