Simple fix for multi-classed spellcasters?

[orangefruitbat]

I think i have a simple fix for the problem of multi-classed spell-casters who feel that they give up too much...

...all spells are now cast using your total character level, not the spell caster level.

For example, a fighter 5/wizard 5 casts a 10d6 fireball, not a 5d6 fireball, and a rogue 6/wizard 1 can still fire off 4 magic missles.

Now, this sounds like a big power boost, but is it unreasonable? After all, the fighter 5/wizard 5 still has fewer spells than a wizard 10 and can't cast anything higher than level 3 spells (as opposed to level 5 spells for a straight wizard).

I concede that there still could be a small problem from characters who only take 1 level in a spell-caster class, cause you get a lot with the first level in spell-caster, but this is a problem with multi-classing in general.

What do people think? Is it unbalancing?

 

[Shalewind]

10th level FIG, 5th level Wiz, with greater magic weapon

Adds a +5 enchantment, for 15 hours. Abuses like this I believe would negate the simple fix benefit you are refering to.

To name a few others, ranger and paladins will always be getting the maximum bonus from healing spells. A 9th lvl fighter, 1st lvl wiz could launch a 5d4 magic missile attack....

 

[Staffan]

One thing I've loosely considered is old-school multiclassing, where you split XP instead of levels and use either an average or the best of the classes involved. So, where a single-classed character would be 10th level (45 kXP), the two-classed character would be 7/7 (22,500 XP in each class). However, this 7/7 would, if he was a fighter/wizard, have stats that were something like this:
10+6d10 hp (plus 7*Con bonus) - average 43 without Con
20+10*Int bonus skill points, chosen from both the fighter and wizard class list (that's including the quadruple skill points gained at first level)
BAB +7/+2
Base saves Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +5
Spellcasting appropriate to a 7th level wizard
All martial and simple weapon proficiencies, plus light, medium and heavy armor, plus shield proficiency.
4 fighter bonus feats
Scribe scroll + 1 wizard bonus feat
3 regular feats.

Meanwhile, a 10th level fighter would have:
10+9d10 hp (plus 10*Con bonus) - average 59 without Con
26 +13*Int bonus skill points, only chosen from the fighter list.
BAB +10/+5
Base saves Fort +7, Ref +3, Will +3
No spellcasting
Same proficiencies
6 fighter bonus feats
4 regular feats

A 10th level wizard would have:
4+9d4 hp (plus 10*Con bonus) - 26 average without Con
26+13*Int skill points, chosen from the wizard list.
BAB +5
Base saves Fort +3, Ref +3, Will +7
10th level spellcasting
Sucky weapon proficiencies, no armor profs.
Scribe scroll + 2 wizard bonus feats
4 regular feats.

Averaging the fighter and wizard would give:
43 hp (same as the multiclass, but the single-classed ones get more Con hp)
26+13*Int skill points, but less flexible
BAB +7/+2
Saves Fort +5, Ref +3, Will +5 (multiclass has 1 worse in Ref)
5th level spellcasting
Errr... medium proficiencies?
Total 8-9 feats (roughly as the multiclass)

So basically, "my" multiclass gets better spellcasting (and other class features depending on level), at the expense of skill points and possibly hp (if he has a good Con). Since one of the complaints leveled against the multiclass system in 3e is that spellcasters get the shaft, it might just work out.

I'm not going to switch to this system any time soon, but it's an idea that's been hopping around in my head.

 

[orangefruitbat]

I'm not worried about a 10th level character who can manage a 5d4 magic missle attack that does 17 pts of damage average. Woopie, that same fighter is already more dangerous with a bow of strength and a a few magic arrows.

As for your second example. Either 15th level characters are already using +3 and 4 magic items, so it's not adding too much, or b) the group's straight wizard or cleric buddy is already casting greater magic weapon for the entire party anyways. Greater Magic Weapon is already problematic, so my rule doesn't change things much.

Now, it's true that rangers and paladins are getting a bit of an unintended boost, but I don't think that's really going to be a game-breaker.

I think straight spell-casters are still going to dominate becaue they have higher level spells, more spells/day, and for most spell-casters, more spells available (either in their spell-book, or known as a sorcerer or bard).

But if you think it's too powerful, a slightly less simple boost would be that the casting level is the greater of your spell-caster level OR 75% of your total level.

10th level FIG, 5th level Wiz, with greater magic weapon

Adds a +5 enchantment, for 15 hours. Abuses like this I believe would negate the simple fix benefit you are refering to.

To name a few others, ranger and paladins will always be getting the maximum bonus from healing spells. A 9th lvl fighter, 1st lvl wiz could launch a 5d4 magic missile attack....

 

[DreamChaser]

I don't see a problem with the multiclass system as it is now. I think that spellcasters should have to give something up. The very idea of wizards having poor combat skills is the amount of time they have to devote to studying spellcraft. Take a level of fighter and you've spent a chunk of time on something other than spellcraft and that is gonna cost you.

Really, when you think about it, 3e's system makes it inefficient to multiclass late (15k for 1st level fighter?) but is still possible. It works better if you design it into the concept of the character but you don't have to. The 2e system, aside from being overpowered, was only open to non-humans and you had to start from the beginning as a multiclassed character and could never choose to change to focus on one or the other (or even a new area).

3e offers versatility, choices (with real consequences for those choices), and a (mostly) consistant power structure. The fact that it is possible to gain more mileage out of certain combos (say a ranger/fighter) is due to the close relationship between the classes.

I've commented on multiclassed spellcasters before, and my mind hasn't changed. If you are going to multiclass a spellcaster, make sure you design the character to NOT be based on how strong the character's spells are going to be but INSTEAD on how effectively you can suppliment your other class(es) with your lower level spells. OR take only 1 level of non-spellcasting class to add flavor without crippling your spells.

No multiclassed spellcaster is going to beat an equal level character in a spell duel. Nor should they. Nor will they beat a member of their other class in a duel in that field if they are of equal level. Instead, they must excell at joining the disciplines to (say in the case of a fighter/sorcerer) use magic to out do the single class fighter and use martial skill to ou tdo the single classed sorcerer.

It is a fine art, one that requires choices and planning. And, IMHO, it does not need any changing.

DC

 

[Mike Sullivan]

orangefruitbat:

I was considering a similar rule, and I think it's slightly overpowered. What I'm considering instead is: Caster level equals: Your "on" class levels + 1/2 of your "off" class levels, round down.

So, a Wizard 5/Fighter 5 would have a caster level of 7. A Rogue 8/Wizard 2 would have a caster level of 6.


EDIT: Oh, and a Cleric 2/Wizard 6 would have a Cleric caster level of 5 and a Wizard caster level of 7.

 

[orangefruitbat]

Brilliantly simple - and probably about the boost I'm looking for. I'll have to use this rule for my new campaign.

orangefruitbat:

I was considering a similar rule, and I think it's slightly overpowered. What I'm considering instead is: Caster level equals: Your "on" class levels + 1/2 of your "off" class levels, round down.

So, a Wizard 5/Fighter 5 would have a caster level of 7. A Rogue 8/Wizard 2 would have a caster level of 6.


EDIT: Oh, and a Cleric 2/Wizard 6 would have a Cleric caster level of 5 and a Wizard caster level of 7.

 

[orangefruitbat]

It's not that I'm trying to make the multi-classed spellcaster an equal to a straight spell-caster in a smackdown. But the general consensus amongst the gamers I know is that it's stupid to multi-class a spellcaster at all.

None of my gaming group has tried it, figuring that they would fall behind the group's power curve. The curve isn't about who's toughest, it's about being able to meaningfully contribute (and survive) in the activities the group is engaged in. If the fighter/mage can't hit, doesn't have enough hit points to stay in combat AND doesn't have the spell-power to help out significantly AND has to worry about spell failure, that character's player is going to be unhappy.

3E is supposed to be about giving players choices for their characters. The current multi-classing rules are so slanted against F/Ms, that they're not really a choice at all.

I don't see a problem with the multiclass system as it is now. I think that spellcasters should have to give something up. The very idea of wizards having poor combat skills is the amount of time they have to devote to studying spellcraft. Take a level of fighter and you've spent a chunk of time on something other than spellcraft and that is gonna cost you.

Really, when you think about it, 3e's system makes it inefficient to multiclass late (15k for 1st level fighter?) but is still possible. It works better if you design it into the concept of the character but you don't have to. The 2e system, aside from being overpowered, was only open to non-humans and you had to start from the beginning as a multiclassed character and could never choose to change to focus on one or the other (or even a new area).

3e offers versatility, choices (with real consequences for those choices), and a (mostly) consistant power structure. The fact that it is possible to gain more mileage out of certain combos (say a ranger/fighter) is due to the close relationship between the classes.

I've commented on multiclassed spellcasters before, and my mind hasn't changed. If you are going to multiclass a spellcaster, make sure you design the character to NOT be based on how strong the character's spells are going to be but INSTEAD on how effectively you can suppliment your other class(es) with your lower level spells. OR take only 1 level of non-spellcasting class to add flavor without crippling your spells.

No multiclassed spellcaster is going to beat an equal level character in a spell duel. Nor should they. Nor will they beat a member of their other class in a duel in that field if they are of equal level. Instead, they must excell at joining the disciplines to (say in the case of a fighter/sorcerer) use magic to out do the single class fighter and use martial skill to ou tdo the single classed sorcerer.

It is a fine art, one that requires choices and planning. And, IMHO, it does not need any changing.

DC

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Brilliantly simple - and probably about the boost I'm looking for. I'll have to use this rule for my new campaign.

Glad you like it. Tell us how it works out -- I haven't had the opportunity to play-test it yet.

 

[Saeviomagy]

At present, there are currently two ways to multiclass a spellcaster, and not get reamed for it
1) Take a very minimal quantity of spellcaster levels, and never bother learning spells which have highly level-dependant effects, or allow spell resistance (ie - sor1/ranger 19. Take truestrike and a utility spell as known spells. Never bother adding any more sorceror ever.)

2) Take a very minimal quantity of non-spellcaster levels, purely to gain the benefits of front loading (ie - a cleric 19/fighter 1 to allow yourself access to every martial weapon plus a fighter feat, or a wizard 19/rogue 1 for as many ranks in tumble as you can get)

If you do anything else, you end up being someone who's devoted half your life to being able to cast lame spells, with lame effects, which will fail to go through SR, and can be dispelled by anybody who can use a wand.

Realistically, allowing caster level to be based off character level makes a minimal difference (with exception to two spells that are very badly balanced - specifically tenser's transformation and divine power, both of which break the rules by increasing base attack - divine power would be too good for low BAB multiclasses, and tenser's would be too good for high BAB multiclassers)