Simple fix for multi-classed spellcasters?

[Chacal]

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

Yes, Tell us ! I'm very tempted to use this rule, too.


Chacal

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Realistically, allowing caster level to be based off character level makes a minimal difference

I don't think that this follows from your argument. Spell Resistance is based off of caster level, so, if you used orangefruitbat's original conception (caster level = character level), Spell Resistance would be no more or less use against a multiclass spellcaster than it would be against a single class spellcaster.

The multiclass spellcaster would not have the option of casting high-level spells that are more difficult to succeed saving throws against, granted. But, if you accept that argument, you must also accept the argument that about half of all a single-class spellcaster's spells are useless, since they're just as easy to save against as all the multiclass caster's spells. I think that nobody believes that latter argument, which invalidates your former one.

(In other words, use buffing spells or attack spells that don't allow saving throws.)

(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)

Well, first off, Tenser's Transformation is a 6th level spell. That means that in order to terribly significantly multiclass and have it at all, you'd have to be something like 15th+ level (Wizard-11/Fighter-4, or the like? And then you'd still only have a BAB that was 2 higher than a Wizard-15). While I grant that high level campaigns are a legitimate concern, I don't know that this is really the way to twink out a 15th+ level character (You'd only be able to cast the spell once or maybe twice a day at Wizard-11, anyhow. Sorcerers might be more efficient, but they don't get it 'til 12th level).

What would actually concern me for either orangefruitbat's original caster level = character level scheme or my modified one, is the increased usefulness of the lower-level Buff spells. For example, I could see a Monk getting really jiggy with the idea of being able to cast Mage Armors of useful duration for the price of one level (under my scheme, a Monk 8/Sorcerer 1 could cast 5 hour duration Mage Armors -- even assuming no Charisma bonus, she could be under Mage Armor for 15 hours of the day). And it's possible that a Fighter type might be willing to sacrifice three levels in order to get to Bull's Strength and Endurance or Cat's Grace by taking Enchanter 3 (again, even without assuming an Intelligence bonus).

I'm not sure that's a bad thing, however.

 

[comrade raoul]

The biggest worry with this system comes with the low-level cleric self-buffs, like divine favor. Consider the fighter 16/cleric 2 casting a 1st level spell to get a fully stackable +6 attack and damage bonus for the next minute.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

The biggest worry with this system comes with the low-level cleric self-buffs, like divine favor. Consider the fighter 16/cleric 2 casting a 1st level spell to get a fully stackable +6 attack and damage bonus for the next minute.

Well, under the /2 system, a Fighter-16/Cleric-2 would get a fully stackable +3 to attack and damage for one minute... And that really doesn't bother me.

A Paladin-18 could do exactly the same, plus a lot of other spells, na ja?

 

[Clay_More]

I have a 1 st. level Sorc, 3 rd. level Monk in my campaign. He can reach an AC of 33 at times, with Shield / Mage Armor. Hes a munchkin to the extreme and adding such a rule would really help alot of munchkins out there. I saw a feat in Netbook of Feats which raises your spellcasting level by one, as long as it doesnt raise your level above your character level, usable for multiclassing.
Otherwise, as mentioned, you get people who abuse the spellcasting classes, never a good thing

 

[Mike Sullivan]

I have a 1 st. level Sorc, 3 rd. level Monk in my campaign. He can reach an AC of 33 at times, with Shield / Mage Armor.

Shield gives you a +7 AC, Mage Armor gives you a +4 AC. That's +11. That means that without the Shield/AC, he's got a 22 AC (+3 Wis, +5 Dex, +1 Dodge, +3 Ring of Protection, perhaps?)

I think that the reason your character might be "munchkin" (your words) might go a bit deeper than those two spells.

Also, he gets, currently, one minute worth of that AC.

Hes a munchkin to the extreme and adding such a rule would really help alot of munchkins out there. I saw a feat in Netbook of Feats which raises your spellcasting level by one, as long as it doesnt raise your level above your character level, usable for multiclassing.
Otherwise, as mentioned, you get people who abuse the spellcasting classes, never a good thing

I don't think that this argument works. After all, the only difference between your Monk under the proposed rules and the normal ones is that he could have two consecutive minutes of Shield, instead of one, and his Mage Armors would last two hours instead of one. Sure, that's nice, but ultimately, 1, he's still going to have to cast the Shield during the battle, and 2, even his Mage Armors won't last for a full "adventuring day." It's not like his AC is going to get any better or worse...


EDIT: Grumble. I hate that this board doesn't accept <i> tags.

 

[Hollywood]

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.

Sure, if all you are doing is meta-gaming. On the other hand if you are making interesting characters that have different abilities, its not really all that big of deal. There are far greater hinderances to character flexibility in 3rd Ed.

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.

I must say I disagree. We have a Paladin/Sorcerer in the group... no complaints by the player about not being able to help out. Not to mention a gnome druid who began life as a illusionist [like 2nd level Ill/9th level druid]. Again, he doesn't complain about not being able to help out... in fact, he's probably one of the stronger characters. And the final nail in the coffin is that this group has characters that range from about 7th to 13th level.

 

[Saeviomagy]

Mike - my complaint was more against those who think that the concept of a whole is unbalancing. I dare say that some serious playtesting would be necessary before we could decied whether the 1/2 level or 1 for 1 level bonus for non-caster levels is superior.

My point with tenser's transformation is that it would be giving the caster more hitpoints and BAB than even a FIGHTER of equivalent level (bump that particular character up by a single level, and his BAB will become 19, compared with a fighter's 16). Spells per day, while a concern, aren't the be-all-end-all of the combo, particularly with the existence of items such as pearls of power.

Also - I made a mistake including divine power in with those spells. Divine power is already broken in precisely the manner I gave. A wizard/cleric could already use it to give himself a fighter BAB.

Hollywood - don't try to start the argument that a character being effective is metagaming. The rules ARE the physical laws of the campaign world. If some combination of abilities is ineffective, or especially effective, then there WILL be people who know this. Moderate level wizards will call those 5/5 wizard/fighters 'dabblers' and laugh at the ineffectiveness of their spells. The general consensus will be that in order to really matter in the world of magic, you must devote your life to it.

Also note that of the two characters you cited, one of them is precisely the type which I listed earlier - a small quantity of spellcaster levels of one class, focussing on spells which do not allow a save or spell resistance.

I'd be interested to know the levels and spells which the paladin/sorc uses. Would I be right in saying that he took 4 or less sorceror levels, and has since taken nothing but paladin levels?

Our group has someone who's angled for geomancer. They've only picked up a single level in it to date. I'd say that as a wiz3/cleric3, they're one of the least effective party members by a long shot, as soon as we meet spell resistance, their direct spells cease to have effect (when compared with non-spell-resistant foes, where their damage spells have only a minimal effect anyway). Their enhancing spells run out fast. Their healing spells pale when compared with the cleric's (who channels negative energy, and only memorises SOME healing spells).
Since they've started concentrating their geomancer levels on cleric, this is steadily improving.

 

[drnuncheon]

Moderate level wizards will call those 5/5 wizard/fighters 'dabblers' and laugh at the ineffectiveness of their spells. The general consensus will be that in order to really matter in the world of magic, you must devote your life to it.

I think you're going pretty far afield here.

First off, nobody walks around with their level on their chest. So the 'moderate level wizards' don't have any way of knowing that the Ftr5/Wiz5 is "supposed" to be equal to them. Do they also laugh at straight Wiz5s? What are they going to do if a Ftr10/Wiz10 shows up? He's as effective as they are at magic and he can fight, too! Again, they won't know he's "supposed" to be more powerful than they are.

Second, in a world where few people reach 3rd level, let alone 5th, a Wiz5/Ftr5 is hardly a "dabbler". Sure, people might tell him he'd be an even better wizard if he didn't split his attention between that and swordplay, but he's still better than most wizards out there. (Assuming the DMGs statistics - there are twice as many wizards of 2 levels below you - he's still better than about 90% of the other wizards out there.

 

[Mike Sullivan]

Mike - my complaint was more against those who think that the concept of a whole is unbalancing. I dare say that some serious playtesting would be necessary before we could decied whether the 1/2 level or 1 for 1 level bonus for non-caster levels is superior.

My point with tenser's transformation is that it would be giving the caster more hitpoints and BAB than even a FIGHTER of equivalent level (bump that particular character up by a single level, and his BAB will become 19, compared with a fighter's 16). Spells per day, while a concern, aren't the be-all-end-all of the combo, particularly with the existence of items such as pearls of power.

I understand that you and I aren't in strong disagreement, but I think that it bears noting that if this is a problem with Tenser's Transformation, it's more a problem with the spell than any house rules here. Yeah, a Wizard 11/Fighter 6 could, if you were using "/2," get an 18 BAB with Tenser's Transformation. But a Wizard 16 can and does get a 16 BAB with the spell. And I don't know that a +2 equivalent to BAB for 1 round per level per day is going to be that big a deal, even if it does bring it over the magic "=character level" point.