To multiclass or not to multiclass? That is the question.

[dcollins]

Multiclass is often good for fighting characters, but you generally want your spellcasters to have full caster level.

I'm basically on-board with that analysis.

(And yet I myself have a druid/sorcerer I'm working on... the added spells makes that useful at the lowest levels.)

 

[Garmorn]

It Depends

The further the number of PC is from the standard 4 the better off you are at having one or more multiclassing pc's.

In a two person party you need to do some multiclassing (mc) just to cover your needed abilities and skills. While in a standard type campain you need a rouge, a cleric/healer and a fighter, you only have 2 pc to cover all three base and you would still be short any arcane spells.

In a large group of six or more a generalist or two can easly back up the specialist and still be fun. For example if you have both a cleric and wizard/soccorer then some one can succefully play a cleric/wizard or durid/soccorer becauce the single class will have the needed high level spells while the mc will have lots of the lower level spells that the others don't carry and thus give the party more options and spell variety.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

My advice - as a spellcaster, single-class to maximize your spell levels, or take a single-level of another class for flavor. Taking more than a level in another class will hurt at higher levels, when you're casting spells a level or two lower than the rest of the party.

Yup. A single level of cleric is real attractive to beef up any character. But you lose a lot to your caster level for a Wiz/Sor if you take more than one.

At high levels you often often slam up against SRs that are approximately your character level + 10. Losing 1 or 2 casting levels takes 10% or 20% off your offense in those fights.

It causes similar trouble when it comes to Dispelling Magic.

Mixing with spellcasting classes works very well when it comes to boosting you and your allies with an odd spell. It is a disaster when it comes to using spells for offense. Doubly so for clerics because their offensive spells tend to lag the Wiz/Sor.

 

[Nail]

At high levels you often often slam up against SRs that are approximately your character level + 10. Losing 1 or 2 casting levels takes 10% or 20% off your offense in those fights.

That's 5% to 10%, actually. Still significant.

-Nail

 

[The Gnome]

I've found that multi-classing is a boon to melee types and a somewhat bane to casters. I have a 6th Wiz/3rd Loremaster/3rd Cleric. Any day I'd trade those cleric levels for Wizard to put me on the door-step of 7th level spells.

If you plan on a pure caster (and will be working in a party) spell levels are everything.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I love multiclassing-- within reason.

Two levels of fighter is great. I can't imagine a character who can't benefit from this.

Three levels of rogue is great. Ditto here. Uncanny Dodge, Evasion, and +2d6 sneak attack when you need it. Not to mention the 24 skill points.

Pretty much any character concept I enjoy playing is either good in combat or sneaky (or both) so I like these two options.

I would never have more than 2 core classes or 3 classes (including PrC) overall. It just starts to get silly over and above that.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

That's 5% to 10%, actually. Still significant.

-Nail

I meant what I said.

If your level 10 Wizard has a 50% chance of punching his MM spell through the SR, then a 9th level caster would have only a 45% chance to do the same.

A "45% MM" is only 90% as good as a "50% MM". One caster level degrades your average effectiveness 10%.

A 5% change in successs probability can make a 10% (or more) difference in the average. The effect is stronger when the SR is tough relative to your level.

 

[Artoomis]

1. You definately should mutliclass. The extra flexibility from the other class(es) is always worth it

2. You definately should not multiclass. The lack of single-minded focus weakens your class.

The grass is always greener on the other side!

 

[Artoomis]

At high levels you often often slam up against SRs that are approximately your character level + 10. Losing 1 or 2 casting levels takes 10% or 20% off your offense in those fights.

Not quite right on the math, but the point is still correct.

A few examples:

If you have a 0% chance of getting your MM through the SR, then the lower level caster will also have 0%. No change.

If you have 5%, then the lowert level caster has 0%. You are infinitely more likely to succeed.

If you have 100%, then the lower level caster has 95% (or maybe also 100% - no difference, then). You are 5.3% (approx) more effective.

Anyway - your point is valid, but the actual relative effectiveness is rather highly situationally dependent.

Generally, it CAN be said you are 1-in-20 less effective with your spells for every spell casting level you don't have. Even that's only true in general - not in every instance.

 

[Corwin the Confused]

I've found that multi-classing is a boon to melee types and a somewhat bane to casters. I have a 6th Wiz/3rd Loremaster/3rd Cleric. Any day I'd trade those cleric levels for Wizard to put me on the door-step of 7th level spells.

If you plan on a pure caster (and will be working in a party) spell levels are everything.

I agree with you THE GNOME, or should I adress you as "STUMBLEDUCK"?

Even though I have mixed feelings about full-grown bipeds not over 48" or 50lbs, just kidding.

Here is "my two coppers worth", I think that fighter-types benefit the most from multiclassing. (i.e. A fighter with another class of barbarian or ranger or theif or even cleric.)

But for spell casters, especially at higher levels it is imortant to have access to those high level spells and if you multiclass as another spell caster class, you will only gain more lower level spells(which will surely round out your character more so you will have a broader range of talents) at the price of higher level spells. So, you will be a few levels shy of having access to spells like "WISH", "TIME STOP", or "SUMMON MONSTER IX".