Pathfinder 1E What is Pathfinder doing about multi-classing?

[Wulf Ratbane]

But if you give them too much back in the way of higher level spells, aren't you essentially short-changing the single-classed character?

They need to move the features of the single class spellcasters more in line with the melee classes.

The top level spells are too important for spellcasters to lose. It's too great a proportion of their power.

A melee character-- say Ftr10/Bbn10-- doesn't give up nearly as much in terms of lost effectiveness as a Clr10/Wiz10.

Imagine for example if iterative attacks only counted the BAB derived from a single class.

If you're going to fix it, the spellcasting classes need to be redefined so that caster level stacks as easily as BAB, and such that there are other desirable class features along the same power scale as tireless rage, mighty rage, more DR, etc.

 

[Sadrik]

If you're going to fix it, the spellcasting classes need to be redefined so that caster level stacks as easily as BAB, and such that there are other desirable class features along the same power scale as tireless rage, mighty rage, more DR, etc.

Is BAB = to CL?
Should they be comparable?

 

[BryonD]

Is BAB = to CL?
Should they be comparable?

No.

The point remains that spellcaster multiclassing is a place where 3X can be improved. But I disagree that the stacking of BAB and the stacking of CL is a good comparison.

 

[Treebore]

Sorry if this has been said, but instead of multi classing Paizo should look into "Class Building". IE if a publsihed class isn't something you want to play, custom build it. IF the system turns out to be solid, it should work well enough to let you effectively "cross class" by allowing you to build a "New Class" starting at any level, but nothing retro actively. What came before must be incorporated into the new class build.

This way they can also stay compatible with 3E.

 

[jmucchiello]

Caster level and class feature progression fix
I personally like the rule that your caster level is equal to the spell casting class level plus 1/2 of all your other levels up to a max of double. This would also cover all of the scalable class features such as animal companions.

Two issues:

1) How does work with more than 2 classes? Would a Clr7/Drd6/Wiz7 end up effectively Clr12/Drd12/Wiz12? And is this good or bad? I'm not sure.

2) Why limit this only to spellcasters? What exactly is a spellcaster? Shouldn't you just apply this to all classes?

Effective Class level and class feature progression
Your effective class level is equal to the actual class level plus 1/2 of all your other levels up to a max of double the actual level of the class.

A little dangerous but I don't see why the Brb10/Rng10 should not have the rage and favored enemy capabilities of a Brb15/Rng15 if you are granting spell levels to the spellcasters. Making it a blanket interpretation for all classes also makes it feel a bit less fiddly.

 

[freyar]

They need to move the features of the single class spellcasters more in line with the melee classes.

The top level spells are too important for spellcasters to lose. It's too great a proportion of their power.

A melee character-- say Ftr10/Bbn10-- doesn't give up nearly as much in terms of lost effectiveness as a Clr10/Wiz10.

Imagine for example if iterative attacks only counted the BAB derived from a single class.

If you're going to fix it, the spellcasting classes need to be redefined so that caster level stacks as easily as BAB, and such that there are other desirable class features along the same power scale as tireless rage, mighty rage, more DR, etc.

Yeah, I see your point, I just wonder if this changes the overall balance of classes.

Do you mean to add more non-casting powers to spellcasting classes? That would seem to worsen the CoDzilla phenomenon, right?

Would a partial solution be to even out the power level of spells from the highest levels down?

Anyway, this is an interesting exercise. I look forward to hearing your comments.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Is BAB = to CL?
Should they be comparable?

No, caster level is still more valuable.

The point of the comparison wasn't to equate the two, but to compare the difference in stacking.

 

[Voadam]

A cleric/wizard progressing evenly can be a useful character, but it is a long way from being as effective as most single classed characters, I would agree. I don't think I've ever really considered the idea that every possible multi-classing combination should be equally effective.

In 3e the design goal is to have equal level characters roughly comparable in combat so that a 9th level rogue is balanced against a 9th level sorcerer and the bard is a reasonable choice next to the barbarian.

This design goal is for balance among x level characters, not x levels in a class. Therefore it should apply to multiclass characters too. Where the 3e multiclassing rules lead to unbalanced characters it fails in meeting this design goal.

 

[Gailbraithe]

In 3e the design goal is to have equal level characters roughly comparable in combat so that a 9th level rogue is balanced against a 9th level sorcerer and the bard is a reasonable choice next to the barbarian.

This design goal is for balance among x level characters, not x levels in a class. Therefore it should apply to multiclass characters too. Where the 3e multiclassing rules lead to unbalanced characters it fails in meeting this design goal.

It should generally apply to multiclass characters, but to expect any character of X levels to be as effective as any other character of X levels at every level is just unreasonable. Character concept has to factor in there somewhere, and we have to allow for the idea of bad concept. Some concepts simply can't work very well, because they are too scattered and unfocused.

 

[Voadam]

It should generally apply to multiclass characters, but to expect any character of X levels to be as effective as any other character of X levels at every level is just unreasonable. Character concept has to factor in there somewhere, and we have to allow for the idea of bad concept. Some concepts simply can't work very well, because they are too scattered and unfocused.

I don't think that's the issue. I think it is a spellcaster versus martial class divide for whether combos multiclass effectively out of the box.

Multiclass concepts

Spellcasting:

Concept 1: Gandalf/Elric/Dilvish the Damned type. A wizard who is good with a sword. Gandalf is not as good as Aragorn or Legolas or Gimli in combat, but he can hold his own plus do neat wizard things. Wizard/Fighter or Fighter/Wizard

Concept 2: inborn magic who then learns to master his magic. Sorcerer/Wizard.

Concept 3: wizard devoted to the god of magic. Wizard/cleric.

Concept 4: nature priest. Cleric/Druid.

Martial:

Concept 5: Young Conan a barbarian who becomes a thief. Barbarian/Rogue.

Concept 6: Ninja! Rogue/Monk

Concept 7: Warrior becomes the chosen one Fighter/Paladin

Concept 8: lightly armored wilderness warrior. Ranger/barbarian

Concept 9: Dirty tricks sneaky fighter Rogue/fighter

Pretty much any full caster has to multiclass very carefully to work well as a multiclass (concepts 1-4).

Pretty much any martial class multiclasses fairly well with others (5-9).

Take an unfocused scattershot martial character build, say start with barbarian and add on random compatible martial classes.

Barbarian 2, Rogue 2, Fighter 2, Ranger 2, Swashbuckler 2, Scout 2 and he's not bad at facing level appropriate combat challenges a 12th level party is expected to face. Throw in fractional BAB and saves and he's roughly comparable to any other level 12 martial characters.

12 levels of any spellcasting multiclass has to be carefully handled to take on the same type of combat foes.

These are not wierd corner cases but a breakdown of the design goal when applied to multiclass spellcasters.

There are options to come closer to the design goal.