Pardon me if this is already known, but has anything been said about a caster level patch for multiclass casters in PFRPG? IIRC WotC had a kludge feat called "practiced spellcaster," but I don't believe it was ever made Open Content. I'd love to know if something was done.
Thanks!
well as one of the iconic's is a multi-class character I think we will get hints anyhow
** WARNING -- PET PEEVE POST **
Why does a fix need to be in place! If you create a wizard character and do not want him to loose spell levels, caster levels, wizard feats, wizard abilities etc. ** DON'T ** multiclass!!! or play a GESTALT character instead.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Now back to your regularly scheduled posts.
Pardon me if this is already known, but has anything been said about a caster level patch for multiclass casters in PFRPG? IIRC WotC had a kludge feat called "practiced spellcaster," but I don't believe it was ever made Open Content. I'd love to know if something was done.
I think enough people were confused about the way that feat worked that it should not be included.
I didn't have any trouble with it personally, I just know I've seen numerous spell casters trying to get +4 caster levels for free with it, something no feat should grant.
I don't think a good reason for not including this Feat should have anything to do with the fact that some people didn't understand it!
It made your spells last longer, and/or do a few more d6's damage.
I allow it my current PF games, although I did reduce the bonus to 2. However on reflection, I think 3 would be ok.
... need ...
This is where you went wrong (and, incidentally, stumbled into one of my pet peeves :)).
That is an absurd obsevation to make. You NEVER "need" variaty: you could play the game with one race, one class (which casts one spell), and one stat array.
A more valid question would be "Why do you want a fix to be in place?"
Go ahead. Ask that. See what people say.
** WARNING -- PET PEEVE POST **
Why does a fix need to be in place!?
Because without a fix, multi-classing a caster is so subpar that the flexibility of the entire class system is reduced. Options that are so terrible that they are pointless aren't good game design. Hence the need for kludges such as the Duskblade, Beguiler, Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, etc. Since Pathfinder is an attempt to improve upon 3.5, it is an ideal time to pull some sort of patch into core.
|
Because without a fix, multi-classing a caster is so subpar that the flexibility of the entire class system is reduced. Options that are so terrible that they are pointless aren't good game design. Hence the need for kludges such as the Duskblade, Beguiler, Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, etc. Since Pathfinder is an attempt to improve upon 3.5, it is an ideal time to pull some sort of patch into core.** WARNING -- PET PEEVE POST **
Why does a fix need to be in place!?
This is a pet peeve of mine to..
Of course it is sub par... You are Multi Classing.. You Give up gaining power in one class by taking another..That is the result of multiclassing.
It is working just the way it is supposed to.
I don't understand why people think this needs to be fixed, there is nothing broken about it.
From the SRD
Multiclassing improves a character’s versatility at the expense of focus.
Once you Multiclass you lose that focus on the class you are not leveling by the amount of levels you take in another class. You gain another classes abilitites but do not gain in power in the abilities of the main class unless noted otherwise.
So explain to me why a spell caster should still get more powerful with his spells when he is taking levels in another class?
From the SRD
Multiclassing improves a character’s versatility at the expense of focus.
The argument would be that multiclassing sacrificing too much focus for too little versatility. Also in the SRD are a few prestige classes that seemed to be built to fix this problem (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge) in general, giving what you would have gotten just by leveling the component classes with a good chuck of additional power. So the SRD seems to imply that just multiclassing between two classes [i]is[i] weaker than it is supposed to. Otherwise they wouldn't have needed an Arcane Trickster.
So explain to me why a spell caster should still get more powerful with his spells when he is taking levels in another class?
Possibly for the same reason a fighter still gets better at fighting and becomes capable of taking more damage even if they take a level in another class.
Of course it is sub par... You are Multi Classing.. You Give up gaining power in one class by taking another..That is the result of multiclassing.
I don't want wizard/fighter to have as much focus on his spells than a wizard of similar level. I don't think anyone else was really suggesting it either.
So explain to me why a spell caster should still get more powerful with his spells when he is taking levels in another class?
For the same reason that a barbarian gains BAB when multiclassing to a fighter. If a character only gains versatility when multiclassing and not raw power, multiclassing will result in characters who can't face the challenges appropriate for their level.
Try playing (or imagining) a game where everyone takes ten levels of wizard and ten levels of any other base class. Then try to take on a few CR 20 ± 2 challenges per day. You'll find it leads to a TPK soon enough, because not one character can pull their own weight.
I think the issue is multi class casters worked in older editions but not 3e.
A 2e fighter/mage, would totally mangle a 3e one from what I recall, I need to go back and read over that
Duel class worked alot like gestalt if I recall
|
A 2e fighter/mage, would totally mangle a 3e one from what I recall, I need to go back and read over that
The big deal back in 1e/2e is that a fighter / mage 9/9 used the same experience total as a 10th or 11th level straight class fighter or mage. In 3rd edition, a Fighter 9 / Wizard 9 is expected to travel in the same circles as the Fighter 18 or Wizard 18, not the Fighter 11 or Wizard 10...
The same experience that could get you to Wizard 20 could also make a Fighter 10 / Cleric 12 / Wizard 18.
|
I think the issue is multi class casters worked in older editions but not 3e.
A 2e fighter/mage, would totally mangle a 3e one from what I recall, I need to go back and read over that
Duel class worked alot like gestalt if I recall
Actually, gestalt is more like 1-2E multiclassing than dual-classing. With AD&D multiclassing, you choose 2 or 3 classes to advance in from 1st level on, gaining the best from each class (where they overlap) and everything else (where they don't). Okay, you had to split your XP 2-3 ways, but...
Dual-classing involved running 1 class to a certain point, then "starting over" in another class. You didn't lose anything from your first class, but couldn't use any special class abilities (except hit points, and I think THAC0) until your new class level exceeded your old one.
Nothing else to add, just dropping in a blast from the past. 8^)
This is a pet peeve of mine to..Of course it is sub par... You are Multi Classing.. You Give up gaining power in one class by taking another..That is the result of multiclassing.
It is working just the way it is supposed to.
I don't understand why people think this needs to be fixed, there is nothing broken about it.
From the SRD
Multiclassing improves a character’s versatility at the expense of focus.
Once you Multiclass you lose that focus on the class you are not leveling by the amount of levels you take in another class. You gain another classes abilitites but do not gain in power in the abilities of the main class unless noted otherwise.
So explain to me why a spell caster should still get more powerful with his spells when he is taking levels in another class?
As noted in my previous post, "patch" classes like Eldritch Knight showed up in 3.5 because the game designers realized there was a problem.
Then again, there is always someone willing to argue about anything on the Internet...
As for my original question, I see that no answers are forthcoming; hopefully because the mutliclass iconic preview will shed some light...
*crosses fingers*
|
|
In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Example: 12th level character, 6th level fighter, 6th level wizard. Has the BAB, HP, Saves, and skills from 6 levels of fighter and 6 levels of wizard just like normal. But for things like caster levels and bonus fighter feats they was equal to 6th + (6 divided by 2 =)3 = 9. So had the fighter feats of a 9th level fighter and the spell progression of a 9th level wizard. Made it closer to the old multiclass of 1st edition.
It's not a perfect fix but it worked well enough for us.
In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Example: 12th level character, 6th level fighter, 6th level wizard. Has the BAB, HP, Saves, and skills from 6 levels of fighter and 6 levels of wizard just like normal. But for things like caster levels and bonus fighter feats they was equal to 6th + (6 divided by 2 =)3 = 9. So had the fighter feats of a 9th level fighter and the spell progression of a 9th level wizard. Made it closer to the old multiclass of 1st edition.
It's not a perfect fix but it worked well enough for us.
Interesting.
Rogue 4/Fighter 4/Wizard 4 would have SA, casting, and feats = level 8? Trying to decide whether that sounds too weak or too powerful for CR 12 encounters...
|
|
Yeah pretty much. Like I said it is not perfect but so far it has worked well enough and it pretty simple.
I think it is pretty close cause some think they are a bit weak and some think they are a bit strong. Which to me suggest it is likely pretty close to acurate. Though a all melee multiclass comes out the best still.
|
Tomb of battle has a similar fix that should work with all spellcasters. If you are one of those classes and multiclass, all of your nonmanuver using class levels add 3/4 to your total manuver level. I think that is the break down, but I could be wrong.
Anyway, a wiz 4, ftr 4, would be able to cast spells as a wiz 7, but wouldn't get any new spells for levelling in wiz, (2 per level), but their caster level would go up, and any spells they purchased and scribed would act as a 7th wiz.
The thing about spellcasters is it is all tied to class level, not character level.
I always thought arcane caster levels and divine caster levels should stack. So if you mutli-classed 4 Druid/4 Cleric you would be a caster level of 8 for both classes, but only have access to 2nd level spells. This would help mitigate some of the problems with multi classing.
Just a thought, and it's far from complete as yet, but what if you used the three xp progressions to simulate 1e/2e multi-classing?
For example: Single class characters use fast xp progression. 2-class combo's use medium, and 3-class combos use slow. You would take the best BAB, average the hit dice, and perhaps select which class you take for your save progression.
As a character with 2 classes, you would always be one level behind the single class character, and the character with 3 classes would always be 2 levels behind.
This should keep BAB, HP, Saves, and number of feats generally in line. The advantages for casters would be faster spell progression and higher caster level. This of course, gives you more options, but in my opinion, probably wouldn't break the balance, since the number of actions performed in a round doesn't change.
As I said before, this is just the beginnings of an idea, and has not been tested in any way. Any thoughts?
|
|
You are mostly talking about 1 caster class/1 non-caster class. What about two caster classes? I have played in two separate games (one pathfinder):
a druid/sorcerer that focused solely on summoning. (nature's ally & summon monster) - I ended up taking a home grown version of mystic theurge for a prestige class.
and in Pathfinder: a cleric/sorcerer
In both of these cases my DM has house ruled Magic Rating (all caster classes stack for purposes of caster level)
Or what if it had to be two divine, or two arcane (think sorcerer/bard or ranger/paladin)
What do ya'll think about Magic Rating, in either of these forms?
I guess I'm agreeing with Sir Hexen Ineptus
|
|
Just increasing caster level doesn't help much. It is the more advanced spells that really need the boost for a multiclass caster. After about 2 -3 levels of multiclassing out, thy really start getting to the point that their spells are not able to serve the group as they need to.
That's why as a general rule, no one even looks hard at caster prestigue classes that lose more than 2 effective caster levels. It is not worth it in the end. Sure, there are exceptions, but that is the basic truth for a caster. A fighter that drops to cleric base attack doesn't take a noticable hit to anything, for the most part. Or even a d8 hp. But a cleric that has to start over with the 3/4 BA and also loses spell levels is a huge penulty. Wizards already have the worst hp, saves, and HD, so it's not so bad, but not getting fireball for 2 more levels hurts a lot worse than a fighter not getting one feat.
|
|
In my experience, going with 2 caster classes is even worse. You get stuck with a lot of very useless low level spells (for what you face), have to have high stats all around, and can't focus well on bumping the things you have to to be at least ok at either of them.
Even worse, they tend to have such heavy restrictions that they just suck all around. Like your cleric/druid, has to pay way to much in nonmetal heavy armor to be able to funtion at upper levels in cleric, has a lot of spells that do the same thing and don't stack, or do not work together at all. You don't have a lot of feats because escew materials, improved turning/channeling natural spell are a must. Furthermore, to function really, you need above average (12+) in all stats, higher str and con, and max wisdom. Well a cleric druid is a bad example for stats, as both already need most high stats.
Has anyone ever done a 2nd ed style multiclass conversion? Not gestalt, which is fun to, but an old schoold start from level one multiclass system for 3.5. That would be awesome to see.
|
|
With regard to the Practiced Spellcaster feat, I've always found that it works quite well, giving you extra dice of effect, range and duration, without advancing your spells known or spells per day. Also, since it advances your caster level, it helps with caster level checks, such as overcoming Spell Resistance. I don't think it's overly powerful (or overly confusing), but it's absolutely necessary for someone wishing to multiclass more than a level or two away from a full spellcasting class.
While it's true that a Fighter 8 / Wizard 8 is very subpar, there's nothing wrong with a Fighter 1 / Wizard 5 / Eldritch Knight 10. You have spells known and spells per day as a 14th level Wizard, and with the Practiced Spellcaster feat, you can have a caster level of 16 (just like a 16th level Wizard). You also have a BAB of +13 (instead of +8 for a 16th level Wizard) plus some extra HP. You sacrifice some Wizard bonus feats for a couple of Fighter bonus feats (one from Eldritch Knight). It's a reasonable balance for a Fighter/Wizard.
A Cleric 3 / Wizard 3 / Mystic Theurge 10 gives you the spells of a 13th level Wizard and a 13th level Cleric, and with Practised Spellcaster for both classes, your caster level is 16 in each. Okay, as a 16th level character, you don't have 8th level spells in either class, but you do have 7th level spells in each class. Again, I think that it's a decent balance for someone who wants to multiclass Cleric and Wizard.
Rogue 3 / Wizard 5 / Arcane Trickster 8 gives you the spells of a 13th level Wizard, plus the sneak attack of an 11th level Rogue, and better skills and saving throws than a straight wizard, not to mention Evasion. Once again, a viable alternative for multiclassing Wizard and Rogue.
None of these options give you the raw spell power of a straight class Wizard, but you're not pathetic, either, and you pick up some other options. The problem with multiclassing in previous editions of the game was that multiclass characters were way overpowered, giving up almost nothing while gaining a great deal of power. I greatly prefer 3.5's system for multiclassing.
Also, bear in mind that you don't need as many Fighter levels (for example) as Wizard levels in 3.5, because various bonuses such as Base Attack, Saving Throws, and Hit Points are additive. If you multiclass a primary spellcaster in 3.5, it's fairly certain that you are going to focus most of your advancement on your spellcasting, and dabble elsewhere. If you don't, you are voluntarily giving up so much focus as a spellcaster that you're going to be ineffectual for your level (but that's your choice).
A Fighter/Wizard should be a worse Fighter than a straight class Fighter, and a worse Wizard than a straight class Wizard.
|
|
In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Sounds kinda like what Unearthed Arcana proposed with the Magic Rating.
Between Magic Rating and Fractional BAB / Saves, I think Unearthed Arcana really went a long way towards tweaking the multi-class inequities, and other non-OGL stuff, like Practised Spellcaster (and the Ascetic Hunter, Ascetic Knight, Ascetic Mage, Ascetic Rogue, Devoted Performer, Devoted Tracker and Natural Bond feats from Complete Adventurer and Ascetic Stalker, Daring Outlaw, Daring Warrior, Martial Stalker, Master Spellthief, Swift Ambusher and Swift Hunter feats from Complete Scoundrel) just went that extra step for very specific instances, along with multi-class friendly PrCs like Arcane Trickster and Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge, or the Eldritch Theurge / Eldritch Disciple / Ultimate Magus / Cerebramancer.
But the less said about True Necromancer, or, heaven forfend, the Yathinshree, the better. :)
In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Example: 12th level character, 6th level fighter, 6th level wizard. Has the BAB, HP, Saves, and skills from 6 levels of fighter and 6 levels of wizard just like normal. But for things like caster levels and bonus fighter feats they was equal to 6th + (6 divided by 2 =)3 = 9. So had the fighter feats of a 9th level fighter and the spell progression of a 9th level wizard. Made it closer to the old multiclass of 1st edition.
Nice quick-and-dirty-fix there. n_n
I'm quite confident that, for classes that already HAVE synergy, this would be perfectly broken at high levels. A 19th level fighter, with his next level, could either gain 1 bonus feat or 9 levels worth of rage/uncanny dodge/etc. And a barbarian17/fighter1/ranger1/rogue1 might as well be a gestalt (41 levels worth of class features at level 20).
For classes with no innate synergy, though (fighter/wizard), I don't think it's a bad idea.
The REAL problem with spellcasting is the action cost of a spell.
If you're a 6th level fighter, then a 1st level spell (particularly at caster level 1) is simply not worth the action it takes to cast it. Therefor, past a certian point, you never cast spells in combat, and your spellcasting abilities do virtually nothing to augment your fighting abilities.
If all spells were functionally a free/swift action (spend spell slot, get benefit), and you simply had the option of taking a standard action to make them even better, I think this kind of multiclassing would work out better. But then, that's really changing the core of the system.
... need ...This is where you went wrong (and, incidentally, stumbled into one of my pet peeves :)).
That is an absurd obsevation to make. You NEVER "need" variaty: you could play the game with one race, one class (which casts one spell), and one stat array.
A more valid question would be "Why do you want a fix to be in place?"
Go ahead. Ask that. See what people say.
Pot meet kettle. Kettle meet pot.
Your "play with one race, one class, etc. phrase is absurd. I made no mention of anything even closely resembling that, so stop doing "Reductio ad absurdum" type arguments.
-- david
Papa.DRB
Of course it is sub par... You are Multi Classing.. You Give up gaining power in one class by taking another..That is the result of multiclassing.
It is working just the way it is supposed to.
I don't understand why people think this needs to be fixed, there is nothing broken about it.
Exactly !!!
-- david
Papa.DRB
A Cleric 3 / Wizard 3 / Mystic Theurge 10 gives you the spells of a 13th level Wizard and a 13th level Cleric, and with Practised Spellcaster for both classes, your caster level is 16 in each. Okay, as a 16th level character, you don't have 8th level spells in either class, but you do have 7th level spells in each class. Again, I think that it's a decent balance for someone who wants to multiclass Cleric and Wizard.
My son played this character, then he took 4 more levels of wizard.
He was the party buffer/debuffer/summoner. Had a blast !!
-- david
Papa.DRB
Your "play with one race, one class, etc. phrase is absurd. I made no mention of anything even closely resembling that, so stop doing "Reductio ad absurdum" type arguments.
I didn't accuse you of saying anything which resembled that, either. I was illustrating the fact that "need" in game design is an irrelevant concept. Do you disagree?
Saying "you don't need that" is one thing (it can be said of virtually any element of the game, including the very good ones). Saying "the game shouldn't have that" is quite another.
You seem to be stating the former and meaning the latter.
|
|
Your "play with one race, one class, etc. phrase is absurd. I made no mention of anything even closely resembling that, so stop doing "Reductio ad absurdum" type arguments.I didn't accuse you of saying anything which resembled that, either. I was illustrating the fact that "need" in game design is an irrelevant concept. Do you disagree?
Saying "you don't need that" is one thing (it can be said of virtually any element of the game, including the very good ones). Saying "the game shouldn't have that" is quite another.
You seem to be stating the former and meaning the latter.
What I think he is trying to say, is that the Rules as Written *RAW* of 3.5, multi classing is working just like it is supposed to do.
To go on that and talk about a few people arguing why they are broken because of this and that, none of that changes that the rules work as they are supposed to.
Some of you are saying that a Barbarian/Fighter no reduction in thier BaB therefore a fighter/spellcaster should not see any reduction in thier spellcasting ability, to me that makes no sense and seems like a faulty argument.
All classes have some basic things that go between all of them.
BaB at different increments depending on the class
Saving throws at different increments depending on the class
HP at different increments depending on the class.
Since those are basic concepts of classes that all have but just at different increments those take less reduction with multi classing, but unique powers for classes do take power reduction due to the fact they are not part of that class and you are focusing with a different class and not focusing on the powers of the other class. That is the whole concept of multiclassing in 3.5 and changing that not only could cause balancing problems but have problems with backwards compatibility.
Now if you decide to multiclass in a prestige class that shares the powers of the spellcasting class then you see less of a reduction, that is one use of prestige classes, and already in place in 3.5. If you decide to to multiclass with something that does not add to your spellcaster abilities that is the choice you make and you need to adjust your idea of what that character can do accordingly. A 10 fighter/10 wizard is rarely going to use attack spells but instead is going to use spells that makes is fighting abilities that much better *Buffs* that is the concept character you have decided on. Those who think that you should still be casting as an equal level wizard are going against the balance IMO and are making the characters way to powerful.
Practiced Spell caster feat will still work in PFRPG and is a feat that is not unbalancing. People complain that makes it a feat you now have to take, I disagree, I have seen plenty of multiclass spellcasters that did not take it that where just as powerful as other in the group because they did not want to lose that feat slot, and they played towards thier strengths and not thier weakness.
None of the arguments I have seen in this thread as shown me that multicasting for spellcaster is broken.
How come no one complains that a cleric who multiclasses is now a weaker Turner? or a Barbarian who multiclasses has weaker barbarian powers? or a Rogue that multiclasses has less Sneak attack? it is the same concept...
Edit: Sorry Blazej I said I would not post again in this thread, but I could not help myself ;-)
A fighter10 can use most of his fighter class features at the same time. He can make a Whirlwind Attack while employing Power Attack, and can benefit from weapon/armor specialization while doing it.
A rogue5/fighter5, likewise, can use his rogue powers and his fighter powers at the same time. He can tumble into position, make an attack with a decent bonus, and deal sneak-attack.
A fighter5/wizard5 can NOT use most of his powers at the same time. He cannot attack in the same round that he casts a spell, and very few of his spells benefit from his attack bonus or fighter feats.
A +5 bonus to two things is never as good as a +10 bonus to one thing. Sometimes it isn't even as good as a +6 bonus to one thing. The concept of synergy is paramount in D&D, as it is in any game where players may combine several varied elements to build a character/avatar/army/deck/etc.
If you can't grasp synergy, you won't understand game balance. I'm sorry, but there is little else I can tell you.
Now, if, on the other hand, you don't necessarily want all options in your game to be balanced- if "working like it's supposed to" is good enough for you (nevermind "working well"), then so be it. That's fine. But you are incorrect to assert that caster multiclassing is "balanced", in even the vaguest sense of the word.
|
|
A fighter10 can use most of his fighter class features at the same time. He can make a Whirlwind Attack while employing Power Attack, and can benefit from weapon/armor specialization while doing it.
A rogue5/fighter5, likewise, can use his rogue powers and his fighter powers at the same time. He can tumble into position, make an attack with a decent bonus, and deal sneak-attack.
A fighter5/wizard5 can NOT use most of his powers at the same time. He cannot attack in the same round that he casts a spell, and very few of his spells benefit from his attack bonus or fighter feats.
A +5 bonus to two things is never as good as a +10 bonus to one thing. Sometimes it isn't even as good as a +6 bonus to one thing. The concept of synergy is paramount in D&D, as it is in any game where players may combine several varied elements to build a character/avatar/army/deck/etc.
If you can't grasp synergy, you won't understand game balance. I'm sorry, but there is little else I can tell you.
Now, if, on the other hand, you don't necessarily want all options in your game to be balanced- if "working like it's supposed to" is good enough for you (nevermind "working well"), then so be it. That's fine. But you are incorrect to assert that caster multiclassing is "balanced", in even the vaguest sense of the word.
None of that is an argument that it is broken it is just an argument the the different powers of the class work differently with each other. The arguments I see here are not using the concept of 'synergy' but the argument of 'I want my cake and eat it to'.
the arguments are not going for a game balance but an increase of power that is against balance.
The balance in multiclassing is gaining other abilities by losing access to others, that is exactly how it works.
It seems to me that people want to have very powerful casters and very powerful fighters in one class... we already have that with cleric.. I think that is enough.
I see what you guys want as against balance not for it. I don't see how equaling or coming close to equal a focused character in one class to a one part of a mulit class unfocused brings balance. it seems to me that you are breaking the balance by making extremely powerful multiclass that adds up more then the sum of one class. As of right now by playing to the strengths of a multi class you are as equal to the powers, just in a different way.
Not saying you can not make a bad multiclass character. you can, that is easy with bad choices.. But a 10fighter/10wizard is not a bad choice *Though I would go with 11 fighter/9 wizard or 9 Fighter/11 Wizard*
I see what you guys want as against balance not for it.
This is because you don't fully understand what "balance" means and how it works in this game.
Again, sorry that there isn't a gentler way to put that. If there is anything in my explaination of "synergy" that you don't understand then I don't mind trying to explain further, and if you have any specific counter-points to offer (beyond "I think that you're wrong") I would be happy to address them, but barring that there is little else I can offer you.
|
|
I see what you guys want as against balance not for it.This is because you don't fully understand what "balance" means and how it works in this game.
Again, sorry that there isn't a gentler way to put that. If there is anything in my explaination of "synergy" that you don't understand then I don't mind trying to explain further, and if you have any specific counter-points to offer (beyond "I think that you're wrong") I would be happy to address them, but barring that there is little else I can offer you.
We are going to have to disagree there, I think I am seeing the balance, and you are not... sorry... might as well stop there then because we won't change on that...
that said.. I do think excessive multiclassing does weaken a character. If I would change anything about multiclassing I would change it to limit it to only 2 classes and 1 prestige class. we can continue to talk about that part if you want.
Tomb of battle has a similar fix that should work with all spellcasters. If you are one of those classes and multiclass, all of your nonmanuver using class levels add 3/4 to your total manuver level. I think that is the break down, but I could be wrong.
It's 1 Initiator level per 2 non-ToB class levels, and Initiator levels are tied directly to the level of maneuvers you can learn. A level 10 Swordsage could normally only use level 5 maneuvers, but a level 10 Swordsage/level 6 Fighter could use level 7 maneuvers (assuming he took the levels in the right order, anyway), the same as if he were a level 13 Swordsage. It doesn't stack for the purposes of maneuvers or stances known or maneuvers readied, though. It works because maneuvers are a unified system -- a level 1 maneuver uses the same slots as a level 9 maneuver does. You'd have to figure out some kind of spell slot conversion to use it with spellcasters.
It does work well for ToB characters, though.
I really think that the concept of Magic Rating is really all that is needed, along with the prestige classes available.
Dragonmoon, et al, are correct, you *should* lose power when multiclassing, and yes, I mean *overall* power - as in the oomph you can put out in a fight. The added versatility means you can be effective in quite a few more *kinds* of situations (whether fights or otherwise).
So a loss of power, whether high level spells, better armor/weapon training, the peak of sneak attack dice, or as in losing the higher level spells makes sense.
The only real *problems* were when a multi-class truly became useless in too many situations where they should be able to contribute. As creatures with SR become more common, failing to break SR constantly, simply because of multiclassing, becomes a ridiculous scenario. I think some exaggerate the effects, but it is there. Also being say, a 5/5 druid/wizard, and casting a 5d6 fireball is just kinda silly. Often it would be more effective for that character to just swing her quarterstaff if that were the case.
Magic Rating is for 3.5, Pathfinder is 3.5, use it :), see if it works for you.
I think I am seeing the balance, and you are not... sorry...
Well of course. If we didn't both believe that we were right and the other was wrong, we wouldn't be disagreeing. :)
That's how debates work, and it's perfectly fine. HOwever, when your post only says "I think that I'm right", it doesn't give me much to work with or reply to (hence my last, rather dismissive response).
Re-reading your old posts I think I may have grasped the thrust of your argument, though, and can address that now if it helps.
What you are saying, unless I'm mistaken, is that being JUST as powerful as a pure-fighter or a pure-wizard (power-wise) would not be balanced, considering that the fighter/wizard has flexibility which the pure characters do not, and that flexibility is worth something in terms of power. Correct?
Power is a complex word, and has evolved a lot (in this context) over the years. When we say "power", we don't just mean raw ability at any one thing. "Power" accounts for flexibility as well: getting a new option makes you more powerful. In theory, all the classes in D&D are supposed to be equally powerful, even though some are much more flexible and less focused than others.
For example, consider Skill Focus (in either perception or sense motive) as it compares to Alertness. The latter gives +2 to perception and +2 to sense motive; the former gives +3 to one or the other but not both.
In terms of raw bonuses, Alertness gives more bonuses (a total of +4). But it isn't better than Skill Focus because Skill Focus is more specialized, and being really good at one skill is better than being kind of good at two (most of the time).
Alertness gives more total, but Skill Focus is more specialized, and neither is more powerful than the other (they are balanced). Kind of like a Theurge10 and a Wizard16.
When the Mystic Theurge (and the Eldritch Knight, for that matter) came out, your point of view was prevelant ("can't have your cake and eat it too"), and there was a great scandal that this "broken" class was being tossed into the core rulebooks.
Then people tried actually playing it.
Five or six years of playtesting has well established that casting as a cleric11 and a wizard11 is about as good as casting as a wizard14.
By extension, we can assume that casting as a wizard13 AND a cleric13 would be too powerful (and by that, I mean equal in terms of raw-power, greater in terms of options and flexability), but that casting as a cleric7 and a wizard7 would be several levels too weak. Neither of which would be good: what we want is the happy medium, just enough of a boost to compensate for a multiclassed caster's lack of synergy.
Now, if you would still like to agree to disagree that's perfectly fine. I'm not trying to harass you into a response. But like I said, it took me a while to grasp the thrust of your argument (and the ambiguity over the term "power"), and after I did I felt obligated to offer a respectful reply. :)
I need air to breathe.
I want to have ice cream for desert.
1 is an absolute requirement.
1 is a nice to have.
The game does not NEED a fix for something that is not broken (in my opinion).
-- david
Papa.DRB
My last post on the subject.
Saying "you don't need that" is one thing (it can be said of virtually any element of the game, including the very good ones). Saying "the game shouldn't have that" is quite another.
use these:
Mystic Theurge
Arcane Knight
Arcane Trickster
As already mentioned, they achieve very similar dynamics to 2E multiclassing.
Anything you do to achieve the same effect will be extremely unbalancing for said Prc's.
This issue has already been dealt with under 3.5, and above PrC's should be compatable with PRPG.
I really think that the concept of Magic Rating is really all that is needed, along with the prestige classes available.
Dragonmoon, et al, are correct, you *should* lose power when multiclassing, and yes, I mean *overall* power - as in the oomph you can put out in a fight. The added versatility means you can be effective in quite a few more *kinds* of situations (whether fights or otherwise).
So a loss of power, whether high level spells, better armor/weapon training, the peak of sneak attack dice, or as in losing the higher level spells makes sense.
The only real *problems* were when a multi-class truly became useless in too many situations where they should be able to contribute. As creatures with SR become more common, failing to break SR constantly, simply because of multiclassing, becomes a ridiculous scenario. I think some exaggerate the effects, but it is there. Also being say, a 5/5 druid/wizard, and casting a 5d6 fireball is just kinda silly. Often it would be more effective for that character to just swing her quarterstaff if that were the case.
Magic Rating is for 3.5, Pathfinder is 3.5, use it :), see if it works for you.
In terms of losing -overall- power in combat, I disagree. You speak as though, say, a druid/wizard is more flexible out of combat than a straight-classed caster in either class, which I don't think is the case. Both these classes, at mid and high levels, gain some extremely useful out of combat spells, and the theurge will have slowed access to those just as they do to everything else.
What the theurge does get is a lot of spell slots prepared at once, and the stamina and in-combat flexibility which somes with that. And you should compensate for that if you want them to be just as good as (and no better than) straight-classed casters in combat, which I do.
You're right about the "magic rating", though. I think that the "practiced caster" feat was just a quick-and-dirty fix for that oversight. And yes, the theurge works just fine, but it too is a bit of a quick patch. I kind of understand why people want a fix IN the system itself.
I need air to breathe.
I want to have ice cream for desert.
1 is an absolute requirement.
1 is a nice to have.
No problem with the system ever "needs" to be fixed. If the PRPG had done nothing to nerf CoDzilla, for instance, no one would have dropped to the floor clutching their throats.
This is a game. "Nice to have" is all there is, and "fun to play" is all that matters. Any mention of "need" and "not need" on your part remains fallacious and irrelevant.
What you are really saying is that you don't like that change and don't think it should be made. However, if you actually said it that way then you might be asked "Why not?", and I don't think you would have a good answer.
And so you stick to the "it isn't needed" line, assuming a utilitarian tone with regard to a subject completely removed from utility, speaking as though we are talking about rationing food, water and air rather than fine-tuning a game for the pleasure of its players.
I need air to breathe.
I want to have ice cream for desert.
1 is an absolute requirement.
1 is a nice to have.
No problem with the system ever "needs" to be fixed. If the PRPG had done nothing to nerf CoDzilla, for instance, no one would have dropped to the floor clutching their throats.
This is a game. "Nice to have" is all there is, and "fun to play" is all that matters. Any mention of "need" and "not need" on your part remains fallacious and irrelevant.
What you are really saying is that you don't like that change and don't think it should be made. However, if you actually said it that way then you might be asked "Why not?", and I don't think you would have a good answer.
And so you stick to the "it isn't needed" line, assuming a utilitarian tone with regard to a subject completely removed from utility, speaking as though we are talking about rationing food, water and air rather than fine-tuning a game for the pleasure of its players.
Let it go. His position is silly; you don't need him to admit it.
use these:
Mystic Theurge
Arcane Knight
Arcane TricksterAs already mentioned, they achieve very similar dynamics to 2E multiclassing.
Anything you do to achieve the same effect will be extremely unbalancing for said Prc's.
This issue has already been dealt with under 3.5, and above PrC's should be compatable with PRPG.
However those cover a small area of multiclassing and in order to function it need more and more prestige classes to appear to fill in the gaps. Things like Cleric/Rogue are avoided unless that mystical cleric/rogue prestige class pops up.
Besides, for me, prestige classes are better used representing groups, organizations, and such within a campaign setting. In general, the multiclassing prestige classes seem to be less prestigious. Most people aren't taking the prestige class to join the group or tie their character more with the world. They are joining because they are Class A + Class B and this is the only prestige class that supports that combination.
Given the things I've heard so far for the Pathfinder RPG have led me to believe little was done to alleviate the lack-luster power and variety available to multiclassing characters. I just don't believe it was within the design goals for this update.
|
|
I don't see that as such a bad thing. Some, but not all (or even most) prestige classes have anything to do with joined a group. I have searched for a good Cleric/Rogue Prestige class since 3.0 came out, and have never found one that does what I want it to, so I don't think all the Prestige Classes out there designed to fill gaps are bad, except that they generally fail to do what they are meant for until way to high a level.
On the subject, anyone know of a primarily Cleric based Cleric/Rogue Prestige class about being a treasure hunter (ala Indiana Jones), that doesn't lose 1/2 their spells, depend on a specific race, restrict to a certain alignment (like LG), or depend on specific Domains or something? I somewhat like the Loremaster (in concept anyway), but it just doesn't give near enough to work. Luckstealer, Divine Trickster, ShadowBane whatever, and the Complete Champion Class I know of and do not work, though Holy Scoundrel has promise.
|
|
In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Example: 12th level character, 6th level fighter, 6th level wizard. Has the BAB, HP, Saves, and skills from 6 levels of fighter and 6 levels of wizard just like normal. But for things like caster levels and bonus fighter feats they was equal to 6th + (6 divided by 2 =)3 = 9. So had the fighter feats of a 9th level fighter and the spell progression of a 9th level wizard. Made it closer to the old multiclass of 1st edition.
It's not a perfect fix but it worked well enough for us.
Nice. What were the praises/concern of you and your group members as they saw the houserule in action?
Nice. What were the praises/concern of you and your group members as they saw the houserule in action?In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Example: 12th level character, 6th level fighter, 6th level wizard. Has the BAB, HP, Saves, and skills from 6 levels of fighter and 6 levels of wizard just like normal. But for things like caster levels and bonus fighter feats they was equal to 6th + (6 divided by 2 =)3 = 9. So had the fighter feats of a 9th level fighter and the spell progression of a 9th level wizard. Made it closer to the old multiclass of 1st edition.
It's not a perfect fix but it worked well enough for us.
I'm going to link this thread partially to show give some comparisons of classes using a similar rule (and also because of how much stupid time I spent on the thing). (Bleh. I don't like how I presented my wandering thoughts. Now I need my time machine.)
Just to throw my 2 cents in, I would propose this solution:
A person with caster levels (say wizard 5 or class A) who multiclassed into another full caster class (say cleric o class B) could add his cleric level to his wizard level for his wizard spell caster level, but gets no other benefits (spells known, school powers, etc etc). The limit to this benefit is his class level in class A, so a wizard 2 cleric 3 would still only cast wizard spells at 4, but a wizard 5 cleric 1 would already cast cleric spells at caster level 2.
Halve these benefits for partial casting classes, so a Druid 5/Bard 4 would cast Druid spells at CL 7 and the bard spells at CL 6. Maybe also with non caster classes? I dunno.
I'm sure someone will find a way to break this idea somehow, but at least the people who truly want to be like 2e multiclassing whose DM won't let them just Gestalt, would have a way to make up caster levels but not lost spell levels before they hit Theurge.
|
|
I'm going to link this thread partially to show give some comparisons of classes using a similar rule (and also because of how much stupid time I spent on the thing). (Bleh. I don't like how I presented my wandering thoughts. Now I need my time machine.)Nice. What were the praises/concern of you and your group members as they saw the houserule in action?In my group we toyed around with some multiclass fixes and the one we found that worked the best and was simple was this.
You get half the levels from other classes added back in for special abilities only.
Example: 12th level character, 6th level fighter, 6th level wizard. Has the BAB, HP, Saves, and skills from 6 levels of fighter and 6 levels of wizard just like normal. But for things like caster levels and bonus fighter feats they was equal to 6th + (6 divided by 2 =)3 = 9. So had the fighter feats of a 9th level fighter and the spell progression of a 9th level wizard. Made it closer to the old multiclass of 1st edition.
It's not a perfect fix but it worked well enough for us.
I'll check it out. Thanks! (BTW, Josh, were you at Strategicon back in May? And will you be attending this September?)