Multiclassing Casters


Races & Classes


I want to use this thread to talk about possible rules for multiclassing two caster classes more efficiently.

We all know that BAB, Skill and HD advance in some way if you take a second class in addition to a first martial oriented class, especially with the new Pathfinder rules on Skills and the increased HD of some classes there are far less limitations as before. Thus I would propose that there should be some way to increase the casting power of caster classes when you multiclass.

Another reason is the fact that with the new Cleric, Wizard and Sorcerer we have far more class abilities that are not tied to spell casting anymore, thus the old Mystic Theurge PrC is far more useless than before. Of course one could upgrade it to say it also increases the domain/school/bloodline powers for the first class on all odd levels and for the second on all even levels, but this would not take into account the druid, who might not even have domain powers. In addition there might be other caster classes that player want to use that have totally different types of powers and the multiclass system should still be consistent (like a bard or even ranger and paladin).

Hence let us look at a standard Multiclassing build using SRD stuff (no CharOp Board tricks): Wizard 5/Cleric 5/Mystic Theurge 10.

This class has the class features of a 5th level cleric and of a 5th level wizard plus spellcasting abilities of a 15th level character in both classes. I do not want to judge if this is sufficient or not, but possible multiclassing rules should be able to achieve at least the same result.

Thus the first change would be to say that if you have a caster class A, half the levels in all other classes count for your spellcasting abilities for class A (both caster level and spells known/per day). Thus we could take a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 and have the same spellcasting abilities as the combination above, but would even have better class features in regards to domain powers and school specialization.

If we would now take the comibnation fighter 10/wizard 10, we would have a class that has the spellcasting abilities of a 15th level wizard, which would be comparable to its "fighter-like" with the BAB of a 15th level fighter and even better skills and HD.

I know that many would argue that the above combination of wizard 10/cleric 10 would still not be viable at high levels.

One possibility to deal with this, would be to create feats to improve on this. Lets say a feat that increases the spellcasting abilities of one caster class by one level up to a certain maximum (I know there is Practised Spellcaster, but I want the Pathfinder rules to be able to accomplish this without old WotC stuff). This fix would of course mean a heavy investment in feats to increase the power of the combination, but as a character could gain casting abilities in two full caster classes some degree of sacrifice should be needed, althought the above way may be to harsh.

I would like to hear other suggestions for the multiclassing of casters.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

You're asking to have your cake and eat it too. you're asking for the full abilities of three classes almost as if you're single-classed in each one. If your problem is effective caster level, that's what practised caster is for. The only reason that PrC's like mystic theurge are balanced at all is the sacrifice of class features and the investment made in diversion from caster level progression.

Given that arcane and divine magic have absolutely nothing in common with another, why should one's studies in book magic re-inforce one's divine casting power or vice versa?

Sovereign Court

You might as well ask "Why would a fighter that studies magic become better at hitting people with his sword?"

Answer: General adventuring experience, in which he is assumed to still be using his sword in battle and practicing with it even if he buys a level of Wizard with his experience.

Similarly, that Wizard/Cleric is going to be casting spells from both classes in his adventuring, so he really is gaining experience in both classes. It's just that the leveling system requires him to only advance one of them at a time.

Also, I want to point out that if the Mystic Theurge was balanced in 3.5, where the Wizard and Cleric had very few abilities they were losing, is it still balanced now that these classes have far more abilities they are losing, including the fact that previously, the Mystic Theurge would continue to gain Domain spells and a Specialist Wizard's bonus spells and he no longer will (as they were spells in 3.5, not special abilities like in Pathfinder). So not only is a Theurge giving up more, he is actually gaining less than he did in 3.5.


Personally, I found the mystic theurge to be a bit unbalanced, though it was far better than later spellcasting crosses.

I am fine with the mystic theurge only getting spells now. However, I would improve the HD of the class. I should point out that I am of the belief that a prestige class should grant new abilities and not just make you better at what you already can do. For the mystic theurge, I would give new abilities that work on combining arcane and divine, but that is getting off topic.

The big weakness of multiclassing that I see is that a character's caster level does not improve. BAB and savs do increase even if you add levels of a non-spell caster.

A sorcerer that adds fightr levels should still be able to become a stronger caster, but not a more skilled caster (gaining a increase in caster level but no new spells). Unearthed Arcana has some decent rules for doing this, but I would like to see something better.


Define Caster Level = Character Level. It makes spellcaster multiclassing work.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thraxus wrote:

Personally, I found the mystic theurge to be a bit unbalanced, though it was far better than later spellcasting crosses.

I am fine with the mystic theurge only getting spells now. However, I would improve the HD of the class. I should point out that I am of the belief that a prestige class should grant new abilities and not just make you better at what you already can do. For the mystic theurge, I would give new abilities that work on combining arcane and divine, but that is getting off topic.

The mystic theurge is giving you a new ability, that of improving two spell caster levels for the price of one level. PRC's are about specialisation, you give up certain abilities for other gains.


LazarX wrote:
You're asking to have your cake and eat it too. you're asking for the full abilities of three classes almost as if you're single-classed in each one. If your problem is effective caster level, that's what practised caster is for. The only reason that PrC's like mystic theurge are balanced at all is the sacrifice of class features and the investment made in diversion from caster level progression.

I don't want all the abilities of both classes, a wizard 10/cleric 10 would still only have the school powers and domain powers of a 10th level wizard and a 10th level cleric. Thus they give up those powers that substitute the extra spells that a normal wizard 5/cleric 5/MT 10 would have had for his 6th, 7th and 8th level spell slots. The only thing the wizard 10/cleric 10 combination gets in addition to the abilities in 3.P at the moment is a spell progression of a 15th level wizard and a 15th level cleric.

I only mentioned feats to increase caster level/spell level if people felt that this combination is not good enough. Without any of these, my wizard 10/cleric 10 is nearly the same as a Wizard 5/Cleric 5/MT 10.
And please don't counter with practised spellcaster, it should be 3.P rules alone that make multiclassing casters viable.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Maxxx wrote:


I only mentioned feats to increase caster level/spell level if people felt that this combination is not good enough. Without any of these, my wizard 10/cleric 10 is nearly the same as a Wizard 5/Cleric 5/MT 10.
And please don't counter with practised spellcaster, it should be 3.P rules alone that make multiclassing casters viable.

Caster wise it's quite different. the first is a 10th level caster in wizard and cleric, the second case is a 15th level caster in each, 5th level spells vs. 8th. In my book, that's significant.


I hate the mystic theurge and eldritch knight and similar classes. You take either one class or the other, not both.
But of course, multiclass casters are a bit of a problem. In 2nd Ed. a 4/4 character was about equal to a 5 character I belive.

I think I would allow a feat, that allows you to pick one spellcasting class you have. You can add half the ammount of any other class levels you have and add it to "caster level" for the chosen class. Levels in prestige classes, that grant a raise in spellcasting ability, are ignored for this ability.
No new spells, no additional slots, but spells become stronger and last longer.
This feat can be taken multiple times, but each time you have to pick, it applies to another spellcasting class.

I know, more of a home-rule suggestion, but oppinions on that? ^^

Liberty's Edge

Neithan wrote:

I hate the mystic theurge and eldritch knight and similar classes. You take either one class or the other, not both.

But of course, multiclass casters are a bit of a problem. In 2nd Ed. a 4/4 character was about equal to a 5 character I belive.

I think I would allow a feat, that allows you to pick one spellcasting class you have. You can add half the ammount of any other class levels you have and add it to "caster level" for the chosen class. Levels in prestige classes, that grant a raise in spellcasting ability, are ignored for this ability.
No new spells, no additional slots, but spells become stronger and last longer.
This feat can be taken multiple times, but each time you have to pick, it applies to another spellcasting class.

I know, more of a home-rule suggestion, but oppinions on that? ^^

Practised Spellcaster from Complete Arcana gives you a +4 caster level bonus to one spellcasting class. Granted you have to have levels in another class whose HD total 4 more than the casting class.


LazarX wrote:


Caster wise it's quite different. the first is a 10th level caster in wizard and cleric, the second case is a 15th level caster in each, 5th level spells vs. 8th. In my book, that's significant.

No, I meant a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 with the modifications i proposed above. Then both my Wizard 10/Cleric 10 and the old Wizard 5/Cleric 5/MT 10 have 8th level spells and the same spells per day, they only differ in the fact that the Wizard 10/Cleric 10 combo has the class features of the wizard and cleric classes from level 6-10.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Multiclassing spellcasters. Yeah...

First and foremost, I think it was said best in the Alpha 2 thread. A formula for gaining Caster Level (no new spell knowledge, but variable effects and spell strength for dispelling and breaking through spell resistance):

Same class = +1 caster level
Different class = +1 caster level/2 levels

So the aforementioned Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would be a 15th level spellcaster for both his divine and arcane spells. He would not gain access to 6th, 7th, 8th or 9th level spells, but his durations, ranges, caster level checks, etc. all would be higher.

This being said, some have mentioned that "the two magic types are completely different" and I would agree. However, two points must be made here.

1) Multiclassing 1/1 with another totally different spellcasting class should not net you all the benefits of those two singular classes, but it SHOULD give you a bit more bite than playing a character only as powerful as a single classed character in either class. This is a limit of the system, not the story-telling or role-playing genre.

2) As a spellcaster, you have an innate ability to control your own "power" or "casting ability". Like a muscle, the more you use it, the more powerful it should be. So, also like a muscle, if you don't concentrate on that one particular area, it won't be as strong as if you had.

On the thought of feats...I ABHOR the very concept of using feats to make your character viable in the system. Feats should not bring your character up they should extend your character. At least that's my opinion.

So, I say use the above formula. It's not perfect, but neither is a 10th level spellcaster throwing fireballs at a balor when that same character is supposed to be 20th level. ;)

Shadow Lodge

The problem with your simple theory about advancing casting levels is that it leaves other classes in the dark. If you have a Rogue/ Wizard should your Rogue skills and class features advance as your level goes up? Should a Barbarian 10/ Sorcerer 10 have Rage points as a Barbarian 15 and cast as a Sorcerer 15? How do spells known for the sorcerer work?

What about a Ranger/ Rogue, one of my favorite multi-class combos, a lot of potential synergy there and it would be even more awesome if the Ranger 10/ Rogue 10 had the class features of a Rogue 15/ Ranger 15... maybe just backstab as a 15th level rogue and favored enemy advancement?

Taking your corner issue of casters only, how do you make a hard and fast rule that is fair to all classes?

-- Dennis


all these fancy rules, why not just create a separate experience chart for multiclasses characters? Average out their Hit points, BAB, and saves, then give them a harder experience chart that roughly makes them 75% of the level of a single class character?


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
The problem with your simple theory about advancing casting levels is that it leaves other classes in the dark. If you have a Rogue/ Wizard should your Rogue skills and class features advance as your level goes up? Should a Barbarian 10/ Sorcerer 10 have Rage points as a Barbarian 15 and cast as a Sorcerer 15? How do spells known for the sorcerer work?

I'm not going to pretend to know (b/c I haven't read the PF rules completely) what rage points are but what you're suggesting isn't as benign as a caster level (only) increase. Your last question above gives me the impression that you're not really informed about what I'm talking about. Sorcerers would not gain additional spells known, only the caster-level dependent parts of their spells would be affected.

Ogre wrote:

What about a Ranger/ Rogue, one of my favorite multi-class combos, a lot of potential synergy there and it would be even more awesome if the Ranger 10/ Rogue 10 had the class features of a Rogue 15/ Ranger 15... maybe just backstab as a 15th level rogue and favored enemy advancement?

Taking your corner issue of casters only, how do you make a hard and fast rule that is fair to all classes?

-- Dennis

Again, I think your "improving class abilities" of class benefits would be the equivalent of giving a spellcaster more spell levels and not caster levels. What we're doing is giving the caster who multiclasses into two or more non-similar spellcasting classes a way to be viable. I don't think there is a need for an increase in other classes abilities because you're bringing multi-classed spellcasters up to par with the rest of them.

Make sense?

Shadow Lodge

Arknath wrote:
...what you're suggesting isn't as benign as a caster level (only) increase.

What you are suggesting is a change to the system which benefits the classes that are considered the most powerful ones in the game. Giving a rogue an extra 3d6 damage on sneak attack isn't as benign as giving a wizard an extra 5d6 on cone of cold? Giving the ranger an extra +2 damage for favored enemies is worse than extending the duration of every single wizard or cleric spell by 50%? I guess it isn't as benign to the wizard or cleric.

Arknath wrote:
Again, I think your "improving class abilities" of class benefits would be the equivalent of giving a spellcaster more spell levels and not caster levels. What we're doing is giving the caster who multiclasses into two or more non-similar spellcasting classes a way to be viable. I don't think there is a need for an increase in other classes abilities because you're bringing multi-classed spellcasters up to par with the rest of them.

I am not suggesting the rogue get more class abilities, only that his existing ones should scale. Exactly mirroring the way a wizard's existing spells are more effective as caster level increases.

So your figurative 10/10 wizard/cleric with CL 15/15 casts cone of cold and deals 15d6 damage instead of 10d6. Similarly a 10/10 rogue/ ranger would be able to sneak attack as a 15th level rogue doing 8d6 damage instead of 5d6. The rogue would not gain any new class skills, he would only advance existing ones (at a reduced rate similar to what you suggest about Caster Level).

The point is, any sort of multi classing changes should benefit all classes across the board, not just caster classes.

-- Dennis


0gre wrote:


So your figurative 10/10 wizard/cleric with CL 15/15 casts cone of cold and deals 15d6 damage instead of 10d6. Similarly a 10/10 rogue/ ranger would be able to sneak attack as a 15th level rogue doing 8d6 damage instead of 5d6. The rogue would not gain any new class skills, he would only advance existing ones (at a reduced rate similar to what you suggest about Caster Level).

The point is, any sort of multi classing changes should benefit all classes across the board, not just caster classes.

-- Dennis

That is a good point I haven't thought of, how about for each class assigning which class features are multiclassable.

These increase half as fast as normally for that class when you take other classes. For a ranger this would be favored enemy/terrain plus perhaps also the hunter's bond, while for rogues this would be sneak attack and perhaps even rogue talents. It would be optimal if these features normally just increase by level like sneak attack, favored enemy, spells, etc.

A suggestions would be:
Barbarian: Rage points (every even level in another class he gains 2+Con modifier) and Rage talents (1 per four levels in other classes)

Bard: Spellprogression and bardic music attempts per day, perhaps even bardic music abilities.

Cleric: Spellprogression

Druid: Spellprogression

Fighter: Armor Training, Weapon Training, Bonus Feats

Monk: Flurry Progression, Unarmed Damage, AC Bonus?

Paladin: Smite, Spellprogression, perhaps lay on hands

Ranger: Favored Enemy/Terrain, Hunter's Bond, Spellprogression

Rogue: Sneak Attack, Rogue Talents

Sorcerer: Spellprogression

Wizard: Spellprogression

There should be some upper limit, for example the maximum "virtual class level" you can gain in any class is double the number of levels you have in that class. Thus a Fighter 1/Wizard 19, would only gain the abilities of a Fighter 2 and a Fighter 19/Wizard 1, would only gain them of a Wizard 2.

One should not forget that non full casters also rely much more on their BAB bonuses which increase in any case. A fighter 10/ranger 10 has a BAB of +20 which is a very important class feature of both fighter and ranger.


There is a difference between the power gain of some of this abilities. The +2 favored enemy bonus of a ranger, for example, stays a useful bonus for fighting type classes up to level 20. A +2 bonus means still a +10% chance of hitting, no matter how high the AC is (and you can hit it with something under nat 20).
IMO, the half caster level for multiclassing casters does not owerpower the casting classes, but gives them enough to keep up with the synergies other, more melee orientated, classes get for free.


I like the idea of advancing spellcasting automatically like this for multiclass casters. The only thing I would add, though, is some kind of limit. For example, say that the caster level for a given class can't go above 2 x the number of levels you have taken in that class. Otherwise, in theory someone could be Wizard 1 / Fighter 19 and have the spellcasting power of a 10th level wizard along with all the abilities of a 19th level fighter. Even more broken, they could go Wizard 1 / Sorcerer 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Fighter 16 and have 10th level casting in ALL the caster classes plus the BAB and bonus feats of a 16th level fighter. Whether or not that is uber-powerful is debatable, but it certainly seems silly at best.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Paul the Destroyer wrote:
I like the idea of advancing spellcasting automatically like this for multiclass casters. The only thing I would add, though, is some kind of limit. For example, say that the caster level for a given class can't go above 2 x the number of levels you have taken in that class. Otherwise, in theory someone could be Wizard 1 / Fighter 19 and have the spellcasting power of a 10th level wizard along with all the abilities of a 19th level fighter. Even more broken, they could go Wizard 1 / Sorcerer 1 / Cleric 1 / Druid 1 / Fighter 16 and have 10th level casting in ALL the caster classes plus the BAB and bonus feats of a 16th level fighter. Whether or not that is uber-powerful is debatable, but it certainly seems silly at best.

I wouldn't even consider that a necessity. Characters that biased are going to face some pretty heavy restrictions on what they can use their spells on.

A wizard 1/fighter 19 may have acaster level of 10, but he's only casting 0 and 1st level spells. At at 20th level, he's completely ineffective as a spellcaster if not casting a spell on himself or his allies, or one that doesn't allow for saves or spell resistance.

He's better off serving as a pure fighter in a fight than a fighter/wizard, because his spells known, spells per day, and CL for things like Spell Resistance are going to be absolute crap. He'll also likely be done with spellcasting for a day after the first fight, and I doubt the rest of the party would be willing to rest just so he could recover a few spells.


Basic, general abilities grow with levels in other classes, but the only class features that do that are specifically called out, and generally shared among the classes that grant the stacking. I could see divorcing caster level from your specific class level and treating it more like a generic stat like BAB or a save, but granting spell progression on top of that seems way off. Spells per day seems like a class ability, and I don't want to see that advance without levels in the primary class. I don't like the idea above to make the primary class abilities of every class advance in some fashion, it'd be easier to work everthing as gestalt at that point.

I think Magic Ratings system in Unearthed Arcana (pretty sure it's OGL even) is already built to handle increasing caster level with secondary classes. Primary casters (people who get spell casting at every level) get +1 CL for each level. Secondary casters (Rangers, pallys, classes that don't get full CL progression or reduced spell advancement, splat classes with lots of Su powers) get +1/2 CL for each level. Non-casters (fighters, rogues, barbs) get +1/4 CL for each level. Add it all up, drop any left over fractions, and you've got your caster level. You can split progression further into arcane / divine CLs (and nature too if you feel like it), but it's not necessary.

Divorcing CL from class levels sets up some odd situations though. The completely ineffective fighter 19/ wizard 1 has been mentioned, as has the 1 level of everything caster, but funny things happen in any build. If you make a 10th level Ranger who decides to take up Wizard, he's hit the damage cap for most of the spells he knows already. His spells don't get more powerful as he levels for a while, he just gets more of them. A ranger 10/ wizard 5 learns fireball and has his damage on them capped already. That's probably a good thing from a balance side of things, as it makes this sort of late career class swap more manageable, but it just feels funny.

Sovereign Court

Since the PRPG gives feats every other level instead of every 3 levels, the simplest answer to me is to make Practiced Spellcaster a core feat (or one very nearly like it). It's not much of a sacrifice to blow a feat when you get a dozen as opposed to half that many, and +4 CL should be enough for caster/noncaster multiclass, or +8 if you take it twice for caster/other caster combos.


modus0 wrote:
A wizard 1/fighter 19 may have acaster level of 10, but he's only casting 0 and 1st level spells.

If you're JUST giving multiclass characters caster level and not spells, I agree with you that no cap is needed. In fact, I would be fine with saying Caster Level = Character Level if CL is all they're getting.

I was actually referring to the idea of giving multiclass casters new spells per level as well as caster level (which is what Maxxx suggested at the top of the thread). In that case, I feel a cap is needed. Being able to cast 1st-5th level spells as a 10th level wizard is an awfully big bonus for sinking just one level into wizard, but I wouldn't feel bad about giving it to a Wizard 5 / Fighter 15.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Paul the Destroyer wrote:

If you're JUST giving multiclass characters caster level and not spells, I agree with you that no cap is needed. In fact, I would be fine with saying Caster Level = Character Level if CL is all they're getting.

I was actually referring to the idea of giving multiclass casters new spells per level as well as caster level (which is what Maxxx suggested at the top of the thread). In that case, I feel a cap is needed. Being able to cast 1st-5th level spells as a 10th level wizard is an awfully big bonus for sinking just one level into wizard, but I wouldn't feel bad about giving it to a Wizard 5 / Fighter 15.

I myself wouldn't even consider allowing spells per level and caster level to increase when multiclassing.

It would allow spellcasters to multiclass with too few restrictions on power level, which is a bad thing as far as I'm concerned.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
What you are suggesting is a change to the system which benefits the classes that are considered the most powerful ones in the game. Giving a rogue an extra 3d6 damage on sneak attack isn't as benign as giving a wizard an extra 5d6 on cone of cold? Giving the ranger an extra +2 damage for favored enemies is worse than extending the duration of every single wizard or cleric spell by 50%? I guess it isn't as benign to the wizard or cleric.

I will disagree with you on this point. You're statement about "most powerful classes in the game" only apply to spellcasters whose spell level equals their character level (straight spellcaster + prestige class with spell levels added). I would be shocked if you could find me a 10/10 multiclassed spellcaster as powerful as a character that has 20 spell levels. The shear power behind the "caster level" mechanic would outweigh anything the 10/10 character could do.

Ogre wrote:
The point is, any sort of multi classing changes should benefit all classes across the board, not just caster classes.

You're comparing abilities that the other classes have no limit on. Yes a multiclass rogue can "only" do 3d6 but he can do that an unlimited amount of times per day. Just because spellcasters pack more power in one punch than a non-spellcasting class that can do a more consistent amount of damage for as long as they are swinging a sword, I hardly think that compares. In fact, I would go so far as to say that increasing class abilities for non-spellcasting classes that multiclass would fly in the face of what we're trying to do here.

Btw, I would like to clear up what I'm suggesting (and actually I'm just echoing an idea I saw on the Alpha 2 boards).

Multiclass spellcasters get full spellcaster level for all spellcasting levels they have (base class + prestige class levels that grant spellcasting level). They get 1/2 caster level (changes to damage, duration, targets, rolls to overcome spell resistance, ability to create magic items, etc.). They do not receive any new spell levels, more spells known or more spells per day.

Just thought I'd clear that up.

Twowlves wrote:
Since the PRPG gives feats every other level instead of every 3 levels, the simplest answer to me is to make Practiced Spellcaster a core feat (or one very nearly like it).

Let me say one more time: I abhor the use of feats just for the sake of making your character on par with other characters in the game. If you have to take a feat to bring yourself in line with other PCs, then it's a real waste because for every feat you spend this way, that's another feat (power, ability) your party members have over you.

Shadow Lodge

Arknath wrote:
You're comparing abilities that the other classes have no limit on. Yes a multiclass rogue can "only" do 3d6 but he can do that an unlimited amount of times per day. Just because spellcasters pack more power in one punch than a non-spellcasting class that can do a more consistent amount of damage for as long as they are swinging a sword, I hardly think that compares. In fact, I would go so far as to say that increasing class abilities for non-spellcasting classes that multiclass would fly in the face of what we're trying to do here.

"Unlimited" sounds so impressive. Let's look at how unlimited it really is. Most groups have 4-5 encounters per day (many fewer) the typical encounter lasts 4-10 rounds (I'll say 6 average even though I think that's high). The lucky rogue will be able to sneak attack 50% of the time. So that boils down to 12 sneak attacks per day. Personally I think that's being generous, maybe you think it's not. In any case 12 is a much more reasonable assumption than "infinite" which is what you seem to be implying. So 12x3d6 = 36d6 damage output increase for the rogue (assuming he never misses)

The 10th level wizard multiclass has anywhere between 16-20 or more spells per day which will be affected by your proposed change. It's impossible to say exactly how this will affect the game because there is such a huge range in abilities that encompasses. But just for the sake of argument lets look at a few of the changes:
4d6x4 extra damage from scorching ray alone = 12d6
2x cone of cold x 5d6 (x 3 targets/ shot) = 30d6

That's 6 spells out of 16... I don't see your case for "unlimited" sneak attack damage versus "limited" spell damage holding much water here.

-- Dennis


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
"Unlimited" sounds so impressive. Let's look at how unlimited it really is.

Without trying to be to snide, it is what it is. Unlimited is unlimited. It means "no limit" which is to say it's "more times per day than a spellcaster has spells". So, while you may or may not be correct in your assumption of how groups outside of the ones you've been in work, it still means that when the wizard forces the party to rest, the rogue can get to do what they do without resting.

Ogre wrote:
Personally I think that's being generous, maybe you think it's not. In any case 12 is a much more reasonable assumption than "infinite" which is what you seem to be implying. So 12x3d6 = 36d6 damage output increase for the rogue (assuming he never misses)

I don't see how you are making a case for a multiclass wizard under my new system (which is the equivalent of a 15th level caster) with the damage that a rogue can do at 5th level (which is when they do 3d6 sneak attack). If you're going to do a comparison, then I think you ought to be a little more fair than that. It shows your bias against the proposed solution.

And lets assume, for a second, that you meant a 10/10 ranger/rogue. So a rogue gets 5d6 sneak attack damage plus any other damage that stacks with that ability (maybe Favored Enemy or magic weapons or weapons or feats that help rogues do more with their sneak attacks). There is a rogue in my current campaign that is doing 5d6+5 damage every time he sneak attacks. It stands to reason that a multiclass rogue at that level at least gets 4 attacks per round on a full attack, and 5 when he's hasted, even more if he took - like a smart character - the TWF combat style.

So, even using your "12 sneak attacks per day" - which I think is not generous for a high level character like I'm saying because of the extra attacks - 48d6+60 = 228 average damage. Not to mention that base attacks and favored enemy attack bonuses mean that the rogue has a better chance of doing this damage than a wizard because of saving throws and spell resistance (which everyone has at 20th level). On top of this, my estimation is low, IMO.

Ogre wrote:
That's 6 spells out of 16... I don't see your case for "unlimited" sneak attack damage versus "limited" spell damage holding much water here.

To keep the ratio you're talking about, I think it increases to at least 12 of 16 spells to make it equal the damage of what an actual multiclass 20 level rogue can do. Also, you're still not taking into account the fact that at LEAST 1/4 of the wizard's spells will not break through SR or will be saved against for half or no damage (even worse under the old system). Also, the rogue could still have another unlimited number of encounters if he wanted to, whereas the wizard is done with one more encounter. If put in the proper perspective and given a fair, unbiased comparison, I think it is your reason not to adopt this suggestion that is unable to contain water, my friend. :)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Thraxus wrote:

Personally, I found the mystic theurge to be a bit unbalanced, though it was far better than later spellcasting crosses.

I am fine with the mystic theurge only getting spells now. However, I would improve the HD of the class. I should point out that I am of the belief that a prestige class should grant new abilities and not just make you better at what you already can do. For the mystic theurge, I would give new abilities that work on combining arcane and divine, but that is getting off topic.

I always thought that the point of a prestige class was to specialise in one or more aspects at the cost of a general class ability.

Shadow Lodge

Arknath wrote:
Without trying to be to snide, it is what it is. Unlimited is unlimited. It means "no limit" which is to say it's "more times per day than a spellcaster has spells".

Um... no it isn't, it's limited by the very real fact that everyone in the party can do only so much in a given day. Casters run out of spells, barbarians run out of rage, rogues run out of hit points and the party cleric is out of spells. Evaluating an ability based on a theoretical limit == infinite is ridiculous, you need to evaluate what impact it will have on normal game play.

Arknath wrote:
I don't see how you are making a case for a multiclass wizard under my new system (which is the equivalent of a 15th level caster) with the damage that a rogue can do at 5th level (which is when they do 3d6 sneak attack). If you're going to do a comparison, then I think you ought to be a little more fair than that. It shows your bias against the proposed solution.

I was speaking in the context of my previous message. 5d6 == the difference between the damage a cone of cold does using core rules or your proposed system. 3d6 = the difference between the damage a 10/10 rogue/ ???? could do and the damage a 15th level rogue could do.

Arknath wrote:
It stands to reason that a multiclass rogue at that level at least gets 4 attacks per round on a full attack, and 5 when he's hasted, even more if he took - like a smart character - the TWF combat style.

So now you are assuming certain synergies... what if it was a rogue/ wizard? Suddenly there are no 4 attacks per round. Plus... who hasted him?

Arknath wrote:
So, even using your "12 sneak attacks per day" - which I think is not generous for a high level character like I'm saying because of the extra attacks - 48d6+60 = 228 average damage. Not to mention that base attacks and favored enemy attack bonuses mean that the rogue has a better chance of doing this damage...

Lets assuming for a second the rogue has 4 attacks/ round and hits with them all (at -2/-7 to hit) and nets 228 damage. At the same time a core wizard 10 should be able to do 205 damage with just his 2 cones of cold (assumes 3 targets), an average of 112 points with 4 scorching ray spells, an average of 70 hit points with magic missile... plus whatever mahem he can cause with his remaining spells and abilities. In case you are keeping score that's 387HP damage from the Wizard, versus 228 from the rogue.

Maybe the rogue does double that number of attacks (24 sneak attacks/ day) for 456 HP damage? Well that's Ok because the wizard hasn't even tapped his 3rd or 4th level spells. And... since apparently you added the ranger class benefits (I know you didn't use a feat because you abhor using feats to make a class on par with other classes in the game) in to the comparison maybe we should start talking about the whole other class the wizard/ ??? has yet to tap into for dealing damage?

-- Dennis

Shadow Lodge

Screw it. I've made my point. It's clear neither of us is going to convince the other and this conversation is going in circles.

L8r


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
Arknath wrote:
Without trying to be to snide, it is what it is. Unlimited is unlimited. It means "no limit" which is to say it's "more times per day than a spellcaster has spells".
Um... no it isn't, it's limited by the very real fact that everyone in the party can do only so much in a given day. Casters run out of spells, barbarians run out of rage, rogues run out of hit points and the party cleric is out of spells. Evaluating an ability based on a theoretical limit == infinite is ridiculous, you need to evaluate what impact it will have on normal game play.

I believe that the above is an incorrect statement. Not only are all but one the abilities listed in your statement have a number of times per day they can be used, but again you are basing this discussion on what is "normal" and what is not. I've had groups run 9-10 encounters a day and I've had one run 1-2. Obviously each class (without ANY modification) has advantages and disadvantages in both scenarios. IMO, if you have an ability that is only useful in certain situations, it is in your best interest to see that those situations are more - and not less - frequent.

In addition, you've managed to completely ignore what I said in my previous post about 1/4 of the spellcaster's abilities being - either - completely negated or the damage done being halved by saving throws or spell resistance. So what if I can cast a 5th level spell that does 15d6 damage if all the target has to do is make a roll of 10 or higher on a d20 (save DC 20 without spell focus) and it turns into a 7.5d6 damage spell? Or, better yet, I fail the caster level check because I only have 10 caster levels and the creature has SR 32?

There are only three ways a non-spellcaster's attacks can be completely negated: DR, Healing (fast or otherwise) and missing the target. Every class gives a nonspellcaster the ability to decrease the chance of missing the target, and given enough attacks and/or money you can easily overcome the DR and healing aspects. What can casters do but take feats (granted, more readily available in PF) to overcome SR/Saves? Very few magic items exist to increase the ability to do either. Which leads me to your next point...

Ogre wrote:
So now you are assuming certain synergies... what if it was a rogue/ wizard? Suddenly there are no 4 attacks per round. Plus... who hasted him?

Um...of course! We ARE talking about 20th level characters are we not? There are far more options available to non-casters to increase their AB/Damage than there are for spellcasters. Of course, we could go around all day long about which multiclass combinations would be stronger than which, but as a general rule, I think it's futile to discuss that ad nauseum. You simply cannot remove a non-caster's magic items from him to try and compare him with a spellcasting character of equal level. I don't know ANY 20th level non-spellcaster (save MAYBE the monk) that would be able to close the distance with a wizard and win in a fight before he was simply roasted. This is the fault of the system because spells are numerous, varied and powerful in what they can do. So yeah, you have to assume that a non-spellcasting character has abilities passed what is given in his class table. Without it, the spellcasting character would win every time.

As a side note, the example you give is the exact thing we are attempting to fix!! A rogue with 10 levels of wizard isn't particularly strong at ANYTHING. Yes, he will have two attacks but he will also be able to cast a decent spell that will likely penetrate SR or make the target fail a save. I think the build you are suggesting is a weak build in the current system, compared to other class combinations. So I don't disagree with you there.

I think the weakest build I could think of here is wizard/sorcerer. At most two attacks per round (if that) and two different spell levels. Just because they are similar classes, doesn't make them unplayable. I could think of at least a few reasons a person, storywise, would want to play such a character. But that's me :).

0gre wrote:

Screw it. I've made my point. It's clear neither of us is going to convince the other and this conversation is going in circles.

L8r

Finally, I will disagree one last time. I do not believe any point was made here and the discussion was nearing at least an understanding. Obviously you don't feel that way and that's your prerogative. I - however - think the idea has merit and deserves to be at least playtested. I'm not saying I'm right or wrong, but the theory needs testing before it is summarily dismissed as a "bad system". If you think you have a better way to handle multi-classed spellcasters, then I think you should share it. Or you may be fine with the way things are, but that would certainly explain the vehemence with which you've seemed to disagree with the preposal that I'm making here.

I think the system needs to be fixed and we're at a key opportunity to do it.

Shadow Lodge

arkanth wrote:
Finally, I will disagree one last time. I do not believe any point was made here and the discussion was nearing at least an understanding.

My point was and still is that any unilateral change to multi classing should affect all classes, not a small subset. Your contention is that somehow casters are the poor stepchild of the game when it comes to multi casting. As far as I'm concerned you have failed to prove otherwise.

Your theory about synergies falls apart when you multi class with Ranger/ Monk, Paladin/ Rogue, Paladin/ Monk, Rogue/ Wizard, or Rogue/ Cleric. Your 'solution' is tunnel focused on solving a specific problem and ignores the impact the change has on the game as a whole.

-- Dennis


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
My point was and still is that any unilateral change to multi classing should affect all classes, not a small subset. Your contention is that somehow casters are the poor stepchild of the game when it comes to multi casting. As far as I'm concerned you have failed to prove otherwise.

I think I have proven my point most succinctly. What I don't understand is why you seem to think that raising the caster level would unbalance the game so. Your examples have failed to prove your point and, in some cases, prove my point all the more (as stated in my last post). It seems you have not played a high-level multiclass spellcaster before for that is the only reason I can think of you think the system isn't broken.

I don't believe unilateral changing of class abilities is warranted and I am even arguing that that would defeat the entire point of the proposed system. Classes that rely on base attack bonus receive them if even at a slower rate than they normally would. Spellcasters who multiclass receive bonuses that are completely useless to them most of the time. Base attack bonus being the main culprit.

Ogre wrote:
Your theory about synergies falls apart when you multi class with Ranger/ Monk, Paladin/ Rogue, Paladin/ Monk, Rogue/ Wizard, or Rogue/ Cleric. Your 'solution' is tunnel focused on solving a specific problem and ignores the impact the change has on the game as a whole.

It's one thing to say it and another thing to prove it. If you really believe that, give examples of how synergies break down. All of those combinations - with the exception of the rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer which was previously talked about - benefit from the main culprit in multiclassed caster's suffering: BAB. Good BAB classes who multiclass with Moderate BAB classes still get 4 attacks a round to do whatever they can do. Moderate BAB that multiclass with Poor BAB suffer in that way. Ranger or Paladin/Rogue? Smite/Sneak attack or TWF/Sneak attack anyone? Paladin or Ranger/Monk? Better attack bonus for Stunning fist including the aforementioned Smite/TWF/Favored Enemy bonus? Cleric is easily the most powerful class in the game, so it's sort of quirky when you multiclass cleric with anything, IMO. Clerics make everyone better, so it might actually break down there a bit. However, the new PF cleric might not be AS powerful. Besides, even a rogue/cleric loses the ability to do a lot of things if they are wearing heavy armor.

There, I've given some examples for why I think that the BAB is a common mechanic that makes multiclassing a non-caster that much better than multiclassing a spellcaster (sor/wiz, drd/sor, brd/drd). My challenge to you, good sir, is to punch holes in the "caster level for multiclass spellcasters" theory regarding it's power vs. the BAB mechanic. I leave you to it. :)

Shadow Lodge

Arknath wrote:
It's one thing to say it and another thing to prove it.

You are the one suggesting a change. You you "Prove It is required". I merely suggest that any change made should affect all classes equally, it's called game balance.

-- Dennis


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
0gre wrote:
You are the one suggesting a change. You you "Prove It is required". I merely suggest that any change made should affect all classes equally, it's called game balance.

Firstly, I don't even pretend to know what "You you 'Prove it is required'" might mean. I would ask that you clarify and, to expedite our further conversations, at least reread your posts and edit them for communication purposes.

That out of the way, I did prove how it works to some extent. In fact, from my own view, I've proven more for my side than you have for yours. All you have done is said it "won't work" and that I'm overpowering the multiclass spell casters when, as I read up through this thread, there are several people who are even suggesting that CL = Character level (which, IMO, is TOO much). I'm on the "for" side of the argument for this issue. You are on the "against" side of the argument. Therefore, as the representative of that side (so it seems), it is you who must provide the "dissenting opinion". It's called a debate. :)

I am very well aware of game-balance and it is in the name of game-balance that I'm even proposing this issue. So again, as I finished my last post with... If you think it doesn't work, provide your side of the argument in a similar way that I provided mine. Simply saying "Well, you're the one wanting the change" is neither helpful for discussion purposes nor does it benefit the topic at hand in either way. If you want to discuss, let's discuss and respond in kind. If you believe that the current system is fine, then say so and we will move on from that point.

If you cannot or will not continue the discussion, I won't keep running around in circles trying to prove my point to you.


So, I've been looking through the forums and I can't discover whether Jason has addressed this or not - is multiclassing even being looked at for Beta? Or are we gnashing our teeth and arguing for nothing?

*hopes that multiclassing is being looked at*


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Gaz Errant wrote:

So, I've been looking through the forums and I can't discover whether Jason has addressed this or not - is multiclassing even being looked at for Beta? Or are we gnashing our teeth and arguing for nothing?

*hopes that multiclassing is being looked at*

Well, after looking at the forum message for "Races and Classes" I moved the topic over to the "New Rules" forum since it would be a new rule, technically. This forum is supposed to be for current rules so it kinda belongs in both...but...I dunno. :)


I wouldn't mind a rule that every class that doesn't specifically grant "+1 caster level" gives you 1/2 caster level instead, which only improves the power of the spells you can cast, not give you extra spells or anyhting.

So say a Fighter 10/Wizard 5 would have the powers, spells known, spells per day, and so on of a Wiz 5, but make spell penetration rolls at +10, and his fireball would do 10d6. He wouldn't get his school's 8th-level power, spells/day like a wizard 10, or a better familiar, though.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
KaeYoss wrote:

I wouldn't mind a rule that every class that doesn't specifically grant "+1 caster level" gives you 1/2 caster level instead, which only improves the power of the spells you can cast, not give you extra spells or anyhting.

So say a Fighter 10/Wizard 5 would have the powers, spells known, spells per day, and so on of a Wiz 5, but make spell penetration rolls at +10, and his fireball would do 10d6. He wouldn't get his school's 8th-level power, spells/day like a wizard 10, or a better familiar, though.

That's reasonable. How would you deal with things like a multiclass Wizard/Cleric? Would it be equal or would they only contribute half to each other? Same with Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric/Druid?

Dark Archive

Paul Watson wrote:
KaeYoss wrote:

I wouldn't mind a rule that every class that doesn't specifically grant "+1 caster level" gives you 1/2 caster level instead, which only improves the power of the spells you can cast, not give you extra spells or anyhting.

So say a Fighter 10/Wizard 5 would have the powers, spells known, spells per day, and so on of a Wiz 5, but make spell penetration rolls at +10, and his fireball would do 10d6. He wouldn't get his school's 8th-level power, spells/day like a wizard 10, or a better familiar, though.

That's reasonable. How would you deal with things like a multiclass Wizard/Cleric? Would it be equal or would they only contribute half to each other? Same with Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric/Druid?

Book of nine swords had a rule like that. A swordsage10/warblade10 would have an initiator level of 15 in both classes. In my opinion it would work well with casters and manifesters. The only question would be the effect of classes that grant partial spell advancement. But then, most of them grant at least an advancement on any second level (except maybe a few paragon classes), so it won't make that much of a difference.

I would like the implementation of caster level = class level + (character level - class level)/2. It would also help characters with racial hit dice who gain a few levels in a caster class.


Paul Watson wrote:


That's reasonable. How would you deal with things like a multiclass Wizard/Cleric? Would it be equal or would they only contribute half to each other? Same with Wizard/Sorcerer and Cleric/Druid?

They would only contribute half, since clerics aren't wizards.

So a Clr10/Wis10 would have caster level 15 (10 for class, 10 for other classes) in both, but only get class benefits for being level 10.

As an advanced option, they could make additional rules inspired by the multiclassing feats you had in later Complete books, but instead of one feat per multiclassing possibility (ascetic hunter, ascetic stalker, asceting whatshisface....), it would be "Improved Multiclassing":

Improved Multiclassing would be taken for a specific class, and each time you take the feat, you choose enother class to benefit.

Your effective class level would always be class level + (all other levels) /2. Rog4/Ftr2/Clr2 would have an effective Rogue level of 4+ (2+2)/2 = 6, for example.

Each class would have some abilities that use the effective class level to determine their power, as a matter of course. Either that is everything whose power level is based on character level, or specific stuff that is marked. Caster level for spellcasters would be a good example, or a paladin's smite.

But there would be additional abilities that would actually be granted based on effective class level - if you have Improved Multiclassing. They would probably be marked extra (or the feat or a sidebar would have a list of abilities - such sidebars could be done for each class, or at least have a "multiclassing" paragraph in the class description)

So if you have the feat for wizards, you might get school powers based on effective class level - and caster level would of course still be based on it, as would be arcane bond, just like without the feat. So with the feat, only spells/day and spells known would be dependant on actual class level.

A paladin might get extra smites, and maybe auras, based on effective level - again, with the feat.

Sounds a bit complicated, but I'd say with a decent system to mark abilities that are granted per level, per effective level, or per effective level if you have the feat, this could make multiclassing a lot more attractive in Pathfinder.

And it's a lot better than the "easy" solution 4e does - getting rid of multiclassing altogether, except for a couple of feats that are a joke.

Dark Archive

Some classes are easier than others, I guess. Barbarians could gain rage points and monks could get additional ki points, but how about fighters? They would either get bravery, which seems very weak, or weapon/armor mastery or feats which might be overpowered. Rangers could get favored enemies and rogues sneak attacks.
It might be a good idea to limit those phantom levels to the lower of class level or (character level - class level)/2 to avoid excessive feature grabbing.
I think school powers should be off limits, even by using a feat, since they were introduced to prevent spellcasters from switching to prestige classes after level 5.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / Alpha Playtest Feedback / Alpha Release 3 / Races & Classes / Multiclassing Casters All Messageboards
Recent threads in Races & Classes