Ahoy there. I'm a big fan of multiclassing, but I feel it could use a few tweaks. I'm not sure exactly what the Paizo view on multiclassing in the Pathfinder RPG is, but I wanted to try to open up a bit of a discussion on the matter, offer my views, and see what the popular opinions are. Who knows, maybe I've been doing it wrong.
So far, in my experience, martial characters seem to get the upper hand in multiclassing. A fighter taking a level in ranger still gains the usual increase to BAB and saves, almost as if he just took another fighter level. A wizard, on the other hand, would gain a boost to his HP, BAB, and saves, but his spells, which are generally the primary offense and defense, get nothing out of the deal. But that's crossing melee and caster classes, so there's bound to be some disconnect. To me, it gets even stranger when mixing caster classes. A wizard taking a level in sorcerer doesn't advance in arcane spells at all, but gains a small amount of low level spells in addition to the wizard spells he already possessed. That seems off to me.
I've also questioned the rate character effectiveness goes down when multiclassing more than slightly. Generally speaking, small dips hurt character effectiveness the least. Cleric 5/Fighter 1 doesn't hurt that bad when comparing effectiveness to Fighter 6 or Cleric 6. Cleric 3/Fighter 3, on the other hand, seems to lose more. Not only are your spells weaker by caster level, but instead of third level spells you're cast 2nd. If a third class is added to the mix, it seems even worse, as Cleric 2/Fighter 2/Rogue 2 is casting first level spells at caster level 2, can't qualify for weapon specialization, and has a sneak attack damage of +1d6. Yes, they are most versatile, but is the small amount of broad powers comparable to casting 3rd level spells, adding +3d6 on sneak attacks, or the feats and weapon training lost from going straight cleric, rogue, or fighter?
Those were two things I was concerned about when Pathfinder was announced. I haven't yet had a chance to playtest or measure any of the new class features added to the core classes in regards to multiclassing, so I figured I'd bring it up here to see if anyone has, and what the verdict was.
One other thing that crossed my mind was a rule tucked in the sidebars of a couple Dreamscarred Press releases that mentioned multiclassing, and I believe a similar rule was also mentioned in Tome of Battle. Basically, when you gain a level, to determine anything based on class level for a multiclass character, you add half the levels you have in all other classes to figure out power. Seeing as a number of class features are partially based off class level now, I thought it might be something to look into. Consider a barbarian's rage powers. A barbarian 6/fighter 4 using that rule would have an effective barbarian level of 8, and could qualify to select the Clear Mind rage power. If certain classes would gain a lot more from multiclassing with this method, a part of the multiclassing section could be a list of what features of individual classes were eligible to advance using this method.
Thanks for your time, and if you feel I'm entirely off base in my observations, I invite you to throw the tomatoes near the door at me. These are only gut reactions, as I don't have the capability to objectively analyze the intricacies of the game.
One other thing that crossed my mind was a rule tucked in the sidebars of a couple Dreamscarred Press releases that mentioned multiclassing, and I believe a similar rule was also mentioned in Tome of Battle. Basically, when you gain a level, to determine anything based on class level for a multiclass character, you add half the levels you have in all other classes to figure out power. Seeing as a number of class features are partially based off class level now, I thought it might be something to look into. Consider a barbarian's rage powers. A barbarian 6/fighter 4 using that rule would have an effective barbarian level of 8, and could qualify to select the Clear Mind rage power. If certain classes would gain a lot more from multiclassing with this method, a part of the multiclassing section could be a list of what features of individual classes were eligible to advance using this method.
I like the 1/2 levels in other classes idea. That way, a Cleric 3/Fighter 3 as you mentioned above would at least have a CL of 4, casts 3rd level spells, could get Weapon Specialization, and has a BAB of +5. That's comparable to a Cleric 5/Fighter 1, who could get Weapon Specialization, has a CL of 5, casts 3rd level spells, and has a BAB of +4. Basically trading some BAB for spells. Nice!
I think there's some confusion in translating multiclass characters in AD&D/2E to multiclass characters in 3.0/3.5E.
The equivalent of a level 4/4 fighter/m-user from AD&D is not a 3.5 character with 4 levels of Fighter and 4 levels of Wizard -- it's much more similar to a character with 1 level of Fighter and 4 levels of Wizard. How is that? A level 4/4 character in AD&D will be adventuring with level 5 characters (roughly), and so will be about one level behind in fighting ability and spell-casting. Similarly, the 3.5 Fighter 1/Wizard 4 wil be two levels behind a pure fighter in BAB and one levels behind a pure wizard in spellcasting. Eventually, you end up with a Fighter 1/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10 who is two levels behind in spellcasting and three levels behind in BAB; that's quite reasonable, IMO.
Admittedly the AD&D cleric/m-user gets the short end of the stick in 3.5E; personally, I think you should be able to qualify for Mystic Theurge with 2 levels of Cleric and 3 levels of Wizard (say), leaving you only 2 levels behind instead of 3.
I'll add another possibility to what I'm sure is a mounting pile of multiclass ideas. That 1/2 level bit isn't bad, but I think the best way to do this is to split each class into 10 synergystic "blocks" and then rebuild your multiclass character from scratch. For example -
All multiclass characters start with a d6 hit die, no armor proficiency, simple weapon proficiency, poor BAB/Will/Fort/Rfx and eh.. 8(?) trained Skills. Building a Fighter would be as follows:
d10 Hit die - 2 blocks (1 for d8)
BAB - 2 (1 for Average)
Good Fort Save - 1
Light Armor Proficiency - 1 (Synergy: Good Fort + Armor = Proficiency in Mid/Heavy Armors)
Martial Weapon Proficiency - 1
Bonus Feats - 2 (1 for every 4 or 5 levels)
"Training" - 1 (Synergy: Training + Martial Weapons = Weapon Training, Training + Good Fort + Armor = Armor Training)
Building a Wizard:
Good Will Save - 1
Bonus Feats - 1
Cantrips, Wizard - 1; at-will Cantrips using the Wizard progression
1-Level Spells - 1; 1st level spells using the Wizard Progression
Wizard - 2; normal wizard progression at spell levels 2+, requires 2 blocks in 1-level and Cantrip spells (1 for half-speed progression)
Magic Art - 2 (1 for either Arcane Bond&Scribe Scroll OR School Powers Progression)
Familiar - 1
Now, let's build a Gish:
BAB - 1 (Average Progression)
d8 hit die - 1
Good Fort/Will - 2
Bonus Feats - 1 (every four levels, let's say)
Cantrips, Wizard - 1
1-Level Spells - 1
Wizard - 2
Martial Weapons or Armor (synergizing to Mid/Heavy w/ Good Fort) - 1
This gives you a wizard with full spell access, two good saves and the ability to last a few rounds toe-to-toe for giving up the familiar and Magic Art. It's also, unlike the Gestalt, pretty well-balanced with single class characters AND can be easily triple-classed as well.
The saying, "Jack of all trades, Master of None" exists for a reason, and while I too like multi-classing a great deal, I think there needs to be an incentive/reward for single-class characters. Otherwise, you very quickly move towards a class-less system, so you might as well just go totally point-buy for everything.
There are feats that accomplish your Caster Level goal, like Practiced Caster. There are similar feats for Druids and their Animal Companions and so forth, so for at least 4 levels of multi-classing (in these cases) the character is not entirely screwed. You could certainy create whatever feats are desired for other class abilities.
That's the trade-off. Better saves (as you stack base +2 bonuses) and cool, broader basic lower-level abilities traded for more powerful but focused higher-level ones.
FWIW,
Rez
One of my hopes for a multiclassing system would be not to penalize the single class characters, they should be slightly better. But I don't want them to be leaps and bounds beyond the others. I think that, for one, the high level abilities of the single class characters should be enough to keep people single classed (greater rage, 20th level wizard abilities, so on).
About the feats. That might be a good solution, but since they are not OGC we wouldn't be likely to see multiclassed characters in the adventures without them recreating those sort of feats. I would like to avoid a system that requires them. I think that we could spend about ten pages detailing different multiclassing feats and prestige classes without completely covering the system.
If we can get away from requiring these feats, I think that this space can be spent on other things that I want to see.
---
True, that's the trade-off. But this rule doesn't change that. You still have broader basic lower-level abilities instead of the focused higher-level ones. The only difference is that the lower-level abilities with this system are slightly better.
The saying, "Jack of all trades, Master of None" exists for a reason, and while I too like multi-classing a great deal, I think there needs to be an incentive/reward for single-class characters.
Unfortunately, for spellcasters in 3.5, it's not even worthwhile to multiclass. The hit to CL and spell levels known from taking too many levels outside of their primary class is a pure no-win situation for them.
Practiced Spellcaster is nice, if you only have 4 levels of non-caster. Once you pass beyond that point though, and the feat begins losing effectiveness due to the "Once only per spellcasting class" availability.
Now, multiclass characters shouldn't be as good as a single class, and currently for non-spellcaster multiclass characters, they're good enough, IMO. Multiclass spellcasters though, suck. Something should be done to make them a more viable option, one that doesn't unduly penalize characters who take that path.
All they really need though, is something to keep their CL at least within 5 points of their character level, regardless if it's 15th, or 1,500 th. Everything else, BAB, saves, skill points, HP, all increase by some degree regardless of which class is being leveled up. Why isn't there some mechanic to handle Caster Level the same?
The equivalent of a level 4/4 fighter/m-user from AD&D is not a 3.5 character with 4 levels of Fighter and 4 levels of Wizard -- it's much more similar to a character with 1 level of Fighter and 4 levels of Wizard.
I don't entirely agree with your assessment. But I also don't agree that a Ftr4/Wiz4 in 3.5 is more equivalent to an AD&D Ftr4/MU4. I am somewhere in between. Honestly, I wish the designers of 3e had retained multiclassing rules but made them more broadly applicable (i.e. have humans and demi-humans follow the same rules). I really don't think a character with the abilities of a 4th level fighter and a 4th level wizard but only 4 HD is more powerful than a 5th level fighter or a 5th level wizard. The 5th level fighter can wear armor without penalty and the 5th level wizard has better, more powerful spells. Not to mention both of the latter characters have more HD for HD-related effects.
Alas, none of this is going to change in Pathfinder because it would really mess with backwards compatibility. I have two solutions for the caster multiclass characters.
1) Your minimum caster level is equal to your ranks in Spellcraft. If you want to multiclass, keep Spellcraft maxed to keep your spells potent regardless of your level.
2) Use the Unearthed Arcana Magic Rating rules.
I find multiclassing characters work fine as is, except major spellcaster. We just give every class a Caster Level Progression. For major spellcasrters, it's 1:1. for fighters, it's 1:3 (+1 caster level for every 3 full levels.) thus a wizard 3/cleric 3 only has spells per day and spells known of 3rd level in either, but casts them all as a 6th level caster.
A wizard 3/fighter 3 has spells per day at 3rd, but casts at 4th caster level.
This fixed all our problems, and is simple.
(We also gave monks a 2:3 progression, which makes monk/clerics and monk/sorcerers surprisingly reasonable).
The problem with (some) of these ideas, is that it promotes the 1 level dip.
cleric 1/figher 19? very nice using the half/level idea.
You wind up getting cleric 19/fighter 19
or wizard1/sorc 19, or .. well, or anything.
Any primary spell caster 1/anything becomes a fairly nice deal.
Perhaps you can't gain more "additional levels" in spell casting, than you have as base?
(for instance- if you are wizard level 3/fighter 9, you can only get up to +3 to wizard, since you are only wizard level 3), to prevent this?
(We also gave monks a 2:3 progression, which makes monk/clerics and monk/sorcerers surprisingly reasonable).Odd ruling, although Monk multiclassing is now more possible with 3.Pai. I would also give 2:3 to Bard, Paladin, and Ranger. Although you might want to call Bard a major spellcaster, I wouldn't.
Good point, and one that would have to be settled. Our games use the bard prestige class from UA, so we didn't really have to deal with that issue.
Interesting phenomenon is that a Cleric 3/Sorcerer 3 becomes pretty formidable, with caster level 6 in arcane and divine spells and the diversity of both spell lists up to spell level 2. Not bad for a 6th level character. They don't have the full power output, but they don't suck totally either. They still suffer when it comes to save DCs, but to me that's the price of multiclassing.
Exactly. We found it solved, honestly, *all* our multiclassing problems. I wish we had thought to do it long ago (we still have some games we began before this ruling that don't use it, and they feel hurky now)
I find multiclassing characters work fine as is, except major spellcaster. We just give every class a Caster Level Progression. For major spellcasrters, it's 1:1. for fighters, it's 1:3 (+1 caster level for every 3 full levels.) thus a wizard 3/cleric 3 only has spells per day and spells known of 3rd level in either, but casts them all as a 6th level caster.
A wizard 3/fighter 3 has spells per day at 3rd, but casts at 4th caster level.
This fixed all our problems, and is simple.
(We also gave monks a 2:3 progression, which makes monk/clerics and monk/sorcerers surprisingly reasonable).
I really like this solution. It's similar (but considerably simpler) to a solution a DM of mine came up with.
For my own games in the past (as i'm not currently running a game now and won't be for several months) I've done multi-class rules as RAW. Primarily because I'd been focussed on other things (like the adventure) and none of the players complained. However, now that my games are dissolved and I'm able to focus on things like house rules and rule sets again. I'm going to give this some thought.
Cool! Let me know how it goes if you do.
A post in the New Rules Suggestions forum addresses this discussion, and I chime in my thoughts at the end. For those interested: