I'll check it out. Thanks! (BTW, Josh, were you at Strategicon back in May? And will you be attending this September?)
Your welcome (Don't hurt yourself on the thread. I go on for a long time and end up changing my mind a few times within it so it really isn't organized in a reasonable fashion). (I wasn't there in May, but I will be trying to make it for this September.)
|
Nice quick-and-dirty-fix there. n_nI'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.
Your right, we ran into that and added another rule for it. I just forgot about it cause it never comes up much in our games. That is you can no more than get double your level free.
Example a 19th level fighter and 1st level wizard would cast like a 2nd level wizard. We just have never had anyone try and break the house rule, we noticed it when someone IC switched classes and then added that tweak.
What you are really saying is that you don't like that change and don't think it should be made.
I am not saying that so stop attributing this and other things to me.
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.
Again you are wrong.
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.
This argument has devolved to your side saying "you do not understand balance" and "the multi-class rules need to be fixed". And I am saying that the rules as written work so the multi-class rules are not broken, therefore a change does not have to be made.
I neither like nor dislike the above proposals. In my opinion, since nothing is broken, no additional rules for multi-classing need to be made.
Hyrdo / Bugleyman, Do you understand my position, ie. in my opinion, the multi-class rules are not broken, therefore no additional rules are required?
You believe that I am wrong, and that is ok, since I believe that you are wrong. Let us agree to disagree on the subject and house rule the campaigns we play in to suit our particular tastes. Deal?
-- david
Papa.DRB
You believe that I am wrong, and that is ok, since I believe that you are wrong. Let us agree to disagree on the subject and house rule the campaigns we play in to suit our particular tastes. Deal?
Of course, of course.
Your first post was more to the effect of "if you don't like it don't play one", so that was how I addressed my posts. But you did later mention that you thought it was balanced as-is, and sorry if I ignored that.
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.
Why can't we just add caster levels from all classes together for total caster level?
Cleric, Wizard, Druid, and Sorceror stack 1 on 1.
Bard, Ranger, Paladin stack 1/2 on 1.
Monk, Rogue, Fighter, Barbarian no stack (although CL still translates for special effects such as abundant step).
"Where is the logic with this madness?"
All from the top-most group require serious study. You basically get a synergy bonus from your studies of religion magic, arcane magic, nature magic. If you forgo studies and start hacking away at the straw dummy in the stable, well, you don't get better at magic.
"Yeah, but magic from god x shouldn't help you with magic you learned in an alchemy lab!"
The same argument the other way! Why does punching all day as a monk make you all of a sudden fully capable of swinging a sharpened car door?
If spellcaster logic were applied to fighter logic, the monk who took a level in fighter has to use his fighter BAB to swing a greatsword, or specifically use his monk BAB to hit with his unarmed strikes. And deep down, we all know that makes perfect sense.
What do magic users gain? Additional abilities. Diverse spell list. Ability to overcome SR.
What do they lose? High level spells. Worse DCs (from stat diversification).
Optionally, we can just make it horror for fighter-types to keep up with separate BABs for each class they take.
Then again, there is always someone willing to argue about anything on the Internet...
That's not true!
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
I don't like stacking divine and arcane levels. They differ fundamentally so that one is not directly applicable to the other (hence the need for a PrC capable of bridging the two). I would use the rule proposed by Dark_Mistress. A Cleric 4 / Sorcerer 4 would cast as a 6th level Cleric and a 6th level Sorcerer. I would even do it this way for a Wiz/Sor or Clr/Drd.
PrCs should be more than a work-around for busted multi-classing. The rule proposed by Dark_Mistress is simple and exactly what multi-classing needs. A player should be able to explore an eclectic character concept without worrying about how much her character will suck.
The only criticism I have is that a 9th level fighter who dips a level of wizard suddenly casts like a 5th level wizard (1 + 9/2). You could make the rule slightly more complicated and say that the bonus effective levels must be less than the actual class levels. That way a single level dip only lets you cast as a 1st level wizard while you're still learning the ropes, and you don't get all four effective levels from your 9 non-wizard levels until you actually reach Wiz5 (when you would cast as Wiz9).
I would also add that you can choose the capstone of any one class at character level 20 if you have at least 15 effective levels in that class.
EDIT: I missed that Dark_Mistress already posted this very idea:
That is you can no more than get double your level free.
I don't see why the rule needs to be further complicated with worries about class synergy.
That's not true!
Then again, there is always someone willing to argue about anything on the Internet...
KaeYoss is wrong!
No he isn't! :D
KaeYoss is wrong!That's not true!
Then again, there is always someone willing to argue about anything on the Internet...
I'm always right.
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!
Paizo created a similar trait that is about half as good:
Magical Knack
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*
Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters. The Practiced Caster feats were patches issued in later splat books; the primary purpose of which seems to be selling more paper by offering rules that significantly alter the power curve of the game - you'll note that those PrCs were in the original rules release and not later splat material.
Considering that Paizo released Beta rules for those same PrCs and that they seem to actively encourage players to stay with their primary class through all of their levels, I wouldn't expect to find any additional rules that make it easier or more desirable for casters to multi-class.
PfRPG is backward compatible with 3.5. You can always bring these sort of rules forward into your game. However, considering that the intent of these rules is somewhat opposed to the philosophy of Paizo, I wouldn't expect to find any official PfRPG content for ramping up the power curve of multi-class casters.
Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.
Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?
Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?
Why were any changes made from 3.0 to 3.5?
Hyrdo / Bugleyman, Do you understand my position, ie. in my opinion, the multi-class rules are not broken, therefore no additional rules are required?
Yes, I understand your position; but that isn't why I said you were being silly. I was referring to was the needless continuation of the pedantic "need vs. want" discussion.
As for whether or not the rules are "broken." Clearly they are not; however, my contention is that they're not working as intended. And while this is also a matter of opinion, it happens to be one that classes like the Eldritch Knight show at least some of the 3.5 designers share. So I personally hope something is done to allow a character like an Eldritch Knight to be built without the kludge of a prestige class that exists soley to make multi-class casters viable. In other words, the mechanic you believe is unnecessary is already in the game; I'm just hoping for a cleaner implementation.
So yes, I get it. You think multi-class casters are fine. However, that is an argument to take up with whomever included Eldritch Knight, a class that, again, exists solely to make multiclass arcane casters viable.
Why were any changes made from 3.0 to 3.5?Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?
Because some patches needed to be made to the multiclassing system.
Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.
Semantics.
The face remains that they wouldn't be necessary if multi-classing worked as intended in the first place.
Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?
I thought that Eldritch Knight at least was in 3.0. I don't have the book in front of me, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall building a 3.0 EK and having only the core books to do it with.
I like the idea of having the CHOICE of a feat (because that's all it is, it's a choice to take it or not; I don't think anyone should feel horrifically violated if the choice is offered) to boost your Caster Level if you're a multiclass character. Even just the +2 bonus is fine.
I find that high level/high power games, the problem is that particularly with gish builds, low caster level can become a noticeable issue. Multiclassing to a spellcasting class should, yes, mean that you are a less powerful spellcaster then a full caster. But there's a set of dramatically diminishing returns, to the point where a multiclass spellcaster can't effectively harm an enemy (CL is too low to beat SR) or even buff themselves (enemy spellcasters dispel your buffs too easily). Spellcasting all of a sudden goes from moderately useful/supportive to utterly useless--and the spellcaster levels taken are suddenly so much dead weight. Something like Practiced Spellcaster allows spellcasting to still be useful, even if overall the character is still not going to be casting as powerfully as the full caster (for example, he is still not going to be casting as high level spells, nor should he).
Certain builds resist this better than others, and the above situation may be campaign dependent. But it's still an issue that would be nice to have a means to address it, and the option of a feat seems a simple and non-invasive enough solution.
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.
That's not good argument because you aren't comparing apple to apples. When Barbarian multi-classes to fighter he loses any increase in RAGE points. A fighter multi-Classing lose Armor Training and Weapon Training. So to be fair if you allow caster to increase their caster level while multi-classing you'd have to allow fighter to get armor training, rogues to talents, monks to get ki and barbarians to get rage.
Every class now loses something from multi-classing so it's all balanced now. Change it if you want but don't short change the non caster classes.
I don't like stacking divine and arcane levels. They differ fundamentally so that one is not directly applicable to the other
Yet we have an arcane domain, and have always had at least one god(dess) of arcane magic.
And the fact is this doesn't happen to other multi-classing options.
For example, I take 9 levels in monk. Now I take 1 level in ranger. All of a sudden, I can now use a bow like a 9th level ranger, despite the fact that this is my first time ever touching it. Same thing with fighter and Greatsword.
There was very little fundamentally different from a wizard and cleric in terms of mechanics before Pathfinder, and now they still aren't that different. Favored Schools, barred schools, domains, forbidden domains, preparing spells at the beginning of the day, choosing ahead of time. Cantrips, Orisons.
My prescribed methodology doesn't really make them stronger in their individual classes, but instead makes them realizable in combat.
But if arcane and divine are so different, why don't we have SR(divine) and SR(arcane)? They're both spells, and I think a caster who's practiced in spells of one type would be capable of adapting himself into a caster of a separate type.
However, I do have to make one clarification. Damage done in battle would be based on the specific caster level of the spell. For example, a Level 6 wizard level 12 cleric still casts fireballs at 6d6. However, for purposes of overcoming spell resistance, it is a combined effect.
|
For example, I take 9 levels in monk. Now I take 1 level in ranger. All of a sudden, I can now use a bow like a 9th level ranger, despite the fact that this is my first time ever touching it. Same thing with fighter and Greatsword.
no... you can not use a bow like any 9th level ranger, 9th level ranger would have a higher BaB, Combat style bow and improved combat style bow better favored enemy bonus. The straight up Ranger would be much better with a Bow... That said you now have a 9 Monk/ 1 Ranger with the first level of Ranger abilities instead.
Same thing with the 9 Monk/1 Fighter, 9 level fighter with the Greatsword is much better since one, great sword is not a monk weapon, and 2 you lose all those feats that help with your greatsword from being an 9th fighter.
These are the choices you make when you multiclass, you weaken the focus for versatility, it is not just Spellcaster class that is weakens.
But done right the versatility as a whole equal ability of a straight class... with good choices... it is definitely possible to make a bad multiclass character.
So, just out of curiosity, why do people think that it is not needed?
I guess since I've implemented Magic Rating consistently in my games, I *do* think a fix is needed, for my game.
However:
I don't like stacking divine and arcane levels. They differ fundamentally so that one is not directly applicable to the other (hence the need for a PrC capable of bridging the two).
Here is why the fix perhaps should *not* be a core rule. There is enough varying opinions on this, that it is a decision that should be left up to the GM. It would be nice to have it as a "core" variant rule though - like the fumble/threat-to-kill rules in the DMG.
no... you can not use a bow like any 9th level ranger, 9th level ranger would have a higher BaB, Combat style bow and improved combat style bow better favored enemy bonus. The straight up Ranger would be much better with a Bow... That said you now have a 9 Monk/ 1 Ranger with the first level of Ranger abilities instead.
Right. And a cleric9 who takes 1 level of bard is still casting 1st-level bard spells, and still only a few of them per day. Sounds fair so far, right?
Except that the monk/ranger is making attacks with a +7 bab, while the cleric/bard is still only at +1 caster level.
But done right the versatility as a whole equal ability of a straight class... with good choices... it is definitely possible to make a bad multiclass character.
Exactly. You can do so, nine times out of ten, by including a spellcasting class. :)
The process of making a game more balanced is all about making more choices good. Fighter wasn't a good choice in 3.5; it is a good choice in 3.p. That's an improvement.
No one would try to construe that as a bad thing, but the argeuements in this thread are just as applicable there. "Fighters are only supposed to be useful as meatshields", "the game is working the way the designers intended", or "if you don't like it don't play fighters".
Every class now loses something from multi-classing so it's all balanced now. Change it if you want but don't short change the non caster classes.
Right, that's why I like the simple rule proposed by Dark_Mistress that gives the exact same benefit to all classes (half the levels of all other classes). This is a simple and balanced solution. And it doesn't step on the toes of Mystic Theurge, which advances equally in divine and arcane casting at the expense of other class abilities (like familiar advancement and channel energy).
I like that everything mixes and matches equally well, and no special combinations are favored. I don't think that two arcane classes should stack together any better than an arcane and a divine class, or an arcane and a melee class. I think that a multiclass Wizard should cast Wizard spells at her effective Wizard level, not her combined arcane caster level (unless a PrC specifies that as a benefit). I would apply the effective levels to spells known and spells per day, so there are still some compelling reasons to multiclass Wiz/Sor for example.
I thought that Eldritch Knight at least was in 3.0. I don't have the book in front of me, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall building a 3.0 EK and having only the core books to do it with.Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?
I don't have the 3.0 DMG in front of me, but they weren't in the 3.0 SRD.
|
You know the OP has a point! I think Muliticlassing should not detract from the Fighter either. If he takes a level in Rogue and another in Wizard and another in Sorcerer his BAB should always go up by +1, instead of taking that horrible +0, and he should still be increasing his Fighter Feats as well.
After all if teh Casters get to keep increasing their spellcasting abilities when taking other classes it is only fair all other classes always increase their main shtick.
So Rogues always increase their sneak attacks no matter what class they actually take, and Barbarians always increase their Rage. Clerics always increase their channeling and healing!
Which is really cool, cause then you can take Fighter/Wizard/Rogue/Cleric in one character and play an entire party as one!
Hey wait, I think they already fixed that problem- Gestalt characters...
ok so why does this need fixing again?
|
|
I thought that Eldritch Knight at least was in 3.0. I don't have the book in front of me, so please correct me if I am wrong, but I recall building a 3.0 EK and having only the core books to do it with.Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, et. al. are not "patches", they are the rules the designers intended for multi-classing casters.Then why weren't they in the 3.0 DMG?I don't have the 3.0 DMG in front of me, but they weren't in the 3.0 SRD.
I thought it was a 3.0 splat book add on, which honestly I liked the 3.0 splat books better than the 3.5 ones. At least the stuff in the 3.o splat books was adding more for variety than power curve and grind out the money machine.
Everyone still seems to be ignoring the point of synergy.
A wizard/cleric, for the most part, is getting the same class features twice, with only a slight variance. And you can't cast wizard spells while casting cleric spells at the same time.
A fighter/rogue, on the other hand, can use all of his class features together. He adds his rogue BAB to his fighter BAB and gets sneak-attack on all his extra attacks.
Multiclassing between non-spellcasting classes is balanced at best. Often, it's actually somewhat overpowered.
Everyone still seems to be ignoring the point of synergy.
A wizard/cleric, for the most part, is getting the same class features twice, with only a slight variance. And you can't cast wizard spells while casting cleric spells at the same time.
A fighter/rogue, on the other hand, can use all of his class features together. He adds his rogue BAB to his fighter BAB and gets sneak-attack on all his extra attacks.
Multiclassing between non-spellcasting classes is balanced at best. Often, it's actually somewhat overpowered.
Only issue is all classes get BAB progression and they always add together. So that's kind of pointless.
Now Class feature if you have the a rogue multiclass with a fighter their sneak attack suffers.
Take MC Fighter 6/Rogue 6 vs rogue 12 The MC character gets 3D6 Sneak Attack as but the single class gets 6D6 sneak attack. The MC rogue gets 3 talents instead of 5 and an advanced talent. They get +2 trap sense instead of +4. As well they lose improved uncanny dodge. In exchange for that they gain armor training 1, weapon training 1, bravery +2, increased HP, increased BaB progression, and 4 bonus combat feats.
Take a wizard 6/ fighter 6. The wizard 6 caster levels, 3 school feats, and a bonus metamagic feat. In return he gains armor training 1, weapon training 1, bravery +2, increased HP, increased BaB progression, and 4 bonus combat feats. Going from 1/2 BAB to Full and going from 1D6 HD to 1D10 is bigger for the wizard than it is for the rogue as well.
Looks fair to me.
But lets look at the Wizard 6/ Cleric 6. Wizard lose the same stuff but gains 6 caster levels of Cleric, 3 Domain Powers, Channel energy, HD increase, and BAB increase.
That seems fair too but the prestige class mystic theurge has more appeal if casting is my focus. But the theurge has some draw backs like D6 HD and 1/2 Bab. As well you don't get any wizard or cleric class features so no school powers, metamagic feats, channel energy increases or domain powers. But that seem fair for 10 levels of caster level in arcane and divine castings.
It's all give and take and depending what you want to do each as it's advantages and disadvantages.
|
I don't think it's needed because it's more like a solution looking for a problem. So if your complaint is that a Fighter/Wizard 10/10 loses out to a 20 of either party effectiveness, my response is that sample is a strawman because it's a lousy way to multi-class.
So the rules should clearly state that Fighter/Wizard is a known gimped build?
If you want effective multiclassing you need to synergise. the example cited is a weak example because it's a classic case of a character who has split his focus and left himself fairly undefined. Now, a fighter/wizard/eldritchknight, or a rouge/wizard/arcane trickser are both examples of far better synergy. Or maybe even a fighter who does nothing more than pick up a level or two of wizard because of wanting to add a few defenses can work wonders if they pick up a lesser rod of still casting to give themselves prot from evil and a shield spell to both give them some extra protection while they're two handing or wanting to get some immunity from mental influencce. so a Fighter who's taking just one level of wizard can give themselves a significant boost with some planning.
The fix needed is not in the rules set but in how players approach multi-classing.
WRONG. If the rules are the problem (and they are), then the fix must be in the rules, not just in training players to avoid the problem edge cases.
LATE EDIT: Your position is a perfect example of Justin Alexander's "Rule Zero Fallacy": "This rule isn't broken if I can fix it."
I don't think it's needed because it's more like a solution looking for a problem. So if your complaint is that a Fighter/Wizard 10/10 loses out to a 20 of either party effectiveness, my response is that sample is a strawman because it's a lousy way to multi-class.So the rules should clearly state that Fighter/Wizard is a known gimped build?
I think that's purely opinion. There is nothing wrong with playing a Wizard/fighter 10/10. It really depends what you want out of the combo. In this case I'd say you have a fighter using the wizard class to boost fighting with spells and adding a making the fighter a little more versatile. It's completely workable and as a 20 Lvl character could be just a powerful as a lvl 20 fighter.
I don't know if I'd take 10/10 though. I'd probably go with fighter 9, wizard 11. I'd do this because armor training at 11 for fighter isn't that useful for wizard and 11th for wizard give 6th level spells. You do lose 1 total BAB for this but I think it's worth it.
Almost exactly what I was going to say
Thanks for saving me a lot of typing. There are some combinations that are a little less than ideal but in general the 'prestige' multi classes fill a lot of those holes. I almost wish they called them something other than prestige classes though because I think the idea of a multi class patch class is completely different from the idea behind prestige classes.
Folks want their multi class wizard to be as powerful casting as single class character of the same total class level and that just doesn't make sense. Even so the Beta eldrich knight was improved a little, Jason also suggested the Arcane Trickster was due a few improvements. Be interesting to see Seiltyil in a few weeks.
Let's consider two parties. One consists of
Fighter 6/Rogue 6
Fighter 6/Rogue 6
Cleric 12
Wizard 12
The other is
Fighter 12
Rogue 12
Cleric 6/Wizard 6
Cleric 6/Wizard 6
Both parties have 12 total levels of fighter, rogue, cleric and wizard. Anybody want to bet that the second party will handle a 12th level adventure just as easily as the first?
The melee members of the first party will have BABs of +10/+5 instead of +12/+7/+2 and +9/+4, so they're about as likely to be able to hit as the second party. Both parties can do 12d6 of sneak attack per round if all the rogues can full attack while flanking.
Traps and stealth will be a bit more of a problem for the first party since no character has the skill points to keep all the standard rogue skills maxed. Still, they can keep at least 4 skills maxed between them (with several more at half-ranks) or have two characters making checks with 7-8 ranks instead of one with 12 ranks. That's possibly a net plus, since 2d20 (take highest) averages to 15.
The spell casting classes in the second party have serious problems. They're at -6 on caster level checks and saves are at -3 on their best spells (vs. -2 or +1 on to hit rolls for the melees). Any spells that do get past those problems do half damage (if direct damage) or have a markedly weaker effect (Heal/Circle of Death vs. Cure Serious Wounds/Haste).
If you argue that the second party should have Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 6, I want to use the Sneaky Basher for the first party. It's a prestige class that I designed that incorporates the prime features of two other classes, much like Mystic Theurge does.
Sneaky Basher
Requirements: Armor Training, 2d6 sneak attack (aka Fighter 3/Rogue 3)
HD: d10
BAB: Good
Good Saves: Fort, Reflex
Skill Points: 6+Int
Class skills: As rogue or fighter
Features: +1d6 sneak attack/2 levels, bonus feat (as fighter) / 2 levels.
Anybody feel this class is overpowered, in a way that the Mystic Theurge isn't?
Anybody feel this class is overpowered, in a way that the Mystic Theurge isn't?
The thing is, once you get above 11th level or so, 3.5e is caster-dominated. Spell power improves geometrically with spell level, and number of spells/day increase geometrically with class level. Fighter feats do not scale with level at all, in most cases, and do not increase in number at a faster rate as the fighter levels up (say, 3 bonus feats/level at 15th...?). Sneak attack damage scales linearly, not geometrically. The ONLY advatage the fighter and rogue have is that their resources are "at will" instead of "X/day." However, as pointed out, the X/day sclaes geometrically with level, not linearly -- so past a certain level, casters are hard-pressed to actually run out of spells.
Giving up two caster levels is therefore a vastly more severe loss than giving up a bonus feat or +1d6 worth of sneak attack damage.
|
So the rules should clearly state that Fighter/Wizard is a known gimped build?
Well, Yeah. Why not?
Those who like to optimise should spot any advantages or deficiencies in any given build.
Those that are casual players, or new to the game, or not confident/proficient with character-building could probably use a helpful guiding hand to avoid known traps. They shouldn't be forced to waste several months playing a martial/arcane concept to mid-levels, before finding that their PC doesn't pull its weight.
Hmm...
3.5e is caster-dominated. Debatable
Spell power improves geometrically with spell level, and True
number of spells/day increase geometrically with class level. False
Fighter feats do not scale with level at all, in most cases, Disagree (see BAB prereq feats, and "chain-ends", plus pure stackable-ness (whereas spells do not stack, in most cases).
and do not increase in number at a faster rate as the fighter levels up. True
Sneak attack damage scales linearly, not geometrically. TrueGiving up two caster levels is therefore a vastly more severe loss than giving up a bonus feat or +1d6 worth of sneak attack damage. Agree
Wow, I agree with more than 50%! :)
I really feel that it's not what spells, or how many spells, or other class features are lost, it's the *strength* of the spells you have, even if weaker ones, needs to keep up.
For instance, compare Wiz 7 --> Wiz 8 vs Wiz 7/Clr 1, without Magic Rating:
Wiz8 = +1 BAB, +1 Will save, +1 4th level spell @ 8th caster level, +14% caster level to all other spells, +1 school power.
Wiz7/Clr1 = +0 BAB, +2 Fort/Will saves, +2 1st level spells @ 1st caster level, Channel energy 1d6, 2 Domain power.
That 1 4th level spell at 8th caster level is probably stronger than +2 1st level spells @ 1st *and* channel energy 1d6. The 8th level school power is probably better than the 2 domain powers. That leaves a major excess of that increase to the caster level of *every* other spell, which is enormous - that's like a stacking Orange Prism Ioun Stone every single level.
Magic Rating replaces that loss nicely.
Magic Rating adds far less for a Ftr/Wiz, but I think that is appropriate. The greater the differences in the classes you are merging, the more versatility and synergy improve it. For instance, many have commented on using Rogue Tricks to get True Strike 2/day as some heavily broken thing. Sneak attacking with rays, fighting up front with healing spells, casting enlarge or bull's strength or haste on yourself before swinging your keen edge'd Falchion....
Clearly D&D has some attributes that stack and some that don't. We don't keep our BABs, Skill Points, and Saves separate for the two classes. There is some overlap. So why not caster level? You could give each class a caster level like you do BAB or otherwise. Fighter-style classes would be half or quarter CL while caster classes would be full CL. This is basically what the magic rating from the alternate rules was trying to accomplish.
Additionally, combat feats are exponential with iterative attacks. Maybe not the same degree, but they are some. If my per attack damage is going up and the number of attacks is going up then I do have a n*m equation.
Similarly with full casters you get spell level (n) going up with caster level going up (m) also producing n*m progression.
Now with mixed classes that don't do damage in the same way you end up with (n1*m1 + n2*m2)/2 which is much worse than n*m strait up. E.g.
n1 = 10 and m1 = 10 (for full BAB and fighter feats)
n2 = 10 and m2 = 10 (for full caster)
giving you (n1*m1 + n2*m2)/2 = 100
or
n = 20 and m = 20 (full BAB and fighter feats OR full caster)
giving you n*m = 400
while the math may seem abstract, I think this is something we've all seen. Casters start failing their caster checks, monsters pass their saves more frequently, and their damage is reduced.
Given a figher/barbarian, you get a much closer progression to the original n*m since they are more synergistic. What we need are rules that make any class combination synergistic to within some agreed range.
I don't think it's needed because it's more like a solution looking for a problem. So if your complaint is that a Fighter/Wizard 10/10 loses out to a 20 of either party effectiveness, my response is that sample is a strawman because it's a lousy way to multi-class.
What you're saying here is "It's underpowered and I want it that way."
That's fine, but it doesn't answer the question posed to you (which is to say, why do you think it should be underpowered? Presumably you don't want everything in the game to be poorly balanced so why this? What's the difference?).
Also, you may be confused as to what a "strawman" is.
That seems fair too but the prestige class mystic theurge has more appeal if casting is my focus. But the theurge has some draw backs like D6 HD and 1/2 Bab. As well you don't get any wizard or cleric class features so no school powers, metamagic feats, channel energy increases or domain powers. But that seem fair for 10 levels of caster level in arcane and divine castings.It's all give and take and depending what you want to do each as it's advantages and disadvantages.
What you find "fair" here diverges wildly from what is balanced in play. Just because there are both advantages and disadvantages doesn't mean they even out.
For one thing, the wizard's fringe benefits aren't even close to being as good as full cleric spell progression (and vice-versa from the wizard's side).
I understand the urge to put a certian faith in the system. It's nice to believe that you can play whatever you like and everything works out evenly in the end. And heck, if balance isn't a huge deal to you, you SHOULD just play whatever you like; don't let me cramp your style there.
But, while 3.5 was a fairly well balanced game, the only reason it was as balanced as it WAS was because of all the biting criticism and ruthless numerical deconstruction which the game has seen up until this point.
D&D is a great game, but it is always a work in progress.
|
|
Not to derail the topic, but if anyone does use the suggestion I mentioned for their games. i would love to hear how they went and what all problems came up and how balanced it felt.
I only have our group and our play style, so have limited experience on how the rule works. Beyond how it works for us.
I wouldn't consider using your proposal for any non-spellcasting class, for reasons that others have gotten into (a rogue/fighter is already as good as a full rogue or full fighter. At least).
I'm also not sure if it's quite good enough for caster/caster melds. A wizard3/cleric13 in your game has arcane caster level 6th and divine caster level 13th (as compared to the theurge, who would have both at 13. Then again, your rules would give full benefits for both the cleric and wizard classes, including cleric bab/hp. Maybe that's more balanced than I thought).
What I find most ingruging is that, for caster/non-caster hybrids, I think your rules just may hit the spot. CL2 for a fighter2/wizard1 seems about right. CL10 for a fighter15/wizard5 seems about right.
I too would be curious as to how this works out (for others) in play.
Ahh, that's right! That makes a big difference actually.
Not to derail the topic, but if anyone does use the suggestion I mentioned for their games. i would love to hear how they went and what all problems came up and how balanced it felt.
I only have our group and our play style, so have limited experience on how the rule works. Beyond how it works for us.
It's been many many months since I've posted over here at the Paizo forums but yes, our group has been using a very similar house rule through Curse of the Crimson Throne and we're using it for Legacy of Fire using the Beta rules. There were a couple of additional caveats the DM added, Practiced Spell Caster and Mystic Theurge were out. Also, multi-class casters gain the class benefits like domain, channeling energy, school or bloodline powers based on their actual class level. They only gain extra spells and caster level. In both cases, I was the multi-class caster.
Our Party for Crimson Throne:Monk
Sorcerer (with Fighter cohort)
Bard
Cleric of Calistria/Rogue (me)
We made through fine. The AP was challenging and my character really didn't feel over powered.
A better analysis is the party for our Legacy of Fire Campaign:
Rogue/Fighter
Monk
Cleric of Sarenrae
Sorcerer
Cleric of Asmodeus/Sorcerer (me again)
Compared to the straight class casters they have much more powerful spells than me. What I ended up with is versatility. It's sort of like the old sorcerer vs wizard debate. We really don't have that much extra healing in this case.
BTW, in case any one was wondering how those two clerics could manage to work on the same side. We manage with some good natured in character bickering ("That's Evil." "No, it's not. If it was Evil then it wouldn't be legal.") Don't want to do any spoilers but it kind of makes sense (so far) in Legacy of Fire if you look at Golarian mythology.
Clearly D&D has some attributes that stack and some that don't. We don't keep our BABs, Skill Points, and Saves separate for the two classes. There is some overlap. So why not caster level? You could give each class a caster level like you do BAB or otherwise. Fighter-style classes would be half or quarter CL while caster classes would be full CL. This is basically what the magic rating from the alternate rules was trying to accomplish.
Additionally, combat feats are exponential with iterative attacks. Maybe not the same degree, but they are some. If my per attack damage is going up and the number of attacks is going up then I do have a n*m equation.
Similarly with full casters you get spell level (n) going up with caster level going up (m) also producing n*m progression.
Now with mixed classes that don't do damage in the same way you end up with (n1*m1 + n2*m2)/2 which is much worse than n*m strait up. E.g.
n1 = 10 and m1 = 10 (for full BAB and fighter feats)
n2 = 10 and m2 = 10 (for full caster)giving you (n1*m1 + n2*m2)/2 = 100
or
n = 20 and m = 20 (full BAB and fighter feats OR full caster)
giving you n*m = 400
while the math may seem abstract, I think this is something we've all seen. Casters start failing their caster checks, monsters pass their saves more frequently, and their damage is reduced.
Given a figher/barbarian, you get a much closer progression to the original n*m since they are more synergistic. What we need are rules that make any class combination synergistic to within some agreed range.
Interesting thought. I think it has some merit. But what would caster levels give the fighter or the rogue if they didn't multi class. The wizard still get 1/2 BAB which is usable even if they stick with being just a wizard. But a fighter that gets 1/2 cast level would find that useless.
So what could you give non caster classes.
1) It could be a +1 to attack and damage per caster level usable once per caster level you have. So say you gave the fighter 1/2 CL . That would be +10/+10 on one attack and you could do it 10 times per day for 20th level fighter. But for Wizard 10/fighter 10 it would be 15 CL. This is nice a simple.
2) They get a mystical ability equivalent to spell that non casters get that when trained as caster translates into CL spells. So say a rogue gets 1/2 CL too and at 6th level they have 3 special abilities. 2 equivalent to 1st level spells and 1 equivalent to a 2nd level spell same as wizard gets for spells. This explains things more. I mean why would a non caster class add to CL, well this kind of make sense if you have a fighter that can spit out Mortal Combat fireballs.
3) The other class adds 1/2 CL or 3/4 for other casters but the keep raising at the same rate in one class feature. For example say the rogue/wizard gets 1/2 the the wizard level for sneak attack damage. The fighter get thier Armor/weapon training. Caster/Caster class would get CL in both. This concept just keeps the in game stuff the same but is more book work.
I think one should consider the design principles of PF listed in the Beta. One of the design principles in Pathfinder was to encourage playing a single class to 20th level. So as see it multi-classing has negatives and some combos might have just enough positives to out weigh the negatives. In just creating characters and planning them out I've found multi-classing works well for the middle levels but you almost always come out weaker at 20th level than single class. so I don't think the raw rules should change but one is always free to house rule stuff and maybe this could be a option you add to the game.