Are you looking for all combos to give you the same result regardless of path?
The same results? No.
Balanced results? Yes. Absolutely.That's an ideal, not a realistic goal. It isn't possible to make a game where every option is balanced. But as a designer you should pursue that goal to whatever extent you can.
There are lots of reasons why Pathfinder wouldn't try to build a fix for this into the system (namely, like you said, that it would require large changes to the core multiclassing mechanics).
However, your original post wasn't rejecting any specific proposal on such a basis, it was rejecting the goal altogether.
|
I don't think they need anything, to be honest. Granting them spells or some bonus just steps of other classes toes, like your fighter that out smites a paladin by far and many more times a day. It also makes all classes very similar.
Their 1/2 caster level could however be useful, like if they picked up a magic staff, and there are (in 3.5) a lot of feats that require a caster level (that actually give you a few spells 1/day). Or if they later decide to branch out into casting/psionics. Additionally, it can open up some PC options.
|
For spell casting class it seems intereting.
For example wizard 7, cleric 3, Mystic Thurge 10 has casting of wizard 17/cleric 13.
With your rules Wizard 14, cleric 6 would have casting of Wizard 17 and Cleric 12. Very similar and would give 1.5 caster levels per level after 20 while mystic thurge only gives 1 (something I consider a crock).
So your method does put the character SLIGHTLY behind the MT in casting power.
Just out of curiosity do you then disallow the MT prestige class? I can see someone wanting to go cleric 6/wizard 4/MT 10 and then trying to say it is 18th level cleric casting, 17th level Wizard casting. (and I am going to ASSUME that you don't let them count MT for casting adding).
Btw do you allow full casting at that level including number and level of spells? or just Caster level of that level which woudl effect variables and spell penetration?
It was number of spells as well. As for MT honestly it has never come up, no one has ever wanted to take one. So no clue if it would work or not. But I would assume it wouldn't work since it gives both caster class levels in spells basically. I think it would be likely way over powered.
But we tend to test stuff first to see how it works, discuss it as a group and then decided. That has just never come up.
|
|
If you are using the fractional class feature option (?), I would suggest removing 2 or 3 of the +1/+1 spells per day from mystic theurg and granting wizard bonus feats and or something like improved turning.
Better yet, at 3, 6, and 9, your familiar, channeling, domains, bloodline, and school get a +1 effective class bonus rather than spellcasting increasing(you still get the fraction, just not +1/+1).
|
I don't think they need anything, to be honest. Granting them spells or some bonus just steps of other classes toes, like your fighter that out smites a paladin by far and many more times a day. It also makes all classes very similar.
Their 1/2 caster level could however be useful, like if they picked up a magic staff, and there are (in 3.5) a lot of feats that require a caster level (that actually give you a few spells 1/day). Or if they later decide to branch out into casting/psionics. Additionally, it can open up some PC options.
Back in the day, (several months ago) I was prognosticating the +1/2 level no more than double fix. Search for the thread. In that thread we decided MT is still usable but all PrCs do NOT add the +1/2 to the classes.
I personally love this fix, it is simple balanced and you don't have to go through the clunky first 6 levels of an MT build or any other fix-it PrC build. It is there from level
It was number of spells as well.
Doesn't fix the problem otherwise, since it's access to higher level spells that's most needed.
As for MT honestly it has never come up, no one has ever wanted to take one. So no clue if it would work or not. But I would assume it wouldn't work since it gives both caster class levels in spells basically. I think it would be likely way over powered.
I think it fixes the problem for MT that they are gimped while working toward the MT prereqs. Once they attain MT, they use the MT progression rules in place of getting any further bonus multi-class levels (what I was calling effective levels). They don't lose the effective levels they gained before becoming an MT, so their overall power gets the little boost it needs.
In general, I think the proposed multi-class fix is what you use when you don't have a special progression that a PrC gives you instead. MT should be a very appealing class with the little boost to the levels leading up to MT.
|
I see nothing in the Pathfinder RPG that fixes this problem as of now. Multiclassing as a spellcaster is still going to gimp you.
Bad Axe Games' Trailblazer has a system which might be worth stealing if you want to make multiclass spellcasters viable: all classes have a Base Magic Bonus. This is +1/level for full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard), +3/4 levels for half-spellcasters (Paladin, Ranger and oddly enough also the Monk with the justification that they're already gaining a lot of supernatural and spell-like abilities) and +1/2 levels for all other classes.
All spellcasters use a unified spellcasting progression chart where your BMB determines the number of spells you have. This means that you will always have access to spell slots of the highest level allowed based solely on your BMB, instead of giving you a bucketload of lower-level spell slots. You can use the spell slots gained from the unified progression to cast spells from each and every one of your classes with some limitations.
Your class level determines your caster level for purposes of using that class's spells (i.e. a Cleric 2/Wizard 3 would be considered to have CL 2 for the purposes of casting Cleric spells and CL 3 for the purposes of casting Wizard spells) and the highest level of spells you can cast from a given class is determined by your class level (i.e. the aforementioned Cleric 2/Wizard 3 could cast 2nd level Cleric spells and 3rd level Wizard spells, provided his ability scores are high enough).
Trailblazer also uses a magic system similar to Arcana Evolved's: characters have access to all spells on their spell list and each day they ready a number of spells from that list. Until their next rest they can use their daily allotment of spell slots to cast any spell they have readied for that day.
This does undermine some assumptions built into the 3e magic system, such as the difference between the Wizard and the Sorcerer, but this difference is enforced by class abilities from those two classes: a Wizard, as he levels, gains more readied Wizard spells per day to represent his flexibility while the Sorcerer gains more spell slots per day to use on Sorcerer spells to represent his raw arcane power.
While this may seem to make dipping between spellcasting classes seem like a no-brainer it really still isn't: the class features of a given class determine a lot of what is taken for granted in the 3e ruleset (i.e. you can't gain access to a Cleric's 2nd level domain spell by simply splashing a level of Cleric onto a Wizard 4, because the 2nd level domain spell is a class feature gained at Cleric level 3 if I recall correctly).
Suffice to say, if I still ever run a 3.5-based game outside of Pathfinder Society I will be using a bastardized hybrid of Trailblazer and Pathfinder RPG: races, spells and skill system from PFRPG (although the skill system in Trailblazer is almost identical, but I prefer Pathfinder's more consolidated skill list) with the classes and spellcasting progression from Trailblazer. ;)
Bad Axe Games' Trailblazer has a system which might be worth stealing if you want to make multiclass spellcasters viable: all classes have a Base Magic Bonus. This is +1/level for full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard), +3/4 levels for half-spellcasters (Paladin, Ranger and oddly enough also the Monk with the justification that they're already gaining a lot of supernatural and spell-like abilities) and +1/2 levels for all other classes.
Sounds like class synergy, needlessly fussy. Also it's busted, because it gives full progression to any pair of full caster classes without sacrificing any of the things that MT sacrifices for that.
I like the idea of a magical attack bonus. Why shouldn't a mage be so much better at ranged attack spells or firing wands than mere fighters or monks? The idea of tying spell progression to BMB - not at all.
|
|
Bad Axe Games' Trailblazer has a system which might be worth stealing if you want to make multiclass spellcasters viable: all classes have a Base Magic Bonus. This is +1/level for full casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer and Wizard), +3/4 levels for half-spellcasters (Paladin, Ranger and oddly enough also the Monk with the justification that they're already gaining a lot of supernatural and spell-like abilities) and +1/2 levels for all other classes.Sounds like class synergy, needlessly fussy. Also it's busted, because it gives full progression to any pair of full caster classes without sacrificing any of the things that MT sacrifices for that.
With the caveat that to cast spells from any given list your CL for that class has to be equal to the spell level.
It might seem busted but it's not as bad as it looks: let's take the example of a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 versus a Wizard 20 in this system. At this level the aforementioned character has access to all Cleric and Wizard spells and he has a single progression of spells readied and spell slots for that day. He can ready any spell he knows for the day and from his Cleric and Wizard levels he gains, as class features, the ability to ready a handful of extra spells from his lower levels, plus access to lower-level domain spells from the Cleric. His caster level for Cleric spells is 10 and his caster level for Wizard spells is 10. Not too shabby.
Compare to the Wizard 20: he only has access to spells from the Sorcerer/Wizard list, but from those ten levels he took as a Wizard his caster level for the purposes of those spells is 20. He also has all the class features that the Cleric/Wizard missed out on from Wizard, including extra readied spells for the day at higher levels than the Cleric/Wizard can dream of.
The first character wins in terms of versatility of his spell list, but he can have fewer spells readied for the day from that list than the latter character. The second character wins in terms of pure power (CL 20) and flexibility (he has readied spells per day far in excess of his spell slots, so he can easily ready seemingly useless spells for the day on the off-chance that he might need to use them).
And while gaining all the spells from another class's list might seem tempting it's not really all that: you'll still just have a single set of spells readied/spell slots you can use to cast those spells, meaning that you have to make some tough decisions each time you ready your spells.
Bear in mind, also, that the extra spells readied/spell slots/domain spells, which under 3e are written directly into each class's spellcasting progression, are now class features. So while in vanilla 3e any caster worth his salt will take a PrC due to the lack of class features on their list and because they'll still get their full spellcasting progression with the right class, a character who does the same in Trailblazer is missing out on the extra spells that a vanilla 3e character would've gained for simply progressing in a "+1 spells per day for one class" PrC.
Trailblazer doesn't break multiclass spellcasters: what it does is make them a viable option. (Also, for those of you wondering, the other classes have been pumped up considerably. The Trailblazer Fighter makes me pity the Pathfinder Fighter.)
I like the idea of a magical attack bonus. Why shouldn't a mage be so much better at ranged attack spells or firing wands than mere fighters or monks?
Neat. Seems like the rule is independent of multiclassing though. How should it work?
Well, similar to what was posted above, people would also get a base magical bonus. Full casters (& warlocks etc.) would have good BMB, semi-casters and monks would be average BMB and non-spell-casters would have poor BMB. When casting spells or using SLAs or magic items which require an attack roll (the warlock would no longer suck arse with his EB!), the character simply use their BMB instead of their BAB.
It would take some refining of course, but it's a very simple concept.
With the caveat that to cast spells from any given list your CL for that class has to be equal to the spell level.
I went back to your earlier post to reconcile this with the following:
All spellcasters use a unified spellcasting progression chart where your BMB determines the number of spells you have. This means that you will always have access to spell slots of the highest level allowed based solely on your BMB, instead of giving you a bucketload of lower-level spell slots.
I missed your point about the single spell progression. There might be an advantage over multiple spell progressions, but the details seem to take a bit of explaining. If you could boil this down, it might look like an appealing option after all. (Sorry if I'm being obtuse.)
Limiting spell level by both BMB (combined caster level applied to a single, 3e style spell progression) and CL (actual level of a particular spell casting class) is likely to confuse people.
Yeah the rule was mostly built for caster and non caster multi classing.
Plus the 3rd wiz and 13th cleric example you gave would cast as a effective 6th wiz and 14th cleric.(cleric would add have the wiz levels rounded down to it)
So include 1/2 of all other classes (including PrCls), max double level, includes spell level increases, etc.?
We've been using that close to 2 years now and are quite happy with it. As for how it interacts with prestige classes, although we haven't officially banned anything, classes like Mystic Theurge that are nothing but a multiclass fix are basically dropped from our game due to lack of interest.
However, in some of the later books they has multi-caster PrCls that actually had some unique mechanics and flavor to them. The one time it came up, the math still worked out just fine (the 1/2 levels of the PrCls weren't counted because it was obvious double dipping).
So now that we've used that system in play for so long, I don't see us ever not using it again.
|
|
I missed your point about the single spell progression. There might be an advantage over multiple spell progressions, but the details seem to take a bit of explaining. If you could boil this down, it might look like an appealing option after all. (Sorry if I'm being obtuse.)
Limiting spell level by both BMB (combined caster level applied to a single, 3e style spell progression) and CL (actual level of a particular spell casting class) is likely to confuse people.
I'll let the game's designer speak for himself: First post.
I was actually wrong about the bit about caster levels: your character's caster level equals to his BMB, but highest level of spells is still determined by your level in the relevant class.
|
|
It was number of spells as well.Doesn't fix the problem otherwise, since it's access to higher level spells that's most needed.
As for MT honestly it has never come up, no one has ever wanted to take one. So no clue if it would work or not. But I would assume it wouldn't work since it gives both caster class levels in spells basically. I think it would be likely way over powered.I think it fixes the problem for MT that they are gimped while working toward the MT prereqs. Once they attain MT, they use the MT progression rules in place of getting any further bonus multi-class levels (what I was calling effective levels). They don't lose the effective levels they gained before becoming an MT, so their overall power gets the little boost it needs.
In general, I think the proposed multi-class fix is what you use when you don't have a special progression that a PrC gives you instead. MT should be a very appealing class with the little boost to the levels leading up to MT.
It was caster level too. So a 6th level wiz, 6thlevel cleric would cast spells as if they was both 9th level. Same number, caster level ect.
For the +1/2 multiclassing rule, I would suggest just not adding those levels to prestige classes or count levels in prestige class toward increasing your base class abilities. So a Cleric 4/Wizard 4/Mystic Theurge 10 (18th level character) would be able to cast spells as a 16th level cleric and a 16th level wizard (although only having the other class abilities of a 6th level cleric and a 6th level wizard, but also has what ever class abilities the Mystic Theurge now has).
(Although this would also let a person to qualify for Mystic Theurge with a Cleric 2/Wizard 2)
My hope being that this lets neither have the overbearing advantage. (Mystic Theurge might have stronger spells, but the better class abilities of the Cleric/Wizard make up for it. Hopefully.)
|
|
Yeah the rule was mostly built for caster and non caster multi classing.
Plus the 3rd wiz and 13th cleric example you gave would cast as a effective 6th wiz and 14th cleric.(cleric would add have the wiz levels rounded down to it)
So include 1/2 of all other classes (including PrCls), max double level, includes spell level increases, etc.?
We've been using that close to 2 years now and are quite happy with it. As for how it interacts with prestige classes, although we haven't officially banned anything, classes like Mystic Theurge that are nothing but a multiclass fix are basically dropped from our game due to lack of interest.
However, in some of the later books they has multi-caster PrCls that actually had some unique mechanics and flavor to them. The one time it came up, the math still worked out just fine (the 1/2 levels of the PrCls weren't counted because it was obvious double dipping).
So now that we've used that system in play for so long, I don't see us ever not using it again.
Thats cool that someone else is using that and it seems to work for them too.
It was caster level too. So a 6th level wiz, 6thlevel cleric would cast spells as if they was both 9th level. Same number, caster level ect.
Yes, I was assuming the same thing: caster level, spell progression, spells per day, the works.
|
|
Well, there is a complete other side to that point of view.:) Some people like to roleplay a little mix and match, or hav an ingame reason to stop taking this class and switch over to another. The problem is that the mechanics fail, those players because the option is so terrible for some conditions that it breaks the game. It ruins the fun for the players by making the character unable to be competitive, regardless of if the concept should or would or does work in the real world, the rules fail. Sure, a DM can houserule, but that essentually leaves it up to one persons emotional state and person opinions, and more often than not is shot down, regardless of balance.
So I think anything that helps multiclassing all around is a good thing.
I don't think that every possible multi-class combo needs to be a viable choice. Multi-classing is an advanced character building technique that can munchkin well if done right, but will cripple if done poorly, and my group's always liked that. Caster multi-classing is a bad move without a compatible prestige class, or a character concept that's cool with the gimped magic, and we're cool with that too. Given that Pathfinder has fixed our perceived problem with Wizards and Sorcerors and Clerics and Fighters needing to prestige class as early as possible to compete with the other bases, it'll be at least a year before any of us start wanting to branch out and try anything crazy from the base classes. Mystic Theurges and other dual caster advancements are badass with their versatility and nigh unlimitted ammunition, definitely don't need to be powered up to their balanced lack of highest level spells.
I think this is an interesting point to raise. One subset of players whom designers tend to ignore are the.. I won't call them min/maxers because they aren't (necessarily). But mechanics-savvy players who view the ups and downs of the class/race/feat complex as a playground. To many players character creation is something you slog through and hope your character concept is mostly-intact at the end; to others, it's a challenge, something that's fun to tinker with just for the fun of it.
But, while I'm aware of these players (and I don't think they are any less important), I ignore them because for the most part they'll be happy with whatever mechanical landscape you give them. They enjoy nuanced mechanics, and they don't care if a system is perfectly balanced or not, one way or the other. Sure it's easy for them to avoid the pitfalls and exploit the strengths of a wonky system, but that doesn't mean balance is a bad thing.
And I think it's possible to have a game that is both nuanced/intricate enough for the tinkerer, and balanced enough for the casual or mechanically disinclined player.
|
|
Slightly off topic. I like to tinker. I'm not a min/maxer, powergamer, or rules lawyer, but I enjoy sometimes, just sitting down for 10 - 20 mins and seeing if (on paper) something might work or how it actually turns out.
But in my main group, there is a single person that consistantly does this for each and every character. He plans out up to at least 21st level, including feats, skill points, and it all, because he believe in some online teirs from number crunchers, and always wants to build the most powerful character he possibly can. That is fun for him. That isn't a problem, (except he tends to try to make other peoples characters too. . .). But he is always the first to die, barring random bad luck. His, "broken" characters, built on Char Opt boards, typically lack some basic survivability option.
|
Slightly off topic. I like to tinker. I'm not a min/maxer, powergamer, or rules lawyer, but I enjoy sometimes, just sitting down for 10 - 20 mins and seeing if (on paper) something might work or how it actually turns out.
But in my main group, there is a single person that consistantly does this for each and every character. He plans out up to at least 21st level, including feats, skill points, and it all, because he believe in some online teirs from number crunchers, and always wants to build the most powerful character he possibly can. That is fun for him. That isn't a problem, (except he tends to try to make other peoples characters too. . .). But he is always the first to die, barring random bad luck. His, "broken" characters, built on Char Opt boards, typically lack some basic survivability option.
I've got a couple like this as well. Tend to either die or end up badly wounded after a fight despite the "optimized" build.
|
|
Funny thing is, it is not some rash act or bad luck that keeps getting them killed is it?
No, its the belief that their character is perfect in some way. They'll stand their ground when others should run, they take point and fall into the traps, they're the closest when the T-Rex wants to make a bite attack and swallow whole, they use their most powerful spells all at once and then get killed by a goblin with a dagger a minute later. Its consistent really, and pretty sad.
Or at least it would be if this kind of thing didn't happen to every character. Just shows you that sometimes optimal is still only comparable at the same level...
</end threadjacking>
Actually, if I had to draft a theory, I would say that DMs tend to go after a professed min-maxer.
This isn't necessarily a mean-spirited thing; more that DMs tend to get dispreportionatly worried about having an "unbalanced" party, and the min-maxed character's power may become overblown in their mind. They may tend to overcompensate; probably without even realizing it.
|
|
I get player deaths either which way. That said, a lot of guys who want optimized builds are also guys who don't know how to back down or how to re-think their strategy. If they cannot tackle it the first time with their singular tactic, then they get stuck. I've had players blow up at me because a monster used a countering method on an attack with a readied action. Its fine if they want to munchkin, to tell the truth I can be a bit of a munchkin myself... but from the opposite side. I GM, and I want the players to be challenged sometimes, not have it easy the whole time.
I don't think that every possible multi-class combo needs to be a viable choice.
Why not say, "It's OK if multi-classing is busted. I like a game that rewards people who know how to work around that."
Would you say the same about the core classes, that not all of them need to be viable? Why should there be favored combos?
use these:
Mystic Theurge
Arcane Knight
Arcane TricksterAs already mentioned, they achieve very similar dynamics to 2E multiclassing.
Anything you do to achieve the same effect will be extremely unbalancing for said Prc's.
This issue has already been dealt with under 3.5, and above PrC's should be compatable with PRPG.
That only deals with some combinations though.
What about cleric/rogue, cleric/fighter, ranger/wizard (a rather perfect elven combo and no the arcane archer isn't it). I also have to point out all these combos will need some hit die advancement as well, since many of the core classes got one.
Not only cleric. Druid too.
Not only cleric. Druid too.
True I meant really I guess divine caster/fighter or /rogue or /ranger
Not only cleric. Druid too.
I don't see how "Cleric/___" (or "Druid/___") is a distinct issue from "Caster/___", which is what the thread is about.
What issues does a cleric multiclass have that a wizard multiclass doesn't (other than the fact that wizards are cooler and more PrCs have catered to them)?
|
|
The wizard has a thousand more options in multiclassing and isn't automatically condemed to be broken. Divine casters (generally) require much better stats to function and have a harder time funtioning for the party than arcanists or psionisists do. Divine 1/2 and 1/2s really show how bad multiclassing messes with casters, but also don't have options for PCs to fill that gap that arcanists halfheartedly do.
Are you referring to the eldritch warrior and arcane trickster classes?
Not only cleric. Druid too.I don't see how "Cleric/___" (or "Druid/___") is a distinct issue from "Caster/___", which is what the thread is about.
What issues does a cleric multiclass have that a wizard multiclass doesn't (other than the fact that wizards are cooler and more PrCs have catered to them)?
Arcane casters have more to gain. Divine casters get so much already, that multiclassing from them will often cripple a character compared to a single classed divine caster (even if it's done with a mystic theurge-like prestige multiclass.)
For example, take Eldritch Knight. Change requirements from arcane to divine, and increase divine caster progression. Divine casters would not gain as much as taking this class than an arcane caster (that is, a sorcerer or a wizard) would from Eldritch Knight.
If anything, that means that they multiclass more gracefully than wizards, because their cleric levels don't hamstring their melee abilities to the degree that wizard levels would.
Wizards are balanced against clerics single-classed because they have so much more breadth and depth in their spell list; a benefit that doesn't carry as well into a multiclass (a wiz4/rgr4 may have a great selection of 2nd level spells, but they're still just 2nd level spells), at least when compared to a cleric's secondary abilities (a clr4/rgr4 brings more BAB to the table, plus armor proficiency, hitpoints, and possibly a useful domain power or two depending on edition).
To get back to your point: a clerical spell progression isn't quite as useful as a wizard spell progression, so a PrC that caters to both divine and arcane casters will always be less powerful to clerics. If that's the issue you're raising then I understand it completely, sure. But dipping into another core class doesn't progress your spellcasting anyway, and because clerics are already decent in combat they get more fight a fighter-dip than a wizard would.
|
|
I'm going to stick with 3.5 for this comparison. A wizard that dips into Rogue, gets a nice benefits for doing so. Their familiar becomes a little more powerful, because it's HP, Saves, and a few other things are based directly off of the Character not the class. The special abilities are tied to class, but not all of it. While their spells don't get any better (nor does any other caster), they themselves do.
Not so with the Cleric (or Druid). The Cleric drops in ability, HP, and most skills just don't help. The worst part is that there isn't much that is added to compensate. They don't become any better at hitting with their spells, but generally become easier to be hit, and less able to take a hit and survive. They don't have spells to help with the new weaknesses, like Mage Armor. Should that mean that there are no clerics of theiving deities?
I'm not buying your comparison at all. Clerics gain less in terms of BAB and HP because they lose less in terms of spellcasting (if we're operating on the assumption that wizard spellcasting is more potent than clerical spellcasting and that the two classes are comparably balanced overall).
Unless you're saying that clerics are just flat-out better than wizards (that their casting is just as good and they have other bonuses to boot). In which case your argument is actually "Clerics are the best class ever so there is no incentive for them to take non-cleric levels". Some people would agree with that statement, but in that case, I hardly think that boosting clerical multiclasses is the answer.
The point I'm arguing against is that clerics have more trouble multiclassing than wizards (I don't think they do). Have I misunderstood you somehow?