This is my second attempt to balance multiclass casters. You can still read the first on this very forum, if you harbour deep-seated masochistic tendencies.
These much simpler house rules add a new option to the existing system without changing anything that was already there. Hopefully they make much more sense too.
It looks to me like this should all work nicely, but it would be great to have your feedback and questions.
What’s the Problem Anyway?
If you multiclass Wizard/Cleric, you have to choose each round between acting as a weak Cleric or a weak Wizard, so you will always be weak. Meanwhile, a Fighter/Rogue is hitting as hard, fast and consistently as a weak Fighter and a weak Rogue put together, which adds up to one perfectly respectable character.
Why Not Just Be a Theurge or Something?
For one thing, you have to play for several levels as a very poor multiclass character just to qualify, but even once you get in, it never addresses the problems. Instead, it stops them getting worse once they’re already very bad and tries to compensate by giving you more resources to spend in your slow, unreliable and ineffective way. Now you can be a weak wizard or a weak cleric all day without breaking a sweat. Go you.
Even if it actually did what I’m trying to do, it’s only really for Wizard/Cleric characters, it costs you all your class features and it runs out after 10 levels. I am unthrilled.
How Is This Different?
The Add-On: Simultaneous Casting
Multiclass spellcasters can cast multiple spells at the same time, as long as each comes from a different class. This is called Simultaneous Casting.
The action time for simultaneous casting is the same as the longest casting time among the simultaneous spells.
When multiple simultaneous spells affect the same creature, add their spell levels together for the purpose of calculating their save DCs for that creature.
You cannot cast level 0 spells simultaneously.
The maximum number of levels of spells you can cast simultaneously is dictated by your total Magic Ranks from all your classes:
Ranks / Maximum Simultaneous Spell Levels
1-2 / 1
3-4 / 2
5-6 / 3
7-8 / 4
9-10 / 5
11-12 / 6
13-14 / 7
15-16 / 8
17+ / 9
Casters gain one rank at every level unless otherwise noted. If you aren’t multiclass, ignore magic ranks. They don’t affect you.
Sorcerers and Oracles skip a rank at 2nd level.
Bards Inquisitors and Summoners skip a rank at 2nd level and every 3 levels thereafter.
Adepts skip a rank at 2nd level, 6th level and every 3 levels after both.
Paladins and Rangers don’t start getting ranks until 4th level, when they get spells. They skip a rank at their 2nd spellcasting level and every 3 levels thereafter.
When your class says to skip a rank, but you have already skipped a rank at the same class level in another class, you get the rank anyway.
Paladins and Rangers subtract 3 from their class level for this purpose.
e.g. If a Sorcerer 1/Paladin 6 decides to take a second level of Sorcerer, he gains a rank, because he already skipped one at his second Paladin spellcasting level.
When a prestige class gives you a level of another class’ spells, that includes its magic rank progression.
Note
You probably shouldn’t use the Mystic Theurge with this system. You don’t really need him, his capstone feature is redundant and he’s almost certainly over powered. If you really want to use him, for the love of God, don’t give him more than one Magic Rank per level. Otherwise, just alternate levels between an arcane class and a divine class.
It's an interesting concept, though I'm not sure if I like it or not. Being able to toss out three spells per turn seems very powerful, even with with reduced caster level/save/whatever. There are many low-level spells that are useful at higher levels.
How does this work with concentration checks and the like?
Regardless, I'd probably limit simultaneous casting to always taking a full-round action (not a 1 round casting time) and not allowing any spell that takes more than a standard action.
Have you thought about making maximum spell level and caster level a stacking variable like BAB instead of class-specific?
I just made the casterlevel stackable, BCL = Base Caster Level, every magic class level adds 1 BCL per level and every non-magic class level adds 1 BCL per 2 levels.
Paladins/rangers of lvl 4 or higher count as full BCL and PRC which add spell per level, even if it is not every level add full BCL too.
I also use this for creatures with racial HD, adding 1 BCL every 2 HD.
Creatures with spell like abilities use the CL of their spell like abilities or their BCL whichever is higher for all their spellcasting.
I have definitely thought of all these things. BCL under a different name was at the heart of my previous system. Unfortunately, it doesn't solve the problems. It mitigates them a little, but that's all. Ditching BCL was the key that opened up the possibility of solving pretty much everything in one go, like this. (Assuming this works as well as I think it does.)
Caster level is only a piece of the puzzle. It's no substitute for higher level spells, because if you stick to one class, you get the higher caster level AND the higher level spells for the same price. To return to the analogy in the "What's the problem anyway?" spoiler, above, stacking caster levels will give you more bang for your buck, but you still aren't allowed to spend your resources quickly and you still have a higher chance of wasting them due to low DCs.
In short, it helps, but only to an extent. The aim of this system is nothing short of a complete fix.
I'm aware that multiple spells per turn is very powerful. That's the whole idea. High level spells are very powerful too and while low level spells can be useful, they're less useful on their own for a multiclass caster than they are for a pure, single class mage, because of their reduced caster levels.
I considered making it take a full round action, but I can't think of a good reason why it should. Simultaneous casting is the way you'll want to cast whenever you can if you use this system and nobody likes being held in place to do full attacks. Plus, like I said in the original post, it's an attempt to solve the problem through the action economy, so making you pay actions to use it seems wrong. On average, you'll spend very slightly longer casting each turn anyway, because you use the duration of the longest spell.
If you use two identical spells to do the same thing, (like set fire to Steve the goblin), they should add up to about the same power as one spell of the same level, cast with a caster level equal to your character level. If you benefit by using them for different things, that's the benefit of multiclassing. It's what you're paying for with those high level class features and that maxed out skill or hit die size you gave up. You'll also sometimes be forced to use your ability to do two completely different things at once at times when when you'd rather do one thing better. And don't forget, if you turn your spells on two different targets, their DCs drop to their normal levels.
Two things I forgot:
Concentration checks are made separately for each simultaneous spell.
When you check to beat a creature's spell resistance with multiple simultaneous spells, add their caster levels together for the purpose of calculating your bonuses to the the checks
To prevent a problem caused by an amusing but ridiculous build, (wizard 1/sorcerer 1/witch 1/cleric 1/druid 1/oracle 1/summoner 1/inquisitor 1/bard 1), I am changing a rule and adding a new feat. The build allowed you to spend all your magic in a few big chunks, much like a Psion, or a spell points caster from unearthed arcana. With these changes, it doesn't unless you spend every feat slot from 5th level onwards to power your ridiculous character.
New rule: Normally, it is only possible to cast up to two spells simultaneously, but you can cast more using the Master of Many Magicks feat, below.
Master of Many Magicks
Prerequisites: 5 Magic Ranks and you must be able to cast 1st level spells from at least 3 different classes.
You have learnt to weave several different forms of magic into a single and probably unique art form.
You can cast an additional spell simultaneously. You are still bound by the maximum number of simultaneous spell levels allowed by your Magic Ranks.
You may take this feat multiple times, but you must have 2 more Magic Ranks and be able to cast 1st level spells from one more class for each time you already have it.
Anybody have any more comments or suggestions?
I honestly can't say I like it, maybe it is the magic ranks that puts me off, maybe it is the table, maybe it is just that I can not see why a multi-class would be able to cast multiple magics per round better than a fullblood caster.
I'd rather keep BCL and create a feat that allows casting of two low level magics at once, perhaps by sacrificing additional spell slots, which allows the multi-class to draw on one of his strengths.
Why not just do this?
First change how save vs magic works
Current rule: 10+ spell level + ability bonus (if any)
New version: 10+ Effective Caster Level + ability bonus (if any)
yeah this makes spells at higher levels harder to save against but considering the saves High CR creatures have its mitigated. (not to mention the immunities, etc...)
Second change
Effective Caster Level equals the sum of all caster levels of the character.
This is a quick House Rule (no play test since I just had it come to me).
Why not just do this?
First change how save vs magic works
Current rule: 10+ spell level + ability bonus (if any)
New version: 10+ Effective Caster Level + ability bonus (if any)
yeah this makes spells at higher levels harder to save against but considering the saves High CR creatures have its mitigated. (not to mention the immunities, etc...)
Second change
Effective Caster Level equals the sum of all caster levels of the character.This is a quick House Rule (no play test since I just had it come to me).
If your going to use standardized rules might as well do them right..
10 + 1/2 effective caster level + ability mod
would be more appropriate. TBH. ( and a smart player will break this system easily.)
also not this makes 1st level spells save as the highest level spell a char could cast
so a casters experience should not come into play when considering spell strength? I am bringing experience from alternate casting systems where a casters level has such an effect. Plus consider this rule would apply to all casters (even BBEGs and critters).
With the current set up a spells strength is static unless you drop ability points into your casting related stat And the best you can hope for there is a +3 climb at best. My variant actually takes experience into account and scales nicely.
Congrats, you just undid all the nerfing of the wizard class piazo did with one homebrew rule
well considering how baddly nerfed they were before hand...
Thats a good thing.But then mages always have been the red headed step child of gaming...
Go over the spell list again, They still have an "auto win" spell at just about every level. lol
hardly an auto win if it has to overcome spell resistance now is it?
Congrats, you just undid all the nerfing of the wizard class piazo did with one homebrew rulewell considering how baddly nerfed they were before hand...
Thats a good thing.But then mages always have been the red headed step child of gaming...
Play second edition wizards...Useless against everything high level but will wipe out 3 parties of equal levels barring another wizard.
want proof boulders gate is an AMAZING 2nd edition video game that follows the rules extremely close. ( amazing game back in the day).. or just learn what THaC0 is ....
That is the last place you want to go...
I have been playing since 74.I can calculate To Hit AC Zero in my sleep. (often did)
Mages have been getting nerfed ever since 2nd printing (not edition; printing) just cause some poor little Sword and Boarder got his @$$ handed to him by a competent Mage player and whined that they were over powered. AD&D nerfed them, 2e nerfed them, 3e nerfed the living f^(% out of them; 3.5 Nerfed them even further. Paizo actually tried to undo some of the damage (they did not go far enough IMO... After all they kept the thrice *unrepeatable but aptly applied insult* vancian system.)
Congrats, you just undid all the nerfing of the wizard class piazo did with one homebrew rulewell considering how baddly nerfed they were before hand...
Thats a good thing.But then mages always have been the red headed step child of gaming...
Play second edition wizards...Useless against everything high level but will wipe out 3 parties of equal levels barring another wizard.
want proof boulders gate is an AMAZING 2nd edition video game that follows the rules extremely close. ( amazing game back in the day).. or just learn what THaC0 is ....
That is the last place you want to go...
I have been playing since 74.
I can calculate To Hit AC Zero in my sleep. (often did)
Mages have been getting nerfed ever since 2nd printing (not edition; printing) just cause some poor little Sword and Boarder got his @$$ handed to him by a competent Mage player and whined that they were over powered. AD&D nerfed them, 2e nerfed them, 3e nerfed the living f^(% out of them; 3.5 Nerfed them even further. Paizo actually tried to undo some of the damage (they did not go far enough IMO... After all they kept the thrice *unrepeatable but aptly applied insult* vancian system.)
Wait, what? Are you claiming that wizards are underpowered (which is a VERY odd claim) or that they aren't overpowered enough (which is EVEN odder)?
While I didn't play in 2e (started playing in the RPG's in the late 90's, but not D&D until 3e was released) I've been playing a lot 3.0 and 3.5... And if it was something wizards wasn't, it was underpowered. At low levels they were a bit vulnerable, but at higher levels they wrecked the living hell out of game balance (somewhat together with clerics and druids).
In PF they're still overpowered and tend to dominate at higher levels, from what I've heard from all the people at the boards who play at those levels (I don't anymore), but the "sweet spot" where balance works decently has grown from level 4-8 to levels 1-10. Wizards got a boost at low levels, which isn't a bad thing, and a few of their higher-level spells where nerfed, as well as non-wizards getting really nice boosts.
ok, lets not get into a wizard power discussion, we pretty much know what most people on the board feel about wizards anyway. Lets see if I can come up with a feat on the fly...
Double Cast
requirements:
Spellcraft 6 ranks, Knowledge Arcana 6 ranks, Still Spell, Silent Spell, Quicken Spell
You can cast two spells simultaneously, blending verbal and somatic components together into a single act of magic.
- full round action casting time
- only spells with casting time of a standard action can be blended together
- for the purpose of concentration checks the spell levels are combined and an additional +5 to the DC since it requires a good deal of effort to concentrate on two spells at once
- all spells have a verbal and somatic component, in addition to any other components required, unless both spells lack these components
- The combined spells level can not exceed half your caster level
Not sure this is what we are looking for, maybe we can work on a string of feats that might make multi-class casters more interesting.
This feat assumes you use a BCL system and takes advantage of the higher number of lower level spell slots a multiclass caster has and also benefits from more from the versatility her spells offer.
At the same time it is not restricted to multi-class casters and full casters can use it too though they typically gain less from casting their lower level spells, compared to their higher more powerful spells and their spells lack the versatility multi-class casters have.
Ok guys, I agree that it's a bad idea to get into a wizard power discussion here. Lets stick the the idea of casting multiple spells, or other potential solutions to the same problem.
Remco, your double casting feat isn't it. I can't see why it should be so hard to qualify for or why it makes it so hard to use. It doesn't really solve the problem, and it's probably always going to be better to take it as a single class caster and use it to nova.
Freesword, I disagree about the action economy being the same. On the surface it seems that way, but actually, a multiclass spellcaster has a big problem with getting enough magic out at speed. A high level wizard can hit you with, say, and 8th level spell powered by 15 caster levels in a single round. A multiclass wizard of the same character level might hit you with a 4th level spell and 7 caster levels, for about 25% of the full wizard's effectiveness, assuming the spell works. Give them another spell in the same action and they're up to 50%. Their spells are still weakened, but they can cast the same number of spell levels at the same rate. That's a key part of any fix for this, surely?
A lot of people have mentioned that it doesn't make much sense for multiclass casters to be able to cast faster than everyone else. I can see what you mean, but I never really saw it like that. It's more like a words of power thing. It's meant to represent their ability to combine their two different kinds of magic into one effect. Pure casters can kick out just as much magic in a turn anyway, combining multiple lightening bolts into chain lightening, healing twice as much in one touch or using bulls's strength on everybody they can reach, so it doesn't stretch my suspension of disbelief at all.
For those who object to the magic rank table, I can't see a real fix for this problem of any sort without a table that looks something like that. The only alternative is limiting the power a caster can kick out based on their caster level, and that means it will benefit the classes that need it the least more than the classes that need it the most.
For those who say casting two spells is very powerful, having looked into it, it's really not. It leaves multiclass casters still lagging behind. In fact, casting two identical spells at once in the system I described is often only as good as casting one spell of the same level with the caster level you would have as a single class caster. In fact, having thought more about it, I have decided that for my system to do what it's supposed to, it needs a couple of other things:
First, stack caster level from all your classes. Even two spells at full caster level at once often isn't as good as a higher level spell. This replaces the old thing about adding their caster levels together for beating spell resistance.
I'm kind of embarrassed to have argued against this earlier in the thread. It's necessary.
Second, all simultaneous spells are heightened to the total level of all the spells being cast. They don't use higher level slots or anything. This replaces the old thing about adding their levels together for calculating DCs against the same target.
hmm I think you misunderstand the feat I wrote up, since it doesnt allow for full casters to go supernova any better than a multi-class caster, since the spells unleashed is based on caster level and that should be equal. The tough requirements are necesary to keep some balance in casting multiple spells per round and reflect skill in adjusting verbal and somatic components.
Quickened spell could disappear from the requirements.
You could scrap Knowledge Arcana, if you want though it seems suitable.
I stuck to 6 ranks, because casting two spells is powerful stuff and at level 6 at least a warrior can have two attacks as well. It probably should be 7 ranks since that makes more sense for feat selection. I wouldn't even let it in my campaign without further restrictions, but well I thought it up in a minute's time what can you expect :p
I am curious though, why exactly do you want to play a multi-class caster, seems you should just play a full caster if you want his mojo, if it is versatility you want you will have to pay for it some way.
The fact that multi-classing casters is more difficult might be because in the end people do not want to have a 'supercharged, can-do-it-all caster', personally I think it gets boring fast and loses flavor more easily than other multi-classes.
lets see more options for the multi-caster
1) Ok what if we skip casting multiple spells per round and allow casters to combine spell levels for the purpose of metamagic, up to a max decided by their spell level.
cleric 7 wizard 7 can combine any two spells to cast one metamagic spell, with an effective level of combined spell level -1.
so this caster could sacrifice two 4th level slots to cast an effective 7th level spell with a caster level of 14. intensified, maximized fireball for example.
2) allow the DC of a spell to be determined by the highest casting ability, though you still need the minimum score to cast spells of a certain level and get bonus spells.
With this a cleric 7 wizard 7 could get away with a wisdom of 14, while focusing on intelligence getting an intelligence base of 20 which he can use to set the DC for his cleric spells too.
Agreed on the wizards rulez/sux debate, sorry to have gone astray.
ofcourse it needs fixing, paizo knows it, WotC knew it, why do you think such a trait that gives +2 caster level even exists ?
I am just bypassing the must have or you suck trait/feat and give it to my players directly, if you are then talking about the MT.. then multiclass works ok. We are just looking to make it a bit more viable by default, preferably in such a manner that overpowered feats and traits aren't needed to make up for a glaring weakness.
Remco, I just checked again and I'm pretty sure I read it right.
The reason it seems to me it lets single class casters go nova is because they already get high level spells. With the feat, they can combine their low level spells to make the equivalent of more high level spells. They can effectively use their spell levels like mana points, turning two Cure Light Wounds spells into one Cure Moderate Wounds spell, for example.
My system is designed on the basis that multiclass spellcasters cannot get those few important rounds worth of powerful magic that your highest level spell slots normally give you. It lets them combine their low level slots so they can get those powerful rounds in a different way. Your feat gives single class casters this new way of doing powerful magic without asking them to give up their old way, so they'll get to use powerful magic for more rounds in a day than they already can and they'll stay just as far ahead of the multiclass guys.
If you're reading this and thinking things are fine as they are because of the existing character options, ok, but your not looking at quite the same problem as me. If you need to spend your feat slots to be able to function while somebody can afford to spend theirs on helpful bonuses, that's not balanced and you're not getting what you deserve, even if you can manage that way. I'm not trying to fix multiclass magic so it becomes viable, I'm trying to fix it so it becomes great, the way pure-bred casters are great.
Anyway guys, I have a few questions for you about the other suggestions in this thread:
-First, why do most of your options only kick in once you've already played for several levels, when multiclass spellcasters are in trouble from early on?
-Second, why do they all cost something? If the idea is to give the multiclass guys more power, doesn't it defeat the point if you make them pay for it?
-Third, why so many partial increases and static values? The discrepancies widen with character level, so giving them a +2 to caster level will be pretty damn good for a little while, but then they'll fall behind again and you'll have the same problem.
-Fourth, why are you suggesting limiting it to standard action spells and increasing the casting time to a full round? That's going to ensure that anybody dependant on casting multiple spells at once will avoid full round action spells and make them clunkier than other casters. What's achieved? The way I see it they'd be behind using most of these variants even if they could work at full speed.
-Fifth and last, why are they all relatively minor? Mine is the most extreme in the thread so far, but if you use it to imitate Mass Bull's Strength, you end up with an effect that's absolutely identical, except you're limited to 3 targets instead of a number of targets equal to your caster level. Same story with Chain Lightening. You get two bolts, both emanating from you, instead of a number of bolts equal to your caster level jumping from target to target.
My system lets you trade your access to effects that only open up at high spell levels for the ability to mix and match different kinds of spell either to fill a little of one role and a little of another, or to create effects that imitate the advanced versions of low level spells, sometimes exactly, but sometimes not as powerful. Is that really too much?
Please don't take these questions as being antagonistic. I'm just trying to understand why I seem to be coming up with such different stuff to everybody else. Am I missing something big here?
EDIT: Sorry, Rory, but saying a build's strength doesn't lie in optimisation is like saying its strength doesn't lie in being strong, or that it's a good supporter, but not a good character. That's exactly what everybody contributing here sees as the problem. Just because you're competent at one thing doesn't mean you're much good.
You make a good point Rory, but that can only go so far and so far as it goes, you can optimise for it. Anyway, I see what you mean now.
Dragonslie, I know suggestion stays good. The problem is that single class casters get suggestion earlier and then get even more powerful things. Single class casters wait for suggestion and then use it very nearly as effectively. Meanwhile, the single class casters keep using it, but also get different, more powerful stuff. I'm not saying that multiclass casters can't do anything useful, only that they can't do as much.
I never suggested that 2 damage dice were going to break the game. I think it's quite the opposite. Hell, if you use stacking caster level, as I suggest in my rules, you'll have 10 extra dice if you alternate classes for 20 levels.
I hadn't considered what you could do with a metamagic rod though. That's potentially a big problem, so thanks for pointing it out.
If this has already been brought up, it probably is worth repeating.
Unearthed Arcana feels your pain and has an optional rule for you. Magic Rating. This replaces your caster level. All classes get a magic rating. Pure spell casters get a 1/1 magic rating. reduced casters (rangers and paladins, for example) get a 1/2 magic rating. non caster get a 1/4 magic rating.
P.S. It also applies to spell like abilities.
Thanks Kierato, I do know about that rule. I don't think it's enough, so I came up with something else. I'm now far from convinced that I got it right, but I'm still not really satisfied with the Unearthed Arcana solution either.
Dragonslie, your facts are right, but I think you misunderstand what my rules do. They won't change an Eldrich Knight at all. They only effect characters who multiclass between two or more spellcasting classes. An Eldrich Knight keeps advancing as though he was a member of his old casting class, so he can't benefit from any of the rules I have put forward.
Rory, I was ninja'd by your last post there, because I had to leave my machine for a while while I was typing.
I thought you were still trying to solve the same problem as me with your feats. If you think multiclass casters work as they are, but miss out on feat love, those feats of yours make a lot more sense.
"That's the way feats work" is frankly an annoying answer though. The question was "why make them pay for a fix to address a power imbalance". Saying that's how feats work helps nobody, since the fix doesn't have to be in the form of a feat. Turns out you think they don't need a fix, but do need feats. That would be the reasonable and informative answer I was looking for.
I get you about Hasten Spell.
My thoughts on the ability to cast lightening bolt and cure, or similar, are that it make up for the fact that you can't make chain lightening. You're better at some things and worse at others. That, and you're limited to casting things like lightening bolt and cure when you might actually prefer to cast chain lightening. You can mix different effects together frighteningly well, but it's harder to do one thing really well.
A lot of sensible suggestions and objections have been made. Thanks. I know I'm answering them with the logic behind my decisions, but that doesn't mean I'm not also considering them.
Great thread....I wish to share what's going on in a new group I started.
An experienced 3.5 player wanted to do MyT. They wanted to qualify for it earlier using a 3.5 feat that gives the player one second level spell slot (arcane) at level 1. This would, in effect, allow the character to start taking MyT levels starting at 5.
At the end of the day, this basically holds the MyT down 1 level compared to a pure caster counterpart. I felt that this was a OP'd. On the other hand, it seems that a straight approach (which puts the caster 3 levels behind) was too restrictive. I wrote the following to the player, offering a type of compromise...
The PF requirement for MyT is 2nd level casting of arcane and divine (and some knowledge skills, of course). That would mean, I would think, you would need 3 levels of something like wizard, and 3 levels of something like Cleric. You would get your first level of MT
at level 7 (Lv 3 mage/Lv 3 cleric/Lv 1 MyT)That would put your effective caster level 3 levels behind a pure caster, as well as access to higher level spells. That's 3 less HD on inflatable spells as well as less change to break through SR. It's a double whammy to be sure, and I understand your concern.
**
The feat you are asking for (to apply for this) would give you that
2nd level mage spell at level 1, instead of 3. You could get into MT at
level 5. (Mage 1/Cleric 3/MyT 1)That would only put you one effective caster level behind a pure caster
(which, I feel is a bit too powerful for the flexibility that double
dipping gives the caster.)
**
My method is a compromise. You would basically get 2nd level casting
ability for cleric/priest at level 2, instead of 3 (and if you wish, use that feat slot for something else). You would be able to dive into MyT starting at level 6. This isn't automatic...I'm sure you'll have to go on a special quest or something :)This means that you would be two effective caster levels behind a pure caster. So, your inflatable spells (like fireball) would do two dice less damage (assuming no unusual modifiers), have access to spells two levels later, and ability to penetrate SR would 2 less. You would have access to ninth level spells arcane, assuming you don't take any more priest levels, by level 19... and 7th level priest (13 total divine caster levels due to my bonus I'd give) by 20th level.
I believe, at the end of the day, people have to understand is SOME sacrifice with dividing up one's focus between two totally different disciplines.
I played something like this a lot in 2e. And, as I recall, I was regularly behind the pure caster from 1-4 levels. People are absolutely right that it kinda sucks to be casting cone of cold when others are tossing out delayed fireballs or whatnot. But, I was able to cure and buff when it was needed. If a monster had high SR, I could spend my turns buffing and curing instead of standing there throwing darts.
There were times when I had initiative, and we needed healing RIGHT THEN and THERE. There were other times when it was my turn and we needed a quick magic missile just to finish that dragon off. Versatility, not raw power, was key to my position on the team.
I can see how any party without a pure arcane and divine caster may feel they are gimping themselves. But if you have those roles filled, having a versatile MyT instead of *another* pure caster can easily make the difference between victory and defeat. And if you have a very small party, having a MyT is better than missing out on one of the pure casters altogether.
What are your thoughts on 1) my compromise with my player to make the class more 'viable' and 2) my argument regarding the flexibility vs. raw power of the MyT class?
Earlier in the thread I said that the way I see it, he can choose to be a weak wizard or a weak cleric every turn and keep going all day. So yes, he lacks power and has extra versatility, but his choices are relatively poor choices and in an attempt to balance that out, he's allowed to make more of them. I don't think that's a good trade. It's like the other guy won a car, but you won twice its weight in soap and fish. You got twice the amount and twice the options! Woo!
Being versatile is ok, but if it's costing you power, you'd do much better with each party member reasonably dedicated to one particular role.
I wouldn't play a Theurge unless I was willing to be behind the curve in order to have a cool concept.
You say there has to be some sacrifice. What sacrifice would you say a fighter/rogue is making?
He uses skills like a fighter of his fighter level and a rogue of his rogue level put together and he fights like a fighter of his level and a rogue of his rogue level put together.
However you compromise to get people into the class quickly, mystic theurge is still going to be an attempt compensate for the way multiclass casters suffer from spellcasting being an all or nothing deal without addressing the cause of the problem. Casting cleric spells like cleric of your cleric level and an oracle of your oracle level put together is the same as casting cleric spells like a cleric of your cleric level, even though the two classes get the same spell list. The only "sacrifice" you should be asked to make for following a less worn path between two well trodden ones is ending up somewhere between the two more popular destinations. Mystic Theurges somehow get most of the way to both at once and then stop.
You say there has to be some sacrifice. What sacrifice would you say a fighter/rogue is making? He uses skills like a fighter of his fighter level and a rogue of his rogue level put together and he fights like a fighter of his level and a rogue of his rogue level put together.
Without the exact builds in front of me, the guy is going to have to give up armor to do a lot of rogue stuff. He's going to have to give up rogue higher class features to take warrior levels. He's going to lose a little BAB and some HPs. He's giving up the neat high level warrior stuff (Improved weapon mastery / criting and damage resistance).
However you compromise to get people into the class quickly, mystic theurge is still going to be an attempt compensate for the way multiclass casters suffer from spellcasting being an all or nothing deal without addressing the cause of the problem. Casting cleric spells like cleric of your cleric level and an oracle of your oracle level put together is the same as casting cleric spells like a cleric of your cleric level, even though the two classes get the same spell list. The only "sacrifice" you should be asked to make for following a less worn path between two well trodden ones is ending up somewhere between the two more popular destinations. Mystic Theurges somehow get most of the way to both at once and then stop.
I'm not prepared to talk about cleric / oracle duel classin'.... my post is specifically regarding MyT...and Myt it's an arcane/divine build. If yer wizard is taking time out to study the ways of the divine, it makes sense he's not going to throw down the highest level, highest powered spells as a result. I don't believe a two level hit to the 'favored' side of the caster is all that game breaking. But, that's just my opinion.
So, let me ask you....if someone IS splitting their attention between the divine and arcane, what do you think should be the cost for that tradeoff? Rules as written says -3 levels to the main caster side, and -7 to the off side. (Like 7 mage/3 cleric/10 myt). My proposal is -2 levels to the main side, still -7 (lv 13 caster) on the off side. (And, of course, you don't get the class benefits like higher channeling). My gamer proposes -1 level to the main side, -9 (lv 11 caster) to the off side. What do you propose?
I don't know what cost would be appropriate, because I still don't think there's a right answer.
As a Fighter/Rogue gives up BAB, yes, but that's only because the system rounds off for the sake of simplicity and it's not a lot.
You don't give up any hp at all, because you have the average of your two classes. You won't have high level features, that's true, but you can get low level features from both classes and stack them, which really helps to make up for that.
You miss out on about half of your favoured class bonuses too, but if you're serious about multiclassing there's a good chance you're a half-elf.
I think you've missed my point. (I don't blame you, since it was quite badly made.) I wouldn't recommend any trade-off of levels at all. It doesn't matter if you're a cleric/oracle, a druid/wizard or bard/witch, the way multiclass spellcasting currently works is very much the way multiclass melee would work if BAB and all things related to it didn't stack.
A Fighter 3 /Rogue 3 would be reduced to choosing between attacking with +3 BAB and using his Fighter weapons and feats or attacking at +2 and using sneak attack. Meanwhile, a pure Fighter 6 would be attacking at +6 with more feats and getting his first iterative, which is much better, even though it's less versatile.
Obviously, this problem could be mitigated by adding a prestige class called the Sneaky Combatant, which improves your rogue attack and your fighter attacks at once, lets you use weapons with which you are proficient as a fighter to make attacks as a rogue (at a reasonable penalty, of course) and after 10 levels allows you to make attacks from each class in the same round.
How many levels should you have to wait to become a Sneaky Combatant? Wrong question. Making you wait to become a sensible character is unfair and writing a new class to lessen the problem after several levels is a poor way right that imbalance. You need to attack with feats and sneak attack together at the combined BAB of your classes from the very first level you multiclass and onwards. And even then, you argue that you're still making sacrifices.
I believe a wizard/cleric needs to be able to do something similar, or the balance will never be quite right, no matter what numbers you choose.
How many levels should you have to wait to become a Sneaky Combatant? Wrong question. Making you wait to become a sensible character is unfair and writing a new class to lessen the problem after several levels is a poor way right that imbalance. You need to attack with feats and sneak attack together at the combined BAB of your classes from the very first...
Well, that's the thing about many of the mixed class prestiges period. Once of the nice things about 2nd Edition non-human racial multilclassing is you split xp between two classes. So the progression felt smooth and you didn't have to 'wait' to become your 'cool combined class,' unlike human progresses which required you to level to where you wanted to stop, and then progress in a 2nd class (and you could not access that first class skills until you surpassed it in the 2nd level. Yuck!)
But, let's pretend this is a perfect world...or, let's say I made a custom class. This custom class would progress in both Arcane and Divine casting from level 1 through 20 at an even rate. What would be your restrictions of this class? What would the trade off be for gaining this awesome flexibility of both casting worlds? Would they eventually get level 9 spells in both? Would their CR take a hit? What saith you?
Here's my preliminary thoughts answering my own question.
* cloth/simple weapons only
* poor bab
* Will save high
* d6
* Normal universalist wizard table progression for number of spells, but can use those slots for any type of spell.
* Requirement for spells at X level determined by Int AND wisdom, whichever is lowest.
* Only limited to certain domains by GM (like knowledge, arcane, etc)
* No mage specialization (Universalist)
* Caster/Divine level of spells tied into levels in the class.
* No bonus feats like wizard.
* No cleric channeling or other cleric class feats.
* Lore type knowledge similar to bard to reflect life of complete study to all types of magic.
* 2+Int Skills
I guess my biggest problem with this ideology is why would anyone play a pure mage over this? A few bonus feats is hardly anything to worry about, and in return, you're getting a much greater diversity. Hmmmm...
That's where where my thoughts started out. I created a system where all casting classes gave you a progression up a single spells per day chart identical to the wizard's and allowed you to cast spells from their spell lists, but only if your class level was at least equal to the spell level. That way you got some stuff from each class and had to keep going in both all the way up to 18th level to get the 9th level spells of both classes. It didn't work, for innumerable reasons.
As I'm sure you've read, my approach in this thread has been to deny multiclass characters access to the high level spells of either class, but let them cast multiple low level spells simultaneously in such a way as to mimic high level spells that are halfway between the two class lists.
It works out with pretty much the same progression that you describe in your ideal world class without letting you be as good at either job as a specialist.
If that's not what you'd like, I don't have any better ideas right now. I'll post them if they come along though.
That's where where my thoughts started out. I created a system where all casting classes gave you a progression up a single spells per day chart identical to the wizard's and allowed you to cast spells from their spell lists, but only if your class level was at least equal to the spell level. That way you got some stuff from each class and had to keep going in both all the way up to 18th level to get the 9th level spells of both classes. It didn't work, for innumerable reasons.
I know it might be heading to being off-topic...so you can PM me if you want...but why didn't it work? The caster is basically getting nearly the same spells as a pure class counterpart, cast at the same DC.. and in terms of battle economics (and what you can do a turn), is pretty much straight on.... Forcing them to use a standard wizard table equalizes their # of spells cast per day... and while they have less feats and no channeling...but get that flexibility... So I'm curious as to what the game breaking challenges are?
Well, for a start, you end up with the full progressions for each class by the end, which means you're pretty much as good at both jobs as a specialist. As a Wizard/Cleric, you could blast like a Wizard and heal/buff like a Cleric. The only real loss was a spell slot of each high level, because you only got the first half each of your domain and specialist slots.
Then there was the problem of elegance. There had to be so many exceptions that it got pretty long. I didn't force everyone to use the standard wizard table exactly. I wanted to keep people's spells per day the same, so most classes ended up getting extra slots which could only be used to prepare spells from that class.
That, and spells known had to be re-engineered so you could actually know the high level spells to fill your slots. The preparation changes and my desire to speed him up and have the table fit him more easily ended up changing the way the sorcerer worked, which in turn ended up making him too similar to the wizard and probably too good.
Finally (of the problems I can think of), I made Constitution the stat from which all bonus spells were determined, since everybody has a use for it and it makes running out of spells seem more like getting tired than ticking off the last box. People really didn't like that for some reason.
There were a few other things jumbled in, like an attempt to make metamagic work slightly differently for sorcerers, making Heighten Spell completely free to have and use and granting rangers and paladins access to the entire druid and cleric spell lists, respectively.
It was badly written, but I don't think that was the only problem. It came to something like 11 printed pages, or something silly like that.
Well, for a start, you end up with the full progressions for each class by the end, which means you're pretty much as good at both jobs as a specialist. As a Wizard/Cleric, you could blast like a Wizard and heal/buff like a Cleric. The only real loss was a spell slot of each high level, because you only got the first half each of your domain and specialist slots.
Ah. In mine, I word that the domains have to to be something along the lines of arcane and knowledge. They don't get channeling. They don't get familiars and familiar buffs. They don't get any extra feats, domain spell slots or the such. There's a price for all that versatility.
Then there was the problem of elegance. There had to be so many exceptions that it got pretty long. I didn't force everyone to use the standard wizard table exactly. I wanted to keep people's spells per day the same, so most classes ended up getting extra slots which could only be used to prepare spells from that class.
Do you give everyone what sorcerer gets? I mean, sorcerers get more spells per day because their are limited in what they can cast. Specialized wizards are the same. Universalist wizards get less. Therefore, it seems this custom class should certainly be limited strictly in spells per day/ bonus spells as a rule of thumb... especially given that we're keeping the spell progress close and the access to highest level of spells the same...
Finally (of the problems I can think of), I made Constitution the stat from which all bonus spells were determined, since everybody has a use for it and it makes running out of spells seem more like getting tired than ticking off the last box. People really didn't like that for some reason.
Yeah, probably makes picking your stat of choice a bit too easy...extra spells AND extra HPs? Winz! :) I based mine off of Wisdom & intelligence: choose the LOWEST bonus of the two. This class would HAVE to focus on both (unlike a pure caster), and by necessity, probably put CON a third place stat meaning they'll be even more fragile than a pure equivalent. Another, logical, trade off that doesn't effect the turn by turn effectiveness of the class that people are bemoaning. And it makes sense...someone who is THAT much into arcane and theological study isn't pumping iron on their off time.
Thanks for sharing...great stuff to think about!
I only gave everybody the same number of slots they already get (I meant the same as they are in standard PF, not the same as each other), but most classes get extra slots of one kind or another.
Making it a class rather than a way to make multiclassing work better does allow you to weaken it significantly and generally make things neater, so it's probably the way to go for what you're hoping to achieve.
While wizards like not dying, people in my group just didn't want to have high con. They wanted big brains. I'd argue that it does make sense, since if magic wore you out, you'd do endurance training, but no, it doesn't fit the classic wizard archetype.