Is there any way we could see this in PF2? Is there any fundamental reason that Mystic Theurge has to be hot garbage?
In a hybrid multiclass system, you could potentially have both spell progressions at full caster level, each just learning half the spells, and then each either sharing a single full pool of spell slots / mana per day used for both classes or just each progression getting half as many spell slots / mana so you still end up with the same total.
3E style multiclassing where you just alternate levels is harder but maybe doable. Still keep the bit where caster level is cumulative across all classes. Maybe all casters share the same spells per day / mana pool so multiclassing just advances this single table, and going to different classes just means you learn different spells that are cast on this same table. Take cleric 1 as a wizard 8 and you learn some 1st tier cleric spells that you can upcast into 5th tier slots, and now you can also upcast your 1st-4th tier wizard spells into 5th tier slots as well because you're a 9th level caster.
Speaking of, please definitely call spell levels "tiers" or "circles" or "spheres" or something. Using the word "level" for everything gets awkward when they advance on different tracks and don't refer to the same thing.
Id love to see a full blown adept MT class myself. I have a feeling MC is going to be rather disappointing in PF2. On the other hand, picking up the onesie twosies you want might be much easier.
I think this is something that 5e got right. When you multi class casters you get spell slots as a full caster but you only get spells known/prepared as an individual caster. Therefore a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 would have 5th level spell slots but only 3rd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells but they can up cast those lower level spells using the higher slots. If you need to do vancian (which I am against but I think it is stuck) than this is a good way to do it.
I agree, the way 5e handled multiclassing spellcasters works the best in my opinion.
The Mystic Theurge itself wasn't a bad class...the problem was it didn't go up enough levels. Because of this you were hosed with spellcasting after you got to your maximum Mystic Theurge level. If they had it so that you could go to level 15 it may have been better, the problem of course is that due to the breadth of spells you'd get in that level it could unbalance the other casters.
Perhaps if they had kept the Mystic Theurge so that they could never cast 8th or 9th level spells, but went up to level 15 it may have been more complete??
I think this is something that 5e got right. When you multi class casters you get spell slots as a full caster but you only get spells known/prepared as an individual caster. Therefore a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 would have 5th level spell slots but only 3rd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells but they can up cast those lower level spells using the higher slots. If you need to do vancian (which I am against but I think it is stuck) than this is a good way to do it.
We have a pair of 5E PHB here, but they're like.. shiny new because they've never been used in play.
I have read them though... does 5E have the caster/martial disparity issue? If yes, is it as bad as in 3.5/PF?
I'm a lil concerned that non-Vancian magic might make the gulf between martials and casters wider, but I haven't rilly seen it in actual play (aside from stuff like Critical Role). If it doesn't make it worse.. well, it sounded kind of nifty..
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think this is something that 5e got right. When you multi class casters you get spell slots as a full caster but you only get spells known/prepared as an individual caster. Therefore a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 would have 5th level spell slots but only 3rd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells but they can up cast those lower level spells using the higher slots. If you need to do vancian (which I am against but I think it is stuck) than this is a good way to do it.We have a pair of 5E PHB here, but they're like.. shiny new because they've never been used in play.
I have read them though... does 5E have the caster/martial disparity issue? If yes, is it as bad as in 3.5/PF?
I'm a lil concerned that non-Vancian magic might make the gulf between martials and casters wider, but I haven't rilly seen it in actual play (aside from stuff like Critical Role). If it doesn't make it worse.. well, it sounded kind of nifty..
I have only played in one 5e game so I am far from an expert but they still use a semi-vancian casting system. Spontaneous casters work the same as in PF and prepared casters work similar to the PF arcanists. Spells don't scale with character level but rather with spell slot used, heightened spell to for example cast magic missile as a 3rd level spell is just the way magic works not a special feat.
I have not noticed any worse martial-caster disparity in 5e than in PF, it is balanced in combat but spell casters have a disproportionate amount of narrative power especially at high levels.
As far as the multi classing I don't see that as any danger to increasing martial caster disparity because while a multi classed caster in this system has high level spell slots they are upcasting low level spells effects so they miss out on the world altering high level spell effects.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd like to see a system where you gained spell levels in fractions like BAB or saves. Have each level in Cleric grant .5 toward a new spell level of the Cleric spell list, but if you want to multiclass to Warpriest, spellcasting progresses on the same track and you just gain only .33 spell levels per Warpriest level. Maybe merge a few spell lists to enable it, or let you gain X many spells per day from Cleric and X many from Wizard based on your total spell level, for instance.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have read them though... does 5E have the caster/martial disparity issue? If yes, is it as bad as in 3.5/PF?
Yes, they have it-- no, it's not as bad. There are fewer spells that outright end combats, spellcasters get fewer spells per day, and spell damage is based on spell slot rather than caster level.
But every spellcaster has non-combat options martials just can't get, and more options than any martial character is capable of getting.
I think this is something that 5e got right. When you multi class casters you get spell slots as a full caster but you only get spells known/prepared as an individual caster. Therefore a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 would have 5th level spell slots [b] but only 3rd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells [b] but they can up cast those lower level spells using the higher slots. If you need to do vancian (which I am against but I think it is stuck) than this is a good way to do it.I don't think you've got that exactly right. As a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 you would be using the multiclass spellcaster table on pg 165, and would have 4/3/3/3/2 slots (ie up to 5th level). You would prepare as a wizard 5 and a cleric 5, which is to say:
wiz 5 (pg 114) : "You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell) The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."
Assuming a 16 int, that is 8 spells of no specified level. If you have access to a spell of 4th or 5th level, you can prepare it as you have a 5th level slot.Cl 5 (pg 58) : "You prepare the list of cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."
Assuming a 16 wis, that is again 8 spells of no specified level. You have access to the entire cleric list, and thus you can prepare cleric spells up to 5th level.Compared to a straight 10 level caster with a 16 attribute, you are ahead by 3 spells prepared.
The multi classing section specifically calls out the additional restriction on spells prepared/known. A 5th lvl Wizard 5th lvl Cleric does have an advantage of total spells prepared but none of those spells can be greater than lvl 3.
Its on p 164 of the 5e Players Handbook.
Or check the roll20 rules reference: https://roll20.net/compendium/dnd5e/Character%20Advancement#h-Multiclassing
Yes, I have read that section carefully, including pg 164. I don't think the restriction does what you say it does. Above, I am quoting directly from the spellcasting entries of the individual classes - a 1st level cleric with a 5th level spell slot (from some unspecified source, say an artifact), can prepare any cleric spell of 5th level or below. He can only use said spell in his artifact bonus slot, but he can prepare them.
Unfortunately, the writers picked their example poorly - a ranger does not get access to spells of inappropriate level-slots because of their spells known mechanic (unlike say a cleric), and their wizard has only 10 spells in his book, which is to say a 3ed level wizard who has not added any spells to his spellbook beyond those he gained from leveling, and therefore does not have a spell that is beyond level 2 (as he is a 3ed level wizard: at first level 6 lvl 1 spells, at 2nd level add 2 spells of level 1, at 3ed level add 2 spells of levels 1 or 2).
Hello there! I play 5E at least twice a week and follow the developers' twitter feeds for official rulings fairly religiously, in addition to participating in various 5E forums. I can confirm that your reading of the rules is wrong and Bardarok is correct. A wizard 5 / cleric 5 has 5th level slots, which he can use to prepare wizard spells of up to 3rd level and cleric spells of up to 3rd level.
...The multi classing section specifically calls out the additional restriction on spells prepared/known. A 5th lvl Wizard 5th lvl Cleric does have an advantage of total spellsI think this is something that 5e got right. When you multi class casters you get spell slots as a full caster but you only get spells known/prepared as an individual caster. Therefore a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 would have 5th level spell slots but only 3rd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells but they can up cast those lower level spells using the higher slots. If you need to do vancian (which I am against but I think it is stuck) than this is a good way to do it.I don't think you've got that exactly right. As a Wiz 5/Cleric 5 you would be using the multiclass spellcaster table on pg 165, and would have 4/3/3/3/2 slots (ie up to 5th level). You would prepare as a wizard 5 and a cleric 5, which is to say:
wiz 5 (pg 114) : "You prepare the list of wizard spells that are available for you to cast. To do so, choose a number of wizard spells from your spellbook equal to your intelligence modifier + your wizard level (minimum of one spell) The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."
Assuming a 16 int, that is 8 spells of no specified level. If you have access to a spell of 4th or 5th level, you can prepare it as you have a 5th level slot.Cl 5 (pg 58) : "You prepare the list of cleric spells that are available for you to cast, choosing from the cleric spell list. When you do so, choose a number of cleric spells equal to your Wisdom modifier + your cleric level (minimum of one spell). The spells must be of a level for which you have spell slots."
Assuming a 16 wis, that is again 8 spells of no specified level. You have access to the entire cleric list, and thus you can prepare cleric spells up to 5th level.Compared to a straight 10 level caster with a 16 attribute, you are ahead by 3 spells prepared.
I disagree with that interpretation but this is a Pathfinder forum not a DnD 5e forum so Its really beside the point.
Regardless of how the rules might be interpreted for 5e the way they were interpreted in the one game of 5e that I have played is what I stated earlier. It worked well for us, my Multi classed Cleric/Bard got great utility by multi classing but missed out on some higher level effects, it seemed a reasonable trade neither overpowered nor under powered. I think that method would work well for Pathfinder 2.