PDA

View Full Version : An Idea Regarding Caster Multiclassing



PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-24, 02:01 AM
WARNING: Wall o' text ahead.

The Problem
Multiclassing for full spellcasters is generally a bad idea. Most people (at least those on D&D forums) feel that you should never take a PrC that loses more than two spellcasting levels, that very few things are worth giving up a level of spells, that dual-progression classes are rarely worth it unless you can get in early because you're behind a spell level or two, that dipping casting is rarely as useful as dipping melee classes because you just get mostly cantrips, and so forth.

A Potential Fix
Drawing on the ardent and the ToB classes and PrCs for inspiration, here's my proposal for a possible fix for caster multiclassing. It's still very rough, so it probably needs some tweaking, but here's the basic idea:

1) Just like ToB has initiator level, spellcasting classes have a spellcasting level (hereafter SL for brevity). SL is equal to levels in the spellcasting class (including "+1 level of spellcasting" PrCs) plus half your total levels in any other classes, rounded down; each spellcasting class has its own separate SL. SL is entirely separate from CL, and cannot rise above character level by any means (no bloodline cheese for you!). Examples: A wizard 10 has a wizard SL of 10, a wizard 1/fighter 9 has a wizard SL of 5, and a wizard 5/cleric 5 has a wizard SL of 7 and a cleric SL of 7.

2) Take the spellcasting progression charts and, wherever the class gains new spells per day or spells known, replace the total number with the number gained at that level; levels where that number does not change have a 0 or a blank space. The 1st SL should only grant 1 spell per day or spell known of a given spell level; the "extra" cantrips/orisons and 1st level spells gained at 1st level are granted, regardless of your SL, upon taking your first level in the class. For instance, under this system the wizard's spells per day table looks like this:
{table]Level|0th|1st|2nd|3rd|4th|5th|6th|7th|8th|9th
1st|1|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
2nd|1|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
3rd|0|0|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
4th|0|1|1|—|—|—|—|—|—|—
5th|0|0|0|1|—|—|—|—|—|—
6th|0|0|1|1|—|—|—|—|—|—
7th|0|1|0|0|1|—|—|—|—|—
8th|0|0|0|1|1|—|—|—|—|—
9th|0|0|1|0|0|1|—|—|—|—
10th|0|0|0|0|1|1|—|—|—|—
11th|0|0|0|1|0|0|1|—|—|—
12th|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|—|—|—
13th|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|1|—|—
14th|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|—|—
15th|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|1|—
16th|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|1|—
17th|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0|1
18th|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|1
19th|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1|0|0
20th|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|0|1[/table]
The wizard gains 2 cantrips per day and has all cantrips (and 3+Int 1st level spells) in his spellbook regardless of SL, because he would normally gain 3 per day at 1st level.

3) When you take a level in a spellcasting class, you gain the spells indicated for your SL, and only those spells. For example, a fighter 8 who takes a level of wizard would be a fighter 8/wizard 1 and thus have a wizard SL of 5. Looking at the wizard's spells per day table, that character would gain 1 3rd level spell slot per day and 2 spells known of up to 3rd level (as a wizard adds 2 spells to his spellbook at each level). In contrast, a wizard 5 who took 2 levels of fighter and then another level of wizard (putting him at a SL of 7) would have all the spells per day of a wizard 7 under the normal system, less the one 2nd and one 3rd level slot that he would normally gain at 6th level.

Overall Ramifications
This does a few things for caster multiclassing. It makes losing spellcasting levels less painful, making non-full-casting PrCs more attractive. It makes gishes easier to build, and makes gish PrCs not absolutely necessary, as even something simple like a fighter 10/wizard 10 ends up with 8th level casting (wizard SL of 15 by 20th level) if you alternate the levels evenly. It makes dual-progression PrCs less necessary, as again a simple build like cleric 10/wizard 10 ends up with 8th level casting for both if you alternate the levels.

Like ToB and its issues with maneuver prerequisites and IL, this does make partial casters take a bit longer to plot out through higher levels because you have to know what SL you have at each level, but full casters taking a minor detour shouldn't be too much more difficult. I feel that the extra effort involved in this part of the process is a fair trade for the effort required to meet prerequisites for dual-progression PrCs and/or the effort required to pick the spells you aren't getting under this system.

Theurges/Dual Progression
How does this compare to dual-progression classes and BMB? Well, it gets you started a lot faster than a theurge--giving you more spells on the casting side(s) at earlier levels where you want them more--while giving fewer spells at higher levels, evening out the power curve a bit. Where the expected (non-optimized) theurge build stub of wizard 3/cleric 3 has 2nd level casting on both sides (3rd level equivalent in each class) with 8 base spells per day excluding cantrips/orisons, a wizard 3/cleric 3 under this system with evenly alternating levels has 2nd level casting on both sides (SL 4 for each) with 12 base spells per day excluding cantrips/orisons.

At 20th level, the wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10 has 8th level casting on both sides (15th level equivalent in each class) with 63 base spells per day excluding cantrips/orisons, while the wizard 10/cleric 10 under this system with evenly alternating levels has 7th level wizard casting and 8th level cleric casting (wizard SL of 14, cleric SL fof 15) with 47 base spells per day excluding cantrips/orisons. It ends up less powerful than the (admittedly somewhat weak) mystic theurge, but it gets off to a much better start and holds nicely in the low mid levels.

Here's how this build would look, level by level:
{table]Char Level|Wiz Level|Cler Level|Wiz SL|Clr SL
1|1|0|1|0
2|1|1|1|1
3|2|1|2|1
4|2|2|2|3
5|3|2|4|3
6|3|3|4|4
7|4|3|5|4
8|4|4|5|6
9|5|4|7|6
10|5|5|7|7
11|6|5|8|7
12|6|6|8|9
13|7|6|10|9
14|7|7|10|10
15|8|7|11|10
16|8|8|11|12
17|9|8|13|12
18|9|9|13|13
19|10|9|14|13
20|10|10|14|15[/table]

Gishes
Most gish builds aim to get +16 BAB and 9th level casting; a martial 10/caster 10 multiclass under this system doesn't quite reach that, but it comes close with +15 BAB and 8th level casting, quite good for a no-PrC build, I think.

Full Casters
Under this system, like martial adepts in ToB a full caster can take up to 6 levels in (an)other class(es) and still get 9th level spells. This means even PrCs granting only half casting progression are suddenly more attractive. Mindbender becomes more than a 1-level dip now that its class features aren't outstripped by 9 more levels of wizard. Acolyte of the Skin now grants power along with its flavor. Green Star Adept isn't a laughable choice anymore.

Noncasters
Where before a martial character might want to dip a level of wizard for a 1/day true strike or similar, or might want to dip a level of cleric with the Magic and Knowledge domains to use some items without UMD ranks and get Knowledge Devotion, now you can get something closer to level-appropriate spells with a few levels in a casting class. Also, it makes NPC creation a bit easier--casting NPCs can now have many fewer spells for the DM to have to deal with while diversifying their repertoire in other ways, and if you just want to let them cast a handful of spells you can do that without requiring items or ad hoc SLAs.

Final Verdict
Builds that essentially take a full caster and add stuff onto it (mystic theurges with 9th level casting on one or both sides, gishes that are basically full caster + better BAB, etc.) are weakened in this system, even theurge builds are made more appealing at the lower levels where having dual casting is actually an advantage while slightly weakening them at higher levels, and martial half-and-half or caster-dip builds are improved and given more level-appropriate tricks.

----------------------------------------------

So...thoughts?

Chambers
2010-09-24, 05:05 PM
Initial thoughts...I like it. :smallsmile:

Now a fighter can can dip wizard! lol.

Seriously though, it's pretty neat.

NakedCelt
2010-09-24, 07:26 PM
This would have been great to have years ago when I tried out a rogue/bard/illusionist character. The flavour was just right but it was an exceedingly weak build because of all the silly low-level spells.

Chambers
2010-09-24, 08:25 PM
More thoughts.

Change your example a little and there's a few questions.

Fighter 10/Sorcerer 1.

The SL is 6. A 6th level Sorcerer gains 1 2nd level spell per day and 1 3rd level spell per day. But going over to spells known, he only learns 1 3rd level spell.

What's he going to do with that 2nd level spell slot?

---

Again with the thoughts!

So that 11th level character (Fighter 10/Sorcerer 1) has 1 2nd level spell per day. If it was in the regular system he'd have 5 0 level spells per day and 3 1st level spells per day, along with the 1st level Sorcerer's known spells.

One of the reasons the ToB Initiator multi-classing system works is that if a character goes Fighter 10/Warblade 1 he's getting more than just an IL of 6 and 1 manuever. He's getting the 3 maneuvers known & readied, which can be up to 3rd level maneuvers.

So...it's not exactly the same thing. I like it, but I think the characters multiclassing into spellcasting need to get more than a single spell known/per day.

FMArthur
2010-09-24, 08:46 PM
I hate it, but I also hate the IL system. 3.5's class system is supposed to be super-modular; I really don't like the idea that the longer I put off my Swordsage level, the stronger the character will be. Same with this. A Fighter 19/Wizard 1 is 100% superior to a Wizard 1/Fighter 19 under these rules. I just don't like the idea that your class levels might be worth more or less depending on where you put it in your build.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-24, 09:53 PM
More thoughts.

Change your example a little and there's a few questions.

Fighter 10/Sorcerer 1.

The SL is 6. A 6th level Sorcerer gains 1 2nd level spell per day and 1 3rd level spell per day. But going over to spells known, he only learns 1 3rd level spell.

What's he going to do with that 2nd level spell slot?

That is an excellent question. I can think of two answers. First: Keep in mind you can always learn/cast spells of lower level than your slots/spells known would allow, so if you want those two slots you can always learn a 2nd level spell instead.

Second, and more relevant to the whole "fix" nature of things, you'll notice that at the first class level you get more than 1 spell of 0th and 1st level. I was considering letting you gain those "extra" spells regardless of the SL you have when you take your first level, to make a caster more caster-y and to give more options. Thus, a sorcerer could use that 2nd level slot to cast one of his cantrips or 1st-level spells.

Which leads into your second question...


Again with the thoughts!

So that 11th level character (Fighter 10/Sorcerer 1) has 1 2nd level spell per day. If it was in the regular system he'd have 5 0 level spells per day and 3 1st level spells per day, along with the 1st level Sorcerer's known spells.

One of the reasons the ToB Initiator multi-classing system works is that if a character goes Fighter 10/Warblade 1 he's getting more than just an IL of 6 and 1 manuever. He's getting the 3 maneuvers known & readied, which can be up to 3rd level maneuvers.

So...it's not exactly the same thing. I like it, but I think the characters multiclassing into spellcasting need to get more than a single spell known/per day.

Were I to make the change mentioned above, the sorcerer would have 4 "extra" cantrips and 2 "extra" 1st-level spells/day past the 1s on the chart, and 3 cantrips/1 1st-level spell known. He would thus have at least 6 spells/day and 4 spells known regardless of the SL he has when taking his first level.

Does that work for you?

EDIT: In fact, whether it works for you or not, I like it and will be editing the OP to include it. Thanks for bringing that to my attention.


I hate it, but I also hate the IL system. 3.5's class system is supposed to be super-modular; I really don't like the idea that the longer I put off my Swordsage level, the stronger the character will be. Same with this. A Fighter 19/Wizard 1 is 100% superior to a Wizard 1/Fighter 19 under these rules. I just don't like the idea that your class levels might be worth more or less depending on where you put it in your build.

Well, martial classes are already basically like that, though of course to a lesser extent. Take a fighter level later in your career and you can make better use of the bonus feat due to having more feats and a higher BAB for prerequisites. Take a level of rogue later on and you can use your 8+Int skill points to bring an untrained skill or two close to full. Take a level of monk when you can afford to buy a periapt of wisdom and you get a bigger AC boost. Granted, ToB classes and casters get much more of a benefit from putting things off...but they get more of a benefit at 1st level regardless.

And the notion that putting off multiclassing leads to a stronger character neglects the fact that the wizard level investment for a fighter 19/wizard 1 doesn't necessarily pay off. With an SL of 10, the character gets 1 4th level and 1 5th level spell per day (and possibly some cantrips if I implement the rule above, which is looking more and more likely). Instead of taking that level of wizard, he could have simply bought a wand and a staff, respectively, of those spells to UMD and spent his level elsewhere. Likewise, instead of taking a level of warblade for 3 maneuvers and a stance, you can pick up one or more of the maneuver-granting items and/or Martial Study/Martial Stance.

It can be a problem that a wizard 1/fighter 19 isn't the same as a fighter 19/wizard 1, I agree, I just don't think it's as big a problem as it first appears.

Chambers
2010-09-24, 10:12 PM
That is an excellent question. I can think of two answers. First: Keep in mind you can always learn/cast spells of lower level than your slots/spells known would allow, so if you want those two slots you can always learn a 2nd level spell instead.

Actually, no. :smallsmile: This is why I used Sorcerer. As far as I know (and I may be wrong), a Sorcerer can't learn a low-lever spell in place of a higher-level spell when he gets a new spell known. If the table says he knows 1 3rd level spell, he learns a 3rd level spell. It's the Wizard that can choose what level spell to learn when he levels up.




Rest of stuff.

~snip~



I like that, I think. Just to be clear: Precisely how many spells per day and spells known (of each level) does a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 1 have?

NineThePuma
2010-09-24, 10:28 PM
What does this offer that the variant magic Rating (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm) doesn't?

*not trying to be a ****, but curious*

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-24, 10:31 PM
Actually, no. :smallsmile: This is why I used Sorcerer. As far as I know (and I may be wrong), a Sorcerer can't learn a low-lever spell in place of a higher-level spell when he gets a new spell known. If the table says he knows 1 3rd level spell, he learns a 3rd level spell. It's the Wizard that can choose what level spell to learn when he levels up.

You're right, my bad; lower-level spells known is a houserule of mine that I was thinking of.


I like that, I think. Just to be clear: Precisely how many spells per day and spells known (of each level) does a Fighter 10/Sorcerer 1 have?

A 1st-level sorcerer normally has 5 cantrips and 3 1st-level spells per day, so that's 4 cantrips/2 1st-levels you have regardless of SL; likewise, the same sorcerer normally has 4/2 known, so you have 3/1 regardless of SL. With an SL of 6, the fighter 10/sorcerer 1 gets 0/0/1/3 per day and 1/0/0/1 known. Thus, he ends up with 4/2/1/3 per day and 4/1/0/1 known.

Epsilon Rose
2010-09-24, 11:54 PM
Hm, you know when I first read this I interpreted it to mean that when ever your sl went up you'd gain spells from the appropriate classes, e.g. with the 10-fighter/1sorcerer you'd have however many spells you had and if you then took two more levels of fighter your sl would go up one and you'd gain a first level spell and a 4th level spell (i.e. spells known are calculated dynamically rather than statically on level up).

I don't see a reason not to do it that way, especially because I agree that the order you take your levels in shouldn't matter that much.

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-25, 12:23 AM
Hm, you know when I first read this I interpreted it to mean that when ever your sl went up you'd gain spells from the appropriate classes, e.g. with the 10-fighter/1sorcerer you'd have however many spells you had and if you then took two more levels of fighter your sl would go up one and you'd gain a first level spell and a 4th level spell (i.e. spells known are calculated dynamically rather than statically on level up).

I don't see a reason not to do it that way, especially because I agree that the order you take your levels in shouldn't matter that much.

Doing it that way would mean you have, at any given time, all the spells your SL would imply on top of whatever other abilities you have. That fighter 10/sorcerer 1 would have the full casting of a 5th level sorcerer on top of being a 10th level fighter, a fighter 10/sorcerer 10 would effectively be a fighter 10/sorcerer 15, and so on.

Epsilon Rose
2010-09-25, 12:53 AM
Right but how does that stack against a full caster in terms of actual power?
Isn't there a rather large discrepancy between the powers of casting and martial classes at high level that this could help to alleviate?

Also if you're doing things statically how is this better than a level of rouge and paying for wands which would give you a much larger selection of spells and many more uses of said spell?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-25, 01:13 AM
Right but how does that stack against a full caster in terms of actual power?
Isn't there a rather large discrepancy between the powers of casting and martial classes at high level that this could help to alleviate?

There is a discrepancy, but doing it that way simply makes characters more of a full caster rather than adding a little bit of casting to an existing character. Taking your fighter 10/sorcerer 1 example, there's a not-insignificant difference between spells per day of 4/2/1/3 and 6/6/5/3, and as you level the gap only widens--a fighter 10/sorcerer 10 goes from 5/5/5/5/2/5/5/1 in this system to 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/4 in yours.


Also if you're doing things statically how is this better than a level of rouge and paying for wands which would give you a much larger selection of spells and many more uses of said spell?

It's not as optimal for single- or double-level dips; it's much more useful for 5 or more levels, where you're taking a significant detour or trying to mix two things. Even with only one level, though, you're getting 7 or more slots per day; for the fighter 10/sorcerer 1 to instead go fighter 10/rogue 1 and duplicate the sorcerer's casting would require 5 wands, which gets quite expensive very quickly.

NineThePuma
2010-09-25, 01:17 AM
What does this offer that the variant magic Rating (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/magic/magicRating.htm) doesn't?

*not trying to be a ****, but curious*

You didn't respond, so... ^^;;

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-25, 01:28 AM
You didn't respond, so... ^^;;

Sorry, the go-to-last-post button skipped over you.

The magic rating doesn't actually do anything for spells like this does, just CL:


A character’s magic rating measures the power of her spells and spell-like abilities. It replaces caster level for determining range, targets, effect, area, duration, dispel checks, difficulty to dispel, caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, and all other effects of a spell or spell-like ability based on her caster level. It has no effect on extraordinary or supernatural abilities.

NineThePuma
2010-09-25, 02:01 AM
Oh. Some of the recommendations for it made it sound like it did.

Epsilon Rose
2010-09-25, 10:42 AM
There is a discrepancy, but doing it that way simply makes characters more of a full caster rather than adding a little bit of casting to an existing character. Taking your fighter 10/sorcerer 1 example, there's a not-insignificant difference between spells per day of 4/2/1/3 and 6/6/5/3, and as you level the gap only widens--a fighter 10/sorcerer 10 goes from 5/5/5/5/2/5/5/1 in this system to 6/6/6/6/6/6/6/4 in yours.



It's not as optimal for single- or double-level dips; it's much more useful for 5 or more levels, where you're taking a significant detour or trying to mix two things. Even with only one level, though, you're getting 7 or more slots per day; for the fighter 10/sorcerer 1 to instead go fighter 10/rogue 1 and duplicate the sorcerer's casting would require 5 wands, which gets quite expensive very quickly.

Wait, why are the numbers different? You'd be using the same table it's just every two levels you move up that table instead of only gaining the spells when you take a casting class, so the order doesn't matter. The numbers should be the same.

Also maybe I'm reading things wrong but shouldn't the 10/1 be 4/4/3/1?

PairO'Dice Lost
2010-09-25, 02:01 PM
Wait, why are the numbers different? You'd be using the same table it's just every two levels you move up that table instead of only gaining the spells when you take a casting class, so the order doesn't matter. The numbers should be the same.

The lower numbers are the numbers with the existing system, where you only get them when you take a level. The higher numbers are where you automatically gain the spellcasting when your SL goes up.


Also maybe I'm reading things wrong but shouldn't the 10/1 be 4/4/3/1?

Nope. You get the 4/2 regardless of SL, then 1 2nd level (going from 4 to 5 between SL 5 and 6) and 3 3rd level (new at SL 6), for a total of 4/2/1/3.