Is the CR system for multi class NPCs completely messed up?

[Talakeal]

So, according to the DMG doubling the number of enemies is +2 CR, and an NPCs CR equals their class level.

So this means a level 10 cleric / 10 wizard would be CR 20, while a CR 10 cleric and a CR 10 wizard would be CR 12, correct?

But wouldn't the two characters be more of a threat than the single character? After all, they have the same spells and same total HP, but they can act twice as often. The multi class would have some slight advantages like higher saves, bab, and inability to get focus fired down, but surely this doesn't make up for the double actions, let alone the whopping 8 CR increase.

What am I missing here?

[Chaosvii7]

CR rules in general are messed up. After about ECL 8, disparity starts, and by ECL 12 it's so out of whack that you're better off just going with your gut feeling about the power of each individual character in the party.

Also, That Damned Crab is a good example. A CR 3 creature that can kill an ECL 3 character on a charge with a grapple.

You'd be better off assessing the power of the party and then taking that as the face value for what you can throw at them.

[Dread_Head]

You're not missing anything, the CR system is messed up in some areas. Here you have taken what is effectively a character whose most powerful abilities equate to them of a level 10 character and then tacked on another set of similar abilities. Such a character isn't particularly effective as a level 20 character so the Cr of 20 is way off. If you compare two wizard 10 to a straight wizard 20 then obviously the wizard 20 is much better and deserves the extra 8 CR.

In this case the problem is that the CR system doesn't account for how effective a build is, just the number of levels. Whenever the CR system is off like this it is up to the GM to play around with the CR of a combat until he feels it appropriately represents the challenge.

[Karnith]

What am I missing here?
WBL is a factor, even when restricted to NPC WBL - two 10th-level NPCs are expected to have gear worth about 16,000 gp each, while a 20th-level NPC is expected to have gear worth 220,000 gp, which is quite a sizable difference.

But, beyond that, the whole Challenge rating system is well-known for being badly borked - classes are not well-balanced against each other, many classes multiclass extremely poorly, monsters often have CRs wildly at odds with their actual capabilities, and using advancement wrecks whatever tenuous connection CR had to reality.

[Twilightwyrm]

So, according to the DMG doubling the number of enemies is +2 CR, and an NPCs CR equals their class level.

So this means a level 10 cleric / 10 wizard would be CR 20, while a CR 10 cleric and a CR 10 wizard would be CR 12, correct?

But wouldn't the two characters be more of a threat than the single character? After all, they have the same spells and same total HP, but they can act twice as often. The multi class would have some slight advantages like higher saves, bab, and inability to get focus fired down, but surely this doesn't make up for the double actions, let alone the whopping 8 CR increase.

What am I missing here?

I think you are undervaluing the advantages of higher level somewhat. More feats, higher CR on spells, greater HP, vastly greater WBL than two 10th level characters combined, and yes, more HP, MUCH higher saves, higher skill bonuses, and if we are to assume some amount of optimization going on, more Persisted spells in place, more, and potentially more powerful, undead minions. I would say all this would make up for the lack of a double action, in terms of the threat.
This being said, as much as the CR system can be a bit borked at times, the issue you are highlighting isn't as severe as you think, and has more to do with the problems inherent to spell-casters multiclassing than it does to a bad CR system. For example, which would you imagine to be the greater threat: a 20th level Barbarian 10/Fighter 10, or a 10th level fighter and a 10th level Barbarian? Unlike with the wizard and cleric, the progression of the barbarian and fighter's main functions (killing things) isn't as seriously hampered by multiclassing with the other, and thus the 20th level barbarian/fighter is naturally going to be a greater threat than its two 10th level counterparts. In another instance, a 20th level Rogue 10/Thug Fighter 10 will generally be much better than a 10th level rogue and a 10th level Thug Fighter. Or, if we want to go to some of the best multiclassing classes, how about a 20th level Warblade 10/Swordsage 10 verses a 10th level Warblade and a 10th level Swordsage? Not only are we looking at all the other advantages of higher level, but now the 20th level character has 8th level maneuvers on one side, and 7th on the other, giving them something considerably more powerful than is available to either 10th level iteration, double actions or no. So my conclusion is this: the problem isn't (in this case) so much the CR system, as the classes you picked to multiclass don't actually multiclass that well with each other.

[Talakeal]

I think you are undervaluing the advantages of higher level somewhat. More feats, higher CR on spells, greater HP, vastly greater WBL than two 10th level characters combined, and yes, more HP, MUCH higher saves, higher skill bonuses, and if we are to assume some amount of optimization going on, more Persisted spells in place, more, and potentially more powerful, undead minions. I would say all this would make up for the lack of a double action, in terms of the threat.
This being said, as much as the CR system can be a bit borked at times, the issue you are highlighting isn't as severe as you think, and has more to do with the problems inherent to spell-casters multiclassing than it does to a bad CR system. For example, which would you imagine to be the greater threat: a 20th level Barbarian 10/Fighter 10, or a 10th level fighter and a 10th level Barbarian? Unlike with the wizard and cleric, the progression of the barbarian and fighter's main functions (killing things) isn't as seriously hampered by multiclassing with the other, and thus the 20th level barbarian/fighter is naturally going to be a greater threat than its two 10th level counterparts. In another instance, a 20th level Rogue 10/Thug Fighter 10 will generally be much better than a 10th level rogue and a 10th level Thug Fighter. Or, if we want to go to some of the best multiclassing classes, how about a 20th level Warblade 10/Swordsage 10 verses a 10th level Warblade and a 10th level Swordsage? Not only are we looking at all the other advantages of higher level, but now the 20th level character has 8th level maneuvers on one side, and 7th on the other, giving them something considerably more powerful than is available to either 10th level iteration, double actions or no. So my conclusion is this: the problem isn't (in this case) so much the CR system, as the classes you picked to multiclass don't actually multiclass that well with each other.

What do you mean by higher CR on spells?

[Bronk]

So this means a level 10 cleric / 10 wizard would be CR 20, while a CR 10 cleric and a CR 10 wizard would be CR 12, correct?

But wouldn't the two characters be more of a threat than the single character?

Yes, per the DMG (page 37), doubling the number of NPCs of the same level add +2 to the CR of the encounter.

However, yes, they may very well be more of a threat than a single higher level character. Over on page 50 there are a list of factors that could change the difficulty level of an encounter, including the number of opponents involved and how tough they would be for the party to face.

You might want to use the 'improving monsters' section on adding class levels in that case (from the Monster Manual or the SRD), and treat the second class as 'nonassociated', and only worth half as much as normal.

[Squirrel_Dude]

What do you mean by higher CR on spells?I think he meant "DC," as in characters will have a much harder time passing their saving throws. It's also likely that a 20th level character will have more spells and ways to bypass saving throws and SR than a lower level caster.

[Extra Anchovies]

You might want to use the 'improving monsters' section on adding class levels in that case (from the Monster Manual or the SRD), and treat the second class as 'nonassociated', and only worth half as much as normal.

Oooh, that's good. Hadn't thought about it like that before; the CR still increases some because higher BAB, higher saves, higher skills, and more HP (also higher CL if practiced spellcaster is in there), but it doesn't increase as much because they're doubling up on low-level stuff rather than advancing into high-level stuff. Then a Wizard 10 and a Cleric 10 would be CR 12, but our Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would be CR 15.

[eggynack]

CR rules in general are messed up. After about ECL 8, disparity starts, and by ECL 12 it's so out of whack that you're better off just going with your gut feeling about the power of each individual character in the party.
Nah, disparity starts right at level one. On one side, a completely unadorned riding dog, which is actually a completely reasonable creature for a CR 1. On the other side, a riding dog wearing leather barding, backed up by a druid, at least adding an extra attack and hunk of HP, and at most adding spells that break challenges in half, which is also an encounter at CR 1. Frigging ridiculous.

In any case, the problem posed isn't one of a number of creatures having odd CR, though that may well be the case in some instances. The problem is that you've optimized one side a massive amount more than the other. Yes, a wizard 10 and a cleric 10 might be better than a wizard 10/cleric 10, but who would be that? Even something as simple as adding mystic theurge levels would sway things in the 20th level characters favor to a massive degree.

One could argue that some low optimization players do indeed attempt to combine casters in this fashion, but the answer to that is that we should be comparing two wizard 5/cleric 5's against your wizard 10/cleric 10. That setup would be significantly more favorable than the one you proposed, though to a lesser degree than the wizard 20 versus a cleric 10 and wizard 10 duel. After all, the big crap-theurge is only ahead of the smaller ones by two spell levels, while the big standard caster is ahead of the smaller ones by four spell levels. Big difference.

[Talakeal]

Oooh, that's good. Hadn't thought about it like that before; the CR still increases some because higher BAB, higher saves, higher skills, and more HP (also higher CL if practiced spellcaster is in there), but it doesn't increase as much because they're doubling up on low-level stuff rather than advancing into high-level stuff. Then a Wizard 10 and a Cleric 10 would be CR 12, but our Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would be CR 15.

I was actually thinking about non-associated class levels when I made this thread, but I couldn't find the specified rules (I was looking in the DMG not the MM). The same problem still exists though, imo two level 10 casters is still as powerful if not so than 1 character with 10 levels in unassociated classes, even if the CR is only three levels higher. Although, 20th level wealth on a CR 15 encounter is pretty scary, but I think after the fight is over and the PCs get their massive payday they will seek out a lot more fights like this in the future.



I think he meant "DC," as in characters will have a much harder time passing their saving throws. It's also likely that a 20th level character will have more spells and ways to bypass saving throws and SR than a lower level caster.

Yeah, that's what I figured, but I couldn't figure out how that would happen as AFAIK SR and Save DC are based on class not character level and different stats. Although I guess there are some feats and items that could boost both at the same time, so that's something. Still, I can't imagine they would result in more successful spells than simply being able to cast twice a round.