Newbie question: When does multiclassing become interesting?

[Mr White]

I've played in a few games so far but nothing really lasted more than a few sessions. This time around the campaign has lasted longer and still going . It's a game that started at level 1 and will end at level 10 (hopefully).
I planned to play a cleric. I read a lot of info on the internet which mostly seems to be geared towards much more experienced players. As a result my level 3 character has a single level in 3 different classes. I'm still relevant to my party but I feel that I would contribute more as a pure cleric.

Most builds I found are for level 20 characters. At what level do most multiclassed builds outshine their single classed counterparts?


Little side question: Is a rogue/wizard character viable in this low level enviroment?

[ExLibrisMortis]

Depending on the build, it could be as soon as level 2. For full casters, you don't usually multiclass in the first three to six levels. For gishes (melee spellcasters), the cutoff point is somewhere at level 8, when you get your second melee attack at +6 bab, haste, and your first prestige class levels.


Rogue/wizard is fine in a low-level environment. Lead with a rogue level, putting lots of ranks in non-wizard stealth skills, then go into wizard for five levels, and finish with ten levels in Unseen Seer (Complete Mage).

[eggynack]

Depends on the build. On a cleric, never. Pure cleric will always be better than a cleric with all these base classes mixed in. Might be an exception once you have 9th level spells, but that's a tiny fragment of the game. On a more melee oriented build, basically immediately. A barbarian 3 is going to be significantly weaker than a barbarian 2/fighter 1, or a barbarian 1/fighter 2, or a barbarian 1/cleric 1/fighter 1 (cleric can pull up other classes as a dip, but dipping other classes still makes cleric worse). And that effect should be clear as soon as you take the level in question. A rogue wizard, similarly, would be significantly worse than just a wizard. First commandment of optimization is thou shalt not lose caster levels. Fifth commandment is the same.

[Zanos]

For casters especially, mutli-classing is often not a good option because those classes don't progress your most powerful and versatile feature, which is casting. Multi-classing is often more viable for martial builds because martial classes tend to be frontloaded like fighter and barbarian, and don't lose out on progression of a critical feature when they select another class. Fighter 2/Barbarian 1 is a common multiclass for example, because Fighter 3 doesn't grant a bonus feat and taking barbarian grants rage and some other features while still offering full BAB progression.

Characters that multi-class to fill multiple roles will often flounder, because the game expects specialization. Unless one set of features is deliberately reinforcing the other set, expect to fail pretty frequently. A Wizard/Rogue isn't going to be able to contend with magical threats because of it's reduced caster level, and may have trouble with making skill checks because you simply don't have the resources to max out the skills for both wizard and rogue at the same time. This can be alleviated at higher levels with some prestige classes, like Arcane Trickster or Unseen Seer, but you still generally run into the problem of trying to fill two separate niches with only one character.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I've played in a few games so far but nothing really lasted more than a few sessions. This time around the campaign has lasted longer and still going . It's a game that started at level 1 and will end at level 10 (hopefully).
I planned to play a cleric. I read a lot of info on the internet which mostly seems to be geared towards much more experienced players. As a result my level 3 character has a single level in 3 different classes. I'm still relevant to my party but I feel that I would contribute more as a pure cleric.

Most builds I found are for level 20 characters. At what level do most multiclassed builds outshine their single classed counterparts?


Little side question: Is a rogue/wizard character viable in this low level enviroment?


Never. Multiclassing is neither more or less interesting than single-classing. If you aren't invested in mechanics for their own sake, mechanics are dull as dishwater and significantly drier.

Characters are interesting. Discover an interesting character and then fit mechanics to the character.

[Zanos]

Never. Multiclassing is neither more or less interesting than single-classing. If you aren't invested in mechanics for their own sake, mechanics are dull as dishwater and significantly drier.

Characters are interesting. Discover an interesting character and then fit mechanics to the character.
3.5 is probably 95% mechanics. I'm surprised anyone with an active disdain for them is still playing 3.5 instead of FATE or something else that's lighter on the rules front.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

3.5 is probably 95% mechanics. I'm surprised anyone with an active disdain for them is still playing 3.5 instead of FATE or something else that's lighter on the rules front.

You misunderstand my point.

At most tables, the parts that make the game interesting are not going to be mechanics-related. The entertainment is going to come from playing a character that's entertaining and interesting, one that the player is invested in, in a positive, enjoyable environment. Relying on the 3.5 mechanics to provide the entertainment is foolish. That's equally true for FATE, 5E, GURPS or any other roleplaying system one can name.

So asking when the mechanics become interesting is the wrong sort of question. The right sort of question is "how do I make this interesting character mechanically sound?". Start from having fun and work backwards.

[eggynack]

I dunno about that. Some mechanics are more interesting than others, to me at least. Standard combat, the kind you'd use with your classic melee bruiser, has only a small fraction the complexity of any high tier caster. If complexity is what you're after, then a barbarian's just not gonna satisfy as much as a cleric.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

I dunno about that. Some mechanics are more interesting than others, to me at least. Standard combat, the kind you'd use with your classic melee bruiser, has only a small fraction the complexity of any high tier caster. If complexity is what you're after, then a barbarian's just not gonna satisfy as much as a cleric.

Sure, I don't disagree. However, I don't think that complex and interesting are the same thing. Often they converge, especially for people like you and me. But for plenty of others, the complexity and bookkeeping associated with a high-tier caster is tedious and therefore less interesting. It's two distinct axes.

[EldritchWeaver]

In Pathfinder, multiclassing is easier to avoid thanks to improved base classes and archetypes. But for some builds the required feature is only available to a certain class, so you need to dip at least. But often, even in the best case, you have to live with a tradeoff of some sort.

[Dagroth]

To become an RKV, a Cleric needs to splash a level of Crusader.

To become an Unseen Seer or Spellwarp Sniper, you need to splash a level (or more) of Rogue (or Swordsage in a pinch).

To explore the potential of 3.5, multiclassing is essential. Not every caster character needs to get his 9th level spells. Not every party has to be high-OP.

While other games are arguably better at the Role-Playing side of the equation, there is no reason not to play a character who does odd things (Monk/Sorcerer/Enlightened Fist, for example) just because "you won't get your 9's" or "a straight level 20 Wizard is better".

"Back in the day" of 2.0, Multiclassing was practically expected for non-human characters. Of course, the 3.5 equivalent of that kind of Multiclassing is Gestalting... which is more, and less, powerful at the same time.

What it all boils down to is... read the room. If the players you're with are hard-core, "squeeze every advantage out of the rules", high-OP players... then don't play an inefficient character. Heck, maybe ask for some advice. If you want to play a Cleric who is also kind of a sneaky rogue type, I'm sure someone could help you develop that.

If the group you're with cares more about playing weird-but-interesting characters, then don't worry so much about your build.

Sometimes you can even do that in a fairly high-OP party... as long as you're contributing to the game, does it matter if you're not pissin' lightning and crappin' thunder?

[Zaq]

Multiclassing becomes interesting when you get the features that you want. Just like how a single-classed character becomes interesting when they get the features that you want.

Whenever you multiclass, you have to think about what you're sacrificing and what you're gaining. When what you're gaining from a new class is more interesting and useful than the features you'd get by taking more levels in your old class, you're doing it right. (And yes, of course, sometimes you have to take the long view and look at features that will be interesting with a couple more levels behind them, but I think you get what I mean.)

[Zanos]

You misunderstand my point.

At most tables, the parts that make the game interesting are not going to be mechanics-related. The entertainment is going to come from playing a character that's entertaining and interesting, one that the player is invested in, in a positive, enjoyable environment. Relying on the 3.5 mechanics to provide the entertainment is foolish. That's equally true for FATE, 5E, GURPS or any other roleplaying system one can name.

So asking when the mechanics become interesting is the wrong sort of question. The right sort of question is "how do I make this interesting character mechanically sound?". Start from having fun and work backwards.
No, I seem to understand it perfectly, I just vastly disagree. I actually enjoy the mechanical aspects of the game, and consider the mechanical portions of making a character fun(or at least engaging), as well as the mechanics of combat and skills themselves.

If you don't derive any fun from a game that has tactical, mechanical combat, my initial point holds. You would probably prefer a system where combat is resolved primarily through roleplaying with the use of dice being relegated to a secondary role, or not used at all.

[AnachroNinja]

No, I seem to understand it perfectly, I just vastly disagree. I actually enjoy the mechanical aspects of the game, and consider the mechanical portions of making a character fun(or at least engaging), as well as the mechanics of combat and skills themselves.

If you don't derive any fun from a game that has tactical, mechanical combat, my initial point holds. You would probably prefer a system where combat is resolved primarily through roleplaying with the use of dice being relegated to a secondary role, or not used at all.

You're actually agreeing with him. He specifically said if you're not invested in mechanics for their own sake, then they are dull. Your response is that you personally do enjoy mechanics in and of themselves. I believe he was making a philosophical type argument that multiclassing in and of itself isn't fun, but that it can be a vehicle for enjoyment in other ways within the system.

[Darrin]

Level 7 is usually where the power disparity starts to become noticeable, and the gap between Linear Warriors, Quadratic Wizards (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/LinearWarriorsQuadraticWizards) really starts to widen. However, it depends on the optimization level of the players. Low-op or casual groups may not notice the disparity.

"Full Spellcasters" (Wizards, Sorcerers, Clerics, Druids) typically hurt their power curve by multiclassing, so most advice you'll find on these forums is to avoid it among the higher tier classes. Because the linear progression tends to leave players frustrated at higher levels, melee classes have a lot more to gain from multiclassing. By cherry-picking their way up to more interesting class abilities, melee-based characters hope to stay relevant and interesting.

As far as the OP's situation goes, a Cleric 3 is going to be much stronger sticking with Cleric up to Cleric 20 than a Cleric 1/Something 1/Something Else 1. At 3rd level, you still only have the class abilities of a first level character, and are going to be at least 2 levels behind when all the other players are getting their level-appropriate abilities. That's not to say a multiclassed cleric can't contribute to the party or can't be effective, particularly if the rest of the group doesn't have any interest in optimized play. Every group is different, YMMV, etc.

If you want to rethink or rewind your mulitclassing, there are retraining rules in the PHBII. There are also much more elaborate methods (level drain, psychic reformation, etc.), but asking the DM for a "do-over" is the simplest method.

[Mr White]

Thanks for all the answers.

So as I understand: Martial classes can benefit from multiclassing, Casters usually not.
Multiclassing is more a way to create a certain character you want to play and oly an optimising tool if you really know what you're doing.

[Khedrac]

It's worth adding that it depends on two things:

1) What do you mean be "benefit".
2) What do you mean by "multi-classing".

If you want to play a theurge (cleric/mage) then your enjoyment will benefit from multi-classing over playing a straight cleric or wizard even if your power is less.

The core pure casters can be made (much) more powerful with the right prestige classes. The general advice is never take a level that does not progress casting (though there are exceptions). This is one form of multi-classing that you may or may not be thinking of.
If you are not aiming at a prestige class it is very rarely worth multi-classing even for mundanes. Generally to make a hybrid concept (i.e. one that combines feature of more than one base class) you need to find a prestige class (or combination there of) and then take the base class levels necessary to enter the prestige class. It is usually not recommended to mix any base classes without aiming at a prestige class (exceptions exist).

As for when the multi-class character's power becomes comparable, it depends on the combination and the optimization levels.

[Sir SoulExp]

Marshal1 + Sorcerer X, creat a stupid powerful charisma Synergy that can break the game.

[QuickLyRaiNbow]

Thanks for all the answers.

So as I understand: Martial classes can benefit from multiclassing, Casters usually not.
Multiclassing is more a way to create a certain character you want to play and oly an optimising tool if you really know what you're doing.

As a basic rule, yes, you're correct.

It is a bit more complicated, however. Casters benefit from multicasting just as much - or even more - than noncasters as long as you don't lose caster levels. That's the key. If you can keep your casting progression, then multiclassing is almost always the way to go from a power perspective.

The only character concepts supported by 3.5 that do not benefit from multiclassing are ones that were introduced in supplementary books. The classes in those books are usually reliant on systems introduced in those books, and those systems are often not supported anywhere else. Truenamers, for instance, have almost no support outside the book they were printed in, and the multiclassing options are pretty bad. Totemists are another class that's basically just as good as Totemist 20 as it is multiclassed, because there are fairly few options elsewhere.

Edit: I rewrote part of this post to be more clear.

[Morphic tide]

To become an RKV, a Cleric needs to splash a level of Crusader.

To become an Unseen Seer or Spellwarp Sniper, you need to splash a level (or more) of Rogue (or Swordsage in a pinch).

To explore the potential of 3.5, multiclassing is essential. Not every caster character needs to get his 9th level spells. Not every party has to be high-OP.

While other games are arguably better at the Role-Playing side of the equation, there is no reason not to play a character who does odd things (Monk/Sorcerer/Enlightened Fist, for example) just because "you won't get your 9's" or "a straight level 20 Wizard is better".

"Back in the day" of 2.0, Multiclassing was practically expected for non-human characters. Of course, the 3.5 equivalent of that kind of Multiclassing is Gestalting... which is more, and less, powerful at the same time.

What it all boils down to is... read the room. If the players you're with are hard-core, "squeeze every advantage out of the rules", high-OP players... then don't play an inefficient character. Heck, maybe ask for some advice. If you want to play a Cleric who is also kind of a sneaky rogue type, I'm sure someone could help you develop that.

If the group you're with cares more about playing weird-but-interesting characters, then don't worry so much about your build.

Sometimes you can even do that in a fairly high-OP party... as long as you're contributing to the game, does it matter if you're not pissin' lightning and crappin' thunder?

I hear ye well! I've been trying to figure out a Synthesist Summoner/Beastmorph Alchemist build that actually works for months, but I have been consistently screwed by not having the patience to gaze into all the stuff that can be used. The overall character idea was to be an actively mutating follower of Lamashtu, getting massive amounts of Extra Attacks, but I though that Synthesist was too inflexible and point starved, so I went in trying to bootstrap Beastmorph Alchemist for more flavor fitting versatility, then I went about trying to cram everything that would fit the theme in. Still trying to think of a good VMC for it...

More recently, I had an idea for a semi-suicidal Neutral Good Cavalier that grabs Betrayal feats and other Teamwork feats that risk them an arseload, but make the rest of the team safer and more lethal. One of these requires 1 rank of Spellcraft to get, and it's basically a minor save-or-suck metamagic, adding "Will save or be Shaken for CL rounds" to any AoE spell that hits the person being Betrayed/used as the party's stress toy/beatstick. No level adjustment, just eating a damaging AoE. It can be used for some amazing AoO builds, provided you have reliable means of Flanking and an ally with ranged weapons.

[Zanos]

Thanks for all the answers.

So as I understand: Martial classes can benefit from multiclassing, Casters usually not.
Multiclassing is more a way to create a certain character you want to play and oly an optimising tool if you really know what you're doing.
Casters only benefit from multi-classing into prestige classes that progress their base casting. I personally don't think of a Wizard 5/Red Wizard 10/Archmage 5 as a "multi-class" character because there's only one base class and the prestige classes only really serve to progress the base classes spellcasting.

[eggynack]

Thanks for all the answers.

So as I understand: Martial classes can benefit from multiclassing, Casters usually not.
Multiclassing is more a way to create a certain character you want to play and oly an optimising tool if you really know what you're doing.
You don't have to know what you're doing that much. There's basically this long list of front loaded classes. You stick them together, and you have a sweet multiclassed character. Said list includes stuff like fighter, barbarian, monk, cleric (if you make use of the ability to swap domains for devotion feats), anything from tome of battle (angle these closer to the end of a build if possible, because of how IL works), totemist, incarnate, binder, and a bunch of others. Some of these dips have specific utility for specific builds, like one of the major uses of binder is the maximization of diplomacy, but a lot are just standard fighting dips with some more generic utility abilities on top.