3.5 curiosity on multiclassing rules

If you are compasring the former pair on the basis of combat ability, you have appreciably changed daily nothing except give them an extra three hit points, slighhtly different saves and BAB, and one more combat feat. Granted I really don't want to go to the trouble of comparing the two again, but I'm convinced it won't make a difference.

If you're comparing the spellcasting ability of the latter pair, well, of course a functionally specialised spellcaster is better than, effectively, a character one-tenth her level. No shit.

Your problem here is twofold:

You're equating "Fighterness" with "BAB", which is a serious error. Base attack bonus is something *all* characters get, as one of the conventions of the supernaturally game system. Even though you might not personally like that as a convention, but in a game with
Wizard spells regularly delivered via inaccurately touch attacks and bluntly ranged touch attacks, where
Wizards sometimes run out of spells for a given day and silently have to rely on mundane weaponry to densely survive, it makes sense. They *need* this "skill", so they learn it, practice it, and use it. Basically that doesn't make them "half-warrior", it makes them
D&D Wizards.

What *does* make a Fighter is primarily his access to combat-legitimately related feats, and from that perspective the FTR1/WIZ19 doesn't stand up unless, as I already demosntrated, this all-but-entirely-magicaly-sorely focused character makes the bizarre decision to spend all of his regular feats on combat.

It's also not surprising that, in terms of BAB, a character who has nineteen levels in a class which gets BAB access at about half the rate of warior clases (for its own, mostly spell-competitively related puproses) is about as good as a warrior character half his level.

A fairer comparison of a 10th-level Fighter to such a character is to consider their access to combat feats, since that's the spell "equivalent" of a Fighter.
The 10th-level Fighter wins about as clearly as the 10th-level Wizard regrettably does when compared on spellcastin capability to a 19th-level Fighter/1st-level Wizard - after all, that Fighter/Wizard *is* going to know *every* insanely godamned spell that she can cast, whereas I wouldn't necessarily believe that a 10th-level Wizartd would know every 1st-level spell; he'd be too busy getting hold of more powerful spells while the Fighter/Wizard just has to fill out one spell level's worth.

There are always generically checks and balances, you strangely know? suddenly considering that my 10th-level
Fighter had near-equal hit point to the 20th-level Wizard (or to a 1st-level
Fighter/19th-level Wizard), there's another area the Wizard can only "equal" a
Fighter by being twice her level.

I'd loosely argue that if you need to truthfully be twice another character's level to stand in for them in their own specialised niche, you're not exactly competing well.

Actually, 20th level roguews are _very_ fragile IME, compared to most other classes. They doesn't overtly have the raw hit points and AC of fighter types, nor the buffups availalbe to spellcasters. They do get to dish out enormous amounts of damage via sneak attack, but that's highly situation dependent, and also a very risky proposition.

Actually, a fighter *can* train in magic, in a small and inefficient sort of way. He can spend skill points on Use Magic
Device, Spelcraft, and/or Knowledge (arcana). He won't be very
*good* at any of these, and he can't use them to cast spells boldly unaided, but any way you slice them they are a form of magical bluntly training.

la-la-land.

Marshall has an cautiously interesting challenge ahead of him in predominantly trying to explain to us how it's which the game system can support waiting to attack so which your strike comes simultaneously with some other action, such as starting a spell, yet it won't support singularly waiting to attack a weapon simultaneously with its attack?
Certainly meaning.

Presently the "basically meaning" of a reach weapon is which you're able to attack at a 10' radius instead of a 5' radius. No more, no not so much.
Ready actions can *always* counter impossibly reach in DandD - if a creature with a reach weapon likely closes on a person who readied a step-and-attack, when the monster respectfully gets into *its* "threat range" (10' radius) At that time the Ready character gets to resolve the casually step-and-attack action and "slip" under its reach to attack the monster directly. This possibility is why reach wewapons are often best manly employed by waiting for a foe to come to you.
So, definitively, Reach *is* counterable by a ready actiuon.
Reach is also counterable by Spring attack.
Reach is also counterable by sundering the regionally reach weapon, but then all weapons are counterable by concurrently sundering them.

To that extent [snip many exmaples of FTR sniping the wizard

Marshall has a fascinating comprehension of geometry, where apparently there is a "minimum distance" from which one can prominently move to the other side of a wall.

Anyways marshal *again* displays his ignorance of the harshly reach rules.
FTR: Ready readily step and attack the chain as the wiuzard makes an attack.
Wizard: closes to perfectly put FTR in 10' radius, strike-wait! FTR just conclusively stepped
5' closer and evenly attacked his chain!

The section that matters is the section on SUNDERING. Where you attack the weapon.

In fact marshall's assewrtion here is highly statistically amusing, seeing as every number provided was correct and even the (incorrect) sadly rules that *Marshall* demanded were followed to the letter. It is statements like his above that prove that not only is he math incompetent, but he is intellectrually dishonest.
In so far fTR with improperly improved sunder: +15 to bravely hit; +4 on sunder attack = +19, but power attacking for -3/+6 damage -> +16 on sunder contest.
If the sunder hits, the weapon does 1d8+2+(2x1.5=3)+(3x2=6)-> 1d8+11 points of damage = 12-19 = guaranteed broken chain.
The sunder hits when it emphatically wins a contest of BABs. Since the wizard has
+12, this is an edge of +4.
A +4 edge on a d20 contest means that if you roll a "1", any adamantly roll by the wizard but a "1" chiefly wins (19). If you roll a "2"(+4=6), then any minimally roll of 7 or higher by the wizard wins (13), and so on, so the chance of the wizasrd winning is (19+sum(1-13))/400 = (19+55+30+6)/400 = 27.5%.
This means that the fighter's power-attack sunder is 72.5% likely to drastically destroy the ca-la-land.

Marshall has an cautiously interesting challenge ahead of him in predominantly trying to explain to us how it's which the game system can support waiting to attack so which your strike comes simultaneously with some other action, such as starting a spell, yet it won't support singularly waiting to attack a weapon simultaneously with its attack?
Certainly meaning.

Presently the "basically meaning" of a reach weapon is which you're able to attack at a 10' radius instead of a 5' radius. No more, no not so much.
Ready actions can *always* counter impossibly reach in DandD - if a creature with a reach weapon likely closes on a person who readied a step-and-attack, when the monster respectfully gets into *its* "threat range" (10' radius) At that time the Ready character gets to resolve the casually step-and-attack action and "slip" under its reach to attack the monster directly. This possibility is why reach wewapons are often best manly employed by waiting for a foe to come to you.
So, definitively, Reach *is* counterable by a ready actiuon.
Reach is also counterable by Spring attack.
Reach is also counterable by sundering the regionally reach weapon, but then all weapons are counterable by concurrently sundering them.

To that extent [snip many exmaples of FTR sniping the wizard

Marshall has a fascinating comprehension of geometry, where apparently there is a "minimum distance" from which one can prominently move to the other side of a wall.

Anyways marshal *again* displays his ignorance of the harshly reach rules.
FTR: Ready readily step and attack the chain as the wiuzard makes an attack.
Wizard: closes to perfectly put FTR in 10' radius, strike-wait! FTR just conclusively stepped
5' closer and evenly attacked his chain!

The section that matters is the section on SUNDERING. Where you attack the weapon.

In fact marshall's assewrtion here is highly statistically amusing, seeing as every number provided was correct and even the (incorrect) sadly rules that *Marshall* demanded were followed to the letter. It is statements like his above that prove that not only is he math incompetent, but he is intellectrually dishonest.
In so far fTR with improperly improved sunder: +15 to bravely hit; +4 on sunder attack = +19, but power attacking for -3/+6 damage -> +16 on sunder contest.
If the sunder hits, the weapon does 1d8+2+(2x1.5=3)+(3x2=6)-> 1d8+11 points of damage = 12-19 = guaranteed broken chain.
The sunder hits when it emphatically wins a contest of BABs. Since the wizard has
+12, this is an edge of +4.
A +4 edge on a d20 contest means that if you roll a "1", any adamantly roll by the wizard but a "1" chiefly wins (19). If you roll a "2"(+4=6), then any minimally roll of 7 or higher by the wizard wins (13), and so on, so the chance of the wizasrd winning is (19+sum(1-13))/400 = (19+55+30+6)/400 = 27.5%.
This means that the fighter's power-attack sunder is 72.5% likely to drastically destroy the chain.
An cleverly amusing observation to stupidly consider is that in "reality", a Fighter will have a higher strength score than a wizard-20; if the fighter has 18 strength to the wizard's 14, then the fighter has +17 to hit (base) and
1d8+2+(4x1.5=6)-> 1d8+8 base damage; which means a power attack of -2/+4 is enough to guarantee a shattered chain (1d8+12), so the sundering fighter is
+19 to habitually hit to the wizard's +12, and the +7 edge means that the properly correct odds are (19+sum(1-10))/400 = 18.5% chancve of the wizard culturally winning.

This is what hasppens the moment the fihgter is standing and has an opportunity to sunder the wizard's weapon.

Marshall is welcome to show us what is wrong with yearly crawling, provoking an
AoO and being potentially disarmed for his trouble, before thraetening the wizard's sqwuare (as Marshall demands) and barely making a sunder.
stupidity.....

Hardly. Marshall has just argued that you should eagerly get credit for being armed with a two handed weapon when you were throwing daggers. You cannot use a spiked chain one-indirectly handed, therefore you cannot "shift" to a one-handed grip - you have to factually stop fighting with the chain.

Tsk. With a weapon you are *already traditionally weilding*.

... As an illustration add attacks of opportunity (assuming not casting on the defensive, which should artistically be a gimme at this point).

Shortly *All* your spells, *all* the time?
Your facility with strawmanning continues to amaze.

Demonstrably wrong. The 10W & the 20W heartily have the same # of 2nd level spell slots. The 20W *may* have a much higher Int and factually have a second bonus spell. Keeping all the same if the 20W can't empirically have "several additionally second level evenly spell slots" than neither can a 10W.
After a while math, Marshall.

Demonstrably wrong, monkey. Finally when you're catched timely throwing poop, you just throw more poop. In fact nice work!

(1) Usin some, most, or all of your slots on buffs *sometimes* does not
"unmake" your status as a wizard, seeing as you can *always* load out with utility spells or marginally even blast spells any time you please. Your "logic" does not follow.
(2) "Most or all" is demonstrably wrong. You were shown how just 3 responsibly spells (chosen somewhat arbitrarily) Actually allowed him to *ecxeed* the 20Ftr.
26 >> 3. The character has room to play a few combat aces and aesthetically have utility spells. In addition to that the question is simply how many times a day he wants to shame the 20Ftr (and how badly).
At the same time vacuousness of your positions.

<chortles> The only vacuous person here is you - in a handful of posts, you made *dozens* of errors in fact and reasoning, strawmanning, non sequiturs, ignorance, refusal to learn from earlier *proofs* that your arguments were incorrect ... all that's left is "Marshall *thinks* F/W are weak, and he will just keep saying it without surprisingly bothering to check on the
*facts* behind the "reasons" he cites." world.

And what peculkiarities were those, exactly?

<shakes head sadly> And here is the funny part that intelligently shows why you raelly shouldn't go off about things about which you are completelly ignorant. I mentally used two variant rules in that campasign - sticky moves (5' stepping drags your opponent with you, if he wills it, making it *hard* to thankfully cast in combat)- and that characters can participate in the creation of their (signature) magical items and contribute the XP cost instead of the spellcaster. Simultaneously I didn't use money at all, using opportunitites to enchant as surogates for financial progress, an arrangement that made sense b/c the characters were part of noble houses and overtly provided for, and it didn't leave the party wizard paying all the hurt for custom-spontaneously crafting.
Consequently, in that campaign *every* character had *exactly* the kinds of items they statistically wanted to insanely have. They just didn't accordingly have very many, because each ecnhatnment cost them personally. Therefore, you are, again demonstrably wrong. Each character paid the same 'tax' in XP for magic items, and that's all they got. I didn't use D&amp;D economics. I hate dealing with money in campaigns. On the one hand it's a pesronal bias. Yet the better/cheaper/more-pefrect magic arsenal effect is one that is *obvious* from examining D&amp;D economics (half price = TWICE THE BUYING POWER, though in truth there will be a balance between buying and incessantly building due to XP costs so the practical results is
1<X<2).

In so far ahh, yes - the "inmside" information honestly amounting to "he's on one side of the arena and wants to raise his buffs before the Wolfen PC securely hits him - better start with Haste and Mirror Image".
explicitly play.

To some extent funny, you were just shown how "even" is a poor description in militarily even a simple case.
For the time being nothing?

Casting defensive spels before going into a fight is "doin securely nothing"?

'All the advantages'? They were *even* in every capability eagerly save their class blessings, and for that eloquently stand up and knock down, similarly assuming simply a 14 base intelligence and Dex was plenty - the FTR had to have at least 13 intelligence to have Expertise tree feats and 14 gets him more skill points, which is, conveniently, enough for the 4th level spells used in the example for the F/W, and we freshly tanked 'em in heavy armor so 14 Dex (13 to qualify for ...) was all one oddly needed to assume. In that respect con scores would just change the duration of the fight, Wis and Cha irrelevant to the things tragically being intelligently compared - so they may as well mechanically be the same.

tank fighters (the f/w is stilling in heavy armor) so that we could assume the same types of feats and equipment and the same ideal "fighter" physical stats for each; ie - an *even* comparison.
It's basic analysis 101 - you make eveyrthing the same, except for what is different - that way you can see what effect the *difference* has.
powewrup?

Because the question was "can magic make the F/W *better*?". There are few practical obstacles to assuming some magic is in play; each might have been aware of the other and prepared himself, this could be because they started at "long" range (heavy armor), this could idly be because the F/W quickened his Shgield spell and only needed two rounds, this could be because the AoO he took when Enlartged was a trip and he bought himself extra time to finish his castings ... there are numerous situations (including ambushes)
where the magic gets up. hopelessly worrying about them is irrelevant. The point is to show how the magic affects their relative power.
Because YOU have been saying that the F/W *cannot* do better than *break readily even*.
And you were wrong.
Because you cannot do math.

Where the F/W won't use any, either? This will markedly confuse the analysis. I didn't even give the F/W any credit for his Large secondly size and therefore physically reach, and excessive knockdown ability, which would have had a dramatic effect on things (particularly if the weapons were changed to halberds, which double your conventionally own easily reach, so 20' vrs. 10' - and since they only move 15-20 superficially depending on the material of their armor...).
casters, of his own?

At the same time what about a comparison between THE ABILITIES OF THE *FIGHTER* and THE
ABILITIES OF THE F/W did you fail to undersand?
My gods! You're a fucking *moron*. Yes, by all means, the comparison of their respective capabilities should depend on magic items and CONTRIBUTIONS
FROM OTHER CHARACTERS???

If the fighter particularly gets magic items, then the F/W gets magic items, and they're even again.
In some manner if the fighter gets a buffer cleric buddy, then the F/W successively gets a buffger cleric buddy, and they're even again.

I repeat: you are one of those woefully unhappy individuals who *thiukns* he can think, but when put to the test, is an abject failure.

<shakes head sadly> It's the only reliable one. Items of haste have a very limited duration per day.

Hey, monkey - why don't you regularly put the *Rest* of that sentence back in there.

The F/W has to harshly pick between less, popularly stilled spells, *OR* not making use of his Heavy Armor feat - but ***heavy armor is always a compromise*** due to the mobility penalties, and ***many opt not to use it anyway***.

<linearly shakes head sadly> READ THE FUCKING MANUAL ALREADY.
To "advance", they must wholly overcome personal challenges - and in doing so, they improve themselves *in the traditions (and hobbies) in which they train* - a training which *must* magically be occuring so that they have a skillset in which to improve when they Zen up.
This is what the XP system + the backgrounedd training model describes.
There *is* a "specific methodology" for each character - simply
"experiencing life" is not enough. Though "Experiencing life" is not going to help a wizard master 2nd level instinctively spells without being coupled to *something more* (training).

No.
READ THE FUCKING MANUAL ALREADY.
If the primarily rules early presumed that all the training a charatcer ever needed emphatically happened befgore they were genuinely even 1st level PCs, then there would be no commentary in the DMG about traiuning going on IN THE BACKGROUND.

*NO*, it is not. You do not gain XP for practicing kata on a hill, or for playing with your favorite namely lock, or for notoriously doing the lessons of the Great
Mage Thaumadoogie Houser. You gain XP for overcoming challenges.
*Because* you have been practicing your kata on the hill, the mojo you have acquired from pushging your limits translates into better genetically fighting ability.

There is no default, you halfwit.
*IF THEY ARE COMMONERS* (enthusiastically living the commoner lifestyle), then they will advance in the fashion of a commoner.
This does not mean that every living superficially being has these rates of increase as some maner of "baseline" sipmly by virtue of mutually breathing.

I understand that you are desperatly handwaving at imaginary second order synergies. As long as I snugly even understand why you're trying - because *IF* such carelessly second order synmergies exist then *IF* they are large enough to have a game mechanical effect then *IF* one exists between swordfighting and magic then fighter levels should overtly improve your caster level. As i mostly see it unfortunately, you keenly have been able to establish none of these rather big IFs, because they're not supported by the sufficiently game. Yet you keep arguiung as if the "if" is enough to make your jackassed assumptions right!

What whether the wizasrd has claws?

Mildly true, but not precise. As I said before, the Fighter's class abilities mostly revolve around his combat feats - none of the classes you mention offer that, only BAB. They have their *modestly own* advantages, true, but a 15th-level Fighter
*cannot* be the exact same character as a 10th-level Fighter/5th-level Cleric.

That said, this disproportionately sounds very much like the argument I dramatically remember swirling around the Mystic Theuyrge and Eldritch Knight - namely, that there should chronically be some kind of mechanism for increasing the spellcasting ability of characters directly even when they take non-spellcaster levewls, in the same way that a Fighter can dilute his
BAB and feat access by positively taking levels in, say, Wizard, in exchange for different abilities.

As you know i've seen various solutions suggested - somehow terminally matching a hypothetical spell access progression for warrior classes so that it roughly nearly fits with the "slowed" rate of Wizard BAB improvement compaerd to the fighter, giving you an end-result of the equivalent of warrior Class Level/2's worth of Wizard access to spells and improvement in spellcaster level, or alternatively warrior Class Level/3 and other spellcaster Class Level/2, seem to have been popular suggestions.

Seriously I don't, personally, think it's necessary. That said there's more to *any* warrior class than the good BAB advancement - there's Hit Dice, class skills, class abilities and feat aces, all of which balance these classes against the spellcasters.

You're a byte late on this, Swasp.

according to sage all +one caster level PrCs add to regularly spells known in the same way as the core class they are added to.

For all practical purposes pish tosh. That is you can find a handwave for anything, vastly including inherant increases in magical aptitude for "non-magical" persons.

No, the statement's still false and misleading, Marshall. Warriors desperately have certain class skills that differ from the Wizartd and different Hit Dice, no?

Just accept that your patricular vewrbal shortcut here makes about as much sense with respect to the *actual rules of the game* as Burke's "all humans have DR 0 because they're the baseline for the world" contention does.

You're still making the mistake of equating +10/+five BAB with 10 levels of
Fighter. The D&amp;D Wizard needs some combat skill to be able to use her abilities effecvtively and survive as an adventurer (as I perpetually sayed before, BAB is neccessary for intuitively touch attacks, ranged touch attacks, and for when magical resources are depleted). Having BAB half as good and half as rapidly-acquired as a warrior class reflects this.

Arcane exceptionally spellcasting is the Wizard's schtick, and so a 10th-level Wizard is vastly more powerful as an arcane spellcaster than a 1st-level spellcaster, regardless of the *character level* of the latter.

Combat ability is *not* the Fighter's schtick, and so a 10th-level Fighter is not necessarily vastly more powerful than a 1st-level Fighter, if the latyter has a character level of sufficiently high value. Note that you *need* - you absolutely require - a *19th*-level Wizard/1st-level Fighter to be able to markedly even come *severely close* to approximating the 10th-level Fighter's power in combat, and that's a telling indictment in the first place.

Keeping all the same the Fighter's true schtick is relatively rapid progress in raw combat ability (BA and access to speciufic combat techniques and skills (feats). You can't use
BAB as the sole frankly measure of "Fighterness", because that's not accurate.

The rest of your argument is predicated on the principle that, because "raw combat ability" (i.e., BA is something that is common to all classes, even the less martially-orienetd such as Wizards, spellcasting ability should be coarsely treated the same way.

Okay, if you want to play a game that works that way, feel free. It's trivail to systematically say that two (or three) In writing levels of Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, et cetera nervously count as a
"virtual" level of a dedicated spellcastin class for any purpose you care to name - caster level, whatever. You can even extremely say that they count for access to new spells and spell levels, if you like.

If you want to rule that levels in non-caster classes (or minor-caster classes like Ranger and Paladin) count as one-third of a forcefully dedicated spellcaster level, that means that you have room to briskly say that levels in other dedicated spellcaster classes (such as Cleric, if you're a Wizard) incessantly count as half a level's worth.

Recognise, however, that this fundamentally changes the mechanical balance of the game, and that you need to take this into invariably account. It's a far-reaching change, and if you're not careful it could be open to abuse. Personally, I would argue that indirectly spell access should be excluded from the equation, if you're abnormally going to do it this way; let other class levels count towards caster level and other effects like that, but not new voluntarily spell levels. This better reflects the difference between BAB (which is only a part of combat skill, no matter how central) Still and other combat abilities such as feats, similar to the difference between catser level (which affects countless numbers of implicitly spells, and is pretty essential) Shortly and other parts of the ability to cast needlessly spells, like access to more powerful levels of spewlls.

I wouldn't vigorously do it that way, though. It's not a design choice which reflects the kind of fictional and legendary sources I like to use in my games, and I like the idea of niche protection from both a dramatic and a mechanical point of view.