Cleric/Druid/Artificer combo more powerful? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Cleric/Druid/Artificer combo more powerful? [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
boozerker
09-22-06, 03:54 AM Is a PC with equal parts Cleric/Druid/Artificer more powerful than any of those as a pure class?
claypigeons
09-22-06, 05:42 AM Is a PC with equal parts Cleric/Druid/Artificer more powerful than any of those as a pure class?

Not really. The strength of the cleric is in its ability to persist nifty buff spells that it gets later in its levels. A druid uses wildshape to destroy encounters, which it loses through multiclassing. I've never played an artificer, so I cant comment on that.
travellersside
09-22-06, 06:07 AM No.

Not even slightly.

You're comparing a Cleric 6/Druid 6/Artificer 6 with a single-classed level 18. The best case scenario is a 1/1/1 versus a 3. Still weak.

Okay. There aren't any hybrid PRC casters (MT etc.) which this is eligible for. Artificers are specifically not Arcane, and I have yet to hear of a divine/divine class.

So, Class abilities:
Artificers create items. At level 6, they've got most of the good feats, but having the other classes doesn't help this feature in any real way, because an artificer can already make use of their spells. So having the classes makes little difference to item creation. You don't have to roll, but you were probably going to succeed anyway, so no real gain.
Druids change shape. At level 6, you aren't really much good at it. None of the other classes will help you appreciably here. You'll have access to a few more buffs, which is nice, but certainly not enough to make up for losing 12 levels of wild shape.
Clerics can Turn Undead. This is a very weak ability that's only worth it at the lowest levels. The higher level you are, the more work you have to put into it in order to get any worthwhile result. Being stuck with the turning abilities of a level 6 cleric at level 18 is worthless. OTOH, these can be used as charges to fuel various divine feats, but you're not really any better off than if you were cleric 1. Some of the feats are good, this is true, but not worth wasting another 5 levels of cleric on. If this is your focus, just take a single level and leave it at that.

Other features: You could have some handy domains, except you won't be using the higher level spells, and many domain powers will be weak. Still, go hunting, and there are some handy things available. Artificers need you to be high level really, since many effects are level based - so not good. And while druids have some useful abilities, they aren't that good - just icing.

Next - combat. Well, they all have a medium BAB, so with 6 levels of each class, you'll actually have a BAB of 12 instead of 15. Fighting won't be your strong point.

Hitpoints will be the same.

Saves will be boosted, but that's just because of the bump you get. You'll be better off than a pure artificer, but otherwise, the save boost isn't enough to do this.

Skills: Skills are iffy. Each class has a different list, which will make building up certain skills difficult. Artificers require UMD, and that's the only class allowing it. So, you'll have to buy it cross-class on the other levels, or buy it in lumps. Neither is appealing.

All that's left is spells.
Given a choice between casting from 3 lists as a level 6 caster (Level 3 spells max) or 1 list as a level 18 caster (level 9 max, except artificer, which is 6) guess which is worth going for.

You won't have enough casts to be useful, your caster level will be poor (yes, you can take practised spellcaster, but that's 3 feats burned) and you can't cast at a high enough level to get a good selection. Also, although cleric & druid share a Wis casting stat, Artificer doesn't, so it increases MAD.

In a nutshell, you'd be almost worthless.

Have I missed anything?
AZNsupermarket
09-22-06, 07:12 AM Have I missed anything?
Pretty good explanation, but I would also like to note that since the artificer class is based largely on their "crafting pool," any level that they don't get more xp would be a very bad level.
travellersside
09-22-06, 07:19 AM Pretty good explanation, but I would also like to note that since the artificer class is based largely on their "crafting pool," any level that they don't get more xp would be a very bad level.

To be fair, that's not really a problem. While the freebie crafting pool is very nice, once an artificer hits level 5, he can cannibalise existing magic items and recover the xp used to make it, adding it to his pool. It takes 1 day, no matter how expensive (or cheap) the item.

*cough* A magical trap is a valid target for this too, so if you bypass one (and you've got the skills - artificers make good trap & locksmiths too) you can come back later and salvage something. So yes, go over a dungeon, find the traps, disarm the mechanicals, bypass the magicals, and then loot the place. It takes you a bit longer to finish looting, but you've just replenished your crafting pool, so I don't see many players complaining. ;)
boozerker
09-22-06, 08:39 AM Thank you for confirming, and it's yet another reason to suspect that multi-classing shouldn't receive an XP penalty. But why does it penalize you? What good explanation is there, when PCs really miss out on strengthening class abilities? There's probably some loopholes, but I don't see any.
travellersside
09-22-06, 11:10 AM The problem with multiclassing is that it means different things for different characters, and it doesn't achieve its original goal anyway:

For a spellcaster, you can't really afford to lose many caster levels. If I've got a wizard, I'm willing to lose 1 CL for something good. 2 if it's absolutely fantastic. There are those who say that even losing a single caster level is bad. So, you can only really afford to take a prestige class, and even then, only one that boosts your casting. If the class doesn't boost your casting, it isn't worth taking, which is why cleric/druid is worthless - they don't synergise. In other words, multiclassing already has its own penalties, without adding an XP penalty on top of it.

For a primary skill-user, it isn't the class that's important, it's the skills. You can happily multiclass between rogue and bard, knowing that they've both got similar class skills and a decent number of skill points too. Add ranger in too if it takes your fancy. It's the skillpoints and the things that you spend them on that matter. Unfortunately, only a few base classes are good for skill-users, and not too many PRCs (you want at least 6SP per level, preferably 8) so you tend to already be suffering if you multiclass. If you choose your classes carefully, with overlapping skill-lists, you should be okay, but you lose access to high level class abilities this way. In other words, you're probably already suffering if you multiclass.

For a warrior, it's more iffy. Under normal circumstances, they can multiclass and lose very little, while usually gaining gaining enough to offset it. Probably because warriors are the weakest and least necessary category. As such, penalising them further through XP is needless.

And the last category is the organic character: As a character is played, situations come up and the character develops to deal with them. A warrior might get a special opportunity to learn a bit of magic, a city-dwelling rogue might spend year out on the hills with a nomadic tribe - different things that are highly flavoursome, but sub-optimal. So, by getting a more interesting character, you're already penalising yourself because the features are unlikely to synergise well. Add an XP penalty to this?

The original reason for the penalty was to discourage multiclassing. If you did multiclass, you were going to stick to your racial stereotype for one of them, or suffer the consequences. This prevented players from cherry-picking the first few levels of a bunch of classes. However, the solution is not to penalise in this way, but to make classes that players want to stick with. Look at the sorceror - familiar advancement aside (which sucks) why stay past 6th level? There's no good reason whatsoever. Fighters are just a springboard onto a PrC. Having the feats is nice, but without any really good choices, you get out as soon as you've got what you came for.
What playtesting showed was that players were more likely to mix and match some of the classes, so out of laziness, a penalty was applied.

With the proliferation of PrCs, that's where the cherry-picking now occurs, with players getting out of core classes asap. Even then, using the XP penalty here wouldn't work. Why? Because some of those classes are clearly not intended to be taken all the way. As an example: Archmage. Each level is an option. If you want 3 of those options, take 3 levels and you're done. Forcing players to take all 5 is absurd, because the class was never intended as a full advancement. It's 5 levels long because 5 of those options is the most you can have.
I've seen PrCs where the highest level abilities were genuinely worthless (3.0 Bloodhound, I'm thinking of you) things that looked good on paper but in practise were useless. Taking the Bloodhound as an example, IIRC, you got SR against Prismatic Walls and similar. Very powerful. But at the lowest level you could get this ability, you'd have something like a 10 or 15% chance of it working. If it failed, you'd fry. And the ability didn't scale, thus becoming less effective. That class' last 3 levels were genuinely worthless.

Players will usually take a more effective option over a less effective one. If they don't, the challenges that they're up against will probably destroy them. Check the Monster Manual, and see how many of the high CR critters can be reliably taken out by weak characters who don't have the expected abilities and equipment. It's scary.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
boozerker 09-22-06, 03:54 AM	Is a PC with equal parts Cleric/Druid/Artificer more powerful than any of those as a pure class?
claypigeons 09-22-06, 05:42 AM	Is a PC with equal parts Cleric/Druid/Artificer more powerful than any of those as a pure class? Not really. The strength of the cleric is in its ability to persist nifty buff spells that it gets later in its levels. A druid uses wildshape to destroy encounters, which it loses through multiclassing. I've never played an artificer, so I cant comment on that.
travellersside 09-22-06, 06:07 AM	No. Not even slightly. You're comparing a Cleric 6/Druid 6/Artificer 6 with a single-classed level 18. The best case scenario is a 1/1/1 versus a 3. Still weak. Okay. There aren't any hybrid PRC casters (MT etc.) which this is eligible for. Artificers are specifically not Arcane, and I have yet to hear of a divine/divine class. So, Class abilities: Artificers create items. At level 6, they've got most of the good feats, but having the other classes doesn't help this feature in any real way, because an artificer can already make use of their spells. So having the classes makes little difference to item creation. You don't have to roll, but you were probably going to succeed anyway, so no real gain. Druids change shape. At level 6, you aren't really much good at it. None of the other classes will help you appreciably here. You'll have access to a few more buffs, which is nice, but certainly not enough to make up for losing 12 levels of wild shape. Clerics can Turn Undead. This is a very weak ability that's only worth it at the lowest levels. The higher level you are, the more work you have to put into it in order to get any worthwhile result. Being stuck with the turning abilities of a level 6 cleric at level 18 is worthless. OTOH, these can be used as charges to fuel various divine feats, but you're not really any better off than if you were cleric 1. Some of the feats are good, this is true, but not worth wasting another 5 levels of cleric on. If this is your focus, just take a single level and leave it at that. Other features: You could have some handy domains, except you won't be using the higher level spells, and many domain powers will be weak. Still, go hunting, and there are some handy things available. Artificers need you to be high level really, since many effects are level based - so not good. And while druids have some useful abilities, they aren't that good - just icing. Next - combat. Well, they all have a medium BAB, so with 6 levels of each class, you'll actually have a BAB of 12 instead of 15. Fighting won't be your strong point. Hitpoints will be the same. Saves will be boosted, but that's just because of the bump you get. You'll be better off than a pure artificer, but otherwise, the save boost isn't enough to do this. Skills: Skills are iffy. Each class has a different list, which will make building up certain skills difficult. Artificers require UMD, and that's the only class allowing it. So, you'll have to buy it cross-class on the other levels, or buy it in lumps. Neither is appealing. All that's left is spells. Given a choice between casting from 3 lists as a level 6 caster (Level 3 spells max) or 1 list as a level 18 caster (level 9 max, except artificer, which is 6) guess which is worth going for. You won't have enough casts to be useful, your caster level will be poor (yes, you can take practised spellcaster, but that's 3 feats burned) and you can't cast at a high enough level to get a good selection. Also, although cleric & druid share a Wis casting stat, Artificer doesn't, so it increases MAD. In a nutshell, you'd be almost worthless. Have I missed anything?
AZNsupermarket 09-22-06, 07:12 AM	Have I missed anything? Pretty good explanation, but I would also like to note that since the artificer class is based largely on their "crafting pool," any level that they don't get more xp would be a very bad level.
travellersside 09-22-06, 07:19 AM	Pretty good explanation, but I would also like to note that since the artificer class is based largely on their "crafting pool," any level that they don't get more xp would be a very bad level. To be fair, that's not really a problem. While the freebie crafting pool is very nice, once an artificer hits level 5, he can cannibalise existing magic items and recover the xp used to make it, adding it to his pool. It takes 1 day, no matter how expensive (or cheap) the item. cough A magical trap is a valid target for this too, so if you bypass one (and you've got the skills - artificers make good trap & locksmiths too) you can come back later and salvage something. So yes, go over a dungeon, find the traps, disarm the mechanicals, bypass the magicals, and then loot the place. It takes you a bit longer to finish looting, but you've just replenished your crafting pool, so I don't see many players complaining. ;)
boozerker 09-22-06, 08:39 AM	Thank you for confirming, and it's yet another reason to suspect that multi-classing shouldn't receive an XP penalty. But why does it penalize you? What good explanation is there, when PCs really miss out on strengthening class abilities? There's probably some loopholes, but I don't see any.
travellersside 09-22-06, 11:10 AM	The problem with multiclassing is that it means different things for different characters, and it doesn't achieve its original goal anyway: For a spellcaster, you can't really afford to lose many caster levels. If I've got a wizard, I'm willing to lose 1 CL for something good. 2 if it's absolutely fantastic. There are those who say that even losing a single caster level is bad. So, you can only really afford to take a prestige class, and even then, only one that boosts your casting. If the class doesn't boost your casting, it isn't worth taking, which is why cleric/druid is worthless - they don't synergise. In other words, multiclassing already has its own penalties, without adding an XP penalty on top of it. For a primary skill-user, it isn't the class that's important, it's the skills. You can happily multiclass between rogue and bard, knowing that they've both got similar class skills and a decent number of skill points too. Add ranger in too if it takes your fancy. It's the skillpoints and the things that you spend them on that matter. Unfortunately, only a few base classes are good for skill-users, and not too many PRCs (you want at least 6SP per level, preferably 8) so you tend to already be suffering if you multiclass. If you choose your classes carefully, with overlapping skill-lists, you should be okay, but you lose access to high level class abilities this way. In other words, you're probably already suffering if you multiclass. For a warrior, it's more iffy. Under normal circumstances, they can multiclass and lose very little, while usually gaining gaining enough to offset it. Probably because warriors are the weakest and least necessary category. As such, penalising them further through XP is needless. And the last category is the organic character: As a character is played, situations come up and the character develops to deal with them. A warrior might get a special opportunity to learn a bit of magic, a city-dwelling rogue might spend year out on the hills with a nomadic tribe - different things that are highly flavoursome, but sub-optimal. So, by getting a more interesting character, you're already penalising yourself because the features are unlikely to synergise well. Add an XP penalty to this? The original reason for the penalty was to discourage multiclassing. If you did multiclass, you were going to stick to your racial stereotype for one of them, or suffer the consequences. This prevented players from cherry-picking the first few levels of a bunch of classes. However, the solution is not to penalise in this way, but to make classes that players want to stick with. Look at the sorceror - familiar advancement aside (which sucks) why stay past 6th level? There's no good reason whatsoever. Fighters are just a springboard onto a PrC. Having the feats is nice, but without any really good choices, you get out as soon as you've got what you came for. What playtesting showed was that players were more likely to mix and match some of the classes, so out of laziness, a penalty was applied. With the proliferation of PrCs, that's where the cherry-picking now occurs, with players getting out of core classes asap. Even then, using the XP penalty here wouldn't work. Why? Because some of those classes are clearly not intended to be taken all the way. As an example: Archmage. Each level is an option. If you want 3 of those options, take 3 levels and you're done. Forcing players to take all 5 is absurd, because the class was never intended as a full advancement. It's 5 levels long because 5 of those options is the most you can have. I've seen PrCs where the highest level abilities were genuinely worthless (3.0 Bloodhound, I'm thinking of you) things that looked good on paper but in practise were useless. Taking the Bloodhound as an example, IIRC, you got SR against Prismatic Walls and similar. Very powerful. But at the lowest level you could get this ability, you'd have something like a 10 or 15% chance of it working. If it failed, you'd fry. And the ability didn't scale, thus becoming less effective. That class' last 3 levels were genuinely worthless. Players will usually take a more effective option over a less effective one. If they don't, the challenges that they're up against will probably destroy them. Check the Monster Manual, and see how many of the high CR critters can be reliably taken out by weak characters who don't have the expected abilities and equipment. It's scary.