Every time I look up a forum thread about AT multiclassing, people suggest things like mixing it with Wizard or Eldritch Knight - but this slows down your spell slot progression, because paladins, rangers, arcane tricksters, and eldritch knights have actual spell slot progression based on rounding their half and third levels up, and as soon as you multiclass, you have to round down instead. E.g. if you're AT 8, you're currently casting at caster level roundup(8/3) = 3. If you take a level in wizard, so you're AT 8 W 1, now you're at caster level rounddown(8/3) + 1 = 3 - i.e. you took an entire level in wizard and your slots didn't progress. And now that you've multiclassed your spell progression at all, that effect is permanent - there's no way to juggle your classes around to avoid the fact that at levels of AT which are not multiples of 3, you'll be 1 stage behind in your slots.
But people never seem to address this - they'll make suggestions like taking wizard as if this *helps* your casting get better, instead of worse. Am I missing something? Was there an errata somewhere?
Adding Wizard levels to help your spell casting get better probably refers to the freedom of spells you can learn without the restrictions placed by the AT. EK does a similar thing but for evocation and abjuration spells. AT spell selection IMO is the most restrictive out of all casters.
Also in terms of spell slot progression well you will need a few of levels of Wizard to see improvement, such is the curse of the 1/3 caster.
No amount of levels will fix the issue - as soon as you multiclass, a 1/3 or 1/2 caster other than Artificer will immediately see their non-multiples-of-3 levels in the partial casting class operating at less than their listed/expected spell slot value - the only fix is abandoning ranger/paladin/ek/at a level that's a multiple of 2/2/3/3 and never looking back. So you could make a 3/3 at/ek and move on and you're fine, too, for example, provided you bail for a third class. You could even grab 2 levels of ranger at that point, and then quit.
But if your primary class is among the 4, multiclassing into any other caster (other than warlock, which will play nice with anyone) is a hard sell.
I think the problem here is you are looking at it from the perspective of a full caster taking levels in a 1/2 or 1/3 caster and not the other way round. Because if you look at things from a AT perspective if you went full 6 levels of AT you get 3 level 1 spell slots. However if that same character instead went 4 levels AT and 2 levels Wizard all of a sudden they get 4 level 1 spell slots and 2 level 2 spell slots.
This is what I imagine people are talking about when they suggest a AT multiclass into a Wizard to help spell slot progression.
You can’t compare one thing and expect balance, that’s not how games work.
One level in Wizard gives you Arcane Recovery, ability to scribe spells, 6 new spell choices at level 1 that aren’t AT-restricted, new cantrips… it’s not always about spell slots.
That being said, two levels in wizard will give you more spell slots than any other pure AT. Four levels in wizard will give you spell LEVELS no pure AT can get.
And so is the 8th level AT a waste? No. The trade off on “bad” levels is a Feat or a Class Feature:
A level 7 AT/13 Wizard is a 15th level caster with 4 feats.
A level 8 AT/12 Wizard is a 14th level caster with 5 feats.
A level 12 AT/8 Wizard is a 12th level caster with 6 feats.
(tl;dr: the spell level progression lag is by design, to balance feats and class features)
I don't think it's by design at all, because of how it only targets 2 classes and 2 subclasses, it targets them differently (the two classes targeted become encouraged to stop on feat levels), and prior to Tasha's, one of the 2 targeted classes was pretty damn bad to begin with. This is particularly highlighted by how Artificer isn't targeted at all.
Why heavily encourage multiclass ATs and EKs to specifically dip out at level 12 and never return? Makes no sense, particularly since Rangers and Paladins have no objection at all to dropping out at 8 instead, and the issue does not come up at all for Artificers, Warlocks, or any full caster.
I don't think it's by design at all, because of how it only targets 2 classes and 2 subclasses, it targets them differently (the two classes targeted become encouraged to stop on feat levels), and prior to Tasha's, one of the 2 targeted classes was pretty damn bad to begin with. This is particularly highlighted by how Artificer isn't targeted at all.
Why heavily encourage multiclass ATs and EKs to specifically dip out at level 12 and never return? Makes no sense, particularly since Rangers and Paladins have no objection at all to dropping out at 8 instead, and the issue does not come up at all for Artificers, Warlocks, or any full caster.
But they don’t encourage you to dip out. What part of balancing out class features and feats didn’t make sense?
Every combination of levels in AT and Wizard have different benefits to them, the problem is Rogues and Fighters are substantial base classes on their own with Action Surge/Second Wind/more attacks/Sneak Attack, so the limitation to their spell progression is, again, by design and for balancing purposes.
Edits: Level 13 Fighter gets another use of Indomitable,
Level 13 Rogue gets 7d6 sneak and versatile trickster.
Level 14 Fighter gets another bonus Feat.
Level 14 Rogue gets you Blindsense.
It’s up to you to decide if that’s worth the trade off of the spell slots.
Since an AT is a 1/3, taken to 20 they will inevitably leave 2 levels worth of progression dangling. A 2-level dip to Wiz will actually provide a not insubstantial increase to an AT’s slot progression over the life of the campaign. It also picks up the additional benefits others have mentioned (Cantrips, spell versatility, etc.)
The cherry on top is the Arcane Tradition features. I recommended considering the updated Bladesinger since Bladesinger now scales off of PB so it will provide the same benefit to your PC as it would to a straight Wiz at all character levels.
Of course there’s the ever popular Diviner, and the Illusionist dovetails nicely what an AT. And then there’s the Transmuter’s Minor Alchemy which kinda screams “roguish” to me. Just sayin’.
Since an AT is a 1/3, taken to 20 they will inevitably leave 2 levels worth of progression dangling.
No, that's not how ATs and EKs work. A pure AT or EK rounds progression up, not down - they only round down if they multiclass into another caster. Analyzing at only level 20 (and why are we doing that?), an AT or EK is casting at 7, not 6. The only "dangling" level is that level 20 adds a spell known without adding any slots, because the AT/EK progresses up at 19.
I'm working on an AT, but it's a ranged build, so Bladesinging will end as soon as I attack unless I use a hand crossbow or one of the hand crossbow but worse options, like a sling (no current plans to take crossbow mastery, but I suppose that might change in the future) - Bladesinging is on my list of things to look at, but it's got to compete with War Magic. As you said, Illusionist is interesting, but I would never contemplate Transmuter - I can't think of a way to use it in practice that isn't Conjurer but worse.
Also, I'm not doing this at level 20, so I need to concern myself with still having fun when my AT levels aren't a multiple of 3 - and the same thing with the other partial casters. I keep thinking of fun Ranger multiclass options, and then I get frightened off by permanently nerfing my Ranger spell slots at odd levels of 3 or more, even if I abandon AT and never return.
But they don’t encourage you to dip out. What part of balancing out class features and feats didn’t make sense?
Every combination of levels in AT and Wizard have different benefits to them, the problem is Rogues and Fighters are substantial base classes on their own with Action Surge/Second Wind/more attacks/Sneak Attack, so the limitation to their spell progression is, again, by design and for balancing purposes.
But they applied the same nerf to Rangers and Paladins - this isn't just a Rogue and Fighter issue. And it's clear as mud why, when no-one else has to deal with this nerf: provided you stay away from Ranger, Paladin, AT, and EK, you will never have to deal with it. There are many and sundry compellingly good builds doing that - why nerf those, specifically? What's special about those two classes and two subclasses? I'd understand better if only the 1/3 casters were nerfed, but rangers? How are rangers more powerful than clerics?
You can make a bunch of very good builds by avoiding mixing the nerfed multiclassers with any other casters. Unless you can show me a build using an un-nerfed version of the rules that blows the other builds out of the water, I'm going to remain very skeptical this was anything but an oversight.
Another way of looking at things is that the are 1/2 and 1/3 casters classes are normal except the Artificer who is buffed.
And who knows maybe sometime down the line Paladins and Rangers might get "buffed"
But it's also all full casters, all non-casters, and warlocks who are "buffed" under your logic. In fact, you can mix warlocks with the 1/2 and 1/3 casters just fine, which is why there are some really good warlock/paladin builds.
Since an AT is a 1/3, taken to 20 they will inevitably leave 2 levels worth of progression dangling.
No, that's not how ATs and EKs work....
You’re right, I remembered incorrectly. When I had worked out what I believe to be the best dip for them to buff casting was over a year ago. I mean, if your gonna dip caster then the round down is inevitable anyway.
Yeah, so they don’t get to learn 2 4th-level spells. 🤷♂️ I’m of the opinion that isn’t a bad trade off for the benefits.
And I 100% agree with you that planning for 20 is not the best approach. That’s why I think grabbing a level of Wiz somewhere in tier two is totally worth it.
That doubles your Cantrips (which c’mon).
Depending on exactly which level you dip its somewhere between a 100%-133% increase in spells known with the potential to learn every 1st-level Wizard spell in the game (yeah, you gotta pick 2/day but that’s still an improvement over the 0-1 you woulda otherwise learned).
Grabs some limited Ritual Casting (which c’mon).
And Arcane Recovery to boot. Sure it’ll only recycle one slot per day, but if I were given a choice between that or a kick in the danglybits, I’ll take the spell slot.
That’s #winning all day long. “I’ll take Wizard for 1 level Alex.”
So somewhere in tier three that 2nd-level of Wiz starts to look might tasty. Mighty tasty indeed. And since you’re already rounding down anyway.... In for a penny in for a pound right? “Wiz again for 2 Alex.”
Another way of looking at things is that the are 1/2 and 1/3 casters classes are normal except the Artificer who is buffed.
And who knows maybe sometime down the line Paladins and Rangers might get "buffed"
But it's also all full casters, all non-casters, and warlocks who are "buffed" under your logic. In fact, you can mix warlocks with the 1/2 and 1/3 casters just fine, which is why there are some really good warlock/paladin builds.
But Artys aren’t really “1/2 casters,” they’re more like 6/10 or 2/3 casters. So they’re not “buffed,” their just not comparable.
But they don’t encourage you to dip out. What part of balancing out class features and feats didn’t make sense?
Every combination of levels in AT and Wizard have different benefits to them, the problem is Rogues and Fighters are substantial base classes on their own with Action Surge/Second Wind/more attacks/Sneak Attack, so the limitation to their spell progression is, again, by design and for balancing purposes.
But they applied the same nerf to Rangers and Paladins - this isn't just a Rogue and Fighter issue. And it's clear as mud why, when no-one else has to deal with this nerf: provided you stay away from Ranger, Paladin, AT, and EK, you will never have to deal with it. There are many and sundry compellingly good builds doing that - why nerf those, specifically? What's special about those two classes and two subclasses? I'd understand better if only the 1/3 casters were nerfed, but rangers? How are rangers more powerful than clerics?
You can make a bunch of very good builds by avoiding mixing the nerfed multiclassers with any other casters. Unless you can show me a build using an un-nerfed version of the rules that blows the other builds out of the water, I'm going to remain very skeptical this was anything but an oversight.
Legitimately it’s exactly the reason I said above. It’s by design.
Pure spellcaster classes are almost entirely *designed* in power based on their spellcasting levels. For example, if you removed spells from a pure spellcaster, there are MANY “dead” levels for class features.
Half and Third-casters do not have this same fate - without spellcasting they don’t have nearly as many “dead” levels. In fact, the deadest levels are the ones where they are direct multiples of their casting levels.
So yes - it’s entirely by design. And I’ve said it many times now, there aren’t any dead levels for this reason.
Edit:
Ive given positive examples, now here are some negative ones (reasons why they’re not rounded up):
4 EK(AT)/16 Wizard gets 18 caster levels, but adds on Second Wind, Action Surge, etc
3 Paladin (Ranger)/17 Wizard gets 19 caster levels, almost the same as a pure wizard, with all the benefits of an oathed Paladin. 19 AT/1 Wizard gets 8 caster levels, which is drastically better than a 20 AT with only 7.
4 AT/3 Paladin/3 Ranger/4 EK gets 8 caster levels, and casts better than any of the base classes if they went pure.
Basically, rounding up while multiclassing makes singular classes weaker and 1-level dips absolutely ridiculous.
Every time I look up a forum thread about AT multiclassing, people suggest things like mixing it with Wizard or Eldritch Knight - but this slows down your spell slot progression, because paladins, rangers, arcane tricksters, and eldritch knights have actual spell slot progression based on rounding their half and third levels up, and as soon as you multiclass, you have to round down instead. E.g. if you're AT 8, you're currently casting at caster level roundup(8/3) = 3. If you take a level in wizard, so you're AT 8 W 1, now you're at caster level rounddown(8/3) + 1 = 3 - i.e. you took an entire level in wizard and your slots didn't progress. And now that you've multiclassed your spell progression at all, that effect is permanent - there's no way to juggle your classes around to avoid the fact that at levels of AT which are not multiples of 3, you'll be 1 stage behind in your slots.
But people never seem to address this - they'll make suggestions like taking wizard as if this *helps* your casting get better, instead of worse. Am I missing something? Was there an errata somewhere?
But Artys aren’t really “1/2 casters,” they’re more like 6/10 or 2/3 casters. So they’re not “buffed,” their just not comparable.
Artificers are literally 1/2 casters, they just round up if they multiclass. Look at their spell slots and look at the multiclassing spell slot table.
Half casters that:
Round up
Have Ritual Casting
Get Cantrips
That’s more like 6/10 to me. I mean, out of the 10 levels of spells (Cantrips-9th), they literally get 6 out of 10 of them. Rangers & Paladins only get 5 out of 10, or exactly 1/2 of them. So I stand by my statement.
Every time I look up a forum thread about AT multiclassing, people suggest things like mixing it with Wizard or Eldritch Knight - but this slows down your spell slot progression, because paladins, rangers, arcane tricksters, and eldritch knights have actual spell slot progression based on rounding their half and third levels up, and as soon as you multiclass, you have to round down instead. E.g. if you're AT 8, you're currently casting at caster level roundup(8/3) = 3. If you take a level in wizard, so you're AT 8 W 1, now you're at caster level rounddown(8/3) + 1 = 3 - i.e. you took an entire level in wizard and your slots didn't progress. And now that you've multiclassed your spell progression at all, that effect is permanent - there's no way to juggle your classes around to avoid the fact that at levels of AT which are not multiples of 3, you'll be 1 stage behind in your slots.
But people never seem to address this - they'll make suggestions like taking wizard as if this *helps* your casting get better, instead of worse. Am I missing something? Was there an errata somewhere?
Adding Wizard levels to help your spell casting get better probably refers to the freedom of spells you can learn without the restrictions placed by the AT. EK does a similar thing but for evocation and abjuration spells. AT spell selection IMO is the most restrictive out of all casters.
Also in terms of spell slot progression well you will need a few of levels of Wizard to see improvement, such is the curse of the 1/3 caster.
No amount of levels will fix the issue - as soon as you multiclass, a 1/3 or 1/2 caster other than Artificer will immediately see their non-multiples-of-3 levels in the partial casting class operating at less than their listed/expected spell slot value - the only fix is abandoning ranger/paladin/ek/at a level that's a multiple of 2/2/3/3 and never looking back. So you could make a 3/3 at/ek and move on and you're fine, too, for example, provided you bail for a third class. You could even grab 2 levels of ranger at that point, and then quit.
But if your primary class is among the 4, multiclassing into any other caster (other than warlock, which will play nice with anyone) is a hard sell.
I think the problem here is you are looking at it from the perspective of a full caster taking levels in a 1/2 or 1/3 caster and not the other way round. Because if you look at things from a AT perspective if you went full 6 levels of AT you get 3 level 1 spell slots. However if that same character instead went 4 levels AT and 2 levels Wizard all of a sudden they get 4 level 1 spell slots and 2 level 2 spell slots.
This is what I imagine people are talking about when they suggest a AT multiclass into a Wizard to help spell slot progression.
You can’t compare one thing and expect balance, that’s not how games work.
One level in Wizard gives you Arcane Recovery, ability to scribe spells, 6 new spell choices at level 1 that aren’t AT-restricted, new cantrips… it’s not always about spell slots.
That being said, two levels in wizard will give you more spell slots than any other pure AT. Four levels in wizard will give you spell LEVELS no pure AT can get.
And so is the 8th level AT a waste? No. The trade off on “bad” levels is a Feat or a Class Feature:
A level 7 AT/13 Wizard is a 15th level caster with 4 feats.
A level 8 AT/12 Wizard is a 14th level caster with 5 feats.
A level 12 AT/8 Wizard is a 12th level caster with 6 feats.
(tl;dr: the spell level progression lag is by design, to balance feats and class features)
I don't think it's by design at all, because of how it only targets 2 classes and 2 subclasses, it targets them differently (the two classes targeted become encouraged to stop on feat levels), and prior to Tasha's, one of the 2 targeted classes was pretty damn bad to begin with. This is particularly highlighted by how Artificer isn't targeted at all.
Why heavily encourage multiclass ATs and EKs to specifically dip out at level 12 and never return? Makes no sense, particularly since Rangers and Paladins have no objection at all to dropping out at 8 instead, and the issue does not come up at all for Artificers, Warlocks, or any full caster.
But they don’t encourage you to dip out. What part of balancing out class features and feats didn’t make sense?
Every combination of levels in AT and Wizard have different benefits to them, the problem is Rogues and Fighters are substantial base classes on their own with Action Surge/Second Wind/more attacks/Sneak Attack, so the limitation to their spell progression is, again, by design and for balancing purposes.
Edits:
Level 13 Fighter gets another use of Indomitable,
Level 13 Rogue gets 7d6 sneak and versatile trickster.
Level 14 Fighter gets another bonus Feat.
Level 14 Rogue gets you Blindsense.
It’s up to you to decide if that’s worth the trade off of the spell slots.
Since an AT is a 1/3, taken to 20 they will inevitably leave 2 levels worth of progression dangling. A 2-level dip to Wiz will actually provide a not insubstantial increase to an AT’s slot progression over the life of the campaign. It also picks up the additional benefits others have mentioned (Cantrips, spell versatility, etc.)
The cherry on top is the Arcane Tradition features. I recommended considering the updated Bladesinger since Bladesinger now scales off of PB so it will provide the same benefit to your PC as it would to a straight Wiz at all character levels.
Of course there’s the ever popular Diviner, and the Illusionist dovetails nicely what an AT. And then there’s the Transmuter’s Minor Alchemy which kinda screams “roguish” to me. Just sayin’.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
No, that's not how ATs and EKs work. A pure AT or EK rounds progression up, not down - they only round down if they multiclass into another caster. Analyzing at only level 20 (and why are we doing that?), an AT or EK is casting at 7, not 6. The only "dangling" level is that level 20 adds a spell known without adding any slots, because the AT/EK progresses up at 19.
I'm working on an AT, but it's a ranged build, so Bladesinging will end as soon as I attack unless I use a hand crossbow or one of the hand crossbow but worse options, like a sling (no current plans to take crossbow mastery, but I suppose that might change in the future) - Bladesinging is on my list of things to look at, but it's got to compete with War Magic. As you said, Illusionist is interesting, but I would never contemplate Transmuter - I can't think of a way to use it in practice that isn't Conjurer but worse.
Also, I'm not doing this at level 20, so I need to concern myself with still having fun when my AT levels aren't a multiple of 3 - and the same thing with the other partial casters. I keep thinking of fun Ranger multiclass options, and then I get frightened off by permanently nerfing my Ranger spell slots at odd levels of 3 or more, even if I abandon AT and never return.
But they applied the same nerf to Rangers and Paladins - this isn't just a Rogue and Fighter issue. And it's clear as mud why, when no-one else has to deal with this nerf: provided you stay away from Ranger, Paladin, AT, and EK, you will never have to deal with it. There are many and sundry compellingly good builds doing that - why nerf those, specifically? What's special about those two classes and two subclasses? I'd understand better if only the 1/3 casters were nerfed, but rangers? How are rangers more powerful than clerics?
You can make a bunch of very good builds by avoiding mixing the nerfed multiclassers with any other casters. Unless you can show me a build using an un-nerfed version of the rules that blows the other builds out of the water, I'm going to remain very skeptical this was anything but an oversight.
Another way of looking at things is that the are 1/2 and 1/3 casters classes are normal except the Artificer who is buffed.
And who knows maybe sometime down the line Paladins and Rangers might get "buffed"
But it's also all full casters, all non-casters, and warlocks who are "buffed" under your logic. In fact, you can mix warlocks with the 1/2 and 1/3 casters just fine, which is why there are some really good warlock/paladin builds.
You’re right, I remembered incorrectly. When I had worked out what I believe to be the best dip for them to buff casting was over a year ago. I mean, if your gonna dip caster then the round down is inevitable anyway.
Yeah, so they don’t get to learn 2 4th-level spells. 🤷♂️ I’m of the opinion that isn’t a bad trade off for the benefits.
And I 100% agree with you that planning for 20 is not the best approach. That’s why I think grabbing a level of Wiz somewhere in tier two is totally worth it.
That’s #winning all day long. “I’ll take Wizard for 1 level Alex.”
So somewhere in tier three that 2nd-level of Wiz starts to look might tasty. Mighty tasty indeed. And since you’re already rounding down anyway.... In for a penny in for a pound right? “Wiz again for 2 Alex.”
Step 3: Profit.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
But Artys aren’t really “1/2 casters,” they’re more like 6/10 or 2/3 casters. So they’re not “buffed,” their just not comparable.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting
Legitimately it’s exactly the reason I said above. It’s by design.
Pure spellcaster classes are almost entirely *designed* in power based on their spellcasting levels. For example, if you removed spells from a pure spellcaster, there are MANY “dead” levels for class features.
Half and Third-casters do not have this same fate - without spellcasting they don’t have nearly as many “dead” levels. In fact, the deadest levels are the ones where they are direct multiples of their casting levels.
So yes - it’s entirely by design. And I’ve said it many times now, there aren’t any dead levels for this reason.
Edit:
Ive given positive examples, now here are some negative ones (reasons why they’re not rounded up):
4 EK(AT)/16 Wizard gets 18 caster levels, but adds on Second Wind, Action Surge, etc
3 Paladin (Ranger)/17 Wizard gets 19 caster levels, almost the same as a pure wizard, with all the benefits of an oathed Paladin.
19 AT/1 Wizard gets 8 caster levels, which is drastically better than a 20 AT with only 7.
4 AT/3 Paladin/3 Ranger/4 EK gets 8 caster levels, and casts better than any of the base classes if they went pure.
Basically, rounding up while multiclassing makes singular classes weaker and 1-level dips absolutely ridiculous.
Artificers are literally 1/2 casters, they just round up if they multiclass. Look at their spell slots and look at the multiclassing spell slot table.
Half casters that:
That’s more like 6/10 to me. I mean, out of the 10 levels of spells (Cantrips-9th), they literally get 6 out of 10 of them. Rangers & Paladins only get 5 out of 10, or exactly 1/2 of them. So I stand by my statement.
Creating Epic Boons on DDB
DDB Buyers' Guide
Hardcovers, DDB & You
Content Troubleshooting