I've been asking about how to balance player characters, and others have suggested using tier 3 classes only, or using only spellcasters who cast 6th-level spells.
This is not the place to contest those ideas, even if they happen to be the starting point for what happened next.
My players want to run a campaign (the Giantslayer Adventure Path) where they all play dwarves, and dwarves have a malus to charisma. This arguably cuts out the bard, the skald, the bloodrager, the summoner and the paladin unless they take the Tortured Crusader archetype.
Along with the ban on wizards, sorcerers, druids, clerics, shamans, oracles, arcanists and witches, the playable classes are greatly reduced.
What would happen, balance-wise, if I were to introduce full casters again, mandating one level of a non-spellcasting class every 2 spellcaster levels?
Specifically, I have a player who would like to play a druid focused on earth magic, which I think is a great concept, but under the no-full-casters rule this is just not possible.
I expect the reduced caster level to harm those multiclassed characters more than the actual lack of favored class bonuses.
Would a hunter 17 be better or worse than a druid 12 / ranger 5?
Would a warpriest 17 be better or worse than a cleric 11 / fighter 6?
Note: I will also be using martial initiators from Path of War, who work best when multiclassing due to their peculiar mechanics. I already expect the answer to be different for them (also because a fighter 6 / stalker 11 can reach level 7 maneuvers).