moogle001's page

Hi, I'm looking for feedback on a variant system for multiclassing before I use it in a game I'm about to run. Feedback appreciated.

Problem
Since most levels of a class become progressively more powerful, and the experience cost of a level is unrelated to the actual class level, multiclassing base classes is often disadvantageous. A Cleric 10/Wizard 10 is not nearly as powerful as a Cleric 20. A 19th-level Monk does not get the same utility from one level of Fighter as they would the final level of Monk. This is why there is a plethora of the "dual-prestige classes" in 3.5E.

Solution
Gaining the first level of another base class requires a feat. Further levels cost as much as XP as they would if you had no other levels; becoming a level 5 ranger costs 10,000 XP whether you are level 1 or level 10.

Your stats are no longer calculated by stacking values from multiple classes 1-1. BAB, saves, caster level of like type, are instead equal to the highest value offered by one of the classes + 1/3 the value of the second class (+ 1/3 the third, and so on). Skills are likewise compared at each level; a 1st-level ranger with 4 skill points adding one level of rogue with 8 would gain 5 more skill points (rogue's 8 + 1 from the ranger - 4 they already had). Some number crunching is provided below.

Effective character level, feat acquisition, attribute increase, etc. is also as if the character were the level of their highest class + 1/3 the level of each other class.

Hit Point are done normally. Each level of a class grants its normal die worth of HP, no matter what other levels or current HP one has. Since HP can vary so much, I don't think this makes a difference.

Prestige Classes are also done normally; they "sit" on top of a base class, and thus require as much experience as raising the base class would and make it cost more to raise the base class later on. To determine which base class to use, place it on the highest base class used to reach the prerequisites. Some tweaking will probably be required per PrC.

Level---XP------2 Multiclass----1/3 BAB-3 Multiclass----1/3 BAB
3-------3000-----2/2/2-----------2--------2/2/2--------------2
4-------6000-----3/3-------------4--------3/2/2---------------3
5-------10000----4/3-------------5--------3/3/3--------------5
6-------15000----4/4-------------5--------4/4/3--------------6
8-------28000----6/5-------------7--------5/4/4--------------7
10------45000----7/7-------------9--------6/6/6------------10
12------66000----9/8------------11-------7/7/7-------------11
14------91000---11/10----------14-------8/8/8-------------12
16------120000--11/11----------14-------10/9/9------------16
18------153000--13/12----------17-------11/10/10---------17
20------190000--14/14----------18-------12/12/11---------19

It's often very silly, and I'm eternally grateful that real game designers know better than to listen to these overreaching fighter advocates.

I've never really understood how people could not see a problem with fighters in combat. It's really a simple matter: more versatility is better than less versatility. Whereas the many, many types of spellcasters all have options on how to deal with a problem, and to counter other spellcasters effects on themselves, fighters only have their saving throw and hit points.

The common response I read is "the fighters should use magic items to deal with X". This is a very strange idea to me, coming from a D&D background where magic items are relatively rare and you don't get to pick and choose what you buy. Should we expect fighters to all have at a certain point items which allow them to fly, teleport, or see invisible creatures?

The second response is, of course, just attacking other people as minmaxers who want the fighter to be less a party member and more "superman". This is probably just a matter of taste; some people really want to preserve the distinction between knights and wizards, and view each class in terms of what they do in the party. The problem I see with this viewpoint is that in traditional fantasy Gandolph or Merlin is always more powerful than Aragorn or Arthur, whereas D&D 3E has the pretense that the classes are relatively balanced. This only becomes worse when spells like divine might or tenser's transformation allow the spellcasters to simply supplant the fighter.

Anyways, I'm probably not saying anything people haven't heard and disregarded before, but it seems to me that people should at least consider how others view the game that leads them to see problems. It may be just a matter of different taste, but people should at least be able to recognize what the contrasting styles are.

While the caster level idea could be good, I don't like the idea that each spellcaster use its best ability modifier (ie int, cha or wis).

Casting a spell works the same for all classes. Why should they use a different ability for this ? Just because it favors them ?
Really not my taste. Use CON, I think it's the best for concentration.

I also think it is a good idea to use CON instead of favored ability. One, it removes a needless variable. Two, in my experience CON is a weak stat, and spellcasters should have some small encouragement beyond HP to invest in it.

That said, I also find the idea of using a Fortitude save appealing... a Fighter/Wizard SHOULD be better at spellcasting in close combat.