|
This probably should go in the Savage Tide discussions since the group has just finished "The Bullywug Gambit", but the question is more concerned with power levels of multiclassed characters.
This is our 2nd campaign with the 3.5 rules & our first time allowing multi-classed characters. All 4 players have taken a 2nd class:
Human-Barbarian/Rogue:3/2
Human-Ranger/Druid:3/2
Human-Cleric(Wee Jas)/Sorcerer:3/2
Elf-Wizard/Cleric(Wee Jas):3/2
When they get to higher levels, 7 or 8 in each class, will they be able to take on the challeges that a party of 4 single classed PCs with 14 or 15 levels could?
They may end up in trouble as time goes on. In the beginning, they should be perfectly fine, but as they hit middle and higher levels, the lack of high level spells with good save DCs will be a really painful thing.
Well, let me put it this way, if your PCs keep up with their current multiclassing, you want have to worry about them being weak for very long. Because they will die, and have to make new characters.
Seriously, I can't believe they all chose to multiclass like that. The first rule of multiclassing, is YOU NEVER MULTICLASS SPELLCASTERS.
But it is salvagable.
If your Barbarian/Rogue picks one (I would suggest Barbarian), then they should be right. A few levels of Rogue is generally a pretty good option in most Melee builds for the Sneak Attack and Skill POints. PLease tell me they took the Rogue level at level 1 for the sweet stack of skill points.
Get your divine/arcane casters into the Mystic Theurg PrC from the DMG ASAP. They won't be as powerful as if you had a straight classes Wizard and Cleric, but they won't be too far behind.
Finally, encourage the ranger / Druid player to take straight levels in Druid from here on, and they should be right. Basically Druids are that powerful that they can probabaly suceed even with two wasted levels. Seriously, if they were straight Druid, they would be able to Wildshape now. But even with the 3 Ranger levels, this Character will probabaly end up being the most Powerful in this group.
|
|
we don't allow a PC to pick Barbarian (monk either) as a 2nd class. It doesnt seem believable that someone could become "barbaric" without having grown up in that type of culture. We view the monk class much the same way. A PC would have to disappear into a monestary for a least a few years to pick the monk class.
I guess these guys are in for a pretty tough time of it.
we don't allow a PC to pick Barbarian (monk either) as a 2nd class. It doesnt seem believable that someone could become "barbaric" without having grown up in that type of culture. We view the monk class much the same way. A PC would have to disappear into a monestary for a least a few years to pick the monk class.
I guess these guys are in for a pretty tough time of it.
Umm... Why?
This is an attitude I just don't get. Why tie yourself to the flavour (fluff) af the Players Handbook? Just take the mechanics, and add your own flavour over the top of it.
Why does a Barbarian's rage have to be a Rage? Why can't it just be a focussed combat state, where he is toughter and stronger than normal? This focussed state obviously also improves his mental defenses, and precludes him from using a few other things becasue he is so focussed on the Battle at hand.
Why the Monk's abilities have to come from years of study in a monastary? Why can't the PC have traces of outsider blood coursing through their veins which gives them exceptional abilities?
These are two examples that I just thought of off the top of my head. For specific PCs, I could probabaly come up with specific flavor to match whatever class they wanted. And I am SURE that those who are more creative than me, could do even better.
My point is why limit yourself to the fluff of the PHB, when you can take the mechanics, and by applying your own fluff, come up with uniqu and vastly different characters who use the same mechanics, but role play completely differently.
Sorry to derail the thread, consider my rant over now.
we don't allow a PC to pick Barbarian (monk either) as a 2nd class. It doesnt seem believable that someone could become "barbaric" without having grown up in that type of culture.
The barbarian is just a name. I don't think it's very far-fetched for a character to suddenly develop a faster movement and an ability to rage. A lot easier than suddenly becoming a wizard, which normally takes years of schooling to accomplish.
They may have some difficulties, but they can be overcome with intelligent character development. They really need to make up their minds over what party role and development path they each want to focus on right now, though.
Barbarian/Rogue: As the only locks/traps specialist in the party, this should be the character's main focus, with combat being a close second. Good prestige class choices may be Chameleon (Races of Destiny), Dungeon Delver (Complete Adventurer), Exemplar (Complete Adventurer), Nightsong Enforcer (Complete Adventurer), Shadowdancer, Streetfighter (Complete Adventurer), and Thief-Acrobat (Complete Adventurer). A Barbarian/Rogue/Thief-Acrobat with the Leap Attack feat (Complete Adventurer)... Ouch!
Ranger/Druid: This character will probably work best as a second combatant, with minor spellcasting. Good prestige class choices may be Animal Lord (Complete Adventurer), Beastmaster (Complete Adventurer), Horizon Walker, Master of Many Forms (Complete Adventurer), Nature's Warrior (Complete Warrior), Tempest (Complete Adventurer), and Warshaper (Complete Adventurer). Depending on how the player has already developed the character, some choices will be more viable than others.
Cleric/Sorcerer and Wizard/Cleric: Both characters should go for Mystic Theurge ASAP, with the Cleric/Sorcerer taking levels in Contemplative (Complete Divine), Divine Oracle (Complete Divine), Loremaster (divine), or Thaumaturgist and the Wizard/Cleric taking levels in Archmage, Argent Savant (Complete Arcane), Fatespinner (Complete Arcane), Geometer (Complete Arcane), or Loremaster (arcane) later on. The Cleric/Sorcerer should be able to cast spells as a Cleric 16 and the Wizard/Cleric should be able to cast spells as a Wizard 17 at 20th character level. Practiced Spellcaster (Complete Arcane and Complete Divine) is a must have feat (for each class) for both characters. Another good feat choice is Divine Metamagic (Complete Divine). I rewrote Darl Quethos (LoLR in AOW) as a Cleric 3/Wizard 3/Mystic Theurge 8/Thaumaturgist 4... Scary!
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
"When they get to higher levels, 7 or 8 in each class, will they be able to take on the challeges that a party of 4 single classed PCs with 14 or 15 levels could?"
As folks have said here, probably not. And the party will probably grow *internally* unbalanced as well. (I've played a barbarian / rogue, and he was pretty useful as a front-line warrior, certainly no less so than a straight barbarian would have been.) At the very least, I'd allow/urge the spellcasters to start taking levels as Mystic Theurges as soon as they can.
But I repeat here the question I asked Sebastian on a different thread: is that necessarily a bad thing? If the players are having fun, then you're doing it right.
So, the way I see it, you have two options:
1) The written adventure calls the shots: tell your players that the adventure-as-written is designed for more optimized characters, and ask them to design new characters or modify their builds to allow them to survive.
2) Modify the Adventure Path. Use the "scaling the adventure" sidebars to accomodate an inefficient party.
Or throw in a few side adventures (maybe a couple of vacations to Cauldron...). That way, the party will be "above level" for the Savage Tide episodes, and closer to the intended power levels.
In other words, when someone asks "Why on God's earth would you split levels as a spell-caster?" I think a perfectly reasonable answer is, "Because I like the character concept."
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
On the secondary topic:
"We don't allow a PC to pick Barbarian (monk either) as a 2nd class. It doesnt seem believable that someone could become "barbaric" without having grown up in that type of culture."
That's up to you.
But not every member of a semi-civilized nomadic tribe is going to take levels in "barbarian". It seems plausible to me that a tribesmember could take a level in rogue, being a nimble sneaky warrior-type, and then, after surviving some battles, embrace his barbarian rage.
Or, an street-smart tough from a sprawling urban jungle could start out as a member of a thieves' guild and find an inner fury that serves her well when she needs to rely on muscle as well as guile.
Some years ago, I played a character who had been brought up in a monestery, but kept a vow to his parents to study the ways of a priest for a year. Once the campaign started and he had taken those levels of cleric, he returned to the monestery and earned his first level as a monk.
It's up to you.
But I can certainly envision interesting, plausible character backgrounds that would allow for all sorts of multi-classing. I wouldn't let someone just pull something like this out of his butt as he's levelling up his character ("Didn't I tell you guys that I've been studying the beauty of the druids' path for years, as well as taking correspondence courses in their secret tongue?") but if he'd actually set up that scenario several sessions ahead of time, I wouldn't have any problem with it.
But, again, it's up to you.
Well there is definitely some cause for concern however Dragonchess Player does show the way out. I guess the correct response might be - multi-classing just for the sake of multi-classing is a bad idea. Multi-classing to get to that really cool prestige class is, however, usually a good (or at least not a bad) idea.
|
|
I printed this thread for our group and the different options were discussed at length over cognac. Finally we decided to go back to our 2nd Edition campaign. It turns out that not one of us was really enjoying playing the new system. We felt there were too many internal logic problems with the system, that the game is geared more towards minature combats (& that the combats were taking too darn long) instead of role playing. Basically we just never got used to the system I guess. Everyone in the group has played since 1979-81 and have all been DMs. We ran most of the Age of Worms AP and the first 3 adventures in the Savage Tide, the sessions were just not that much fun.
We are going to run the Pathfinder adventures with the pregenerated characters once a month using the 3.5 rules. The DM will be one of our players' oldest son (he's been playing 3rd edition since it's beginning). I think having an experienced 3.5 DM will give us a better view on this incarnation of D & D.
i know this thread is more or less done but i just wanted to add that my freinds and i have been playing since 3.0 came out and simply cant create chars using the players handbook anymore (really we tried under the rules of "this campaign is core 3 books only" and all loop holed to monstrous races) but working out how to make a character concept work with the rules and the one on one time required with the dm is the best part. i played a rogue that went nutso after one of the other players (his best freind) died in combat and took barbarian starting next level (a decision reached once i learned i could sneak attack while raging)any way thats my two cents 0)