|
Remember in the 3E DMG, there was an option for creating a multi class character at 1st level. It could have used some tweaking, but it was pretty elegant. I think it was a very necessary option for the game and it was something I used on more than one occasion. For some reason, 3.5 eliminated this option.
I think this is something that needs to be put into the new Pathfinder RPG. In fact, recent threads about the newest Iconic demonstrate how important this is. People asked how Paizo would show at 1st level that the Iconic PC would become a Fighter/Sorcerer. The answer was that they would infer it in the flavor text. Well, that's fine, but why shouldn't there be a way to start a PC as a multi class character?
So, Jason, PLEASE build this into Pathfinder. Make it a optional side bar so people can use it or not as they see fit but PLEASE give us the option.
Thanks!!!
So, Jason, PLEASE build this into Pathfinder. Make it a optional side bar so people can use it or not as they see fit but PLEASE give us the option.
It was kind of a neat option, although it did get messy in its application. I would be just as happy for it to be an optional rule placed in an "online support" area. Being able to multiclass at level 1 just doesn't seem to have a pivotal need for the core rules, IMHO. But then again, look who's talking. How can you trust a...[URL=smurf][/URL]
|
So, Jason, PLEASE build this into Pathfinder. Make it a optional side bar so people can use it or not as they see fit but PLEASE give us the option.It was kind of a neat option, although it did get messy in its application. I would be just as happy for it to be an optional rule placed in an "online support" area. Being able to multiclass at level 1 just doesn't seem to have a pivotal need for the core rules, IMHO. But then again, look who's talking. How can you trust a...[URL=smurf][/URL]
I used it once or twice it was a cool option, I to would like to see it even as an optional rule.
|
|
I've always liked (and used) that rule, and I updated it (partially) for use in my Alpha playtest pbp. One of my players is playing a multiclasses Ranger 0/Abjurer 0.
So far, just had some hiccups with converting over optional splatbook class features (or deciding whether to keep them or use the new Alpha ability), but it seems to work OK. Then again, as a pbp, we're still in our first "combat situation," so I don't have any hard data as to how well it works.
So while it would be great to see in PF, it's not that hard to convert over on your own. It's actually pretty simple, really.
Remember in the 3E DMG, there was an option for creating a multi class character at 1st level. It could have used some tweaking, but it was pretty elegant. I think it was a very necessary option for the game and it was something I used on more than one occasion. For some reason, 3.5 eliminated this option.
I think this is something that needs to be put into the new Pathfinder RPG. In fact, recent threads about the newest Iconic demonstrate how important this is. People asked how Paizo would show at 1st level that the Iconic PC would become a Fighter/Sorcerer. The answer was that they would infer it in the flavor text. Well, that's fine, but why shouldn't there be a way to start a PC as a multi class character?
So, Jason, PLEASE build this into Pathfinder. Make it a optional side bar so people can use it or not as they see fit but PLEASE give us the option.
Thanks!!!
What about the Gestalt rules?
|
What about the Gestalt rules?
Gestalt is no substitute for multiclassing. Gestalt is either a powergaming dream or to allow a very small party (one or two players) a chance. Multiclassing should be about reducing one's ability to do one thing very well in favor of having something else (hopefully synergistic) to do, making the whole weaker at either thing than a dedicated specialist in their respective fields. Gestalt is exactly backwards of this, allowing the best of both classes to be used, creating a character that is more powerful than either base class.
Furthermore (as a DM that ran a gestalt game once to see how it would turn out), the characters are so over the top powerful by mid level (10th) that the encounters need to be "gestalt" as well to provide a challenge. This radically increases DM workload and makes converting modules very difficult.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
What about the Gestalt rules?
First thing I thought of when I saw this thread.
Unearthed Arcana p.72
A little overpowered, but good if you are running a small game or high power game.
Another option is to just give them the Gestalt Class Features at 1st level and then they level up normally after that.
Just add the level 0 to all class tables and adjust the boni and 1st level abilities acordingly.
Add two sentences about the rules and finished!
|
|
I liked Apprentice levels from 3.0 too and was disappointed to see them go with 3.5.
I wonder be in favor of adding a 0 level to all the classes, but keep it separate from the regular rules. Apprentice levels should be an Option that the DM allows for advanced players, just like it was in the 3.0 DMG.
|
|
I liked Apprentice levels from 3.0 too and was disappointed to see them go with 3.5.
I wonder be in favor of adding a 0 level to all the classes, but keep it separate from the regular rules. Apprentice levels should be an Option that the DM allows for advanced players, just like it was in the 3.0 DMG.
I like the idea that a character, with intent toward a partiular multi-class, recieves the 0 level benefits when they reach 1/2 way to the next level, and then subtract the new features from the new class level when they get there. Minor adjudication is needed from time to time, but I find that this makes the character more interesting to play than a series of stats on paper.
|
|
I'm all for bringing back the apprentice level/1st-level multiclassing rules from the 3.0 DMG. I thought it was a travesty that 3.5 ditched them.
Just add the level 0 to all class tables and adjust the boni and 1st level abilities acordingly.
Dude, seriously. The correct word is "bonuses," not "boni." In most states, that's a flogging offense. ;)
At least in German and I think in latin too it's boni.
The rules are great - one of my players got into a real tizz trying to find those rules in the 3.5 DMG. Wouldn't have been so bad but he got us all looking for them and no one could remember where they were!
Good rules and they are about as balanced as they can be. It's not really too much of an issue though - if the PC is too powerful at 1st, things will level out once they hit 2nd. The rules do require a bit of DM initiative, but that's okay and not something I'd be worried about coming from the wonderful people here on the Paizo boards. ;)
I think the real question here is are those rules in the SRD?
I couldn't find them (and I don't have a copy of the SRD as it existed in 3.0 to double check) and if they're not then I don't think that Paizo can use them. If they can't then adding a 'level 0' to each class progression chart might work - certainly the best fan material option - but I'd trust a paragraph in the DMG portion of the Pathfinder RPG book explaining how to do it more. Otherwise we'd have to do 'level 0' write ups for all of our non-core classes.
Peace,
tfad
I think the real question here is are those rules in the SRD?
Excellent question.. hmmm I can't find it at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html or anywhere else.
Probably not - that sort of thing usually wasn't included. (see Unearthed Arcana Level-Independent XP charts for instance).
|
|
No, when 3.5 hit the 3.0 Apprentice system disappeared.
In any case, 3.0 classes are different then the 3P classes.. especially the spellcasters. Paizo has to rework it. Simplest approach I think would be to create original 0 levels for the classes, let the character do a 0/0 split between two classes and then go 1/1 when they get enough XP to be a 2nd level character.
|
|
Excellent question.. hmmm I can't find it at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html or anywhere else.
I think the real question here is are those rules in the SRD?
Unfortunately, I can't find it either. Guess it just needs to be done a bit different and called something else (not "apprentice levels").
|
|
It might fit better in an issue of Pathfinder than in the core rules but I'd love to see the Pathfinder RPG have rules for characters that start out as kids. I guess that's about the same as the apprenticeship levels everyone is talking about here. I'm a teacher and end up playing with a lot of middle-school students; it's fun for them to role-play the classic story line of a bunch of nobodies who get called on to become heroes. Some well thought out rules on pre- 1st level characters would be helpful.
Maybe it is just me, but this rule has such little impact on a game at large, that I feel it is better off sitting in the houserules department. It is a very specific idea, that will only apply to the character's first level. You are better off working out something with your DM than suggesting a RPing game devote time to making your house rule "official".
What about the Gestalt rules?First thing I thought of when I saw this thread.
Unearthed Arcana p.72
A little overpowered, but good if you are running a small game or high power game.
Another option is to just give them the Gestalt Class Features at 1st level and then they level up normally after that.
Hmmm, a little houserule for all of you.
UA Pg 72, allow the "Best of Both Classes" for first level only, and then multiclass normally afterwords.EXCEPTION: Primary Spellcasting classes take the average of they're prospective classes hd, rather then the top hd. (To prevent Sorc/Barb, Wiz/Barb combo mostly (IE a Sorc/barb is running at d8, not d12, still an advantage, but not as great of one)...
That being said I have ran Gestalt games here in Iraq, as I have two players at the moment, due to limitations on time more then anything else, Gestalt seemed the way to go. Let me tell ya, a Ftr/Sorc, and a Rog/Clr team gets VERY bad!@# very fast... I am having to Gestalt my NPCs for climatic battles, and somtimes adding as much as 4 to the CR of encounters over what was written in Savage Tide. So I would not suggest the Gestalt combos to be permanet options in a campaign, but I have discovered that allowing it as a reward for major story objectives, (ie god takes favor with you, granting you access to spells, and a boost in saves as if you had taken the first level of clr, when you next level in fighter)... works quite well. I could see it working equally well in filling this need for 0/0 level multiclassed characters. Especially since they will be leveling normally past that point.
~Elvnsword
|
Multiclassing should be restricted to:
(a) the people who are Metaclassing -Scout=Fighter+Thief, Crusader=Cleric+Fighter, SteamWarden=Druid+Fighter, Artisan=Wizard+Thief (Egrane the 3rd level Artisan - with 3 levels of Wizard and 3 levels of Thief is crafting treasure chests that combine magic and mechanism) and,
(b) those who are looking for levels in other classes relevent to their Prestiege class (Jerome the Wicked Has 7 levels of wizard but needs x levels in Cleric to become a Deathmaster).
|
|
Unfortunately, I can't find it either. Guess it just needs to be done a bit different and called something else (not "apprentice levels").Excellent question.. hmmm I can't find it at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html or anywhere else.
I think the real question here is are those rules in the SRD?
*sighs*
I guess no one believed me when I said they were removed after 3.5.
In any case, it's on page 40 of the 3.0 DMG for those interested and they're definitely called Apprentice levels.
|
|
Unfortunately, I can't find it either. Guess it just needs to be done a bit different and called something else (not "apprentice levels").Excellent question.. hmmm I can't find it at http://www.opengamingfoundation.org/srd.html or anywhere else.
I think the real question here is are those rules in the SRD?*sighs*
I guess no one believed me when I said they were removed after 3.5.
In any case, it's on page 40 of the 3.0 DMG for those interested and they're definitely called Apprentice levels.
I think you misunderstand us. We know that it was in the 3.0 DMG (I loved that rule), what we're saying is that it's not in the (3.0) SRD. Thus, it's not open content and so to include it in 3P would require giving it a slightly different twist and a different name. :)