ok guys how would you fix this issue?
I have always thought it was done wrong. You should not get everything a 1st level pc has worked years to get. I think ingame time should be spent also not allowing everything from that class is another
I was intrigued by the gestating ideal and have been thinking of a few of my own.
when multi classing you xp moves over place one the chart p.9
fast xp for 1 class, medium for 2, slow for 3 or more.
also you gain the HD , saving throws,class ability's and number of skills of the new class
You do not gain any weapon or armor proficiencies those must be taken with a feat as normal.
so what would yall do?
I like the XP track idea, makes sense to me. As far as the Weapon and Armor thing... if another character is teaching your wizard how to fight then it would not make sense to say you get all the class benefits except for weapon and armor training. What about becoming proficient in the weapon that you were taught with, but not all weapons or armor like the class would normally do?
Since you asked...this is something I've been mulling over for a while, and posted in the 3.5/OGL forum here as well.
I've been pondering on something that came up during a discussion about the problem of seeming level-equivalence with the current 3.X multiclassing system. It was inspired by the attempt to mix 2E and 3E multiclassing systems. Since I wouldn't be surprised if something like that has been done (and published) already, I'd appreciate pointers in the right direction by those in the know. :)
Of course, simple feedback is also welcome. ;)
The idea is as follows: XP gained are split between the classes of a multiclass character, and recorded separately in order to level up the character in each class separately. This determines the class level in each class the character trains in. The character level is calculated by the total XP the character gained, and is determined from the Level/XP chart as well.
Benefits are gained either by class level or by character level. Class level basically only grants you the special abilities of the class (bonus feats, sneak attack, spells, turning, etc) and the class skill list. Character level grants you hit points, BAB, Base Save, skill points etc. You use the best BAB and Base Save progression of the classes your character has trained in, hit points (or rather HD) are averaged between the classes, as are skill points. He gains all abilities (proficiencies with weapons and armor), but also suffers all limits of each class (weapon restrictions, alignments, casting in armor, etc).
Example: A multiclass fighter/wizard 5/5 who has split his XP 50/50 between both classes has gained 20000 XP during his career. He has 3 figher bonus feats, Summon Familiar, Scribe Scroll, a wizard bonus feat and the spell selection and casting ability of a 5th level wizard.
With 20000 XP, he is at 6th character level. His HD are the average of d10 and d4 (in this case, the d7, or d8-1 reroll 1s), so he got to roll that 6 times, adding Con modifiers as usual. He has 2 skill points + Int bonus per level (both classes only offer 2 + Int bonus), and his max skill ranks are +9/+4.5. He combines the class skill lists of both classes. He has Fort +4, Ref +1, Will +4 as his saves. He has all abilities of both classes, and abides by all restrictions of each.
The system would work with later multiclassing, too. Simply set a year of training time before the 1st level in a new class can be gained, and recalculate all character level dependent benefits. What is lacking gets filled up, and what is too much already gets frozen until the new values would overtake the old. A fighter 5th taking 1st level of rogue would gain a LOT of new class skills, and the difference in skill points between 2/level and 5/level (average of both classes) would be available as new skill points. On the other hand, his HP wouldn't rise until the new HD (d8 instead of d10) would overtake the difference.
So, is there something like that already out there? People using it? And if yes, what's the experience? I realize it is a bit more complicated, but I think it beats the problem of levels, since that way, a multiclass character with equal levels will stay only a few levels behind his group mates (5/5 = 6th, 8/8 = 11th, 14/14 = 19th), and will be able to contribute a lot better to any adventure while not being too overpowered (I think).
As I said, feedback appreciated. :)
My thoughts on the matter...
It really looks like the original base classes were designed without thinking of multiclassing, to the point that the first level is assumed that a lot of things were learned over a period of time before play. Essentially, your first level of is your background history culminating into the first level of the class.
So, what we can do is separate what would be considered basic to the class for taking one level in it, and what would be considered "background training/knowledge".
What I had been planning on doing in my own campaigns is write up a bunch of Backgrounds for players to take along with their first level in the class. The background would include the following:
- Base set of hitpoints. Were you a soldier? Farmer? Cloistered sage? Different set bonus hitpoints based on how active and battle oriented your background is.
This bonus would then allow rolling for first level hitpoints from the class if you preferred, since you'd have this base to start with.
- Base saves. The "+2" for high saves. This means the base classes only have to give increases normally, or you can even unify the saves so that you consult a single chart based on how many "levels" of high save or low save you have. No more cherry picking first levels to get a ton of +2s.
- Skillpoints to cover 3x level. This might not matter anymore since skills have changed. In this case, some skill points to represent the background should be sufficient.
- Starting Wealth. Coming from an affluent past? Dirt poor? This can be based on your actual past experience instead of just your class, and can be balanced (maybe you were poor but had a family heirloom, etc).
- Starting Weapon/Armor proficiencies. Taking this away from the class means you no longer take one level of Fighter and suddenly your Wizard got +4 bonus to nearly all weapons.
Instead, I was using Weapon Proficiency Groups (similar list to the Unearthed Arcana, or the Fighter Weapon Training). Spend the feat, get good a few weapons at a time.
- Languages. Everyone knows how to speak their language, but their ability to read/write would be based on their past education. Additional or even obscure languages might be granted for some educated pasts (spent time growing up in a library of the arcane, etc).
- Possible "kicker" to balance options that might be a bit underpowered normally. An extra feat, weapon or item, or bonus to skills.
Since these are all one-time bonuses, the rest of the classes can be taken at first, or at any level without any difference in effect.
It make make more sense to make a slightly simpler catch-all multiclassing system, but then include at the end of each class description a short writeup about what benefits a multiclassing character would receive from the class.
I think this is the simplest way to approach things like spellcasting, weapon proficiencies, and sneak attack progression that might otherwise create undue complexity.
|
I like multi-classing pretty much as it is, and I wouldn't want to see any "proto-4E" system implemented in its stead. Having said that, I *would* prefer that you only get to pick a single new class skill when you pick a new class which has *more* class skills than any of your current classes -- if i thas less, you don't pick any new class skills. That would probably reduce the need to multiclass into rogue, or multiclass from rogue into another class at 2nd level?
I'd probably borrow from SW Saga, something like:
Proficiencies: Pick one from the list of new classes weapon/armor proficiencies. Possibly a bit crap for fighters, although they're pretty much already proficient in everything...
Skills: All of new classes skills become class skills (though you still have to invest ranks in them normally to be considered trained).
Saves: Class bonuses to saves don't stack, they overlap. Might be a bit of a bum wrap for characters with a relatively even mix of class levels (e.g.: a fighter 5 / wizard 5) wouldn't have one awesome save, but instead two good saves.
Not entirely sure what to do about spellcasting though... Maybe make Caster Level (possibly even just arcane/divine caster level) stack?
|
The current 3.5 system is adequate. Some people like to fiddle around mixing class abilties. The current problem is that base classes so inferior you need to multiclass. I still intend to make Ranger/Sorcerers in the future the way I do.
However, two things would be appropriate (I use this house rule)
- Making fractional base attack bonus and base saving throws as a norm. Meaning a wizard gets 1/2 BAB, a cleric gets 3/4 and a fighter gets 1. This way a Cleric 2/Monk 2 would have BAB 3 instead of the petty BAB 2.
And denying multiple +2 bonuses on saves is just a good thing. On first level you get +2 on good saves, as well as +1/2, and +1/3 on poor. A Monk 2/Ranger 3/Wizard 1 would have:
Fort 2 + (2 x 1/2) + (3 x 1/2) + (1 x 1/3) = 4 5/6
Ref 2 + (2 x 1/2) + (3 x 1/2) + (1 x 1/3) = 4 5/6
Will 2 + (2 x 1/2) + (3 x 1/3) + (1 x 1/2) = 4 1/2
=> 4/4/4. Currently that multiclass would have 3/3/3 + 3/3/1 + 0/0/2 = 6/6/6 (those numbers came as a coincidence, heh)
One thing that I have done for multi-classing is to use the gestalt rules from the SRD/Unearth Arcana. Typically, I give an ecl equal to the number of classes to a max of three [I haven't actually tried someone with three classes yet so I'm not sure if it will even work]. I do not allow ecl buy-outs at higher levels.
The problem is starting at first level. For this, I look to the 3.0 DMG that had the apprentice level right ups. Using this, you would have a character still with a ecl of +1 but you can use the higher level variant that imposes a -1 on attacks, damage, skill checks, and saves until s/he gets to level "2" and would become a "regular" apprentice level character. When the character got to level "3" then s/he would be a regular 1st level gestalt character.
There are problems with this system when you figure out that a person that takes two classes that complement one another quite well [think wizard/psion or ranger/rogue]. Said characters tend to out fox a lot of other characters and the reduction in hp, BAB, etc. may not be enough [things get even harder if you look into other 3.5 non-phb classes].
I am intrigued by the moving xp table for multiclassing. If combined with the gestalt rules, perhaps this would be the correct fix. I'll have to crunch some numbers to figure out how it works out.
sorry man I said some poster but forgot to come back and say who it was. I am thinking gestating with the diff xp charts will prob be best of the way with 2e styling maybe
sorry man I said some poster but forgot to come back and say who it was.From the way you said "I've been thinking," it is heavily implied that it was your idea. It doesn't mention any other poster at all, in fact. Nonetheless, like I said, you're forgiven, mate.
Oops ... I must have changed the wording in the post man sorry. I did think it was a great ideal.
Ok, what I really don't like about the 3rd Edition MC rules, is that everybody can just switch classes as they which when achieving a new level.
(How many of you heart the fighter/rogue/whatever player at level-up say: "Ok, I guess I'll take a level in sorcerer (or maybe even wizard!) now."
Since there is no core rule for training time to get a 1st level in a new class, the DM stands on small ground in restricting those leveldipping and class switching.
While I like the idea of flexible character build/creation the classes from D&D are just too special to allow inrestricted class switching.
You can do this with rather generic classes as in True20 or D20 Modern, but not in D&D.
Solution:
Allow multiclassed characters at first level (somehow - take any option from above)
AND
design a core rule for training time to get into a new class.
Ok, what I really don't like about the 3rd Edition MC rules, is that everybody can just switch classes as they which when achieving a new level.
(How many of you heart the fighter/rogue/whatever player at level-up say: "Ok, I guess I'll take a level in sorcerer (or maybe even wizard!) now."Since there is no core rule for training time to get a 1st level in a new class, the DM stands on small ground in restricting those leveldipping and class switching.
While I like the idea of flexible character build/creation the classes from D&D are just too special to allow inrestricted class switching.
You can do this with rather generic classes as in True20 or D20 Modern, but not in D&D.Solution:
Allow multiclassed characters at first level (somehow - take any option from above)
AND
design a core rule for training time to get into a new class.
I allow my players to multiclass only after telling me and at lest 2 level or 1 year game time of training which ever comes first.And still I dont think ya should be as good in some classes.
|
|
I think the first thing that I would fix is simply remove proficiencies for free if you multiclass into a new class you can choose one weapon from those available to be proficient in and if they have armour proficiency then you gain armour proficiency 1 higher than previous (i.e. a wizard who multiclasses as a fighter gets light armour and light shield proficiency and can choose one weapon as proficient. A ranger who multiclasses fighter gains medium armour prof. etc.). the multiclasser is supposed to be doing it to gain class features not to be proficient with more things, give them the class features without the bonus proficiencies. also rule that the +2 to a save becomes a +1 if the class is taken after 1st level. That would mean that people can't multiclass over pidly things like saves and weapons.
So, what we can do is separate what would be considered basic to the class for taking one level in it, and what would be considered "background training/knowledge".
HOORAY! I really really agree with the fundamental of this idea! The game assumes, presumably for survivability reasons, that characters need a First Level Bump -- by maxing your first hit die, by getting four times normal skill points, and by getting better saves at level 1 than at any other level.
But this is bad design because a prime design goal of D&D is that All Levels Are Equal. When a third level fighter takes a level of monk, she should not get a +2 bonus to all three saves! That's the first level bump, and a 4th level PC should not get it.
Similarly, a fighter1/rogue1 should have the same skill ranks and hit points as a rogue1/fighter1. We can achieve these design goals by MOVING the First Level Bump
So I abso-frickin-lutely agree with Kaisoku's idea -- we need to take the bump away from classes and give it somewhere else! Kaisoku's excellent idea is to give it to a "Background." That works for me. However, this adds another step to character creation and adds a mechanic. My idea is to put the bump into Race! For example, all elves gain +2 hit points, +1 to Will and Reflex saves, and 15 skill ranks to be divided among class and cross-class skills ... with elves given a set of class skills for that purpose, and a top limit of three ranks per skill. Dwarves might get +6 hit points, +2 on Fort saves, and 6 skill ranks.
For more on this idea, check out [url="http://www.cayzle.com/screeds/book068.html"]my blog[/link].
ok guys how would you fix this issue?
I have always thought it was done wrong. You should not get everything a 1st level pc has worked years to get. I think ingame time should be spent also not allowing everything from that class is another
Sorry, I strongly disagree with this. One of the beautiful and elegant parts of 3E D&D is level equivalence, that is, the idea that All Levels Are Equal. Any combination of classes should be allowed, and game play requires a fairly smooth and easy transition in taking a level of one class rather than another.
No, this is not realistic, but neither are "classes" and "levels" -- these are game mechanics designed for flexibility, balance, and play, not for realistic simulation.
However, if you are unhappy with a quick transition when a new level is gained -- famously and hilariously skewered by the Order of the Stick -- then I suggest using the optional rule for training found in the DMG.
I hope this honest disagreement in philosophy (game play trumps simulation) does not offend anyone. Certainly there is room for disagreement, and for different philosophies, under the wide D&D umbrella.
Ähmm... Cayzle? Have you actually READ the Pathfinder Alpha Release?
There is NO x4 at 1st level anymore. So 15 skill rangs is just WAAAAAY too much!
But in general, the idea of moving the 1st level bumb to somewhere else might be quite good.
The idea is as follows: XP gained are split between the classes of a multiclass character, and recorded separately in order to level up the character in each class separately. This determines the class level in each class the character trains in. The character level is calculated by the total XP the character gained, and is determined from the Level/XP chart as well.
A problem I have with this is one of bookkeeping. What if one has five or six classes? -- and there is nothing under the rules to say you should not. Sucks to have to track five or six xp totals.
But a larger problem I have is that this is inelegant.
See, the elegance of 3E D&D is the central idea that the quantum unit of character building is the level. By piling level upon level, you can create a wide array of different characters. To make this work, a fundamental idea is that All Levels Are Equal. A single common xp total, a single common base attack bonus, a single common set of saving throws, and -- in one of my proposals -- a single common caster level unite these building block levels, and each level makes a contribution to the total.
Your suggestion reminds me of first edition. A magic-user 5 / cleric 5 would use whatever was better of the two class's saves and attacks. I think the 3E way is better.
Making fractional base attack bonus and base saving throws as a norm. Meaning a wizard gets 1/2 BAB, a cleric gets 3/4 and a fighter gets 1. This way a Cleric 2/Monk 2 would have BAB 3 instead of the petty BAB 2.
Thank you! Thank you! This is a key idea that I also am pushing! If Every Level Is Equal -- as D&D promises in its design but fails to fully deliver, as in this example -- then why do some levels give you a +1 and others a +0? This idea -- of a fractional BUT CONSTANT add every level -- is an essential part of ensuring that all levels are equal! We need less granularity in D&D.
I outline this exact idea in my blog.
And denying multiple +2 bonuses on saves is just a good thing. On first level you get +2 on good saves, as well as +1/2, and +1/3 on poor.
Here I agree totally with your goal, but not your implementation. First off, you have to recognize that the First Level Bump throws saves out of whack. We have to Move the Bump, like Kaisoku was saying above. Then, we have to smooth out the granularity of the resultant save progression. In fact, good saves progress at a rate of +1 every other level, and poor ones at a rate of +1 every four levels. So good saves should improve at +0.5 per level, and poor ones at +0.25 per level.
Now, understand that we have to fight a pitched battle against the anti-fraction folk out there to get this idea adopted. To do that, we really have to keep it simple. So let's keep it to halves and quarters, not only because they more accurately reflect the intended progressions, but because they are simple to keep in your head. No need to use thirds! :-).
@ Cayzle: Just one friendly sidenote and no offense:
Stop promoting your blog. Every bonzo has a blog now a days and it starts getting pathetic.
Ähmm... Cayzle? Have you actually READ the Pathfinder Alpha Release?
LOLOL! I really have, but clearly not well enough! I will be rereading and studying more! Thanks for the friendly chiding!
I started off recently with my own thoughts and essays on how *I* would revamp D&D 3E were I doing so. But then I figured that (A) my ideas were MUCH more likely to be adopted if I posted them here rather than just on my own blog, and (B) many smart people here are thinking the same things I am. So I'm jumping in here feet first. Please accept my apologies as I get my toes wet.
@ Cayzle: Just one friendly sidenote and no offense:
Stop promoting your blog. Every bonzo has a blog now a days and it starts getting pathetic.
LOL Again! Okay, I'll back off. But my links to my blog are directly relevant to my posts. These are the exact same ideas I've been having on my own, and I'm excited to see others posting the same one. Still, sorry for being too forward!
Can I ask you all something? How much of this posting in the New Rules actually has a chance of being adopted in Pathfinder? Has this stuff all been set in stone already, or is there a chance that our ideas might get into the final rules?
Well, there is always the chance that AT LEAST our concerns will get heard and result in a what-so-ever rework.
But that actual ideas, especially new rules, will be adopted is quite rare, I guess.
Funny though, because the new skill system was one of my ideas shot into the old [Design Focus] Skills.
But I guess, this was a one in a million.
(I am still proud though :D)
One of the design goals is Backward Compatibility. So a new rule MUST always keep that in mind, and propose as LESS changing as possible.
Rather radical new ideas won't have any real chance.
Try to keep that in mind and, who knows, maybe YOU are having the next one-hit-wonder-idea...
|
Apparently I'm one of only a handful of folks who have No problem with the multi-classing rules as they are. Most of the problems that people keep posting can be handled in-house in their own campaigns and don't need to be changed in a system that is going for backward compatability. I really enjoy multi-class characters and even encourage them, with a good backstory and reason of course.
|
|
However, if you are unhappy with a quick transition when a new level is gained -- famously and hilariously skewered by the Order of the Stick -- then I suggest using the optional rule for training found in the DMG.
You realize that you linked the comic one after the parody right? the one you linked to doesn't actually contain the parody.
You realize that you linked the comic one after the parody right? the one you linked to doesn't actually contain the parody.
D'Oh! I was close! Here it is! This one! Thanks for pointing that out!
I'm probably the loon here, but I have a completely different outlook on multiclassing.
Overall, I'm not fond of multiclassing. To me the sanity limit on multiclassing is around three classes (2 base classes + 1 prestige). Beyond that, you'd have tough time convicing me to let the character into a game without reworking it.
Beyond that, I like the idea of breaking the bump out from the class, but the classes that allow a large pool of skill points seems to be the biggest hurdle to doing so. And it seems unfair to screw the wizard-turned-fighter by denying him martial weapons or armor when the fighter-turned-wizard already has those abilities and gets to add spellcasting on top.
The biggest problem is the power level between casters and non-casters. Making a fighter/wizard and splitting equal levels between the two just doesn't work nearly as well as going straight in one or the other, or taking just a couple levels of fighter and going the rest wizard. While PRC's like eldritch knight help with this problem, there really shouldn't be a need for such PRCs if the multiclassing system were created equitably.
I've been contemplating requiring multiclassers to use the slow advancement table (assuming single-classers use the average advancement). Favored class and 1st prestige class don't count towards affecting your advancement rate. (So a Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight elf uses average advancement, a Rogue/Wizard/Assassin elf would use slow advancement as would a Cleric/Rogue/Barbarian elf).
Also, I'd been considering using the "best save" category for multiclassers. Rather than add saves together from multiple classes, if one of your classes gets a save as a good save, you just use the Good save for your level, otherwise you use the poor save column. Of course, that makes snapping a level of something like monk up just to have all good saves a bit of a problem.
A problem I have with this is one of bookkeeping. What if one has five or six classes? -- and there is nothing under the rules to say you should not. Sucks to have to track five or six xp totals.
No system in this world exists that can't be overtaxed by the human mind creating more than enough work for itself. Trying to track five or six classes is no less bookkeeping under 3E rules, where you deal with e.g. one list of class skills for each class.
But a larger problem I have is that this is inelegant.See, the elegance of 3E D&D is the central idea that the quantum unit of character building is the level. By piling level upon level, you can create a wide array of different characters. To make this work, a fundamental idea is that All Levels Are Equal. A single common xp total, a single common base attack bonus, a single common set of saving throws, and -- in one of my proposals -- a single common caster level unite these building block levels, and each level makes a contribution to the total.
Your suggestion reminds me of first edition. A magic-user 5 / cleric 5 would use whatever was better of the two class's saves and attacks. I think the 3E way is better.
That's what I thought, too, for some years. But you only need to take a little deeper look to see that this cute idea of all levels being equal simply doesn't work in 3E, and never really did, and more so if you are have a caster class in the mix. A fighter/wizard 5/5 simply isn't comparable to a 10th level single class character in power, and hence will get sacked by monsters of adequate CRs even easier.
And yes, astute observation about the source of the inspiration for the idea, although I said something about 2nd Edition in my post, since I never played AD&D 1E.