I think 3.5e's multiclassing rules can use some improvement. I know I'm not the first to suggest anything in this direction, but more options can't hurt.
Basics:
Effective Class Level:
The effective class level (I'd abbreviate it with ECL, but that's taken) for a class is actual class level + (all other levels/HD)/2. Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Example: Fighter 6/Rogue 4 would have a Fighter ECL of 8 and Rogue of 7. If we use the cap, a Fighter 10/Rogue 2 would only be Effective Rogue 4.
Class Abilities, Class Level, Effective Class Level, and Improved Multiclassing
My idea is that for some things, you use the class level, for other things, you use the effective class level, and for another set of things, you use class level unless you have the Improved Multiclassing feat for that calss - then you use ECL for those, too.
Class Level
Some things should always depend on class level, and class level only. I'd say any spellcaster's spells per day and spells known should be among that list, and any bonus feats a class may grant. Also, the time when you get abilities, and when you get extra uses of those abilities, should generally be based on actual class level.
Effective Class Level
Generally, caster levels should depend on ECL. That means that your spells deal more damage, last longer, and will overcome SR more easily. Also, other abilities that have a power level based on your class level - like a paladin's smite, school powers, domain powers, that sort of thing - should be base don ECL.
Feat
There'd be a feat called Improved Multiclassing. You'd take it for each class you want to "unlock" further abilities of. You could take it several times, but only once per class. I don't know about prerequisites yet, but "have class levels" should definetly be in.
Feats and Abilities
The feat would enable you to get some stuff based on your effective class level instead of your actual class level, and that would include getting some stuff earlier than without the feat.
Examples might be domain powers, school powers (not their power level, but when you get them), extra uses of smite and the like, sneak attack, weapon and armour training (but not the mastery abilities), maybe even a paladin's auras,a monk's flurry, unarmed damage and speed bonus, and a barbarian's choice of rage powers (I'm not sure whether unarmed damage for a monk would count as based on class level or be a special case).
For example, let's consider a wizard (evoker) 6/rogue 6 - especially the wizard part. Even without the feat, his caster level for his spells would be 9, but his spells/day and domain powers would be that of a wizard 6. With Improved Multiclassing (Wizard), he'd also get domain powers like a wizard 9 (i.e. he'd get elemental wall, usable 9 rounds per day). Even with the feat, his spells per day would remain those of a wizard 6.
Alternately, the feat could enable you to use all benefits (except the very basic stuff like HD, BAB, saves, and Skills) depending on effective class level, but that would probably be too much (but you never know)
Designating abilities
There could be several possibilities for this:
Those abilities that always depend on actual class level wouldn't need any extra marking.
Abilities that always depend on effective class level could get a (M) for multiclassing descriptor in the class tables and class description.
Abilities that require the feat would get a (IM) descriptior (for Improved Multiclassing).
Have a sidebar for each class called "Multiclassing" where the abilities that work always, and those who work only with the feat, are listed. The sidebars would be near the classes
I'd personally go with a mix. Designators plus extra paragraph for each class, or Designators plus Sidebars.
On the other hand, if you list this system as optional instead of standard, the sidebars or even one sidebar or extra paragraph would be best.
I think 3.5e's multiclassing rules can use some improvement. I know I'm not the first to suggest anything in this direction, but more options can't hurt.
Basics:
Effective Class Level:
The effective class level (I'd abbreviate it with ECL, but that's taken) for a class is actual class level + (all other levels/HD)/2. Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Example: Fighter 6/Rogue 4 would have a Fighter ECL of 8 and Rogue of 7. If we use the cap, a Fighter 10/Rogue 2 would only be Effective Rogue 4.Class Abilities, Class Level, Effective Class Level, and Improved Multiclassing
My idea is that for some things, you use the class level, for other things, you use the effective class level, and for another set of things, you use class level unless you have the Improved Multiclassing feat for that calss - then you use ECL for those, too.
Class Level
Some things should always depend on class level, and class level only. I'd say any spellcaster's spells per day and spells known should be among that list, and any bonus feats a class may grant. Also, the time when you get abilities, and when you get extra uses of those abilities, should generally be based on actual class level.Effective Class Level
Generally, caster levels should depend on ECL. That means that your spells deal more damage, last longer, and will overcome SR more easily. Also, other abilities that have a power level based on your class level - like a paladin's smite, school powers, domain powers, that sort of thing - should be base don ECL.Feat
There'd be a feat called Improved Multiclassing. You'd take it for each class you want to "unlock" further abilities of. You could take it several times, but only once per class. I don't know about prerequisites yet, but "have class levels" should definetly be in.Feats and Abilities
The feat would enable you to get some stuff based on your effective class level instead of your actual class...
This is kind of interesting, it's like how the Tome of Battle classes raise there maneuver level even by multiclassing. I see two problems with this :
1) It's a bit complicated, especially if you try and juggle a Rogue/Fighter/Wizard.
2) It makes multiclass characters more powerful. Multiclassing is already more powerful than single classing a lot of the time. That's why so many optimizers multiclass.
I am not that experienced in the higher end of the exp-table,
so how powerful/effective would an fighter10/wizard10 be,
if you would only use what you named "effectiv class level"
(so no distinction between class level and effectiv class level for some core features)
Meaning:
Is a fighter10/wizard10 WITH THE FULL POWER of a fighter15/wizard15 too powerful compared to singleclass characters at level20?
I kind of like the idea about effectiv class level, and consider using it.
2) It makes multiclass characters more powerful. Multiclassing is already more powerful than single classing a lot of the time. That's why so many optimizers multiclass.Not true. Multiclassing tends to be SUBOPTIMAL in most cases, and optimizers tend to only do it when a class is toploaded with a few synergistic and important abilities (and then only in dips) or when it is required for a prestige class.
That is probably correct if a person takes 20 levels of just base classes. I've nearly never seen anyone do that though in person, almost everyone past a certain point goes into a Prestige Class, even in role-playing heavy settings.
PrCs are in the SRD, which means by default Pathfinder is going to inherit quite a few of them. Instead of Fighter 10/Wizard 10 we'll see something like Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10/Archmage 2 which gives us 16 BAB and 17 caster level.
The only time I've heard of people sticking to just the base classes is with the synergy feats like Daring Outlaw and Swift Hunter from Complete Scoundrel. Those basically let you make something like Rogue 4/Swashbuckler 16 with 10d6 sneak attack and full Swashbuckler Dodge.
The down side to making a feat for every base class combination is that I think you'd need 55 of them to cover every pair of base classes in Pathfinder. The upside is that you can tailor the power of each combination to make it competitive.
That is probably correct if a person takes 20 levels of just base classes. I've nearly never seen anyone do that though in person, almost everyone past a certain point goes into a Prestige Class, even in role-playing heavy settings.
PrCs are in the SRD, which means by default Pathfinder is going to inherit quite a few of them. Instead of Fighter 10/Wizard 10 we'll see something like Fighter 2/Wizard 6/Eldritch Knight 10/Archmage 2 which gives us 16 BAB and 17 caster level.
I believe the use of multiclassing in this thread is about multiclassing between base classes without prestige classes.
While I've seen a ranger/scout (with a multiclassing feat that let the levels stack for a few abilties) I would rather PRPG not have to say, "Look in all these other books to make multiclassing work well." I would like to find a way to solve the problem without relying on stacks of other books.
"My" goal for multiclassing would be the atempt to find some rules where you just don't NEED to PrC to stay "powerful".
I think a good system would offer enough powerful and interesting things in its core classes.
I never liked the tons of PrC dished out almost everywhere.
I think there are 3 types of PrC:
1) The multiclass-fixer (Eldritch knight, mystic theurge...)
2) The specialists (Beast Lord, Duellist...)
3) The flavor-ones (Red Wizard of Thay, Purple Dragon Knight...)
I think PrestigeClasses should be mainly focused on no.3. They should be given out per Campaign Setting and add a certain in depth feeling through linking story flavor with game mechanics.
The second group is a hard one. While there are some which are quite nice, I really think a good set of core classes should be able to replace most of them.
And finally the first group (and what this thread is about). I REALLY think those are just unnecessary if we can find a good multiclassing rule.
That is probably correct if a person takes 20 levels of just base classes.
It could easily be said that PrCs don't count for effective class levels. That would certainly make sense for multiclass solutions like mystic theurge or eldritch knight and for specialists like assassin - you're supposed to give up stuff when you take them, because you get other stuff along the very same lines.
Or every PrC could have a short entry with the classes it can work with.
Option one would definetly be easier.
That is probably correct if a person takes 20 levels of just base classes.It could easily be said that PrCs don't count for effective class levels. That would certainly make sense for multiclass solutions like mystic theurge or eldritch knight and for specialists like assassin - you're supposed to give up stuff when you take them, because you get other stuff along the very same lines.
Or every PrC could have a short entry with the classes it can work with.
Option one would definetly be easier.
Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to get at. So a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would have a Fighter ECL of 15 and a Wizard ECL of 15. They'd cast like a 15th level Wizard but would they have all the Fighter feats of a 15th level Fighter?
How are BAB, skills and hit die handled? Are they directly from the original class levels or are they affected by the new ECL? Would each class have a blurb stating what is and isn't effected my multiclassing?
|
Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to get at. So a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would have a Fighter ECL of 15 and a Wizard ECL of 15. They'd cast like a 15th level Wizard but would they have all the Fighter feats of a 15th level Fighter?
My guess would be that the only real benefit to the fighter side of a fighter 10/wizard 10 would be that they'd qualify for feats with a pre-req of "fighter level X" as a 15th level fighter. A case might be made for expanding it to include increases in Bravery, Armor Training, and Weapon Training, but even that would be pushing it, as far as I understand the idea here.
I am not that experienced in the higher end of the exp-table,
so how powerful/effective would an fighter10/wizard10 be,
if you would only use what you named "effectiv class level"
(so no distinction between class level and effectiv class level for all class features)Meaning:
Is a fighter10/wizard10 WITH THE FULL POWER of a fighter15/wizard15 too powerful compared to singleclass characters at level20?
I kind of like the idea about effectiv class level, and consider using it.
Anybody able to answer this?
I am not that experienced in the higher end of the exp-table,
so how powerful/effective would an fighter10/wizard10 be,
if you would only use what you named "effectiv class level"
(so no distinction between class level and effectiv class level for some core features)Meaning:
Is a fighter10/wizard10 WITH THE FULL POWER of a fighter15/wizard15 too powerful compared to singleclass characters at level20?
I kind of like the idea about effectiv class level, and consider using it.
It depends by what you mean by 'FULL POWER'
If fighter10/wizard10 means you cast like a 15th level Wizard (8th level spells and all that) and you fight like a 15th level fighter (15 BAB and fighter perks up to level 15). Something like that gets BAB 15 and Caster Level 15 with lots of feats and class features.
If that's the benchmark then yes, using all the splat books you can make a character more powerful. I'm thinking something like Fighter 1, Wizard 6, Spellsword 1, Abjurant Champion 5, Eldritch Knight 7. This gets BAB 17 and CL 18, but has much less feats.
I think the best way to do what Kae is think of is at some point, instead of PrCs you allow the Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana (part of the OGL). Lets say you have to take 3 levels of each class and take an IMPROVED MULTICLASSING feat to Gestalt, you wouldn't be able to do it before level 7 which meshes with the majority of prestige classes.
If you had Fighter 3, Wizard 3 then Fighter 14+Wizard 14 you'd get BAB 18 and CL 17 but with more feats and HP then the prestige class version. It doesn't get the Spellsword's or Abjurant Champion's special abilities. This might be more powerful than the PrC version.
Maybe if you modify the Gestalt rules so you can pick the Class Features from only ONE class, things like Spells, Sneak Attack and extra feats. So in the above example you still get BAB 18 and CL 17 but at each level you have to choose between a Fighter's Saves or a Wizard's Saves and a Fighter's Feats or a Wizard's Spells. This makes a character of similar power to the PrC example, losing some of the more flavourful abilities but potentially easier to build. You only need the Pathfinder RPG book to level, no more searching through Complete this or Races of that to level up.
Ok, I think I understand what you are trying to get at. So a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 would have a Fighter ECL of 15 and a Wizard ECL of 15. They'd cast like a 15th level Wizard
That depends on what you mean by "cast like a 15th-level Wizard".
Their cone of cold spells would do 15d6 damage. If they had the Improved Multiclassing feat, they'd also get the school powers of a 15th-level wizard. But spells/day would be that of a 10th-level wizard.
but would they have all the Fighter feats of a 15th level Fighter?
I'd say no.
This is only the early draft for an idea and I haven't gone over each class and looked into what they'd get and what they wouldn't (and what they'd need the feat for), but I'd say you get the feats only if you take actual levels in fighter.
Weapon Training, Armour Training, and Bravery would be a different matter. I'd give the former two to those with the feat, and bravery to every multiclass fighter (provided he does have at least two actual levels, otherwise the feat would be necessary. And since "ecl <= levelx2" restriction makes sense, you wouldn't get far even then with one level)
How are BAB, skills and hit die handled? Are they directly from the original class levels or are they affected by the new ECL?
They're done strictly by actual class levels, since every class gets those. Plus, that would be a major mess, probably including rerolling HD and all that.
Would each class have a blurb stating what is and isn't effected my multiclassing?
Yes, as I have said above. I see several possibilities: An extra paragraph for each class, a sidebar, a big multiclassing article at the end of the classes chapter... Also, you could mark them in class description and class tables as (M) and (IM) for multiclassing and improved multiclassing, respectively. Maybe in superscript.
Properly marking the stuff seems important to me. It's not supposed to be a bother for people.
It's late, and I'm doing the math by hand, so I apologize for being brief. I support an enhanced multiclassing system. I'm in favor of the one presented here for reasons I'd rather not get into too deeply. Long story short: I believe multiclassing gets penalized in power far too heavily for what it gains in versatility. But, any change on this magnitude needs to be analyzed. So I went through the class features and found how many could be based on a by-level basis by each class. Please note that I included questionable features, such as ones based on "At ___ level and every four levels after", and the improved aspects of class features pointed out at specific levels, such as the druid's wild shape or the monk's flurry of blows. I did not include bonus feats or rogue talents in this, as I see each instance of them as an independent feature.
Bard: Caster level, bardic knowledge, qualifying based on bard level for bardic performance powers. Total: 3
Cleric: Caster level, aura, channeling, domain powers. Total: 4
Druid: Caster level, nature's bond, wild empathy, wild shape. Total: 4
Fighter: Qualifying for feats beased on fighter level, bravery, weapon training, armor training. Total: 4
Monk: AC bonus, flurry of blows, maneuver training, unarmed damage, slow fall, ki pool, diamond soul, quivering palm. Total: 8
Paladin: Caster level, aura, smite evil, lay on hands(base effect), channeling, divine bond. Total: 6
Ranger: Caster level, wild empathy, track, favored enemy, favored terrain, hunter's bond. Total: 6
Rogue: Sneak attack, trap sense, improved uncanny dodge. Total: 3
Sorcerer: Caster level, bloodline powers, bloodline spells, bloodline feats. Total: 4
Wizard: Caster level, arcane bond, school powers, adding new spells to spellbook. Total: 4
As you can see, the monk and the paladin, the two classes with restrictions on multiclassing in third edition actually had the most features based on their level, and the most to lose via multiclassing. With a new multiclassing system, they now have the most to gain, along with the ranger, who seems like an oddity among the bunch. Favored enemy was included because the hunter's bond ability has two benefits: One that could scale with multiclassing(companion), and one that was dependant on his favored enemy bonus(share bonus). With favored enemy included in the list, I saw no reason to not include favored terrain.
Also, a number of those features scale at half class level already. So they would effectively get boost of one quarter your levels in all other classes.
Now that we've had a look at what features I believe have reason to scale with multiclassing if a system such as this were adopted, we can compare what multiclass characters would gain. The following would probably work better in a spreadsheet done by someone better at formula than I, but I'll give it a shot. The first column is levels in class A, the second is class B. The third column would be effective levels in class A, the second in class B. Remember, the effective levels only count towards the abilities listed above, and they only improve abilities you would already have.
19 1 19 9
18 2 19 11
17 3 18 11
16 4 18 12
15 5 17 12
14 6 17 13
13 7 16 13
12 8 16 14
11 9 15 14
10 10 15 15
Note that the half level cap mentioned in the original post would only have effect in splits further apart than 13/7.
Seeing the numbers, let's examine a few characters built with this method. A 10/10 fighter/wizard would be treated as a 15th level fighter for the purposes of qualifying for feats beased on fighter level, the bonus to bravery, weapon training, and armor training, treated as a 15th level wizard for caster level, arcane bond, school powers, and adding new spells to his spellbook. He would be treated as a 10/10 fighter/wizard for all other purposes, including BAB, skill points, save bonuses, bonus feats, and spells per day.
A 15/5 paladin/monk would be treated as a 17th level paladin for the purposes of caster level, aura, smite evil, lay on hands, channeling, and his divine bond, and a 12th level monk for the purposes of AC bonus, flurry of blows, maneuver training, unarmed damage, slow fall, ki pool, diamond soul, and quivering palm. He would be treated as a 15/5 paladin/monk for all other purposes, including BAB, skill points, save bonuses, and other class features. An interesting thing to note: While the monk gives many abilities, many are neutralized by the class features of the paladin class. The AC bonus only works unarmored, and is equal to 3+Wis bonus. At 20th level, almost any armor you find may be able to best that. Also, his effective monk level gains a boost for the purposes of Diamond Soul and Quivering Palm. He does not have those abilities yet. He would only gain those abilities if he were a 13th or 15th level monk, at which point he would only be gaining a +3 bonus to his monk level at best.
However, it doesn't always work that there would be a two-class multiclass character. Three and sometimes more base classes could be involved. I haven't done all the math on that yet, but a brief start leads me to the following. Similar table to above, but with classes A, B, and C.
17 2 1 18 11 9
16 3 1 18 11 9
16 2 2 18 11 11
15 4 1 17 12 9
...and so on. This seems like is skews the power to versatility ratio to me, especially considering the investment. The cap idea may solve this, but illustrating it shows something strange to me. Consider these to replace columns 4, 5, and 6 from the above example.
18 4 2
18 6 2
18 4 4
17 8 2
With a cap of double the actual level involved, the boost seems to be insignificant near high levels. Taking a couple dips is vastly ill-advisable, almost as much as the current system. With that in mind, I had thought of a different limit: You calculate your effective level in one class by your highest level among the others you possess. This would make the spread above turn into
18 10 9
17 11 9
17 10 10
17 11 8
Not very different from the original example, but I haven't done the spreads on all the variables and combinations.
These are all 20th level characters, however, and are facing 20th level threats. Each action spent on an ability from a second or third base class is going to be at severely reduced power level against a severly powerful opponent. Say fighter18/rogue1/sorcerer1. Is it really going to matter if the 1st level spell you cast is at caster level 9 or 2?
The counter to this is taking a look at the low-level side. How does multiclassing with this variant stack up at levels 2-7?
2nd level
3rd level
4th level
3 1 3 2
5th level
4 1 4 3
6th level
4 2 5 4
5 1 5 3
7th level
5 2 6 3
6 1 6 4
The double actual level cap would start effecting one level dips after 4th level.
I have to draw this post to a close, as I must be up for work in less than seven hours and I have a long day ahead of me. I hope some of this has helped show the possibilities of a new multiclassing system. My personal hopes? A page or so in the back of the classes chapter on multiclassing listing 3 to 4 class features for each class that progress at 1/2 your highest level in all other base classes you possess. I think it would go a long way to making more diverse characters, and help the people like me who enjoy having a few tricks up their sleeves.
|
I like this concept a lot, it's actually quite similar to some of the ideas I've been tossing around. The mechanics side of things seems a bit clunky to me though since it is compute intensive. I definitely agree with the level cap, a Rogue2/Wizard18 shouldn't get 19th level casting and 11th level sneak attack.
What about a cap on how many levels you can gain this way, similar to practiced spellcaster? Maybe 5 levels instead of 4.
As an aside if Jason has left multi classing changes out of the game Alphas I find it unlikely they will be included in the Beta. That's just guesswork on my part.
The problem I see with any sort of big change in multi classing is that it changes so much of the game. Qualifications for prestige classes, interaction with non-core material... it all gets bumped into. People are talking about issues with compatibility now, how much harder would it be with a big multi-classing change?
-- Dennis
|
|
The more I think about this the more troubling high split classes seem to me. A 18/2 ranger/rogue would have effectively 19 levels of ranger getting all the ranger class benefits except for the last 2 levels plus 6d6 Sneak Attack. The loss of 19th and 20th level capstone powers seems trivial compared to the benefits gained.
Maybe make it so the all of the classes receive the same number of extra levels. An 18/2 character would get +1 level in each class, 16/4 could get +2, etc.
The rule would be much simpler: Effective character level for multi class abilities in all classes increases by 1/2 the lowest class level.
Easier to manage and I think it would curb some potential abuses. Total power level increases the closer class levels are to parity.
Your possible splits would be (Actual - Effective)
18/2 - 19/3
17/3 - 18/4
16/4 - 18/6
15/5 - 17/7
14/6 - 17/9
13/7 - 16/10
12/8 - 16/12
10/10 - 15/15
Odd numbers are sub-optimum due to rounding.
Three classes:
16/2/2 - 17/3/3
15/3/2 - 16/4/3
14/3/3 - 15/4/4
14/4/2 - 15/5/3
12/4/4 - 14/6/6
10/6/4 - 14/8/6
8/6/6 - 11/9/9
7/7/6 - 10/10/9
Seems like triple classing this way would only work very close to parity and then character level would go in surges. The other problem I see is that a 6/6 fighter wizard that adds a thirds class would suddenly lose effective character levels because the 'lowest character level would now be one.
The method I suggest seems to work well for 2 classes but no so much for 3. If the characters advance all three classes at the some time it's fine but big splits cause trouble.
So... maybe not 100% but I think it would work well for 2 classes.
-- Dennis
As an aside if Jason has left multi classing changes out of the game Alphas I find it unlikely they will be included in the Beta. That's just guesswork on my part.
There's a lot of stuff not included in the alpha. Maybe he didn't get around to multiclassing yet (what with all the base classing changing), and will tackle that in the beta.
I think there's a lot of people who would love a better system for multiclassing that is inherent in the system, not added on via a truckload of feats and/or PrCs.
I think there's a lot of people who would love a better system for multiclassing that is inherent in the system, not added on via a truckload of feats and/or PrCs.
AMEN BROTHER!
Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Needs to not be "alternatively". This needs to be the Rule.
If you are wizard 5, you can have an ECL max of 10.
Your examples all provide people who want to be a fighter/mage mix, even levels of each.
Without the "alternate rule" as you call it, fighter 18/wizard 2 is far more useful.
Not to mention things like w1/d1/c1/r1/f16
giving you spell casting 10 in 3 classes, with 10th level rogue abilities and the feats of a 16th level fighter, all for the "cost" of 4 fighter levels.
-S
|
|
Not to mention things like w1/d1/c1/r1/f16
giving you spell casting 10 in 3 classes, with 10th level rogue abilities and the feats of a 16th level fighter, all for the "cost" of 4 fighter levels.
The discussion was based on increasing "Caster Level", spells per day would not be increased. So your w1/d1/... would be have the spell list of a first caster but cast them as a 9th level caster (It would be +8 levels not +9 as you suggest), sort of a jack of all trades class.
I would be more concerned with a rogue 1/ranger 1/barbarian 1/fighter 17
9 levels of rogue, ranger, and barbarian abilities on top of 17 levels of fighter.
-- Dennis
|
|
I think there's a lot of people who would love a better system for multiclassing that is inherent in the system, not added on via a truckload of feats and/or PrCs.
I'm on your side, I would love for a better multiclassing system. It just seems unlikely to me at this point in the game. The big changes to the core of the system have been made, I think what we are going to see now is a lot of tuning and filling in the details. Keep in mind if they are going to ship in August they need to have the book in the can by late July. That's 35 business days from now. Given the quality of output I've seen from Paizo at least 2 weeks of that time will be dedicated to editing, proofing, and typesetting.
We're down to a little over 3 weeks, not much time the other stuff that MUST be done, integrating the rest of the core material to make Pathfinder a complete game, rewriting many of the spells, reworking the feats (he's already said he's reworking the feats), tweaking the classes one last time, maybe fine-tuning the races, etc... Introducing a massive change like what's proposed here this late in the program and without testing?? Seems pretty unlikely to me.
-- Dennis
We're down to a little over 3 weeks
I whipped that up in an hour or so. I'd say Jason could take this and sophisticate it up in, say, less than a day. Or come up with his own take on multiclassing.
Then it's put into the beta book and refined over a period of nearly a year. That ought to be enough.
I really think we are on the right track here.
The CAP is definitely needed!
I would vote for twice the specific class level.
(Fighter18/Wizard1 would be F19/W2 not F19/W10)
But there are still 2 things to discuss:
1) What will be improved by multiclassing?
(All class specials & full spellprogression?)
2) At which rate will the classes improve eachother?
(1/2 all other class levels? 1/2 highest other class level?)
Would like to see those analyzed.
What do you think about my idea of using 1/2 the lowest class level?
As you said, in some cases you'd go backwards, losing stuff again, and I don't think that's right.
The CAP is definitely needed!
I agree. Taking up one level of something later (like going from Ftr18 to Ftr18/Rog1) should not give you a ton of abilities all in one go.
But there are still 2 things to discuss:1) What will be improved by multiclassing?
(All class specials & full spellprogression?)
1) I don't have it all mapped out yet, but my idea is this:
From the get go, you don't actually get anything new, but the stuff you have improves. That means caster level (for determining spell power and spell penetration) and things like a paladin's smite power would go up, but a rogue wouldn't get evasion before actual level 2.
That's the general rule, there's stuff that needs careful judging. Should sneak attack go up automatically?
In addition, I'd have the Improved Multiclassing feat, which applies to a specific class, and can be taken more than once (for each class).
With that feat, you actually get some (but not necessarily all) class abilities as if you had levels. For example, if evasion were on the list of stuff you get with the feat, a Ftr 2/Rog 1 with Improved Multiclassing (Rogue) would get it.
I think some stuff shouldn't be available to multiclassers at all. Capstone abilities should be in that category (not that you could get them with multiclassing unless you go epic).
2) At which rate will the classes improve eachother?
(1/2 all other class levels? 1/2 highest other class level?)
Good question. My first instinct was adding the rest together, but going only with the highest would discourage getting a truckload of classes, at least a bit (as you'd lose out on extra abilities in your "star class", and had the effective power of your other classes depend only on said star class.)
The cap is generally necessary if you are progressing abilities that you don't want to see jump ten levels when you just take one level at 19th level. Things like sneak attack that would go up to 5d6 with that or spells per day which would allow 5th level spells. I would think that it wouldn't be nessary if you are improving abilities like bravery or trap sense.
The double class level doesn't reward class dipping, which I'm fine with, and it seems to do pretty well when the levels are closer. It does seem to really boost characters with several classes. While changing it to the only giving the bonus for the highest other class makes it so that the class combination with a large number of base classes is one where there is one high leveled class and several lower ones.
For example using only the highest other class, a Cleric 5/Druid 5/Fighter 5/Paladin 5 would get a +2 level for improvable abilities. However a Cleric 8/Druid 4/Fighter 4/Paladin 4 would get a +2 for improvable cleric abilities and +4 for all other classes improvable abilities. That brings the weakest classest still equal to the evenly classes individual classes.
Another suggestion might be to set the cap to one and a half the class level and keep using the combined levels from all your other base classes. That way for a character with the class levels 10/5/5 then the effective levels would be 15/7/7 as opposed to the 12/10/10 (with the double limit and using the highest other class level) or 15/10/10 (with the double limit and using the combined level of other classes).
Or
8/3/3/3/3 (class levels)
14/6/6/6/6 (with the double limit and using the combined level of other classes)
9/6/6/6/6 (with the double limit and using the highest other class level)
12/6/6/6/6 (1.5 effective class level limit and using combined level of other classes)
Or
4/4/4/4/4 (class levels)
8/8/8/8/8 (with the double limit and using the combined level of other classes)
6/6/6/6/6 (with the double limit and using the highest other class level)
6/6/6/6/6 (1.5 effective class level limit and using combined level of other classes)
Sounds like a good idea and it might work...
(Consider this a bump)
Just to add my two cents -
There are 55 combinations in all (if you only go two-class; after that you're on your own), and I was thinking that there are quite a number of different PrCs that address these combinations - some have too many (the fighter-mage) while others have practiacally none.
So now I'm thinking that Paizo should come out with a second book (Pathfinder PHB II?) that just contains 55 definitive combiantions, with rules for each one! I think this would be the only way to balance each and every combo, and it would allow players to follow a specific path for their character concept.
We could have Warrior-Wizards, Fighter-Thiefs, Psion-Monks, Bardic Mages, etc, etc...
Each with its own set of synergistic abilites that combine the two classes in unique ways. Something like a Ranger-Druid would become the ultimate wilderness warrior (protector).
I think that a seperate book is the best way to go, and cut back on the glut of 3e PrC classes that are all-too-similar in flavor (Seeker of the Song and Sublime Chord come to mind). I know that a good part of what Paizo is doing is to allow people to use all of their 3e books, but as a GM, I know keeping up with all those books is a huge chore, and having a single, definitive tome containing the 'Pathfinder Approved' multi-class PrC would allow some GMs to say "everything from that book can be used in my game", rather then picking through the hundreds of options already out there.
Those options would still be viable, BTW, but having a single source for Pathfinder might make things easier on the GMs workload. The secondary purpose of Pathfinder is to improve the game, and I think that should be balanced against the problems that 3e did have (like Feat & class glut).
I love the system suggested by Kae.
Thank you Jason for your analysis.
I'm generally not too interested in systems involving obscure feats or PrCs that are only found in a precise book that one player could have studied in depth while the others haven't.
I like to keep it simple, to get maximum versatility with great ideas applied to basic classes.
That is why I love a system that gives something more to multiclassing, as it is often the best way for a player to build upon a concept, and not find a concept around a build. Too often, starting from the concept, the player was just loosing too much by sticking with the concept, which is bad for storytelling.
I agree that the cap has to stay. I prefer max ecl = 2 x class level.
I believe Kae's system of identifying abilities, for each class, that would grow with ecl, or that would require a feat to grow with ecl is simple and could find balance with the right selection of abilities.
That way, you have one feat Multiclassing(Class), instead of 55 feats or PrCs.
From Jason's analysis, it appears that abilities growing with ecl (M) should be limited to 2 or 3 for each class. The taking of a feat would unlock most of the other abilities (IM) for that class.
Please keep in mind that, as Kae has said, things like spells per day, access to specific abilities, BAB and saves are still available with the atcual class level. He's talking about scaling the abilities.
Also, please refer, in your comments, to the cap method used, or else we're comparing oranges and apples.
Thanks for the system Kae, I found it inspiring.
DW
There is still something that bothers me, in a sense. I see the presented way of multiclassing as a way around the PrCs (except the flavorful ones maybe, linked to a particular setting).
But if I compare, although quickly, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5, under Kae's system, to a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/Mystic Theurge 4, I see a big difference in terms of spell levels. In the first case, the PC casts 3rd level arcane and divine spells as a 7th level caster, whereas in the other case, the PC casts 4th level spells as a 7th level caster.
Should this be, or should the list of (IM) abilities actually include spells per day?
DW
That's why I thought, that increasing Spells per day with ECL too.
In fact I would increase everything with ECL.
But I must admit, I haven't thought-tested each aspect completely.
But the more I think about it, the less I am a fan of multiclassing.
It's still this: "Ok, I think my 9th level Fighter is going to be a wizard now."
That was more logical back in the old AD&D times.
Take a class-combo from the beginning, improve more slowly but get ALL the benefits.
Changing classes mid-game, should involve long studying/training times.
I guess the "capstone abilities" are nice enough, and many classes have more really nice stuff going on before the highest level - especially casters, who get 9th-level spells.
Well then I would like to know what you consider Capstone abilities for each class.
Like to post it? (KaeYoss first please)
Well then I would like to know what you consider Capstone abilities for each class.
Like to post it? (KaeYoss first please)
The stuff they get at level 20.
What exactly is TOB multiclassing?
You can add 1/2 of all your other levels to the effective whateveritscalled level of a ToB class, and get manoeuvres accordingly. So if you're a Warblade 5/Fighter 6, your "caster" level for manoeuvres is 8 (and as far as I know, that means you can get level 4 manoeuvres)
|
I think 3.5e's multiclassing rules can use some improvement. I know I'm not the first to suggest anything in this direction, but more options can't hurt.
Basics:
Effective Class Level:
The effective class level (I'd abbreviate it with ECL, but that's taken) for a class is actual class level + (all other levels/HD)/2. Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Example: Fighter 6/Rogue 4 would have a Fighter ECL of 8 and Rogue of 7. If we use the cap, a Fighter 10/Rogue 2 would only be Effective Rogue 4.
I skimmed through the thread, and kept seeing the same questions asked, but didn't see this suggestion anywhere. (If someone else already suggested this, my apologies.) Instead of having a bunch of clauses and exceptions of what should qualify for the Effective Class Level, just say that anything explicit stated on the class progression table does *not* qualify for it.
So, for instance, the level that a wizard gets 5th level spells does not, because the class table says it gets them at the 9th level of wizard. What level he casts at, though, *is* affected by ECL, because it isn't mentioned on the table.
All said, I really like this idea, KaeYoss.
So fighter would still get their feats at only the even fighter levels, BAB, saves, etc would all remain the same. But things like the Paladin smite's effect, school powers, domain powers, caster level, etc would all be increased to the ECL.
i think this looks good
i remember the feat practised spell caster that increses the level of a multiclass caster by 4.
so could be similar to that?
Yes, but it wouldn't be limited to 4 levels, it wouldn't require a feat, and it wouldn't be limited to spells.
alternatively te feat could allow you to "buy" a single higher level ability provided that your total HD match up to the requirements of that power..
My idea was that the feat allowed you to acquire a certain subset of abilities for that class all at once. The feat wouldn't enable you to get every single ability (they would be designated as available with the feat), but you wouldn't have to spend one feat per ability, either.
An "extra multiclass ability" could work, too. Maybe that's even better than everything else. But I think you'd still have to designate what you could get and what the feat would net you.
Lots of cool ideas
Kae, well done on getting this thread rolling. There are a lot of good ideas here and I can see what you're going for.
I, personally, have never multiclassed one of my characters. Back in 2nd Ed, it was a scary realm of confusing numbers and all too easily mixed up with dual-classing. It just wasn't worth the effort. Then 3rd came along and I never felt like I needed to multiclass - the sheer wealth of skill and feat options meant I could build any kind of character I wanted to without multiclassing. Pathfinder has only made this easier by eliminating the cross class skill point double cost mah-jig.
Other members of my group have and do multiclassed, always in the knowledge that it will cost them something to so. Although, on occasion perhaps a little too much. That's where your rules come in!
They're looking good so far and I can't wait to see the finished article. A couple of questions:
1) What's the incentive not to multiclass? The abilities offered by a level or two in class X, as shown above, are quite a bit better than the 20th level 'capstones'. I think this is the biggest issue that needs addressing. Although, it is late, perhaps I missed something. :D
2) How is this going to work with Psionics? You can't give the psi-classes manifester levels at the same rate you're offering caster levels as the difference in power could be huge. And you certainly don't have much else you can offer in it's place. Powers and (P)PP are right out.
I guess this is another important issue as backwards compatibility is starting to be eroded away. Today Psionics doesn't fit. Tomorrow it's the Truenamers etc. etc.
I'm sorry I don't have the answers! ;p
Keep up the good work! I'm book marking this thread!
Peace,
tfad
I, personally, have never multiclassed one of my characters. Back in 2nd Ed, it was a scary realm of confusing numbers and all too easily mixed up with dual-classing. It just wasn't worth the effort. Then 3rd came along and I never felt like I needed to multiclass - the sheer wealth of skill and feat options meant I could build any kind of character I wanted to without multiclassing. Pathfinder has only made this easier by eliminating the cross class skill point double cost mah-jig.
I did multiclass on occasion - usually for PrC's.
My first 3e character was a Fighter/Wizard/Bladesinger/Divine Champion (Only one level wizard to qualify for Bladesinger, and after that I didn't quite want to return to fighter - this was 3.0 - and since the character was quite a defender of the elven way, Divine Champion of Corellon Larethian fit well).There was also a fighter/rogue/blackguard, a cleric/Dreadmaster of Bane, a cleric/hierophant, and a ranger/some archer PrC or other.
1) What's the incentive not to multiclass? The abilities offered by a level or two in class X, as shown above, are quite a bit better than the 20th level 'capstones'. I think this is the biggest issue that needs addressing. Although, it is late, perhaps I missed something. :D
Well, you'll always lose out on the highest-level abilities, and I do think that some of them are quite useful and powerful:
Bards get things like Jack of All Trades and Deadly Performance (and, of course, 6th-level spells)
Clerics get the highest levels of spells and the final domain powers.
Druids gain the ability to wildshape at will (and, again, highest-level spells)
Fighters get the two mastery abilities, as well as access to highest-level feats (though a lot of that is non-core, like the PHB2 feats, which are off-limits, and the Book of Experimental Might 2, which is not).
Monk get's better AC, Unarmed Damage, as well as outsider status, the end of age penalties, permanent tongues, and the ability to turn ethereal.
Paladins get to use Heal with their lay on hands, great DR, banishment powers against evil outsiders, and a maximise effect for his channel ability, which not only attacks undead, but also heals allies.
Rangers gains Improved Quarry and a powerful death effect against favoured enemies.
Rogues get more advanced rogue talents and a very powerful strike against victims of sneak attacks.
Sorcerers gain highest-level spells and their best bloodline power
Wizards gain highest-level spells and their final school powers.
I wouldn't say that they measure up against low-level abilities from other classes. With the cap in place (which I highly recommend), getting one level in another class only gives you effective 2nd level for some of its abilities, or for a couple more abilities with the feat. I'd say the capstone powers are a lot more useful than 2nd-level abilities from other classes.
And if you get more than one level, you'll lose out more than just the 20th-level stuff.
This would have to be playtested properly, of course, but I think that while multiclassing becomes an interesting choice, it won't surpass single-classed power.
2) How is this going to work with Psionics? You can't give the psi-classes manifester levels at the same rate you're offering caster levels as the difference in power could be huge. And you certainly don't have much else you can offer in it's place. Powers and (P)PP are right out.
It would be mostly manifester level, meaning augmentation can go up (practised manifester level does the same, after all). Power points and extra powers would be the same as spells per day, which is already out. With the feat, other abilities could become available, like a souldknife's mindblade enhancements or a wilder's various powers like volatile mind.
I guess this is another important issue as backwards compatibility is starting to be eroded away. Today Psionics doesn't fit. Tomorrow it's the Truenamers etc. etc.
Of course, you would have some extra work to designate what parts of non-core classes would benefit from multiclassing and/or the improved multiclassing feat, but that doesn't mean it's incompatible. Ideally, the rules that govern what sort of abilities are improved would be easy enough to apply to new classes almost on the fly.
And ultimately, this only adds abilities, it doesn't take anything away.
PF has come a long way already in making level 20 more special for the base classes. In the past I never taken a character to 20th level, as I found taking some levels in another class and/or prestige class gave something far more worthy than the level 20 capstones.
I going to attempt to take a character from level 1 to level 20 in a single class for the first time, just hope the character survives all the way there.
The only thing that really needs to be looked into is the Epic levels, to make them more appealing to continue in a single class. I always found multi-classing far more enticing and rewarding than to remain in a single class with epic level.
More cool stuff
Great to hear about your characters. I guess, not really using a lot of PrC in our games has meant there is less reason to multiclass. In our years since 3rd hit the shelves, I can think of 3 PCs who went in Prestige Classes and 2 Named NPCs (and their cohorts). One of those players was an a$$ who made up their own PrC with massive bonuses to his attributes and didn't tell anyone about it until they'd taken the levels! I really don't think that's standard though. ;D
I get your points about the capstone powers and a couple of the classes (Paladin?) lose out more than others. But I guess I was thinking more of Wizard 17/Class X 3. Wouldn't that net both 9th level spells and 6 levels worth of other abilities from Class X? I'm pretty sure that (if correct) it's now looking like a better prospect than some of those higher level powers.
Maybe it'll work out in a playtest though. :D
I'm not too sure about treating Manifester level the same as caster level is going to be balanced though. I've a reasonable amount of experience with Psionics and I'd be happy to say that it does a bit more than caster level. Perhaps too much to be giving it away as a multiclass freebie, although as stated in my previous post, I can't think of anything you could use instead. Again, it could play out fine in a playtest, but it does send my alarm bells ringing. Perhaps especially for the Psychic Warrior, who could trade out his higher level powers for a better BAB at very little cost as he'd still have a huge manifester level. Hmm.
You're right about a little common sense going a long way. ;D
Peace,
tfad
One of those players was an a$$ who made up their own PrC with massive bonuses to his attributes and didn't tell anyone about it until they'd taken the levels! I really don't think that's standard though. ;D
I guess the answer to that question is "how long did it take the doctors to remove the dice again?" ;-)
I actually saw something like that once or twice, too. It was taken care of with swift and decisive action.
But I guess I was thinking more of Wizard 17/Class X 3. Wouldn't that net both 9th level spells and 6 levels worth of other abilities from Class X?
Yes, it would. But you'd still lose out on a couple of things:
I don't think any wizard would want to miss out on all that for something like trackless step or a couple dice of sneak attack.
It's not much different for other spellcasters: For druid and cleric, the spell slot losses are the same. The druid loses wild shape at will and a bit of his nature bond powers (either the last badge of bonus stuff for his companion or another 9th-level spell from his domain); Clerics also lose 2 9th-level spells from his domains.
Sorcerers would have to go to 18th to get 9th-level anyway, and they'd lose one 8th-level slot, 3 9th-level slots, a bloodline feat, and the final bloodline power (stuff like using metamagic without extra time and using spells to power charged items; or virtual immunity to crits, autocrits and auto spell-penetration; or other neat stuff)
I'd say the loss of several slots of the highest levels alone will outweigh anything you can gain in the first 3/6 levels in any class.
I'm not too sure about treating Manifester level the same as caster level is going to be balanced though. I've a reasonable amount of experience with Psionics and I'd be happy to say that it does a bit more than caster level. Perhaps too much to be giving it away as a multiclass freebie, although as stated in my previous post, I can't think of anything you could use instead.
Sure, it would mean that they could augment further, which is somewhere between getting higher-level spells (since some of the augmentations replace higher-level spells, and the DC often goes up) and paying for what spellcasters get for free (since a wizard doesn't have to use fireball in a 4th-level slot if he wants more than his 5d6 damage), but that's not that bad I'd say. Higher-level powers can still do some things the lower-level ones can't. Plus, he will get neither more powers, nor more power points. Augmenting more will just mean that he runs out of power points faster. I'd say especially psychic warriors will have a problem with that.
Thanks for the detailed reply - you're really selling me on this! ;p
I actually saw something like that once or twice, too. It was taken care of with swift and decisive action.
Yeah, there are a few out there....
But you'd still lose out on a couple of things:
The full break down really puts it into perspective. Okay, an Arcane Bonded Item can make up for one of those spell slots, but that is still a lot of other cool stuff being given up. You've convinced me that it works (in theory) and I'll definitely be interested in any 'final version' of the rules you put together. PDF? Lets get it out there and check it plays out in game like it does on paper. Well done! :D
That said, I'm still not convinced about it working so smoothly with Psionics. There a couple of easy ways for a Psychic Warrior to get more ppp and, from our experience, the upper level powers weren't as good as the mid ones. The ability to augment them to a higher level makes them slightly better.
Although, despite that, I'm willing to give it a fair shot and I'm sure I'm just being paranoid. Damn - are you a professional salesman? ;p
So, when can we see a collected post/PDF? :D
Peace,
tfad
Although, despite that, I'm willing to give it a fair shot and I'm sure I'm just being paranoid. Damn - are you a professional salesman? ;p
No, but maybe I should be. Just the other day someone asked me why I'm not writing the marketing material for Golarion. ;-)
So, when can we see a collected post/PDF? :D
I think we'd first need a combined effort to determine which abilities should benefit from multiclassing, whether there should be an improved multiclassing feat, whether the feat is once per ability or once per class, and what abilities would be granted with the feat.
And honestly, I'd also like to wait to see what the Beta does with multiclassing, whether it is compatible with my version, or just a lot better. The latter is not that unlikely: I'm not a newblood when it comes to 3e, having played usually once per week (at times even twice per week) for 7 years or so - but Jason, Monte and the gang have been in the roleplaying business a lot longer, and they've created a lot more stuff than me, seen a lot more stuff, played and talked with a lot more players, and all that. I mean, Monte's practically "Mr. Third Edition" (just as Jason is Mister PF-RPG).
And maybe the beta version is a lot like this one...
I think the feat would work fine as once per ability - perhaps with an improved version upping the cap on that one ability? I think that throughout 3rd's life, there's been a tendency to make bigger and BIGGER feats. Keep it small.
I'd not want to start choosing abilities without some time to sit down and look at it. :)
I'm all for waiting for the Beta before effecting any changes, said the same thing on the Psionic's update thread not an hour or so ago. :D Not long to go now....
Ah, who am I kidding! A month! That's practically forever! ;p
Peace,
tfad
I'm 100% in support of this kind of multiclassing. It makes it more viable and more interesting to multiclass BASE classes (PrCs are another matter) and it's generally really easy to include in the Final Book. So PLEASE Jason, consider it!
I think the best way to do what Kae is think of is at some point, instead of PrCs you allow the Gestalt rules from Unearthed Arcana (part of the OGL).
I've toying with the idea of using the gestalt rules to address spellcaster multiclassing. Basically, a 1st-level only feat would be required and the gestalt class would become the character's base class with a level adjustment of +1 (a full progression in two classes is a powerful advantage). Also toying with the idea that certain races might favor certain gestalt combos and then maybe remove the feat requirement, replacing the race's "favored" class. It's a little like the racial multi-classes from Basic, and also has some of the flavor of limiting racial progressions from 1E and 2E without the actual cap.
Rolling things around in my head, I didn't think branching into gestalt classes in a PrC-like way would work. But I might could be convinced. Thoughts?
I think 3.5e's multiclassing rules can use some improvement. I know I'm not the first to suggest anything in this direction, but more options can't hurt.
Basics:
Effective Class Level:
The effective class level (I'd abbreviate it with ECL, but that's taken) for a class is actual class level + (all other levels/HD)/2. Alternately, ECL could be capped at twice the actual level, like in Zynete idea.
Example: Fighter 6/Rogue 4 would have a Fighter ECL of 8 and Rogue of 7. If we use the cap, a Fighter 10/Rogue 2 would only be Effective Rogue 4.Class Abilities, Class Level, Effective Class Level, and Improved Multiclassing
My idea is that for some things, you use the class level, for other things, you use the effective class level, and for another set of things, you use class level unless you have the Improved Multiclassing feat for that calss - then you use ECL for those, too.
Class Level
Some things should always depend on class level, and class level only. I'd say any spellcaster's spells per day and spells known should be among that list, and any bonus feats a class may grant. Also, the time when you get abilities, and when you get extra uses of those abilities, should generally be based on actual class level.Effective Class Level
Generally, caster levels should depend on ECL. That means that your spells deal more damage, last longer, and will overcome SR more easily. Also, other abilities that have a power level based on your class level - like a paladin's smite, school powers, domain powers, that sort of thing - should be base don ECL.Feat
There'd be a feat called Improved Multiclassing. You'd take it for each class you want to "unlock" further abilities of. You could take it several times, but only once per class. I don't know about prerequisites yet, but "have class levels" should definetly be in.Feats and Abilities
The feat would enable you to get some stuff based on your effective class level instead of your actual class...
With multi-classing feats it sounds a bit like 4th edition D&D. I'd liek to say a way of multi-classinf that doesn't require feats. Perhaps something like dual-classing, where you advance into two classes at once or three. Its a hail-back to Advanced 2nd Ed. to be sure but it'd be interesting I think.