There's an easier solution. Put a limit on prestige classes one character can take, say one per character, and enforce the XP penalty for difference in levels beyond 2 for anything beyond 2 classes (meaning favored class +1 is fine but beyond that is a penalty unless they are each one level apart - ex F3/M2/CL1 is fine and no penalty but F5/MU4/CL1 evokes a penalty to XP until the CLeric level is brought up to at least lvl 3)
I don't agree completely with "more than 2 base classes is munchkining". In fact, my next character will probably be based around the concept (Can't focus - like "OH. I want to do that, too!"). Don't forget you loose as well as gain in multiclassing. I don't think there is a 4 base class combo that is much more powerful than a 4th level single class. The only thing that's a bit strange is the good saving throw accumulation (With good reflex saves by 4th level you could have +8 as a base...Maybe just handle it like skills, when you have a good saving throw it stays good and is determined from character level instead from addition of class levels.)
As a DM I don't like to limit the choices of a player only because someone COULD abuse them. That's why I'm there - to step in if someone abuses the rules to gain advantages from broken combos, that don't make sense for the character, as in "believable" roleplay. On the other hand, things get tricky, if they make sense in that regard and are still broken in a mechanical way... hmmm...
We've already been discussing this on another thread with regards to PrCs but I'll reiterate the main frustration on that thread. DMs reign in munchkins not rules. If a DM is not capable of managing a munchkin in the existing rules system then new rules will not help and will wind up punishing players who might want to do things like this for legitimate purposes.
A note regarding PrCs:
PrCs are an optional rule and the DMG clearly says that inclusion of them is at the DMs discretion. It is well within the discretion of the DM to say "The church says you must fulfill your obligations as a Holy Liberator before you can become a Divine Crusader".
The only thing that's a bit strange is the good saving throw accumulation.
Well good and bad. For example if you multiclass you could easily wind up with a 10th level character with a 0 Will save base. This is one thing I wouldn't mind seeing changed. I've seen a proposal where each level after first gave a fractional increase to saves which was rounded down. So if you added a level of rogue or fighter your will save increased by 1/3, adding a level of cleric or wizard would increase will saves by 1/2.
As a DM I don't like to limit the choices of a player only because someone COULD abuse them. That's why I'm there - to step in if someone abuses the rules to gain advantages from broken combos,
I couldn't agree more.
As a DM I don't like to limit the choices of a player only because someone COULD abuse them.As a designer trying to come up with something that will be used somewhat uniformly (god forbid they put the current mess into something called Living Pathfinder), you're better off adding in fixes and making a better-designed system that is less abusable from the get-go.
Then the first step would be "throw out all the crappy splat books you've collected over the last 5 years". While there are some abuses possible in core the bulk of the multi classing problems come in with mixing and matching base classes and PrCs from non-core sources. Heck, a lot of the PrCs are just flat broken without mixing and matching. The only way Paizo can fix stuff outside the PfRPG source book is by banning it.
I really don't like the idea of putting in a bunch of tweaks in the core system to fix problems introduced from outside.
Try Fighter1/Barbarian1/Sorceror1/Rogue1. Buy enough CHA to use low-level spells.
+1d6 from sneak attack whenever flanking.
+1d6 and crit chance doubled if you learn the "Critical Strike" swift spell. -- note: Non-core spell
+Rage
+10ft movement
Intriguing combo but I'm not totally convinced it's stronger than just a sorcerer 4. For that matter a Barbarian 4.
Under the Alpha 3 rules:
Depending on your stats you combo can rage for 6-8 rounds per day before becoming fatigued... a dubious benefit, hope that one encounter is short and don't use your rage powers.
A PfRPG barbarian could rage for 22-26 rounds or bust into his rage powers. Same barbarian would be able to do actually use his rage powers.
Rogue would have 2 rogue talents and +2d6 damage. Not to mention a fistful of skill points so it's likely you wouldn't see her coming.
Sorcerer?? Sorcerer 4 would have 2nd level spells and a boatload more 1st level spells than you.
The combo you mention is definitely good from the saving throw perspective. I would like to see a fix for that. The flipside of that issue is multiclassing into similar classes seriously boost the high throws and seriously trashes the poor throws.
Try Fighter1/Barbarian1/Sorceror1/Rogue1. Buy enough CHA to use low-level spells.
+1d6 from sneak attack whenever flanking.
+1d6 and crit chance doubled if you learn the "Critical Strike" swift spell. -- note: Non-core spell
+Rage
+10ft movement...
Sorcerer?? Sorcerer 4 would have 2nd level spells and a boatload more 1st level spells than you.
The combo you mention is definitely good from the saving throw perspective. I would like to see a fix for that. The flipside of that issue is multiclassing into similar classes seriously boost the high throws and seriously trashes the poor throws.
Wow, I couldn't have said it any better.
There's one thing more to remember: Caster level. So, no 1 Round/Level spells for your build (Ah, but I don't know how many 1. level spells have this anyway, and a sorceror 1. just knows 2 spells, so that may not be a real concern, as 1 Minute/Level is enough for most fights. Of course, this is another major disandvantage of multi classed casters if compared to a single class caster, but this has been discussed here).Saving throws really is a concern. But not in this build, because all this classes just have one good save.
You get F +4 R +2 W +2 wich is not really much more powerful than the standard +4 Good Save +1 +1 Bad Saves.
It gets really icky with
a) three classes (or more) with the same good save or
b) all classes with more than one good save.
I mentioned above to handle saves just like skills: You got a good save, it's always a good save, even if you add other levels, but the bonus depends on character level instead of class level. This is tricky as well, because "our" build would have three good saves and so three times a +4 bonus, better than now. BUT there is already a base class that gets this from the start (Monk) and it would at least tone down the maximum.
What really would suck with this is, that the Rogue 19/Fighter 1 would have a maximized fortitude save.
Maybe just cap the maximum for a good save with character level dependence (So no 2nd level character could have more than a +3 bonus, but could have less?) and make the bad save a minimum (So every 4th level character would have at least +1 in his bad save(s)). Thoughts?
Saving throws really is a concern. But not in this build, because all this classes just have one good save.
You get F +4 R +2 W +2 wich is not really much more powerful than the standard +4 Good Save +1 +1 Bad Saves.
Well if you replace the one level of fighter with a level of ranger you get +4/+4/+2 or cleric would be +4/+2/+4.
You could tune your character just for great saves. Ranger/ Cleric/ Monk/ Druid would be +8/+4/+6. Only problem is he wouldn't be much good at anything in particular other than saving throws. You BAB would be +1. There is probably some crazy PrC that qualifies you for out there though.
I should have looked at that a little more closely, those saves aren't nearly as great as I figured it would be. Of course when he PrCs into Dragon Disciple he gets 2 more good saves at +2... but I don't think the DD is a very powerful PrC overall so having some great saves wouldn't really hurt too much.
|
There should be no multiclass penalties.
If, because I have a character concept in mind that makes for a cool story and to make it happen I have to multiclass a few times that defines munchkin then the definition is broken, not the rules.
Also, remember not everyone plays D&D the way you want to. Your way of D&D is not the only way. Some people play to relax, some for story, some for action, some for power. Are you saying that there is only one correct way to play D&D?
Once again this is an area for House Rules, not global rules. If so, then *I* get to define all the rules for everyone, because obviously my way is the correct way...
*that last was tongue in cheek to illustrate how silly an idea it is to impose one and only one way of doing things on the game- 3.x as meant to provide options for play, not draconic restrictions*
A DM can easily police abuse of rules in a home campaign. He can limit the number of base classes and prestige classes if he so desires. If home games were all there were, no real changes would need to be made to the rules. The real problems arise in things like Living Campaigns. You are giving standards with which to create your character but no DMs have any say in what you do. If you want to abuse Munchkining, you can. This is why something needs to be improved in the rules set. After playing for almost three years in a Living Greyhawk campaign, I saw some 'afflictomatic' characters that were only possible because of base class and prestige class hopping. Hopefully something can be done to fix this.
Well said Garry.
I also want to include when one goes to a "con" event to play, they have a new GM to run things and a good ruleset goes a long way. GMs should spend more time developing adventures and less drafting house rules. Garry, I know LG went a long way to restrict or disallow certain spells and the like, have you and fellow LGers presented these ideas to the PathfinderRPG team?
I also want to include when one goes to a "con" event to play, they have a new GM to run things and a good ruleset goes a long way. GMs should spend more time developing adventures and less drafting house rules. Garry, I know LG went a long way to restrict or disallow certain spells and the like, have you and fellow LGers presented these ideas to the PathfinderRPG team?
Organized play should not be addressed in the core rulebook in any way, IMO. This is a problem of the Pathfinder Society and should handled by guidelines of said society, and not be included in the core rules. The con example is bad, as it this an extrem case of corner case (How often do you play at cons?). Core rules can never adress all problems, they can only hint at some of the worst and give a DM the tools and advice necessary to handle problems by himself. That's a DMs job, after all.
A lot of the problem in the 3.0/3.5 system was the ease in which people could "munchkin" together a character to broken levels. With the new "pick one of two" favored classes racial wording in Pathfinder, this gets even easier.
That was more of a problem with the power creep in supplements than the 3.x system itself. A fighter 2/barbarian 1/sorcerer 1/rogue 1 is hardly a powerhouse 5th level character (BAB +3, Fort +5, Ref +2, Will +2) even with 2 bonus feats, Rage 1x/day, a small amount of 0- and 1st-level spells (unarmored, unless risking arcane spell failure), and +1d6 Sneak Attack.
PrC "dipping" suffers from diminishing returns on prerequisites and lack of improvement on many class abilities, for the most part. A fighter 2/cleric 4/pious templar 4/holy liberator 2 (a 12th level character) has BAB +10, Fort +13, Ref +2, Will +7 (+9 with Iron Will), 3 bonus feats, casts as a cleric 4, pious templar 4, and holy liberator 2 (and none of the spellcasting stacks), turns as a cleric 4, can ignore the effects of "Fort half" and "Will partial" spells on a successful save, has DR 1/-, has Weapon Specialization, can detect evil at will, can Smite Evil for +Cha bonus on attack roll/+6 damage 2x/day, and can Remove Fatigue 3+Cha mod times per day. Compared to a fighter 2/cleric 4/warpriest 6 (BAB +11, Fort +12, Ref +3, Will +6), it's actually a bit weak (the limited spellcasting is a steeper detriment than the benefit of the extra abilities and somewhat higher saves). The multiple requirements (Alignment CG, must worship a CG deity, BAB and skills, Iron Will, True Believer, Weapon Focus in deity's chosen weapon, etc.) can be met with some planning, but that planning becomes more difficult with each PrC. Also, the restriction on "unfinished" PrCs is arbitrary and can inhibit roleplaying.
A better way to restrict PrC "dipping" is to limit the supplementary material available in the campaign. Either use blanket restrictions on books (no Book of Nine Swords, only the first four Complete books, etc.) or only allow specific supplementary material (new base classes, PrCs, feats, spells, etc.). This has the dual benefit of making it more difficult to "break" characters and enabling the DM to fit the material into the campaign world more thoroughly.
One of the issues I have with multiclassing is how it messes up saves and BAB progression. I think the easiest way to fix this is to have levels in good/poor saves and Good/Average/Poor BAB stack with one another. It’d be like how PrC stack casting, only it’d use Table 3-1 on pg22 of the PHB. An example would be a wizard3/cleric3/thurge3. Standard rules:
+4 BAB, +5 Fort, +3 Ref, +9 Will
(Cleric +2 BAB, +3 Fort, +1 Ref, +3 Will)
(Wizard +1 BAB, +1 Fort, +1 Ref, +3 Will)
(Thurge +1 BAB, +1 Fort, +1 Ref, +3 Will)
Having each level stack for a save/BAB type
+5 BAB, +5 Fort, +3 Ref, +6 Will
(BAB +2 Average +3 Poor)
(Fort +3 Good +2 Poor)
(Ref +3 Poor)
(Will +6 Good)
This cuts down on crazy imbalances that can happen when switching gears before that ideal level where all your saves and your BAB all just went up a level, such as the barbarian2/fighter2 with a +6 Fort +0 Ref +0 Will even though both classes have the same save advancements. It would be a much more balanced +4/+1/+1 under the stacking rules.
|
My group removed multiclass penalties long ago, we've never looked back.
We haven't gone to that extreme but we have limited multiclassing to very strict house rules
- Characters cannot multiclass until they have at least 2 levels in their starting class.
- Characters must progress at least 3 levels in a secondary class before returning to the starting class
- Characters may have only 2 core classes.
- Characters must have at least complete advancement in a prestige class(or take at least 5 levels in 10-level PrC) before acquiring another prestige class.
This was done to encourage (forcefully) building characters with deliberate goals and deep roleplaying flavor and not to break any dipping problem. We never really had the power dipping become an issue. These rules push players to plan out their advancement.
We also start each game with a list of core books, house rules and splat books in use before the campaign begins. That is it for that game. Period. These must be agreed upon by the players and GM has veto power. That takes most of the annoying PrCs out of the equation in one blow.
The new multiclassing levels are good. Good riddance to the XP penalty nonsense.
Munchkins cannot really be taken care of with rules in a book. It's always up to the GM to stop them.
If you have three base classes, you're munckining.
Hogwash. Might be true with the people you play, but it's not true for everyone.
i really like that i think i will try that in my game, i was going to give a +1 save to all bad saves every 5 lvls to bring high lvl play even with saves but i like your idea better, thanks
I'm glad someone likes the idea. I thought of it when looking at a house-rule (I think its in UA) where people used fractional BAB and Saves, but it got really complicated with weird fractions like +1and5/6. The stacking variant is more elegant and you end up with almost the exact same bonuses that the fractional system would.
Frankly, I'd like to see a penalty for a third base class no matter WHAT the level disparity. If you have three base classes, you're munckining.
So if you have a character who models themselves after their deity. They are automatically a MUNCHKIN? A gnome obsessed with Garl Glittergold who takes alternating levels of cleric, rogue, and illusionist actually seems to nerf himself rather than Powergaming. Or how about a human devoted to Olidamarra who takes 2 levels of rogue for every 1 level of bard and cleric he takes? You're telling me a 4th level fighter isn't gonna mop the floor with him? Or better yet the poor soul convinced he's an avatar of Erythnul? Poor guy takes equal levels in /barbarian, fighter, rogue and sorcerer.
Multi-classing, like feats, skills, ability scores-heck everything in the game can be abused. If the game were perfect without the possibility of breakage, it would be boring. Every character would have to be exactly the same. There is no "perfect" balance. Isn't it the job of the DM to reign in the game they coach? If you don't like multi-classing, don't allow it in your game. As long as you are upfront about it, it should not present a problem. I bet you'd even find players who share your feelings and will run a fantastic campaign.
Just my 2 coppers
Brian