|
Here is the multi-classing rule that I think pathfinder should adopt:
Add 1/2 your other levels to your class to advance *all* of your class features but by no more than double.
Example:
Rogue 2/Wizard 6/druid 3 (character level 11)
Counts as a 7th level wizard
Counts as a 4th level rogue
Counts as a 6th level druid
They get all bonuses and class features as though they were of the particular class and level.
Note this is highly simple and portable. Nothing extra is really needed to be known to make this work. What do you think?
-> I wanted to isolate this rule from my long post for discussion.
|
While I have yet to find a way to increase a characters “spells per day”, there are many ways to boost a characters caster level, if he is a multi-class character. One could use magical items such as an Ion stone, and there are also feats such as practiced spell caster, which gives you a +4 level boost, but does not exceed your caster level. With two caster classes, you would have to take the feat twice. Finally to make the two caser level progression work, there are lots of hybrid prestige classes, like the Mystic theurge from the DMG, and also from Races of the wild, the Arcane Hierophant. (I may have gotten the name a little wrong.) This last class advances the caster level of a druid and arcane caster at the same time.
Having played a mystic theurge, I know how frustrating it can be to say get to 11th level, and be excited to have 4th level spells. I had a grey elf Cloistered cleric 3rd /wizard 3rd/ Mystic theurge 5. After taking practiced spell caster twice, I had the effective caster level of 11th level, but the “spells per day” of a 7 level caster in both wizard and cleric.
When I was the party’s primary caster, for both arcane and clerical magic, Life was a challenge. However, when there was another single classed cleric, or wizard in the group, life got much better, because my character excelled at boosting, and I could shore up lots of the neglected areas. I never ran out of spells. I had lots of them.
My fireballs were as good as a single classed wizard, and my cure moderate wounds were as good as a single classed cleric.
But I dint have the 5 or 6 level spells that they had which were encounter enders.
Well that was the price I paid for trying to progress in two classes at once.
Oh one final thought, if you are going to do a multi class spell caster, go for the flaming sphere, where your opponent has to make a Save, instead of going for a scorching ray, where you make a ranged touch attack. Your base attack bonus will suck worse then a wizard's.
As the previous poster mentioned, and has adequately demonstrated, your “fix “ seems a little too powerful for my taste. There are lots of things you can do with already published Wotc stuff to get your caster level to equal your hit dice. I have yet to find a way to boost your “spells per day”. I think this is done intentionally to keep your multi-classed power balanced against a single classed character.
Consider the Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT 10. First of all, how the heck do we treat MT 13 (his effective Mystic Theurge level). Second, he's a wizard 6 and cleric 6 (no more than double), but that means he's casting as a Wizard 16 and Cleric 16, at 16th level... Strictly better than a character who chose to play Wizard 16 or Cleric 16. He gets to do both.
I would assume the suggested rule would not include prestige class levels in adding base class abilities. So instead a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT 10 would be a wizard 4, a cleric 4, and casting as a wizard 14 and cleric 14.
That somewhat be a solution for the PrC combinations you list.
If you want something balanced for multiclassing, define caster level = character level. Ie, characters get better at casting the spells they do know, they just don't get to learn new spells/gain new slots per day/etc... unless they advance their spellcasting class.
Is that really balanced? A eldritch knight would have significantly more powerful spells over a straight fighter/wizard and with only a few small costs.
---
One problem with stacking abilities are classes with similar abilities with different names.
An example of this is a rogue/ninja (from Complete Adventurer). One has sneak attack and the other has sudden strike, under a strict reading of this rule a rogue 10/ninja 10 would have 16d6 extra damage exceeding both a rogue and ninja's normal abilities.
As the previous poster mentioned, and has adequately demonstrated, your “fix “ seems a little too powerful for my taste. There are lots of things you can do with already published Wotc stuff to get your caster level to equal your hit dice. I have yet to find a way to boost your “spells per day”. I think this is done intentionally to keep your multi-classed power balanced against a single classed character.
If I were going to support a rule like this, it would simply be to make it so the prestige classes are not the only seemingly reasonable choice for multiclassed characters. So it should be balanced against what prestige classed multiclassers can do currently while avoiding significantly powering up those prestige classed characters.
I would like being an eldritch knight to mean a bit more than, I took a fighter-type class and combined it with an arcane caster.
Uhhhh...try this.
Add up the totals of other non-PrC classes, divide by half (rounded down) and add to that of each spellcasting class.
Cleric 5/Fighter 4/Wizard 6 would in effect have the spell capability of a Clr 10 and a Wiz 10. We could do away with kludge PrCs such as the eldritch knight and mystic theurge. Albeith being a 15th level character they'd have access to 5th level spells, which would still be below that of the average 15th level spellcaster...but it would be better than the current 3.5 lot.
This would apply to:
1) Spells/day;
2) Caster level for overcoming spell resistance.
This would also allow us to toss some of the kludge feats as well.
Really, the issue is limited to playing multiclassed spellcasters. Most everything else already stacks, and those who rely more on skill points (rogue) can work around that limitation much easier than spellcasters can.
I think the OP's suggestion seems reasonable. Maybe only for spellcasters. Otherwise you get the rogue 1/ranger1/paladin1/fighter 6 having the abilities of a 5th rogue (3d6 sneak attack ++) a 5th level ranger, a 5th level paladin and a 7th level fighter. Scary.
I would also add the addedum that the amount bumped cannot exceed twice the class level of the affected class.
Yes, that is what was suggested in the OP.
Although, from my limited looking around (I stated out an insane case of bard 4/cleric 4/fighter 4/rogue 4/paladin 4 with a similar rule with the double cap and I felt the result was excessive) I think that it might even be too high of a cap and possibly better limit would be one and a half the class level.
How do you deal with something as simple as Paladin 6/Fighter 6.
Treated as Paladin 9/Fighter 9, which means BAB +18, at level 12. Yay?
How I treated it was that new class abilities were gained from the stacking. Not base attack bonus, saves, skill points, nor hit points. It was late and that is what I assumed the original post was suggesting as well even though he had not said it.
So that would be BAB +12 at level 12 for the Paladin 6/Fighter 6.
BAB and save progressions are 'bonuses' of a particular class and level. I see no reason why BAB shouldn't stack given the OP.
Yes. Which is why I was assuming the intent of the OP was not literally what he actually said. I can understand why you might think differently though. If that were what he were still suggesting I might now suggest that he alter his wording.
Besides you seemed to see a good enough reason why they shouldn't stack given your own previous comment about a 12th level character with BAB +18.
If you go this way you need to add a restriction that no class can exceed +50% of the levels you have in that specific class.
|
I think that part would be easy:
When you advance in two or more classes, treat your character level in each class as half of your total character level for the purpose of special features. This cannot more than double your effective level in a class.
Example:
Rogue 2/Wizard 6/druid 4 (character level 12 - all classes could have special features as a 6th level character)
Casts spells as a 7th level wizard (no change due to class level higher than 1/2 character level)
Sneak attack, trapfinding, evasion, uncanny dodge as a 4th level
Counts as a 6th level druid for the purposes of spells, wild shape etc.
I think that would be pretty clear.
|
Here is the multi-classing rule that I think pathfinder should adopt:
Add 1/2 your other levels to your class to advance *all* of your class features but by no more than double.Example:
Rogue 2/Wizard 6/druid 3 (character level 11)
Counts as a 7th level wizard
Counts as a 4th level rogue
Counts as a 6th level druidThey get all bonuses and class features as though they were of the particular class and level.
Note this is highly simple and portable. Nothing extra is really needed to be known to make this work. What do you think?
-> I wanted to isolate this rule from my long post for discussion.
Tweak that to explicitly not affect PrCs (as already mentioned) *and* restrict it to only affect a Favored Class (and only a single FC, for those who have more than one) and it might be more palatable.
Assuming that the Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Druid 3 is a Halfling, he would gain +2 virtual levels of Rogue. (He could get up to +4, but can't get more virtual levels than his current actual Rogue level of 2, so the Halfling has some incentive to raise Rogue to 4, as he'll qualify for 2 more virtual levels by doing so!)
If he were an Elf, with Wizard as a Favored Class, he could get +2 virtual Wizard levels from his Rogue 2 and Druid 3 levels.
If he were a Human, he could apply them to whichever class he decided was his Favorite. So if he picked Druid, he could have +3 (up to his actual Druid level of 3) from his levels of Rogue and Wizard (and up to +4 total, giving him a strong incentive to raise Druid to 4).
[Note; I'm not really in love with this idea at all, and I'd recommend considering the Magic Rating rules instead, but I just wanted to point out some ways to make it a little more balanced.]
This cannot more than double your effective level in a class.
I think double is way to high.
For a Cleric10/Wizard10 to have all the casting of both a wizard 20 and a cleric 20 is way too much. Same for a Wizard10/Rogue10, or whatever.I think a Clr10/Wiz10 casting spells as a level 15 in each is plenty.
Giving up 9th level spells in one class for everything up through 8th in both is plenty fair.
Also, a limit of 1/2 makes the 20th level capstone abilities a bean for single class.
A perfect system should reward multiclassing and also reward single classing. Double value makes single classing a dumb idea.
|
|
How do you deal with something as simple as Paladin 6/Fighter 6.
Treated as Paladin 9/Fighter 9, which means BAB +18, at level 12. Yay?
How I treated it was that new class abilities were gained from the stacking. Not base attack bonus, saves, skill points, nor hit points. It was late and that is what I assumed the original post was suggesting as well even though he had not said it.
So that would be BAB +12 at level 12 for the Paladin 6/Fighter 6.
They get all bonuses and class features as though they were of the particular class and level.BAB and save progressions are 'bonuses' of a particular class and level. I see no reason why BAB shouldn't stack given the OP.
You are being obtuse, you are taking my after the fact flavor text and twisting its meaning. The rule is: "Add 1/2 your other levels to your class to advance *all* of your class features but by no more than double."
|
|
I would assume the suggested rule would not include prestige class levels in adding base class abilities. So instead a Wizard 3/Cleric 3/MT 10 would be a wizard 4, a cleric 4, and casting as a wizard 14 and cleric 14.
That somewhat be a solution for the PrC combinations you list.
Yes, Prc's do not count. It gives the MT a faster progression than 1/2.
One problem with stacking abilities are classes with similar abilities with different names.
An example of this is a rogue/ninja (from Complete Adventurer). One has sneak attack and the other has sudden strike, under a strict reading of this rule a rogue 10/ninja 10 would have 16d6 extra damage exceeding both a rogue and ninja's normal abilities.
I agree with the sneak attack/sudden strike/skirmish abilities, a side bar would have to be written on them. I would solve this by saying, "You can only apply up to your highest class level in similar abilities".
Example:
rogue 14/ninja 1/ scout 5
counts class features as:
rogue 17 9d6
ninja 2 1d6
scout 10 3d6/+2AC
You can only use up to 17 levels of sneak attack/sudden strike/skirmish like class features
For instance, if you wanted to use your skirmishing with your sneak attack you could do:
rogue 7 4d6
scout 10 3d6/+2AC
So 4d6 would be limited like a sneak attack and 3d6/+2AC would be limited like a skirmish.
This cannot more than double your effective level in a class.I think double is way to high.
For a Cleric10/Wizard10 to have all the casting of both a wizard 20 and a cleric 20 is way too much. Same for a Wizard10/Rogue10, or whatever.I think a Clr10/Wiz10 casting spells as a level 15 in each is plenty.
Giving up 9th level spells in one class for everything up through 8th in both is plenty fair.
Also, a limit of 1/2 makes the 20th level capstone abilities a bean for single class.A perfect system should reward multiclassing and also reward single classing. Double value makes single classing a dumb idea.
I'm not sure that's what DeadDMWalking is saying. It appears that a Cleric10/Wizard10 would have the spellcasting of 10 in both (so no change). You would be character level 20, and would get class features of 1/2 of that, so 10. That's not a BONUS, but your overall class features. But maybe I'm too entrenched in the method the original poster states (and many others including Necros in a very recent thread), but DeadDMWalking's version isn't clicking as clearly for me. So I could be wrong.
But the variations of "1/2 of other class levels up to current class level" are really gaining popularity and I wholeheartedly agree. At the VERY least, there should be a way for multiclass spellcasting to work this way. Whether it is the default of the multiclassing rules or if it is a feat, I'm running my games this way and it really fixes what I see as a major problem.
As for ALL class features working this way as the original poster states, I think that's a good idea (and even posted an Improved Multiclassing feat on one of the half dozen or so other threads on this topic that did exactly that). I thought making it a feat both helps backwards compatibility (those NPCs just never took that feat :) ), can allow some tweaking of requirements - like X number of levels in that class, and lastly creates a cost to the PC for the benefit.
I still want to playtest it some more and hear what others think since non-spellcasting multiclass issues don't seem as severe to me (oversimplifying since someone like a fighter doesn't have to be a 9th level fighter to use a "5th level weapon" - he just gets to use whatever weapon he wants).
Either way, I'm glad to see that the "1/2 of other class levels up to current class level" solution seems to be catching on. I know many think that multiclassing is fine, and that's cool. But many of us believe that at the very least mutliclass spellcasting is far more underpowered than it needs for balance.
I'm not sure that's what DeadDMWalking is saying.
Yeah, I misread part of it. My bad.
I agree with the sneak attack/sudden strike/skirmish abilities, a side bar would have to be written on them. I would solve this by saying, "You can only apply up to your highest class level in similar abilities".
Hurm... I was afraid of some wonkiness like this (which is one reason why I might just stick with boosting spellcasting only). Once you start down the road of defining what does and doesn't stack, and with possibly a class written tomorrow needing to be incorporated as well, then it gets ugly.
Maybe there's a way to word it more specifically than "similar abilities" but not as detailed as "X, Y, and Z don't stack, Q, R, and S don't stack, etc.". The former leaves too much open for interpretation to be a published rule, the later could easily become a convoluted and forever updating nightmare.
For example, would "bonus feats" stack? Wizards and fighters have very different bonus feat lists, so I don't see any need to restrict either if they add up too high. But what about monk and fighter? Haven't had a chance to do the math to see if it is an issue - busy work day - but even theoretically, where would you draw the line? Maybe feats, which give more options and have their own stacking rules, would be fine whereas sneak attack/sudden strike/skirmish are actual bonuses. However, they are also bonuses that often occur at the same time, but not always. You can be in a situation where 1, 2, or all 3 might apply. So are they always limited or only when more than 1 might apply?
Oh, and don't take this as an attack on the concept. As stated above, I agree with this in theory. I'm just not sure in practice how to pull it off sufficiently for a published rule that needs (in my mind) to be:
-- simply worded (can read it once and grasp immediately),
-- clearly worded (little to no case-by-case interpretation necessary),
--with as little potential for abuse as possible.
I'm just worried that we might not be able to hit all 3, but would gladly be proven wrong.
P.S. Oh, and there's also the practical issue of "the rule should ideally handle other publisher's material reasonably well, especially WotC's, even if you can never mention any of those details". Fun stuff!
|
|
Here is the updated rule.
Add 1/2 your other levels to your class to advance *all* of your class features but by no more than double. PrCs do not add 1/2 their level to your other class's class features.
Further clarifications: bonuses do not count (BAB, saves, HP etc) only class features.
Example:
Rogue 2/Wizard 6/druid 3 (character level 11)
class features are as a:
4th level rogue (2 + (6+3)/2=4 (but no more than double) so, 2+2=4)
8th level wizard (6 + (2+3)/2=2 so, 6+2=8)
6th level druid (3 + (2+6)/2=4 (but no more than double) so, 3+3=6)
Another example:
fighter 1/wizard 5/Eldritch Knight 10 (character level 16)
class features are as a:
2nd level fighter
5th level wizard with a caster level of 14
Compare that to this example:
Fighter 4/Wizard 12 (character level 16)
class features are as a:
8th level fighter
14th level wizard
Combining some of the base classes together are more effective than getting the "fix-it" PrCs. This is a good thing.
If you are interesting you might be able to pull a few things out of this stupidly long thread from a little way back. It has a few variations like this rule and it has some information on some stat blocks as I adjusted the rule along the way.
|
|
I'm just worried that we might not be able to hit all 3, but would gladly be proven wrong.
-- simply worded: can read it once and grasp immediately
-- clearly adjudicated: little to no case-by-case interpretation necessary-- not blatantly abusive: with as little potential for abuse as possible
I totally agree. So far, it is simply worded and not blatantly abusive. The clearly adjudicated part is where play testing the rule needs to be done.
The area that needs to be looked at carefully is similar or the same ability that is on two different classes that get coupled. Examples would be bonus precision based damage (rogue/scout/ninja/spell thief), familiar (sorcerer/wizard), animal companion (ranger/druid), and there are others I am sure. If we can isolate all class features from base classes that we know should not stack higher than the characters highest "effective level" we can make a general rule.
Right now, my current stab at the rule is kind of nebulously broad:
"You can only apply up to your highest class level in similar abilities".
It needs to be more specific on what types of abilities get picked up by this rule.
So which class features should not stack?
Here is a better stab at the rule:
Stacking class feature's from more than one class can never be higher level in effect than your highest effective level in one of the classes that gives you the class feature.
Then have a blurb about base class precision based damage counts as a "stacking class feature".
:):):) I think that pretty much solves it ;)
|
|
If you are interesting you might be able to pull a few things out of this stupidly long thread from a little way back. It has a few variations like this rule and it has some information on some stat blocks as I adjusted the rule along the way.
Gack! Pazio ate my long post. Points were
*Nice job on your analysis.*I am excited about the new diversity in class combinations that this rule would create (Paladin/Monk etc) that would not have been possible without a specifically tailored PrC.
*Eldritch knight and PrCs of its ilk were too weak at low level and then ramped up too quickly at high level (CL 17)
*Um, I think there was more but can't remember.
|
|
Seeing as how PRPG gives the characters significantly more feats I think the easiest solution would be to allow mutliclassed spellcasters to take a feat that increases their spellcasting level (like the prestige class ability.) Each time they take the feat it increases their casting level by +1 and can take the feat either as a class feat (so a wizard/fighter could give up fighter feats to increase spellcasting) or a character feat.
To limit it, I'd allow the feat to be taken multiple times to a maximum of whatever the primary caster attribute modifier is equal to (so a wizard/fighter with Int 16 can only take it 2 times.) Further, they can never use the feat to exceed their character level.
|
|
Seeing as how PRPG gives the characters significantly more feats I think the easiest solution would be to allow mutliclassed spellcasters to take a feat that increases their spellcasting level (like the prestige class ability.) Each time they take the feat it increases their casting level by +1 and can take the feat either as a class feat (so a wizard/fighter could give up fighter feats to increase spellcasting) or a character feat.
To limit it, I'd allow the feat to be taken multiple times to a maximum of whatever the primary caster attribute modifier is equal to (so a wizard/fighter with Int 16 can only take it 2 times.) Further, they can never use the feat to exceed their character level.
Um but what about non-spell caster class features like paladin smiting and monk unarmed striking and and and...
This only addresses the most major issue CL and doesn't address the other issues. 4e has a "feat" based multiclassing system go on any 4e board and you will find people are "meh" about the system at best.
Um but what about non-spell caster class features like paladin smiting and monk unarmed striking and and and...
This only addresses the most major issue CL and doesn't address the other issues. 4e has a "feat" based multiclassing system go on any 4e board and you will find people are "meh" about the system at best.
I know, when I first heard the 4e multiclassing rules, I really couldn't believe it. Although in practice, given the overall framework of the 4e classes, it works, but I would certainly never call it multiCLASSing, but then again I'm not a big fan of the overall framework of the 4e classes. (As in "I don't like butter pecan ice cream" not "I don't like being kicked in the face.")
If we can solve the "addressing what does and doesn't stack" in a way that is thorough, but still concise, then for what it's worth, I'm sold on using it in my games beyond just spellcasting.
Personally, I might still consider making it a feat such as Improved Multiclassing (fighter), both because it's a bit more backwards compatible, and you can have all races have that feat for their favored class. That makes far more sense to me than the original XP penalties, but also making favored classes seem more interesting than some extra hit points or skill points (to me more options/abilities tends to trump boring better numbers) . But that's more aesthetics than balance at that point for me. *shrug*
|
|
Um but what about non-spell caster class features like paladin smiting and monk unarmed striking and and and...
Have we actually confirmed the multiclass restriction has been lifted from monk and paladin? I assumed those paragraphs aren't there because everything related to multiclassing is currently missing.
Um but what about non-spell caster class features like paladin smiting and monk unarmed striking and and and...Have we actually confirmed the multiclass restriction has been lifted from monk and paladin? I assumed those paragraphs aren't there because everything related to multiclassing is currently missing.
I think that they were lifted, at least for now. I recall that in one of the versions of the Alpha that it still included the multiclass restriction paragraph for the classes.
Edit: It was in Alpha 2 for the paladin, it went away in Alpha 3 so I assume that it was removed on purpose.
|
|
If we can solve the "addressing what does and doesn't stack" in a way that is thorough, but still concise, then for what it's worth, I'm sold on using it in my games beyond just spellcasting.
A nice thing about a reimplementation is that the rule can be written directly into the class features rather than written as some catchall in the multi-classing section of the book. For instance under druid and ranger - animal companion, or cleric and paladin - channel energy it can say this ability can only use your highest effective level and the features do not stack together.
|
|
Here is the updated rule. <snip>I like this rule, but I agree with Zynete that the cap should be one and a half times class level not double, because of what happens if you have 4 or 5 classes.
Also, for clarity I think the line "PrCs do not add 1/2 their level to your other class's class features" should be followed by "and other classes do not add half their level to PrCs class features".
So your contention is if you are
"Max 1.5x level" for a 2/2/2/2/2 level 10 character would be effectively 3/3/3/3/3? In a "max double" it would be effectively 4/4/4/4/4.A 4/4/4/4/4 with 1.5 times max would be a 6/6/6/6/6 and in "max double" would be 8/8/8/8/8 for a 20th level character to have their class features be 8th in five vs. 6th in five.
I dont see a drastic Difference other than the 1.5 guy is very underpowered only with a CL of 6 and only 3rd level spells? Both of those characters are not very good at all. Sure they have a lot of breadth in features but they have very little punch.
A fighter 4/ rogue 4/cleric 4/wizard 4/sorcerer 4 --> I don't fear this character even if his class features are counted as being 8th level in each class. CL 8 for a 20th level character? Lame. My only opposition to this is just from a purely scholastic point of view, I personally feel characters should be limited to 4 classes including PrCs - I wouldn't write a rule for that but I just have that inclination I guess.
Here is the updated rule. <snip>I like this rule, but I agree with Zynete that the cap should be one and a half times class level not double, because of what happens if you have 4 or 5 classes.
Also, for clarity I think the line "PrCs do not add 1/2 their level to your other class's class features" should be followed by "and other classes do not add half their level to PrCs class features".
So your contention is if you are
"Max 1.5x level" for a 2/2/2/2/2 level 10 character would be effectively 3/3/3/3/3? In a "max double" it would be effectively 4/4/4/4/4.A 4/4/4/4/4 with 1.5 times max would be a 6/6/6/6/6 and in "max double" would be 8/8/8/8/8 for a 20th level character to have their class features be 8th in five vs. 6th in five.
I dont see a drastic Difference other than the 1.5 guy is very underpowered only with a CL of 6 and only 3rd level spells? Both of those characters are not very good at all. Sure they have a lot of breadth in features but they have very little punch.
A fighter 4/ rogue 4/cleric 4/wizard 4/sorcerer 4 --> I don't fear this character even if his class features are counted as being 8th level in each class. CL 8 for a 20th level character? Lame. My only opposition to this is just from a purely scholastic point of view, I personally feel characters should be limited to 4 classes including PrCs - I wouldn't write a rule for that but I just have that inclination I guess.
Maybe you're right, but when I was bouncing around during testing my goal was to have no combination significantly more powerful than what I could do with prestige classes. That may not have been appropriate but that is what I went with. I had built a bard/cleric/fighter/rogue/paladin to test how well the rule reacted with enormous multiclassing. I came up with two problems:
1. I found that I really wanted to blow something up after setting up just the three spell-lists for this heavily armored character.2. I came up with one base class/PrC combination that gave the combination of bard powers, 4th level divine spells, reasonable base attack bonus, sneak attack, and paladin abilities and it was a bard/blackguard. I put it together and compared the two characters.
I believe I found that the heavily multiclassed character exceeded the abilities of the blackguard in almost every way.
I also felt that the triple classing was a little too good with this, here is a comparison of two classes and three at 20th level.
Example Comparison:
Rogue 10/Monk 10
Fighter 6/Rogue 7/Monk 7
Aside from the lost skill points from taking the fighter levels instead of monk or rogue the three classed character loses two effective levels of monk and rogue, while gaining 12 levels of fighter for at least the seven bonus combat feats.
The third reason for my suggesting the 1 and 1/2 limit is that there also seemed to be an odd (to me at least) thing with characters who had 2/3 their levels in one class.
Example Comparison:
single class
Wizard 18
lopsided multiclassing
Fighter 6/Wizard 12
even multiclassing
Fighter 9/Wizard 9
Again, to me, this seemed to be a large gain in abilities for a small drop in power.
This is not to say that you are wrong, I just want to give my experience to let you understand my thinking.
|
|
Thank you, KenMarble. You are correct that in my example a Cleric 10/Wizard 10 would have no benefit to his effective caster level. Though I understand that I was unclear, ByronD. Sorry. I posted before rushing out of the house.
I'll try to be more succinct.
While I'm not totally sold on the 'multiclassing fix', I'm at least intrigued. So far, I like A T's example of using the half all other class levels (up to current level).
I do think that might be a bit too high, though...
A Wiz 10/Cleric 10 would cast as a 15th level Wizard and Cleric....
Perhaps instead of 1/2 (no more than double) it should be 1/3.
So a Wiz 10/Cleric 10 would cast as a Wiz 13/Cleric 13 (much more reasonable, I think).
A Pal 5/Wiz 5/Rogue 5/Ftr 5 would gain +1/3 of 15 (+5) to each class, so would count as a Pal 10/Wiz 10/Rogue 10/Ftr 10 as far as special abilities....
A Wiz 15/Ftr 5 would gain +1 Wiz level and +5 Ftr levels (again, only for special abilities).
This strikes me as more balanced than the +1/2....
Thoughts?
I think that 1/3 may work. I had similar feelings, the only thing I had done differently was make it 1/2 levels in other base classes - 1 (minimum zero).
It didn't really feel like a good idea for a wizard 10/cleric 10 to be more powerful than a wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10.
I think that 1/3 may work. I had similar feelings, the only thing I had done differently was make it 1/2 levels in other base classes - 1 (minimum zero).
It didn't really feel like a good idea for a wizard 10/cleric 10 to be more powerful than a wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10.
I actually differ in opinion. If multiclassing (especially spellcaster multiclassing) is fixed, then the mystic theurge is pointless. It, and all of the many, many other PrCls that are variations on the same "take 3 levels of X, and 3 levels of Y, then get a dual PrCls" are just band-aids that don't address the real problem. Later on WotC tried to make those PrCls more interesting, but for the most part, many are just "take 3 levels of X, and 3 levels of Y, then get a dual PrCls."
The mystic theurge in particular is NOTHING but a multiclass band-aid - no other class features at all to make it interesting. As long as it's in the same range of power as the mystic theurge (since it's a good baseline for multiclass balance), I'd gladly see good multiclassing rules make the mystic theurge redundant.
When I tried my hand at the Improved Multiclassing feat on this other thread, I did make it 5 levels in the chosen class as a requirement so that you have to be more committed to a class since you get all of the class features rather than just casting (plus it costs a feat slot for each class you want to get the multiclass bonus, and it effectively limits it to 4 classes). Not sure if those extra costs are necessary, but it might be a good compromise. *shrug*
But, bottom line, I see the mystic theurge as a band-aid that was nice at the time, but needs to be ripped off and discarded without remorse.
I really like this idea though I havent examined the mechanics in detail, it has ease and appeals to me as I like core classes way more than prestige classes ( I wont go into the reasosn) and this eliminates the need for a bunch of band-aid prestige classes (as mentioned already).
Someone mentioned the idea of a favoured class benefit. ie that it only applied to favoured classes (so for halflings, rogues etc). I am not a fan of the current favored class benefit. What do you reckon about allowing favored class muliclassing to be max of 1/2 and other classes max of 1/3?
|
|
Well I had one last idea on this but thought it a little more complex than "+1/2" so did not post it.
Exact same rules but rather than always +1/2, it is +1/x other levels where x = the number of non-prestige classes you have.
Examples:
10/10 +1/2 = 15/15 (no change here)
6/7/7 +1/3 = 10/11/11 (vs. +1/2 = 12/13/13)
5/5/5/5 +1/4 = 8/8/8/8 (vs. +1/2 = 10/10/10/10
4/4/4/4/4 +1/5 = 7/7/7/7/7 (vs. +1/2 = 8/8/8/8/8)
After doing this, I actually like it because it naturally dissuades from over multi-classing. Which I stated before I don't like fundamentally. This neither explicitly puts a cap on the number of classes you can multi-class into and is a little tamer on the virtual levels.
Now I am not sold that 1/2 other non-prestige class levels is bad. So this idea is just being vetted about by me with the real promise of +1/2.
The thing that we have to remember is that this is not actual character level this is a "virtual" character level that tells you what level you class features are at - very similar to caster level. So, the number can be a little disguising. At the very least it needs the hell playtested out of it.
I think that 1/3 may work. I had similar feelings, the only thing I had done differently was make it 1/2 levels in other base classes - 1 (minimum zero).
It didn't really feel like a good idea for a wizard 10/cleric 10 to be more powerful than a wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10.
I think the whole point of this change to multiclassing is that we do not need these kind of stupid PRCs anymore.
And with +1/2 Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is of same power as MT (actually it would have been in 3.5e, but now with 3P both classes get more class features then just spells).
Also remember then once you start getting MT levels you get spellcasting power in both classes, while with multiclassing you get more spellcasting power in one class per level (and every two levels you gain a +1 boost in other class).
So you need to take 2 wizard and 2 cleric to get what you get with 3 MT levels.
The advantage of this multiclassing when compared to the MT is that you also get this benefit during the first 6 levels (although you still end up only casting 2 lvl spells).
I think this rules just might work and will propose this to my group if they want play it this way.
I actually differ in opinion. If multiclassing (especially spellcaster multiclassing) is fixed, then the mystic theurge is pointless. It, and all of the many, many other PrCls that are variations on the same "take 3 levels of X, and 3 levels of Y, then get a dual PrCls" are just band-aids that don't address the real problem. Later on WotC tried to make those PrCls more interesting, but for the most part, many are just "take 3 levels of X, and 3 levels of Y, then get a dual PrCls."I think that 1/3 may work. I had similar feelings, the only thing I had done differently was make it 1/2 levels in other base classes - 1 (minimum zero).
It didn't really feel like a good idea for a wizard 10/cleric 10 to be more powerful than a wizard 5/cleric 5/mystic theurge 10.
My meaning wast that I was trying to produce something that was similar in power to the mystic theurge. Because all a mystic theurge improves is their spellcasting power and the wizard/cleric would have improved all their class abilities (energy channeling, arcane school powers, domain powers, wild shape, etc.). If the wizard/cleric was as good at spellcasting as the mystic theurge then it would have been superior to the mystic theurge in everyone, and if I were treated mystic theurge as balanced then it would be more powerful than I aiming for.
While I would like to become less reliant in multiclassing prestige classes, and I am really not happy with the mystic theurge's blandness. I think that the multiclassing prestige classes should remain (no matter how much I might dislike certain ones) and used to represent organizations and such. In this case the mystic theurge, instead of being the generic combiner of arcane and divine, would be someone who dropped everything else to study magical spell theory dismissing everything else as unimportant compared to the might of pure magic. Still don't like how bland the prestige class abilities for it are, but I can see some use for it, just a lot less than currently.
And with +1/2 Wizard 10/Cleric 10 is of same power as MT (actually it would have been in 3.5e, but now with 3P both classes get more class features then just spells).
Almost, in 3.5 the wizard/cleric's ability to turn/rebuke undead, summon a familiar, and some domains would be 10 levels stronger than the mystic theurge, and the wizard/cleric would also have two more wizard bonus feats.
Besides, I like some of those stupid PrCs. Just not as a necessity to make multiclassing work. For flavor for organizations though, I do enjoy the idea of using them.
|
|
Here is the updated rule.
Add 1/2 your other levels to your class to advance *all* of your class features but by no more than double. PrCs do not add 1/2 their level to your other class's class features.
Further clarifications: bonuses do not count (BAB, saves, HP etc) only class features.
Example:
Rogue 2/Wizard 6/druid 3 (character level 11)
class features are as a:
4th level rogue (2 + (6+3)/2=4 (but no more than double) so, 2+2=4)
8th level wizard (6 + (2+3)/2=2 so, 6+2=8)
6th level druid (3 + (2+6)/2=4 (but no more than double) so, 3+3=6)
Just updating this example to +1/3 for the sake of comparison.
Rogue 2/Wizard 6/Druid 3 (character level 11)
Class Features are as:
4th level Rogue (6+3)/3= +3 - No more than double = +2
7th level Wizard (2+3)/3= +1
5th level Druid (2+6)/3 = +2
Under 3.5 Rules the character would have:
+1d6 Sneak Attack
Trap Finding
Evasion
Summon Familiar
Scribe Scroll
Bonus Feat (Wizard)
3rd level spells w/ CL 6(Wizard)
Animal Compaion
Nature Sense
Wild Empathy
Woodland Stride
Trackless Step
2nd level spells w/ CL 3 (Druid)
Under the 1/2 Rule the character would have:
Sneak Attack +2d6
Trapfinding
Evasion
Rogue Talent
Trap Sense +1
Rogue Talent
Uncanny Dodge
Arcane Bond
Cantrips
School Power
Scribe Scroll
School Power (1st)
School Power (2nd)
School Power (4th)
Bonus Feat
School Power (6th)
School Power (8th)
4th level spells CL 8 (Wizard)
Nature Bond
Nature Sense
Orisons
Wilde Empathy
Woodland Stride
Trackless Step
Reist Nature's Lure
Wild Shape 2/day
3rd level spells CL 6 (Druid)
Under the 1/3 rule the character would have:
Sneak Attack +2d6
Trapfinding
Evasion
Rogue Talent
Trap Sense +1
Rogue Talent
Uncanny Dodge
Arcane Bond
Cantrips
School Power
Scribe Scroll
School Power (1st)
School Power (2nd)
School Power (4th)
Bonus Feat
School Power (6th)
4th level spells CL 7 (Wizard)
Nature Bond
Nature Sense
Orisons
Wilde Empathy
Woodland Stride
Trackless Step
Reist Nature's Lure
3rd level spells CL 5 (Druid)
In this example, the only thing the character lost was a second use of wild shape (along w/ large and tiny creatures) and a school power.
Compared to a straight 11th level character (say Druid) it is missing out on 5th and 6th level spells, the ability to wild shape into more useful forms (Huge, Diminutive, Large Elemental or Large Plant).
Since the idea is to establish a 'power parity', I think the extra couple of items given up by the 1/3 adjustment help to balance it.
As long as the maximum adjustment is (current level x2) I'm not worried about cherry picking. If there were no cap, a Fighter 1/Wizard 19 would be impressive - gaining +9 levels of Fighter Feats - but with the cap of x2 they can only gain +1 level of Fighter Feats...
One other consideration I'm boucncing around - how high can you advance in another class and still gain 9th level spells? Since you need a CL of 17 for 9th level spells - you must take at least 16 levels in the primary class. The +1/3 allows you to take up to 4 levels in another class and gain 9th level spells.
Using the +1/2 rule, you could be 15th level, taking up to 5 levels in another class you would still gain a +2 CL (bringing you up to 17).
I think I would be more comfortable with the +1/3 considering that. Take a Wiz 15/Clr 5. Under the 1/2 rule they would cast as a 17th level wizard and a 10th level cleric. Under the 1/3 rule they would cast as a 16th level wizard and a 10th level cleric (losing out on 9th level spells).
|
|
Just updating this example to +1/3 for the sake of comparison.
Nice analysis.
How do you feel about this idea?
Add a level bonus to your class for determining your class features. The bonus given to each class is the total number of other levels you have divided by the total number of classes you have. The bonus can give no more to a class than double the level of the class. Prestige classes do not add a level bonus.
Stacking class feature's from more than one base class can never be higher level in effect than your highest effective level (class level + level bonus)in one of the classes that gives you the class feature.
Further clarifications: bonuses do not count (BAB, saves, HP etc) only, class features. Base class precision based damage (sneak attack/sudden strike/skirmish) counts as a "stacking class feature".
2 classes +1/2
3 classes +1/3
4 classes +1/4
5 classes +1/5
Examples:
10/10 +1/2 (+5/+5) = 15/15
15/5 +1/2 (+2/+5) = 17/10
6/7/7 +1/3 (+4/+4/+4) = 10/11/11
4/6/10 +1/3 (+4/+4/+3) = 8/10/13
5/5/5/5 +1/4 (+3/+3/+3/+3) = 8/8/8/8
2/4/6/8 +1/4 (+2/+4/+3/+3) = 4/8/9/11
4/4/4/4/4 +1/5 (+3/+3/+3/+3/+3) = 7/7/7/7/7
2/3/4/5/6 +1/5 (+2/+3/+3/+3/+2) = 4/6/7/8/8
|
|
Nice analysis.
Thank you. I think that looking at actual class features can be helpful to turn the abstract into something concrete.
How do you feel about this idea?
I agree with your first assessment that it is somewhat more complex, and I don't think there is too much advantage. Or rather, I doubt there is much abuse to be had in a 5 base class character build.
Let's think for a moment:
Rogue 4/Fighter 4/Ranger 4/Cleric 4/Wizarde 4
We have 16 levels of classes other than which ever one we look at. 16/3 = +5. Since no class can more than double, we would have class features as if we were 8th level in each of the 5 classes.
Under your proposed system we would take 1/5 of 16 (+3) making us effectively level 7 in each class for the purpose of special features. That one level difference is a difference, but one point is to make Multiclassing characters not significantly weaker than a non-multi-class character of equivalent character level. A 5-base-character class would have a lot of flexibility, but their highest spell level would be 4th... Against CR 20 opponents they will probably sometimes do well (flexibility) but still be outclassed. I think the additional math makes it more complicated without making much difference for the 'too many classes' example. For the very few classes (2) obviously it works out to a benefit.
I might suggest another 'compromise'. If the 1/3 level were used to determine 'effective class level for class features', perhaps a feat that lets you raise that level by +1 (capable of being taken multiple times, but no more than doubling your effective level).
For example, a Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would have a +3 effective caster level in both classes (13th level). To raise it to 17th level in each class would require 8 feats (4 for Wizard and 4 for Cleric). Thus achieving 9th level spells in both classes - but at the cost of nearly every feat they normally would get.
Thoughts?
Regarding Sneak Attack, let's take the example of a Rogue 6/Scout 6/Ninja 6.
Under 3.5 rules they would have +3d6 Sneak, +3d6 Sudden Strike, +2d6 Skrimish. Thus, in a round that they moved and surprised an opponent they would deal +8d6 damage.
Under the +1/3 rule they would count as 10th level in each class for the purpose of determing their sneak attack bonus.
+5d6 Sneak +5d6 Sudden Strike +3d6 Skirmish = +13d6 damage.
As an 18th level character, they would deal +9d6 Sneak.
What are they giving up for that extra 4d6 damage? They're definitely giving up a full attack option... 9d6 Sneak on every attack when you flank versus +13d6 when you move and the enemy is flatfooted. I'd argue that is a pretty fair trade (ie, one that I would be reluctant to make).
Uhm, let me share with you this discussion:
Neceros' Core Upgrade
I've been saying this for a long while, now. :)