Variant: Multiclassing

[Jal Dorak]

Okay, so here is how our group originally misinterpreted, in a good way, multiclassing when 3rd Edition came out:

BAB and Base Saves do not stack. You take the best from your classes at the levels you have in that class. Saves are taken as a group for simplicity of math. For cases where there are two classes of equal level, use the saves of the first class the character took. We thought this was what the PHB meant, because it was the same way spellcasting and class abilities worked (and later on, returned with the Class Defense variant, by which time we had corrected our "mistake").

We never had problems with multiclassing until we started using the rules "the right way".

Example: Gorg the 4th Level will be built two ways in each system. First, under the 3.5 rules as a single-class barbarian, second as a 3.5 barbarian/ranger/druid. Then, under my groups "incorrect" rules as a single-class barbarian, and again as a barbarian/ranger/druid.

3.5 Mechanics

Gorg, Barbarian 4:
BAB +4; Fort +3, Ref +1, Will +1; fast movement, illiteracy, uncanny dodge, trap sense +1, rage 2/day.

Gorg, Barbarian 2/Ranger 1/Druid 1:
BAB +3; Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +2; fast movement, illiteracy, uncanny dodge, rage 1/day, favored enemy, track, animal companion, wild empathy, nature sense, druid spells.

Gorg trades +1 BAB for net +5 saves and a whack of class features, it gets more out of whack with more classes and higher levels.

Incorrect Mechanics

Gorg, Barbarian 4: Unchanged from above.

Gorg, Barbarian 2/Ranger 1/Druid 1:
BAB +2; Fort +3, Ref +0, Will +0; same class features.

Gorg trades +2 BAB for net -2 saves and a whack of class features, adding more classes does not improve his BAB or Saves any faster.

We found this incredibly fair for the single-classed players. And easy to convert - just take the total saves from the highest level class and rebuild the saving throws.

I thought of this when reading recent criticisms of 3rd Edition, and I honestly think it goes a long way to preventing certain abuses of the system.

Who wants to play a Fighter 2/Duskblade 1/Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Sorcerer 1/Wilder 1/Barbarian 1 when you have a grand total of +2 BAB and Fort +3? There are advantages, but also huge downsides. That is why I like it.

Comments?

[Kirth Gersen]

Jal Dorak wrote:

I did post it in the PRPG section too. :)

Oops! If there's time, I'll delete it here after re-inserting it there...

EDIT: Done! Thanks.

[Jal Dorak]

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Jal Dorak wrote:

I did post it in the PRPG section too. :)

Oops! If there's time, I'll delete it here after re-inserting it there...

EDIT: Done! Thanks.

Returned the favor and deleted my post following yours. Thanks for the feedback, Kirth.

[pres man]

I prefer the fractional BA and Saves if not sticking to the RAW.

[Jal Dorak]

pres man wrote:

I prefer the fractional BA and Saves if not sticking to the RAW.

That would be the simple solution. :)

I do have Unearthed Arcana, but I've never tried that particular variant.

[hogarth]

pres man wrote:

I prefer the fractional BA and Saves if not sticking to the RAW.

That doesn't really fix the problem that a Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Ranger 1 is "better" (in terms of class features gained vs. class features lost) than a Barbarian 3 or a Fighter 3. But that just means that the Fighter and Barbarian should have cool high-level class features that encourage single-classing.

[pres man]

hogarth wrote:

pres man wrote:

I prefer the fractional BA and Saves if not sticking to the RAW.

That doesn't really fix the problem that a Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Ranger 1 is "better" (in terms of class features gained vs. class features lost) than a Barbarian 3 or a Fighter 3. But that just means that the Fighter and Barbarian should have cool high-level class features that encourage single-classing.

Well I'm not convinced that a barb1/ftr1/rng1 is better than a barb 3 any way.

Let's look at what we get:
Barbarian 3

Spoiler:

HP 3d12 (25)
BA +3
Fort +3, Ref +1, Will +1
Feats 2
Skill points 24 points
Class abilities Fast movement, rage 1/day, uncanny dodge, trap sense +1

Fighter 3

Spoiler:

HP 3d10 (21)
BA +3
Fort +3, Ref +1, Will +1
Feats 2 + 2 fighter focused feats
Skill points 12 points
Class abilities see feats

Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Ranger 1 (standard)

Spoiler:

HP 1d12+1d10+1d8 (20-22 depending on which class is first)
BA +3
Fort +6, Ref +2, Will +0
Feats 2 + 1 fighter focused feat
Skill points 18-30 (depending on which class is first)
Class abilities fast movement, rage 1/day, bonus feat, favored enemy, track, wild empathy

Barbarian 1/Fighter 1/Ranger 1 (fractional saves and BA)

Spoiler:

HP 1d12+1d10+1d8 (20-22 depending on which class is first)
BA +3
Fort +3, Ref +2, Will +1
Feats 2 + 1 fighter focused feat
Skill points 18-30 (depending on which class is first)
Class abilities fast movement, rage 1/day, bonus feat, favored enemy, track, wild empathy

The barbarian 3 vs. barbarian 1/fighter 1/ranger 1 (fractional saves and BA)
Pros for Barbarian 3:
3-5 more hp (3 if barb is 1st, 4 if fighter is first, 5 if ranger is first)
6 more skill points possibly (if fighter was 1st)
uncanny dodge
trap sense +1

Cons for Barbarian 3:
6 less skill points possibly (if ranger was 1st)
1 less Ref save
no favored enemy
no bonus feat
no track feat
no wild empathy (pretty worthless given it is based on the ranger level only)

The Barbarian is worse looking compared to the standard rules since he'll have +3 fort at the cost of his +1 will. But then again since will is the weak spot for all three of these classes, sacrificing it might be a bad idea.

Fighter 3 is pretty pathetic unless you value the weapon focus/specialization tree feats, and then any divergence from the fighter class weakens it.

EDIT: flubbed the skill points, fixed now.

[Marty1000]

I just came across this issue today when looking at the saves of a multiclassed NPC in one of the games I run. I can't believe that I didn't notice this before in all the time since 3e/3,5 came out and also that WOTC and who knows what other developers haven't identified this as an error...

As it is, the "by the book" 3/3.5 multiclassing method for calculating base saves has to be an ALL OUT ERROR somehow overlooked.

The problem stems from the fact that character class with good save progressions start 1st level at +2 and not zero.

The variant method that uses the class levels and fractions the base save bonus depending on good or poor progression SHOULD be the correct method and should replace the one in the book.

For the purpose of the math and calculating just the fort save, if you had a 20th level character who had 5 levels in each of fighter, barbarian, paladin and ranger (all with good Fort save progression), The method in the PHB says this characters base save bonus is +16. If you put all your 20 levels as a straight fighter your base fort save at 20th level would be +12. What? this is so clearly an error in the basic game mechanics for calculating multiclass base save bonus that it should have been clearly addressed in Wizards FAQ and Errata. However, it has been allowed to persist despite the fact it is wrong.

I implore all players to see this for the glaring mistake that it is and switch to the "variant" method that fractions the different classes base bonus based on good or poor save progression. This will make the base save bonuses add up properly. The variant rule should actually be the "core" rule for multiclass characters as far as base save calculation goes.

The same should also be done for BAB calculation with good, avg, and poor progressions.

[pres man]

As someone who teaches mathematics I can tell you that for alot of people, Fractions are Hard. They just can't handle it, I wish more people could, but they can't and they don't want to. Thus the fractional method will always be a variant for those more math oriented groups (or groups where the math oriented person is willing to fix everyone's character for them).

[Cato Novus]

Wow, the average person has trouble with fractions? Perhaps I should hold off on the quadratic equation based version of the rules I'm working on...