Just wanted to add my request for official rules to multiclass at 1st level. They don't erode the value of the game's current starting point, they add to it. Why? Because the game's current starting point starts with a character concept. And limiting a character concept to a single class with a "plan" to acquire some other skills later (or which suddenly materialise after an intense few hours of monster killing) isn't a great solution. By permitting multiclassing at 1st level, you add a lot more workable initial character concepts to the mix. They can probably be added as an AP article if not in the APG.
NO! I don't want to have to shell out cash for an AP publication that I probably won't use 75% of just for one article. There's already more data being put into APs than I really want - setting neutral stuff like apprentice level rules finding its way in there would just be like salt on the wound.
If it won't find its way into the APG, perhaps the DM book that's coming out? If not there, then some other, later publication perhaps, but something that's setting neutral, full of relevant information, and worth it to me to purchase. I've had fun playing through Second Darkness, but I don't feel like shelling out $20 (or having to read a PDF, which I don't enjoy at all) just to get an article about building a fighter/wizard at first level.
Just wanted to add my request for official rules to multiclass at 1st level. They don't erode the value of the game's current starting point, they add to it. Why? Because the game's current starting point starts with a character concept. And limiting a character concept to a single class with a "plan" to acquire some other skills later (or which suddenly materialise after an intense few hours of monster killing) isn't a great solution. By permitting multiclassing at 1st level, you add a lot more workable initial character concepts to the mix. They can probably be added as an AP article if not in the APG.NO! I don't want to have to shell out cash for an AP publication that I probably won't use 75% of just for one article. There's already more data being put into APs than I really want - setting neutral stuff like apprentice level rules finding its way in there would just be like salt on the wound.
If it won't find its way into the APG, perhaps the DM book that's coming out? If not there, then some other, later publication perhaps, but something that's setting neutral, full of relevant information, and worth it to me to purchase. I've had fun playing through Second Darkness, but I don't feel like shelling out $20 (or having to read a PDF, which I don't enjoy at all) just to get an article about building a fighter/wizard at first level.
+1
I don't play the AP's. I've got plenty of adventure left in the campaign settings I already adopted, plus my homebrew. Setting neutral stuff needs to be in setting neutral books.
NO! I don't want to have to shell out cash for an AP publication that I probably won't use 75% of just for one article.
You're right. It shouldn't be in an AP. But it's looking like Paizo don't think it's an important enough option to go in the APG either, which I find a little confusing because I've always thought multiclassing at 1st level should have been a core concept as it had always been right up until 3.5, when it was suddenly dropped.
If it doesn't make it into the APG, perhaps it could be in an APG "web enhancement" then, or something. But you're quite right - it should be in a setting neutral release.
Creative Director
|
But it's looking like Paizo don't think it's an important enough option to go in the APG either...
What gives you that idea? I think that it's an interesting idea... not one that I ever really used, but it's obviously something that a fair number of folks did. And the Pathfinder Core RPG kind of glosses over multiclassing anyway... and if multiclassing isn't an "advanced" player topic I'm not sure what is.
The APG's contents are still being created; there's plenty of time for us to do something akin to the apprentice rules if we haven't put in such a section already. No promises... there might be a REASON that these rules were cut from 3.5, after all!
|
Also, although it's 1) 3.5 rather than Pathfinder and 2) very unofficial, there was a fan version floating around. IF nothing else it would give ideas for how to proceed.
Also, although it's 1) 3.5 rather than Pathfinder and 2) very unofficial, there was a fan version floating around. IF nothing else it would give ideas for how to proceed.
Wait. Whoah, slow down there... Barbarians start out with illiteracy at level 0? They should have to wait until level 1, just like people that start out as level 1 Leetspeakers! Overpowered apprentice class, indeed!
|
|
But it's looking like Paizo don't think it's an important enough option to go in the APG either...What gives you that idea?
I think you're initial response might have given that him that idea. However..
Exactly, until it's too late, there's always an argument for change/addition. I mean look at the PRPG skill system as an example of Paizo doing something and listening to their customers and doing something else (not just once too!)
In any case, in the original DMG, it took up approximately a full page. It's something for Paizo to look at. Ultimately I think the rules were dropped because WOTC didn't want to have to support those rules for additional classes they made.
What gives you that idea?
… he said, all innocent-like, hands in pockets, whistling nonchalantly.
Well, as SirUrza mentioned, it surely was earlier responses like:
"In any event, I'm pretty sure there's no apprentice-level stuff going into the Advanced Player's Guide, mostly because the game already HAS a starting point. Adding options to that starting point erodes its value as a starting point."
and
"I'll make sure there's SOME sort of multi-class stuff in there if there's not already some on the schedule, but I suspect these apprentice-level rules won't be in there."
;-) But it's also because, as your comments intimate, it does raise some complexities about starting points. Even though these rules may be purely intended for multiclassing at 1st level, it creates the option for single-classed characters to start at L0 as well. And this creates further issues such as what XP is required to gain L1; why are NPCs, in general, L1 instead of L0; if we're going to permit an L0 starting point for the published classes retroactively, should we start publishing future classes from L0 in the future; can 'advanced' races commonly thought to be '+1' be started at L0 to avoid XP adjustments, etc.
But I think these are good problems to have because I think these rules are building on the system positively, rather than undermining it. They permit better character concepts at the starting point, and also allow for a sort of "campaign introduction" level, where perhaps a few things are played out as part of the backstory to the campaign before the real action is entered into as 'proper grown-ups' at L1. But perhaps, like a lot of 'system amendments' it might require a little more thought than might appear at first blush.
|
|
Interesting comments. I can say that the apprentice rules I have written are designed to allow a 1st level multiple class character that otherwise fits in with the standard pathfinder rules. It does not allow a single class character to begin at less than 1st level (although there is a side bar that gives a few optional uses for using the rules in certain situations for a single class ...)
the main reason is to allow you to begin your character right away as a multiple class character instead of waiting.
Indeed Marc. Some people want pre-level 1 rules, not something I'm interested in myself.. I want multiclassed at level 1.
Multiclassing at level 1 has to include partial class abilities - which should be just about the same what folks need for playing up to level 1. At least, the mechanics for that should be quite similar.
Stefan
|
|
Indeed Marc. Some people want pre-level 1 rules, not something I'm interested in myself.. I want multiclassed at level 1.Multiclassing at level 1 has to include partial class abilities - which should be just about the same what folks need for playing up to level 1. At least, the mechanics for that should be quite similar.
Stefan
Very true ...
Like I said, the article under consideration with KQ gives optional ways the rules can be used for single class characters although the primary idea is to allow 1st level multi classing.
Hopefully the article will be published - I think it's just want most people (wanting 1st level multiclassing) are looking for.
Indeed Marc. Some people want pre-level 1 rules, not something I'm interested in myself.. I want multiclassed at level 1.Multiclassing at level 1 has to include partial class abilities - which should be just about the same what folks need for playing up to level 1. At least, the mechanics for that should be quite similar.
Stefan
Very true ...
Like I said, the article under consideration with KQ gives optional ways the rules can be used for single class characters although the primary idea is to allow 1st level multi classing.
Hopefully the article will be published - I think it's just want most people (wanting 1st level multiclassing) are looking for.
I´d love to see your take on it - if I ever catch up on my RPG reading...
Stefan
I'm just putting the final touches to my Pathfinder conversion of these rules, plus extension to the current playtest classes. I've changed the ability acquisition from that detailed in the 3.0 DMG though, for the core classes: some of the choices didn't seem to make sense to me; I'm sure some of mine might not make sense to others so I'd appreciate some feedback...
Usually I'd post the work right up on the Conversion forum but without knowing how similar your work is, Marc, I'm hesitant in case I step on your, and KQ's, toes, so to speak. Not sure of the etiquette here. Help?
I never really cared for 0-level characters in 2ed. Never saw these apprentice rules, but if they are the same idea, I'd rather not see them again.
I never really cared for 0-level characters in 2ed. Never saw these apprentice rules, but if they are the same idea, I'd rather not see them again.
I don't recall the apprentice rules from 2e, but the rules we're discussing are primarily intended to permit multiclassed 1st-level characters. That these same rules can also be applied to permit an apprentice-level (0-level) single-classed character is an optional application of them that may be suitable for some types of campaigns.
Even if you'd never use them, Wolfthulhu, I'm sure you can appreciate that many would find them useful?|
|
I'm just putting the final touches to my Pathfinder conversion of these rules, plus extension to the current playtest classes. I've changed the ability acquisition from that detailed in the 3.0 DMG though, for the core classes: some of the choices didn't seem to make sense to me; I'm sure some of mine might not make sense to others so I'd appreciate some feedback...
Usually I'd post the work right up on the Conversion forum but without knowing how similar your work is, Marc, I'm hesitant in case I step on your, and KQ's, toes, so to speak. Not sure of the etiquette here. Help?
No worries! By all means feel free to post 'em if you like. Since my article is under consideration, I can't post mine here or anywhere else beforehand. I'd certainly be interested to see what you came up with!
Also Al, depending on how well received your rules are, I'd like to maybe add them to d20pfsrd.com. What I mean is, if the general consensus is that the rules are solid and balanced etc. If you generate complete crud then nevermind ;)
OK, I'll post in the Conversion forum and link to here. I've finished the conversion but I can't cut and paste from the Word doc with all my pretty tables 'cause the forum strips it all out. Aaarrrgh. So I'll have to try to format it in to be legible tomorrow. Is there a way to retain spacing or tabbing for tabular information in these posts?
OK, I'll post in the Conversion forum and link to here. I've finished the conversion but I can't cut and paste from the Word doc with all my pretty tables 'cause the forum strips it all out. Aaarrrgh. So I'll have to try to format it in to be legible tomorrow. Is there a way to retain spacing or tabbing for tabular information in these posts?
Upload it to Google Docs and then post a link to the Google Doc here. Google Docs supports tables etc.
|
I think this is great! :-)
As I mostly GM, I find the start of a campaign can really set the tone of the kind of game you want to play. It is a real joy to see players' characters develop! For me, I view the ability to create a multi-classed character at first level to be immensely appealing, and, if I were to start a game for L0 PC's, I think a single-classed apprentice is an ideal way to feature immature L0 PCs -- teens let's say -- in a world of L1 or higher "adults"! Think of the many stories out there where the characters start out young and gain both experience and some maturity too. This can be a really rewarding campaign experience for both the GM and the players. :-)
@Al Rigg: I have a copy of both the DMG 3.0 and the PDF for v.3.5 Apprentice rules Paul W linked to a few posts above. Count me as very interested to see what you compiled together for Pathfinder.
-W.
Upload it to Google Docs and then post a link to the Google Doc here. Google Docs supports tables etc.
Excellent! Thanks jreyst. That's saved me a few hours of smacking my head against the computer.
The document is here: Multiclassing at 1st-Level
I'd probably tweak a few more details but this is essentially it and I'm running out of time, so best to post it up and let you lot have at it. I hope it's what you're looking for. Please post feedback and I'll fix up any oversights (there are bound to be a few) as soon as I can.
Upload it to Google Docs and then post a link to the Google Doc here. Google Docs supports tables etc.Excellent! Thanks jreyst. That's saved me a few hours of smacking my head against the computer.
The document is here: Multiclassing at 1st-Level
I'd probably tweak a few more details but this is essentially it and I'm running out of time, so best to post it up and let you lot have at it. I hope it's what you're looking for. Please post feedback and I'll fix up any oversights (there are bound to be a few) as soon as I can.
Although I really hated this idea when I heard it, I think you did a good job of it
Can I get you to increase the font size in the tables? Pretty hard to read with my 42 year old eyes!
Oh and also, I agree, it looks very well thought out. I haven't done any sort of exhaustive review of it to see if there is any inherent broken-ness or anything but it certainly looks nice and looks like you put a good deal of work into it. I'm anxious to see others thoughts on this.
Thanks for the initial feedback, everyone. Hope you'll find it useful. I've upped the point size in the tables, as requested, fixed a couple of minor text mistakes, and added a sentence to state that, for single-classed apprentices, you gain no additional hit points or skill ranks upon attaining 1st-level (which wasn't clear in the original). I'll keep trying to grab a bit of time to review the classes against it for balance. Concerned also that I may have overlooked halving some of the class features with '4 + ability mod' uses.
Looks excellent. I'd be interested to hear anyone's experiences of using it in play.
Yes, I too would like to hear of peoples experiences actually trying this out in play (and thanks for bumping up the font size!)
The document is here: Multiclassing at 1st-LevelI'd probably tweak a few more details but this is essentially it and I'm running out of time, so best to post it up and let you lot have at it. I hope it's what you're looking for. Please post feedback and I'll fix up any oversights (there are bound to be a few) as soon as I can.
Looks good so far, thank you. It is short and covers everything, AFAICT.
Stefan
Thanks Al Rigg for the document.
Simple idea, for those who are interested in small things: how about a series of feats that grant 1st level/0 level abilities? Add a requirement that they be taken at 1st level only, notes to allow the GM to swap it out at a later point for another feat once that has become 'outdated'.
(examples)
Rogue's Apprentice [Apprentice]
Prerequisites: 1st level
Benefit: You gain Sneak Attack (1d6) as a 1st level rogue.
When you take a level as a rogue, you lose this feat and may select a new feat.
Sorcerer's Apprentice [Apprentice]
Prerequisites: 1st level
Benefit: You may cast 0-level spells as a 1st level sorcerer.
When you take a level as a sorcerer, you lose this feat and may select a new feat.
You would also want to state a requirement to actually take the stated class level within the next couple of levels, otherwise it becomes a powerful feat choice.
Well, could even then put a clock on the feat; the character loses the feat by, say, third level? So, tag each of those with "Special: You lose this feat at 3rd level or when you take a level of <class>, whichever comes first. You may then take a new feat." in place of that last line?
I would limit these feats to be taken one time only. It does not stack with class abilities, of course.
Then there should be no balance issue at all IMO. If, say, a fighter decides to take the sneak attack +1d6 with all the limits that entails, and decides not to take a rogue level at any time, but keeps the feat, I don´t see such a big balance problem there.
Stefan
I do. Allowing class abilities as feats is very wrong and can easily be unbalancing.
Well, *I'd* write it up so that the "Apprentice" feats could only be taken at 1st level (as we see) and limit Apprentice feats to one per character, which already limits their ability to stack.
Otherwise, yea, we'd be talking about some potent arrangements if the feats were left on the entire time without levels being taken in their master class. A rogue (or any non-caster) losing a single feat slot for access to 4, at will, 0-level spells? Solid. Sneak Attack, not so much, that's used in several PrC even. But the odds of other features being abused, even if they are a fractional power? Pretty fair.
As an aside, bESM d20 has Sneak Attack as a basic feat, so its already out there I suppose, but I don't recall what (if any) restrictions there are on that. The generic classes in Unearthed Arcana also have a similar design, allowing players to cherry-pick class features as feats. Some features *could* be kept "on" if they were modeled after those, but others should probably have a time (IE the 0-level spells).
I dunno about this; I'm skeptical. What is the problem that it is seeking to address? Gradually staging into multiclassing? If so, why? Or trying to solve the multiclassing at 1st-level problem? In which case, it penalises such characters by forcing them to have to take a feat slot. Why shouldn't they be able to just multiclass at 1st level?
It seems like it's going halfway towards a sort of class feature purchase system which, if implemented wholesale, could be good as a play option for certain campaigns. But I think as suggested it might create more problems than it solves and I'm not sure it's balanced in using the feat system.
Actually, it's a simple, off-the-cuff attempt to provide an answer to the "apprentice" rules discussed without introducing new systems. Emphasis is on "off the cuff" ATM. Feats are a built in system that already offers similar features; a raw grab at the features *may* be too powerful, so we dial it down a bit. You get 2 0-level spells as a 1st level wizard, you rage for a +2 bonus instead of the +4, etc.
At first level you can't multiclass; you can't be a rogue 1/wizard 1 as a 1st level character; that's a second level character. With this, you *could* be the aforementioned former-wizard apprentice who lived on the streets; you have some basic rogue skills AND a little bit of that wizards training from back in the day. Come level 2 or 3, you can take the wizard class, say you were accepted by a new school or your old master forgave you, and you advance as you like. If you don't, you "forget" how some of that stuff works and the feat goes away.
The design of these feats also times out after the 2nd level; at 3rd level you lose the feat regardless of what class(es) you have, so that the player can then take a feat they would otherwise take as a rogue 1/wizard 1 or as a rogue 3. Nothing is actually lost in taking one of these feats, a first level character gets access to interesting class abilities and, if they don't like it (IE don't advance into the proper class), they lose the power and can select something more appropriate~
Looking for exploits in the above multiclassing-at-1st-level proposal . . .
Isn't an apprentice Fighter/Cleric superior to a 1st level Fighter? Trade one feat for a +1 Will save, 1d3 energy channeling, the ability to prep two different unlimited-casting orisons, a domain power, a domain spell, and (if Wisdom is at least 12) a first-level bonus spell.
(Okay, it only exploits at 1st level, but.)
Stepping away from the 1st level Multiclassing/half-level argument for a minute (which, honestly, I think is a whole different idea in and of itself), I'd say the whole point of an "Apprentice" character is one who hasn't yet settled on a career, and thus doesn't have the defining qualities a Class provides, or otherwise hasn't truly absorbed the elements of a class they've been studying.
What follows are guidelines I would think reasonable following this argument: Build the character as normal for stats and race, and give them their non-class starting feat (and traits, if you're using them). If you're wanting particularly young characters, apply the "Young" Template. The Key differences here is an Apprentice has no Class, and thus starts with few to none of the usual benefits a class provides. No BAB, no Base Saves, no Weapon, Armor or Shield Proficiencies (if they want them, they can use up starting Feats to get them). At start they get one d6+Con modifier for Hit points, and for Skills they get 2+Int modifier ranks to place as they will (but as they have no Class skills, none of their skills get the +3 Class modifier). For equipment they start with the usual Outfit and nothing else but what their master gives them, or what they can find. When their apprenticeship ends, they get all the benefits of their new Class, including standard starting funds/goods from their master/family/instructor or whomever. If their Class HD would be higher than a d6, re-roll HP, but only take the result if it would otherwise be higher than what they had before.
The advantage of a system like this is that Apprentice PCs can still adventure, still get XP, but the point at which they become members of an actual class instead fits events as they play out, rather than some set xp cap. I'd think half-way between 1st and 2nd, but if the group liked the idea, I could easily see playing through several levels as Apprentices (sans-class) if it was working for the group. It could also work well for keeping the action moving in an ongoing game where a player is feeling indecisive about what their doing with a newly gained level (just mark down a level of "Apprentice" and keep the action moving until they can sort it outreasonably).I wouldn't recommend such a style of play for a mixed Adventurer/Apprentice group though, given the obvious power disparity, for more more than a level or two.
I have been using this as 'bonus HD' for starting characters, also it is the base I build commoners on. (no such thing as a commoner class)
HD : 1D8 (PC's will have this one full as well)
Skills : climb, craft, swim, handle animal and profession
skill points : 2 + int modifier
no save bonus (effectively all poor saves)
BAB : as humanoid, effectively +0
proficient with one simple weapon.
basically it gets added to a 1st level character at the moment of creation and would count as having 2 levels / HD.
This adds a little toughness and background skills to a character to start out a little more heroic and rounded out.
- I am considering adding background "feats" to simulate the expert and aristocrat classes, maybe warrior and adept as well, this could serve the like the apprentice feature in some way perhaps ?
- It could be a basis for racial paragon levels / racial HD effectively
I have no idea if it is at all comparable to the apprentice, thought to share it anyway, somebody might like it.
Re: Apprentice Feats
Actually, the build I'm tinkering with doesn't give you all of a class' powers. In the case of your Fighter/Cleric, with a Fighter base-class he could get ONE of a cleric's class features: Channeling, Orisons, and I think I even limited it to one Domain, but without the ability to cast spells the character only gets the granted domain power.
So each class gets broken down into component feats representing single features, modified as necessary (halving like rage or orisons/cantrips).
I also don't touch items like saves, BAB, etc. because A) Its simpler and B) an "apprentice cleric" wouldn't be up to par with a full cleric; were they a full fighter and an apprentice cleric they'll have *some* abilities, but not be a full cleric.
Basically, I zeroed in on the concept earlier of a character with some background in another class but otherwise stands as primarily a member of a base class, IE the rogue/wizard. The rogue isn't going to be a full-on wizard, but they have a bit of the training, what they "remember" before they were kicked out. Likewise, a fighter who has secretly been studying the holy books of a particular class might pick up a singular class feature, orisons, domain power, or channel, but not have access to the full suite as a "real" cleric. Reaching level 2 or 3 then means they have become a real cleric, as a fighter 1/cleric 1 or fighter 2/cleric 1.
Re: Other Options
see, if you were referring to the other options, not particularly my feat-based approach, even those only grant half of either class. Said fighter/cleric would have BAB +1, +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +1 Will, and channel energy 1d3, one domain, and orisons for their class abilities, no bonus feat being a fighter. Then you also only get the HP and Skills of your "base" class. This is all using the chart compiled by Al Rigg.
Re: Apprentice "class"
Actually, while not a bad idea, I kinda like the Unearthed Arcana generic classes for something like this a bit better. Kind of mush the three into a more general "Apprentice" class and open up a couple of extra class options and presto-change-o there you are. That way, you start with a generic concept, and as you progress you can cherry pick features. If you wanted to move into a full class, you could say at level 3 if you have X requirements you can trade your generic levels for levels of an appropriate class.
Generally:
Cobbling together the feats, I'll admit I'm partial to those, author bias and all that; as I said, I feel its a quick and simple way to toss some mechanical oomph behind a flavor idea, such as a former student kicked out and forced to become a full-fledged rogue to survive, or a full fighter studying the holy books of a particular faith with the goal of becoming a cleric.
Al Riggs' chart is nicely done and I can see a lot of use for that, but it does require some sandwiching, taking a bit of this and that to put it together. I did the fighter/cleric (I think) decently, I don't know that the figuring on reaching level 2 would be very friendly; least wise with the feats method you drop one feat and take another class, and can even keep most of the notes from the feat without making too many changes.
Going "class" style does have some interesting possibilities; combining that, the Unearthed Arcana classes, and fleshing out the feats I proposed with requirements and the feature-based "bonus" feats from UA could produce an interesting feature-buy based class that could run the full gamut of 1 to 20.
Re: Other Options
see, if you were referring to the other options, not particularly my feat-based approach, even those only grant half of either class.
Right, I was discussing the proposal that was actually detailed above by Al Rigg, not yours, because we out here don't have your rules yet.
Said fighter/cleric would have BAB +1, +2 Fort, +0 Ref, +1 Will, and channel energy 1d3, one domain, and orisons for their class abilities, no bonus feat being a fighter. Then you also only get the HP and Skills of your "base" class. This is all using the chart compiled by Al Rigg.
Right. So, let's look at that in detail.
A 1st level fighter gets fighter HP, fighter skill points, BAB +1, +2 Fort, and a bonus feat.
The 1/2 fighter 1/2 cleric gets fighter HP, fighter skill points, BAB +1, +2 Fort, +1 Will save, 1d3 energy channeling, the ability to prep two different unlimited-casting orisons, a domain power, a domain spell, and (if Wisdom is at least 12, and that's no barrier) a first-level cleric spell as a consequence of his Wisdom bonus.
So, the practical effect is, the latter character traded:
1 fighter bonus feat
in exchange for:
+1 Will save
1d3 energy channeling
Two unlimited-casting orisons
1 Domain power
1 first-level domain spell
1 first-level cleric spell
Thus, my comment that "Isn't an apprentice Fighter/Cleric superior to a 1st level Fighter? Trade one feat for a +1 Will save, 1d3 energy channeling, the ability to prep two different unlimited-casting orisons, a domain power, a domain spell, and (if Wisdom is at least 12) a first-level bonus spell."
I didnt like these rules in 3rd edition and I was glad 3.5 got rid of them I hope they never come back
Just my two coppers