"Split-Classing" is proposed as an option to traditional Multi-classing that overcomes many of the problems of declining relative power with increasing levels, while maintaining the flexibility of multi-classing Core Classes rather than developing custom Classes or PrCs for every character concept that does not readily lend itself to either single-classes or traditional multi-classes.
Disclaimer & Copyright:
First, let me point out that I am a fan of 3.x multi-classing as a solution to many character concepts. I prefer my games and Classes lean and flexible, and to that end have opened Rogue and Ranger abilities as "slots" similar to Fighter Bonus Feats and eliminated numerous other "Core" classes which are too "fixed". I have also eliminated PrCs as "clunky tack-ons" now that I allow increased flexibility in the spending of Core class "slots".
Nevertheless, even with this change, multiclassing still fails to solve many problems that I think Split-Classing can address.
FWIW, the ideas and concepts expressed herein are, to the best of my knowledge, mine alone and I retain all copyrights, despite presenting them in this public forum. You are free to incorporate them into your home game, but cannot re-publish them without my consent. I do not challenge any previously-held copyrights in published sources
The Fighter/Magic-User Problem:
One of the greatest failing of RAW multiclassing is the failure to produce a viable, archetypal Fighter/Magic-User (Wizard or Priest), particularly at higher levels. With low Fighter levels the multi-classed F/MU is slow to meet Feat prerequisites while with a low Caster Level the F/MU not only has weak spells but remains limited to lower level ones. At 20th level, an F/MU on the verge of being "epic" is, at best, a 15th level Fighter able to buff himself or a 10th level Wizard with a ton of extra HP and a fantastic BAB for Touch attacks.
Certainly RAW multi-classing fails to achieve the traditional F/MU archetype of a powerful warrior able to cast powerful, if limited, spells.
Split-classing directly addresses this, making it particularly suited to half-Wizard or half-Cleric builds, but theoretically suited to any Class.
Inspiration for the Concept of Split-Classing:
My inspiration for Split-Classing is drawn from two sources:
First is the traditional 1st/2nd Edition manner of multi-classing, in which the character progressed in level in each class but with stats such as HP cut in half with each HD. Frankly, in 2nd Edition there is no reason not to multiclass, because the effective penalty was merely 1 level against a single-class character (or less if a Fighter). Thus, it was in the benefit of every character to be a Fighter/Whatever simply for the benefit of the HP, except the straight-Fighter who gained access to Weapon Specialization damage and retained higher HP, but at a potential loss of Rogue abilities or spells.
Second are the 3.0 DMG rules for "apprentice-level characters". These rules suggested the idea of cutting the abilities of a Class in half to achieve a "0-level PC" or effectively "1/2 Level" character.
Because I removed some Classes I don't like (e.g. Bard), Players interested in PCs to fit these roles are encouraged to use multi-classing to make their PCs (e.g. Rogue/Wizard with a variable ratio). While this generally works at 2nd level and above, it fails to generate 1st Level PCs.
The solution was what I called "half-half" Level characters. Using the 3.0 "apprentice" concept, a would-be bardic character would be a 1/2 Level Rogue and 1/2 level Wizard multi-class ... effectively a "Split-Class". While achieving 2nd Level resulting in a "buy-off" of these half levels for a traditional 1:1 multiclass, it was not much more of a logical step to create higher level concepts that continued to "Split".
Rules of Split-Classing:
The "Rules" of Split-Classing are simple:
• Split-Class characters use the normal XP Advancement chart for Single Class characters;
• Split-Class characters are considered to be the full Level of their component Classes for the purposes of determining Spell Progression as well as meeting any Level-Dependent requirements (such as for Feats);
• Any time a Character gains an Ability, Stat or Bonus as a virtue of their Class Level, that gain is cut in half;
• All "half-point" gains are recorded and carried forward rather than "rounded down" level-by-level in order to avoid a progressive error and diminishment of strength in the Character;
• "Half-point" gains may be tracked and recorded via either the Shared Method or the Separate Method as detailed below;
• Any Ability, Stat or Bonus gained as a virtue of Character Level (e.g. Ability Stat increase, Bonus Character Feat, etc.) is gained according to the Level of the character as a normal function of Earned XP and is not split;
• Although these rules and examples will address only "half-half" split characters, triple and quadruple splits are possible by extrapolation.
Shared Method Recording
If the Character records any "half-point gain" via advancement in one of its component Classes, then the "Shared" method allows this gain to be combined with any current or carried-over half-point gain from its other component Class. Thus, if a Player rolls odd numbers on both HD when leveling, rather than losing the benefit of 0.5 HP x2 due to "round-down" until they have a balancing 0.5 HP in either component at a higher level to offset the carry-over, they gain 1 HP through the combination of the two.
This also impacts Feats and Class Abilities. The Shared Method says that if a Character gains a Feat or Special Ability in one component Class and either gains one in the other component or possesses a carry-over in that component, then the Character gains the benefit of a Feat or Special Ability by combining these two "halves".
The major consideration with the "Shared Method" is that the DM must be certain that the Player is balancing their Feat and Special Ability selection over time and Levels appropriately to the components from which the abilities were gained, rather than using gains in one component to overly benefit the abilities of another (such as a Fighter/Wizard taking undue numbers of meta-magic rather than martial feats).
The Shared Method results in a power-progression that is more even and balanced to that of Single-Class characters.
Separate Method Recording
If the Character records any "half-point gain" via advancement in one of its component Classes, then the "Separate" method does not allow this gain to be combined with any current or carried-over half-point gain from its other component Class. Thus, if a Player rolls odd numbers on both HD when leveling these 0.5 HP x2 are "round-down" at the current Level until the Character gains balancing 0.5 HP in either component at a higher level to offset the carry-over.
This also impacts Feats and Class Abilities. The Separate Method says that if a Character gains a Feat or Special Ability in one component Class they may only combine this with a carry-over earned in that component to gain a new Feat or Ability, but cannot combine it with any new or existing "half" from their other component.
The "Separate Method" removes the problem of tracking what Feat or Stat or Ability is gained as a result of what combination of Class benefits, since the gains from both components are tracked and awarded individually.
The Separate Method results in a power-progression that is stuttered, with periods of little increase punctuated by significant and possibly compounding power-advancement.
Split-Classing by Class:
I am using the Fighter, Rogue and Wizard as examples of how to Split a Class, and leave other Classes for you to extrapolate yourself.
Fighter
• 1/2 d10 HP per level;
• 0.5 BAB per level;
• Half of a Bonus Martial Feat at 1st and each even-numbered level;
• +1 Fortitude Save at 1st Level and +0.5 at each even-numbered level;
• +0.5 Reflex and Will Save at each third level.
Pathfinder Fighters gain:
• Armor Training +1/+2 at 7th/13th level respectively as well as Weapon Training at 9th/15th levels; or,
• Alternately, gain +0.5 "Armor or Weapon" Training at each odd-numbered level per the choice of the Player;
• Bravery +1/+2 at 6th/14th levels; or,
• Alternately, +0.5 in "Weapon or Armor or Bravery" training at each normal +1 upgrade per the PF-Core Rules, with the caveat that the total value of any of these may not exceed the bonus available to a Single-Classed Fighter (i.e. +0.5 Bravery at 2nd level and +0.5 Armor Training at 3rd cannot be swapped for +0.5 Weapon Training at both levels to achieve +1 Weapon Training at 3rd Level, as this is in advance of a Single-Class Fighter gaining the ability at 5th level).
Rogue
• Advancement of HP, BAB, and Saves calculated using the same "50%" method as the Fighter above;
• +d6 Sneak Attack damage at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th and 19th levels; or,
• Alternately, gain +d3 Sneak Attack damage at each odd-numbered level;
• +1 Trap Sense every 6 levels;
• Choice of Evasion or Uncanny Dodge at 4th Level; or
• Alternately, allow each +d6 of Sneak Attack and each Special Ability (Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge) to count as a "half-Ability" that may be combined as-desired, such that a 4th level Rogue could have +2d6 Sneak Attack but no defensive Special Abilities or else gain both Evasion and Uncanny Dodge but lack Sneak Attacks or else even gain +1d6 Sneak Attack and either Evasion or Uncanny Dodge but not both by 4th Level so long as no ability is gained at a level lower than it would normally be gained by a Single-Class Rogue.
Pathfinder Rogues gain:
• A Rogue Talent at every fourth level.
Wizard
• Advancement of HP, BAB, and Saves calculated using the same "50%" method as the Fighter above;
• Half the number of daily spells allowed in the normal Spell Progression chart, thus a 20th level Split-Wizard gains 2/day spells of each level;
• At spell levels where the Wizard would normally gain 1/day the gain is instead 0/day, thus allowing the casting of Bonus Spells, if available;
• Any Bonus Spells due to high Intelligence or Specialization are halved, with each odd level combined with the next higher even level for the purposes of determining availability; thus, a 6th level Split-Wizard Specialist could cast an Intelligence Bonus spell of either 1st or 2nd level (but not both) per day, as well as a 1st or 2nd School Specialization Bonus Spell (but not both). According to the "Shared Method" the Split-Wizard Specialist would also cast a single 3rd Level Bonus spell each day (though probably restricted to their specialization and definitely not of their opposition school in PF Rules) while a "Separate Method" Wizard would need to reach 7th level and have access to 4th level spells in order to cast a bonus 3rd or 4th level spell each day;
• Wizards gain either Scribe Scroll or an Arcane Bond/Familiar at 1st level, but not both; they gain additional bonus feats at 10th and 20th levels (or 0.5 bonus feats at each fifth level).
Pathfinder Wizards gain:
• School Abilities must be adjudicated individually by the DM, generally giving the PC half the normal number of abilities, diminishing their power at the level gained and/or doubling the levels between "steps" of advancement.
Split-Classing Examples:
With the overview done, lets look at ...
The Archetypal Fighter/Magic-User
... using a Fighter/Wizard split in 3.5 rules for the sake of simplicity.
1st Level
• The F/MU is effectively a 1d7 HD character, though HP are rolled separately for each class and then halved before being combined. Any remaining fractions are carried over to future levels.
• The F/MU has a single feat as a 1st level PC and another if a Human. They have either a Familiar or the Scribe Scroll feat as a Wizard, but not both. The F/MU does not yet have a Martial Bonus Feat. Alternately, using the "Shared" method the DM could allow the F/MU to be considered to have +0.5 x 3 "bonus feats" and thus buy a single Martial Feat while holding an additional 0.5 in reserve, though in this case the DM must recall that two of the halves are "arcane" and only one "martial", requiring that the next 0.5 martial half must be used on an arcane feat.
• The character has 4 Skill Points that must be spent as a Fighter and 4 that must be spent as a Wizard, along with any Intelligence bonus that can be split between the classes (it is up to the DM to determine if this should be an even split or evenly split and then Cross-classed per normal multi-classing rules).
• The F/MU has +1 Fortitude, +1 Will and +0 Reflex before any Ability Modifiers.
• The F/MU has a BAB of +0.
• The F/MU may cast 1/day of 0-Level spells and 0/day of 1st Level Spells. A Specialist on the Shared Method may be able to cast a single Bonus 1st Level Spell by combining their 0.5-Intel. and 0.5-Specialist spells.
2nd Level
• HP are rolled separately for each class and then halved before being combined. Any carry-over fractions from previous levels are added while remaining fractions are carried over to future levels.
• A single Martial Bonus Feat is gained. If the alternate "expanded Shared" method rules were used and a Martial Feat was gained at 1st level then the F/MU must take either a Familiar or the Scribe Scroll feat at 2nd level.
• The character has 1 Skill Point that must be spent as a Fighter and 1 that must be spent as a Wizard, along with any Intelligence bonus that is split as before.
• The F/MU has +1 Fortitude, +1 Will and +0 Reflex before any Ability Modifiers.
• The F/MU has a BAB of +1.
• The F/MU may cast 2/day of 0-Level spells and 1/day of 1st Level Spells. A Specialist on the Shared Method may be able to cast a single Bonus 1st Level Spell by combining their 0.5-Intel. and 0.5-Specialist spells.
5th (and some 6th) Level
• A Character Bonus Feat was gained at 3rd level and an Ability Stat improved at 4th Level per normal progression rules.
• Spell progression is 2 / 1 / 1 / 0.
• One Arcane feat and one Martial Bonus Feat have been previously gained. The 4th Level Fighter half-feat and 5th Level Wizard half-feat may be combined for a single Martial or Arcane Feat at 5th Level on the Shared Method, though these are carried over to 6th and 10th levels respectively on the Separate Method.
• +3 BAB (+4 at 6th); +2 Fortitude, +1 Reflex, +2 Will (increasing at 6th level to +3/+2/+3)
20th Level
• Effectively 20d7 HP.
• +15/+10/+5/+2 BAB
• +9 Fortitude, +6 Reflex, +9 Will
• 5 Martial Bonus Feats
• 3 Bonus Arcane Feats
• 2/day spells of each level
• Half the normal allowed number of Intelligence and Specialist Bonus Spells, shared between every two Spell Levels.
The only remaining question is whether the Effective Caster Level of the Wizard should be equal to the Wizard Level or half-Level for the purpose of determining Level-dependent Effects as well as CL for opposed checks. For the purpose of creating magic items or anything else with a level-dependent prerequisite, the Wizard is considered to be of the same level as their Character Level.
Considering a Fighter/Rogue
I won't go into as much detail with this class. Generally, normal multi-classing should work fine with a Fighter/Rogue.
However, someone playing a "Charismatic Leader-type" might wish to Split-Class Fighter and Rogue using the "Expanded Shared Method" and trade off Sneak Attacks in order to gain Evasion, Uncanny Dodge and Improved Uncanny Dodge at the normal level progression, as well as gain Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus at-pace with the other Fighters in the party.
8th (Split) Level Fighter/Rogue
• Effective 8d8 HP
• +7/+2 BAB
• +4 Fort., +4 Ref., +2 Will
• Weapon Focus (via Base Character or Human Feat), Weapon Specialization at 4th level via Fighter Bonus Feat and Greater Weapon Focus at 8th with 0.5 Fighter Bonus feat carry-over as well as two (2) additional Character Feats from 3rd and 6th PC levels
• Evasion gained at 2nd Level (giving up first +d6 Sneak Attack), Uncanny Dodge gained at 4th Level (giving up 2nd +d6 SA damage) and Improved Uncanny Dodge at 8th (trade-out 3rd +d6 SA) with +0.5d6 Sneak Attack remaining from 7th level
•Trapfinding and +1 Trap Sense
It is up to the individual DM if they wish to allow an "Expanded Shared Method" Fighter/Rogue to combine their 0.5 Martial Bonus and 0.5 Sneak Attack for a single "weaker" feat (since the limitations of a Sneak Attack make it arguably not quite worth the value of some of the "stronger" feats).
Retiring a Component Class:
It is possible that at some point a Split-Class character may wish to retire one class and simply advance as a Single Class from that point forward. For example, the "Archetypal Fighter/Magic-User" might decide that at 6th level, having gained BAB and HP as well as 2 Bonus Martial Feats, she wishes to devote herself entirely to her arcane studies and so ceases to further progress as a Fighter, though she continues to remember and utilize all of her skills.
Although one class is retired, the character can never "un-Split", short of spending enough XP to make themselves a genuine multi-Class, which means 6 levels of minimal power advancement for our poor Magess.
Instead ...
Rules for "Retiring" a Component Class
• Any abilities, gains or bonuses for the "retired" class continue to exist, but do not increase;
• As the Character gains future Levels, these are applied only to the non-retired Component;
• The Character remains "Split-Classed" though now the split resides only within a single class;
• The Character's higher level continues to increase according to the "Split" method, though the other "half" of the Split "buys off" the balance of the Character's lowest "split" level of the non-Retired Class.
In other words, if our 6th level F/MU gains a 7th level, she remains split as a 7th level Wizard, but gains the benefits of a full 1st Level Wizard. For all intents and purposes, her levels are Wiz1(full) / Ftr1-6(split) / Wiz2-7(split).
This means she will always remain Split at her highest 6 levels of Wizard, but will be able to "buy off" her lower levels.
At 20th Level she will effectively be a Wizard 14 (full) / Fighter 1-6(split) / Wizard 15-20(split), with all stats and abilities computed accordingly.
Besides being logical, this "buying off of lower levels" prevents power-hungery Wizards from sacrificing a few low-level spell slots in order to gain significantly in HP and survivability only to "retire" their Fighter progression and have all of their powerful high-level spells later on.
At this point, the mechanic is entirely theoretical and untested. I look forward to comments or play tests.
My group has been doing this, I think, for a while now. Pick 2 classes, average their BAB, Saves, and Skill points, keep all of the class abilities of both. It works out really well and there are numerous class combos, so characters are pretty interesting.
I suspect I'll have to re-read the recording methods after my "morning" coffee kicks in (the whole buy-off thing doesn't make sense yet), but this sounds like a clever, old-school solution.
Actually I have a few questions:
1) What happened to the Bard, Cleric and Druid classes? How do you handle healing in your games?
2) Are the number of spells known halved as spell slots are?
I've only glanced over your idea, and i have one suggestion/comment:
The rogue sneak attack should be +1d6 at every 4 levels as 10d3 is much better than 5d6 (10-30 points of damage versus 5-30 points, and the average is higher too).
10d3
http://catlikecoding.com/anydice/?dice=10d3
5d6
http://catlikecoding.com/anydice/?dice=5d6
Otherwise an interesting idea, i'll have to look closer tomorrow (4 am here atm).
Not that I really care, but I just thought Rezdave might like to know:
Paizo.com FAQ wrote wrote:
Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.
Not bad, not bad at all Rez. I think that "the only question remaining is whether the caster level should be full Wiz20 or half..." is the trouble of course. After all, if a wizard ends up using only half his spells in a day, this guy wouldn't be any weaker.
The rogue sneak attack should be +1d6 at every 4 levels as 10d3 is much better than 5d6
I was throwing around options, but yes ... I prefer:
• +d6 Sneak Attack damage at 3rd, 7th, 11th, 15th and 19th levels; or,
I look at "+d6" as a Slot that the Rogue gains, so a Split-Rogue gains half as many slots but each slot is "full value". Same with a Wizard's spells ... half as many Spells per Day, but each spell is full-power.
Majuba wrote:
"the only question remaining is whether the caster level should be full Wiz20 or half..." is the trouble of course. After all, if a wizard ends up using only half his spells in a day, this guy wouldn't be any weaker.
Sitting around his tower casting 1-2 spells per day then there is no differentiation. Then again, there is no differentiation between a Wiz1 and a Wiz20 casting sleep if they both have the same Intelligence. Put another way, it doesn't matter if it's a raw Recruit or a veteran SEAL who puts a pistol to your head. Differentiation occurs under a different set of circumstances (at range, moving target, etc.).
The differentiation here occurs in the course of serious adventuring. While a Wizard might blow half their total compliment of spells per day numerically, the single-class Wizard can skew that number of spells into significantly higher levels and thus more total power than a Split casting the same number of spells (who is thereby exhausted).
Also, regardless of # of spells cast, the Single-Class has double the flexibility in terms of slots-to-prepare ... which is probably more significant for an adventurer than the number of spells actually cast.
Personally, I'd rather be an adventuring 20th-level wizard who can prepare 8 slots-per-level each day and then only cast 4 of them than be able to prepare 4 spells but cast them each twice (and yes, I know neither option is legal ... but I'm speaking hypothetically).
Users posting messages to the site automatically grant Paizo Publishing the royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, nonexclusive right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, sublicense, copy and distribute such messages throughout the world in any media.
That's nice, but Federal Copyright law still trumps it. Boiler-plate like this has limited enforceability, and the courts have generally taken a very dim few of such "tacit-consent forced-contracts" upon users, particularly in digital media.
Thanks anyway.
And I believe you wouldn't have posted if you didn't care at least a little :-)
The reason they put that there is not so that Paizo can steal your ideas, it is so that if they have a similar idea and publish it, you can't sue them.
The reason they put that there is not so that Paizo can steal your ideas, it is so that if they have a similar idea and publish it, you can't sue them.
Actually, that type of boiler-plate is in there so that they can transfer their Boards and archives to new and different media, "known or unknown" and not get into legal hang-ups.
Basically, it's really a back-end issue. Imagine the nightmare if the WWW goes away and is replaced by some cool new holographic direct-to-brain interface, but to move ongoing discussions, much less archives, to this new format they have to contact and get a release from every single contributor simply because their "standard release" said "world wide web" or "Paizo Web Boards" or some such thing.
The movie industry has suffered several crippling strikes over this sort of issue with moves from film and TV to videotape to DVD to mini-disc to every other sort of media format. Contracts that were written for "video tape" meant either one party had no rights in future formats and lost huge royalties, or the other party had to track down all rights-holders and re-negotiate every time there's a new format. Now many contracts are negotiated for "known and unknown" or "not yet invented" forms of media.
In fact, this is precisely why you can't get PDFs of the older Dungeon and Dragon issues. The authors of the articles from that period still own all the rights to them and/or the contracts were negotiated for print-only in an era when no one conceived of digital media distribution, much less online anything. It was simply deemed too much work to track down all the rights-holders for the limited sales they could generate.
Also, the ability to transfer or re-distribute allows Paizo to turn posts into publicity, email, Tweets or whatever other sort of distribution, advertising or self-promotion sample they desire.
Anyway, that's the main reason that sort of boiler-plate exists, and about all it's good for in court.
If the Paizo guys really cared about protecting themselves from copyright lawsuits they would not interact on these boards. I know TV producers that studiously avoid all Fan-fic just so that they can protect themselves from claims of "they stole that episode from my idea". Steven Spielberg routinely wins copyright infringement lawsuits simply because Amblin Entertainment is notorious for returning all unsolicited mail unopened, lest they be accused of stealing from a script or letter or idea sent to them.
To me, this looks like "Gestalt" rules with "Fractional" rules, combined, with a new name. The idea of "split-classing" is not new, and has been around since the earliest incarnation of the game from the 70's.
It's great that you're putting effort into making a viable alternative to the standard "Multiclassing" rules, it really is. But, is it really enough to claim that it's your own, original, idea? Not trying to pour any hate on the project, I'm just worried for your sake really.. =/
To me, this looks like "Gestalt" rules with "Fractional" rules
SNIP
is it really enough to claim that it's your own, original, idea? Not trying to pour any hate on the project, I'm just worried for your sake really
Don't worry. The "disclaimer" is more a technicality than anything. As you said, perhaps the name is the only original aspect, thus the line "I do not challenge any previously-held copyrights in published sources".
If I was a Publisher I would never have posted here, anyway. One day I might try to work it into something, but for now I'm just contributing to people's home-games without necessarily Open-Sourcing :-)
I've never seen this before and have been playing since the very early days, but it made so much sense I kind of assumed that it's come out in some splatbook or expansion (when I generally don't buy).
Hey Rezdave, I gotta say, I love this! I've built and quickly playtested a few characters and all in all their very balanced, almost never better than a core class, but nicely versatile and not useless.
Although I see some good ideas here, I don't think this is a good approach to the problem of multiclassing. First of all, it adds a lot of mathematical complexity to a game which, at the moment, is possibly one of the most mathematically heavy in the world. And I don't mean the math is hard, but there's just so much of it to begin with, that I feel adding more is counter productive. Cutting everything in half and then adding it together is another layer of math the system doesn't need. Not even home brew.
And as Slatz stated, this isn't a new idea at all. We've all tried this idea, and it just kind of doesn't work. It's messy. And at the end of the day, what you end up with is a lot of unfair aspects. For instance, you have a half-fighter wizard who, for the sake of creating items, is 20th level? If that's so, what benefit does a person see for being a pure wizard in that regard? None, IMO. So it's not fair to people in the same game who DON'T want the headache of a split-class.
Besides that, ultimately, "split classing" tends to lead to the writing of a PrC anyway. So they're not clunky tack-ons by a long shot; they're the logical, streamlined conclusion of what you've doing here. Without the need for constant use of a calculator, and probably coming out a little better in the end than crunching down all the math the whole way.
And besides, to be honest, I love helping people write up new class and race ideas. It takes far less time than what you're suggesting, gives the player exactly what he or she needs for their concept, and gives the GM a chance to make rules and limitations relevant to the new class.
The idea is a good one but ... it's basically a more complicated way of gestalt classes. Why not just use gestalt classes and adjust all challenges by +1 CR? That has just the same effect and is an awful lot simpler to run.
isn't this just like playing, say a warmage? half fighter half wizard? don't all the splat books pretty much cover all the options for "split-class". i'm not trying to be a jerk but isn't this the same thing?
And as Slatz stated, this isn't a new idea at all. We've all tried this idea, and it just kind of doesn't work. It's messy. And at the end of the day, what you end up with is a lot of unfair aspects. For instance, you have a half-fighter wizard who, for the sake of creating items, is 20th level? If that's so, what benefit does a person see for being a pure wizard in that regard? None, IMO. So it's not fair to people in the same game who DON'T want the headache of a split-class.
To be fair, not everyone has played 2nd Edition or earlier and it looks like at least a few people found it handy.
Also, if my memory serves me correctly, in 2E the non-human races had a ceiling on how high in level they could advance so it was handy to multiclass them to get more out of each level they took since only humans could reach the very highest levels in the game.
SNIP
don't all the splat books pretty much cover all the options for "split-class".
Personally, I run a very "clean" game. I have eliminated about half the Core classes, opened up a lot of specified Class Abilities into "Slots" to add flexibility, and eliminated PrCs ... using multi-classing and increased Class flexibility to create them. I don't buy splat-books.
This just struck me as a good option for having maximum flexibility with a small number of Core classes, and overcoming the inherent shortcomings of multi-classing.
"Builders" won't like it, and would rather have a custom PrC. That's not my preference, but fine for their game.
Anyway, to each his own. For me and my style I think this will work very well, and I'm glad others have found utility here.
OTOH, for those who don't care for this idea or think other options already cover this ground, I appreciate the civility of your responses that makes the Paizo boards such a great place to call home.
since you don't buy the splat books i would have to agree that your method is sound, and saves you tons of money on books with 4 useful pages in them. just curious though on how players new to your group handle these rules. is the transition smooth or painful like a root canal?
just curious though on how players new to your group handle these rules.
We actually haven't tried them yet.
The people who join my Group obviously have feelings similar to my own, tending to be more concept-oriented than build-oriented. The greatest failings with multi-classing has been trying to have a Wizard/Rogue replace Bard (which I don't use). Despite my classic F/MU examples, we haven't had any of those in-game where it was an issue, but two different Rog/Wiz concepts faltered a bit where this idea might have helped.
However, I have a lot of NPCs I'd like to use it upon. The problem is that the meta-plot deals with a lot of secret societies and such, so I need NPCs that are decent at Rogue/Spy skills, but also primarily Fighters or Wizards or Experts or whatever is their cover/day-job. That is very difficult to accomplish using standard rules because to get enough Skill Points in the right areas requires ridiculous levels relative to the rest of the population.
So I figure it'll get used much more on NPCs in that way (a Wizard or Cleric who can Bluff, Gather Info and Sense Motive) than on actual PCs.
i'm very old school in my opinion of npcs but here it is in a nutshell. i don't care what the rules say i can do with my npcs. they get as many skill points as i want them to have, i give them feats they don't qualify for, and i give them weapons they can't use. they are for flavor and adjusted CRs justify it. with that being said i understand your frustration with the bad guys having to play by the generation rules.good luck with your spy story, i have always wanted to run a secret agent D and D game.
i'm very old school in my opinion of npcs but here it is in a nutshell.
If I were going to do that, I'd just throw out having stats for them.
Fighter: 'I attack' *rolls*
DM: 'You hit. Damage?'
Fighter: 7
DM: You take his head off. Wizard, you're up.
Wizard: I cast Sleep.
DM: *rolls* The burly guy falls over, but the scrawny guy doesn't. He starts pleading for his life.
I don't need to do paperwork to decide if the party wins or loses that way. Much more freeform.
i'm very old school in my opinion of npcs but here it is in a nutshell.
If I were going to do that, I'd just throw out having stats for them.
Fighter: 'I attack' *rolls*
DM: 'You hit. Damage?'
Fighter: 7
DM: You take his head off. Wizard, you're up.
Wizard: I cast Sleep.
DM: *rolls* The burly guy falls over, but the scrawny guy doesn't. He starts pleading for his life.
I don't need to do paperwork to decide if the party wins or loses that way. Much more freeform.
i don't mean i give them what they need when they need it, i mean in npc generation. if i want my villian to be a halfling wizard using two rapiers then i'll stat it up that way for flavor, i'm not pulling stuff out of my butt at the table
Why not break the system down into a point-buy system
Although I personally prefer point-buys like the Storyteller System, at a certain point you're just not playing D&D any more. Point Buys also allow for certain skewed-builds that Levels do not, and unless you're entirely Homebrew then I'd just rather stick to a streamlined and flexible Level system that is pretty close to the way all the published monsters and NPCs are written.
I have played around with a semi-point-buy model for comparing Classes Level-by-Level a couple times I've designed Homebrew classes. I came up with a pretty good model for determining the relative power curve of the Core Classes, then used it to balance two Homebrew classes that I use.
I do something simmilar, but instead of going through all these calculations to combine classes together, I just ask my players what they want and build a new class form them. I believe that it is better to simply add, remove, and alter existing class abilities instead of trying to merge classes together evenly.
For example, instead of having complex calculations for what spells a fighter/wizard should get, replace his wizard spell progression with a bard spell progression and possibly limit his spell list by making him declare additional 'opposition' schools of magic. It isn't an exact science, but it isn't like anything in 3.5 or pathfinder is perfectly balanced anyway.
So far the only custom class that I've created that's actually being used in my games is a ranger/druid hybrid. I took the druid class, weakened the spells gained per level to bard strength, and gave him combat style feats (among a few other more minor ability changes). It has been working pretty well so far.
Still, if your players are willing to use a split class, I then so no reason not to :D I just can't see either of the groups that I'm in dealing with it.
