In a recent thread someone asked what gestalt was. Reading the thread and listening to people talk about a gestalt characters relative strength got me thinking about a possible house. To keep this separate from normal multiclassing I’ll hereafter refer to this as a compound class. The rule would read roughly as follows:
Compound class characters
A compound class character is one that levels in two separate classes at the same time. This is not the same as multiclassing where a character simply takes a level in a different class. Each time a character gains a level they gain the benefits of leveling in two separate classes. Any time both classes give the same benefit only the best is taken.
Thus a if a character leveled and chose to take a level of ranger and a level of rogue they would gain 1d10 hit points since the rangers hit die are better and 8 skill points (plus their intelligence modifier if any) from their rogue level since rogues gain more skill points when they level. Abilities that are not shared between the two classes are gained normally.
While compound classes provide characters with more options a thus greater flexibility it also gives them a +2 level adjustment. As a result, a single classed character with the same number of experience points will be higher level gaining all the appropriate benefits.
Compounding a class after character creation
In order for a character to compound their class after already being created they first declare their intent. The next time their character would level they instead gain half their level rounded down in another class. Then when they would level a second time they gain the remaining levels in the other class. After this they level normally as dictated above.
Partially compounding classes
This works identically to compound classes except that the character only levels in two classes simultaneously on every even level. On the odd level they only level in one class. In return they only have a +1 level adjustment.
Thus a character that was partially compounded and had enough experience to be 11th level could have all the abilities of a 10th level rogue and a 5th level sorcerer.
-----------------------
The main reason for this is that I dislike the limited multiclassing options in pathfinder. While it’s good for some things, I like the idea of being able to build a character such as a cleric/sorcerer that is actually proficient at casting both arcane and divine spells but still be reasonably balanced. I sometimes come up with character concepts that simply don’t work well within the rules and I think this could be a solution.
That said my questions are as follows:
What are your initial impressions?
Does this seem balanced appropriately?
Do you see any reason this wouldn’t work?
If you see anything wrong how would you fix it?
|
It appears to be gestalt, with the option to play a "partial" gestalt at 1 level higher, or just a regular character at 2 levels higher. Under this option I think almost all characters would want to be compound classed, with the exception of certain primary spellcasters. Which is not necessarily bad if you're prepared to accept that.
So you are perfectly fine with someone taking say, cleric and wizard (2 of the most powerful classes), using this method, and getting full spellcasting ability? From what I am reading, a cleric/wizard compound at 18th level (treated as 20th from the adjustment) would have both 9th level cleric spells and 9th level wizard spells.
Even with a level adjustment, you are still getting 2 classes worth of powers. A paltry +2 adjustment to your level may hurt at lower levels, but is meaningless at mid and higher levels. Especially if one of your compounds is a full spellcaster.
Like gestalt, this is only balanced if everyone in the party does this. In which case, your just better off using the gestalt rules instead.
Actually the idea was more along the lines of adding in the ability to multiclass in a fashion close to how you could originally do in D&D which allows for some character concepts not currently supported in pathfinder.
The reason for the +2 level adjustment was that most people in the thread asking about what gestalt was seemed to think that while the benefits are really nice you still don't get any more actions during a round and so aren't that much more powerful.
Here's a link to the thread I'm referencing What is gestalt?
I'm still a little uncertain about the balance but I'm not convinced it's that far off. In D&D years back when multiclassing worked differently you were generally about 2 levels below the rest of the party and it didn't seem to hurt anything back then.
Incidentally, if you disagree what do you think would be would be an appropriate penalty? Whether its a class adjustment or something else.
The older version of multiclassing had the same problem as gestalt does now - why be a 14th level wizard when you can be a 13th level fighter/13th level wizard? (You had to divide experience evenly amound both your classes, which with how the tables worked, put you one level behind.) Being a level behind meant next to nothing. Multiclassing in older editions was just as bad as gestalt is now.
Yeah, you don't get more actions in a round. But you also get more power and versatility than any character not using those rules can get.
There is no penalty (at least in my opinion) that can offset this to be balanced with characters not using these rules. No matter what you try to do, you get the abilities of multiple classes while everyone else is limited to their single class.
|
|
So you are perfectly fine with someone taking say, cleric and wizard (2 of the most powerful classes), using this method, and getting full spellcasting ability? From what I am reading, a cleric/wizard compound at 18th level (treated as 20th from the adjustment) would have both 9th level cleric spells and 9th level wizard spells.
I imagine it would be more effective for a primary spellcaster to single-class for most of their career, then compound class near the end, so as to minimize the impact of being behind in spell levels. So eventually, yes, it's only sensible to be compound classed, but different characters will want to switch at different times. I wouldn't allow this without the understanding that everyone is eventually going to take it, though.
There is no penalty (at least in my opinion) that can offset this to be balanced with characters not using these rules. No matter what you try to do, you get the abilities of multiple classes while everyone else is limited to their single class.
I refuse to accept this. If fact I’ll do my best to avoid it but if I get a touch snarky it’s because I have a thing about people saying what can and cannot be done. It tends to get me a touch riled. In fact I intend to prove you wrong right now.
First I don’t remember it being that bad in the older games. Usually they were 2 levels behind not one (wasn’t their an xp penalty with multiclassing that helped do this) also I played a number of characters that were single classed and never felt that my character wasn’t contributing significantly. That said you do have a point, the higher level you go the more advantageous multiclassing tends to be.
So then the question becomes why is this the case and how can it be fixed.
Thinking about it I’d say that two things cause this. First you have a diminishing returns from penalties to hit points and BAB. At first being a level behind on hit points hurts but by 5th level its not particularly noticeable. Second, the rate at which a multiclass or rather compound class character gains abilities far outstrips a single class and at later levels the difference in power isn’t significant.
So how is this fixed? Well a single large penalty would be crippling at low levels and may or may not fix the higher levels but how about rethinking it for a second. Go with me on this.
Rather then a flat level adjustment you have a scaling adjustment. At first level compound classes have a +1 level adjustment. Every fifth level this increases by 1. So a level 5/5 character would be equal to a level 7, so far I think it sounds reasonable. At level 10/10 a single classed character would be 13th. Spell casters would be one and a half spell levels ahead and fighters would have a +3 BAB and 3 more hit die then their compound class counterparts. So far I think this still works. Jump to an 18th level party, multiclassed characters are still 14/14 powerful certainly but more powerful then casters with 9th level magic or fighters with +4 BAB and 4 hit die over their counterparts?
If this works for you partial compound classes would start with a +1 level adjustment and increase by one every 10 levels.
As for compounding a class later after character creation; after declaring their intent each “level” earned would give them 5 class levels except the last one which would give whatever levels were needed to finish getting in sync (from 0 to 4).
I imagine it would be more effective for a primary spellcaster to single-class for most of their career, then compound class near the end, so as to minimize the impact of being behind in spell levels. So eventually, yes, it's only sensible to be compound classed, but different characters will want to switch at different times. I wouldn't allow this without the understanding that everyone is eventually going to take it, though.
When determining if something is balanced the best way to tell is if there is a reasonable even chance that someone will go with each individual possibility. So, what do you think? Does it pass? Do you think it still true that everyone would ultimately do, a lot, some?
Personally, I'm going for as close to a 50/50 chance as I can get but I think this might work.
Incidentally, I'm not just talking to them anyone can respond :P
I refuse to accept this.
I like your spirit! I've similarly always wanted a good option for multiclassing more efficiently, gaining more abilities, etc. Ultimately, though, I think the gestalt approach IS irreconcilable with normal characters, because it's simply stupid strong. Always taking the better hit die, skill ranks, saves... it's open to tons of abuse. Scaling level adjustment is a nice start, but I think we need to go deeper. I just threw this together while in the shower. It entails some book-keeping, but maybe we can take a look at it and see if it's got any value.
Multiclassing option.
When you gain experience past 5th level, you may spend it on 'sub-levels.' A sub-level is an effective increase in your level in a class, granting you some but not all of the benefits of leveling up in that class normally. You may never have more sub-levels than you have hit dice. Your sub-levels and normal levels in a class can never add up to more than your total hit dice. A sub-level has an XP cost. The cost can only be paid if you have enough excess XP over the last level you gained; you can't spend more XP than you've gained since your last level-up.
The cost of advancing normally is unaffected by taking sub-levels. You simply permanently lose the XP you spend on sub-levels, thus delaying your advancement. At normal level-up, you may choose to take the next level in any class in which you have levels, sub-levels, or a combination thereof.
Example: A 5th-level fighter with 4 sub-levels in wizard, upon attaining 6th level, may take either a 6th level of fighter, or a 5th level of wizard.
Keep track of the XP you spend on sub-levels to the side of your normal XP. Add them together to determine your effective hit dice for the purposes of calculating CR (and, by extension, APL) and distributing XP.
The XP cost of your first sub-level is equal to the difference between the XP totals of a 1st and 2nd level character. As you gain more sub-levels in the same class, the XP cost increases by one level (to the difference between the XP totals of 2nd and 3rd level character for your 2nd sub-level, and so on). If you decide to gain sub-levels in multiple classes, sub-levels in subsequent classes cost iteratively twice as much XP (so the 1st sub-level would cost twice the difference between the XP totals of a 1st and 2nd level character for your second class with sub-levels, four times that difference for your third class with sub-levels, etc.).
This formula is a bit confusing. I've prepped a spreadsheet in Google Docs to show the XP costs of sub-levels in up to 5 classes assuming fast XP progression. This should give you a clearer idea of the costs.
Here is what you gain when you take a sub-level in a class:
- all named class features (i.e. 'rogue talent,' 'hex,' 'bomb 3d6').
- an increase to your effective level in the class for the purposes of determining class feature effects and qualifying for feats, prestige classes, etc.
- an increase in the class's spellcasting, including caster level, spells per day, and spells known (but not spells/formulae in a spellbook from advancement).
Here is what you don't gain when you take a sub-level in a class:
- favored class bonus, if any.
- hit dice.
- base attack bonus progression.
- save bonus progression.
- skill ranks.
- proficiencies.
HD 5d10
BAB +5
Fort/Ref/Will +4/+1/+1
Skills 5x(2+Int bonus)
Proficiencies as a fighter
Fighter class features 3 bonus feats, bravery +1, armor training 1, weapon training 1
Wizard class features arcane bond, arcane school, cantrips, scribe scroll
Spellcasting CL 4; spells per day as a 4th-level wizard; in spellbook: all cantrips, 3+Int bonus 1st-level spells.
This character would be able to cast 2nd-level wizard spells, but he would not have any unless he'd spent the resources to find them and add them to his spellbook.
Now let's look at his XP...
Assuming fast progression, 5 levels of fighter would cost 10,000 XP, and 4 sub-levels of wizard would cost 10,000 XP. Our hero is 1 hit die behind his party at this point. He has 10,000 XP and needs 15,000 total for level 6; his party has 20,000 XP and needs 23,000 for level 7. If he adds a 5th sub-level of wizard, he will be 2 hit dice behind the party.
I think that with my formula as it is, if you stick to one class for sub-levels, and stick to parity between hit dice and sub-levels, you'll consistently be 2 levels behind a normal character. If you take sub-levels in multiple classes, you may fall further behind.
I'm also thinking of some balancing factors to keep things from getting ridiculous. Like this:
Spelltax
You're a mortal. You can only handle so much magical energy at once. You can access at most 13 spell levels per day, not including cantrips or orisons, which are second-nature to most spellcasters. So if you're, say, a 15th-level wizard with 15 sub-levels of cleric, you can only prepare 7th-level spells from one of those two classes. In the other class, you would be limited to 6th-level and lower spells. To give another example, in order to prepare his 9th-level wizard spells, a 17th-level wizard with 15 sub-levels of cleric can only prepare up to 4th-level cleric spells. A spontaneous caster facing this limitation must decide at the beginning of the day how to allot his 13 spell levels.
So! Thoughts? I know the formula for determining XP costs is a bit bleh, but the concept of the ability-only sub-levels I think is a solid one.
!! Edit - derp - you can't take sub-levels in a prestige class
I've been rather fond of half-gestalt, wherein you only gain a gestalt level on every even.
EDIT: Interesting ideas there, Flak. Have you tested that at all? If so, how did it work out? Or was it something you just came up with?
Just now, ran some test builds through my text editor but that's all armchair stuff.
and another obvious limitation for the system I posited above which should still be spelled out: your effective class level for class features which improve over multiple classes (animal companion, familiar) can never be higher than your hit dice (so a level 5 cavalier with 5 sub-levels of druid still only has the bonded mount of a 5th-level cavalier, not that of a 10th-level cavalier). Similar obvious restrictions should be applied to spellcasting; you can't sub-level in wizard while taking mystic theurge in order to boost your spellcasting ability beyond your hit dice.
I like your spirit!
Thank you :)
I've similarly always wanted a good option for multiclassing more efficiently, gaining more abilities, etc. Ultimately, though, I think the gestalt approach IS irreconcilable with normal characters, because it's simply stupid strong. Always taking the better hit die, skill ranks, saves... it's open to tons of abuse. Scaling level adjustment is a nice start, but I think we need to go deeper.
Could you please give an example of it being to powerful using the alteration to my rules I mentioned? I’m not willing to scrap my idea unless someone can show a few examples in which it’s still OP. Also only by seeing it’s faults can I tell if a different approach must be taken or if it can be fixed with some minor tweaks. You mention always taking better hit die, skill ranks, saves, etc, but being potentially several levels behind this is needed to stay as powerful as the single classed character isn’t it?
As an experiment lets look at 3 characters, a fighter, a cleric, and a fighter/cleric. For the purpose of this I’m going to look at the last example above where the single classed characters are 18th level and the compound class character is 14th level. I’m choosing a later level because if something breaks down it usually does so most notably at high levels. I’ll use a 20-point but for stats and max hit points at first with average hit points each level thereafter.
Attributes:
Fighter; str 22, con 18, dex 12, int 10, wis 10, cha 10
Cleric; str 14, con 16, dex 12, int 10, wis 22, cha 10
Fighter/cleric; str 19, con 14, dex 12, int 10, wis 18, cha 10
Hitpoints, BAB, & Saves
Fighter; hit points: 176, BAB +18, Fort +11, Ref +6, Will +6
Cleric; hit points: 139, BAB +10, Fort +11, Ref +6, Will +11
Fighter/cleric; hit points: 110, BAB +14, Fort +9, Ref +4, Will +9
Abilities:
Fighter; bonus fighter feats 10, armor training 4, weapon training 4, bravery 5
Cleric; channel energy 9d6 (3/day), domain powers, 9th level spells
Fighter/cleric; channel energy 7d6 (3/day), domain powers, 7th level spells, bonus fighter feats 8, armor training 3, weapon training 3, bravery 4
So looking at these we have that the fighter/cleric is going to be slightly more MAD in attributes. If you can minimize the impact using a good class combination this may be able to be ignored and in campaigns with high attributes this is also less of an issue but in either case compound classes would not have any benefit here.
Next, the hit points for the fighter/cleric came out significantly less, the BAB fell in between that of the fighter and cleric and base saves where actually less then the cleric but comparable to the fighters being 1 point better if you totaled them. So far, getting to take the best of both classes isn’t helping much, and as I suspected I’d even say its necessary.
Finally, abilities, here the fighter/cleric finally outshines the other two… sort of. Compared to the fighter they are only slightly behind on feats, weapon training, armor training, and bravery, but they also have channel energy, domain powers, and up to 7th level spells which more then makes up the difference. It’s tempting to say they still outperform the fighter but before doing we need to look everything, the single classed fighter has 66 more hit points, +4 more BAB, and because he isn’t focuses on wisdom he can crank his strength to a 22 for an additional +2 to hit and damage.
The fighter/cleric has a wide range of abilities ensuring they always have something to do in combat and can even make up the hit point difference with healing spells, but doing this means sacrifices actions. While I believe they’d be fun to play I don’t think they would outshine the fighter at fighting.
Now lets compare the fighter/cleric against the single classed cleric. Fighting in combat, the higher attack bonus and fighter abilities let the fighter/cleric pull ahead a little which is what you would expect. Having compounded the fighter with the cleric should improve their combat abilities. But when we look at spell casting the pure cleric can cast spells a full two spell levels higher giving them spells such as mass heal and true resurrection. Also, the cleric isn’t as MAD and thus can pump their wisdom giving them higher DC’s on their spells.
All in all the 14/14 fighter/cleric has lots of abilities that give them more options, covers their weakness, and lets them run as an excellent support healer or warrior as needed. But they do not appear to be able to outshine the cleric at healing or the fighter at fighting.
I’ve ran a few other quick tests, I won’t include them do to length but so far they seem fairly well balanced. I have yet to see any combination of core classes that would cause this rule any problems and I think it would probably work with most if not all of the prestige classes too.
If anyone can so me a combination that would be to powerful please post it. As things stand I see no reason not to allow this change.
@Flak: While I don’t see a problem with my modification to my house rule I did read over what you posted. I like that you could pick and choose how far to “multi-class” using your method but I do see a significant problem. For characters such as fighters their hit points and BAB are a large part of the class and you aren’t permitting these things to change. As a result, a fighter taking wizard levels may get some nice benefits but a wizard taking fighter levels would be horrible.
Unless you're doing 15-min workday (in which case a couple 9th level spells may well be better than a plethora of lower-level spells), an L14 wizard/cleric or druid/wizard or really any combination of primary spellcasters would get kind of ridiculous. My understanding is that spellcasting is easily the most degenerate part of Pathfinder, and giving characters a way to cast hundreds of spells thus triggers alarms for me.
Good call on BAB & HD being a large part of some classes. Same with saves and skills. I'll think more about my system, though I'm not sure the 'problem' can't be fixed by choosing which classes to take normal levels vs. sub-levels in with prejudice.
Mkay, lets look at one of them. I love druids so the idea of a druid/wizard sound fun. Lets compare this to the single class druid and wizard just to see what happens. As before, I’m choosing the later level using a 20-point but for stats, and max hit points at first with average hit points each level thereafter.
Druid; str 10, con 16, dex 16, int 10, wis 22, cha 10
Wizard; str 10, con 16, dex 16, int 22, wis 10, cha 10
Druid/wizard; str 10, con 12, dex 12, int 20, wis 19, cha 10
Hitpoints, BAB, & Saves
Druid; hit points: 139, BAB +13, Fort +11, Ref +6, Will +11
Wizard; hit points: 101, BAB +9, Fort +6, Ref +6, Will +11
Druid/wizard; hit points: 81, BAB +10, Fort +9, Ref +4, Will +9
Abilities:
Druid; animal companion, wild shape 8/day, 9th level druid spells, caster level 18th, DC’s 16+spell level
Wizard; bonus wizard feats: 3, 9th level wizard spells, caster level 18th, DC’s 16+spell level
Druid/wizard; animal companion, wild shape 6/day, 7th level druid spells, caster level 14th, DC’s 14+spell level, wizard feats: 3, 9th level wizard spells, caster level 14th, DC’s 15+spell level
Alright, here attributes aren’t to MAD but if you want to have high level casting abilities in two classes with DC’s that are comparable to the single classed casters you are going to need to crank both spell casting stats. Otherwise your DC’s will lag behind significantly and even with it he is still 1-2 points behind.
Do to this the pure single classed casters AC’s and hit points trail ahead of the druid/wizard making him a bit squishy. Especially considering that the pure mage who normally has fewer hit points then other classes is still ahead of him. Also his saves are 1 point better then the wizards but worse then the druids. Up to this point is as I pretty much expected so now the question is do the additional abilities, particularly the extra spells still make them come out to strong.
Well while they most certainly have a large number of spells the pure druid or wizard have several advantages. First, as mentioned their DC’s are still 1-2 points higher. While not earth shattering, it is and advantage in combat. In addition they have a caster level 4 levels higher, this means their spells have longer durations and may damage or heal more effectively but a big advantage against other casters is that it’s significantly harder for others to dispel their magic then that of the druid/wizard. Similarly, the druid/ wizard will have a difficult time dispelling level appropriate magic and overcoming creatures spell resistance.
So yes they can cast lots of spells but I question that they are really any more powerful then the single classed druid or single classed wizard.
Incidentally I know I skipped some of the other abilities like venom immunity and didn't really look at the animal companion but I think its safe to say that while flavorful and fun they won't make a significant difference.
You make a good point about caster level and dispelling. Also, the save DC drop seems to be a function of MAD; this can be alleviated by 'smart' combinations (like a Wizard/Sage Sorcerer or a Sorcerer/Oracle or something). I dunno. I guess it depends a bit on what kind of game you're in. There's plenty of spellcasting that's just about as good at lower CL, with lower (or no) DCs, but 4 levels of adjustment does seem to be a pretty potent shackle. I'll try playtesting some stuff with your system in my campaign, throw it at my party and see how they handle it :)
Considering how Leadership feat gives a PC another class's abilities at -2 level AND an improved action economy, I think the sub-level idea might even work for a DM who find Leadership a necessity yet tedious (more character=longer to complete a full turn). So taking into account that you're still only buying equipments for a single character, I think the main class level - 4 would be a nice compromise. So a Fighter 8 with Gestalt feat could have 4 levels in, say, a wizard.
So no 9th-level spells on the sub-level (because it's not the main focus of the character after all) but it does allow the PCs to scale up much faster in terms of power and utility.