Try these rules on for size.
When multi classing increase your effective level in a class by half the levels you posses in other classes up to a maximum of double your level in that class. The effective level only applies to class specific abilities, not general ones like BAB , saves etc.
If you take levels in a Prestige Class you add 1/3 of the PrC levels to your effect level in your other classes instead of 1/2. You never add effective levels from non Prestige Classes to a Prestige Class
Example 1
Fighter 8 / Rogue 2 character level 10
Fighers adds 1/2 rogue levels = 1 so effective fighter level = 9
Rogue adds 1/2 fighter levels = 4 , however max double level = 4 so Effective Rogue level 4
Fighter 8/Rogue2 is effectively a Fighter 9/Rogue 4
Example 2
Sorceror 14 / Fighter 2 / Rogue 3 (character level 19)
Effective Class levels
Sorceror 14 + 2
fighter 2 + (8)capped at 4
rogue 2 + (8) capped at 6
Overall Sorceror 16/ Fighter 4 / Rogue 6
Example 3
Wizard 2 / Cleric 2 / Mystic Theruge 1
Effective Levels
Wizard 2 +1
Cleric 2 +1
Mystic Theruge 1 (no additions)
The Effect Wiz3/cleric3 qualifies for MT at level 4 instead of 6
Example 4
Fighter 12 / Sorcerer 3 effective character level 15
Effective Class Levels
Fighter 12 + 1
Sorceror 3 + 6
Overall Fighter 13 / Sorcerer 9
Just a rough rule to begin, can easily be tightened up should there be any glaring problems.
Try these rules on for size.
Example 4
Fighter 12 / Sorcerer 3 effective character level 15Effective Class Levels
Fighter 12 + 1
Sorceror 3 + 6Overall Fighter 13 / Sorcerer 9
I like this a lot and have considered something similar for a long time. I especially like the "max double level" bit.
Small note, in this last example you seem to have forgotten that rule. I believe it should be Sorcerer 6.
Very cool though.
Try these rules on for size.
Example 4
Fighter 12 / Sorcerer 3 effective character level 15Effective Class Levels
Fighter 12 + 1
Sorceror 3 + 6Overall Fighter 13 / Sorcerer 9
I like this a lot and have considered something similar for a long time. I especially like the "max double level" bit.
Small note, in this last example you seem to have forgotten that rule. I believe it should be Sorcerer 6.
Very cool though.
hah good pick up yes you are correct sorc 6
Can you clarify which abilities of classes are stacked? For example, a fighter 8/rogue 2 normally has a BAB of+9. Under your example, the character is effectively a fighter 9/rogue 4. Those normally have BAB of +12, which is higher than the other 10th level fighter that is in the party. What about hp and skill points?
According to your example, the wizard 2/cleric 2 now casts as wizard 3/cleric 3. Based on comments about qualifying for the mystic theurge, I can assume that 2nd level spell slots are now available to each class, otherwise that wouldn't be possible. Just wanted to make sure I understood this right.
Can you clarify which abilities of classes are stacked? For example, a fighter 8/rogue 2 normally has a BAB of+9. Under your example, the character is effectively a fighter 9/rogue 4. Those normally have BAB of +12, which is higher than the other 10th level fighter that is in the party. What about hp and skill points?
The Op stated that BAB and saves and presumably skills and HP wouldn't be increased by this only class abilities.
According to your example, the wizard 2/cleric 2 now casts as wizard 3/cleric 3. Based on comments about qualifying for the mystic theurge, I can assume that 2nd level spell slots are now available to each class, otherwise that wouldn't be possible. Just wanted to make sure I understood this right.
Spells are a class ability, so presumably spell slots and spells known and such would increase.
Can you clarify which abilities of classes are stacked? For example, a fighter 8/rogue 2 normally has a BAB of+9. Under your example, the character is effectively a fighter 9/rogue 4. Those normally have BAB of +12, which is higher than the other 10th level fighter that is in the party. What about hp and skill points?
The Op stated that BAB and saves and presumably skills and HP wouldn't be increased by this only class abilities.
Spells are a class ability, so presumably spell slots and spells known and such would increase.According to your example, the wizard 2/cleric 2 now casts as wizard 3/cleric 3. Based on comments about qualifying for the mystic theurge, I can assume that 2nd level spell slots are now available to each class, otherwise that wouldn't be possible. Just wanted to make sure I understood this right.
correct on both accounts
While it could work nice for two classes, what about more of them? A lvl 18 with 6/6/6 would be effectively a 9/9/9 - or 27
A 18/1/1 would be a 19/10/10 - 39
Even if it's only about the features, compare a 18 fighter, 1 paladin, 1 ranger to a 20 fighter - ok, lvl 19 and 20 fighter stuff is neat but considering all that stuff he gets...
Thus I'd introduce the rule "only one class can benefit for the same two levels" or something like that
While it could work nice for two classes, what about more of them? A lvl 18 with 6/6/6 would be effectively a 9/9/9 - or 27
A 18/1/1 would be a 19/10/10 - 39
Even if it's only about the features, compare a 18 fighter, 1 paladin, 1 ranger to a 20 fighter - ok, lvl 19 and 20 fighter stuff is neat but considering all that stuff he gets...Thus I'd introduce the rule "only one class can benefit for the same two levels" or something like that
Well, regarding your first example (6/6/6 at 18th), if one embraces this rule at all as a helpful rebalancing of the multiclassing mechanic, one shouldn't be scared of seemingly large numbers (i.e. "27th level"). Trust me, the ability to choose which of three 9th level class powers you use at 18th level is not over powerful.
As to your second example (18/1/1 at 20th), you forgot the OP's simple, yet elegant, balancing rule. No more than double for any classes effective levels. So 18/1/1 would be 18/2/2 rather than 19/10/10. Hardly a game breaker.
While it could work nice for two classes, what about more of them? A lvl 18 with 6/6/6 would be effectively a 9/9/9 - or 27
Wouldn't two classes, each at L10, be 10/10 or effective 15/15 -- or 30? I don't see how it's worse with three classes.
ok so fighter 8/rogue 2, compared to a fighter 10
would lose : 1 BAB, 1 bravery, 1 feat
would gain : uncanny dodge, SA +2d6, evasion, 2 rogue talents, a bunch of class skills/skill points, trap sense and trap finding, I should probably mention the bonus to saves for dipping as well, which in the example evens out fairly because neither level has a multiple of 3
I think double the level is too much, maybe if you made it 1.5 times level to top out prevents dipping, the above example would function as a level 3 rogue and fighter 9
that shaves off a rogue talent and uncanny dodge, as well as making skills potentially les effective (like trap finding), still a bit too good but better balanced.
I also doubt it would be good for PrC, how would you adjucate a mystic theurge
wizard 2/cleric 2/ MT 2 would effectively be 3/3/3 thus having casting abilities of a 6th level wizard and 6th level cleric (at level 6), and would be a full caster in both classes advancing further onwards.
Perhaps it would be fair to say it just doesnt work with PrC since they tend to plan their characters out anyway it will not have much impact.
An interesting concept but one that would never see the light of day in our games. It is just makes multiclass characters stronger than regular characters, going back to the old days of original AD&D Multiclassing.
In 20 CHARACTER levels, the multiclasser gets more total CLASS leveled abilities than a pure class character, which is not only unfair but unbalanced. Besides, the game does not need any more power creep.
If I undestand you right, a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 would equate to a Fighter 15 and Rogue 15, giving him 30 levels of Class abilities in 20 character levels. How is that fair?
The entire point of the Multiclass system is trade off. You LOSE greater power for increased versatility. Using your system you destroy that balance, and actually reward the Multiclasser OVER the pure classes, rather than keeping them in general parity.
ok so fighter 8/rogue 2, compared to a fighter 10
would lose : 1 BAB, 1 bravery, 1 feat
would gain : uncanny dodge, SA +2d6, evasion, 2 rogue talents, a bunch of class skills/skill points, trap sense and trap finding, I should probably mention the bonus to saves for dipping as well, which in the example evens out fairly because neither level has a multiple of 3
I think double the level is too much, maybe if you made it 1.5 times level to top out prevents dipping, the above example would function as a level 3 rogue and fighter 9
that shaves off a rogue talent and uncanny dodge, as well as making skills potentially les effective (like trap finding), still a bit too good but better balanced.
I also doubt it would be good for PrC, how would you adjucate a mystic theurge
wizard 2/cleric 2/ MT 2 would effectively be 3/3/3 thus having casting abilities of a 6th level wizard and 6th level cleric (at level 6), and would be a full caster in both classes advancing further onwards.
Perhaps it would be fair to say it just doesnt work with PrC since they tend to plan their characters out anyway it will not have much impact.
I agree it is to easy to dip and get some great benefits with classes that work well together (frex: fighter/rogue). I like it more for disparate classes such as fighter/wizard etc. In which case I don't think double the level is too much. You could differentiate which classes get how much benefit using the guidelines for adding class levels to monsters found on page 296 of the Bestiary. However, it probably isn't worth it, better just to rule 1.5 max.
ok so fighter 8/rogue 2, compared to a fighter 10
would lose : 1 BAB, 1 bravery, 1 feat
would gain : uncanny dodge, SA +2d6, evasion, 2 rogue talents, a bunch of class skills/skill points, trap sense and trap finding, I should probably mention the bonus to saves for dipping as well, which in the example evens out fairly because neither level has a multiple of 3
I think double the level is too much, maybe if you made it 1.5 times level to top out prevents dipping, the above example would function as a level 3 rogue and fighter 9
that shaves off a rogue talent and uncanny dodge, as well as making skills potentially les effective (like trap finding), still a bit too good but better balanced.
I also doubt it would be good for PrC, how would you adjucate a mystic theurge
wizard 2/cleric 2/ MT 2 would effectively be 3/3/3 thus having casting abilities of a 6th level wizard and 6th level cleric (at level 6), and would be a full caster in both classes advancing further onwards.
Perhaps it would be fair to say it just doesnt work with PrC since they tend to plan their characters out anyway it will not have much impact.
Your fighter rogue example, don't forget what your are giving up, its not just the immediate 1BAB 1 feat etc your also giving up the possibility of level 20 fighter if your taking it that far, your also delaying feats with a fighter level requirement. your also limited on what rogue talent you take that have a minimum rogue level.
As for PrC, you must have missed it but I posted a specific rule for PrC's
PrC levels only give 1/3 to no PrC class and non-PrC classes don't contribute to the PrC
So in your exmaple
wiz2/clr2/mt2 = wiz3/clr3/mt2 , Level 6 char with CL5 spells
to further the example
wiz2/clr2/mt3 = wiz4/clr4/mt3, Level 7 char with CL7 spells
wiz2/clr2/mt6 = wiz4/clr4/mt6, Level 10 char with CL10 spells
So basically it looks like I just need to remove the 1/3 PrC contribution
so instead it looks like this
wiz2/clr2/mt2 = wiz3/clr3/mt2 , Level 6 char with CL5 spells
wiz2/clr2/mt3 = wiz3/clr3/mt3, Level 7 char with CL6 spells
wiz2/clr2/mt6 = wiz3/clr3/mt6, Level 10 char with CL9 spells
wiz2/clr2/mt10 = wiz3/clr3/mt10, Level 14 char with CL13 spells
Taken to optimal
wiz5/clr5/mt10 = wiz7/clr7/mt10 , Level 20 char with CL17 spells
An interesting concept but one that would never see the light of day in our games. It is just makes multiclass characters stronger than regular characters, going back to the old days of original AD&D Multiclassing.
In 20 CHARACTER levels, the multiclasser gets more total CLASS leveled abilities than a pure class character, which is not only unfair but unbalanced. Besides, the game does not need any more power creep.
If I undestand you right, a Fighter 10/Rogue 10 would equate to a Fighter 15 and Rogue 15, giving him 30 levels of Class abilities in 20 character levels. How is that fair?
The entire point of the Multiclass system is trade off. You LOSE greater power for increased versatility. Using your system you destroy that balance, and actually reward the Multiclasser OVER the pure classes, rather than keeping them in general parity.
Because class power is not linear, especially if you consider capstone abilities. Its impossible to reach your capstone ability if you multiclass.
Plus an effective Fighter15/Rogue15 is no where near a true Level 30 character.Not to mention the Fighter15/Rogue15 only has a BAB of +17, 10d10+10d8HP
+10/+10/+6 saves. Don't forget BAB, saves, HP etc etc are not included in this only class specific abilities.
Personally I like some of the interesting options opened up.
Consider the Druid/Fighter
Druid6/Fighter12 effective Druid12/fighter15 (char level 18)
Full Wildshaping coupled with 15 levels of fighter
Or
Fighter/Wiz or Fighter/Sorc
To make some great polymorphing fighters
Further amendments which might help eliminate some abuse
a) you cannot take a PrC if you use this method of multiclassing
b) you can only multiclass 2 classes using this method
I've been tinkering with almost exactly the same set of rules for a while now. I will say that you just can't work PRC's into this. Many prestige classes already act as supplements for multi-classing (even if they're not as blatant about it as mystic theurge), so adding something on top of this is basically double-dipping and going to break your system. I'd say cut mystic theurge entirely (this system should render the class unnecessary) and rework the entry requirements of eldritch knight and arcane trickster.
I have one other rule that you don't: you can only gain spellcasting from one class for each mental attribute. I found that it was impossible to balance a MAD multi-class spellcaster against a SAD one, so if you want two spellcasting classes you must be MAD. The goal here is to add diversity, not power.
I've run some tests with this system, and while I think it's a very interesting approach it doesn't deal with all the problems with multi-classing. This system works quite well for most 10/10 combinations, restricting you from the most powerful class features without leaving you totally gimped. However, it starts to break when you build something like a 8/6/4/2 character, which comes out to 14/12/8/4. At mid levels, something like 3/2/2/2 will clock in at 6/4/4/4. At low-levels, a 2/1/1 will get to play as 3/2/2. All of these combos are utterly broken even without serious optimization. I've been experimenting with different combinations of exemptions and feats and limiters to fine-tune the system, but I haven't come up with something that gracefully handles the wide range of multi-class combinations we can expect from players.
After lots of spreadsheeting, I did eventually conclude that multi-class characters are effectively being penalized across the board because they have higher saving throws. Every time you pick up a new class, you gain +2 to its strong saves, which is like getting a bonus feat (or two for some classes). What is worse, this is effectively most beneficial for low-level dippers, which is not the kind of multi-classing that needs help. Bringing their saves into line with single-class characters is necessary if we want to bring their class features up to speed without overpowering them, and if we want to keep dipping under control in the process.
My solution to the saving throw issue is to take away the +2 you gain to strong saves and replace it with a one-time boost to 1st level characters. The current approach I'm working on is this: you now add both your strength and constitution modifier to fortitude saves, both your dexterity and intelligence modifier to reflexs saves, and both your wisdom and charisma modifier to will saves. On the plus side, this is a graceful solution to stat dumping. Unfortunately, this is mucking up class balance for the monk (and to a lesser extent the paladin), and it starts to break at 25 point buy, but for most classes at 10-20 point buy I've been very pleased with it.
I definitely see a lot of potential here to add more variety and choice to multi-classing, but I think you need to do a lot of digging to get at the root of the issue. I think the big difficulty will be reconciling multi-class combos that are already strong with ones that are currently outright jokes. The people warning about multi-classing becoming too strong have a point, but we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that a large number of classes currently cannot multi-class at all because they are so hopelessly dependent on keeping their class level maximized.
Some good ideas....
Hvaing thought about it I think for PrC's they should be cut entirely, PrC already work for the most part with existing multi class rules. This also keep things simple so there arn't a bunch of "exception rules"
I mean with this system you can make a Wiz/fighter viable we don't really need Eldrich Knight as a result.The MAD v SAD is an interesting point however I think this example illustrates why its less of a problem than it seems.
Wiz10/Witch10 both use INT
effective CL15, make spell level 8th, no a base level 8 spells 1 wiz 1 witch.
vs
CL20 wiz or witch, 4 x 9th level spells base
Yes your gaining a boatload of lower level spells
4,4,4,4,4,3,2,1
4,4,4,4,4,3,2,1
vs
4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4,4
The difference is 8 (8th/9th) level spells vs 2 8th
Bonus spells from high INT only apply once
if the caster levels had differnt casting stats then bonus spell would apply for each stat.
It actually makes a multiclass caster/caster a better version of the Mystic theruge that dosen't suffer from dead early levels but still behind the spell level curve and misses out on 9th level spells
saves are not class specific and therefore do not benefit from a higher effective level, the saves are treated like normal multiclass, same for BAB, same for skills, same for hit dice, same for general feats etc etc etc
I also think limiting this form of multiclass to 2 classes only solves a bunch of issues without really hurting the concept or versatility of the idea
Hmm. I think you need to progress BAB on non-class levels to some degree to really replace hybrid prestige classes. Full BAB is a fairly major class ability for those classes that have it.
Fighter/Wizard even split looks a lot like Wizard 6/Fighter 4/EK 10. The half level multiclass ends at BAB 15. The EK ends at BAB 17. Weapon Training will sort of cover this for fighters, but not for other martial classes and iterative attacks will come later -- and the fourth will never come.
Cleric/Paladin even will end at BAB 18 with 15 cleric casting levels. Cleric/Holy Vindicator to end at BAB 18 is Cleric 8/Paladin 1/HV 10 and has 16 cleric casting levels.
Oracle/Barbarian is a special case because half of off levels already adds to curse progression so an even would get level 20 on the curse. This probably makes it better than Rage Prophet, but if you overlap rather than stacking non-oracle levels for the curse it's about like Cleric/Paladin compared to HV. Same casting progression on the prestige class and same BABs.
Battle Herald is the other special case since it doesn't actually progress any component class abilities except that inspiring command adds bard levels for inspire courage.
I believe it balances out by itself, if you want a +16BAB you need to skew towards your full BAB class. In the case of Fighter Wiz this is 12/8 split resulting in an effective 16/14 split , 16 BAB with level 7 spells is close enough with fighter6/wiz4/ek10.
The nice part is unlike a PrC you can benefit from your multiclass from 3rd level onwards.
your also getting much better class ability progression vs having to use a PrC
imho I feel better knowning your sacrificing a small amount of BAB for additonal class related benefits.
by the way I've decided to remove PrC from the equation and limit the multiclass using this method to 2 classes only.
A variation of that house rule is what I premised my first magic system change on. I liked it enough that it is a critical part of my homebrew system. So I guess I am pro that rule!
A variation of that house rule is what I premised my first magic system change on. I liked it enough that it is a critical part of my homebrew system. So I guess I am pro that rule!
Interesting concept. It seems the core difference is that you're willing to redesign the classes themselves, whereas this system is designed to provide a multi-classing framework without changing the classes at all (at most adding some new feats to patch any significant holes).
we don't really need Eldrich Knight as a result.
EK shouldn't be removed. While it's no longer necessary to build a fighter/wizard under this rule-set, it offers you more leeway to customize the balance between your combat skills and magic skills. That's really what this is about, giving a realistic option for customization rather than feeling strapped to an inflexible prestige class or archtype to make your character concept a reality.
The MAD v SAD is an interesting point however I think this example illustrates why its less of a problem than it seems.
Wiz10/Witch10 both use INT
The comparison is less Wizard/Witch versus pure Wizard, and more Witch/Wizard versus Witch/Sorcerer. The wit/sor isn't even in the same league at most point buys due to its attribute dependency.
On the one hand, I dislike saying "no you can't", but the difference between the MAD caster and the SAD caster is a pretty wide gulf at most reasonable point buys. The system is going to need fine-tweaking in any case, and I'd prefer to knock out one or two powerful combinations and balance around the more interesting combinations. On the other hand, if you're willing to drop a few custom feats into the pool you might be able to bring the MAD casters up to speed that way. As much as I hate feat taxes, that probably is the better approach...
Bonus spells from high INT only apply once
This is one of the problems I find with this system. These kinds of (justified) exceptions and limiters start popping up all over the place, and soon enough you're tripping over them. I've been toying with this system and different variations for a while, and each time I end up getting way too many of these things.
saves are not class specific and therefore do not benefit from a higher effective level, the saves are treated like normal multiclass, same for BAB, same for skills, same for hit dice, same for general feats etc etc etc
I'm aware that you don't gain additional saving throw progression under this system (that would be nuts). However, saves from multi-class characters ARE too high as it is, that's what I'm saying. For some of the more egregious combos, your base saves can be up to 8 points higher than a single-class character. Even the most tame combos are typically 2-3 points ahead.
I also think limiting this form of multiclass to 2 classes only solves a bunch of issues without really hurting the concept or versatility of the idea
I've agonized over that one. Still not entirely sure how to handle it. I don't want to preclude 3-class combos, but the system does push too many combinations over the edge.
One approach I've brainstormed on is to treat some classes differently. Fighters, barbarians and rogues are examples of classes that get some good features at lower levels that are really class-level independent and great for dipping. I don't think it's appropriate to give them the same benefits as a wizard, bard, or cleric whose class features are pretty much a joke without class level progression.
A variation of that house rule is what I premised my first magic system change on. I liked it enough that it is a critical part of my homebrew system. So I guess I am pro that rule!
Hey Aero, I just wanted to say 'bravo!' Your blogs and rules are very well thought and well designed.
-Cheers
A variation of that house rule is what I premised my first magic system change on. I liked it enough that it is a critical part of my homebrew system. So I guess I am pro that rule!Interesting concept. It seems the core difference is that you're willing to redesign the classes themselves, whereas this system is designed to provide a multi-classing framework without changing the classes at all (at most adding some new feats to patch any significant holes).
An apt point. I think the fundamental idea, though, lends itself well to pretty much any game and I've used it to house rule 3e variants with what I would call success. What the OP proposes is in the same direction as my homebrew, he just overlays it instead of starting from scratch. The OPs variant is a sort of gestalt which tends to increase the power level and disrupt balance, but if embraced from the outset it does some neat things.
I must clarify
when I say no PrC I don't mean you can't run a PrC along side a halflevel multiclass.
you simply can't have a PrC using these rules.
these rules are designed so a player could choose to either use existing multiclass rules unchanged or use these rules as an alternative
thus you could have a party with one or more characters using these rules along side multiclass character maybe with PrC using the standard rules.
I see this as a supplement not a replacement.
several comments
In order
above post explains , not eliminating any PrC just excluding them from these rules.
MAD/SAD, you don't have to take 10/10 split, with a 14/6 split you would get level 9 spells on one class and can skew your prime casting attribute towards that class having a lower secondary casting stat. the option is there to be able to run a MAD 10/10 split if your running in a high point buy, but its also reasonable that its not optimal if you don't have the stat and thus "should" adjust your stats and level split to be viable.
Bonus spell from one stat only apply once. I agree I hate little "exception" based rules, having looked at it again it dosen't actually look to bad to simply leave as is having the bonus spell apply to each class at worst it take 2 8th level spell to 4 , which is still below what a pure caster gets for high end spells. So forgoet that rule
If you limit this form of multiclass to 2 classes only you limit the saves creep at best your getting +2 on one or more saves once.
Again I think its ok to limit this to 2 classes only becuase you can still run a standard 3 or more class multiclass , you just can't benefit from these rules if your do.
If you don't take away any options players already have then your going a long way to ensure no issues from that end as a result.
thanks for the input, the simpler and tighter we can get these rules the better.