|
We use the medium advancement track. I was thinking of allowing 2e stayle muticlassing aka A lvl 4 char is say a 4wiz/4fighter he would have 4 HD averaged with the two classes so a d8 4bab 4 caster levels good saves in fort and will and need double the xp to advance.
I'll allow 3e/pathfinder style prestige classes only to single classed chars
The way it will work is muticlass characters will be 2 levels behind the curve. What do you think ...is this ridiculously unbalanced? Its the way it was in 2e....and I've never been 100% happy about multiclassing in 3e and on
Look at the xp table and figure out what levels your multiclass characters will have, accounting for the xp reduction. Then think about their hp, BAB, and highest level spells available. Without looking, I'd be worried that at higher levels the multiclass characters will be fodderized with their hp being lower than most other PCs, their inability to hit monsters, their weaker spells, and potentially weaker saves.
I do more or less the exact same thing in my games, allowing "gestalt" multiclassing in exchange for halved EXP and barring entry to prestige classes or traditional multiclassing.
I worked out the math; a character who earns half EXP stays one level behind for the first few levels, and two levels behind for more or less the rest of his or her career. I think this is a reasonable tradeoff - you'll always be at least two BAB and a spell level behind.
Here are the only things I do differently from you:
- You use the higher of the two hit dice
- Levels for characters is capped at ten, with "gestalt" characters capping at 8/8.
We use the medium advancement track. I was thinking of allowing 2e stayle muticlassing aka A lvl 4 char is say a 4wiz/4fighter he would have 4 HD averaged with the two classes so a d8 4bab 4 caster levels good saves in fort and will and need double the xp to advance.
I'll allow 3e/pathfinder style prestige classes only to single classed chars
The way it will work is muticlass characters will be 2 levels behind the curve. What do you think ...is this ridiculously unbalanced? Its the way it was in 2e....and I've never been 100% happy about multiclassing in 3e and on
I will throw out a handful options you can play around with.
Option 1. Force a multi-class character to go down the slow advancement track and split their XP between two classes. At level 20, your multi-class would be 16/16. Caster level is one below a paladin/ranger. However, your hit points, saves, and BAB are skewed unnaturally high since they stack linearly (effectively level "32" in this particular case). Since the ratio tend towards 3/4, up to about level 8, the skew is fairly flat. Might work in a low level game.
Option 2 Create a pseudo class that is a hybrid class. This is what the Ultimate adventurer (link) did. The really short version is that it averaged the hit dice/BAB/saves and then pushed them towards their closest match. For example, a fighter-mage would use the medium BAB progression.Then it forced the classes to advance (1st level)1st class, (2nd level)1st and 2nd class, (3rd level) 2nd class and so on... In the end, you end up with a level 13/13 character. It then adds a couple of tweaks to caster level and what not so that you end up as a level 15 caster. It is a solid option in most cases. What it will boil down to is if the class powers have a scaling factor built in to them that makes the remain useful at higher class levels. Basically, if there is a clause that involves character level, it will probably work. Clauses that involve class level will be noticeably weaker. See bardic knowledge versus inspire courage.
Option 3: Keep the bit about averaging the two classes BAB/Hit Dice/Saves and keep the bit about multi-classing in the slow advancement. That would standardize the linear progression to be appropriate for a level 20 character and grant the abilities of both classes at 16th level. If you work from the assumption that your power doubles every two levels (the xp doubles as well), then a 16/16 character is roughly the same as an 18th level character. Which means, the multi-class is gimped by two levels and will always be half as powerful as the equivalent 20th level character. This one completely hinges on whether or not you deem the power curve stable at high levels and geometrically doubles every two levels.
Enjoy =)
We use the medium advancement track. I was thinking of allowing 2e stayle muticlassing aka A lvl 4 char is say a 4wiz/4fighter he would have 4 HD averaged with the two classes so a d8 4bab 4 caster levels good saves in fort and will and need double the xp to advance.
I'll allow 3e/pathfinder style prestige classes only to single classed chars
The way it will work is muticlass characters will be 2 levels behind the curve. What do you think ...is this ridiculously unbalanced? Its the way it was in 2e....and I've never been 100% happy about multiclassing in 3e and on
I will throw out a handful options you can play around with.
Option 1. Force a multi-class character to go down the slow advancement track and split their XP between two classes. At level 20, your multi-class would be 16/16. Caster level is one below a paladin/ranger. However, your hit points, saves, and BAB are skewed unnaturally high since they stack linearly (effectively level "32" in this particular case). Since the ratio tend towards 3/4, up to about level 8, the skew is fairly flat. Might work in a low level game.
Option 2 Create a pseudo class that is a hybrid class. This is what the Ultimate adventurer (link) did. The really short version is that it averaged the hit dice/BAB/saves and then pushed them towards their closest match. For example, a fighter-mage would use the medium BAB progression.Then it forced the classes to advance (1st level)1st class, (2nd level)1st and 2nd class, (3rd level) 2nd class and so on... In the end, you end up with a level 13/13 character. It then adds a couple of tweaks to caster level and what not so that you end up as a level 15 caster. It is a solid option in most cases. What it will boil down to is if the class powers have a scaling factor built in to them that makes the remain useful at higher class levels. Basically, if there is a clause that involves character level, it will probably work. Clauses that...
I would instead take the "best of everything" approach, rather than average. Essentially you would be allowing gestalting, only making them pay for it. I've considered this myself on occasion.
Another thing I do is move all level 11 class features down to level 10 as a "capstone", as almost every class gets something really neat at level 11. Gestalt characters, who cap out at 8, miss out on this benefit.
Being eternally two levels behind also means they miss, at the very least, a spell level and 2 BAB.
After characters hit the cap, they gain bonus feats instead of levels, E6 style. At this point, gestalt characters no longer take the 1/2 EXP penalty, since they gain the same benefits as single-classed characters do.
|
|
I'm curious;
How does the gestalt at double xp cost compare to this ultimate adventurer class?
And how do both compare (balance wise) to a regular class?
Off the top of my head I suppose the ultimate adventurer could prestige class; and it *looks* fairly reasonably balanced, albeit unorthodox and a bit complicated to set up initially.
|
|
I'm curious;
How does the gestalt at double xp cost compare to this ultimate adventurer class?
And how do both compare (balance wise) to a regular class?
Off the top of my head I suppose the ultimate adventurer could prestige class; and it *looks* fairly reasonably balanced, albeit unorthodox and a bit complicated to set up initially.
I had thought about moving the dually classed character up to the double slow advancement, but decided it would hurt too much at low levels. Maybe it could switch tables at 10th...though that starts to get confusing.
This campaign will likely run past 20th
|
|
I'm curious;
How does the gestalt at double xp cost compare to this ultimate adventurer class?
And how do both compare (balance wise) to a regular class?
Off the top of my head I suppose the ultimate adventurer could prestige class; and it *looks* fairly reasonably balanced, albeit unorthodox and a bit complicated to set up initially.
I had thought about moving the dually classed character up to the double slow advancement, but decided it would hurt too much at low levels. Maybe it could switch tables at 10th...though that starts to get confusing.
This campaign will likely run past 20th
Yeah, I didn't mean double slow. I meant slow/medium with half xp gained. How long have you been running it? I know you said they're about 2 levels behind, but how do they compare in power to the rest of your group?
|
|
I tried this before in a campain that fizzled. The character had low HP and lower max skills. It couldn't outshine the barbarian fighting or the cleric of sarenrae blasting..but it had tons of options and due to the extra feats ( fighter/wizard )didn't have the feat issues say an eldritch night did
Though that two level difference will be less of an issue at say 20th, got nowhere near there in that game
|
|
I tried this before in a campain that fizzled. The character had low HP and lower max skills. It couldn't outshine the barbarian fighting or the cleric of sarenrae blasting..but it had tons of options and due to the extra feats ( fighter/wizard )didn't have the feat issues say an eldritch night did
Though that two level difference will be less of an issue at say 20th, got nowhere near there in that game
How does it compare to regular multiclassing (fighter/wizard, say, alternating every other level) Less pathetic? (*Multiclassing works great for melee characters where multiclassing grants sinergy, but unless you implement a unified caster level and unisied spell progression system, multiclass casters are typically pathetic.)
What about that *Ultimate Adventurer*. How do you think that sort of build-a-class compares to what you described? They'd have the same number of hit dice and max skills as the rest of the party, at least.
Multiclassing certainly has its issues in this sort of level-based system.
|
|
Never tried the ultimate adventure type. In 2E it was my experience that multi-class characters had a bigger toolbox, but single class characters were better at what they did.
I think long term that would be true in pathfinder, though in 3e where pretige classes had a great deal of power this form of multiclassing might have worked better.
I came up with the idea of combining the tiers of classes with multiclassing to make it work nice. the classes are separated into their tiers, then multiclassing works almost exactly like 2e; average of the two rolls, divide xp between the two classes, best of BAB and saves (not stacking).
I've played a lot of gestalt characters, an important part is the HP, roll two dice each appropriate for their class, add together and divide by two.
My general opinion is that Wizard, Druid and Barbarian go on the slow chart, Rogue (and possibly monk and bard) go on the fast chart, and everything else goes on the medium. But you should divide the classes as you wish among the tiers.
also if your including role-play xp, give a character more for acting "in a class," if he casts a bunch of spells or acts wizardly give him xp just for his wizard class, ect.
I like that. Gestalt characters at half XP.
Although, for completeness in the 2E style you would have to restrict the gestalts to combinations of fighter, rogue, cleric, or wizard.
A half-elf could do ranger/{cleric or druid} if I remember correctly. But, leaving it at the base 4 is probably just as well.
Not a perfect fit, but if you want an alternate to normal multiclassing that can give a feel for 2e style, check out this thread.
|
|
Not a perfect fit, but if you want an alternate to normal multiclassing that can give a feel for 2e style, check out this thread.
I did see that thread and it very much interests me. I don't entirely understand the spell progression in the system described in that thread
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Out of curiosity... What is the Advantage to multiclassing this way?
I played 2E for YEARS... and I always thought the 'flavor' and the effect of Multiclass Really and truly SUCKED. Double the xp... half the HP... I got BURNED on that a couple of times...
Level 6 fighter/5 wizard with 24 hps... Hardly the bladesinger I was hoping for. When I switched to Pathfinder one of the things i LOVED was the way they did their multiclassing. Fixed a LOT of what I thought was one of the worst aspects of 2E.
Outside of Dual-classing ;)
So honestly, what is it that appeals so much about the old style that you want to simulate?
|
|
Out of curiosity... What is the Advantage to multiclassing this way?
I played 2E for YEARS... and I always thought the 'flavor' and the effect of Multiclass Really and truly SUCKED. Double the xp... half the HP... I got BURNED on that a couple of times...
Level 6 fighter/5 wizard with 24 hps... Hardly the bladesinger I was hoping for. When I switched to Pathfinder one of the things i LOVED was the way they did their multiclassing. Fixed a LOT of what I thought was one of the worst aspects of 2E.
Outside of Dual-classing ;)
So honestly, what is it that appeals so much about the old style that you want to simulate?
In all honesty I love the versatility. With this method you have the feats and abilities to pull a dual off. A fighter/Mage for instance has enough fighter bonus feats to pull off being a fighter and then use character feats to be a true wizard. Granted you have less levels and hp, but you can truly be what those classes are. Due to lower level you'll never truly be better than a single class character at some things, but that's the point of this excersize
|
|
Hmm. If your goal is to make multiclass casters not suck, the most elegant solution I've seen is *this* product. It's 5$.
It makes spell progressions and Caster Levels a unified mechanic that applies across multiclass characters.
So your multiclass 10th level cleric 10th level wizard? He has a caster level of 20, casts 10th level spells, and can cast them from either list. But he has the same number of spell slots as a wizard (with those bonus slots from cleric.
Multiclass Fighter10/Wizard10? Caster Level 15.
The product says its compatible with 3.5 or pathfinder, but its still replacement classes, so you lose out on the pathfinder bonuses. Once you understand its system though, its a really nice mechanic that you can apply to all manner of casters for multiclassing in pathfinder, with a fairly simple houserule.
You figure out which Base Magic Bonus the caster class has.
Barbadian, Fighter, etc: 1/3
Paladin/Ranger etc: 1/2
Bard etc: 2/3
Wizard/Cleric/Druid etc: 1
Monk gets +1/2, but has no spells.
And then you add in bonus spells as part of the level prograssion if they should have additional spell slots: Cleric, Bard, Sorcerer, etc.
The only thing I dont like about the system they came up with is spells known: you know all your spells. While they'e right in that it doesn't make you more *powerful* since you still have the samoe access to spell slots, its too much of a departure for me.
I added BMB into my last Pathfinder campaign for each class. It worked out fairly well. I had some problems because of some players not bothering to read the document I sent them and continually assuming I was running everything the way it's written in pathfinder core and starting arguments, even though I explicitly said that was not the case, but that's not an issue of houserules, that's an issue of players being jerks.
I'd like to see a full update to Trailblazer to integrate it into pathfinder more easily, but to my knowledge one is not coming. The rest of the book has some real gems too, up to and including recalculating CR if you give a monster new abilities without increasing their HD, and eliminating the need for the "Big Six" of magic items (the things you actually need, and are so important they are essentially a tax on your treasure) so you can focus on the other stuff. It includes recalculated (3.5 math) treasure awards without the "big six" factored in, so you can easily either give the bonuses inherently, or easily calculate your treasure without including the big six, and just be sure to give them to the players.