Multiclassing works fine from a rules perspective, but runs into some kinks in the balance department. Some combinations are effective and useful, while others end up generating either redundancy or a lack of synergy. For example, while BAB based classes tend to mesh well when paired together on one character, magic based classes tend to go together like oil and water. In other words, while the combat prowess of a fighter and a barbarian are easily paired together, the magical prowess of a cleric and a wizard are not. Below, I detail some of the problem areas in multiclassing and specific ways how they can be addressed.
BAB
Multiclassing classes with full BAB progression presents no problems at all; each level provides the same benefit. On the other hand, multiclassing with differing BAB progressions results in some cunbersome situations. For one, the use of differing charts can result in having a BAB noticably lower than a comparable character. Someone with a level in both cleric and bard has a BAB bonus of 0, when they should rightfully have a better BAB a level one cleric or bard independently. The problem is especially apparent when multiclassing with three or more classes.
One way to fix this problem is to award fractional BAB. Those with a 3/4 BAB progression would literally earn 3/4 of a point of BAB. Naturally, as fractions are rounded down, this would result in absolutely no change in how single class characters would gain BAB. The only difference comes when multiclassing is involved.
For instance, someone with two levels in cleric and two levels in rogue would gain 1.5 BAB from each class, resulting in a total BAB of 3. This would result in a far more accurate representation of how well this character should be able to fight. Afterall, he should have the same BAB as a level four cleric or a level four rogue.
Magic
The progression of magical power represents a far stickier situation to deal with than martial power (BAB). While BAB still progress (albeit at a stunted rate) during multiclassing, spellcasting power does not. This results in a huge disincentive to pair two spellcasting classes together. A 10th level cleric/wizard has nowhere near the power or utility of a 10th level cleric or a 10th level wizard.
One way to handle this is to make spellcasting stack. Naturally, fully stacking caster levels wouldn't work as then the multiclass spellcaster would sacrifice nothing. What I would propose is a middle ground between the full stacking and the situation we are in now.
When a character has levels in more than one spellcasting class, all that character to count a certain fraction of the caster level in one class to be added to the caster level in another class. As an example of such a system, characters could be able to benefit from half of their full progression class levels (wizard, cleric, etc.), one third of their mid progression class levels (bard), and one fourth of their low progression class levels (ranger, paladin). This benefit would only extend to determining caster level and spellcasting; it would not extend to other abilities like familiars, channeling, etc.
To illustrate such a system, imagine a character with five levels in wizard and five levels in cleric. This character would be cast/memorize/know spells as a level 7 in each class. He has 5 levels in wizard, plus half of his cleric levels (rounded down).
Another example could be a character with 4 levels of each ranger and paladin. This character would be able to cast spells as a level 5 paladin and a level 5 ranger.
This suggestion is the most controversial of the two, and would need more scrutiny in determining if it is adequately balanced. If not, it is a simple matter to tweak the fraction of caster level that can be shared.
What do you all think?
Believe it or not, you're not the first person to propose something like this.
And as usual you'll get mixed reactions.
I don't like it in particular because it's more of a solution looking for a problem, I also think it unfairly penalizes those characters that dedicate themselves to a path as opposed to splitting attention.
I think that excelling in magic should be more exclusive than improving your base attack ability.
But I think you like most others who post such threads. also neglect that even BAB classes like fighters give up a fair amount by multi-classing. They take a hit in BAB, they lose a fair amount of feats, and close off avenues which require X levels of fighter.
The 10/10 Cleric Wizard is not going to be uber in either of those areas. But that's a choice he made by deciding to be split as opposed to being a 20 in either. But on the other hand dip classing like the 2 level Paladin 18 level Sorcerer yields some pretty major rewards for minor levels of sacrifice because of how classes front load key benefits.
A lesser concern with multiclassing is how save bonuses stack. Taking levels in classes with the same high save progression can result in massive and unnatural boosts to saving throws. A fighter/ranger/barbarian should, in all fairness, have the same fortitude as an individual fighter or ranger or barbarian, but can easily have triple the raw fort save bonus.
One way to handle this problem would be to award fractional save bonuses in the same way that I suggested we award fractional BAB. This would solve the problem nicely, but would involve more complicated math and equations. For instance, Having a good progression would result in having 2 points plus an additional 1/2 a point per level, while having a poor progression would mean gaining 1/3 of a point every level.
A simpler solution would be to allow multiclass characters to continue to advance along one save progression table if both classes use the same save progression for that particular save. For instance, a character with one level of barbarian and fighter would earn a +3 base fort save bonus, as that would be the same as what a level two barbarian or fighter would earn using his progression. This is in contrast to how we would normally do it, which would result in a +4 base bonus.
LazarX wrote: I [...] think it unfairly penalizes those characters that dedicate themselves to a path as opposed to splitting attention. Unfair advantages are definitely a bad thing. They ruin balance and can make the game less enjoyable.
That said, how does making multiclass characters more on par with their single-class counterparts disadvantage them? After all, no one is advocating that multiclass characters should be more powerful than single-class characters.
LazarX wrote: I think that excelling in magic should be more exclusive than improving your base attack ability. Fair enough. How come?
LazarX wrote: But I think you like most others who post such threads. also neglect that even BAB classes like fighters give up a fair amount by multi-classing. They take a hit in BAB, they lose a fair amount of feats, and close off avenues which require X levels of fighter. There is a distinction between this situation and the situations I described in my original post.
When a figher turns to the study of magic (starts taking wizard levels), he still continues to progress in fighting ability, albiet at a stunted rate. On the other hand, when a spellcaster decides to multiclass, his spellcasting ability immediately stops growing in power. It is this distinction that presents the problem we face.
If you're really interested in this, look into trail blazer. They do something very similar and is super easy to bring into pathfinder (being designed as a set of rules to supplement D20 as they were).
Ganymede425 wrote: LazarX wrote: I [...] think it unfairly penalizes those characters that dedicate themselves to a path as opposed to splitting attention. Unfair advantages are definitely a bad thing. They ruin balance and can make the game less enjoyable.
That said, how does making multiclass characters more on par with their single-class counterparts disadvantage them? After all, no one is advocating that multiclass characters should be more powerful than single-class characters.
LazarX wrote: I think that excelling in magic should be more exclusive than improving your base attack ability. Fair enough. How come?
LazarX wrote: But I think you like most others who post such threads. also neglect that even BAB classes like fighters give up a fair amount by multi-classing. They take a hit in BAB, they lose a fair amount of feats, and close off avenues which require X levels of fighter. There is a distinction between this situation and the situations I described in my original post.
When a figher turns to the study of magic (starts taking wizard levels), he still continues to progress in fighting ability, albiet at a stunted rate. On the other hand, when a spellcaster decides to multiclass, his spellcasting ability immediately stops growing in power. It is this distinction that presents the problem we face.
Thing is I don't see it as a problem. Magic is more world-shaking than sword swinging, no matter how you cut it. If you leave it's path than your progress SHOULD stop. The only thing that improves on fighting ability is BAB at the same rate the wizard class normally progresses at. The reduction of BAB progression and the bonus feats is as serious a hit to the fighter as the loss of spell progression to the mage.
The problem is defining "on par" or better yet, what's the goal here. A person who chooses to split class has chosen diversity over specialistion. The diversity they receive is the reward. The problem is you want to eat your cake and have it too.
How do you define being "on par"? You can't do as much damage as the fighter in your melee, nor can you spellcast as well as the single class wizard, nor SHOULD YOU. So you need a different goal other than generating the same numbers or comparable ones.
What you need to do if you're going to split class is redefine your goals by what you have. If you are split classing as a cleric/wizard, what you are is support and utility, as that is the only role for excelling with such a career choice. If you want to excel in a field, you need to dedicate yourself to it. It's especially problematic if you insist on split-classing to two classes which have no synergy with each other. Cleric/Wizard is such a combo despite the fact that they are both casters.
The real answer then for multi-classing is define your end goal, your end role, and make your multi-classing choices based on it. If you're going to split-class, look into a PrC that complements both, such as the mystic theurge for the cleric/wizard, the arcane trickster for the rogue/mage, and so on.
LazarX wrote: Thing is I don't see it as a problem. Magic is more world-shaking than sword swinging, no matter how you cut it. If you leave it's path than your progress SHOULD stop. I'm talking about well executed game-design, and you're talking about fidelity to your own idea of a fantasy world. We're approaching the issue from completely incompatible perspectives.
LazarX wrote: The problem is defining "on par" or better yet, what's the goal here. A person who chooses to split class has chosen diversity over specialistion. The diversity they receive is the reward. The problem is you want to eat your cake and have it too.
How do you define being "on par"? You can't do as much damage as the fighter in your melee, nor can you spellcast as well as the single class wizard, nor SHOULD YOU. So you need a different goal other than generating the same numbers or comparable ones.
You're operating under some mistaken presumptions, and you really need to toss them aside. Nobody is arguing that a fighter/wizard should be as good at fighting as a pure fighter and as good at spellcasting as a pure wizard; such a goal is absurd. No one is disputing the mantra that multiclassing should favor diversity over specialization.
The problem, as I see it, is that the diversity of multiclassing in certain plausable ways is vastly inferior to the value of taking a single class. For instance, a cleric/wizard is a perfectly plausable character type, and yet the diversity of a level 20 cleric/wizard pales in comparison to the ability of either a level 20 cleric or a level 20 wizard. It isn't as if the multiclass character is slightly weaker, he is dramatically weaker. From a game-design perspective, it is impermissible for an otherwise viable and plausable gaming option to be so worthless.
LazarX wrote: The real answer then for multi-classing is define your end goal, your end role, and make your multi-classing choices based on it. If you're going to split-class, look into a PrC that complements both, such as the mystic theurge for the cleric/wizard, the arcane trickster for the rogue/mage, and so on. It honestly sounds like you're trying to say that a cleric/wizard (or their ilk) -is supposed to be- and -should- be a crappy option. Needless to say, I disagree with you.
I ask the question, "How do we fix certain aspects of multiclassing?" You answered with, "You don't." That's all well and good, but that's all you can really add to this conversation. After all, there are only so many different ways you can say, "things are fine the way they are."
I already do the BAB/Save stacking in my games. I recommend throwing out the fractionals, and even the class tables. Instead, next to HD there should be a note saying 'BAB: Good. Good Saves: Fort, Will'.
You would simply reference the master table of progressions, find out where your class falls on it, and there is the save bonus. For multiclassing, classes with the same progression are treated as one, different progressions are determined separately then added together.
A fighter/barbarian would be treated as a single class with good BAB and Fort and poor Reflex and Will. A fighter/rogue would add his good BAB to his average BAB, his good Fort to his poor Fort, his poor Reflex to his good Reflex, and be treated as a single class with poor Will.
ShadowcatX wrote: If you're really interested in this, look into trail blazer. They do something very similar and is super easy to bring into pathfinder (being designed as a set of rules to supplement D20 as they were). ShadowcatX is absolutely correct. The best way to handle multiclass spellcasters is Trailblazer's single spell progression chart. Adding different classes increases the spellcasting the character already has, instead of adding a whole new set. Similar to Unearthed Arcana's Magic Rating rules. (Note that a cleric multiclassing wizard adds wizard spells to his list and can prepare them in his spell slots.
Trailblazer goes a lot more in depth than I have here, I recommend picking up the PDF for reference.
TriOmegaZero wrote: I already do the BAB/Save stacking in my games. I recommend throwing out the fractionals, and even the class tables. Instead, next to HD there should be a note saying 'BAB: Good. Good Saves: Fort, Will'.
You would simply reference the master table of progressions, find out where your class falls on it, and there is the save bonus. For multiclassing, classes with the same progression are treated as one, different progressions are determined separately then added together.
A fighter/barbarian would be treated as a single class with good BAB and Fort and poor Reflex and Will. A fighter/rogue would add his good BAB to his average BAB, his good Fort to his poor Fort, his poor Reflex to his good Reflex, and be treated as a single class with poor Will.
I like this idea. It drastically minimizes both complexity of the system as well as its unusual artifacts.
It eliminates many of the problems with the system, but still leaves one; multiclassing between a 3/4 BAB progression and a 1/2 progression. In all reality, a level two cleric/wizard should have a BAB of +1, just as a level two cleric and a level two wizard do. Even with the fix you suggest (albeit a nice fix otherise), this multiclass character would still have a BAB of 0.
Well, some of us think there should be a No BAB progression the same as there is a No Spellcasting progression, and would be fine with 20th level Wizards having +0 BAB... ;)
In any case, that's such a corner case that I'm not concerned about it coming up. If the player is worried about BAB, he should take another level of cleric or wizard before multiclassing.
That does raise an interesting possibility, though.
Along side a BAB, there could be a SAB (Spell Attack Bonus). That'd be an interesting way to allow spellcasters an increasingly likelihood of hitting with their spells without giving them increasing ability to hit with a sword. It'd also help assure that melee/ranged touch attack spells didn't become impossible to hit with at higher levels, pending a No BAB progression existed. Heck, you could even divide BAB into MAB and RAB (Melee Attack Bonus and Ranged Attack Bonus).
It's valid, as long as the players are okay with the added complexity.
Yeah, and the last thing one wants is complexity for its own sake. There is an elegance to simplicity.
The only way to really make multi class work is to wholly convert the class system into a skill system. So you have attack training and magic training and other class abilities training. Then every level you get a certain number of training points to buy them up. Magic and attack training would be the most expensive so you could only buy one or the other every level. So if you wanted to do a 10th cleric/10 wizard you would buy 20 levels of Magic training but have zero attack training. Then to cover the differences in spell power you have an additional cost to buy spell levels. So a 5 wizard / 5 cleric could buy just 2nd level wizard spells and 3rd level cleric spells but he is considered to have 10 casting levels.
Basically, it would be a total overhaul of the system and would make leveling much more complex. I think GURPS uses this method.
I suspect caster multiclassing is not easily fixable, though making caster level for all casting classes stack would help. You'd still be stuck with low level slots, but at least your durations and damage dice wouldn't be totally hopeless.
Martial multiclassing, on the other hand, is viable because many martial classes are frontloaded.
Consider a fighter 2 paladin (or ex-paladin) 1 ranger 2 monk (maneuver master or master of many styles) 2. 7 bonus feats in as many levels, four without prerequisites. Two of them have to be improved unarmed strike and stunning fist, but that's still not shabby. You're between medium and full BAB. Your weakest save is will at +5, which is as good as a single classed strong save. Ref is +6 and Fort is a whopping +10. If you keep your paladinhood you can activate wands of lesser restoration without UMD, but falling doesn't lose you the +2 to will saves which is as good as a feat.
Your next move might be fighter 3 for armor training (or weapon training if a weapon master), +1 BAB, +1 ref, and +1 will. Fighter 4 is probably a no brainer and once you're doing fighter you may as well keep going, it's the most even martial class, the others being more heavily frontloaded on feats which stack and backloaded on class features which don't. It'll be level 10 when your reflex and will saves slip behind the normal strong save progression and your fortitude will rival that of a pure classed paladin.
You've sacrificed some weapon training and delaying armor training for more feats, several without prerequisites; and vastly superior saves. You're hitting slightly less than other martials, but better than hybrids and you're only 2hp behind martial HP unless you took monk at first level.
Less extreme multiclassing has less extreme advantages and disadvantages. Two levels of maneuver master or master of many styles is shiny for any martial, and a two level ranger dip for Power Attack sans prerequisites makes dervish dancers happy and elven curve blade finesse builds not a complete joke.
Ganymede425 wrote: It honestly sounds like you're trying to say that a cleric/wizard (or their ilk) -is supposed to be- and -should- be a crappy option. Needless to say, I disagree with you.
I ask the question, "How do we fix certain aspects of multiclassing?" You answered with, "You don't." That's all well and good, but that's all you can really add to this conversation. After all, there are only so many different ways you can say, "things are fine the way they are."
And again it sounds like you're expecting to have the rewards of dedication when you're dilletanting. You expect to go half one class and half the other and wind up with three quarters or seven eighths of both?
The system is as the Blizzard folks say... "working as intended" It's a class based system not a build your powers point by point. You've got a bunch of options. If you want a mix of arcane and divine without losing effective caster level, you go the witch route. Choices involve making tradeoffs. And due to the nature of the system, they're not going to be as granular as you like.
There are effective ways to multi-class. You're harping on one of the worst choices that a person could make the Cleric/Wizard even split.
And you seem to willfully ignore the fact that I pointed out that the game has a choice to make that combo not suck, mainly the Mystic Theurge PrC which bridges both. The smart person then realises that pitfalls of a Cleric/Wizard split are ameliorated to a large degree by going Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge.
Similarly the Fighter/Wizard is the one who wants go Eldritch Knight.
LazarX wrote: Ganymede425 wrote: It honestly sounds like you're trying to say that a cleric/wizard (or their ilk) -is supposed to be- and -should- be a crappy option. Needless to say, I disagree with you.
I ask the question, "How do we fix certain aspects of multiclassing?" You answered with, "You don't." That's all well and good, but that's all you can really add to this conversation. After all, there are only so many different ways you can say, "things are fine the way they are."
And again it sounds like you're expecting to have the rewards of dedication when you're dilletanting. You expect to go half one class and half the other and wind up with three quarters or seven eighths of both?
The system is as the Blizzard folks say... "working as intended" It's a class based system not a build your powers point by point. You've got a bunch of options. If you want a mix of arcane and divine without losing effective caster level, you go the witch route. Choices involve making tradeoffs. And due to the nature of the system, they're not going to be as granular as you like.
There are effective ways to multi-class. You're harping on one of the worst choices that a person could make the Cleric/Wizard even split.
And you seem to willfully ignore the fact that I pointed out that the game has a choice to make that combo not suck, mainly the Mystic Theurge PrC which bridges both. The smart person then realises that pitfalls of a Cleric/Wizard split are ameliorated to a large degree by going Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge.
Similarly the Fighter/Wizard is the one who wants go Eldritch Knight. See? I told you there are only so many ways you can say, "Things are fine the way they are."
I appreciate your input and will look forward to what you have to say in other threads, but you are kinda done here. Have a good one.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
Correction. Multiclass is failing to work as intended. I think that if Paizo weren't tied to a legacy system there would be no multiclassing permitted at all.
You hate mystic theurges from a thematic perspective. Great. Don't let people play them in games you DM and don't fix the multiclass rules for their sake.
Thematically, why should a Sorceror with decent int be unable to engage in some wizardly study to compensate for his limited spell repertoire? He's mixing two arcane magical forms, but they do not stack in any way whatsoever.
Why can a Magus not set aside his martial training and study like a wizard? In fluff terms he's studying the exact same pseudo-vancian prepared wizardly magic he was studying as a magus, but he can't stack anything.
Why can a sorceror not dabble as a bard? They're similar enough that both can qualify for Dragon Disciple, but they don't stack at all.
Why can a Ranger/Druid or Paladin/Cleric combine their casting at all? They're from exactly the same sources.
Because people who don't want to be pigeonholed into one of the existing classes can't have nice things. A flexible multiclass system that allows mixed builds to not completely suck might be abused. Or it won't sell cheap archetype splats. I really hope that's not the real reason.
Atarlost wrote: Martial multiclassing, on the other hand, is viable because many martial classes are frontloaded.
I think this is true, but it is also true because the abilities of martial classes are largely complimentary and stackable. Weapon training helps a paladin slay with his holy blade and a ranger kill with his longbow. Flying into a rage makes a flurry of blows especially deadly. And every fighty type would benefit from a couple extra d6's that come with a sneak attack.
This is not true at all with spellcasting, and makes combining spellcasting classes incredibly inefficient when they should be a genuine option.
|
1 person marked this as a favorite.
|
LazarX wrote:
And again it sounds like you're expecting to have the rewards of dedication when you're dilletanting. You expect to go half one class and half the other and wind up with three quarters or seven eighths of both?
The system is as the Blizzard folks say... "working as intended" It's a class based system not a build your powers point by point. You've got a bunch of options. If you want a mix of arcane and divine without losing effective caster level, you go the witch route. Choices involve making tradeoffs. And due to the nature of the system, they're not going to be as granular as you like.
There are effective ways to multi-class. You're harping on one of the worst choices that a person could make the Cleric/Wizard even split.
And you seem to willfully ignore the fact that I pointed out that the game has a choice to make that combo not suck, mainly the Mystic Theurge PrC which bridges both. The smart person then realises that pitfalls of a Cleric/Wizard split are ameliorated to a large degree by going Cleric/Wizard/Mystic Theurge.
Similarly the Fighter/Wizard is the one who wants go Eldritch Knight. See? I told you that there were only so many ways you could say, "things are fine the way that they are."
I appreciate your feedback here and look forward to your contributions in other threadsm but you are kinda done here. Have a good day.
karkon wrote: The only way to really make multi class work is to wholly convert the class system into a skill system. . In other words, ditch D20 systems entirely, and go to GURPS/HERO, Where everything is done point by point?
Recent threads in Homebrew and House Rules
|
