In an attempt to be able to re-create a multiclassing system similar to AD&D, here's a thought. I'm calling it split classing to hopefully not confuse it with other terminology.
How it works
If you choose to be a split class character, you select 2 classes that you want to level up. After selecting these classes, you're stuck with them. You cannot change classes, multiclass in the normal way, or adopt any prestige classes. There is a 1 HD (character level) penalty (similar to 3.5's Level adjustment).
Ideally, the campaign would start at level 3. A split class character level 1|1 receives all of the benefits of both of their split classes.
Upon gaining a level, the character becomes a level 2|2. At this point, and all further levels, they gain the following:
+1 HD (roll HP for each split class individually, and then divide by the number of split classes & add together)
+ highest BAB of split classes
+ best rating of saves
+ all abilities of both split classes
So as an example, a split class character Fighter 1|Rogue 1 would have:
2 HD (1d10 + con mod + 1d8 + con mod)
+1 BAB
+2 Fort, +2 Reflex
Bonus Feat
Sneak Attack +1d6
Trapfinding
10 skill ranks
Weapon and armor proficiency of fighter
Upon gaining a level, and becoming a Fighter 2|Rogue 2, the character would receive:
+1 HD ((1d10 + 1d8)/2 + con mod)
+1 BAB
+1 Fort, +1 Reflex
Bonus Feat
Bravery +1
Evasion
Rogue talent
As this compares to a traditional class, a split class character will always be 1 hit die lower. This means less hit points, lower caster level, etc.
As compared to class abilities, a split class character will always be 2 character levels lower. A split class character, Fighter 1|Rogue 1 is equivalent to a level 3 Fighter or level 3 Rogue.
I think this system gives a character more flexibility, but at the expense of less total power.
Would you consider this to be balanced with a traditional class? I'm only looking at core material here, so if you think it is unbalanced, please provide an example using 2 core classes so that I'll have a better understanding of why.
Lots of casting classes would drool over this. I have no doubt that, for instance, a Magus would gladly split-class with a fighter to trade 1 caster level and a handful of HP in exchange for +4 BAB, 11 bonus feats, armor training, armor mastery, and weapon training. This kind of thing can't help but be anything but straight power-creep. In your example, for instance, the Fighter|Rogue is flat better than either a Fighter or a Rogue. Either it's a Fighter with a better Reflex save, better skills, Sneak Attack, Evasion, Trapfinding, and Rogue Talents, or it's a rogue with full BAB, weapon training, armor training, a better Fortitude save, and 11 bonus feats. There is no balance.
If you want something closer to "balance", search for the Multiclass Archetype threads.
Lots of casting classes would drool over this.
I'm not familiar with a magus - my group only plays core rules. I'm sure there is someway for this to work. My initial thought is that early (levels 1-5ish) it would be balanced, but later on it might become unbalanced.
Maybe it would have to be on a sliding scale of some type. Every 3rd or fourth level you have a dead level where you gain a HD, but no class abilities. So at level 20 you'd be equivalent to a level 15|15.
I'll take a look at that other thread you mentioned.
@Witch's Knight: Thanks for the support!
The only time to use something like this is if you anticipate having a small party, and so you feel the need to spread multiple roles across each character. There's also the issue that "balance" is sort of a vague term, because most core classes aren't actually balanced against each other. No matter how awesome the fighter is, he'll never be able to create his own demiplane like the wizard, and the monk will always be outclassed by basically everyone unless there's a cliff to fall down and no one has feather fall. However, for the purpose of this discussion, we'll say that "balance" means "balanced against the classes that the split-class character is based from."
Since you're not familiar with the magus (and you guys should check him out, d20pfsrd.com has ALL the Pathfinder resources available), let's talk about a few other examples from Core. We already mentioned how the rogue|fighter is a better combatant than the rogue, with more feats, a better Fortitude save, and the ability to do everything the rogue already does but in heavy armor with no penalties. Unbalanced.
Now, in some cases, a class's restrictions negate the issue. Alignment restrictions make the barbarian|monk out of the question. Fighter|monk has some options, but is hampered by restrictions the monk already has (can't use abilities with armor, for instance). Still unbalanced compared to the monk, but since the monk is terrible anyway I wouldn't care that much.
On the more unbalanced side, combining a caster with any of the full BAB classes makes for a real terror. For instance, a druid|barbarian.
You just made a polar bear that rages and has a full complement of rage powers to back up it's polar bear rage, along with damage reduction. And it has all the spells that a druid would normally buff itself with.
Alternately, take the cleric|paladin. Full casting, full BAB, the ability to smite evil and enhance your weapon, heavy armor proficiency, martial weapon proficiency, full channel energy, and a full compliment of domain powers.
Are these options cool? Of course! Geez, I think it would be totally awesome to play as a raging T-Rex! But you asked if they would be balanced, and the answer to that is a resounding NO. If you want to play with characters like these, search for advice on building/running a Gestalt campaign. It's the idea you're suggesting, but without the HD penalty. It's great for small parties and for when you want to ramp the game up to eleven.
I'm definitely not telling you, "Don't play with stuff like this because it's bad-wrong-fun." One of my favorite campaigns ever was a gestalt campaign. Red Hand of Doom, where I played a Dragonborn Goliath Psychic Warrior|Warblade who wielded Kamate, the first sword ever forged. I beat a dragon into the ground with my bare hands in that campaign. IT WAS AWESOME. But it required a lot of extra planning on the part of the DM, because we were MUCH more powerful than standard characters, and that's the way it always is with Getalt/split-class/whatever you want to call it.
So, in summary: Balanced? No. Fun? If you're in the mood for that kind of thing, absolutely.
Happy gamaing!
Gestalt can be found on Unearthed Arcana for 3.5 or the 3.5 SRD
it does something akin to what you describe and the common consensus is that gestalt is overpowered
but it shouldn't be too bad if you apply the following restrictions
both classes the PC picks must serve a different intended role and cannot share a given class feature. any shared features must be archetyped away on at least one side, variables based on class, such as hit die, skill points, base attack bonus and base saving throws count as seperate features
gestalt PCs cannot multiclass or use prestige classes
you cannot gestalt 2 versions of the same class, for example, a rogue couldn't gestalt with ninja, slayer, or investigator
you cannot use an archetype to milk extra of the same feature, meaning a rogue/alchemist cannot also be a vivisectionist
you may gestalt only one class with a given spellcasting progression, you could gestalt bard with sorcerer for example, but couldn't gestalt bard with inquisitor or magus, or sorcerer with druid, wizard, oracle or cleric, there is no differentiation between arcane magic, extracts, psionics, and divine magic, spells are spells
The only time to use something like this is if you anticipate having a small party, and so you feel the need to spread multiple roles across each character.
That's not what I'm aiming for though. I'm aiming for the ability to have 2 classes similar to the way that AD&D allowed a character to multiclass. And to have that option balanced against a traditional pathfinder class. I'm familiar with gestalt, but only used it when every character was gestalt.
In AD&D if you were a Fighter 1/Rogue 1, you divided all experience between your two classes. So once you hit 2,500 total exp, your rogue class leveled up (Rogues needed 1,250 exp/level.) Then, when you hit 4,000 total exp, your fighter class leveled up (Fighter's needed 2,000 exp/level)
Obviously, this would be underpowered in Pathfinder - it would basically be the same as going Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 in current Pathfinder rules. Most everyone seems to agree that equal multiclassing is no longer viable. Dipping 1 level here or there can work, but pure equal multiclassing is bad.
So my goal is to make an equal multiclass work. I was thinking that being effectively two progression levels down, and 1 hit die down would be balanced in lower levels. Clearly the hit dice aren't really going to be the balance issue, but having both classes abilities would be.
So if every 5th traditional level was a dead level for progression, would that make this split class idea more balanced with a traditional character?
For example:
Traditional level Split-class level
3-------------------------1|1
4-------------------------2|2
5-------------------------2|2
6-------------------------3|3
7-------------------------4|4
8-------------------------5|5
9-------------------------6|6
10------------------------6|6
11------------------------7|7
12------------------------8|8
13------------------------9|9
14-----------------------10|10
15-----------------------10|10
16-----------------------11|11
17-----------------------12|12
18-----------------------13|13
19-----------------------14|14
20-----------------------15|15
Being that as you described, there are many classes that do not synergize with one another well, and that you still only have 1 standard and 1 move action per round, would this make a split class character balanced with a traditional character?
Spell casters doing split class wouldn't get level 2 spells until level 6, 3 levels behind their traditional class counterparts. They would never be able to get 9th level spells. They would always be behind the curve, so to speak.
While martial classes wouldn't be impacted as much, falling behind on feats, sneak attack, etc would still be a pain.
Again, the idea is increased versatility at a loss of total power.
actually, you don't need a level penalty
the restrictions in my prior post above yours should be sufficient to balance it and prevent crazy minmax shenanigans
most people that play gestalt or split classing, aren't any further focused than one given character, but they are typically more MAD, have to spread their feats further, and if they do try to specialize in one, it comes at the cost of having a weakened contribution with the other\
so, it would seem overpowered at the low levels, but will balance itself later on, at least if you use 3.5 Gestalt rules from www.d20srd.org, thing is. some people will tend to exploit this, such as doing a wizard whom gestalts with fighter solely for the D10 Hit Dice. the improved CMD, and the enhanced fortitude, but otherwise plays his character like a typical wizard. remember to tell gestalt players that "you chose to walk two paths at once, not to hyperoptimize a single oath."
with a bit of an audit every so often. it should be fine without a level penalty, even if the gestalt character has 9th level spells, they probably favor different 9th level spells over the pure caster and likely have different feat and skill choices to accomodate their split path.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Staying focused on the question, "is a split-classed character balanced with a traditional character":
XP 204,800
Female halfling rogue 20
CE Small humanoid
Init +9; Senses Perception +19
DEFENSE
AC 29 (35 vs. traps), touch 24, flat-footed 19 (+5 armor, +3 deflection, +9 Dex, +1 dodge, +1 size)
hp 183 (20d8+80)
Fort +14, Ref +26 (+32 vs. traps), Will +10; +2 vs. fear
Defensive Abilities improved evasion, trap sense +6, improved uncanny dodge
OFFENSE
Speed 35 ft.
Melee +3 rapier +28/+23/+18 (1d4+6/15–20)
Ranged +2 hand crossbow +27 (1d3+2/19–20)
Special Attacks master strike (DC 22), sneak attack +10d6
STATISTICS
Str 16, Dex 28, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 15
Base Atk +15; CMB +17; CMD 40
Feats Combat Expertise, Dastardly Finish, Dodge, Fleet (3) (Regx2, RT), Go Unnoticed, Improved Critical (rapier), Mobility, Slaying Sprint, Spring Attack, Weapon Finesse (RT)
Skills Acrobatics +34, Appraise +15, Bluff +25, Climb +28, Diplomacy +10, Disable Device +37, Disguise +10, Escape Artist +32, Perception +19 (+29 to find traps), Sense Motive +7, Sleight of Hand +32, Stealth +36, Swim +11, Use Magic Device +25
Languages Common, Elven, Goblin, Halfling
SQ rogue talents (crippling strike, fast stealth, feat [Fleet], finesse rogue, improved evasion, ledge walker, opportunist, skill mastery [Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Stealth], stand up, surprise attack), trapfinding +10
Combat Gear potion of cure serious wounds, potion of invisibility; Other Gear +2 hand crossbow with 20 bolts, +3 rapier, belt of physical perfection +6, bracers of armor +5, cloak of resistance +4, ring of protection +3, 230 gp
XP 204,800
Female halfling rogue 15|Fighter 15
CE Small humanoid
Init +9; Senses Perception +19
DEFENSE
AC 35 (41 vs. traps), touch 24, flat-footed 19 (+13 armor, +3 deflection, +7 Dex, +1 dodge, +1 size)
hp 147 (15d10+60)
Fort +16, Ref +23 (+28 vs. traps), Will +9; +6 vs. fear
Defensive Abilities bravery +4, improved evasion, trap sense +5, improved uncanny dodge
OFFENSE
Speed 35 ft.
Melee +3 rapier +31/+26/+21 (1d4+11/15–20)
Ranged +2 hand crossbow +27 (1d3+4/19–20)
Special Attacks sneak attack +8d6
STATISTICS
Str 16, Dex 26, Con 16, Int 14, Wis 8, Cha 15
Base Atk +15; CMB +17; CMD 39
Feats Alertness (Reg), Athletic (Reg), Combat Expertise (FB), Dastardly Finish (FB), Deceitful (Reg), Deft Hands (Reg), Dodge (FB), Fleet (2) (Reg x2), Go Unnoticed (Reg), Improved Critical (rapier) (FB), Mobility (FB), Slaying Sprint (FB), Spring Attack (FB), Stealthy (Reg), Weapon Finesse (RT), Weapon Focus(rapier) (FB), Weapon Specialization(rapier) (FB)
Skills Acrobatics +32, Appraise +13, Bluff +27, Climb +30, Diplomacy +8, Disable Device +39, Disguise +12, Escape Artist +34, Perception +22 (+29 to find traps), Sense Motive +9, Sleight of Hand +34, Stealth +38, Swim +13, Use Magic Device +21
Languages Common, Elven, Goblin, Halfling
SQ armor training +4 rogue talents (crippling strike, fast stealth, finesse rogue, improved evasion, ledge walker, opportunist, skill mastery [Acrobatics, Climb, Disable Device, Escape Artist, Stealth]), trapfinding +7, weapon training (light blades +3, crossbows +2, close weapons +1)
Combat Gear potion of cure serious wounds, potion of invisibility; Other Gear +2 hand crossbow with 20 bolts, +3 rapier, belt of physical perfection +6, cloak of resistance +4, +4 mithral full-plate, ring of protection +3, 230 gp
So, let's see what was lost in this transition:
50 skill points
37 hit points
1 Will save point
2 Reflex save points
2 points of Dex (assuming her last two stat boosts were to Dex)
Rogue Capstone
3 rogue talents
5 feet movement speed
3 points of trapfinding
1 point of trap sense
2d6 sneak attack
1 point of CMD
That looks like a solid chunk at first glance, but now let's see what she gains:
8 Combat Feats
Weapon Training 3
Armor Training 4
2 Fortitude points
+4 to saves against fear
+7 AC
+3 to attack with the rapier
+5 to damage with the rapier
+2 to damage with the crossbow
Because I was able to re-create the rogue's fighting style entirely with Fighter bonus feats, I went ahead and used the remaining general feats to pick up skill-boosters and make back all but 10 skill points (including boosting Perception to the point that the trapfinding loss is negated). The rogue|fighter hits more often than the standard rogue, gets hit less often than the standard rogue, does more average damage (since the new bonus damage happens on every attack regardless of sneak attack and multiplies on critical hits, which SA damage doesn't), is just as good at trapfinding, and has a deficiency of one or two points, on average, skill for skill. The Reflex save drop isn't a crazy deal, since it's still high enough to blow through most DCs and improved evasion protects against the rest. The only real blow here is hit point loss, which is significant. This is not optimized, not min-maxed. It's just a halfling rogue, and with a sub-standard combat style at that.
I'll say this again: the question of "balance" is murky at best. As Umbriere Moonwhisper points out, removing the option to multiclass or enter a prestige class removes the option for truly ridiculous "cheese" builds. But in comparison to the 20-level core-class character, straight gestalt to 20|20, or even 19|19 is much, much more powerful. However, comparing against the core classes, when you remove the inherent weaknesses of a class (i.e. low saves, low BAB, lack of armor/weapon proficiency, feat-starved) your new class is no longer balanced compared to the original class.
The 1/4 HD loss that you proposed in your last post makes this option MUCH more balanced than your first proposal. Adding armor mastery, another point of weapon training, 2d6 sneak attack and 4 HD back onto this build (as per your first proposal) would severely skew the scales in favor of the fighter|rogue. As it is, this option has some tradeoffs that make it interesting, and more versatile, without being an immediately obvious choice.
If you really want to know how balanced something is compared to something else, actually build a few characters and compare. In my opinion, your HD-penalty proposal is closer to what you are looking for than straight gestalt.
Nice work W's K. The main thing I actually took from your illustration is the importance of the feat-engine that lies within (or without, exoskeletally) the Class Features - quite apart from the useful comparison of the two paths.
Reading this now, and having played many multiclass characters in ADnD (definitely nearly all) I do have a fondness for this approach. It also brings the gestalt concept to clearer ground - having never used/played gestalt, Umbriere's caveats seem reasonable, and the split focus concept for smaller parties makes sense.
But this approaches that really basic gritty ADnD multiclass, a few levels behind maybe, but still a useful utility and easily more rounded than a straight Core class even with the split focus. Just how useful in PF will need some playtesting and more comparisons like the Rogue builds.
Your roundedness of course only to the content of two classes. Triple-class? Death in PF?
I like that gestalt and this version of multiclassing are at complete diametric opposition to the multiclass-archetype approach or even hybrids for that matter. We have made some less focused MCAs, but most are theme-based - as I said above this more straight mechanical approach also appeals to me, not least in my mind is that the core class feature and feat mechanics are all unchanged, and the null-synergy requirement prevents unforeseen mechanical problems.
I do find the starting at 3rd level thing extremely problematic unless you can give 1st and 2nd level options (1/2 a class' features where possible etc, or 1/2 features also where possible - if you are running only the CRB breaking the Core classes' first level abilities would not take long but may require some tricky adjudication, both between classes and between matched pairs. And that's where the complexity mar the operation. So 3rd level start...
Staying focused on the question, "is a split-classed character balanced with a traditional character":
Great feedback. I have trouble building the classes out to level 20 - we never play that high.
If my group approves, I think I'll allow any dead/retiring characters to try this out if they want. That's the only way to see if a particular split-class would be roughly balanced. I have a feeling that in my core-only, non-optimizer group, the split-class will actually end up being underpowered, but only time will tell.
But this approaches that really basic gritty ADnD multiclass, a few levels behind maybe, but still a useful utility and easily more rounded than a straight Core class even with the split focus. Just how useful in PF will need some playtesting and more comparisons like the Rogue builds.
Your roundedness of course only to the content of two classes. Triple-class? Death in PF?
Yeah, that's what I am going for. As far as triple-class, I initially had plans for that as well, but to be honest, I couldn't see any way to balance 3 classes versus 2 without severely gimping the triple class character. If you had in more HD loss, more progression loss, I don't see them being viable at all. But if you have any thoughts, I'd love to hear them.
I do find the starting at 3rd level thing extremely problematic unless you can give 1st and 2nd level options (1/2 a class' features where possible etc, or 1/2 features also where possible - if you are running only the CRB breaking the Core classes' first level abilities would not take long but may require some tricky adjudication, both between classes and between matched pairs. And that's where the complexity mar the operation. So 3rd level start...
Starting at 3rd level is for simplicity sake. I find that once a group has gone through a new edition 2 or 3 times, no one ever wants to start at level 1 anymore. But if I recall correctly, 3.0 or 3.5 has apprentice-level rules for multiclass characters that were level 1. I'm sure that could apply here to some degree.