Better Multi classing

[Feadel]

Back in the day (I promise not to start every thread I make like this) multi-classing gave characters some advantages while slowing their advancement. But a multi-classed character wasn't too much weaker than a single class character of similar experience.
Now nobody multi-classes and everyone has made 'hybrid' classes to do the same thing.
I'd like to see multi-classing made great again (not a political reference.)
Here is how I would do this.
Only Base classes can multi-class.
Multi-classing characters advance both classes at the same time.
Experience earned is divided between the classes evenly.
The classes advance faster than regular character classes, ie if the players advance on the medium exp total column, the multi class character uses the fast exp column for his classes. However as the exp is divided between his classes, he needs twice the listed amount to reach the next level.
All other class restrictions apply. (Alignment, spell failure checks, etc.)
At any time, the player can opt to switch to 'normal' multi-class advancement, but his exp requirements revert to the standard for the campaign, and he cannot later return to advancing both classes at once. His exp total is set to the minimum for his current level, and he begins advancement in whichever class he chooses.
The GM is free to limit which classes can multi-class in this fashion. For example, druids cannot multi-class with clerics, wizards cannot multi-class with sorcerers, etc.
My own limits would follow older rule versions, where only one of the four primary classes (fighter, wizard, cleric, rogue) can be part of a multi-class combo along with a few specific exceptions (druid/ ranger for example).
Rather than add the BAB and save bonuses, the character takes the best class bonus for his level. Hit points are taken for all classes and averaged.
All other class abilities and bonuses are gained as normal (spell casting, bonus feats, etc.)
Each class gives its class skills, but skill points per level are only taken from the best class. Alternatively, average the class based skill points (before adding Int bonus). The same variation should be used for all characters.
Some things that keep this from being over powered: the exp should be enough to keep the character slightly below single classed characters, restricting the classes will keep the wilder power plays down.

What did I miss? What will make it better? Why do you think it won't work? Feedback appreciated.

[Taja the Barbarian]

Well, 'Better' is probably the right way to describe this, as it is basically better than playing a single-class character:

• You will be one level behind your single-class companions, which is not really that bad.
• You basically have all the class features of two separate classes.
• Generally speaking, the choice between one class at level X and two classes at level x-1 is pretty heavily weighted in favor of two classes.
• This is very similar to the 3.5 Gestalt option, which estimated the resulting party should be facing opponents 2 levels higher than normal (Gestalt didn't lose any levels, so your option is more along the lines of +1 ECL). Obviously, this is just an estimate, as specific combinations may vary greatly.

Honestly, multi-classing was too good in the early editions. It's only drawbacks were:

• You needed to be demihuman, and demihumans had level caps (which would typically kick in about the time the xp chart stopped keeping multi-classers only 1 level behind). When/If your campaign got into double-digit levels, character progression was going to either slow to a crawl or stop entirely.
• Multi-class characters couldn't take 2e kits (until specific multi-class kits were introduced) or specialize in a weapon or spell school, which kept single-class fighters in play.

Basically, outside of a specific character concept or ability, is there really a good reason not to take this option?

[Cyrad]

If players don't multiclass as much as you'd like, then why are you proposing a solution to fix that "problem" before figuring out why multiclassing seems less common to you?

Players generally multiclass to either:
A) Fulfill a character concept
B) Leave a class that has unappealing abilities at later levels.

You likely see less of multiclassing because A) Pathfinder has many more tools for creating character concepts than 3.5e, and B) Pathfinder tries to give each class enough abilities at higher levels to make them worth single-classing. This isn't a failure of the game or a failure of the multiclassing system.

Also, multiclass preferences tend to vary wildly from group to group. I've seen some groups that multiclass all the time while others always prefer to single-class. Multiclassing is VERY common in PFS. Both of my primary PFS characters have a 1-level dip.

[Iorthol]

Cyrad hit the nail on the head I think. Archetypes and Paizo's awesome writing have given us the tools to create character concepts without a whole lot of weird cross-classing.

Though I will say, there is still some satisfying results from multiclassing fighting types, but multiclassing and stylizing 9th level casters still feels clunky and unappealing and that's something I would like to see changed but I don't have any good ideas for accomplishing that.

[UnArcaneElection]

Another approach would be to use the rules of Kirthfinder -- although I have only skimmed these, it looks like you multiclass in D&D 3.x style, but in addition you can get levels in one class to give you some credit for advancement of another class (in some cases you have to spend a feat or class talent equivalent to enable this). For spellcasting, this is called Theurgy (not sure about any equivalent for non-spellcasting abilities that you can do likewise with).

[Derklord]

Feadel wrote:

I'd like to see multi-classing made great again (not a political reference.)

Why? What's the gain from widely beneficial multiclassing apart from "Everything was better in the old days."? Can you explain why you want to improve multiclassing without referencing D&D?

[UnArcaneElection]

^You can make a greater variety of viable characters without requiring such a great profusion of classes and archetypes. Of course, what would help even more with this would be to make abilities available a la carte. I want to see an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .

[Khudzlin]

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Of course, what would help even more with this would be to make abilities available a la carte.

At that point, you might as well scrap the concept of classes altogether (which is fine with me).

[Klorox]

Khudzlin wrote:

UnArcaneElection wrote:

Of course, what would help even more with this would be to make abilities available a la carte.

At that point, you might as well scrap the concept of classes altogether (which is fine with me).

If you wanna scrap the class machanics, then why play a game like PF where it's central? there are other games if you want to play characters with abilities taken a la carte and classes a secondary, or even absent concept.

[Khudzlin]

I have played some of those other games and will play them again (or others) given the opportunity. That doesn't mean I don't enjoy playing class-based games such as Pathfinder, only that I don't see any point in having classes if abilities are taken à la carte (though I do prefer systems without classes and level).

[Tim Emrick]

Cyrad wrote:

You likely see less of multiclassing because A) Pathfinder has many more tools for creating character concepts than 3.5e, and B) Pathfinder tries to give each class enough abilities at higher levels to make them worth single-classing. This isn't a failure of the game or a failure of the multiclassing system.

This is very much my experience as well. Among other things, PF added a powerful end-cap ability to most classes that is only available if you stick with the same class for all 20 levels.

Cyrad wrote:

Also, multiclass preferences tend to vary wildly from group to group. I've seen some groups that multiclass all the time while others always prefer to single-class.

To date, multiclassing has been rare in my regular group. Part of it is the fact that we've only been playing PF for the past 3-4 years, so there are still plenty of options for us to explore in regular single-class advancement--not to mention the range of possibilities added by archetypes.

In the new campaign that I started running a couple months ago, only have 1 out of 6 PCs has any definite plans to multiclass. (That one was conceived as a future mystic theurge, so has already multiclassed at 2nd level.) I have no idea whether anyone else will ever aim for a prestige class, either. A couple of my players have looked at PrC's in the PRD out of idle curiosity, but found few, if any, that meshed well with their class or archetype. Also, they know that I hope to keep the game going through 20th level, so short of doing a high-level one-shot, this will be their best opportunity to get to play with those later class features someday.

Speaking of prestige classes, it seems that the proliferation of archetypes and hybrid classes may make PrC's less common in PF than 3E. (When Green Ronin updated their Freeport setting to Pathfinder, they changed all their setting-specific PrC's into archetypes--which made them a lot more attractive as character options, because they were easier to access.)

Cyrad wrote:

Multiclassing is VERY common in PFS. Both of my primary PFS characters have a 1-level dip.

So does mine. I attribute this largely to the fact that, unlike a home campaign, you can never count on having a particular role filled for a given scenario/event. My rogue dipped into cleric partly for character/back-story reasons, partly so I could offer more dependable back-up healing than my middling UMD allowed. I've seen other players dip into fighter for the BAB, hp, and bonus feats, rogue or investigator for more skill points, and so on.