D&D 3rd Edition House RulesPost your house rules, custom classes, spells, feats and other stuff here. For D&D 3rd Edition and all older editions of D&D.
Simple enough idea, what are some various balanced ideas to fix multiclassing in 3.x D&D? The simplicity is there in the take a level in another class, but how would you really make it work?
If you built 3.x multi classing from the ground up, how would you do it?
You're right of course, Runestar - and personally, this is one of the features that first impressed me about 3e.
However, many people seem to find, or have found, that the balance is lacking, especially when diluting any given full casting class (either with another full casting class or anything else.)
'Patches' like Practised Caster are there because of these issues, but they only go part-way to solving them. IMO, anyway.
If you really want to do this -- and I for one would find it interesting -- then there's no sense in reinventing the wheel. You'll want to do some research on some sites (I'd suggest Paizo, RPG.net, and here if you've got search permissions) and present the most common solutions and the arguments for and against them. That'll give a much more viable starting point.
For instance, I think fractional saves, BAB, and CLP (caster level progression, works like BAB) seem like they'd all be part of the solution, but I've read posts alluding to problems with all of those. I couldn't tell you what those problems are perceived to be, so I can't make any judgments as to whether the objections are valid, or look for ways around them if so.
Maybe multiclassing ought to provide full abilities from both classes (i.e., wizards in plate armor with no arcane spell failure), but at a cost similar to ECL, perhaps scaling upward with level? E.g., you wouldn't be a "wizard 1 / fighter 1", you'd be a 1st level fighter/wizard, and (due to ECL) a 2nd level PC. As a 5th level fighter/wizard, perhaps you'd be ECL +2, and so on.
This is obviously somewhat similar to how multiclassing was handled in 1E, and in practice would work out somewhat similarly to the hybrid prestige classes like mystic theurge. There are obvious problems with the concept (what about three classes, or four?) and it reduces flexibility some (no such thing as "mostly a fighter/wizard with a splash of rogue;" you're just a fighter/wizard/rogue), but the truth is that the hybrid classes like mystic theurge are really pretty well balanced, and something like this would allow similar results with any classes.
Anyway, I really do think the place to start would be with summarizing ideas that have been presented, supported, and/or shot down. You'll get much more response if you do that.
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
What's wrong with 3e multiclassing? You can use it to build virtually any character concept you want.
Well, the main issues are this:
1. Caster levels not stacking making spell caster spells weaker and weaker as the character levels.
2. Dipping into a class for 1 or 2 levels to create broken combos.
3. Different results coming from the order you take two different classes in. For example, going rogue 1/fighter1 verses fighter 1/rogue 1 is not the same character.
4. Saving throws being min/maxed by clever multiclassing so all of your base saves by level 20 are +12/12/12 or greater. Even using multiclassing to get +14 on some.
5. Overcomplicating characters with dabbling in lots of classes or taking 1 level in every class.
6. Class features not progressing properily to be useful at high level (i.e. turning undead)
These are some of the major issues with the current rules.
My favorite solution is Generic Classes (not quite the same as the ones in UA, but the same idea). But I don't think you're asking about a change quite that drastic ...
In other ideas, I've been quite impressed with how well feats like "Daring Outlaw" and "Swift Hunter" can work if they're well-designed. Of course the major problem with these is that they haven't yet been well-designed for the purpose of combining caster and non-caster classes (or multiple caster classes). Still, I think a lot more good feats of this style could be made.
1. Caster levels not stacking making spell caster spells weaker and weaker as the character levels.
2. Dipping into a class for 1 or 2 levels to create broken combos.
3. Different results coming from the order you take two different classes in. For example, going rogue 1/fighter1 verses fighter 1/rogue 1 is not the same character.
4. Saving throws being min/maxed by clever multiclassing so all of your base saves by level 20 are +12/12/12 or greater. Even using multiclassing to get +14 on some.
5. Overcomplicating characters with dabbling in lots of classes or taking 1 level in every class.
6. Class features not progressing properily to be useful at high level (i.e. turning undead)
These are some of the major issues with the current rules.
4 can be resolved using the fractional bab/save rules in UA (which also resolves the problem of 3/4 bab classes haemorraghing their bab inadvertantly unless they stopped at 4 lvs of each.
I am fine with 2 and 5 though. To me, it is more of something that DMs should adjudicate accordingly to the requirements of their game, rather than a limitation hard-coded into the game's mechanics. Multiclassing does not always produce broken characters, nor do you necessarily need to multiclass to obtain a powerful PC. Druid20 is the best example.
Some may be fine allowing a dip in barb for pounce, arguing that it is a small step towards keeping melees in line with spellcasters (and others less so). The best solution, IMO, would be to have the DM vet through everyone's build prior to running the game and ensure that everything is in order. If you are unhappy with his barb/fighter/bear warrior/warshaper/frenzied berserker build which you feel will upset game balance, then have it rebuild it. If you think the party can handle it, allow it by all means.
I don't think there is a clear 1-size-fits-all solution here, nor would one be desirable.
Example:
A long while back I went to the Character Optimization board with a build request, and I ended up with a character build with eight classes -- two base, six prestige. My request wasn't for the most power available short of Pun-Pun, or to heavily focus on one thing so as to be unbeatable in that area, nor was I just looking for the most multiclassed build possible. My request was more along the lines of "My werebear barbarian PC and his redeemed succubus wife have children, how can I assemble a character that demonstrates the capabilities of that mixed heritage, for when the kids grow up into playable characters?" After a lot of discussion a build was worked out: Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Spellsword 1/Dragonslayer 1/Rage Mage 2/Bear Warrior 1/Sublime Chord 1/Eldritch Knight 9. This grants BAB +17/+12/+7/+2, Charisma-based spontaneous casting of a small number of level 1-9 spells on the bard and sorcerer/wizard spell lists, a limited ability to ignore arcane spell failure, limited bardic knowlege, rage, the ability to cast spells while raging, and the ability to transform into a bear while raging, as well as some other minor abilities that aren't so important.
You might look at that class combination and cringe, thinking "What an overcomplicated, unfocused, dipped mess of a class collection." I look at it and think "This is Rachel Lovato, an energetic and outgoing young woman who's a capable warrior. She can draw on the bestial strength passed down from her father David, the compelling presence and magical talents of Seneca her mother, and the fiery temper she inherited from both. She prefers to get by with her cunning and charm, but she's a bit of a tomboy and likes a good brawl more than is proper for a lady. She hasn't seen as much of the multiverse as her parents, but she learned a little about everything from the stories they told her as a child, and it serves Rachel well in her own adventures." (I also think that from a raw power perspective, a single-classed Druid 20 would defeat Rachel easily.)
While I agree somewhat with 1 and 6, I am not sure if it should not be the case. Why should a cleric who takes lvs in fighter be better at casting spells or turning undead?
Why should a cleric who takes lvs in fighter be better at casting spells or turning undead?
There are two separate caster level issues: (1) The power of spells you can cast, and (2) the ability to cast higher level spells.
The problem with caster/caster or caster/non-caster multiclassing is that (2) is already easily enough of a price to pay for the versatility you gain. Penalizing the multiclasser with (1) is pushing the combination into ... well, I won't say "unplayability," but certainly into a markedly lower competence level. If a DM's or player's concern is some level of power parity between players, multiclassing sucks.
(For some DMs and players, that won't matter. either due to player personality or due to the nature of the campaign. But for some it will, and IMO it's understandable. Most people IME don't want to their PCs to be gimped compared to other PCs.)
In RAW, BAB -- "skill at arms" -- is already a function of experience. Even the most cloistered wizard gets better at fighting as he gains levels. Adding in a similar mechanic for caster level is nicely symmetrical ... one gets better at casting the spells one can already cast with experience, regardless of which class one is pursuing when the experience is gained. You don't learn new, more powerful spells ... you just learn to use the ones you already know with greater proficiency.
Or, to put it another way, a fighter who switches to wizard continues to get better at fighting (albeit slowly), why can't a wizard who switches to fighter get better at casting, even if slowly?
__________________ Jeff Wilder, San Francisco Bay Area If your sig is longer than your posts, your sig is too
long. Nobody reads it, they just get annoyed by it. And if you bore me, you lose your soul to me. - Belly
4 can be resolved using the fractional bab/save rules in UA (which also resolves the problem of 3/4 bab classes haemorraghing their bab inadvertantly unless they stopped at 4 lvs of each.
I am fine with 2 and 5 though. To me, it is more of something that DMs should adjudicate accordingly to the requirements of their game, rather than a limitation hard-coded into the game's mechanics. Multiclassing does not always produce broken characters, nor do you necessarily need to multiclass to obtain a powerful PC. Druid20 is the best example.
Some may be fine allowing a dip in barb for pounce, arguing that it is a small step towards keeping melees in line with spellcasters (and others less so). The best solution, IMO, would be to have the DM vet through everyone's build prior to running the game and ensure that everything is in order. If you are unhappy with his barb/fighter/bear warrior/warshaper/frenzied berserker build which you feel will upset game balance, then have it rebuild it. If you think the party can handle it, allow it by all means.
I don't think there is a clear 1-size-fits-all solution here, nor would one be desirable.
Example:
A long while back I went to the Character Optimization board with a build request, and I ended up with a character build with eight classes -- two base, six prestige. My request wasn't for the most power available short of Pun-Pun, or to heavily focus on one thing so as to be unbeatable in that area, nor was I just looking for the most multiclassed build possible. My request was more along the lines of "My werebear barbarian PC and his redeemed succubus wife have children, how can I assemble a character that demonstrates the capabilities of that mixed heritage, for when the kids grow up into playable characters?" After a lot of discussion a build was worked out: Bard 4/Barbarian 1/Spellsword 1/Dragonslayer 1/Rage Mage 2/Bear Warrior 1/Sublime Chord 1/Eldritch Knight 9. This grants BAB +17/+12/+7/+2, Charisma-based spontaneous casting of a small number of level 1-9 spells on the bard and sorcerer/wizard spell lists, a limited ability to ignore arcane spell failure, limited bardic knowlege, rage, the ability to cast spells while raging, and the ability to transform into a bear while raging, as well as some other minor abilities that aren't so important.
You might look at that class combination and cringe, thinking "What an overcomplicated, unfocused, dipped mess of a class collection." I look at it and think "This is Rachel Lovato, an energetic and outgoing young woman who's a capable warrior. She can draw on the bestial strength passed down from her father David, the compelling presence and magical talents of Seneca her mother, and the fiery temper she inherited from both. She prefers to get by with her cunning and charm, but she's a bit of a tomboy and likes a good brawl more than is proper for a lady. She hasn't seen as much of the multiverse as her parents, but she learned a little about everything from the stories they told her as a child, and it serves Rachel well in her own adventures." (I also think that from a raw power perspective, a single-classed Druid 20 would defeat Rachel easily.)
While I agree somewhat with 1 and 6, I am not sure if it should not be the case. Why should a cleric who takes lvs in fighter be better at casting spells or turning undead?
I think removing the need for DM's approval as much as possible takes away punishing creative players. It also makes less work for a DM. A DM should only have to worry about the concept, backstory and goals of the character, not the mechanics so much.
Likewise, I think character optimization is a good thing and building synergy into a character should be rewarded. But all of the choices for a player should be comparable, with a choice leading the character down a different path, not some choices obviously better than others.
As for multiclass spell casters needing to be effective, that is the heart of the issues with 3.x math and something 4e is attempting to fix. When a spell caster doesn't gain caster level, the few offensive spells they do have become useless at high level. This is the reason prestige "band-aids" like the mystic theurge were created, to counter the math imbalance. In 4e, they removed it all together by leaving character level out of the multi class issue.
Jeff brings up the point I was refering to, he says it much clearer though. The solutions I've seen suggested for this thing is a) caster level = character level or b) have a caster level BAB in every class. Fighters, Barbarians etc are +1 every other level. Paladins and Bards are +3/4 every level and Clerics and Wizards +1 every level.
In both cases, the level cleric 10/ wizard 10 casts as a 20th level character but has the spell selection of a level 10 cleric and a level 10 wizard.
1. Caster levels not stacking making spell caster spells weaker and weaker as the character levels.
2. Dipping into a class for 1 or 2 levels to create broken combos.
3. Different results coming from the order you take two different classes in. For example, going rogue 1/fighter1 verses fighter 1/rogue 1 is not the same character.
4. Saving throws being min/maxed by clever multiclassing so all of your base saves by level 20 are +12/12/12 or greater. Even using multiclassing to get +14 on some.
5. Overcomplicating characters with dabbling in lots of classes or taking 1 level in every class.
6. Class features not progressing properily to be useful at high level (i.e. turning undead)
These are some of the major issues with the current rules.
1. If you're worried about losing caster levels then don't multiclass in the first place. It's that simple. Warriors lose a lot of BAB and HP potential for going into a wizard/sorceror class, so it's a decent trade off.
2. What broken combos are you referring to? I'm just curious. Also, if it's a known broken combo, just DM it up and say "No".
3. Of course you're going to get very different characters if you take the level of rogue or fighter at 1st level. The rogue-->fighter is going to have a ton of skills and skill points while the fighter-->rogue will have more HP (though that's about the only advantage I can think of). It's all a matter of what flavor you're trying to add to the character.
4. Just use the fractional bonuses for Saves and such. I know it's a hassle, but if your players seem intent on abusing multiclassing to get huge bonuses.......
5. If a character takes one level in every class they'll be very complicated, but they'll take a huge XP penalty if they then don't keep all those classes within a level of each other.
6. Well, part of multiclassing is giving up some of the perks of one class to gain perks from another, so I'd just say let them deal with it. If they don't like losing out on spellcaster levels, turning ability, etc. then they shouldn't multiclass in the first place.
5. If a character takes one level in every class they'll be very complicated, but they'll take a huge XP penalty if they then don't keep all those classes within a level of each other.
Interesting thing is that the xp multiclassing penalty is actually more of a hindrance than a help. For example, if you took 2 lvs in each of 5 classes/prcs, you don't suffer any drawbacks. But if you went elven rogue1/fighter3, you get a 20% xp penalty. Yet which is the one you would want to nip in the bud more?
1. Caster levels not stacking making spell caster spells weaker and weaker as the character levels.
Use the UA variant.
Quote:
2. Dipping into a class for 1 or 2 levels to create broken combos.
That's the fault of a) crappy class design (Shadowdancer) and/or b) DMs not paying attention to what their players are doing. But... CharOp creations aside, how many people actually make PCs like that? Is it realy as prevalent a problem as everyone makes out?
Quote:
3. Different results coming from the order you take two different classes in. For example, going rogue 1/fighter1 verses fighter 1/rogue 1 is not the same character.
Ditch the cross-class skill system.
Quote:
4. Saving throws being min/maxed by clever multiclassing so all of your base saves by level 20 are +12/12/12 or greater. Even using multiclassing to get +14 on some.
Wow, that's impressive.
Quote:
5. Overcomplicating characters with dabbling in lots of classes or taking 1 level in every class.
See 2, above.
Quote:
6. Class features not progressing properily to be useful at high level (i.e. turning undead)
You could use a variant of the UA rule for spellcasters. But really, class abilities are there to reward people who gain levels in that class. It's not like spellcasting, where everyone and their second cousin has it.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
That's the fault of a) crappy class design (Shadowdancer) and/or b) DMs not paying attention to what their players are doing. But... CharOp creations aside, how many people actually make PCs like that? Is it realy as prevalent a problem as everyone makes out?
I am not sure if that is even necessarily a problem. Classes are a metagame concept to begin with. If you are able to flesh out your character concept with just 1 class (or are comfortable with that), all the better. But if your concept requires aggressive multiclassing and dipping in a myriad of different classes, then carte blanche should be given until your final goal is achieved.
I have played a warblade1/monk2/warblade+5/swordsage1/warblade+2/swordsage+1/warblade+3/master of nine5. Or at least, that was how I mapped him out, the game never went past lv12. Not certain if it poses a problem in your book, but it sure didn't in mine. It proved to be everything one could hope for from a "monkish" build and more.
1: The easiest solution to the multiclass caster issue is to base "caster level" on character level without affecting the level of spells being granted. This would make the multiclasser effective against SR and allow the spells themselves to scale up as they normally do without giving too much with a single level.
This solution is not ideal however due to the exponential increase in power with increasing spell levels. A 10 cleric/ 10 wizard would still only have access to 5th level spells, even if they have a caster level of 20 for both classes.
2: Most other changes, ones that grants higher levels of spells, would either require a dramatic rewrite of how the spell casting classes work, or provide too great an incentive to dip in spellcasting classes.
2a: taking the Bo9S model that adds 1/2 caster level for every other class for a multiclass caster...
Paladin 18/ Cleric 1/ Sorcerer 1 would have everything a level 18 paladin has, + level 5 cleric spells + level 5 sorcerer spells.
2b: you could use a system similar to 2a with a few modifications. Perhaps the highest level of spells that you can cast could be limited in some way to class level.
The above p18/c1/s1 would only be gaining 1st level spell slots (with the same number of slots as a caster level 10 character, and spells used effectively at caster level 10).
However a cleric 10/wizard 10 would have caster level 15 for all spells and be able to use spells of up to spell level 8. That might be a little powerful, but it does require MAD.
2c: Perhaps one could create a generic PRC that can combine the qualities of any two classes? When taking a +A and +B level, use the better of BAB, Saves, HP, Skills, etc. With a requirement of 3 levels in each of the two classes.
Code:
Level abilities
1 +1 level Class A, +1 level Class B
2 +1 level Class A
3 +1 level Class b
4 +1 level Class A, +1 level Class B
5 +1 level Class A
6 +1 level Class B
7 +1 level Class A, +1 level Class B
8 +1 level Class A
9 +1 level Class B
10 +1 level Class A, +1 level Class B
__________________ I turned myself into a monster, to fight against the monsters of the world.
http://www.nadaka.us/DiceBoxDB.asp
Check out Nadaka's Dice Box, an online die rolling program featuring a persistant searchable database.
http://www.nadaka.us/ModernNPC.asp
Check out Nadaka's Modern NPC generator, still under construction but it does generate NPCs up to 20th level.
One of my houserules is that the automatic armor and weapon proficiencies granted by classes are only granted to first level characters. After first level, the only way to gain new armor and weapon proficiencies is via feats (including fighter class style bonus feats).
Another house rule that I am going to use is the mechanics for the 4e unified save progression. Base Classes that grant good save bonuses only grant their save bonuses to first level characters. PrCs no longer grant bonuses to save categories.
__________________ "The designers of the newest edition built so much reliance on rules right into the game, to make it easier to play. As one of those designers, I occasionally think to myself, 'What have we wrought?' " -Monte Cook
" If the DM has to make a lot of judgment calls, the game is more difficult to learn. However, it's my belief that it's also more satisfying." -Monte Cook
"Don't let rules replace good DMing skills"- Monte Cook
Another house rule that I am going to use is the mechanics for the 4e unified save progression. Base Classes that grant good save bonuses only grant their save bonuses to first level characters. PrCs no longer grant bonuses to save categories.
What different is that from the fractional save-based system? You would just add +1/2 from a class with a good save, and +1/3 from a class with a poor save, then round down. So a fighter3/wizard1/rogue1 would have a fort save of 2+1/2+1/3+1/3, or 3.166, or +3. Naturally, you disregard the +2 from subsequent classes/prcs.
I have played a warblade1/monk2/warblade+5/swordsage1/warblade+2/swordsage+1/warblade+3/master of nine5. Or at least, that was how I mapped him out, the game never went past lv12. Not certain if it poses a problem in your book, but it sure didn't in mine. It proved to be everything one could hope for from a "monkish" build and more.
So... a Warblade 10/monk 2/swordsage 2/Master of Nine 5. I don't know what any of those classes do (besides the monk), so I can't really comment on "monkishness" except to say that the base monk isn't very monkish. I mean, if you need a specific build like that, it just supports my point that the base classes are crappily designed. But that's really beside the point.
Quote:
1: The easiest solution to the multiclass caster issue is to base "caster level" on character level without affecting the level of spells being granted. This would make the multiclasser effective against SR and allow the spells themselves to scale up as they normally do without giving too much with a single level.
There's a discussion going on over in the "Other d20 Games" forum in the "What is Pathfinder doing about multiclassing?" thread; it's currently focused around working out a system for effectively multiclassing spellcasters.
Quote:
This solution is not ideal however due to the exponential increase in power with increasing spell levels. A 10 cleric/ 10 wizard would still only have access to 5th level spells, even if they have a caster level of 20 for both classes.
That and the supposition (I won't call it a fact, since no one's produced evidence to support it) that said PC, who would have CL 15 or 20 but only 5th level spells, wouldn't be effective against enemies of equal level.
Quote:
2a: taking the Bo9S model that adds 1/2 caster level for every other class for a multiclass caster...
I think that gives too much. I like the UA model, where you get caster levels (but not new spells) from other classes, but the fraction is dependent on the other classes' abilities - full caster progression grants 1:1, half-casters grant 1/2, and everything else is 1/4. It's not a perfect system, but it could work with some tweaking, I think.
Quote:
2b: you could use a system similar to 2a with a few modifications. Perhaps the highest level of spells that you can cast could be limited in some way to class level.
The above p18/c1/s1 would only be gaining 1st level spell slots (with the same number of slots as a caster level 10 character, and spells used effectively at caster level 10).
This is a good idea. Maybe grant higher-level slots, but not higher-level spells. For example, your Pal 18/Clr 1/Sor 1: He would be Pal 19/Clr 10/Sor 10 (caster levels), so he'd have access to 5th level spell slots in cleric and sorcerer, but couldn't cast any spells above 1st. So, you could cast a crapload of 1st level spells - let's say cure light wounds and magic missile - as 5th level spells. Their save DCs would be 5th level, and since you're CL 10, you get 1d8+5 hp cured or 5 magic missiles.
As I wrote this, I thought that maybe some of the levels you gain from other classes actually DO count for spell levels - say half the caster levels. So, for example, the PC would be gaining 9 levels from his paladin class; half of those levels add to the base cleric/sorcerer levels, which means you'd have access to 3rd level spells in each class (5th level caster) but have an effective caster level of 10. The only problem with this is that it takes a little math to keep straight.
Quote:
2c: Perhaps one could create a generic PRC that can combine the qualities of any two classes? When taking a +A and +B level, use the better of BAB, Saves, HP, Skills, etc. With a requirement of 3 levels in each of the two classes.
We already have those - they're called the Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, etc. PrCs are only a band-aid to close a bleeding wound. What we need is an actual bandage and some stitches.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
One of my houserules is that the automatic armor and weapon proficiencies granted by classes are only granted to first level characters. After first level, the only way to gain new armor and weapon proficiencies is via feats (including fighter class style bonus feats).
I like this idea. I might steal it for my 3e campaign worlds.
__________________ Robert Blezard I write; therefore, I am!
D&D v.3.5, d20 Modern, OSRIC, Pathfinder, True20... OGL Forever! Walk the Road
Avatar by Sialia
I was playing around with some stuff after making my last post, and I came up with this:
All character classes have a magic rating, which increases by level much like base attack bonus. For a multiclass character, add up the character’s magic ratings from each of her classes to find the character’s total magic rating.
For example, a 6th-level wizard/4th-level rogue is treated as a 7th-level caster for determining the range, duration, and other effects of her spells. Her summon monster spells last for 7 rounds, her lightning bolts inflict 7d6 damage, she rolls 1d20+7 for dispel checks, caster level checks to overcome spell resistance, and so forth. She still doesn’t get 4th-level spells (as a normal 7th-level wizard would).
The following restrictions apply, however:
*Only the highest bonus is used.
*A character's effective caster level in any spellcasting class cannot be increased by more than three times the base value. For example, a Clr 15/Wiz 2 would normally gain 15 levels from his cleric side (so he would cast spells as a Wiz 17), but by this rule, he would be limited to Wiz 8 (he'd gain three times his base value, or +6).
*A magic rating gained from a class can't be added to that class - in this case, you use the next higher rating for the highest-level class. For example, a Clr 10/Wiz 8 would add 8 levels to the cleric, not 10.
A character's caster level in any spellcasting class cannot be increased to more than double the base value in this manner, however. For example, the Clr 15/Wiz 2 from above would gain two effective caster levels added to his cleric class (but he wouldn't gain any new spells); he would gain 6 effective caster levels to his wizard class, and 2 of those levels would be actual caster levels. So, in effect, he'd be a Clr 17/Wiz 4 with access to 7th level cleric spells and 2nd level wizard spells (as a Wiz 4).
If the character gains an equal bonus from all classes, the bonus levels from one class are divided equally among them all. For example, a Clr 10/Wiz 10 would gain +10 effective caster levels and +2 actual levels; these would be split evenly - Clr 20 (11)/Wiz 20 (11). That is, the character would have an effective caster cleric and wizard caster level of 20, and an actual caster level (for access to spells) of 11.
Here are some of the random class cominations I used. I mostly tried spellcasters, but I also tossed in a Clr/Ftr combo.
Quote:
Clr 10/Wiz 15/Drd 5
+10 (Clr), +15 (Wiz), +5 (Drd)
Clr 20 (10)/Wiz 20 (17)/Drd 20 (12)
This was the first one I came up with, and it resulted in the first and third restrictions. Otherwise, you'd have a Clr 20 (10)/Wiz 30 (22)/Drd 20 (12), which would be ungodly.
Quote:
Clr 10/Wiz 10
+10 (Clr), +10 (Wiz)
Clr 15 (12)/Wiz 15 (12)
This one gave me the last restriction (if all the bonuses are the same, they're divided equally). I just couldn't see a Clr 20 (15)/Wiz 20 (15) at 20th character level.
Quote:
Clr 10/Ftr 10
+10 (Clr), +2 (Ftr)
Clr 12 (11)/Ftr 10
I don't think this is gimping the cleric too much, since he's got 10 levels of fighter to fall back on. Even a wizard wouldn't be too hard off, IMO.
And finally, from the other thread...
Quote:
Clr 2/Wiz 3/Drd 3/Sor 4
+2 (Clr), +3 (Wiz), +3 (Drd), +4 (Sor)
Clr 6 (4)/Wiz 7 (5)/Drd 7 (5)/Sor 7 (5)
Pretty straightforward - since Sorcerer grants the highest bonus, you add +4 to all classes except sorcerer; that one gets +3. What you end up with is a L 10 PC with 19 caster levels of spells and 17 effective caster levels. He'd certainly be able to hold his own... maybe a bit too well. I'm not sure how to handle this one, though.
Agamemnon: "Their process of building each edition atop the previous ones has resulted in 3.5 being the Michael Jackson of RPGs, desperately improving itself to ward off obsolescence but attaining only a kind of perverse lichlike state as a mockery of healthier games."
He'd certainly be able to hold his own... maybe a bit too well. I'm not sure how to handle this one, though.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
