Anyone have house rules for multi-classing?
FreeTheSlaves
Adventurer
Well I let caster level stack. Optionally I have also used fractional BAB and saves but not anymore.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
What do you specifically hate about the new rules? What is it about the old rules that you liked better?
For instance, if you really liked sharing out xps between two classes which develop in parallel, you could concievably start a character as a 1/1 multiclass and share experience gained equally between the two classes, becoming a 2/2 then 3/3 character (but I guess that isn't what you are after)
If we know what you love and what you hate about the old and new multiclassing rules, we'll be able to make more positive suggestions
Cheers
For instance, if you really liked sharing out xps between two classes which develop in parallel, you could concievably start a character as a 1/1 multiclass and share experience gained equally between the two classes, becoming a 2/2 then 3/3 character (but I guess that isn't what you are after)
If we know what you love and what you hate about the old and new multiclassing rules, we'll be able to make more positive suggestions
Cheers
CRGreathouse
Community Supporter
Unearthed Arcana has gestalt rules, which should work the way you want.
Personally, I think the new multiclassing system is excellent and wouldn't trade it away; it has more flexibility and less abusability.
Personally, I think the new multiclassing system is excellent and wouldn't trade it away; it has more flexibility and less abusability.
DarkMaster
First Post
I have similar problem especially with the arcane caster so I tried to develop a system.
My explanation of it might be a bit confusing but the idea might interest you
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98400
My explanation of it might be a bit confusing but the idea might interest you
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=98400
Tuzenbach
First Post
You see, this is why you're a Mod...you never over-look the obvious!Plane Sailing said:
Yes, I should have been more clear. OK, the concept behind being one class for 9 or 10 or 11 levels and then adding a 2nd class which would then cost around 10,000 exp. just to achieve 1st level in said class disgusts me. It's a big 'ole jip!
I mean, I can see how the system discourages a player from having levels in, like, 14 different classes, but who does that, really?
What if, upon the creation of a character, some sort of contract if written up between the DM & player which states exactly how many classes said character will ever be partaking in for the duration of the character's existence? What I mean is, it seems the current system, while allowing for freedom of change, also discourages it. That is, it's better spending 10,000 exp. becoming a 10th level Fighter than it is to becoming a 9th level Fighter/1st level Rogue.
What if you knew exactly what you wanted for the duration of the character's existence and signed something saying you'll stick by that no matter what? I'm thinking the cost for achieving the other class level when the time came (as per the contract) should be less than otherwise. This is to simulate the giving up of future freedoms pertaining to sporadic class additions. No sporadicisms, but a set path. It should be cheaper that way, no? I hope I haven't confused anyone!
Tuzenbach said:
That would, in my opinion, be very boring. Playing out a character is a discovery process, and limiting yourself forever and all time to one set path squelches some very rich roleplaying opportunities before they even happen.
Plus, in 3.0/3.5 multiclassing rules, things stack. Yes, the 9th level fighter/1st level rogue doesn't go up a step in BAB, but his Reflex save jumps by +2, he gets as many skill points in one level of rouge as he gets in four levels of fighter, a much broader skill selection, the ability to nearly max out one rogue skill if he likes (even if he doesn't, he can max it out with just one more level of rogue), and Evasion in light or no armor with but one more level of investment.
A rogue 2/fighter 9 has only a -1 BAB compared to a fighter 11, is one feat behind, has Evasion, a better Reflex save, and a ton more skill points.
I cut my teeth on 1st Edition AD&D. I liked it. I still have all my books. But I would never, EVER go back to 1st Edition multiclassing. Third Edition multiclassing is much more flexible, and much more enjoyable.
dvvega
Explorer
If you want to multi-class like 1st edition (non-human) then you're proposed agreement that at 10th level you will take 1 level of Rogue (at reduced cost) is not really faithful to the 1st edition multi-class system.
In 1st edition all classes were advanced together. Due to the different costs of levelling in each class some (Rogue and Druid) would advance faster than others (Paladin and Ranger).
Therefore you should be buying your levels as you go and spreading them evenly amongst your class choices. So you would start at 3rd level say with Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Rogue 1. Then when you advanced a level to 4th you could choose Rogue then Fighter then Cleric (which is the order that would occur in 1st edition) and the level balances are all there.
If you want to copy the dual-classed human concept then you must take into account that in 1st edition (and 2nd for that matter) you could not use any abilities from the previous class until your new class level passed the old class level. This would include feats, base saves, BAB, etc. Doing so would forfeit all experience gained on that particular adventure. In 3rd edition you gain those abilities and can use them immediately.
Mimicking this option you would have to pretend to be a 1st level character up until the bypass point. At his time you would suddenly gain all the abilities of both classes together, but not pay the experience for it and hence not be a balanced character. For example ... assume you went Figher 10 then Rogue 11. You would suddenly become a 21st level epic character but paid less than half the experience a normal character would to get there. The problem is that 3rd edition is extremely balanced (compared to other editions) in what is a challenge, what is fair, etc.
Of course the risk involved in the human version is that you get hit with a Fireball and you don't save most of the time because your base saves have gone back down to +0 +0 +2 or something. The minute you kick in your old class base saves you lose all experience gained for that adventure and essentially revert back to your previous class. So perhaps this BIG caveat could justify the cheap gaining of power once you've surpassed the previous class level.
In 1st edition all classes were advanced together. Due to the different costs of levelling in each class some (Rogue and Druid) would advance faster than others (Paladin and Ranger).
Therefore you should be buying your levels as you go and spreading them evenly amongst your class choices. So you would start at 3rd level say with Fighter 1/Cleric 1/Rogue 1. Then when you advanced a level to 4th you could choose Rogue then Fighter then Cleric (which is the order that would occur in 1st edition) and the level balances are all there.
If you want to copy the dual-classed human concept then you must take into account that in 1st edition (and 2nd for that matter) you could not use any abilities from the previous class until your new class level passed the old class level. This would include feats, base saves, BAB, etc. Doing so would forfeit all experience gained on that particular adventure. In 3rd edition you gain those abilities and can use them immediately.
Mimicking this option you would have to pretend to be a 1st level character up until the bypass point. At his time you would suddenly gain all the abilities of both classes together, but not pay the experience for it and hence not be a balanced character. For example ... assume you went Figher 10 then Rogue 11. You would suddenly become a 21st level epic character but paid less than half the experience a normal character would to get there. The problem is that 3rd edition is extremely balanced (compared to other editions) in what is a challenge, what is fair, etc.
Of course the risk involved in the human version is that you get hit with a Fireball and you don't save most of the time because your base saves have gone back down to +0 +0 +2 or something. The minute you kick in your old class base saves you lose all experience gained for that adventure and essentially revert back to your previous class. So perhaps this BIG caveat could justify the cheap gaining of power once you've surpassed the previous class level.
Tuzenbach
First Post
dvvega said:
True, but I wasn't trying to be. I merely suggested a sort of half-assed, 14%-thought-out house rule that may have been a kind of in-the-middle-compromise between 1E & 3E. My idea is nothing like either 1E or 3E, but I'm just looking for an alternative, that's all.
dvvega said:
Yes.
dvvega said:
OK. I've got a character from 1E who was really happy being a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief. He got to levels 4/4/5. 1) How would the conversion work? 2) From there, how would he then progress? 3) Don't ask me to ask my DM......I don't currently have one! 4) Yes, I'm aware the terminology now is Fighter/Wizard/Rogue.
dvvega said:
Ah, a bitchin' idea of Gary's, wouldn't you say? I have another character who did this almost as a career. He had levels in Cavalier, Illusionist, Fighter, and Thief with the end focus looking something like a 7/7 Cavalier/Illusionist who could then advance freely as a Bard. Unfortunately, he never got that far!
dvvega said:
True. Is there a compromise ruling, though? Somewhere in between the two?
dvvega said:
Ah, but that's exactly why said character SHOULDN'T be epic at that point, because it's unbalanced. There should be a system in place that my brain has yet to create. Hence, the title of the thread.......
dvvega said:
That's what I always believed. So...........do you have house rules for multi-classing? LoL
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Tuzenbach said:
I remember a poster who used to be on ENworld but I haven't seen for some time used to do this very thing with quite a lot of success in his campaign.
The PC and the DM would agree an appropriate "class ratio" which would be stuck to throughout the life of the class, and would actually be given a unique classmix name.
e.g. in his campaign one of the martial temples had clerics, rooks and fighters - a rook was someone who alternated levels of cleric and fighter. There were two other intermediaries too whose names I forget - the first one had the ratio set at 75%/25% so after every 3 levels of cleric he took 1 of fighter and the second one had the reverse ratio so after every 3 levels of fighter he took 1 of cleric.
So someone, at least, has tried out the method you are pondering and found it worked rather nicely. I think that naming the class combination is a key element to validating it. Incidentally with the 3.5e prestige classes to support some of the casting multiclasses better (mystic theurge, arcane trickster, eldritch warrior) the "fixed" multiclass could actually be designed with that in mind, and the PC be referred to as an eldritch warrior from 1st level (even though he's just started on his training) with planned multiclassing up to and including the prestige class mapped out.
Any help?
Similar Threads
