Stop the 1st level Rogue

If one is deciding to become a X/Rogue, what reason would there be to start at 1st level with X rather than Rogue? I'm speaking of the long run. Now I know you get full HP, but even the barbarian is only going to be 6 hp ahead (and if you are going for Barbarian/Rogue you are likely going to have a high Con).

Here's a summary of the different 1st level class combinations:
Barbarian: +6 hp, -16 skill points
Bard: -8 skill points
Cleric: +2 hp, -24 skill points
Druid, Monk: +2 hp, -16 skill points
Fighter, Paladin: +4 hp, -24 skill points
Ranger: +2 hp, -8 skill points
Sorcerer, Wizard: -2 hp, -24 skill points

The following are NOT rogues skills: Concentration, Handle Animal, Knowledge (all but local), Ride, Speak Language, Spellcraft, Survival.

Is there anything I'm missing? Are there any other benefits that you only get at 1st level besides the full hp and multiplied skill points?

If not, it would seem the Rogue is a no brainer for 1st level. Sorcerers and Wizards are almost unarguably behind. The only benefit they have is Spellcraft and Concentration being class skills. And guess what. With the extra 24 skill points the Rogue gets, he can max both of these out at first level anyway and still have extra skills and higher HP.

The Bard/Rogue with the good number of skill points they get also have no problem using their Bard levels to max out their class-specific skills, while using Rogue for everything else.

Rangers are probably about even. +2 hp is a fair tradeoff for 8 skill points. But by this you can tell that Druids and Monks get a bit of the shaft, losing out on an additional 8 skill points above and beyond the Ranger, and the Cleric is way behind at a whopping -24 skill points for only +2 hp.

Barbarians are probably the best contender. +6 hp for -16 skill points is even a better ratio than the Ranger. But Fighters and Paladin's trail this at only +4 hp and -24 skill points.

Is there anything that could tempt a character away from taking Rogue first level (with the possible exception of Barbarian and Ranger)?

The multiplier for skills I assume is intended (other than for game balance) to represent the great amount of time, effort, and training to start out with their first class. Additional levels would assumably represent more incremental leaps.

Next post I'll talk about some suggestions I have for how you could make these classes a bit more desirable. Any other ideas are welcome as well as criticism on my ideas or this entire thread's point.

Some of my ideas

Barbarians, Rangers, and Rogues I am treating as the baseline. Therefore, I am only making suggestions on the other classes. I also am trying to balance these classes with each other for multiclassing.

All of these benefits are intended to only be applied at the first character level. If the character has creature hit dice or is multiclassing into these classes, these benefits would not apply.

Bard: Pick one skill. That skill is always treated as a class skill.
Cleric: ?
Druid: ?
Fighter: +1 to Base Attack Bonus.
Monk: +1 to Base Attack Bonus or the Toughness feat (monks compare to Fighters and Paladins exactly as Rangers compare to Rogues, so I felt that these bonuses should be equivilent, as my analysis indicated that these 3 classes were even with each other)
Paladin: Toughness feat (+3 hp)
Sorcerer: Any single metamagic feat (I realize they would not be able to use most of them at 1st level, it would be up to the character to decide to pick something more useful later like Empower or something useful now like Heighten)
Wizard: Spell Mastery (don't know if this is enough)

Sure. The DM just says so, or perhaps the PC wants to roleplay.

IMC I'm trying to replace all of the 1st level "bumps" with a more generic training regimine. So, instead of getting "3x skill points" at 1st level, your 1st class level would be the same as any other, but you'd have a training that gave you +2 to a few saves and somewhere between 6 and 18 skill points (+ 3* int bonus)

Rather then give extra powers, try my method (oh god, I'm a commercial!)

....at 1st level, you get x2 the normal # of skill points.
....and do the same at 2nd and 3rd level.
...so at 3rd level you have x6 skill points - the same you would have gotten if you had followed the core x4 at 1st and x1 at 2nd and 3rd.

Advantage: you do not cash in at 1st level for high skill points.
Disadvantage: you do not cash in at 1st level for high skill points.


BB

Planesdragon said:

Sure. The DM just says so, or perhaps the PC wants to roleplay.

IMC I'm trying to replace all of the 1st level "bumps" with a more generic training regimine. So, instead of getting "3x skill points" at 1st level, your 1st class level would be the same as any other, but you'd have a training that gave you +2 to a few saves and somewhere between 6 and 18 skill points (+ 3* int bonus)

Click to expand...

I do like that idea. Though the skill points might not be spent quite so well by a 1st level fighter (with only 7 class skills) as a 1st level rogue. Perhaps (and maybe this is what you meant anyway) allowing these bonus skills to be used for any skill.

Thinking aloud here...

As far as HP goes, the classes would (on average) lose out on the following:
Barbarians: -5.5
Fighters, Paladins: -4.5
Rangers, Clerics, Monks, Druids: -3.5
Bards, Rogues: -2.5
Sorcerers, Wizards: -1.5

So the weighted average would be 3.3 (approx) HP.

And for skills:
Rogues: -24
Bards, Rangers: -18
Druids, Barbarians, Monks: -12
Fighters, Paladins, Clerics, Sorcerers, Wizards: -6

Average 11.5

So maybe allowing 2 of the following options at first level (or the same one twice) would be appropriate (you could roll for hp before deciding on these):

Toughness feat
10 skill points (always treated as class skills)
+1 to Base Attack Bonus (I just like this idea)
+1 to all saves
+2 to one save

In addition everyone gets 3 times their Int bonus in skill points to spend (always treated as class skills)

One problem I foresee is the 1st level fighter rolling a 1 for hp. Perhaps at first level do the following for hit dice (or something similar):

d12: d4+4
d10: d4+3
d8: d4+2
d6: d4+1
d4: d4

[edit] Added saves as a possible bonus

you are doing the hp and skill point calculations all wrong. Let's say that at 2nd level I want a level each of barbarian and rogue. To keep things simple I have no Int or Con bonus (not that it matters)

If I go rogue first I have 32+4=36 skill points
If I go barbarian first I have 16+8=24 skill points
The difference is 12, not 16.

If I go rogue first I have 6+6.5=12.5 hit points
If I go barbarian first I have 12+3.5=15.5 hit points
The difference is 3, not 6.

Giving each class a special first level benefit isn't what I would do. The problem is the 4x skill points at first level, so deal with that. Using the 2x for the first three levels is an elegant solution.

Glak said:

you are doing the hp and skill point calculations all wrong. Let's say that at 2nd level I want a level each of barbarian and rogue. To keep things simple I have no Int or Con bonus (not that it matters)

If I go rogue first I have 32+4=36 skill points
If I go barbarian first I have 16+8=24 skill points
The difference is 12, not 16.

If I go rogue first I have 6+6.5=12.5 hit points
If I go barbarian first I have 12+3.5=15.5 hit points
The difference is 3, not 6.

Giving each class a special first level benefit isn't what I would do. The problem is the 4x skill points at first level, so deal with that. Using the 2x for the first three levels is an elegant solution.

Click to expand...

No. I was simply saying something different. I was comparing the various classes at first level only, before attaining a second level. Upon rereading it, I guess I didn't really say that, but the numbers imply it.

I started out by stating my goal in a roundabout way.

I then proceeded to show some numbers for qualitative comparison between the classes. If I had used your method, I would simply cut all HP numbers in half, and all skill numbers by 1/4. Since it's a geometric change, the numbers I used are just as useful as the numbers you suggest. They just have to be taken in context.

[edit] I wanted to point out that the reason I did this was for clarity rather than talking about average HP on a hit die.

You'll note with my second post, when I need qualitative results, I used the exact number.

So I am not "doing the hp and skill point calculations all wrong". I'm simply not figuring out the same problem as you.

reanjr said:

If one is deciding to become a X/Rogue, what reason would there be to start at 1st level with X rather than Rogue?

Click to expand...

One minor thing: personally, I wouldn't give someone who multiclassed into the wizard class a free spellbook. They'd have to find the spells and scribe them, which would cost them something like 2000 gp to get one that matches a 1st level wizard's (100 gp per spell in scribing costs, both for 0-level and 1st-level spells). That's a pretty heavy incentive not to multiclass into the wizard class.

Also, taking warrior-type classes at first level means you start out with BAB +1, which qualifies you for certain feats (notably weapon focus, weapon finesse, and exotic weapon proficiency). If you start out as a rogue, that means you can't take those feats until 3rd level - unless you multiclass to a fighter, in which case you get one feat to spend on a +1 BAB-feat instead of two or three (if human).

Umm, you seem to be overlooking everything a first-level pc gets other than hp and skill points.

Sure, this only matters if you're starting at first level- but that's what's happening, right?

So the 1st level fighter is more likely to be able to survive and defeat his foes than the 1st level rogue, the sorcerer has spells, etc.

I do agree that this is somewhat problematic if you're starting above 1st level, though.

Staffan said:

One minor thing: personally, I wouldn't give someone who multiclassed into the wizard class a free spellbook. They'd have to find the spells and scribe them, which would cost them something like 2000 gp to get one that matches a 1st level wizard's (100 gp per spell in scribing costs, both for 0-level and 1st-level spells). That's a pretty heavy incentive not to multiclass into the wizard class.

Also, taking warrior-type classes at first level means you start out with BAB +1, which qualifies you for certain feats (notably weapon focus, weapon finesse, and exotic weapon proficiency). If you start out as a rogue, that means you can't take those feats until 3rd level - unless you multiclass to a fighter, in which case you get one feat to spend on a +1 BAB-feat instead of two or three (if human).

Click to expand...

I do concede that the spellbook is something I hadn't thought of. But I am hesitant to use equipment, whether integral to the class or not, as a balancing point. Money becomes no object fairly quickly in a standard D&D campaign (by the treasure tables at least). Very good point, though.

Hmmm... About the +1 BAB feats, I suppose that is significant. At least with the idea I proposed, one could accomplish the same thing by taking the +1 to BAB. But, certainly that could be significant for a Fighter at the lower levels if you were going for those feats. So it does equalize that slight 1st level skew as well.

One thing just occurred to me about the Wizard's spellbook. Does it say anywhere that you have to have a full spellbook? Can you buy it by the page (kept on scrolls or something)? Do you have to have the 0 level spells? Maybe a Wizard wouldn't even get the 0-level spells it they multiclassed in (not automatically at least).