3.5 and level 1 multiclass (apprentice) characters

[Breakstone]

I liked the rules. I mean, you can describe your barbarian discovering that he has inner magic when he multiclasses into sorcerer at 2nd level, or you can explain that he went through a painful ritual to bind his god to his sould before he went adventuring, and be a 1st level apprentice barbarian/sorcerer.

 

[Iced Tea]

i was actually looking for that and even started a thread asking people if they knew where it was only to learn/figure out it was dropped from 3.5

 

[Aitch Eye]

Playing out 1st level then multiclassing at 2nd just strains my credibility in most cases, unless the campaign conveniently provides a life-changing experience or long period of training at the end of level one. With the apprentice level there's less of a problem with the character suddenly manifesting all this stuff there was no trace of before, though it can still be sort of odd with the skills. The rules can allow a campaign to just keep moving and make the characters feel more right, at least to some of us. It's a shame they're not there anymore.

 

[Fedifensor]

I've just started making campaigns where the characters begin at 3rd or 5th level. That way, people can begin with multiclass characters, and it's avoids the "one crit wonder" encounters, where a player's time and effort of character creation is nullified by the bad guy rolling a crit on the first swing (orcs with battleaxes are notorous for this).

 

[TheShoveller]

I'm a fan of the apprentice rules.

But then, I'm not planning to upgrade to 3.5 ...

 

[Zappo]

I usually just start campaigns at level 2. It isn't a big difference, it makes the players happy, and it allows both for multiclasses and ECL +1 races.

 

[Davelozzi]

A couple of my players used those rules for their characters. They worked well. It's a shame that they dropped 'em but since I'm keeping my 3.0 DMG and it's not something that needs to be frequently referenced, I'll get over it.

 

[Herremann the Wise]

Hi Everyone,

We have house rules for taking on New Classes - in terms of training/study time. For example, a Barbarian can't just suddenly level and decide he is going to become a Wizard. This extreme example would take at least two years of training and study. Also in reverse, to become a Barbarian means leaving behind all trappings of civilisation for a year for most classes - 3 months for Druids and Rangers.

As such, the multi-classing at 1st level was pretty important for us if you wanted to take on a couple of differing classes - you had the whole character's history to work with rather than a week or two of adventuring. Not seeing this in 3.5 was disappointing but I think it is like what MerricB has described: they simply ran out of room in the DMG. We'll still use the Apprentice Variant anyway.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Saeviomagy]

Hi Everyone,

We have house rules for taking on New Classes - in terms of training/study time. For example, a Barbarian can't just suddenly level and decide he is going to become a Wizard. This extreme example would take at least two years of training and study. Also in reverse, to become a Barbarian means leaving behind all trappings of civilisation for a year for most classes - 3 months for Druids and Rangers.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

The question is... does this actually add anything to your game, or does it just dissuade people from actually building a character throughout their career? I mean two years for a character basically means you may as well throw them away and start a new one. Hell, unless you're extremely lenient with free time, 3 months means the same thing.

I'd make a guess that your games are entirely made up of 1 or 2 class characters, and has a fair few characters wishing they'd started with two classes.

 

[Gnarlo]

The question is... does this actually add anything to your game, or does it just dissuade people from actually building a character throughout their career? I mean two years for a character basically means you may as well throw them away and start a new one. Hell, unless you're extremely lenient with free time, 3 months means the same thing.

I'd make a guess that your games are entirely made up of 1 or 2 class characters, and has a fair few characters wishing they'd started with two classes.

Or it could just be he has players that enjoy the same type of "realism" that he does and you do not

My games also require time out for training, finding teachers, materials, etc. I also charge for training as in the DMG. I enjoy it, my players enjoy it, YMMV. Of course, half my current players got their start playing EQ, where learning a skill took tons of real time and piles of virtual gold spent sitting in front of a computer clicking a mouse over and over for hours. Compared to that, saying "Ok, you spend the next 6 months in Megalopolis training to learn the basics of music to be a bard" seems a godsend to them.

I also run the type of campaign that doesn't have epic "you must stop the evil villain/horde/girl scout troop from taking over the world/burning the village/making another D&D movie, and you have only 3 days to do it!" plots going on every minute either, so if they want to take time to learn skills, make items, research spells, have at it as long as they are having fun. And, once again, it's not like we are actually putting the RL game on hold for 6 monnths or a year while they are doing it.

(I also have had the apprentice level rules used in my games several times, and am very glad I'm hanging onto my 3.0 books.)