AD&D Style Multilassing

[Reynard]

I am not a fan of spot-multiclassing in games I run. More often than not, the classes taken have less to do with concept and more to do with "build". In order to combat this, I am trying to figure out a good way to do AD&D style multiclassing in 3.x

The natural place to start would seem to be the Gestalt character option presented in UA. Basically, take the best of all class features and abilities, witht he following caveats:

Hit Die type is averaged, rounded up (so, a cleric/thief would have a d8, but a wizard/cleric would have a d6)

Best skill points/level and all skills on both class lists are
"class skills".

If classes get the same benefit at the same level (say a bonus feat for a 10th level fighter/wizard) you only get the bonus once (just one feat). In the example, the bonus feat could come from either the fighter or wizard list.

Classes would be grouped: Warrior (Fighter, Ranger, Barbarian), Divine (Cleric, Druid), Arcane (Wizard, Sorcerer), and Adventurer (Rogue, Bard). You can only multiclass across groups, not within (so, a fighter/bard is okay but not a cleric/druid). paladins and Monks are left out because you can't multiclass with them.

The "cost" is a 25% XP penalty for each additional class (so a fighter/rogue/sorcerer has a 50% XP penalty). This should have the effect of keeping two classed multi-class characters one level behind the single classed characters most of the time.

I am not sure what to do about "favored class". My natural inclination is to say that demi-humans can only multiclass if one of their classes is the favored one.

Thoughts?

 

[guardianfallenangel]

I think you'll just start seeing no one multi-class in your games. a 25%penalty if i multiclass.... not worth it. i'd just play a single classed character and avoid all the extra record keeping. theres a book Buy the Numbers that you might want to look for. instead of punishing your players for wanting to build a better character weither for role playing or mechanical benifit, this book would allow them to progress and gain what they wanted at each level in a more free form environment. they wouldn't be able to have all the benifits of a bunch of classes, but would be able to get the ones they really wanted. just a thought

 

[Reynard]

I think you'll just start seeing no one multi-class in your games. a 25%penalty if i multiclass.... not worth it. i'd just play a single classed character and avoid all the extra record keeping. theres a book Buy the Numbers that you might want to look for. instead of punishing your players for wanting to build a better character weither for role playing or mechanical benifit, this book would allow them to progress and gain what they wanted at each level in a more free form environment. they wouldn't be able to have all the benifits of a bunch of classes, but would be able to get the ones they really wanted. just a thought

The alternative I was considering is doing away with multi-classing entirely and allowing some non-core classes that fill certain missing niches (spell casting warriors, wilderness rogues and the like). I tend to be very open to class variants -- swapping out class abilities, bonus feat choices or class skills in order to achieve flavor or archetype. What I hate is the players who take a level of sorcerer here, a level of cleric there and whatever because they've got some grand mathematical construct in their head that makes those choices optimal.

 

[Lorthanoth]

Multi-lassing? I'm not sure what my girlfriend would think of that!

 

[fuindordm]

I think the OP was suggesting that a level in the gestalt class would cost 25% more than a level in a single class.

I have thought about similar things myself, and it turns out that dividing XP between two classes, AD&D style, also works quite well. The multiclass character was 2 levels behind the single-classed characters by mid levels.

 

[Ruslanchik]

I think your idea sounds good and that the 25% penalty should work out well. The characters made like this will be overpowered for the first few levels, just like in 1e, but will level out over time.

I also agree with your intention to limit wacko multiclassing. It makes since in many cases (my halfling druid took a level of fighter because he put aall of his training into mounted combat before resuming his druid training) but is often just min maxing.

I wonder about PrCs. Could a player multiclass for 3 or 4 levels, then single-class in a PrC that fits their character concept?

 

[Nifft]

I am not a fan of spot-multiclassing in games I run. More often than not, the classes taken have less to do with concept and more to do with "build".

What's the difference between concept and "build"?

Seriously, IMHO a "build" is an instantiation of a concept. How are they antithetical to you?

Cheers, -- N

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'd guess "concept" leans more towards the storytelling reasons why a character might have multiple classes in his portfolio, while "build" leans more toward the number-crunching reasons. At least that's the vibe I am getting from Reynard here.

Might be wrong, though. He probably will correct me if I am.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

you know ive been playing around with the ideal of doing this i was thinks 20% xp and was gonna do 1/2 hd each level but would love to know how yours turned out

 

[Reynard]

I'd guess "concept" leans more towards the storytelling reasons why a character might have multiple classes in his portfolio, while "build" leans more toward the number-crunching reasons. At least that's the vibe I am getting from Reynard here.

Might be wrong, though. He probably will correct me if I am.

You're pretty much on target. In addition to min-max "build" there's also the problem of dillution of the character concept when a level of whatever gets taken in response to some metagame concept. For example, a ranger character gets really whacked in a big fight due to mobility issues and so takes a scout level next time. it is still in "concept" as the ranger and scout are related, but the reason was based entirely on response to the rules.