Alt multiclassing proposal

[Voadam]

Please bear with me and read this through (even though it's a bit long). This alternative to multiclassing emulates AD&D multiclassing (with a little stolen from 4th edition):



Wizard (Fighter)
A split-classed Wizard (Fighter) 6 would have all of the Wizard class features of a 6th level Wizard but, due to dabbling in Fighter would adjust his character in the following ways:
His BAB would be +4 (it would increase by +3 every 4 levels).
His HD type would increase to a d8.
He'd have all weapon and armor proficiencies.
His arcane spell failure percentages would be reduced by 10%.
He'd have 2 bonus Fighter feats.

He would have 6 character levels BUT would be considered 7th level for the purposes of advancing in level.

Wouldn't the HD be d6 for a single die upgrade from d4?

 

[Voadam]

Please bear with me and read this through (even though it's a bit long). This alternative to multiclassing emulates AD&D multiclassing (with a little stolen from 4th edition):

essentially making +1 LA templates to handle specific secondary class multiclassing.

Level 1 will be rough for many characters, as they will be side by side with level 2 characters and often having fewer hp than a 1st level straight classed character.

2/3 spellcasting for +1 LA is very attractive, it means the multiclasser will be at least a full level behind the straight classed full caster for those coveted top spell slots when going a theurge route but develop a decent secondary spellcasting ability.

A cleric secondary class fighter will have full cleric spell casting, d10 HD and 1/1 BAB and some bonus feats for +1 LA.

To test the balance and see if the LA is right, think of the extreme examples.

19th level cleric with +19/+14/+9/+4 BAB, 19th level cleric casting and turning, bunches of fighter bonus feats, 19d10 HD, compared with a 20th level fighter who has a few more feats, 1 more HD and BAB.

 

[scruffygrognard]

Wouldn't the HD be d6 for a single die upgrade from d4?

In Pathfinder, Wizards start with a d6 Hit Die, so Split-Classing as a Fighter would bump it up to a d8.

As for balance issues with Split-Classing, I can see where there would be problems BUT your example really highlights the crapulence of Fighters in 3.X (3.X clerics have always been almost as good, if not better than, Fighters after a few levels).

Remember (in Pathfinder) that you're also losing all of the added Fighter-class features when you dabble in Fighter. Does that help balance things out?

I'm not 100% sure BUT think that Split-Classing comes close to re-creating PrCs that fix multiclassing issues (mystic theurge, arcane trickster, eldritch knight/abjurant champion, etc). At low levels you are definitely more vulnerable (though you do get added hit points at 1st level in Pathfinder, so you're not super-puny).

Any suggestions on how to better balance things out?

 

[Kerrick]

I thnk there is something inherently wrong with someone being able to say that they are gaining caster level strength equal to a character who is actually taking a level in a said class. There has to be a consequence for taking levels in a different class, and I don't think that reduced spells known and reduced spell slots is adequate.

Amen. If you allow CL = character level, you'll have people taking umpteen levels in a fighter class and 1-2 levels in a spellcaster class, then being able to toss off 5 magic missiles at CL 1, or have your spells last forever. You're a neophyte spellcaster - you shouldn't be able to do things like that. Sure, the other levels should add some benefit in terms of power, but not that much.

Now, I also agree that the multiclassing system penalizes multiclassed characters too much. But I like the above level I suggested. A rogue 3 / sorcerer 12 would cast their spells at a caster level of 14, not 15. A rogue 6 / sorcer 9 would cast their spells at acaster level of 13, not 15.

Why not apply the fractional system to spellcaster levels too? I took the UA system and split it up - 1:1 (full spellcasters), 1:3/4 (bards and adepts), 1:1/2 (half-casters) and 1:1/4 (non-casters). Then you just tally up the fractions from each class and apply them however you want (I haven't found a better system than the one I came up with, so I'm using that one).

The question is are the level 11-20 abilities of either class combined with its 1-10 abilities significantly more powerful than combining those 1-10 abilities with the 1-10 abilities of the other class.

Considering most classes (including PrCs) are badly front-loaded, I'm not sure that you could accurately make that comparison.

A player who split-classes must decide which class is his primary class and which is his secondary class at the start of play.

This sentence is a deal-breaker. I try not to plan out my character's advancement from L1 - in fact, my characters usually go in unexpected directions during play. My favorite PC started as an adept, gained wizard levels, then became a necromancer who specialized in spirits (I had to make a custom PrC for him). You can't plan for things like that.

What you're suggesting, though, is very similar to the gestalt rules.

 

[scruffygrognard]

This sentence is a deal-breaker. I try not to plan out my character's advancement from L1 - in fact, my characters usually go in unexpected directions during play. My favorite PC started as an adept, gained wizard levels, then became a necromancer who specialized in spirits (I had to make a custom PrC for him). You can't plan for things like that.

What you're suggesting, though, is very similar to the gestalt rules.

You only have to plan what your secondary class is. You can change your primary character class just as you would in 3rd edition (through multiclassing). The secondary class's features are applied to every class you take... but don't restrict you in any other way. There is no multiclass penalty for your secondary class and it doesn't impact on your choice of primary class (or classes) in any way... so that there is no reason you'd have to plan your character advancement (like you would when taking PrCs).

 

[Voadam]

In Pathfinder, Wizards start with a d6 Hit Die, so Split-Classing as a Fighter would bump it up to a d8.

Gotcha. Its funny I know they upgraded those, it matches house rules I've had in my games for years, but in these types of discussions I keep thinking in core 3.5 terms as the base.

 

[Voadam]

Amen. If you allow CL = character level, you'll have people taking umpteen levels in a fighter class and 1-2 levels in a spellcaster class, then being able to toss off 5 magic missiles at CL 1, or have your spells last forever. You're a neophyte spellcaster - you shouldn't be able to do things like that. Sure, the other levels should add some benefit in terms of power, but not that much.

I think you are quibling with numbers. Even at a 1/4 fraction the F19/W1 gets 3 magic missiles for his caster level 5. The key is that the spell penetration check for that MM is at -15 and he is facing outsiders, dragons, and fiendish things with SR designed around level 20 characters. Which makes the magic missile a wasted round's action instead of a minor 1st level spell effect the way it is for the wizard 20.

Spell slots are the key issue for spellcasters IMO, caster level does not make the low level spells overpowered IMO for the dipping spellcasters.

Considering most classes (including PrCs) are badly front-loaded, I'm not sure that you could accurately make that comparison.

I'd say that you've got it backwards. The analysis reveals the unbalanced nature of certain multiclass options, not a problem in the analysis.

 

[FentonGib]

imo a spellcasting player who chooses to take an alternate class is willingly forsaking spellcasting power for other benefits. Most classes are balanced relatively fairly, Wizzies generally suck at melee combat, and need a fighter to protect them, but fighters are great 1-on-1 whilst Wizzies (eventually) become the artillery. In my group players have roles, the fighter and swashbuckler go to the front and buy time for the wizzie to blow up the bad guys and the cleric keeps everyone safe (hp, ability drain, etc...).

Allowing a spellcaster to go to another level and carry on gaining Caster Level is to me the same as a fighter taking a wizard level and being granted full BaB for it... having your cake and eating it.

There are several feats that allow multiclassed characters to actually apply levels of a second class to your spellcasting level (usually max of 4HD, not over max HD) and this becomes a common choice. My wizzie player met a bard, roleplayed being intrigued by the bard's magic style (music) and learnt a level. The player knows that means sacrificing a level of potential magic, but the benefits of Bardic knowledge, some new skills and greater weapon proficiencies is a trade-off he's happy with.

At the end of the day I hate the xp multiclassing penalty, and usually find that it's the DMs job to stop munchkin players taking unrealistic power-gaming multiclass combinations.