D&D 3.x CleverNickName's 3.5E Multiclassing fix

[Runestar]

I think the key problem many people here appear to have with multiclassing is that they see character concepts in terms of single classes.

Classes are a metagame concept to begin with. You use them as a means to an end. If you want/need 3-4 base classes and 2-3 prcs to flesh out your character's capabilities, I don't see why you should have to settle for anything less. Conversely, what if I have a great character concept, yet am forced to stretch a single class to try and accomodate it simply because my DM would allow multiclassing? In the end, he has few/none of the abilities he ought to have, or cannot live up to his own fluff. This seems contrary to the spirit of "roleplaying".

I also think that too much emphasis is being placed on the "prestige" aspect of prestige classes, but that is another discussion for another day.

For example, let's say I wish to play a monk-like PC, inspired by some wuxia or anime show. But the PHB monk stinks to high heavens, and does not really possess the abilities I have in mind for my character. After some deliberation, I come up with a warblade1/monk2/warblade+5/swordsage1/warblade+2/swordsage+1/warblade+3/masterofnine5 build, which is not only fun to play, but can also hold his own, and matches my vision of what he ought to be capable of achieving fairly well.

Conversely, I see no reason why I need to roleplay my own 3classes+1prc monkish PC any differently than if I had been playing a monk class instead. Both would still be monks in the story sense, in that they live ascetic lives, train in monasteries and adhere to the same code of conduct. Any backstory you give your monk, I believe it can fit my monkish PC just as well. If anything, I daresay my creation is more monkish than the monk in virtually every aspect!

Bottom line: Multiclassing does not always produce overpowered PCs, nor do I need to multiclass to break the game. In the very least, I have yet to see a melee build that can trump a single classed wizard, however aggressively you multiclass him. It just helps to narrow the disparity. A little.

Discuss.

 

[Mon]

How's #2 working? I thought about that as well, but it was enough to get my group to accept just caster levels since it is such a clear underpower issue. I'm hoping of moving them to accepting all class abilities working that way, but one step at a time.

Works ok. Because we only use 1/3 of other levels, it is hard to abuse and doesn't work out nice and evenly over 20 levels. Also, we originally created the rule explicitly to replace PRCs like the Eldritch knight and Arcane Trickster that are just bandaid multiclass fixes, so we figured it needed to apply to things other than spells (because those PRCs do).

Edge cases like Rogue 3 / Wizard 17 give you the features of an 18th level wizard plus 3d6 sneak and some uncanny dodge/evasion. So the guy basically gave up two 9th level spell slots for some pretty weak rogue abilities. In the reverse case, Rog 17 / Wiz 3, the guy traded a die of sneak attack and a special ability for 3rd level arcane spells. Probably a better trade, but arguable at 20th level.

Middle cases like rogue 9/Wiz 11 are even less problematic. You end up with the features of a 12th level rogue and a 14th level wizard.

All three cases are still less powerful than a RAW Wiz 7/Rog 3/Arc.Tr 10 (cast as wiz 17, sneak attack as rogue 13) or Wiz 20.

Only thing to look out for is fighter/barbarians (or other full BAB class combos) IME. Fighter 8/Barbarian 12 is clearly superior to Ftr 20, and gives GWS to the brb too. However this issue also applies under the core RAW (brb/ftr > ftr) because fighters gain so little at higher levels. I.e. a problem with the fighter, not the system. If it worries you, you could add an extra clause...

(4) Full BAB classes don't gain these extra effective levels from other full BAB classes

or

(4) Full BAB classes only add 1/4 of their levels to other full BAB classes

We decided not to do this in the end, because it isn't really much of an abuse. A Brb 20 still holds his own vs. ftr/brb, and ftr20 is suboptimal anyway. It might make it more palatable for your group, though.

Hope this helps.

 

[CleverNickName]

I think the key problem many people here appear to have with multiclassing is that they see character concepts in terms of single classes.

I wouldn't call this a problem...in fact, it is how I prefer character concepts to be visualized in my game. I prefer our clerics to be clerics, our rogues to be rogues, and our fighters to be fighters...not three characters who are a little bit of all three. But that's just a personal opinion, not a flaw in the game. To each his own, right?

Classes are a metagame concept to begin with. You use them as a means to an end. If you want/need 3-4 base classes and 2-3 prcs to flesh out your character's capabilities, I don't see why you should have to settle for anything less. Conversely, what if I have a great character concept, yet am forced to stretch a single class to try and accomodate it simply because my DM would allow multiclassing? In the end, he has few/none of the abilities he ought to have, or cannot live up to his own fluff. This seems contrary to the spirit of "roleplaying".

I see your point, and it is an excellent one. Players who want their character to fit a particular example or idiom (like your Wuxia monk) have little choice but to multiclass the absolute crap out of a character until it no longer resembles its original class...or any other class, for that matter.

But multiclassing is not the only way to do it.

A better solution, one that I've done in the past, is to work with the character to create a new core class. We would decide together on what its strengths and weaknesses should be, and then list out the abilities and class features that the player wants. Then we would balance all of those abilities and features together as a whole.

It's not as much work as it seems. The result is a lot more balanced and easy to play than a multiclassed character...the player doesn't have to worry about meeting PrC requirements, XP penalties, favored classes, etc.

(And if you do this for your Wuxia Monk, please post it up here in this forum for everyone to enjoy. It sounds awesome.)

Bottom line: Multiclassing does not always produce overpowered PCs, nor do I need to multiclass to break the game.

QFT.

 

[Sylrae]

The best I've seen and have been using for a while now in my campaigns is:
When multiclassing, you count 1/2 of all other non-prestige class levels towards your spellcasting ability, up to double that class's level.

So if you are a fighter 6/wizard 1, you take half the fighter levels (3) and add it to your wizard level (to get 4), but due to the cap, you cast as a wizard 2 (since that's double 1). Fighter 10/wizard 10 would cast as a 15th level wizard which is still useful but not overpowered for a 20th level PC.

It even maps very well in power to the Mystic Theurge style band-aid PrCls, which I take as a good sign of balance, and even makes those otherwise bland PrClasses officially redundant.

That's the mechanic I put up on here a few times going back. I count it towards spells known too. It's not a perfect fix, but it works pretty well, and it's not overly complicated.

Only ~>

We have used almost the same system. The differences being:

(1) Use 1/3 of other levels instead of 1/2 (max of twice acutal level, as with you)
(2) Applies for all class features not just spells
(3) No prestige classes are used in the campaign at all, so no clause excluding them is needed

Works well IME. PRCs would mess it up good though, I reckon (without ever having tried it with PRCs, that is).

I also use it (and posted it with) number 2 from this one. As for PrCs, just say you use whichever value is better for stackage.

The OP has a point when he says making new classes is the best way to deal with really different character Ideas. you can often frankenstein it by taking bits from a bunch of similar classes.

 

[Sylrae]

Well, it takes two houserules, but they are very simple.

1: Ditch the idea of wizard caster levels, cleric caster levels, etc. Everyone has one caster level, just as they have one base attack bonus.

2: Give every class a Base Casting Bonus, analogous to BAB.

Done.

That's a nifty Idea, but there's also the issue of having crap in the way of spells known.

And it really doesn't make sense to blend arcane caster level and divine. I could see breaking it into 2 caster levels, but thats as few as I can see working.