Crazy Multiclassing Idea

[orangefruitbat]

Here's an idea that came to me today at work for multiclassing: You use the XP chart separetly for each class. So buying the 1st level of fighter costs 1000 XP, regardless of how many levels of wizard you have.

However, the catch is that levels don't stack - instead you take the better # of the two. If you have 6 wizard levels and you get a fighter level, you get no save bonuses, or even a better BAB. You do get new skill points, a bonus feats, and all the martial proficiencies. You would get some more HP as a d10 would replace one of your D4s. (I recommend just using average HPs to eliminate the need to track HP rolls at each level)

Basically, this system would allow experienced characters to pick up a couple of cheap levels of some other class without taking a big hit. It wouild even make multi-classed spellcasters more viable. For instance, with 45,000 XP, you could have a fighter/wizard 5/5 (according to the RAW) or 7/7 according to this variant.

The biggest problem would be prestige classes as they usually have abilities that are much better than a 1st level base class. However, I don't really like prestige classes anyways and would happily get rid of them. The other problem I see is people who go crazy and take 5 different classes. But maybe the default multiclassing penalties would be enough?

So, tell me how terrible these rules are and what sorts of abuses I can expect from my players.

 

[Brain]

I'd expect people to take 1-2 levels of classes just to pick up class abilities and feats. I'd imagine lots of people would take one level of cleric to get spells and domain abilities. One level of Sorcerer would also be popular. Also the first few levels of fighter, barbarian, rogue, monk, paladin, ranger, or even bard might get cherry-picked.

This is an interesting vision of how gestalts might fit in. Maybe if you limit the multiclassing to one other class it wouldn't be so bad.

 

[the Jester]

That's kinda similar to the 1e/2e multiclassing system. The 3ed multiclassing system is, imho, one of the greatest improvements to the game.

What do you see as the advantages or doing it this way? Also, in your example of the fighter/mage, why would you gain more skill points? (Both get 2 sps/level.)

 

[Sadrik]

Let me get this right. Your 7/7 fighter/wizard would be:
would be 14th level with skill points.
would be 14th level with feats.
would be 14th level with ability boosts (every 4th level).
would be 7th level with BAB.
would be 7th level with saves.
would be 7th level with hit dice (and hit points).
would be 7th level with spells.
would be 7th level with maximum skill ranks (10).
would be 7th level with class abilities.

And this compares to a single classed 10th level character. Hmm, I think I like it. 1st edition style multi classing with 3rd edition sensibility.

I think adding some sort of virtual level thing to limit the 14th level things to 10 somehow would be beneficial.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I think adding some sort of virtual level thing to limit the 14th level things to 10 somehow would be beneficial.

Tie it into the Gestalt variant-- whatever class level you just took is Gestalted to the corresponding character level. If you're a Wizard 5 who takes a level of Fighter, your first level changes to Wizard/Fighter 1. If you're a Wizard 7/Fighter 4 and you take a level of Rogue, you become a Wizard/Fighter/Rogue 1, Wizard/Fighter 3, Wizard 3.

Might mean you have to do frequent reconstruction to reflect class skills and additional retroactive skill points, but it'd be a sort of "best of both worlds" solution between 2e and 3e multiclassing.

For your ability score increases, I would suggest that they be based only on your highest class level, so that it does not grow out-of-hand, and provides a slight disincentive towards excessive multiclassing. (The Gestalting would help with that too, since a lot of class benefits overlap.)

 

[orangefruitbat]

Yes, I imagine how this would be. But you bring up some excellent concens about ability boosts and extra feats. I'm all in favour of extra feats, but multiclassing shouldn't be how you do it - unless you take levels in fighter, of course

Probably the best way to do it is to have an 'effective' character level that is the same as a single-class character of the same XP total.

Let me get this right. Your 7/7 fighter/wizard would be:
would be 14th level with skill points.
would be 14th level with feats.
would be 14th level with ability boosts (every 4th level).
would be 7th level with BAB.
would be 7th level with saves.
would be 7th level with hit dice (and hit points).
would be 7th level with spells.
would be 7th level with maximum skill ranks (10).
would be 7th level with class abilities.

And this compares to a single classed 10th level character. Hmm, I think I like it. 1st edition style multi classing with 3rd edition sensibility.

I think adding some sort of virtual level thing to limit the 14th level things to 10 somehow would be beneficial.

 

[orangefruitbat]

I agree that the 3rd edition multiclassing is the best iteration yet in that it provides consistent rules and more flexibility over previous verisons. However, it still has trouble in certain areas, particularly with spellcasters.

Another advantage is that it allows high level characters to become more well-rounded in inexpensive ways. An 9th level wizard who decides that maybe learning some fighting skills would be useful is now looking at only investing 1000 XP, rather than 8000 XP. So you could put your character through 'boot camp' quickly. Relates to this is that low levels of skills/abilities are cheap, but high levels are expensive. So getting a d6 sneak attack is only a matter of 1000 XP, but getting 3d6 SA costs much more. A ranger 3/rogue 3 would have lots of low-ranked skills, but these skills would be capped at 6 (even if class skills for both). A rogue 5 could have them at 8.

In short, this system becomes a "poor-man's point buy" that still uses levels.

That's kinda similar to the 1e/2e multiclassing system. The 3ed multiclassing system is, imho, one of the greatest improvements to the game.

What do you see as the advantages or doing it this way? Also, in your example of the fighter/mage, why would you gain more skill points? (Both get 2 sps/level.)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I agree that the 3rd edition multiclassing is the best iteration yet in that it provides consistent rules and more flexibility over previous verisons. However, it still has trouble in certain areas, particularly with spellcasters.

Yeah, this system would add a layer of complexity, but would pretty much nail the problem with multiclassed spellcasters-- they're still weaker than normal casters, but not nearly to the extent that they are in the rules-as-written.

I might use it myself, but I'm already using the Gestalt rules in my campaign.

 

[Raging Epistaxis]

A very interesting concept. I may have to yoink it.

Also, I'm a bit fuzzy on the Gestalt rules - can someone point me to the source?

Thanks

 

[Terath Ninir]

It sounds horrid at first reading.

It sounds interesting but horribly unbalanced at second reading.

After reading the comments, and doing a third reading, it looks intriguing and quite possibly good.

Prestige classes wouldn't be hard to deal with -- you have them stack onto whatever main class they come from. A 7th level cleric going into Radiant Servant of Total Munchkinizing class would do so under the RAW, so it would cost 7,000 xp for that level. If she then picked up a level of fighter, that would cost her only 1,000 xp.

I'm sure there are a number of issues you'd have to iron out as you went along, but this actually seems like a pretty decent -- and very original -- idea.