Curbing Multi-classing

[airwalkrr]

One of the things that has always irritated me about 3rd edition is its tendency to encourage multi-classing. For one, it's a way to artificially inflate your saving throws up. Compare a Bbn3/Ftr3/Rgr3 to a Ftr9: +9/+3/+3 vs. +6/+3/+3. Everytime you take on a new class you get a free +2 bonus to whatever saving throws are good for that class. For another, some classes, like Fighter, have slump levels, like 5th, where there is virtually no benefit to taking a Fighter level over a Barbarian, Ranger, or Paladin level. It isn't as pronounced among spellcasters, but even they will load up on prestige classes; a level of divine oracle here, a level of loremaster there, a level of fatespinner here. It's kind of a no-brainer when all you lose are familiar abilities.

I've tried to come up with numerous ways to curb it. 1) Prohibiting multi-classing outright, 2) forcing full progression in a prestige class before you may learn another, 3) requiring all classes to be within 1 level of each other. The problem is a lot of these really limit human and half-elf options, which I feel should be one of the strengths of the two races. I actually liked it a lot back in the days when a human could drop whatever he was doing and pick up another class he had the prime reqs for. In fact, I usually house-ruled that they didn't lose ALL their previous class abilities until their were even (fighters multi-classing into mage had it tough that way). But with the present system, multi-classing is out of hand.

Here's my current idea to limit some of the gross benefits of multi-classing. Tell me what you think.

When multi-classing, for determining base attack modifiers, you add up the levels of all the classes that have a one type of base attack and add to your base attack based on the strength of each set of classes, rather than following the table for each class. For example, a character 3rd-level Fighter/2nd-level Rogue/3rd-level Cleric has 3 levels in a class with a good base attack and 5 levels in classes with an average base attack. This character would add +3 to his base attack for the Fighter levels and +3 to his base attack for the Rogue and Cleric levels.

Base saving throws are calculated in a similar way. For each saving throw, you add up all the levels of classes that have that saving throw as a good saving throw, then compare that to the chart in the PH for a good saving throw and add that to your base save. You do the same for all classes that have that as a poor saving throw. The character in the example above would add his Fighter and Cleric levels together to get a base Fortitude save that a 6th-level character with a good Fortitude save would have, which is +5. A 2nd-level Rogue has no bonus to Fortitude so it adds nothing. This is done for each saving throw. The sample character would have +5/+5/+4 for his saving throws under this system, as opposed to +6/+5/+4 in the standard 3rd edition system.

The difference gets more pronounced the more one multi-classes, so that the benefits of multi-classing rapidly diminish the more classes one takes. For example, a 3rd-level Wizard/3rd-level Cleric/8th-level Mystic Theurge/3rd-level Geomancer under standard 3rd edition rules would have +9/+5/+15 whereas under this new system the character would have +9/+5/+10. Also, compare a Ftr3/Mnk3/Pal3/Rgr3 under both systems. Under 3rd edition he would have +12/+8/+6. Under this system he would have +8/+7/+6.

The effect is obviously greater on saving throws and results in a marked reduction in the bonuses to saving throws provided by multi-classing. I don't know if this would be enough of a deterrent to players who like to do it just for the saving throw bonuses and consequently think there's "no reason not to," but I think it's a step in the right direction.

Thoughts?

 

[comrade raoul]

I think the sentiment here is spot on. However, there's a really simple solution that a lot of people use.

The attack and save progressions are actually equivalent to a constant, fractional bonus: a good attack progression (like the fighter) yields a +1 bonus per level; a fair progression (like the rogue) yields +(3/4); a poor progression (like the wizard) yields +(1/2). The save progressions are similar: a good save (like the fighter's Fortitude) yields +(1/2) per level, plus a constant bonus of +2; a poor save (like the fighter's Reflex and Will) yields +(1/3) per level.

So there's a really simple way to calculate attack and save bonuses for multiclass characters: add the fractional bonuses from all of the class's levels, give a +2 to each saving throw if the character has at least one level in a class that provides a good progression in that save, and you're set.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

Sorry, I think the sentiment is off...

To me, the best part of 3.X was the multiclass rules. Can you get an higher save than by going single class? Sure.. but what happens to the rest of your abilities? Taking multiclass to the farthest extent results in a jack of all trades and master of none.

Ways to limit multi-classing are already in the rules, XP penalty for classes not within 1 level of each other {except any favored class}. PrC's have always been DM option to allow. Most have roleplaying aspects for joining, like seeking out a guild or something.

I do, however, use a HR that you must take at least 2 levels in any class.. mostly a hold over from when the Ranger was to front-loaded that everyone took 1 level.

I would also use the fractional save progression if E-Tools supported it


Hm.. maybe the different perspective is from never having a player pay any attention to the save progression when choosing a class.... they are always concerned about how it fits the character.

 

[Aus_Snow]

There's one really easy way to remove the bump, that I use in D&D house rules (and nowhere else):

If there's a +2 at 1st level for any class, make it a +1 instead.


Bear in mind that I also use medium save progressions and a whole bunch of other whacky things besides, in that campaign. Like say. . . no favoured classes. So, what's good for me might be awful for you.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think the sentiment here is spot on. However, there's a really simple solution that a lot of people use.

The attack and save progressions are actually equivalent to a constant, fractional bonus: a good attack progression (like the fighter) yields a +1 bonus per level; a fair progression (like the rogue) yields +(3/4); a poor progression (like the wizard) yields +(1/2). The save progressions are similar: a good save (like the fighter's Fortitude) yields +(1/2) per level, plus a constant bonus of +2; a poor save (like the fighter's Reflex and Will) yields +(1/3) per level.

So there's a really simple way to calculate attack and save bonuses for multiclass characters: add the fractional bonuses from all of the class's levels, give a +2 to each saving throw if the character has at least one level in a class that provides a good progression in that save, and you're set.

I actually currently use that rule in my Greyhawk campaign, but for some reason, I just don't like it. It smacks of lacking uniformity or something. Plus, I feel it's equally complicated as the solution I present. On top of that, I require classes to be within one-level of each other. I'm just so sick of multi-classing PCs. The idea of the archetype is gone.

 

[airwalkrr]

There's one really easy way to remove the bump, that I use in D&D house rules (and nowhere else):

If there's a +2 at 1st level for any class, make it a +1 instead.


Bear in mind that I also use medium save progressions and a whole bunch of other whacky things besides, in that campaign. Like say. . . no favoured classes. So, what's good for me might be awful for you.

Yea, I've heard of that one too. I don't like it because it still feels like it allows power-creep. I want multi-class characters to be true hybrids and many of the alternate multi-classing systems that have been suggested over the years seem to lack that.

 

[airwalkrr]

Sorry, I think the sentiment is off...

To me, the best part of 3.X was the multiclass rules. Can you get an higher save than by going single class? Sure.. but what happens to the rest of your abilities? Taking multiclass to the farthest extent results in a jack of all trades and master of none.

I agree with you in theory. Problem is, some characters benefit more than others. I can hardly think of a Fighter I know who hasn't dipped in for two-levels of Barbarian. And two-weapon fighters almost always pick up two levels of Ranger to get some bonus skill points and the Track feat since most people deem it worthwhile to trade a couple hit points for four more skill points, a good reflex save, and a bonus feat (which is one more than you'd get for two levels of Fighter).

For many classes, the jack of all trades and master of none schtick works, like Wizard, Druid, Bard. But that still doesn't seem to deter anyone so either no one realizes what it's like to be a "master" because they've never tried, or they just don't think they are losing out on anything important. Rogues taking two levels of Fighter to increase their combat ability, Bards taking a level of Marshal because there is no reason not to. All these cool prestige classes and expanded base classes add a lot of flavor to the game so I want to allow them, but in practice it just seems like they muddy the waters.

Ways to limit multi-classing are already in the rules, XP penalty for classes not within 1 level of each other {except any favored class}. PrC's have always been DM option to allow. Most have roleplaying aspects for joining, like seeking out a guild or something.

That's never been a deterrent for anyone I know. The XP penalty is fairly easily avoided. Halfing Rogue with a couple levels of Fighter and a couple levels of Ranger. Half-orc Barbarian with a couple levels of Fighter and a couple levels of Ranger. Elven Sorcerer with a couple levels of Fatespinner, a couple levels of Mindbender, a couple levels of Divine Oracle; would be a problem but prestige classes don't count! In Living campaigns, the XP penalty is actually a boon since it allows you to get ahead of the gp/xp curve.

I do, however, use a HR that you must take at least 2 levels in any class.. mostly a hold over from when the Ranger was to front-loaded that everyone took 1 level.

I would also use the fractional save progression if E-Tools supported it

Hm.. maybe the different perspective is from never having a player pay any attention to the save progression when choosing a class.... they are always concerned about how it fits the character.

You have much more role-play minded players than I do. Personally, I think the classes are still too front loaded. Barbarian rage needs to be limited to +2 Str/Con at 1st level and not progress to +4 until around level 5 at least. I don't see a way to fix the Fighter problem of two feats for two levels up front. The +2 save bonus for good saving throws when you take a new class needs to be fixed.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the 3rd edition system, while more fluid than previous editions, which is mostly a good thing, is still not designed with multi-classing in mind. I hate to think about 4th-edition, but when it does come around I really hope they'll pay attention to this issue.

 

[the Jester]

Why not adapt the xp penalty system? For every class beyond the first, you take a 20% (or whatever) xp penalty.

 

[airwalkrr]

Why not adapt the xp penalty system? For every class beyond the first, you take a 20% (or whatever) xp penalty.

It does seem extremely prohibitive. But then again maybe the problem is multi-classing isn't prohibitive enough. It certainly would keep PCs away from it more. Of course, there would have to be the caveat of favored classes not counting.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I'm just so sick of multi-classing PCs. The idea of the archetype is gone.

One simple solution to that: simply eliminate multiclassing from your game, and start developing feats that emulate (on a lower level) the coveted abilities from other classes. Then, when somebody wants to trick out his character with other classes' abilities, he has to do it via feats.

Example: A fighter wants to be able to cast arcane spells.
Minor Arcane Caster [General]
Your magical studies enable you to use arcane spells just like a wizard does.
Prerequesite: Intelligence 13+, Knowledge (Arcana) +4, Spellcraft +4
Benefit: Your knowledge and training grants you the spellcasting abilities of an Apprentice wizard. You prepare spells exactly the same way a wizard does, and cast them with the exact same limitations regarding spell failure chances of worn armor. You have a spellbook with all your known spells, and can record new ones in the book. You start with five 0. level spells and one 1st level spell in your book, and you don’t gain new ones when you advance in levels.
Special: You can choose this feat more than once. Each time, you gain another caster level as if you were a wizard. You also gain a new spell of every spell level you can cast. You don’t gain other benefits associated with wizard levels, like bonus feats. Your caster levels fulfill the prerequisites for metamagic or item creation feats. If your class already grants you arcane spells, you cannot choose this feat.

For apprentice-level spellcasting, refer to the DMG. Set his caster level at 1/2 for tracking his caster level, but at 1 for all level-based spell effects.

That way, you can preserve archetypes and still allow a modicum of customization.