Curbing Multi-classing

[ARandomGod]

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).

Oh, come one, even if you're not going TWF take at least ONE level of ranger. Not only do you net better saves (your complaint), and a handful of useful skill points, but you can now use wands on the ranger spell list. Which includes Cure X Wounds spells. Cure wands have saved the party's collective buts more times than that PC can count (cause he dumped Int, but still).

Ahem. Anyhow... I don't personally see the multiclassing being all that bad (or all that 'too good'). Certainly you CAN rack up massive saves, but that's only if you're looking to do that specifically, and it generally hurts the PC in other abilities. My Fighter/Ranger/Horizonwalker/ShadowDancer has some good saves, sure, but he's there for the abilities, and at level 9 his base will save is only +1. Of course, overall Fort/Reflex/Will is +9/+6/+1... or +16 total, compared to a monk's save (best straight class in the game) who has +18, well, that's pretty good, only two lower than the monk. Compared to a ranger (the class he most resembles, +15 total) it's still +1 save point more...

However +1 to will saves? Even the will-pathetic barbarian or fighter has a +3 to will by then. A horrible Achilles heel. Surely you can't poison him, but you shouldn't be trying fort saves on a ranger type anyway. And his reflex saves are no better than that of a 'normal' ranger.

He's going to end at level 20 with base saves of +14/+11/+6 (total 31). The character clearly has two strong saves and a weak one. Compare this to a +12/+12/+6 (total 30), the ranger ... Ok, so this massive multiclassed character has one more point of saves than a straight classed one would, and his lowest save is at least that of the ranger class. However for a lot of the formative period of his life he's been even more vulnerable to will saves than 'normal' (He's looking forward to level 10, he'll have +2! Which is where he'll stay until level 13).

Can you get a lot of front loaded saves through multiclassing? Yes. However it's not that much, and you do give up a lot. A fighter dipping in for two levels of barbarian (as you meantioned above)... that nets you +3 total saves, and all on Fort. That fighter doesn't really NEED fort. And he gets +0 in Reflex AND will, the two saves he does need.

A class with one strong save, gets approximately 1.16 save points per level, ignoring level one.

A class with two strong saves get's approximately 1.37, and a class with three strong saves get's approzimately 1.58 "save points.

So for a two level dip into barbarian you're getting three points? That's not much, and you're crippling your will and reflex saves at the same time.

Of course, dipping for a couple of levels into Ranger, that's where you'll reap the "save points", pulling in a whopping 6 save points. Although once again you're crippling your will save. And what are you getting? TWF/Rapid shot? Sure, that's awesome if you want those things... but game-balance wise those aren't really the strongest feats, and you're definitely giving up a lot if those aren't the feats you want.

Dip in for a couple of Monk levels you say? Jackpot! Those saves are awesome. However, now you're not only giving up a BAB, but you're once again restricting yourself in other ways.

Sure you no longer see pure "archetype" characters in non-spellcasting classes anymore. But that's simply because there are more options, not because all those options are innately so much more powerful.

 

[ARandomGod]

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.

Or take it one step further and eliminate classes from the game. Yess... I've seen a lot of people try and pull that one off.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Another solution would be to first list all the archetypes you want present in your campaign, then check which base classes represent those. If you have an archetype you want present, but no fitting base class for it, create your own base class to fill that archetype's role in your campaign.

A combination of base classes filling archetypes and feat-driven customization can work nicely, even if it will drive optimizers among your players through the roof. 3E is the wet dream of D&D tinkerers and optimizers, especially with over 650 "official" prestige classes in existence, plenty of templates, and at least the same number of non-WotC material. If you want to keep archetypes alive, you have to draw a few deep lines for your game, but you can expect to get plenty of protests in that case. Speaking from experience here. :\

 

[ARandomGod]

...especially with over 650 "official" prestige classes in existence, plenty of templates, and at least the same number of non-WotC material.

And lets face it, with those odds it's amazing if you EVER see a single, straight classed "archetype" character.

 

[farscapesg1]

Well, another option is to go with a "training" option. To take a level in a class that you previously didn't have, you need to take time (not always an option in some campaign settings) and spend money. I'm not a fan of training costs for normal levelling purposes, but for learning the skills of a new class they make more sense. The costs would need to increase as the characters advance in levels, representing the characters getting "set in their ways" and not being able to pick up new tricks as easy.

So, start the multiclassing cost at say 2 weeks and 1000 gp at 2nd level. As the characters advance, increase this by 1 week per two levels, and say 200 gp per level.

So, a 1st level Wizard character that wants to take Fighter at 2nd level has to spend 2 weeks and 1000 gp to take this new class.

A 3rd level Wizard that wants to take Fighter at 4th level would spend 3 weeks training, and 1400 gp [1000 (2nd)+200(3rd) +200(4th)]

Now, if you want to make it easier on the Human and Half-elves, you can do two options;

1) Reduce (or eliminate) the training requirements for these races to show their natural ability to pick up other skills and abilities easily.

2) Reduce (or eliminate) the training requirements for favored classes to represent the ease of picking up skills and abilities of the stereotyped races. (my personal favorite of the two options)

Option 2 of course opens the multiclassing options a little more, but it makes flavor sense since they put all those "favored classes" in the races, but don't really play off that ability.

 

[Stalker0]

And lets face it, with those odds it's amazing if you EVER see a single, straight classed "archetype" character.

I think your looking at archetype too narrowly.

For instance, you cited the ranger/fighter. This is an archetype, the adventurer A straight up fighter if you look at him, is basically a straight up army soldier. He is the fighting machine, but put him in any other situation he is useless.

A fighter/ranger is the guy who knows a lot of fighting but knows how to take care of himself. He can survive in the woods, handle a lot of situations. He can't fight quite as well, but he still does a great job. To me, that's a better adventuring class than a straight up fighter.

If you want to limit multiclassing I think the xp penalties are enough. Other than that, let them go with it.


Now, there is one thing I definately agree with you on, a lot of classes don't have enough incentive to stick with them at higher levels. I mean, rage 1/day is great. Rage 2/day is nice. Rage 3/day, alright. Rage 4/day who cares? 3.5 uses linear progressions for abilities when those levels represent exponential temptations in the form of other classes and Prcs.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Sure you no longer see pure "archetype" characters in non-spellcasting classes anymore. But that's simply because there are more options, not because all those options are innately so much more powerful.

And look at it the other way: I have a character concept. None of the core non-caster classes match it exactly, but when I mix and match, I get something close to what I want. Ever play d20Modern? Six base classes, one tied to each stat. I've only rarely seen a person stick with one of the six; mixing is far more common. Why? Because they were never intended to be stand-alone definitions of a character. You can take the same mindset into D&D; mix the "feat class" (Fighter) with the "skill class" (Rogue), with a couple classes heavy on miscellaneous ability (Ranger, Barbarian), and depending on what proportions you use, you can mimic all sorts of character styles. Not everyone has to be lumped into one of a half-dozen standard archetypes.

So, IMO, the real issue isn't the multiclassing itself, it's that the D&D classes are so front-loaded that taking the 1-2 levels gives a huge bonus. d20Modern base classes aren't nearly so bad; you always get feats at the even levels and Talents at the odd levels, so going 2/2/2 isn't any stronger than going six levels in a single class.

Why do so many classes get a good class ability at levels 1-2? Fighters get two Feats (instead of the 1/2 levels they have the rest of the way), Barbarians get fast movement/rage/uncanny dodge, Rogues get Sneak Attack and Evasion... and Rangers are obvious. Remove these, or space them out. If Fighters lost the level 1 Feat, and Barbarian fast movement wasn't until level 3, and Rogue Sneak Attack started at level 3 (i.e., 1d6 less at each step), and Rangers' Track was later, would you still see the same problem?

Why do melee classes get all their weapon and armor proficiencies at first level? If you're playing a Rogue or Bard, just take one level of a full-weapon class (Ranger, for instance) and suddenly your restriction is gone. Armor isn't so bad, since there are practical limitations to keep in mind; Barbarians won't wear heavy because of the movement penalty, Rangers need light for the pseudofeats, and so on.
UA had a better weapon class system; IMC, we use one based on that. Every weapon falls into one of eight or nine categories, with the "Martial Weapon Proficiency" applying to one category. Each non-caster class gains these as they go up, except that IMC we have the "Novice Weapon Proficiency" which acts as a MWP unless you've already gained it from another class. So, all non-caster classes get NWP at level 1, with some (Fighter) also getting an MWP or two early on. Multiclassing, then, doesn't get you many extra proficiencies.

Why does each class get max HP or 4x skill points if it's the first level taken? (That is, how many people take level 1 as a Rogue simply for the massive skill points?) One thing we tried in a campaign of mine was to remove this. All adult adventuring characters started at level 3 (l1 was children, l2 were teenagers/housewives/etc.), but you rolled for all three HP dice (no max die) and got the normal skill points for each level. So, compared to a normal level 1 character, you'd have more HP, fewer skills, more class abilties, better saves, but as a higher level your XP/treasure would work differently.

Bottom line, if you want to change multiclassing to prevent the powergamers from abusing it, that's fine, and there are plenty of ways to do it. Just remember that there are plenty of people who need the multiclassing system to get the ability mix they want, so restricting it too much just makes the game less fun.

 

[Stalker0]

Why do melee classes get all their weapon and armor proficiencies at first level?

Spatzimaus mentioned why do people get good class abilities at 1st level and such. Well, keep in mind not everyone starts their characters at 3rd level and such. 1st level characters need good abilities to survive.

However on the point above I completely agree. By the book, no 1st level character should have the money for full plate. So you could easily make the heavier armor proficiencies a function of 2nd level or even 3rd.

 

[Spatzimaus]

Spatzimaus mentioned why do people get good class abilities at 1st level and such. Well, keep in mind not everyone starts their characters at 3rd level and such. 1st level characters need good abilities to survive.

Fair enough, but there's a bit of circular logic there. First level is tough to survive, so we give you all these abilities, which means the enemies have to be tougher to balance. If you removed some of the level 1 perks, you'd be fine as long as the opponents are balanced to match.

My point was that it isn't even consistent across classes. Compare a level 1 Wizard to a level 2 Wizard. Now compare a level 1 Fighter to a level 2 Fighter. In my opinion, the non-caster classes get too many benefits at level 1 compared to the later levels, while the casters scale up the other direction. So, if you want to argue about how multiclassing is broken, you have to consider the fact that no one's claiming that adding two levels of Wizard to a pure Fighter would break anything.

So, the solution is to rebalance the classes such that each gets a more-or-less constant increase with power across levels. That is, a Ftr 18/Wiz 2, a Ftr 10/Wiz 10, and a Ftr 2/Wiz 18 should all be comparable in power, and also be the same as a Ftr 4/Wiz 4/Sor 4/Dru 4/Rog 4. Under the current system that probably just isn't possible, but changes that'd get you closer to that would be nice.

 

[Herobizkit]

If you ask me, Gestalt rules found in the Unearthed Arcana is the ultimate solution... with a few tweaks.

Have the players pick two core classes. They MUST stick with the two core classes until they are able to prestige. After that point, they can choose to level in a prestige class and one or the other of their core classes.

Personally, I prefer the new multi-classing rules. I would rather have a character that can do a lot of things kinda well than a few things extremely well.

Have you ever looked at Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed/Evoved? That is an excellent alternate Players' Handbook that is fully 3.x compatible (Unearthed 3.0, Evolved 3.5 I think; don't quote me) and encourages characters to stick with one class to 20th level. Each class has stong abilities all across the board, and it's actually worth it to level one class all the way to 20. Multi-classing is still permissible, but one actually misses out on the really good stuff if one does so.

Compare the PHB: Other than the Monk and the Druid (and I suppose the Bard), no class gets any really new or impressive abilities past 10th level. So why bother sticking it out to 20th when you can have all the good stuff in the earlier levels? There's no real motivation (to me, anyway) to make a 20th level Fighter, say. Mages and Clerics, sure... at least they get new and more powerful spells, but really aren't that impressive otherwise.

Anyhow, I'm starting to ramble, but I hope I made my point.