Curbing Multi-classing

[StreamOfTheSky]

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.

I completely agree. I never just make a "fighter". I have my own vision of how he fights, and to achieve that, it may require levels in fighter/swashbuckler/blade bravo, or fighter/ranger/order of the bow initiate/arcane archer, or whatever else.

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?

Instead of just taking abilities away from the non-spellcasting classes (widely and rightly considered underpowered to spellcasters at higher levels), why not just give them more abilities at mid and higher levels to encourage players to play single class? The fighter especially could use help there.

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.

By taking a level in ranger, you fall behind in the abilities of your bard or rogue class. Being behind a level in access to the next spell level hurts a lot, just ask a sorceror. And yes, the wepon groups system is a pretty good idea.

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.

The reason for 4x skill points at first level is that at first level, your max ranks are...4! And every level after that, +1. If you take the x4 away you make it MUCH harder to keep all the player's important skills maxed, or at least close to max. And, skill rich as the rogue is, he doesn't get enough points to cover all the skills he needs and the party counts on him for (tumble, move silently, hide, spot, search, listen, bluff, use magic device, disable device, and open locks at the bare minimum). The best points per # of class skills class is probably monk. Oh, and as for the max HP at first level, without that, players could very easily die in one hit at first level.
Curiously though, what CR does the DM in that came count you as at third level? The characters sound a little underpowered to be facing CR 3 monsters.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Oh yeh, I forgot to mention training and PrC-style prerequisites, as another of those wacky house-rule kind of things.

I guess they really place a speed-bump on what is (here) a total non-issue anyway.

But that's not why I implemented those rules. Well, not the main reason. Eh, never mind.

 

[airwalkrr]

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.

I didn't mention that as a problem I have with multi-classing because this is very similar to the way I have dealt with it. We use the UA variants and whenever you pick up a new class, you have to spend 2 weeks (at 50 gp/week) to learn each proficiency you didn't have before. Not only that, but you can't learn more weapon proficiencies than the class with the highest number of weapon proficiencies (Fighter, with four). A Fighter/Wizard/Ranger/Cleric still has only four weapon proficiencies. You have to actual spend feats to get more.

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.

You only get max hp and 4x skill points at 1st-level, not every time you take the 1st-level of a new class. Maybe that's what you meant and I misunderstood you though.

 

[airwalkrr]

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.

The developers of 3.5 did a very good job shoring this up in the revision. I think this was more of a problem in 3rd edition than in 3.5. The barbarian for example now has better DR earlier, more impressive rage bonuses at high levels, and gets something nifty at pretty much every level. The Fighter getting access to GWF and GWS helped, albiet not much (I think some feats, like Whirlwind Attack should be available ONLY to a Fighter). My point is, I think the classes are pretty good in their present incarnation. I don't want to tamper with the base classes themselves to much because that tampers with the rest of the game. I'm just looking for a way to fix the multi-classing mechanic.

I think a lot of players got really used to multi-classing in 3rd edition because there were few reasons not to. These players have just developed a bad habit and it's going to be hard to break I fear.

 

[Li Shenron]

I think you'd better stay simple.

1) Jester's suggestion is very simple and therefore it's very good, if your target is to limit the number of multiclassed characters and the number of classes in those few who still multiclass. A PC will either be single class or have two classes one of which is the racial favored class (unless a human or half-elf which will have any two classes).

I like this idea because IMXP up to 2 classes is still a concept choice, but the 3rd class is always a power choice (or an extremely lack of player's creativity if he cannot fit his concept within 2 classes already).

Prestige Classes could follow a different rule if you want.

2) Fractional saves and BAB is fine to fix that small problem, but it's not really needed if you're using option 1.

3) You can otherwise consider putting a limit, a minimum level before you can take a second class (e.g. 5). This doesn't allow some archetypes (you couldn't be multiclass since the start), but will rather force players to make those archetypes with feats skills and other choices. You may rule that the limitation doesn't apply to favored classes.

 

[Cabral]

First, I whole-heartedly disagree with you. Multi-classing is a wonderful and beautiful thing.

That said:
Option 1: Remove Favored Class (/Gasp!) ... Unless you do, it will always be a way to slip in multi-classing without penalty.
Option 2: DM supervision. You're taking a level in Barbarian? Yeah, the fast movement is grea--DENIED! ...

 

[Spatzimaus]

You only get max hp and 4x skill points at 1st-level, not every time you take the 1st-level of a new class. Maybe that's what you meant and I misunderstood you though.

Yes, you misunderstood me. I'm trying to point out that it's very popular to load up a single level of a high-skill class (Rogue or Ranger) at level 1, simply because of the x4 skill payoff, then switch to a less-skilled class with a more steady progression of benefits. If I've got a Wizard 15 who then takes a level of Rogue, he should be exactly as powerful as your character who took a level of Rogue at level 1 before taking 15 Wizard levels. But, under the current system, you're far better off one way than the other.

The reason for 4x skill points at first level is that at first level, your max ranks are...4!

Circular logic. I could just as easily say that the max rank is (level+3) because you get 4x skill points at level 1. (In fact, I'd say that direction makes far more sense.) If you remove the x4, then you can remove the +3 on max ranks.

Oh, and as for the max HP at first level, without that, players could very easily die in one hit at first level. Curiously though, what CR does the DM in that came count you as at third level? The characters sound a little underpowered to be facing CR 3 monsters.

Three things to remember:
1> There's no such thing as a level 1 adventurer, so the 1-hit-kill problem doesn't exist. Adults start at level 3 (a level 1 person is a child), which makes them MORE survivable than a 3E level 1 character, especially if you've got a CON bonus. Even with a d4 hit die and no CON mod, you'd still average 7-8 HP.
2> You're losing three skill ranks off each skill, assuming you kept all your key stuff maxed. Some skill DCs were tweaked as a result, but not many.
3> We didn't change CRs. Remember that the enemies you face suffer the same limitations, so in most cases, both sides lose 6, 12, 18, or 24 skill points, and somewhere from 1.5 to 5.5 HP. Nothing else changes; you still have the same BAB, saves, class abilities, and so on.
The differences come when you've got an animal/beast that only gets 1 skill point per level, where the player's drop starts to make a real difference. And there, we had a different rule to compensate; each race had a small "racial skill" list, and received 1 racial skill point per die that could be spent on those skills, even going above the normal max skill rank (effectively making the max (level+1)). So that helped make up for the loss of skill points earlier; by level 20, everyone had more skill ranks than under the old system, except Rogues.

 

[Fighter1]

Here are my top five hose rules (usually applies to PrC's more than anything):

Pre-Approval
#1 All PrC’s and non-core book core classes require pre authorization by the DM; period.

#2 One PrC per PC:
PrC’s are supposed to be just that; PRESTIGE classes; there is an organization, club or very specific attribute to the class that makes it special in some way. You can’t have two of those.

#3 You have to be of a certain level
In mind to achieve a PrC one must elevate oneself to a “master” or sorts; that does not come easily. Level 8 to 10 is a good starting point before allowing any PrC’s (many already require BAB’s of that or skill point levels that require that level anyways).

#4 Relationship
All classes a PC takes must have a theme; in other words the player has to give me a reason why his PC would do such a thing. For example why would a fighter want to take on Legendary Leader as a PrC. There are lots of reasons but the player needs to tell me, in writing, and I’ll hold him to that logic.

#5 Enforce the rules
Most PrC’s have an organization, code, etc. that they are answerable to. Enforce those rules be they mechanical or role playing. Many munchkins take on PrC’s with role playing requirements because they think it is a cheap way to maximize and they won’t really have to follow the PRing rules; in my game they would be very wrong. Kensai is a fine example as is Knight Protector; enforcing those rules as you would a Paladin’s code. Those classes with an organization; most organizations ask something of their members at times…that comes into play as much as is reasonable – and the PC is obligated to comply (or be cast out!).

 

[Spatzimaus]

#2 One PrC per PC:
PrC’s are supposed to be just that; PRESTIGE classes; there is an organization, club or very specific attribute to the class that makes it special in some way. You can’t have two of those.

I hear this one come up a lot, and I'd never consider using it. It's just the exact same rant against multiclassing that started this thread, with only a cosmetic change.

If every PrC corresponded to a restrictive organization, then maybe I'd consider this sort of limit, but most don't. There are many 3- or 5-level PrCs that are intended to flesh out some aspect of a class at the cost of others. Druid classes that improve the wildshaping at the cost of spellcasting, or Barbarian PrCs that improve the Rage, or countless Wizard PrCs that force you to sacrifice the bonus feats. In these cases, it makes perfect sense that you'd mix and match, in the same way you can mix most core classes. Forcing someone to take all 10 levels of a PrC is just the same as forcing them to take 20 levels of a core class; sure, it solves some balance headaches, but it makes things far more boring.

For instance, IMC my Psion took part of a 5-level PrC that improved his ability to make items with his magic (not just enchantment, I mean getting better effects out of spells like Fabricate) at the cost of raw spellcasting power. Very specialized, and not something you'd even want to force someone to take all five levels of, since it's a net decrease in power. Then, there's always the question of what do you do if you actually COMPLETE a PrC? If I entered a PrC at level 7-8, and took 10 levels of it, what do you do for those last couple levels? Go back to a core class? A second PrC would make more sense in many cases, as long as it didn't drastically change the "theme" of the character.

Now, the real complaint seems to be people who stack up one or two levels of front-loaded PrCs in the same way you can with core classes; since PrCs can't cause a multiclass XP penalty, it's not like there's much of a downside. But as I've said in other threads, the real problems with PrCs boil down to two things:
1> Many PrCs are front-loaded. Keep things this way, and you'll end up with the same sort of situation you see with the non-caster core classes. (The better PrCs give mostly level-scaling abilities, with the first "big" ability coming at level 5 or so.)
2> Most just don't have any downside as you go along, instead opting for a hefty entrance requirement. The fallacy here is that with tons of splatbooks available, you can ALWAYS find a PrC whose requirements include things you've already taken. At that point, you're looking at a pure gain. (For example, it's not too hard to be a Shadowdancer, Assassin, Horizon Walker, etc., since their requirements are things many people take anyway.)

IMO, the simplest solution is that PrCs should never just be accepted as-is; the DM should evaluate each before the player can take it. Does it give the character too much power? Does it conflict with the politics/mythology/geography established for his world? Would it force the campaign to follow a certain path, something the other players might not want? And most importantly, does it fit the established theme of the character (or is he just taking it for a cool class ability)? So, when a player IMC wants a PrC, he shows it to the DM at least a couple levels in advance, and between them, they tweak it into something both are happy with. It's worked beautifully, and many characters end up mixing two or three PrCs into a distinct character concept.

 

[airwalkrr]

I'm beginning to like the idea of a multi-class XP penalty more and more. I've been thinking about it and it has two advantages. 1) Believability. It makes sense that it would be harder to split your time keeping practiced in two different disciplines unless your race has that kind of acuity for that class or multi-classing in general. 2) Simplicity. Though it changes the nature of multi-classing immensely, mechanically, it is a very minor adjustment.

Here are my thoughts on how to use it. Each base class beyond the first imposes a 20% XP penalty. Favored Classes don't count. Each prestige class beyond the first also imposes a 20% XP penalty. This would keep multi-class characters a bit lower in level than everyone else (a discouragement not to go overboard) and help restore the archtypal feel that I believe the current incarnation of D&D is sorrowfully lacking.