Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 2783811" data-attributes="member: 12460">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?</blockquote>

Verification