Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Spatzimaus" data-source="post: 2784943" data-attributes="member: 3051">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.</blockquote>

Verification