Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matrixryu" data-source="post: 5052591" data-attributes="member: 84553">Hmm, that title is a mouthful.I'm about to experiment with something similar D&D 2.0 multiclassing in my 3.5/pathfinder game.  Simply put, this is a way of allowing a gestalt character (with some restrictions) into a normal party, and holding back his level just enough that I believe that it would be balanced.  I'm going to start testing it with some npcs, and I just wanted to share the rules with you guys to see if you have any thoughts on it.Why am I doing this?  I basically don't like how the only way to make hybrid characters in this game is to use the boring hybrid classes like eldritch knight.  Sure, those are good if you only want to be able to stab things and cast spells, but if someone in your group wants to be a bard/duelist without having to spend 10 levels away from being a bard, this is a way of doing it.  This also fixes the problem of 'why is it so much harder for a dragon to take his first sorceror level than a human'.  Instead of stacking the sorceror levels on top of the dragon levels, you count them as a separate experience progression.  (Incase you're wondering, for simplicity I would take away the automatic spellcasting that dragons get and count them all as having a few gestalt sorceror levels in my system.)Here's how it works.  The class combination uses standard gestalt rules, except for one thing: the two class sets must be unrelated.  The idea is that your second class is something completely different from your first class, and that's why it is easier to learn those abilities.  That means the abilities won't 'stack'.  So, you can't be a fighter/monk and gain a ton of feats since they stack.  You can start as a fighter/rogue, but you can't change it into a rogue/assassin later on to gain double sneak attack.  You also can't use combination classes like Eldritch Knight in one progression if it is in any way related to the classes in your other progression (I would consider banning it outright for simplicity).The other rule is that you have to pay full experience points for both class progressions.  That means if a normal character has to have 21,000 exp to reach level 7, you have to have 42,000 divided between your two progressions.  That means a Fighter/Rogue wouldn't reach level 7 until the other players were more than half way through level 9 using the standard D&D experience system.  When the Fighter/Rogue is level 15, the other characters would be level 20.Also, a multiclass player character, for simplicity sake, has to pay equal points into both of his experience progressions.  Things get crazy if you let a level 10 rogue suddenly decided to spend what would have been the exp on level 11 to gain his first 5 fighter levels (4 bonus feats).Here's an example of how this would balance out.  Let's compare the lvl 7 Fighter/Rogue to a normal Rogue at level 10 (technicaly speaking, they would spend a fight or two at lvl 7 and 9, but more time would be spent at 7 and 10).  The Fighter/Rogue would have the same BAB, 7d10 hit points vs the rogue's 10d6, and have 1d6 less sneak attack, two fewer rogue abilities, 1 fewer leveling bonus feat, and 1 ability score boost.  In trade, he got 4 fighter bonus feats.  Also, a Fighter/Rogue would have saves of +5,+5,+2, as opposed to a normal rogue's +3,+7,+3, and would have the skills of a level 7 rogue.Honestly, I think this works out rather well.  The only problem that comes up for the multiclass character is that he might have trouble with high level skill or caster checks unless he has a few feats or abilities to boost them.  The multiclasser might fall too far behind in epic levels...but I don't think many people would run into that problem.  Also, this might not work for groups which are using non-standard experience progressions.Of course, I'm sure that there must be some way to abuse the system.  That's why I'm posting this here, I'm interested in hearing what other people think about this.  I haven't let any of my players use it yet, but I'm going to try making an npc or two using the rules soon for testing purposes.</blockquote>

Verification