Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Matrixryu" data-source="post: 5054113" data-attributes="member: 84553">In real life, maybe. But in D&D, things seem to get harder to learn as you gain experience in them. Your first level costs 1000 exp, and your tenth level costs 10,000. The reason why I came up with this system is because I thought it was silly that an orge or something, would have to pay 10,000 exp to gain its first wizard level. I also would not want that same character to only have to pay 1000 exp to gain his first fighter, monk, or any other martial class because they give a much greater benefit than a wizard level would. Then again, maybe I'm overreacting because it is true that with multiclassing you aren't getting the full benefit of both classes. I just don't want something like a fighter/monk to be able to gain significantly more feats than a normal character of one of those two classes with the same amount of exp, unless having a lower bab seems to balance the cost enough.Edit:  Alright, here we go, I think I've thought of a way that I could allow any class combination.  I believe a good and simple rule of thumb would be that a multiclasser could not get more of something than a base class of his level (that's right, level, not exp).  So, no (10 rogue)/(5 fighter/ 5 assassin)s.  It would be very easy to change a fighter class to an assassin class by level 6 in pathfinder, that's why I'm making the distinction.  Any abilities which exceed the limit simply cease to exist until the character hits a level where he's no longer breaking the rule.  Do you think that works?  This would also stop a level 1 fighter/monk from having twice the feats that a normal level 1 character would, and since the fighter class has the highest feat progression, he would have to eventually change that to another class in order to gain the tons of bonus combat feats that he was getting between the two classes. ----Er, I didn't quote it, but about the thing you said about exp costs. The amount of exp the characters have to pay per level doesn't matter, all that matters is that you scale the cost so that they stay appropriately far behind a 'normal' character. I think that paying full exp with the standard dnd system seems appropriate because exp costs scale with level.  I don't think that making the extra class only cost 50% is good, because when normal charcters are at level 10, the multiclassers would be at level 8.  At that point, a fighter/rogue would have a higher bab and more abilities than a level 10 rogue.  Actually, in gestalt rules you can have only one prestige class at a time in either progression, the other has to stay as a base class unless I'm mistaken. That prevents things from getting too crazy. I do see what you mean though. And you're right, if there is no real downside, why wouldn't all of the characters want to do this? Well, the truth is, a pure fighter or barbarian will always have higher HP and BAB (if you hold the multiclasser's level back, like you should). The most one of these multiclassers could have is bab 15 when a level 20 fighter has bab 20. Spellcasters will have lower level spells and spellcaster checks. If you combine together special ability classes like monk and rogue (or the Shadow Dancer/Assassin example you brought up, even if that is illigal in gestalt rules), you might have trouble hitting anything because you would have bab 11 when everyone hit level 20. At least, that's if you use the experience calculation that I'm using. I'm a little confused, first you say that I'm making the 2nd class cost too much, then you say the combinations are too powerful? I'm not trying to be mean by pointing this out, I'm just wondering which you think it is in this case. Do you think the normal characters would be better, or the multiclassers? I'm aiming for a balance of sorts, and the balance here is that you're basically giving up bab and hit points to get more abilities. The fighter/rogue example had the same bab and hit points as a normal rogue, but had given abilities for a roughly equal number of feats. A player shouldn't be penalized for being either a pure class, or the fancy combination that he has drempt up.  I agree, something simple like that would work much better. I've messed around with it a bit, it is just hard to say how much each ability set is 'worth'. Honestly though, the reason why I'm looking into these fancy gestalt rules is because one of my players wants to be bard/duelist. To me, leveling 10 levels as bard and then switching to duelist seems like it would gimp his character to me, so I've been trying to find a way to combine the two. Unfortionately, it seems like (in pathfinder at least, where there are no 'dead levels') that those two classes are just so ability dense that i'm not sure how to combine them without totally removing key abilities of the classes. That's why I came up with this, and was thinking of suggesting that he try it and start as a bard/fighter multiclasser, and then change to a bard/duelist. He loses some bab and hit points, but gains additional feats and bard abilities in the long run. If you can think of an easy way of combining those classes though, I probably would go with your idea instead though, lol. I just didn't want to have to deal with trying to figure out how many spellcasting levels and songs I would have to remove to give him duelist abilities. Edit:  Wait, I see what you're saying now.  Hmmm, I think that would be hard to balance.  Why be a fighter/wizard with a lot of feats and spells, if you have the bab of a wizard?   Anyway, thanks for taking a look <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I would have replied directly to you too El Mahdi, but I think I also answered your question XD</blockquote>

Verification