D&D 3E/3.5 [D&D 3.5e] 1st Level Multiclass Characters?

[reverendkeith]

The D&D 3e DMG had a variant for running 1st Level Multiclass Characters on pages 40-41. I can't find that variant in the 3.5e PHB or DMG.

Am I missing it, or was this option removed for 3.5? If so, why?

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

It was removed.

I don't personally know why, but in my opinion, those rules were unbalanced.

 

[Thanee]

Unbalanced? How so?

Once you reached 2nd level they are exactly the same as if you just started with one class and added another. It's just nice for the character background to have both aspects included.

Bye
Thanee

 

[the Jester]

The apprentice level rules were removed because they're a holdover from 1e/2e multiclassing rules that don't fit cleanly with the 3e system.

I too found them unbalanced; it's pretty easy to make an apprentice-level character better than a 1st-level single-classed character (imo).

 

[reverendkeith]

I too found them unbalanced; it's pretty easy to make an apprentice-level character better than a 1st-level single-classed character (imo).

That sounds like a problem for first level characters... but surely this isn't a problem once people reach second level, right?

 

[Gez]

I kinda liked it. In fact, I've defined the 0.5th level of all character classes.

This allows both 1st-level multiclass, and apprentice-level characters.


Imagine you want to play a future arcane trickster. Rogue/Wizard.

You start rogue, gain a few XP, want to multi in wizard; and there the DM says "no way, where did you learn magic?"

 

[the Jester]

That sounds like a problem for first level characters... but surely this isn't a problem once people reach second level, right?

No, but at first level, when pcs are starting off from a relatively even plain, I think it's unfair.

My main objection to the apprentice-level rules is one of taste; as I said, I think it's a holdover from the older (broken) 1e/2e multiclassing system. My longstanding ruling in 3.0 was that I'd let players use it, but they always had to keep the two classes they apprenticed in within one level of each other, and higher level than any other class.

 

[Thanee]

No, but at first level, when pcs are starting off from a relatively even plain, I think it's unfair.

Hmm... what about Barbarians? Do you think they are unfair, too, because they are usually "better" than any other first level character?

The class system is roughly balanced over 20 levels, not over each individual level.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Gez]

I fail to see how it allows "better" characters.

A barbarian/sorcerer will have 12 hit points and two spells a day. Great. He won't rage, though, and his BAB will be 0. Are one detect magic and one magic missile worth a rage and a constant +1 bonus to attack?

Apprentice rogue don't get sneak attack. Apprentice cleric don't get turning. Etc.

 

[the Jester]

Hmm... what about Barbarians? Do you think they are unfair, too, because they are usually "better" than any other first level character?

Actually, I'd argue that a 1st-level barbarian isn't better than other 1st-level characters. The thing that makes the apprentice-level characters 'better' at 1st level (imho) is the combining of abilities a straight 1st-level pc can't have. For instance, a barb/wiz apprentice-level pc may not be able to rage, but if his main focus is going to be wizard and she starts off with 12 hp... well, that's an unfair advantage (imo).

Granted the difference isn't much, but like I said, my primary objection is one of taste. On the other hand, I've always found the ease of slipping more classes on like boots to be a little weird, at least in the case of classes like wizard and monk. But the convenience it gives pcs when it comes to customizing their characters is high enough to override my issues with it. With apprentice level rules, a pc gets a short-term boost that doesn't have any lasting effect on the character- it's just a step up for a little while.