As I recall, the 1Ed/2Ed multiclassed PCs tended to lag about 2-3 levels behind in a given class as compared to their single-classed compatriots...again, as someone pointed out, partly due to the non-unified XP charts for the classes.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D 1E Gestalt for 1e/2e feel
- Thread starter Humanaut
- Start date
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Yes, that's how I recall it as well (and I hardly played, so it's not much of a recollection). That said, I also distinctly remember the paltry differences in level making multiclassing a no-brainer decision if it didn't stretch your stats too thin (or if you really wanted to play a human).
To the OP: Is the goal of this a 2E feel, but better balanced? Or are you planning to do it "true 2E style," with demi-human level limits and other "godawful ideas that should never, ever see the light of day ever again" for your leveling scheme?
Sempronius
First Post
What's wrong with level limits?
I know they should never have been implemented like that, but they were still an awesome idea.
f I were to run a 2e game, or a 2e:d20 game, I would keep the level limits, but in this manner:
Every race can advance in any class, except paladin, but: Any class not allowed to a given race in 2e will only advance to level 5. Every other class will advance to level 15, and each race can reach any level in their favoured class.
This stops humans from being able to reach any level they want, while others cannot. It allows everyone to advance to whatever level they want in their racial favoured class (and for dwarves, I would change it to fighter), so humans can reach whatever level they want in one class, and only 15 in any other class (through dual classing of course.)
Anyway.
Another stupid idea brought to you by Sempronius.
[edit]
Or, instead of lmiting races to level 5 in barred classes, you could demand they require double the XP. This represents the fact that the race for some wierd arcano-biological reason finds it innately hard to belong to those classes and requires so much more effort to get the same experience (level) out of it..
[/edit]
I know they should never have been implemented like that, but they were still an awesome idea.
f I were to run a 2e game, or a 2e:d20 game, I would keep the level limits, but in this manner:
Every race can advance in any class, except paladin, but: Any class not allowed to a given race in 2e will only advance to level 5. Every other class will advance to level 15, and each race can reach any level in their favoured class.
This stops humans from being able to reach any level they want, while others cannot. It allows everyone to advance to whatever level they want in their racial favoured class (and for dwarves, I would change it to fighter), so humans can reach whatever level they want in one class, and only 15 in any other class (through dual classing of course.)
Anyway.
Another stupid idea brought to you by Sempronius.
[edit]
Or, instead of lmiting races to level 5 in barred classes, you could demand they require double the XP. This represents the fact that the race for some wierd arcano-biological reason finds it innately hard to belong to those classes and requires so much more effort to get the same experience (level) out of it..
[/edit]
Last edited:
Humanaut
First Post
I too remember multi-classed PCs being about 2-3 levels behind. Which is OK in my book since you have the extras of other classes. If they get 5 HD behind, their HP may just get them munched. Which I'd hope to avoid as something inevitable for them.
As for why, well, there is a certain FEEL about the old multiclass system that really made you feel multi-classed and useful, rather than what you get with 3.5. If you have an 8th level party, the choice for multi-class now gives you a 4/4 fairly crippled PC (IMHO) if it's a spellcaster. The old way would net you something like 6/6 and while behind, you still had some good resources to bring to the group. I'd be using old multi-class options for the demi-humans.
Yet you don't want it SO good that it's a no-brainer and everybody multi-classes... so... probably some form of level limits.
In my old games i bumped all demi-human level limits by 4. That seemed to work fine for our group. I like the idea about keeping the favored class unlimited for each demi-human.
Again, we've never breached 15th level, usually somewhere between 12-15 we collectively go "Meh" and start a new game. After the time they get land and "settle down" we move on and they become famous NPCs the new PC's may meet.
This weekend I may crunch some more numbers and see if my main concern (eventual HP lag) can be worked out some way. We game Sunday, so I might not have the time. But... the PCs are in the 10-11th level range...
Thanks everyone for the input!
As for why, well, there is a certain FEEL about the old multiclass system that really made you feel multi-classed and useful, rather than what you get with 3.5. If you have an 8th level party, the choice for multi-class now gives you a 4/4 fairly crippled PC (IMHO) if it's a spellcaster. The old way would net you something like 6/6 and while behind, you still had some good resources to bring to the group. I'd be using old multi-class options for the demi-humans.
Yet you don't want it SO good that it's a no-brainer and everybody multi-classes... so... probably some form of level limits.
In my old games i bumped all demi-human level limits by 4. That seemed to work fine for our group. I like the idea about keeping the favored class unlimited for each demi-human.
Again, we've never breached 15th level, usually somewhere between 12-15 we collectively go "Meh" and start a new game. After the time they get land and "settle down" we move on and they become famous NPCs the new PC's may meet.
This weekend I may crunch some more numbers and see if my main concern (eventual HP lag) can be worked out some way. We game Sunday, so I might not have the time. But... the PCs are in the 10-11th level range...
Thanks everyone for the input!
Taureth
First Post
I've experimented with this... I thought I was being creative at the time... didn't even know "gestalt" was an official concept! (that's what I get for still using 3.0 manuals and just cherry picking stuff from the 3.5 SRD)
We granted mutli-classers the best of their two classes hit dice, and it seemed to work out fine that way. Yes, the multi-classer is more advantaged initially, but it really begins to even out as the single classers pull ahead as they level up.
It may help to restrict certain class combinations, too.
It may be sort of perverse, but I've never been part of a group that was much interested in playing characters over 12th level. I'm aware, however, that the multi-class character really starts to eat it past a certain point in terms of having to divide experience.
Beyond any mechanical considersations, 3.x m-classing has ever bugged me in terms of story logic (something, I'm afraid, I'm a real stickler about...). The idea that someone just shows up one day with a level in a profession they have demonstrated no previous knowledge or skill in, is really absurd. It takes years of full time study/practice/training to become a first level character in any class, and some (particularly the wizard and monk) much more so than others. These studies and apprenticeships often cost money as well. Sometimes BIG money... at least in my campaigns. Saying you're just hanging out with some wizard in your off hours, or looking over Mialee's shoulder or whatever, doesn't wash with me.
True, dual-classing in AD&D posed the same sorts of questions. But, it was never an issue I had to deal with personally, 'cause no one ever wanted to go through that period of reverting back to 1st level and not being able to use their other classes' abilities, while all of their companions were leveling up. Also, the steep ability requisites often ruled out a fair number of characters from being able to dual class.
We granted mutli-classers the best of their two classes hit dice, and it seemed to work out fine that way. Yes, the multi-classer is more advantaged initially, but it really begins to even out as the single classers pull ahead as they level up.
It may help to restrict certain class combinations, too.
It may be sort of perverse, but I've never been part of a group that was much interested in playing characters over 12th level. I'm aware, however, that the multi-class character really starts to eat it past a certain point in terms of having to divide experience.
Beyond any mechanical considersations, 3.x m-classing has ever bugged me in terms of story logic (something, I'm afraid, I'm a real stickler about...). The idea that someone just shows up one day with a level in a profession they have demonstrated no previous knowledge or skill in, is really absurd. It takes years of full time study/practice/training to become a first level character in any class, and some (particularly the wizard and monk) much more so than others. These studies and apprenticeships often cost money as well. Sometimes BIG money... at least in my campaigns. Saying you're just hanging out with some wizard in your off hours, or looking over Mialee's shoulder or whatever, doesn't wash with me.
True, dual-classing in AD&D posed the same sorts of questions. But, it was never an issue I had to deal with personally, 'cause no one ever wanted to go through that period of reverting back to 1st level and not being able to use their other classes' abilities, while all of their companions were leveling up. Also, the steep ability requisites often ruled out a fair number of characters from being able to dual class.
That never bothered me.
I always thought of it as the PC was always studying away in the background at becoming a __________, and finally (when he leveled) had the requisite skill to call himself a 1st level __________.
Perhaps the Barbarian has access to the Thief's "seven bells" suit to practice thievery. Perhaps he's also teaching the mage to fight with something other than a "toosepick." Perhaps during melee practice, the Thief surreptitiously gets the Mage's spellbooks out and quietly reads and learns...
Then, some time down the road, everyone levels, and suddenly the Barb is a Barb/Th, the Mage is now a Mage/Brb (or Ftr), and the Thief is now a Th/MU.
In addition, it could even be that the person in question was drawn to more than one profession (class) before becoming an adventurer, and already had some skills, and merely continued learning, albeit at a slower rate...until they applied themselves with renewed vigor to some of those areas they had let lay fallow.
Humanaut
First Post
Using the "old" m-classing I'd for sure use old m-class combos... no Fighter/ barbarians. I'm looking more for visions of elven Ftr/Wiz, or a halfling ftr/ rogue, I have one player who really wants a cleric/ rogue but doesn't want to split his levels with standard rules for m-classing. Stuff like that.
In pre-3.5 games I always had train to gain and if you wanted to Dual Class, your PC was out of the adventure for a time while in "school" and paying hard coin to boot! You just used a different character until they were done. Never was a problem then, so the current leveling up where you just pick a class, any class, kinda stikes me as funny.
I think I'll let the multiclass/ gestalt variant PC get the better of the two HD, being a level or more behind will leave them needing all the HP they can get.
In pre-3.5 games I always had train to gain and if you wanted to Dual Class, your PC was out of the adventure for a time while in "school" and paying hard coin to boot! You just used a different character until they were done. Never was a problem then, so the current leveling up where you just pick a class, any class, kinda stikes me as funny.
I think I'll let the multiclass/ gestalt variant PC get the better of the two HD, being a level or more behind will leave them needing all the HP they can get.
Similar Threads
