Help me phrase this house rule

[Quartz]

Background: many base classes gain one-off bonuses from high stats - e.g. a paladin's Cha to saving throws, a monk's Wis to AC. This encourages dipping and leads to abuse like Monk 1 / Druid n. With many prestige classes (e.g. duellist) the bonus is the lesser of the stat and the level.

I'm looking to create a rule which says that single-classed characters get the full bonus, but multi-class characters get the lesser of the stat and the level. So a Monk 1 / Druid 10 would only get +1 AC from his Wis bonus. Prestige classes will be cumulative with base classes on a case-by-case basis.

That's a bit of a mouthful. I'm sure you can do better.

 

[Destil]

Wis bonus to AC: For a multiclass monk this bonus can not exceed her monk level. Single class monks are not limited to this restriction.

 

[FireLance]

I think it's better for this to affect both single-classed and multiclassed characters, otherwise you get the odd situation of a 1st-level monk who takes a level in another class suddenly suffering a reduction in unarmored AC.

 

[Nyeshet]

You know, when 3e came out the Ranger was remarkably front-loaded. Much of what he now gets over the first few levels, in 3e he got at first level. Because dipping was a problem, in 3.5e his benefits were spread over the first few several levels.

So perhaps you just need to re-design the classes a bit.

The Paladin gains his Cha bonus initially to just one save (Will, probably, call it Divine Conviction, or something like that). A level or two later he gains it to Fortitude saves, then a level or two later he gains it to Reflex saves.

Monks initially gain only +1 to AC, then at level 2 (or 3) they gain their entire Wis mod to this +1, and thereafter it increases again by +1 at levels 5, 10, etc (as stated for the class).

Try something similar with any other classes you think are in danger of becoming popular dips.

 

[roguerouge]

Keep it simple. Just tell the players that if they want their PCs to dip into core classes, there's a time penalty. So, if you want that level in monk, your PC has to spend a year or so learning the meditation techniques and combat maneuvers. Want that paladin level? Guess you'll have to be a squire for a while. No looking over the wizard's shoulder for a month. Try two years in wizarding academy.

The advantage of this approach is that the player has to square things with the other players, encouraging cooperation. Plus, if they get into doing this, you can have events occur in the PC's lives at a more realistic pace. (Think about what you and your players can do with relationships, investments, and undercover work spanning months and years.)

Sell it as a gesture towards storytelling realism rather than an impediment on power gaming.

 

[roguerouge]

Oh, and item creation would get marginally less annoying for everyone else in the party too.

 

[Simm]

WotC has actually answered the question for you. The blade singer from CW has an ability in that form. the bladesong style says "...A blade singer gains a dodge bonus equal to his class level, up to a maximum of her (sic.) Intellegence bonus."

 

[Piratecat]

Keep it simple. Just tell the players that if they want their PCs to dip into core classes, there's a time penalty. So, if you want that level in monk, your PC has to spend a year or so learning the meditation techniques and combat maneuvers. Want that paladin level? Guess you'll have to be a squire for a while. No looking over the wizard's shoulder for a month. Try two years in wizarding academy.

I'll disagree on this. To me it seems like a problematic approach; either the DM and all the players handwave the time penalty, at which point it effectively is no penalty at all, or it requires a player to drop out of the game for a time while his PC is in school. In either case, it ends up disrupting the campaign for no particular mechanical benefit or penalty.

I'm all for campaigns that stretch out over time. I just don't personally care for mandating that for one member of the group.

 

[Quartz]

WotC has actually answered the question for you. The blade singer from CW has an ability in that form. the bladesong style says "...A blade singer gains a dodge bonus equal to his class level, up to a maximum of her (sic.) Intellegence bonus."

So does the Duellist. I'm looking to extend this to all base classes, unless the character is single-classed.

 

[roguerouge]

I'll disagree on this. To me it seems like a problematic approach; either the DM and all the players handwave the time penalty, at which point it effectively is no penalty at all, or it requires a player to drop out of the game for a time while his PC is in school. In either case, it ends up disrupting the campaign for no particular mechanical benefit or penalty.

I'm all for campaigns that stretch out over time. I just don't personally care for mandating that for one member of the group.

That's a valid criticism. I expressed myself inexactly. The time penalty would apply to all the players and the DM would have talked to the players at the start of the campaign about whether they wanted to try this approach as a house rule.

There's no choice here that doesn't have drawbacks, whether it be the increased complexity but decreased storytelling plausibility of power-gaming or the decreased choices but increased storytelling plausibility of this solution.

Myself, I have no problems with certain cross-classing. If you're playing a ranger, I see no problem with adding levels in barbarian or in fighter. If you're a bard, taking levels in sorcerer shouldn't be an issue. If you're a scout or a swashbuckler, I don't see a real problem with taking a level of rogue. Sorcerer, barbarian, favored soul, bard, ranger and fighter seem like the classes which strain plausibility the least for a PC hero adding a class. (Either they discovered their inner magic/rage/soul/groove/dog person or they just got all this experience fighting would be my rationale.)

But the years of unique training and/or life experience implied in certain classes makes certain leaps implausible from a storytelling perspective in ways that OotS made clear with Elan's attempted wizard level. Rogues, clerics, wizards, druids, and paladins fall into this category for me. Most established religions have procedures to sort out who would be a good leadership figure for their organization and those procedures and training take time (cleric, paladin). A connection to nature is not something that's picked up quickly. Ask any farmer. And acquiring that list of skills that the rogue has access to required a lot of time in the school of hard knocks. And the science of making physics cry "Uncle!" ought to be hard to pick up.

Again, there's some connections that make even these distinctions difficult. I mentioned one above with the swashbuckler, scout, or bard taking a level in rogue. Other obvious counter-examples would be a barbarian or ranger taking levels in druid, or a cleric with domains in knowledge and magic taking levels in wizard. The underlying argument remains, however, that you have a STORY rationale for these new classes.

Again, it's fine if you talk things out with the players before they make critical decisions in character design. And it's important to note that you can still add these classes as a player in one of a few ways. One is to write said years of life experience and training into your character history prior to starting. (I flunked out of wizarding school because I had a bad teacher! If only there was someone in the party who could teach me! That androgynous elf looks like he'd be a good teacher!) Another approach is to multi-class your first level, as it details in the DMG. A third would be to choose to add this level at a time convenient for the rest of the party.

Communication is the key at the outset and throughout. Talk out the story rationale with your players if that's your motive for restricting access to multi-classing.