[House Rules] Multi-Classing

[Viktyr Gehrig]

So, yeah. Anyone that knows me, knows that the multiclassing rules in Pathfinder are my personal pet peeve and that fixing them is my Great White Whale-- if I die before finding a way to make the Pathfinder multiclassing rules work, my broken spirit will wander the Earth tormenting the living until they accomplish what I could not.

My main complaints are as follows:

• The Pathfinder multiclassing rules do not allow accurate translations of AD&D multiclass characters or allow for effective multiclass spellcasters outside of very narrowly supported Prestige Class builds.
• The Pathfinder multiclassing rules encourage dipping for 1-2 levels in many different classes, rather than developing in one or two core classes. (This is less of a problem than in 3.X, but still prevalent.)
• The combination of these two complaints leads to the 'class system' not feeling much like a 'class system' at all, but rather like a skill-based building block system with arbitrary prerequisites.

The most obvious solution, as concerns replicating AD&D multiclassing, is to use some variant of the Gestalt rules. I've tried multiple versions of this, and while I think they've been well balanced they've suffered from an even more fatal flaw-- they've been entirely too complicated.

Thus, I've come up with a simpler version:

• You may advance in one or more classes simultaneously, per Gestalt. When you gain a level, you do not select a new class; you automatically gain a level in each of the classes you currently possess.
• Multiclass characters have a Level Adjustment based on the number and type of classes they possess.
• Characters may change classes at any time. Their XP reverts to zero and their Level Adjustment is changed to reflect their new class. Characters gain 1st level class abilities in their new class when they've reached enough XP to reach level 1 with their new Level Adjustment.
• Characters may stop advancing in a class at any time by changing classes and choosing not to advance in one or more old classes, but they lose one level of class features in the classes they have forsaken for each level they gain in their new classes.

Now, I mentioned a Level Adjustment for multi-classing. This is fairly simple. Each base class after the first is +2 LA, while each NPC or Prestige Class is +1 LA. (The former because they have no class features, and the latter because Prestige Classes largely overlap with base classes.) The exceptions to these are 'related classes' and 'racial favored classes', which are base classes that characters receive a discount on, either because of overlap with other similar classes or because their race has a predisposition to that class.

For the racial favored classes, see the 3.X SRD. As a variant, characters may be allowed to select one Favored Class from a list specific to their race.

For the related classes, each class within one of these groups is related to all of the other classes from that group:

• All classes that cast Arcane spells.
• Cleric, Oracle, Inquisitor, Paladin.
• Druid, Ranger. (Reclassified as Primal.)
• All classes that grant psionic powers, plus Monk, Aegis, and Soulknife.
• Ranger, Rogue, Inquisitor.
• Barbarian, Rogue.
• Fighter, Magus.
• Fighter, Paladin, Cavalier.
• Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Ninja.
• Fighter, Aegis, Soulknife.
• Bard, Rogue.
• Various Sorcerer bloodlines attach to different classes.

In addition, there are some rules for combining classes:

• Characters may advance in overlapping archetypes for +1 LA per additional archetype. They gain all of the class features from both archetypes and may use the more favorable version of modified abilities.
• Spellcasters may add +1 Spell Known/level and +1 Spell per Day/level for +1 LA. Clerics and Inquisitors may select an additional Domain, Wizards may specialize in a second school, and so forth. This is included with selecting a secondary archetype.
• Characters who advance in more than one class that grants the same type (arcane, divine, primal) of spellcasting combine their spellcasting progressions, gaining +1 Spell Known/level and +1 Spell per Day/level in the class with the greater progression and combining their class spell lists. (Needs rule for prepared/spontaneous.)
• Psionic characters combine progressions similarly, but I need to work the math out for it.
• Class features that allow spellcasting in armor apply to all spells of the same kind, so multiclass Bards and Maguses gain the full benefit of their class features.

Critiques welcome.

 

[paradox42]

Not so much a critique as a question- but out of curiosity, why is accurate translation of characters from AD&D a problem you need to solve? 2nd Edition was more than 2 editions and 12 years of game development time before PF; I still have my old books but only use them for fluff references these days (2E fluff was pretty good for the most part, particularly with Planescape).

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Largely because that's what formed my impression of what a 'multiclassed character' should look like and all of the modern incarnations just bug me.

 

[Mad Hamish]

I'm not really sure how this works.
Start as a fighter, add Paladin.
you can be a fighter 5/paladin 5 instead of a fighter or paladin 6.
If hitpoints and BAB apply from both classes you're clearly better than the straight level 6 character, even if they don't you're trading 1 level of paladin for 3 feats, weapon mastery etc or 1 level of fighter for spells, divine grace, lay on hands etc.

There's no way that the multiclass character isn't better than the normal character (well maybe a straight caster with something else)

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm not really sure how this works.
Start as a fighter, add Paladin.
you can be a fighter 5/paladin 5 instead of a fighter or paladin 6.
If hitpoints and BAB apply from both classes you're clearly better than the straight level 6 character, even if they don't you're trading 1 level of paladin for 3 feats, weapon mastery etc or 1 level of fighter for spells, divine grace, lay on hands etc.

You get the better from each class, per the Gestalt rules linked above.

A Fighter 5/Paladin 5 would have +5 BAB and 5d10 hit points. He's missing +1 BAB, one Hit Die, saving throw and skill bonuses, and such that the single-classed character would have in favor of extra class features.

There's no way that the multiclass character isn't better than the normal character (well maybe a straight caster with something else)

I'm willing to adjust the numbers. Or eliminate the 'related classes' discount. Compare a Paladin 6 to a Fighter 4/Paladin 4.

 

[BriarMonkey]

Um... No. When you mention that your prior issues with things like house-ruled Gestalt's are too complex, well, you added too complex. As the post prior alludes to - there's confusion in trying to follow your method. I mean, if you have to figure out which class fits into which widget group, and how many levels you've been adjusted, and whether you loose level abilities, but not the actual levels... It's just far and away too much to keep track of. Honestly, I'd never try a multi-class under your system.

As well, I think you are severely limiting yourself by holding to what your image of a 1E multi-class should look like. Why not take a step back and identify what it is that you really want - and go from there.

I will agree that there are issues with the current system - namely if you are a spell caster. After all, that all important caster level is tied to your class level, not your character level, and that means you give up more for a another class than a fighter or another combat type.

For some time, I've been trying to figure out a way to do multi-classing while not penalizing the character so heavily (though, some would argue that is the price of admitance for a wider set of skills). And, for a while I thought Gestalt may work - until I tried to make it work with a test for being single classed, then going Gestalt, then going back to single classed. Yeah, it didn't work. But my basic thought was that single classed characters used the Medium XP track, while Gestalt characters used the Slow XP track. On average, they'd be 1 level behind the single classes.

From there, I've started thinking that mayhaps a character would keep a seperate XP track for each class they had (as opposed to a single XP track for all classes). Thus, they could advance as they wished. Character Level would be the sum of all the XPs. Of course, there should be some synergy between classes as far as certain stackings (like for caster levels), otherwise you've not changed anything at all except book keeping. Unfortunately, this is as far as I've gotten in my work - it hasn't been a high priority as I'm not currently running a game.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

Yeah. Thanks for the feedback-- no more 'related classes'. It's +2 for base classes and +1 for NPC and Prestige Classes.

Beyond that, it's no more complicated than Gestalt and Level Adjustment which are relatively popular rules.

 

[Matthias]

For multi-classing in a d20-derivative game, there is a range of functionality: at the "fancy" end of the spectrum you can create "the perfect multiclass" which really just means you synthesize a whole new base class from two or more existing ones. At the opposite end you have the "cookie cutter" approach which gives us the level-stacking phenomenon that 3E and PF do. The problem with "fancy" multiclassing is that it takes too much work to make and properly balance a class that is unique to the character you intend to use it for. The problem with the "cookie cutter" method is that multiclass characters lose high-end powers for some versatility in middle- and low-end powers. So you might agree, neither extreme is perfect for what you want to do.

A more workable alternative method of multiclassing might be to employ a variant of archetyping, where you attempt to write a new concept-specific archetype for the primary class you want to use, where existing class features are swapped out for some of the features from the secondary (or tertiary, etc.) classes you want to mix up with the primary one. For example instead of a Fighter/Rogue of matched levels, you would swap out a few Fighter class features for some of the Rogue's (of equivalent power and appropriate flavor).

Of course, some of Paizo's published archetypes already do this, so unless your character is pretty unique in what flavor and personality you are aiming to create in the campaign, it may be easier for you to mine some of Paizo's extant publications (especially Advanced Player's Guide, Ultimate Magic, and Ultimate Combat) to find an archetype you really like.

 

[Viktyr Gehrig]

I'm not trying to build a specific character here. I run games more than I play in them. I'm trying to fix a system I think has been broken since 3e came out.

Actually building the character I want to play would be tragically easy, as far as archetyping goes-- I want to play a spontaneous casting Witch with Bardic Knowledge and Expanded Repertoire. Lose the familiar and the 1st level Hex for Bardic Knowledge, then trade Hexes for spells on a 1-for-1 basis.

 

[Mad Hamish]

I really don't see any way this is simpler than Gestalt characters.
I suspect that balancing characters between single classed and this would be impossible (Gestalt has the same issue) and there will be hugely different power levels between different class combinations as well.

Frankly if you want something like the 1st & 2nd ed multi-classes then you'll probably need to design them as base classes somehow.

I'd also recommend that you go back and look at 1st and 2nd ed and see how they actually compare, I suspect that you'll find your opinion of it somewhat different if you look at it now.