"Modding" classes vs multiclassing

[Desdichado]

So...

Last night I was rereading some portions of Arcana Unearthed looking at some of the classes. In particular, I was taking a second look at the Unfettered as a potential inclusion in my low magic homebrew, for which I want more variety in core classes since I've tried to take out a lot of the spellcasting classes and replaced with the Midnight magic system.

I really like that class. It occured to me, though, that it really isn't too much different than a Fighter multiclassed with a Rogue. Sure, the Unfettered cleans up a little bit from that option; doesn't waste things on class abilities like Heavy Armor Proficiency that you'll never use, etc., but a 20 level progression alternating between Fighter and Rogue gets you something that's really, really darn similar to the Unfettered.

Despite that, I really prefer to use the Unfettered for that type of character, because it just feels cleaner, neater and leaner than multiclassing. It also occured to me at that point that I prefer alternate or "modded" core classes to get exactly the concept I want from the get-go rather than multiclassing.

Of course, the DMG (3.0 at least; I don't know what 3.5 says) talks a bit about modding classes, and even gives a pretty good example with the Witch class, but despite this "official" stamp of approval, it seems there's some reluctance amongst many folks to mod classes, in part because of the multiclassing possibilities.

I clearly prefer to mod or use alternates (Midnight's got great alt.rangers and alt.monks, for instance) but what do you prefer to do, and why?

 

[TwoSix]

Outside of the fighter and the rogue, I don't feel the core classes do offer enough flexibility to build the character concept you want, even with multiclassing. Multiclassing seems to be most useful for qualifying for prestige classes. I've been using several more flexible core classes, in my campaigns, such as BotR's Holy Warrior and the Totem Warrior from AU. I've also made a few custom classes using Character Customization from Throwing Dice Games, which is a really good product for deciding how much to change for different character classes. I've found CC to be especially good for players who are a little more reluctant to change, since it builds off the base classes and uses easy formulas to add or subtract class changes. I don't know why, but every roll-player in my group is comforted by tables, even on a PDF supplement.

 

[Psion]

I am not adverse to modding, but won't mod a class if it is a severe mod or would essentially be replicated by multiclassing. I limit modifications to one or two class features at the most.

 

[Tonguez]

My houserule is that every Level 1 class ability is a feat and can be swapped out and around for any other feat and/or level 1 class ability - after that its DM discretion

 

[BrooklynKnight]

Wouldnt it be DM Discretion from the getgo? Since its in your game?

 

[Umbran]

I clearly prefer to mod or use alternates (Midnight's got great alt.rangers and alt.monks, for instance) but what do you prefer to do, and why?

I generally prefer to follow a principle of least action. If one doesn't need to change or modify to get the basic desired effect, then you don't change things. If the system works as-is, fixing it isn't your best option.

In addition, the "neater, cleaner" argument doesn't do much for me. From what I've seen, most modified classes are too neat and too clean. I haven't seen UA, but we'll take this Unfettered as an example. You say that in the long haul, the Unfettered is very much like a fighter/rouge multiclass. But the Unfettered has lost some baggage it doesn't need, like the heavy armor proficiency.

But hold on a second. Your typical fighter has proficiency with all armors, and all but exotic weapons. But typically, he only uses one type of armor, and only a couple of different weapons. Does he get to toss out the feats he doesn't need and replace them with other stuff he does want? No. He's stuck with a bit of ability he won't use. Why should the Unfettered get precisely what he wants, when the fighter doesn't?

 

[Tsyr]

My standing policy on classes is "Don't see what you want? Talk to me."

Works good.

Plus, I'm quite liberal on allowing new classes... They have to go through me, to make sure they fit my world and seem balanced, but I won't dissallow one just because it's not Core WotC or I never thought to use it. And if it doesn't fit my world is unbalanced, but you really want to play it? I'll work on it to come up with something close to what you want that does fit my world and seems balanced.

 

[drnuncheon]

But hold on a second. Your typical fighter has proficiency with all armors, and all but exotic weapons. But typically, he only uses one type of armor, and only a couple of different weapons. Does he get to toss out the feats he doesn't need and replace them with other stuff he does want? No. He's stuck with a bit of ability he won't use. Why should the Unfettered get precisely what he wants, when the fighter doesn't?

Hence the Warmain, which does the same for the other major fighter archetype - the heavy-weapons, heavy-armor "tank".

The Unfettered and Warmain were not primarily designed to be used in addition to the Fighter, they were designed to (when taken together) replace the Fighter.

J

 

[Desdichado]

But hold on a second. Your typical fighter has proficiency with all armors, and all but exotic weapons. But typically, he only uses one type of armor, and only a couple of different weapons. Does he get to toss out the feats he doesn't need and replace them with other stuff he does want? No. He's stuck with a bit of ability he won't use. Why should the Unfettered get precisely what he wants, when the fighter doesn't?

That's the point, isn't it? A fighter/rogue multiclass, because of his "baggage" isn't as powerful as a fighter or a rogue straight-class because much of what he picks up is useless and makes lots of sacrifices for his flexibility.

The Unfettered, on the other hand, is balanced with both the fighter and the rogue, while incorporating many of the best features of both. Multiclassing tends to make you less powerful.

Not that that's a reason to do it (well, it is, but it's not really an important one). Clearly if a modded or alternate class is more powerful than a core class, then you have a problem, but I don't believe the Unfettered is, it's just got a different focus.

Also, what drnuncheon said.

 

[Tsyr]

That's the point, isn't it? A fighter/rogue multiclass, because of his "baggage" isn't as powerful as a fighter or a rogue straight-class because much of what he picks up is useless and makes lots of sacrifices for his flexibility.

The Unfettered, on the other hand, is balanced with both the fighter and the rogue, while incorporating many of the best features of both. Multiclassing tends to make you less powerful.

Not that that's a reason to do it (well, it is, but it's not really an important one). Clearly if a modded or alternate class is more powerful than a core class, then you have a problem, but I don't believe the Unfettered is, it's just got a different focus.

Also, what drnuncheon said.

And I think you have hit the crux of the arguement right on the head. Multiclassing has a tendancy to weaken a character in comparision to a single class characters.

For example, a bard 1/cleric1/druid1/monk1/rogue 1/sorcerer 1/wizard 1* still has a base attack of 0. Why? Gamistic flaw that none of these classes get an advancement at level 1. Despite having adventured for 7 levels, this character has not advanced once in BAB.

*Yes, I realize such a construct would never see the light of day, and is in fact impossible by core rules (Monks not being able to multiclass and all). It's to illustrate a point.

Similar quirks happen with saving throws too.