Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="ARandomGod" data-source="post: 1511891" data-attributes="member: 17296">Using fractional BAB and saves is a good rule... As would be stopping the high save bonuses for massive multiclassing. To be honest, I don't see that much of a problem with the save bonus thing, though... I always saw it as making up for the loss of higher level abilities that single class people get. Your proficiencies being set at first level though... really, while I see a realism reason for wanting this, I see it as only limiting roleplayability, character flexibility, and further punishing those who want a character that's not thought all the way out before taking even one level. Want to be a fighter magic user? Well, you've just screwed yourself if you wanted to have started as a mage. Whereas if you started as a fighter, good for you! I see a similiar issue with skill point allocation at first level. IF you EVER want to take even one level of rogue, you're just a moron for not having that be your first level. In fact, you almost may as well throw the character away and start over, it can easily make that much difference.Which is why in my campaigns I rule that if you ever multiclass into a class with a higher base skill point set than any you've had before, you get the difference *4 ... or to say that you get more points to equal if you had started out in the highest skill point class available (And not to say that if you start as a ranger, then goto fighter, then rogue, you get 6*4 +2+ int bonus, you'd get 2*4+6+int bonus, difference of ranger to rogue.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="ARandomGod, post: 1511891, member: 17296"] Using fractional BAB and saves is a good rule... As would be stopping the high save bonuses for massive multiclassing. To be honest, I don't see that much of a problem with the save bonus thing, though... I always saw it as making up for the loss of higher level abilities that single class people get. Your proficiencies being set at first level though... really, while I see a realism reason for wanting this, I see it as only limiting roleplayability, character flexibility, and further punishing those who want a character that's not thought all the way out before taking even one level. Want to be a fighter magic user? Well, you've just screwed yourself if you wanted to have started as a mage. Whereas if you started as a fighter, good for you! I see a similiar issue with skill point allocation at first level. IF you EVER want to take even one level of rogue, you're just a moron for not having that be your first level. In fact, you almost may as well throw the character away and start over, it can easily make that much difference. Which is why in my campaigns I rule that if you ever multiclass into a class with a higher base skill point set than any you've had before, you get the difference *4 ... or to say that you get more points to equal if you had started out in the highest skill point class available (And not to say that if you start as a ranger, then goto fighter, then rogue, you get 6*4 +2+ int bonus, you'd get 2*4+6+int bonus, difference of ranger to rogue.) [/QUOTE]

Verification