Prerequisites for Multiclassing

[Nifft]

It's generally the case that multi-classing happens for two reasons:

1/ You have a weak base class (Ftr), or want to add a bit of a good "mix-in" base class (Rog, Rgr, Ftr). In these cases, multi-classing is making you stronger, and thus might need to be limited -- or at least "qualified for".

2/ You need to multi-class to qualify for a PrC (El.Knight, Dr.Disciple, Ar.Archer, My.Theurge, Ar.Tricky). In this case, the multi-classing is making your character weaker (until you get half-way through the PrC). There should be no penalty in these cases.

So, that's what I was going for when I made my list. It's easy for Wizard to enter Cleric, becuase that's a weak combo. It's hard for Ftr to enter Barb, because that's a strong combo.

I'd suggest that you stay away from "throw away" feats for qualification -- that would make me unhappy as a player, having to waste one of my precious Feats. Skill ranks are less of an issue in that I get to keep them, and if I was going to spend them anyway, it's a bit of a hit (cross-class) up front but then I get paid back later.

-- N

 

[Reynard]

I'd suggest that you stay away from "throw away" feats for qualification -- that would make me unhappy as a player, having to waste one of my precious Feats. Skill ranks are less of an issue in that I get to keep them, and if I was going to spend them anyway, it's a bit of a hit (cross-class) up front but then I get paid back later.

-- N

I see your point, and I think you are right. Feats are a very hot commodity for the player, especially since new ones come out with every publication almost and the number you get is still the same. Skill requirements are probably best if I end up using this at all.

Thanks.

 

[Nifft]

I see your point, and I think you are right. Feats are a very hot commodity for the player, especially since new ones come out with every publication almost and the number you get is still the same. Skill requirements are probably best if I end up using this at all.

Thanks.

Glad to help!

And I'm not warning you away from ALL feats, just throw-away ones -- ones that the class will grant anyway. The example I'd hold out of a "good" Feat choice would be "Weapon Focus" for Fighters. Why? Well, it's not wasted, and it *is* something most Fighters would take anyway, so it won't necessarily feel like a waste. Especially for a Cleric with the War domain, for whom it's a freebie -- but then, that's a very appropriate multi-class, and one that technically weakens the Cleric.

Best, -- N

 

[Andre]

Since no one else has, I'll present an argument against this system. The D&D class system is intended to represent the very things you are trying to impose on characters *before* they acquire the class in question.

IOW, if my concept is a thug, I might design him as a fighter with a couple rogue levels. He knows how to hit people where it hurts (sneak attack), has picked up a few minor skills (hide, move silently, spot). But mostly he beats up people (fighter bab, skill with weapons). A fighter/rogue multiclass fits the concept perfectly. Why should the character be required to spend a feat or skill points gaining the very things the system assumes he'll multiclass for?

D&D is not HERO or Gurps. Classes encompass a number of concepts, including prior training. If you have a problem with players abusing multiclassing, require training time, hiring trainers, and/or roleplaying the acquisition of the class. Imposing an additional mechanical hurdle (beyond what already exists in the rules) is, IMO, unnecessary.

 

[Reynard]

Since no one else has, I'll present an argument against this system. The D&D class system is intended to represent the very things you are trying to impose on characters *before* they acquire the class in question.

IOW, if my concept is a thug, I might design him as a fighter with a couple rogue levels. He knows how to hit people where it hurts (sneak attack), has picked up a few minor skills (hide, move silently, spot). But mostly he beats up people (fighter bab, skill with weapons). A fighter/rogue multiclass fits the concept perfectly. Why should the character be required to spend a feat or skill points gaining the very things the system assumes he'll multiclass for?

D&D is not HERO or Gurps. Classes encompass a number of concepts, including prior training. If you have a problem with players abusing multiclassing, require training time, hiring trainers, and/or roleplaying the acquisition of the class. Imposing an additional mechanical hurdle (beyond what already exists in the rules) is, IMO, unnecessary.

These are good points, and a counter opinion is (almost) always helpful. As I said, it really isn't an issue if you start characters off at 2nd level -- which will encompass most multiclass concepts. I guess my intent was to avoid the situation where the 8th level fighter suddenly decided to pick up a level of Wizard for no other reason than to be able to use a ray wand with his high BAB. But you're right -- any mechanical requirement is ultimately going to result in "wasted" skill points, feats, etc...

Here is the question, then: A player with a 8th level fighter tells you he is going to take a level in Wizard when he hits 9th, despite his character never showing the slightest inclination toward magic or spell casting. You can't really tell him he can't take the wizard level -- it isn't a PrC and therefore isn't 'protected' by DM fiat. What do you do, in conjunction with the player, in order to preserve the continuity and/or versimilitude of the character and the game? What if the player is doing it for what he sees as optimation reasons, as opposed to character ones?

 

[Andre]

What if the player is doing it for what he sees as optimation reasons, as opposed to character ones?

Well, first off there are two reasons why this might be a problem. One is that the rules may make certain combinations much more effective/powerful than others. Certain prestige classes clearly fall into this category. That's why it's perfectly acceptable for GM's to limit some character options up front, or create house rules to correct problems that have occurred in the past.

The second is if a player is using/abusing the rules in a way that affects the other players' enjoyment. My first reaction is to talk to the player. For instance, I have one player who is an expert at getting the most out of a HERO character. He's not trying to overshadow everyone - he just enjoys building characters and sometimes gets carried away. If I see a problem, we talk it out and he goes with a less-optimized build. If I see a potential problem, we'll agree to try it, with the proviso that the character may have to be changed later. So long as players and the GM are open about what's going on, I don't see a problem.

Other times I can deal with the problem within the rules. Another player in my last HERO campaign decided to make all his powers Independent, reasoning that he'd get them all at roughly 1/3 cost. This would, of course, have resulted in an obscenely overpowered character. I pointed out to him that Independent powers are so cheap only if there is real risk that the power can be lost - and I would enforce that limitation. Translation: if he took Independent powers, the villains would figure it out and take his stuff, leaving him crippled as a character. He didn't like that idea and agreed to work up a more reasonable character.

If, OTOH, the GM is simply concerned about a lack of roleplaying in these choices, I don't believe there is one answer that works for everyone. Some players enjoy immersive campaigns, where characters oftentimes make decisions that the player knows will be a mistake, just to stay in character. Other players just want to have fun, overcome challenges, beat on things, with a bit of roleplaying to rationalize their character choices. Many are somewhere in between. Either play style is acceptable, but I'm not sure how far a GM can go in encouraging the latter to be more like the former. For myself, I would suggest a carrot, rather than a stick. IOW, instead of making it more difficult to multiclass, provide incentives to either stay in a single class or for roleplaying the change to a new class. Extra skill points, a fate/luck point, a useful npc contact, etc. can have the same effect as a penalty, but will likely be accepted with less resentment.

In the end, I don't think the restrictions proposed above are too onerous, so if the players agree to adding multiclass restrictions, go for it. If a few really want to multiclass freely, consider providing incentives to make their choices more difficult (from the perspective of optimization). And if someone goes too far in power gaming, to the point that it's affecting the group, talk to him/her. And if necessary, simply ban some choices - if they hurt the game.

 

[ARandomGod]

Since no one else has, I'll present an argument against this system. The D&D class system is intended to represent the very things you are trying to impose on characters *before* they acquire the class in question.

I do think that the system is interesting, but I agree in general with Andre here. The way the 3.X system is arranged you "spontaniously level". What it seems that you're trying to represent here is a gradual learning to allow multiclassing. Hence a fighter who wants to be a thief buying some ranks in hide prior to taking a level in the class. However that's directly counter to how the system was set up.

I'd propose an alternative where you require players to tell you each time they level which class they're trying to get to next level, and then you slowly give them some of their abilities throughout that level... until they finally "ding", and they get the rest. Dole out perhaps 1/2 the skill points (and 1/2 the bonus feat(s)/ability(s)? You'd have to houserule what each feat is at 1/2 power...)... then give them the rest along with saves and hit points at the magic "level" amount.

Of course, what (I think that) you're really trying to do here is limit the availablity and attractiveness of multiclassing. For that I'm personally in favor of a flat GM fiat ruling... "No more than X amount of classes", or the more impreial "No Multiclassing"... or perhaps a more simple "No Multiclassing without Large Amounts of Talking/Begging the GM< and at least a Minor Bribe."

 

[Li Shenron]

I second that it's a cool idea

Barbarian: BAB +1 and 2 ranks of Survival
Bard: 2 ranks Perform and 2 ranks in any other Cha based skill (Bluff, Diplomacy, etc...)
Cleric: Knowledge: Religion 2 ranks and patrron deity.
Druid: Knowledge: Nature 2 ranks and either Survival 2 ranks or Handle Animal 2 ranks.
Fighter: BAB +1 and Martial Weapon Proficiency (feat or class ability)
Monk: Improved Unarmed Combat and 2 ranks of Climb, Jump or Tumble.
Ranger: Martial Weapon Proficiency (as fighter) and 2 ranks Survival.
Rogue: 2 skills at 2 ranks each from the following list: Appraise, Bluff, Disable Device, Hide, Move Silently, Open Locks, Search or Sleight of Hand.
Sorcerer: None. The blood does as it will.
Wizard: 2 ranks of spellcraft and 2 ranks of Craft:Alchemy.

Of all suggestions so far I think your original one is still the very best. All those skills or feats are eventually something that those classes have more than 95% of the times (with the only exception of Alchemy). A Rogue with less than two of those skills is a very unlikely Rogue for instance.

Alchemy was very nice, because it gives the idea that every Wizard starts from a practice which isn't magical but it's a quasi-magic sort of thing. However in 3.5 it doesn't work because IIRC you can take Alchemy only if you already are a spellcaster (or maybe you can take it anyway, but you cannot use it?). Also, if Alchemy was a near-mandatory introduction to wizardry, then almost all single-class wizards would have ranks as well, but IMXP it's only a few. I second the idea of changing it with Knowledge (Arcana).

I think your system makes very sense. A single-class wizard normally start at 1st level at a young adult age; whatever the age anyway, it is assumed it's taken years to get that 1st level (that's why 1st level characters have x4 skill points). Therefore a skill requirement is IMHO what makes more sense here.

I don't like instead the need of making the requirements "useful". I think it's fine that there is a cost in multiclassing, since OTOH you are dropping all the issues with xp penalties. Yours is a variant which still have a cost, and I think it's very good: those who will not eventually pay anything for the requirements are classes very similar to each other. There are a few oddities of course (starting Paladin and becoming Fighter is free, but not the opposite), but I wouldn't care at all

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

I think the idea is cool.. but agree with Andre... and here is some ancedotal evidence for you.
My first 3E character was going to be the first ever Illiterate Mounted Arcane Archer, starting with Ranger, then Fighter.. then Bard. Picked up 2 levels of Deepwood Sniper and was about to enter the grand PrC of Arcane Archer.... when my character almost died in one hit from an assasin. Doh! Cutter quickly decided to spend some time learning the ways of the Rogue in order to protect himself from this threat, putting off the Arcane path for a couple levels.
{R2/F2/B2/DwS2/T1 currently..}

There is no way I could, using your system, duplicate this Jack of all Trades..and rather suboptimal character. He is awesome while mounted and 250 to 500 feet away tho

Beyond the Core multiclassing restrictions, the only HR added was that you had to take at least 2 levels of any class. It wont stop min-maxing, but provides a hinderance to it.

As a side note.. has anyone actually used the XP penalty? I havent seen it in play as people find ways to avoid it...

 

[Spatzimaus]

I'm actually more in favor of a Feat requirement, if you want to restrict this. We did something similar for my homebrew... all of the magical classes required you to take a "Talent" feat, and spend a level with that before you could take any levels in the class. The trick is to make the Feat strong enough to want in its own right, even if you don't intend to multiclass; as some people have said, Feats are rare and valuable, but that's part of why they should be used for this. Skill point requirements favor high-INT people or those with skill-heavy classes, but everyone gets general Feats at the same rate.

Try something like this: (In each case, the benefit of the Feat is entirely subsumed in the first actual class level)
The "Wizard Talent" Feat gives you the ability to know 2 cantrips and cast 2 cantrips per day as if you were a level 1 Wizard. Requires INT of 13. (If you later choose a school specialization that conflicts with one of the cantrips you chose here, you can replace it.)
The "Sorcerer Talent" Feat gives you the ability to know 1 cantrip and cast it 4 times per day as if you were a level 1 Sorcerer. Requires CHA of 13.
The "Rogue Talent" Feat gives you +1d4 Sneak Attack if you don't have any other Sneak Attack ability. Requires DEX of 13. (Once you get the real 1d6 SA, this is ignored.)
And so on. If you choose a class at level 1 you don't need to take the Feat, but at any later point you'd need to possess the Feat for a full level before you can take the new class.