well, as long as we're dragging that monster of goodies (UA) with us, there are valid options to multiclassed character's saves and turning undead both. The saving throws are much more balanced if you hand out the starting strong save bonus of +2 only once per save, and the undead turning option makes the turning much stronger against a single strong undead without completely dissing turn resistance. Of course, you can fix the BAB progression of a multiclassed character the same way (I would advice against it - there should be a price for multiclassing, and the possibility of reduced BAB is just that).
The mechanical problems with Multiclassing
- Thread starter MerricB
- Start date
Yes, I like a lot of things from UA - especially the fractional saves/BAB system. It solves a lot of the issues mentioned earlier.
IMO the current multiclassing system is not broken. There may be some prestige classes that at least appear to be broken, but in actuallity this is just a matter of opinion.
Bottom line is that in the RAW a multiclassed character is never as good as a single classed character (of the the same character level) at the abilities of the single class. What they do is trade off specialization (and the power contained in it) for versatility.
Player's choice - do you want to be able to do more things or be real good at a few?
IMO the current multiclassing system is not broken. There may be some prestige classes that at least appear to be broken, but in actuallity this is just a matter of opinion.
Bottom line is that in the RAW a multiclassed character is never as good as a single classed character (of the the same character level) at the abilities of the single class. What they do is trade off specialization (and the power contained in it) for versatility.
Player's choice - do you want to be able to do more things or be real good at a few?
Psion
Adventurer
MerricB said:
Which baffles me. Who says that a fighter/wizard or cleric/sorcerer has to be viable?
Not that I see it as a problem if you do like those ideas, but there is no reason they HAVE TO BE VIABLE.
And it baffles me that people think that it has to be viable. I mean, it's not like any other character option has this sort of expectation assigned to it. There's no frothing because skill focus doesn't help you with cross class skills as much as your class skills.
Monk has actually gotten much better. Now they get to keep benefits of their flurry. The way you counted their intereative attacks before, more than a few levels in a different class, it was like you didn't even have the ability.
Bardic music, OTOH, seems to have had the kibosh deliberately put upon it for multiclassing. Before, bard levels were not a factor.
There are some options to help boost the viability of normally unviable combinations. Those mostly lie in the realms of classes (mystic theurge, etc.) and feats (practiced spellcaster), or campaign variants like in UA. I actually prefer it that way because it gives the DM the power to control the tenor of the campaign by regulating what they let in, rather that forcing DMs who aren't comfortable with it to slap on restrictions after the fact.
IMO, no. I remember having a real hard time swallowing this when 3e came out, but now, semblances I see of 1e multiclassing in third party products really make me wrinkle my nose.
fuindordm said:
No. It sounds shafted to me.
... and this 13/13 guy will get killed by the first CR 20 encounter he comes across. One of the prime complaints about high-ECL races/templates is that they leave the character with too few HD to survive the sorts of challenges that the rest of the party is facing. They may have lots of funky special abilities, but 1) you can still only use 1 per round; and 2) you can't use them when you're dead. Nothing can really replace sheer hit points when you come down to it; and this solution you've put up has the same problem.
Last edited:
Akrasia
Procrastinator
MerricB said:
How one answers the question "which version of multi-classing is best?" depends on how one understands the concept of "class".
In 1E (and, for that matter, every pre-3E version of D&D), a "class" was a comprehensive concept. Your character spent years and years training to be a fighter, magic-user, or whatever. It was you "life mission", and it represented a complete set of skills, special abilities, and so forth. By the time you started your career as a cleric, you were pretty set in your ways. By analogy, a class was like an "advanced degree" -- a PhD, MD, or JD. Once someone finishes a PhD in mathematical logic or zoology, they have acquired set of skills and an outlook on life that is unlikely to be changed. So a multi-class character in 1E acquires both "advanced degrees" as part of one "joint degree" package (in a sense, a multi-class character, e.g. a fighter-mage, is really just a character with a class that combines elements of two other classes), and advances from that point onwards.
1E opposed freely switching from one class to another for this reason. Switching from being a zoologist to a lawyer is a radical change. Hence "dual class" characters had to meet certain stringent requirements, and could never advance in their original class again.
In contrast, d20 Modern (I'll get to 3E D&D in a moment) appears to view classes like university "term courses", rather than advanced degrees. So for one "term" or "semester", your character focuses her studies on "fast hero" courses, but might switch to "smart hero" courses next term. Instead of a 'comprehensive' way of life, a class is just a 'lego brick' that can be combined with other bricks to build whatever kind of character you want.
Now, IMO 3E D&D is 'neither fish nor foul' -- i.e. the class descriptions for 3E seem to evoke the "comprehensive approach" of 1E classes, but also try to capture the limited "course-for-credit" approach of d20 modern classes.
The result is an incoherent approach to multi-class characters (IMO).
Not that I have any suggestions for 'fixing' 3E multi-classing, mind you, except to try to keep it "within reason" as a DM. Within the context of my campaign, I make sure that players "justify" in role-playing terms any multi-classing that takes place.
Plane Sailing
Astral Admin - Mwahahaha!
Ranger REG said:
FWIW I think my house rule works brilliantly to cover this. Simply put
"you don't have ASF from any armour you are proficient in".
That is why bards don't have ASF in light armour, why clerics don't have ASF in any armour. A wizard could stay single classed as a wizard and take feats to avoid ASF in various armours, or take a caster level hit to multiclass as a fighter and get all the armour proficiencies for free, and helping to make F/MU a more viable class.
As a house rule it is simple, doesn't rely upon unexplained exceptions and sits well with the baseline status quo ability of the casting classes.
Cheers
Well, me for one. Its a fairly archetypal fantasy archetype, which is what D&D is supposed to be all about, right?Psion said:
BTW, the most elegant fix I've seen is in Arcana Uneathed. The Mage Blade class makes a fine fighter mage or martial cleric. Its a better balance of spell casting ability --only up to 7th level spells-- and combat skills.
Will
First Post
Like many, some aspects of multiclassing bug me. Particularly for spellcasters. This has lead me to decide on gestalt classes, whenever I next run a campaign.
From UA, the concept is fairly simple. Pick two classes per level, use best aspects of both (and special abilities from both). Further details, check the book.
Most people initially assume 'whoa! This is overpowered!' But, from playtest comments, it's not. You still can only make one action per round, have one set of HP, etc. Challenges are generally -1 or -2, effectively. Additionally, parties tend to be more flexible, broad, and have more 'adventure stamina.'
The more I've thought it over, the more I like this approach... not only does it make 'fighter-wizard' easier (and he STILL has ASF), but it adds flavor. There's the fighter... who might be fighter-rogue, fighter-expert, fighter-aristocrat, fighter-ranger, etc.
Or the funny idea a friend had... the wuxia campaign, where everyone was monk-something.
From UA, the concept is fairly simple. Pick two classes per level, use best aspects of both (and special abilities from both). Further details, check the book.
Most people initially assume 'whoa! This is overpowered!' But, from playtest comments, it's not. You still can only make one action per round, have one set of HP, etc. Challenges are generally -1 or -2, effectively. Additionally, parties tend to be more flexible, broad, and have more 'adventure stamina.'
The more I've thought it over, the more I like this approach... not only does it make 'fighter-wizard' easier (and he STILL has ASF), but it adds flavor. There's the fighter... who might be fighter-rogue, fighter-expert, fighter-aristocrat, fighter-ranger, etc.
Or the funny idea a friend had... the wuxia campaign, where everyone was monk-something.
Similar Threads
