The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[Sigurd]

EVIL\GOOD is too prevalent

I think Turn Undead should just disappear entirely as a game mechanic. Give the cleric a set of spells, one for each level, that inflict damage and other nastiness on undead in a given radius. Boom.

I absolutely agree with you. Same thing with 'know alignment'.

If you run a world where there is only good and evil, player characters would be forced to do the things that would earn clear, broad powers. I've never met a set of players happy in a black & white world. Even the lines between life and death are too routinely blurred. Most cleric's shouldn't Turn undead at all unless that is a focus of their deity.

An alignment can be known if the target has hithertoo come to the attention of one's diety & prayers are used. If the target hasen't rated the diety's attention or the paladin is not fervantly praying to direct the diety's attention nothing gets known.

 

[Mallus]

But if you write the rules so that fighter levels complement wizard levels by default...

I wasn't thinking along those lines. I agree.

If you have a warrior-mage class like AEG's Myrmidon, that's another matter, as I can include it or exclude it at my leisure.

This would be my choice. Like I said, AU's Mage Blade works nicely.

Another idea I was toying around with was making a few spells resemble their 3.0 [or even 2.0 or 1.0] versions. The big problem, as I see it, is how the current caster multiclassing system works in conjunction with the designers overall spell power balancing act.

3 levels of wizard that get you an invisibility spell that lasts all day --or until you mess with someone-- and/or several hours worth of force-field armor isn't such a bad deal. I think reintroducing a few 'ringer' spells that have largely level-independant effects would go a long way toward ending my beef with the current system.

I don't want to go back to the earlier editions race/level/multiclass restrictions, but I'd like a wee bit more viability in my jack-of-two-or-three-trades characters...

 

[Will]

'Noncaster levels count as 1/4 of caster levels' is a rule that is just about as easy to exclude as, say, a mixed caster-warrior class.

 

[Mac Callum]

I think Turn Undead should just disappear entirely as a game mechanic. Give the cleric a set of spells, one for each level, that inflict damage and other nastiness on undead in a given radius. Boom.

I would not do this. There's more to a spellcasting class than their spell list.

I think that the regularly used Cleric powers (Turn Undead, and Cure X Wounds) can be fused in a multi-class friendly way, leaving the spell list free to meet the unique demands of the day. The Divine Feats have already shown us the way.

A simple "Channel Divine Power" or somesuch ability could have a limited number of effects (including Cure/Cause Wounds, Turn/Command Undead, power Divine Feats, and a few others). Divine Power Points ("DPP") could be spent however you wish, including new ways - such as adding Holy Damage to your Fireball or longsword. Clerics would acquire DPP the quickest, and Paladins more slowly. Feats like "Layman Clergy" could give religious, non-Cleric/Pal PCs a few DPP.

I think a very cool thing would be if Domains, instead of/ in addition to granting unique spells would allow unique uses of DPPs. It would be a nice way to differentiate the religions and deities of the world is their Clerics had access to totally unique powers. Perhaps clerics of Kossuth could spend DPP to cut through Fire Resistance, or clerics of Vecna could use DPP to Create Undead without the $$$ material components. Just some thoughts.

This almost feels like a PowerPoint spellcasting system, but it's also a "spell modifying" system, like Metamagic for Clerics. I also think it would be a nice way of making the class unique. Being a caster with "just another spell list" just doesn't seem as exciting. Spell lists also don't stack, as we've mentioned. With DPP you can always take more Divine Feats even as you advance as a Sorcerer, or whatever.

 

[I'm A Banana]

It seems wonky to me that you can't craft a magic sword without being a spellcaster. "True, Sir Knight, I don't know how to use this hunk of metal you have given me, but I can make it better for you!"

It also seems wierd that while studying as a wizard can increase your ability to hit things and take damage ever-so-slightly, studying as a fighter doesn't increase your ability to interact with or control the arcane forces that permeate the world. Dispite the fact that you live in a world with these things dancing around you all the time, and you interact with them all the time, and you experience them at least as often as the wizard experiences clubbing things and taking damage.

"Yes, I can slaughter an army of orcish barbarians, and have done so seventeen times before. But really, making a +1 suit of armor....man, that BOGGLES MY MIND!!!!"

It'd be analagous to the wizard not getting a BAB and saying "yes, the forces of the cosmos are bent to my merest whim because of my astounding intellect, but thumping a ruffian with my wand?! That is...I don't know where to begin!"

Or it would be like if a cleric didn't get skill points, and said "Why, yes, my prayers invoke healing from the gods themselves. No, I don't know their names, because I have no training in Knowledge (religion). What's a skill?"

A stat to represent a general familiarity and power over magic for *every* class is pretty key to things still making sense, IMHO.This is a highly magical world -- for it to be an all-or nothing extreme of either "you've spent a significant portion of your life doing this, and so have attained a level of Wizard" or "You're a clueless muggle" is a bit crazy. Otherwise, remove the skills from clerics and the HD from sorcerers, and call it even. Should the greatest mounted warrior in the land not know how his equipment works? What if it becomes broken or destroyed on the battlefield? What if it just falls into disrepair? Why is every high-level noble a slave to the wizards' craft?

That said, some things do make sense. In fact, most other things make sense. The basic mechanics of the game: skill points, hit points, BAB, saves, they're all additive. With my proposition, so would "magical skill." The rate they add is just different. But it makes sense that the only way you can unlock the ability to work suggestion into music is by training that much as a bard. Not everybody can do that, so it shouldn't be a universally allowed thing. There's no need for skill focus to be more useful to cross-class skills -- if you're dabbling in something rare, focusing in it will make you the best at it among your peers, still, but someone who has spent their life doing it will be better. Just like if you're a fighter, you're never going to be as good at making magical doodads as a wizard. But you shouldn't be incompetent at it.

 

[Psion]

'Noncaster levels count as 1/4 of caster levels' is a rule that is just about as easy to exclude as, say, a mixed caster-warrior class.

Mayhaps, but I consider it a quick fix in the first place. Does it do as good a job as a "synergizing" prestige class at making the concept workable? I tend to think that a final solution of this sort might be more involved that adding a fraction to one classes caster level. That just seems like a "consolation" to me.

 

[The Grackle]

The most broken element of multi-classing that you haven't mentioned is the accumulation of large save bonuses that occurs when a player dabbles a couple levels in several different classes. Every time a new class is undertaken, that character receives a +2 in any and all of that classes good saves. It can really add up.

Yeah, I always thought it would have been a lot better if they had given the races +1 save bonuses, and not put those +2s at the first level of the classes. That way a 1st lev character would be about the same, but multiclassing characters wouldn't benefit so much.

 

[fredramsey]

So... let me get this straight: You are complaining that in order to create a *magic* item, you have to know *magic*. Am I missing something here?

I can drive a car, but I can't hope to build one from scratch by myself. Not a great analogy, but it's close.

Your fighter can learn weaponsmithing as much as he wants, and can make a "+1" sword... it's called Masterwork.

It seems wonky to me that you can't craft a magic sword without being a spellcaster. "True, Sir Knight, I don't know how to use this hunk of metal you have given me, but I can make it better for you!"

 

[Sebastian Francis]

For example, what's wrong with an Elven Paladin? Or a Dwarf Wizard? Sure, they're different...but ALL members of a race shouldn't be carbon copies of one another.

Personally, I like how 2e handled this question. DMs were encouraged to consider non-typical race/class combos on a case-by-case basis, if the player had an interesting or convincing background story. Seems perfect to me. The HUGE restrictions of 1e were a bit much, but the HUGE open-endedness of 3e is a bit much too. I mean, can anyone take halfling paladins seriously? Dwarf monks? Not I.

 

[Mallus]

I mean, can anyone take halfling paladins seriously? Dwarf monks?

What's wrong with Sir Galahalf?

Or Master Flying Beard??

Really, if you can wrap your mind around knights in shining armor squaring off against martial artists without being drunk, then halfing paladins and dwarven monks aren't too much of a stretch...