Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="airwalkrr" data-source="post: 3044004" data-attributes="member: 12460">There is a problem with multiclassing in 3e. A real problem. It is just too good. Regardless of how you feel about the multiclassing system in 3e, whether you like it or hate it, it is indisputable that a multiclass character is better than a single class character. Take the following example, a not so uncommon one. Compare a Ftr4 to a Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1. What does the Ftr4 have that the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 doesn't? Two bonus feats, an average of 2 hp, +1 BAB, and +1 Will. What does the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 have that the Ftr4 doesn't? Rage 1/day, fast movement, 12 skill points, +2 Fort, +3 Ref, Track, animal empathy, favored enemy, sneak attack +1d6, and trapfinding. Whoo! Which option do you like better? I know which one I'll pick every time. Consider this, the Open-Minded feat gives you 5 bonus skill points. So in terms of feat power, the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 gets FIVE feats. 5 x 2 skill points (Open Minded x 2), +2 Fort (Great Fortitude), +2 Ref (Lightning Reflexes), and Track. Need I even continue the comparison?People often point to multiclass spellcasters as getting hosed (and fallaciously claim this demonstrates multiclassing is balanced), but this is patently untrue, particularly in 3.5. A mystic theurge, while not casting the highest level spells, remains a potent member of the party and with the Practiced Spellcasting feat hardly misses his caster levels. The eldritch knight or spellsword makes a powerful option for the fighting mage, plus the ability to craft one's own weapons for reduced cost cannot be overlooked.But this thread is not here so I can merely sit around and talk about the problems with multiclassing. I want to hold an open forum to discuss what we really want from multiclassing rules and how to implement them in a fair, balanced way. Below, I present an analysis of the evolution of multiclass characters.OD&D had little in the way of multiclass characters. An elf could be called a fighter/magic-user, but there were not really hybrids. AD&D introduced the multiclassing rules for demihumans and dual-classing rules for humans. While this system presented new options, it had many flaws. First, dual-classing (or picking up a second class after character creation) was available only to humans, and even then you could never return to your original class; but it made no sense that a wizard couldn't go back to wizardry after studying fighting for a while. Second, multiclassing required a character to declare it at 1st level and it could never be changed. Additionally, multiclassing was restricted to specific combinations of classes such as fighter/mage or cleric/thief. One could not be a druid/thief or bard/mage. Finally, perhaps the worst flaw of multiclassing was that it was simply too good. Multiclass characters excelled far and above their single class companions, usually being only a level or two behind but having the abilities of TWO classes. (I won't mention level limits as a problem because that was not specifically related to multiclassing, but rather a way to encourage human characters.)3e changed everything. Many of the flaws of AD&D multiclassing and dual-classing no longer exist. Our characters can learn new classes whenever we want. We don't have to be restricted to certain combinations; we could play a druid/monk if we so desire! However, as big of a step forward as the multiclassing system was, it failed to fix what is still the biggest problem with multiclassing: it is too good.The main purpose of this thread is to open a forum for discussion on what you, EnWorld, think an ideal set of multiclassing rules should allow, what they shouldn't allow, and what kind of characters they should encourage. For example, here are some points I envisage us discussing (this list is not inclusive so if you have your own issues, by all means, bring them up):1) Should a character be allowed to pick a new class at any time or should there be a cost/limit (e.g. minimum ability scores, some kind of opportunity cost such as a feat or skill points, experience point cost)?2) Should humans (and half-elves) be better at multiclassing than characters of other races?3) Should multiclass characters be weaker, stronger, or equivalent in power with their single-class brethren?Just to get the group started, I will posit some of my opinions.Regarding 1), I believe there should be some kind of cost associated with multiclassing unless the classes are overhauled to make them significantly less top-loaded. I'm not sure what kind of cost is best. I have towed with the idea of requiring a feat for multiclassing, reinstating minimum ability score requirements from AD&D, and imposing a level adjustment, but none of these ideas sit well with me.On 2), I believe the answer should be "yes." Humans are supposed to learn more quickly than other races. That is the reason they have become dominant despite their relatively short life-span. From a rules balance perspective, a bonus feat and some extra skills are nice, but I don't know if that is worthwhile when one can be a dwarf or a halfling and get bonuses to lots of stuff. Humans (and half-elves for that matter) could use a little bit more, to highlight their adaptability if nothing else.Finally, for 3), I feel that multiclass characters should be equivalent in overall power to single-class characters, but weaker in the power of their individual abilities. As the rules are written now, multiclass characters are stronger in overall power and only slightly weaker in the power of their individual abilities (I can take a feat to get more smites or improve my caster level, and things like barbarian's rage get the most important stuff early on.)After this topic has been discussed for a while, I will open a poll with all the ideas suggested for what a set of multiclassing rules SHOULD include, and I will allow you to vote for any and all aspects that you think are important. From there, I wish to use those as guidelines to develop a new multiclassing system with your help.</blockquote>

Verification