Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Shadowbane 02-28-05, 09:08 PM	1) I was thinking of bringing back multi-classing. I wanted to use the same MCing rules as in ADD. I know it would be more powerful, but I hate the way MCing works now. It almost makes MCing impossible, and worthless for most casters! You would be leveling up both classes together. Here is the kicker though. If you take a PrC you can no longer MC. Any opinions on how to make this work? As in ADD it would be like a weaker version of Gestalt. The PC would be several levels behind at mid to high levels which should balance it out somewhat. I was thinking of giving half the HPs rolled and the con mod rounded up every odd numbered levels and rounded down on even levels if you have a odd numbered con modifier. I was thinking of putting some rules in place. Such as wizards cannot multi-class as wizard/sorcerer, and the same goes for Druid/clerics. I would allow wizard/clerics though. Has anyone tried this out? Or will this be the first test run. I plan to play test it this week and work out the kinks. All comments are welcome
Lina_Inverse 03-01-05, 12:51 AM	use the flat XP chart. give them 1/2xp. average hp gain,perhaps average skillgain. feats and attribute points are obvious. theyll be slightly weaker gestalts,ending at 2 levels below everyone else.
Kem 03-01-05, 01:53 AM	I'm going to guess that you have read the Gesalt Rules in Unearthed Arcana. If not, I would recommend a glance/read over of them as a start. Those might be a good starting point (due to some of the differences) but baically it is very similar to how ADD multiclassing worked. Those rules however assume that the whole party will do it. You could cut the exp in half if it was a mixed single class/mutliclass party. However, keep in mind that being lower level then the rest of the party hurts a bit more in 3.X then it did in 2e/1e. As an idea, tack on an LA of +3 as an idea instead and see how it goes? That way they are 3 levels behind but with 2 classes. They will get the same exp as everyone else (making that math easy) but they also won't start to drop behind later which happens much earlier with the new chart and is much more deterimental then before. The +3 comes from a few places. Anymore then +3 and they could start to drop behind a bit(although with those added rules of yours it will help keep them in check a bit better then usual) Mystic Theurg is an effective +3 LA on a Wizard or Cleric to grant the other class. Most PrCs in line with that class work the same. Getting higher then +3 LA is a huge hurdle to overcome in a mid level game (7-15ish) sucks in a low level game (1-6) and generally drops you back a little late game and disallows wizard/cleric 9th level spells before level 20 at all.
KhanJackalMoreau 03-01-05, 02:49 AM	Well... You could do gestalt, but somehow work in taking worse saves, BAB, all that. As in, you could be a fighter/mage, but you'd be at lets say... 3/4 bab, bad fort and ref saves, good will... a d6 HD. Slightly slower feats, every 3rd level, and every feat level you gain new spells/day and such, but no increase in caster level. Fighter/rogue? 3/4 bab, good ref, d8 HD. Slower feat progression, and slightly slower Sneak Attack progression. 6 skill points a level. Just so they're not taking the full 1/2 XP penalty. More like 1/4 XP penalty.
Degobah 03-01-05, 03:29 AM	Well, I submitted something on the subject awhile back. Basically I think use the UA optional XP progression, divide xp as desired among the two classes, then use the highest save bonuses and BAB (so if you're a fighter 6/wizard 5, you get the ftr-6's BAB, and the wizard-5's will save: instead of mix-and-matching the bonuses level-by-level as with gestalt. Then have feats from the highest class level and skills from both. Here's the old link: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=349506&highlight=multiclassing
Shadowbane 03-01-05, 02:47 PM	WOW! A lot of great ideas guys. I will play test all of these out this week and see which way to go with this. I greatly appreciate the comments, keep em comin!
Korimyr the Rat 03-01-05, 06:40 PM	As in, you could be a fighter/mage, but you'd be at lets say... 3/4 bab, bad fort and ref saves, good will... a d6 HD. Slightly slower feats, every 3rd level, and every feat level you gain new spells/day and such, but no increase in caster level. Well, one, by not increasing caster level, you are crippling this progression. Two... instead of making the numbers worse, how about averaging them? Since every D&D class has only Good or Poor saves, average their saving throws. A Fighter/Wizard would have Medium Fortitude and Will saves, and a Poor Reflex save. I'd say that you should always, instead of rounding down (for BAB), round to the average, so that Good/Poor, Medium/Poor, and Good/Medium all resolve to Medium. For Hit Dice, I'd suggest rounding down, but this should only be an issue when HD are one step apart. And let them keep the skill points, class skill list, and skill points per level of the better class.
KhanJackalMoreau 03-02-05, 12:43 AM	You could always take Practised Spellcaster for the extra caster levels... For myself, a multi-classed character should be taken for flavor, not for optimization. Just saying, for me. But about that last point. I'd allow both class skill lists. If you're a fighter/mage, you should be able to ride and have spellcraft.
Tenzhi 03-02-05, 02:33 AM	I do this in my game. I use the Gestalt rules, but I also use the Independent XP Reward system in UA and the player has to gain XP for both classes (just like in AD&D). The only other intrinsic change to the Gestalt system I recall making, is that the HD are averaged every level (like in AD&D). I also expand upon the concept a little and allow a triple-class Gestalt. Additionally, I placed a few restrictions on multiclassing that takes into account favoured classes: "A character may double- or triple-class in any combination of the four (five if you count Psions) primary classes (fighter, cleric, rogue, wizard (or perhaps Sorceror depending on your preference)). If a character’s favored class is one of the secondary classes, he may use that class in any double- or triple-class combination. If a character’s favored class is one of the primary classes, he may use it in conjunction with any other class as part of a double-class combination. A character with 'favored class: any' may choose any combination of classes for double- and triple-classing."
Shadowbane 03-02-05, 06:11 PM	You could always take Practised Spellcaster for the extra caster levels... For myself, a multi-classed character should be taken for flavor, not for optimization. Just saying, for me. But about that last point. I'd allow both class skill lists. If you're a fighter/mage, you should be able to ride and have spellcraft. Aboslutely! I just miss the old fighter/mage I used to run and my Ranger/druid. I admit that humans dual classing was pretty unbalanced, but I think it can be balanced for 3.5 somehow. As far as medium saves. I dont think my palyers would take to that one. If anything I would allow them to chose which classes good saves they want, and in the case of the monk they could pick any 2 good saves. As far as BAB goes I think a fighter/mage would have a medium BAB. Fighter/clerics would get the fighter BAB however. The multi-classer would already be several levels behind the group and I am thinking of gimping them with a -20% penalty until they pick a PrC. Still testing this out however and will take the most balanced idea. The thing I am loking for is not to power game or optimize anything, but I think a fighter/wizard should be viable choice. The fighter/mage was always a staple for the previous D&D games and is all but gone now. I have never had a chance to get above level 20 except with my bladesinger (L23) but I havent played him in a while now since my DM couldnt handle the Epic PCs very well.
Tenzhi 03-03-05, 01:33 AM	I admit that humans dual classing was pretty unbalanced, but I think it can be balanced for 3.5 somehow. Considering that 3.5's multi-class system is a lot more like the old Dual-classing than the old multi-classing, I'd say that it is pretty much already in 3.5...
Shadowbane 03-03-05, 12:09 PM	Dual classing in 2E is nothing at all like MCing in 3.5. Matter of fact it is so far apart that they it cant even be compared at all. In dual classing you could get to level 9 as a fighter/paladin/ranger and get his d10 for HPs up until the HP cut of when you no longer recieved full HPs at level up. So you take 9 levels of a fighter class and then switch to a wizard or whatever and had massive HPs. Now here is a tremendous difference. In 2E you took a 2nd class and your second class started out at level 1 XP table not level 10 XP table! MASSIVE difference. So you need to level up to level 10 to begin getting the benefits of both classes which goes Very fast since you are encounter monsters for level 10 players and level up like crazy! So now you are at level 9fighter/10wizard working on level 11! With the level 11 XP table to boot. So you dont need the XP of a level 20 only 11. You also have huge HPs and casting spells one level or so lower than the wizard in your party but have 2-3 x more HPs and great weapon skill on top of that. They cannot be farther apart in comparison.
Drachasor 03-03-05, 02:32 PM	For multi-classes characters with 2 classes. Hmm, average the hitpoint dies...d4 & d6 = d5, d4 & d8 = d6, d4 & d10 = d7, d4 & d12 = d8, d6 & d8 = d7, d6 & d10 = d8, d6 & d12 = d9, d8 & d10 = d9, d8 & d12 = d10, d10 & d12 = d11. For d7, d9, and d11 use d(X+1) and reroll X+1 (so for a d7 use a d8 and reroll 8s). Use fractional BABs, add together and average them. Use fractional saves, add together and average. For Skills, cross class skills for both classes are still cross-classed, class skills for both classes are class skills for them multiclassed. Max Ranks for other skills are (Character Level * 3) * 3/4 For Caster Levels, multiply the Character level * 3/4 for Caster Level and Spell access, round down. If a PrC is taken for a magic using class, don't let them continue them to take any class the PrC is improving with Caster Levels at the same time. Do not allow them to take mixed caster level classes like the Mystic Theurge. Like Caster Levels, for unique class abilities multiple the Character Levels spent improving the class by 3/4 to determine the equivalent class level. Some class abilities (perhaps bonus and virtual feats) would need to be at 1/2 and not 3/4, but I don't think all need to be this way. This probably needs some tweaking, as some things mutliclassing abilities were balanced for the new system. PrC qualification would have to be worked on. Not sure how to modify this for 3 class things entirely. -Drachasor
weasel fierce 03-03-05, 02:37 PM	Remember that dual classed characters received massive XP penalties, if they used any of their old stuff, save for hit points. The ability requirements were prohibitive as well. AD&D style multiclassing would work fine for D20. Just pick 2 classes, and your XP is divided equally between both. Hit points are halved for each level gain.
Saint Sinner 03-03-05, 08:56 PM	I think I am going to run it like this. No XP penalties at all. A 20 th level single will be 6 levels ahead of the multi-classer. Thats pretty serious imo. There is already a 3 level gap by level 8. A fighter5/wizard5 would have in between a clerics and rogues HPs (d7) and have 2 good saves as well as a clerics BAB. He would get all his normal class benefits and so shall the wizard classes. I think this is balanced as is. Just being so far below your peers in level is a big negative. With average con 14 this PC would have 40 HPs with decent rolling. I think this guy looks balanced as is. @ Level 10 he would have +7/+2 BAB/ApR Cast 5th level spells and his saving throws would be Ft:+7 Ref:+3 Will:+7, and his HPs would around 75. The Single classer will be around level 14. Thats a 4 level difference!
Lord Welkerfan 03-03-05, 10:16 PM	Here is a marvelously balanced way to do something very similar to 2e Multiclassing. The Ultimate Adventurer (http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?t=368537)
Tenzhi 03-04-05, 01:20 AM	Dual classing in 2E is nothing at all like MCing in 3.5. Matter of fact it is so far apart that they it cant even be compared at all. It is so conceptually close that it is impossible not to compare them. In dual classing you could get to level 9 as a fighter/paladin/ranger and get his d10 for HPs up until the HP cut of when you no longer recieved full HPs at level up. So you take 9 levels of a fighter class and then switch to a wizard or whatever and had massive HPs. Which you can still do in 3.5 - you can even go one better and take 9-10 levels of Barbarian. It's less of a bonus now, however, since HPs continually increase, but the methodology is the same. Now here is a tremendous difference. In 2E you took a 2nd class and your second class started out at level 1 XP table not level 10 XP table! MASSIVE difference. So you need to level up to level 10 to begin getting the benefits of both classes which goes Very fast since you are encounter monsters for level 10 players and level up like crazy! You might encounter monsters for 10th level characters, but the only benefits of 10th level you have are your HPs. Taking out a monster fit for 10th level characters when you have only the abilities of a 1st level wizard sucks (and in some cases may prove impossible), and your HPs aren't infinite. And then one has to consider that getting to 10th level as a wizard in 2nd Ed generally took about as long as getting to 20th level in 3.x Ed. You can't even rightly compare single-class advancement between the two editions, much less dual-classing or multi-classing. So now you are at level 9fighter/10wizard working on level 11! With the level 11 XP table to boot. So you dont need the XP of a level 20 only 11. You also have huge HPs and casting spells one level or so lower than the wizard in your party but have 2-3 x more HPs and great weapon skill on top of that. The 9/10 Fgt/Wiz in 3.x will actually have better weapon ability than the 2nd Ed version, but not significantly so. In the end, they're still conceptually the same - you advance in one class and then you advance in a second class. The main difference is that with dual-classing you can't go back to advancing the previous class - sort of like the multi-classing restriction on monks and paladins.
Saint Sinner 03-04-05, 09:09 AM	"This is Shadowbane on my brothers account (too lazy to switch)" It is so conceptually close that it is impossible not to compare them. A 9Fighter/10Cleric in 2E has (in 3.5 XP table) 81k XP, and a 9fighter/10cleric in 3.5 has 171K XP and is lucky if he gets that high. In all my D&D games I have had 1 epic PC and most end around level 14-16 in our groups. The 2E version has entire carreer ahead of him and still just a fledgling compared to the 3.5 version that is almost epic. At 19th level with the 2E guy he will have 19th level cleric spells (L9spells) compared to the 3.5 version having 10th level spells (L5spells). How massive is this diference? I am not trying to be a jerk but they are on the opposite side of the spectrum. I never had too much trouble dual classing in 2E. I would level to around level 3 in the first encounter. I ran a few fighter/wizards and fighter/clerics and never had a problem. Yea it was a bit tough but you level so fast. This is why multi-classing in 3.5 is not really viable for casters. See the difference in the above examples in casting power? Can they be compared? IMO they arent even close.You can be a fighter/wizard in 3.5 but you will be quite weak compared to a full wizard caster. Another thing that made dual classing in 2E so sick was the fact that you could take 9 levels of fighter and get the best HPs until the HP cut off. So you had a wizard with fighter HPs. In 3.5 there is no full HP cut off. The full HP cut of sealed the deal for me, and trust me. My 2E fighter/wizards were just sickeningly powerful with grandmaster in longsword (dual weilding) and wearing elven chain. I could stand toe to toe with wizards in a spell duel or destroy a fighter outright.
Kem 03-04-05, 10:49 AM	Despite what you are talking about, 3.X multiclassing is very very similar to 2e Dual Classing. Its more a combination of Multiclassing and Dual classing however then one or the other. Why? Well as far as multiclassing in 2e, you took the average HP, then best of each class, but only divided your EXP by 2 or 3. In 2e this ment at the early levels you where a level or 2 behind at higher levels you'd be leveling at 1/2 to 1/3 the rate of your friends. Dual Classing was closer in level, depending on when you did it however it required very high stats to do. So you could be within a couple levels of your friends and at higher levels you gained more power at the cost of (typically) a level or 2. In 3e, you stay the same level (Similar to Dual Classing Typically), but average your HP (As Multi) and don't divide your EXP and Add up your abilities (Dual Classing). Saying that 2e multi/dual classing is so different as to be incomparable to 3e multiclassing is akin to saying that Thac0 is so different from BAB as to be unrecognizable. If you look hard enough you can see the similarities, and the differences and how they got from Point A to Point B.
Saint Sinner 03-04-05, 08:25 PM	The only similartiy I can see is that your changing classes. Dual classing was only 2 classes not 10 if you chose. Dual classing allowed you to be head and shoulders above a single class player in 3.5 your are more than likely weaker if you take a caster class since you will be weak at both fighting and casting. A fighter/wizard in 3.5 at 10th level has a clerics BAB and third levels spells. A 10th level wizard/cleric/druid/sorcerer has 5th level spells and lot more spells per level. A fighter5/wizard5 would be hard pressed to combat a 10th level cleric or wizard and would be eaten alive by the almighty druid. Facts: 2E Dual classing made you stronger then a single classed PC while 3.5 makes you much weaker. To show how far aprt it is I would bet a dual classed fighter9/wizard10 would absolutely ruin a fighter6/wizard6 in 3.5.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 01:09 AM	2nd edition dual classing is very powerfull. Thats why it takes a 17 in your prime requisite for the new class. Very few characters have stats that high, let alone for the particular ability they need for a certain class.
Tenzhi 03-05-05, 01:10 AM	Dual classing was only 2 classes not 10 if you chose. Actually, despite the fact that it was called dual-classing there was no rule that kept you from doing it with more than two classes if you met the stringent ability requirements.
weasel fierce 03-05-05, 01:17 AM	Seconded. 2nd edition AD&D does state though that you cannot dual class to your own group, hence you could dual from fighter to say, thief. But not to ranger. So the max, provided you have enough 17's or 18's, is 4 classes. I forget about how it works in 1st edition, but fairly closely
GreyLord 03-05-05, 06:56 PM	The probability of one having 2 17 or even 18's are less then 1% or in the hundreds...and for 3 scores of that type...your talking less than 1 in a thousand. Then there were the cheaters. But you have that in 3e as well. But then, it's easier to have 18s and 17s by 10th level in 3e than it was in any other edition due to the automatic upgrade of a score every 4 levels. Just something to think about. As for Multiclassing the easiest way to do it in similarity to ADD is to do it just like ADD. to get to Level 2 you need the amount of experience to get to Level two aka...1000...and the same holds true for each level after. You advance at exactly the same rate for both or all three classes. In 3e you could specify it can only be 2 classes and one has to be the preferred class of the race. You cannot multi if you are human. If You are human you can Dual Class, saying you have a 17 or 18 and at least a 16 in one other score. When Dual classing use it like the Paladin class says, once taking levels in another class you can never take any more levels in Paladin...this would also prohibit multiclasses for Paladins and Monks due to this rule...but not Dual Classes. Dual Classes would advance similarly in that when they switch to their second class, saying they can, they only need 1000 XP to get to 2nd level, etc. Or you could do the ECL type idea...each class one takes is equal to 1 ECL permanantly...or in otherwords, slightly change the ECL so that the class is ALWAYS 1 level lower than everyone else. multiclass characters with 2 classes typically were 2 levels lower than everyone else, and triple class characters were typically 2 levels lower than everyone else. If one wanted to do it like AD&D.