Multiclassing House Rule - Does It Work?

[UserClone]

Okay, so I had this idea a while back:

In order to multiclass from first level, you start out as a gestalt (Unearthed Arcana) of Apprentice-level classes (DMG 3.0), then as you gain enough experience to gain 2nd level on the fast progression table (Pathfinder RPG), you become gestalt 1//1 in your classes. From then on, you use the Medium Progression for experience (Pathfinder RPG). Three-way Multiclassing would be possible, by gestalting 3 classes in the same way, but using the slow progression (Pathfinder RPG). Would this work? Anyone need clarification?

[Foryn Gilnith]

I don't have the DMG 3.0, nor have I ever seen it discussed. What is this apprentice-level class system, and what other gems are there in the 3.0 DMG that were dropped in the 3.5 one?

[Myshlaevsky]

I don't have the DMG 3.0, nor have I ever seen it discussed. What is this apprentice-level class system, and what other gems are there in the 3.0 DMG that were dropped in the 3.5 one?

If I'm remembering it right, it's like a below-level-1 class you can take when you multiclass at level 1.

[Yuki Akuma]

So basically... 2e multiclassing?

[UserClone]

Yeah, that's pretty much the effect I'm going for here, but the question is, does it work?

[Myshlaevsky]

Yeah, that's pretty much the effect I'm going for here, but the question is, does it work?

It, uh... it worked in 2e?

It seems like it's worth a shot as a houserule, though a lot of people will probably find it unnecessary or incompatible with their gaming style.

Edit: Yuki Akuma's post below is right. I can only see this working well if it's a whole-party endeavour.

[Yuki Akuma]

No, not really. Having more versatile abilities doesn't make up for being far lower levelled than everyone else.

It only worked ('worked') in 2e because that system didn't have such rigid structure based on levels.

[Irreverent Fool]

No, not really. Having more versatile abilities doesn't make up for being far lower levelled than everyone else.

It only worked ('worked') in 2e because that system didn't have such rigid structure based on levels.

That structure being tied to skills, feats and a large number of HD-based spells and special abilities (both for and against the PCs), caster level and the change from 2e to 3e regarding hit points and damage

Consider that in 2e you gained +2 hp per hit die with a Constitution score of 18 (unless you were a warrior) and that your damage-per-hit with a Strength of 18 was a mere +2 (with a +1 to your to-hit rolls!). There were no stat increases every 4 levels. There was no power attack.

Thus, the differences between a level 1 character and a level 5 character were not nearly as extreme. A party of four 1st-level adventurers might stand a chance against a 5th-level character in 2e. In 3e, they will probably all die.

It's sad, really.

obnoxious
sig

[Foryn Gilnith]

I hold to this theory (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html), which states that 5th level is around the peak of human competence. The greatest warrior in human history could definitely take on four relatively fresh guys, although IRL with infection and all he'd be rough afterwards.

[Irreverent Fool]

I hold to this theory (http://www.thealexandrian.net/creations/misc/d&d-calibrating.html), which states that 5th level is around the peak of human competence. The greatest warrior in human history could definitely take on four relatively fresh guys, although IRL with infection and all he'd be rough afterwards.

Thanks for that link. I lost it some time ago but had adapted to that philosophy. I'd been wanting to show my players the essay.

I was just thinking that a single power-attacking 3e fighter with a high strength and cleave could easily kill 1-2 characters a round without breaking a sweat whereas the 1st (or even 2nd) level characters would likely be unable to even hit the 5th-level assuming standard WBL.

obnoxious
sig