[3.0-3.5]1st level multiclass characters

[CockroachTeaParty]

I remember, back in the 3.0 DMG, a variant for starting characters with two classes, i.e. a 1st level multiclass character.

It was an interesting little concept, and once you reached 2nd level, you became a 1st level x/1st level y as normal.

I don't remember all of the details, but it worked a little something like this:

For saves, you had a base of 1 for each of the two classes good saves, and these bonuses stacked. So a wizard 0/cleric 0 would have a base Fort. save of +1, and a base Will save of +2, etc.

I don't remember what formula they used for BAB, but I think you needed both halves of your multiclass to have a +1 BAB in order to start with a +1 BAB, otherwise you had the traditional +0.

As for spells, skills, and class features, I don't quite remember... I think you got half the normal number of 0 level spells, and only got bonus 1st level spells from a high ability score.

Again, I don't remember the specifics, and I don't have the 3.0 DMG anymore.

So, if anybody still does, what was the system like?

I think it might be cool to try and figure out a 0th level for other non-core base classes. What would a 1st level multiclass Incarnate get, for instance? Or a Binder? Psion? Swashbuckler?

If I could just recall the original system, I could extrapolate it for other classes with relative ease, depending on the class.

So does anyone remember what I'm babbling about? Does anybody care? *shrug*

[Shadowleaf]

Obligatory link. (http://www.goblinscomic.com/02032006/)

[Vonotar]

I googled your thread title and found this;

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/71078-d-d-3-5e-1st-level-multiclass-characters.html

Hope it's what you're after.

[CockroachTeaParty]

I googled your thread title and found this;

http://www.enworld.org/forum/d-d-legacy-discussion/71078-d-d-3-5e-1st-level-multiclass-characters.html

Hope it's what you're after.

Well, that's what I'm talking about, yes, and that's what the folks on that forum were talking about, but they provide no links or further explanation. I can glean some things out of it though.

So does anybody have any ideas for non-core apprentice-level characters?

[Starbuck_II]

Well, I found this:
http://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Expanded_Apprentice-Level_Rules_(3.5e_Variant_Rule)


It even has an idea fror LA, using it.

[grarrrg]

It was an interesting little concept, and once you reached 2nd level, you became a 1st level x/1st level y as normal.


Basically for the duration of 1 level-up you get to sort-of be a 2nd Edition multi-classed character?
Doesn't really seem all that useful to me. You gain a WHOLE mess of complicated rules in exchange for...being indistinguishable from any other character once you are both level 2.


Now a "Goblins" like (ab)use of it might have some potential in a not-so-serious game.


P.S. StarbuckII, nm

[Kantolin]

I liked it since, if your concept was say 'fighter-mage', you could at level 1 be a fighter-wizard, as opposed to being purely a fighter and pretending you can cast magic or something.

It may be hard to do that to incarnate-types, though, since 1 essnetia is pretty useful and that's hard to trim.

[CockroachTeaParty]

Ah, thanks for that link! That helps a great deal.


I was thinking an apprentice level incarnum user would not have any essentia (save bonus essentia from race or feats). Soulmelds still provide benefits, but such a character lacks the 'juice' needed to pump them up at all.

What of Binders? Maybe they automatically fail any and all binding checks at level 0?

I'm not even going to get into shadowcasters or truenamers... what of Tome of Battle?

Maybe halve the maneuvers known/readied for each class? Deny abilities like Furious Counterstrike, Weapon Aptitude, etc?

[Starbuck_II]

Maybe halve the maneuvers known/readied for each class? Deny abilities like Furious Counterstrike, Weapon Aptitude, etc?

No, you dont deny non-suprernatural abilities.

So they keep them.

[Shadowleaf]

Ah, thanks for that link! That helps a great deal.


I was thinking an apprentice level incarnum user would not have any essentia (save bonus essentia from race or feats). Soulmelds still provide benefits, but such a character lacks the 'juice' needed to pump them up at all.

What of Binders? Maybe they automatically fail any and all binding checks at level 0?

I'm not even going to get into shadowcasters or truenamers... what of Tome of Battle?

Maybe halve the maneuvers known/readied for each class? Deny abilities like Furious Counterstrike, Weapon Aptitude, etc?
Just commenting on Binders:
It's not that bad to fail a Binding check. You just get the sign (which you cannot suppress at 1st level anyway), and the influence (which usually is very, very minor).
You still get the pact.

[mucat]

Basically for the duration of 1 level-up you get to sort-of be a 2nd Edition multi-classed character?
Doesn't really seem all that useful to me. You gain a WHOLE mess of complicated rules in exchange for...being indistinguishable from any other character once you are both level 2.

I liked it just because it helped match a character's mechanics to their life story. And the complicated extra rules aren't really a problem, because if you get them wrong or implement them in a way that turns out not to work well...at level 2 the character will be "normal" again so it won't matter.

For example, one of the first third-edition characters I played was an impoverished street rat who, when she was much younger, had learned a smattering of magic from a failed wizard. Since his death, she had collected scraps of magical knowledge every chance she got, and even managed to cast a cantrip or two to get out of trouble.

At first level, that "apprentice-level" rogue/wizard rule would have fit the character perfectly. I didn't know about the rule, so I just made her a first-level rogue with UMD and cross-class ranks in Knowledge (Arcana), and had her spend that first level burning her fingers with attempted spells that didn't work, or "worked" in ways that ended up having no mechanical effect.

Which was fun too, actually... :smallsmile: