PDA

View Full Version : Multiclassing old school style in Pathfinder



Kreul
2013-01-31, 02:28 PM
Hey everyone and welcome to my first attempt at posting one of the crazy game ideas that I've had.

I was recently playing Icewind Dale and was loving the multiclass system. It got me all misty eyed of how things used to be for multi classing in AD&D, and I figured there must be a way to convert that lovely system as an option for pathfinder. So, what I did was the following.

The system uses the leveling speeds listed in the pathfinder rules for fast, normal, and slow progression. Single class characters use fast, 2 class characters use normal, and 3 class characters use slow.

The way it balances out is that when a single class character reaches 20, a 2 class character will be @ 16/16, and 3 classes 14/14/14.

You might ask, why play a single class character when I could get a 2 class character 32 levels or a 3 class character 42 levels?

Well slow down oh Master of the min max, here is what multi-classing means for you. The following example uses a Fighter/Rogue

2 class character: Divide XP gained evenly between the 2 classes. They will always level up at the same time. Use the medium XP progression: level 2 takes 2000 xp.

Example, the party starts with 0xp, and is awarded 1800 xp - The single class fighter levels up as single class characters use fast XP progression, you divide your Xp and are still level 1 @ 900/900 Xp.

Hit Points: Total the HP you would get from both classes and divide by 2. After that, add the Con modifer. Your total hit Die is equal to the highest class level you have.

Example: Fighter/Rogue - Fighter gets you 10 at level 1, Rogue gets you 8, for 18. Divide by 2, you have 9 HP, then add your con mod.

Skills - Take the total the number of skill points just from the class - figher gets 2, rogue gets 8, for 10. Divide by 2. You get all class skills from all class lists.

Base Attack: Take the Base attack bonus from each class and total them, then divide by two and round down.

Example: Fighter has a base attack of 1, rogue has a base attack of 0. 1+0=1 / 2 = .5 - round down = 0

Saving Throws: Take all the saving throw values from each class, total them up, and divide by 2 and round down.

Example: Fighter gets +2 Fort, Rogue gets +2 reflex, Divide by 2, = F+1, R+1, W+0

Class Features: Here is where multiclassing shines: You get all the class features from the respective class levels. A starting Fighter/Rogue at level 1 would get Sneak attack 1d6, trapfinding, and a bonus feat.

Feats: You will get feats based off of your Hit Die, which for Multiclass characters is half of the total class levels, or the highest level you have in any one class. Math works on both. So a Fighter/Rogue 1/1 would have 1 HD, and recieve only the level one feat. When they reach level 3/3 they get 3 HD, and get another feat, so on and so forth.

All of the above applies for multiclassing into 3 classes, with the exception of the leveling speed and that you divide by 3 and round down instead of two.

I won't go over each individual entry again, but in the example of a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard, 1/1/1 who had +2 to all modifiers (for ease of explanation)

They would have a Base Attack of 0, ((1+0+0) / 3) 10 Hit points ((10+8+6)/3) +2con, Saves of F=0, R=0, W=0, 6 skill points, ((2+8+2) /3) +2int, 1 Bonus Feat, Trapfinding, Sneak attack 1d6, and First level wizard spellcasting. They would be condidered to have 1 HD for purposes of feats.

I'll post below the chart I used, showing how much XP is required, and with the division how the difference in party leveling would look like, using the total amount of XP collected by the party.


http://s13.postimage.org/8bo6hjozb/XP_chart.png

In closing, you can see that in the above example a multiclass character would generally have a ton more options for class abilities, but move much more slowly on feats, HP, saves, and base attack.

First thing to note: this will not be balanced throughout the entire game. That is not the goal. In my opinion the goal of balance takes away from the game. Are you a level one wizard? RUN AND HIDE! let the fighters take the stage, and keep you alive so that later on in life you may crush nations while they sip tea.

Looking forward to hearing commentary and thoughts on this. Thanks everyone.

ErrantX
2013-01-31, 02:42 PM
Wow, that is well thought out and I am with you, I miss the old multiclassing days. You specialize, you reach the pinnacle of your power. You want diversify? You take the slower rode for more options but pay for your versatility in raw power. Good thinking here, but it begs two questions:


How does this interact with archetypes?

How does this interact with multiclassing with prestige classes?


I like this. Good job.

-X

Kreul
2013-01-31, 02:50 PM
Thank you. :)

1. Archetypes should not pose a problem at all, since they modify the class tables showing what you gain and when you gain it, archetype to your hearts content.

2. This one is tricky, and for now in my test game, multiclassing means no prestige classes. Prestige classes would have to be taken and sought after via the regular dual classing system.*

* I am open to ideas for making it work in this system, so far nothing I've come up with has seemed balanced.

ErrantX
2013-01-31, 03:23 PM
Thank you. :)

1. Archetypes should not pose a problem at all, since they modify the class tables showing what you gain and when you gain it, archetype to your hearts content.

2. This one is tricky, and for now in my test game, multiclassing means no prestige classes. Prestige classes would have to be taken and sought after via the regular dual classing system.*

* I am open to ideas for making it work in this system, so far nothing I've come up with has seemed balanced.

I would say that single classed characters can prestige class into classes that only progress one class' abilities (i.e. maybe no Mystic Theurges, Arcane Sneaks, or Eldritch Knights, but Shadowdancers and Duelists are fine). People who opt to multiclass at level 1 cannot Prestige class at all; their split focus does not allow them to specialize in such a way as Prestige Classes would allow. I'd make that a hard rule.

-X

Kreul
2013-01-31, 03:34 PM
I would say that single classed characters can prestige class into classes that only progress one class' abilities (i.e. maybe no Mystic Theurges, Arcane Sneaks, or Eldritch Knights, but Shadowdancers and Duelists are fine). People who opt to multiclass at level 1 cannot Prestige class at all; their split focus does not allow them to specialize in such a way as Prestige Classes would allow. I'd make that a hard rule.

-X

You make an interesting point that I hadn't thought about before. If someone multi-classes at level one, are they stuck being that multiclass the entire game? If someone starts as a straight fighter, can they later multiclass into a fighter/rouge, beginning to split the XP at the level up?

I'll have to play around with that and see how it works.

Fortuna
2013-01-31, 03:41 PM
The greatest problem with a system like this is the significant front-loading. A first level barbarian/fighter/ranger, say, is significantly stronger than a first level fighter or barbarian or ranger, because they get access to all the abilities of all of them. While I understand that there's an element of power now for power later, I personally consider that to be a design flaw. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I think the question needs to be raised.

Kreul
2013-01-31, 04:08 PM
The greatest problem with a system like this is the significant front-loading. A first level barbarian/fighter/ranger, say, is significantly stronger than a first level fighter or barbarian or ranger, because they get access to all the abilities of all of them. While I understand that there's an element of power now for power later, I personally consider that to be a design flaw. I'm not sure how to fix this, but I think the question needs to be raised.

While there may be a difference, its not as wide of a gap as you'd think. for fun I'll again use my example of someone with all 14s in all categories.

The level 1 fighter has a base attack of +1, so does the multiclass F/B/R.

The fighter has 12 HP, the F/B/R will have 12 hp (12+10+10 = 32, 32/3=10.66, round down, add 2)

The fighter has saving throws of F+2, R+0, and Will+0.

The F/B/R has saves of F+2, (2+2+2 = 6, 6/3 = 2) W:0 and R: 0 (2+0 +0=2, 2/3 =.66 round down)

The fighter has a bonus feat,

The FBR has a bonus feat, fast movement, rage, favored enemy, wild empathy, and track.

For sure, those are some nice abilities, but nothing so over powering that the same fighter, come level 2, isn't going to clean his clock. Is it more powerful? Sure, but it very quickly goes back to not being as powerful.

The design attempt is to keep the power level fluctuating between the single and multiclass, depending on how you build them.

Fortuna
2013-01-31, 04:14 PM
When I talk about front-loading, I'm specifically referring to first level. When one option is strictly better than another for an entire level, and the option is something so broad as a class, I consider the system flawed.

Of course, it goes right back to being strictly inferior next level, because a fighter|barbarian 1 (I'll borrow 4e's terminology here) is simply weaker than a fighter 1/barbarian 1 or a fighter 1/barbarian 2, and a fighter|barbarian|ranger 1 is simply weaker than a fighter 1/barbarian 1/ranger 1. I understand that this is your design goal, but I think that at the table that won't be a hell of a lot of fun.

DaTedinator
2013-01-31, 04:36 PM
I haven't really fully thought through your ideas yet, but my gut instinct is that it's way too harsh on multiclassers. In my 3.5 games, I allow gestalting two classes for a +2 LA, and it's always been pretty solidly balanced.

This, though, averages class characteristics rather than taking the best of both, and at a greater cost. My experience implies that's too harsh.

At the very least, I'd suggest not dividing XP between classes. Just have double multiclassing give you a medium XP progression, and triple a slow.

Finally, I'd recommend checking out Szatany's Ultimate Adventurer (http://www.thecbg.org/wiki/index.php/Ultimate_Adventurer), for a unique take on the concept. It, too, might be a little underpowered, but it seemed worthwhile to share it.

Kreul
2013-01-31, 05:16 PM
Reviewing some Data from higher level HP and BAB + save totals, I agree. This is a table which splits XP along the same progression, thus giving GM's the ability to set the pace of their games while still using multiclassing.

This will also allow the possibility of multiclassing even further (though I'm not sure you would want to) into 4 or 5 classes if you are really crazy.

Let me know what you think.

http://s14.postimage.org/zbdpyvk4h/XP_Chart2.png

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-01-31, 06:56 PM
I actually implemented AD&D multiclassing in my 3e games exactly the same way (well, I don't use the PF XP tables or split XP, just 2/3, 1/1, and 3/2 progressions for single/double/triple classing, but it works out pretty much the same) and can vouch that it works very well.

I solved the 1st-level frontloading problem by making 0th-level versions of each class and starting off multiclassed characters as 0th|0th or 0th|0th|0th level characters instead of 1st|1st or 1st|1st|1st--I based them on the 0th level rules in the 3.0 DMG if you want to look there for inspiration, but it's pretty easy to figure out 0th-level rules--so there are advantages to being single-classed at low levels.

For PrCing, I only allow dual-progression PrCs that require two of the base classes involved, as I feel that's the only way a multiclass character would plausibly be able to specialize further under these rules, and the PrC takes up two or three "slots" of the multiclass in place of the classes it progresses: a rogue|wizard could be an arcane trickster, a daggerspell mage, or similar, a bard|druid|rogue could only be a bard|daggerspell shaper, a druid|arcane trickster, a fochlucan lyrist, or similar, and so forth. That allows characters to get abilities that mix the strengths of their classes the same way they did in AD&D (like elf fighter/magic-users being able to cast in armor and such) without allowing the full multiclassing craziness of something like gestalt.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-01, 12:57 AM
The biggest issue I see here are that the classes who gain the least from multi-classing are also the classes that scale the best over any given X levels: spellcasters.

While it's all well and good to compare a Fighter 2 to a Fighter|Barbarian 2, you're actually keeping that Fighter|Barbarian a total of about 1-2 levels behind his caster counterpart, who is now even more exponentially powerful in comparison than he was before.

Kreul
2013-02-01, 02:10 PM
The biggest issue I see here are that the classes who gain the least from multi-classing are also the classes that scale the best over any given X levels: spellcasters.

While it's all well and good to compare a Fighter 2 to a Fighter|Barbarian 2, you're actually keeping that Fighter|Barbarian a total of about 1-2 levels behind his caster counterpart, who is now even more exponentially powerful in comparison than he was before.

Indeed. There are many balance issues with this system in that some players will be less powerful than others, and some more powerful than others. I could tweak the system to be more balanced, but to be honest thats not what I'm trying to accomplish.

For straight up damage dealing, sure a straight class caster will be more powerful, but they were already stronger than non casters as it was.

Most people don't seem to find the same value that I do in class diversity. Having more options being greater than being super good at one thing. Its possible that it's just the kind of games I like to play in, but I like well rounded versatile characters. The single class characters ability to do 400 damage a round won't help when damage isn't whats needed, and I feel this method just gives some fun choices for those who want to play a character who isn't a combat drone.

That being said, I challenge the min maxers, and I bet some of them come up with some devastating multiclasses via this method.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-01, 02:23 PM
For straight up damage dealing, sure a straight class caster will be more powerful, but they were already stronger than non casters as it was.

Correct. They'll also win in versatility, except for the multi-class Cleric/Wizard or whatever double-caster hybrid you can have, which will lose a bit of power in exchange for MILLIONS of options.


Most people don't seem to find the same value that I do in class diversity. Having more options being greater than being super good at one thing.

This is actually valued extremely highly by many homebrewers (myself included). The problem is that mundane classes, while they have more class features, don't have anywhere NEAR the diversity of a well played (or even moderately competent) spellcaster.


Its possible that it's just the kind of games I like to play in, but I like well rounded versatile characters. The single class characters ability to do 400 damage a round won't help when damage isn't whats needed, and I feel this method just gives some fun choices for those who want to play a character who isn't a combat drone.

Right again. But what about the character who can turn into a dragon, kill everything nearby, turn invisible, create illusions, mind-control his opponent, charm the guards, turn ethereal and walk through the wall, and all the other encounter-ending things casters can do in combat OR non-combat encounters?


That being said, I challenge the min maxers, and I bet some of them come up with some devastating multiclasses via this method.

Most of those will be cherry-picking combat-ending combos though. The majority of the "broken" builds will be cherry-picking caster classes, as an 18/18 caster is basically straight up better than a 20 caster. Both will leave almost any other non-caster combination in the dust many levels behind.

And that's the issue. If spellcasting isn't paying a premium, rushing a straight caster will beat almost anything that isn't cheesy, and doing a double-classes spellcaster will result in the most possible power.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-02-01, 02:32 PM
The biggest issue I see here are that the classes who gain the least from multi-classing are also the classes that scale the best over any given X levels: spellcasters.

While it's all well and good to compare a Fighter 2 to a Fighter|Barbarian 2, you're actually keeping that Fighter|Barbarian a total of about 1-2 levels behind his caster counterpart, who is now even more exponentially powerful in comparison than he was before.

That scenario is certainly problematic, but in my experience the opposite usually happens: Martial types would rather multiclass normally ("dual-class," if you will) to dip front-loaded martial base and prestige classes as usual, while caster types often don't mind being a spell level behind if they can pseudo-gestalt (particularly if they were going for a dual-progression PrC anyway), so you're much more likely to see a party containing a fighter 8 (or fighter 6/ranger 2, or fighter 4/barbarian 2/ranger 2, etc.) and a wizard 6|rogue 6 than a party containing a wizard 8 and a fighter 6|barbarian 6.

Granted, that requires either a party who already knows about LFQW and accounts for it when building their characters or a DM who can dissuade the "Monks are cool! Truenamers are cool! I wanna be both!" players from multiclassing when there's an incantatrix in the party, but I'd think most DMs who would see this here and want to implement it would meet the second criterion.

EDIT: I have run one game where the players wanted to have a party containing a single-classed full caster, a multiclassed full caster|noncaster, a multiclassed noncaster|noncaster, and a multiclassed psionicist|full caster|full caster. For that game I instituted separate XP tracks for full casters (including psionicists), partial casters, and noncasters to further modify the XP rates for multiclassing. It worked, but it was more kludgy than I'd have liked, and working with the players to build a more balanced party is a lot easier than doing that and is something that a DM should be doing with normal multiclassing anyway.

Djinn_in_Tonic
2013-02-01, 02:37 PM
That scenario is certainly problematic, but in my experience the opposite usually happens: Martial types would rather multiclass normally ("dual-class," if you will) to dip front-loaded martial base and prestige classes as usual, while caster types often don't mind being a spell level behind if they can pseudo-gestalt (particularly if they were going for a dual-progression PrC anyway), so you're much more likely to see a party containing a fighter 8 (or fighter 6/ranger 2, or fighter 4/barbarian 2/ranger 2, etc.) and a wizard 6|rogue 6 than a party containing a wizard 8 and a fighter 6|barbarian 6.

Typically true, yes. However, that somewhat exacerbates the issue, as casters would gain even more versatility in exchange for a slight power decrease they can easily stomach, especially if they can get something like an additional casting class out of the bargain. (Speaking of, how does this work with Prestige Classes? I could see dual-progression PrCs wrecking havoc)

Basically, I think the edge cases outweigh the benefits of such a system unless there is something built in to take account of them.


Granted, that requires either a party who already knows about LFQW and accounts for it when building their characters or a DM who can dissuade the "Monks are cool! Truenamers are cool! I wanna be both!" players from multiclassing when there's an incantatrix in the party, but I'd think most DMs who would see this here and want to implement it would meet the second criterion.

This is the only saving grace I see, but it relies on the DM being smart and the player being willing to understand why his or her idea is being shot down, or why his Wizard/Incantrix | Cleric/Mystic Theurge is being forced to not use a system that everyone else is using.

PairO'Dice Lost
2013-02-01, 03:01 PM
Typically true, yes. However, that somewhat exacerbates the issue, as casters would gain even more versatility in exchange for a slight power decrease they can easily stomach, especially if they can get something like an additional casting class out of the bargain. (Speaking of, how does this work with Prestige Classes? I could see dual-progression PrCs wrecking havoc)

As I mentioned above, in my version of this system multiclassed characters can only take dual-progression PrCs and those PrCs take up both "slots" for their base classes, so the wizard|incantatrix/cleric|mystic theurge you mention farther down isn't actually possible (you can be either a wizard/incantatrix or a wizard|cleric but not both) and a gish build might look like fighter|wizard 6/eldritch knight 3 or something.

And really, gaining extra versatility with a second casting class is nothing new. A typical early-entry mystic theurge build under normal multiclassing is a wizard 1/cleric 2/mystic theurge 10/wizard +4/cleric +3 (or swap wizard and cleric, same thing) and is a spell level behind in one or both classes at every level; that build is generally viewed as being weaker than a straight full caster but still a worthwhile, balanced T2-T3 based on playstyle, and the intended 3/3/10/+2/+2 theurge build is viewed as being too weak to bother with.

A multiclassed wizard|cleric X or similar is also a spell level behind in both classes every level, unlike the mystic theurge who is caught up one one side at some levels, its only advantage over a mystic theurge being a negligible increase in HP and skill points. If a group wouldn't have problems with a mystic theurge being in the same party as a fighter X/barbarian X/ranger X/etc., I doubt a wizard|cleric X would pose a problem ether, and if they do have problems with mystic theurges then mucking around with multiclassing is the last thing they need to be doing.


Basically, I think the edge cases outweigh the benefits of such a system unless there is something built in to take account of them.

This is the only saving grace I see, but it relies on the DM being smart and the player being willing to understand why his or her idea is being shot down, or why his Wizard/Incantrix | Cleric/Mystic Theurge is being forced to not use a system that everyone else is using.

You swordsaged me while I was editing an example into my last post of a party that insisted on a somewhat unbalanced party composition, and as you can see from that scenario it's possible (if somewhat unpleasant) to adjust for it even if the players don't want to self-regulate their builds. And again, I'd expect a DM who frequents this forum and who sees and decides to implement this system would have a good understanding of class balance and would know how to implement the system well within his group; if one's party contains both monks and incantatrices, one already has a problem.

Kreul
2013-02-01, 06:54 PM
So, just tried making characters using the method suggested, taking the best option of any class rather than using the fractions. So if I'm understanding this right, my level 1/1 Fighter Rogue would have:

1d10 Hit die,
8+int Skills/level
Base Attack +1,
F+2, R+2, W+0,
sneak attack 1d6,
Trapfinding,
Bonus Feat

Given that method I can see where you are correct about having way more power @ level 1 than other classes, however it doesn't seem too unbalanced compared to a race with level adjustments.

Will have to try more combinations, but it really seems to hose Melee less.

DaTedinator
2013-02-01, 11:11 PM
Yeah, I think that'd probably be better. As long as you're not starting at level 1 exactly, I don't see any issues with it. Like I said, that's basically how I've been playing for a while now, and I've never had any issues.

Zman
2013-02-02, 10:19 AM
Reviewing some Data from higher level HP and BAB + save totals, I agree. This is a table which splits XP along the same progression, thus giving GM's the ability to set the pace of their games while still using multiclassing.

This will also allow the possibility of multiclassing even further (though I'm not sure you would want to) into 4 or 5 classes if you are really crazy.

Let me know what you think.

http://s14.postimage.org/zbdpyvk4h/XP_Chart2.png

This is how I've worked with it and really like it. Problem being 18/18 casters. That D6 Hit Dice Cleric18/Wizard18 is pretty powerful. Though, even then becoming MAD Wis and Int reduces bonus spells and Save DCs a bit while delaying their power slightly help, not to mention the feat strapping. Yes, at 17/17 they become vastly powerful, but they were a couple levels behind their single classed counterparts. It isn't as unbalanced as it could be until lvl17/17.



Most people don't seem to find the same value that I do in class diversity. Having more options being greater than being super good at one thing. Its possible that it's just the kind of games I like to play in, but I like well rounded versatile characters. The single class characters ability to do 400 damage a round won't help when damage isn't whats needed, and I feel this method just gives some fun choices for those who want to play a character who isn't a combat drone.

That being said, I challenge the min maxers, and I bet some of them come up with some devastating multiclasses via this method.

We seem to think alike, I prefer versatile characters of moderate power over specialized characters.


So, just tried making characters using the method suggested, taking the best option of any class rather than using the fractions. So if I'm understanding this right, my level 1/1 Fighter Rogue would have:

1d10 Hit die,
8+int Skills/level
Base Attack +1,
F+2, R+2, W+0,
sneak attack 1d6,
Trapfinding,
Bonus Feat

Given that method I can see where you are correct about having way more power @ level 1 than other classes, however it doesn't seem too unbalanced compared to a race with level adjustments.

Will have to try more combinations, but it really seems to hose Melee less.


His new up being severely font loaded, taking the average and gaining the class abilities of both seems better to me.

DaTedinator
2013-02-02, 10:45 AM
His new up being severely font loaded, taking the average and gaining the class abilities of both seems better to me.

Obviously, if you compare it to a level 1 of anything else, it's gonna seem powerful. But instead of that, compare a level 1 fighter|rogue to a level 2 fighter/rogue, and it looks significantly less front-loaded. In fact, it's actually a little back-loaded; other than level 1, at the earlier levels, your lack of HD hurts a lot more than it does later.

Zman
2013-02-02, 11:21 AM
Obviously, if you compare it to a level 1 of anything else, it's gonna seem powerful. But instead of that, compare a level 1 fighter|rogue to a level 2 fighter/rogue, and it looks significantly less front-loaded. In fact, it's actually a little back-loaded; other than level 1, at the earlier levels, your lack of HD hurts a lot more than it does later.

I do see your point, but if you don't average it out you've effectively created a Gestalt with a small level penalty. The diluted focus of averaging out statistics is better at balance over the course of most levels.

For instance a Level 1 Rogue|Fighter

Full
+1 BAB, +2 Fort, +2 Reflex, Feat,d6 Sneak Attack, 32 Skill Points

Average: +0 BaB, +1 Fort, +1 Reflex, Feat, d6 Sneak Attack, 20 Skill Points

Now at lvl18 Rogue|Fighter
Full: 112HP, +18 BAB, +11 Fort, +11 Reflex, 10 Feats, 9d6 Sneak Attack, 168 Skill Points

Average: 93Hp +16 BAB, +8 Fort, +8 Reflex, 10 Feats, 9d6 Sneak Aattack, 105 Skill Points

Now we compare a lvl20 Fighter and Rogue
Fighter:124 HP, +20 BAB, +12 Fort, +6 Ref, 11 Feats, No Sneak Attack, 42 Skill Points
Rogue: 74HP +15 BAB, +6 Fort, +12 Ref, 0 Feats, 10d6 Sneak Attack, 184 Skill Points

When compared giving them the best of each class renders the single classed counterparts irrelevant. Comparing Fighter 20 to Rogue18|Fighter18

The 12Hp, +2 BAB, +1 Fort, 1 Feat is not worth the +5 Ref, 9d6 Sneak Attack, 126 skill points. Not to mention all of the other class features.

But, it gets a bit better using Average.
The 31Hp, +4 BAB, +4 Fort, 1Feat is closer to being worth the +2 Ref, 9d6 Sneak Attack, 63 Skill Points. Again San other Special Abilities.

Average of each classes is a much better representation of what a true Dual class would look like, ie someone devoting their time to both aspects.

DaTedinator
2013-02-02, 09:29 PM
I do see your point, but if you don't average it out you've effectively created a Gestalt with a small level penalty.

Exactly. That's literally what I do in my games, and it's always played fine.


The diluted focus of averaging out statistics is better at balance over the course of most levels.

Rather than looking at them at levels 1 and 20 - in my experience, the two levels most rarely played in a game - let's actually get a sample of how the statistics look across a span of levels.

Level 5:
Class|HP|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Skill Points
Fighter 5|32|+5|+4|+1|+1|10
Rogue 5|26|+3|+1|+4|+1|40
Averaged Fighter/Rogue 3|19|+2|+2|+2|+1|15
Best-of Fighter/Rogue 3|22|+3|+3|+3|+1|24

Averaged, the Fighter/Rogue has less hit points, less BAB, and arguably worse saves than either a Fighter or a Rogue. For a level 5 character, she effectively has a d6 HD, poor BAB, and almost poor Fort and Reflex saves. Even her skill points are pretty low, being effectively 3 skill points per level for a 5th level character. She doesn't work as a combat character, or as a skill monkey.

The best-of Fighter/Rogue isn't much better, but is obviously better. She's got a d7 HD, average BAB, almost good Fort and Reflex saves, and 5 skill points per level. She's okay in combat and okay at skills, but not as good at either as a Fighter or Rogue, respectively.

Level 10:
Class|HP|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Skill Points
Fighter 10|60|+10|+7|+3|+3|20
Rogue 10|49|+7|+3|+7|+3|80
Averaged Fighter/Rogue 8|44|+7|+4|+4|+2|40
Best-of Fighter/Rogue 8|49|+8|+6|+6|+2|64

By level 10, the averaged Fighter/Rogue is playable, but still disadvantaged. She has lower hit points than either a Fighter or a Rogue, the lowest of their Base Attack Bonuses, and again, almost poor saves. Her Will save is actually below poor, now. She has fully half the skills of a Rogue, meaning she can actually use any now, but because of the lower skill point cap, still not as good as anyone else with 4 skill points per level. By this point, her bonus feats and sneak attacks have gotten high enough that she's playable, but she's still squishier than anyone else.

The best-of is, naturally, in a better position. Her hit points now match a d8 HD, her BAB is a smidge above average, and her Fortitude and Reflex saves are still almost good (her Will, too, though, is below poor). She's got a nice number of skill points, which might make up for the lower skill cap. She's squishier than a fighter, but thanks to her sneak attack, hits harder; she's not as skilled as a rogue, but thanks to her fighter feats, she's better in a fight.

Level 15:
Class|HP|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Skill Points
Fighter 15|87|+15|+9|+5|+5|30
Rogue 15|71|+11|+5|+9|+5|120
Averaged Fighter/Rogue 13|69|+11|+6|+6|+4|65
Best-of Fighter/Rogue 13|76|+13|+8|+8|+4|104

The averaged Fighter/Rogue's hit points are now, finally, comparable to a Rogue's - though still lower, and lower still once you factor in Constitution bonuses. Her BAB is average, her saves are still basically poor/below poor, and her skill points are still only the equivalent of 4/level, with a lower skill cap. However, now she's finally at the point where her Sneak Attack and Bonus Feats make up for it. Her numbers are all poor for a combat class, but she's got +7d6 Sneak Attack and what, seven Fighter feats? Making her effective in a fight despite her squishiness. Still not at all a skill monkey, though. Seems about even.

The best-of has hit points that are actually on par with the Rogue's (after you fill in Constitution), a between-good-and-average BAB, and still almost good Fort and Ref saves (still a miserable Will, too). Her skill points are almost as a high as the straight Rogue's, albeit still there's the lower cap. Once you factor in all her class features, though, she does pull ahead of the single-classed Fighter and Rogue; with characteristics that are about evenly between the two classes, and Sneak Attack and bonus feats only 1 die/feat behind either of them, by this point she's contributing more to combat than if she'd gone single-classed, and using skills comparably enough to a straight Rogue (by this point a -2 to all skills isn't as noticeable). She's got the advantage in general - though a straight Rogue is still a better skill monkey.

My bias is pretty clearly towards the best-of, but I don't think that's unreasonable. Remember that we're still just talking about the weakest of the classes, here - it's okay for them to get a little boost, especially if that boost comes at the higher levels, where they're becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway.

And no, just plugging in two high-tier classes doesn't invalidate that argument. Remember, higher-tier classes are going to be much more hampered by being two levels behind in class features. +4d6 sneak attack vs. +5d6 sneak attack isn't a huge deal. 4th level spells vs. 5th level spells? Totally is.

Also keep in mind that the dual-classed character is going to be consistently behind a feat, is going to get less HP for their Constitution, and is going to be more susceptible to HD-based effects. None of those are huge deals, but they do come up, believe you me.

So my end deduction is that best-of is balanced in general, with low-tier classes being a teensy bit worse at the early levels, growing to equivalent in the mid levels, and finally getting a little better at the higher levels, whereas high-tier classes pretty evenly trade power for versatility. I use it in my games and it's worked wonderfully; some players take it, some players don't, and everyone's generally about even. YMMV.

Zman
2013-02-02, 10:36 PM
Exactly. That's literally what I do in my games, and it's always played fine.



Rather than looking at them at levels 1 and 20 - in my experience, the two levels most rarely played in a game - let's actually get a sample of how the statistics look across a span of levels.

Level 5:
Class|HP|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Skill Points
Fighter 5|32|+5|+4|+1|+1|10
Rogue 5|26|+3|+1|+4|+1|40
Averaged Fighter/Rogue 3|19|+2|+2|+2|+1|15
Best-of Fighter/Rogue 3|22|+3|+3|+3|+1|24

Averaged, the Fighter/Rogue has less hit points, less BAB, and arguably worse saves than either a Fighter or a Rogue. For a level 5 character, she effectively has a d6 HD, poor BAB, and almost poor Fort and Reflex saves. Even her skill points are pretty low, being effectively 3 skill points per level for a 5th level character. She doesn't work as a combat character, or as a skill monkey.

The best-of Fighter/Rogue isn't much better, but is obviously better. She's got a d7 HD, average BAB, almost good Fort and Reflex saves, and 5 skill points per level. She's okay in combat and okay at skills, but not as good at either as a Fighter or Rogue, respectively.

Level 10:
Class|HP|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Skill Points
Fighter 10|60|+10|+7|+3|+3|20
Rogue 10|49|+7|+3|+7|+3|80
Averaged Fighter/Rogue 8|44|+7|+4|+4|+2|40
Best-of Fighter/Rogue 8|49|+8|+6|+6|+2|64

By level 10, the averaged Fighter/Rogue is playable, but still disadvantaged. She has lower hit points than either a Fighter or a Rogue, the lowest of their Base Attack Bonuses, and again, almost poor saves. Her Will save is actually below poor, now. She has fully half the skills of a Rogue, meaning she can actually use any now, but because of the lower skill point cap, still not as good as anyone else with 4 skill points per level. By this point, her bonus feats and sneak attacks have gotten high enough that she's playable, but she's still squishier than anyone else.

The best-of is, naturally, in a better position. Her hit points now match a d8 HD, her BAB is a smidge above average, and her Fortitude and Reflex saves are still almost good (her Will, too, though, is below poor). She's got a nice number of skill points, which might make up for the lower skill cap. She's squishier than a fighter, but thanks to her sneak attack, hits harder; she's not as skilled as a rogue, but thanks to her fighter feats, she's better in a fight.

Level 15:
Class|HP|BAB|Fort|Ref|Will|Skill Points
Fighter 15|87|+15|+9|+5|+5|30
Rogue 15|71|+11|+5|+9|+5|120
Averaged Fighter/Rogue 13|69|+11|+6|+6|+4|65
Best-of Fighter/Rogue 13|76|+13|+8|+8|+4|104

The averaged Fighter/Rogue's hit points are now, finally, comparable to a Rogue's - though still lower, and lower still once you factor in Constitution bonuses. Her BAB is average, her saves are still basically poor/below poor, and her skill points are still only the equivalent of 4/level, with a lower skill cap. However, now she's finally at the point where her Sneak Attack and Bonus Feats make up for it. Her numbers are all poor for a combat class, but she's got +7d6 Sneak Attack and what, seven Fighter feats? Making her effective in a fight despite her squishiness. Still not at all a skill monkey, though. Seems about even.

The best-of has hit points that are actually on par with the Rogue's (after you fill in Constitution), a between-good-and-average BAB, and still almost good Fort and Ref saves (still a miserable Will, too). Her skill points are almost as a high as the straight Rogue's, albeit still there's the lower cap. Once you factor in all her class features, though, she does pull ahead of the single-classed Fighter and Rogue; with characteristics that are about evenly between the two classes, and Sneak Attack and bonus feats only 1 die/feat behind either of them, by this point she's contributing more to combat than if she'd gone single-classed, and using skills comparably enough to a straight Rogue (by this point a -2 to all skills isn't as noticeable). She's got the advantage in general - though a straight Rogue is still a better skill monkey.

My bias is pretty clearly towards the best-of, but I don't think that's unreasonable. Remember that we're still just talking about the weakest of the classes, here - it's okay for them to get a little boost, especially if that boost comes at the higher levels, where they're becoming increasingly irrelevant anyway.

And no, just plugging in two high-tier classes doesn't invalidate that argument. Remember, higher-tier classes are going to be much more hampered by being two levels behind in class features. +4d6 sneak attack vs. +5d6 sneak attack isn't a huge deal. 4th level spells vs. 5th level spells? Totally is.

Also keep in mind that the dual-classed character is going to be consistently behind a feat, is going to get less HP for their Constitution, and is going to be more susceptible to HD-based effects. None of those are huge deals, but they do come up, believe you me.

So my end deduction is that best-of is balanced in general, with low-tier classes being a teensy bit worse at the early levels, growing to equivalent in the mid levels, and finally getting a little better at the higher levels, whereas high-tier classes pretty evenly trade power for versatility. I use it in my games and it's worked wonderfully; some players take it, some players don't, and everyone's generally about even. YMMV.

I appreciate the effort you put into your argument, but I feel you you are very narrowly looking at this and failed to accurately represent the single most important aspect of the Dualclass, its special abilities. Also, you picked experience totals where the Single Classed character is always two levels ahead, there are many many times where the dualclass is only a single level behind. For instance 18000 xp, here we have a 4/4 and only a lvl5 straight class. The comparison gets better at these points. And as you noted at level 15 the classes have have grown closer, it isn't until lvl 20 that there is a true 2 level gap.

Now, special abilities. Yes, the Fighter has vastly superior stats, but does not have access to sneak attack, Rogue Talent, etc. And a Straight Rogue doesn't have access to the plethora of feats, the armor training, the weapon training, etc. Weapon Training Alone from the Fighter bridges teh gap in To Hit. Taking Toughness could help with the HP, and he'll have the feats to do those sorts of things if he has to. When you actually figure it out the Average Fighter|Rogue will be able to have a higher to hit, higher damage ouput, higher AC, and more combat options than the Straight Class Rogue, and thanks to sneak attack and rogue talents will likely deal more damage than the Fighter.

A Dual Class shouldn't have as much HP as a Straight Class Fighter, Shouldn't have the Skills as a Rogue, he simply isn't as focused and is not a straight class rogue or fighter, but he should be a good blend. And when you do a fair comparison at the lower levels, ie 4000xp, 10000xp, 18000xp the comparison looks drastically different, and you've already admitted that the high level comparison is pretty similar. I have no doubt giving the class the best of both worlds is more powerful, it is by default, but I still argue that the Averaged Fighter|Rogue will be able to hold his own and be an effective character, more so than his single class partners if less specialized. The Special Abilities are what warrants the price and the level loss.

Edit: One other Comparison with emphasis on class features, lets step outside the box and try and represent a Rogue/Wizard character. Option 1 is take levels of Rogue, then Wizard in a standard multiclass. Option 2 is take levels of Rogue, then levels of Wizard, then Arcane Trickster. Option 3 is the Averaged Dualclass Wizard|Rogue. Option 4 is the Full Wizard|Rogue.

Option 1: Effectively irrelevant, will never be competitive. Best Case Scenario at lvl20 is a 5d6 Sneak Attack and 6th levels spell for Rogue9/Wizard11. Theoretical Max HP is 138, Bab +11, +6Fort, +9Ref, +10Will, 94 Skill Points.

Option 2: Use of Arcane Trickster PRC, Rogue5/Wizard5/Arcane Trickster 10. 8d6 Sneak Attack, 8th level spells, 130HP, BAB +10, +5Fort, +10 Ref, +10 Ref, 90 Skill Points.

Option 3: Averaged Dual Class Rogue18|Wizard18. 9d6 Sneak Attack, 9th level spells, 126HP, +11 BAB, +6Fort, +8Ref, +8Will, 80 Skill Points

Option 4: Full Dual Class Rogue18|Wizard18. 9d6 Sneak Attack, 9th level spells, 144HP, +13BAB, +6Fort, +11Ref, +11Will, 144 Skill Points.

In this example, Option 4 looks more like a wishlist than anything remotely balanced. Options 2 and Options 3 are relatively balanced considering there are other bonuses to factor it, ie Rogue Talents, Wizard Bonus Feats, and Arcane Trickster special abilities.

How about a level 10 Breakdown(Unfavorable Comparison)?

Option 1: Rogue5/Wizard5. 3d6 Sneak Attack, 3rd level spells, 70HP, +5BAB, +2 Fort, +5Ref, +5Will, 50 Skill Points.

Option 2: Rogue3/Wizard3/Arcane Trickerster 4. 4d6 Sneak Attack, 4th level spells, 66HP +5BAB, +3Fort, +5Ref, +5Will, 46 Skill Points.

Option 3: Averaged Dual Class Rogue8|Wizard8. 4d6 Sneak Attack, 4th level spells, 56HP, +5BAB, +2Fort, +2Ref, +2Will, 40skill Points.

Option 4: Full DualClass Rogue8|Wizard8. 4d6 Sneak Attack, 4th Level Spells, 64HP, +6 BAB, +2 Fort, +6Ref, +6Will, 64 Skill Points.

Now the Favorable LvL 10 Comparision

Option 1: Rogue5/Wizard5. 3d6 Sneak Attack, 3rd level spells, 70HP, +5BAB, +2 Fort, +5Ref, +5Will, 50 Skill Points.

Option 2: Rogue3/Wizard3/Arcane Trickerster 4. 4d6 Sneak Attack, 4th level spells, 66HP, +5BAB, +3Fort, +5Ref, +5Will, 46 Skill Points.

Option 3: Averaged Dual Class Rogue9|Wizard9. 5d6 Sneak Attack, 5th level spells, 63HP, +5BAB, +3Fort, +2Ref, +2Will, 45skill Points.

Option 4: Full DualClass Rogue9|Wizard8. 5d6 Sneak Attack, 5th Level Spells, 72HP, +6 BAB, +3 Fort, +6Ref, +6Will, 72 Skill Points.

Oh course, all of these are done sands other special abilities which Options 2, 3, and 4 obviously make out the best on with Options 3 and 4 getting the best deal.

This comparison should show that indeed the Averaged Dualclass is indeed an effective comparison and the special abilities are truly the deciding factor for balance. Option 4, Full Dualclass is unanimously the superior choice and is effectively a wishlist recieving the best BAB, HP, Saves, Skill Points, and Special Abilities while Option 3 is a much more balanced and not overpowered option in my opinion.

DaTedinator
2013-02-03, 08:30 AM
Also, you picked experience totals where the Single Classed character is always two levels ahead, there are many many times where the dualclass is only a single level behind. For instance 18000 xp, here we have a 4/4 and only a lvl5 straight class. The comparison gets better at these points. And as you noted at level 15 the classes have have grown closer, it isn't until lvl 20 that there is a true 2 level gap.

That is a fantastic point, and one I hadn't really considered. I guess I had started thinking of it like my system, where it's a straight +2 LA. But you're absolutely right, for the early levels, they're basically only one level behind, and by the time they're a full two, they've caught up.

Consider me convinced.

Zman
2013-02-03, 11:32 AM
That is a fantastic point, and one I hadn't really considered. I guess I had started thinking of it like my system, where it's a straight +2 LA. But you're absolutely right, for the early levels, they're basically only one level behind, and by the time they're a full two, they've caught up.

Consider me convinced.

I dislike the idea of a straight La as it is less balanced, La is extremely debilitating at low levels. The half XP to each class is significantly more balanced in an organic fashion. It starts with under a level difference and slowly grows until a two level gap is appropriate.

I can see where when a LA is used, it would require the nest of both, but would end up being overpowering at high levels, and under whelming at low level. With Full Dual Class you are very powerful at every level.

I would like to thank you for a fun and amicable argument/discussion.