2nd edition multiclassing in 3.5?

[Seharvepernfan]

Why not? I don't think I've ever seen anyone suggest this, but it seems like it would work very well and not be over-powered (though the question of if it would be is why I'm making this thread).

However, since 2nd editions exp tables were different, this wouldn't work as a direct port (your levels would be way too far behind a single-classed character). So, what if you had 80% of each class at a given level? Say, at 12th, when you have 66,000 exp total, a multiclassed character would have 52,800 in two classes (10th/10th in this case).

2nd edition multiclasses had some restrictions; I would just allow a multiclassed character to act as a gestalt character, albeit a bit behind the single-classed folks.

Because you are forever behind in bab/saves/max ranks, I'd allow such a close tailing.

What do you think?

[eggynack]

It's been suggested that porting a gestalt into a normal game is worth about +2 LA. That fits your goal pretty well without having to delve into foreign mechanics too hard.

[Seharvepernfan]

Is that a fairly widely accepted thing? Cuz it works for me.

[ZamielVanWeber]

Really strong gestalts would run roughshod over your game even with the LA while really weak ones would fall worse behind. Gestalt (or anything like it) has such a wide power scale that it can hard to judge. Assuming a more middling ground (not great op-fu, but definitely strengthening the core class) it should be fine. I would consider running behind for anything but a full caster.

[Hecuba]

Yes, +2 LA has been the general consensus when I've seen it discussed in the past.

A couple of notes:

If you don't want it to become the default choice for games getting intro higher levels, don't make it work with LA buyoff
The +2 value assumes you are balancing against the existing races & templates that are consisted strong for their LA. If you think those are too powerful for their LA, you might consider 3 instead.

[eggynack]

Is that a fairly widely accepted thing? Cuz it works for me.
I dunno. It's come up a couple of times, to my recollection, usually in the form of, "How would you price gestalt in terms of LA?" and that's the answer that I think usually comes up. Shouldn't be too far off, in any case. Definitely shouldn't go below two, and I'm inclined to think that three is too high.

Really strong gestalts would run roughshod over your game even with the LA while really weak ones would fall worse behind. Gestalt (or anything like it) has such a wide power scale that it can hard to judge. Assuming a more middling ground (not great op-fu, but definitely strengthening the core class) it should be fine. I would consider running behind for anything but a full caster.
I'm inclined to think that it makes sense, given that high power classes won't pay the price while low power ones will do so gladly. Kinda acts as a balancing factor, when considered in that manner, and the two levels over reflects that region between normal mystic theurge and optimized mystic theurge pretty well. There is definitely more variance in gestalt than for most LA having things, but most LA having things do have setups where they do very well or very poorly, so it works out alright. That high power classes are somewhat left out of the loop also means that the highest power gestalt options are taken out of the equation, smoothing out the usual variance of gestalt somewhat. I mean, gestalt is going to have variance. If you're including it in your game, even in LA form, there's going to be variance there no matter how you do it. Not much avoiding it.