Different XP rates can work with free multiclass (3.5)

[Frog Dragon]

Many people have said that different level gaining rates and free multiclass don't mesh.
I respectfully disagree and here's how


What you see there is a table for an alternative XP system. Basically it lists the xp you need to advance to a certain level THOSE NUMBERS DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PREVIOUS LEVELS Basically whenn you go from level 12 to 13 in a low XP class you need 9000 XP from zero.

That is also the reason why it will work with free multiclass.

You may choose to stall your level. This means when for example a level 15 fighter gain 11250 XP he doesn't need to use it. He may instead stall it until he can get xp for a higher xp class of the same character level.

Xp tiers

Low Underpowered or otherwise rather weak class
Monk
Fighter
Rogue
Ranger
Paladin
Barbarian
Bard
Ninja
Spellthief

Medium Decent classes that hold their own, but are not OP
Warblade
Swordsage
Crusader
Duskblade

High Powerful classes that may even go to the OP side as a standard
Wizard
Cleric
Sorcerer
Shapechange Variant Druid

Very High Overpowered stuff that can break the game easily
Druid



For example Jared has 5 levels in fighter and wants to go wizard. The wizard level 6 XP is 6250 so he gathers the XP and takes a wizard level.
He is now a Fighter 5/ Wizard 1

Seem good?

[Satyr]

Sounds like an interesting idea. I will discuss it with my group, and perhaps include it into Sewers and Serpents; if we find a major drawback to this concept, I'll let you know.

Even though, as someone who focus more on causality and versimilitude than on balance, I think I would favor non-caster classes over caster classes every time, as they have less to learn and hence do it in less time.

[Human Paragon 3]

I see one small problem with the table. Let's say I'm a level 3 monk (1500 xp) and I take my 4th level in druid (maybe i'm going fist of the forest or something). I stall my XP until I have 4500, the amount to gain that druid level. Next level, I want to take another monk level, which requires 2250 xp and... wait... I already have that. So my monk level is free I guess. Oops.

[Frog Dragon]

No that problem does not exist. Read the bolded text on caps.
It does not take into account previous XP. Which means that when you take a level you should zero your XP total and then collect the XP. The XP required is calculated from 0. Think it like, each time you gain a level you lose XP equal to the amount the level "costs"
So say you have that build you just said

Well
To get to....
2. level: You need 750 XP (monk)
3. level: You need 1500 more XP (still monk)
4. level: you need 4500 points of additional XP (druid)
5. level: Now you need 2250 more points of XP to get your next monk level.

Get it?
The totals are calculated from point 0 so when you gain a level you "buy" it and add the leftover to the total for your next level.

[Eloel]

Archivist
Ardent
Artificer
Barbarian
Bard
Beguiler
Binder
Cleric
Crusader
Divine Mind
Dragon Shaman
Dragonfire Adept
Dread Necromancer
Druid
Duskblade
Factotum
Favored Soul
Fighter
Healer
Hexblade
Knight
Lurk
Marshal
Monk
Ninja
Paladin
Psion
Psychic Warrior
Ranger
Rogue
Samurai
Scout
Shadowcaster
Sorcerer
Soulknife
Spellthief
Spirit Shaman
Swashbuckler
Swordsage
Truenamer
Warblade
Warlock
Warmage
Wilder
Wizard



Have fun compiling them into XP costs :) Also, there're a zillion of PrCs waiting for you.
(Yes, this is complete as far as I know.)

[Frog Dragon]

I don't have all of those classes though. My library is very limited

(I have Core, CADV, CSCO, PHBII, AaEG and ToB and that's it. Eberron campaing setting and CARC are coming in the mail though.)

[Baron Corm]

Why does it take more to become a wizard level 1 if your character level is 19 than if your character level is 2? That makes no sense. I'm not talking about the scaling difference, I'm talking about the comparative difference. I.E., it's better to take all of your wizard levels in the beginning, then take your fighter levels after, for some reason. The actual difference between Low, Medium, High, and Very High should be static.

Disclaimer: Subject is confusing and I am subject to being confused.

[Eloel]

Also, tell me just HOW do you justify someone becoming Fighter 20 at half the time someone else becomes a druid 20?

For reference, a Fighter 20 takes 157500 XP to get to, and Druid 14 takes the same XP.
How is THAT balanced?

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Why does it take more to become a wizard level 1 if your character level is 19 than if your character level is 2? That makes no sense. I'm not talking about the scaling difference, I'm talking about the comparative difference. I.E., it's better to take all of your wizard levels in the beginning, then take your fighter levels after, for some reason. The actual difference between Low, Medium, High, and Very High should be static.

Well, it makes sense that way, doesn't it? If you're a wizard who's been studying arcane lore for a long time, it's easier to pick up some sword tricks than if you were a warrior who tried to study arcane magic.

Also, tell me just HOW do you justify someone becoming Fighter 20 at half the time someone else becomes a druid 20?

For reference, a Fighter 20 takes 157500 XP to get to, and Druid 14 takes the same XP.
How is THAT balanced?

Mmm...possibly because a level 14 druid is more powerful than a level 20 fighter, perhaps? The tiers he's made are arranged by power level, so if you want people to be at the same power level at the same time, you might have to have some people be higher level than others to balance it all out.

It's not a new concept at all. This is how things worked in 1e and 2e--different HP scales for different classes, and if you were a human dual-classing, you'd have different advancement rates for your classes. Having high-level fighters in the same party as mid-level thieves and lower-level magic-users was par for the course.

[Daracaex]

It really isn't.

[Baron Corm]

Well, it makes sense that way, doesn't it? If you're a wizard who's been studying arcane lore for a long time, it's easier to pick up some sword tricks than if you were a warrior who tried to study arcane magic.

Alright, but how fair does it seem to force people to minmax, or to change their backstory, in order to prevent thousands of XP lost, compared to someone who has the same exact class levels in a different order? I think this might be the reason that "many people" say that this system doesn't work with the 3e multiclassing system.

[Daracaex]

Alright, but how fair does it seem to force people to minmax, or to change their backstory, in order to prevent thousands of XP lost, compared to someone who has the same exact class levels in a different order? I think this might be the reason that "many people" say that this system doesn't work with the 3e multiclassing system.

You could say these same things about the current system. Why do you need so much XP to multiclass to Fighter 1 after 10 levels of going wizard? It's really the same deal. This facet of the argument against his system is invalid because it's the same thing with the current system.

[Draz74]

This system makes 2-level dips in Monk or Fighter much more appealing than they already were (which was pretty appealing already!). Possibly even a viable option for full casters.

Level 8 Cleric: Let's see, I can spend 12000 XP to get to Cleric 9. Or, I can spend 14250 to get two Monk levels and a Cleric level. Hmmmm.

... or for that matter, when I get up to 12000 XP, I can get one Cleric level ... or six Monk levels. That option will put me permanently behind on Cleric casting by one level, but meh ... that's a pretty tempting payoff for a loss of one caster level!

[Baron Corm]

You could say these same things about the current system. Why do you need so much XP to multiclass to Fighter 1 after 10 levels of going wizard? It's really the same deal. This facet of the argument against his system is invalid because it's the same thing with the current system.

I didn't mean "scaling", I meant "comparatively". A wizard 1/fighter 19 has ten thousand more XP than a fighter 19/wizard 1 in this system.

Edit: Draz, it doesn't work that way, I don't think. It would cost you the amount listed under "Level 9" to get a monk level as your 9th level, not the amount listed under "Level 1".

[Draz74]

Edit: Draz, it doesn't work that way, I don't think. It would cost you the amount listed under "Level 9" to get a monk level as your 9th level, not the amount listed under "Level 1".

Ah, hmmm. Thanks for catching that. If you're not correct, you should be -- that does indeed curb my reservation nicely.

Still leaves us with this other weird effect that you're discussing, though.

[Frog Dragon]

It's essentially because that's how the normal system is. The CR/XP system also operates on certain assumptions about XP gained per fight at a certain level. If you run the numbers you'll notice that the medium line is the exact same as the standard from the rulebook. The only difference is that this system announces the difference between levels/ XP needed from level 13 to level 14 while the standard tells you how much you need to go from 0 to 14.
That's the only difference with my medium line and the standard XP. The net total is the same.