Let's make this transpire ^_^

It's kind of hard to be a 3e fan today, while Pathfinder was triumphant in the edition wars it don't mean that Pazio isn't staffed by incompetents. SKR and friends' half-baked house-rules didn't fix major problems in the system while still being hefty enough to render backwards compatibility a ruse. A delusional munchkin with the ravings of theRPGsite as their muse could probably do better ^_^

So that's what's happening now, this is my dream and I am the developer, it's me ;3

Basically I'm doing another 3e revision which I've half-heatedly titled 3+E(name subject to change) and then probably making a wiki for it or something. The goal is to make a 3e clone that better balanced and more friendly to new players and less hostile to organic characters. Unlike previous attempts to fan-blance 3e I have no intention of getting bogged down in reinventing the wheel, large parts of the SRD are going to be copy-pasted into the final product.

Part 1 of this project will primarily deal with levels 1-10 and involves

-writing better Feats

-revising the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Paladin classes to be less awful

-writing a new skill system, one that's not stupidly granular

-and finally today's topic Multiclassing

3e's open multiclass system was a noble experiment but it didn't work. In practice casters never multiclassed because it was a trap and WotC ended up writing a billion prestige classes that on put bait on that trap. On the other hand people showed up to the table with Brb 1 / Ftr 2/ Rgr 3 on their sheet and that seriously cheesed off people.

So this is how it's going to work. You can only multiclass out of your class at levels 6, 11, and 16 and then only into prestige classes (though some of those are just  prestige class versions of base classes) and the Fighter/Wizards, Rouge/Wizards and all the other base class combos with traction get their own special hybrid progressions.

Questions, suggestions, comments?

You should allow people decide how multi-classing works.  That is to say that it should be campaign dependent thing. The idea that someone wants to have a "Brb 1 / Ftr 2/ Rgr 3" should be balanced at the game table if needed.  I would advise against trying to game design against the Dungeon Master and Player choice that much.

If you so concerned about "traps" then simply design an alternative system like duel-classing for people to try. Maybe just allow people to trade in "trap" feats later or maybe design upgrade feats that get better as the player levels.

Welcome to the boards...

Having played a fair bit of 3E and 3.5 this sort of thing is near and dear to my own heart, though, its a big job. Anyway, commenting on your current list in an attempt to be helpful:

*On writing better feats: to start with you may need to consider what 'feats' are intended to do. Initially they evolved from 2Es weapon proficiency system mostly and include a bunch of fighter specific stuff, but, 3E characters really need some form of character-customization options in general, and it ended up working as both. Consequently non-fighters could poach any fighter class features (feats) they wanted, removing its niche protection.
Anyway I'm of the opinion feats should be class-independent background things, and that fighters need separate options for smacking people around - whether more class features or powers.

*On multiclassing: I'm not sure this is enough. With 3.5 as it is, the hybrid progressions (Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, etc) are bandaids on deep fundamentally problems (which if you're keeping them are still there).

Limiting characters to 4 classes instead of 1 per level is a positive step I guess, though the way you're structuring it isn't that similar to how I see concept-based multiclass characters normally work. Most would have a level of something weird to represent a minor background thing, or just alternate taking levels of Class A and Class B, if they're intended to be a genuinely multiclassed character.

I'll be honest I've played little of 3E, about 1 year total, and about 1 year of Pathfinder. I don't mind how multiclassing works, but an improvement might be to allow it only once or twice in  a characters life*. Primarily driven by the need to gain some special ability feels wrong. Instead of some game based fiction that drives the change.


*That is to new classes, they can always return to their old class or switch between them every other level.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;685233*On multiclassing: I'm not sure this is enough. With 3.5 as it is, the hybrid progressions (Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight, etc) are bandaids on deep fundamentally problems (which if you're keeping them are still there).

To clarify what I was purposing is more like 2e. Instead of being a fighter than going into wizard you decide at level one you want to be a Fighter//Wizard and take levels in that.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;685243To clarify what I was purposing is more like 2e. Instead of being a fighter than going into wizard you decide at level one you want to be a Fighter//Wizard and take levels in that.

So by hybrid progression you mean specific classes for fighterwizard etc. ? OK...
The main obvious pitfall here is you need to build a lot more classes.

Its also not particularly supportive of 'organic' growth since 2 fighter/mages with different backgrounds- the one who starts with two classes, vs. the character who picks up a second class along the way - have entirely different classes.

Brief suggestions:

1. Remove feats altogether.
2. Remove multiclassing.
3. Remove stupid magic items.
4. Something something math.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;685282Brief suggestions:

1. Remove feats altogether.
2. Remove multiclassing.
3. Remove stupid magic items.
4. Something something math.

+1 from me!

I'm not a 3.x/PF fan at all, but the idea of fixing multi-classing with restrictions is near and dear to my heart as I feel it is one of the big loopholes for grotesque min/maxing. Like any CCG, once you expand the card pool of choices you open the gates to unforeseen broken combinations. Card limits can only do so much as poorly designed power/cards only need a copy of each and a fetch tech to have the combo go off.

So I want to offer 2e's look at multi-classing and dual classing and see what lessons on restrictions you'll find most helpful:

Multi-classing is reserved for demi-humans gave the best combat stat results out of the pool of classes, so best AC, BAB, and Saves. Further best WP/NWP progression (weapon and skill profs) was allowed. These advantages were immediately usable from whenever the most advantageous class level would grant it. Further there was no additional stat prerequisites. The big catch was a) demi-humans had level limits, b) only certain fixed combinations were allowed, c) XP had to be divided equally among # of classes, and c) HP and its progression was thoroughly strangled.

Summary of multi-class restrictions: demi-human only, power level cap, combination cap, slowed progression, HP crippled.

Dual classing is reserved for humans only. Once his new class level is greater than the max of any of his previous classes can then the abilities of the other classes be merged. But until then HP progression was delayed and access to other class knowledge (including AC, BAB, Saves, weapons, armor, spells, etc) was penalized with no encounter XP and 1/2 XP for adventure. Outside of higher HP, beginning in a new class meant starting at lvl 1 in everything.

Dual classing needed 15 stat for starting class and 17 stat for any class switched to in the future. Yes, that means dual classing allowed more than two classes if you had the stat prerequisites (like a character of straight 17s). However, once you switch out of a class you can never go back into it.

So dual classing restrictions are a) stat pre-reqs, b) restart at lvl 1, except for already earned HP, c) no use of previous class combat values or abilities, enforced by XP penalty, d) delay of HP progression until classes are equalized.

Summary of dual class restrictions: human only, stat pre-reqs, never switch back, reset to lvl 1 (except HP) when switched, penalized old class access and frozen HP until equalized.

Now immediately two primary styles of restriction show up:

Multi uses power/combo cap and division of progress/survivability.

Dual instead uses access barrier and time delay.

Very different methods of bringing power within controllable levels. If you are favoring multi-classing as it sounds like, explain why? Is it because of delayed gratification and barriers to entry are no longer palatable to modern players, in your experience? If so, how do you think 'power and combo limits' and 'divided progress and survival' will fare to same such players? Do you see an alternative method of mitigation?

Quote from: gamerGoyf;685227-and finally today's topic Multiclassing

3e's open multiclass system was a noble experiment but it didn't work. In practice casters never multiclassed because it was a trap and WotC ended up writing a billion prestige classes that on put bait on that trap. On the other hand people showed up to the table with Brb 1 / Ftr 2/ Rgr 3 on their sheet and that seriously cheesed off people.

Dungeon World gives each class a list of abilities they can pick from on levelling up. Each class has one or two "cross-class" picks, eg. "pick one ability from this list of classes:", with the list depending on the class. So you can still get an ability you want, but it's tightly controlled, and not really gameable.

To convert this;

* Design your classes and their abilities, using a "gain 1 HD and pick one from this list when you level" structure. Include a mix of passive and active abilities (eg, make picking up "to-hit bonuses" a choice)... maybe add a second non-combat advancement list, that everyone can make a free choice from when leveling
* Mark each ability with "keywords", like Exalted or Magic do
* Sprinkle a few "pick any ability with keywords: blah" advances through your classes, as appropriate

Now you've got structure, choice and expandability all built-in. You can even catch some variant classes easily; like for a Barbarian, make an advance Fighters could take using a "pick any ability with keyword:" slot that "unlocked" Barbarian-y choices.

Yeah, I've probably be one of the few here I guess that thinks that 3rd edition multi-classing was great.  It freed people up to create a character based more closely to their imagination.  Power-gaming is something, in my opinion, that should policed by DM.  It's been that way since the beginner, though no one will admit it.  I'm a big believer in the "Just say no" DM style during character creation.  It seems sometimes there is a large chunk of game design theory that is based on trying to fix bad behavior of GMs and players.  It's like given people freedom, some people abuse it, then when a victim of that abuse gets into a position of power, they try to take it away from everyone.

I say if you take away 3rd edition multi-classing, you are really taking away a major element of that edition, that frankly many people like(look to Pathfinder), and you are in fact "re-inventing the wheel" and might as well just start playing another edition.

My first suggestion would be to actually determine your goals *before* you begin this project. Do you want compatibility with 3x, do you want to fix the math, or do you just like the convenience of a mostly copypasta homebrew?

Do you want the game to play roughly the way it did for a well-built fighter? Or do want the insanity of high level spellcasters with minimal restrictions? Besides just picking a "power level" for the number of buttons characters can mash and what they do you might also want to pick how vulnerable characters will be. Is this going to have 4e's long combats? Or is it going to have BRP or WFRP styled speed and swinginess?

A set of specific goals for the rules to achieve will probably work wonders for your design overall.

Quote from: gamerGoyf;685227Part 1 of this project will primarily deal with levels 1-10 and involves

-writing better Feats

-revising the Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, and Paladin classes to be less awful

-writing a new skill system, one that's not stupidly granular

-and finally today's topic Multiclassing

3e's open multiclass system was a noble experiment but it didn't work. In practice casters never multiclassed because it was a trap and WotC ended up writing a billion prestige classes that on put bait on that trap. On the other hand people showed up to the table with Brb 1 / Ftr 2/ Rgr 3 on their sheet and that seriously cheesed off people.

So this is how it's going to work. You can only multiclass out of your class at levels 6, 11, and 16 and then only into prestige classes (though some of those are just  prestige class versions of base classes) and the Fighter/Wizards, Rouge/Wizards and all the other base class combos with traction get their own special hybrid progressions.

Questions, suggestions, comments?

Not liking the multiclassing. Multiclassing has some issues in 3x, but generally the fact that it exists isn't part of what pisses people off. Consider just allowing a Gestalt-type multiclassing with a steep XP penalty. The guy gets the better of each class's math, but still has a fixed number of feats to choose from. Would work very well in concert with a large number of class dependent feats instead of or in addition to class features.

What are your favorite bits about 3ed? What bits do you think are the baby that should be kept while we're flinging out the bathwater?

Focus in on that and cut away the rest mercilessly. Hard to give more advice without hearing about what you like best about 3ed and want to preserve.

Oh and feel free to complain about PF as much as you want, nobody's going to ban you here for calling the author of the most wrongheaded house rule for 3ed I've ever read bad at game design: http://www.seankreynolds.com/rpgfiles/misc/featpointsystem.html

Quote from: hamstertamer;685356Yeah, I've probably be one of the few here I guess that thinks that 3rd edition multi-classing was great.

I quite liked the idea, but due to the rules I am not sure it worked very well in practice.

Quote from: jadrax;685363I quite liked the idea, but due to the rules I am not sure it worked very well in practice.

It didn't. This is the deal, if taking the first level of fighter shouldn't better than advancing the class you already have, especially in a system where classes scale quadraticly. Once again compare spellcasters, noone would ever think that you wizard would benefit from taking the first level of cleric.