Quote from: hamstertamer;685356Yeah, 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.

Another vote for this.

If you can't say "this looks stupid" to a weird multiclass combination – especially one that the player had "built" from the start – then you can't say no to a number of other player abuses.

3e multiclassing allows PCs to have varied careers. That's its big plus. When approached as a matter of roleplaying it's pretty great.

That said I don't see most 3-class splits as being inherently ridiculous.

It requires incredibly high levels of system mastery for a GM to recognize on sight "teh brokenz madness!" At some point that leaves GMs who have little time to just ban multiclassing all together. I have already seen the crazy that can be done with just a simple spread of two classes and the right archetypes, let alone more than two classes.

I feel a GM has to limit things to specific books they are intimately familiar with to make such "eyeball judgment" effective. The easier method is to make the process to multiclass more difficult. As to it being a feature of the system, not a bug, obviously that is subjective. The whole point of this topic is contending that it is a bug, not a feature, and thus needs to be restrained somehow. To contribute it would make sense to stay topic relevant.

Quote from: Imp;685414Another vote for this.

If you can't say "this looks stupid" to a weird multiclass combination – especially one that the player had "built" from the start – then you can't say no to a number of other player abuses.

3e multiclassing allows PCs to have varied careers. That's its big plus. When approached as a matter of roleplaying it's pretty great.

That said I don't see most 3-class splits as being inherently ridiculous.

If you were dealing with a relatively small level range, could you perhaps base your design around assuming characters will be multiclassed? Design classes to, say, be 6 levels long by default and really focussed, level cap of 10, and assume that characters will all have bits of three classes.

Players still get to optimise and synergise a bit, but you've got a strict upper level of effectiveness and it forces versatility, because it's the only way to advance past a certain point.

I'd go the Warhammer rout with multiclassing: yr first profession you got the starting benefits free, moving to another profession you had to purchase the benefits with CP. If that profession isn't of the se class, it costs double xp entry fee.

3rd edition was the first prestige class edition, which I didn't like near asuch as the almostasbroken 2e kits. I'd suggest I return to a sharper divide between class and specific profession. Have everyone have their choice to multi-class over the first say 5 levels. Simple classes- fighter, magic user, rogue, specialist, then upon completing 5th level the character chooses a very specific Prestige Class ( or just "career"), and doesn't deviate. Feats are then a specific list for each Prestige Class, that pcs earn with Levels of xp. And then maybe one generic list of say 10 feats anyone can take.

As for improving the skill system, I suggest looking at the TSR Conan/ZEFRs system. That's a sweet little skill system that's intuitive, easy to use, sensible and easily adaptable.

The problem with 3E multiclassing wasn't really just that you could take all the different classes, but that the way the system was set up you have to specify the order you take them in, due to extra benefits at certain levels (x4 skill points at 1st level, something Pathfinder did fix at least), feat prerequisites, prerequisite chains on PrCs, and skill maximums increasing each level (off total character level). Really worsened the building of high-level characters since you needed to do it level-by-level.

Quote from: TristramEvans;6854483rd edition was the first prestige class edition, which I didn't like near asuch as the almostasbroken 2e kits.

Kits were fine About the best you could squeeze out of a kit would be a free weapon specialization (something like champion) or a couple of points of THAC0. Even the three-armed tree rangers could only grow the third arm very occasionally.

That and 2e kits had high attribute barriers to entry. Unless GMs just let players have really advantageous stat generation or point buy, it was not a common problem.

They never bothered me, but I was a player at the time, and since have heard many a DM in those days complain about 'Bladesingers' and 'gladiators'...YmMV

Quote from: gamerGoyf;685227Questions, suggestions, comments?

Try to fix your Engrish before you try to fix a system. Your grammar is horrible.

Multiclassing isn't bad by itself, but when faced with min-maxers, it takes a bit of a beating.  (Along with Feats.)

One possibility of handling multiclassing is requiring a player to take a prestige class after a certain point --which is similar to what 4e tried to do at L10 and L20-- but tie it specifically into the game world.

Another possibility is to simply limit the number of feats and/or multiclassing based on the game world.

I mean, a lot of this is just common sense, because you'd expect a DM to say "Okay, this works for this campaign and this doesn't."  Like how I told my kids to forget about playing a Dragonborn in the 4e campaign I was running for them, because in the context of the locality and the characters' backstories it made no sense.

The issue seems to show up more in premade content, because a player can argue that the module or world or adventure path ought to allow for XXX from the books, but it doesn't necessarily have to be that way.  The DM has to exert some measure of control over the game world from the beginning to rein in the 3.x excesses, or the DM will live to regret it later.

Quote from: Archangel Fascist;685282Brief suggestions:

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

This is kind of in the area of my ideas for fixing 3E.

At the bare minimum, spellcasters should get no bonus feats (probably no feats). You compare a second level spell, much less the ability to cast ANY second level spell, to what the non-spellcasters could get in a feat, and it's a no brainer.

Then you throw in all the bonus feats.

Compare "make magic weapon" to "weapon focus", for example. Gee, the ability to give everyone, including yourself, a +1 to hit and damage in whatever weapon they want...or give yourself a +1 to hit in a particular weapon class. Yeah, those are about even. Oh wait, it isn't just weapons, it's armor too. Imagine if the spellcaster had to give up something for that ability, while the warriors didn't have to pay for their +1. Jeez.

All nonspellcasting classes should get the feat that lets them follow opponents taking 5' steps, for free. It really needs to be standard for a non-sellcaster to have a chance against a spellcaster (I mean, even without 5' step, there's defensive spellcasting, AND a roll even if the spellcaster gets hit...damn, that's three levels of protection more than spellcasters get over "old" D&D).

A lot of the spells need to go back to their old power level. A mage armor spell that lasts 1 hour per level? Even without magic items, a wizard can count on having armor very comparable to armored characters in the party, it's silly. Monster Summoning...damn. You used to have to roll to see the monster, now you can pick. Your choices include all elementals. If fire, water, air, and earth aren't particularly useful (and jeez, that's a lot right there), you get a dozen other options.

Bonus spells could probably be toned down a bit. I mean, they already added infinite use cantrips (nothing takes the magic out of magic like infinite use spells...)....then you get the free bonus spell for wizards...and damn do clerics have a ton of healing now, on top of spells, on top of bonus spells.

Spell lists need serious trimming. There's a spell for everything now (on to of everythingspells like Monster Summoning). It only takes a few levels before magic does it all for the party. Hurt? Sure. Hungry? Sure. Locked door? Sure. Monsters? Sure. Drained? Sure. Need to block a choke point? Sure. One lone tough monster? Sure. You don't even need 4th level spells.

Saves need to spike hard. It doesn't take much right now for spells to have a save DC that even a monster several levels higher will need luck to make.

On top of that, though, is the sheer preponderance of spells means it's difficult to really know exactly what everything does. Every casting outside of cure wounds means the game has to stop while we look up the spell and figure out what it's supposed to do.

Bottom line, the main fix needs a rollback so there are more than 2 viable classes in the game.

Instead of fixing any one edition, why not start from the ground up and do your idealized version of D&D?

Quote from: TristramEvans;685559Instead of fixing any one edition, why not start from the ground up and do your idealized version of D&D?

The world has plenty of systems, it doesn't really need another. Might as well tinker with what you and your players are familiar with. Besides it's easier to take an already extant framework and houserule the shit out of it.

Doesn't mean it'll sell or be popular. But the point is for one's own table and like-minded observers. If they find this segment of a system to be annoying and in need of fixing, there's no harm.

Quote from: Opaopajr;685574The world has plenty of systems, it doesn't really need another. Might as well tinker with what you and your players are familiar with. Besides it's easier to take an already extant framework and houserule the shit out of it.

Doesn't mean it'll sell or be popular. But the point is for one's own table and like-minded observers. If they find this segment of a system to be annoying and in need of fixing, there's no harm.

I have to agree with TristramEvans.

I can see making a few tweaks, but every time I have sat down to 'fix' 3X (And I have done this several times) I find myself gutting nearly everything...one change leads to another, etc...

Others may have had success but I could not stop making changes once I started.

I solved that by picking an edition of D&D I liked and houseruling from there. I've said it before, I'll say it again, I've never played a fun game of 3.x/PF -- and I'm still playing the damned thing. I'd have to change everything, down to stat mod progression.

But my distaste is not the topic. gamerGoyf's desire to tinker it to his satisfaction is the topic. The best way to help is be a sounding board to isolate what he feels are the problems and what solutions from the past seem useful to try now.

1)Remove individual initiative.

2)Make spellcasters declare casting prior to initiative roll.

3)No movement for any caster who casts that round.

4)No DEX bonus to AC while casting.

5)A successful hit disrupts the spell.

6) People will want to play fighters again.