Troll Lord Games

I guess for a one-player game, or a game where all PCs multi-class it'd be okay... But is it worth it for a single player to multi-class while others don't? The way I see it, he'll constantly have half the HD his fellow adventurers have.

The some applies to a lesser extent to Class and a Half.

Just pondering this and I'd like some feedback from people who tried it.

I really like how 3E handles multi-classing over all the options for C&C so far. I think the easiest way to allow multi-classing is to unify the EXP chart and just do like 3E does. I would probably pick a class with a down the middle EXP requirements and use it for every class. But then im not a stickler on balance any way.

I think it would. At least the Class-and-a-Half rules, I would think, would be worth it. I don't have experience with "full on" multi-classing from the PHB.

Consider a group whose members average around 60,000 xp. Most characters are going to be 6th or 7th level. With the same XP total (approx. 60,000 xp), you could have a Fighter 6/Wizard 3. Or a Barbarian 7/Rogue 3. At 100k xp, most single classed characters will be 7th level (with a few 8th). The aforementioned Fighter/Wizard will still be 6/3 (and will be so till about 110k, when he moves to 7/3). The Barbarian/Rogue, however, will have advanced to 7/3 at 74k (or thereabout) and will move to 8/4 at 130k xp. Some single classed characters would still be 7th level! Now, granted, some combinations start to slow above this level, but I still think they have the ability to keep pace with single classed characters.

So, from an XP standpoint I think they'd do fine. They're not too terribly lower in level as to not be able to contribute to an encounter. Just be mindful of the restrictions, so you know which class should be the principle and which one shoudl be the supporting class.

Far be it from me to disagree with Ronin, but I think unifying the XP chart is a terrible idea. No offense, sir! The mechanic was okay in 3.x but it was flawed, as some classes were clearly more powerful than others. To me, the different XP charts were a welcome sight once more, as it threw the illusion of balance out the window and acknowledged that some classes had advantages over others. And the different XP requirements were used, one again, as a balancing factor, or sorts. It gave the classes without the heavy firepower a little more "oomph" by giving them lessened XP requirements for levelling. It also allows for tailoring to the specific class by making a particular level a little longer to get to when they are about to get a powerful ability (such as teh level before the fighter gets his second attack or the monk gets his death attack). I'm not a stickler for balance, either, which is why I love the non-unified XP charts - not everyone class was (attempted to be ) balanced against one another. But to each their own.

Lord Dynel wrote: Far be it from me to disagree with Ronin, but I think unifying the XP chart is a terrible idea. No offense, sir!

None taken, Any opinion I post on line I assume will be taken out of context or I'll get flamed for. Easier to think that way than get upset when It does happen. ; )

Ronin77 wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Far be it from me to disagree with Ronin, but I think unifying the XP chart is a terrible idea. No offense, sir!

None taken, Any opinion I post on line I assume will be taken out of context or I'll get flamed for. Easier to think that way than get upset when It does happen. ; )

Understandable. I try not to take things out of context if I can help it.

To further (and clarify) the point, I actually like the XP method for 3.x, too. I think it was ingenious. And multi-classing within that system is spectacular. I think they (Wizards) didn't do a good enough job balancing the classes to the unified chart.