More on "Backgrounds" in D&D

[kent_allard_jr]

Over a year ago, I suggested changing the D&D rules by introducing "background kits." I've finally fleshed out my idea in more detail; go here for the full text. Comments and suggestions are appreciated.

Comments

[jlc.livejournal.com]

So is my level 1 character now just a background kit, or background kit + 1 class level?

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

Background kit + 1 level. Sorry I didn't make that clear.

[mneme]

I like.

As long as you're rationalizing D&D (and removing the -random- penalties for multiclassing or starting in the "wrong" class), why not have BAB and Save bonuses be represented by fractions, rounded strictly down? IIRC, this would give good saves 1/2 per level and poor saves 1/3 per level, while BAB would be 1/2, 3/4, or 1, and would avoid the random-ish current penalty for multiclassing with anything other than fighter-types.

[mneme]

Note that aside from dealing with a pet peeve of mine and making multiclassing easier, this would also allow one to balance base classes by giving them some fractional BAB -- for those wanting a combat wizard or rogue and willing to trade skill points or large barrels of cash for it.

One big problem is that the starting classes aren't really balanced, of course -- Aside from the good skill selection, there's not that much to recommend the Scribe, frex, over the Expert (you lose a feat, and may have to summon your familiar a bit late due to poverty, but gain a -lot- of skill points, +2 on to Reflex saves, some more skill selections, some extra weapons, and a hit point). But that's because the starting package for a wizard is very poor compared to many other classes, given that you -have- to get a class's spell list at first level or there'd be no benefit to multiclassing into a spellcasting class. (I could see giving them a -lot- more gold and making you spend cash on starting wizard spells, at least, past the base 2/level; that might help).

[kent-allard-jr.livejournal.com]

You're absolutely right that the backgrounds aren't really balanced (I alluded to it in the article). Part of the problem is that I wanted to be backwards compatible and, as you note, in the rules as written, sorcerer or wizard really shouldn't be your first class. I'm not sure how to deal with this; my inclination is to give the scribe and the initiate a few 0-level spells, or maybe give them more skill points.

[mneme]

The problem, of course, is that wizards and sorceors are not, in fact, unbalanced if considered from levels 1-20 -- because the spell progression is (especially for wizards) quote sweet. But if you're going to multiclass anyway, you'd be insane to start in Wis/Sorc, since their 1st level bennies are so poor compared to what you get (almost as much) when you pick them up at a later level. I still think that you want to move most of the "starter spell kit" the wizard gets into the base class if you can manage it; it's really the only thing a wiz gets at first level that people don't simply -have- to have multiclassing in; after all, they can just spend a lot of time and cash getting those spells. Hard to come up with an equivalent for sorc, though (but then, sorc shouldn't be based on the Scribe, now should they? They don't need that much cash, and Sorcs aren't used to starting with Scribe Scroll and need it less due to always having access to all their spells as long as they have slots left).

[jlc.livejournal.com]

-random- penalties for multiclassing or starting in the "wrong" class
Which penalties, exactly, are you referring to here?

The biggest multiclassing penalites I can think of in post-3 D&D are the ridiculous "and you lose all benifits of this class if you train in ANYTHING else" penalties on certain classes.

What's so horrible about a paladin or monk learning how to track animals in the course of their adventures?

[mneme]

If you make a 6th level rogue, you get +5 BAB.

If you make an 6th level cleric, you get +5 BAB.

If you make an 6th level monk, you get...+5 BAB.

However, if you make a 3rd level rogue, 3rd level cleric, you get...+4 BAB.

If you make a 2nd level rogue, 2nd level cleric, 2nd level monk, you get +3 BAB.

Why? Because the "odd" bonuses are lost when you switch classes, so you lose stuff unless you switch on a 4th, 8th, etc level mark. The same is true for weak saves (and strong saves, in Matt's system, unless he uses a fix like mine, since saves grow slower than BAB).

unsolicited comment

[stormlorde.livejournal.com]

The problem of balance, and the mini-maxing in DND that tends to make everyone alike, is I believe caused by the systems consistent use of bundled abilities or classes, kits etc... which force you to take on several possibly unwanted quirks and abilities to get the ones you really want, gurps avoids this nicely but suffers from an extremely boring combat system.

Be well. Keep on gaming, at 44 I like to see adults gaming, it gives me hope for the future.

[jlc.livejournal.com]

On a second pass through this, I fail to see how this really address min-maxing in initial class choice

[mneme]

Here's the problem:

1. Some classes (mostly, Rogue), in order to be able to be balanced from the get-go, need a lot of stuff out of first level.

2. That much stuff is unbalanced -- without some kind of counter-balance (like an XP penalty for just taking the first level of a bunch of useful-looking classes), or without making the first level somehow magical, there's a lot to be said for, say, grabbing the first level of Ranger just for the raft of skills they get, and maybe the same for Rogue (though see the BaB thing above).

3. That all sucks. You should be able to pick your classes as you choose, without getting penalized for, say, starting as a fighter and moving into Rogue territory rather than the other way around.

Basically, the problem is making 1st level viable and playable (a worthy goal, and an important one for D&D) while not making simply picking up 1st level in a new class way too good.

Matt's idea is to decouple the "enough to be viable" from "first level." Instead of having it matter whether you start as rogue and then go to fighter, it matters what your background is...but if you're planning on multiclassing into rogue and want to start as fighter first, you can start with a 0 Outlaw/1 Fighter, trading your heavy and medium armor (and 2 hit points, and most of your martial weapon profs) for 24 skill points and a much better skill choice (no Ride, though). Of course, by doing so, you're more or less getting most of the Rogue abilities (aside from Sneak Attack) for free, as you get to play a single-class fighter with 4 Hide, 4 Move Silently, 4 Listen, etc.

[hslayer.livejournal.com]

Most of the narbling here in the comments assumes someone's character is planned out through level 20 as soon as its abilities are rolled up. I think in any halfway-decent group with a halfway-decent DM, most of these issues are moot. Most players, after a few months of the same exact thing, will find something off-track catching their eye and change mid-stream.

I also don't see how starting as a fighter and moving to rogue is worse than the opposite. Because x4 skill points is better when it's 8x4 instead of 2x4? I have two words for you: Max Ranks.