I see in some discussions there are complaints that alot of people don't stick with a single class. That this supposably shows that these classes are weak at higher levels. When did multiclassing get such a bad rap? To me, the fact that some classes multiclass with others so well shows a strength of versatility, not a weakness. Compare the wizard and fighter. The fighter can be mixed with just about any other class, and provide clear long term benefits (weapon focus:ray?). Yet with wizard, it almost makes no sense to have levels in wizard unless you are going to go all out. And yet people think the wizard is "better" than the fighter, despite its lack of versatility with multiclassing.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32
|
I think most of the bad reputation of multiclassing can be traced directly or indirectly to a certain WoTC board. Let's just say multiclassing can be very easily abused, especially with certain front-loaded classes that confer their major bonus on the first few levels.
Also, with the sheer amount of classes released, together with the rather wild and unrestricted special abilities conferred, it is quite easy to construct game-breaking scenarios by putting together what never was meant to be.
Well multiclassing has always lead to a weird paradox in my games, that consequently has made them fairly frustrating and unpopular. On one hand you don't want a character just suddenly taking a level of cleric or monk out of the blue without any roleplaying justification for it. It just doesn't make any sense. I always like the feeling that multiclassing is a reflection of what the character has been doing. Sneak around alot and steal things, you earn a rogue level. Stab a bunch of guys and exchange some good hits, you level up as a fighter maybe. But really there's a lot of classes where that breaks down. The classes don't reflect dabblers. They reflect decades spent honing a craft. To see someone suddenly just able to do something, seemingly with no investment of effort, that takes starting characters most of their early adult lives to learn--well it just doesn't seem right somehow. In some ways I get the feeling that all classes sort of feel like prestige classes. They all really have some pretty stiff requirements to become one--arguably harder in some cases than their prestige equivalents.
It's interesting because in a lot of ways, 4e solves this problem wonderfully. That's a subject for another section of the forums though. Suffice it to say, that multiclassing has always been problematic in our group, because it either feels a little cheesy and contrived--like the character didn't really earn it...or else it just doesn't happen at all.
I have always preferred remaining single classed. I never cared for the 3.5 rules for multi-classing. It made it way to easy. It is one of the few rules I did have problems with, that and prestige classes.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
I agree with some previous posters: I think "multi-clasing is bad" was a reaction to some other people feeling "multi-classing is the ONLY viable way to play a character."
By the way, if you haven't seen Dungeon Grrrl's solution to multi-classing with spellcasters, you should find it. ( A 6th-level druid, taking a level of sorcerer, would have the "spells known " and "spells per day" of a 1st-Level sorcerer, but would cast them at 7th Level caster level. )
Suffice it to say, that multiclassing has always been problematic in our group, because it either feels a little cheesy and contrived--like the character didn't really earn it...or else it just doesn't happen at all.
Well I understand the feeling you are describing, I wonder, how far does your group take this idea of "earning it"? If a player takes TWF feat without ever having done any TWF without the feat, has the character "earned it"? When a ranger reaches 2nd level and can suddenly start firing two arrows quickly, without ever having done it before, have they "earned it"? A druid can suddenly change form without doing so before did they "earn it"?
I guess in my mind, classes are metagame concepts. A ranger that takes a level in barbarian doesn't realize that has happened, instead they have started to tap into the power of the badger or something. A monk that suddenly awakes some arcane magic in his blood (multiclassed into sorcerer) doesn't seem any less unreasonable then the paladin that can all of a sudden call a creature from the outer planes for aid.
Now, what I think you really have a problem with is not necessarily the multiclassing mechanics as is the correlation between people who tend to do a lot of multiclassing and not doing a good job roleplaying. But that is not a causational relationship. Many people can roleplay a multiclass situation well, and many other people can roleplay poorly a one class character.
We actually have a really responsible group--in fact often times complaints like these are coming from the player side "okay...so now I can do what?"
I guess it's more a matter of abilities that are conceptually linked. I can buy a guy who has a strong relationship with a god having the ability to wield greater and greater powers granted by his faith. I can see that. It follows.
Some of your examples though, yeah I would agree are too much of a jump. I'd expect someone with Two Weapon Fighting to at least try fighting with two weapons before he gets good at it enough to buy the feat. Someone who buys Improved Trip, but has never attempted to trip an opponent is gonna' get a funny look.
More than just the sudden appearance of a new game mechanic though are the cultural implications. Your barbarian badger follower who becomes a druid...does he suddenly just strip off all his metal gear and decide that protecting and embodying nature is important, and starts speaking in an ancient druidic tongue? Why? What does that have to do with following badger? I guess more than the special abilities is the huge amount of story baggage that comes with first level in any class. They never feel completely like the new class, because the classes are designed to be more than a class, but also a character background. I think it's all the background, more than any particular power, that's hard to work in.
|
Mostly when WotC started putting out so many splat books.
Now, I don't begrudge them of this too much. It made the industry stronger, healthier. Though I wish they had put the resourses into making more adventures, at least they did make a product to sell.
-W. E. Ray
Mostly when WotC started putting out so many splat books. ** spoiler omitted **
Now, I don't begrudge them of this too much. It made the industry stronger, healthier. Though I wish they had put the resourses into making more adventures, at least they did make a product to sell.
-W. E. Ray
I agree to an extent, that said some of the most obscene combos really don't require many splat books. The PHB classes tend to be front loaded with goodness and that makes them ideal for multi-classing.
I find it interesting that people say that they needed to put in hyped up PrC to get people to buy more books. I don't think I've bought a single book because of a PrC, I almost never use them.
I find it interesting that people say that they needed to put in hyped up PrC to get people to buy more books. I don't think I've bought a single book because of a PrC, I almost never use them.
Ditto. I've never had the time/interest to read through a book's PrC's, or even one thereof, in the store. I wish they had put all that energy into adventure writting. The theory and style with which designers approach the game has made leaps and bounds over the last half of 3.5's existence, and I wonder what it would have been like if that was funneled into adventure design rather than splatbooks. All of the PrC's and player options are going to be essentially lost with the switch to the new edition, but adventures could be converted (well, in theory- depending on just how much of a break 4e really is).
Compare the wizard and fighter. The fighter can be mixed with just about any other class, and provide clear long term benefits (weapon focus:ray?). Yet with wizard, it almost makes no sense to have levels in wizard unless you are going to go all out.
This is exactly the problem with 3e multiclassing; most classes either provide a bunch of benefits at the low levels (fighter) so that a PC can get a lot more abilities by going fighter 2/rogue 2/barbarian 1/etc. or the class provides an ever escalating number of progressively potent abilities (wizard) so that even the most naive player realizes that multiclassing can only make his PC less powerful. Very few classes are well balanced enough that a player has no inherent motivation to stick with his base class or to multiclass, and that's why multiclassing has a bad rap.
TS
I guess I'm coming from the opposing camp here, but I actually like multiclassing. And, over the years, I've purchased several books purely because of the new class/prestiege class options available.
Several of you have complained that they should have spent more effort on creating adventures instead of new classes. I for one, am happy with how they did things.
My single favorite aspect of D&D is vast library of options available to create a character. I've always loved customizing my game, so the two mesh wonderfully.
Also, my group and I always homebrews our games. We've never run a premade adventure (I've tried once. 2 pages into it, I simply couldn't work with it anymore. Sorry Pathfinder).
Were Wizards to have released their products with premade adventures as their forte, instead of PC options; I highly doubt that I'd still be playing. The same goes for most anyone in my group.
-Kurocyn
This is exactly the problem with 3e multiclassing; most classes either provide a bunch of benefits at the low levels (fighter) so that a PC can get a lot more abilities by going fighter 2/rogue 2/barbarian 1/etc. or the class provides an ever escalating number of progressively potent abilities (wizard) so that even the most naive player realizes that multiclassing can only make his PC less powerful. Very few classes are well balanced enough that a player has no inherent motivation to stick with his base class or to multiclass, and that's why multiclassing has a bad rap.
TS
Except if a fighter takes 2 levels in rogue, he loses 1 on his BA as well as a feat. If a rogue takes 2 levels in fighter he loses another d6 on his sneak attack, as well as a crap ton of skill points. A wizard 1/sorcerer 1 in many ways is better than a wizard 2 or sorcerer 2. Heck one level in wizard gives access to all the spells on its list for the use of wands for example. There are costs and benefits to all choices. I don't think all classes have to be identical with how well they multiclass or not.
Multiclassing is a bit like bringing your witty, yet flatulent cousin to the prom- eventually, someone is going to notice something is off somewhere. Disturbingly with reference to this analogy, I have very little to no problem with multiclassing, provided those doing so realize there is going to be a trade-off somewhere. A multiclassed fighter/wizard/rogue is not a crappy fighter, wizard, and rogue so much as they are a multiple-trick pony with strengths and weaknesses, the same as any other character.
|
I find it interesting that people say that they needed to put in hyped up PrC to get people to buy more books. I don't think I've bought a single book because of a PrC, I almost never use them.Ditto. I've never had the time/interest to read through a book's PrC's, or even one thereof, in the store. I wish they had put all that energy into adventure writting. The theory and style with which designers approach the game has made leaps and bounds over the last half of 3.5's existence, and I wonder what it would have been like if that was funneled into adventure design rather than splatbooks. All of the PrC's and player options are going to be essentially lost with the switch to the new edition, but adventures could be converted (well, in theory- depending on just how much of a break 4e really is).
I use tons of PrCs as a GM as well as a player. And I do mean TONS. Sometimes several on one NPC. I came to d20 from GURPS, so I tend to use prestige classes, feats, alternate class abilities, and the like as a toolbox and allow my players to do the same. If people aren't being challenged, I dial up the difficulty. If someone is dominating, I volunteer my considerable skills as a "system engineer" to the player that's lagging. Then again, I'll be using this for XP rewards going forward rather than the standard system, so I'm drifting the game a bit as it is.
I think multiclassing and prestige class are ok but with some control and limit.I know that trere are some player and gm that go out of ther way to abbuse this but i never had this problem with my group,we talk about what they wanted to play and i oked every one of ther chois.
I think that this is the way to go if you dont want your game to turn into a mightmare.
If your want a great example of abusing multiclassing check ecology of the advenrurer in dragon 342.
I don't think that ************* is a bad word...
You can have a multiclassed PC that has a bunch of classes and not have it be out of control or abused. I find them a lot of fun to play. Just like a single class PC. It's all about the player and their character being good for each other. (I know that sounds a bit zany...)
Indeed, one of my wife's favorite characters was a aristocrat 1/sorcerer 6/eldritch knight 10/cleric 3 (in that order no less).
Her story was that she was raised in a noble house, the only child. Her father died when she was just reaching adulthood, her mother having died at childbirth. The evil king, forced her to marry an old noble, a way to get the noble in his debt. On her wedding night she manifested some necro magic (chill touch or touch of fatigue or something), partial draining her "husband" (think of Rogue at the beginning of the X-Men movie). She ran away and became an adventurer. Due to her Lawful bent and her seemingly easy with necromancy magic (she focused mainly on necro spells except for animate dead spells), she eventually began worshiping Wee Jas (which in my game was more of a death diety that made sure souls got to their appropriate destinations), and eventually became a cleric of her.
When did multiclassing become a bad word?When people started multiclassing so much that it was hard for everyone to tell whether or not they were cheating.
So when the any class was first created?
I have to agree with an earlier post when it was mentioned that a PC should only be able to multi-class if they have in game experience. I once had a PC that was forced multi-class by the DM, mostly because of the PC background that I came up with. I was a Bard that came from a long line of pristess, and apon the death of my mother I became the new high pristess.
|
|
I have to agree with an earlier post when it was mentioned that a PC should only be able to multi-class if they have in game experience. I once had a PC that was forced multi-class by the DM, mostly because of the PC background that I came up with. I was a Bard that came from a long line of pristess, and apon the death of my mother I became the new high pristess.
What? He never heard of children rebelling against family traditions?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Multiclassing doesn't bug me, dipping into prestige classes bug me.
(long winded reasoning to follow)
To me, prestige classes were meant to be followed through to the end, and were meant to be over specialized. A Ranger/Wizard could do an OK arcane archer, but couldn't do the neatness of the Arcane Archer. On the other end, an Arcane Archer would be a better archer than the wizard/rogue. A fighter can't out defend the Dwarven defender, but he can move, etc. A first level rogue could be called a rogue, but could also be called a "Shadowdancer in training"
I think Multiclassing got a bad name from two things, level dipping and being universally better than the main class.
Some classes seem to encourage level dipping. The Sand Shaper (from Sandstorm) begs to be dipped in for one level for the bonus spells known, especially for the sorcerer. After that first level entry fee, there's no reason not to take the second level. Few would take it all the way to 10th though, because you lose another caster level.
The Slayer and Thrallherd come very close to breaking this rule too. With the slayer you lose 1 level of caster, but receive pleaty of HP, skillss proficiencies and Base attack bonus.
Then some classes scream "Why wouldn't you take me all the way?" Abjurant cheesewhore, I'm looking at you. Who's going to win, Sorcerer 10/Abjurant Champion 5 or Sorcerer 15? For that matter, a Sorcerer 7/Ruathar 3/Abjurant Champion 5/Archmage 5 may be feat starved, but doesn't suffer from a lack of power, or skills for that matter.
In short, multi(prestige) classing is what really gave the bad rap to multi classing in general. I dont' think many worry about the Rogue 18, fighter 2, or Hexblade 18 Rogue 2 (save for nothing on every spell? sure) It's the Battle Sorcerer 5/Sand Shaper 2/Ruathar 3/Abjurant Champion 5/Archamage 5 that gives the bad rap.
|
I don't see what the problem with multi-classing is. More options can make for a more complicated game, but they can also mean that characters can adapt their concepts even easier than just being pigeonholed into a the roll of a striker, controller, leader, or defender. Frankly, this is one of my pet peeves with 4E, and why I do like the multi-classing system of 3/3.5 (and one of the many reasons we're sticking with it). As a player (and even as a DM) I hate the idea that I'm told "you're a fighter, stand there and fight" when maybe I want to be a fighter who's learned the art of his ancestors and knows how to hit-and-run with touch spells. Perhaps I like the idea of being a cleric, but first and foremost I'm a solider. Multi-classing is what makes the concepts possible, and that's why I'm a fan. Options keep up interest; after awhile that "fighter" stereotype gets dull unless one mixes it up a bit.
But in the end it all goes to DM moderation. D&D is not meant to be played in a vacuum. The DM is supposed to be game moderator and should be able to say things to their players such as "if you want to multi-class you're going to have to prove it." In our campaign my cleric/bard (hardly a powergaming powerhouse) was designed from level 1 as an adventuring minstrel of the goddess of music. We have a rogue who decided to head off to wizard college in one of our long periods of inactivity (and yes, it took years). Yes powergamers and build optimizers exist, but every instance of multi-classing does not mean somebody's been powergaming, and if you have a DM who knows how to own the game he/she is running, it's not that hard to reign in players to a level of expectations that eliminate virtually all of the complaints about multi-classing.
As long multiclassing is objective and fits the character, i don't have any problem with it.
A character can evolve along the years of adventure and might multiclass to reflect that.
A character caught into a war might turn into a combattive class to extend his chances of survival.
Another might discover some mystical concept and might turn into spirituality, like becoming a priest.
As long this is a choice of the character that's fine. But it can be arguable when that's just a min/maxing choice of the player, disregarding the logic of his character, just to give him a few more feats or spells.
I personally had a lot of multiclassed characters in previous editions (1st and 2nd), like fighter/thief or thief/mage. And still, in the old times, multiclassing was far from being as beneficial as in 3.5.
However, someway in 3rd edition, i feel more like monoclassing, probably due to the progressive abilities along the levels in a class. To fully grasp the potential of a class, i feel that it has to be pushed. I understand the attraction of polyvalence, but then hybrid classes can be good options for me (Bard!).
This being said, hybrid classes are rarely core (except bard, paladin and ranger), coming from various supplements that either the players or the DM don't have access to. Multiclassing solves that. A Beguiler can be emulated by an Enchanter Mage/Bard for example.
In this idea and to promote monoclassing to my players, i've set up a system of class talents, available every 3 levels in a class. It is some way a carrot for singleclass ;)
But of course in no way i discourage my players to multiclass.
|
|
On one hand you don't want a character just suddenly taking a level of cleric or monk out of the blue without any roleplaying justification for it. It just doesn't make any sense.
This is essentially my one problem with multiclassing. It became an issue back in my Spelljammer game, when characters who were on a spelljamming vessel for months at a time, having virtually no contact with anyone but their shipmates unless there was a fight, wanted to take levels in a class that no one else on the ship had levels in. There was nothing wrong with that in game terms, but it took my campaign's storyline, along with reason and logic, and threw wild holes into them. In the end what I had to do was have players announce as they went up a level what class they planned to gain a level in the next time they advanced. I still do that today. It keeps my story free of those sorts of problems and creates new chances for roleplaying.
In this regard, IconoclasticScream, it's up to you, as a DM, to rule that characters need a trainer to levelup, in a current class or even in a new one. That was an old rule from AD&D, along with training costs.
I tend to think that progressing in a current class can be made through experience, excercise, self training and research.
But new abilities, spells and powers don't fall from the sky like in a levelup in Diablo. I prefer the training from WoW :)
This is essentially my one problem with multiclassing. It became an issue back in my Spelljammer game, when characters who were on a spelljamming vessel for months at a time, having virtually no contact with anyone but their shipmates unless there was a fight, wanted to take levels in a class that no one else on the ship had levels in. There was nothing wrong with that in game terms, but it took my campaign's storyline, along with reason and logic, and threw wild holes into them. In the end what I had to do was have players announce as they went up a level what class they planned to gain a level in the next time they advanced. I still do that today. It keeps my story free of those sorts of problems and creates new chances for roleplaying.
Well there is one argument about players taking classes that seem to come out of the blue, but there is also the issue where the DM sets up a situation where it becomes almost impossible for a player to develop a character in a way they want in a logical fashion. Let's remember, the DM controls the setting and all the NPCs and situations that develop. What do players control? Their character and how their character develops and acts. When those two come at odds, then it is perfectly reasonable for a player to make choices that do not match with the DM's develop of the story.
But again, poor roleplaying shouldn't be an issue inherent with multiclassing. Those are different issues. I would say it is just as bad for a fighter to suddenly take a level in cleric out of the blue and start getting spells as it is for a paladin (or ranger) to suddenly decide to start praying in the morning once they reach the level they can start casting spells. In either case, both should have played up the praying and asking for aid from their deity (or what have you) prior to it becoming an issue.
Though on the other hand, how much of a given part of a day in game is roleplayed out in a typical session? I mean I may play a session for 4 hours at a time and in that session we may span several weeks of in game time. In those cases, claims of "your character has been involved with that" tend to become more mute as there is so much time in game that is not accounted for that just about anything could be covered in that skipped time.
In 3.0 I had a fighter who took a prestige class to 10th level and then multiclassed to barbarian because I couldn't find anymore fighter bonus feats that I wanted. I also had a sorcerer who took the 5 levels of archmage. When our party hit epic levels, the single-classed paladin, the single-classed rogue, the single-classed wizard, and the single-classed cleric all started to get many bonus epic feats. Whereas, my multiclassed and prestige classed characters got only regular epic feats and no bonus epic feats. The DM would not extend the prestige classes beyond 10th or 5th level. My characters had to complete 20 levels in a single class before getting the epic bonus feats. This disadvantage of multiclassing and prestige classes has stuck with me into 3.5. All my characters that I have created since then have been singled classed. Sadly, none of the campaigns after that have reached epic level.
Now I am playing a 7th level cleric in a party with a bard 7, a stonechild monk 1, a warlock 3/wizard 3, and a spellthief 3/wizard 3/rogue 1. While I am able to cast air walk, divination, death ward, freedom of movement, and restoration my comrades are throwing scorching rays, magic missiles, and grease spells. We have a very hard time against CR 7 & 8. Most of my party members are fleeing melee seeking the comfort of ranged attacks, The stonechild monk is only competent in battle after 2 or 3 rounds of buffs from me or the wizards so I end up playing tank more often than not or summoning celestial beasts to help keep the enemies off the squishy PCs. We have no fly, fireball, arcane eye, or stoneskin spells. We can't disarm or bypass the traps we do find.
I find that multiclassing makes it very hard (and challenging) for my tank-healer-spell slinging-information gathering cleric to fill the roles left wanting by the other PCs.
What I wouldn't give for a party of fighter 7, wizard 7, rogue 7, and cleric 7.
Except if a fighter takes 2 levels in rogue, he loses 1 on his BA as well as a feat. If a rogue takes 2 levels in fighter he loses another d6 on his sneak attack, as well as a crap ton of skill points. A wizard 1/sorcerer 1 in many ways is better than a wizard 2 or sorcerer 2. Heck one level in wizard gives access to all the spells on its list for the use of wands for example. There are costs and benefits to all choices. I don't think all classes have to be identical with how well they multiclass or not.This is exactly the problem with 3e multiclassing; most classes either provide a bunch of benefits at the low levels (fighter) so that a PC can get a lot more abilities by going fighter 2/rogue 2/barbarian 1/etc. or the class provides an ever escalating number of progressively potent abilities (wizard) so that even the most naive player realizes that multiclassing can only make his PC less powerful. Very few classes are well balanced enough that a player has no inherent motivation to stick with his base class or to multiclass, and that's why multiclassing has a bad rap.
TS
You might not agree with this assessment, but a lot of others do--which is why multiclassing has a bad rap. My biggest beef with multiclassing is the sheer bloat of PrCs, 99% of which should be feats, alternate class features and base classes. PrCs are supposed to be very specialized and well, prestigious, not just a sub-division of power classes that you'd have to be a moron not to hop into at first opportunity or a way to make your character into a popular archetype that should be available from level 1 but for some reason requires a set of arbitrary prereqs.
TS
Except if a fighter takes 2 levels in rogue, he loses 1 on his BA as well as a feat. If a rogue takes 2 levels in fighter he loses another d6 on his sneak attack, as well as a crap ton of skill points. A wizard 1/sorcerer 1 in many ways is better than a wizard 2 or sorcerer 2. Heck one level in wizard gives access to all the spells on its list for the use of wands for example. There are costs and benefits to all choices. I don't think all classes have to be identical with how well they multiclass or not.This is exactly the problem with 3e multiclassing; most classes either provide a bunch of benefits at the low levels (fighter) so that a PC can get a lot more abilities by going fighter 2/rogue 2/barbarian 1/etc. or the class provides an ever escalating number of progressively potent abilities (wizard) so that even the most naive player realizes that multiclassing can only make his PC less powerful. Very few classes are well balanced enough that a player has no inherent motivation to stick with his base class or to multiclass, and that's why multiclassing has a bad rap.
TS
You might not agree with this assessment, but a lot of others do--which is why multiclassing has a bad rap. My biggest beef with multiclassing is the sheer bloat of PrCs, 99% of which should be feats, alternate class features and base classes. PrCs are supposed to be very specialized and well, prestigious, not just a sub-division of power classes that you'd have to be a moron not to hop into at first opportunity or a way to make your character into a popular archetype that should be available from level 1 but for some reason requires a set of arbitrary prereqs.
TS
You know I'm with you on the alternate class features and feats angle, but new base classes just start fights around my table.
I'm not so sure about the "must take level in this class" mindset though. I can see where it's annoying to the person who doesn't like multiclassing, but I like it and almost never do it because of what it takes away from the class levels I already have. There are a plethora of feats that most characters qualify for by the time they are seriously thinking about multiclassing- a good hard look at them should reveal options for the character that either meet or exceed what one is looking for by taking a level in another class, unless spellcasting is on their agenda.
You know I'm with you on the alternate class features and feats angle, but new base classes just start fights around my table.
How so?
I'm not so sure about the "must take level in this class" mindset though. I can see where it's annoying to the person who doesn't like multiclassing, but I like it and almost never do it because of what it takes away from the class levels I already have. There are a plethora of feats that most characters qualify for by the time they are seriously thinking about multiclassing- a good hard look at them should reveal options for the character that either meet or exceed what one is looking for by taking a level in another class, unless spellcasting is on their agenda.
Yeah, most PrCs do force you to sacrifice something relevant from your base class. It's the ones like the +1 CL/level PrCs classes that really get on my nerves.
TS
|
|
Yeah, most PrCs do force you to sacrifice something relevant from your base class. It's the ones like the +1 CL/level PrCs classes that really get on my nerves.TS
Except Sorcerers. I have yet to see a single reason beyond a complete reinvention of the sorcerer class that hasn't made a PrC not only significantly more appealing, pretty much a requirement to make a Sorc run on par with any other class. Oh and Clerics...and fighters...and wizards...
Most PrCs don't require any kind of sacrifice for quite a few of the front loaded PC clases, and it's far more tied into the class than the PrC.