We're considering removing the ability to multi-class from an upcoming campaign. Are certain classes going to gain an advantage or be severely disadvantaged during their progression? We will allow archtypes, so plenty of choices will be available.
Mostly it's going to be easier for bookkeeping and to keep certain players from trying to do ludicrous things with min-maxing and focus on a character for role-playing. This is going to be an experiment to see if it makes the game more fun for everyone. At the very least it should be more fun for the casual players that are stressing before sessions that their character isn't optimized enough. The game shouldn't be about stress, it should be about fun.
Sounds like your problem lies more with players trying to min-max everything possible than with multi-classing. Removing the ability to multi-class won't fix that problem. Single level dips in certain classes are often the issue. So just remove that sort of thing as an option. Sit down with the group and simply agree to remove the lunacy of crazy multi-class combos.
But if your Rogue comes across a Wizard, sees all the cool and crazy crap he can do and says "Hey, I want to do that now" and then goes to find a mentor... well, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
|
Are certain classes going to gain an advantage or be severely disadvantaged during their progression?
Mostly it's going to be easier for bookkeeping and to keep certain players from trying to do ludicrous things with min-maxing and focus on a character for role-playing.
To the first point I quoted:
Every class in pathfinder was built with around incentivising sticking with one class. So to answer your question, doing this will force the game to be played in what you might call an optimally balanced way.TO the second point I quoted:
I would disagree with most of your assumptions here, but I'm unaware of the GM style.
1. Why would bookkeeping be more difficult? Generally, player bookkeeping needs to be done by the players. If the GM can't keep up with complex characters... sounds like a lazy GM that needs to step up his game to me.
2. Making characters less powerful than they could be will not likely enhance role-playing, but it may enhance OOC wisdom and better problem solving skills, but maybe not, I've seen it go both ways. Good role-playing comes from players at the table refusing to accept nothing less. When I as a player want to encourage RP, I put my characters in settings that force them to RP. If they're not doing it, then I will have NPC's force-ably RP with them, and I as DM will not accept answers that are not in RP format.
Me: "I noticed you eyeing me from across the room, is there something you'd like to say?"
Bad RPer: "Umm... I tell her I didn't mean to... but like... nicely"
Me: "Okay, so how exactly would your character say that back to her? That will affect how she responds."
Also, I've sat at tables with a single player who is so good at role-playing, that their personality and passion for RP just ignited the rest of the table. Sometimes just interacting with your party in RP in a fun way really invites the other party members to get into it.
If you're worried about RP, just offer positive reinforcement, not negative.
The problem with your suggestion is that we would have to codify every little possible thing or min-maxers by their very nature will look for loopholes. Can't take a one level dip? I'll take two. Or three. Or whatever will let me get all these abilities that don't actually fit a character, but give an advantage in combat. This method removes any need to codify anything. There is plenty of variety within a given class.
But if your Rogue comes across a Wizard, sees all the cool and crazy crap he can do and says "Hey, I want to do that now" and then goes to find a mentor... well, there's no reason why he shouldn't be able to do that.
There is no inherent reason that he should be able to either. It could be very setting dependent. Thanks for your feedback though.
Regardless, I understand that removing multi-classing will ruffle some peoples feathers. No one here has a problem with it.
Back to my actual question, please.
To the first point I quoted:
Every class in pathfinder was built with around incentivising sticking with one class. So to answer your question, doing this will force the game to be played in what you might call an optimally balanced way.
Thank you.
TO the second point I quoted:
I would disagree with most of your assumptions here, but I'm unaware of the GM style.
1. Why would bookkeeping be more difficult? Generally, player bookkeeping needs to be done by the players. If the GM can't keep up with complex characters... sounds like a lazy GM that needs to step up his game to me.
2. Making characters less powerful than they could be will not likely enhance role-playing, but it may enhance OOC wisdom and better problem solving skills, but maybe not, I've seen it go both ways. Good role-playing comes from players at the table refusing to accept nothing less. When I as a player want to encourage RP, I put my characters in settings that force them to RP. If they're not doing it, then I will have NPC's force-ably RP with them, and I as DM will not accept answers that are not in RP format.
Me: "I noticed you eyeing me from across the room, is there something you'd like to say?"
Bad RPer: "Umm... I tell her I didn't mean to... but like... nicely"
Me: "Okay, so how exactly would your character say that back to her? That will affect how she responds."Also, I've sat at tables with a single player who is so good at role-playing, that their personality and passion for RP just ignited the rest of the table. Sometimes just interacting with your party in RP in a fun way really invites the other party members to get into it.
If you're worried about RP, just offer positive reinforcement, not negative.
You are making assumptions here that aren't warranted. Though it is understandable. I'm not going into a point by point because you will have your opinions and I'm not looking for an argument. Thanks for your feedback.
Back to my actual question, please.
You posted a lot more than your actual question. If you'd like comments on only your question next time, then post only a question. Don't bring comments about fun, book keeping or anything else into it.
But to directly answer your question and nothing else: There will be no advantage or disadvantage for any given class by removing multi-classing. Each class is built with 20 levels in mind, so each class will advance as intended. The only time any sort of advantage comes into play is when you compare class vs class.
Back to my actual question, please.You posted a lot more than your actual question. If you'd like comments on only your question next time, then post only a question. Don't bring comments about fun, book keeping or anything else into it.
But to directly answer your question and nothing else: There will be no advantage or disadvantage for any given class by removing multi-classing. Each class is built with 20 levels in mind, so each class will advance as intended. The only time any sort of advantage comes into play is when you compare class vs class.
Which is the sort of thing I'm trying to figure out. Class vs class balance. But perhaps I phrased my question wrong. The classes are supposed to be balanced against each other I suppose. So I guess that answers my question.
As to the rest of the post, it was to inform context of the question. I apologize if that is somehow not appropriate. It is truly not my intent to be antagonizing. I do admit to getting frustrated when I ask a question and it doesn't get answered, but instead I'm told that it's the wrong way to address the problem. (Though I do appreciate the different point of view.)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Class vs Class is nearly impossible to balance. Things like Wizard, Cleric and Druid will always be the top of the totem pole power wise. The Rogue will almost always be on the bottom. That's not to say that they can't be useful in other ways. Rogue can often be useful in more non-combat scenarios (because of skills, for example) than many other classes.
Now adding that to your earlier question: The removal of multi-classing will not fix class balance. The most powerful classes (the full casters) are generally the ones who least decide to take level dips into other classes, except for a few very specific builds.
Class vs Class is nearly impossible to balance. Things like Wizard, Cleric and Druid will always be the top of the totem pole power wise. The Rogue will almost always be on the bottom. That's not to say that they can't be useful in other ways. Rogue can often be useful in more non-combat scenarios (because of skills, for example) than many other classes.
Now adding that to your earlier question: The removal of multi-classing will not fix class balance. The most powerful classes (the full casters) are generally the ones who least decide to take level dips into other classes, except for a few very specific builds.
Okay. With that answered, we're still going to give it a try and see what happens. Thanks for the feedback. For a challenge maybe I'll play a rogue.
Classes are not balanced against each other but they are balanced to play with each other. Full casters will end up being individually more powerful, though I managed to balance things with some house rules, banning some spells, metamagic rods and restricting crafting of magical items mostly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't allow multi-classing in any of my campaigns. If a rogue meets a wizard and decides that he wants to be one, he goes to college. Seven years later, he is a 1st level wizard. But in those seven years, he's nearly forgotten everything about being a rogue and must find new adventuring party. Wizard wants to be a paladin, she goes to a monastery. Barbarian considering becoming a bard? Bardic University. Ranger feeling the call of a the barbarian? Spend a few years with a horde of reavers. Essentially, you want a new class, start over. My players complained at first, but eventually agreed it is more fulfilling to play one awesome class to its fullness rather than a mosaic of everyone. The jack of all trades is the master of nothing.
Multiclassing wont unbalance anything. And if people in your group only multiclass for optimization reasons this wont cause any real issues of any kind. The classes in my opinion work best and have the least exploits when single classed. Its why my prefered way to add material to the game is in the form of new base classes or archetypes. They are self contained and the designers know alot more about what they are supposed to interact with when they write them.
The only problem is character development. If say a wizard decides to join a thieves guild. Normally over a couple levels he could multiclass his next couple levels to represent what he learned there any maybe go arcane trickster in time. Without multiclassing he would have had to have planned that change from the beggining and gone sandman bard instead (or something similar) instead of wizard to start.
The only thing I would say is that if you eliminate multiclassing entirely you should allow for some kind of option to alter your base class to something else if your character development leads you that way.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To the OP: I guess you won't be interested in our almost 100 Multiclass Archetypes. ;)
Really you can just use them as archetypes of core, base and alternate classes. No dipping needed. Lots of options. :)
Either way, have fun. I'd be interested to see how your single-class-only game pans out. No reason why it shouldn't work AND be lots of fun.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's no reason you can't remove multiclassing. All the classes are built to be good 1-20 options. I don't think it will accomplish what you hope to accomplish, though. Single-class characters can be extremely optimized, and I see multi-class used for RP more often than for optimization.
Aureate
sorry i didnt read all of the posts.
As a GM I establish in my games tht players pretty much cant suddenly multiclass unless they spend time, have teachers, etc.
in other words a fighter that wants to cast spells has to have a story book reason for doing so. like they spend 2 or 3 levels training with the group wizard.
it does not eliminate level dips but it kind of minimizes the more extreme activities.
i mean... you dont just wake up one day with a bunch of spells a spell book and components.
I actually do the same thing with skills (though i am much more open handed with this)
having said that...
PF is very different from D&D in that the individual classes and archetypes make most multi class options worse than just sticking with one class. I mean... there is really no melee/mage combination better than magus as an example.
you should be able to avoid HARD rules with roleplay rules that allow you to avoid the worst offenders (like any class + 2 levels of alchemist) and keep your game fun and manageable.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't allow multi-classing in any of my campaigns. If a rogue meets a wizard and decides that he wants to be one, he goes to college. Seven years later, he is a 1st level wizard. But in those seven years, he's nearly forgotten everything about being a rogue and must find new adventuring party. Wizard wants to be a paladin, she goes to a monastery. Barbarian considering becoming a bard? Bardic University. Ranger feeling the call of a the barbarian? Spend a few years with a horde of reavers. Essentially, you want a new class, start over. My players complained at first, but eventually agreed it is more fulfilling to play one awesome class to its fullness rather than a mosaic of everyone. The jack of all trades is the master of nothing.
Huh. It's been 8 years since I decided to stop soldiering around the world and to become a scientist. I still know most of my soldiering, tactics, how to fire weapons, how to take them apart and clean them, how to work in a cohesive group within a military structure, how to properly train men, how to perform physical and mental conditioning, the medical training, etc. The only things that have gone by the wayside are physical fitness and about half of my cadence songs.
To this day I still look for sniper locations (albeit only half-consciously) and I instantly recognize vehicles that look like they could be carrying an IED. About a year back a very loud firecracker went off near me (and some friends), and one friend pointed out that I was the only one who didn't startle - probably because of my war experiences. Nearly every bridge I drive under I find myself looking up to check for people, although I never have swerved under a civilian bridge like we had to back in Iraq to avoid someone throwing a grenade down into the hatch.
Just because one don't consciously keep up and practice does not mean one loses their abilities or their knowledge. They might not be as good as someone who has practiced the entire time, but you don't just forget it all simply because you enter into a new profession. And I would even argue that you're more likely to bring old skills and knowledge into a new profession than you are to simply start anew and forget everything before.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
From a "realism" standpoint, most real people nowadays look a lot like multiclassed characters. It's a luxury to be able to just stay with one career or area of interest. I'm a scientist and manager now; in the past I was an professional educator and an amateur martial artist. Should I be banned from real life?
From a "min-max" standpoint, barring absurd PrCs like the Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil or Radiant Servant of Pelor, no multiclass combination will be better than a single-classed wizard, cleric, or druid. Ever. So stop worrying about that end of things.
What's left is sheer visceral personal dislike: "I don't like it because it hate it!" Kind of like how most people hate spiders, even harmless ones that are earning their keep by eating yuckier bugs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Mostly it's going to be easier for bookkeeping and to keep certain players from trying to do ludicrous things with min-maxing and focus on a character for role-playing.
Most of the optimized characters I've seen in pathfinder are single classed. There are mutlicalssed optimized builds, but for the most part pathfinder works much better for single classed characters than it does for multiclassed characters.
Regardless, optimizing and minmaxing does not mean one cannot roleplay or focus on a character for roleplaying. I will bet that your players that have a difficult time focusing on roleplaying while playing optimized characters will also have a difficult time focusing on roleplaying with non-optimized characters. Whether or not a character is optimized has nothing to do with the player's ability to roleplay.
Additionally, it is very easy to focus on a character while at the same time mutliclassing. Heck, if you were to truly do a character focused game where classes are gained organically throughout the campaign, you'd be much more likely to have a group of multiclassed characters. People in groups (especially small tight-knit groups like an adventuring party) teach each other tricks so they don't have to rely on each other to perform specific tasks. The guy who knows how to hunt and read the land is going to teach everyone else to do the same thing. The group watching the wizard cast powerful spells are going to want to incorporate spell casting into their own repertoire. People are not little islands traveling together. Especially not a bunch of novices who learn and grow together. I would argue that the only time you won't see this is when you have a group of highly trained specialists who only come together for short missions and then separate when the mission is over.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't allow multi-classing in any of my campaigns. If a rogue meets a wizard and decides that he wants to be one, he goes to college. Seven years later, he is a 1st level wizard. But in those seven years, he's nearly forgotten everything about being a rogue and must find new adventuring party. Wizard wants to be a paladin, she goes to a monastery. Barbarian considering becoming a bard? Bardic University. Ranger feeling the call of a the barbarian? Spend a few years with a horde of reavers. Essentially, you want a new class, start over. My players complained at first, but eventually agreed it is more fulfilling to play one awesome class to its fullness rather than a mosaic of everyone. The jack of all trades is the master of nothing.
So, no prestige classes in your campaigns? Or do you make an exception for them? What about the PrCs that require more than one base class to qualify?
All this based on what you like or dislike?
I personally don't like to play wizards; ever since the sorcerer class appeared I haven't looked back. However, I wouldn't dream of banning wizards from my campaigns, or disallowing that choice to my players!
I once had a DM who was of the opposite view; he didn't like sorcerers, loved wizards and hated warlocks (3.5). When he DMed he chose to create a world, create a nation run by wizards in that world, create laws which make sorcery illegal in that nation, set the adventure in that nation and ban us from playing sorcerers. Want to play a warlock? Play somewhere else!
So I did.
What a DM likes or dislikes as a player should not translate to forcing his players to obey those personal preferences. If you don't like multi-classing then don't do it, but don't force your prejudices on your players. As a player, if a potential DM starts laying down stuff like that, it rings alarm bells about other likely shenanigans. Avoid DMs who do stuff like that like the plague.
I don't allow multi-classing in any of my campaigns. If a rogue meets a wizard and decides that he wants to be one, he goes to college. Seven years later, he is a 1st level wizard. But in those seven years, he's nearly forgotten everything about being a rogue and must find new adventuring party. Wizard wants to be a paladin, she goes to a monastery. Barbarian considering becoming a bard? Bardic University. Ranger feeling the call of a the barbarian? Spend a few years with a horde of reavers. Essentially, you want a new class, start over. My players complained at first, but eventually agreed it is more fulfilling to play one awesome class to its fullness rather than a mosaic of everyone. The jack of all trades is the master of nothing.So, no prestige classes in your campaigns? Or do you make an exception for them? What about the PrCs that require more than one base class to qualify?
All this based on what you like or dislike?
I personally don't like to play wizards; ever since the sorcerer class appeared I haven't looked back. However, I wouldn't dream of banning wizards from my campaigns, or disallowing that choice to my players!
I once had a DM who was of the opposite view; he didn't like sorcerers, loved wizards and hated warlocks (3.5). When he DMed he chose to create a world, create a nation run by wizards in that world, create laws which make sorcery illegal in that nation, set the adventure in that nation and ban us from playing sorcerers. Want to play a warlock? Play somewhere else!
So I did.
What a DM likes or dislikes as a player should not translate to forcing his players to obey those personal preferences. If you don't like multi-classing then don't do it, but don't force your prejudices on your players. As a player, if a potential DM starts laying down stuff like that, it rings alarm bells about other likely shenanigans. Avoid DMs who do stuff like that like the plague.
First of all, though your example sounds kind of douchey, it is completely within a dm's right to ban specific options. Not every game world will be a golarion style kitchen sink where there is room for everything. If there are no ninjas in his world, you cant play a ninja.
As for the OP, he isnt restricting options, he is establishing a house rule. Almost all dms have some kind of house rules. This one isnt even the most outrageous I have heard of. There is a genuine concern to be addressed with multiclassing, as it stands it is a significant problem for game design, and can lead to significant exploits when creating characters. There is nothing sinister about a dm wanting to address those problems with house rules.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Some DM restrictions are okay, some are not.
Having a nation ruled by wizards who don't like non-wizardy arcane magic is okay. Banning players from playing sorcerers on the grounds that the DM prefers to play wizards is 'douchey'.
Banning ninja or gunslingers on the grounds that the game world doesn't include eastern themes/gunpowder is okay; banning summoners on the grounds that they are ridiculously overpowered and drive a coach and horses through the rules is okay.
Banning one of the core classes from the game on the grounds that you don't like them is not okay. Other people have a right to their own likes and dislikes.
An analogy: I wouldn't allow intravenous drug-taking at my game table. I admit that I have an antipathy to the habit, but there are many more reasons to object to it. However, just because I don't like coffee and never drink the stuff doesn't mean that I ban coffee from my gaming table.
If the OP is trying to justify a ban on multi-classing simply because he doesn't like it, then that is 'douchey'. If he is banning it because he thinks it's overpowered, that would be okay if he's right, but he still has a case to make. The disadvantages outweigh the advantages.
In the end, I'm not trying to tell the OP what to do or not do. What I am trying to do is get the OP to examine his own reasons. Is he really banning it for objective reasons (if so he should be able to demonstrate those reasons), or is he trying to impose his own likes and dislikes on his players?
As a player I have many characters that rely on multi-classing. From her inception I wanted Sukie to be a Duelist; unfortunately she died before making it to 7th level, but why was her concept 'wrong'?
Banning core classes is just fine. Seriously, get over it.
|
Multi-classing is a tool to help a character grow into a particular role.
It sounds more like there is an issue of trust in your group that would likely provide a much more satisfying solution to your problem. If you can't trust your players not to overly maximize things to the 9's there should be some dialog about that. Your needs as a GM aren't being met which is just as much an issue as if any other player isn't having fun.
Banning core classes is just fine. Seriously, get over it.
Eh I disagree, but my recommendation is to do what Malachi already did - play with a group that doesn't. I would have left that GM's group too.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Banning core classes is just fine. Seriously, get over it.
The decisions you make say something about you.
If you were to prevent your players choosing a core class just because they want to play that class, then what that decision says about you is that you are a douche.
DM asks what classes we want to play in his new campaign. I say I want to play a fighter. He says, 'Do you? In that case, fighters are banned from my world!'
Banning core classes is just fine.
The reason why you want to ban something makes a difference.
Are certain classes going to gain an advantage or be severely disadvantaged during their progression?
My two cents:
Are certain classes going to gain an advantage or be severely disadvantaged during their progression?My two cents:
Non-spellcasting classes usually get more of an advantage multi-classing into a spellcasting class than vice versa, so you're probably hurting non-spellcasting classes more.
Some classes run out of cool abilities well before level 20 (e.g. monks and druids), although if you have enough archetypes that might be less of a problem.
Druids run out of cool abilities at high levels? Higher level spells on a primary spell caster dont count as cool abilities? Neither does more wildshap or an improved animal companion? Man wizards must run out of cool stuff by like 8th level then.
Kind of the same deal (to a lesser extent) for the monk, increasing unarmed damage ac bonus and Ki Pool. Heck the whole abundant step dimentional dervish thing is probably one of the cooler things a monk gets to do and that is a high level ability.
Druids run out of cool abilities at high levels?
Yes. Note that "cool" is not synonymous with "powerful".
Higher level spells on a primary spell caster don't count as cool abilities?
No, considering there are prestige classes that give full spellcasting plus other abilities.
Neither does more wildshape or an improved animal companion?
An extra hit die or point of BAB for an animal companion is not a cool ability (by that reasoning, the Commoner class would be full of cool abilities...). One more use of wild shape that doesn't otherwise improve is not cool either.
Man wizards must run out of cool stuff by like 8th level then.
Sort of, but at least many wizards get an interesting ability at level 20 instead of "you can wild shape for infinity hours a day instead of 144 hours a day".
Kind of the same deal (to a lesser extent) for the monk, increasing unarmed damage ac bonus and Ki Pool. Heck the whole abundant step dimentional dervish thing is probably one of the cooler things a monk gets to do and that is a high level ability.
Level 12 (the level at which a monk gets Abundant Step) counts as "well before level 20" in my book. Empty Body is kind of neat, but that's about it.
Druids run out of cool abilities at high levels?Yes. Note that "cool" is not synonymous with "powerful".
Higher level spells on a primary spell caster don't count as cool abilities?No, considering there are prestige classes that give full spellcasting plus other abilities.
How many prestige classes are there that give full casting that work with other druid abilities? Or are you not concerned with progressing the animal companion and the druids wildshap?
Neither does more wildshape or an improved animal companion?An extra hit die or point of BAB for an animal companion is not a cool ability (by that reasoning, the Commoner class would be full of cool abilities...). One more use of wild shape that doesn't otherwise improve is not cool either.
Man wizards must run out of cool stuff by like 8th level then.Sort of, but at least many wizards get an interesting ability at level 20 instead of "you can wild shape for infinity hours a day instead of 144 hours a day".
Well that not exactly true, wild shape at will is more then wildshaping for additional hours, since wild shape is limited by both times per day and hours per time used. So while a 8th level druid can technically be wildshaped for 24 hours, he can only take 3 forms. The 20th level druid could change shape every round, which given the array of things he can turn into at that point is a very versatile ability.
Kind of the same deal (to a lesser extent) for the monk, increasing unarmed damage ac bonus and Ki Pool. Heck the whole abundant step dimentional dervish thing is probably one of the cooler things a monk gets to do and that is a high level ability.Level 12 (the level at which a monk gets Abundant Step) counts as "well before level 20" in my book. Empty Body is kind of neat, but that's about it.
I think that is sort of the difference in play styles. My group doesnt go up that high. I've never played in a capaign that has reached 20. So a 12th level ability that can be expanded on with feats is sufficiently 'high level' for me.
I see what you are saying though about progression of exisiting abilities not being the same as a cool new toy, but for the druid, I really think increasing levels of spells ought to cover that itch.
I find it strange that so many people see multi-classing as a tool for munchkin-izing. I suppose it is. But, so many "Optimized" builds I see are single class builds. When I level dip/multi-class, it is usually for story/character development purposes, or to make my character more well rounded. I usually feel like it slightly de-optimizes my character...
Oh well, YMMV. =)
I find it strange that so many people see multi-classing as a tool for munchkin-izing. I suppose it is. But, so many "Optimized" builds I see are single class builds. When I level dip/multi-class, it is usually for story/character development purposes, or to make my character more well rounded. I usually feel like it slightly de-optimizes my character...
Oh well, YMMV. =)
Its one of those system mastery things. Unless you have a very specific combination of abilities in mind, multiclassing will likely weaken your character. If you do multiclass with specific combinations in mind though you can end up with an interaction of abilities that exceeds what they were intended to do for a single classed character.
How many prestige classes are there that give full casting that work with other druid abilities? Or are you not concerned with progressing the animal companion and the druids wildshape?
Note that there are feats that give a boost to a multi-classed druid's animal companion and wild shape (Boon Companion and Shaping Focus, respectively), if either of those is something you care about.
I think that is sort of the difference in play styles. My group doesnt go up that high. I've never played in a capaign that has reached 20. So a 12th level ability that can be expanded on with feats is sufficiently 'high level' for me.
To be honest, I rarely play above level 10 too! But that doesn't mean that it's not an issue for someone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its one of those system mastery things. Unless you have a very specific combination of abilities in mind, multiclassing will likely weaken your character. If you do multiclass with specific combinations in mind though you can end up with an interaction of abilities that exceeds what they were intended to do for a single classed character.I find it strange that so many people see multi-classing as a tool for munchkin-izing. I suppose it is. But, so many "Optimized" builds I see are single class builds. When I level dip/multi-class, it is usually for story/character development purposes, or to make my character more well rounded. I usually feel like it slightly de-optimizes my character...
Oh well, YMMV. =)
Oh, yeah, I get that. All I was really saying is that it constantly surprises me that the common view of multiclassing is that it's for optimization. My first thought when I see a MC'd character is not "Munchkin". But, that's probably based on my table experience. As I said, yours likely varies.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I can't speak for everyone, but considering that I like my characters to be relatively good at a specific thing, I've found multiclassing to be a fun, enjoyable way of building my martial characters. I would not enjoy playing with a GM who banned something so iconic to the game. People forget that multiclassing has always been a part of the hobby, and in my opinion, banning multiclassing is as eyebrow-raising as banning attack rolls.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think that if your group is totally okay with it, go right ahead. It shouldn't hurt, and is likely to actually make stronger characters, even.
It's 100% the right option for everyone, though. I am not the kind of guy who would like being told I can't take a level in Cleric after my Ranger finds a reason to become a devotee of his deity, or even just because I like the ability to Channel Energy. So I would never play a table with such a rule. But just because I don't like it, doesn't mean it doesn't work.
Are certain classes going to gain an advantage or be severely disadvantaged during their progression?
Mechanically? No, all Pathfinder classes stand on their own quite well.
Mostly it's going to be easier for bookkeeping and to keep certain players from trying to do ludicrous things with min-maxing and focus on a character for role-playing.
Personally, I find it's the other way around in Pathfinder, that the min-max'ers are all single class characters hopping on the best archetype and it's the multi-classers that are building for roleplay and ending up weaker as a result.
That's not to say you can't make good multi-class combos, but they rarely outshine single-class characters. When they do steal the show, that usually is indicative that the single-class character is poorly built.
I'd say the final call should be between you and your players. If someone wants to play a multi-class character, then you need to discuss that and articulate why you don't want such a character in your game. Perhaps you can reconcile your differences in that way rather than laying down a hard rule.
Okay, I was actually done with this pretty early on, but came back to see what conversation was still going on. (I had gotten sufficient answers to my question.)
First, I'm not the GM in this scenario. And if I was, I would still abide by general group rules. So, if we decide to go through with this, and it looks like we will, anybody in our group that chooses to run a game will probably use the same convention. Not that we have to, but that tends to be our preference with house rules.
Whether it is the right call for us will be determined by actually doing it.
I realize that I poked a hornet's nest with this. All I can say is, "relax, don't panic." The choice to remove multi-classing was brought up and after some discussion we decided to give it a try. We are not forcing players into a scenario that they don't like. It will be our house rule. If you were at our table you would be expected to abide by it, but it wouldn't be sprung on you. The reality is that it won't be for everyone. But that doesn't make it wrong to do. Anyone who is saying that a house rule that the group playing all agrees to is bad/wrong really ought to take a good look at why they are having that reaction.
Regardless, everyone needs to have fun and not stress that our group will be using a house rule that they don't like. No one is forcing you to use it. And as long as we're having fun, we'll keep it around.
-Peace
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less a hornet's nest than the way the idea was posited. Attaching certain judgments to the concept merely exposed a bunch of sacred cows close to people's hearts. The OP asked one question and then made a series of statements that led to some contention, as did various posts following.
To wit - here are some contentious subjects I identified:
Multiclassing - is it a roleplay or munchkin move?
Multiclassing - does it involve more book-keeping?
Multiclassing - is it, at the core, a stronger or weaker option compared to single-classing?
Multiclassing - is it a new idea or a heritage of RPGs?
Multiclassing - if I start a new career/pick levels in a new class, do I for some reason forget my old skills?
Multiclassing - can it solve problems with a table's approach NOT related to class selection?
Multiclassing - does more than one level in a second class still constitute a "dip"?
Etc etc etc.
No-one is suggesting badwrongfun or crazy hijinks - merely prodding and exposing some of the reasoning as open to discussion.
Like I said earlier - have fun trying it out, let us know what happens...
I don't allow multi-classing in any of my campaigns. If a rogue meets a wizard and decides that he wants to be one, he goes to college. Seven years later, he is a 1st level wizard. But in those seven years, he's nearly forgotten everything about being a rogue and must find new adventuring party. Wizard wants to be a paladin, she goes to a monastery. Barbarian considering becoming a bard? Bardic University. Ranger feeling the call of a the barbarian? Spend a few years with a horde of reavers. Essentially, you want a new class, start over. My players complained at first, but eventually agreed it is more fulfilling to play one awesome class to its fullness rather than a mosaic of everyone. The jack of all trades is the master of nothing.So, no prestige classes in your campaigns? Or do you make an exception for them? What about the PrCs that require more than one base class to qualify?
All this based on what you like or dislike?
I personally don't like to play wizards; ever since the sorcerer class appeared I haven't looked back. However, I wouldn't dream of banning wizards from my campaigns, or disallowing that choice to my players!
I once had a DM who was of the opposite view; he didn't like sorcerers, loved wizards and hated warlocks (3.5). When he DMed he chose to create a world, create a nation run by wizards in that world, create laws which make sorcery illegal in that nation, set the adventure in that nation and ban us from playing sorcerers. Want to play a warlock? Play somewhere else!
So I did.
What a DM likes or dislikes as a player should not translate to forcing his players to obey those personal preferences. If you don't like multi-classing then don't do it, but don't force your prejudices on your players. As a player, if a potential DM starts laying down stuff like that, it rings alarm bells about other likely shenanigans. Avoid DMs who do stuff like that like the plague.
I didn't ban multi-classing because I don't like the concept. What part of my post led you to believe I ban anything because I don't like? I loved multi-classing and PrC in 3.5, and encouraged it when I GMed then. It was practically required for the majority of 3.5 campaigns as the classes we underpowered. Pathfinder created more balanced classes and 20th level capstone abilities, negating most of the practical application. Archetypes have further trivialized multi-classing and PrC. I made a decision, and it works.
Last time I checked, that was something I was allowed to do as a GM.
As for the implication that I'm a restrictive GM, that is extremely presumptuous. I currently have 36 custom races and 24 class potentials in my campaign. I allow any race to be any class, and any race to be any alignment. I retooled the paladin to allow LN and LE. I reworked monks to allow N, NG, and NE. I have and will always believe if it works, its in my world, in every way possible. I ban multi-classing because it is irrelevant. You want to be a fighter/ sorcerer? Be a magus. Want to be an assassin? Ninja with any number of rogue archetypes.
Yes... the REASON you ban a class is very important. I can see very good reasons to ban each of the core classes from a campaign, given a certain campaign makeup, such as having an urban setting without place for druids or barbarians, settings where psionics have replaced arcane or divine magic or both, no-magic settings, and so on. Not to mention more esoteric ideas such as single-class campaigns.
Every campaign does not need monks, synthesist summoners, gunslingers, druids, or any specific class you might care to name. The only two pretty mainstay classes (though by no means indispensable) are the magic-less fighters and rogues. To my thinking.
I approve of any GM banning whatever they want from their game for whatever reason they want for any reasons ranging from sheer superstition, doubts about mechanics, personal dislike of flavour or mechanics to complete eccentric, irrational and illogical distaste for/of absolutely and unequivocally anything. After all it's the GM's table/world/gig. As long as they are open, upfront and honest there need be no justification given - they are the master of their own creation.
And any player is equally absolutely and unequivocally just as justified to walk away and find another table/group. It's that simple. Creating a shared world, becoming "spectactors" requires a meeting of converging, not competing, desires. To tell a story, to be moved, to feel, to act out, to fantasise, create and imagine. To problem-solve, test ideas and theories on absolutely anything. To make shapes of kindness (thanks Dark Crystal) between ourselves even when playing a half-Shae/half Paraika Div Antipaladin/Schir-Demon blooded Sorceress. (Yep, OSW bought Bestiary 3).
Having said that, the more you ban the smaller your prospective player base. Conversely, and perversely, the more you allow the less "purists" of an infinite variety will feel comfortable playing such a melange.
The best of all possible worlds is to be open to a full and frank discussion of what the needs are of all parties concerned. Maturity, compromise and compassion are all prerequisites of any successful human endeavour where coherent, intelligent and meaningful outcomes are desired. Then there's performance art, interpretive dance and posts by OSW involving (performance art, interpretive dance, hobbits/gnomes/dwarves).
Have fun people. Remember, in all seriousness now, it's a game! ;p
And being heartfelt and concerned is a part of that. I love you all, good night.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I never drank the "I am the DM and everything I say goes koolaid." As a DM for over 25 years, I played this way, when I was 12.
Gaming is a group activity. Finding that perfect group is a pain. A major pain. Before any game I design, I work with the players to get a feel of how WE want to play. I might have a vision, but if no one wants to play it, why would I force it?
If Multi-classing doesn't work for the group, I am all for removing it. If the group hates the idea of Ninjas than no ninjas in the game. If the DM doesn't want to write up Ninjas for the game and the player wants to play one, then make him the first Ninja. Somebody has to be the first!
As to the power, the class will not be, and should no expect to be, equal. As someone stated they should be able to contribute equally. But seriously, there is no ability that scales with true resurrection or wish. That said, I don't see any trouble with playing a game like this if that is what the group wishes.
^ what he said ^
Pathfinder created more balanced classes and 20th level capstone abilities, negating most of the practical application
Capstones are cool! but in way is head shoulders better than 1 or 2 level dip in an other class in most cases HELL NO.
You have to play pass level 20 alot be fore it out wieghs the power of a level dip.
If you take that it take 12 hours to raise a level.
And play to level 20.
That 19x12= 228 hour playing nice level dip abilty vs 12 with Great capstone power.
Capstone power are more for GM than a player. Since GM could using CR 19 bad guys as soon as APL 16. That gives GM APL 16, APL 17, APL 18, APL 19, and APL 20 to use Bad guy with Capsone abilty that 5 levels worth APL vs PC 1 level with cool power.
All so with out mult classing alot prestige class do not work or work poorly..Such as: Arcane Archer, Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge, Battle Herald, Nature Warden, & Rage Prophet.
If you play APs most end at level 16 or 17 so no capstone power any way...
|
|
As for the implication that I'm a restrictive GM, that is extremely presumptuous....
I ban multi-classing....
Without making any presumptions...you have posted that you are restrictive in that you ban multi-classing!
The fact that you allow a plethora of races/classes/whatever does not mitigate your banning of multi-classing! If a player has a solid concept, who are you to say that the concept is invalid? That it is a BadWrongConcept?
I want to play the Duelist PrC because I want to create a PC that can fence by attacking/parrying, just like I can fence in real life. The best PF mechanic to represent this is the Duelist PrC, and I need to multi-class to be a Duelist. 'Be a magus' is not the answer!
There is no justification in denying this to a player while pretending that you are permissive on the grounds that you would allow him to play a sentient cucumber, but multi-classing is beyond the pale!
|
I read about half the thread, sorry if I repeat something.
Multiclassing usually weakens a character. I find classes to be extremely limiting and suppportive of Min-maxing. I want to craft a character and often times need to select abilities from multiple classes to fit the character but that in turn comes with baggage abilities that I don't want for the character.
Multiclassing isn't about minmaxing, it is about the fact that practically no one is single class. Single class is cheezy, vanilla, and usually lacks any originality or creativity. If I play, I have no desire to play some stereotyped cheezeball character with overly simplied skillsets.
Often times I'll play a caster who explores ruins and is used to traps and monsters and used to work alone before meeting the party, thus knows how to handle traps and monsters often attacking from the shadows. The character can be made only by multiclassing rogue and sorcerer(or wizard but I hate prep casting), there is absolutly no possible way to make a character able to handle moderate to high lvl traps without selecting rogue. But selecting rogue alone will never allow one to be a major caster. To be a major caster who finds and disables traps and fights from the shadows is not possible without multiclassing.
As for the minmaxing problem, it stems from the modern outlook on RPGs, (I blame mmos for this) people see them as action games to be won with a bit of story thrown in.
If you want to avoid min maxing, then you need to ask for a story write up of a character and what they do, then co create the stats for that character following the fluff as closely as the mechanics can. Or you can simply tell people to not minmax and to give GM help to those who are weaker while adding penalties to those who are stronger to even out the power balance (though I wouldn't suggest letting your players know that unless you make specific rules) often by rolling damage and such out of sight and adjucating the npcs response by the dmg, but having the npc die after 3 or 4 hits regardless of dmg dealt or who dealt it. This makes minmaxing pointless and much less usefull.
And when you find those that can actually play without minmaxing, keep them on a list and always invite them first to new games you run.