I do not understand the concept of Multi-classing in a Class-based game.  Please explain why one designs a game along those lines?
 
It strikes me that classes do offer a simplified way of managing skills/feats/whatever and an advancement mechanism all wrapped up.
 
Using skills-based systems offer a greater breakdown of the same things, but allow a PC to aquire abilities not available in a class-based system.
 
So, why use multi-classing?  It seems to abandon the concept behind classes, and implement a skills-based system in a rather clumsy way.
 
So, can anyone explain why?  I really am curious, and would like to know the reasoning.....

It's somewhat of a patch but if done right it can be simpler to manage than a detailed skills system that uses points for advancement.

It also avoids the problem of related skills in detailed skill systems, like where someone is a master at painting but has zero points in drawing. Or world-class with a broadsword but inexperienced with a shortsword. Skill systems have ways of dealing with this issue but they get complicated and they rarely cover skills that are socially related for lack of a better term. Like in theory tracking and outdoor survival are distinct skills but in practice they're often learned together, so it's a pain to have to remember to split your points between them for your woodsman character.

Quote from: BillDowns;284353So, why use multi-classing?  It seems to abandon the concept behind classes, and implement a skills-based system in a rather clumsy way.
 
So, can anyone explain why?  I really am curious, and would like to know the reasoning.....

In addition to what Mr Wilen said,* it provides for a designer to have a smaller number of initial archetypes to work up, while also allowing for the players of the game to have a good measure of flexibility.  If you throw together all the combinations you want to allow and make up individual classes for those, you will not only end up with a magnitude of order more work and page count, the likelyhood of botching things in regards to balance or opening loopholes also increases.




*and he really is always right

As far as I know D&D is one of the few games that actually uses multi-classing and it came up as a band aid to the problem of people wanting more then a rigid class.

Multi-classing is the key to more power....so players really like it!  

Generally, the penalty for multi-classing involves XP/leveling so it becomes meaningless in most games which never stretch more than a dozen levels before the campaign ends or collapses.  If you know the campaign will only go 1st to 6th level, multi-classing is much more viable than a game going 1st to 20th or beyond.  

From a design standpoint, it pleases munchkins who are a significant market.

When I was younger and naive I assumed the origin of multi-classing arose from the impossibility of most of the more iconic characters in fantasy being shoe-horned into a single class, and players wanting to build their own PCs in their image. Consider the cases of young Conan (a barbarian thief with ranger skills) or Elric (a sorceror who wears full armor and uses greatswords), for instance.

These days I pretty much agree with what Spinachcat said. Its about getting more kewl powerz.

Quote from: Edsan;284443Its about getting more kewl powerz.

And getting kewl powerz is not always a bad thing as long as that power mode fits the spirit and tone of your game and setting.  

In my game, its all about "kewl powerz" and I maximize ways for PCs to get them because over-the-top gonzo is the tone and perfectly fits the fantasical setting.

Quote from: Spinachcat;284459And getting kewl powerz is not always a bad thing as long as that power mode fits the spirit and tone of your game and setting.  

Of course. There was nothing in my post saying otherwise, I think.

Quote from: BillDowns;284353I do not understand the concept of Multi-classing in a Class-based game.  Please explain why one designs a game along those lines?

  So one can create a character that has the 'skills' and abilties of more than one class.  There's nothing munchkin about that.

Quote from: Spinachcat;284418Multi-classing is the key to more power....so players really like it!  

Generally, the penalty for multi-classing involves XP/leveling so it becomes meaningless in most games which never stretch more than a dozen levels before the campaign ends or collapses.  If you know the campaign will only go 1st to 6th level, multi-classing is much more viable than a game going 1st to 20th or beyond.  

From a design standpoint, it pleases munchkins who are a significant market.

Multiclassing in 3 systems:

In AD&D1E Multiclassing was a great idea, that you only really paid the price for when it came to leveling up. And sometimes you *really* paid, like if you had stacked up three classes together (like a Ftr/M-U/Thief). But generally you got to use the full powers, but you had to also fulfill each experience pool simultaneously.

Under 3E, a lot of my multiclassed characters end up significantly nerfed from a power standpoint (in fact I think it was hard to avoid getting hosed when you multi-classed in 3e unless you were taking one of a few prescribed builds). But my characters always seemed interesting to me. It was also a good way to put together a set of features you had in mind. Like I had an "arabian nights" style illusionist (actually a sorcerer) I wanted to be able to use a scimitar and a bow with. So I gave him a level of fighter. Ok, so cool concept, and I also appreciated the extra hit points, but I suffered from the lack of a spell level, and even though I could use the scimitar, I rarely dared to draw it in melee. I would have gotten crushed.

Multiclassing in 4E is interesting in that it is almost all based on feats, and you really have to commit: you can take the multiclass feat (Student of (whatever)), and that might give you a little trivial bonus to something associated with your new class. But you don't get to actually *do* too much with the new class until you take the second feat (Novice Power, etc) and then all *that* does is allow you to start switching out powers. Since you only get feats every 2 levels, you really can't multiclass that radically, AND the powers aren't added, theyre substituted. So the power-up effects seem less pronounced. I'll have more data on this once I level up my spell-scarred character. On the other hand, qualifying for armor, shield and weapon upgrades in 4E is also by feat and is pretty much hassle free. So I have a rogue that took "light shield" as her second level feat, and has something similar to an AD&D1e Assassin build going on.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;284570So one can create a character that has the 'skills' and abilties of more than one class.  There's nothing munchkin about that.

Exactly.  As I mentioned before, you can spend all kinds of time coming up with a magical thief class to emulate the Grey Mouser.  It is more efficient to come up with a more or less global set of mechanics by which you can combine the Thief class with the Magic User class.  Even better if you design for varying degrees of the classes, by allowing the player to decide how many xp from an adventure to allocate to each class, for example.

Quote from: Edsan;284443When I was younger and naive I assumed the origin of multi-classing arose from the impossibility of most of the more iconic characters in fantasy being shoe-horned into a single class, and players wanting to build their own PCs in their image. Consider the cases of young Conan (a barbarian thief with ranger skills) or Elric (a sorceror who wears full armor and uses greatswords), for instance.

These days I pretty much agree with what Spinachcat said. Its about getting more kewl powerz.

No, you were right the first time.

Properly done, multi-classing creates a limited effects-based system, where it becomes about how one utilizes the existing tools to achieve a desired character concept.