Article here

It seems like Mearls was in such a rush to get ready for Gencon, he rushed this article and had a lot of ambiguity in it.  I think he would have been best served to clearly explain what the intentions are for multi-class, because there are a lot of questions with this, especially around multi-classed casters.

The reaction is to be expected, yet disappointing.  It seems a lot of folks are throwing fits because they're "just gonna take one level of fighter and one level of mage, and then the rest as a other class!"

Once again, munchkins ruin the game; acting like an RPG is all about min/maxing mechanical bonuses rather than actually role-playing in a fantasy came world where such combinations make no sense whatsoever.

How about we just not have multi-classing?

That's generally how I ran 3.x and it worked just fine.

Sure the system wanks and the like hated it but I didn't want them infecting my game anyway.

Win-win.

If you want multi-classing, play the Elf class or the Dwarf class.

Problem solved.

I don't understand the complaint you mention in the first post.

"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."

and

"For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor."

Both of those seem to address the issue you raised.  Single-level dipping seems to have been addressed, so what is the issue, and where are you seeing this complaint expressed?

In my opinion, it's really a person problem and not a rules problem.

If a player is wanting to make a particular build, let's say he's been adventuring as a barbarian for a few sessions and has leveled up.  Now he wants to be a mage because it min/maxs his character, even though he has not done anything in character to reflect this.  That's a person problem because that player is ignoring what is happening in the game world and instead is placing all focus on metagaming

If the DM allows this, then this is also a person problem because the DM is changing or ignoring common sense to cater to a player.

Either way, not a rules problem.  The simplest solution is that as a DM, I won't allow players to make builds based on min/maxing.  They have to make sense in the context of the character's personality, actions, and game world.

This is why we can't have nice things though.

Quote from: Mistwell;680406I don't understand the complaint you mention in the first post.

"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."

and

"For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor."

Both of those seem to address the issue you raised.  Single-level dipping seems to have been addressed, so what is the issue, and where are you seeing this complaint expressed?

I was more talking about the people online who are whining about this.  Go look at TBP for a clear example.

The caster rules are weird.  There is some interpretation that if you dip into a cleric level 1 and are a 9th level fighter, you can cast spells like a 10th level cleric

Quote from: YourSwordisMine;680404If you want multi-classing, play the Elf class or the Dwarf class.

Problem solved.

The dwarf class isn't multiclassing. The classic dwarf is a fighter with some racial abilities.

Quote from: Mistwell;680406I don't understand the complaint you mention in the first post.

"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."

and

"For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor."

Both of those seem to address the issue you raised.  Single-level dipping seems to have been addressed, so what is the issue, and where are you seeing this complaint expressed?

The largest number of complaints I remember about 3E multiclassing were from those who wanted to have the casting abilities of full character level even after taking several levels of fighter.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680410The caster rules are weird.  There is some interpretation that if you dip into a cleric level 1 and are a 9th level fighter, you can cast spells like a 10th level cleric

I don't think the article can be any clearer:

"Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast."

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680408Either way, not a rules problem.  The simplest solution is that as a DM, I won't allow players to make builds based on min/maxing.  They have to make sense in the context of the character's personality, actions, and game world.

[munchkin rage]

So a player has to suck your dick to play the class they want?

[end munchkin rage]

You know someone was going to say it. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Sacrosanct;680408If the DM allows this, then this is also a person problem because the DM is changing or ignoring common sense to cater to a player.

So, include the rules, and specify that they're subject to GM approval. Everybody wins; char op fans get to char op, simulation fans get to do what makes sense, and GM's who find a player who insists on multiclassing because IT IS IN THE RULES SO YOU MUST LET ME! can kick the player (resulting in a thread about GM tyranny, and the player ending up looking like a shit). Everybody wins!

Or you could go the Dungeon World route, where each class has 'take an ability from another class' as one of their advancement options, but under strict limits (of classes allowed, powers allowed, and effectiveness in use). You can game it, sure, but not much.

Quote from: Chairman Meow;680414I don't think the article can be any clearer:

"Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast."

What I mean is, if you're a 5th level mage/5th level cleric, can you cast a number of spells per day as a 5th level caster in each class, or do you cast a number of spells per day as a 10th level caster, up to the highest spell level per class?

For example, do you have:

Cleric spells: 3/2/1
Mage spells: 4/3/2


or

Cleric spells: 3/2/2
Mage Spells: 4/3/3

Fuck multi-classing. I could see its merits in AD&D, where there wasn't much scope for character customization. But there's no need for it Next, and there wasn't any need for it in 3E. It's just a sop to munchkins. Why not just make it clear up-front that this isn't the edition for them? Or just nerf it by saying you always gain experience in whatever class you have the lowest level in. Done.

Quote from: Haffrung;680452Fuck multi-classing. I could see its merits in AD&D, where there wasn't much scope for character customization. But there's no need for it Next, and there wasn't any need for it in 3E. It's just a sop to munchkins. Why not just make it clear up-front that this isn't the edition for them? Or just nerf it by saying you always gain experience in whatever class you have the lowest level in. Done.

I am open to multiclassing as long as it is slightly 'weaker' than single classing.

My logic is that multiclassing should be for charcater concept and not for 'being uber'

Quote from: Bill;680742I am open to multiclassing as long as it is slightly 'weaker' than single classing.

My logic is that multiclassing should be for charcater concept and not for 'being uber'

Agreed. If you want flexibility and a cool concept, fine. You're going to give up power, though. Only gaining experience in your lowest level is the way to do that.

I see.  What he left out of his very brief description is:

1) When multiclassing between classes which are already sort-of half-caster (like Ranger or Paladin) and a full caster (like Wizard), what is the basis of your spells prepared and known? and
2) Why would a character that starts as Fighter and then multi-classes as wizard known all those martial proficiencies, while a character that starts as wizard and multi-classes as fighter know less proficiencies? and
3) the question Sarcrosanct asked.

I am sure they have answers for those, he just spun off the article quick before heading to GenCon and didn't delve into those finer detail level questions.