Rather than continue to argue with someone who refuses to acknowledge the way a rule works even after pointing them to a page that explains the rule, I spent a few hours with some friends doing another 5e playtest. What I came away with on this session was class structure, and how multi-classing might be going away.
First I have to put a disclaimer that I don't play 4e, so I don't know if they got rid of multi-classing in that edition. If they did, just take this FWIW.
We already know that in 5e, you have your class, your background with skills and traits, and specialties.
In this session, we did some character generation and ran them through Reclaiming Blingdenstone.
Observations:
You can come up with some really cool combinations that make multi-classing unnecessary. At least at levels 1-5 that the playtest covers. Here were some examples:
Mountain Dwarf Fighter, Sage background, Acolyte specialty. This is essentially a fighter/cleric, or a paladin. He was a an educated holy warrior. A class that was excellent at fighting, very knowledgeable about lore, and could cast minor cleric spells. Unlike the AD&D paladin, you didn't have to wait until 9th level or whatever to cast 1st level spells. Your holy power was there at 1st level. Sure, you didn't increase in cleric casting ability, but you did get the ability at level 3 to make your weapons do holy damage.
Hill Dwarf thief, thug background, lurker. The equivalent of an assassin, or fighter/thief. Wasn't good at opening locks or disarming traps. But with his stealth, increased damage die with axes, and increased hit points, one tough individual who surprised you and split your skull before you knew what happened.
High elf cleric, bounty hunter background, archer specialty. Cleric/Fighter or druid or even ranger. Elf race gives automatic die increase with bows and swords, combined with archery specialty makes you a great ranged combatant. Combined with clerical spells and the elf's ability to use minor arcane spells creates one of the best well rounded classes.
High elf thief, spy background, arcane dabbler specialty. Magic user/thief. This really shines when you get your familiar, which can grant you several advantages, especially for a spy.
I'm really looking forward to seeing higher level abilities and how they wash out. But as it stands, I am intrigued by the combinations you can have, and not from a min/maxing perspective, but from an adventuring and background perspective. For example, in AD&D, you had to have really good attributes to be a holy warrior (either paladin or fighter/cleric). Now you don't, and can have a character that fits that vision pretty well.
I'd noticed the same.
In fact, I'd wondered if the "extra" classes would even be present (Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Druid, etc)...the only thing that makes me think they might be is the addition of Sorcerer and Warlock in the last revision and the mention of races that aren't currently in the rules let (gnomes, half-orcs and half-elves). Still, you're right...if you use Backgrounds and Specialties, you can get a lot of customization for a little effort, making for some thematically interesting PCs.
I'm pretty sure the paladin, ranger, druid, and monk will be included since they included the sorcerer and warlock. Like those two, the other four are in the second tier of "core" classes, so if you're gonna have sorcerer and warlock, might as well have the other four as well.
I'm sure you're right...I'm just not sure they're needed (and I say this as someone who is a big fan of Paladins and Rangers). In the character generation for my upcoming playtest, one player made a Lawful Good Human Fighter with the Knight and Acolyte Background and Specialty. Sure looks a lot like a Paladin to me.
I don't disagree at all. I'd like to see "wilderness something" as a background, which would essentially replace the ranger class. If the knight background included things like bonuses to mounted combat at higher levels, and the acolyte specialty include things like divine inspiration to buff your character, then the paladin could go the wayside as well.
I think the whole sorcerer class as a unique class was put in to appease the dragonborn fans, since that's essentially what the class turns into when it runs out of spell points.
4e didn't have real multiclassing in a way comparable to either 1e/2e or 3e. It was done through Feats. You took a 'multiclass feat' which had moderate ability score prerequisits, gave you one of the class features of another class. You then took additional feats to get the 'powers' of that other class in exchange for the ones your actual class gave you.
The system was pretty terrible, causing them to release a 'hybrid' system which was more like the 1e/2e multiclassing of demihumans, but was still confusing and more often than not made for a worse character just like the multiclassing. Coloring outside the lines in 4e basically just came with built-in penalties. You had to 'pay' to play something that the 4e devs didn't cook up personally, and play the way it was intended to be played by them.
The "Next" playtest stuff you are describing sounds similar to Pathfinder, which still has 3e multiclassing and PrCs, but also has "Archetypes" which work a lot like the kits from 2e, which slightly alter a particular classes theme and switches out the standard class abilities for alternate, or more specialized ones. There are also 'Traits' as well, which sound like a rough analogue for Next's Backgrounds.
I'm willing to bet that "Next" will have multiclassing though. It doesn't matter if the option gets used much, as long as it is there, because I think that was one of the big sticking points in 4e for a lot of people and I think it's probably going to be unacceptable to release the system without multiclassing.
An interesting observation by the OP.
On the subject of Warlocks and Sorcerors, they have been included specifically for people who don't like Vancian magic. Sorcerors use a power point type mechanic, whilst Warlocks are more similar to the At Will / Encounter / Daily model introduced for 4e.
And just because they are there doesn't automatically mean that Paladins or Rangers will be, IMO. Seems like the background and speciality are used to layer on flavour, whilst the class controls your fundamental mechanics.
So the question is - what different rules would a Paladin need over a fighter / cleric mash up? And the same for a Ranger or Bard?
I can see a Druid needing fundamentally different mechanics to a cleric to accommodate the wild shape ability, but the others aren't mechanically very distinct.
Quote from: dbm;581247So the question is - what different rules would a Paladin need over a fighter / cleric mash up? And the same for a Ranger or Bard?.
For paladin, I can see them losing the combat superiority dice that the fighter has, and instead has a list of divine inspirations, for a lack of a better term. To pull from the classic paladin, these would be things like poison/disease immunity, smite evil, saving throw bonuses, etc.
Ranger would be the same as far as not having combat superiority. That would be a fighter only trait. This one is a lot harder to do since most ranger stuff would be able to be replicated by a woodsman background. Maybe you give them things like their favored enemy and access to certain spell effects, like the travel domain in 3e.
Bard is easy. Just have them have a bunch of spells that are invoked by playing music or singing, like in older editions. They wouldn't need to memorize spells either (since singers shouldn't forget the lyrics to every song). All spells would have to be mind effecting though; no magic missiles or stuff like that. To offset, give them better fighting capability.
One problem I've always seen with multi-classing is that its almost impossible to make a system where the multiclass character will be just as good as the non-multiclassed character.
You can fairly easily make a system where, mechanically speaking, multiclassing is a kind of sub-optimal choice, where the price you are paying for multiclassing offsets the very specific benefits you get from it, and this is really how it probably ought to be.
But when you do this, you get a bunch of powergamers complaining that this makes multiclassing "useless", and so it becomes tempting for the designer to create a system where multiclassing is actually the superior choice over playing a single class, where the guy who plays a F3/Ranger2/Thief1/Paladin1 is going to be superior to the sucker who just plays a F7. And of course, this is royally fucked up, because it ruins a bunch of setting elements, mainly that the guys who want to play the archetypal character ("the fighter", "the wizard", "the Thief") are actually punished for that in favor of people playing character that are basically Nothing, they're unidentifiable and make no sense as characters but are mechanically superior.
So if it was up to me, my top option would be that there be no multiclassing.
RPGPundit
I'm sympathetic to that POV. If the solution to solve the multiclassing conundrum is to nuke multiclassing out the game, so be it, AFAIC.
From what I see, I think the game is set up to get rid of multi-classing while at the same time allowing someone to have an archetype that would be a multi-class in a previous edition. And I like that. I think it could appeal to those people who like "builds" while at the same time getting a reign on those powergamers who try to do builds based solely on DPS or some other ridiculous metric even if it makes no reasonable sense in the setting.
I too like the new system. Am currently playing a Fighter with the Sage and Magic user traits and love kicking in the door with charged-up gear.
A good combo of versatility and simplicity.
Always thought that in 3.5D&D there was a Prestige Class for every sucky build or multiclass combo.
Quote from: RPGPundit;581555So if it was up to me, my top option would be that there be no multiclassing.
RPGPundit
I love options. Not every character I've come across in fiction or seen on the silver screen, or even depicted in art is easily defined by a single 'archetypal class' in traditional D&D.
And of course some combination of fighter/wizard is archetypal as well. While that could be represented with a base class, I haven't seen that done
well in any version of D&D.
If there are enough 'options' to 'stretch' a character class to fill a particular role, I'd be pretty satisfied, but that really takes a lot of work. Easy, intuitive, and balanced multi-classing would be my preference.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581592I love options. Not every character I've come across in fiction or seen on the silver screen, or even depicted in art is easily defined by a single 'archetypal class' in traditional D&D.
And of course some combination of fighter/wizard is archetypal as well. While that could be represented with a base class, I haven't seen that done well in any version of D&D.
If there are enough 'options' to 'stretch' a character class to fill a particular role, I'd be pretty satisfied, but that really takes a lot of work. Easy, intuitive, and balanced multi-classing would be my preference.
If they break down these little class-components into feats for those of us that want to tinker, they'll be feat dips rather than a third of your class. It could actually be even more flexible than 3x multiclassing. Hell, if the math behind it is right, it can mean an easy classless-but-still-leveled variant.
I'd consider that a win for both audiences, if they can just get it functioning properly.
Quote from: RPGPundit;581555So if it was up to me, my top option would be that there be no multiclassing.
RPGPundit
While I don't think I agree with him for the same reasons I stand with RPGPundit on this one. I took it out of the game I am making though I acknowledge that a lot of people like it. I've tried to, instead, look at "why" people want to multiclass. Most of the time it is for the extra options, to fill out a character concept, for optimization, perhaps to fit something that happened in the campaign that would constitute a radical change (Cleric/Paladin losing faith and doing something else). I find it infinitely better to instead reduce/eliminate the need to multiclass to do these tasks. I feel a similar way about Prestige Classes.
Quote from: beejazz;581604If they break down these little class-components into feats for those of us that want to tinker, they'll be feat dips rather than a third of your class.
The feats actually have to provide something worth a feat (or several feats in the case of "Feat Tax" prerequisites which I fully endorse but 4e shunned), which is where 4e went wrong. You pay a feat that lets you lose a class ability and get another, essentially making you pay twice. I don't understand why 4e doesn't also have a Feats like: "
Benefit: You 'gain' HP as a Wizard, unless you already are a Wizard in which case you lose 2 HP per level;
Normal:
You normally have better HP", because that is how the MC feat chain reads, and why there really aren't any MC'd characters in 4e, and why they released 3 PHBs + Essentials books chock full of character classes (every concept needs it's own class or it doesn't exist).
A feat-based multiclassing system that doesn't take opportunity cost into account isn't going to cut it for me. There are already feats in 3.5/PF that replicate the class features of other classes, which are fine and in many ways do create a character that feels mutliclassed, but you don't give up your primary classes abilities to gain them. You pay once. You give up what could have been a feat to gain greater specialization in order to gain more versatility instead.
-
Advocating that multiclassing be deliberately subpar is exactly the same thing as advocating for 'trap options', and is a 100% gamist position. It's absolutely no different than the much maligned Forgist 'play the game the way I think it should be played' mindset and is exactly what 4e already had to offer and flopped with.
If these Backgrounds and Specialties
do create characters that are conceptually different than the core classes, then by the same logic they should also all be inherently worse as well for the purposes of discouraging people from playing things that don't fit into the conception of what the classes are supposed to mean in the setting (despite there being basically no agreement on what that meaning is).
That is to say that Knights should be worse in all ways to "Fighters", whatever a "Fighter" is, unless Knight becomes a class at which point it becomes 'sanctioned' as acceptable to play in it's own conceptual space and can then be un-nerfed mechanically. Likewise all Thieves are criminals who steal property (and presumably murder their victims justifying Backstab). If you wish to play a member of the Thief Class who is not a thief, but instead an assassin you should necessarily be worse at combat, stealth and taking people unaware than a "real' Thief.
Not because it makes sense, is 'organic' or 'logical' but because you can't have people just going around willy nilly deciding they should be able to play things the game designers subjectively don't like and the game mechanics should harshly reflect these tastes just like how getting into a fight is a mechanically unsound option in Dogs in the Vineyard (which to be clear is a game about playing armed thugs that travel the land to enforce religious orthodoxy).
That's pretty much a recipe for disaster imo. I think that 4e with it's 30+ classes and what amounts to 5+ different versions of the Fighter demonstrates why this design philosophy is bad.
Well, I was assuming you wouldn't need to pay twice the way you did in 4e. I was just thinking along the lines of class features *as* feats, leaving them fully swappable if the GM goes for it.
Quote from: MGuy;581608Most of the time it is for the extra options, to fill out a character concept, for optimization
The whole extent of any issue with multiclassing in 3.x is front-loaded features. There isn't really any reason to be higher than 10th level as a Paladin. There is very little reason to even be 10th level for that matter, but after 10th there is virtually no trade-off in taking levels in another class.
Other d20 games that use identical multiclassing rules don't have the same issue because you actually have to lose something to gain something, which is the way it should be. In 3.x there is either an insignificant trade-off or a way to bypass it entirely (PrC's that offer full casting, et cetera), meaning it is a bad idea not to multiclass.
A single class Druid is 'optimized' because their Wildshape ability keeps improving all the way to high levels, and they are full casters. Druid is one of the only well designed 3.x classes that actually works with the mutliclass rules. This isn't the case with most classes that either have no abilities that improve continuously, or that are class-specific, which is just poor design and completely avoidable.
I had no issues with the 2e multiclassing/dual classing/kits rules in terms of balance, and character concept because in most cases there were trade-offs that flowed from the class restrictions (ie Fighter/Mages can't wear shields or armor and cast, Fighter/Thief can either sneak well or have heavy armor, but not both at the same time, et cetera).
4e makes you bad at everything as a cost for playing most non-sanctioned character concepts, and 3.x expects no trade-off for stopping advancement in a class in most instances, neither of which are things I particularly care for.
Sounds alot like Fantasy Craft you use backgrounds to get perks. Classic multiclassing isn't optimal. Way worse than Pathfinder even. You can do it but it's seriously a objectively a bad choice. Much better to do pure class like a Magus or Swordmage if you want a GISH for example.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581592I love options. Not every character I've come across in fiction or seen on the silver screen, or even depicted in art is easily defined by a single 'archetypal class' in traditional D&D.
And of course some combination of fighter/wizard is archetypal as well. While that could be represented with a base class, I haven't seen that done well in any version of D&D.
I don't think that is an argument in favour of "we must have multi-class rules in our class-based system", as much as "we probably shouldn't be using a class-based system in the first place if it doesn't match what we want from our game".
Class-based systems do what they do really well, open-development systems do what they do really well, but they rarely mix well.
The description of how things work in 5E currently sounds OK. My main concern with it would I guess be how well 'theme' abilities scale up with level.
I suppose I'd also like to see a genuine multi-class system to represent characters who have backstories meaning that forsake their old class to pick up a new class (e.g. the thief who touches a Book of Exalted Deeds and becomes a 'born-again' cleric, the fallen cleric who becomes a fighter, the wizard who loses all their powers in a nasty Mordenkainen's Disjunction accident).
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;581613If these Backgrounds and Specialties do create characters that are conceptually different than the core classes, then by the same logic they should also all be inherently worse as well for the purposes of discouraging people from playing things that don't fit into the conception of what the classes are supposed to mean in the setting (despite there being basically no agreement on what that meaning is).
That is to say that Knights should be worse in all ways to "Fighters", whatever a "Fighter" is, unless Knight becomes a class at which point it becomes 'sanctioned' as acceptable to play in it's own conceptual space and can then be un-nerfed mechanically. Likewise all Thieves are criminals who steal property (and presumably murder their victims justifying Backstab). If you wish to play a member of the Thief Class who is not a thief, but instead an assassin you should necessarily be worse at combat, stealth and taking people unaware than a "real' Thief.
Not because it makes sense, is 'organic' or 'logical' but because you can't have people just going around willy nilly deciding they should be able to play things the game designers subjectively don't like and the game mechanics should harshly reflect these tastes just like how getting into a fight is a mechanically unsound option in Dogs in the Vineyard (which to be clear is a game about playing armed thugs that travel the land to enforce religious orthodoxy).
That's pretty much a recipe for disaster imo. I think that 4e with it's 30+ classes and what amounts to 5+ different versions of the Fighter demonstrates why this design philosophy is bad.
Maybe I'm not following. Backgrounds and specialties have nothing to do with the class. A knight fighter isn't any worse at being a fighter than a thief fighter is, they both get the same class attributes that comes with being a fighter. They just get different base skills.
Sacro has the right of it on Themes I think. They are more like Kits than sub-classes. Meaning you create a new swashbuckler theme and you can apply it to Rogues, fighters even Clerics (Aramis was a clergyman after all) and their base abilties don't change just the trappings.
The important bit is to avoid adding themes that make genuine mechanical issues. This happened with Kits in 2e and then optimisation takes over from roleplaying and background.
As for multi-classing in general I tend to take a modified Skills and Powers approach. Skills and powers itself was a good idea poorly executed.
Players shoudl never be allowed to design classes. However as they progress I ahve no issues with a fighter trying to learn magic and rather than have them 'get a level in Wizard' I far prefer them to sacrifice some of their figther abilities in order to get some casting. This way it is possible but probably sub-optimal so you do it for roleplay in game reasons not for min-max reasons.
You can kind of do this in S&P or at least a version of it.
So your fighter cna not increase his Thaco for 3 levels and in return he gets the ability to cast 1st level spell a day. He still has to find a spell and go through the usual rigmarole he is still a fighter, just one that had diversified.
I find this much preferable to take a level as a MU so you can use the wand you found in that dragon horde.
Multi-classing has been horribly and terribly broken since inception. Themes seem to "fix" the issue with better core design while allowing players to mimic the multi-class option.
I tend to agree with Ladybird on this one. Multi-classing rules in a class-based game are a sign of deep ambiguity in the design goals. There shouldn't be rules for multi-classing; there should be rules for creating new classes as needed for the setting.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;581675Maybe I'm not following. Backgrounds and specialties have nothing to do with the class. A knight fighter isn't any worse at being a fighter than a thief fighter is, they both get the same class attributes that comes with being a fighter. They just get different base skills.
I was mostly responding to RPGPundit in saying that a Multiclass character should receive mechanical demerits for the purpose of protecting archetypal classes.
The same logic would dictate that anything that is not represented by a core class and it's explicit theme, such as the Thief class member that is a spy or assassin rather than an actual thief should likewise be discouraged through mechanical penalties. That this should be done so that the player that wants to play the archetypal Thief as an actual burglar and mugger gains a mechanical benefit over non-compliant gamers.
If the goal is to protect the archetype then Backgrounds/Specialties don't accomplish this goal, since they give you the ability to create non-archetypal members of any class.
I personally don't think that the archetypes actually need protection (or even representation) since most of them are absurdly broad to start with. "The Fighter" is 'nothing', as so is "The Thief". I can steal shit as any class and any member of any class that steals is a thief. Thief status is not dictated by selecting the Thief class, and no mechanical benefits should be bestowed upon player's that select the Thief class that also use their class abilities to rob and murder.
The classes simply reflect a set of abilities, and have semi-arbitrary labels. Most settings will not have hard coded social roles for members of every class as if they reflect a harsh caste system where being a member of "The Fighter" class means something socially.
It's impossible for me to not see original Dragonlance Magic-Users, or the various Forgotten Realms catastrophe's to allow for edition changes as not being absurdly gamist (setting justification for mechanical limitations of classes, et cetera) and I don't see mechanical 'archetype protection' being something outside of this vein.
I don't really want Wizards to be what they were in original Dragonlance, where you are basically handed a character complete with a mandatory background, religion, and even wardrobe and gave you all of the customization of choosing a name and hair color because that was lame as fuck.
I don't want "The Fighter" to 'mean' anything or be 'something'. I don't want a player to try to make a Joan of Arc that has spontaneous, inexplicable talent and be told that they will receive mechanical demerits because she isn't an archetype represented by a core class, and that they should be penalized because they are playing an unauthorized concept.
I think that is an absolutely disastrous philosophy for anyone that wants to
sell a TRPG (and I think it was a disaster with WotC with 4e, which already reflects this design philosophy).
Quote from: Wolf, Richard;581717I was mostly responding to RPGPundit in saying that a Multiclass character should receive mechanical demerits for the purpose of protecting archetypal classes.
The same logic would dictate that anything that is not represented by a core class and it's explicit theme, such as the Thief class member that is a spy or assassin rather than an actual thief should likewise be discouraged through mechanical penalties. That this should be done so that the player that wants to play the archetypal Thief as an actual burglar and mugger gains a mechanical benefit over non-compliant gamers.
The way I'm understanding the rules in 5e, there are no mechanical bonuses or demerits for having an "out of place" (for lack of a better term) background or specialty. Your class is your class, and it's what you do best. I.e., fight, cast spells, skill monkey (thief), etc and is pretty broad. A fighter with a knight background isn't any better at being a core fighter than a fighter with a thief background. It just means they start with different background skills. And if you have, say, a high elf (which gets a racial bonus of being able to cast minor arcane magic (read: cantrips) and choose a fighter class, having that character have an arcane dabbler specialty (the most notable benefit being able to get a familiar at level 3), I don't think you should be penalized in your core fighting skills because you didn't choose the archer specialty. Both characters are equally good at taking and dealing out damage, the only difference is the archer gains extra bonuses and abilities with a bow, while the aforementioned elf gets a pet and cantrips.
This works for me because in an in-game setting, I can easily see an elf warrior who has a bit of arcane skill, just as easily as I can see a warrior who is master at the bow. I have a hard time seeing how a character reverse engineers their dual-wielding bow demon firing cleric to fit the game setting.
I didn't interpret Pundit as advocating a penalty in all cases, but rather to have a way to mitigate otherwise natural class profession to move to a different, unrelated profession just to min/max your build. The way 5e seems to be built, it seems to have done that.
QuoteI personally don't think that the archetypes actually need protection (or even representation) since most of them are absurdly broad to start with. "The Fighter" is 'nothing', as so is "The Thief". I can steal shit as any class and any member of any class that steals is a thief. Thief status is not dictated by selecting the Thief class, and no mechanical benefits should be bestowed upon player's that select the Thief class that also use their class abilities to rob and murder.
I think we're on the same page here.
Quote from: daniel_ream;581699I tend to agree with Ladybird on this one. Multi-classing rules in a class-based game are a sign of deep ambiguity in the design goals. There shouldn't be rules for multi-classing; there should be rules for creating new classes as needed for the setting.
I wouldn't go as far as to say there should be class generator type mechanics but I believe that feats should mean something. I believe that classes should be somewhat general (only protecting a certain theme) but allow for say a Druid who can handle a sword (transform into a monkey and wield like three at once). There should be a swordsman who has a knack for conjuring flames. What's more is the classes should be flexible enough that both mechanically and background wise you can have a number of people pick the same class but be very distinct from each other (again both mechanically and otherwise).
If you're going to have a system mutable enough to just generate any class you want anyway you might as well get rid of the whole idea of having classes at all.
Quote from: Ladybird;581654I don't think that is an argument in favour of "we must have multi-class rules in our class-based system", as much as "we probably shouldn't be using a class-based system in the first place if it doesn't match what we want from our game".
Class-based systems do what they do really well, open-development systems do what they do really well, but they rarely mix well.
Class/skill systems exist and work decently well. They just don't really feel similar to D&D style classes.
You have it right Sacrosanct at least mostly because it seems like a variation of Fantasy Craft's take and 2e kits. Could be wrong here but that's what I'm getting as a takeaway.
Interesting. Just been refreshing my memory on how the DnD Next character definition works.
It's very similar to the method Monte Cook describes for character creation in Numenera:
I'm a [adjective] [class] who [aptitude]s.
This maps to:
[background] [class] with [speciality]
Since Monte was involved in the early stages of DnD Next I suspect this is not by chance...
I've always thought multi-classing an intrinsically flawed concept.
The joy of classes is that they represent archetypes. Warriors, wizards, rogues, classic concepts that are instantly recognisable and that have some resonance culturally (which is why I never much liked Clerics).
Multi-classing damages that. It's a bodged attempt to drift towards what would be better done by just abandoning classes.
I love BRP. It's a great game for playing nuanced characters who don't fit easily into any niche. When I play class based games though I want my character's role more archetypal. Gandalf, a wizard, Bilbo, a burglar (sneaky sort), Aragorn and Boromir, warriors, Legolas, an Elf, Gimli, a dwarf, and so on.
If you can't summarise a class in about two or three words it probably shouldn't be a class, and I don't count here Paladin-Thief-Sorceror.
Quote from: D-503;581900When I play class based games though I want my character's role more archetypal. Gandalf, a wizard, Bilbo, a burglar (sneaky sort), Aragorn and Boromir, warriors, Legolas, an Elf, Gimli, a dwarf, and so on.
People here tell me that because Gandalf used Glamdring, he's multi-classed.
But in general, if there's no reason someone COULDN'T learn a particular skill or set of skills, there's no reason to PROHIBIT multi-classing. Again, assuming you have a class-based system rather than point-buy.
If you're a doctor, you can quit the medical profession and either go back to school or take a job in an entirely different field. Maybe you like pharmaceutical sales better.
If you're a warrior, there's no reason you can't walk away from stabbing people with the face with a sword and start focusing on breaking into their houses at night.
If the game doesn't support multi-classing, it had
better support some other method of altering your concept in play. Otherwise you have 'builds' but even worse -
"I'm going to advance for 20 levels as a Fighter because even though the game so far and my character's desires don't support it, that's the choice I made at 1st level".
That would certainly be enough to keep me from playing that hypothetical game. Sure, I can see that it's abused if people make a 'build' instead of a 'character', but if you can't learn to do different things that become relevant to your character as you change over time... Well, that's just stupid.
Imagine if Luke Skywalker hadn't been able to become a Jedi Knight because he was already a 'not a bad pilot'.
On the surface I have no problems when someone says they want to switch careers. I keep hearing proponents say, "if I want to switch occupations as much as possible, why not?" The problem is way too many people say that despite nothing to do with an archetype or how the game is progressing, but doing just enough in a class to get a certain feat or power. The "I dip into X class for 2 levels to get this ability" phrase comes to mind. So don't tell me, "my fighter wants to learn magic" because it has less to do with what your character wants and more to do with you being a min/maxing powergamer.
Early D&D isn't immune to issues either. One of the biggest issues and problems with dual-classing in early D&D is the "instant expert" effect caused by the XP tables. I.e., if you're already level 10 and you decide to want to go to dual class into a thief, in one gaming session you gain enough experience to put you as skilled in that class as someone who had spent months or even years practicing and adventuring as that class.
"I know you've been the party wizard for the last dozen campaigns and studied magic your whole life. Now we're level 10, I want to study magic. Oh! Look! We just got xp and now I'm instantly a level 5 wizard!"
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581966People here tell me that because Gandalf used Glamdring, he's multi-classed.
But in general, if there's no reason someone COULDN'T learn a particular skill or set of skills, there's no reason to PROHIBIT multi-classing. Again, assuming you have a class-based system rather than point-buy.
If you're a doctor, you can quit the medical profession and either go back to school or take a job in an entirely different field. Maybe you like pharmaceutical sales better.
If you're a warrior, there's no reason you can't walk away from stabbing people with the face with a sword and start focusing on breaking into their houses at night.
If the game doesn't support multi-classing, it had better support some other method of altering your concept in play. Otherwise you have 'builds' but even worse -
"I'm going to advance for 20 levels as a Fighter because even though the game so far and my character's desires don't support it, that's the choice I made at 1st level".
That would certainly be enough to keep me from playing that hypothetical game. Sure, I can see that it's abused if people make a 'build' instead of a 'character', but if you can't learn to do different things that become relevant to your character as you change over time... Well, that's just stupid.
Imagine if Luke Skywalker hadn't been able to become a Jedi Knight because he was already a 'not a bad pilot'.
The problem I see isn't with the ability to multiclass, it is the expectation that a multiclass character should be as competent at each class as a single classed character of their total level.
A fighter 4/magic user 4 isn't (and shouldn't be ) the equal of a fighter 8 or magic user 8. What would be the point of single classed characters if this were the case?
1E multiclassing worked OK because characters of varying levels could adventure together with fewer problems. Once the game becomes one of narrowly defined challenges for a group of a set level, a dabbler such as the typical multi-classed character has more trouble adventuring with more dedicated companions. I'm not counting prestige classes that were specifically designed to be as (or more) powerful than more levels in a base class for this.
Its the old broad versatility vs dedication and depth issue.
For my myself, I expect that a Fighter 4/Wizard 4 be worse than a Fighter at straight-up Fighting than a Fighter 8. He should also be worse at straight-up casting spells as a Wizard 8. He should not be less effective than either character overall. He's an 8th level character (at least in 3.5). In earlier editions where overall XP is a better measure of character power than class level, again, he should still be as effective as a 'straight-classed character', but not in the same manner. The additional flexibility and options he has should stand in for some of the mechanical superiority of a single-classed character.
Thus, while a Fighter/Wizard can't fight as well as a Fighter (and doesn't use the same armor), he can occassionally win a fight by casting sleep.
The assumption that multi-classing is usually done for power gaming purposes is just that - an assumption. While it may be the case at times, in my experience, that isn't the primary reason that people multi-class.
Further, certain 'hybrid' classes have been 'deemed official' by being turned into a 'base class'. For example, the bard combines many of the features of a Thief and a Wizard. If there were no 'bard class', and a Player wants to play a character 'like a bard', then they should be able to mix the existing classes to derive the flavor they want.
If you have a character concept in mind, and it's not mechanically superior to all other options (ie, you're not powergaming), the best rules will support being able to realize that character.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;581996For my myself, I expect that a Fighter 4/Wizard 4 be worse than a Fighter at straight-up Fighting than a Fighter 8. He should also be worse at straight-up casting spells as a Wizard 8. He should not be less effective than either character overall. He's an 8th level character (at least in 3.5). In earlier editions where overall XP is a better measure of character power than class level, again, he should still be as effective as a 'straight-classed character', but not in the same manner. The additional flexibility and options he has should stand in for some of the mechanical superiority of a single-classed character.
This is where system really matters. If everything scales and all the math jumps by leaps and bounds every few levels then the multiclassed character becomes much less effective overall than a single classed. A fighter will lack the bonuses to hit a foe of the party's expected level and caster level not being nearly equal to character level is a death sentence in some systems.
In other instances, where everything isn't so closely scaled to match the party, a multiclass character can be much more useful to the party.
Going back to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, a multi-class character would typically expect to be just one level lower than a single class character, making them a strong second but not as good as the pure character. It was 3e's aspiration of making levels additive in nature which wrecked things in my opinion.
A return to more 1e/2e multiclassing would solve a lot of the problems.
Quote from: dbm;582147Going back to 1st and 2nd edition AD&D, a multi-class character would typically expect to be just one level lower than a single class character, making them a strong second but not as good as the pure character. It was 3e's aspiration of making levels additive in nature which wrecked things in my opinion.
A return to more 1e/2e multiclassing would solve a lot of the problems.
In a party average level six, that leaves the 1e fighter/wizard as competent as a 5th level fighter and a 5th level wizard.
Conversely, the 3e fighter/wizard is as competent as a 3rd level fighter and a 3rd level wizard.
I'm sorry, but 1e multiclass characters are more effective at each class than 3e multiclass characters. Not that that's a bad thing. I think 1e multiclass casters (for example) work much better than 3e multiclass casters.
Additionally, 3e multiclass characters were also supposed to suffer XP penalties in many cases. Few groups enforced the rule though, so I'm not really sure how far behind such characters might fall.
One thing to remember in AD&D is how power is progressed through level advancement. I'm going to apologize ahead of time for probably not wording this the way I want, but here goes:
A 4th level fighter/4th level MU in AD&D is not just "a bit" less powerful than a 5th level MU with all the extra fighting skills. A 5th level MU has access to 3rd level spells, and a 4th level one does not. That's a huge difference. The way AD&D is structured, being just one level higher is significant. Then of course you also deal with the fact that the f/m can't even cast MU spells while wearing armor.
Conversely, the 5th level pure fighter is going to average about 33 hp (assuming a +1 CON bonus) while a 4f/4m will average 20--less than 2/3 that of the 5th level fighter. The f/m will also have a much worse AC due to armor restrictions.
Quote from: beejazz;582152I'm sorry, but 1e multiclass characters are more effective at each class than 3e multiclass characters. Not that that's a bad thing. I think 1e multiclass casters (for example) work much better than 3e multiclass casters.
There's nothing to be sorry about :) My point was that in 1e a multiclassing character was a step behind a single class character but still viable.
And a fighter / M-U would actually be 7/6 or some such rather than 7/7 when compared to a level 8 straight fighter due to you needing more XP to level as a magic-user (another balancing factor missing from 3e).
Quote from: Sacrosanct;582157One thing to remember in AD&D is how power is progressed through level advancement. I'm going to apologize ahead of time for probably not wording this the way I want, but here goes:
A 4th level fighter/4th level MU in AD&D is not just "a bit" less powerful than a 5th level MU with all the extra fighting skills. A 5th level MU has access to 3rd level spells, and a 4th level one does not. That's a huge difference. The way AD&D is structured, being just one level higher is significant. Then of course you also deal with the fact that the f/m can't even cast MU spells while wearing armor.
Conversely, the 5th level pure fighter is going to average about 33 hp (assuming a +1 CON bonus) while a 4f/4m will average 20--less than 2/3 that of the 5th level fighter. The f/m will also have a much worse AC due to armor restrictions.
First off - if you assume that the multi-class character is usually one level behind, and access to the next higher level spells takes two levels (ie, you get 4th level spells at 7th level, 5th level spell at 9th level) then there is a point where the mutli-class character has the same level spells (just not as many of them).
Thus, a Fighter 5/Magic-User 5 is just as valid to compare against either a Fighter 6 or a Magic-User 6.
If you look at them as just a magic-user, they have the same basic spell-casting ability (with maybe two or three fewer spells total, but no less-powerful spells) plus more hit points and an enhanced ability to hit things with swords.
Clearly 3.x was wrong to assume that adding 4 levels of Fighter on top of 4 levels of Wizard was the same as adding 4 levels of Wizard on top of 4 more levels of Wizard - but if anything, multi-class characters tended to be more powerful than single-class characters prior to 3rd edition. In 3.x, multi-class characters (except mixed-martial builds) were decidely weaker.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;582157One thing to remember in AD&D is how power is progressed through level advancement. I'm going to apologize ahead of time for probably not wording this the way I want, but here goes:
A 4th level fighter/4th level MU in AD&D is not just "a bit" less powerful than a 5th level MU with all the extra fighting skills. A 5th level MU has access to 3rd level spells, and a 4th level one does not. That's a huge difference. The way AD&D is structured, being just one level higher is significant. Then of course you also deal with the fact that the f/m can't even cast MU spells while wearing armor.
Conversely, the 5th level pure fighter is going to average about 33 hp (assuming a +1 CON bonus) while a 4f/4m will average 20--less than 2/3 that of the 5th level fighter. The f/m will also have a much worse AC due to armor restrictions.
The bigger jumps in hp are interesting and such, but the spell levels and the armor restrictions both remain in 3, and DCs are hit hard there as well. 3e also had purely level-based benefits regardless of class, so there were some diminishing returns if (for example) you had to split your feat choices based on two classes.
I was going on the assumption that the post I was responding to was accurate in regards to power levels. If that's not the case, I won't be too surprised to find out I'm wrong. I'm not terribly familiar with older editions. Read but not played and all.
Still, I do like the xp-penaltied-gestalt method of multiclassing. I've considered combining that with the diminishing returns of a fixed number of "feat" or "proficiency" slots pulled from two class lists.
Quote from: dbm;582160There's nothing to be sorry about :) My point was that in 1e a multiclassing character was a step behind a single class character but still viable.
I guess I must have misread you then.
QuoteAnd a fighter / M-U would actually be 7/6 or some such rather than 7/7 when compared to a level 8 straight fighter due to you needing more XP to level as a magic-user (another balancing factor missing from 3e).
I kind of prefer the fixed xp thing from newer editions myself, even though I really like the idea of gestalt multiclassing.
I think the only thing I prefer in the 3x approach is the granularity of it. You can be half and half or you can just dabble or anything in between.
Quote from: deadDMwalking;582165First off - if you assume that the multi-class character is usually one level behind, and access to the next higher level spells takes two levels (ie, you get 4th level spells at 7th level, 5th level spell at 9th level) then there is a point where the mutli-class character has the same level spells (just not as many of them).
Thus, a Fighter 5/Magic-User 5 is just as valid to compare against either a Fighter 6 or a Magic-User 6.
If you look at them as just a magic-user, they have the same basic spell-casting ability (with maybe two or three fewer spells total, but no less-powerful spells) plus more hit points and an enhanced ability to hit things with swords.
.
Being able to cast 2 level 3 spells is a huge advantage over just being able to cast 1, so the point still stands.
Unless you're a 15 min day kind of guy who always likes to base arguments around "cast any spell in the spellbook at any time with no restrictions"....
wait...
You also keep forgetting about not being able to wear armor and cast spells.
I think this warrants a little closer analysis. I only have 2e players handbook to hand, so I'll go with that. 8th level fighter has been set as the baseline, so that is 125k XP.
That would give you a level 8 pure Wizard with XP to spare (I'm surprised by this - it's a bit of a blip as fighters level faster than Wizards to start off).
A fighter / wizard would have 62.5k XP in each class, making him 6/7 (another surprise).
Remember that the abilities of multi-class characters in 2e and not additive like in 3e. For most things (attack bonus, saving throw bonus) you take the higher value. For hit points you take the average value.
Saving throws look like this (lower is better):
Fighter 10/12/11/12/13
Wizard 13/09/11/13/10
F/MU 10/09/11/12/10
I can't do combat bonus as that's in the DMG and I don't have one of those around, but an 8th level fighter is on a better multi-attack row than a 6th level fighter.
With regards to the magic side of things, the 8th level character has an extra spell of 1st, 2nd and 4th level. Pretty much every spell they cast is better than that of the 7th level character (lasts longer, does more damage and so on).
So I definitely think that 1e/2e multi-classing produced more viable outcomes than 3e. Worthwhile but not overpowering when compared to the single-class characters.
Quote from: MGuy;581608While I don't think I agree with him for the same reasons I stand with RPGPundit on this one. I took it out of the game I am making though I acknowledge that a lot of people like it. I've tried to, instead, look at "why" people want to multiclass. Most of the time it is for the extra options, to fill out a character concept, for optimization, perhaps to fit something that happened in the campaign that would constitute a radical change (Cleric/Paladin losing faith and doing something else). I find it infinitely better to instead reduce/eliminate the need to multiclass to do these tasks. I feel a similar way about Prestige Classes.
I don't think that I would exactly disagree with any of those reasons.
Quote from: dbm;582191Remember that the abilities of multi-class characters in 2e and not additive like in 3e. For most things (attack bonus, saving throw bonus) you take the higher value. For hit points you take the average value.
You average between values on hp? That seems like one of the only weird spots to me.
You've got my second homebrew itching at the back of my brain though.
QuoteSo I definitely think that 1e/2e multi-classing produced more viable outcomes than 3e. Worthwhile but not overpowering when compared to the single-class characters.
I'd be happy to hear more about this stuff. I've been interested in this aspect of 1e/2e but it's hard to tell just from a read-through how it might play out.
QuoteSo I definitely think that 1e/2e multi-classing produced more viable outcomes than 3e. Worthwhile but not overpowering when compared to the single-class characters.
Agreed. Unless you were playing very high levels for some reason. IIRC a 14th level fighter had 1.5 million exp so that's good enough for a 11/12 F/MU which is barely keeping up but the disparity really kicks in from there. So I never saw the sense in racial level limits when factoring this in.
For all intents and purposes 14/14 was a hard cap not even factoring in level limits. You could relax it a bit by doing a houserule like allowing all points to go to whatever class had a limit not reached once the other had or so on. Example being 12/15 if you went that way.
Which makes for a damned powerful character but the single classed character would be FAR stronger in their area of expertise. A 12th level fighter is no match for a 20th level version, same goes for a 15th level wizard vs. their 20th level counterpart. But combined they could contribute but in no way dominate.
Quote from: beejazz;582285You average between values on hp? That seems like one of the only weird spots to me.
You've got my second homebrew itching at the back of my brain though.
I'd be happy to hear more about this stuff. I've been interested in this aspect of 1e/2e but it's hard to tell just from a read-through how it might play out.
A multiclass character in 2E levels up separately in each class, and their final HP roll is halved (round down, minimum 1). So the fighter/mage with a 16 Con (+3 modifier) gets [d10+3]/2 when they level as a fighter, then [d4+3]/2 when they level as a mage.
If you have a Con penalty, you can skirt it somewhat via multiclassing - e.g. fighter/mage/thief with a 6 Con still gets a guaranteed 3 HPs per level, despite their -2 modifier, although they're a level or two behind.
Actually surviving first level is going to be very painful and would take awhile however.
Because of how multiclassing worked combined with character generation it made no sense not to multiclass given the level limits on top. It was the only way to make demihumans relevant in any game reaching mid/high levels. Level limits were unneeded overkill unless you chose to single class for some reason other than loving elven thrives or half elf bards.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;582337A multiclass character in 2E levels up separately in each class, and their final HP roll is halved (round down, minimum 1). So the fighter/mage with a 16 Con (+3 modifier) gets [d10+3]/2 when they level as a fighter, then [d4+3]/2 when they level as a mage.
Almost :D
The max Con bonus to HP for non-fighters is +2, so a fighter/wizard with Con 16 gets (d10+3)/2 when they level as a fighter and (d4+2)/2 when they level as a wizard.
Quote from: dbm;582450Almost :D
The max Con bonus to HP for non-fighters is +2, so a fighter/wizard with Con 16 gets (d10+3)/2 when they level as a fighter and (d4+2)/2 when they level as a wizard.
Hmm...
I checked into that and 2E PHB says (p.44), that "if one of the character's classes is fighter and he has a Constitution of 17 or 18, then he gets the +3 or +4 Constitution bonus available only to warriors, instead of the +2 maximum available to the other character classes)".
1E PHB doesn't have any such explicit note that I saw on a quick look, so this might be a difference between 1st Ed. & 2nd Ed ?? (I started with 2E - so when something isn't spelled out I tend to not notice and just assume that of course the way 2E would have done it is the one true way).
Quote from: Marleycat;582349Because of how multiclassing worked combined with character generation it made no sense not to multiclass given the level limits on top. It was the only way to make demihumans relevant in any game reaching mid/high levels. Level limits were unneeded overkill unless you chose to single class for some reason other than loving elven thrives or half elf bards.
And in 1e/2e, the main reason for level limits was to give humans, with unlimited advancement potential, a place to shine.
At least, I remember the level limits in 2e Forgotten Realms for the demihuman races ensured I
always played a human. ;)
(my campaign world of choice, Dragonlance, had FAR more open options for demihumans)
Quote from: Novastar;582583And in 1e/2e, the main reason for level limits was to give humans, with unlimited advancement potential, a place to shine.
At least, I remember the level limits in 2e Forgotten Realms for the demihuman races ensured I always played a human. ;)
(my campaign world of choice, Dragonlance, had FAR more open options for demihumans)
Yup, hence a subtle reason why DL is my favorite setting. It also capped out at level 18. Then you had to deal with the inane housrules of ridiculous x-times Exp on top. Screw that! I either walked out, played human, and finally just ran the damn game.
@BSJ, I remember it being capped at +2 unless you were a single class Fighter type. Multiclassed types did not qualify. Could be wrong given my experience is all late 1e/2e. I just assumed the 1e rule carried over and it's how we played it.
Quote from: dbm;582450Almost :D
The max Con bonus to HP for non-fighters is +2, so a fighter/wizard with Con 16 gets (d10+3)/2 when they level as a fighter and (d4+2)/2 when they level as a wizard.
I don't think I'd ever noticed that rule in 2e. I certainly never used it way back when I ran 2e.
RPGPundit
Quote from: RPGPundit;582795I don't think I'd ever noticed that rule in 2e. I certainly never used it way back when I ran 2e.
RPGPundit
2e D&D did have that rule, right in the description of Constitution.
Broke it apart as +2(+3) for a 17, and +2(+4) for an 18.
One of the reasons you find a ton of written NPC's with 16 Con scores.
I find that 2e AD&D had a relatively large number of rules people ignored without realizing it, and even material brought into games under the incorrect assumption that it was core material.
I keep finding people who had no idea that the corebook had weapon vs armor charts, or that it didn't have critical fumble rules.
Quote from: RPGPundit;582795I don't think I'd ever noticed that rule in 2e. I certainly never used it way back when I ran 2e.
RPGPundit
I'm a long way from my book right now but from memory the multi-classing section discusses this and explicitly gives an example where the character only gets more than +2 HP on their fighter level.
Multiclassing gone?Apparently not. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120917)
Link goes to a wotc article on the topic.
Quote from: beejazz;583161Multiclassing gone?Apparently not. (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20120917)
Link goes to a wotc article on the topic.
I have misgivings about this.
While front-loading can be a problem with 3E type multiclassing, I think splitting your second classes' basic abilities across several levels is something that's dangerous because unless they're very careful, they'll wind up creating a setup where certain classes can only be multiclassed in a particular order - like how in 3.5 the Fighter1/Rogue1 who started as a fighter got a quarter of the skill points of the Rogue1/Fighter1 who started as a rogue. The idea could work, but only if its not possible to pick up the key ability of a second class by multiclassing straight into it, and not impossible to get some key features as a secondary class.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;583164I have misgivings about this.
While front-loading can be a problem with 3E type multiclassing, I think splitting your second classes' basic abilities across several levels is something that's dangerous because unless they're very careful, they'll wind up creating a setup where certain classes can only be multiclassed in a particular order - like how in 3.5 the Fighter1/Rogue1 who started as a fighter got a quarter of the skill points of the Rogue1/Fighter1 who started as a rogue. The idea could work, but only if its not possible to pick up the key ability of a second class by multiclassing straight into it, and not impossible to get some key features as a secondary class.
I really really would have preferred the themes/backgrounds method, and the themes/backgrounds broken down into (optional) featlike chunks to handle dabbling for groups that want it.
Also I'm really wondering how 3x multiclassing would interact with themes/backgrounds. I'm assuming those stay the same no matter what class you dip into?