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.