Do you multiclass for raw mechanical power or for character reasons?

[DammitVictor]

As an alternative, i have used multiclass as a feat. Spend a feat to get the ability to multiclass into a single class, the basic training.

I have designed a number of alternative multiclassing systems for 3.X over the years. Unfortunately, I cannot claim that any of them have been any good at all.

I've usually preferred variants of Gestalt with LA or XP penalties, or a spending a feat to take a second class and then getting class bonuses based on character level. The latter has some promise, but I never got it right; I think using 5e and Pathfinder's Variant Multiclassing as source material might be promising.

My multiclassing system for Sellswords & Godwars is based on reducing occupation/ancestral archetypes (mostly) to feat lists. Take a multiclass or hybrid feat, you're eligible to take ancestral/occupational feats from the selected archetype. Bang. Done. Unless you're a Human or a Bard, you're only allowed one additional occupation, and only Humans are allowed to take hybrid feats at all.

 

[EvilGeniusPrime]

Hmm, I almost always multiclass for optimization, but I also build story reasons for that and try and play those out in the game. For example, I created a wizard/warlock to get access to a good # of spell slots, plus eldritch invocations. But I explained it as the character was a street hustler who pretended to have magical abilities (good Chr and the Charlatan background). But he was jealous of those with actual magical power so he sold his soul to a devil in return for being granted awesome magical power (Warlock class, Fiend Patron, Pact of the Tome). As the character grew in power as a Warlock he began to be concerned about his deal and started secretly studying actual wizarding to try and find a way to redeem his soul (Wizard multi-class).

 

[Xetheral]

I really hate the multiclassing system in 3e/5e D&D because it turned classes and multiclassing into a particularly incoherent form of point-buy, and because they are the face that launched a thousand of these asinine, petty arguments over how other people play-- while those players are staying 100% within the letter and the intent of the rules. I don't remember everyone having such strong opinions about multiclassing back when the game didn't have the laziest and most artificial form of "multiclassing" ever.

Fascinating... 3.5/5e style multiclassing is the single feature that I like best about these systems. What you see as an incoherent form of point-buy, I see as a perfect middle ground between the endless choices of point-buy and the derth of choices in a single-class system.

When building character in a point-buy system, every option is competing with every other option, all at the same time. Choices abound, but there are no discrete choices--making a character that best matches a player's priorities (regardless of what those priorities are) is a multi-dimensional optimization problem. On the plus side, with enough effort the resulting character can often closely match the players' priorities.

By contrast, in a single-class system, there are a fixed, limited number of mechnical choices that can be made to make a character match the players' priorities. I find that uninteresting--there simply aren't enough decision points to make designing a character an enjoyable process. Also, unless the player was prioritizing playing a concept embodied by one of the fixed options, the resulting character is not likely to match those priorities.

The 3.5/5e multiclassing system sits between the two extremes. It has many more decision points than a single-class system, but those choices tend to be a series of well-defined tradeoffs between distinct options, rather than the undirected chaos of point-buy. And while one can't match a character to the player's priorities as well as one can in point-buy, it's possible to get a much closer match than it is in single-class.

Admittedly, I'd probably like single-class systems more if I had any interest in playing characters that adhere to strong archetypes. But I tend to prefer more-eclectic concepts that are best represented mechanically by mixing and matching classes. That bias shows up at the table: I've not yet played a single-class character in 5e, and at each of the 5e tables I've run, multiclass characters have significantly outnumbered single-class characters.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I really hate the multiclassing system in 3e/5e D&D because it turned classes and multiclassing into a particularly incoherent form of point-buy, and because they are the face that launched a thousand of these asinine, petty arguments over how other people play-- while those players are staying 100% within the letter and the intent of the rules. I don't remember everyone having such strong opinions about multiclassing back when the game didn't have the laziest and most artificial form of "multiclassing" ever.

Back before 3E, the internet was a much smaller place. I am absolutely certain that those same players would have had strong opinions about AD&D 2E Skills & Powers, if they'd had a convenient forum in which to debate it.

 

[DammitVictor]

Fascinating... 3.5/5e style multiclassing is the single feature that I like best about these systems. What you see as an incoherent form of point-buy, I see as a perfect middle ground between the endless choices of point-buy and the derth of choices in a single-class system.

One of my biggest frustrations since... about 2006 or so has been fans of the 3.X multiclass system defending it on those very grounds.

While, at the same time, you have to jump through a ridiculous number of hoops to get certain abilities. So many Prestige Classes, each with their own prerequisites, just to get some fairly basic customization-- why were those abilities not optional features of the base class?

You describe 3.X as the "best of both worlds" between a point-buy system and a class system. I see it, very much, as the worst of both worlds: you have the limited choices of a class system, with the analysis paralysis of a point buy system, with the added burden of having to qualify for all of the options you're trying for.

I am not advocating for a "single-class" system, by any means-- the last time I willingly played a single-class character was in 1992. I won't even play 3.X unless it's using some variant of the Gestalt rules. I am just arguing against the specific form of multilclassing in 3.X and 5e, because I consider it the single-worst thing to ever happen to D&D... followed by a long line of other unnecessary threeisms that ruined AD&D.

Fifth Edition was a tremendous improvement over 3.5, but it's still frustrating to see them revert to so many terrible ideas I thought they'd finally solved in 4e, even if the overall game itself was not my cup of tea.

EDIT: And I am reminded of another of my complaints about 3.5 multiclassing, compared to other combined point-buy/class systems like Rolemaster and Player's Option: in those systems, when I select my class(es) and my Kit and my abilities, my build "comes online" at 1st level. I am playing the character concept in my head from the beginning, instead of having to wait for over half the game to get there.

 

[DammitVictor]

Back before 3E, the internet was a much smaller place. I am absolutely certain that those same players would have had strong opinions about AD&D 2E Skills & Powers, if they'd had a convenient forum in which to debate it.

There are a lot of people who hate Player's Option and don't allow it at their tables. I'm basing my own simulacrum on Player's Option, and even I don't allow custom Priests.

But I don't know anyone who insists on playing Player's Option and then bitches about people using it the way it's intended, or who insists on using the Skills & Powers rules and then insists on people building ineffective characters who don't match their concepts, for "roleplaying" reasons.

 

[Xetheral]

One of my biggest frustrations since... about 2006 or so has been fans of the 3.X multiclass system defending it on those very grounds.

We clearly have very different preferences. I don't think that's a problem. Why does is frustrate you that I am willing to explain a preference that is different from yours?

 

[The Crimson Binome]

But I don't know anyone who insists on playing Player's Option and then bitches about people using it the way it's intended, or who insists on using the Skills & Powers rules and then insists on people building ineffective characters who don't match their concepts, for "roleplaying" reasons.

The parallel argument that you probably would see is instead a question about how the rules were actually intended. But in any case, the reason you don't know anyone like that now is because most people have moved on from that edition. There are barely a handful of really active forums for the current edition.

I'm not even certain that I see that level of disagreement here, in this thread, concerning the topic at hand. Maybe I missed the posts where someone has a very strong opinion that someone else is playing incorrectly because they prefer multi-classing for one reason rather than the other.

 

[DammitVictor]

Why does is frustrate you that I am willing to explain a preference that is different from yours?

I am not certain, beyond the fact that WotC and Paizo both seem determined to move the game further and further way from what I'd consider tolerable.

It's probably an emotional association with ten years of Paizo fans who consider the fact that their game encourages nonsensical class-dip builds a "feature", while denying that there's any reason at all that a game based on D&D should support iconic D&D archetypes like Elf Figher/Wizard.

EDIT: I'm also heavily active on the Paizo and GitP forums, ironically because I'm taking a mental health break from the political content on my social media. So I'm dragging a lot of my baggage from over there into this argument, while I am by my own admission... volatile. I would apologize for that volatility but, unlike those forums, I don't think I've created a need to yet. Do please bear with me, though, as I'm struggling towards some modicum of rationality.

 

[Wiseblood]

Character reasons, however I will not accept a reduction in power unless it is for greater flexibility.