How important is multi-classing, and why?

[Delgar]

Forget multiclassing.

Think outside the box and let people build their own classes.

Sure have some basic classes laid out in a kit based fashion, but you don't need multiclassing when each player gets to build their own class.

Just my thought.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Well, what you describe right there does absolutely nothing for me. To just have numbers after my class names and have that actually be a description of my character? Nuh uh. I might as well just use percentages... "I'm a 30% fighter, 50% rogue, 20% assassin."

Does that actually describe the character's history or goals in any way, shape or form? Well, considering I don't think just being a 'Fighter' describes a character's history or goals in any way, shape, or form... tacking additional class names onto isn't going to clear things up in my opnion.

"I'm a former member of the city guard who killed a fellow officer in cold blood, and now I'm on the run earning my living as bounty hunter."

THAT to me is at least on the way to describing the character's history and goals. Much more than "fighter 5/rogue 3/assassin 4".

I also think it's more descriptive to say "professor so-and-so is a warm-hearted and easy to talk to, an expert in his own right, but a little disorganized and absent-minded" than it is to say "Int 15, Wis 9, Cha 14". However, after learning how to play D&D, when I look at the latter, the former comes to mind. The same is true in my class level example. The rules are an abstraction of a narrative, and I've learned to connect the two. That's a pretty inherent part of rpgs to me.

In any case, we're not comparing narratives with mechanics (at least I wasn't). I'm comparing mechanics with mechanics. Being able to freely allocate your class levels gives you a tool to define and describe your character that being a human wizard who decided to give up and start over again as a fighter but can never again learn magic (2e) or being a human wizard who decided to take a feat to gain some fighter spells (4e) doesn't give you. It's a lot more flexible, just like real life, where many people will introduce themselves by saying "I spent two years doing this, I studied here for a year, then I worked in this industry for a decade", etc.

 

[Gryph]

I like multi-classing of the 1e and 4e hybrid class styles. If a character concept needs parts of two (or three) different classes to work, I want the character to start from level 1 as a multi. That's why 3e level based multi-classing was always a non-starter for me, even if you could balance it.

The theory of feat based multi-classing was solid enough. Someone who wanted to dabble in a class as their career progressed is a valid concept. The implementation was not good.

I'm not really a fan of trying to fake a skill based system in a class structure. Picking and choosing modules or class levels just feels kludgy and against the point of archetypal heroic characters. If you want that level of build freedom, I would prefer to play a skill based or point buy based game. To me, it won't be D&D if you go down the path of build your own class as a baseline rule.

Would love to see class building guidelines in the DMG (if there is one), let the DM and the player sit down and build a conceppt based class between them if they both feel up to the challenge, but keep it out of the player's handbook (again my opinion, etc.).

 

[Jack99]

Assuming only the 4 classic classes (fighter, thief, cleric, mage). How about a system, that makes you chose a primary multi-class when you multi-class. Meaning you can be both a fighter-thief (thug) and a thief-fighter (assassin?) or a fighter-cleric (paladin) and cleric-fighter (warpriest).

List would be (not complete, but I am sure you get the idea)
Fighter-thief (thug)
Fighter-mage (swordmage)
Fighter-cleric (paladin)
Thief-fighter (swashbuckler)
Thief-cleric (avenger)
Thief-mage (?)
Cleric-fighter (warpriest)
Cleric-thief (?)
Cleric-mage (lightly armored cleric)
Mage-fighter (?)
Mage-thief (?)
Mage-cleric (hedge wizard, witch)

Point would be, that you would get to keep different abilities, depending on which class you chose as your primary.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Assuming only the 4 classic classes (fighter, thief, cleric, mage). How about a system, that makes you chose a primary multi-class when you multi-class. Meaning you can be both a fighter-thief (thug) and a thief-fighter (assassin?) or a fighter-cleric (paladin) and cleric-fighter (warpriest).

Ran an Arcana Evolved campaign for a couple of years that used a modfiied gestalt setup to mimic something very like this. The crucial limit was that the "primary" side of the gestalt had to be single-classed, but on the "secondary" side of the gestalt, the charater could never take the same class twice in a row. They could alternate the secondary between two choices, work in a prestige class, or go completely wacky. It was all good.

This worked very good at modeling what we wanted modeled, and made for some well-rounded characters. On the negative side, it was a royal pain to keep track off--though in fairness, some of that was due to the wonky nature of multiclassing in 3E rulesets at higher levels. We had a few other modifications to the gestalt to smooth out the worst problems and simply lived with the rest.

I've thought that something in that neighborhood could work really well starting with a streamlined 3E multiclassing as the base. Picking two or three of something from a list is so much more flexible and dynamic than picking exactly one of something (any list, not only classes). And the focus on a primary on one side solves half the issues with rampant multiclassing.

My main hesitation is that a version of D&D where you can't play a single-classed character is not so much making "sacred hamburger" as slaughtering whole herds and leaving the beef out to rot. And for really good reasons why not, too.

 

[Kaodi]

I think one possible (possibly complicated) system would be if you had a seperate experience total for each class and class bonuses to attacks and defenses only partially stacked. Kind of a hybrid of 1e and 3e multiclassing.

Multiclassing might make you weaker in your primary role, but learning a few basic skills in other classes would be easy and inexpensive compared to 3e.

 

[FireLance]

I think I would be in favor of a system where multiclassing doesn't add any additional power, but gives you more options to select abilities. For example, if you're a fighter/mage, you can choose between power strike and burning hands for your encounter attack power.

That way each player can decide for himself how much of each class he wants to be: you can be mostly one with just an ability or two from the other, or have an equal split, or pick and choose according to some theme (fighter encounter powers and wizard dailies, for example).

Since multiclassing ideally doesn't add any power, a pure-classed fighter would be more or less mechanically balanced with a fighter/mage or a fighter/mage/thief.

 

[Mika]

The problem with 4E multiclassing is that it does not allow you to undergo a career change as you level up. Let's say that you start as a fighter and multiclass into wizard -- even if you go for paragon multiclassing, you will always be less than half a wizard.

Hybriding has the opposite problem -- neither of your original classes can ever be abandoned, as you must always have at least one power of each type from whichever class you wish to rely on the least.

3E multiclassing had the problem that a character gaining a level could immediately gain the class abilities that a first level character of that class spent all of his formative years learning -- and further, to prevent abuses from "dipping" into a class, some key abilities were deferred to later levels, a problem not present in 4E.

Some compromise between the two systems ought to be possible. Maybe having a certain class as your background gives you advantages over somebody who picks up the class as an adult? With that approach, you can give a character who begins play all of the proper iconic abilities without having to worry about those abilities being poached by somebody who decides to dabble in that class later in his career.

 

[thedungeondelver]

it seems to me that how multiclassing should be handled depends on how classing is handled.

And how that's handled should be incumbent on what your game settings are. Just IMO.

Multiclassing is a tool that allows you to build things not available in a specific class. If they intend to have tons of classes, they have less need for multiclassing. If they intend to go with a few very broad classes, multiclassing becomes a far more important tool.

Both approaches can work, thought the former approach requires either a long line of splatbooks, or class-construction tools in the GM's hands.

I for one would like to see multiclassing stay in. I'd like to see the option to do it both ways - wed your two (or three, or more!) classes together - fighter/magic-user/thief, cleric/ranger, assassin/cleric etc. - and move up the table with them all like that, and add the option to do it the 3e way (and 4e, I guess?) of "take a level of this and a level of that at any time and drop it at any time".

I think both methods have merit.

(but then, I like the way humans could dual-class BITD so what do I know? )

 

[Christopher Hawkins]

In my books, multi-classing is simply one possible answer to a conundrum. That conundrum is customization. many players don't simply want to portray broad archetypes; they want the power to portray their character, exactly how they see them to be.