Multiclassing

[Quasqueton]

Every now and then, someone on this board mentions "how D&D3 characters can just pick up classes here and there as they advance", or some similar concept. It seems that some DMs let PCs pick up classes (base and prestige) just off the cuff, out of the blue, willy nilly, etc.

In the 3 campaigns I've played in (as a PC), I've seen one PC do this. A barbarian took 3rd and 4th character levels in fighter. The DM said the two classes were close enough that special training between the two wasn't necessary.

In the 4 campaigns I've run (as the DM), I've never allowed this. I start my campaigns at 2nd level, and the PCs can start with 2 classes, but taking another class later requires in-game explanation and training.

And in the 1 campaign that I rotated DMing and PCing, the concept never came up and was never done. It was our first experience with D&D3, just after it was released.

So, in my experience, this "just picking up a class" doesn't happen. The comments on jumping about the classes are completely unseen by me.

Do you see this concept in actual play? Or is it just a concept in mental excercises and theory only?

Quasqueton

 

[Crothian]

soem in game explanation is asked but not required, and no training is required.

 

[Vamprey]

In the campaign I play in (shared homebrew) it requires extensive roleplay to pick up a new class. Training is also required to gain class level abilities (not hit points, BAB or saves or stat adjustments) as well as training for new feats gained. Length of training depends on numerous factors such as availblilty of trainers etc.

 

[Wombat]

In my current campaign, time is measured in months and everyone has two characters.

When you are eligble to level up, you take a month off with that character; if you multiclass, you take three months off the first time, but after that you just take a month.

No real explanations are necessary, just time for vague "training". Still, several of my players have written short stories specifically about their training, some of them quite interesting!

In general, I prefer if there is at least some form of explanation. Doesn't need to be extensive, but at least a nod to how you are able to switch classes.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Every now and then, someone on this board mentions "how D&D3 characters can just pick up classes here and there as they advance", or some similar concept. It seems that some DMs let PCs pick up classes (base and prestige) just off the cuff, out of the blue, willy nilly, etc.

Considering that's how it is in the RAW (or rather, it isn't not like that in the RAW) - for base classes at least, I think '*most* DMs' would be (more likely) accurate, as opposed to "some DMs".

Do you see this concept in actual play?

All the time, just not in the campaigns I run.


Me personally (as a GM), I've written up a list of prereq's for every base class (which are less demanding than those for PrC's, though). Also, the character must undergo training for a considerable period of time, and the player 'roleplay out' the new development.

It's the only way that makes sense to me, but (as I've already stated) many people don't feel that way about it.

 

[suburbaknght]

In my experience it never occurs to people to make big jumps (fighter to psion, wizard to monk) without in game explanation. Simple transitions, monk to fighter, don't usually require explanation beyond "I'm focusing more on martial ability than enlightenment due to all my recent combat experiences that are the sole reason I'm getting a level in the first place" (I should mention that in my games we don't use the "leave monk or paladin and you can never return" variant. Monte Cook has explained that there is no mechanical justification but playtesters insisted it be put in for flavor. As it's not a flavor I like in my games it's been cut).

In the few instances there have been big jump the only reason it's occurred to hte player to make the jump is because of the in-game reasons. A wizard, for example, spent several months infiltrating a military academy. Consequently he received training in weapons and spent several months practicing with them so the level was pre-determined before he even got the experience points for it.

The only levels I've ever had difficulty justifying are sorcerer or psion (and associated psionic classes) levels. Unless the player's given some indication of ability beforehand those just get vetoed.

 

[BWP]

In the 4 campaigns I've run (as the DM), I've never allowed this. I start my campaigns at 2nd level, and the PCs can start with 2 classes, but taking another class later requires in-game explanation and training.

I'll grant that this is more "realistic", but I don't play D&D for "realism". Life's too short for worrying about that sort of thing. As far as I'm concerned, a permitted core class is a permitted core class. If there's some problem with attaining the class without justification later, it shouldn't be allowed at all.

However, if a PrC needs in-game training or has other prerequisites, then they need to be adhered to. I can see some PrC being allowed "at will" and others that might require years of prior preparation. Taking a level in a PrC requires explicit DM approval IMC.

I do that more to preserve the "flavour" of the PrC in the campaign. As far as I'm concerned, the permitted core classes are already part of that flavour and I don't need to worry about them -- I already did that by permitting them in the first place.

(I take the same attitude to racial choice as well -- there are "permitted PC races" and that's it.)

 

[Sledge]

While I voted that it requires some in game basis, I've yet to see it ever happen where there wasn't a huge in game basis. Minimum has always been pestering the party wizard for training for over a level.

 

[Silveras]

The closest I have seen this in the games I play and run have been under 2 situations:

1. The Campaign does not allow downtime at all. Using the Craft Points rule from Unearthed Arcana allows the PCs to make equipment normally, but no class requires any training time. Several levels (8), and various multi-class combinations, have gone by in the space of 20 days of game continuity as a result.

2. A player looking to cherry-pick the saving throw bonuses of various classes. Said player suggested a "concept character" (and played it) with 1 level each of Monk, Bard, Rogue, Druid, and (IIRC) Fighter for a 5th level character with +6 to base saves and +1 BAB.

Case 2 led to my considering a house rule that you could only get the +2 bonus on Good saves once per save {the math progression of the Good saves is 2 + 0.5/level}.

 

[ThirdWizard]

People can take what they will. In the case of someone taking a level of wizard, for instance, it is assumed that they've been studying in their downtime. Consider it a retcon if you will, but there is so much of the PCs' time spent off camera that I don't have a problem with it. Same goes for the other classes. If they want to roleplay it out, all the better, but I won't force them to.

The players are in charge of their characters. So long as they follow the rules, s'alright.

The only levels I've ever had difficulty justifying are sorcerer or psion (and associated psionic classes) levels. Unless the player's given some indication of ability beforehand those just get vetoed.

I think it's a bad idea to make the player have to plan to be a sorcerer to become one. That's one of my problems with PrCs, the need to know at 1st level what you're going to be throughout your career at each level, down to the skillpoint many times. Why couldn't a character for some reason spontaneously start expressing sorcerer powers later in life? I think that would be interesting, and making it so they have to know this earlier gets rid of much of the spontenaity that can bring out interesting and fun games.

Case 2 led to my considering a house rule that you could only get the +2 bonus on Good saves once per save {the math progression of the Good saves is 2 + 0.5/level}.

I would think that the ineffectivness of the build would be enough to disuade people from doing it.