Multiclassing

[Jcosby]

Multi-Classing

When I first read the 3.0/3.5 rules I was torn. I was a old school AD&D 1st Ed player and I liked the fact that it was hard to multi-class. You had to pay some penalty to do it, either as a non-human multi-class character or a human dual-class character. There were pros and cons to each choice.

Now that I've run a couple of campaigns I find that most of my players start out with more then 1 class if I elect to allow the players to start out at a level above first. But then I notice when they pick a main class they stick with it.

As for the poll, I do allow it in my game, but since D&D is a "R"PG I like the players to make it part of the on going game. If someone wants to pick up a rogue level, they generally will travel to a large town and try to make in-roads with the local thieves guild for training, or join the local militia for some fighter training.

I find it best when the players enjoy the game flow and weave changes like this into the game. It gives the players the feeling that they are actually molding the game and creating the changes. They feel as they have more input as to what is going on in the campaign and that frees me up to just twist the plot and throw in the "fun stuff" from time to time.

JC

 

[Storminator]

I pretty much just let anything go. It's never really been a problem.

My players are more likely to have the next 12 levels picked out already anyway. I have one player that has all his feats chosen for the next 16 levels. I'd love to have a player with some whimsy, just for variety.

PS

 

[was]

Yes, with a reason.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

My current rules include 1 month per level of characer in 'training'. This is regardless of the whether the character is single class or multi-class.
This training usually happens off-screen and provides the campaign time to develop plotlines..as well as have a reason why not many high level adventurers are running around. No 1st to 10+ level characters in under a year!

The multi-class option, to me, is a shortcut to custom classes. I highly encourage the idea and curently have a Shifter Ranger/Fighter who is looking at Barbarian and/or Rogue in levels to come. I do enforce a 2 level minimum investment in order to limit cherrypicking.. but most classes are now tweaked away from being frontloaded..ala 3.0 Ranger.

I prefer to reference characters by type, instead of class.. so "Cutter, a Wild Elf Mounted Cavalry Scout" instead of "Cutter, a Wild Elf Ranger/Fighter/Bard/DwS/Rogue/Arcane Archer"

As a side not, this particular characters concept ..the first illiterate Arcane Archer...took a turn when leveling in Rogue... he had been surprised by an Assasin and wanted to learn how to protect against such attacks. So he spent a year or two in the shoes, so to speak.


As to the comment above about skills... I have thought about limiting skill increases to 4 points at any given level. This precludes any Matrixesque scenes of 'Hey, do you know anything about the Goblinoid Religions of the early 10th century?'.. 'Sure.. just a moment while I level up'.
But unless I oversee {read micromanage} character leveling, there is no real way of enforcing this. Perhaps RPGToolkit will have an option that will allow me to institute this in the program.

 

[Ukyo the undead]

I have never understood this apparent obsession some people have with the "integrity" of classes. (Maybe I shouldn't be playing D&D at all )

As far as I am concerned, characters all have the same class, "adventurer", with players free to choose the combination of race, classes, feats and skills which best matches their character concept.

Just waiting for someone to say exactly what I think about classes.

Classes are tools, not professions.

In my games, I dont create any restriction on multiclassing, but I always ask why a player is doing it.

Because I want to know what he wants, and think with him about a beter way to acomplish it.

 

[Sundragon2012]

Classes are tools, not professions.

Sometimes that is true, sometimes it isn't.

A priest of Corellon Larethian, a Knight of Solamnia, a Wizard of the Arcane Order, etc. and other distinctive classes aren't just tools, they are what the character sees himself as and in turn is referred to as in-game. Certain classes require dedication and even require certain qualifications for membership depending on the setting. Also I would argue that ALL the classes require very specialized training or learning.

A cleric does more than know a god's name to enter the priesthood.
A warrior trains for a long time in order to learn how to fight in armor and with the increased skill that class affords.
A wizard is schooled for years as an apprentice before becoming a true mage.
A monk is a martial artist with a very, very specific flavor that really IMO doesn't even belong in settings without asian cultures. Be that as it may, they are highly trained individuals.

I think that ALL classes should require at least some training to enter and some should not be entered into without extensive training.


Chris

 

[tetsujin28]

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

Pretty much. And no dumb combinations. If you're going to become a barbarian after being a monk, you better have a darn good, in-game reason for it.

 

[wingsandsword]

I think that ALL classes should require at least some training to enter and some should not be entered into without extensive training.

This I can't help but STRONGLY disagree with.

You don't need "training" to become a barbarian.

You don't need "training" to become a rogue. Does a street urchin who learns to pick peoples pockets and stab people when they aren't looking have to be taught the intricacies of life on the streets by a formalized Guild with rules and membership dues, or an apprenticeship with another thief to show how you actually hide? Picking up your fathers sword as a child and putting on that old suit of armor and going off to war when the local Lord raises an army? You learn in battle how to survive and at the end of a battle or two you've got the hang of it, but you can't become a "Fighter" until another fighter gives you "training" in using a weapon and wearing armor? Does someone who is marooned on an island away from civilization, who learns to hunt and survive on his own, becoming a half-feral warrior who wrestles a bear stuck being whatever class he was before, because he can't become a "Barbarian" without someone teaching him how to get angry? Some peasant has a divine calling from on high, he finds that his God has given him a tiny measure of Enlightenment and he can channel divine might through him or pray for spells in his name, but he can't become a Cleric or Paladin because he hasn't been trained by an Order or another Cleric or Paladin, no matter what his God says.

Some base classes (Wizard and Monk most notably) probably need some kind of explanation as to how PC's got those skills, which is almost certainly a fair amount of instruction and practice. Many Prestige Classes involve a certain amount of training needed for them, but there are plenty of classes that is perfectly plausible that a character could figure out those skills on their own over time.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

You don't need "training" to become a...

Methinks we are talking different meanings of the word. 'Training' does not need to be formalized mentorship thing. It can be the time it takes to figure out that swinging a large piece of metal at a stump chips more wood this way than that way...
Or that when attempting to pick pockets, doing it this way gets you hit...
No mentor required

I use 'training' time to simulate either option, depending on the character.

 

[Sundragon2012]

This I can't help but STRONGLY disagree with.

You don't need "training" to become a barbarian.

Different situation entirely, a barbarian is a cultural assumption that cannot IMO be trained believably. You either are a barbarian or you aren't based on the culture in which you were raised. However, the berserker style of fighting could theoretically be taught.

You don't need "training" to become a rogue. Does a street urchin who learns to pick peoples pockets and stab people when they aren't looking have to be taught the intricacies of life on the streets by a formalized Guild with rules and membership dues, or an apprenticeship with another thief to show how you actually hide?

Too simplistic an argument. If a child is a street urchin, his training is his life. He is a rogue to survive. A character, who is no child, who has never had to steal to survive would of course need to learn the fine art of pick pocketing and stealth. You would need to learn a great deal to be a rogue. The skill sets do not come naturally in many cases.

Picking up your fathers sword as a child and putting on that old suit of armor and going off to war when the local Lord raises an army? You learn in battle how to survive and at the end of a battle or two you've got the hang of it, but you can't become a "Fighter" until another fighter gives you "training" in using a weapon and wearing armor?

The skill set of fighter include much more than swinging a sword around, a farm hand can do that. One has to learn how to effectively use a shield. One has to learn fighting styles. The Society for creative anachronism can show one a lot about what it takes to be a real warrior.

Does this mean that a farm boy cannot become a fighter without training.....maybe if he survives his first battles through sheer luck. However such a fighter would not know how to fight armored, wouldn't know how to use a shield, wouldn't know a great deal of anything one assumes a fighter would know. It would seem that this learning takes place before the character even becomes first level.

Does someone who is marooned on an island away from civilization, who learns to hunt and survive on his own, becoming a half-feral warrior who wrestles a bear stuck being whatever class he was before, because he can't become a "Barbarian" without someone teaching him how to get angry? Some peasant has a divine calling from on high, he finds that his God has given him a tiny measure of Enlightenment and he can channel divine might through him or pray for spells in his name, but he can't become a Cleric or Paladin because he hasn't been trained by an Order or another Cleric or Paladin, no matter what his God says.

A feral human would not necessarily become a berserking/raging barbarian and would probably need a little bit of barbarian, ranger, and fighter to recreate the type of character involved. A DM could create a feral hunter class to more effectively simulate such a character.

Another unusual situation that is not the norm. Clerics are called perhaps but then they are trained in ritual, prayer, meditation, spellcraft, theology, metaphysics, etc. There is much, much more than simply praying to a god to be a cleric. The fact is that such a character could become a cleric without training, or a paladin or whatever, but these would seem to be more rare than those with formal training unless the classes themselves are rare.

Some base classes (Wizard and Monk most notably) probably need some kind of explanation as to how PC's got those skills, which is almost certainly a fair amount of instruction and practice. Many Prestige Classes involve a certain amount of training needed for them, but there are plenty of classes that is perfectly plausible that a character could figure out those skills on their own over time.

Some kind? Well martial arts certainly requires some intense training and if mages in the game have to be half as well informed as earthly members of occult orders ie. The Golden Dawn, Thelema, Aurum Solis, etc. (read some studies on esoteric Qabala sometime to see what esoteric training would be like) then they are certainly apprentices for years before becoming real wizards.

IMO the idea that classes can be picked up with a minimum to no training at all must mean that in these settings there are no apprentice mages, acolyte clerics, novice martial artists who are older than adolecents or perhaps only the inept need to apprentice at anything at all.

Also, there is a great gulf between the character who is born with something special ( a sorceror), someone whose culture is the source of his class (barbarian), someone who must learn or die (the street urchin rogue) and the PC adventurer who is often not in these situations and has to find another believable way to learn what these types of people know naturally. PCs can discover their sorcerous nature so that is a different circumstance.



Chris