No More Multi-Classing

[Reynard]

One neat thing about 'old school' D&D is the prominence and importance of player character niches. Each class had its area of expertise and was necessary for the success of the party. 3.x has diminished the value of the niche with multi-classing and other rules.

Now, I am not saying I don't like options. I do. But at the same time, I wonder if we could 'go back' and return to a time when there was a Fighter, a Cleric, a Rogue(Thief) and a Wizard in the party and each one was essential.

Probably not.

I guess that's the real motivation behind this: recently I have begun to realize that, while a good game, D&D isn't the D&D I grew up with anymore. And I am not even an OD&D or even AD&D guy. I am a BECM/RC D&D guy for the most part (we played 2e but my formative years were with the BECM sets). And I don't begrudge the new generation their formative game, any more than I begrudge the true grognards theirs.

I just miss niche protection, saves versus death and the slow crawl up the level ladder.

 

[pawsplay]

What niche, per se, did the Paladin fill? And if it's a niche, why don't you always need one?

As I recall, AD&D has had multiclassing and dualclassing since 1st.

 

[Crothian]

I just miss niche protection, saves versus death and the slow crawl up the level ladder.

Then go ahead and do that in the current game. REstrict multi classing, have more save or dies, and slow down level advancement.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

There's lot of save or dies in 3e; I didn't fear save-or-die in 2e in fact, whereas they can insta-kill you fairly frequently in 3e.

 

[Rhun]

Then go ahead and do that in the current game. REstrict multi classing, have more save or dies, and slow down level advancement.

I agree with Crothian. The DM can allow or disallow anything to make it the game that he desires. If you don't like multi-classing, disallow it. I personally love the flexibility of the 3.X system.

 

[Reynard]

Then go ahead and do that in the current game. REstrict multi classing, have more save or dies, and slow down level advancement.

As with many versions of this kind of advice, it is one thing to suggest but another thing entirely to sell players on it. I can't imagine a more difficult "sell" with my group than "Okay, we're going to play 3.5 because it is a solid game system, but we're going to play it without multiclassing or PrCs, with racial class/level limits and with a focus on adventure for adventure's sake."

I am not saying there aren't people out there who wouldn't leap on that pitch. I just don't know any of them. Even those gamers I know who like the 'old school' feel in their adventures want the full options list for their PCs.

 

[drothgery]

I tossed out an idea in one of the 4e threads for a revised set of base classes that would, I think, make multiclassing a lot less common. The idea is that there'd be a core class for each of the four basic roles (arcane caster, divine caster, skill guy, warrior) and each two-role combo. i.e. ...

           arcane       divine      skill         warrior
arcane     wizard       theurge     beguiler      duskblade
divine     theurge      priest      archivist     cleric
skill      beguiler     archivist   rogue         swashbuckler
warrior    duskblade    cleric      swashbuckler  fighter

Theurge is a single-class mystic theurge; priest is essentially a cloistered cleric.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I'd be perfectly happy with no multiclassing. When I was running 3.x, it was fairly uncommon anyway, even with fighters, since the players were feat-junkies.

Racial level limits I'd probably have a problem with, though, unless there were other compensations for non-humans.

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I tossed out an idea in one of the 4e threads for a revised set of base classes that would, I think, make multiclassing a lot less common. The idea is that there'd be a core class for each of the four basic roles (arcane caster, divine caster, skill guy, warrior) and each two-role combo. i.e. ...

           arcane       divine      skill         warrior
arcane     wizard       theurge     beguiler      duskblade
divine     theurge      priest      archivist     cleric
skill      beguiler     archivist   rogue         swashbuckler
warrior    duskblade    cleric      swashbuckler  fighter

Theurge is a single-class mystic theurge; priest is essentially a cloistered cleric.

Interesting. Skill/arcane should be 'bard' though

 

[Reynard]

I tossed out an idea in one of the 4e threads for a revised set of base classes that would, I think, make multiclassing a lot less common. The idea is that there'd be a core class for each of the four basic roles (arcane caster, divine caster, skill guy, warrior) and each two-role combo. i.e. ...

           arcane       divine      skill         warrior
arcane     wizard       theurge     beguiler      duskblade
divine     theurge      priest      archivist     cleric
skill      beguiler     archivist   rogue         swashbuckler
warrior    duskblade    cleric      swashbuckler  fighter

Theurge is a single-class mystic theurge; priest is essentially a cloistered cleric.

That's interesting, though i was thinking more along the lines of Cleric, Dwarf, Elf, Fighter, Magic User and Thief. (That's right. No halflings.)