No More Multi-Classing

[werk]

I just start at first level, then poo-poo any talk of multiclassing. I'll even have them face multiclassed NPCs that are a push-over, they say, "wow, that guy wasn't as tough as he should be, guess it's because he's a fighter/wizard...bad at both." Send a therge after them that can't beat their saves. Stuff like that.

My current party is a strait class wiz, rog, ftr, cleric, and monk, all level 6.

You don't have to prohibit it, just make it appear unhealthy.

 

[Falkus]

That would only work as long as your players knew very little about the system, and never progressed their knowledge past that stage.

 

[Fenes]

The only multiclass we have in three of my campaigns is a fighter/PrC with a single cleric level taken for rp reasons when she joined a church. All the other characters are either single class or single class/Prestige Class combos, with most prestige classes having been customised or tweaked.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

i dont know, i like multclassing alot. you can make charicters that back up the roleplaying with mechanics, and you can be a monk2, fighter2, barbarian2, prcX, and still fill a role or an archtype of "fighter/warrior". I dont see a problem with it.

 

[Reynard]

The only multiclass we have in three of my campaigns is a fighter/PrC with a single cleric level taken for rp reasons when she joined a church. All the other characters are either single class or single class/Prestige Class combos, with most prestige classes having been customised or tweaked.

I guess what I would say in that instance is what RP reasons could you have for taking a level in cleric, as opposed to just playing someone who was devout, even ordained, but remained in their "primary" class?

Class levels are mechanical choices, not RP ones.

 

[Reynard]

i dont know, i like multclassing alot. you can make charicters that back up the roleplaying with mechanics, and you can be a monk2, fighter2, barbarian2, prcX, and still fill a role or an archtype of "fighter/warrior". I dont see a problem with it.

That's not my point. My point is that D&D is playable, and even fun, if the niche is preserved and the characters are focused. I think we, as players, are a spoiled and apatheticlot and a lot character build chocies are based on wanting something 'different' and 'interesting'. I guess I just think that the game itself should be 'different' and 'interesting' reagrdles of whether you are playing 1e where you have next to no choices or playing 3.x.

 

[pawsplay]

I just start at first level, then poo-poo any talk of multiclassing. I'll even have them face multiclassed NPCs that are a push-over, they say, "wow, that guy wasn't as tough as he should be, guess it's because he's a fighter/wizard...bad at both." Send a therge after them that can't beat their saves. Stuff like that.

My current party is a strait class wiz, rog, ftr, cleric, and monk, all level 6.

You don't have to prohibit it, just make it appear unhealthy.

I suppose, using that method, you might be able to discourage them from playing cleric. For a time.

 

[Reynard]

Since this is one of the threads that inspired it, I thought I'd share this email I sent to my personal gaming community:


_________
I have been thinking about gaming a lot lately and D&D in particular, and I just wanted to share my thoughts and (hopefully) initiate some discussion.

For a while now I have been trying to figure out what my problem with D&D is (or has been) and, after a stream-of-consciouness style journey through message boards and conversations, I figured it out: D&D 3.x is *not* the D&D I gre up with.

I am not talking about the basic system. I like the streamlined mechanics and a lot of the tweaks to the sacred cows (wizards with spells! yay!) in 3.5. What I mean is that the D&D I grew up with -- the Red/Blue/Green/Black set, specifically -- was more focused, more specific in its emulation of the genre that is D&D than the new D&D is. Now, I like options and I think they can be useful in establishing tone and implied setting/genre. However, I don't like *all* the options. Moreover, I don't like that players tend to feel entitled to all those options and use them, regardless of campaign, setting or tone.

In addition, D&D has moved well out of the Dungeons and the Dragons. If you look at published scenarios for D&D, Dungeons are used as railroads to contain the players and push them toward the plot. "Old School" dungeons were different -- they were adventuring environments where the PCs could travel relatively freely and angage in exploration and discovery. Moreover, modern adventures and dungeons are too reliant on 'fair' challenges and 'acceptable risks'. Where are the save-or-die effects and the flee-or-die encounters?

Dragons, well -- because of players assuming every challenge is tailored just for them, get maligned for being "too tough".

And here's something else. I am finally willing to admit this to myself and to the world: I like an antagonist relationship between players and DM. I know that is anathema to 'good gaming' and will be construed as being -ish, but I mean it. The players should challenge and be challenged by the DM. Now, the DM has a responsibility to be fair and not just overwhelm the PCs with killer traps and deadly monsters from which there is no escape. But, if done right, a competitive relationship between the players and the DM can make for a fun game. It isn't about stomping on the players, it is about engaging them and making them care about the outcome of events and feeling like they actually accomplished soemthing when they win a fight, overcome an obstacle or solve a puzzle.

This, inevitably, leads me to the subject of character death. Adventuring is dangerous business. Being a hero isn't easy. Going down into holes to smash evil and take its stuff is never garaunteed. Players who take character death as a personal affront aren't playing the same game I am. We aren't telling a story about your character -- we're creating one. And sometimes, that story ends with "...and he was laid low by a spear to the ribs."

Anyway -- just thinking with my fingers. Feel free to comment.

EDIT: Oops. Sorry about the cursing. Grandma caught it, so I guess it's okay?

 

[ThirdWizard]

I guess what I would say in that instance is what RP reasons could you have for taking a level in cleric, as opposed to just playing someone who was devout, even ordained, but remained in their "primary" class?

Class levels are mechanical choices, not RP ones.

That seems a very all or nothing attitude that isn't necessary in the game. Don't think of the fighter with one cleric level, and think of him as a fighter with a cleric level. Think of him as a holy man that has been favored by his god, much like a cleric, but is more skilled at fighting and less at the magical arts. He might even call himself a cleric, as he's obviously been touched by his deity.

Class isn't representative of what you are anymore, it is just a way to get abilities to build what you're really after. So now you can have a melee guy who is fairly good with opening locks and finding/disarming traps, but goes around in full plate, but knows how to strike the enemy's weak points. He's a fighter/rogue on his character sheet, but in game he's just using those classes to build his character the way he wants it to look so that the abilities can reflect the characterization.

 

[Fenes]

I guess what I would say in that instance is what RP reasons could you have for taking a level in cleric, as opposed to just playing someone who was devout, even ordained, but remained in their "primary" class?

Class levels are mechanical choices, not RP ones.

Without at least a tiny bit of real divine power, you'd not advance in the church she entered. Sort of like the proof that the goddess supports her.