No More Multi-Classing

[Kae'Yoss]

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.)

Ugh. *claws out eyes*

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.

That's called Nostalgia. Nasty ailment, makes you think things were better "back in the day". The only cure is to give in to it, play some OD&D, realise that it sucks, and learn to really appreciate d20.

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.

Funnily enough, there's also people who say that D&D is too fixated on its own brand of fantasy. There's no pleasing everyone.

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.

"Silly Player! D&D is not for you, it's for DMs!"

I only ever had one player who thought he was entitled to play whatever he wants with the rules he wanted. After I removed him from the game (I was not the only one who wanted him out, by the way - he wasn't exactly friendly), it was cool.

I read how DM after DM comes here to complain that the players are in open rebellion. With the exception mentioned above, I never encountered it. At the beginning of the campaign, I set the ground rules, I tell them what's in and what's out and that I reserve the right to ban stuff if I see it being a problem. My players never come to me and demand to be able to use this feat or that PrC. They request here and there, and if I don't see no balance issues or it not fitting into the campaign or campaign setting, I usually allow it.

Where are the save-or-die effects

Mostly gone and good riddance to them. What is that? You create a character, play him for months, get attached to it, never make any glaring errors, and then he dies because the DM thought that he should incorporate a feature that will kill certain players 60% of the time? Sure, if the DM somehow needs that satisfaction, he can go ahead and put 20 of them into each game session.

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

You never heard about B.A.D.D., did you?

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.

Thanks for the warning. Saves me the trouble of kicking you out should you have ever attended my game, or me leaving should you have ever DMed a game I play in.


Personally, I play with people I call friends. I usually like them to stay my friends.

The players should challenge and be challenged by the DM.

You know, you can do that without making an enemy out of your players.

But, if done right, a competitive relationship between the players and the DM can make for a fun game.

Competitive? That's no fun. There's to possiblilities: The DM is being competitive and the player characters all die in every single encounter, or the players get challenged properly and the DM aims to challenge them properly, not compete against them.

 

[taliesin15]

Multiclassing as an option makes possible better role playing. I just started a pretty straight up Elf Fighter using Longsword and Longbow. I was thinking that if I continure to play the character for awhile it might be interesting to have him switch to Wizard, once he's high level, and older.

The other thing though is it seems many people look at 20th lvl in 3.5 as a kind of glass ceiling--sure there are more feats and stuff, but it does seem to limited. Multiclassing might be a good way to build or enhance a PC.

 

[Ranger REG]

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.

3e wasn't the first edition to introduce multiclassing. But it was the first to streamline the system which was a clutter in previous edition.

While you may perceive it as diminishing the niche of Dungeons & Dragons, players sees it as an opportunity to round out their character in their own expressive way. That usually doesn't make better characters, as multiclass should have its own drawback compared to single-class character. Nevertheless, it should remain a player's option if they wish to exercise it.

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.

Whatever you do in your game as the campaign's DM, is up to you. But if you're trying to persuade the mass that we should abolish this option from present and future Dungeons & Dragons core rules, you'll find an impervious resistance.

That's like saying we should repeal the US Constitution's First Amendment of Free Speech because of many citizens are abusing it and you felt that it has lost its luster.

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.

For some, every D&D experience is unique. I'm fairly certain that if we compare our experiences (if I could ever put them in expressed words) you'll see how diffferent we approached this game.

But AFAIC, regarding 3e, it doesn't looks and feel like the D&D I grew up with, but it is the D&D that I enjoy in the present, simply because my experience with previous editions have exposed me to flaws and restrictions, when compared to other RPG rulesets like Rolemaster.

 

[Remathilis]

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.

Unless you are talking about OD&D (not advanced) there was always multi-classing. It was a headache.

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.

Each is still needed and useful. You need a warrior to take/deal damage, a mage for attack/troubleshooting magic, a priest for healing, and a scoundrel for traps and scouting.

The difference is you can now have that mix with a fighter/wizard/cleric/rogue or a paladin/sorcerer/druid/scout. Or a swashbuckler/favoredsoul/beguiler/spellthief. Or a samurai/shugenja/wu jen/ninja. Or...

Probably not.

Change is inevitable, cept from a vending machine.

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'm a RC guy too. But the game has moved on. However, you know what happens to an organism that doesn't change and adapt...

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

I don't. For the same reason I hate vitality/wound, I hate save vs. death. Worse was no-save death.

And I have too much to do these days to devote 7 years to getting a thief to 16th level. I don't mind being able to do it in a year or two.

However, the internet is awash with people who feel as you do. Use it to organize a 3e game you like. Or better, use it to organize an RC game!

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

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."

Well said. 90% of 3.5 players would say, "You mean I can't be a 20th level Divine Gelatinous Cube/Rogue/Half-Dragon/Paladin/Sorcerer/Monk/Black Hand of Death Wanderer? Forget it! That SUXXORS!"

It's easy to give players new options; it's virtually impossible to take them away once they're out there.

 

[PallidPatience]

It's easy to give players new options; it's virtually impossible to take them away once they're out there.

Every non-core option they have must be given to them by you. If you don't want them to have the option, don't give it to them. If they have the book, and demand the option... kick them in their dice-bags and send them packing. That is, after a discussion over style, flavor and balance. If they don't want to play the game you want to run, then playing with them will be fun for neither of you, and they should find a different game.

 

[Reynard]

Thanks for the warning. Saves me the trouble of kicking you out should you have ever attended my game, or me leaving should you have ever DMed a game I play in.


Personally, I play with people I call friends. I usually like them to stay my friends.



You know, you can do that without making an enemy out of your players.



Competitive? That's no fun. There's to possiblilities: The DM is being competitive and the player characters all die in every single encounter, or the players get challenged properly and the DM aims to challenge them properly, not compete against them.

While there is lots to detest about your snarky, marginally insulting reply, I wanted to focus on this particular train of thought for a moment.

Apparently, you failed to read carefully, where I talked about fairness and not being a DM that just hands out death sentences out of some perverse pleasure. I respect the fact that you may have a different preferred playstyle that is more 'story' or 'narrative' centered. What I don't respect is you responding as if the whole purpose of my post was to lament the loss of the days when I could kill 8 or 12 PCs per session.

Why don't you go back and read it again -- this time without clawing your eyes out so you can actually see the words.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Every non-core option they have must be given to them by you. If you don't want them to have the option, don't give it to them. If they have the book, and demand the option... kick them in their dice-bags and send them packing.

You see, that's exactly the kind of throw-away comment that simply doesn't wash in the real world. It's easy to say on a message board, "If they don't like, it, kick 'em out!" But it's almost never that simple in the real world. If your group has five players, and four of them demand tons of KEWL POWRZ, then you either have to give them what they want, or "kick them in their dice-bags and send them packing", which means you end up alone, playing Resident Evil 4 and eating Domino's Pizza.

Which actually sounds a lot more fun than D&D 3.5 . . .

 

[Reynard]

While you may perceive it as diminishing the niche of Dungeons & Dragons, players sees it as an opportunity to round out their character in their own expressive way. That usually doesn't make better characters, as multiclass should have its own drawback compared to single-class character. Nevertheless, it should remain a player's option if they wish to exercise it.[/i]

See, I would rather use alternate core classes than allow multiclassing. For example, if I were to run a RCD&D style 3.5 campaign, I would probably make an available race/class list something like this:

Human Cleric
Human Fighter or Ranger
Human Rogue
Human Wizard or Sorcerer
Elf Duskblade
Dwarf Knight (slight mod -- give Weapon Focus instead of Mounted Combat)
Halfling Scout

From there on, the adventure is the thing. The game is the reward (aside from XP and loot). Character development would happen because that's what happens in an RPG, not because there was some PrC the player wanted to take.

 

[PallidPatience]

If you're not going to have fun playing D&D, why not do something else that's fun, instead? It's a game. Not a job. And if it is a job, then you're getting paid for it, which is cool, too.

Would you play Monopoly with people who demanded that you play with rules that made the game abhorrent to you?

Anyway, I don't think I could swallow "racial class/level limits" with suspension of disbelief intact without some mighty good convincing of how Elves are only smart enough to get to be 12th level fighters, and Dwarves somehow can't progress beyond 12th level in rogue. It just never made any sense to me back in the day, and it makes even less, now. Why wouldn't humans just level up so that they're higher than everyone else, and kill them all? Humans have numbers, and, apparently, potential on their side.