Thoughts on Multiclassing

[N'raac]

The big question, IMO, is how to make multiclassing viable but not overpowered. If we instead allow levels based on the xp to gain 1st level, why should anyone be a straight paladin/ranger/fighter/barbarian? A 10th level fighter has what, 105,000 xp? That's equal to 3 7th level characters. 14d10 + 7d12 hp and +21 BAB sounds pretty good as a L7 Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian by comparison to 10d10 and +10 BAB for a straight fighter. The problem, of course, is that loss of spells, and especially spell levels, is a big hit. But a multiclass system has to consider a Wizard/Cleric, a Fighter/Rogue and a Fighter/Barbarian, not just a Fighter/Wizard.

 

[Warbringer]

1) The idea that turning from a 6th level Fighter to being able to immediately cast as a 6th level Wizard (or worse, 7th) is just so many ways of broken and brain-hurt immersion-busting...I'd just assume there be no multiclassing in the game at all before something like that.

--SD

Well, yes getting all the abilities of a 6th level Wizard would be to much advantage. But even in 1e/2e where you got the class features, best saves and best to hit, I never felt anything was broken.

In my own suggestion, you only get the features of that class for the level you take; I guess that makes the idea nothing more Han a gestalt system, where every class feature is a just like a feat.

I don't want to see taking a level of a new class is taking 1st level of that class. It just leaves the character with sub optimal features.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I don't want to see taking a level of a new class is taking 1st level of that class. It just leaves the character with sub optimal features.

Whereas I always felt that was spot on, because, to me, it was more simulationist AND multiclassing was more about flexibility and roleplay than optimization.

 

[steeldragons]

Well, yes getting all the abilities of a 6th level Wizard would be to much advantage. But even in 1e/2e where you got the class features, best saves and best to hit, I never felt anything was broken.

No, it wasn't. Because you were a 2/2 fighter/mage or a 2/3 or 3/2...You're correct, it wasn't broken.

To go from, I've spent all my life, time, energy and experience learning how to be the best fighter I can be...and I've gotten to 6th level doing so. Now, I have a level and I'm getting all the bells and whistles, not to mention spells like fireball and fly, of a wizard that same level when I've never picked up a spellbook or waved a wand before in my life?! How does that even make enough sense to suggest it?

In my own suggestion, you only get the features of that class for the level you take; I guess that makes the idea nothing more Han a gestalt system, where every class feature is a just like a feat.

Right...so you become a 6th level wizard...out the gate, day one. The level you took. Am I right or not getting what you mean? To me and my sensibilities, that is unacceptable. But, as I already said, I don't expect to see anything remote to what I consider fair and justified in the multiclassing. So it's kinda moot.

I don't want to see taking a level of a new class is taking 1st level of that class.

Why not? How does that not make the most immediate, sensible and "internally consistent" kind of sense?

It just leaves the character with sub optimal features.

Ah. The "o-word." If you are making suggestions and decisions based on "o's" and "sub-o's" then we really have no ground on which to discuss this.

I will simply retort that, in my opinion, it does not leave you with "suboptimal" features...it "leaves you" with features that you did not, previously, possess! That would be a boon/plus all around. How could it be viewed as "sub-optimal" will always remain a mystery to me. Now you can read magic, use magic items you previous couldn't, probably gain have Arcane Lore skill...and then there's the spells...which you previously couldn't cast...and yes, you start with the cantrips and 1st level ones...same as every one else who ever studied wizardry.

Again, my take, but whatever they decide almost certainly will not be the way I want it.

 

[Warbringer]

Whereas I always felt that was spot on, because, to me, it was more simulationist AND multiclassing was more about flexibility and roleplay than optimization.

I just found that where magic was concerned it didn't work well

 

[Savage Wombat]

Maybe we should focus multiclassing on rules that reward versatility, not power. Make sure that the fighter/mu is almost as effective in combat as an equal level fighter, but that he makes up for it in versatility. So make sure that a fighter/mu still feels useful to the party with his low-level casting ability, but worry less about his damage output.

 

[Ahnehnois]

I just found that where magic was concerned it didn't work well

I think that is more reflective of problems with the way magic scales.

 

[Warbringer]

[MENTION=92511]steeldragons[/MENTION]

I think we just look at things very differently (and I may not have made my idea clearly).

You strongly dislike that a character could suddenly get a third level spell (the non cumulative benefit or 6th level), d4hps and +2 spell casting-bonus; vs 2 1st level spells, d4hps and +1 spell-casting bonus.

To me that's not breaking immersion anymore that a character suddenly being able to cast spells, no matter if that is 1st or 3rd level.

Re optimal, fair enough if we have no common ground, i'm not talking powergaming, merely that I'd like to see those features closer in power level to the features you are giving up by choosing not to take the next level in your existing path.

That said, I don't think Next will be anything like this, so you should be safe

 

[steeldragons]

Maybe we should focus multiclassing on rules that reward versatility, not power. Make sure that the fighter/mu is almost as effective in combat as an equal level fighter, but that he makes up for it in versatility. So make sure that a fighter/mu still feels useful to the party with his low-level casting ability, but worry less about his damage output.

This is definitely worth a thought or two...if I'm reading it correctly.

I might be capable of accepting something like this...

You are a 6th level fighter. You now have the XP to become 7th level. You want to become a wizard.

We're all good so far, yes?

Your XP price for breaking into a new area you have no previous experience in...you can break in at half (rounded down) your new level. Your remaining xp is either part of the price that is lost (my preference) or could be applied to your original class. Maybe present both as options for the DM to decide.

So you are now, presumably if you apply the leftover XP bits to your original class, a 7th level fighter...and a 3rd level Mage.

Is that compromise? Is it an acceptable compromise? I could, potentially live with this at low or mid levels, though at higher levels (going from 10th or 12th, for example, and becoming automatic/immediately a 5th or 6th mage from the get go still makes me bristle.) Maybe one third the levels? I dunno...just trying to come up with an "everyone's happy" [or at least "satisfied/not "put off"] here...

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I just found that where magic was concerned it didn't work well

I felt it worked perfectly.

I'm in my 40s, and I have multiple degrees. If I decided to get a degree in physics, on the day of my graduation, I wouldn't be offered the top job at CERN. My past experiences are largely irrelevant- pretty much all that they would care about is what I have done in physics...which wouldn't be much, in all likelihood. I'd have to start at the bottom, and I may never make it to the top.

So why should a 6th level fighter who just completed his initiation into the arcane arts be anything but a 1st level caster in all ways? Like I said, 3.X multiclassing is not about power, its about flexibility and roleplay. But that's just one model of being a jack of all trades. (And one that dates back to 1Ed dual-classing, FWIW.)

Your complaint is also why I suggested 1Ed/2Ed style multiclassing, 3.X style gestalting or 4Ed style hybrids (each with advantages & disadvantages, IMHO) should be included in some form. They model someone who has ALWAYS divided their attention to different disciplines, as opposed to someone who does so sequentially.

Is that compromise? Is it an acceptable compromise?

I'd much prefer that it not be hard-coded into the baseline multiclassing rules. A dabbler should remain somewhat restricted. However, burning a character-building resource- like a Feat- to get an extra boost in that regard is 100% cool by me. That's why I liked...loved...the Practiced Spellcaster feat.

I could even get behind a version of that that wasn't capped at once per spellcasting class. If you want to burn a large number of Feats to equalize your multiclassed PC's spellcasting ability with single-classed mages, go for it.