D&D 5E Multiclassing...AGAIN?

[slobster]

To me it's the least believable, in that you can pick up a class - Rangering, Thieving, Magic Use, Clericism, Bard, any of which in theory should take years of study and practice to even get to 0th-level in never mind 1st - on a whim!

To me that issue is easily solved, for those to whom it matters, by requiring that the PC take some in-game time off to train with a mentor of the appropriate class. That might require some money, or another PC or friendly NPC may be willing to do it pro bono. May involve some RP at the table. It's in the GM's hands.

Bingo, done, and anyone for whom this isn't an issue can simply mark their new level of sorcerer down and continue the game.

 

[Lanefan]

3) I've never seen it as a "whim"- the training for 3Ed multiclassing merely occurs off-screen. Of course, that's no change. As I recall, even back in 1Ed, PCs were supposed to "train" before leveling. Most people hand waved that away and simply folded that into typical adventuring life.

We've always had training rules - modified somewhat from 1e RAW, but still in place and enforced.

Lanefan

 

[The Shadow]

We've always had training rules - modified somewhat from 1e RAW, but still in place and enforced.

My problem with training (for levels, not new classes) is it forces the OOC artificiality of levelling into the game world. Same issue with level titles, really.

I don't think my character has any idea when he levels - he just knows he gets better as time goes on. The levels are a model that abstracts out all the messiness of real life, but for the character, "real life" should be just that.

 

[Lanefan]

My problem with training (for levels, not new classes) is it forces the OOC artificiality of levelling into the game world. Same issue with level titles, really.

With some classes -all casters, Bards, and Monks - levelling as defined as graduating to a new set of abilities makes perfect sense in the game world; as does requiring training to get there.

For Warrior and Rogue type classes it's a stretch, but one I'll live with; though even Rogue types, within their guilds, could have a heirarchy one could advance up; ditto Paladins. Fighters, Knights, Rangers...yeah, they're where it falls down, and the whole thing becomes a purely game-mechanical construct.

I don't think my character has any idea when he levels - he just knows he gets better as time goes on. The levels are a model that abstracts out all the messiness of real life, but for the character, "real life" should be just that.

For Warriors and Rogues I mostly agree in principle. For the rest where one's status within a class or society is defined by how measurably proficient one is, training and overt levels actually make perfect sense.

Lanefan

 

[Libramarian]

Has anyone ever used 3e multiclassing to model "a character who dabbles or who finds a path later in life"? i.e. the game story determining your multiclass choices?

In my experience, you always plan out your build all in one go before play. So in practice it's just like AD&D multiclassing except there are a jillion more possible combinations, most of which make no thematic sense. Or in other words, AD&D multiclassing is like 3e multiclassing with the stupid combinations removed beforehand.

 

[slobo777]

Has anyone ever used 3e multiclassing to model "a character who dabbles or who finds a path later in life"? i.e. the game story determining your multiclass choices?

In my experience, you always plan out your build all in one go before play. So in practice it's just like AD&D multiclassing except there are a jillion more possible combinations, most of which make no thematic sense. Or in other words, AD&D multiclassing is like 3e multiclassing with the stupid combinations removed beforehand.

I'm not sure about "modeling a character".

However, when I play 3E, I usually genuinely don't know what I will take a level in until I do it. I know ballpark, due to character background and stats, and sometimes I might look in advance at the upcoming options. It's one of the fun choices that the game gives you at leveling up time. Of course my characters are not CharOp marvels by any stretch, but then that's the way my group plays 3E, so that works out fine.

I'd keep it in the game if possible just for that reason - it was fun. If it can be made not to stink or be over-powered for a wider range of choices, then that really works for me.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Has anyone ever used 3e multiclassing to model "a character who dabbles or who finds a path later in life"? i.e. the game story determining your multiclass choices?

I level my all of my 3Ed PCs like I live my life: I have a long term plan, but it is subject to change.

And I the first 3Ed campaign I ran, when the party leveled on an isolated desert island, the guy in our group who has run single-classed Mages 85%+ of the time I've gamed with him since 1986 had his Wizard take levels if Fighter because "given the immediate environment, it didn't make sense for him to be able to advance as a Wizard at this time."

So yes, it does happen.

 

[The Shadow]

With some classes -all casters, Bards, and Monks - levelling as defined as graduating to a new set of abilities makes perfect sense in the game world; as does requiring training to get there.

For gaining a new level of spells, I can see it. I mean, you can either conjure an elemental (or something comparable) or you can't. Not really in between, though. Monks are similar, yes.

For Warrior and Rogue type classes it's a stretch, but one I'll live with; though even Rogue types, within their guilds, could have a heirarchy one could advance up; ditto Paladins.

Maybe. Though I don't see why we need the mechanics dictating to me how thieves' guilds work in my world. All thieves' guilds, everywhere in my world, to boot.