TheCosmicKid
Hero
What you've seen on boards is not necessarily an accurate representation of what it looks like in actual play. I would suggest resisting the urge to ban anything based on hearsay.
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Arguments and assumptions against multi classing
- Thread starter Warpiglet
- Start date
pming
Legend
Hiya!
I think multi-classing is fun and interesting...in 1e and 2e AD&D. Everything after 2e, however, sucks.
It's not that I think they are more powerful or anything (although some combo's, when also mixed with other optional rules like feats, spells, races, etc., can produce some monstrosities). It's that someone who has "Fighter/Wizard/Thief" on their character sheet isn't actually a multi-classed F/W/T...they are a character that is a Fighter, and a Wizard, and a Thief.
My problem, if I boil it down as much as possible, is that each class sits COMPLETELY interdependently of the others...mostly (mechanics wise) with regards to XP progression. When that F/W/T gets 1400 xp and gains a 'level', they up *A* class or add a new one. That screams, to me again (ymmv), "You just gained a level of Fighter! ...the last three months of sea travel, fighting the leviathan, rescuing the sea-princes bride to be, sending the horrible water-demon back to the abyss, sneaking into the half-submerged lighthouse dungeon, and deciphering all the runes, puzzles and riddles had ZERO EFFECT on your capabilities as a Wizard or Thief". All the sneaking? Irrelevant. All the Sneak Attacks? Irrelevant. All the spells cast? Irrelevant.
So, in my mind, the old-skool way of actually BEING a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief from day one, and advancing each class more or less collectively, has a completely different feel and in-campaign narrative than the 3.x+ versions of the game where you are but a single class at level 1. Then you add a new class later. Then maybe another after that. At no point are you ever "advancing all aspects of your skill-set" at the same time. Ever. It's only ONE at a time. Always. That feels completely different than the 1e/2e characters that are multi-classed. Again, IMNSHO, 1e/2e did it MUCH better. Like, leaps and bounds better.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
I think multi-classing is fun and interesting...in 1e and 2e AD&D. Everything after 2e, however, sucks.
It's not that I think they are more powerful or anything (although some combo's, when also mixed with other optional rules like feats, spells, races, etc., can produce some monstrosities). It's that someone who has "Fighter/Wizard/Thief" on their character sheet isn't actually a multi-classed F/W/T...they are a character that is a Fighter, and a Wizard, and a Thief.
My problem, if I boil it down as much as possible, is that each class sits COMPLETELY interdependently of the others...mostly (mechanics wise) with regards to XP progression. When that F/W/T gets 1400 xp and gains a 'level', they up *A* class or add a new one. That screams, to me again (ymmv), "You just gained a level of Fighter! ...the last three months of sea travel, fighting the leviathan, rescuing the sea-princes bride to be, sending the horrible water-demon back to the abyss, sneaking into the half-submerged lighthouse dungeon, and deciphering all the runes, puzzles and riddles had ZERO EFFECT on your capabilities as a Wizard or Thief". All the sneaking? Irrelevant. All the Sneak Attacks? Irrelevant. All the spells cast? Irrelevant.
So, in my mind, the old-skool way of actually BEING a Fighter/Magic-User/Thief from day one, and advancing each class more or less collectively, has a completely different feel and in-campaign narrative than the 3.x+ versions of the game where you are but a single class at level 1. Then you add a new class later. Then maybe another after that. At no point are you ever "advancing all aspects of your skill-set" at the same time. Ever. It's only ONE at a time. Always. That feels completely different than the 1e/2e characters that are multi-classed. Again, IMNSHO, 1e/2e did it MUCH better. Like, leaps and bounds better.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
Hussar
Legend
There are some serious issues with the AD&D way of doing it though. Because of the wonkiness of the XP tables in 1e, a character with 2 classes was essentially only one level behind the rest of the group. The XP for a 7th level fighter, forex, made a 6/6 fighter wizard. Which is an incredibly powerful combination for very little cost. I'm losing 5 HP and +1 attack to gain 6 levels of wizard? I'll take that trade, thanks.
To combat this, we had racial level limits. But, the problem with that was, people simply didn't play the low limit race/class combos. So, you played an elven wizard/thief because, well, MU was limited to 12th (not really limited at all in most games) and the thief wasn't limited at all. There was virtually no mechanical reason not to multiclass because multiclass characters, if you chose the right combos had pretty much no meaningful restrictions and gained so much power.
From an in game POV, sure, I'll agree that it's wonky that I'm suddenly casting spells after murdering orcs with a lumpy metal thing. But, from a mechanical POV, AD&D multiclassing was a power gamers wet dream.
To combat this, we had racial level limits. But, the problem with that was, people simply didn't play the low limit race/class combos. So, you played an elven wizard/thief because, well, MU was limited to 12th (not really limited at all in most games) and the thief wasn't limited at all. There was virtually no mechanical reason not to multiclass because multiclass characters, if you chose the right combos had pretty much no meaningful restrictions and gained so much power.
From an in game POV, sure, I'll agree that it's wonky that I'm suddenly casting spells after murdering orcs with a lumpy metal thing. But, from a mechanical POV, AD&D multiclassing was a power gamers wet dream.
Paul Farquhar
Legend
DMG page 4: "The DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."
Sadras
Legend
Just a quibble: I'm not sure how you calculated the 5HP. In AD&D you only rolled for HP up until (and including) 9TH level.
GreyLord
Legend
Just wanted to point out that 3e had UA. In UA you could make a gestalt character which is very much like the multiclass type characters of 1e and 2e. The biggest problem people had with it was that BECAUSE there were no level limits and they advanced at the same rate as all the other characters, they tended to be 1.5 to 2x as powerful.
Of course houserules to limit this (They have a maximum level of 10, and they require 2X the XP to advance a level for example) could change this.
However, in all effects, after UA came about 3.5 DID have something that was VERY similar to the old AD&D multiclass idea (Gestalts advanced at the same rate with both classes. They took the best abilities of both classes, though that meant instead of taking the average of the two class dice rolls, they would simply use the HP rolls for the class with the highest HD).
Hussar
Legend
Average of a D10. I guess technically it's 5.5 HP. But the point still remains. Heck, even at 10 HP, I'm thinking that gaining 6 levels of wizard is worth one level of fighter. Heck, at higher levels, because of the weirdness of the XP tables, a F/MU/Thief is something like 8/9/10 for the xp of a 10th level fighter. Been a while since I looked at the chart, but, it was pretty close to that.
Sadras
Legend
To be clear, on the greater picture we agree.
My thinking was that Arial Black's example of replacing a MC option with a core class option was not so much of a stretch, because if one allows MC, but disallows a specific MC option, it is the same as allowing all core but disallowing one of them (Monk say for instance at my table). Core or optional doesn't matter at this point, in both instances the core and MC were allowed, only specific instances of each were disallowed. I'm saying the example wasn't egregious.
Anyways, it is neither here nor there. Every DM has the right to exclude parts of the game they might take issue with, hell I'm one of those DMs.
I think that this quote has a hidden point that I'd like to make more openly.
If you allow multi-classing or gestalt classes, the issue isn't that these characters are more powerful. The issue is that if you allow players to use the rules; it's often forgotten by the DM that he or she should ask "how do the use of these rules impact the rest of my game world."
Optional rules aren't meant to be used in a vacuum specific to just the players and their characters. If you want to maintain game balance, the enemies and NPCs around them need to make use of the same advantages and be subject to the same disadvantages.
I've found that when characters who multi-class run into opposition that also dip or characters that didn't and show clear advantages due to it, it's a much more balanced game. I've only run into issues when the players take advantage of the advantages and never run into the disadvantages because I didn't think about the setting and their adversaries well enough.
Be well
KB
(edit - House rules are only necessary when the game is balanced appropriately and the outcome is still broken. If you balance adversaries against the party and something is still wrong, then do it. That's not to say that every encounter needs to be balanced against the party - some should be easy and some should be impossible. But houserules aren't the first answer to any problem.)
Last edited:
Similar Threads
