Curbing Multi-classing

[Fighter1]

Okay, let's keep something straight. The rules clearly allow for both multiclassing and multiple PrCs, except for some classes that have separate restrictions (Monk and Paladin being the obvious core ones). Some people want to change this.

Yes…ok…the RAW also says “It’s your game”

That's fine, but there are two reasons given:

1> "Power". So far, I haven't seen any examples of balance-breaking combos given that wouldn't be ruled out by a little DM oversight or the simple BAB/save fixes suggested earlier. Yes, multiclassing can get you some massive saves, and front-loaded class abilities make it even better. In my last campaign, I had an evil NPC who exemplified this (Halfling Weretiger, with levels in Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Psychic Warrior, Bard, Assassin, Dragon Disciple, and ShadowDancer, with no more than 2 levels in any class). I called him "Tattoo", and yes, he was pretty impressive before the BAB/Save fix, but once that was done, he was only mediocre. Getting all those front-loaded abilities was nice, but it meant that he couldn't ever reach the high-end class abilties, even before the issue of Epic classes came up.

In my mind; that Halfling would be unacceptable

2> "Theme". If you're arguing it purely from a thematic point of view, then you'll just need to accept that there are plenty of people who disagree with you, and that since the rules as written allow multiclassing and multiple PrCs, you'll have an uphill battle.

No one said anything about re-writing the books; this thread is about opinions on the subject of multi-classing. And yes my arguments are very thematic with some mechanical aspects; but mostly thematic.

This discussion has come up plenty of times before, and as others have said, part of it is the perception that the only way to be a "Paladin" is to take the Paladin class. In a more free-form system (like d20Modern) this wouldn't be such an issue, but in an effort to give the core classes a little bit of flavor and tie them to the sacred cows of older editions, they've unfortunately reinforced this perception for many people.

I like that perception myself; there are those classes that, if you wish to be part of it, you must sacrifice certain things. Alignment for any PC is sort of the same thing; you wanna be Chaotic Neutral then you should act that way.

And I see nothing wrong with a player who wants to sacrifice more to specialize in a couple different areas, or who wants to split his "specialization" evenly between two different aspects, assuming the rules allow for this (which they do). As long as the total power of the character doesn't increase dramatically, then it only improves the game as a whole to have the added flexibility.

And fundamentally this is where we disagree; the rest is just dressing. And this is each our own opinion and likeing.

If I can take class A to increase my wildshaping at the cost of spellcasting, or I can take class B to increase my nature abilities at the cost of spellcasting, why is it okay to take 10 levels of A or 10 of B but not 5/5? If I want to be just a little bit better at wildshaping, are my only options to go all the way with 10 levels or go without, with nothing in between? It's like saying that I can be a Barbarian 10 or a Fighter 10 but never a 5/5, because that's not following a single theme.

Note; I tried to make this clear and apparently I failed – I do not restrict Core Classes form the Core books at all; and Core Classes form other books I accept on a case by case basis (such as the Scout and Hexblade)

And why are those ones in the DMG? Because they're some of the simplest, most straightforward, least campaign-specific PrCs available.

That is obvious; I did not consider it relevant at the time.

Again, though, it's a circular argument.

Yes it is

You could just as easily take some of the Harper PrCs, strip out the organization-related part of the text, and it'd be just as viable. In fact, if you played the NWN expansions, that's exactly what they did! The world didn't end just because the Harper Scout PrC was available without the roleplay aspects of the Harpers.

You could – but again that is not the core reason why I am against “over multi-classing” at all.

Now, this isn't to say that PrCs should always exist without an organization. Most DO center around a certain concept of training or advancement. But, you're ignoring the fact that many (if not most) organizations have multiple PrCs. If the organizational side was the only reason why you don't allow mixing of PrCs, why can't I mix two Harper PrCs?

Because the “organizational side” is NOT the only reason just a reason to validate my own opinion to myself.

And if I'm running my own campaign world (i.e., not using the one established in each splatbook), why can't my organization be one that has classes very similar to each PrC, even if in their original books they came from different groups? For instance, IMC one of the key organizations is a guild (made mostly of Psions and Clerics) who have effectively siezed control of the economy; as one side effect of this, most mercenary contracts are handled through their guild. So, there's plenty of room there for a wide variety of different PrCs, and no thematic reason why they can't be mixed.

In the example above which I have never seen nor heard of; that does indeed make sense to an extent. However in such an organization where players wanted to take multiple PrC’s from the same organization I would have a minimum class level before they could take a second; as my idea would be to ensure the PC “mastered” or became and expert at their original function before taking on a new one. In addition some PrC’s maybe at odds with the other; making mixing certain ones difficult at best. This is Just my preference.

Way to go, start calling names.

Calling who names – that was intended as a statement that my players do not munchkinize.

Even ignoring the fact that I'm a card-carrying member of the Church of Munchkin (which I am) or that one of my favorite card games is Munchkin (which it is), writing off any opinions that disagree with your rule change as munchkinism is just depressingly immature.

I bolded the last sentence - Did I say that? Did I elude to that? Did I say anything even relating to that? No I did not. Taking things out of context…that is immature and plain silly. You had best apply that to yourself to be honest - I do find it irritating when people look wording they can take out of context just to attempt top back up their point; your points are made already; this is juvenile.

And just because your specific group of players don't complain doesn't mean there's nothing wrong with your suggested rule change; I knew a guy back in AD&D games who ran a campaign where everyone was ~100th level, all hit dice were d30s, and you rolled a d30 for each magic item to determine its plus. His players were happy, but that doesn't mean it worked well in the long run.

Again: I do find it irritating when people look wording they can take out of context just to attempt top back up their point; your points are made already; this is juvenile.

Here, I'll spell it out. I'll make a Paladin; let's call him "Malachite". He goes 7 levels as a straight Paladin, then enters the Hunter of the Dead PrC after an encounter with a Wight. Well, ten levels later, he's now 17. The game gives him three options:
1> Take three more levels of core Paladin. This actually puts him slightly behind the rest of the party in terms of power, simply because while they're gaining the benefits of class levels 18-20 (or their PrC equivalents), he's effectively back at 8-10. In some classes, like Fighter, that's irrelevant, but for ones whose power scales up (like anyone with a bit of spellcasting who took a non-casting PrC, or one with predefined spell advancement), it's a substantial difference.
2> Add a second Prestige class (or a racial paragon class). In Malachite's case, he was touched by the avatar of his god around level 16, and so qualified for a second prestige class, one he wasn't eligible for back at level 7.
3> Add a second core class, assuming you haven't ruled this one out as well. Powerwise this might not be so bad (since many core classes are front-loaded), but unless he's a human or the second class is Favored, he's now forced into a 20% XP penalty. And thematically, it's even more objectionable; unlike option #2, he's now gaining levels outside the Paladin theme entirely, instead of just effectively mixing specializations.

So, by ruling out #2, you've made things substantially worse for many players. They lose power, or they lose XP, or they lose their theme. More importantly, they're forced to decide the theme of their character early on, with no possibility for change, and no way to avoid the pigeonholed archetypes defined by a single core class and a single PrC.

And yes – that is my ruling. If you choose the PrC and have level or power issues later; tough. That is an opinion and a preference of my own; obviously not yours. But then again I am of a different religion apparently.

No I didn't, and if you'd linked this to the next paragraph, you'd see why not. There ARE balance issues with some PrCs, simply because of the lack of quality control. Some are too easy to get into, some give too much power. And yet, allowing multiple PrCs doesn't break things any more than the original PrCs did; the power issue was a function of the PrC as a whole, NOT the ability to mix and match. PrCs, in general, are LESS abuseable than core classes, because they're less front-loaded and tend to have entrance requirements, but the possibility is still there, especially with some of the badly-written PrCs you see in the splatbooks. If a DM allows any PrC as written, then he faces these balance issues regardless of how many PrCs a player can mix, so part of your job as DM is to vette classes for balance purposes. Which, again, means that as long as you're willing to put in even a little effort checking for balance, the only complaint about multiple PrCs is thematic.

Again; we differ based upon subjective perceptions and thus will never agree.

There is no conflict with the players, because Rule 0 always decides ties. If the player wants a PrC, and the DM thinks it's too powerful, it's the player's responsibility to suggest changes that'd make it more palatable. As long as the player isn't trying to abuse the system for a substantial gain in power, they'll be willing to compromise, and if they ARE trying to abuse it, I don't have much sympathy. Also, this sets a precedent; if a couple levels down the road it begins to appear that the PrC really WAS unbalanced, the player will be more open to the necessary re-negotiation. Besides, this works both ways; if you want something similar to an existing PrC, but that adds in a couple extra abilities, the DM will be just as willing to help balance the new class. One character IMC wanted to play something similar to the Dwarven Defender, but for his Halfling, so we worked out a version of it that favored dexterity over constitution a bit.

Again; we differ based upon subjective perceptions and thus will never agree.

And just because your rule is "logical" doesn't make it either good or balanced.

Perhaps not in your mind – in mine it does.

Take, as an example, the old rules for costs of custom items in the 3E DMG. It's been said many, many times that those rules were simply guidelines, that it was ultimately the DM's job to decide how much an item would cost based on its overall utility; that even though the book said you could get an item of unlimited cure light wounds, that it should never cost only 1800-2000gp. Even after 3.5E reworked the price structure, this issue still remains. So, again, it's ultimately the DM's decision as to whether something is balanced or not, and no amount of "logic" will ever remove the need for this.

No, really? Is that not what this thread proves?

 

[airwalkrr]

"Believability" -- that's just justification. You would like it to be that way so you believe it. I personally believe that it's actually EASIER to learn a little bit of everything than to concentrate on one thing. It's really a lot more common in life. People jump from one major to another, from one hobby or discipline or job to another. A character with two levels in ten different classes seems a LOT more believable than a character who's stuck with one class for 20 levels!

Hardly. As a perfect case in point, I offer myself. I'm currently working on two separate degrees, one in Genetics and one in History, two completely unrelated fields. Virtually all of my friends from Freshman year have graduated while meanwhile I am in my fifth year and three semesters away from graduation. Of course, in this situation, I feel the 2nd-edition multi-classing rules were actually superior. Therein, I'd be a multi-class geneticist/historian who would probably be 1.5 levels behind the rest of the party, but my class abilities would be roughly even and my loyalties an amalgam of the two. But this is ENWorld so we're talking about 3rd edition where (assuming each year in school = 1 level) I'd be a geneticist2/historian2 and four years from graduation (i.e. 4 levels in each class).

The problem with 2nd edition is it couldn't account for the historian who 10 years later decides to go back to school and become a geneticist unless you were a dual-classing human, at which point you could never go back to being a historian again, but retained all your previous knowledge of being a historian once you have accomplished an equal amount of study in genetics (in the meantime I guess you just aren't refreshing yourself with the facts of history). 3rd edition is superior in this regard. It allows me to pick up a new line of work at any point in my life and retain the skils I previously developed, even allowing me to go back to developing them further later if I so desire. However, it doesn't account for the difficulty of keeping your skills practiced in two different fields. I can guarantee you it would be quite difficult to maintain proficiency IRL in two different professional fields (for instance a software engineer and a lawyer) and it would in some way hamper your ability to proceed through both at the same rate as someone who stuck to one field. I feel like an experience penalty is an appropriate way to simulate this.

 

[airwalkrr]

I think the core of the problem isn't the multi-classing system, it's the multi-classing system and how classes are perceived.

The problem with the multi-class system isn't that you can do it too easily, it's that you are penalized for it. A class isn't your character. You can be a Paladin without any levels in the Paladin class. Your class is the collection of mechanics that define how your character concept functions.

In the game world, a "paladin" might be a Fighter/Cleric, a Fighter, a Rogue, a Monk, or even a Sorcerer/Wizard. Multi-classing is a beautiful thing. There are enough cookie-cutter characters without penalizing creative players.

I don't have much of a problem with this philosophy. A "paladin" after all is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as "[a] paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion." That says nothing that implies a necessity for wearing armor, fighting with swords, or even being an adventurer.

While it doesn't bother me much if a player is creative and is multi-classing specifically to achieve a certain type of pre-meditated character concept, it does bother me when class levels are chosen independent of that character's behavior. For example, I have had 2 or 3 players of Fighters in my campaigns who, upon reaching an even level of fighter, proceed to take a Barbarian level afterwards. In one of these cases, I was running an urban campaign and none of the characters had ever even left the city for an extended period of time! How does one pick up wilderness skills this way? This sort of decision has nothing to do with a character concept and is based purely on an attempt to make the character more powerful. Any explanation for why the character did so is an afterthought and a justification, not the result of an attempt to creative a cohesive character concept.

The reason multi-class characters are penalized (and rightly so I might add) is because it makes sense from a realistic perspective. And before I hear the ages-old argument that D&D is a fantasy game that isn't supposed to simulate reality, let me say that I understand D&D is a fantasy game, but that doesn't mean in D&D we throw laws of nature out the window. If I release a ball from my hand, the ball doesn't hang in mid-air just because I live in a fantasy world. There might be a magical explanation for why the ball hangs in mid-air, for instance, I cast a spell that manipulates the air molecules surrounding the ball or eliminates the gravitational effect on the ball, but there is still an explanation. A bard who slays a monster doesn't just "magically" don a wizard hat and become a wizard. There really ought to be some reasonable explanation for such things. If a player points out to me how his character concept requires the meshing of bard and wizard and simply doesn't work without it, I'll allow it, since he has likely already thought of ways the character incorporates the two into his training and development of skills. In theory, if this were always the case, I may not have a problem with it. In theory communism works.

 

[ARandomGod]

Interesting way to look at it...I see your point...perhaps I have been to harsh? But then again; for ego's sake after "arandomgod" made his post even if I agree with you I WILL NOT concede my point!

PS, I was more meaning to be "telling you" as if I were a player of yours....

To note; if my players really got that ticked about it they would tell me. As it stands now they all actually agree wholeheartedly; they are not munchkins.

And to be honest, I have plenty of concepts I like to play that would fit fine under the restrictions you meantioned. And if we were to meet and I were to be 'introduced' to your game as a potential new player, I'd play those at first, and enjoy it muchly. And when one died if I chose to come back as a different concept (some concepts fit better into different groups) it would also likely be one that fits. However after I'd played with you for a good while I'd make arguements similiar to the above. Of course, by then we'd be more familiar and it wouldn't be in text, so you wouldn't feel 'attacked'. I hope you didn't really feel attacked by my text above either. Of course, I would also not feel really attacked by being called 'munchkin', but I would have responded in a way similiar to the above (and I don't take it personally that you currently see such things as something only a munchkin would do, that's part of what this sort of EnWorld dialogue is about, expanding world-views).

The original poster stated that he dislikes the ease of how his new kitchen tools prepare fruit salad, and that he'd prefer to have each fruit separately, because he prefers their taste that way, so he is going to try and devise a method to prepare his fruits with his new tools, but keep them separate.

oooOo, I like the analogy. I'll try n remember it in case it ever comes up in future conversations.

"Believability" -- that's just justification. You would like it to be that way so you believe it. I personally believe that it's actually EASIER to learn a little bit of everything than to concentrate on one thing. It's really a lot more common in life. People jump from one major to another, from one hobby or discipline or job to another. A character with two levels in ten different classes seems a LOT more believable than a character who's stuck with one class for 20 levels!

Hardly. As a perfect case in point, I offer myself. I'm currently working on two separate degrees, one in Genetics and one in History, two completely unrelated fields.

You miss my point. YOU are working on a "40th" level character, meaning two full degrees in separate classes. I was talking about ppl who take a couple of semesters of one, then a couple of another, but are only working on one degree. A similiar thing with jobs, hobbies, other disciplines. It's much more common in human nature to learn the beginnings of something and then move on than it is for them to go for the full degree, or full 20 levels in a class.

 

[Bayonet_Chris]

My rules

In my own rules I've changed a few things anyway, but I encourage multi-classing. Keep in mind that there is no save "bump" at first level; in fact, most saves at first level provide no bonus whatsoever. Second is an idea I took from Spycraft - there are certain class abilities that you only get if you start off with the class. Someone who spends their youth training as a fighter is a little better than someone who multi-classes into it later on. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Cabral]

I don't have much of a problem with this philosophy. A "paladin" after all is defined in the American Heritage dictionary as "[a] paragon of chivalry; a heroic champion." That says nothing that implies a necessity for wearing armor, fighting with swords, or even being an adventurer.

While it doesn't bother me much if a player is creative and is multi-classing specifically to achieve a certain type of pre-meditated character concept, it does bother me when class levels are chosen independent of that character's behavior. For example, I have had 2 or 3 players of Fighters in my campaigns who, upon reaching an even level of fighter, proceed to take a Barbarian level afterwards. In one of these cases, I was running an urban campaign and none of the characters had ever even left the city for an extended period of time! How does one pick up wilderness skills this way? This sort of decision has nothing to do with a character concept and is based purely on an attempt to make the character more powerful. Any explanation for why the character did so is an afterthought and a justification, not the result of an attempt to creative a cohesive character concept.

Then it sounds like your best option is DM supervision. When a player takes a class just to dip into a class feature that his character has no reason to have other than to gain some nifty ability, say "no". Then, say why. Then, if the player insists, treat the level he wants to dip into as a prestige class/special feat and spend some time in game training the character.

You get a diminishment of the cherry picking and you get an opportunity for some good roleplaying.

The reason multi-class characters are penalized (and rightly so I might add) is because it makes sense from a realistic perspective. And before I hear the ages-old argument that D&D is a fantasy game that isn't supposed to simulate reality, let me say that I understand D&D is a fantasy game, but that doesn't mean in D&D we throw laws of nature out the window. If I release a ball from my hand, the ball doesn't hang in mid-air just because I live in a fantasy world. There might be a magical explanation for why the ball hangs in mid-air, for instance, I cast a spell that manipulates the air molecules surrounding the ball or eliminates the gravitational effect on the ball, but there is still an explanation. A bard who slays a monster doesn't just "magically" don a wizard hat and become a wizard. There really ought to be some reasonable explanation for such things. If a player points out to me how his character concept requires the meshing of bard and wizard and simply doesn't work without it, I'll allow it, since he has likely already thought of ways the character incorporates the two into his training and development of skills. In theory, if this were always the case, I may not have a problem with it. In theory communism works.

All hail Banjo!

Well, actually, D&D does a fair job of throwing reality out the window.

We are not in RL level anything anythings.
We are primarilly a collection of skills. And if you want to draw parrallels, you should gain an XP penalty for picking up ranks in multiple proffession skills. However, that's not how things work. Learning physics doesn't impede my ability to write, but limitied time impedes my ability to improve in both.

Translate into D&D: You can multi-class freely. The draw back is that you won't be as high in any one class as you would've been.

The problem of the fighter is a problem with the fighter class, not a multi-classing problem. The class is blandly and unimagninatively designed. What makes a 20th level fighter really special? Absolutely nothing.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

The problem of the fighter is a problem with the fighter class, not a multi-classing problem. The class is blandly and unimagninatively designed. What makes a 20th level fighter really special? Absolutely nothing.

Just to argue the counter theme, the class is just the bare bones that are supposed to be clothed with flesh and blood by the player. A 20 level fighter is one of the best fighters of his world, probably a leader of armies, ruler of a country, well-versed in all kinds of combat, be it personal melee or large-scale warfare, and quite a force to recon with.

Of course, if we're just comparing bland rules mechanics, one might easily come to the conclusion that a fighter, who only has "bonus feat" every other level on his class features list, might be a trifle boring.

And if you contrast it with how the fighter looked pre-3E...well, lets say we're still talking about a roleplaying game, and you shouldn't emphasize the "game" aspect (rules, mechanics, features, class design) too much over the "roleplaying" aspect. In my opinion, of course.

 

[Fighter1]

PS, I was more meaning to be "telling you" as if I were a player of yours....

I was just sort of joking there is all…just saying that whilst I know I am wrong I won’t admit it!

And to be honest, I have plenty of concepts I like to play that would fit fine under the restrictions you meantioned. And if we were to meet and I were to be 'introduced' to your game as a potential new player, I'd play those at first, and enjoy it muchly. And when one died if I chose to come back as a different concept (some concepts fit better into different groups) it would also likely be one that fits. However after I'd played with you for a good while I'd make arguements similiar to the above. Of course, by then we'd be more familiar and it wouldn't be in text, so you wouldn't feel 'attacked'. I hope you didn't really feel attacked by my text above either. Of course, I would also not feel really attacked by being called 'munchkin', but I would have responded in a way similiar to the above (and I don't take it personally that you currently see such things as something only a munchkin would do, that's part of what this sort of EnWorld dialogue is about, expanding world-views).

Good points. I don’t think what I do limits folks; I simply won’t allow anyone to go down the road of uber multi-classing. But if, say, there were a Paladin who became a Kensai, then wanted to be a Knight Protector…well dependant upon the oath bit I may very well allow it simply because it is a consistent theme; essentially the player is trying to be a better Paladin. But if say a Rouge or fighter took a few levels of some arcane PrC, then divine casting PrC…just to get some abilities then the answer is No. If the PC took all core classes; I do allow it since I believe the Core Classes are well balanced over levels; someone normally can’t synergize abilities at lower levels very well. If the Fighter took an arcane PrC he qualified for with the goal of becoming a spell sword then I allow it (not that any non core class caster could qualify…).

 

[Fighter1]

The problem of the fighter is a problem with the fighter class, not a multi-classing problem. The class is blandly and unimagninatively designed. What makes a 20th level fighter really special? Absolutely nothing.

Excuse me! Note my user name sir!

I disagree with all due haste; the fighter class is not bland; it is the only class where you the player have to desighn it; there is no plan out there put in place by someone else you just follow blindly.

A fighter can be an archer, a knightly swordsman, a rapier weilding villian...anything you want him to be; because you got the feats.

 

[Li Shenron]

Not always... now, lack of creativity perhaps, but you can cite lack of creativity for ANY multiclassing if you want.

I have a Dragon Disciple concept that is a Barbarian/Sorc/Fighter.

That third class (sorc) isn't there for "power" at all, it's there because it's needed. I'd have gladly left it out if there were any way to get into the PrC with only Barb/Fighter.

I actually understand the Sorcerer, because it is required and you want to follow the published rules, and it actually has indeed a concept twist, although the twist could have been granted by the Dragon Disciple itself (e.g. it could have had its own minor spellcasting progression).

But it's actually the Barbarian/Fighter combo which IMHO (please don't take offense... ) is a weak concept. Why did you choose this? IMXP combinations like Ftr/Barb, Ftr/Rang and Ftr/Pal are nearly always dictated by convenience, not by concept, UNLESS the character actually starts as one and the follows the second fully (like a Barbarian leaving his tribe and becoming a urban citizen, or a normal fighter embracing the Paladin path). But those classes like Barbarian or Ranger or Paladins are originally all spin-offs of the Fighter. They already ARE fighters in their own way. Choosing to take some fighter levels is 99% of the time (IMXP) a matter of wanting some more feats, and then AFTERWARDS trying to explain that in terms of concept.

It's not that bad, it's been done all the time... but I wanted to point out that it is not truly necessary for the concept.

I built a "Renshai" concept once (from the book series "Last of the Renshai"). I actually came pretty close to duplicating the feel of the character in a few different builds, but ALL of those had at least three martial (core) classes (and then moved into the Duelist PrC). It wasn't a 'power' choice, it was a flavor choice. I can "prove" that I wanted that flavor by pointing out that I also once built a 2E (back before 3E came out) single class version of the Renshai. I was relatively pleased when I discovered I could approximate the class through multiclassing in 3.x

Well I cannot really comment this, since I don't know what a Renshai is. It could be necessary to stack on core classes to get the exact set of abilities that the concept wants, but the problem could also be that (1) the player wants the abilities too soon or (2) the DM doesn't accept a possible minor modification to the core class that would solve the problem easily with no multiclassing needed.