Do Multiclassed Epic Characters Get The Shaft?

[toberane]

Woot! I love the ELH!

Are all your Barbarian/Fighter/Rogue/Rangers getting annoyed that they can't twink at level 21?


My L21 Dwarf Fighter will kick all their butts! Finally, a reason to play a single-classed melee or archer character! Yay!

See my response to this in this thread.

And, as has been stated many times before, if you go by "the book" then the multiclass character can "twink at level 21." When Andy Collins made his recommendation on the rule, I was one of the ones who pointed out the line from page 8 which left no rooms for interpretation. It specifically says that if you multiclass to a class that gets bonus feats, you can use the bonus feat list for the epic-level version of that class. When I and several others asked for erratta or even just an official statement that the book was wrong, I never got it.

So, to 90% of the people who play D&D, who don't know anything about that thread on the message boards, it isn't even a point of debate. Until a new edition of the ELH is released with the text changed or some official eratta is released, they will allow wiz20/ftr1 characters to pick their bonus feats from the epic-level fighter list, because that's what the book says.

For those 10% of us who know about what Andy Collins said, it is still a matter for debate. Regardless, until I see something more official than an offhand comment on a message board, I'm going to follow the book and allow players in my game to take epic feats as bonus feats.

 

[BlindKobold]

Hehe... I have to laugh the people who think players who multi-class must be "munchkin". Sure... multi-classing is a tool of munchkins... but it a huge BOON to role-players.

If I am playing a fighter who wants to be all he can be, why wouldn't he take a level of monk to improve his hand to hand, knowing that if he is ever disarmed, he can continue to be an effective fighter?

Or what about a swashbuckler character? He lends himself perfectly to multi-classing between rogue and fighter.

To refer to a real life example...

I am a black belt in Tang Soo Doo. Tang Soo Doo has some great kicks, but very little hand or ground fighting techniques. So instead of getting a 2nd degree black belt in Tang Soo Doo, I went and took another style of karate which had better upper body techniques and weapon forms. I also took some Aikijujitsu for grappling techniques. Why? Not because I wanted to be munchkin, but because I wanted to be effective no matter where the fight happened.

Remember, just because all Munchkins are multi-classers, doesn't mean all multi-classers are munchkins.

 

[Henry]

I'm on the "class level <> character level" bandwagon, myself.I can't see why, with the exception of that one rule, the charts themselves are consistent. To me, it does make more sense to interpret the page 8 statement as an error - not only do multiclassers already get epic feats every third level, but it does lead to situations where the ftr5/rgr5/mnk5/clr5 can share in equal power with the single classers - which as we know is not the design strategy the 3E team originally settled on. Many of the designers have said that multiclassers SHOULD be behind the power curve, but ahead in versatility. To give them power and let them keep versatility is a little much, in my opinion.

What's wrong with "W00t"? Certain three-legged administrators have used this expression for a very long time...

 

[toberane]

I'm on the "class level <> character level" bandwagon, myself.I can't see why, with the exception of that one rule, the charts themselves are consistent. To me, it does make more sense to interpret the page 8 statement as an error - not only do multiclassers already get epic feats every third level, but it does lead to situations where the ftr5/rgr5/mnk5/clr5 can share in equal power with the single classers - which as we know is not the design strategy the 3E team originally settled on. Many of the designers have said that multiclassers SHOULD be behind the power curve, but ahead in versatility. To give them power and let them keep versatility is a little much, in my opinion.

As far as the designers goals, I'd have to say, as I understood it, that you are sort of right and sort of not. I understood that one of the goals of the 3E multiclass system was to make a 7/7 level character equal in power to a 14 level character. The problem seems to be in the definition of the word power. The Fighter has better combat abilities. The wizard has magic use. Is one more powerful than the other? Doesn't the multiclassed characters versatility give him a power that single classed characters lack?

I have played multiclassed characters since the introduction of 3E. And only on rare occasions has my fighter/rogue looked with envy at the ease with which the straight fighters hit our enemies and the damage they did with each blow. That envy usually only lasted long enough for my turn in battle, when I'd pick up a hand full of dice to roll sneak attack damage...

Still, if you don't like the way it's written in the book, don't use it. I'm sure there will be an official ruling on this in the form of eratta when they get around to putting the eratta for the ELH out. Until then, I suppose there is no right and wrong...

 

[Corwin]

Re: Re: Counter point

A character who is level 20 wizard who takes a level of fighter for the bonus epic feats isn't a problem with the rules, but a problem with the player. Same as if your fighter at level one decided to start as a monk for the +2 to all saves, evasion, 1d6 unarmed damage, good skill selection and 4x4 skill points and other benies, and then prompty became a fighter from then on. You don't have bad multiclassing rules, you have a bad player.

For those who didn't catch the true meaning of the above statement, allow me to paraphrase:

"Blah, blah, blah. I'm a 'superior' role-player and judge others as inferior because their playing styles are different. Blah, blah, blah. I have no creativity and fear flexibility. Blah, blah, blah."

As others have mentioned here, there are plenty of role-playing reasons to multiclass. There are also mechanics reasons to do it. I don't see how you can decide one is superior to the other.

I’ve got some examples for you to better show why your line of thinking irks me.

1) Let's say I'm a 4th level fighter and decide to take a level of monk for the reasons you proposed. I did it for the class features, right? I wanted that unarmed ability, evasion and the AC bump, let's say. Fine. That makes me a "bad" player, right? What a munchkin I am.

2) Now it's your turn. Let's say you are an 4th level mage. What do you do? Well, as a "good" player, you take another level of mage, right? Why is that, exactly? I'll tell you why. Because it gets you those cool 3rd level spells, a bonus metamagic feat and an improvement in familiar abilities. But aren't those class features, too?

So you chose to take your new level for the same reasons I took mine? Hmmm... doesn't that make you a hypocrite.

Look, obviously you have "issues" with multiclassing. Whatever with that. Try not to hurt yourself scrambling down from that high horse you're on.

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Re: Re: Re: Counter point

For those who didn't catch the true meaning of the above statement, allow me to paraphrase:

"Blah, blah, blah. I'm a 'superior' role-player and judge others as inferior because their playing styles are different. Blah, blah, blah. I have no creativity and fear flexibility. Blah, blah, blah."

As others have mentioned here, there are plenty of role-playing reasons to multiclass. There are also mechanics reasons to do it. I don't see how you can decide one is superior to the other.

I’ve got some examples for you to better show why your line of thinking irks me.

1) Let's say I'm a 4th level fighter and decide to take a level of monk for the reasons you proposed. I did it for the class features, right? I wanted that unarmed ability, evasion and the AC bump, let's say. Fine. That makes me a "bad" player, right? What a munchkin I am.

2) Now it's your turn. Let's say you are an 4th level mage. What do you do? Well, as a "good" player, you take another level of mage, right? Why is that, exactly? I'll tell you why. Because it gets you those cool 3rd level spells, a bonus metamagic feat and an improvement in familiar abilities. But aren't those class features, too?

So you chose to take your new level for the same reasons I took mine? Hmmm... doesn't that make you a hypocrite.

Look, obviously you have "issues" with multiclassing. Whatever with that. Try not to hurt yourself scrambling down from that high horse you're on.

For those who didn't catch the true meaning of the above statement it goes something like this I am an rude ass who tries to interpret things wrong so I can be pissy. By the way nice cut and paste job where the next sentence of the same paragraph says, "Now if they have good legitimite reasons for multiclassing not allowing them to use their bonus feats as epic is putting a large hinderence on them that their single class brethren don't face." Note by the way I never said role playing reasons, I could care less if it's because you like some mechaincal advantages. I do care though if your in my group and the entire reason you took it is for power. Why because hard core powergamers unless playing in a like group wreck everyone elses fun. Role palyers do this much more rarely unless they are the typr who insist on roleplaying everything even to the point of stopping the flow of the story, uncarring if everyone else is bored out of thier minds.

Now I'll explain and try to use little words for the ignorant rude one. When people do things purely for mechanical reasons problems can crop up. This has nothing to do with play style, because I could care less how you play as long as you have fun. But, any system even the most rigid can be unbalanced by certain players. When some twit decides to really work a system so he has ultimate power, its rarely a problem with the system, or the specific powers/skills selected, but usually a problem with a player. Should you say ah geez when someone takes some wierd combination of things they get way too powerful lets throw out all those things that are normally fine just so this wierd combination of things doesn't crop up again. No you say, hey Bob stop being a twit your wrecking the fun for everyone else.

Now if everyone in your group is a powergamer, more pwoer to you all have fun. Problem is that frequently isn't the case.

 

[Corwin]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Counter point

For those who didn't catch the true meaning of the above statement it goes something like this I am an rude ass who tries to interpret things wrong so I can be pissy.

Wrong? Really? You insulted a large group of gamers by associating their mechanical reasons for multiclassing with being a "bad" player. Sorry, but that is rude. My own rudeness stems from having to respond to your snide and condescending attitude.

By the way nice cut and paste job where the next sentence of the same paragraph says, "Now if they have good legitimate reasons for multiclassing not allowing them to use their bonus feats as epic is putting a large hindrance on them that their single class brethren don't face."

I left if out because it wasn't relevant. You already defined what your opinion of a "good legitimate reason" was. And choosing a class for its abilities wasn't one of them, IYO. So it doesn't change a thing about you statement. The snipped portion of your diatribe was there to tie in your opinion to the topic of ELH feats. My comments were not directed at that particular portion of this thread. Thus, not relevant to my post. (Yes that means I'm being OT. Sue me. )

Note by the way I never said role playing reasons, I could care less if it's because you like some mechaincal advantages. I do care though if your in my group and the entire reason you took it is for power.

Um, make up your mind. You don't care unless you do? Are you saying that it's OK to powergame as long as it isn't at your table? So, basically, it the same as saying it's OK to wipe your but on the carpet like a dog, just not in your house. Those "savages" that powergame don't bother you unless it affects your pristine environment of "real role-playing". I get it.

Why because hard core powergamers unless playing in a like group wreck everyone else’s fun.

Says you. 3e has made great strides in keeping balance between the classes. It is very difficult to break the system just by multiclassing. And on top of that, most brokenness stems just as much from what a DM does to allow a player to step over the line.

Role palyers do this much more rarely unless they are the typr who insist on roleplaying everything even to the point of stopping the flow of the story, uncarring if everyone else is bored out of thier minds.

So "roleplayers" (BTW, a dubious term to use in trying to distinguish between types of gamers in a RPG) only break the game using multiclassing when they are boring?

Now I'll explain and try to use little words for the ignorant rude one.

So rudeness equated to ignorance? I'm glad you are using little words then. I wouldn't want you to strain yourself.

When people do things purely for mechanical reasons problems can crop up.

Same can be said for the supposed "pure role-player" who is so concerned with the color and style of his PC's clothing, that he can't live through a battle because he didn't bother to make a character even remotely capable of surviving in any D&D setting. Surprise, most D&D games involve combat!

Of course, most gamers are somewhere between the two extremes. They both role-play and build competent PCs using the mechanics of the system.

This has nothing to do with play style, because I could care less how you play as long as you have fun.

Eccept that we are "bad" players, right? That is what you said after all. Sure they are having fun, but that's because they don't "know better".

But, any system even the most rigid can be unbalanced by certain players.

Yep.

When some twit decides to really work a system so he has ultimate power, its rarely a problem with the system, or the specific powers/skills selected, but usually a problem with a player.

Too bad you didn't say anything remotely like that in the first place. Maybe all of this could have been avoided.

Should you say ah geez when someone takes some wierd combination of things they get way too powerful lets throw out all those things that are normally fine just so this wierd combination of things doesn't crop up again. No you say, hey Bob stop being a twit your wrecking the fun for everyone else.

What does this have to do with our discussion? My problem with your original statement was with your denouncing some of us a "bad" gamers because we pay attention to mechanics when making a PC. That multiclassing was for munchkins unless they had a good, legitimate, "role-playing" reason.

Now if everyone in your group is a powergamer, more pwoer to you all have fun. Problem is that frequently isn't the case.

Ah, there it is. That's the root of your point. Us "powergamers" are ruining the fun for all you real "role-players". When one of "us" shows up, we wreck it for everyone.

Boy, I guess multiclassing really is for munchkins.

I hope my extensive and thorough cut-n-pasting was more to your liking this time.

Oh, BTW, speaking of leaving out appropriate parts of a post in response, I noticed you didn't go anywhere near my examples and actual points of topic. You just fired off a counter-rant and bit back. Why is that? I'd very much like to see your explanation for the differences between my examples #1 & #2.

 

[Crothian]

Okay, please refrain from the nastiness, we don't want this thread to get closed. It's actually an interesting read without the name calling.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Re: Re: Counter point

yep they are saying the fighter gets their bonus feats as epic. And I agree with them. A character who is level 20 wizard who takes a level of fighter for the bonus epic feats isn't a problem with the rules, but a problem with the player. Same as if your fighter at level one decided to start as a monk for the +2 to all saves, evasion, 1d6 unarmed damage, good skill selection and 4x4 skill pointsand other benies, and then prompty became a fighter from then on. You don't have bad multiclassing rules, you have a bad player. Now if they have good legitimite reasons for multiclassing not allowing them to use their bonus feats as epic is putting a large hinderence on them that their single class brethren don't face.

Whether you are right or you are wrong, I don't find your line of thought useful. Equating "problems" with "problem players" (or "problem DMs") is all fine and dandy, but it doesn't tell me jack about how to fix it. Nor does it give me guidance on what isn't really a problem and what is, what to do and what to avoid.

One on the principle functions of rules and mechanics is to give guidelines for those of us who are not (yet) perfect players or DMs. If a game/mechanic can only be played by perfect people, then the game/mechanic is a failure in the real world. If multiclassing can only be done correctly by perfect people, then multiclassing rules are a failure in the real world.

 

[toberane]

Okay, please refrain from the nastiness, we don't want this thread to get closed. It's actually an interesting read without the name calling.

I'd like to second this statement. I've really been enjoying the discussion on this thread. You guys can disagree with each other without calling names.