Does 3E/3.5 dictate a certain style of play?

[Shadeydm]

For me the enjoyment doesn't come from the game but from the group. I love the group of players I have now and if we played oD&D or 3.5D&D we would still have an enjoyiable time. Heck, I think we'd have fun with practically any game.

On this notion I wholeheartedly agree.

 

[Crothian]

That's 3 out of 10 that went 1 to 20 single class no Prc.

If we add in the groups that I played in that had a character go from 1-20 it would be

When I played the bard, the monk also went 1-20. The barbarian and Druid did not.

When I played the Ranger the wizard and rogue went 1-20, the fighter would have but he was forced by the DM to mutliclass. That was wierd. But that game we really didn't care about the rules as much and just had fun. It was a surreal experience becasue in all honesty the DM was really bad. Basically we liked our characters but didn't care enough about the game to put in the effort to take a different class.

But even just using that 30% number, I have to think it is a bit higher then the national average.

I also think that prestige classes that are for a single core class should be seen as an extension of that class and not a seperate class. So a Wizard archmage should not be seen as multi classing. But I didn't include those characters in the above.

 

[Shadeydm]

For reference, I find multiclass characters to be the norm for 3e.

Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE. I have trouble accepting that multiclassing should not only be the norm but actually be rewarded and encouraged.

Maybe I am just a gaming Dinosaur unable to adjust to the new climate that is DnD and slated for extinction lol.

 

[Storm Raven]

That's a bit of a faulty argument; D&D isn't a fantasy literature simulator, it is a fantasy trope simulator.

And 1e did a bad job of simulating fantasy tropes. Which isn't really the argument here.

I'm quite sure I could find some fantasy characters that even the current incarnation couldn't simulate without DM fiat, fudging and all that.

And the list would be far shorter than the list that 1e could not simulate. No system is perfect at this sort of thing. Some systems are better than others.

It's like when people get their panties in a wad over the AD&D ranger, claiming that hey, Aragorn didn't cast magic missile or do this or do that...and that's why it (the class) isn't called "Dunedan" or "Tolkien Ranger" or "Ranger of Arnor"...there are aspects of the "Ranger" as envisioned by Tolkien in the class. There are also aspects of the classical European "Woodsman" type persona, and some things thrown in that are purely Gary's own inspired work.

Considering that Gary didn't design the 1e ranger class, that would be hard to argue (it first appeared in The Strategic Review, penned by another author, I can't remember who). In point of fact, the 1e ranger is a virtual clone of Aragorn, with almost every single one of the class's abilities easily traceable to some action the character took in LotR.

What a poor game D&D would be - in any edition, by any name - if it merely aped others' work!

And it is a much better game when it allows players to emulate characters from myth, legend, and literature, or simply excercise their imaginations concerning characters.

 

[Storm Raven]

Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE. I have trouble accepting that multiclassing should not only be the norm but actually be rewarded and encouraged.

Why not? How many people do you know do only one thing their entire lives? How many characters in real life, myth, legend, or literature do you know who could be pigeonholed into a single D&D class? Why should the game make such an artificial limitation when the source material for the game clearly does not?

Besides, there are already benefits for single classing built into the game - single classed characters are usually much better at the specialist functions of the class than anyone else. There are exceptions here and there (fighters gain little benefit to being just fighters, but I don't know any character who would be truly accurately modeled by a straight D&D fighter).

 

[Voadam]

How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.

My D&D group.

1e era for 15 year long campaign:
1 wild elf assassin
1 wild elf assassin
1 drow ranger became a fighter when he fell
1 drow cleric/MU eventually became a wight
1 human MU with sea mage kit once 2e complete wizard came around for his pirate mage character.

now in the 3e campaign that started around the time 3e did:
1 human who gained +1 LA template druid 5/master of many forms 5/Warshpaper 5
1 Dwarven fighter 4/Cleric 12
1 human rogue 5/wizard 5/arcane trickster 5/archmage 1
1 human fighter 1/paladin 6/homebrew templar of cuthbert 9
1 elven fighter 16

 

[billd91]

Perhaps this is the crux of my problem with the state of the game in 3.xE. I have trouble accepting that multiclassing should not only be the norm but actually be rewarded and encouraged.

Why shouldn't there be an advantage to it? There surely was in 1e, it's just that only demi-humans could do it. And I'd argue that the benefits of multiclassing in 1e are even more dramatic than in 3E because, though you had to do it from level 1, that PC had 2 classes (or even 3) that were generally only 1 level behind his single-class peers.

The reward for multiclassing is being able to tailor your PC to be a little more like the way you want your PC to be. Want a cleric who has more skill with his weapons? Take a fighter level or two. You trade off some potential in upper level spells, but it might be worth it if that's what you want to play.
Some players take it to extremes for very specific schticks. But what's really wrong with that if that's the way they and their friends play?

 

[Lanefan]

How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.

Allow me to introduce you to Appppil, my 3e attempt to build a 1e Illusionist. Despite the fact that it would certainly be mechanically better for her to dip into another class or two, she will be and remain an Illusionist till she drops. So far, 10 levels and counting...

Lanefan

 

[Storm Raven]

How strange that in all those years of DMing there was never a single grey elf cavalier yet in 3.xE I would be hard pressed to cite an example of a single instance where someone intended to go single class from level 1 to 20. Why no level 1 to 20 single class characters perhaps it's because the 3.xE rules encourage and reward cherry picking classes/ abilities crazy stuff.

I really fail to see why sticking with one class for 20 levels is such a big deal. And why multiclassing is inevitably "cherry-picking". Most of the time multiclassing reduces the effectiveness of a character. Sometimes it helps, but lots of multiclassing choices end up hindering the character mechanically more than they help in the long run.

I think people rarely play a single class from level 1-20 because there is rarely a situation in which a single base class, and its array of predetermined abilities, matches exactly with what a player has in mind for his character.

Philosophically, I lean the other direction from you on multiclassing - I think the mechanic should be used more, not less. I'd be happier without the proliferation of base classes and would instead prefer a very limited core of three or four base classes and define all of the other elements via multiclassing and feat choices. Make a single "warrior" class, and then have characters differentiated by multiclassing and selecting feats for things like rage or wilderness skills and so on. (The Unerathed Arcana rules for generic classes are close, but not quite what I would like in this regard, I'm working on something though).

 

[Shadeydm]

Why shouldn't there be an advantage to it? There surely was in 1e, it's just that only demi-humans could do it. And I'd argue that the benefits of multiclassing in 1e are even more dramatic than in 3E because, though you had to do it from level 1, that PC had 2 classes (or even 3) that were generally only 1 level behind his single-class peers.

My personal experience in ADnD with multiclassing was that a multiclass cleric was never as good a healer as a single class, that a multiclass wizard was never as good as a single class a multiclass fighter never had as good an AC as a single class etc etc.

* Now lets look at these posts about how my 6th level character has AC 61 or whatever it is and tell me it's all the same.