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

[molonel]

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 saw tons of grey elf cavaliers, drow, fighters with double weapon specialization, and fighters with 18/91+ percentile strength (and maybe 1 or 2 fighters with a percentile strength below 50). Even if they somehow managed to roll below 91 on their percentile strength, it was usually because they had Gauntlets of Ogre Power and that immediately brought them up to 18/00.

Part of the reason you haven't seen too many people play 1 to 20 in a single class is because the majority of people don't play one character through 20 levels of play. I've had a lot of single-classed characters who got capped at 5th, 8th, 10th, 12th or single-classed characters that ran in a game that went to 5th, 8th or 11th level and then ran out.

Heck, I'm having a hard time remembering 1st Edition characters that I played from 1st through 20th in a single class, or 1st through 10th.

 

[Shadeydm]

Heck, I'm having a hard time remembering 1st Edition characters that I played from 1st through 20th in a single class, or 1st through 10th.

In my ADnD experience people multiclasses for the good of the group when we were simply short on players but still needed a healer so someone bit the bullet and played a fighter/cleric etc.

 

[Storm Raven]

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.

And that is true in 3e as well. A multiclass wizard is going to be less effective at being a wizard than the straight wizard will be. So will the cleric. A multiclass fighter will usually have a hard time keeping his AC up to where a single class fighters is, since he will likely have to ecshew heavier armor to keep his class abilities. And so on.

And, to tell the truth, a multiclass character in 3e is likely to be more hampered in these respects than a multiclass character in 1e was. A multiclass 1e fighter/magic-user (for example) adventuring with an 8th level party was probably a 7th/7th level character (or thereabouts) lagging one level behind his single classed 8th level magic-user buddy, and almost as good a fighter as his single classed 8th level fighter pal (all at the same or very similar experience point totals). A multiclassed 3e fighter/wizard in an 8th level party is either a 4th/4th level character, much worse at both fighting and spellcasting than his counterparts, or he has to pick which side he wants to favor - he can be a better fighter, but he has to be a worse caster, or vice versa.

* 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.

Of course, the purported character in question was a single classed artificer, who might be able to have a high AC for a minute or two a day (or not) who has not been shown to be rules legal. But he shouldn't be a problem for you, because he's a single classed character.

 

[billd91]

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.

How about that 14th level bard with a good THAC0, good thief skills, great druid spell-casting, and 150 hit points? Meanwhile, his adventuring buddies are around 11th-12th level.

In 3E, a multiclass cleric isn't quite as good as a single-class one either. And depending on how many classes he's dipped into and for how many levels, he's going to be farther behind the rest of his party in clerical spell-casting than his 1e equivalent.

Even if someone managed to get a 6th level character up to AC 61 because of multiclassing (a very fishy-sounding suggestion), he'll have an achilles heel compared to other 6th level characters.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Where is all this stuff that is devoted to min maxing, minis, and tactics? I've got a lot of books and these areas just are not in them.

No? Remember the "Power Plays" from dragon magazine? Take this race, this class, and these two feats to get +12 to X at first level? And it wasn't just feasable within the rules, but actually suggested as a standard tactic by the designers.

 

[molonel]

In my ADnD experience people multiclasses for the good of the group when we were simply short on players but still needed a healer so someone bit the bullet and played a fighter/cleric etc.

The good of the group? Meh. Sometimes. Usually, it was because playing an elven fighter/magic user was cooler than just playing a fighter, or just playing a magic user.

I played a dwarven fighter/rogue because I wanted to sneak around in my +5 leather armor, and if I recall correctly (I may not) dwarves were unlimited (U) in rogue.

We all powergamed back then. Trying to find a non-multiclassed character now is probably like trying to find a high-level fighter that did NOT have a Girdle of Storm Giant Strength - Heh, I still love talking about my fighter wearing a girdle! - or a +5 longsword (because those were the most common weapons).

 

[JRRNeiklot]

3E no more forces its playstyle than putting a straw in a drink forces you to drink through the straw.

That all depends on how tight they put the lid on.

 

[molonel]

Does anyone else remember rolling for percentile strength, and not telling the DM which die was supposed to be the tens until after they fell on the table?

DM: "Is that a 19 percentile strength?"
Me: "Uh ... no, that's 91!"

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The last 3.5 campaign I ran, the party didn't get a magic item until almost 3rd level. It was a +2 Shortsword.

This is low magic? I've known 10th level AD&D characters who would love to have such an item.

 

[Storm Raven]

No? Remember the "Power Plays" from dragon magazine? Take this race, this class, and these two feats to get +12 to X at first level? And it wasn't just feasable within the rules, but actually suggested as a standard tactic by the designers.

And looking at most of those simply illustrates the limiting problem with such builds - they were really good at one thing, and not very good at most other things. Sure, having a halfling monk with Iron Will means that you are virtually immune to fear effects. And? Now you built your character to be good at one thing that happens every now and then and he's pretty mediocre at most other things.