Encouraging players to role-play multiclassing?

[Crothian]

I'd demand they role play it. You are rewarding role playing, allowing them to multi class. It's not that hard to just establish a few practice sessions with the fighter everyday while adventureing for a rogue who wants to become a fighter.

 

[rowport]

When the creeping HEROization of D&D is complete, threads like this will be moot.

At the risk of a thread hijack, I think this is an astute observation. I have often thought the same; in fact, even when I was posting my earlier reply here I was thinking about "character building" in HERO rules. I could easily see a fully-customizable character generation option in the near future with d20 rules. Where I may disagree is whether that would be D&D proper or some third-party hybrid. I doubt seriously that WotC would so fundamentally change D&D by leaving its class based progressions (after all, they kept d4 hit points for wizards because of history rather than game balance) but could easily see some enterprising soul calculating relative value of feats, abilities, etc. and building a creation system.

It might not "feel" like D&D, but could be a great fantasy system, on its own merits, and would make "multi-classing" a meaningless concept.

 

[Hypersmurf]

It's not that hard to just establish a few practice sessions with the fighter everyday while adventureing for a rogue who wants to become a fighter.

So if the fighter in question uses a longbow, wears studded leather armor, and carries a shortsword for close encounters...

... how do "a few practice sessions every day" help the rogue learn all martial weapon proficiencies, heavy armor and shield proficiency, and the Mounted Combat feat?

He's not trying to "become a fighter"; he's trying to become a heavy cavalryman. Jimmy Longbow might know how to use a lance and plate armor - he's got a fighter level, after all - but since he's always mincing around in lincoln green, wouldn't the rogue be more likely to ask the half-plated cleric for some tips?

-Hyp.

 

[Crothian]

So if the fighter in question uses a longbow, wears studded leather armor, and carries a shortsword for close encounters...

... how do "a few practice sessions every day" help the rogue learn all martial weapon proficiencies, heavy armor and shield proficiency, and the Mounted Combat feat?

well, the standard rules don't use training rules we don't have to worry about the how and the specifics

 

[PJ Mason]

When the creeping HEROization of D&D is complete, threads like this will be moot.

Hey!! You got D&D in my Hero!!

Its easier, i think, than D&Difying my Hero.

 

[Macbeth]

For my latest campaign, I asked for character concepts before the game started. Part of this is to encourage strong roleplay. But, the bigger part is that I have added a bunch of house-rules and I want to be able to point out options that are not in the Core books. I didn't want to heavy-handedly make my players roleplay, I wanted to be sure they didn't limit themselves just because they weren't aware of all the options. (I would like them to be familiar with all the books I am including, and all the rules, but that isn't a realistic expectation.) My point is that it is important to explain some of the reasons why you want information from your players. If you want a little richer storytelling experience, tell them that. If you want backgrounds and class rationalizations to help give your story elements, let the players know. With a lack of information, it is easy to assume that you are just being a jerk.

Speaking as one of the players, this system worked very well. Having a very involved DM helped me think out my character concept (a Samurai with minor psionic powers), and let me know which books were available for me to work with.
Also, a quick question for BardStephenFox (If your still reading this thread): Have you had a chance to look at the complete Warrior? I picked up the book over the break, and was fairly impressed with the new Samurai class, so I was wondering if I would be able to use it. I'll try to send you an email about it and bring the book with me this Friday.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

I think that the big problem may well be the word "change."

When I first created my Living Greyhawk fighter/wizard as a fighter, I gave him ranks in spellcraft and concentration. (Actually, I gave him some paper and a pen and ink to practice writing spells too). He was already a fighter/wizard even though he couldn't cast spells. When he finally mastered his spells and got his first wizard level, it wasn't a change. It was the realization of his character.

Similarly, if my ranger/rogue takes a fighter level as his seventh level, it won't actually be a change. He'd pick up the Elusive Target feat which is simply focussing more upon the fighting style he currently uses than upon his stealth and trapfinding abilities. Sure, he'll pick up some armor proficiencies he doesn't plan on using them.

On the other hand, my single classed cleric picks up three ranks in knowledge: planes and suddenly starts focussing on casting Flamestrikes and crafting a periapt of wisdom rather than picking up his greatsword and cutting bad guys in half with power attack. I would think that that change requires a bit more explanation than either of the other two.

I think that's the problem. Multiclassing isn't necessarily a change. And sometimes remaining in a single class can be a change. That, at least, would be my complaint.

 

[BSF]

Speaking as one of the players, this system worked very well. Having a very involved DM helped me think out my character concept (a Samurai with minor psionic powers), and let me know which books were available for me to work with.
Also, a quick question for BardStephenFox (If your still reading this thread): Have you had a chance to look at the complete Warrior? I picked up the book over the break, and was fairly impressed with the new Samurai class, so I was wondering if I would be able to use it. I'll try to send you an email about it and bring the book with me this Friday.

Thanks Macbeth!

RE: Complete Warrior - I will absolutely consider it. I haven't picked it up yet, but the book looks usable.

Back on to the topic - Elder Basilisk has a very valid point. But, I still don't think it is too much to ask the players to build a little rationale into how their character develops. As I said above, I can explain most of my skills and feats for a relatively complex character. I can give you names of the NPC's that he trained with and the circumstances that he met many of them. *shrug* That's just me though, I guess.

 

[DragonLancer]

As a DM I try to limit the number of PrC's in my world to the basics and then only ones that fit the setting. In my current campaign I made a ruling before the players made their characters that in order to multiclass or take a PrC the character has to find a teacher who has lat least 3 levels in that class already and who is willing to teach the character.
This met with nods of agreement with all the players except one, who is the resident twink/rules lawyer. He likes to do what I dislike players doing, which is working out his entire 20 level class/feat/spells progression before he has even played the first session. This player said fine, but that I as the DM MUST include the relevant NPC tutors for everybody, even if they would not normally be found in the area where the game takes place.

As far as I am cncerned, it should be the campaign that dictates multiclassing and PrC's not the player. If they want to take that new class then they must justify it in game, and not just "I go looking for a mercenary and pay him to teach me his combat skills."

 

[Nifft]

Eh. If I were to "penalize" players for multiclassing, I'd do it via a "training montage" -- I'd force them to write up what the transition from one class to multi-class is like as part of a story hour.

I'm a sucker for story hours, and all my players know it.

-- N