How do you handle multiclassing?

[krunchyfrogg]

Do players need "special training" to add a new class? Can they just add a new class when they level-up? Or does it need to at least "make sense"?

Just curious.

 

[Arnwyn]

Base/core classes: For us, it's 'special training' (we have some simplistic training rules) - that's how we (mostly) justify the "make sense" part. This isn't hard and fast, though. If a character hasn't expressed a religious bone in his body, trying to add a cleric class will likely be denied.

Prestige classes: As above, but it must also "make sense" (group comes to a consensus). If the PC has never made an even remote interest in a certain subject, then it's unlikely that the prestige class can be taken.

(Note that the above works very well for my particular group of players that have been together for more than a decade and fits our preferences; I don't necessarily recommend it for anyone else.)

 

[Crothian]

No special training and players take whatever they qualify for. I though will note my players will only take levels in something if it makes sense to them.

 

[The_Gneech]

Right now we play multiclassing straight by the book (favored classes, etc.), but in my next campaign I think I'm going to chuck that and just allow free multiclassing. I've never liked the artificial straightjacket of character classes. I don't see any good reason why, for instance, should a human warrior be able to pick up some sneakery without penalty while an elf can't. Or for that matter, why I shouldn't just let somebody who wants to make a character that mixes a bit of bard with a lot of fighter and just a touch of wizard. It makes for a much more interesting and diverse world!

-The Gneech

 

[amethal]

Straight from the book, including with prestige classes.

Despite having run one campaign from 1st level to (as of last week) 19th level, and reached 10th level as a player in another campaign, I still feel we are still exploring what D&D has to offer.

Got a bizarre character build? As long as you are prepared to play if from 1st level if necessary, bring it along so we can all enjoy seeing how it does in actual play.

 

[Wraith Form]

I've never liked the artificial straightjacket of character classes. I don't see any good reason why, for instance, should a human warrior be able to pick up some sneakery without penalty while an elf can't. Or for that matter, why I shouldn't just let somebody who wants to make a character that mixes a bit of bard with a lot of fighter and just a touch of wizard.

Agreed, and Q'ed for T.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

A class has no in-game meaning whatsoever IMC. A player can add any new class he likes (provided he meets the mechanical requirements if it's a PrC), and it doesn't change who or what his character is.

Now, if a player adds a class that doesn't appear to gel with his concept, I'll at least give it a look and ask *why,* but if he has a good explanation of what it adds mechanically, it's fine by me.

 

[Vegepygmy]

A class has no in-game meaning whatsoever IMC.

Ditto. No "special training" or "it has to make sense to the DM" baloney.

 

[was]

We usually roleplay it in-game prior to the character levelling up.

 

[Nifft]

It takes as much time as regular leveling up takes (which may be significant, depending on the whim of the evil DM).

I think the player in question can determine how they spend that time -- if they want to have training, they can have training.

-- N