How important is multi-classing, and why?

[Halivar]

When 4e was announced I thought they use 2e multiclassing paths and reinvent it for 4e. But instead they used feats system for multiclassing which to failed IMO.

Ah! I can't disagree more! I loved how taking a multi-class scaled to your level automatically. I hated the prospect in 3.x of taking a new class at high level, and having to wait several more levels for it to be useful. Which meant I was unlikely to multi-class unless I was making the character high-level at the start.

That being said, my dream multi-class system... 1st Edition elves. Take the core classes, and develop hybridized Ftr-Mu, or Ftr-Mu-Thief, or whatever. I don't know how you would or could do it. But I love its quirky charm.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I like the ADnD 2nd edition multiclassing. Essentially it is hybrid multiclassing and 3e multiclassing combined.

So In my favourite edition, I would like hybrid multiclassing, but with this kind of multiclassing in mind from the get go:
This means every class needs basic attributes and specialized attributes (call it a bulid, you chose to specialize in) If you multiclass, you get mostly only the basic abilities of both classes.
But there also needs to be the possibility to change your class somehow. Maybe you can easily stop advancing in both your classes basic and specialized abilities and get some abilities of the new class. And you now increase your skills with your new classes in mind. Actually, with 4e math, 3e multiclassing is not really needed, as all classes have the same attack bonus, so usually you really won´t notice if you are fighter3/thief2 or fighter2/thief3.
Maybe without the feats you needed to swap powers, 4e multiclassing had been a succes (or only one feat to swap them, as the first feat you take is consideed very strong)

 

[enrious]

Personally, I think if there are classes, there should be some form of easy multi-classing.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Both.

A fighter 5/rogue 3/assassin 4 is a different character. So is a fighter 1/rogue 10/assassin 1. Just looking at that heading on top of the statblock gives me a great deal fo information about that character's history and goals; it's probably the second most important thing next to the six ability scores.

Well, what you describe right there does absolutely nothing for me. To just have numbers after my class names and have that actually be a description of my character? Nuh uh. I might as well just use percentages... "I'm a 30% fighter, 50% rogue, 20% assassin."

Does that actually describe the character's history or goals in any way, shape or form? Well, considering I don't think just being a 'Fighter' describes a character's history or goals in any way, shape, or form... tacking additional class names onto isn't going to clear things up in my opnion.

"I'm a former member of the city guard who killed a fellow officer in cold blood, and now I'm on the run earning my living as bounty hunter."

THAT to me is at least on the way to describing the character's history and goals. Much more than "fighter 5/rogue 3/assassin 4".

 

[Kannik]

it seems to me that how multiclassing should be handled depends on how classing is handled.

Multiclassing is a tool that allows you to build things not available in a specific class. If they intend to have tons of classes, they have less need for multiclassing. If they intend to go with a few very broad classes, multiclassing becomes a far more important tool.

This. Multiclassing is only necessary insofar as to allow broader character concepts than the strict classes allow.

If the question is instead: "Should Next allow broad access to character concepts?", I would say "Absolutely yes!" How that is achieved -- multiclassing, feat based dabbling, hybrid rules, or something very radical and cool like "here are modules of character abilities -- pick one every 4 levels and that gives you the abilities in the module; certain modules have prerequisites" and so you pick a 'fighter' module at level 1 and rather than pick another fighter module at level 4 you pick instead a 'sorcerer' module... whatever the method it should be in there. (and preferably in a way that doesn't overpower (1e Elves) or under-power (3e caster multiclassing) the PC).

I have a bunch of character concepts, some of which (under current rules) would require multiclassing/hybrid to make them work. To not be able to model them in Next would be unfortunate.

Now, whether multiclassing is "core" or is a module that plugs in for more "advanced" PC building ability is another discussion -- I think it could safely be a plug-in module letting new players try the game out and then worry about multiclassed combinations when they feel the need to expand.

peace,

Kannik

 

[nnms]

I think the way to go is to pretty much make as many class features as possible into individual feat like elements. Then to multiclass, you just pick one to give up and one to get.

So you want to be a fighter wizard? You've got 4 class feature picks so you go with light armour, heavy armour, melee weapons and lesser spellcasting.

Hit a level and get access to another one? Time to upgrade lesser spellcasting to regular spellcasting. But since you can't have a full wizard's greater spellcasting and wear heavy armour at the same time, that's as far as you'll go without giving up the heavy armour. Also, as you spent the class feature picks on magic, you gave up the ability to take things like the "combat maneuvers" package or the "weapon mastery: X" package, so your not going to do melee as well as a full fighter.

Each "spell casting" would have it's own spells/level and whatnot.

 

[Mark CMG]

What other concerns should be addressed in multiclassing?

Core classes/roles can be pared down and something like a Paladin can be done through multiclassing or some similar mechanism.

 

[CleanCutRogue]

3e's multiclassing system is one of its great triumphs.

Amen. That is the single-most accomplishment of 3e, imo. I hated the scope-creep that FEATS created, but the idea was solid: very customizable characters. Any concept basically possible with the right combinations of feats and class levels.

Many people who argue against multiclassing options do so under the premise that it breaks the strong archetypes that existed before it. But remember: it's an OPTION for those whose character concepts defy classic archetypes. It's not a min-max tool, and 3e did a pretty damned good job at it.

FEATS, on the other hand, were sorta messed up in 3e. I think FEATS should have only existed as character concept customizers at the time of character creation, to make your burglar-like-thief differ from someone else's smuggler-like-thief. If 3e would have kept the class list to just your basic Fighter, Magic-User, Thief, and Cleric then provided customizing feats and smooth multi-classing, then it would have been perfect. Strong archetypes with options to mix & match to build complex archetypes.

Feats should never have been for acquisition of more abilities with level, imo

So my (unnecessarily long-winded) vote is that multi-classing is in.

 

[DonTadow]

NEver liked any edition of it. The only purpose is to break the system or attempt to get darn close. After a while, there was no way to balance the system.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This. Multiclassing is only necessary insofar as to allow broader character concepts than the strict classes allow.

If the question is instead: "Should Next allow broad access to character concepts?", I would say "Absolutely yes!" How that is achieved -- multiclassing, feat based dabbling, hybrid rules, or something very radical and cool like "here are modules of character abilities -- pick one every 4 levels and that gives you the abilities in the module; certain modules have prerequisites" and so you pick a 'fighter' module at level 1 and rather than pick another fighter module at level 4 you pick instead a 'sorcerer' module... whatever the method it should be in there. (and preferably in a way that doesn't overpower (1e Elves) or under-power (3e caster multiclassing) the PC).

I agree with all that, but as far as I'm concerned, that's all "multiclassing". I guess technically it isnt, but given what "class" means in D&D, to me it might as well be. So yeah, how you make classes (to define archetypes/concepts) is going to determine a lot how any multiclassing works (define hybrid and other niche archetypes/concepts).

Now, whether multiclassing is "core" or is a module that plugs in for more "advanced" PC building ability is another discussion -- I think it could safely be a plug-in module letting new players try the game out and then worry about multiclassed combinations when they feel the need to expand.

And here, I'm fine with multiclassing not presented in the core--provided that it is designed from the get go and fully integrated with the core before the core is released--even though the supplement containing it comes out later. I'm fairly certain that both 3E and 4E multiclassing suffered at launch from not being fully integrated during initial development.