How important is multi-classing, and why?

[Li Shenron]

Perhaps the game shouldn't have "multi-classing" as such, but instead should allow a character to take a certain number of cross-class powers? So, the Wizard could take some "item crafting" powers from the Artifice source, or pick up some "combat expertise" powers from the Martial source, without the need to explicitly multi-class. (Or, of course, he could take both.)

This sounds definitely better than multiclassing to me, although how much of this is allowed should be kept under check. Probably I'd prefer to keep this in the DMG instead of the PHB so that even if "core" at least it could be declared to be by default at DM's discretion.

 

[delericho]

This sounds definitely better than multiclassing to me, although how much of this is allowed should be kept under check. Probably I'd prefer to keep this in the DMG instead of the PHB so that even if "core" at least it could be declared to be by default at DM's discretion.

I have no problem with putting it under DM control.

Of course, I'm advocating a single Core Rulebook (with the DMG actually being an "Unearthed Arcana" type book of optional modules), so it would be "the DM's section"... but that's details. Besides, I'm very far from certain I'll get my way on that one.

 

[Li Shenron]

I have no problem with putting it under DM control.

Of course, I'm advocating a single Core Rulebook (with the DMG actually being an "Unearthed Arcana" type book of optional modules), so it would be "the DM's section"... but that's details. Besides, I'm very far from certain I'll get my way on that one.

That is the direction I am drifting towards as well, as I read and comment on the many 5e threads...

...and now I can only imagine how better many of our games would have been if people had always interpreted anything in the DMG as a "players cannot ask for this stuff, they have to wait for the DM to give it to them". Magic items and prestige classes would have felt much more special.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Hmm...

Perhaps the game shouldn't have "multi-classing" as such, but instead should allow a character to take a certain number of cross-class powers? So, the Wizard could take some "item crafting" powers from the Artifice source, or pick up some "combat expertise" powers from the Martial source, without the need to explicitly multi-class. (Or, of course, he could take both.)

And, of course, if the character picks up enough cross-class powers from another class, perhaps he should eventually become eligible to retrain his underlying class, so that the "Wizard with lots of Fighter" eventually becomes a "Fighter with lots of Wizard"?

Just thinking out loud and riffing off of this same idea in a slightly different direction ...

Suppose that all the current classes are the multiclassing part of the game, and the core stuff goes into something else. For sake of argument, let's call it the "Adventurer" class, though it really is only a class in comparison to previous versions, and to distinguish characters who aren't really adventurers at all (e.g. experts, nobles, merchants, soliders, etc.)

Being an adventurer means that you get adventurer stuff as you level. This includes some of the base scaling stuff (hit points, base attack numbers, etc.) to the extent is present at all. But it also includes base picks across all skills, some general "feats" however conceived, and even some picks of commonly available "powers".

Then from adventurer you multiclass into at least one class, or more if you want. This multiclassing is alongside your adventurer class, much as the 1E elf fighter/mu, though your XP total is only on the base adventurer side. Your multiclass picks are along for the ride.

Say you pick fighter. Now you get some flat abilities at certain levels of fighter: +1 to hit with certain weapons, extra weapon proficiencies, some picks of niche fighter powers really geared towards a guy that knows his martial combat. These may scale off of your fighter level, where appropriate. You also get some abilities that scale off of your adventurer level, though: Bonus skill picks as "class skills" for fighters, access to some more general but higher level martial abilities, etc.

If you pick wizard instead, you get ever increasing access to some potent but niche spells (as opposed to the very common spells that any adventurer can learn). Picking both over times expands your picks, scales with your adventurer level, but damages the scaling/focus of the speciality class stuff.

I suppose that is a bit too much like turning wizard and fighter into 3E prestige classes for comfort, and I've probably drawn the example lines in bad places. You'd need a good selection of abiltiies to place in the various slots, to see if the framework would really work. I think if it did work, the class stuff would need to be kept tightly focused and narrow. And it is entirely possible that such a framework would work better by sacrificing a bit of edge flexibility in return for more clarity, via replacing the "adventurer" base with one of those handful of core bases that various people have advocated at time--warrior or caster; warrior, caster, rogue, etc.

 

[hanez]

I don't see multiclassing as needed. I do see custimizable characters with MORE choices as needed, and multiclassing was A choice, but not necessarily an important one.

I need wizards who can try and ONLY charm people, or fry enemies with fireball, or use every school of magic equally. I need Clerics who are passivists, or specialize in undead, or suped up warriors with divine power, I need warriors who use one weapon, many weapons, armor or no armor, who can enchant their own swords and cast the occasional firebal, I also need warrios who reject magic.

Character custimazation is NEEDED and it should be more then just flavor, I want these options to be mechanical (e.g. in exchange for giving up X, you gain Y).

 

[Kannik]

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.

-nods-, though I myself would say it should be included in the core book (or in some book released at the same time as the 'core' book) so that those old hands who want to make the usual (fighter/mage) or unusual (channeler of the astral dao) can do so right from day one. Integrated, ready, and presented from the get-go.

peace,

Kannik

 

[Nivenus]

Ideally I'd like to see something that combines the customizability of 3e's multiclass system with the balance of 4e's. I think most of us can agree that the "multiclass" by feats system was overly restrictive but I think it's also easy to see how people abused the 3e system.

I think a good idea was to still use feats or something similar to unlock multiclassing but to allow characters to advance as their secondary class much more easily than in 4e, perhaps with the feat unlocking the class entirely or possibly with a secondary feat.

 

[Tallifer]

If no one is willing to play a support class, then the game should support the DM in adjusting an adventure so that it doesn't need that class.

In many ways it's possible to do it already, the problem is that the vast majority of published adventures assume you have the iconic roles covered.

And the last resort can always be to find an NPC who can do it for you.

You spotted the problem immediately: most published adventures assume a balanced party. Let us face the fact that many dungeon masters (including myself) prefer to let the publisher do the heavy lifting in adventure writing. I can design a campaign and a world, because those are fluffy. But encounters, maps, side quests and railroads are hard work.

As for your suggestion of a last resort, I would far rather multi-class or train in the particular missing skill than have a non-player character get all my fun.

 

[hemera]

Personally I loved the 3rd edition version of multiclassing, but I would like to see a few changes to it. For instance something like caster level = character level, attack and save bonuses maybe tied to level or role, (as you can have characters that ended up with just sad base attack bonuses, but ridiculous saves easily in 3rd/3.5) I did like the role system idea in 4th edition, so maybe something like you choose your primary role which sets your attack and save bonuses and then you can multiclass to your heart's content. Or something similar.

 

[Aldarc]

I have mixed feelings on multi-classing. There are things I like about it, and things I cannot stand and it largely depends on my particular view regarding classes as opposed to strictly multi-classing itself. While multi-classing allows for character customization and a more personalized creation, it also tends to detract from the value and meaning of the class. In other words, it becomes far less important what 'class' you play as it does all the particular mechanical benefits that you pick up to make your character. In which case, what's the point of having classes? Couldn't your character's alternate training be expressed in other ways? Why not have "character points" rewarded for leveling that allows you to buy different options for your characters? It's just as easy under this way to say, "My character started out as a warrior, but then he received training to become a stealthy assassin" as it is to say I'm a "fighter 5 / rogue 2 / assassin 3" as a gamist. But if we want to say that 'class matters,' then how can we do so without turning classes simply into ability buffet lunch specials?

My biggest problem with mutli-classing is that it is susceptible - especially of the 3e variety - of being exceptionally gamist. It becomes about picking up particular benefits to min-max the character. Sure you are building your character, but why should multi-classing be necessary? Conversely, the problem with a rigid system like 4e is that the class and multiclassing is not necessarily flexible enough to create the character you want. But is the problem though with multiclassing or is it with the way that classes and character options (i.e. skills, feats, etc.) are designed?