How not to be a core class?

[Edena_of_Neith]

The old core classes were cleric, fighter, magic-user, and thief. (Later, they changed the names to priest, warrior, wizard, and rogue.)
It was assumed in the old rules that the character spent a great deal of time learning to become one of these classes, anywhere from 4 to 15 years of training to make 1st level.

It is a common assumption, in books of fantasy and the game alike, that it requires time and effort, to become trained in a class. Period. Even in 3E, where Lidda could look over Mialee's shoulder and become a wizard, Lidda becoming a 1st level wizard took time and effort (in the form of experience points spent to gain a level as a wizard, and not spent in gaining a level as a rogue.)

As far as I can see, no matter the setting or edition, there is no way around this reality. No way at all.
You can allow 3.0 multiclassing. This causes the character to advance slower in class levels, because he divides his time between classes.
You can allow the 3.5 gestalt option. But although the gestalt option allows extra abilities for 'free', it does not negate the penalties of further multiclassing.

Take the wizard, for example. Let's say she has X amount of time in which to learn wizardry. She spends that X amount of time, and learns Y amount of wizardry.
If you give her 2X time, should could conceivably spend X time to gain Y wizardry, and X time to gain Y skill as a fighter.
But why would she do that?

Why would she want to be a fighter/wizard, when she could have 2Y wizard training?

In the same situation, why would a fighter not choose 2Y fighter training? A rogue 2Y rogue training? A priest 2Y priest training?

Let's say that, for some reason, the lady had 10X time in which to train. She's an elf, and has a hundred years in which to train. She could gain 10Y training in wizardry.
You will say: she could gain 1Y training in fighter, 1Y in priest, and 8Y in wizardry.
Why would she do that?

There are only two legitimate answers I've come up with:

1. Gaining 1Y as a priest gives her some crucial advantage for her 8Y training as a wizard (such as Divine Metamagic, to dump into Metamagicking her spells down to their normal level, ala the unnerfed 3.0 feat. Or 1Y to wear armor and gain a fighter's weapon proficiencies, to add to her 8Y in wizardry.)
2. She just genuinely wants to be both a priest and a wizard, or a fighter and a wizard.

I would think 1 would be a common thing, if a character could pull it off.
But just how common would number 2 be? That is the crux of the matter here. How many people, would actually choose option 2?

Wizards tend to be people who are obsessed with wizardry. It requires years of training and effort to learn to wear armor and wield weapons (even if that amounts to only 1 level in 3rd edition.) Why would a wizard waste her time on that, when those years could be spent on learning spells?

Fighters tend to be people obsessed with fighting. It requires years to learn Read Magic, to cast spells out of a spellbook. Why waste those years on that, when they could be out there becoming great champions?

Rogues tend to be jack of all trades, and especially they prefer to enlarge their personal bank accounts. Why would a rogue waste years of intensive training on something else, when there is gold to be pilfered, people to rob, and great heists to pull off?

Clerics are devoted to their deity. Why would a cleric waste his time (and his diety's time) studying another class, for years on end, to the detriment of his faith and it's cause?

Because no matter what you give a character, be it gestalt powers, or prestige classes, or any other abilities, it takes time and effort to obtain those things. Why would a character waste his or her time on something not related to what they are truly fascinated in doing?

Even elves, with their incredibly long life spans, are bound by this reality. Even elves, must choose how to spend that 100 years of study. And they most certainly could learn a lot of wizardry, or fighting skills, or whatever, in a 100 years. Why waste time on something that isn't their devotion?

So ...
There are answers to the question. But are they good answers? You be the judge, and I request your commentary here.

The elven bladesinger is a character who specialized in the fighting arts, wizardry, and that uniquely elvish power called Bladesong. With it (in 3.0) she can give battle and cast any arcane spells simultaneously.
This terrifying ability, this supreme ability, to use fighting - the act of fighting itself - as a form of spellcasting, is an answer to the above question.
The elven girl in question has chosen this compromise of dividing her time between the fighting arts and wizardry and Bladesong, so as to have this ultimate ability.
Is this a good answer to the question of why? Why to split one's time and effort between classes? Why not to concentrate on one thing?

How about the Divine Healer of Pelor? I hear this is the ultimate healing PrC, with about double the healing power of a normal cleric.
Is this a good answer? Is this an appropriate way to divide one's time?

This question will be asked of any character who divides his or her time, because the enemy who spent ALL HIS TIME on specializing in one thing, will eventually be faced. And he will bring all his specialized abilities to bear, against the character who split up her talents.

Obviously, anyone can be a multiclass character simply because they 'felt like it.' That's a given. But that's not necessarily a good answer (even if it is a common answer.)

Can anyone give good answers to a hard question? Why would, why should, a character divide his or her time up between classes, when they could devote all their time to one class, and specialize in that class?
Call this a philosophical question.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I would think 1 would be a common thing, if a character could pull it off.
But just how common would number 2 be? That is the crux of the matter here. How many people, would actually choose option 2?

I'm solidly an Option 2 kind of guy- most of my PCs are multiclassed.

I'm even that way in real life.

My educational history includes degrees in law, business, economics and philosophy, as well as extended periods of study in religion, art and English Lit and composition. I write- there are megabytes of stories of various lengths on my hard drive- one tiny bit of humor even got published in Omni magazine. My hobbies besides RPGs include jewelry design and I play 3 instruments (cello, guitar, and bass-guitar) as well as sing with a 4.5 octave voice. My knowledge of popular music is seldom equaled by anyone not using an internet search. I played certain sports at a fairly competitive level. Etc.

If I had any focus, I'd be a rich man...but a lot more boring.

 

[fissionessence]

A multiclassed character sheet doesn't always have to represent a character who 'multiclassed' in the game world; sometimes the system represents a character who just didn't fit exactly into an existing class. The obvious example is the fighter-wizard. This character didn't spend 1 year training as a fighter and 1 year training as a wizard—he spent 2 years training in a fighting form that combines magic (wizardry) in with the techniques. Perhaps the cleric-wizard is actually a wizard who discovered an arcane secret to tap into divine power, and his 'cleric levels' are actually his research into what he has unlocked. Or, in reverse, this same multiclass build could represent a cleric of a god of magic who granted the character divine power. I could go on, but you get the point. Of course, the game mechanics make it look like the character was a fighter first and a wizard later, but this is just a flaw that has to be accepted as one builds the preconcepted character.

Alternatively, a third option to add to what you have above is that a character's focus changes. A player in my campaign is playing a character who is a rogue/monk (we've switched to 4E, but that's how the character started). The character started as a 'street rat', but then found a temple and focused his training and took 'monk levels' while still remembering his roguish history. He neither wanted to combine his powers in weird ways (1) or to be both a rogue and a monk necessarily (2), but rather a change in lifestyle beget a change in life focus and class levels.

~

 

[Reynard]

In 1E & 2E, I always saw multiclassing as more of a class of its own -- probably from the BECMI D&D influence. And elf fighter-magic user wasn't a fighter and a magic user, but a magic using fighter (or fighting magic user, depending on your focus in play). because the characters advanced essentially as a single class (until xp wierdness started to create a noticable gulf between the character's class levels) it seemed more appropriate to treat it as a single class (Fighter-Mage 6 as opposed to fighter/magic user 5/6 or whatever). 3E made this a little more difficult and required a little more shrugging at the mnechanics in order to maintain the "in game" perspective on the multiclassing -- esp. when it occurred later in the character's career, at level breaks where it was motivated by game mechanics instead of character. I am not sure how it works for 4E. If I ever go back to running 3E I'll use a variant of the Gestalt rules for multiclassing instead of the level-by-level system.

 

[Jhaelen]

Another reason might be diminishing returns. The more proficient you already are in a certain field the more difficult it becomes to get even better.

Take Runequest for example where character development is actually based (almost) completely on taking time to train skills. If you have a certain amount of time available and can either spend it on increasing a skill from 95% to 97% or starting to learn a new skill and increase it into the 50% range, you'll eventually do the latter.

Earthdawns multiclassing system is similar: After a certain point it requires so many xp to get a new level in your primary class that it's simply more efficient to start learning a second class.

Both systems adequately represent reality, imho. If you are like me interested in lots of different fields of study the most efficient approach is to stop after reaching a certain plateau. It's the pareto principle: If 20% of invested resources can get me 80% proficiency in one area, I'd rather use the remaining 80% of my resources to gain 80% proficiency in another four areas than try to gain 100% in a single area.

Umm, I hope that made some sense

 

[Mephistopheles]

You will say: she could gain 1Y training in fighter, 1Y in priest, and 8Y in wizardry.
Why would she do that?

There are only two legitimate answers I've come up with:

I guess it depends whether you're operating with the assumption that people are fallible or infallible in their decisions. If she decided to be a wizard and it turned out that wizarding made her happy and she couldn't imagine doing anything else then it may never occur to her to do anything else. But she might instead decide to be a fighter and not be happy with it, then try being a priest and not be happy with it, and eventually try being a wizard and find it suits her.

When it comes to the metagame aspect our PCs have the advantage that we generally design them to be good at a specific role and we can say that if they're effective in that role then all is well. In reality though there's plenty of evidence that we're not always very good at knowing what will make us happy so we either end up making a false start or two or just end up settling on something that we're not happy with but stay with it for whatever reasons.

Considering that it's not uncommon for humans to go through a number of careers in a lifetime I don't think it unreasonable for longer lived races to exhibit similar behaviour, especially if they're in a situation where they're under no financial requirement to keep doing something they don't like simply to keep the bills paid.

That's not even getting into the possibility that a particular profession in the game world may be represented by the game rules as a multiclass character, but I don't think that's the sort of thing you were asking about.

 

[Set]

Another reason might be diminishing returns. The more proficient you already are in a certain field the more difficult it becomes to get even better.

To take this another direction, a lot of people in the real world change career because they are 'done' with one particular segment of their life. They are 'done' with sports, or 'done' with their military service, or 'done' working on the farm, but they would retain skills and experiences that would make them, in game terms, 'multi-classed.'

Others transition to a new role because their previous role no longer suits them. A Fighter might muster out after the Last War and be at odds, turning to the ways of the Rogue just to get by. Or he might be a grizzled veteran turned storytelling Bard, telling stirring tales of the Last War. Or he might have found that his progression in the military was stifled, but that the War Wizards got the best perks and private tents and turned his native intelligence to trying to master the arcane arts, so that he could be in one of those cushy tents in the back, and not sleeping with the grunts in the mud. Surrounded by death and carnage and the futility of war and seeing the last moments of far too many people, he may have 'found religion' and taken up the vows of a Cleric. Impressed by the trackers and scouts, with their own codes and the odd sort of respect they gained from the command staff, he might take up the ways of the Ranger.

A street rat growing up on the street is a natural to pick up a level of Rogue to start, but when he makes good and joins the guard, or becomes an adventuring sell-sword, or pilfers a relic from a temple of the goddess of serenity, only to find that a series of incredible coincidences end up saving him from certain death, leading him to believe that the goddess, the same goddess whose temple he robbed, is now looking out for him and returns the relic and takes up the holy ways of the Cleric, or stumbles upon his latent heritage as a Sorcerer, he suddenly finds a new path opening up before him.

A Wizard might 'drop out' after a particularly grueling apprenticeship, or after his master perishes unexpectedly and he's forced to 'make do,' or his tuition money for the Arcane Academy runs out when his family is arrested for failing to pay their taxes for the last ten years or so, and turn his skills to becoming a caravan guard or join the clergy of a magic-themed diety or even be forced to pay back some outstanding loans to the Thieves Guild by working as their 'pet spellcaster,' and picking up Rogue skills through his new association.

Clerics have all sorts of reasons built in to multiclass. Clerics of the gods of war, honor, chivalry, etc. are natural multi-class Fighters, while Clerics of gods of trickery and shadows are likely thieves and Clerics of gods of magic are probably even encouraged to multiclass as Wizards. A Cleric of the magic goddess / Fighter may not be the most intuitive multiclass, but someone has to guard the temple, and she might have reasons for having stopped her study of the ways of war to become a priest, or having found her divine studies to have 'hit a wall' and be concentrating on her sword-work.

A particular area (or even an entire setting) might also have a 'only so much room at the top' situation, like the 1st edition Monks and Druids, who might find themselves unable to advance for social reasons (someone's already got the Grand Druid / Grandmaster of Flowers job, and he ain't givin' it up anytime this century!). If you're studying Necromancy, and you're a Red Wizard of Thay, you can pretty much kiss any chance of being Zulkir goodbye, and multiclassing begins to look like a way to continue growing your talents, without waiting for Szass Tam to kick the bucket, and, also importantly, without appearing to threaten his primacy and getting on his 'kill' list.

 

[WayneLigon]

Can anyone give good answers to a hard question? Why would, why should, a character divide his or her time up between classes, when they could devote all their time to one class, and specialize in that class?
Call this a philosophical question.

I think a lot of people who multiclass do it to cherry-pick certain abilities that compliment what they already know. They'll dip into a class for 1-2 levels and that's it. Doing that can hurt you a little but depending on the type of character you're looking for, that piddly little -1 to BAB is nothing. Pick up a +1 dagger and you're back to where you 'should' be.

Almost any class benefits from picking up a level or two in a spellcasting class.

A rogue that takes even one level of Wizard is suddenly able to be much more effective than a straight rogue; shoot, just knowing all the cantrips is a big help in certain circumstances. Fall in a pit? Spider Climb. Pitch-black room in a place where you can't use fire for fear of blowing yourself up? Light. The prepared rogue that has done his homework on an area can be much more effective with just that little bit of magic.

Similarly, the fighter that can do a couple Cure Light Wounds can stay in the fight just thaaat much longer in case the cleric goes down.

Also, many people could have more than one profession without sacrificing the other. Unless you're an Olympic class gymnast It's not as hard as you make it out to be in terms of time, but most people don't have the drive and organizational skills to pull it off. Those are the two keys to success.

Another thing to consider is that obviously it doesn't take long years to learn most professions. These characters don't, for example, have the millstone of a 9-5 make-work job around their necks. Without that and with the attendant drive and devotion, you can master most skills and professions in less than a year. With proper diet and motivation, you can take a couch potato and turn him into Jet Li inside of a year.

Also, there are not a lot of requirements dreamed up to keep people employed. Your wizard doesn't have to sit through two years of busywork like Economics 101 before he gets to his actual coursework in magic. If being a wizard was the same as being, say, a programmer then he could get to first level in about six weeks simply by studying with a master ten hours or so a day. That would be the equivilant of three weeks of college-level work per day, without the distractions.


The rest, in about 2-3 years at the outside. People waste a tremendous amount of time. For someone who doesn't, they can accomplish some amazing things.

In D&D it's simply a fact that it doesn't take that long because no-one would ever put up with it. If I start out as a Rogue and decide to multiclass as wizard, it doesn't take me 10 years to learn that. You can assume I've been working on it all along in some capacity, but remember, I can go from farmboy to demi-god archmage in less than a year unless you artificially limit me to one plotline or dungeoncrawl every year or two.

 

[mattdm]

A rogue that takes even one level of Wizard is suddenly able to be much more effective than a straight rogue; shoot, just knowing all the cantrips is a big help in certain circumstances. Fall in a pit? Spider Climb. Pitch-black room in a place where you can't use fire for fear of blowing yourself up? Light. The prepared rogue that has done his homework on an area can be much more effective with just that little bit of magic.

I dunno, man. I think pretty much any 3.xE rogue would be much better off taking another level of rogue for more sneak attack and the various nice class abilities (and no impediment to BAB), and then investing in Use Magic Device and a stash of scrolls and wands.

 

[Janx]

from a class dipping perspective, it's easier to dip at lower levels, where the XP cost isn't so high per level, than at higher. Unless your DM tends to have the same progression speed (# of sessions/hours) regardless of party level.

In any event 3.x dipping would always get you a few more HP, and a bonus in BAB or saves in some combination. So it's not like dipping into mage from another class was a huge setback. Especially for only a few levels. Even at high levels, dipping is simply investing in a class, which one doesn't matter. Heck dipping into a new 1st level class is often better than re-investing in the same existing class, because you will get a slew of new class abilities.

I also second the point that "game time" to train is insignificant. The game clock runs at whatever speed the GM says time passes between sessions or travelling. I have been in a campaign where I went from 1st level barabarian to 18th level, in the span of a few game months. It was simply because very little game time passed between game sessions.

The point is, there is no "training" in the RAW. And I never liked training rules anyway. I assumed the PC was always practicing, when not adventuring, and when he got enough XP, leveled. Level was not recognized in the game world, thus you couldn't train for a level.


Enough people have pointed out good in game "rationalizations" on why multi-classing can happen. I strongly believe that a good player rationalizes why certain rules work, rather than argue why they don't make sense (assuming it's a good to decent rule, bad rules are a whole nother problem).

And like DannyAlzatraz, I an a man of many talents. I don't buy into that "jack of all trades, master of none" nonsense either.

Among my many skills:
kick-butt software developer (10+ ranks, 20+ years experience, I even have a patent)
guitar playing (1-2 ranks, I suck)
writing (5-6 ranks at least)
painting (2-3 ranks, I've had people like some of my works)
martial arts (many ranks, I earned a black belt, got plates in my head to prove it)


Obviously, my core class is software developer, but I put ranks in other things, because that's where I was in life.