"Modding" classes vs multiclassing

[WizarDru]

Like I said, I believe a Fighter/Rogue multiclass is less powerful than a Fighter or a Rogue by itself. I'm also dubious about the flexibility=power argument. The Fighter class, or any other class, works best when used exactly as intended, which naturally limits the flexibility in regard to its power unless that's also the concept you want to play. Power level is really a minor portion of the argument; I want to play concepts not power level, but at the same time, I don't want to sacrifice power level to get the concept I want.

But, isn't that how multiclassing is (or at least was) originally intended to operate, by design? The Fighter/Rogue is not more competent than that fighter at battle or the rogue at stealth, skills or other 'roguish' pursuits, except in certain cirumstances. His talents are broad, as opposed to focused...he's still viable as a playable character, but in a group with folks who share his talents, he'll be second fiddle in their chosen arena. He'll be tougher than a normal rogue, more skillful than a normal fighter.

Now, I agree that D&D doesn't model the swashbucker archetype well. Part of this is based on the core problem that the underpinnings of such characters are at odds, IMHO, with the conceptual underpinnings of others. The warrior-knights of King Arthur don't coexist with Dumas' Musketeers, and D&D owes it's heritage much more to the former than to the later or Lieber's material. D&D doesn't offer more swashbuckling combat options...there is no true option to parry in D&D, for example (at least, not compared to GURPS, which is my point of reference). Dragon did offer some nice options in that regard, though.

 

[Desdichado]

But, isn't that how multiclassing is (or at least was) originally intended to operate, by design? The Fighter/Rogue is not more competent than that fighter at battle or the rogue at stealth, skills or other 'roguish' pursuits, except in certain cirumstances. His talents are broad, as opposed to focused...he's still viable as a playable character, but in a group with folks who share his talents, he'll be second fiddle in their chosen arena. He'll be tougher than a normal rogue, more skillful than a normal fighter.

Yes, absolutely. But the question isn't is the swashbuckler built up of Fighter/Rogue multiclass better at being a rogue than a rogue and/or better at being a fighter than a fighter. The question is, is such a swashbuckler better at being a swashbuckler than the alternatives, while still remaining balanced against the core classes in terms of broad utility across a variety of scenarios and situations that are likely to come up in a campaign. In this case, I think the Unfettered is better than a fighter/rogue multiclass. I don't believe the Unfettered to be a better rogue than a rogue, because he lacks a good deal of the rogue's special abilities that make it a unique class. He's not better than the fighter in combat either, although he's arguably his equal (as he should be, IMO, as he's primarily a combat style, as is the tank fighter.)

 

[drnuncheon]

Again, I haven't seen the Unfettered, but by description is isn't balanced with the fighter and rogue. If the Unfettered has lost baggage, and replaced it with things it will use, it will be mopre powerful than the fighter or rogue, who has not gone through the same process. Losing an ability you choose not to use, and replacing it wiht one you will use isn't balancing, it's boosting.

The other part that you're overlooking is that the lightly armored fighter is a suboptimal choice in D&D. So any 'boosts' that the Unfettered gets serve only to put it back up to the level of the core classes, not to take it past them.

Yes, it's better than any other core class at being a lightly armored fighter - it should be, because otherwise there's no need for it, is there?

J

 

[Voadam]

The Unfettered isn't boosted in relation to the Fighter or the Rogue by itself, it's boosted in relation to the Fighter/Rogue multiclass, but the boost gets it to the same level as the Fighter or the Rogue. Like I said, I believe a Fighter/Rogue multiclass is less powerful than a Fighter or a Rogue by itself. I'm also dubious about the flexibility=power argument. The Fighter class, or any other class, works best when used exactly as intended, which naturally limits the flexibility in regard to its power unless that's also the concept you want to play. Power level is really a minor portion of the argument; I want to play concepts not power level, but at the same time, I don't want to sacrifice power level to get the concept I want.

I think a fighter rogue multiclass can be just as effective a combatant as a straight fighter or a straight rogue, they gain extra damage from sneak attacks and some of the key defensive abilities as well as better BAB and hit points than a straight rogue, they are a little less tankish than a fighter because they have a slightly slower BAB and hit points but they can still be an effective combatant. The key is using the heavy armor, which does not work as well for a swashbuckler concept.

On the other hand, adding a few levels of fighter to a mobility light armored straight rogue can give them a little toughening, but probably not enough to eliminate the frailty of the rogue class as a melee combatant.

Unfettered are better at making the lightly armored warrior work which is the basis of the swashbuckler archetype.

 

[Kahuna Burger]

When you multiclass, you not only get into the base save/BAB silliness, but you get an additional skill set that you need to perform a balancing act to get right. Don't believe me? Try modeling a stealthy "Robin Hood of the City" type character using Fighter and Rogue. You can do it, but you have to do a lot of finicky tweaks to the skills, and if the DM doesn't let you carry skillpoints over, then you're sunk. Now take the Unfettered. You can do the same thing with it, and you don't have to worry about overbalancing on your skills to get it to work either.

yeah, the skill set switch is annoying in a big way... one LEW character is multiclassing between ranger and bard to get a "investigator/tracker" kind of character. Each level, she basicly adds a big jump of skill in one aspect of her abilities, while ignoring the other. It feels very akward and a little frustrating, as opposed to making a blended class that was good at both social investigations and tracking, AND had one smooth spell progression for minor divination type spells. (if you think multiclassing spellcaster with non is bad, try it when one or both is only a minor spellcasting class to begin with.) And if you like to have your levels reflect what you've done with the character, multiclassing becomes even more akward...

I think multiclassing to get the character you want works best when its done all at once to achaive a moderate to high level character. Add up all the skills and class abilities and call the total your life goal, which you will pretend that you you achieved in some smooth intergrated manner. But for playing a character from first level, multiclassing seems strange and bumpy and frankly more than a bit contrived, compared to playing a class that smoothly integrates the features you want for the final mix.

(the bumpiness and addition of features you didn't focus on are also compaints I have with the entire level based system, but multiclassing just makes it worse)

Kahuna burger

 

[Umbran]

Hmm...

...The Unfettered isn't boosted in relation to the Fighter or the Rogue by itself, it's boosted in relation to the Fighter/Rogue multiclass, but the boost gets it to the same level as the Fighter or the Rogue.

and

He's not better than the fighter in combat either, although he's arguably his equal (as he should be, IMO, as he's primarily a combat style, as is the tank fighter.)

So, he's equal to the fighter at fighting, but has rogue stuff added on, but is not more powerful than the fighter? That doesn't sound right to me. You cannot be equal, then add useful stuff, and still remain equal.

You're free to not buy the flexibility = power argument. But in the long term I find it to be true. If you need support, think of this - if it were not true, how could the rogue (who with many skill points and an even longer possible skill list and choices in special abilities in higher levels is all about flexibility and options) possibly be balanced with the fighter, who is all about only fighting? Seems to me that the rogue (and in his way the wizard) are pretty strong proof that flexibility is power.

Obviously, this idea does not extend infinitely, or in all directions. If you take a single level in every class in the book, you're not being so much "flexible" as "limp". And in some campaigns the theory doesn't hold because the DM does not provide outlets to display the flexibility - in a dungeon crawl combat focused campaign, the rogue's flexibility is of much less use.

 

[Desdichado]

Wouldn't be equal without the Rogue stuff -- (limited sneak attack damage, evasion, a few more skill points and broader skill list.)

I've certainly never said that the Unfettered is the equal of the Fighter and then had some Rogue bonuses tacked on on top of that.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think if there was a Dex-based, full BAB D&D warrior-class, this argument would largely evaporate.

BUT, I pick a little from column A, and a little from column B, and a little from column C...

Column A is the "modding" column. A cleric doesn't want to turn undead? Sure, switch it out for a different domain power. Cool with me. Maybe you want a wizard who specializes in a certain kind of spell? Trade out some of the useless arcane spells for some of the apt divine spells, okay. I can live with that. Urban ranger? Sweet idea. A fighter with an ancestral sword? Cool. I think the core rules provide ENORMOUS flexibility in this respect...a non-kick-ass cleric is just a sorcerer with divine spells away!

Column B is the "new class" column. Something like the OA Shaman or the Ninja is best replicated with a class...something that the character has from level one, and can keep for twenty levels. This is the kind of thing that *defines* a character concept, which isn't just the pairing of two ideas into one...it's something that would require such heavy modding it might as well be a new class anyway, so why not build it that way from the start? A dexterous, swashbuckling fighter would be an example of this.

Column C is the "use what's there" column. A fighter/mage can be done, and can be done well, within the bonds of the core rules. You don't need a specialty 20-level class for that. If what you want just just some focus, a 5-level PrC can give you that. If you've got a concept that takes the classes in a new direction, a 10-level PrC can do that. If you're a sorcerer with just one domain or something, a few feats can take care of that. There's no need to change the thing whole cloth when your character concept isn't really incompatible with what's there. So your fighter focueses in one weapon? That doesn't mean you're not a fighter...that just means you're a weapon master, with the usual fighter training + a PrC. So you wanna be a diplomat? Be a bard. The flavor of the class given shouldn't stop you....change the flavor as much as you want. Bard songs don't have to be songs. Sneak attack doesn't have to be a backstab.

Using these policies, I can pretty much give anybody the character concept they want with a minimum of work. Step #1 is to use what's there...then to mod...and FINALLY, when all other options have been exhausted, allow in a brand new class.

* Elementalist = Druid (perhaps with a PrC, probably with feats)
* Unfettered = Monk (almost definately with a PrC, and feats)
* Swashbuclker = New Class (like a fighter, but opt out on armor and feats for sneak attacks and movement abilities and skill points)
* Urban Ranger = Modified Ranger (switch out some skills, lean to Cha in stead of Wis)
* Robin Hood = Ranger/Bard (he could stirr many people! But he was a keen expert of the forests!)
* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Fighter = Fighter, with PrC (see, for instance, the 3.5 feat that allows you to up unarmed damage)
* Knight in Shining Armor = Paladin (he's brave and courageous and has a horse)
* Hedge Wizard = Adept (a bit of magic on the side, really)
* Witch = Modified Druid (less damage, more manipulation, and more animal control....better illusions instead of wild shape)
* Pirate = Any character class, with a certain seaman focus (just need the right skill choices for this, really)

 

[Magius del Cotto]

Having played a long string of fighters, a couple fighter/rogues, and currently playing an unfettered, I can honestly say that I'd rather be an unfettered than a fighter/rogue. They do get many of the same things that the fighter/rogue gets, at about the same pace, without worrying about the negatives that go along with that combination. I don't agree with the idea that swapping out what you don't need for what you do is a power boost: I think that it's a perfectly valid design concept.
Why shouldn't a lightly-armored fighter swap out his heavy armor proficiency for a natural boost in AC (such as what the Unfettered gets)? Why not have a ranger sacrifice some skills and maybe a favored enemy for the rogue's trapfinding ability? I'd say that these are all valid things to do.
From what I've seen, the classes are based on what most players would do with the classes. When the character concept calls for something other than what has been presented, I feel that the player should be able to craft the class to how they want it. Even so, there are some concepts that are so far out of the core mindset that you need to bring in a new class to fit the void. The dextrous fighter is one of these voids, and I think that the Unfettered fills it nicely.
Prestige classes are good for further defining given niches (long-range sniper, battlemage, so on), but don't do much for the core concepts (dextrous warrior, spontanious divine caster, etc). This is why I look at most classes to see what they are about before accepting or denying them.
Not that I DM very often...
Magius out.

 

[Tsyr]

* Elementalist = Druid (perhaps with a PrC, probably with feats)

Depends on your perception of an elementalist, perhaps. Without a lot of tinkering with the spell list and modification of class abilities, it's still going to be too woodsy for my taste. Would be easier to start with a sorcerer, but even that's not quite right.

* Unfettered = Monk (almost definately with a PrC, and feats)

Don't see it, sorry

* Swashbuclker = New Class (like a fighter, but opt out on armor and feats for sneak attacks and movement abilities and skill points)

I think the Unfettered works good for this type of character.

* Urban Ranger = Modified Ranger (switch out some skills, lean to Cha in stead of Wis)

I would probably go with the Stalker from Sov. Stone for an Urban Ranger, or the Ranger Varient from Path of the Sword with Urban as favored terrain.

* Robin Hood = Ranger/Bard (he could stirr many people! But he was a keen expert of the forests!)

Fighter/Rogue multiclass, or just use the swashbuckler class and dump points into Survival. Kinda like a pirate there.

* Non-Supernatural Unarmed Fighter = Fighter, with PrC (see, for instance, the 3.5 feat that allows you to up unarmed damage)

Not nesessarily non-supernatural... In the DnD setting, being a supernatural unarmed fighter is almost a must, or else you will be useless in any fight that needs damage reduction of any sort. But I could do without things like Quivering Palm and Leap of the Clouds and stuff like that.

* Knight in Shining Armor = Paladin (he's brave and courageous and has a horse)

This is the same problem though that people have with spellcasting rangers... Sometimes spellcasting not only isn't needed, it's just wrong for the class. Sturm Brightblade from Dragonlance, for example, just wouldn't have been the same character if he was casting spells all over the place. Besides, nothing about the Knight in Shining Armour archtype requires them to be good guys... A lot of knights in fantasy are actually pretty cold or arogant bastards.

* Hedge Wizard = Adept (a bit of magic on the side, really)

Not really balanced for a PC class. The Hedge Wizard class is.

* Witch = Modified Druid (less damage, more manipulation, and more animal control....better illusions instead of wild shape)

Agreed, and for a while I did this when I needed a witch, but then I just decided I had changed it enough for it to be a new class all together, and started using the one from Quint. Witch

* Pirate = Any character class, with a certain seaman focus (just need the right skill choices for this, really)

Well, yeah, any class would work, but for he traditional image of sabers and billowing blouses climbing about on ropes, the Rogue works best, or perhaps the Unfettered.