Multi-classing, yay or nay?

[Mournblade94]

Witness Conan's evolution: Barbarian -> Thief -> Fighter -> King. Try writing a single class to cover that!

I would argue that Conan was never a Barbarian or THief as commonly portrayed in the context of RPG classes. Seriously, it is difficult to find where he rages as per barbarian rage in RE HOWARD or the Roy Thomas comics. Especially in the newer Dark Horse comics, he does not have these barbaric qualities.

He is a barbarian as RE HOWARD would have thought of Barbarian, visigoth/hun type barbarian. Any of his stealth skills could easily be subsumed by Ranger class. I pretty much think he is not Thief class either. YES he steals, but he does not dungeoneer like a theif. He doesn't pick locks, disarm traps, etc.

I think Conan is strictly a Ranger/Fighter of somesort. Barbarian and Thief yes, but not in the context of a D&D Class.

 

[Umbran]

I am not very invested in having a system that matches my every possible concept desire. I am happy to look at a system, determine what it can do reasonably well, and stick to concepts within that scope.

So, if you give me a system that has classes, but really lousy multiclassing, then I'll just restrict myself to concepts that don't require multiclassing. It is no big deal, to me.

 

[saskganesh]

Pretty much. People who steal are Thiefs, but not necessarily a Thief Character Class.

We know Conan is a good climber, has stalk/hide. He could just be a Fighter with some skill slots.

Back to topic: I always liked Rolemaster's character system. You had classes (something like 20 in the base game, more when they got to supplements), but within the context of those classes you could learn any skill. But the costs varied. For example, it would cost a Fighter a lot of DP's to learn a spell list; similarily, it would cost a Magician a lot of DP's to become a master at a sword. But it could be done. There was even a "classless" class (?The Crass?) optional rule and an optional rule for blending two or more classes into a new unique class. It all worked well enough.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

Part of the character building is choosing skills, you can build a beserker (its a barbarian, let's face it) with stealthy skills, the thieves get class skills for being sneaky, they also get more skills than any other class

the skills are similar to any palladium game where you get a certain amount of choices and from certain groups, so if skills make characters different then you really can play however you want, it also has many combat skills, suddenly diplomacy can be used in combat (showing mercy can effect how an 'foe' acts after all)

 

[baradtgnome]

I vote yes for multi-classing. However, I have no interest in having hundreds of classes to choose from and in spending vast amounts of time to optimize. I prefer a selection of core classes, with some sub classes. Multi-classing to help you build a character concept or fill a niche.

 

[Lanefan]

You need to meet more "thespian" oriented players.

That's not a problem 'round here, but they'll still look for the loopholes now and then...

As far as optimization and alpha builds...it's going to happen. There will be ladies and gentlmen that will still dive into class X for Y levels to increase the potency of power/loophole Z. Just like they would always choose character-build options X and Y in order to boost the potency of power/loophole Z.

Which means one of two things has to happen:
- the loopholes need to be closed (often difficult), or
- multiclassing needs to be restricted or banned (much easier).

Lanefan

 

[GSHamster]

I'm going to say no to multi-classing for the following reasons:

1. Increased complexity. Just having multi-classing adds pages of rules for a relatively uncommon case.

2. Increased permutations of possible character builds. Every class can multi-class with every other class from any sourcebook. This makes it exceeding likely that some combination somewhere will be broken.

3. Classes can be more unique. For a class to multi-class successfully, it needs to share characteristics with other classes. Having classes be self-contained entities allows more experimentation with resource models and other ideas.

4. Hybrids are rarely successfully balanced when 50% class A + 50% class B. A hybrid character needs to be closer to 75% class A + 75% class B to match 100% class A. But that adds up to 150%, and is very hard to do in a level-based game where the total number of levels is always the same.

You can see this in things like 3E's total caster level, etc.

5. This may be an unpopular reason, but it's a good avenue for the game companies to make money. We like buying new classes, and having classes be entirely self-contained will make it a lot easier to make hybrid classes without treading on the multi-class toes.

I think the game is healthier when the game companies are making a profit instead of losing money.

As well, adding new classes does not necessarily add new complexity to the rest of the system the way a lot of new rules do. Only the player of the class really needs to worry about it.

---

I think that the game would be better off if multi-classing was disallowed. If really necessary, maybe a "Rebirth" ritual or similar could be included to provide a path for a player to switch classes to something new that is more in-line with her vision.

 

[Jhaelen]

Yeah, this. Honestly, I care less about multi-classing and more about multi-abilitying.

In other words, I want a system that can handle a player who says "I want to play a skilled warrior in heavy armor - who is also good at picking locks and dodging fireballs!" Or even, "And one who is good at stabbing enemies in weak spots!"

I have a similar view:
If a class (or the skill/power system itself) is flexible enough to support a wide range of archetypes, and the party is able to cover all 'typical' adventuring fields reasonably well, multi-classing might not be required.

E.g. in Earthdawn, disciplines (= classes) are very specialized and to cover all adventuring skills would be difficult without having a very large party, so it's important that the system allows basically unlimited* multi-classing.

If it was easier to acquire talents/skills that aren't part of your discipline, it wouldn't be as important.



*: There's actually a limiting factor but it's enforced by roleplaying issues: If you dabble in too many different disciplines you may find it difficult to find teachers because they'll feel you're unfocused and not worthy of being taught greater secrets of the discipline.

Also, if you repeatedly fail to act according to your discipline's 'codex' you may eventually lose your powers because of a 'talent crisis'. This is because everyone's an adept who has in a way been chosen 'by her discipline' rather than the other way around...

Did I mention I like Earthdawn's way of marrying mechanics and the setting's background?

 

[delericho]

I would argue that Conan was never a Barbarian or THief as commonly portrayed in the context of RPG classes.

Conan was just an example. It's probably not helpful to get too hung up on it, since even if you can find one class that fits, you then have to deal with Elric, The Grey Mouser, Batman...

I think Conan is strictly a Ranger/Fighter of somesort. Barbarian and Thief yes, but not in the context of a D&D Class.

Fair enough, but that would still seem to make him multi-class. Some other fictional characters certainly require some sort of multi-class-like mechanic to make them fit.

Now, one could argue that those characters aren't suitable for use as PCs in the game, but then I have to ask: why not? If a player wants a character "like Batman" or "like Conan" (or whatever), why is the game saying that they can't?

Additionally, if fictional characters require some sort of multiclassing to be modelled well (or, I suppose, they could just 'cheat'), then why aren't player characters allowed the same sort of flexibility/customisation? Shouldn't the goal be for them to have the same sort of depth as the heroes in the stories we're trying to emulate?

 

[Gilladian]

In my opinion, multi-classing is a complexity that should be optional. If a game contains only a few basic roles, such as the "traditional four", then multiclassing for variety soon becomes a necessity.

But a game which has a plenitude of base classes, such as 4e, shouldn't need multiclassing as well! Even 3e, I rarely had anyone bother to multiclass (I know, but I think I had 3 prestige classes ever used, either!). The base classes were enough variety that everyone was satisfied without adding the rules study needed to multiclass on top of that. And that's how it should be, I think.