Multiclass characters: Class overload?

[Aus_Snow]

Really? I find that fascinating!

Awesome!

Why would an experienced player choose a complex multiclassing regime for a simple character? It doesn't make much sense unless you're alluding to powergaming.

(emphasis mine) Muh?

Uh, no. I wasn't alluding to powergaming in any way, shape or form. As I already stated, some simple character concepts cannot be represented by any one available class - IME. Well, that's paraphrased, but you get the idea.

It's absolutely nothing to do with 'regimes', 'complex' multiclassing (it's very straight forward, in fact) or yeah, powergaming for that matter. The players involved would probably find these temrs rather amusing in the context. But never mind. . .

If it doesn't make much sense to you, as you say, well. . . I probably can't do much to help there. Sorry. As I said: YMMV, AOD.

 

[Satori]

Those can be painful, but IME, they're usually inexperienced gamers (or at least new to the game).

Unfortunately, I wish the above was true.

However, in 3.xE there are a number of classic "Archetypes" that are really difficult to create mechanically and not fall FAR behind other classes in "crunch".

i.e. I can create a "Swashbuckler" by, well, taking the Swashbuckler Base Class, maxing Dex, using a Rapier, and acting very Swashbucklish.

If I do so, though, then my Fighter or Barbarian or Rogue buddy will SERIOUSLY start to outshine me on a pure mechanical level...even without excessive powergaming.

This can be an issue if you want to play pre-made adventures that are mechanically challenging...as even though "PowerGaming Munchtarding" is generally frowned upon, a pre-made adventure requires at least a MODERATE level of mechanical power to complete successfully.

As such, to be competitive a "Swashbuckler" would probably need to create something like: "Swashbuckler/Swordsage/Warblade/Duelist", min-max certain stats, and carefully allocate feats in order to compare to a standard Greatsword wielding, STR/CON maxed Barbarian.

Here are some classic archetypes that need "firmer" mechanical engineering than normal:
-Dex Fighter
-Gish (Warrior/Casters)
-Dual Wielders
-Throwers
-Unarmed Fighters
-Grapplers
-Necromancers

 

[Satori]

As an addendum to my above post, the example archetypes I listed ARE possible through single class builds.

i.e. Necromancer -> Specialist Wizard, Unarmed Fighter -> Monk, etc...

However...building these concepts with a single class will, typically, create a disadvantage for your character compared to other "standard" single class builds.

i.e. Necromantic Spells (especially dealing with undead) tend to stink for PCs, so you need to dip into Dread Necromancer, True Necromancer, etc...

i.e. Monks tend to fall far behind other front line tanks, so you need to creatively multi-class in order to give Monks more staying power.

 

[joethelawyer]

Quote:
3) People who have no idea just how bad it is to multiclass as a spellcaster.


Quote: It isn't bad at all for a roleplayer.



what good is it to be a roleplayer if you're dead because your abilities dont match up in a fight with a straight classed character?

look at it this way. a character with 5 levels in wizard, 5 in fighter, 5 in rogue and 5 in cleric sucks. he is essentially a 5th level guy with higher hp's, since he can only perform one class's abilities at a time. he is a 20th level character who couldn't stand toe to toe with a 10th level foe. of what use is that? if the abilities in one class dont add to or complement the other class's abilities, using some sort of synthesis factor, then multiclassing is just a way to gimp your character.

to use a sports analogy, lets say a person could be ranked as average, good, very good, or excellent in sports. lets say a guy was ranked good in baseball, football, and basketball. if a group of very good players was getting together a pickup basketball game, and could choose between the guy who was good in three sports, and a guy who was very good in just basketball, who would he choose?

once you get down to it, this is a ROLL playing game in which ROLE playing takes place. if you are not good at ROLL playing, you won't last long enough to ROLE play. if you cant hit the jump shot from outside the key, what good are you to a team?

joe

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

what good is it to be a roleplayer if you're dead because your abilities dont match up in a fight with a straight classed character?

If you're intentionally trying to pit your Ftr5/Wiz5 against a solo Ftr10 in combat or Wiz10 at spellslinging, you're probably not playing your role properly. Your build is about situational flexibility, not going toe-to-toe with a specialist in fields in which you dabble. That's like asking a team of "weekend warriors" in baseball to take on a team of MLB all-stars.

PCs in our current RttToEE campaign have hit 10th level. My particular PC is a Ftr/Rgr/SpecWiziv/SpellSword. Due to occasions of enchantment, infirmity, injury (or other conditions) to other PCs, he's been forced into the role of spellcaster, trapfinder, and front-line fighter.

Had he not been able to perform those roles at some level of proficiency, he or another PC would probably have died at this point. In addition, we probably would have left behind a device integral to success in the module due to no other PC in the party being able to use it (at the time- since then, that McGuffin has been passed onto another PC).

look at it this way. a character with 5 levels in wizard, 5 in fighter, 5 in rogue and 5 in cleric sucks.

Mechanically maybe, but perhaps not so someone who envisions his PC that way.

to use a sports analogy,

To use another one, the multiclassed character is the decathalete, not the high-jump specialist, or the sprint specialist, etc., and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.

if you are not good at ROLL playing, you won't last long enough to ROLE play. if you cant hit the jump shot from outside the key, what good are you to a team?

Perhaps I can block, steal and make assists. Perhaps I'm hot off the bench, but not good enough to start.

In every team, there are the stars and the support. The multiclasser is the support.

And for the record, I've never had a problem with multiclass survivability that would have been remedied by being solo classed.

 

[joethelawyer]

look at it this way. view the adventuring party as one big multiclass character with a number of actions per round equal to the number of characters in the party.

if you had a group of five 15th level characters, all straight classed, comprising of one thief, one wizard, one cleric, and two fighters, that means you get to take five actions per round at 15th level of power.

if one of the characters in the group of five was 5th level in three different classes, that means for one round the action that the giant hypothetical multiclass character would take would be a 5th level action. whether the action was a toe to toe combat action, or an assist/backup action, that action would be 5th level in power. lets call this the gimp round.

one might argue that the gimp round would at least be flexible, in that it could be a cleric, thief, wizard or fighter action. hence power is sacrificed for flexibility. at lower levels, this is no big deal, and might even be a valid argument. but in a typical encounter with a CR of 15 or higher, when the party is 15th level, any action taken at 5th level is pretty much useless. it would have been more effective to have taken an action with 15th level of power behind it.

assuming the group is well balanced, there is far less need for the flexibility a gimp multiclass character brings.

imho, a better way to handle multiclass would be to have a "class feature" (ex. backstab, arcane casting, turn undead) purchase system using experience points as currency. this would essentially make DnD a classless system.

joe

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Look at it this way- the mechanics of the game don't matter.

If the party doesn't want "the gimp" around, they should kick him out.

I am not asserting that multiclassing is mechanically efficient in any way. I'm asserting that it is not badwrongfun to multiclass your PC if that is how you envision your PC, and nobody else's opinion matters one bit.

There is simply no valid mechanics argument you can make to counter what is essentially an artistic/creative decision (at least for some). The person playing the multiclassed PC is making a choice. You may not agree with it, but its not your decision to make.

As for classless systems, HERO is my all-time favorite RPG system, though M&M is a close second. But even within those systems, a decision not to specialize in an area means you're giving up power in all others in which you dabble.

The guy giving up a "build point" to give his PC rudimentary backstabbing skills is by neccessity giving up a resource that could be used within his specialty.

 

[brehobit]

I've got a 5th level character with 5 classes

Ranger, Fighter, Barbarian, Duskblade, Dragonmark Heir.

Fairly playable, gets what I wanted (Talenta warrior who is a member of the house of healing and moved from Talenta to the city). Duskblade gets the "savage learning technology" aspect fairly well, where magic==technology.

And mechanically fairly good. Not great, but halfling warriors struggle...

 

[FalcWP]

If you're intentionally trying to pit your Ftr5/Wiz5 against a solo Ftr10 in combat or Wiz10 at spellslinging, you're probably not playing your role properly. Your build is about situational flexibility, not going toe-to-toe with a specialist in fields in which you dabble. That's like asking a team of "weekend warriors" in baseball to take on a team of MLB all-stars.

Actually, to expand this analogy a bit, it'd be like asking a team of beer league softball players who, say, teach philosophy or physics or any such subject to play an MLB Hall of Fame squad (so, we've got Babe Ruth, Ted Williams, Sandy Koufax, Walter Johnson... your best team possible), and then also debate with Stephen Hawking, Isaac Newton, Socrates and Plato on their respective subjects. But, on the other hand, they probably know more about those subjects than the MLB players do... and I really don't see Volatire as being able to crush a hanging curve ball.

As for joethelawyer's assertion that a multiclassed character is gimped... it really depends. Spellcasters, if their other levels do not advance their casting, probably are. Falling behind on your high level spells and your caster level is a death sentence. Fighters, rogues, and other physical combat folks, not so much. Your BAB will still increase reasonably well (though some combinations hinder it) and few melee classes, especially in core, have great high level endcap abilities. Of the melee guys in core... fighters just keep piling on feats, Paladins watch their Smite improve gradually, Rangers increase their favored enemy bonus, Rogues add another 1d6 sneak attack per two levels, and Barbarians get better rages. Each of these (other than the fighter feats) is useful. But a lot of them aren't more useful than what you get by multiclassing. For instance, would you give up 2d6 points of sneak attack for 3 feats and an extra attack? I would... which tells me Rogue 16/Fighter 4 is better than Rogue 20. How about three combat feats, Track, and a favored enemy? Hello Rogue 16/Fighter 2/Ranger 2. Maybe I want to stack some Rage in there?

For melee characters, multiclassing is often more powerful. For spellcasters... not so much. That's a fairly solid rule of thumb.

 

[joethelawyer]

you have a point there man. every class i have tried to multiclass with has included as its main class a wizard. losing a few wizard levels totally does gimp you as compared to the rest of the group. your logic makes sense for fighters though.

joe