Multiclassing: "Any combo, any level, always works."

[Sadrik]

I hope this isnt the case. I hope "power source" stays as far in the realm of shorthand and jargon as possible and doesnt become a central mechanic.

Like someone else said the only difference is in term. Martial (caster level/power source) whatever... I dont care what they call it as long as it works and functions how they intended it to work!

 

[Simia Saturnalia]

.sigged

Honored.

 

[TheArcane]

Actually, assuming the ranger's not a spellcaster class any more, that looks a lot like a 1e ranger. More to the point, are you assuming he takes one class, then the next, then another?

It doesn't really matter, in any case how probable is it for a character to learn 3 completely different proffesions in a single game?

One group's "realism" is another group's "munchkinism", and a third group's "crippling handicap". And realism hasn't sold games since 1990; we like fun these days.

Sure, having a class that can cast arcane and divine spells, sneak attack, wear plate mail and talk to animals would be fun.

Because all fighters are dumb, right?

No, because he devoted a very significant portion of his life to study and train martial skills.

Happens, if not all the time, with some frequency in the real world.

Three words for you.
God. Of. Thieves.

For the purpose of my statement, consider a neutral rogue multiclassing to a cleric of, say, Helm. One alignment step away, basically allowed by the rules. Makes sense? Not to me.

I think I'm getting the core of this objection:

Do you look at D&D classes like distinct roles in the world that the characters would be at least somewhat aware of? Someone has to teach you to be a ranger, etc? There is a moment in the example character's life where he stops being a cleric and becomes a wizard who was a cleric, f'rex? I'm curious.

It's difficult to say. While a class like fighter could describe a lot of professions, from a simple soldier, to a bully, to a professional galdiator, a cleric is, well, a cleric, and persumably he needs to be initiated by a church or an organization of this sort, taught all the necessary rituals, holy books, etc. A wizard could be a loner, but it would make his studies a lot harder by himself. Then again, he could be academy-taught, or an apprentice of a more powerful wizard who taught him. see my point? The game makes no assumptions regarding the characters background, his training, therefore the multiclassing system is extremely abstract, allowing you to just pick up a new class on the fly.

To my knowledge, one of the tidbits they learned from 2e kits was "never balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disadvantages", which I think is a fine rule. Let how much roleplaying is involved be up to individual groups.

Dude, I realize this is a game after all, and that as a DM I have the final say. With a mature group of gamers I would not expect to have any problems of this sort. I guess it is better to make the ruleset as flexible as possible and let DMs rule it their way, than to make a restrictive system and let DMs invent their own ways of making things work. Personally, though, I would like to see the game take my considerations in mind. After all, it does restrict a lot of things for the sake of certain suspention of disbelief, like having a rational number of actions per round, carrying weight restrictions, etc. While these are more technical matters and restrictions on multiclassing are touching the apparently very sensitive subject of "let me have my freedom of choise", I don't see anything wrong with making a few restrictions here as well when they just plain make sense. For example, I loved it that once a monk multiclassed it could never again advance as a monk. That's it, you broke the routine of devotion, training and discipline. Perhaps it is a bit harsh, and I'd allow atonement and retraining to resume levelling as a monk, but the basic principle should remain.

 

[Stalker0]

If SAGA is any indication, you can definitely make a multi classing system where you toss in any number of different classes and it will be effective. However, SAGA's classes do not have the role differentiation of dnd classes, so that has to be taken in to account.

Multiclassing will never be perfect, but there are some major holes they can fix. The gish is the most readily apparent, casters should be able to multiclass without getting hosed. Right now fighter types can already multiclass pretty easily and still maintain stronger characters. The second is the monk, in general multiclassing out of monk is suicide.

If they can fix problems like these I'll be happy. There will always be ways to multiclass into crappy characters, but as long as the major archetypes can be handled well it will suffice.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

It doesn't really matter, in any case how probable is it for a character to learn 3 completely different proffesions in a single game?

D&D puts little limits on multiclassing, but if a player wants to multiclass some strange combo, he probably has a character concept in mind that makes these 3 completely different professions a lot more similar.

Sure, having a class that can cast arcane and divine spells, sneak attack, wear plate mail and talk to animals would be fun.

Well, depends a lot on further specifics of the class.

No, because he devoted a very significant portion of his life to study and train martial skills.

Did he? Characters in D&D level quite fast. And a first level fighters starting age is one of the lowest possible, IIRC. And there is nothing saying that he trained a lot, in fact he could just be a street brawler that was a bit better than the rest...
I think D&D assumes that actually using abilities in dangerous environments helps a lot more learning to use them then training or study. (How else could Wizards learn so much during adventuring where they rarely have time to study arcane libraries?)

For the purpose of my statement, consider a neutral rogue multiclassing to a cleric of, say, Helm. One alignment step away, basically allowed by the rules. Makes sense? Not to me.

If the Rogue levels are taken for a lot of sneaking, backstabbing and trap bypassing, maybe not. But if it is mostly done for the detection and social abilities of the Rogue, I see no problem. Rogues aren't thieves in D&D.

 

[Merlion]

Like someone else said the only difference is in term. Martial (caster level/power source) whatever... I dont care what they call it as long as it works and functions how they intended it to work!

I want them to call it Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Bard etc. I want it to be about the classes, not blanket groupings or "power sources"

 

[Merlion]

To my knowledge, one of the tidbits they learned from 2e kits was "never balance mechanical advantages with roleplaying disadvantages", which I think is a fine rule. Let how much roleplaying is involved be up to individual groups.

It is a fine rule, though one they've broken a few times.

 

[pawsplay]

It doesn't really matter, in any case how probable is it for a character to learn 3 completely different proffesions in a single game?

I'm a cook, network operator-engineer, and graduate student in psychotherapy. I can also program in C, fight with boffer weapons or rattan, and deliver a very solid axe kick. So in response to your question... I can't really say, but I know plenty of people who in real life have had more than one profession and an interesting spread of skills.

 

[Selvarin]

Maybe all class powers are character level based and not class level based.

Since they said every class gets a new power every level, when you multiclass you trade a power from the class you are now for some new powers from the second class, but the powers you have keep getting better as you become a better character.

So a fighter2/wizard2/paladin1 character has powers from the three classes, but each power is as powerful as the powers from a paladin 5. Both Smite Evils are equaly good for example, but the paladin 5 has lots of paladin powers, the other character is a mess, but a level 5 mess.

The characters' powers are just different and each combination creates a whole kind of character concept and tactical choices.

thoughts?

That is the closest we'll get till the PH comes out. And it makes sense in the long run. The number of times you can use a class ability is based upon your class level, while things such a spell resistance, the strength of spells, etc., would be based upon character level. And as people have already said some combinations won't work perfectly but if this will fix the main issues of mixing spellcasting classes with warrior classes then that is a BIG step up. No need for mystic theurges or eldritch knights thereafter, yay.

 

[tlantl]

Multi classing was by far the most disappointing thing about 3e. There was no way to give my spell casters levels as fighters or rogues because I would never be as strong as a single class character of my level. To use the old multi classing rules you had to change everything. It was futile. Two fours makes an eight works mathematically, but not where character levels are concerned. There is nothing balanced about that.I wonder what their multi class scheme is. I envision a system where every combination of multi classed character as a subclass spelled out as a core class. or perhaps a few specific class types as Mr Noonan says in his blog about the the gish (A fighter wizard class.) I also saw mention of a ranger combination but I don't remember where I saw it. I just hope I can play a Ftr/MU/Thf again.
his blog;
http://forums.gleemax.com/showthread.php?t=910060