Multiclassing Mania

[Deadguy]

Not All Multi-Classes Are Multi-Classed!

Well, the title says it all, but I guess it might not make much sense

By that I mean that not everyone who follows multiple classes should necessarily be seen as pursuing multiple career paths. Instead, the game mechanics used (the classes) represent a unified career path spread out over time.

I recall that the last Dragon Annual (I think, don't have it to hand) gave examples of a single archetype modelled by a pair of classes. For example the Skald, produced by multi-classing Barbarian and Bard. I encourage players to think along these lines rather more; often a fair 'prestige class' can be made by mixing a couple of core classes along with a few special feats.

So a big thumbs up to the 3e multi-class rules but a 'sigh' that they haven't been exploited to the degree that they could have.

 

[jollyninja]

i guess the only thing i don't like about it is the exp penalty. if i want to neuter my character's high level advancement by picking up a few rogue levels after having been a fighter9, sorceror6, that's really penalty enough, i'm not getting anything good out of the deal but i'm paying a 20% exp penalty on top of getting wussy little abilities. if i want to multiclass for as many classes as i can, that allready makes my character pretty much useless compared to the rest of the party. and then if i do not advance in my favored class, i'm way behind the party in exp. the rule is unnessisary in my opinion.

 

[Garmorn]

I am playing in a campain where every one has two characters. Of my two one is a Fighter 2/Pyshic Warrior 10/Egotist 2 and the other is Wizard 15.

Balkan, the F2/P10/E2 is built for combat. Started as a fighter for campain reasons and then went PW. Later picked up Egotist for extra powers and powerpoints.

The Wizard is the party's only arcane spell caster and is there for boosting and raw spell attack power.

Multiclasing allowed Balkan to develope the way events would have led him with out breaking any of the rules.

 

[jmucchiello]

I hate the effect on spellcasters. My favorite combination in 2E was the cleric/mage. In 3E, you don't get the high level spells. In a 10th level party, being a 5/5 cleric/wizard sucks. 10th level parties need mages with teleport and wall of force. In 2E, you would be 9/9 in a 10th level party. Able to fill both the wizard and cleric roll in a pinch.

Edit: forgot this point: We threw out the balancing penalty. We figured if you wanted to have six different classes, that was limiting enough. We haven't figured out who to rebalance the classes with favored classes yet though. But people still play most races so it hasn't been a problem.

 

[Oogar]

Not fond of the effect it has on spell casters, but I can respect the concept of a mage who does not focus is going to be much less effective then one that does. It really makes the Multiclassing something that is for Melee classes OR for someone who has a very specific role playing goal. I can respect the Role PLaying argument, but it is difficult for me to feel like I am not pulling my weight in a party. I really don't like being useless flavor.

 

[Olidammara]

I agree with Deadguy: Multiclassing can be more than wearing a new professional name on your ID badge. It's a character concept development path that can represent interests across a variety of areas.

Taking four levels of fighter, for example, doesn't mean that my character is simply a "wizard/fighter" -- it means that my mage is a little more physical than his mana-focused peers and has spent some valuable time developing his quarterstaff wielding abilities. He still considers himself 100 percent wizard, though.

Taking a class package doesn't require that you have to define yourself by that title. And I like that.

 

[takyris]

There are two things I don't like about the multiclassing system. One, I have a solution for. The other, I don't.

1) The Monk/Druid/Sor/Wiz/Cleric with saves up the wazoo and a +0 Base Attack bonus. One of my players made a nice javascript calculator to handle fractional BAB's and to calculate saves by the "x levels of good, y levels of bad" method. So while this is a house rule, I think it ends up being more true to the game. I don't think a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian's Fort save ought to be any higher than a Fighter of the same level -- and I don't see why a Wizard/Rogue should be penalized on attack rolls any more than he already is.

2) Multiclassed spellcasters. A fighter can take levels of monk, rogue, or cleric, and get lots of neat abilities with just a few levels, and his base attack bonus still goes up, just a bit more slowly. A wizard who takes a few levels of something else gets nothing. Currently, I'm trying a feat that adds +1 to your effective spellcasting level, with the caveat that it can never raise your spellcasting level past your character level. A dedicated Wizard10/Fighter10 could take it at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th level, and be effectively a 15th level spellcaster (who has no metamagic feats or additional combat abilities). This seems to match up with a Fighter10/Rogue10, who has all the abilities of a 10th level rogue, and who also has a BAB not far from what a straight Fighter would have had.

All that said, I love 3rd Edition multiclassing. I haven't seen it horribly abused by my players, despite all the jokes about the Pal1/Mnk1/Cleric or Sorcerer x characters. And I love the customization potential of the system.

-Tacky

 

[fuindordm]

There are two things I don't like about the multiclassing system. One, I have a solution for. The other, I don't.

2) Multiclassed spellcasters. A fighter can take levels of monk, rogue, or cleric, and get lots of neat abilities with just a few levels, and his base attack bonus still goes up, just a bit more slowly. A wizard who takes a few levels of something else gets nothing. Currently, I'm trying a feat that adds +1 to your effective spellcasting level, with the caveat that it can never raise your spellcasting level past your character level. A dedicated Wizard10/Fighter10 could take it at 3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th, and 18th level, and be effectively a 15th level spellcaster (who has no metamagic feats or additional combat abilities). This seems to match up with a Fighter10/Rogue10, who has all the abilities of a 10th level rogue, and who also has a BAB not far from what a straight Fighter would have had.

All that said, I love 3rd Edition multiclassing. I haven't seen it horribly abused by my players, despite all the jokes about the Pal1/Mnk1/Cleric or Sorcerer x characters. And I love the customization potential of the system.

-Tacky

Your idea of spending a feat to get +1 spellcasting level is pretty interesting! I'm interested in hearing how it plays out. If it seems too powerful, you could make the feat give you a "half-level" of spellcasting instead (see Sean Reynolds' website for the OGL rules on this).

Personally, my only peeve with 3e multiclassing is the effect on spellcasters. I don't really have a problem with the F4/MU6 being equivalent to a 10th level character, that makes sense. Spellcasting is much weaker but still significant, and combat potential is higher than in 2nd edition because the character can specialize. Great!

But then they had to go and stick in Arcane Failure. Why? There was no such thing in first edition, and 2nd edition simply disallowed armor to wizards who were multiclassed for no good reason. An armored wizard isn't any more unbalanced than an armored cleric, as years of playing 1st edition attests to. In 3rd edition,
if I want to play a F/MU type (or even a F/Bard!),
with just as much training in armor use as a cleric, I lose a significant fraction of my spells to arcane failure *in addition* to giving up the powerful magic. This design choice baffles me.

If they hadn't beefed up divine magic to be almost as powerful as arcane magic (domains taking lots of the best combat spells), I would have less of a problem with it. But since cleric and wizard spells are now formally identical down to the components, it just doesn't sit well with me that clerics don't have to worry about armor and wizards do.

I know, it's easy enough to Rule 0, and I have. I think this is a case of making the rules enforce a rather feeble archetype (the robed/aged/puny wizard) when it wasn't really necessary. Kind of like the dual-wielding ranger--I see a lot of archer-ranger variants out there.

--Ben

 

[Duncan Haldane]

A level of cleric, with the right domains, can round out a character as well. The ability to heal yourself in emergencies is not to be overlooked! The travel, luck or war domains also add some great abilities.

I'd just like to point out that with a single level of Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Bard or Paladin a character can use a "cleric on a stick" - ie, a wand of cure light wounds.

For a party around 5th level who can afford to buy such things this can be really useful.

Duncan

 

[MeepoTheMighty]

But then they had to go and stick in Arcane Failure. Why? There was no such thing in first edition, and 2nd edition simply disallowed armor to wizards who were multiclassed for no good reason. An armored wizard isn't any more unbalanced than an armored cleric, as years of playing 1st edition attests to. In 3rd edition,
if I want to play a F/MU type (or even a F/Bard!),
with just as much training in armor use as a cleric, I lose a significant fraction of my spells to arcane failure *in addition* to giving up the powerful magic. This design choice baffles me.

Huh? Wizards have never been able to wear armor