Single Classed, Multiclassed, or Just a Mess?

[Navarp]

I voted the way I feel. It is all about PrCs. I think they are the bread and butter of 3.X. I think that the UA PrC for the Paladin is a great idea, maybe bard and ranger too. I think that the base classes should be small in number, and more PrCs should represent the actuall classes. I almost never play a straight class character, but I also almsot never multi-class. Its all PrC for me.

 

[Wombat]

I mainly GM, rather than play, but when I do play I suppose I go back and forth on the whole multiclassing issue. Sure, if you go for multiple classes and/or a PrC you will probably end up weaker at 20th level than if you took a pure class but 1) I've never taken a character above about 12th level and 2) sometimes you just have to split your classes to make the character you want.

In my current campaign, based heavily on the AU rules but not the Diamond Throne world, I have six players all on the verge of reaching 3rd level. Three of them have already multiclassed, one more is thinking about it, and the last two are probably going to single-class it all the way. Just the way things work out

 

[The Grackle]

I almost always multiclass, but I usually play fighter/rogue types, and never spellcasters. I like the idea of prestige classes, but most of them seem goofy to me...

 

[mhacdebhandia]

I voted for the third option, because I don't have a strict approach to the issue. I do what seems mechanically best for the character concept; whether that's min-maxing or simply taking the "right" in-character options depends on whether the latter leads to the former.

Sometimes I'll build a character around a mechanical concept - in the first Third Edition campaign I played, I wanted to play a sorcerer/alienist, so I worked backwards from that concept, establishing that his sorcerous abilities derived from a connection to otherworldly entities (rather than, say, draconic heritage) and writing up a backstory which explained how his search for an explanation of this strange connection led him to an alienist cabal.

Another character I conceived of as a brash, somewhat overconfident cavalry soldier, so I felt it was appropriate to focus the majority of his abilities on his martial skill. While I eventually found a prestige class for him, I hadn't planned to take one originally - but the prospect of single-classing in a class which didn't strictly reinforce the concept grew less and less palatable as the campaign continued, so I changed my mind and started looking for options.

On the other hand, I'm playing a cleric in an ECL-heavy Forgotten Realms game later today, and I don't really see any need for him to multiclass - most of his goals are tied to those of his deity, and I'm fairly certain the best way for him to achieve them is as a single-classed cleric.

 

[CronoDekar]

I almost always singleclass, but it's not some conviction against multiclassing or PrCs, it's just that's how my characters almost always end up. Only real multiclassed char I had was Chance, a Cleric/Fighter to be Auspician (F&P), though I did consider having my ghostwise halfling bard dip into barb just to get rage (did I mention he only had 8 str and used a crossbow?)

In fact, I actually love it when books have new, flavorful, and balanced PrCs, but because my character was singleclassed or I never got to use them because the campaign ended too early. Fortunately you can make all the chars you want when you're a DM

 

[was]

I multiclass about half the time. I limit it to only one other class though.

 

[Jolly Giant]

I don't get to play as much as I'd like to, since I'm the DM most of the time, but when I do get the chance I very often multiclass. (And when I DM, my NPCs also tend to be multiclass.) My very first character was a clr/sor, the next was a bard/ftr/rog/assassin (only a single bard-level, it was pretty much a front for him. He'd maxed out Perform though, he even had Skill Focus: Perform (Song)!), then came a rog/ftr/order of the bow initiate... THEN came a straight-up monk and then a pure wizard (necromancer). After which I lapsed back into a rog/ftr/wiz/arcane trickster...

Then I bought Savage Species and could start making REALLY experimental charcters! My first one was a insectile dwarf brb/ftr/mageslayer. These days I've got me a lizardfolk brb/ftr/lasher. Most of these characters were far from combat-effective, but was a lot of fun to RP. Now that I think of it, the two singleclass guys were the least fun to play...

 

[Plane Sailing]

It depends.

I've had a paladin 2/sorcerer 4 (this multiclass sounds good on paper but you *don't* want to play your way through those first four sorcerer levels!)

and a Ranger 7

and a Sorcerer 8/ Adept of Fire 3

and a Monk4/Psywar1 aiming for Fist of Zuoken.


I'm much less likely to multiclass casters, often the decision isn't planned out well in advance but grows organically with the character.

 

[Herpes Cineplex]

It depends.
[..]
I'm much less likely to multiclass casters, often the decision isn't planned out well in advance but grows organically with the character.

Same here.

In our group, anyone who played a caster would never multiclass. They might jump ship to a PrC that offered full spell progression at some point, but that was it.

We had a few players who just didn't multiclass their characters at all, mostly because they wanted to get to certain levels in their main class as quickly as possible; players of fighters, paladins, and monks tended to go this route. A small fraction of those aimed themselves at prestige classes, the rest were just planning on sticking with their main class all the way.

As for me, I mostly played rogues. I'd multiclass a little up front (cherry-picking ranger in 3.0, and/or taking a few levels of fighter) to get some feats or a combat edge, but then I'd stick to rogue levels, and ONLY rogue levels, from there on out. The one caster I played stuck with Wizard through 10th level before hopping into a convenient prestige class. I never even considered a PrC for the rogues I played: IMO, there just aren't many (translation: any ) prestige classes for rogues that are cooler than getting to take the high-level rogue abilities.


In our group, multiclassing seems to be much more popular with non-D&D d20 games. Nearly all of the characters in our Farscape game were multiclassed, and the same went for Star Wars d20 (except for the Jedi, who bear the caster's curse). Even the one-shot d20 Modern and Spycraft games we did were done with almost exclusively multiclassed characters. I'm not entirely sure why that's the case, but it is.

--
maybe we're just more open-minded about non-d&d classes?
ryan

 

[Dagger75]

Lately I've been sticking to one class and keeping it. I have had a dwarf "swashbuckler" who was a fighter, rogue, ranger, wizard, shadow dancer, dualist once. Talk about a jack of all trades. Wasn't particulary good at one thing but was able to always try anything when the need arose.

My latest character is going to be a straight ranger.

For my players, I've seen more rogues take a level or two of fighter to help with some feats and increase the BAB a bit but mostly stick to rogue.

Mostly it the casters I see that stick with the one class.