The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[MerricB]

With the recent flood of new classes from Wizards, the problems with the 3e multi-classing system have become readily apparent.

Of course, these may not be considered as problems by all. However, the problems that the Eldritch Knight and Mystic Theurge were designed to fix have become what might be a troubling part of the 3.5e system.

What are these issues, and are they indeed problems? That depends on how flexible you want the system to be.

Historically, 1E had a multi-class system that required player choice from first level. It actually worked better than the 2E system, due to two reasons:
* Multi-class fighter/wizards could wear armour (one of the few reasons to take that combination)
* Character retirement and level limits meant 12th level was the end of most campaigns.

The XP system for multi-classing broke down at high levels (10+); this was not properly compensated for in 2E's expanded level limits.

1E and 2E did not allow "free" multiclassing. There were very definite limits on what combinations were allowed. This is an important point to consider as we move to 3E and the "free" multiclassing it initially appeared to support.

In 3E, there are no main restrictions as to which classes you combine (with the slight exception of alignment-based incompatibilities). This may lead many to thinking that they can combine any classes they like and get an effective character. This is not the case.

3E multi-classing works by an additive process: you add together the benefits of being in each class.

This works fine for the primary attributes of D&D characters: Hit points, Skills, Saving Throws and Attack Bonus. They are designed with this additive process in mind. Other abilities, such as Sneak Attack, also are additive in nature.

However, most abilities are written specifically for a class, and are not additive in nature. The most obvious offender here is Spellcasting, but it also applies to Bardic Knowledge, Turn Undead, Monk unarmed damage and some other very class-specific abilities, such as the Soulknife's mind blade.

As I mention in my opening statement, this has become extremely pronounced with the new class options. If you multi-class or take a prestige class, it is most likely that these non-additive abilities are not increasing in power, although there are exceptions.

The ostensible freedom of 3e is instead restricted. There are classes, like the 1e Paladin, that cannot be multi-classed with effectively.

Although some prestige classes have mitigated this, whenever a new class ability is added the problem reoccurs.

However, is this really a problem? Although the idea of freely multiclassing is attractive, conceptually there is not a problem with some classes not making good multi-class characters. Of course, there should be some combinations that must be addressed (such as the fighter/wizard example), but all in all it may not be the problem that it could be considered to be.

Was indeed 1e's solution to this the correct one? Should multi-classing be allowed freely?

This is an issue that should be addressed over the coming years, and resolved when the 4th edition is published. It is not a crisis by any means, but instead a decision that should be made on a major part of the 3E system.

Cheers!

 

[Felon]

Well, as you likely know Unearthed Arcana provides a "magic rating" for characters that accumulates in a manner similar to BAB. As for the other non-additive abilities you mention, bardic knowledge and turn undead are pretty much legacy abilities provided for players who would feel "nerfed" without them.

As it currently stands, bardic knowledge is rendered pretty much obsolete with the gamut of knowledge skills available. And the designers deviously designed 3e undead so that their HD-to-CR ratio was somewhere close to a 2-to-1 range, then lathered on lots of turn resistance, to the point that Turn Undead becomes a fairly useless ability at a fairly low-level. They both should go bye-bye.

Monk unarmed damage? That's also a pretty dumb design element. I mean really--one attack that does 1d6 at 1st level eventually grows into 5 or 6 attacks that do 2d8 or 2d10? Jesus Christ, what martial artist needs nunchakus? "lopsided" does not mean "balanced". IMC monk damage stays fixed at 1d6, but they get to add to add their Wisdom to damage with both unarmed strikes and monk weapons. Seems to work.

The most broken element of multi-classing that you haven't mentioned is the accumulation of large save bonuses that occurs when a player dabbles a couple levels in several different classes. Every time a new class is undertaken, that character receives a +2 in any and all of that classes good saves. It can really add up.

 

[Jolly Giant]

I think the multiclassing rules function pretty well as they are. I enjoy playing characters who can do a little bit of everything and (almost) always multiclass, so I've had a bit of experience with these rules. While I thought multiclassing was okay even when 3.0 came out, it's gotten so much better since then. The PrCs that blends two separate core classes; such as Arcane Trickster, Mystic Theurge, Eldritch Knight etc, made multiclassing a much more viable option. Though there aren't official PrCs for every possible multiclass combo, a DM/player can fairly easily come up with something that works for just about every combination; now that we have these examples as guidelines. The last major drawback - lack of spellcasting abilty - was largely solved with the Practised Spellcaster feat, IMHO.

 

[Jolly Giant]

IMC monk damage stays fixed at 1d6, but they get to add to add their Wisdom to damage with both unarmed strikes and monk weapons. Seems to work.

I didn't agree with a lot of what you were saying, but this sounds like very cool idea. I'll definitely have to consider it for yoinking!

 

[MerricB]

Felon: so indeed, the problem is not in the multi-classing system as such, but more in the non-additive abilities - many of which are poorly implemented?

I'd say that is a valid interpretation. I don't think it's quite universal, but it may be true in many instances.

I rather hope Turn Undead gets changed into the damage to undead version of CD and similar tomes.

Jolly Giant: I quite agree - Practised Spellcaster is one of the shining jewels of Complete Divine.

Cheers!

 

[knifespeaks]

Well, despite likely drawing howls of protest from all sides, I take a restrictive view of multi-classing.

Alignment rules out some combos.
Racial limitations for class are essentially the same as in 1st.
Class level limitations however are removed - unlimited advancement.
Multiclassing is something which must be trained for - you don't start out as a multiclass, you need to find a trainer to develop extra classes.

The last point discourages, to some extent, 'taking a class' to simply gain benefits. It is roleplayed, so I can gauge how badly the player wants it. I won't make it impossibly difficult, but for some classes, it isn't as simple as wandering in to a town and plonking cash down and 'getting' the class. Then there is the training time - lengthy for wizard, pretty quick for fighter.

Yes, it is restrictive. I understand that. But it is just too open to abuse imho without some governance from the DM.

Allowing open house works for some folks, all power to 'em - I just prefer to keep a handle on balance by limiting the 'powers' of the players.

 

[rkanodia]

I think Turn Undead should just disappear entirely as a game mechanic. Give the cleric a set of spells, one for each level, that inflict damage and other nastiness on undead in a given radius. Boom.

 

[MerricB]

I think Turn Undead should just disappear entirely as a game mechanic. Give the cleric a set of spells, one for each level, that inflict damage and other nastiness on undead in a given radius. Boom.

I'd almost agree with you - but I think that the Divine feats are really good.

Cheers!

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Racial limitations for class are essentially the same as in 1st.

I can see most of those reasons working well in certain games(though not every game works well with the 'train to get new class/level/anything' idea), but this one always gets me. Why do this? Other than 'it was this was in 1e', of course.

For example, what's wrong with an Elven Paladin? Or a Dwarf Wizard? Sure, they're different...but ALL members of a race shouldn't be carbon copies of one another.

 

[knifespeaks]

Elven Paladins are fine - but I realise you used examples, so I will be more constructive than just refuting those

It comes down to game balance partially, and ease of DM'ing....remember in first edition, how dwarves got super bonuses to saves vs magic? Some of that was to justify the rationale behind dwarves not being arcane magic-using creatures. I like that image of dwarves, so I do the same - vs arcane magic, dwarves get a will save bonus to compensate the racial limitation.

See, humans get the shaft, bigtime - I ditch skill and feat limitations - there isn't any limit to what characters can learn, aside from statistical limitations (ie, sub 9 INT and no spells for you). This allows characters (imho) to be more expressive. But it of course removed a key benfit to humans - so, class/race limitations square the ledger a bit. monks for example, are only humans - no arcane spell users from dwarves, halflings and half-orcs....etc etc.

Without making skills and feats level-dependant, I can sculpt the world alot better - characters are then encouraged to meet people and talk to them, to find out if they have any useful knowledge to pass on.

I just prefer it that way - it's the way I have always approached the world, and I find it the most comfortable.

I still enforce feat pre-reqs for chains - I just remove level constraints. Characters tend to take whatever they can get, based on what is available. If they are seeking a specific skill or feat, their enquiries can often yield surprising results

Also, skill rises can occur organically - rolling a natural 20 in a tight situation might enlighten a character (ie, raise skill rank by 1) to a better way of doing something. Not all the time, and not as a rule - but it keeps the game fun and provides a deeper meaning to skill use. If you use it alot, you get better at it naturally.