The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

While that is so far from my style of game I would never imagine playing in such a game, its an interesting approach. Though I think its more worrying about problems that aren't there. You should see the amount of RPing(i.e., meeting and talking to people, etc) that still gets done with the RAW. But its your game!

Part of me does wonder though...do your players enjoy that?

 

[knifespeaks]

Well, I am starting a new campaign tomorrow with some new faces, so I will let ya know

I met some new folks recently and outlined my ideas - they have agreed to play and have done backgrounds for the 0 level characters they are starting with

They seem genuinely excited - I think it is a combination of having been burnt by poor group dynamics and the chance to play in a campaign of real length - I made it clear that I wanted people who would stick with it, week in, week out for at least the next 12 months.....so we will see.

I have found that players really enjoy being part of the process - some things I am inflexible on, but in the main I encourage players to be involved in the process, and I make sure we both understand each other's point if view. Sure, I am 'THE DM', but it shouldn't ever come to that.

I outlined my limitations on class and race, how skills and feats would work - they all agreed and understood and were happy to play.

I like starting small - I still think level 6 is a moderately high level, for example A suit of chain is a big deal, magic items are just cool (regardless of what they are)...you know, all the really little stuff that so often gets tossed aside in favour of big stuff. Masterwork equipment is really valued, swords +1 shed light....just really old-school style. I love it, and cannot change

Skills and feats just added a whole new dimension to the game for me - it's just excellent to offer another reward to players within the game framework. Feats are better still.

 

[Felon]

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?

Actually, I slap myself on the wrist here, because I was basically off on a tangent about those specific abilities being poorly implemented. I was trying to think of other examples for your side of the arguement, but most of the potentially stackable stuff stacks. Sneak attack, rage, and smites stack. Uncanny Dodge and Evasion usually are upgraded to the improved version if you already have the basic one. The one big shaft that springs to mind is in the area of bonus feats. For instance, if I already have the Track feat, it stings to take a level of ranger, even if it suits the character.

No, I'd have to say on the whole multi-classing is often too advantageous. I have a guy who's multi-classed as Rngr1/Ftr2/Wiz3 and just embarked on the havoc mag PrC, and plans to move on to spellsword (their prereqs are pretty much the same anyway). His base saves are Fort +8, Ref +3, and Will +5. If he'd stayed single-classed, his good save(s) would be only +5, and his bad one(s) only +2. Plus, let's face it, even in 3.5e most classes are front-loaded to heck and back. And conversely, many classes like cleric and wizard don't really gain many features as they gain levels.

Now with spellcasters you do lose some spell progression, and your remark about the dragon disciple earlier today indicates that just doesn't sit well with you, but a lot players can get what they need to make an effective and get out. Not everyone has meteor swarm dreams. You know what this players wanted from his wizard levels? True strike. As a havoc he casts true strike then power attacks the bad guy with his oversized monkey-gripped greataxe. He's at least as effective as the single-classed wizard in our group, who drops like a stone after tossing a couple of spells.

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

I think a cleric should receive a choice of divine powers (currently represented as divine feats), one of which is turn undead. It's the weaker choice, so few players will choose, but it's still available to satisfy the legacy lovers.

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

Shhh! Don't tell the havoc mage!

Cheers![/QUOTE]

 

[MerricB]

Now with spellcasters you do lose some spell progression, and your remark about the dragon disciple earlier today indicates that just doesn't sit well with you

Huh? Nope, it's fine with me. I think the original Dragon Disciple to be a powerful prestige class.

However, the class is not a primary spellcaster. In D&D you have combat types and you have spell-caster types.

If your character doesn't have combat abilities, then losing spell levels is devastating.

The Dragon Disciple was a combat class - it required a knowledge of arcana that was unusual for most combat classes, but it worked exceedingly well if you could properly get the prereqs.

You took levels of Dragon Disciple (3e) to get the size increase and the massive bonuses to ability scores.

No, I'd have to say on the whole multi-classing is often too advantageous. I have a guy who's multi-classed as Rngr1/Ftr2/Wiz3 and just embarked on the havoc mag PrC, and plans to move on to spellsword (their prereqs are pretty much the same anyway). His base saves are Fort +8, Ref +3, and Will +5. If he'd stayed single-classed, his good save(s) would be only +5, and his bad one(s) only +2.

Saving throws are broken on the powerful end; Base Attack is broken on the underpowered end.

Cheers!

 

[AuraSeer]

Historically, 1E had a multi-class system that required player choice from first level.

Actually 1E had two different multiclass systems. The one you mention was for demihumans, who could start out with multiple classes; an elf might choose to be a fighter/mage and would gain approximately equal levels in both.

But it also had "dual class" characters, which were for humans only, and worked in a way much closer to the 3E system. A character could start his career in one class, gain some levels, and then switch to another. This was a one-way switch, and had some more mechanical restrictions, but you could do it as many times as you wanted. In fact, this was the only way to qualify for the 1E Bard class; IIRC you needed certain levels in thief, magic-user, and fighter before you could start gaining Bard abilities.

 

[MerricB]

Actually 1E had two different multiclass systems. The one you mention was for demihumans, who could start out with multiple classes; an elf might choose to be a fighter/mage and would gain approximately equal levels in both.

I cheerfully ignore the dual-class system, because it was wonky beyond belief.

Bard was Fighter, then Thief, then train under a Druid (which gave you Bard levels).

Cheers!

 

[J_A_Garlock]

.

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.

same class= carbon copy? If that's the case then there are not really that many choices. I see your point though.

 

[Ranger REG]

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)

Of course, it doesn't make sense that a multiclassed fighter/magic-user suddenly waive the restriction of armor vs. spellcasting magic spells.

What 3e did is a fair compromise, apply ASF when casting arcane magic spells. Even a single-class wizard can wear armor.

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.

Well, spellcasting is the domain of the spellcasters. I don't think the fighter's training would help boost their training of the Art. That's like going to sniper school to learn how to sew (at least you can thread a needle on the first try).

To emulate the old system, you're going to have to agree to split your XP earning toward the classes you have. For simplicity's sake, use the XP level progression for each class. You want to earn XPs rapidly as you did in 1e? Start rewarding 1GP=1XP.

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!

Personally, the 3e multiclassing system is easy to use and implement. So, it should stay. I think we should look at each classes individually and decided if certain features should be revised or level-shifted, so we can have near-complete fair balance between single-class characters and multiclass characters. 3.5e monk pretty much did away with UBAB and make it easy to take full advantage of multiclass BAB with Flurry of Blows.

Baby steps but at least in the right direction.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Well, it boils down to "what should they be able to do." Certainly, some aspects of the game could use an additive system (+1 spellcasting levels, ferinstance). Others don't really need it (should you get better at unarmed strike when you spend this level training as a sorcerer?). The key is to be able to have an *effective* high level character, and the fact is that the cost for versatility in the 3e system is power...and I don't think that's nessecarily a bad thing. Not everyone gets to get better at knowing random knowledge, but if you spend a level training as a Bard, you should.

 

[fuindordm]

Of course, it doesn't make sense that a multiclassed fighter/magic-user suddenly waive the restriction of armor vs. spellcasting magic spells.

What 3e did is a fair compromise, apply ASF when casting arcane magic spells. Even a single-class wizard can wear armor.

In 1e there were no restrictions on spellcasting in armor. Wizards didn't wear armor because they didn't learn it, not because it interfered with spellcasting. 2e imposed the restriction, who knows why. The 3e solution is a compromise, but horribly poorly thought out and difficult to justify in campaign terms.

Somatic components require the caster have one arm to gesture freely. OK. "Can I get a breastplate w/ no arms? Yes, but you still have ASF. Can I carry a shield in the other hand? Yes, but you still have ASF. What about elven chainmail? Yes, but you still have ASF. Why? Because wizards shouldn't wear armor, it just ain't done. At least if they said that wizards had to perform ballet to pull off a spell with somatic components, that would be something!

And don't even get me started on the Concentration rules. You get a roll to pull off a spell when you're balancing on a ship's yardarm during a storm, but there is no skill in the world that will make you better at performing the gestures with a heavy leather sleeve on your arm. Or a bare arm, and a layer of leather on your chest.

Bah. Sorry for the rant. Back to multiclassing:

To emulate the old system, you're going to have to agree to split your XP earning toward the classes you have. For simplicity's sake, use the XP level progression for each class. You want to earn XPs rapidly as you did in 1e? Start rewarding 1GP=1XP.

Believe it or not, this would actually work fine. Give them the best HD of the two, best skill points, all class abilities and class skills, and the best saves. You end up with a gestalt character with lower HD, saves, and BAB than the rest of the party
but more class abilities. Does this sound unbalanced to you?

XP: Normal levels: Multiclassed levels
1000 2 1/1
3000 3 2/2
6000 4 3/3
10000 5 3/3
15000 6 4/4
21000 7 5/5
28000 8 5/5
36000 9 6/6
and so on...

So while the other characters are 9th level, one of their companions, the fighter/wizard, has 6d10 hp, +6/+1 BAB, +5/+2/+5 saves but also 4 fighter
bonus feats and can cast up to 3rd level spells. Not so different from a
fighter 4/wizard 5, you might say, but at 20th level the standard multiclasser
is 10/10 and this version is 13/13.

--Ben