The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[Sebastian Francis]

Let's hope so, but it doesn't seem an easy task. Can we take the fact that you mention 4ed as the fact you have already given up hopes for this edition?

Well, since 4th edition will probably be out in a year or two, why not just wait for it?

 

[Umbran]

Which baffles me. Who says that a fighter/wizard or cleric/sorcerer has to be viable?

Perhaps more importantly - we all need to be on the same page as to what constitutes "viability". I've run, and GMed for, a number of multiclassed characters, and I don't see the lack of viability others claim exist.

But that may be my players. The ones who run multiclassed characters make good use of the breadth of ability and flexibility of action that multiclassing offers. They don't need the highest level spells to keep their fighter-mage viable. Sure, if you try to play your fighter-mage as a straight up spellslinger who happens to be really tough, you will end up with the short end of the stick, but that's because they're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

The fact that some folks don't find a way to make a combination viable does not indicate that the rules are broken. It indicates that perhaps the players (and perhaps the rulebooks) ought to discuss more what roles certain class combinatiosn are really best at filling.

 

[WizarDru]

Well, since 4th edition will probably be out in a year or two, why not just wait for it?

Ba-dum-dum! Thank you, ladies and gentlemen! You've been a lovely audience, please...enjoy the veal and don't forget to tip your waitresses.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Personally, I like how 2e handled this question. DMs were encouraged to consider non-typical race/class combos on a case-by-case basis, if the player had an interesting or convincing background story. Seems perfect to me. The HUGE restrictions of 1e were a bit much, but the HUGE open-endedness of 3e is a bit much too. I mean, can anyone take halfling paladins seriously? Dwarf monks? Not I.

This is FANTASY.

I've seen a Dwarven Monk played in one of my games...probably one of THE most memorable characters in any game. I HAVE seen a Halfling Paladin, too. Dangerous little woman. She was another very memorable(and serious) character.

I don't see any problem at all with huge open ended ideas. Why SHOULD a race be limited on classes? I honestly haven't seen ANY good reasoning beyond "It was like that in old editions! That's how it should be now!" type of reasoning. Why shouldn't Dwarves have Monks? Not all Dwarves are axe wielding fighters! That's boring! Not all Halflings are thieves! That's boring!(and far too close to Kender for my liking, thank you...)

 

[jmucchiello]

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.

As pointed out later, this suffers the same problem high LA creatures in high level parties suffers, low hit dice/bab/saves. A friend of mine came up with a solution that works but is too complex to explain here completely. The simple answer is to have one class be the dominant class (no other class can exceed its level). The other classes contribute HD, hp, BAB, and Saves at half the normal rate. Thus, the 6/6 fighter/paladin still has the +9 bab, 9d10 HD, etc as a 9th level character. He is treated as a 6th level character for all other stuff though: feats and ability increases (these are the only real drawbacks). We haven't figured out what is "fair" for skill accumulation.

It is in playtest now and I may write something about MCing at some point. Of course the funny part is he wrote it to help dual spellcasting classes and it may turn out to benefit fighter and rogue types even better. (My Swashbuckler/Fighter kicks butt, holding his own against the Orc full plate fighter.)

 

[Chun-tzu]

Dwarven monasteries are all about the ale.

For the prestige class contest for Librum Equitis 3 way back when, I designed a rogue/spellcaster PrC called the Arcane Whisper. Instead of using the standard spellcasting progressions, though, I used something different. Every level counted towards progressing in caster level and spells known. He gained new higher spell levels as a slower rate, though.

Would D&D be all that broken if we extended this to multiclassed spellcasters? Caster level becomes character level. A Fighter 9/Wizard 1 casts Shield as well as a Wizard 10. However, the Wizard 10 has 5th level spells, whereas the Fighter 9/Wizard 1 is still casting Magic Missiles. Gaining more powerful spells is the critical part for spellcasting advancement. I don't think it hurts that much to allow multiclassed characters to have full caster level (for the spells they CAN cast) and for them to continue gaining low-level spells.

 

[WizarDru]

The fact that some folks don't find a way to make a combination viable does not indicate that the rules are broken. It indicates that perhaps the players (and perhaps the rulebooks) ought to discuss more what roles certain class combinatiosn are really best at filling.

So you're saying if I don't want to play more of a support role, than my cleric/bard character might not be the optimal choice?

 

[Arnwyn]

Perhaps more importantly - we all need to be on the same page as to what constitutes "viability". I've run, and GMed for, a number of multiclassed characters, and I don't see the lack of viability others claim exist.

But that may be my players. The ones who run multiclassed characters make good use of the breadth of ability and flexibility of action that multiclassing offers. They don't need the highest level spells to keep their fighter-mage viable. Sure, if you try to play your fighter-mage as a straight up spellslinger who happens to be really tough, you will end up with the short end of the stick, but that's because they're trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

That gets a big "bingo" and "uh-huh" from me. And, IME with my set of players (which, for me, is all that really matters), has proven to be true.

My particular group has determined that the increase in flexibility is easily worth the decrease in "power". But, in the end, I can only speak for my group.

 

[Felon]

If you think so, great. I, however, don't see it. In LotR you have your wizard and your fighters (and a few commoners). Grey mouser knew a little magic; he wasn't hurling fireballs. Etc. I don't consider a character strongly competant in both to be an everpresent archetype

Well, a lot of folks will point out that Gandalf could fight quite capably. It's actually the spellcasting where he seemed a little light. Then again, you're not going to find D&D's brand of magician-equals-walking-howitzer brand of magic in fiction, outside of superhero comics and video games.

And that's the real non sequitor with fighter/mages IMO. D&D magic is so damn puissant that it really makes no sense to pull your sword and make a couple of stabs at one bad guy when you can be laying waste to the entire horde. I carefully watch the people I game with that claim to want fighter/mages, and what they usually wind up trying to play is a basic spellcaster with lots more hit points and a better AC. They could care less if they can actually duel their way out of a wet paper bag. At best, their weapon skills are something to fall back on against a rakshasa or golem.

 

[Umbran]

So you're saying if I don't want to play more of a support role, than my cleric/bard character might not be the optimal choice?

Well, yes and no. If you're playng a city-based game with lots of religion based politics or intrigue, that cleric/bard might be a darned sight more useful to the party than a straight fighter.

Which just goes to show that what counts as "viable" is difficult to determine in the general sense. If your basic measure of viability is how many rounds the character will survive (or how many points of damage the character will deal out before dying) in combat with a great wyrm, you'll have different ideas of viability than someone who plays a game of thrones.