The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[Ranger REG]

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.

Not only they didn't learn, they're also restricted from learning them, other than picking up a level in the fighter class. The same goes with weapons other than what is listed in the acceptable class weapons list. Under the old 1e/2e Proficiency System, Wizards get the shaft because he can only gain one weapon proficiency every 6 levels.

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!

Funny, how modifications to armor are not explored during 1e/2e. In any case, you still can bypass ASF: use non-somatic spells (albeit few), or acquire Still Spell feat.

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.

It's still no better than casting a spell balancing on a ship's yardarm in chain mail (apply both Concentration check and ASF).

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.

I dunno. It's partially flexible, but you have to choose your classes at creation and does not leave room for later additions.

It is also difficult to chronicle Drizzt's career/life paths, much less a PC's, unless they accept the two-class restriction.

 

[Grayhawk]

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.

This thread had me thinking the same thing, but I'd propably go with half instead of full bonus to casterlevel from non-casterlevels.

In it's extreme, a 1st Wizard/1st Cleric/18th Fighter would then cast his 1st level Wizard and Cleric spells as if he was 10th level. Would anybody consider this unbalanced?

Other random thoughts:

Umbran, I agree that a multiclassed Fighter/Wizard (for example) doesn't have to be as powerful as a single classed character to be viable. There's a lot to be said for the extra versatility; more roleplaying opportunities, for instance.

Plane Sailing, I like the simplicity of your armored spellcasting houserule, but I think it makes it (armored spellcasting) too easy. I can understand if you're satisfied with your rule, but how do the rest of you feel about 3 feats that remove ASF, one for each armor type (light, medium, heavy), with the prereq's being profeciency in those armor types as well as their own 'lesser' versions? (With this rule, a single classed Wizard would need 6 feats to be able to cast in heavy armor, a Fighter/Wizard would need 3 feats to do so.)

Other things I consider implementing, are fractional BAB and the thing where you only get the +2 to your good saves on your character's first level.

For a specific '1e feel' project I'm doing I also have these rules: There are no XP penalties for multiclassing. Fighter, Paladin and Ranger classes may not multi with one another. (Currently the only classes in this variant are Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Fighter, Paladin and Ranger.) Halfelves may have 3 classes, other races only 2.

 

[hong]

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.

Well, yes.

One of the basic features of D&D, for better or for worse, is that it has a clear design goal: to facilitate adventuring. The D&D classes are designed to be able to contribute, in roughly equal share, to the business of going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. The spell lists are designed almost entirely to facilitate this same pursuit.

Of course, that's just a theoretical design goal, and what people actually end up doing may be different. However, it's a fair bet to say that, in the majority of campaigns, players will be doing exactly what the ruleset assumes. There will be campaigns where the PCs spend most of their time involved in angst-filled conversations, or political games, or wherever, but they're likely to be the exception rather than the rule.

BY THIS ADVENTURING METRIC, multiclassed spellcasters tend to be lame. Not only do they lose out on higher level spells, but the spells they do have are also of reduced efficacy due to their lower caster level. A cleric/bard may go great guns in a game where you have to talk a lot and never hit anything, but I'll bet money that most games are not like that.

 

[rounser]

The D&D classes are designed to be able to contribute, in roughly equal share, to the business of going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their stuff.

I don't think it really works out that way though. The "jack-of-all-trades" classes simply seem to add up to "more ways to suck", and therefore aren't on equal footing with the specialist classes. I think, perhaps, a design goal post was missed there.

 

[hong]

I don't think it really works out that way though. The "jack-of-all-trades" classes simply seem to add up to "more ways to suck", and therefore aren't on equal footing with the specialist classes. I think, perhaps, a design goal post was missed there.

The bard sucks, yes.

 

[Umbran]

One of the basic features of D&D, for better or for worse, is that it has a clear design goal: to facilitate adventuring. The D&D classes are designed to be able to contribute, in roughly equal share, to the business of going into dungeons, killing monsters, and taking their stuff. The spell lists are designed almost entirely to facilitate this same pursuit.

Note that you're specifically talking about dungeoneering, rather than general adventuring. By that measure, the bard, druid, ranger, and probably monk all fail the balance measure. Four out of 11 classes failing to keep up isn't really meeting the design goal.

While this may have been one of the design goals, it surely was not the only design goal. As soon as there are multiple design goals, you run into the need for compromise. While it may be that most folks play the game as "go into the dungeon, kill things, take loot", the number of folks who play it otherwize is still sizeable, and should not be ignored. Optimizing for one set will detract from the ability of others to play the game as they wish, as specialization reduces flexibility.

I suggest that above and beyond the dungeoneering design goal was a more important one - that the system be reasonably robust and flexible enough to handle multiple campaign types. That suggests (perhaps even requires) the presence of classes and combinations that aren't seen as viable in one specifc campaign type.

 

[Ace]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Felon
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!

HMM interesting -- I think it weakens the monk too much though

IMC the monks Unarmed Damage works with weapons they are proficient with and with Unarmed attacks -- its strong but not overwhelming IMO

Now on topic -- I like multiclassing but I prefer it in low magic characters Fighter/Rogue and Ranger/Rogue and the like almost always seem to work

Fighter/Mage and Bard/Druids and the like while cool don't seem to feel right IMO anyway--

I would really like a point based generation system to replace classes/levels (old GURPShead here) for my use-- not as standard D&D per se as the market would prefer standard I think --

Mutants and Masterminds and Blue Rose provide one but I am charry as neither are designed to work with standard D&D

 

[rangerjohn]

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.

Actually, fighter and thief, then they trained under a druid, but became a bard. So in affect bards were the first prestiege class.

 

[rangerjohn]

I know I have read popular fiction with fighter/sorcerers and such as protagonists - I just can't remember which ones at this moment... :\ Ah well. They are out there, dammit.

All said and done, I like the multiclassing in 3e. As is. I'd say at least 60% of PCs in my campaigns have multiclassed or will do so at some point. So the players seem to think it's a good - or at least appealing (maybe) - system too. So far, no character looks to be particularly advantaged or disadvantaged through it.

It's interesting to read others' opinions and accounts, though. To be honest, maybe I haven't devoted as many hours to 3rd ed. - yet! - as some other posters, and it might strike me later on that there are serious problems with multiclassing as it's written.



That gets a "me too".

I can think of one, the Amber series. Of course thier probably epic, so it doesn't matter.

 

[rangerjohn]

What bothers me about 3ed restriction, as i mentioned, is the fact they're arbitrary. I have a hard time to believe that a multiclass paladin would be better than a multiclassed fighter, barbarian or ranger (he's actually worse than all these). The reason for that restriction must have nothing to do with the game system.

The designers have even said as much. They weren't in the play test document. Some play testers suggested it.