The mechanical problems with Multiclassing

[MerricB]

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

Multiclass Fighter/Wizards? Apart from Amber, I can think of two very prominent examples from two of the leading modern fantasy series:

The Wheel of Time (Rand al'Thor)
Sword of Truth (Richard Rahl)

Cheers!

 

[Staffan]

Multiclass Fighter/Wizards?

Elric of Melniboné.

 

[Lord Zardoz]

Class specific feature advancement

Class specific feature advancement is tied very blatantly to a given class. And not all class features advance as you go up in level. So this does create problems.

You can do reasonably well as an even split classed Fighter / Rogue. You can dump skill points into fewer classes to keep those skills topped up. Your Bab suffers, but not critically so. You get sneak attack damage. All is basically well.

Then you have things like the rangers pseudo feats for multi weapon fighting, or Rage. Once you have the ability, it works just as well at level 1 as it does at level 20.

And you also have spell casting. Your spell DC's and the like are tied directly to your caster level. If you dont advance that, you dont get much from it.

The only solution to that problem, if one is truly needed, is to do two things.

1) Have a minimum of abilities in the game that dont need to scale to be useful.

2) Anchor things like caster level to some other attribute that will always advance regardless of what classes you take.

But, I like the current system well enough. And I dont get to play enough for such flaws to really irritate me.

END COMMUNICATION

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.



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

Hrm. That would be interesting, since it actually gives you a reason to use those special monk weapons after 10th level or so. And quarterstaff becomes very nice, indeed.

Brad

 

[Mac Callum]

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.

Hmmmm...

This is pretty much how I feel. When I'm designing a multi-class character with spellcasting levels, it's usually spellcaster1/otherX or vice versa. I might take one level of fighter or barbarian for a cleric PC to get the weapons and Feat/Rage, or I might take one level of Wizard for my fighter or rogue so I can use spell-trigger items. You have so specialize in a class to remain competetive with the CR system.

A good multi-class system should allow low level spells to remain useful in mid-to-high level adventures. As it is, a Wiz4/Ftr10 going against a CR-14 monster might as well just be a Wiz1/Ftr10 with a couple extra HP. Those extra Wiz levels are only marginally useful.

What I think would be ideal is a spellcasting system (and spell selection) that would allow us to recreate the classes that are just combinations of two others (e.g., Pal=Ftr+Clr; Brd=Sor+Rog) solely through multiclassing. Although everyone says the Bard sucks, they don't suck so bad I never see people play them. People also play Paladins and Rangers (Dru+Ftr) quite often. Bards, Rangers, and Paladins are surely played more often than equally distributed MC spellcasters. Therefore, they make a good target to design towards.

What if Ftr/Bar/Rogues have access to unique spell-lists and magical abilities, but they have to take levels of Wiz/Dru/Sor/Clr to unlock them? For example, a 2nd level spell that adds a +1 per 6 character levels to a on top weapon's "normal" magical enhancement bonus would be (mostly) useless to a straight Wizard, but great for the Wiz4/Ftr10. Add some spells to the Sor list that deal with music, but require levels of Ftr, Bar, or Rog to unlock, and you've got several flavors of Poet-Warrior/Bard/Skald.

Probably too complex, huh? From Wizard's pov, it would probably take up too many pages in a PHB too. It also change Prestige Classes a lot. They would be replaced by lists of new abilities unlocked by different Core class combos.

Well, that's just one idea - but I think the goal of a system that can recreate Paladins and Rangers with MC spellcaster characters is a good ball to keep your eye on.

 

[The_Gneech]

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.

I play a fighter/wizard/eldritch knight currently, and what I wanted was a fighter (basically) who could occasionally blast out some magic missiles or lob a fireball on opportune occasions.

Unfortunately, what I got was a guy who couldn't engage in melee because he had no hit points, and who couldn't cast powerful enough spells to make a dent in the monsters ... and ended up standing around sighing sadly while the paladin did all the fighting and the straight wizard blasted everything to smithereens.

The eldritch knight prc has been a big help in this regard; something else that's helped is the DM giving me the option to add a level or two of barbarian to get the d12 hit die, and investing in Toughness a couple of times. I still can't really take any kind of a pounding, but at least I'm not so prone to being one-punched any more.

I'm sorta like the Harry Potter of my group -- I'm not the best wizard, nor the toughest fighter, but for whatever reason, I seem to be the leader anyway.

-The Gneech

 

[hong]

Note that you're specifically talking about dungeoneering, rather than general adventuring.

No. I mean adventuring, as in killing monsters and taking their stuff. This can take place underground, in the wilderness, in a tower, on another plane, or wherever. The point is that the rules are designed to facilitate violence as the prime activity, and most people will play it that way.

By that measure, the bard,

Yes. Notice that the consensus is that bards suck.

druid,

Are you kidding me?

ranger,

Not really. The ranger is basically a light fighter with wilderness abilities thrown in. It's essentially a hybrid class, and suffers from the problem of hybrid classes having to be played in a special manner to get the most out of them. That said, from what I've seen, a ranger is perfectly viable in a combat-heavy campaign; just don't expect them to be a replacement for a full plate-wearing tank.

and probably monk

Yes. Notice the large number of people who also say that monks suck.

all fail the balance measure. Four out of 11 classes failing to keep up isn't really meeting the design goal.

Try 2 1/2 out of 11. In any case, how is this supposed to justify rules on multiclassing that also fail to meet the design goal?

While this may have been one of the design goals, it surely was not the only design goal.

Correct. That's why you have wimpy classes like the bard, to keep the drama queens happy.

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.

This is a furphy.

1) A multiclassed cleric/wizard may not be specialised, but they are also far _less_ flexible than either a single-classed cleric or a single-classed wizard. It doesn't matter how many bulls strength, spider climb or invisibility spells you can cast, it doesn't make up for not having dim door, divination, contact other plane, wind walk, teleport, planar ally/binding, etc. Notice that the semi-regular complaints you hear about spellcasters breaking games refer to high-level spells, not low-level ones. And that's not even mentioning the 9th level cheese.

2) D&D is a game designed for a team, not an individual PC. A group that has access to a single-classed cleric and a single-classed wizard will be able to meet a much greater variety of challenges than if they have two cleric/wizards, for the reason stated above.

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.

Non sequitur. You can have non-problematic multiclassing rules, and still have flexibility in what sorts of games you run. In fact, since any proposed fixes to the rules would have the effect of making multiclassed PCs stronger, they could only _add_ to the flexibility of the ruleset, not detract from it.

 

[knifespeaks]

No. I mean adventuring, as in killing monsters and taking their stuff. This can take place underground, in the wilderness, in a tower, on another plane, or wherever. The point is that the rules are designed to facilitate violence as the prime activity, and most people will play it that way.

Which is why most skills aren't combat related, at least half the feats aren't specific to combat either and there are more spells that deal with information than damage as their outcome. Violence as a prime activity is for the unimaginative - simply because most people play it that way is of no relevance when discussing issues of 'class balance'. The fact is that there ARE plenty of alternatives.

 

[hong]

Which is why most skills aren't combat related,

Well, duh. Skills are the prime mechanism by which D&D resolves any sort of conflict that doesn't directly involve people hitting each other. Now tell me: why are Spot, Listen and Stealth broken out into separate skills, as are Open Lock and Disable Device, while Profession (farmer) is one entity?

Your statement is incoherent. Either you mean that most skills aren't directly related to combat, which is true but irrelevant: NO skill is related to combat, because combat is handled by a completely different mechanic, namely BAB/AC/hit points; or you mean that most skills aren't directly related to adventuring, which is manifestly false.

at least half the feats aren't specific to combat either

There are n!/(2!(n-2)!) possible feats that give +2 to two of n skills. This doesn't make them any more than copies of each other.

and there are more spells that deal with information than damage as their outcome.

Count them.

Violence as a prime activity is for the unimaginative

You're new here, aren't you?

- simply because most people play it that way is of no relevance when discussing issues of 'class balance'.

It is of absolute importance, unless you like talking about a game nobody but yourself plays. Which might be a nice exercise in intellectual masturbation, but I prefer masturbation of a different kind.

The fact is that there ARE plenty of alternatives.

The relevance of this is...?

 

[knifespeaks]

Damn me but you get upset when someone takes a contrary view Hongy! You should relax a little

The relevance of my last point is directly related to your view that violence is the prime activity in the game.

This of course is why you are unable to break free of your view that class balance = balanced combat ability.