The Multiclass Question

[airwalkrr]

There is a problem with multiclassing in 3e. A real problem. It is just too good. Regardless of how you feel about the multiclassing system in 3e, whether you like it or hate it, it is indisputable that a multiclass character is better than a single class character. Take the following example, a not so uncommon one. Compare a Ftr4 to a Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1. What does the Ftr4 have that the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 doesn't? Two bonus feats, an average of 2 hp, +1 BAB, and +1 Will. What does the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 have that the Ftr4 doesn't? Rage 1/day, fast movement, 12 skill points, +2 Fort, +3 Ref, Track, animal empathy, favored enemy, sneak attack +1d6, and trapfinding. Whoo! Which option do you like better? I know which one I'll pick every time. Consider this, the Open-Minded feat gives you 5 bonus skill points. So in terms of feat power, the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 gets FIVE feats. 5 x 2 skill points (Open Minded x 2), +2 Fort (Great Fortitude), +2 Ref (Lightning Reflexes), and Track. Need I even continue the comparison?

People often point to multiclass spellcasters as getting hosed (and fallaciously claim this demonstrates multiclassing is balanced), but this is patently untrue, particularly in 3.5. A mystic theurge, while not casting the highest level spells, remains a potent member of the party and with the Practiced Spellcasting feat hardly misses his caster levels. The eldritch knight or spellsword makes a powerful option for the fighting mage, plus the ability to craft one's own weapons for reduced cost cannot be overlooked.

But this thread is not here so I can merely sit around and talk about the problems with multiclassing. I want to hold an open forum to discuss what we really want from multiclassing rules and how to implement them in a fair, balanced way. Below, I present an analysis of the evolution of multiclass characters.

OD&D had little in the way of multiclass characters. An elf could be called a fighter/magic-user, but there were not really hybrids. AD&D introduced the multiclassing rules for demihumans and dual-classing rules for humans. While this system presented new options, it had many flaws. First, dual-classing (or picking up a second class after character creation) was available only to humans, and even then you could never return to your original class; but it made no sense that a wizard couldn't go back to wizardry after studying fighting for a while. Second, multiclassing required a character to declare it at 1st level and it could never be changed. Additionally, multiclassing was restricted to specific combinations of classes such as fighter/mage or cleric/thief. One could not be a druid/thief or bard/mage. Finally, perhaps the worst flaw of multiclassing was that it was simply too good. Multiclass characters excelled far and above their single class companions, usually being only a level or two behind but having the abilities of TWO classes. (I won't mention level limits as a problem because that was not specifically related to multiclassing, but rather a way to encourage human characters.)

3e changed everything. Many of the flaws of AD&D multiclassing and dual-classing no longer exist. Our characters can learn new classes whenever we want. We don't have to be restricted to certain combinations; we could play a druid/monk if we so desire! However, as big of a step forward as the multiclassing system was, it failed to fix what is still the biggest problem with multiclassing: it is too good.

The main purpose of this thread is to open a forum for discussion on what you, EnWorld, think an ideal set of multiclassing rules should allow, what they shouldn't allow, and what kind of characters they should encourage. For example, here are some points I envisage us discussing (this list is not inclusive so if you have your own issues, by all means, bring them up):

1) Should a character be allowed to pick a new class at any time or should there be a cost/limit (e.g. minimum ability scores, some kind of opportunity cost such as a feat or skill points, experience point cost)?

2) Should humans (and half-elves) be better at multiclassing than characters of other races?

3) Should multiclass characters be weaker, stronger, or equivalent in power with their single-class brethren?

Just to get the group started, I will posit some of my opinions.

Regarding 1), I believe there should be some kind of cost associated with multiclassing unless the classes are overhauled to make them significantly less top-loaded. I'm not sure what kind of cost is best. I have towed with the idea of requiring a feat for multiclassing, reinstating minimum ability score requirements from AD&D, and imposing a level adjustment, but none of these ideas sit well with me.

On 2), I believe the answer should be "yes." Humans are supposed to learn more quickly than other races. That is the reason they have become dominant despite their relatively short life-span. From a rules balance perspective, a bonus feat and some extra skills are nice, but I don't know if that is worthwhile when one can be a dwarf or a halfling and get bonuses to lots of stuff. Humans (and half-elves for that matter) could use a little bit more, to highlight their adaptability if nothing else.

Finally, for 3), I feel that multiclass characters should be equivalent in overall power to single-class characters, but weaker in the power of their individual abilities. As the rules are written now, multiclass characters are stronger in overall power and only slightly weaker in the power of their individual abilities (I can take a feat to get more smites or improve my caster level, and things like barbarian's rage get the most important stuff early on.)

After this topic has been discussed for a while, I will open a poll with all the ideas suggested for what a set of multiclassing rules SHOULD include, and I will allow you to vote for any and all aspects that you think are important. From there, I wish to use those as guidelines to develop a new multiclassing system with your help.

 

[Nel]

Before talking about the subject in itself I would like to say that I disagree with you on a very important point: multiclassing isn't better than monoclassing, it can be better with the right combinations.
It's very different.
Of course to change rules is a lot easier than changing the players' taste for powergaming, but it is nonetheless a part of the equation.

Now onto the hot stuff.

1)It always seemed highly illogical to me that characters had to train for years to get their first level in their first class but that they could take another one by the time they level up (unless it take years too). Did they gain some special "train easier" ability with their first level ?
Let's be serious, it takes years to train a fighter, a wizard or a cleric.

The rules that allow a character to start as a biclassed apprentice seems the more apt to me to base something upon, but then how play the progression in another class after the first levels ? With ability score based limitation ?
Not only will it frustrate people to be unable to do what they want but it will also blast the possibility to make crappy characters (some people like flavor rather than power).

Example: a good (imo) idea would be to remake the core character classes so that they are interconnecting with each other and are coherent as a whole, then to allow characters to "drift" from their first class to the new one through those that are in-between.
One class by level of course.
Advantage: the modification is progressive and allow some measure of control over the players' choices
Drawback: depending of what the player want to do it can be really slow and frustrating

It's the first thing to balance, not allow everything but not frustrate players.

2)The differences between races is somewhat of another problem. Without considering game balance I don't see why humans and/or half-elves should gain an advantage over the other races. Elves and dwarves do not learn slower than them, half-orcs do not train less. It would be higly illogical.
But when you consider game balance then yes they should have some generic advantage, because they do not have a specific advantage.
But I will not say more about the subject, as I have a bad opinion about Wizards' choice of core races I'm not really kind-hearted (or even fully realistic) when I talk about them.

3)Of course a multiclassed character's power should be the same as a soloclassed same overall level character's one.
But there it is not about multiclassing anymore, it is about power inside class/level.
To create a really really well balanced multiclass system then the levels have to be balanced inside the class and from one class to the other.
Do you really think that the level of wizard that allow the character to use Acid Arrow is as powerful as the one that allow him to use Wish ?

Do not get me wrong, it doesn't mean that a 20th level wizard shouldn't be more powerfull than four 5th level wizards, but (imo) it should come from the high diversity that allow him his feats and the good combination of little tricks rather than the sheer power of its class.
Or, broadly speaking, a character's power should come from the player and not from the system if the system is healthy in itself.

 

[Vrecknidj]

1) Should a character be allowed to pick a new class at any time or should there be a cost/limit (e.g. minimum ability scores, some kind of opportunity cost such as a feat or skill points, experience point cost)?

I do not think that any character should be allowed to pick any new class. But, I also do not think that minimum ability scores or the other things you listed should be limiting factors. I think that the reason for switching has to have in-game, role-playing significance. If the player cannot convince the DM why his wizard would take a level of barbarian, then it won't happen.

2) Should humans (and half-elves) be better at multiclassing than characters of other races?

I don't have a problem with some races having an inherent edge. I think that the designers tried to accomplish this with the preferred classes and XP penalties--I just don't think that those techniques work all that effectively. Not sure what changes to make though.

3) Should multiclass characters be weaker, stronger, or equivalent in power with their single-class brethren?

This runs into problems. People who play the min/max game can get the most out of whatever they're playing, be it a single-classed rogue or a multi-classed fighter/barbarian/ranger. I think that if there's any should in this case, the multiclassing system should be designed to keep the power levels equivalent.

Dave

 

[Machiavelli]

I don't know how to answer your questions, Airwalker. I CAN agree with you, though, that to satisfy the spirit, or the role-playing aspects, of acchieving a class' 1st level, SOMETHING has to change.

Personally, I don't multiclass just at will. My DM may be following the rules and be perfactly happy to let me take Ftr4/Wiz3/Rog3/Mnk4/Brb3/War4, but my own set of personal rules for multiclassing follows the RAW and then imposes many more restrictions:

>Barbarian must be taken at first level, or else the character must be chaotic alignment and constantly rebelling against that social restrictions placed upon him while adventuring; dedicated role-playing for at least 3 levels, or basically sucking at life as another class (maybe a half-orc wizard), moreso than set rules, allows players to multiclass into 1st-level Barbarian, but otherwise it's impossible. There's very little to replace being raised by a pack of wolves or something worse (like half-orcs!)
>1st-level Bard has to at least have a few levels of Perform in their preffered instrument, and practice in the off-hours. Some spell-casting smarts of any sort are also a must, if only some ranks in Use Magic Device and Knowledge:Arcana, but preferably actual arcane spellcasting.
>Cleric must be taken at first level, unless your god basically smacks you down on the road and fills you with an urgent mission to serve him. Depending on your god, this may not need to be so dramatic. A druid becoming a Cleric of Obad-Hai makes some sense if he/she spends some time hanging out with and being proselatyzed by another devoted Obad-Hai follower. A non-caster, though, pretty much has to undergo the Saul-to-Paul conversion (see: Bible), even if the result is a reluctant follower who makes poor choices for Cleric spells to cast and such.
>Druid is an easy 1st-level. Don't kill non-senscient things unnecesarily just because you can, and be sure to spend alot of time hanging out alone in the natural world. If you've been dungeon-crawling for the past 2 level progressions, you will NOT emerge a druid.
>Fighter, again, must be taken at 1st level to be taken at all, with a big exception: if your character, regardless of class, gains approximately half of his/her XP wielding a weapon (not spells, not psionic abilities, not non-combat RP rewards from the DM) while working toward gaining that Fighter level: nothing provides better combat training than surviving real combat.
>Monk is another that MUST be taken at 1st level. Been to a monestary for umpteen years of meditation and rigorous maintenance of your corporeal form? No? Then you're not a monk, sorry.
>Paladin is another easy one to pick up later than 1st level; you just have to be able to ride a horse, meet the alignment restriction, and do the half-XP in combat thing the fighter does. It helps to first be a Cleric, though; it helps alot.
>Ranger, ranger, ranger... I don't have a solid grasp on what the ranger is actually supposed to BE, and I've never played one because of that ambiguity.
>Rogue requires that you put ranks into every one of the rogue's class skills, then be sure to make use of each of them (well, the important ones) at least once in a non-cheesy manner, to take that 1st level later in your progression.
>1st-level Sorcerer is no biggie: your innate magical talent has simply been supressed and ignored in the midst of your dedication to training for years in another class; but that 1st Sorcerer level has to be taken before the age of 25 or so (or equivalent non-human age), or you've just plain missed the boat.
>Swashbuckler is like Rogue: you have to kill something with your rapier and use all of your important Swashbuckler class skills (as well as putting ranks in them), then you're set.
>To have ANY warmage levels requires that your very 1st level be Warmage, because you grew up in a War College.
>Wizard is a post-1st-level multiclass no-no: you're restricted, just like the warmage, by the ridiculous amount of formal education (or years of seclusion and intense study) needed.

Also, you may NEVER take an XP penalty from multicalssing. If by the RAW you would, then you're not allowed to do whatever it is you're doing. Try something else. Prestige classes count as base classes for this. Only racial paragon classes, bloodlines, and such are immune to this restriction.

It's harsh, but it makes my characters SOOOO much more internally consistent. The combinations I derive are really very satisfying from a role-playing perspective.

 

[Thurbane]

I do not think that any character should be allowed to pick any new class. But, I also do not think that minimum ability scores or the other things you listed should be limiting factors. I think that the reason for switching has to have in-game, role-playing significance. If the player cannot convince the DM why his wizard would take a level of barbarian, then it won't happen.

That's the houserule we use in our gaming group, and everyone is happy to abide by it.

I mean seriously, why would an illiterate barbarian from the frozen wastes suddenly up and become a wizard at 2nd level? I mean, according to the classic traditions of fantasy, most wizards are apprentices for years before even casting a humble cantrip. It's like the real world equivalent of a construction worker suddenly becoming a fully qualified psyhciatrist overnight, without ever having attended a university.

Here's my take on the base classes:

Barbarian: this is a class I would try to restrict to being a beginning class. A barbarian is forged by his upbringing in a harsh environment and a tribal society. Perhaps if there is another barbarian in the party, and he decides to take the player under his wing and show him the way of the wild warrior, it might work.

Bard: borderline, but I would let a character who may already have some ranks in perform become a bard, with a reasonable ingame reason behind it.

Cleric: I would let most characters multiclass as a cleric, the best explanation perhaps being that he has received a vision or portent guiding him down the path to enlightenment.

Druid: I'm inclined to restrict this to a starting class similarly to the barbarian, but then again it could also be considered to be more like what I described for the cleric.

Fighter: this is possibly the class I am most enclined to let people multiclass with. Every class uses weapons to some degree, so I don't think it's a huge stretch to see a character focus more on his martial ability.

Monk: along with the wizard, this is a class I am extremely hesitant to let people pick up later in their careers. In the classic tradition, this is a career that most would have begun as a child, and strived for long years under a patient master to gain even 1st level. Perhaps if there is an "in party" tutor, as per barbarian, it might be permissable.

Paladin: another borderline call...but perhaps with the same flavour as a cleric i.e. called to the class by a vision or portent from some LG deity or power.

Ranger: I am hesitant to let people simply pick up this class later in their career, but perhaps permissable for a character with a heavy outdoors/wilderness backround, such as a druid or barbarian.

Rogue: I think that, after fighter, rogue is the class I can most readily accept as a multiclass option. True, most rogues have honed their skills after years apprenticed to a guild, but I don't think it's too unrealistic for an experienced adventurer to focus on his stealth skills.

Sorcerer: this can be a viable multiclass option, as a sorcerers magic springs from a reserve within rather than poring over musty tomes for years and years. Perhaps his magical talent was dormant and only surfaces later in his career.

Wizard: as noted under monk, this is a class with a background heavily rooted in apprenticeship and years of study. As per barbarian and monk, perhaps if the character has an "in paty" master to study under...

In short, I will allow multiclass combos so long as it makes a modicum of sense in terms of character storyline.

Another option for multiclassing might be to treat all classes other than initial class(es) as prestige classes, with entry requirements. Perhaps if a fighter has invested ranks in spellcraft and concentration, he might be able to pick up the basics of wizardry.

 

[Primitive Screwhead]

First off, I will have to state that I do not see anything wrong with multi-classing. To me its one of the best aspects of 3.x
Sure, a combination of classes can have lots of kewl stuff... but then again so can a single class. Take your example up to 8th level... he is now 2nd level across 4 classes. Disables traps as a 2nd level Rogue, Tracks as a 4th level Ranger, has a couple tricks up his sleeve in combat {Rage 1/day}...
Compare 8th level fighter... how many feats give him kewl stuff?

But... guess what. Its apples and oranges. Since 3.x is relatively balanced the power of the character ends up to be about the same.
{of course, through in 3rd party splat fests and things get out of whack.. which is why the DM has the right to not allow classes, feats, etc...}

Anyway, IMHO the two following rules need to be strictly applied:
- RP reason for addition of any level, PrC's included..possibly to include training time and/or other costs to gain a new class
- Enforce the XP cost for off-kilter multi-class combinations..meaning a class dipper could end up advancing slower than the rest of the party.
- Adjust favored classes to fit the setting. I have worked up an entire alt-race system for my Eberron campaign that changes who is good at what. I am looking forward to seeing how it works out in play

A while back there was a discussion about how people viewed multi-class, and I think the distinction is important here. I view classes as packages of abilities that come with a suggested RP template. Others view classes as a role-playing stereotype that come with some ablities to support it.
Because of my view, I see nothing wrong with a Ranger 2, Fighter 2, Bard, 2 DwS 2, Rogue 1 .... which is good because thats my longest running 3.x character ...but I refer to him normally as my Wood Elf Calvary Scout... which is exactly what he does.

Anyway.. back to your regularly scheduled thread

 

[Nifft]

What does the Bbn1/Ftr1/Rgr1/Rog1 have that the Ftr4 doesn't?

It has the 3rd level of Fighter, which everyone knows is a VERY BAD LEVEL. Don't compare turds to donuts. This is a strawman argument if I ever saw one -- in fact, every argument that compares a straight Fighter to pretty much anything is borderline strawman.


Let's look at a Rogue 4 vs. your mix.

Rogue 4 gets:
+ Uncanny Dodge
+ Lots of skill points (in a consistant skill list)
+ Evasion
+ 1d6 Sneak Attack

Let's look at a Barb 4:
+ 1 Rage (that's DOUBLE THE RAGE!!! GRAAAAAH!!!)
+ Uncanny Dodge
+ More HP

Let's look at a Ranger 4:
+ Spellcasting
+ Combat Style
+ More skill points
+ Animal Companion

... so the others aren't all that weak. It's the Ftr 4 that's clouding your vision. Just ignore all the levels of Fighter after 2.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

Wow, I agree with you for once Airwalker! I definately feel that at most, multiclassing should be equivalent in power to singleclassing and definately less appealing than singleclassing. An party is a group of adventurers who each have strengths and weaknesses that help them work together, not a group of of adventurers that have no reason to work together thanks to their zillion special powers other than to show each other up.

At the very least I think that the glut of character options from splatbooks makes multiclassing way too attractive. For this reason, I do not allow for example any feat that creates a relationship between two class features. For example, a lot of incarnum feats provide ways to use incarnum to boost things like favored enemy and smite damage and powerpoints. Options like this make multiclassing just too attractive; call me old-fashioned but in my ideal campaign a 20th level fighter should be more fun and attractive to play than a barb 4/rog 4/fighter 4/favored soul 4/totemist 4.

 

[Nifft]

a 20th level fighter should be more fun and attractive to play than a barb 4/rog 4/fighter 4/favored soul 4/totemist 4.

Really?! A straight 20th level Fighter?

I'll grant you that a 20th level Ranger, Barbarian or Paladin is fun, but a Fighter?

(This isn't an anti-single-class post, this is an anti-bad-baseline post.)

Cheers, -- N

 

[Spatzimaus]

Well, I agree and disagree. First, I think there are a couple issues that aren't being considered.

1> It's not just class abilities that get front-loaded. Skills and HPs do, too. The guy that took his first level as a Rogue to get a metric buttload of skill points, but then never took another level in it? (Okay, maybe he took two levels, Evasion's very nice. But still.) Or the guy who took a level of Barbarian for the massive level 1 HP?
Fighters lose out both ways. 2+INT skill points, times 4, is still lousy, and 10 HP isn't that much better than a Ranger gets.

IMC, we did something a little different: you didn't get the x4 skill points OR max HP at first level. Instead, each adult character started out at level 3; level 1 corresponded to your childhood, level 2 to your teenage years, and level 3 was when you entered your adventuring career. (This removed the need for that whole "apprentice" stuff, and meant that Commoners were levels 1-3 depending on age.) The only other difference was that CRs were basically shifted by ~1.

2> Using a single prestige class (Mystic Theurge) as justification as to why spellcaster multiclassing isn't broken? Pretty weak. But there's been a lot of discussion on this one in other threads.

3> A Rogue 2/Ranger 1/Barbarian 2/Fighter 2/Psychic Warrior 2 (or pick whatever your personal favorite frontloading combo is) is great, sure. And if you allow players to pick pretty much any PrC, then that player will never hit the real drawbacks of the combo. On the other hand, there are campaigns out there that don't use PrCs, or heavily limit them by DM fiat. If you were actually forced to take the above combo to level 20, it'd be much weaker than a single-class character. And that's not even considering Epic rules.

4> The only reason the massive multiclasser doesn't get shafted on saves is the base +2 for a "good" save. If you use the following house rule, that goes away:

Your value for each save is (+1/2 per "good" save class level) + (+1/3 per "poor" save class level) + (2 if at least one of your classes has it as a "good" save), rounded down. (That is, the +2 only counts once, but you keep all fractions).
Likewise, we keep fractions with BAB. Each class is either +1, +3/4, or +1/2.
These apply to PrCs, as well.

The rabid 5-classer multiclass abuser will have drastically lower saves than before, but a slightly higher BAB.