Thoughts on Multiclassing

[Li Shenron]

I figure the multiclassing rules need to be able to reflect all the following situations:

• The guy who "knows a little bit of X". -Dabbling
• The guy who blends classes X and Y. - Concurrent MCing
• The guy who started off as an X, but then became a Y (prestige class or no). -Sequential MCing

I can definitely live without any multiclassing rules, but since we are going to get them anyway, I hope they design them with the above targets in mind, they are good references.

Generally speaking, I think multiclassing is terribly difficult to implement... there will almost always be some issues, either some overpowered combos or some underpowered ones. The problem is in wanting a "one-size-fits-all" mechanic, it never fits all combinations at the end. They mentioned last year, that they might take a "tailored" approach where each combination would be addressed individually; obviously this however requires more work, and takes more space in the books (to the point that it would probably be worth a whole book of its own), and obviously they can only do this on 2 classes at a time and evenly spread in level. But maybe I'd prefer this after all.

But in any case I much much prefer to give precedence to single-class design, rather than first design multiclassing and then classes, which is the feeling I got from the 4e design choice, that had the least amount of issues but then I didn't like their classes at all... so at least I really hope they don't sacrifice good class design for this, otherwise I'd rather have no multiclass PCs at all.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

Your complaint is also why I suggested 1Ed/2Ed style multiclassing, 3.X style gestalting or 4Ed style hybrids (each with advantages & disadvantages, IMHO) should be included in some form.

What is the disadvantage of 3.x style gestalting? It's been a while but I thought it let the PC take the better element (AC, BAB, saves, Hit Dice, etc.) from each class. Is the disadvantage story focused--that you can't have a Fighter who gives up fighting to persue wizardry full time?

 

[Ahnehnois]

What is the disadvantage of 3.x style gestalting?

What if someone doesn't want two classes?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

What if someone doesn't want two classes?

Are you saying that its weakness is that it doesn't accomodate people who want to multiclass with 3+ classes?

 

[Ahnehnois]

Are you saying that its weakness is that it doesn't accomodate people who want to multiclass with 3+ classes?

I'm saying if some people have access to "best of both worlds" gestalt multiclassing, why would someone play with just one class? How can you have those options side by side?

 

[Wednesday Boy]

I'm saying if some people have access to "best of both worlds" gestalt multiclassing, why would someone play with just one class? How can you have those options side by side?

I don't know. I'm not arguing for or against 3.x gestalting. I was just looking for a refresher on what it is.

To your point, I think 3.x gestalting was meant as a multiclass option that every player at the table would use. So you wouldn't have someone playing with just one class. (But I'm going by memory without the refresher that I mentioned.)

 

[Ratskinner]

I can definitely live without any multiclassing rules, but since we are going to get them anyway, I hope they design them with the above targets in mind, they are good references.

Generally speaking, I think multiclassing is terribly difficult to implement... there will almost always be some issues, either some overpowered combos or some underpowered ones. The problem is in wanting a "one-size-fits-all" mechanic, it never fits all combinations at the end. They mentioned last year, that they might take a "tailored" approach where each combination would be addressed individually; obviously this however requires more work, and takes more space in the books (to the point that it would probably be worth a whole book of its own), and obviously they can only do this on 2 classes at a time and evenly spread in level. But maybe I'd prefer this after all.

I actually think this might be the "best" way to go. I recall the 1e Bard, and think maybe that kind of tailoring is necessary to make it work well. (Although you eventually run into the problem of an infinite number of potential combos.) Of the three situations I mentioned: I figure Dabbling can be handled with feats. Gestalt or Concurrent MCs probably can be handled like in AD&D, with a level penalty (especially if they keep those three "beginner" levels or whatever the called them). Its the sequential MCing that provides the most difficulties (and yet we seem to it). There are OGL products that do fair jobs of addressing it in the broad sense (Trailblazer, for one), but I almost feel like we need special "picked it up later" versions of classes (those beginner levels don't help most of the issues).

IMO, this is a fundamental issue with a class-based system. One which, I think, is exacerbated by D&D's historical indecision on whether classes are "broad-brush" descriptors of characters (Fighter, Magic-User, Rogue) or "fine-filigree" descriptors (Assassin, Thief-acrobat, Paladin, Shadow-dancer, etc.). I mean, in some ways, the Paladin is the Fighter-Cleric concurrent Multiclass. (Then you also have the problem that the Cleric can be viewed as a Fighter-MU concurrency.)

But in any case I much much prefer to give precedence to single-class design, rather than first design multiclassing and then classes, which is the feeling I got from the 4e design choice, that had the least amount of issues but then I didn't like their classes at all... so at least I really hope they don't sacrifice good class design for this, otherwise I'd rather have no multiclass PCs at all.

I tend to agree with prioritizing getting the single classes right, but I don't think I'm willing to jettison the idea of characters who switched direction mid-career. For those who play the game in more story-oriented modes, sequential multiclassing (especially prestige MCing) seems fairly important, and it can't be addressed with a zillion fine-filegree classes. (Or at least, I'd hate to see the system that has a fine-filigree class that starts as a fighter and switches to caster 5 levels in....and have to pick that at character creation...ugh.)

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Here's an interesting question. How often does it come up that players want their characters, for role-playing reasons, to totally switch classes mid-career? I'm not talking about making character builds that you plan to have pick up X levels of such and so, and Y levels of this and that. I mean playing 7 levels of fighter, and then saying, "You know, in light of current adventures, I think my character is leaning towards embracing the magical arts," switching to wizard from that point forward.

I'm also not talking about backstory decisions for characters that start above first level. I'm talking about actually during the campaign. I'm sure it's been done, but I'm not sure it happens with enough degree of regularity for multi-classing rules to be built around it. I'm open to being wrong.

But if the vast majority of characters either end up single classed, single-primary class that dabbled in something else, or a concurrent mix of classes--then shouldn't the design be based around supporting those options the most effectively?

 

[pemerton]

[MENTION=6677017]Sword of Spirit[/MENTION] - good post, I agree.

 

[Ahnehnois]

Here's an interesting question. How often does it come up that players want their characters, for role-playing reasons, to totally switch classes mid-career?

Not that often. Then again, how often does it come up that players want their characters, for role-playing reasons, to be traveling musicians? Yet we have a bard class with plenty of support. I don't think something needs to have universal appeal to be supported in the rules.

It's also important that these kinds of choices are functions of the rules themselves. Maybe more people would make major career changes if they felt that doing so was mechanically supported.