To multiclass or not to multiclass? That is the question.

[Corwin the Confused]

To multiclass or not to multiclass? That is the question


To multiclass or not to multiclass? That is the question.

This is a very subjective poll so if you do not like subjective issues you may choose to stop reading.

Assume that you are running a series retail modules.

Do you think it is better for the party if each character picks a different class? (Say two fighter types, one wizard or sorcerer, one cleric and one thief.)

Do you think it is better if everyone has broader skills and feats by multiclassing? (Say one fighter/barbarian/rogue, one fighter/ranger, one wizard/rogue, one cleric/fighter, and one rogue/barbarian/ranger.) (Because those sneak attacks while raging with two weapons are devastating.)

 

[Crothian]

Can't be answered at least not by me.

We multi class to fit the concept and to add character growth if the multi class is needed. Otherwise we stick with one class. It doesn't matter to us what might be the best or more powerful thing, or if other are or aren't doing it.

 

[Valicor]

For the most part it can add good flexibility to a party, and I think it is good to have both combinations in a party.

 

[Xarlen]

Honestly, I find Multi-classing is a two way street. On the one hand, you get some benefits of all the classes. On the other, you're a weaker combination.

For example, your Cleric/Fighter is going to have very bad access to his spells, for some time, if you give him a lot of fighter levels.

Your Rogue/Barbarian/Ranger isn't going to be That devestating because he's only going to have 1d6 or 2d6 worth of damage for his sneak, assuming he hits.

Not to mention your BAB may suffer there.

 

[DM_Matt]

xyz

 

[Limper]

It depends on the degree of Multi-Classing.... a couple levels each so that the group has backup is NEVER a bad thing. Do not put all your eggs in one basket..... doing so is very bad and very foolish. Just my thoughts though.

Some thing complement others better. Not many classes are not in some way enhanced by adding Rogue levels (even casters). Adding Ranger on the other hand doesn't accent everything.

 

[Broken Fang]

I think I have to agree with the it depends group. I have noticed in the two groups I have played/GM'ed that it depends on the primary class and concept of the player.
1. Primary spell-casters don't multiclass
2. Fighters tend to multiclass, is see this split often by 9th lvl
.....Fighter/Rogue 4/5
.....Fighter/Cleric 4/5 (not bad compared to a 9th Paladin)
.....fighter/Sorcerer 4/5 (fly, haste, buffs...can make up the lost lvls of Fighter)

 

[Shard O'Glase]

Basically ditto to what crotian said.

I'm not sure how he looks at things, but me I see classes as skill packages, and certain combos give another class in a way. Dragon magazine has been bustin this concept for a while, like they had a fighter/mage be an artificer concept for example. That's how I look at multiclassing, it isn't for power or whatever it is to develop the real class that best simulates your character.

 

[Shaele]

For arcane casters, it can be a very useful thing to have a single-level of a different class - either to flush out a character concept, or add some flexibility.

My wizard has a few levels as a cleric of Oghma (clr3/wiz10), since it fit his character concept. He has great flexibility, but is noticeably underpowered compared to the rest of the party. If I could to do it again, I'd probably only give him a single level of cleric and spend the rest of wizard.

I'm playing a sorcerer now, and did something similiar - he's a brd1/sor2, and it's working out much better. For the loss of a single level or sorcerer, he's gained a few more cantrips, armor use, shortbow proficiency, a better skill list, better saves (+2 reflex, +2 will !) and some nifty bard songs. Of course, I also took Extra Music as my starting feat, which doesn't hurt <g>

My advice - as a spellcaster, single-class to maximize your spell levels, or take a single-level of another class for flavor. Taking more than a level in another class will hurt at higher levels, when you're casting spells a level or two lower than the rest of the party.

 

[Junebug]

As stated above, it really depends. My last character was a Rogue 1 / Sorcerer 8. I enjoyed the benefits of the Rogue level, but since I was already 1-2 levels lower than the other straight casters (wizards) the difference was magnified by using one level as a non-caster.
OTOH, I may not have made it to 9th level if I hadn't started as a Rogue, it helped my survivability a lot at lower levels.
I now have a Cleric 8 (we start new chars at the level the last one would have been res'd to). I've only played one session, but he was a blast.
As for melee types, there is a Rogue/Fighter/Shadowdancer? in our group that is a lot a fun. He doesn't dish out the damage that the greatsword-wielding tank, but he works well with the single-classed rogue on flanking attacks and is the best scout in the group.