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

[Broken Fang]

I'm surprised we haven't seen a Hong rule on this yet. Something like:

You should always multi-class when you didn't.
You should never multi-class when you did.

 

[Xarlen]

I'm surprised we haven't seen a Hong rule on this yet. Something like:

You should always multi-class when you didn't.
You should never multi-class when you did.

Hong's 8th law?

 

[Roland Delacroix]

IMO........It's hard for ANY class to not take a level of Barbarian and the Extra Rage feat. 'Nuf said.

 

[Broken Fang]

Roland...why? I have yet to see anyone in two different groups even want to play a Barbarian. Most don't think Rage is worth the loss of AC. Plus it is still a difficult sell to "go native" in role-playing aspects in our group.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Here is "my two coppers worth", I think that fighter-types benefit the most from multiclassing. (i.e. A fighter with another class of barbarian or ranger or theif or even cleric.)

Agreed. Besides the feats and feat-like class abilities, multiclassing will get you efficient access to a lot of skills that would be painful to acquire if straight classed. It is almost reasonable for a "straight" Fighter to pick up a single level of Bar or Ran just to boost his Spot or Listen.

 

[Corwin the Confused]

Agreed. Besides the feats and feat-like class abilities, multiclassing will get you efficient access to a lot of skills that would be painful to acquire if straight classed. It is almost reasonable for a "straight" Fighter to pick up a single level of Bar or Ran just to boost his Spot or Listen.

I am very glad that someone agrees with me. I was begining to think that I was an outcast.

Can I be your COHORT too? What is a cohort anyway?

Corwin the Confused

P.S. See I really am confused.

 

[Shimrod]

Multiclassing is very overrated IMHO. In terms of character-concept, there are some sensible combinations that add to the concept of your character, but a lot of them don´t. But lets face it, most players multiclass for easy power.

And that´s where they´re wrong
In your early levels it might seem very attractive to have that level in barbarian (rage), fighter (weapon and armor-prof´s) etc. But when you reach higher levels (10+) it becomes apparent that D&D is balanced to favor specialists in the long run. Your fighter/mage that kicked serious ass with deadly combat moves augmented by some magic suddenly cannot hit any serious opponent. His to-hit bonus is to low. Now on lower levels that would just mean hitting a little less often, but on higher levels, rolls become less relevant and there are a lot of opponents you suddenly can only hit on a straight 20!!! Your magic has also lost its value, for you cannot even overcome the least bit of SR.

So the only multiclassing that could be benificial is a single level in a favored class (or if your first class is your favored class then any single other class) that would allow you to focus on your primary class without an xp-penalty.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Multiclassing can be advantageous for fighter type characters.
After a certain point, many fighters have enough feats to be effective. The abilities of barbarians, rangers, and paladins are then attractive options. Similarly, a feat starved barbarian doesn't sacrifice too much (2 hit points, 4 skill points, uncanny dodge progression, rage, and DR progression) by picking up two levels of fighter. Any lightly armored fighter or barbarian can pick up a level of ranger to dual wield, track, use wands of cure light wounds and get ranks in spot and listen--in effect, they're giving up one feat for two virtual feats, one real feat, expanded magic options, and a good selection of class skills.

Fighting classes who pick up rogue levels also gain a lot (as long as they planned on being lightly armored anyway).

The key to effective multiclassing is finding a character concept or goal and building a character toward it. A multi-classed character is no longer a substitute for a single-classed character in each class, but rather a character class of their own. In 2e, a fighter/rogue was an effective backup sneak and trapfinder/disarmer, etc. In 3e, the fighter/rogue can be a swashbuckling, acrobatic fighter (ranks in tumble, bluff, jump, etc) who relies on dexterity and precision more than power, a sneaky fighter, a sneak/trapfinder/lock opener who can fight if it comes to that (rogue with 1 or 2 levels of fighter), or a fighter who knows a few dirty tricks (fighter with one or two rogue levels for sneak attack). None of these characters can substitute for both a front-line combatant and the party's trapfinder--they're either different types of fighters or different types of rogues. Similarly, a Paladin 3/Fighter 2/Templar 3 is a very effective holy warrior--but one more centered on foot combat and smiting bad guys than healing, mounted combat, and casting spells (Pal 8).

Multiclassing is more difficult when it comes to magic. In general, classes which don't offer the same spellcasting progression are ineffective ways to multi-class. Cleric 3/Wizard 3 is a far weaker character than cleric 6 or wizard 6. (Unless, of course, the character is headed for the geomancer prestige class which can make up for some of the inherent weakness of this combo). OTOH, prestige classes which offer spellcasting progression can make very effective multiclass combos. A Sorceror 5/Mage of the Arcane Order 4/Elemental Savant 6 can be significantly more effective than a simple 15th level sorceror.

Multiclassing spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes can be effective but is generally a lower powered option than staying single classed as a spellcaster (or avoiding spellcasting entirely). A fighter/cleric, rogue/wizard, or fighter/wizard can be made effective if the player is willing to focus on the character's strengths and make them good at what they do. Even so, they will often be inferior to single-classed characters of their level. (I play a melee focussed Fighter 2/Wizard 4 in the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign--he's not as good at dealing damage as the really highly optimized characters but he seems to be about as effective as the average fighter of his level).

 

[Corwin the Confused]

Multiclassing can be advantageous for fighter type characters.
After a certain point, many fighters have enough feats to be effective. The abilities of barbarians, rangers, and paladins are then attractive options. Similarly, a feat starved barbarian doesn't sacrifice too much (2 hit points, 4 skill points, uncanny dodge progression, rage, and DR progression) by picking up two levels of fighter. Any lightly armored fighter or barbarian can pick up a level of ranger to dual wield, track, use wands of cure light wounds and get ranks in spot and listen--in effect, they're giving up one feat for two virtual feats, one real feat, expanded magic options, and a good selection of class skills...

Multiclassing spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes can be effective but is generally a lower powered option than staying single classed as a spellcaster (or avoiding spellcasting entirely). A fighter/cleric, rogue/wizard, or fighter/wizard can be made effective if the player is willing to focus on the character's strengths and make them good at what they do. Even so, they will often be inferior to single-classed characters of their level. (I play a melee focussed Fighter 2/Wizard 4 in the RPGA's Living Greyhawk campaign--he's not as good at dealing damage as the really highly optimized characters but he seems to be about as effective as the average fighter of his level).

I am a firm believer in character concepts. And you certainly are free to play however you wish. I just wonder how effective your "melee focused" Fighter/Wizard will be when he is Fighter 11/ Wizard 4 as compaired to a Fighter 15 or a Fighter 11/Barbarian 4. Is this Fighter/Wizard the primary fighter for the group or is he the secondary or tertiary fighter?

I personally like the idea of having my character dish out a SMACKDOWN. So for me I like the idea of a specialist, because, especially at high level, the fighting specialists seem to deliver the most SMACK.

But then again check out my name.

 

[Zog]

I'll take one level, if you please...

I'm a big fan of taking one level of a class for flavor/extra abilities/options and then sticking with the 'main class'. Rog1/Monk or fgt1/wiz or barb1/psion or rang1/rogue. The other level can nicely complement your primary class, giving you some useful options.

Beyond that, you really need to be following a concept, or be very careful, because it is far to easy to end up far weaker. Whereas one little level tends to give you great benefits (saves, feats, skills, spells, etc).