When does multiclassing become excessive?

[the Jester]

There's a pc in my campaign who's a ranger/rogue/cleric/assassin/contemplative/monk...

She's done all right- in fact, she's the highest level member of the party- but unfortunately the player seems to have thrown a fit and dropped out a few months back. Oh well, in retrospect it isn't a great loss. More trouble than he's worth, I think.

 

[widderslainte]

Excessive? Not by the rules. I think the rules and encourage it, and that's what should my changed. I'd rather see a single "fighter" class, and use something like templates to provide the differences between fighter/ranger/barbarian.

 

[Terraism]

I'd say that it's excessive when you've no longer got an in-character reason for the levels.

 

[reapersaurus]

The reason I am going to play him is because I see the classes more as packages of skills than as identities. He'll always be a barbarian lout

KORD GIVES ME STRENGTH RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRR

I agree with this approach, and think many people ascribe too much importance to the level mechanic.

If I play a Brb1/Clr5, or if I play a brb1/ftr2/clr3, it really doesn't change the character concept.
It just changes the skills, feats, etc that the character possesses.

And it doesn't change the roleplay one bit.

As long as you bring a strong character concept to the table, roleplay him or her well, and are a benefit to the party (and group of players).... than what the heck should it matter what classes you are using?

 

[mkletch]

My friend back home is playing a Barbarian/Fighter/Ranger/Wizard/Deepwood Sniper/Arcane Archer.

No Xp penalties, I don't know which classes he has two levels of. He is going to go all out on Arcane Archer levels.

I did Fighter 6/Diviner 1/Arcane Archer 10/Deepwood Sniper 2/Order of the Bow Initiate 2. No XP penalties, slightly powergamed, but with background and in-game character development to back it up. I don't think I'll ever do something like this again, though.

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

I agree with this approach, and think many people ascribe too much importance to the level mechanic.

If I play a Brb1/Clr5, or if I play a brb1/ftr2/clr3, it really doesn't change the character concept.
It just changes the skills, feats, etc that the character possesses.

And it doesn't change the roleplay one bit.

As long as you bring a strong character concept to the table, roleplay him or her well, and are a benefit to the party (and group of players).... than what the heck should it matter what classes you are using?

Yeah. If you view levels in the Gygaxian manner, multiclassing is bad, very bad. No archetype. If you consider that 3E might be a drift toward a more skill-based (and I use the term skill very loosely here ) system, then individual character levels are just ingredients.

d20 Modern backs up this view. From what I can tell with my quick glance, instead of having individual class/level charts, levels in various classes either increase the Type A, Type B or Type C attack progression. So your Sorc 2/Wiz 2 would have a BAB of +2; four levels in a "poor BAB type" give hte same bonus, regardless if it is in one class, three classes or four. This helps on the 'no BAB' problem with multiclassing. A corresponding mechanic exists for saves, so you avoid the level 1/+2 on save front loading.

If that is where d20 evolved over a couple years, then I would say that that is evidence of past or current intent to make class levels "ingredients" instead of "archetypes". I have always been excited by the multiclassing method in 3E, since it lets you build the character you want in the mechanics as well as the roleplaying; you don't have to roleplay as something you are not.

-Fletch!

 

[mkletch]

Excessive? Not by the rules. I think the rules and encourage it, and that's what should my changed. I'd rather see a single "fighter" class, and use something like templates to provide the differences between fighter/ranger/barbarian.

Oh no, "kits".

-Fletch!

 

[Voneth]

If you view levels in the Gygaxian manner, multiclassing is bad, very bad. No archetype.

That was always a beef I had with previous editions, I wanted to play or run my own fantasy world -- Not G.G.'s fantasy world. I like the new multiclass system. But I do view that if you are going beyond 3 core classes, there is something missing.

Either the GM needs to set up a new core class for the player's concept, the GM should allow for a few tweaks here and there (allowing tracking for a fighter) or the player is front loading.

 

[mkletch]

I like the new multiclass system. But I do view that if you are going beyond 3 core classes, there is something missing.

Focus?

Either the GM needs to set up a new core class for the player's concept, the GM should allow for a few tweaks here and there (allowing tracking for a fighter) or the player is front loading.

That is the beauty of the multiclass system. I have seen some arguments that the ranger and paladin classes are superfluous in 3E. Rogue/fighter and cleric/fighter could get pretty darn close. Throw in a couple feats to round out the mix, and that is all you need, even to axe the Barb. So, basic "ingredients" classes like fighter, rogue, wizard, sorcerer and cleric, and highly specialized classes like monk for the weird stuff. Why bother with a whole class for bladesinger if a fighter6/rogue1/wizard6 combo and two new feats would do pretty much the same thing? Why add the complexity of a new PrC?

-Fletch!

 

[EarthsShadow]

I did it once, played a character that had 4 character classes because it fit with the situations and roleplaying aspects of the character. First off, he was a drow psychic warrior and at the beginning that's all I intended for him. Since he was good alignment, the first thing that had happened upon arriving to the surface was finding an ancient church, and got chosen by a god of mercy (go figure). So, he took two levels of cleric. Since he was also the god of Justice, and we were in the wilderness a lot, I took a level of Ranger and chose demons as my favored enemy (or whatever they are classified as) because we had a bad experience with one that was hassling my church. Finally, I took a level of Paladin and devoted myself fully to the church, justice and mercy, and trying to figure out completely what this whole mercy thing was. At the end of the campaign, when the DM moved away, I had a drow Psychic warior level 1, cleric level 2, ranger level 1, and Paladin level 2. He was awesome to play, everything fit in the spectrum of things. I even found a more experienced ranger to practice with and learn from, or else the DM wouldn't have let me take that level in ranger.

So, if the DM allows it, and it makes sense for the character and it can be roleplayed and developed, then anything is possible.