Re: multiclassing
One might equally say that anybody who levels up at all "does so for the benefits they think they will get period." Why should the Rog 5 become a Rog 6? Why not a Rog 5/Com 1? So what's the difference between adding levels in the same class and multiclassing? Multiclassing enables a player to create a character who has a more unique set of skills and abilities, that's the difference.
A young, illiterate warrior of the bloodline of the gods who manifests his ancestor's rage at injustice but whose later actions allow the deaths of thousands and who becomes a wanderer, devoting himself to the goddess of suffering and healing in order to heal the suffering he cannot prevent and prevent the suffering he can prevent: Val Tensen (Arcanis race) Bbn 2/Ftr 1/Clr 2 (domains: Healing and Travel).
How about the cursed scion of ancient nobility who still defends the (now partially overrun) territories of his ancestors? As he begins his quest, he is rustic warrior granted a few powers by the goddess of his foster family but gradually becomes a leader of men and eventually a Knight who breaks the curse and restores the kingdom of his ancestors.
Rgr 1/Clr 3 (Mayaheine--War and Good)/Pal 2. . . . Knight Protector
The advantage of using multiclassing (and prestige classes) rather than class customization to accomplish these concepts mechanically is that multiclassing allows the character to develop throughout the story instead of having his life planned out from the beginning. The first character had no particular religious inclinations at first--in fact, it wasn't until his third level that his dramatic failure as a protector prompted him to become a healer as well. The second character might well have begun his career with no ambitions to go beyond the life of a leader of woodland warriors. His goddess, however, chose him for different things and eventually he became an entirely different sort of man than he'd anticipated: a ruler and an armored knight--a commander of armies rather than a guerilla fighter.
As to power--is the end result of the first character significantly more powerful than one of the "accepted" multiclasses? How about Fighter/Cleric? Fighter/Weaponmaster? Fighter/Sorceror? Or just a plain old Fighter or Barbarian? Not really. He'll have strengths and weaknesses vis a vis all of these characters.
Is the second character stronger than a Paladin/Templar? How about a Fighter/Cavalier? Or a Windrider? Not necessarily. How strong either character is will depend upon how efficiently they're constructed not the level of multi-classing that went into them.
Sanackranib said:
No matter what anybody says, anyone who multiclasses does so for the benifits that they think they will get period. Some players can "rationalize" or "justify" better then others thats all. that was one thing I rally liked about a low level champoins game (50 pt characters). everyone starts out exactly the same and you build your character however you like (with the GM's approval) multiclassing in 3e does the same thing, just not as well IMO.
If you multiclass as a whole you are weaker in some areas but stronger in others and players should have the CHOICE to customizetheir characters however they see fit (again with the DM's approval). you only get so meny skills/feats/levels and the more you mlticlass the more "watered down" that your character becomes. if the player is ok with that then IMO there's not a problem.
As a DM if you want to make multiclassing less common then require your players to actually train for each class (a year or more for a mage/priest or other spellcaster or several months for a rogue or fighter) I can gurentee that this will slow down multiclassing in your game.
.
.
