-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
When does multiclassing become excessive?
- Thread starter tleilaxu
- Start date
Gee, we just finished a 15 month long campaign and we had only two of seven PCs that were multi-classed, and both had good reasons that worked in the campaign - the group's human fighter later found out that he was the descendant of some ancient heroic ranger, so switched from fighter to ranger; and the group's elf was some sort of multi-class type from early on, as that is what his character concept was... he was also the group's only prestige class. My PC ended up being a 26th level human ranger; there was a halfling that was 26th or 27th level rogue; a high level human monk; a high level paladin; and I forgot the others at this early hour.
Malin Genie
First Post
I have an opinion that is quite different.
I think almost any amount of MCing of Core classes is OK (although I have also experimented with the combined BAB/saves it's generally more bother than it's worth.) Core Classes are the archetypes, and if to define your character's skills you need to mix and match that's fine.
I don't think any character should have more than one prestige class, however. A PrC represents dedication to an organisation and its ideals, and except in very rare circumstances this means to the exclusion of other allegiances.
I think almost any amount of MCing of Core classes is OK (although I have also experimented with the combined BAB/saves it's generally more bother than it's worth.) Core Classes are the archetypes, and if to define your character's skills you need to mix and match that's fine.
I don't think any character should have more than one prestige class, however. A PrC represents dedication to an organisation and its ideals, and except in very rare circumstances this means to the exclusion of other allegiances.
mkletch said:
I was advocating new core classes if you find that your players are trying to spread themselves thin across three or more core classes. The OA Shujengi (sp) is a perfect example.
With this one class you wrap up the Wizard, Sorcerer and Cleric into one class and set of mechanics, thus you cut out the cleric/wizard (or Sor.) end of a multiclass and you end up with more flexbility AND cut back on diluting your XP across the board.
Taking a PrC mostly for the "cool stuff" is actually only half the picture with the PrC concept. PrCs were originaly designed to be campaign specific classes that players could walk into after acheiving some renown, that's why the original PrCs are in the DMG, not the PHB. DMs are supposed to make up new PrCs for their own worlds (if they want to).
Example: Are orcs a perscuted race that has a bounty on it's head in your world? Feel free to let competent fighters take the "Head Hunter" PrC to get Ranger like abilities that relate to hunting down orcs only.
In a lot of other campagin worlds, this PrC wouldn't fit in, but it's perfect for mine (even if it only has half the levels that other PrC ususaly do.)Originally posted by mkletch
Originally posted by Voneth
I like the new multiclass system. But I do view that if you are going beyond 3 core classes, there is something missing.
----------------------------------
Focus?
Agreed
Though I think the below quote says it all.
Last edited:
Sanackranib
First Post
Re: Re: multiclassing
It's NOT thats my whole point. any halfway decient player can rationalize what ever they want. Thus making that the criteria to munticlass in a game is absurd. That was the 1 thing that I really liked about champions. everyone started out exactly the same and then customized thier character into whatever they wanted with no "classes". It looked like D&D was going that way withe the skills and powers options for 2e.n
Multiclassing is fine. I think several people have misunderstood my earlier posts. I am not opposed to it. But it does dilute abilities that the character would have ie: feats/skill points/spells or special class abilities. but it DOES give you better saves, and in some cases extra hp/improved BAB/spells or other abilities. All in all this gives the character a better chance of being self relient.
It's the old 1e bard, jack of all trades but "master of none".
LostSoul said:
It's NOT thats my whole point. any halfway decient player can rationalize what ever they want. Thus making that the criteria to munticlass in a game is absurd. That was the 1 thing that I really liked about champions. everyone started out exactly the same and then customized thier character into whatever they wanted with no "classes". It looked like D&D was going that way withe the skills and powers options for 2e.n
Multiclassing is fine. I think several people have misunderstood my earlier posts. I am not opposed to it. But it does dilute abilities that the character would have ie: feats/skill points/spells or special class abilities. but it DOES give you better saves, and in some cases extra hp/improved BAB/spells or other abilities. All in all this gives the character a better chance of being self relient.
It's the old 1e bard, jack of all trades but "master of none".
jgbrowning
Hero
Re: Re: Re: multiclassing
I have to dissagree. The 1E bard was the only bard incarnation i've liked. He was a badass. A big problem with him, IMHO, was the experience point requirements... ie for the same amount of exp you'd have a much more efficient class than if you stayed with any non-spellcasting class.
I wish 3E would've went with something more like the 1E bard as opposed to the "jack of all trades master of none" 2E.
joe b.
Sanackranib said:
I have to dissagree. The 1E bard was the only bard incarnation i've liked. He was a badass. A big problem with him, IMHO, was the experience point requirements... ie for the same amount of exp you'd have a much more efficient class than if you stayed with any non-spellcasting class.
I wish 3E would've went with something more like the 1E bard as opposed to the "jack of all trades master of none" 2E.
joe b.
Sanackranib
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: multiclassing
I used the 1e bard as an example because you had to tri-class. that is you had to multiclass into 3 seperate classes and gained abilities of each but in the end were not as powerfull as a non multiclassed character who was a fighter, rogue, or wizard. But you were more versital then any of them
jgbrowning said:
I used the 1e bard as an example because you had to tri-class. that is you had to multiclass into 3 seperate classes and gained abilities of each but in the end were not as powerfull as a non multiclassed character who was a fighter, rogue, or wizard. But you were more versital then any of them
jgbrowning
Hero
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: multiclassing
ah, sorry 'bout that. somehow i missed it completely.
joe b.
Sanackranib said:
ah, sorry 'bout that. somehow i missed it completely.
joe b.
Sanackranib
First Post
multiclassing
No problem mon!
thats why I reposted. I was pretty sure that the point I was tring to make was not coming accross how it was intended to.
Its good to see other "old School Players/DM's" out there. When I read an "old school" post I don't feel so much like the "old man on the Boards"
No problem mon!
thats why I reposted. I was pretty sure that the point I was tring to make was not coming accross how it was intended to.
Its good to see other "old School Players/DM's" out there. When I read an "old school" post I don't feel so much like the "old man on the Boards"
Arnwyn
First Post
tleilaxu said:
It can only become too much when your own group decides. For example, IMC, that character would be a horrible, horrible monster, and would certainly be considered obnoxious. However, our group does value multiclassing if it makes sense for the character and is done during gameplay - I like the description of how that character came to be. (However, if you were allowed to simply make a 4th level character and none of those levels were gained during gameplay, I'm jumping back to "obnoxious" again.) All IMO, of course!
Similar Threads
