When does multiclassing become excessive?

[Seule]

I'm here to say that not everyone takes Ranger for the front-end loading.
I have a character, one of the first I made under 3rd edition, that I play occasionally (Living Greyhawk). He started as a cavalryman, mounted combat all the way, 1 level Fighter, with the intent to multiclass into Cleric. Cleric seemed to suit him fine, and he became even more fanatical about his religion, but after 3 levels of Cleric I'm looking to take him back to his roots as a mounted warrior (which he has been doing all along) and take the Windrider PClass. To do this I need 2 levels of Ranger, for the skills. I will come out of Ranger with exactly 0 levels in Wilderness Lore, and the two-weapon fighting will be used only when his first tactic, mounted combat, is unavailable. Basically, he'll be learning more about animals (Knowledge: Nature) and animal handling so as to be able to help his treasured heavy warhorse be more effective into higher levels. That'll be 4 classes, Ftr1/Clr3/Rgr2/ then Windrider as far as I can, and it all fits with the character and his life journey.

--Seule

 

[Orias]

I just wish peopel would role play their characters, & if their characters fit into several classes, do it.

YOUR character has NO IDEA about stats. They don't know that taking fighter will increase their FORT save, They probably have no idea about saves period, except for maybe reflex save, understanding that they need to pop out of the way of that there fireball.

I hate it when people take multiple classes just to be "better at fighting", it's like - well, is your character a fighter type character, & where is he going to learn these regimented moves at?

The most I've ever cross classed was Wizard/Cleric/ Prc True Necromancer, Wizard/Cleric, & Cleric/Rogue. I usually take a few levels of Cleric because usually all of my characters are rather facinated with religion, & very much devoted to their deity, so they usually volunteer at a church & learn about divine nature.

I absolutely HATE it when I see people with one level of something, because unless you are playing a campaign that starts from 1st level, there really isn't a reason to just have ONE level in something unless you can really explain it. Why would a character go through all that training just to never promote themselves in that field ever again? I can see some circumstances, like if a rogue was traveling with a wizard, & saw a couple of spells & said "Wow, a little training & I could do some of that..." just to get a little hand on magic. But for people who are like "uh....I am a level 1 Rogue/ 1 Barbarian/ 1 Ranger/ 6 Fighter, because uh.....my uh...guy like is all sneak when he fights, & uh...he likes the wild & sometimes goes crazy" it's like "COME ON!" you obviously took those classes for the starting feats that they get.

If it suits your character, fine, but don't worry about statistics. I thought dungeons & dragons was meant to be fun, not to make absolutely certain you have the character with the absolute best stats & feats.

 

[WizarDru]

My current character is a Rogue(4) wizard(6) Arcane Archer(5).
At 15th level he is two levels higher than anyone else in the group, but he doesn't fight as well as the Fighter, doesn't cast as well as the Sorcerer and isn't near as good as the rogue. I really wasn't too happy with how multiclassing came out (first time I had tried it with 3rd ed.). I have a character who is half decent at several things that characters 2 levels lower than him are better at, he's just overmatched in most fights. The fighter in the group took some levels of ranger so his character could track, it worked out pretty good for him.

Well, quite honestly, you're illustrating a strength of multiclassing, not a weakness. You were able to get to AA from rogue/wizard, not fighter/wizard. That you were built sub-optimally for an AA is the problem you're experiencing, not a fault of multi-classing. The AA is much better built as a FTR/WIZ, but flexible enough to allow other combinations.

And you can be sure that no one else in your group can make arrows magical just be putting them in a bow.

 

[Voadam]

If you want to and you can make it make sense then run wild with MC. For instance conceptually I don't see any problem with barbarians, for instance, picking up levels of fighter or ranger or both, both class concepts merge well with the barbarian one.

In my game there must be an ingame reason to explain the ability to pick up a new class (wizard takes serious apprenticeship, cleric or druid requires a religious connection first, monk requires training). But once you work that you can go nuts and have fun with the concepts.

You are not cheating if you want to pick up some of the low-level powers of another class or two or five at the expense of the high level ones of your core class.

And even though a character does not know about mechanics and benefits of MC, the player does and the player is the one who chooses what direction the character advances in. As long as the player can reasonably work it into the game or the character's background, a player wanting the mechanical benefits of multiclassing is a proper reason for the player to make a character multiclass even if it is a tenth level character with 2 levels in each of five classes.

 

[jdavis]

Well, quite honestly, you're illustrating a strength of multiclassing, not a weakness. You were able to get to AA from rogue/wizard, not fighter/wizard. That you were built sub-optimally for an AA is the problem you're experiencing, not a fault of multi-classing. The AA is much better built as a FTR/WIZ, but flexible enough to allow other combinations.

And you can be sure that no one else in your group can make arrows magical just be putting them in a bow.

The thing is I love the character, he developed this way through the game, I never sat out to multiclass, the characters interest changed, he earned 4 levels as a rogue, then 6 levels as a wizard, then started Arcane Archer, I never intended any of this, though it all the character's alignment also changed some, it was a total role playing move. It is funny but my reflex save is so high and my spell DC is low enough I can dodge my own fireballs (with rogue evasion). It has come in handy a few times. From a roleplaying standpoint it turned out wonderful.

 

[tleilaxu]

I just wish peopel would role play their characters, & if their characters fit into several classes, do it.

I absolutely HATE it when I see people with one level of something, because unless you are playing a campaign that starts from 1st level, there really isn't a reason to just have ONE level in something

like "COME ON!" you obviously took those classes for the starting feats that they get.

If it suits your character, fine, but don't worry about statistics. I thought dungeons & dragons was meant to be fun, not to make absolutely certain you have the character with the absolute best stats & feats.

Well, my goal is not to get the best ultimate character possible (if I wanted that I would skip the ranger level) but to play a character I think will be fun. There isn't anything wrong with taking a class to get its abilities, that is what classes are for! Yes I want my character to be good at what he does. Of course! I want to win the fights. We just suffered our third near TPK. There's no way I'd play a dagger wielding fighter or some other vanity character. I need to be of use to the party or we die.

 

[Broken Fang]

I'm leaving in the morning and won't be back till Sat. but I'm going to ask this anyway:

If you had a Fighter who was stranded in the woods and then went up a level why would he go up as a level of Barbarian or Ranger?

Wouldn't he just add skills learned in the field? Isn't it kinda odd that if I were to go up as one of the other two I would suddenly w/o any training be able to either:
1) move faster and rage
or
2) use two-weapons (track makes sense though)

I would prefer to see fewer "core" classes that could be used to create any number of combinations. Also mabe a "general" skill category and an "exclusive" skill category - general anyone can learn, exclusive requires specialized training (like 3rd ed has, but more refined).

comment?

 

[bret]

When does multiclassing become excessive?

How about when you are 20th level with +0 BAB ?