PDA

View Full Version : (any) D&D Multiclassing



Dublock
2009-01-08, 11:55 AM
I hear many people complain about how multiclassing is done in any version of D&D. Now I am only familiar with D&D system, but how would you make multiclassing work? I am not a fan of how D&D did it in 4E, but I thought for the most part that 3.5 did it well.

kjones
2009-01-08, 11:57 AM
I liked the way 2nd edition did it. Basically, you pick two classes (only certain combinations) and split your experience between them.

God, I loved fighter/mages.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 12:00 PM
Yeah, I liked 3.5, though the skills thing is annoying. I either homebrew or fudge or follow the rules for it (frankly, I don't know how officially it is supposed to be done, so I may or may not be doing it as such), but other than that multiclassing is pretty swell. Xp penalty sucks though.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-08, 12:05 PM
Well, it's changed a lot over the years.

1E, you can't do it period (iirc; perhaps it was introduced halfway through?)

2E, if you're not human, you can pick certain combinations of two or three classes, and divide your XP among them; if you are human and have exceedingly high attributes, you can forsake progress in your current class (but keep the abilities) and starting from scratch in a second.

3E, you can combine pretty much every class you want, in any combination you want, in any order you want. Not every combination is necessarily a good idea.

4E, you can pick a single second class and pick up a very small part of their abilities, at the cost of a feat and one of your own abilities each.


From this, we can see that 3E gives you the most choice (by several orders of magnitude); 2E makes the most sense from an in-character point of view; and 4E is the most balanced. And of course many people will claim that the one used in (whichever of the editions they like best) is great and the others are very stupid :smallbiggrin:

LibraryOgre
2009-01-08, 12:15 PM
Well, it's changed a lot over the years.

1E, you can't do it period (iirc; perhaps it was introduced halfway through?)

You are wrong.

I have a 1st edition PH from 1978 (the year 1st edition came out). It included multi-classing as in 2nd edition, though it was more liberal in some respects (for example, fighter/magic-users could wear armor with impunity). Human dual-classing was also present, with the 15/17 stat requirements.


2E, if you're not human, you can pick certain combinations of two or three classes, and divide your XP among them; if you are human and have exceedingly high attributes, you can forsake progress in your current class (but keep the abilities) and starting from scratch in a second.

While right as far as you go, you leave out a fair bit. For demihumans, the HD are divided in half (or thirds) for each class, in addition to XP; a 1/1 mage/thief has, at most, 5 HP before racial or attribute modifiers ((4+6)/2=5). A human dual-classed character kept their abilities for their first class, but were unable to use them until they caught up to their first class.



4E, you can pick a single second class and pick up a very small part of their abilities, at the cost of a feat and one of your own abilities each.

Likewise wrong. 4e does not require you to give up any of your own abilities, and may require the investment of several feats over the course of the game.

kamikasei
2009-01-08, 12:22 PM
The basic problem with 3E multiclassing was twofold. Firstly, it was quite fiddly in terms of tracking things like skill points (mostly an issue for building a high-level character with levels in several different classes). Secondly, depending on the classes it could be crippling. The problem is that class features don't stack, and spellcasting is a class feature that grows in power exponentially so that each new level that adds to it is worth more than the level before; while BAB, hit points, saves etc. do stack, so martial classes can be multiclassed far more effectively than casters, who need hard-to-balance theurge classes to get them to work together.

4E's way of working around this problem is interesting, but there are probably solutions closer to the existing concepts of 3E that could be devised.

Eldariel
2009-01-08, 12:23 PM
3E did it the best thus far. However, it suffered of one major problem: The inability to advance class features when not taking levels in that class. Basically, when a Wizard multiclassed into a Fighter, a level or two would be ok, but taking 4 levels of Fighter suddenly means that your Wizard-abilities become worthless.

This is even more true for classes such as Druid with multiple advancing class features; not only do you lose spellcasting (in and of itself the most powerful class feature in 3.5), but you also lose Wildshape and Animal Companion advancements. Late 3.5 did solve this problem for multiple classes; Tome of Battle has the ˝ Initiator Progression for multiclassed martial adepts, and Complete Psionics had Ardent picking Powers in accordance to his core manifester level as opposed to Ardent-level (which, in effect, allowed Practiced Manifester to make multiclassed Ardents qualify for powers like they hadn't multiclassed at all only losing out on PPs), but these fixes were never extended to the earlier classes and indeed, constructing a similar system for vancian casting is difficult.

The makeshift fix WoTC used were Prestige Classes such as Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge that aren't Prestigious in any sense, but rather serve to simply dual progress abilities that would get too weak if you simply multiclassed the classes. This is the principal reasons so many DMs have such irrational fears of PrCs ("It's so much better than Cleric/Wizard!" or "It's a Wizard with full BAB!") and why PrCs lost the meaning of "prestige class" and became a standard tool in character construction. All in all, fix 3.5 caster multiclassing (or just stick with psionics reflavoured as magic, and ToB) and it becomes the system I'm looking for.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-08, 12:24 PM
A human dual-classed character kept their abilities for their first class, but were unable to use them until they caught up to their first class.
You Are Wrong.

Aaah, the irony! :smallamused:

They were certainly able to use any and all abilities of their first class, but suffered XP penalties for doing so, on the grounds that sticking to your old ways interferes with learning new ways.



4e does not require you to give up any of your own abilities
Likewise wrong. Each of the (three) feats that gives you a power from another class requires that you give up one of the powers from your own class (you know, power swap feats). Likewise, paragon multiclassing requires that you give up the ability to take an actual paragon path.


and may require the investment of several feats over the course of the game.
Yeah, that's why I said "at the cost of a feat ... each".

Seriously, nitpick your own post before you start shouting how Wrong other people are.

Mobey_Wee
2009-01-08, 04:56 PM
This is even more true for classes such as Druid with multiple advancing class features; not only do you lose spellcasting (in and of itself the most powerful class feature in 3.5), but you also lose Wildshape and Animal Companion advancements.


3.5 also had the Arcane Hierophant class which helped with this a bit. Same as mystic theurge and the others, you got the spell progression from both Druid and from Sorc/Wizzie, and even though you didn't gain all the druid class abilities, it still let you get wildshape when your druid level plus arcane hierophant level equaled 5.

Practiced spellcaster was a feat that would help quite a bit also. Doesn't give you your full spell progression for your caster class, but it does bump up the die per level a bit. Basically if you're a 6 Wizard/4 rogue, you're still throwing a level 10 fireball.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 05:04 PM
I think the static multiclassing from 1E/2E was nice and simple, but it didn't let you realize any character concept you wanted. It just gave you some new choices. But if you wanted to play a barbaric cleric shaman type of dude, you'd pretty much have to go Fighter/Cleric because you couldn't go Range/Cleric or Barbarian/Cleric. But it helped with character identity because you could say "I'm a Cleric" and everyone woudl pretty much know what you were capable of.

3E with its additive multiclassing allowed any character concept, including inefficient ones, which I liked. And it reflected a change in your character, so you could start out as a Paladin and fall, turning to magic as a Wizard and the system fully supported that interesting decision. This would have been impossible without houseruling 1E/2E.

OTOH, 3E multiclassing encouraged the dreaded "build" mentality which seeks to create combinations the developers hadn't forseen (and would have prevented for game balance purposes), gathering abilities that maximize one aspect of the character while allowing all others to languish.

So while I view 3E multiclassing as the superior system, in its implementation there are difficulties that require ad hoc houseruling.

EDIT: How would I make multiclassing work? There are only three classes: Fighter, Wizard, Cleric. Skills previously listed as Thief type are available to anyone who cares to learn them. Clerics specialize by picking feats and domains. Wizards specialize by choosing spell schools. You start out with one level in one class, and you can add a level in any one of the three when you level up.

Want to play a Ranger? Be mostly Fighter with stealth and tracking skills, pick up a Cleric level or two with Plant, Animal, or Weather domains and use those spells exclusively.

Want to play a Bard? Be a Wizard who specializes in Enchantments but instead of investing heavily in spellcasting buy knowledge skills and some nefarious skills instead.

Given a robust feat selection you can make any character concept in that and you experience unforseen unbalancing combinations of feats only rather than feats and prestige classes.

Noneoyabizzness
2009-01-08, 05:23 PM
basically everythign that has been discussed covers mutliclassing, with one exception

kits

kits are at simplest point the 2e version of prcs. if you wanted to be more than a fighter, be a myrmidion. you get somethign extra and an extra hindrance, but there you were. wanted to be an elven fighter mage who was a sword specialist, bladesinger was a thing of beauty for you (which is also why they kept trying to make a semidecent bladesinger prc. nostalgia) yes you had them @ 1st level but your character was more than a cleric. he was a barbarian priest who could go berserk bu had issues with these civilized folk atempting to tell him he cannot speak freely or look at him funny for his tribal tattoos.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 05:29 PM
basically everythign that has been discussed covers mutliclassing, with one exception

kits

kits are at simplest point the 2e version of prcs. if you wanted to be more than a fighter, be a myrmidion. you get somethign extra and an extra hindrance, but there you were. wanted to be an elven fighter mage who was a sword specialist, bladesinger was a thing of beauty for you (which is also why they kept trying to make a semidecent bladesinger prc. nostalgia) yes you had them @ 1st level but your character was more than a cleric. he was a barbarian priest who could go berserk bu had issues with these civilized folk atempting to tell him he cannot speak freely or look at him funny for his tribal tattoos.

Yes kits are awesome. And I like how the kit is all you get, it's self-contained. You can still do interesting things with kits - for example, you could be a Fighter / Thief and take a Thief kit. The hindrance for the Thief kit might be mitigated by your existing Fighter abilities.

And you have to be careful mixing in 1E stuff like the Monk or the old Bard, of course. I recall one player was a dual-class Human. Started as a Fighter from Teziir, then at first level stopped being a Fighter and went Monk. At level 2 he regained his old Fighter abilities (including specialization in Unarmed Fighting which granted +1 attack per round and +4 to hit and damage due to four slots of specialization) and Teziir citizenship doubled his unarmed combat damage. It was broken in the silliest sense. Basically he was a triple-monk just for the cost of ... well, nothing actually. Just the opportunity cost of making a weaker choice elsewhere.

Aron Times
2009-01-08, 06:27 PM
The more I play 4E, the more I get to like how it handles multiclassing. It's not perfect, but it's the most balanced version that I've played with so far.

2E multiclassing is a close second. It's very simple to use (just divide your XP among your classes), but you have to decide to be multiclassed at level 1. In 4E, you don't have to be multiclassed at level 1.

3E, on the other hand, brought a lot of problems to multiclassing. Spellcaster multiclassing was completely broken, and Wizards had to create so many band-aid prestige classes to make certain class combinations viable. 3E also didn't allow you to multiclass at level 1. If I want to play a fighter/wizard, I have to take the second class at level 2.

Basically, 2E multiclassing offers simplicity, while 3E multiclassing offers versatility. 4E multiclassing isn't perfect, but it offers the best of both worlds.

Dublock
2009-01-08, 07:50 PM
I agree that 4E multiclassing is balanced. I know it is. It just doesn't offer a lot of mechanical backing for any character concept. It is a lot easier and it limits bad multiclassing.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-08, 07:57 PM
Personally, I think that 3.5 multiclassing without the xp-burn/favored-class shenanigans works best. It gives you the most mechanical flexibility when creating a character, allowing you to tailor it to do exactly what you want it to do.

JBento
2009-01-08, 07:59 PM
3E also didn't allow you to multiclass at level 1. If I want to play a fighter/wizard, I have to take the second class at level 2.


Ironically enough, it did. It's in the DMG page whatever (near the NPC classes, IIRC), and it's called Appretnices or whatnot. There's even a table of what you gain from each class at 1st level (when you're effectively half-level from each class). In the 3.5, however, this was removed.

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 08:00 PM
Ironically enough, it did. It's in the DMG page whatever (near the NPC classes, IIRC), and it's called Appretnices or whatnot. There's even a table of what you gain from each class at 1st level (when you're effectively half-level from each class). In the 3.5, however, this was removed.

Quite right it was removed. It was a waste of space for a rule a vast minority used once ever.

The Neoclassic
2009-01-08, 08:01 PM
I agree that 4E multiclassing ... limits bad multiclassing.

Hey, I should be able to multiclass poorly if I so choose! :smallwink:

Tacoma
2009-01-08, 08:07 PM
Yeah! I think it's cool to play a Half-Orc Commoner 6 / Bard 2 / Sorcerer 4 / Harper Agent 5 if you want to suck enjoy a roleplaying challenge.

(I'm going to get a reply saying this character is somehow impossible)

Jayabalard
2009-01-08, 08:12 PM
1E, you can't do it period (iirc; perhaps it was introduced halfway through?)1e AD&D had the same multi classing that 2e did.


Hey, I should be able to multiclass poorly if I so choose! :smallwink:people make sub-optimal decisions in real life.

Mushroom Ninja
2009-01-08, 08:12 PM
Yeah! I think it's cool to play a Half-Orc Commoner 6 / Bard 2 / Sorcerer 4 / Harper Agent 5 if you want to suck enjoy a roleplaying challenge.

(I'm going to get a reply saying this character is somehow impossible)

Well, actually, in a relatively un-optomized group I was playing with, one of the PCs had great fun playing a Fighter/Rogue/Bard/Wizard/Druid (or something like that -- I know he had at least four classes). Mind, he had rolled an epic statline which sort of made up for the drawbacks of the build.

pjwaring
2009-01-08, 08:21 PM
3E did it the best thus far. However, it suffered of one major problem: The inability to advance class features when not taking levels in that class. Basically, when a Wizard multiclassed into a Fighter, a level or two would be ok, but taking 4 levels of Fighter suddenly means that your Wizard-abilities become worthless.

This is even more true for classes such as Druid with multiple advancing class features; not only do you lose spellcasting (in and of itself the most powerful class feature in 3.5), but you also lose Wildshape and Animal Companion advancements. Late 3.5 did solve this problem for multiple classes; Tome of Battle has the ˝ Initiator Progression for multiclassed martial adepts, and Complete Psionics had Ardent picking Powers in accordance to his core manifester level as opposed to Ardent-level (which, in effect, allowed Practiced Manifester to make multiclassed Ardents qualify for powers like they hadn't multiclassed at all only losing out on PPs), but these fixes were never extended to the earlier classes and indeed, constructing a similar system for vancian casting is difficult.

The makeshift fix WoTC used were Prestige Classes such as Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge that aren't Prestigious in any sense, but rather serve to simply dual progress abilities that would get too weak if you simply multiclassed the classes. This is the principal reasons so many DMs have such irrational fears of PrCs ("It's so much better than Cleric/Wizard!" or "It's a Wizard with full BAB!") and why PrCs lost the meaning of "prestige class" and became a standard tool in character construction. All in all, fix 3.5 caster multiclassing (or just stick with psionics reflavoured as magic, and ToB) and it becomes the system I'm looking for.

If you look through the Complete Books, almost every single basic class ability has an associated feat that lets you increase it [the aforementioned Practiced Spellcaster, Natural Bond (for animal companions), Obscure Lore (for bardic music) etc.]. And I wouldn't say taking 4 levels of fighter would make your wizard skills useless. How is true strike useless for a fighter? How is weapon focus (ray) useless for a wizard? That said, there has to be some give and take, otherwise why would anybody ever bother being a pure class?

Tormsskull
2009-01-08, 08:56 PM
Personally I think 1e/2e did multiclassing best. A class is something that takes a long time to develop. In 1e/2e there were a lot of non-classed characters NPC, they simply didn't train hard enough to be able to take a class. A character is who a Fighter1/Mage1 has studied both disciplines and advances slowly compared to other due to having to master so many concepts.

I think that dual-classing could have been dropped (it was somewhat interesting, but meh), and I think that level limits for non-humans could have also been dropped, and it would have been a great system.

3Es system completely changes the game. Instead of a class representing something that takes time and energy to master, a class instead becomes a glove, which you can put a new one on at anytime. Want to be a wizard? Just look over some other wizard's shoulder for a few nights, gain some exp, and all set, you're a wizard.

4e has an interesting system, and I think it is better than 3es, but not as good as 1e/2es.

Berserk Monk
2009-01-08, 09:39 PM
I had this one idea I kind of wanted to implement in a campaign. Rather than receive an EXP penalty for multiclassing, you instead just take a feat that allows you to multiclass. Each time you take the feat, you take it for a different class. Once you take the feat, you are free to take as many ever levels in the class you started with with, or ones you took the feat for. I only problem I can see with this is that you could only multiclass once every three levels. Maybe tweak it so that you can that it for several classes and gain levels in them whenever.

FMArthur
2009-01-08, 09:40 PM
Quite right it was removed. It was a waste of space for a rule a vast minority used once ever.

A vast minority? That still means a lot of people, you know. I think you meant a small minority.

OneFamiliarFace
2009-01-08, 11:50 PM
I don't know that I would change the way multiclassing works in any of the systems. They all fit in with their surroundings pretty well.

3.5 does suffer the small problem that it takes a lot of splatbooks to make certain multiclassing options more viable (especially those involving spellcasting). But essentially, as soon as PrC's are accepted as a normal part of the system, you can mix'n'match to come up with whatever character you wanted (and, with feats, as has been mentioned, one can handily mitigate any penalties that may be suffered). I didn't prefer this because A) I like class based systems and B) multiclassing was often done for optimization rather than concept realization. I prefer the latter.

Likewise, 4e doesn't provide the same flexibility, and being a thrice multiclassed character is impossible. But I tend to think that it does not inhibit the majority of character combinations and always gives the right flavor. A fighter, multiclassed to wizard, has Arcana and 2 encounter powers, one of which is a spell, meaning 20% of his powers and 25% of his skills are wizard flavored. And that is just as level 1.

Since 3.5 progressively dealt less in a single-class system and 4e deals almost exclusively in such, their forms of multiclassing work well with them. In d20 modern, designers wanted players to multiclass, and the system worked well for that. I think that many 3.5 problems arise from designers expecting more single-classed characters and a sparse use of PrC's.

As far as kits go, I don't always like the idea of penalties being applied for the realization of character concept. Granted, that will always be the case (even in 4e, it costs you between one and four feats and possibly paragon path abilities), but it seems like penalties usually fall into one of two categories: 1. Too Severe or 2. Entirely Avoidable. If they are too severe, then people just don't do it (level 10 fighter/level 10 mage in 3.5). But if they are avoidable, then people will take advantage of it for optimization (traits and those things you can take which give you bonus feats).

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 08:23 AM
If you look through the Complete Books, almost every single basic class ability has an associated feat that lets you increase it [the aforementioned Practiced Spellcaster, Natural Bond (for animal companions), Obscure Lore (for bardic music) etc.]. And I wouldn't say taking 4 levels of fighter would make your wizard skills useless. How is true strike useless for a fighter? How is weapon focus (ray) useless for a wizard? That said, there has to be some give and take, otherwise why would anybody ever bother being a pure class?

Weapon Focus: Ray does squat for Wizard. We're talking about touch attacks and we're talking about one part of Wizard's repertoire. And the character we're talking about is a Wizard, not a Fighter. A pure Wizard 20 would beat Wizard 16/Fighter 4 thrice a day easily in party usefulness and duel and everything else.

There're those feats, yes, but they don't progress the relevant abilities. Fighter 4 gets you a bunch of irrelevant abilities that don't make you any better as a Wizard. How does having +1 to touch attacks (that you already succeed on 2 generally) in any way compare to being able to cast Time Stop, Shapechange, Gate, Prismatic Sphere and company? I mean, those abilities aren't even on the same planet. The game is built thusly that to be a solid gish, you need to:
-Take as few levels in fighting class as possible.
-Enter a gish prestige class as soon as possible.

Doesn't this strike as wrong to anyone? That Wizard 20 could easily kill 10xFighter 10/Wizard 10s and not really be troubled in the first place? No, this is a flaw in the multiclass system. While I understand that perfect balance is hard to obtain, Wizard 20 and Fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be at least on the same plane of existence powerwise. The principal problem is that you don't get access to higher level spells in any way (except through items) in the latter build. The game is built so that every level of casting not only improves your existing spells and gives you more of them, but you also get higher levels of spells which are simply stronger than the lower level ones (and higher level slots can be used to metamagic your lower level spells).


And the funny part is that thanks to the construction of many of the pure classes, there's no reason ever to take pure class, but that's because Prestige Classes get you the exact same abilities and then some. For example, a Wizard would be just an idiot to go Wizard 20 in core; Wizard 7/Loremaster 10/Archmage 3 is so much better.

Arcane_Snowman
2009-01-09, 08:50 AM
And the funny part is that thanks to the construction of many of the pure classes, there's no reason ever to take pure class, but that's because Prestige Classes get you the exact same abilities and then some. For example, a Wizard would be just an idiot to go Wizard 20 in core; Wizard 7/Loremaster 10/Archmage 3 is so much better. Much agreed, I think Psionics got it right (partially), give and take. You give up caster levels to get some interesting abilities. The problem is that the aforementioned exponential power of spell casting, which makes loosing caster levels undesirable.
Additionally WotC has some hidden love for the arcane casters (they're called Wizards of the Coast for a reason) which becomes excruciatingly obvious when comparing the power levels of caster prestige classes to martial ones, heck just looking at core spells.

I like the concept of 2e multiclassing, I have yet to see it in action so that's about the extend to which I can comment on it.

PinkysBrain
2009-01-09, 09:23 AM
OTOH, 3E multiclassing encouraged the dreaded "build" mentality which seeks to create combinations the developers hadn't forseen (and would have prevented for game balance purposes), gathering abilities that maximize one aspect of the character while allowing all others to languish.
IMO all the really stupid stuff in 3e could have been foreseen by a competent optimizer. Accelerated spell progression classes for instance, they couldn't foresee that going horribly wrong? (Half spell progression base classes are unbalanced for the same reason in combination with spell progressing PrCs, but because they become underpowered instead of overpowered.)

What class based system gets remotely close to the flexibility 3e offers? (Even if it needs some splatbooks to attain it.) None of the suggestions in this thread could get anywhere near IMO.

Charity
2009-01-09, 09:39 AM
They were certainly able to use any and all abilities of their first class, but suffered XP penalties for doing so, on the grounds that sticking to your old ways interferes with learning new ways.
I'm not sure thats true... I'll wait for the word of Matt *taps foot*
Well I didn't say I'd wait patiently did I?


Each of the (three) feats that gives you a power from another class requires that you give up one of the powers from your own class (you know, power swap feats). Likewise, paragon multiclassing requires that you give up the ability to take an actual paragon path.
Quite correct here


Seriously, nitpick your own post before you start shouting how Wrong other people are.
Just cos your avi's acidic...


Personally I think 1e/2e did multiclassing best. A class is something that takes a long time to develop. In 1e/2e there were a lot of non-classed characters NPC, they simply didn't train hard enough to be able to take a class. A character is who a Fighter1/Mage1 has studied both disciplines and advances slowly compared to other due to having to master so many concepts.
I loved 1/2e's multiclassing but... I thought it was too powerful to be honest, I very rarely saw a reason not to multiclass, especially with the individual experiance award system ( I found my multiclass characters were often higher level in both classes than some of the single class party members.)


3Es system completely changes the game. Instead of a class representing something that takes time and energy to master, a class instead becomes a glove, which you can put a new one on at anytime. Want to be a wizard? Just look over some other wizard's shoulder for a few nights, gain some exp, and all set, you're a wizard.
At first blush I liked 3e's multiclassing system, but I have come to view it as one of the low points of the system.


4e has an interesting system, and I think it is better than 3es, but not as good as 1e/2es.
I have yet to multiclass as a 4e player, it seems a bit toe dippy to me, and PP multiclassing is a poor substitut for an actual PP that I can't see myself opting for it.
So i overall agree with you, but I feel that the (somewhat uninspiring) 4e multiclassing is the best of them (for the system, not the individual)

pjwaring
2009-01-09, 12:54 PM
Weapon Focus: Ray does squat for Wizard. We're talking about touch attacks and we're talking about one part of Wizard's repertoire. And the character we're talking about is a Wizard, not a Fighter. A pure Wizard 20 would beat Wizard 16/Fighter 4 thrice a day easily in party usefulness and duel and everything else.

There're those feats, yes, but they don't progress the relevant abilities. Fighter 4 gets you a bunch of irrelevant abilities that don't make you any better as a Wizard. How does having +1 to touch attacks (that you already succeed on 2 generally) in any way compare to being able to cast Time Stop, Shapechange, Gate, Prismatic Sphere and company? I mean, those abilities aren't even on the same planet. The game is built thusly that to be a solid gish, you need to:
-Take as few levels in fighting class as possible.
-Enter a gish prestige class as soon as possible.

Doesn't this strike as wrong to anyone? That Wizard 20 could easily kill 10xFighter 10/Wizard 10s and not really be troubled in the first place? No, this is a flaw in the multiclass system. While I understand that perfect balance is hard to obtain, Wizard 20 and Fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be at least on the same plane of existence powerwise. The principal problem is that you don't get access to higher level spells in any way (except through items) in the latter build. The game is built so that every level of casting not only improves your existing spells and gives you more of them, but you also get higher levels of spells which are simply stronger than the lower level ones (and higher level slots can be used to metamagic your lower level spells).


And the funny part is that thanks to the construction of many of the pure classes, there's no reason ever to take pure class, but that's because Prestige Classes get you the exact same abilities and then some. For example, a Wizard would be just an idiot to go Wizard 20 in core; Wizard 7/Loremaster 10/Archmage 3 is so much better.

I think you're overlooking an important fact: A 10 wizard / 10 fighter would have approximately double the hitpoints of a pure wizard.

LibraryOgre
2009-01-09, 12:56 PM
Yes kits are awesome. And I like how the kit is all you get, it's self-contained. You can still do interesting things with kits - for example, you could be a Fighter / Thief and take a Thief kit. The hindrance for the Thief kit might be mitigated by your existing Fighter abilities.

Not RAW; Kits were initially intended for (and available to) single-classed characters. Only in the racial books did you get ones that were for multi-classed characters.


And you have to be careful mixing in 1E stuff like the Monk or the old Bard, of course. I recall one player was a dual-class Human. Started as a Fighter from Teziir, then at first level stopped being a Fighter and went Monk. At level 2 he regained his old Fighter abilities (including specialization in Unarmed Fighting which granted +1 attack per round and +4 to hit and damage due to four slots of specialization) and Teziir citizenship doubled his unarmed combat damage. It was broken in the silliest sense. Basically he was a triple-monk just for the cost of ... well, nothing actually. Just the opportunity cost of making a weaker choice elsewhere.

Actually, the Monk could not be dual-classed into or out of, as it had no prime requisites.

RebelRogue
2009-01-09, 01:35 PM
I generally like the idea of picking a class and sticking with it. That's one thing I really like about the 4e class system. However, when multiclassing is what you want, I think the 1e/2e rules were the best ones of the bunch. 4e is ok too: you pick one other class to dabble in and control how much you want of it to a degree (by spending more feats). The 3e system was a very noble idea on paper. In practice, the result was subpar options and/or endless dipping. The rules for XP penalty was a good idea, but the way they were actually done made it accomplish little to none of what was the intention.

Eldariel
2009-01-09, 02:16 PM
I think you're overlooking an important fact: A 10 wizard / 10 fighter would have approximately double the hitpoints of a pure wizard.

First of all, no, he doesn't. Assuming Con 14 and +6 item (pretty reasonable on level 20; not in the mood for inherents right now, but they'd just further close the relative gap), Wizard 20 has 151 HP while Fighter 10/Wizard 10 has 181 HP. So there's a 30-point HP difference, hardly a double. Second of all, what good do your HP do you if you aren't a competent fighter nor a competent Wizard? Seriously, a level 20 Wizard casts Time Stop and...say, shaped Anti-Magic Field to deny you of Magic followed by Forcecage and then Cloudkill and time resumes. And you pretty much die. No, not instantaneously, but soon enough.

Also, a level 20 Wizard can Planar Bind a Pit Fiend or a beast of similar potency that alone soloes your character. And he can Shapechange into another one and grant himself infinite Wishes if he wants to break the game, but that's not cool so he'll probably just get his AC into mid-100s along with a huge miss chance and just rip your face apart. Point being, spell power scales so much that your HP doesn't matter. A level 20 Wizard with constant Foresight and Contingencies is never even going to be hit. And that's without going the Real Paranoid Wizard Way™ and always adventuring astrally projected under Superior Invisibility, Etherealness, Ghostform and with hidden auras from your own blocked demiplane that nobody can enter. Level 20 Wizard is effectively immortal. Level 10 Wizard/Level 10 Fighter is slightly more powerful than a level 10 Wizard. It could stand a chance against a level 12 Wizard. A level 14 Wizard would probably be too much already though. Those Fighter-levels don't increase the Wizard's power in any way; you don't learn to bend reality or become immortal or end life with a thought. All you learn is to hack things with a blade.

Heck, a Wizard 10/Fighter 10 would probably lose to a Fighter 20 too, 'cause he'd have so much less BAB and HP that he couldn't stand up in a straight fight and at that point, WPL mostly negates the lower level magic. So no, Wizard 10/Fighter 10 just isn't any good whatsoever. Which is a problem in the system and should be fixed (of course, the fact that Fighter 20 is likewise no good is a bigger problem, but there're easy fixes available). Better comparison would probably be Wizard 10/Cleric 10, which just sucks and loses to Wizard 15 or Cleric 15 easily.

monty
2009-01-09, 02:35 PM
I think you're overlooking an important fact: A 10 wizard / 10 fighter would have approximately double the hitpoints of a pure wizard.

Unfortunately, hit points lose meaning long before that. Also, if you have access to FMI, the wizard will quite possibly have more hit points than the fighter, by virtue of being completely SAD.

Kurald Galain
2009-01-09, 02:49 PM
Also, if you have access to FMI, the wizard will quite possibly have more hit points than the fighter, by virtue of being completely SAD.
That strikes me as (yet another) good reason to disallow FMI. As a matter of fact, I haven't yet met any DM who did not veto it (or indeed, veto most Dragon feats on general principle).

horseboy
2009-01-09, 03:34 PM
What class based system gets remotely close to the flexibility 3e offers? (Even if it needs some splatbooks to attain it.) None of the suggestions in this thread could get anywhere near IMO.Rolemaster and Earthdawn come to mind. Just as flexible without multi-classing and better because you have enough resources that you can actually DO something.
Though, to the OT, it seems like there was an option in 2nd, involving extra book keeping. The stuff you killed with fighter powers abilites swinging a sword repeatedly awarded fighter XP, stuff you killed with wizard spells awarded wizard XP. It was more book keeping than standard rules, but I tended to like it back in the day.

Voldecanter
2009-01-09, 03:59 PM
Well How I handle Multi-classing is with my own style .
No Xp Penatly but When you gain a level you can either take a level in a your class already , or you can take a lvl 0 in another class until you properly recieve training for the Class (Roleplay ect...) And for PRC you can take it when you are elegible and have joined the accociated organization , but sometimes some Prcs are Natural Abilites being Honed in Some Ways (E.G Abjurer becoming a SpellShield ) and for some spellcasting classes , if your base class is a spell caster you can take lvls in another spellcaster and bypass the lvl 0 till roleplay rule due to the way in which the player uses magick, his own abilities warp and change to his will .

Tacoma
2009-01-09, 04:16 PM
Or use a system that doesn't have classes. Shadowrun is fun. You have statistics and skills, but no class.

Not to say Shadowrun isn't classy. She is. :smallamused:

PinkysBrain
2009-01-09, 06:02 PM
Rolemaster and Earthdawn come to mind.
Meh, I'd call that point buy.

PS. nothing wrong with point buy, it's a great way to provide flexibility in character design ... it's just that when most progression comes from class levels then the 3e way is the only way to get remotely close.

horseboy
2009-01-10, 07:15 AM
Meh, I'd call that point buy.

PS. nothing wrong with point buy, it's a great way to provide flexibility in character design ... it's just that when most progression comes from class levels then the 3e way is the only way to get remotely close.Earthdawn you might have an argument for, as it's a hybrid class/classless system. Rolemaster, however, is pure level/class based with progression coming from leveling up.