Forced Multiclassing

[Harbinger]

A friend of mine is hosting a 3.5 game. His world and background and such is really cool, and his plot is really cool. But there's one problem. He's starting the campaign at second level, and making everyone multiclass to Cleric. This really doesn't seem like a good idea to me, but I could be wrong. What do the people here think of this. By the way, I have never played 3.5 before, though I have read a lot about it and know the mechanics decently well.

[Big Fau]

Cleric 1 is an excellent dip for a great many classes, and is an even better class in it's own right. While being forced to do it kinda sucks, the Devotion feats from CC and spell list access for UMD more than makes up for it.

[Harbinger]

But what if someone wants to be a sorcerer? Or a fighter with a wisdom score of less than ten?

[Gigas Breaker]

A cleric dip with no ability to cast spells is still good thanks to domain powers and devotion feats in addition to being able to use wands. Being told you HAVE to do this however is not good. Is he going to be doing more of this? How much control do you actually have over your character?

[Red Fel]

Here are the questions I would be asking.

1: Is the DM enforcing a multiclassing penalty? This hated mechanical feature becomes even worse when multiclassing is mandated. Or, if it is enforced, is it waived for cleric levels?

2: How many levels must one multiclass? Is a single-level dip allowed, or must cleric levels equal/exceed other class levels? Is at least one cleric level effectively "free?" (In other words, are you treated as having a maximum of 20 levels + 1 cleric level, max 21?) If everyone is, in essence, given a free level of cleric, I don't think I'd have as much of a problem with it. You can still build your character as you like; you just have an extra level of features, spellcasting capacity, and affiliation with a deity. If, on the other hand, you must take more than one level, and it counts against your maximum, then the DM is basically dictating builds; he may as well ask what you want to play and then hand out character sheets.

3: Are cleric ACFs admissible? Various cleric PrCs? Or are you limited solely to core-cleric, core-features? You could have a lot of fun with a customizable cleric level.

4: Are these cleric levels settings-necessary? For instance, if this is an undead-heavy campaign, those cleric levels are understandably valuable; if you're going to be slaying a lot of dragons, they're simply cute. If the rule of the setting is that people who don't worship a deity die horrible, prompt deaths, it makes sense; if settings-deities are ambivalent or absentee, it's a bit silly.

Yes, it forces you to consider your build and your stats differently. But nothing says you have to be good at being a Cleric. Consider a dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks fighter with a cleric level. He can't really cast spells to save his life, but he is technically a cleric. That satisfies the DM's requirement.

Unless he requires that you not only have to take a level of cleric, but be good at it. In which case, I hope you were planning to roll a cleric.

Because you're rolling a cleric.

[Ceaon]

A 1-level dip in Cleric is about the best dip in the game, so I wouldn't worry too much. If he seems like a reasonable DM, give him the benefit of the doubt.

[Harbinger]

A cleric dip with no ability to cast spells is still good thanks to domain powers and devotion feats in addition to being able to use wands. Being told you HAVE to do this however is not good. Is he going to be doing more of this? How much control do you actually have over your character?

He's also requiring us to be Good, and making us add Hellbred racial stats on top of our other racial stats. I don't have a problem with that though, personally.



1: Is the DM enforcing a multiclassing penalty? This hated mechanical feature becomes even worse when multiclassing is mandated. Or, if it is enforced, is it waived for cleric levels?

2: How many levels must one multiclass? Is a single-level dip allowed, or must cleric levels equal/exceed other class levels? Is at least one cleric level effectively "free?" (In other words, are you treated as having a maximum of 20 levels + 1 cleric level, max 21?) If everyone is, in essence, given a free level of cleric, I don't think I'd have as much of a problem with it. You can still build your character as you like; you just have an extra level of features, spellcasting capacity, and affiliation with a deity. If, on the other hand, you must take more than one level, and it counts against your maximum, then the DM is basically dictating builds; he may as well ask what you want to play and then hand out character sheets.

3: Are cleric ACFs admissible? Various cleric PrCs? Or are you limited solely to core-cleric, core-features? You could have a lot of fun with a customizable cleric level.

4: Are these cleric levels settings-necessary? For instance, if this is an undead-heavy campaign, those cleric levels are understandably valuable; if you're going to be slaying a lot of dragons, they're simply cute. If the rule of the setting is that people who don't worship a deity die horrible, prompt deaths, it makes sense; if settings-deities are ambivalent or absentee, it's a bit silly.

Yes, it forces you to consider your build and your stats differently. But nothing says you have to be good at being a Cleric. Consider a dumb-as-a-bag-of-rocks fighter with a cleric level. He can't really cast spells to save his life, but he is technically a cleric. That satisfies the DM's requirement.

Unless he requires that you not only have to take a level of cleric, but be good at it. In which case, I hope you were planning to roll a cleric.

Because you're rolling a cleric.


1. I don't know, probably not.

2. It's only a 1 level thing, but it isn't "free". We're second level, and the second level is cleric. Max nonepic level is still 20.

3. He would almost certainly allow this.

4. It defiantly not setting necessary. It makes sense given the fluff of the campaign, but it's not necessary.

[Big Fau]

But what if someone wants to be a sorcerer? Or a fighter with a wisdom score of less than ten?

It isn't that big of a deal for either option. A Wis of 11 is enough to cast 1st level spells, but you don't even need that to use divine wands. The Fighter would actually benefit from certain domains (Cloistered Cleric especially), and the Sorcerer could get a lot of mileage out of Turn Undead+Devotion feats.

The lost level does suck, but as long as you get to build the rest of the character however you want it should be OK.

[DR27]

You aren't giving enough info. If its some sort of story thing to bring you all together - eh it's a little extreme, but the cleric dip isn't a big deal as long as you can branch out later without penalties. If he's going to screw you all for your entire adventuring lives by forcing your characters to be a certain way - bad DM. So, use common sense? It's amazing how often that advice is relevant.

[Red Fel]

He's also requiring us to be Good, and making us add Hellbred racial stats on top of our other racial stats. I don't have a problem with that though, personally.

Okay. The Good part, I don't have a problem with; that's classic D&D. It was assumed that the heroes were (duh) good.

The Hellbred part? I have a problem.

First, Hellbred is a race, not a template, unless he plans to turn it into a template. (Which he is welcome to; his game, his rules.) If he is treating it as a race, that precludes you from choosing other races. Templates, sure, but your base is now Hellbred.

And while I don't have a strong opposition to DMs saying "the following races are banned" or "you may only choose from this list of races," mandating race AND class starts to get a bit absurd. Although I do think I'm starting to see a pattern as to the setting.

But my big beef with the Hellbred choice - as a race or as a template - is the Hellbound racial feature.

You know, the one which basically says that if you die at low levels it really, really stinks to be you. I don't think you guys will have access to Cleric 7 spells for a good while.

He is, in essence, making you play a Hardcore game. If you, as players, were prepared for that, that's fine. But it would bother the heck out of me.

Like I said before. Might as well just have him hand out character sheets.

[Gigas Breaker]

Here is a handbook for dipping Cleric 1! (http://brilliantgameologists.com/boards/index.php?topic=2773)

[Harbinger]

Okay. The Good part, I don't have a problem with; that's classic D&D. It was assumed that the heroes were (duh) good.

The Hellbred part? I have a problem.

First, Hellbred is a race, not a template, unless he plans to turn it into a template. (Which he is welcome to; his game, his rules.) If he is treating it as a race, that precludes you from choosing other races. Templates, sure, but your base is now Hellbred.

And while I don't have a strong opposition to DMs saying "the following races are banned" or "you may only choose from this list of races," mandating race AND class starts to get a bit absurd. Although I do think I'm starting to see a pattern as to the setting.

But my big beef with the Hellbred choice - as a race or as a template - is the Hellbound racial feature.

You know, the one which basically says that if you die at low levels it really, really stinks to be you. I don't think you guys will have access to Cleric 7 spells for a good while.

He is, in essence, making you play a Hardcore game. If you, as players, were prepared for that, that's fine. But it would bother the heck out of me.

Like I said before. Might as well just have him hand out character sheets.

He's basically turning it into a template. We're applying Hellbred on top of our normal race. I'm a Hellbred Gnoll (I've worked with him to remove the LA and RHD) ranger, for instance.

I don't think he's considered the Hellbound thing, and I certainly haven't. That might be a problem.

[Kioras]

Forcing a class, and a class dip is a real nuicance, and it potentially causes other penalties and other issues. As a player and GM i am against it as it removes choice from the players.

I would probably just roll with it personally, stick level 2 as cloistered cleric if i can, and grab something with useful domains, so i can grab possibly 2 or 3 good devotions, like law or knowledge or travel.

[Urpriest]

I've been wanting to run a game where everybody starts as (Cloistered) Cleric 1 and then does whatever they want with it for a long time now. But it would be part of the campaign premise, not a side requirement.

[Red Fel]

I've been wanting to run a game where everybody starts as (Cloistered) Cleric 1 and then does whatever they want with it for a long time now. But it would be part of the campaign premise, not a side requirement.

Between the Hellbred template, the cleric level, and the alignment requirement, I think "campaign premise" is precisely what it is.

It sounds like the campaign is based around the entire party being "redeemed"-types. You know, fallen from grace, each embracing faith with the hopes of restoring themselves. Hence the template and the cleric level(s).

Which, again, is fine if the DM was upfront about it. The OP mentioned a "really cool" world, background, and plot, but not whether this was a part of it. If the DM hasn't been upfront about it, though, you might want to call him on it. What if you don't like being pidgeonholed as a fallen hero seeking to return to the light?

[Harbinger]

Between the Hellbred template, the cleric level, and the alignment requirement, I think "campaign premise" is precisely what it is.

It sounds like the campaign is based around the entire party being "redeemed"-types. You know, fallen from grace, each embracing faith with the hopes of restoring themselves. Hence the template and the cleric level(s).

Which, again, is fine if the DM was upfront about it. The OP mentioned a "really cool" world, background, and plot, but not whether this was a part of it. If the DM hasn't been upfront about it, though, you might want to call him on it. What if you don't like being pidgeonholed as a fallen hero seeking to return to the light?

That is the campaign premise, yes. We're the souls of Evil types returned to life trying to save ourselves from Hell.

[Red Fel]

That is the campaign premise, yes. We're the souls of Evil types returned to life trying to save ourselves from Hell.

In that case, it kinda all makes sense, doesn't it?

You might want to re-fluff the Hellbound feature, but apart from that, inconvenient though it may be, it fits.

Also: Called it!

[Harbinger]

In that case, it kinda all makes sense, doesn't it?

You might want to re-fluff the Hellbound feature, but apart from that, inconvenient though it may be, it fits.

Also: Called it!

Yeah, I think you're right. That Cleric dip guide that got posted earlier gives me all sorts of ideas.