Return of the Restrictions

[Fwiffo86]

I am glad to see the return of restrictions on things. I have no experience with 4e, but I can say 3e proved that players will abuse every loophole they can find. And I welcome the closing of many of those loopholes.

Example:

Multi-class attribute requirements. I love this. It harkens back to the days of 1e where you actually had to have extremely good scores to multi-class (not to mention you actually couldn't do this if you were human). Now if they would only return the difference between Multi-class and Class changing and/or put in the requirement that your classes must remain within x levels of each other or huge xp penalty. (go ahead, pick up 2 levels of fighter. Hope you like getting only 50% xp for the rest of the game) But I like the idea that your secondary class is less effective than if it were your primary class (assuming I understand the rumor properly) :smallsmile:

Extremely Unlikely Possibilities:

Loss of attribute (CON) point upon raise from the dead. This meant you only had so many chances. Only a small revolving door in the afterlife.

Wish aging the caster 7 years. How many times are you going to cast wish my human wizard? 1? 5? With an average lifespan of 50, I'm thinking a single cast would ruin you. (remember the aging rules for attributes? (+WIS, -STR, DEX, CON)

Ah, the days when you couldn't obliterate gods because you were level 15. I miss them.

[PinkysBrain]

You could fight and kill demi-gods though.

[INDYSTAR188]

Do we know how multi-classing works yet? I like the idea of it having a set of prerequisites as I agree the 'dip into class X for super OP ability' is cheesy. I hope that it is restrictive enough to prevent those sorts of shenanigans while still being flexible enough to provide access to the tools characters need to fill out their concepts.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Do we know how multi-classing works yet? I like the idea of it having a set of prerequisites as I agree the 'dip into class X for super OP ability' is cheesy. I hope that it is restrictive enough to prevent those sorts of shenanigans while still being flexible enough to provide access to the tools characters need to fill out their concepts.I honestly don't see how ability score requirements are going to make dipping any less common or usable. Most people dipped classes that fit their character concepts, or to mix & match classes that normally didn't work together (wizard + fighter, rogue + fighter, Lots of things + fighter). 3.5 had feat and skill point prerequisites, and those didn't stop people from taking them, either.

I can't imagine that a Barbarian, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Warlord, X new martial class will have vastly different requirements. I'll have to see how it's implemented to make a final judgement, but it is something that could be needless bookkeeping if done poorly.

[PinkysBrain]

I foresee players buying more pizza though to allow them to re-roll stats.

PS. I don't understand the mindset that cheese is bad ... unless you rolled high on your stats, then it's perfectly fine. I'm just not groggy enough I guess.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

This isn't the return, 4e multiclass feats had restrictions based on ability scores.

Low ones if memory serves me correct but they were there.

I really hope hybrid rules are made for 5e.

[Beleriphon]

This isn't the return, 4e multiclass feats had restrictions based on ability scores.

Low ones if memory serves me correct but they were there.

I really hope hybrid rules are made for 5e.

I think the requirements are something to the effect of 13 in two stats, or 15 in one.

[INDYSTAR188]

I honestly don't see how ability score requirements are going to make dipping any less common or usable.

The inherently lower starting ability scores *should* make it a little more difficult, don't you think?

[Tholomyes]

I foresee players buying more pizza though to allow them to re-roll stats.

PS. I don't understand the mindset that cheese is bad ... unless you rolled high on your stats, then it's perfectly fine. I'm just not groggy enough I guess.

Yeah, it's one of the reasons that a) I won't be doing rolled stats, and b) I won't be doing multiclass ability score restrictions. As for Wish or Raise Dead, I have no horse in those races, since I'd rather just rid the game of the Wish spell once and for all, and while I don't want to remove Raise Dead from the game, I also know I just will never use it. On the raise dead thing, to the extent that I care at all, I'd prefer that there weren't permanent repercussions on revival, such as Con loss, since I dislike that method of design, but again, I have very little personal stake in it.

I acknowledge there are places where placing restrictions is necessary, but to be honest, in my experience, it seems a lot of places where it is necessary don't get restricted, while places where restrictions aren't all that necessary are the ones that get restrictions. If I had my way, there are a lot of things that would have gone the way of maximum class levels for non-human races.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The inherently lower starting ability scores *should* make it a little more difficult, don't you think?If the requirements are 14 or less? Maybe. If they are 15 or larger? Maybe.

But only then if you want to dip a class that is the antithesis of your build. A fighter might have issues multiclassing with a Bard or Sorcerer, but would the dex-based fighter really have that many issues multiclassing with a rogue?

[INDYSTAR188]

If the requirements are 14 or less? Maybe. If they are 15 or larger? Maybe.

But only then if you want to dip a class that is the antithesis of your build. A fighter might have issues multiclassing with a Bard or Sorcerer, but would the dex-based fighter really have that many issues multiclassing with a rogue?

Maybe it will stop this talk of dipping into Fighter to get Action Surge for casters? I don't think multi-classing is bad, I just hope it is a little more restrictive than 3.X and more useful than 4E. I think a DEX-based fighter multi-classing into a rogue sounds like a good use of the multi-class option (provided there's a good story-based reason for it). I always ask my players what the purpose of the multi-class is, story-wise. I don't tell them they can't (it's their character after all) but I do want to see a valid reason besides "the charop guide says to take these 2 levels of fighter".

[CyberThread]

hehe, you all act like only core matters. Just know anything you see now, will have a loophole in the future.

[pwykersotz]

hehe, you all act like only core matters. Just know anything you see now, will have a loophole in the future.

Core matters most. It's easy to trim back to core only. It's harder to say core only except for [string of exceptions].

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Thinking about it... I really hate these so called restrictions. All it really does is promote synergy classes to multiclass and detract non-synergenic classes from multiclassing.

So a rogue/fighter will multiclass well but a Rogue/cleric will be rare.

I think we need to base multiclassing on another thing...

I don't know what yet but I would hate to see people who want to legally multiclass X and Y not be able to because the two classes aren't synergetic.

[Held]

With a roleplaying game centred around creativity, I think too many restrictions on the character-building possibilities isn't necessarily a good thing. There's only so many Joe the Fighters I can stand before I'll run around screaming for variety and diversity.

I think it's much more an issue of who you play with than how the system is made; I have no doubt there'll be min-maxers for 5e and everyone is going to complain about how gamebreaking some elements of the rules set are, but when you play with people who make flavour fit the character and play for mechanics moreso than the roleplay experience, you're going to get that. If you want people to be weak and struggle against things, introduce houserules or have your DM introduce houserules if you absolutely must play with the crowd whose idea of 'challenge' is making a character that is capable of outright denying opposition.

Some people like to overcome odds. Others just want to watch the world burn.

[pwykersotz]

I think the more restrictions the better (obviously to a point). It's far easier to remove a restriction than to place it. Obviously certain tables will remove them without thought. "That's dumb, why should my Cleric/Rogue be less valid than anyone else?" Certain tables will use it as a way to describe things. "This Cleric is supremely quick on his feet, he must have a lot of natural talent." And there are probably infinitely more variations of this that I can scarcely think of.

But imagine if they weren't in the game and a DM tried to impose them. I can hear the forums telling the player who whined to throw a book at his DM and leave the table as we speak. People love to crack something wide open, but they often balk at shoving something shiny back into the box. I think it's great, SpawnOfMorbo, that you will probably remove the restrictions for your table. However I have gamers (and I am one of them) who likes the idea of someone needing to be naturally proficient in a class to be able to multiclass into it, and I think stats are a decent way to do it.

I think these rules give us both ways in the simplest way possible. Some might protest that an optional rules variant would be better, but I maintain that an optional rules variant to remove the restriction is better still.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Core matters most. It's easy to trim back to core only. It's harder to say core only except for [string of exceptions].I don't see why it would be any harder to, after having run games allowing anything the DM/Players owned and brought to the table, run a game with Core + Splatbooks X, Y, and Z, then it would be to run a Core only game.

If anything, Core + Splatbooks X, Y, and Z has been a far more common experience than Core only for me.

[pwykersotz]

I don't see why it would be any harder to, after having run games allowing anything the DM/Players owned and brought to the table, run a game with Core + Splatbooks X, Y, and Z, then it would be to run a Core only game.

If anything, Core + Splatbooks X, Y, and Z has been a far more common experience than Core only for me, if only because very DMs are willing or able to run Core + Everything.

I mean that it's harder to say "We're using Core except for the spell Gate, and grapple is a standard action instead of an attack, and we're not using longswords, and Clerics don't get Channel Divinity, and so on and so on. Adding full discrete books is way easier than picking and choosing which part of a book is used. Core is important because if a splatbook is broken, it can just be not used. For the brave, they can hunt through and whitelist things from that book. But if Core is broken/out of balance with itself, it's much more of a pain.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I mean that it's harder to say "We're using Core except for the spell Gate, and grapple is a standard action instead of an attack, and we're not using longswords, and Clerics don't get Channel Divinity, and so on and so on. Adding full discrete books is way easier than picking and choosing which part of a book is used. Core is important because if a splatbook is broken, it can just be not used. For the brave, they can hunt through and whitelist things from that book. But if Core is broken/out of balance with itself, it's much more of a pain.I get ya, man.

[da_chicken]

I foresee players buying more pizza though to allow them to re-roll stats.

PS. I don't understand the mindset that cheese is bad ... unless you rolled high on your stats, then it's perfectly fine. I'm just not groggy enough I guess.

Because cheese is incredibly boring. It's entertaining for a session or two, then either the cheese takes over the game or the trick gets played out. Congratulations, you found a loophole. Playing a character that's exploits it is not particularly ingenious, and risks jeopardizing the fun of everyone else at the table.

[PinkysBrain]

Because cheese is incredibly boring. It's entertaining for a session or two, then either the cheese takes over the game or the trick gets played out. Congratulations, you found a loophole. Playing a character that's exploits it is not particularly ingenious, and risks jeopardizing the fun of everyone else at the table.

Did you stop reading halfway through my sentence? (I know I use too many ellipsis, but using them for a mid sentence pause is pretty common ...)

[akaddk]

The way classes and levelling are structured, the multi-class ability restrictions make perfect sense. Think of it this way, multi-classing is level-based. Whether you're a 10th-level fighter or a 5th-level fighter/5th-level rogue, you're still a 10th-level character. So one way or another, your character has had to spend the majority of their training focusing on one discipline. Years spent developing those talents for 1st-level. Then you get to 5th-level and you're like, "Hmm, he's very roguish, raised on the streets, if it wasn't for Captain Varmy, he would've become a rogue... I'm going to level dip!" Well, great, but now you have to do the equivalent of years of training in a completely new discipline. That takes natural talent. 4e ****ed that concept up by making it far too easy. At least 3e had some penalties associated with it that made you think about whether it was worthwhile or not. And 2e was really harsh with how multi-classing worked but it also used a totally different paradigm.

I hope that the MC restrictions are harsh. I don't mind MC'ing but the way 5e is designed, with basically no other penalty for doing it, it needs to be restrictive or else it's going to be broken.

[da_chicken]

Did you stop reading halfway through my sentence? (I know I use too many ellipsis, but using them for a mid sentence pause is pretty common ...)

No, I didn't stop reading it at all. Did you think you said, "I don't think this is cheese because it's only a problem if you roll stats and roll high?" Because that isn't what you said. You said, "I don't understand the mindset that cheese is bad," which is a very broad statement about all cheese. Your qualification after the ellipses that it's fine unless you roll high stats -- although your wording is ambiguous enough that it could be saying "it's fine if you roll high stats," but that makes no sense -- doesn't change the fact that you started with a broad statement about cheese in general.

[Sartharina]

I actually liked 4e's multiclassing the most, aside from the feat taxes to swap powers, and useless Paragon multiclassing (Or was there something there I missed?)

You have two choices - you can use feats to multiclass in 4e, giving you a "I'm distinctly class, but also competent enough to pass as another class entirely", or you can go with a Hybrid if you're really 'down the middle' of the classes. Best of all, you stayed level-appropriate with all powers and abilities.

I was hoping 5e would be the same, so that feats, backgrounds, racial selection, and subclasses could give a thematic "Multiclass" feel. Like Pathfinder's Archetypes, but with less fail and terribad design.

[PinkysBrain]

For the reference of others I'll just paste the sentence again, I don't think we'll agree.

"I don't understand the mindset that cheese is bad ... unless you rolled high on your stats, then it's perfectly fine."

[Sartharina]

Rolling high is an edge case. The more usual case of multiclassing would be people choosing their point buy/score assignment and attribute increases to allow multiclassing. You build yourself for the classes you want, instead of just grabbing whatever the heck you want. There's a cost involved in trying to multiclass that is punitive to those who are just trying to grab cool abilities (Like a Wizard trying to grab a Fighter's weapon die, self-healing, action surge, and armor class) without being detrimental to their core class, while not overly punishing those who are actually going for a middle-ground between classes, such as a spellsword who has to maintain good Intelligence, Strength, and Constitution anyway to function. Or a Robin Hood archer/rogue.

[Tholomyes]

Rolling high is an edge case. The more usual case of multiclassing would be people choosing their point buy/score assignment and attribute increases to allow multiclassing. You build yourself for the classes you want, instead of just grabbing whatever the heck you want. There's a cost involved in trying to multiclass that is punitive to those who are just trying to grab cool abilities (Like a Wizard trying to grab a Fighter's weapon die, self-healing, action surge, and armor class) without being detrimental to their core class, while not overly punishing those who are actually going for a middle-ground between classes, such as a spellsword who has to maintain good Intelligence, Strength, and Constitution anyway to function. Or a Robin Hood archer/rogue.Except it only works when you have 1-20 planned out in advance. In my experience, unless a player has a concept that only works with multiclassing, it's usually reserved for story-based occurances. For example, I had a game a while back where I was playing a rogue (well, not exactly; it was a point buy system, so there were no classes, but if it had a class, it'd be rogue). During that game, the character had a religious experience, so I changed directions, and put points into priestly things, like spells and religion skills, and such. Had it been a D&D game, I'd have multiclassed into cleric. With 5e, however, there's the 13 or 15 Wisdom barrier to entry. That means, you might have 4 or 7 or however many levels, funneling your Ability score increases into Wisdom (meaning you're not increasing your Dex, and you're not getting any feats), and then finally putting a level into Cleric, before you're actually a multiclassed character. Even though you've known, for many levels now, that you wanted to multiclass into cleric, it's still incredibly difficult, since you didn't plan for it at level 1.

Now, I don't know how 5e will turn out in this regard, but I've had a lot of games of 4th and especially 3rd edition where the campaign could have ended before I'd even get my first level of cleric, in this case. Now, part of that is that my group and I tend to dislike higher level play in those editions, and whether this is true for 5e remains to be seen. But still, I could easily see this multiclass system causing players to spend more time waiting to multiclass, than actually playing the multiclassed character.

[Pex]

This has me concerned.

My general complaint about 2E is its general tone was all about what players cannot do. Players were actually forbidden to do things, like play a ranger or paladin because he didn't roll the right stats. 3E thankfully and rightfully got rid of that nonsense. It was all about what players can do. If someone wants to play a paladin with only a 14 Charisma, he can do so. A player is doing that right now in my group. (Pathfinder)

Bringing back limitations isn't necessarily a bad thing. It's all the implementation. However, I will burn the book if the game forbids a player from playing a ranger, instead telling him to be a fighter who always wanted to be a ranger but is allergic to trees to inspire roleplaying.

[Dimers]

No, I didn't stop reading it at all. Did you think you said, "I don't think this is cheese because it's only a problem if you roll stats and roll high?" Because that isn't what you said. You said, "I don't understand the mindset that cheese is bad," which is a very broad statement about all cheese. Your qualification after the ellipses that it's fine unless you roll high stats -- although your wording is ambiguous enough that it could be saying "it's fine if you roll high stats," but that makes no sense -- doesn't change the fact that you started with a broad statement about cheese in general.

He's saying he doesn't understand why other people say "Cheese is fine if I rolled high and cheese is bad if I didn't". Me myself, I don't see people actually making that claim or implication, but that's what PinkysBrain is getting at.

[Fwiffo86]

Cheese to me is nothing more than... I'm playing a Cleric, but I'm going to pick up two levels of fighter so I can have Action Surge. This behavior should come with a price. I don't think stalling feats or whatever is a steep enough disincentive. This there should be an XP penalty if your classes get too far out of whack.

Caveat, (and this is just 1e carry over but still fits if you ask me) Human. Humans by nature change what they do all the time. As was represented with the Class change mechanic. The only problem with doing so, was you could never level the previous class again. I have no problem with this. Ok Wiz... you can dip. But you won't be able to take anymore Wiz levels after you do it.

Just my two coppers. Not trying to start anything.

[Sartharina]

The "disincentive" should be the loss of ability of equal power to the gained abilities. Of course, I wouldn't mind seeing a rule that made the level 2 powerhouse feature be a "Choose which class' ability you want", instead of getting them all - A Fighter/Rogue could have EITHER Action Surge or Cunning action, not both. A Cleric/Fighter could have Action Surge or Channel Divinity. A Fighter/Wizard could have... hmm, I think they'd need to lose Arcane recovery instead

[rlc]

Caveat, (and this is just 1e carry over but still fits if you ask me) Human. Humans by nature change what they do all the time. As was represented with the Class change mechanic. The only problem with doing so, was you could never level the previous class again. I have no problem with this. Ok Wiz... you can dip. But you won't be able to take anymore Wiz levels after you do it.

Just my two coppers. Not trying to start anything.

that is a terrible idea. like, the guy who came up with that should be punched in the face, it's so bad. i don't have a problem with wanting to restrict multi-classing, but it makes absolutely no sense to completely disallow something from before, just because you change your path a little bit.
non-d&d example:
let's say that you get a promotion to management at your job, but you decide after awhile that you really liked working a lot more than managing. this system says, "nope, you can use your skills from before (well, maybe...depending on what they were...), but you can never actually go back to what you were doing before, even if you leave the company and work for somebody else."

[Oscredwin]

that is a terrible idea. like, the guy who came up with that should be punched in the face, it's so bad. i don't have a problem with wanting to restrict multi-classing, but it makes absolutely no sense to completely disallow something from before, just because you change your path a little bit.
non-d&d example:
let's say that you get a promotion to management at your job, but you decide after awhile that you really liked working a lot more than managing. this system says, "nope, you can use your skills from before (well, maybe...depending on what they were...), but you can never actually go back to what you were doing before, even if you leave the company and work for somebody else."

Well, if we're doing 2nd ed, you're also advancing on the new class from level 1 in the xp table too, so you're levelling a lot faster. And you get access to your old abilities once you're new level exceeds your old level. Also, bounded accuracy means that a level 1 cleric (with a bunch of fighter HP and proficiencies, etc) is still useful. It's likely not a good idea, but it's not crazy.

[Psyren]

Core matters most. It's easy to trim back to core only. It's harder to say core only except for [string of exceptions].

That sounds like a great way to sell books.

[Sartharina]

That sounds like a great way to sell books.
Developers get money, players get options, groups get a stable core, and everyone but our wallets wins!

[da_chicken]

I'm not a fan of ability prerequisites. They're a lazy design, and I suspect in 5e that they will actually do little more that ensure that players are unable to be stupid when they multi-class honestly.

My take on multi-classing is different than 5e or 3e. My take is that a multi-class character is a trained discipline. A fighter/mage trained from level 1 to be a fighter/mage, he didn't decide to pick up spellcasting after 5 levels as a Fighter.

Things I'm still thinking about for multi-class rules:

1. Allow only 2e style multi-classing. This could be further restricted to just allow what 2e allowed to multi-class. Average hit point rolls, halve skill selections. Halve save proficiencies. Tools and weapons you keep. Armor... I'm not sure. The diversity means players cannot select a subclass for either class. Cost is is that your XP is split between the two classes, making it effectively a 50% penalty.

This method is likely still too good.

2. Simple rule: if you don't keep your classes within 1-2 levels, you suffer a -1 penalty to your proficiency bonus.

[Jeff W]

Do we know how multi-classing works yet? I like the idea of it having a set of prerequisites as I agree the 'dip into class X for super OP ability' is cheesy. I hope that it is restrictive enough to prevent those sorts of shenanigans while still being flexible enough to provide access to the tools characters need to fill out their concepts.

Dipping isn't a problem unless the classes are designed poorly. The dipping epidemic in 3.5e arose because too many base classes and prestige classes were frontloaded.

[Balyano]

My take on multi-classing is different than 5e or 3e. My take is that a multi-class character is a trained discipline. A fighter/mage trained from level 1 to be a fighter/mage, he didn't decide to pick up spellcasting after 5 levels as a Fighter.



But what if that doesn't fit with the characters history. Like what if my rogue I've been playing has a religious experience during the campaign, decides to become a holyman. Can he not now take levels of cleric to reflect his new path in life, just because the character developed organically as I played him rather than me planning him that way from the start?

[ZeshinX]

Overall I don't mind restrictions, so long as they provide a creative, flavourful, or obvious sensibility to them. Restrictions that exist to serve only some form of mechanical balance but otherwise make little sense, I despise those (I call them nonsense rules). An example of a what I consider a nonsense rule: in 2e, only humans can be paladins.

Nonsense rules don't stop me from playing and enjoying the game of course, they just strike me as bad design. 3/3.5/Pathfinder isn't free of nonsense rules, but restrictions there are vastly more creative or sensible in their implementation (again, for the most part, it still has some dumb to it).

[A Stray Cat]

I'm not a fan of ability prerequisites. They're a lazy design, and I suspect in 5e that they will actually do little more that ensure that players are unable to be stupid when they multi-class honestly.

My take on multi-classing is different than 5e or 3e. My take is that a multi-class character is a trained discipline. A fighter/mage trained from level 1 to be a fighter/mage, he didn't decide to pick up spellcasting after 5 levels as a Fighter.

Things I'm still thinking about for multi-class rules:

1. Allow only 2e style multi-classing. This could be further restricted to just allow what 2e allowed to multi-class. Average hit point rolls, halve skill selections. Halve save proficiencies. Tools and weapons you keep. Armor... I'm not sure. The diversity means players cannot select a subclass for either class. Cost is is that your XP is split between the two classes, making it effectively a 50% penalty.

This method is likely still too good.

2. Simple rule: if you don't keep your classes within 1-2 levels, you suffer a -1 penalty to your proficiency bonus.

As a 2e player, I'm totally cool with this. But instead of multi-classing, why not just have sub classes for each of the core classes that are effectively multi-class characters? Fighter-mage, fighter-thief, mage-fighter, thief-fighter, cleric-mage, etc.?

[Tholomyes]

Dipping isn't a problem unless the classes are designed poorly. The dipping epidemic in 3.5e arose because too many base classes and prestige classes were frontloaded. An interesting design decision would be to have had 0-levels for classes, where, if you start at level 1, you get the full level 1 benefits (so even at level 1 you feel like a fighter or what have you), but if you multiclass, you might have to spend two levels in order to get to a level 1 fighter. While I understand, mechanically, there's no difference between that and just starting off at a higher level, with less front-loaded classes, but the semantics are important. Since most games tend to start at first level, you still feel powerful enough, just as you would with more front loaded classes, and if you want to play more inexperienced characters, you can make the active choice to start at level 0.

[Fwiffo86]

But what if that doesn't fit with the characters history. Like what if my rogue I've been playing has a religious experience during the campaign, decides to become a holyman. Can he not now take levels of cleric to reflect his new path in life, just because the character developed organically as I played him rather than me planning him that way from the start?

If taken exactly as written, this is an example of leaving rogue to become a cleric and not looking back. Exactly what I was talking about as carry over for humans from 1e. The former rogue becomes a cleric, and forswears his previous life to devote himself entirely to the priesthood, never returning to his roguish ways (no longer putting any levels into rogue by the present system).

There is nothing wrong with this concept. I for one like it. But the multi-class system may allow for abuse. Just like they dumped the required training before you actually got your bonuses for going up in level, they made it far too easy to just take whatever you want. Front loaded or not, it was a problem. I mean you want a fighter/rogue/wiz? I'm pretty sure that's a bard. You want a fighter/druid? We call them rangers. You want a Fighter/Cleric, paladin. Its already built into the system, granted not all possibilities are accounted for as Base classes, but the concept is there.

I forgot who posted it, but the idea of Demi-human max levels is one I support as well. Call me a human racist if you want, but some of the races are just crazy powerful. Maybe even adapt the 6e concept over with it... so they still "grow" in a way. But still.

Of course, I could just be on a restriction binge, and I doubt I'll use most of this, since I plan to see how the multiclass rules actually work before I make any hard decisions on how to mod them, if I need to mod them in the first place.

[Tholomyes]

As a 2e player, I'm totally cool with this. But instead of multi-classing, why not just have sub classes for each of the core classes that are effectively multi-class characters? Fighter-mage, fighter-thief, mage-fighter, thief-fighter, cleric-mage, etc.?I'm guessing that that's kind of what they're doing. For example, there's supposedly an Eldritch Knight subclass for the fighter, Arcane Trickster subclass for the rogue, War and Trickery domains for the cleric, to fill the Fighter-mage, Thief-Mage, cleric-fighter and cleric-thief roles, and presumably more coming. My only issue, is from all I've heard about the fighter archetypes, it just sounds better, both in terms of effectiveness and being fun to play, to roll up a Battlemaster fighter 3 (or maybe 4, to get the feat or ability score boost)/Wizard X. You don't get extra attacks, but you get spells, weapon and armor proficiencies, maneuvers, Second wind and action surge (note, I am fully admitting this isn't the most optimal fighter-wizard multiclass, but it's better than the Eldritch Knight, in terms of effectiveness, and maneuvers are important, thematically, for me to feel like a fighter, not just a wizard with a sword and full plate).

So, even with their attempts to make subclasses that fix the problems, you'll still find multiclassing tends to just be better for your concepts, than what they're passing off as solutions.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

There is nothing wrong with this concept. I for one like it. But the multi-class system may allow for abuse. Just like they dumped the required training before you actually got your bonuses for going up in level, they made it far too easy to just take whatever you want. Front loaded or not, it was a problem. I mean you want a fighter/rogue/wiz? I'm pretty sure that's a bard. You want a fighter/druid? We call them rangers. You want a Fighter/Cleric, paladin. Its already built into the system, granted not all possibilities are accounted for as Base classes, but the concept is there.

I forgot who posted it, but the idea of Demi-human max levels is one I support as well. Call me a human racist if you want, but some of the races are just crazy powerful. Maybe even adapt the 6e concept over with it... so they still "grow" in a way. But still.


I never understood why some classes are full on classes instead of just subclass/archetype options. Paladin is a great example of an class that could be a subclass for every base class.

The biggest problem with saying an Elf can never get to level X of fighter is that.. Well it makes no sense. They have hundreds of years to master the fighter class and yet for some reason a human can do it in 5-10 years (start training at age 12, become a fighter at 18, master it (level 20) by age 28-ish (PCs can do this easily).

That just doesn't compute.

You will essentially saying that experience =/= experience, that one level X fighter doesn't get he same XP for killing a troll as another level X fighter, both killed the troll in solo combat. Just because of race and even though their class uses he same XP chart.

I'm a fan of different XP charts for classes though, however implementing them would be a hassle when setting up encounters (level x wizard is equal to level y fighter and all that).

[Fwiffo86]

I never understood why some classes are full on classes instead of just subclass/archetype options. Paladin is a great example of an class that could be a subclass for every base class.

The biggest problem with saying an Elf can never get to level X of fighter is that.. Well it makes no sense. They have hundreds of years to master the fighter class and yet for some reason a human can do it in 5-10 years (start training at age 12, become a fighter at 18, master it (level 20) by age 28-ish (PCs can do this easily).

That just doesn't compute.

You will essentially saying that experience =/= experience, that one level X fighter doesn't get he same XP for killing a troll as another level X fighter, both killed the troll in solo combat. Just because of race and even though their class uses he same XP chart.

I'm a fan of different XP charts for classes though, however implementing them would be a hassle when setting up encounters (level x wizard is equal to level y fighter and all that).

Excellent point. I concede the logic. But just because you hit a level max, never meant you didn't keep learning. Which is why I put in the 6e example. But I get what you are saying. I even agree with it. I just want to say, I pictured elves as being the type that know they hundreds of years to do something, so they are exceptionally lazy about it.

Human - learn and master swordsmanship : 6 years
Elf - learn and master swordsmanship: 78 years

But that is just an observational thing. Results may vary depending on the table.

[hawklost]

Excellent point. I concede the logic. But just because you hit a level max, never meant you didn't keep learning. Which is why I put in the 6e example. But I get what you are saying. I even agree with it. I just want to say, I pictured elves as being the type that know they hundreds of years to do something, so they are exceptionally lazy about it.

Human - learn and master swordsmanship : 6 years
Elf - learn and master swordsmanship: 78 years

But that is just an observational thing. Results may vary depending on the table.

Isn't it more like

Human - Learn to be a decent swordsman - 4 years
elf - Learn to be a decent swordsman - 75 years

Human - Learn from decent to master - 2-20 years (amount of campaign time between lvl 1 and lvl 20)
Elf - Learn from decent to master - 2-20 years (Same as above)

I always figured that it was because the elves teach their children differently. First, they are considered children for longer than a human would be (50-60 years instead of 12-14). And secondly, because they Never see something like training as urgent, the student will have centuries to master the art so they are going to make sure that they are extremely well grounded in the basics before letting them move on. (Human might spend a few days/weeks to get good enough to learn next lesson. Elf might have to spend a month or more before their master will teach them the next lesson because they cannot do it perfectly 100/100 times.)

Edit:
Changed levels from 2 to 20 because of typo

[SpawnOfMorbo]

Well it isn't about how the society raises a child or how an NPC will go about their training.

But how a PC will go about their training. And PCs are actively training to be x level, putting their full resources into obtaining the next level.

So yes for NPCs I could see level maximums (with different level maximums for diffeent regions of the aame race) and such, but not for a PC.

[Sartharina]

Dipping isn't a problem unless the classes are designed poorly. The dipping epidemic in 3.5e arose because too many base classes and prestige classes were frontloaded.

Frontloading isn't inherently poor class design - it allows you to actually play as a class that feels like that class out of the box. It's only a problem when you have buffet-style multiclassing.

[Tholomyes]

Well it isn't about how the society raises a child or how an NPC will go about their training.

But how a PC will go about their training. And PCs are actively training to be x level, putting their full resources into obtaining the next level.

So yes for NPCs I could see level maximums (with different level maximums for diffeent regions of the aame race) and such, but not for a PC.

I can see arguments for NPC level maximums, but even there, I'm not so sure. It always bugs me when a game tries to mechanically adjudicate NPC rules or any non-combat rule (by which I'm exculding stuff like perception checks for stealth, or sense motive checks for bluff, as I see those as extensions of the PC's Stealth and Bluff rules) regarding NPCs or Monsters. Same with when I see the DMG talk about NPC classes and skill points. Granted, I always ignore them, since in my mind, if the PCs aren't going to be fighting it, all I need to know are the relevant, aforementioned, perception and sense motive scores. Otherwise, their skills are as good as the perception score needs. I don't see why an NPC needs to be a 10th level Blacksmith to create whatever item I need for them to make. They're just a non-leveled character that's just a good blacksmith. All that I need to know is that they have +X sense motive, +Y Perception, and can forge [Insert item here]

[Jeff W]

Frontloading isn't inherently poor class design - it allows you to actually play as a class that feels like that class out of the box. It's only a problem when you have buffet-style multiclassing.

If one class is front-loaded, it will outshine other classes at the start of the game and its advancement will be boring. Class features make classes distinctive, but they should scale up, not cap out at early levels.

[SpawnOfMorbo]

I can see arguments for NPC level maximums, but even there, I'm not so sure. It always bugs me when a game tries to mechanically adjudicate NPC rules or any non-combat rule (by which I'm exculding stuff like perception checks for stealth, or sense motive checks for bluff, as I see those as extensions of the PC's Stealth and Bluff rules) regarding NPCs or Monsters. Same with when I see the DMG talk about NPC classes and skill points. Granted, I always ignore them, since in my mind, if the PCs aren't going to be fighting it, all I need to know are the relevant, aforementioned, perception and sense motive scores. Otherwise, their skills are as good as the perception score needs. I don't see why an NPC needs to be a 10th level Blacksmith to create whatever item I need for them to make. They're just a non-leveled character that's just a good blacksmith. All that I need to know is that they have +X sense motive, +Y Perception, and can forge [Insert item here]

Yup, I do agree that NPCs should be made differently than PCs. Just like monsters.


If one class is front-loaded, it will outshine other classes at the start of the game and its advancement will be boring. Class features make classes distinctive, but they should scale up, not cap out at early levels.

This, so much this.

Also what is the point of having 20 levels of class if everything you get from it is 2 levels worth of class?

[Friv]

Cheese to me is nothing more than... I'm playing a Cleric, but I'm going to pick up two levels of fighter so I can have Action Surge. This behavior should come with a price. I don't think stalling feats or whatever is a steep enough disincentive. This there should be an XP penalty if your classes get too far out of whack.

It does come with a price! It comes with several prices.

First, what you *get* for a two-level Fighter dip in the new system is: A fighting style (so +2 to ranged attacks, or +1 AC or whatever), 1d10+2 HP recovered once, one action surge per combat and about +2 HP on average.

What you lose, first off, is two levels of spell progression, so up to Level 19 you're always a full spell level behind where you should be. You're also two levels slower on your Ability bonuses, so you don't get Wisdom 20 until Level 10, instead of Level 8. At any given point, you're two levels behind on your undead turning and your spells per day.

But let's just look at the absolute - a Level 20 character with Cleric of Life 18/Fighter 2 loses the following: one spell each of Level 6 and 7, ten HP of healing to yourself or others, +2 to one of their stats, and the ability to guarantee the success of your Divine Intervention. So I guess the question is - which do you prefer?

* Ten HP healed to anyone vs +2 starting HP and average 7.5 HP healed to yourself
* Two spells per day vs +1 AC or +2 to hit or +2 damage
* Divine Intervention once per week vs an extra action once per fight

Honestly, it seems like the multiclassing is still losing out a bit (and incidentally, this'll be true for most people. A rogue dipping two levels of cleric is losing out, as is a wizard dipping two levels of rogue. About the only dip that looks good out of the starter set is Fighter 18 / Rogue 2, and that's just because Fighters get more Ability bonuses and their capstone isn't that amazing.)

[Tholomyes]

If one class is front-loaded, it will outshine other classes at the start of the game and its advancement will be boring. Class features make classes distinctive, but they should scale up, not cap out at early levels.I certainly agree with that, but by the same token, there were a lot of times I found in 3.5 or PF, where I'd pick something I'd try to specialize my character for, and I'd spend the first 6 levels feeling incompetent at it (since I didn't have the feats or features for it), and then by the time I started to feel competent at whatever I tried to do, the game would quickly fall apart, since we'd be getting closer and closer to the point where casters absolutely dominated at everything and everyone else might as well go home. And since none of us particularly liked playing that, We'd always find some way to end our campaigns before we got to that point.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Who knows what the future will hold in the long run but some of the class combos I see here will be covered within the class itself. The cleric domain of war will a front runner for solid fighter/cleric blend. Personally I always loved the old school fighter/mage. Which is why I love that one of the fighter paths is the Eldritch Knight (basically a fighter that gains access to magic and not suck at it. There is some limits). Plus I can be human now. :smallsmile:

I like and yet dislike 3.0/onwards multi-classing because it was to easy dipping into another class for just it's abilities/power. Some combos are weak and others really, really strong. 5e version seems a little more balance from what I've seen in action so far. No system will ever likely be perfect.

[Chaosvii7]

I absolutely hate the idea of experience penalties. For one thing, nobody I know who's played under a system that has XP penalties for multiclassing has used them. Ever. It'd be okay if experience was not only the mechanic that one uses to actually advance character levels, but also the building block of the encounter system of this edition, so it doesn't feel right of the system to take away the benefit of enjoying the game because you wanted to combine some features of two classes. It seems unfair to throw a challenge at somebody who'd only reap a portion of the benefits just because they wanted a few cool abilities. That's why I think the most steep multiclassing penalty should be that you can only have two classes - that way it doesn't get more complex than Fighter/Wizard or Monk/Cleric or the like.

[Merc_Kilsek]

I absolutely hate the idea of experience penalties. For one thing, nobody I know who's played under a system that has XP penalties for multiclassing has used them. Ever. It'd be okay if experience was not only the mechanic that one uses to actually advance character levels, but also the building block of the encounter system of this edition, so it doesn't feel right of the system to take away the benefit of enjoying the game because you wanted to combine some features of two classes. It seems unfair to throw a challenge at somebody who'd only reap a portion of the benefits just because they wanted a few cool abilities. That's why I think the most steep multiclassing penalty should be that you can only have two classes - that way it doesn't get more complex than Fighter/Wizard or Monk/Cleric or the like.

I had totally forgotten about that. Hated it myself to. Never use it. Not even for other things like magic item creation.

[Sartharina]

Unfortunately, I hear the Eldritch Knight actually sucks at magic.

I was hoping for full caster progression - all nine levels of spell slots available, with a more focused spell selection.

[Chaosvii7]

Unfortunately, I hear the Eldritch Knight actually sucks at magic.

I was hoping for full caster progression - all nine levels of spell slots available, with a more focused spell selection.

Eldritch Knight getting anything higher than 5th level spells just seems alien to me. Mind you that the Eldritch Knight stuff is supposed to be a chassis for the Fighter as well, and the fighter in of itself already gets some sweet benefits going for it.

[Merc_Kilsek]

Eldritch Knight getting anything higher than 5th level spells just seems alien to me. Mind you that the Eldritch Knight stuff is supposed to be a chassis for the Fighter as well, and the fighter in of itself already gets some sweet benefits going for it.

They are capped to 4th but you are correct about the chassis part. They are limited to evocation and abjuration spells plus some bonus spells as you level up. You are a fighter but with a healthy access to magic. Sure your not a Arch-mage but wouldn't that be a little much? :smallwink:

One of the feats: War Caster (it does more then what I talk about) is almost a must as it allows you to cast spells when both your hands are full: weapon/shield or weapon/weapon, very nice in a fight.

[MeeposFire]

I am glad to see the return of restrictions on things. I have no experience with 4e, but I can say 3e proved that players will abuse every loophole they can find. And I welcome the closing of many of those loopholes.

Example:

Multi-class attribute requirements. I love this. It harkens back to the days of 1e where you actually had to have extremely good scores to multi-class (not to mention you actually couldn't do this if you were human). Now if they would only return the difference between Multi-class and Class changing and/or put in the requirement that your classes must remain within x levels of each other or huge xp penalty. (go ahead, pick up 2 levels of fighter. Hope you like getting only 50% xp for the rest of the game) But I like the idea that your secondary class is less effective than if it were your primary class (assuming I understand the rumor properly) :smallsmile:

Extremely Unlikely Possibilities:

Loss of attribute (CON) point upon raise from the dead. This meant you only had so many chances. Only a small revolving door in the afterlife.

Wish aging the caster 7 years. How many times are you going to cast wish my human wizard? 1? 5? With an average lifespan of 50, I'm thinking a single cast would ruin you. (remember the aging rules for attributes? (+WIS, -STR, DEX, CON)

Ah, the days when you couldn't obliterate gods because you were level 15. I miss them.

You are confusing multi and dual classing. Multi was demihuman only and had no ability score requirements outside of the basic requirements for the classes involved (usually 9 in its prime score). Dual classing was human only, had ability requirements (that were steep), and you had to switch classes permanently rather than boosting both at once like a multiclass character would.

[MeeposFire]

I actually liked 4e's multiclassing the most, aside from the feat taxes to swap powers, and useless Paragon multiclassing (Or was there something there I missed?)

You have two choices - you can use feats to multiclass in 4e, giving you a "I'm distinctly class, but also competent enough to pass as another class entirely", or you can go with a Hybrid if you're really 'down the middle' of the classes. Best of all, you stayed level-appropriate with all powers and abilities.

I was hoping 5e would be the same, so that feats, backgrounds, racial selection, and subclasses could give a thematic "Multiclass" feel. Like Pathfinder's Archetypes, but with less fail and terribad design.

There were a few paragon multiclassing tricks that you could use that were effective. Some of the more common ideas were to to grab the scout's dual weapon at will attack power and pare it with a dangerous striker class such as the avenger.

[Reddish Mage]

Overall I don't mind restrictions, so long as they provide a creative, flavourful, or obvious sensibility to them. Restrictions that exist to serve only some form of mechanical balance but otherwise make little sense, I despise those (I call them nonsense rules). An example of a what I consider a nonsense rule: in 2e, only humans can be paladins.

Nonsense rules don't stop me from playing and enjoying the game of course, they just strike me as bad design. 3/3.5/Pathfinder isn't free of nonsense rules, but restrictions there are vastly more creative or sensible in their implementation (again, for the most part, it still has some dumb to it).

I notice that a lot of about multi-classing in 2e, level adjustments in 3e, and restrictions on prestige classes that are intended to bring about mechanical balance end up making these options unattractive to a run of the mill role-player, while munchkins will find a way, even if it involves multiple sourcebook and twisting their characters into knots to break the system.

[PinkysBrain]

Only casters and munchkins get nice things.

[pwykersotz]

Only casters and munchkins get nice things.

If you find such things nice. :smallyuk:

[TheIronGolem]

XP penalties for multiclass characters is redundant at best. You're already paying for your broadened skillset by giving up access to higher-level abilities. Allowing such a character to progress normally is not going to put you at risk of breaking the game.

As for ability-score requirements on multiclassing, that's a solution looking for a problem. If I'm a fighter who wants to multiclass as a wizard but my Intelligence score sucks, then I'm obviously not going to be breaking the game with my weak-tea Wizard spells, am I? So what's the harm in letting me do it?

[Tholomyes]

XP penalties for multiclass characters is redundant at best. You're already paying for your broadened skillset by giving up access to higher-level abilities. Allowing such a character to progress normally is not going to put you at risk of breaking the game.

As for ability-score requirements on multiclassing, that's a solution looking for a problem. If I'm a fighter who wants to multiclass as a wizard but my Intelligence score sucks, then I'm obviously not going to be breaking the game with my weak-tea Wizard spells, am I? So what's the harm in letting me do it? The issue is more the opposite; a Fighter dipping a level in wizard isn't all that powerful. A Wizard dipping a couple levels in fighter, however, is more powerful, due to action surge, and gaining proficiencies. Still, adding a prerequisite won't solve the issue, since a wizard still is pretty SAD. They want Int, mainly, but otherwise, they really only have Con and Dex vying for their attention (and supposedly dex can be used to qualify for fighter anyway), which they can put their good rolls/point-buy points into.

[Fwiffo86]

Are we analyzing this based on the belief that Action surge gives you an additional spell cast?


As for ability-score requirements on multiclassing, that's a solution looking for a problem. If I'm a fighter who wants to multiclass as a wizard but my Intelligence score sucks, then I'm obviously not going to be breaking the game with my weak-tea Wizard spells, am I? So what's the harm in letting me do it?

A buff spell is unaffected by low intelligence. Why would I waste spell slots on damage dealing spells when I have the best AC (vs. Bounded Accuracy), and can attack at will multiple times a round?

[Person_Man]

I only like restrictions if they:

Make the game more fun.
Cannot be ignored or worked around.


A restriction that fits this definition for me is strict stacking rules. That way, most class abilities/feats/spells/magic items/etc become mostly about additional options, and not just optimizing numerical bonuses. Another one is classes (as opposed to a purely generic point buy system). Packaging abilities together in a class gives them a thematic structure, a starting point for roleplaying, and it makes starting the game much quicker. Conversely, I strongly fiddly restrictions that are included for Simulationist reasons, like XP penalties, multiclass requirements, etc. They don't make the game more fun for the vast majority of players, and a smart player can just optimize their way around them.-

[TheIronGolem]

A buff spell is unaffected by low intelligence. Why would I waste spell slots on damage dealing spells when I have the best AC (vs. Bounded Accuracy), and can attack at will multiple times a round?

Maybe you wouldn't. But so what? Merely by ditching damage spells (and presumably, other spells that require saves since low Int hurts there too), you're already severely cutting down on the wizard's hallmark versatility. You're also taking a hit on the number of spells you can prepare, which cuts your versatility even further.

Also, since you're multiclassed, your access to the good buff spells is drastically delayed anyway.

That's on top of the sacrifice of whatever Fighter class features you gave up by opting for one or more Wizard levels instead.

So I'll ask again: what's the harm in letting my low-Int Fighter take a Wizard level if that's what I want?

[137beth]

I only like restrictions if they:

Make the game more fun.
Cannot be ignored or worked around.


A restriction that fits this definition for me is strict stacking rules. That way, most class abilities/feats/spells/magic items/etc become mostly about additional options, and not just optimizing numerical bonuses. Another one is classes (as opposed to a purely generic point buy system). Packaging abilities together in a class gives them a thematic structure, a starting point for roleplaying, and it makes starting the game much quicker. Conversely, I strongly fiddly restrictions that are included for Simulationist reasons, like XP penalties, multiclass requirements, etc. They don't make the game more fun for the vast majority of players, and a smart player can just optimize their way around them.-
This.
Arbitrary restrictions, like the 3e barbarian, monk, and bard alignment restrictions, mean fewer possibilities but more ink in the book ,and hence a more expensive game with less in it.

[rlc]

yet that's what everybody seems to love, for some odd reason

[da_chicken]

I only like restrictions if they:

Make the game more fun.
Cannot be ignored or worked around.


A restriction that fits this definition for me is strict stacking rules. That way, most class abilities/feats/spells/magic items/etc become mostly about additional options, and not just optimizing numerical bonuses. Another one is classes (as opposed to a purely generic point buy system). Packaging abilities together in a class gives them a thematic structure, a starting point for roleplaying, and it makes starting the game much quicker. Conversely, I strongly fiddly restrictions that are included for Simulationist reasons, like XP penalties, multiclass requirements, etc. They don't make the game more fun for the vast majority of players, and a smart player can just optimize their way around them.-

So you would favor either buffet multiclassing without limits or no multiclass rules whatsoever (i.e., is strongly class-based)?

[Merc_Kilsek]

- You can use you Action Surge to cast another spell. If not the Fighter (Eldritch Knight) would take a painful hit. :smalleek:

- The only ability I know you can't gain again is Unarmored Defense if you multi-class.

- A fighter can take a few levels as a wizard if they have a 13 INT. It's not that high of a stat honestly. Sure maybe you are not a nuker wizard but access to non-attacks spells in a nice little boon. Now I've not seen a Fighter dip into wizard but I have see a rogue do it. It really worked out well for them from our experience.

[Tholomyes]

So you would favor either buffet multiclassing without limits or no multiclass rules whatsoever (i.e., is strongly class-based)? Those aren't the only two options. There could be alternatives that make use of other options, to make the rules harder to break, but less restrictive. For example, feat-based Multiclassing, or more Multiclass subclasses (and just because the EK seems to be poorly designed doesn't mean the idea is bad, just that the individual subclass was poorly designed), or any other way of doing things that I can't think of off the top of my head, because I don't design RPGs for a living.

But to imply that the only three options are Buffet Multiclassing, Restricted Buffet Multiclassing, and no Multiclassing is grossly misstating things.

[rlc]

- You can use you Action Surge to cast another spell. If not the Fighter (Eldritch Knight) would take a painful hit. :smalleek:

- The only ability I know you can't gain again is Unarmored Defense if you multi-class.

- A fighter can take a few levels as a wizard if they have a 13 INT. It's not that high of a stat honestly. Sure maybe you are not a nuker wizard but access to non-attacks spells in a nice little boon. Now I've not seen a Fighter dip into wizard but I have see a rogue do it. It really worked out well for them from our experience.

the eldritch knight can attack with his weapon, then use his action surge to cast a spell. that way, it can be worded as "cannot be used following a spell in the same round of combat," or something less awkward sounding.

[da_chicken]

Those aren't the only two options. There could be alternatives that make use of other options, to make the rules harder to break, but less restrictive. For example, feat-based Multiclassing, or more Multiclass subclasses (and just because the EK seems to be poorly designed doesn't mean the idea is bad, just that the individual subclass was poorly designed), or any other way of doing things that I can't think of off the top of my head, because I don't design RPGs for a living.

But to imply that the only three options are Buffet Multiclassing, Restricted Buffet Multiclassing, and no Multiclassing is grossly misstating things.

Actually, no. Given the arguments And conditions Person_Man gave, the only options I see as meeting them are wholly unrestricted multiclassing, and no multiclassing. Anything else, he argues, will be power gamed into irrelevance. That he includes restrictions as severe as XP penalties and ability requirements suggests to me that he thinks any restriction is insufficient. If there is a mythical third option, he didn't begin to define it and instead merely said that nothing currently available satisfies the requirements.

So, I say again: he would favor either no multiclassing, or abandoning classes entirely? He thinks the issue is that severe and that poorly handled?

From that point you can throw everything out and start new.

What is a class? What does it represent to D&D? What meaning is associated with being in a class in D&D? Why does someone wish to choose a class and remain with it? What reward is there?

What does it mean to multiclass? What does it represent to D&D? What reasons exist to multiclass, and how do we reward those who multiclass? How should a character who multiclasses compare to a character who does not?

If we say, for example, that single class is focused, multiclass is versatile, single class is preferred, and multiclass sacrifices power for versatility, then a single class character must always be superior to a multiclass character not just in a given class's domain as the cost of versatility, but in the general case as a cost of versatility. This means a Fighter 10/Wizard 1 must be worse than a Fighter 11, but it also means that he is worse than a Fighter 10, and might mean that he is worse than a Fighter 9 or even a Fighter 8.

So, again, I think if we're going to say that nothing tried before works and multiclass is still a problem, then we need to start by defining the the problem, defining some objectives, and establishing what we're even talking about.

[Merc_Kilsek]

the eldritch knight can attack with his weapon, then use his action surge to cast a spell. that way, it can be worded as "cannot be used following a spell in the same round of combat," or something less awkward sounding.

Well, no. As you level up you gain the ability to do the following: Use a action to cast a cantrip spell, you gain a bonus action: you can make a single weapon strike. This ability improves to let you cast any spell you know. Eldritch Knights have a okay spell selections but they are nothing like a pure class caster.

Basically I could do this on my turn:
- Action: cast chill touch; gain a bonus action that let me attack with my weapon: swing/throw/shoot weapon
- Action Surge: Do the same thing again if I wanted to.

I have done this myself in the play testing. I cast a chill touch cantrip and made a swing with my rapier, dropping the guard I moved up on. This guard was block my way to this evil cleric we where battling. So I action surge to cast another one of my cantrip: Ray of Frost, which again let me have a bonus action that allows a weapon strike. So I tossed the off hand weapon (a dagger) at the cleric. That was my turn.

[rlc]

maybe the eldritch knight just says that he gets an exception to the non-spell stuff? or, what somebody came up with in another thread was that you get one action surge per long rest if you're multiclassing, (which doesn't really solve the issue).
i don't know what they'll do. probably nothing.

[Morty]

I don't know how well 4e's multiclassing worked, because my experience with the system is limited and I've never seen a multi-class character in actual play. But it's rather undeniable that 3e's buffet-style multiclassing does not work. I'm curious what they'll do with it in 5e, although of course I don't expect much.

At the end of the day, multiclassing isn't a goal, just a means to an end. In a class-based system, a way to mix and match archetypes is necessary, but the only consideration is that it be as efficient, balanced and player-friendly as possible. Another problem is that in 3e, and it looks like it might carry over to 5e as well, it's not terribly consistent or coherent. We have multi-classing, PrCs, full classes which are hybrids in themselves and in 5e we also have sub-classes.

[Merc_Kilsek]

maybe the eldritch knight just says that he gets an exception to the non-spell stuff? or, what somebody came up with in another thread was that you get one action surge per long rest if you're multiclassing, (which doesn't really solve the issue).
i don't know what they'll do. probably nothing.

Just going by what I have in front of me. Not see the final rules in the printed players handbook but so far the previews have been the same thing. I don't know your gaming table but you could just ask that people not to multi class with this combo in mind.

[PinkysBrain]

Multi-class attribute requirements. I love this. It harkens back to the days of 1e where you actually had to have extremely good scores to multi-class (not to mention you actually couldn't do this if you were human). Now if they would only return the difference between Multi-class and Class changing and/or put in the requirement that your classes must remain within x levels of each other or huge xp penalty. (go ahead, pick up 2 levels of fighter. Hope you like getting only 50% xp for the rest of the game) But I like the idea that your secondary class is less effective than if it were your primary class (assuming I understand the rumor properly)

Why do you put these on a pedestal BTW? Regardless of restrictions you were playing what was in effect a gestalt character at a couple level lower ... it was wildly more powerful than anything in 3e core.

AFAICS the greatest restriction on dual/multi-classing in the old days was the DM saying "no, I won't let you do it you bloody munchkin".

[Fwiffo86]

Why do you put these on a pedestal BTW? Regardless of restrictions you were playing what was in effect a gestalt character at a couple level lower ... it was wildly more powerful than anything in 3e core.

AFAICS the greatest restriction on dual/multi-classing in the old days was the DM saying "no, I won't let you do it you bloody munchkin".

1e is not 3e. 3e did not work as far as multi-classing. Multi-classing was a free-for-all of insanely powerful builds simply because there was no restrictions. At least the 1e methodology kept players from Omniclassing, and made it exceptionally difficult to measure up to pure classes IF you did multi-class as a demi-human (as they were the only ones who could, humans changed classes all together). I agree with the mentality of sacrificing POWER for UTILITY. Which is what multi-classing SHOULD do, but it 3e didn't follow that mentality. Which is fine. 3e is still playable for the god-slaying games. Everyone gets the urge to gank a god or two now and then. :smallsmile:

[da_chicken]

Why do you put these on a pedestal BTW? Regardless of restrictions you were playing what was in effect a gestalt character at a couple level lower ... it was wildly more powerful than anything in 3e core.

It really wasn't. The only OP multiclass was thief/mage, and it was only good because a) thief advanced so quickly (thief 4 happens at the same time as mage 3), b) thief was the only class with skills, c) thieves don't need armor, and d) mage at 50% XP is not that bad. Fighter/mage was close, but never truly worth it (discounting bladesingers). All you end up getting is slightly better save progression, a small amount more hp, and bow proficiency. You couldn't get the stats to be truly powerful unless your DM hands out magic items like candy. The fighter half quickly becomes just an XP drain. Nobody played fighter/mage/thief. It was a death sentence. Fighter/cleric, fighter/thief, cleric/mage and cleric/thief were just a waste of time. You ended up too far behind. Literally the only time fighter was worth it was when you could get percentile strength, and if you can get percentile strength you're better off just playing a single class fighter or ranger and using your stats for Dex and Con so you could survive.

Remember: the game effectively ends at name level (level 9-11). Levels above that are basically for NPCs. Nobody played the game like it was Baldur's Gate II, and if you pay attention to the story XP rewards in that game it's extremely obvious why. The DM has to start giving out rewards in the tens of thousands of XP range just to get players to advance even if they're single class. That is why racial level limits were irrelevant. Whether you ignore them or not, the game still ends at about level 9 (which is when most racial limits end).

[MeeposFire]

1e is not 3e. 3e did not work as far as multi-classing. Multi-classing was a free-for-all of insanely powerful builds simply because there was no restrictions. At least the 1e methodology kept players from Omniclassing, and made it exceptionally difficult to measure up to pure classes IF you did multi-class as a demi-human (as they were the only ones who could, humans changed classes all together). I agree with the mentality of sacrificing POWER for UTILITY. Which is what multi-classing SHOULD do, but it 3e didn't follow that mentality. Which is fine. 3e is still playable for the god-slaying games. Everyone gets the urge to gank a god or two now and then. :smallsmile:

I agree with parts of what you said but I disagree in your conclusion on what makes this work. 3e multiclassing made for mostly crappy builds except if you have access to prestige classes. If we are just talking about multiclassing standard classes make for lack luster builds because the way the multiclassing works made for characters with a lack of power and the versatility was also lacking.

What made AD&D multiclassing so great was actually how functional you were at both classes at the same time and how it stayed that way into the higher levels. For most of the game the multiclass character was only 1-2 levels behind each of their classes (assuming only a two class multiclass) which meant that they were always powerful enough to stay with the group (but the single class always had the advantage of being slightly higher in level) while having that versatility. A cleric/wizard in 3e is bad if you just use standard classes and is ok if you let them use just the mystic theurge. Without the use of prestige classes the multiclassing usually ended up making weaker characters than a single class.

Oddly the restrictions in AD&D were not needed to screw over an "omniclass" type character as the rules would do it for you even if you removed the restrictions. For example just going to a fighter/mage/thief (a legitimate and real AD&D multiclass) made you a weaker character than either the double or single classed character. This was due to the "slower" leveling (1/3XP) and 1/3 HP per class. This results in a character that is noticeably weaker (spells are now 3-4 levels behind, HP makes tanking dangerous) though very versatile and useful (you are still a fair thief). If you were to remove the restriction on number of classes but kept the same basic rules structure then I think you would find it to be even more true. A fighter/cleric/mage/thief sounds all sorts of powerful but with 1/4 XP progression and 1/4 HP you would have hard time being in the front lines, you would be a bad thief for a long time (I think by now the slowness in leveling would make this noticeable and with your lack of spells you would have a harder time covering it up), and your spells would be laughable.

Also looking at the ability scores they were not a big deterrent for most classes as most could get a 9 in all the classes they wanted (and likely you wanted at least a 9 in that score anyway if you were going to use those abilities). With the classes that had higher ability score requirements I find that in at least 2e they were mostly for the flavor to represent what the writers thought they should have rather than to prevent "power gaming" as in 2e I thought that the better XP progression and weapon mastery was equal (or heck better honestly) than the benefits that paladins and rangers get.

What made multiclassing better in AD&D were the actual rules and not so much the restrictions.

[MeeposFire]

It really wasn't. The only OP multiclass was thief/mage, and it was only good because a) thief advanced so quickly (thief 4 happens at the same time as mage 3), b) thief was the only class with skills, c) thieves don't need armor, and d) mage at 50% XP is not that bad. Fighter/mage was close, but never truly worth it (discounting bladesingers). All you end up getting is slightly better save progression, a small amount more hp, and bow proficiency. You couldn't get the stats to be truly powerful unless your DM hands out magic items like candy. The fighter half quickly becomes just an XP drain. Nobody played fighter/mage/thief. It was a death sentence. Fighter/cleric, fighter/thief, cleric/mage and cleric/thief were just a waste of time. You ended up too far behind. Literally the only time fighter was worth it was when you could get percentile strength, and if you can get percentile strength you're better off just playing a single class fighter or ranger and using your stats for Dex and Con so you could survive.

Remember: the game effectively ends at name level (level 9-11). Levels above that are basically for NPCs. Nobody played the game like it was Baldur's Gate II, and if you pay attention to the story XP rewards in that game it's extremely obvious why. The DM has to start giving out rewards in the tens of thousands of XP range just to get players to advance even if they're single class. That is why racial level limits were irrelevant. Whether you ignore them or not, the game still ends at about level 9 (which is when most racial limits end).

What game were you playing? The quest rewards in BG2 are actually similar to all the bonus XP you are supposed to get if you were to use all the optional bonus awards (which you should use or the game does as you suggest and you never get to level). Yes you can miss those rules easily enough or ignore them but to say that BG2 was being grossly unfair about XP is ignoring things like the treasure for XP rules (do you know how much XP you should get if you were to calculate Firekragg's dungeon it would be a lot). The amount isn't exact but I think it would be closer than you think.

I also disagree vehemently that those multiclassing combos did not work or were bad. At the levels you are referencing your multiclass characters may be up to 1 level behind their single level counterparts so I have a hard time seeing how even in theory land this would be a major issue and from a in person perspective my personal experience is that they work very well and are not a waste of time. I will admit that a triple class starts to feel noticeably weaker than a single class and it is debatable whether its added versatility is really worth it (though I think it still stands up fairly well compared to the single class thief which is what it can be seen as effectively replacing) but a double class does not even feel noticeably weaker in any class until higher levels and even then its versatility is great enough to make them valuable members of a team.

[da_chicken]

What game were you playing? The quest rewards in BG2 are actually similar to all the bonus XP you are supposed to get if you were to use all the optional bonus awards (which you should use or the game does as you suggest and you never get to level). Yes you can miss those rules easily enough or ignore them but to say that BG2 was being grossly unfair about XP is ignoring things like the treasure for XP rules (do you know how much XP you should get if you were to calculate Firekragg's dungeon it would be a lot). The amount isn't exact but I think it would be closer than you think.

I'm not saying BG2 is unfair about XP rewards. It's a video game. By definition it's going to be predictable and testable. They can do anything they want with the rules and they can end up with a fun game. That's how Planescape: Torment came to be. The point is that without massive bonus rewards (or optional rules to make high level function at all) it will take years of real life to progress levels.


I also disagree vehemently that those multiclassing combos did not work or were bad. At the levels you are referencing your multiclass characters may be up to 1 level behind their single level counterparts so I have a hard time seeing how even in theory land this would be a major issue and from a in person perspective my personal experience is that they work very well and are not a waste of time. I will admit that a triple class starts to feel noticeably weaker than a single class and it is debatable whether its added versatility is really worth it (though I think it still stands up fairly well compared to the single class thief which is what it can be seen as effectively replacing) but a double class does not even feel noticeably weaker in any class until higher levels and even then its versatility is great enough to make them valuable members of a team.

The problem is you're never going to have the stats to do two things at once. Without the ability scores to back the classes up, they're dead weight. A fighter/mage needs high Int (to be a decent mage), high Con (to survive in combat, as the d4 hit die is probably going to get you killed), high Dex (because you don't get armor unless the DM gives it to you), and decent to high Str (to be a decent fighter). It's highly unlikely that will happen. And if you have stats that good, it's more likely you'll run as a ranger, monk, or paladin, IMX, since those classes are so powerful. A cleric/mage needs high Int, high Wis and decent Dex and Con (again, no armor), and you're sacrificing arcane power for divine utility spells which, overall, suck. And you're limited to clerical weapons. There's a reason nobody wanted to be the cleric in 1e/2e. A fighter/mage/thief is just as bad as a fighter/mage, and a fighter/mage/cleric (one I missed) actually requires five good ability scores (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, and Con) and prevents you from wearing armor or using edged weapons.

A thief/mage, OTOH, needs high Int and moderate to high Dex (which a magic-user was going to have already and which an elf gets) and gains extra HP (from both a larger thief hit die and the extra thief level... a mage 4 has the same XP as a mage 3/thief 4).

[Knaight]

I don't know how well 4e's multiclassing worked, because my experience with the system is limited and I've never seen a multi-class character in actual play. But it's rather undeniable that 3e's buffet-style multiclassing does not work. I'm curious what they'll do with it in 5e, although of course I don't expect much.

I'd say it didn't work with 3e all that well, though from a balance perspective taking Wizard 20 or Cleric 20 or whatever ends up vastly more powerful than most multiclass combinations anyways. I'd also note that there are some places it did work - the initiator classes in ToB worked fine with multiclassing, martial classes often multiclassed together well, etc.

5e also has some mechanics that could help here. The shared proficiency which gets applied to just about everything actually helps prevent the issue where a multiclass character in sufficiently different fields just sucks at both of them, while single classing does give better access to end features. That would rely on classes a bit less front loaded than D&D 5e has though (with the exception of casting, where high level spells keep staying single classed or just dipping pretty solid).

[MeeposFire]

I'm not saying BG2 is unfair about XP rewards. It's a video game. By definition it's going to be predictable and testable. They can do anything they want with the rules and they can end up with a fun game. That's how Planescape: Torment came to be. The point is that without massive bonus rewards (or optional rules to make high level function at all) it will take years of real life to progress levels.



The problem is you're never going to have the stats to do two things at once. Without the ability scores to back the classes up, they're dead weight. A fighter/mage needs high Int (to be a decent mage), high Con (to survive in combat, as the d4 hit die is probably going to get you killed), high Dex (because you don't get armor unless the DM gives it to you), and decent to high Str (to be a decent fighter). It's highly unlikely that will happen. And if you have stats that good, it's more likely you'll run as a ranger, monk, or paladin, IMX, since those classes are so powerful. A cleric/mage needs high Int, high Wis and decent Dex and Con (again, no armor), and you're sacrificing arcane power for divine utility spells which, overall, suck. And you're limited to clerical weapons. There's a reason nobody wanted to be the cleric in 1e/2e. A fighter/mage/thief is just as bad as a fighter/mage, and a fighter/mage/cleric (one I missed) actually requires five good ability scores (Str, Int, Wis, Dex, and Con) and prevents you from wearing armor or using edged weapons.

A thief/mage, OTOH, needs high Int and moderate to high Dex (which a magic-user was going to have already and which an elf gets) and gains extra HP (from both a larger thief hit die and the extra thief level... a mage 4 has the same XP as a mage 3/thief 4).

High ability scores are not as much of a problem in AD&D or at least not as much as you seem to claim. Even to a fighter what does a non-18 str get you? At best +1 to hit and damage unless you get really lucky and roll an 18. That is not worth worrying about. You are better off with putting an average score (or even below average score) into str since in combat it almost never makes a big difference. As for the other scores those are the exact same scores that the mage wants int, dex, and con except that the fighter/mage can afford to have the dex and con higher since it takes a bit longer for the lower int to affect what they may possibly ever do and they do not just rely on spells to be effective. Granted if you do not use level limits then a higher int may eventually be needed but for the most part the lower int may affect their chance of scribing by 5-15% (depending on how much lower the score is of course).

With his higher int the fighter/mage can pick up more weapon prof (for styles or other potent prof you can find) which can provide more of a benefit than a non-18 str score IMO. So in my eyes while he may require more ability scores than a fighter (2 required in dex and con with str being a possible third if it makes a difference) it is the same as the mage in general ( int, dex, con). I would say if you do get an 18 it is probably worth it to play a single class character to get the most benefit of that. The more average your ability scores the better the multiclass becomes and since average rolls are the most common on a rolling method of character creation those tend to come up a lot. This also does not take into consideration on how tactics can help as since mages do not get access to the quality weaponry, extra attacks, and prof bonuses that a fighter type can get. A fighter/mage isn't your general tank type fighter (though he may be your best tank in specific fights if you use things like mirror image or stoneskin) but you can use his weaponry to good use as a second line or ranged warrior and use your spells to augment the party, deal with special situations (a large group is perfect to hit with a fireball), or get utility spells working for you (which no normal fighter type can do). he isn't as specialized but he certainly carries his weight.

Long term I would give you that a cleric/mage could be burdensome if you can actually get to a level where low int/wis can affect your casting but until then I think you are once again taking this too far. If you consider a mage wanting int, dex, con and then decide you want to be able to cast cleric spells (personally I think you are undervaluing cleric spells. The reason why nobody wanted to play a cleric had nothing to do with power and everything to do with its perception as the healbot. AD&D clerics shared the good/bad issue with 3e clerics where they are far more powerful than you think but nobody wanted to play them despite their power) you can then go to int, wis, dex. This does leave you with slightly less HP than with having a high con but you do get some of that back by being part cleric (I think the cleric part ends up giving you +1 HP on average per level which is like getting a free 15 con which you can then put the 15 somewhere else). Lastly how can you complain about clerical weapons as mage weapons are pretty bad and even if you used the ones with some potential (daggers/darts) your thac0 is so bad that it rarely matters.

Also 2e rangers and paladins are powerful? Not compared to the fighter. Their special abilities and their terrible spell casting does not make up for their slower XP progression and loss of weapon mastery. Also what kind of monk are we talking about anyway? The 1e monk which is underpowered unless you somehow managed to survive to the very high levels where finally were a decent warrior and thief, the cleric variant (with not so great sphere access), or the BG2 monk which is terrible at first but eventually becomes a fairly nasty warrior (though they too have only very small ability requirements so they shouldn't count anyway)?

I will agree with you in that the 3 class combos are fairly weak. The effect is noticeable and they are probably not worth the cost even with their great versatility.


Lastly for BG2 have you ever actually considered how much bonus XP you should get in those quests? Granted due to engine constraints and simplicity they evened out the reward to make it the same for all and so it makes it extremely hard to judge for sure but if you did use your optional bonus XP tables I am sure you would level up much faster (in fact if you use treasure XP and use the bonus tables for thieves and bards they level in an absolutely insane manner no joke). However this is an interesting question because the speed of progression in AD&D is totally tied to how fast the DM wants the characters to level modified by their knowledge of how they can do it. AD&D has so many ways to gain XP that if you want your characters to level fast they can and if you don't they won't. I have been in games where you level up once after almost every major adventure was over (or similar situation) and in others I have leveled up at a snails pace. It all depends on what the DM and the players want as a group OR their ignorance (because if you use only monster XP it can take you AGES to level which is a common problem).

[Sartharina]

... I always thought Dwarven Fighter-Clerics were a pretty powerful (But not unbalancedly so) combination in AD&D, if you could get the stats to pull it off, at least.

[MeeposFire]

... I always thought Dwarven Fighter-Clerics were a pretty powerful (But not unbalancedly so) combination in AD&D, if you could get the stats to pull it off, at least.

I thought warrior clerics work really well. It adds no new stats to the cleric as clerics tend to be wisdom, con, dex/str with the added bonus of many different spells can boost str by a bunch and many are on the cleric list (hence another reason why I do not worry much about your base str score) . The warrior abilities work well with the cleric since the standard cleric had decent thac0, great armor, and decent weapons and by adding fighter you gain an even better thac0, saving throws, HP (very slight), better prof use, and more attacks per round (eventually). Even better this would only cost you slightly in the casting department for most of the game. I certainly think it is a good trade for the cleric.

You can get most of the benefits if you pick the right specialty priest but that is true for every combo. A specialty priest of Mask can fill in for thief, Tempus/Helm/Tyr/Malar can mostly replace a fighter, and Azuth/elemental/Mystra can replace some of the arcane muscle(depending on what you need).

[Fwiffo86]

Wow. Just... wow.

All right... restrictions.... All I am asking is that if a player decides to multi-class, they should be sacrificing power for utility. Not accumulating more power (in 3e thanks to ridiculous PrCs and too many Base class choices).

The thing that annoys me, is the "I'm dipping two levels in X, because I pick up A, B, and C, and I don't lose anything other than Q is reduced a little". This behavior is really what I have problems with. But, I don't think there will be a way to address this, so in the end... I guess its just meaningless drivel. As pointed out, someone will figure out a way to bypass what little restrictions they have put in anyway. Be it through a spell, or some drastically overpowered Base class variant.

[TheIronGolem]

All right... restrictions.... All I am asking is that if a player decides to multi-class, they should be sacrificing power for utility. Not accumulating more power (in 3e thanks to ridiculous PrCs and too many Base class choices).


What you should be asking for is that they sacrifice some degree of focus for a similar degree of versatility. Any level-up, whether in an existing class or a new one, should be an accumulation of more power. That's...kind of the point of leveling up.

Anyway, putting up "your ability score must be this high to enter" signs on the classes achieves neither of these goals.



The thing that annoys me, is the "I'm dipping two levels in X, because I pick up A, B, and C, and I don't lose anything other than Q is reduced a little". This behavior is really what I have problems with.

Why? The path to Real Ultimate Power in 3.x isn't dipping, it's in good old Tier 1 caster classes (and the occasional broken PrC like Incantatrix). If someone is dipping to get "A, B, and C", that's probably because A, B, and C are what best mechanically represent the character concept that player has in mind. And even if they are just doing it "for the power", then they're still probably not as powerful as they would have been just going straight Wizard or Cleric anyway, so it's rarely if ever going to be an actual problem. Be glad when the munchkin dips Fighter, because it means he's not actually that much of a munchkin after all.

[MeeposFire]

Actually I did not dislike dipping because of the grabbing of specific abilities as single classes could be even more potent than most grab bag combos (aka most 9th level spell casters). What I disliked most was the devaluing of the class concept and how it almost made the class itself nearly meaningless. I liked ho win every other edition what class you were was a big deal and 3e style multiclassing does detract from that assuming you use it a lot.

Now before anybody says anything yes I know that 3e style multiclassing can potentially make some unique character concepts and that can be cool but generally I prefer a stronger class concept for my D&D.

[Jeff W]

Oddly the restrictions in AD&D were not needed to screw over an "omniclass" type character as the rules would do it for you even if you removed the restrictions. For example just going to a fighter/mage/thief (a legitimate and real AD&D multiclass) made you a weaker character than either the double or single classed character. This was due to the "slower" leveling (1/3XP) and 1/3 HP per class. This results in a character that is noticeably weaker (spells are now 3-4 levels behind, HP makes tanking dangerous) though very versatile and useful (you are still a fair thief).

AD&D multiclassing wasn't balanced. 2e Multiclass characters essentially trade LA +1 to gestalt or LA +2 to tristalt with lowered hp until high levels when the experience tables switch from exponential to linear. Multi-classing doesn't make weaker characters--Fighter/Mage>>Mage until very high levels(at least level 12 if not higher). Multiclass fighter/mage and thief/mage characters are likewise more powerful than their single class fighter and thief counterparts after a few levels.

[MeeposFire]

AD&D multiclassing wasn't balanced. 2e Multiclass characters essentially trade LA +1 to gestalt or LA +2 to tristalt with lowered hp until high levels when the experience tables switch from exponential to linear. Multi-classing doesn't make weaker characters--Fighter/Mage>>Mage until very high levels(at least level 12 if not higher). Multiclass fighter/mage and thief/mage characters are likewise more powerful than their single class fighter and thief counterparts after a few levels.

It was better balanced than you would think as the halving HP really ate into your durability with the warrior classes and there were enough restrictions that made you want to play a single classed character. The only major exception was the thief IMO. Essentially the thief was so weak in combat overall that yes multiclassing will probably always make for a better overall thief. Heck the argument usually if anything that multiclassing was weaker rather than stronger in most veteran AD&D talks. At the earliest of levels you might be ever so slightly stronger but not enough that DMs, players, and the like would think you were too powerful for the group/game. For the mid game into the mid higher levels you are so close in overall ability that are effectively in the end equal. At the later game even without level limits multiclass characters are usually thought to be slightly weaker, though more versatile, than most single classes.

[da_chicken]

Why? The path to Real Ultimate Power in 3.x isn't dipping, it's in good old Tier 1 caster classes (and the occasional broken PrC like Incantatrix). If someone is dipping to get "A, B, and C", that's probably because A, B, and C are what best mechanically represent the character concept that player has in mind. And even if they are just doing it "for the power", then they're still probably not as powerful as they would have been just going straight Wizard or Cleric anyway, so it's rarely if ever going to be an actual problem. Be glad when the munchkin dips Fighter, because it means he's not actually that much of a munchkin after all.

Because it undermines structure and integrity a class-based game if, for minimal cost of progression, you can gain the most iconic features of another class. There are plenty of classless RPGs for people who don't like class structures. D&D isn't one of them.

It has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with the feel of the game.

[pwykersotz]

Because it undermines structure and integrity a class-based game if, for minimal cost of progression, you can gain the most iconic features of another class. There are plenty of classless RPGs for people who don't like class structures. D&D isn't one of them.

It has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with the feel of the game.

Well said.

[TheIronGolem]

Because it undermines structure and integrity a class-based game if, for minimal cost of progression, you can gain the most iconic features of another class. There are plenty of classless RPGs for people who don't like class structures. D&D isn't one of them.

It has nothing to do with power, and everything to do with the feel of the game.

It's a character class, not a Jenga tower. You're not going to ruin the "structure" or "integrity" of the Rogue by taking one or two levels instead of the whole thing.

[pwykersotz]

It's a character class, not a Jenga tower. You're not going to ruin the "structure" or "integrity" of the Rogue by taking one or two levels instead of the whole thing.

Your response seems to boil down to "No it won't." I'm curious if you have anything further to add that might be more convincing.

[TheIronGolem]

Your response seems to boil down to "No it won't." I'm curious if you have anything further to add that might be more convincing.

I am equally curious to see if da_chicken will support and explain his declaration. Should he do so, I will be able to more properly rebut that.

[MeeposFire]

I am equally curious to see if da_chicken will support and explain his declaration. Should he do so, I will be able to more properly rebut that.

There is nothing really to refute it is a feeling sort of thing. However be that as it may I understand what he is saying because I feel very similarly about the importance in class in D&D (though I would not call anybody a munchkin just because they take a lot of different classes in 3e as that is all by the rules and isn't unfair in the least). D&D in every edition except 3e is very class centric as in your choice of class determines most of how your character perceives and is perceived by the world. 3e is the lone exception where your primary class (assuming you have one) can be superfluous to your character. IN many ways 3e could easily be a classless system and all they would have to do is remove the names on where you buy the abilities (in other words you could hjust have everyone have the same progression and choose to pick up abilities from anywhere and depending on what abilities you choose to have it would modify your basic stats so if you choose spellcasting you would progression attack rate slower which is how 3e works if you remove the labels). Due to how the game is designed you take classes specifically to grab a certain ability at a certain level rather than playing to be a certain class.

To make this clear I am not saying that this is terrible for everyone or that it should never be that way I am just saying that is very different from how every other edition has done it. In D&D, AD&D, and later 4e you always had a base concept or class that your character was based around and would only change under rare circumstances (or could be modified slightly). In those editions class is far more prominent in how your characters views the world and works.

As for your example of course a fighter with 2 rogue levels still feels like a fighter (also probably calls himself a fighter) and you probably knew that going in that the other poster would feel the same in all likelihood. What becomes the more important question is what do you call a fighter2/barb1/rogue2/prestige2/prestige5/prestige4/prestige4? In every other edition you would say a class name (or perhaps a short combo class but often that was literally what you were as you were going to be all two or three equally) but that 3e combo right there no single name is going to cut it. For that it would be best to not use a class name and just make up a title or something similar because no class would really define you well. On the other hand you may be very happy with how that turns out and do not mind (or even like) having no defining class but some of us do like the idea of being defined by our class.

As a historical footnote classes are one of the traits that D&D brought to role playing games. One of the primary ways to differentiate yourself from D&D is to make a game where you are not playing a class. It is probably the single biggest sacred cow in the game honestly (hence why it will never go away even if it no longer always serves the same strength in purpose).

I enjoyed making 3e characters but after a while I have come to really miss those times where my choice of class at the start really defined my character. It seemed weird because I should feel like 3e left things so open I should be happy but in the end I found I preferred the stronger sense of identity that other editions classes give by their nature of being so prominent.

[Tholomyes]

While the concept of Class is very important for D&D, I also feel like sticking too strict to a class-based paradigm is not necessarily the correct way of doing things. There were many things I liked about 4e, but the thing that killed the system for me wasn't the system of AEDU powers, or the notion of nonmagical healing, or any of the other oft-maligned additions 4e had, but rather that the class-based structure left little room for deviation. Either you were a single class (perhaps with a multiclass feat, though really due to the feat cost for power swapping, all that meant was you had a limited-use Class-feature borrowed from another class), or you were a Hybrid, which ended up mechanically failing more often than it succeeded. As such, you were bound heavily to the class, which ended up resulting in it being fairly difficult to build characters concept-first, rather than mechanics first.

While I dislike the 3e buffet multiclassing, I think softening the rigidness of a class-based system, either with "multiclass Archetype" subclasses, or using the greater heft of 5e feats to give a semi-multiclass feel (Magic Initiate, for example) is necessary to ensure that a broad selection of concepts are both viable and distinct at the table.