Multiclassing thoughts: How many levels does it take to be considered another class?

[Ralanr]

Based on a different topic (phone so can't link) I thought about opening this idea for discussion. Let's say we had a level 6 wizard who decided to take a fighter level next. Is the wizard a fighter or a wizard now?

While the wizard is both, I'd call him a wizard still because he has much more wizard levels. If one class's levels greatly exceed another class then I consider you the first class in terms of title.

This changes depending on gap and the number of classes. Your thoughts?

[Millface]

I see where this came from, haha good question!

If we go to Forgotten Realms and take a look... Drizzt is a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian and he is considered a Ranger because he has been that the most, and that is the class that stands out the most.

On the surface your initial impression is absolutely spot on.

If you have 6 Levels of Wizard though and take a level of fighter, then jump into full plate, don a shield and longsword, and start fighting in melee instead of standing back and contemplating how to best control the field... well then levels aside you're acting like a fighter and that's how others will perceive you.

It's really all in how you play the character, isn't it?

[Daishain]

Fluff wise, classes and levels do not exist. How the character looks and acts defines how others perceive him.

In particular, if you've got someone in armor swinging both swords and spells, others aren't likely to call him a fighter or a wizard, instead they might call him a magus, duskblade, or any number of other names they have for someone with both magic and martial training.

[rhouck]

I see where this came from, haha good question!

If we go to Forgotten Realms and take a look... Drizzt is a Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian and he is considered a Ranger because he has been that the most, and that is the class that stands out the most.

Well, he also used to always just BE a high level Ranger. Single-classed. They didn't change him to all these wonky additional classes until 3.5

[Xetheral]

Based on a different topic (phone so can't link) I thought about opening this idea for discussion. Let's say we had a level 6 wizard who decided to take a fighter level next. Is the wizard a fighter or a wizard now?

While the wizard is both, I'd call him a wizard still because he has much more wizard levels. If one class's levels greatly exceed another class then I consider you the first class in terms of title.

This changes depending on gap and the number of classes. Your thoughts?

Are you asking about IC title or OOC title? In either case, I'd ask why you think it matters.

[Ralanr]

Are you asking about IC title or OOC title? In either case, I'd ask why you think it matters.

A bit of a meta question, but IC could work for multi level combos.

As for why, discussion pretty much sums it up.

[Millface]

Well, he also used to always just BE a high level Ranger. Single-classed. They didn't change him to all these wonky additional classes until 3.5

True, but they make perfect sense to me. Fighter long enough at least to get specialization in scimitar, then a level in barbarian in the Underdark as "The Hunter". All Ranger seems to suggest that he never trained as anything else, which simply isn't true. You might argue that his Underdark scouting with other Drow would constitute Ranger levels, but then all the Drow warriors were relatively skilled in that, so I don't like that explanation.

[Ralanr]

True, but they make perfect sense to me. Fighter long enough at least to get specialization in scimitar, then a level in barbarian in the Underdark as "The Hunter". All Ranger seems to suggest that he never trained as anything else, which simply isn't true. You might argue that his Underdark scouting with other Drow would constitute Ranger levels, but then all the Drow warriors were relatively skilled in that, so I don't like that explanation.

This reminds me of how 1e Bards were multiclassed (I have no idea of the specifics). I think Drizzit was called a, "ranger" because he fit the archetype, like Aragorn (I've opened another can of worms here) who I always saw as a fighter.

Doesn't the survival skill deal with tracking anyway?

[Yagyujubei]

Fluff wise, classes and levels do not exist. How the character looks and acts defines how others perceive him.

In particular, if you've got someone in armor swinging both swords and spells, others aren't likely to call him a fighter or a wizard, instead they might call him a magus, duskblade, or any number of other names they have for someone with both magic and martial training.

totally agree. I think of all of my characters like this, like when I rolled a shadow monk/warlock I just called him a ninja the whole game, when I rolled a thief/bard/knowledge cleric I called him a treasure hunter, etc. etc.

I almost always multi-class because my character concept doesn't exactly fit the class framework, so I don't see why I shouldn't call them something different to fit my vision you know?

[MadGrady]

I second the posts above that say it is all about how the character perceives themselves. I may consider myself a druid, even though I have a few more levels in ranger than I do druid. The multiclass is there to aid in completing a concept, and really it is a synthesis of the two (or three or four or....) and not a pitting of the two against each other that allows this to happen.

[Alikat]

I want to make a human eldritch knight starting with the magic initiate feat and insist to everyone I'm a wizard. I think I could make it to lvl 5 before anyone calls me on it.

[coredump]

I think it depends on the character.

I have a character that is an "Archer".... that is what he considers himself, and how he introduces himself. What class levels he may have is secondary.

I could easily someone being Class X and MCing into Paladin, and considering himself a Paladin from the first level onward. Kind of like someone that was a baker, becoming a priest. He doesn't consider himself 'still a baker' for the next 5 years.


OTOH, I could see someone being a rogue, and taking a few levels of sorcerer (or whatever) and still considering himself a rogue.

[Nifft]

Fluff wise, classes and levels do not exist. How the character looks and acts defines how others perceive him.

In particular, if you've got someone in armor swinging both swords and spells, others aren't likely to call him a fighter or a wizard, instead they might call him a magus, duskblade, or any number of other names they have for someone with both magic and martial training. Agree.

IMHO the membership of the Order of Radiant Smiting would be highly correlated with the Paladin class, and it's likely every member of the Order would call him- or herself a Paladin, but not all of them would have levels in the Paladin class. Some would be Clerics, some would be Monks, and at least one would be a very tricky Chaotic Neutral Expert with a pet cat.


I want to make a human eldritch knight starting with the magic initiate feat and insist to everyone I'm a wizard. I think I could make it to lvl 5 before anyone calls me on it.

Even then, just tell them you're a Muscle Wizard.

[Mcdt2]

Fluff wise, classes and levels do not exist. How the character looks and acts defines how others perceive him.

In particular, if you've got someone in armor swinging both swords and spells, others aren't likely to call him a fighter or a wizard, instead they might call him a magus, duskblade, or any number of other names they have for someone with both magic and martial training.

Very much this. On the other hand, I'm rather biased towards excessive refluffing of things, so I often tend to ignore base fluff anyway. I'm fond of refluffing a barbarian's rage to be a werewolf transformation, for example.

On the topic of fighter/wizard mixes, I'm very much a fan of "gish", though that's my Planescape tendencies coming out.

[KorvinStarmast]

"ranger" because he fit the archetype, like Aragorn (I've opened another can of worms here) who I always saw as a fighter.
If you check out the issue of the Strategic Review where the Ranger's debut is shown, he is obviously patterned after Aragorn. That "Ranger" has come to mean something else years later doesn't change what it came from, originally: a sub class of fighter built on the story of Aragorn and the other Dunedain.

One of the things that appealed to me about weapons specialization in 1st Edition Unearthed Arcana book was that you could make a fighter into a bow specialist without forcing him into the Ranger archetype.

[SharkForce]

I don't consider class to be an inherently IC thing for the most part. I think people will tend to define your character by what they do; if you mostly hit people with a weapon, people are likely to consider you a warrior (but aren't necessarily going to distinguish between warrior type A and warrior type B... though they might do that, also).

I likewise don't consider a class to define a character OOC, necessarily. now, some wizards are going to think of themselves as a wizard IC, and it's perfectly reasonable to describe your character as a collection of classes OOC, or even as a single class, just because that's the common language we have available to communicate the concept with. I would also consider it reasonable to describe your character using a word that is not in any of their classes, whether they are multiclassed or single-classed. a person with nothing but fighter levels might consider themselves a knight or a swordsman or an amazon warrior, and the player could reasonably use any of those things to describe their character.