Would you play in a no-multiclassing game?

[HidesHisEyes]

Sometimes with D&D it seems to me that the classic archetypal single class characters get automatically dismissed as "boring" and then overlooked forever. Does anyone else think this is a shame?

I used to feel very strongly that the classes were boring and that everyone should be working hard at all times to try and find new and interesting and unique character types - usually through imaginative multiclassing and unusual combinations of race and class. More recently though I've found I really like the idea of a party of four humans, a dwarf and an elf, all of them standard single classes, and the dwarf is a fighter and the elf a ranger. I've come to view these things as archetypes rather than stereotypes and it's changed everything.

I suppose most people would say this is a question for each individual player to answer for their character, not for the DM to make rules about. Like disallowing multiclassing for everyone, most people would think was a terrible idea, I guess. But the jadedness about "boring" or "stereotypical" character concepts seems so pervasive that a lot of games seem to end up being about a party composed entirely of tieflings and dragonborn and triple-class characters. My problem is with the situation this creates rather than with individual players making unusual characters. It's a situation where things that we feel should be unusual in the setting are actually completely standard.

Does anyone else feel like this? Would you play in a game where the DM ruled "no multiclassing" or "only one person can be a race other than human, elf, dwarf or halfling"? Or would that put you right off?

[Jormengand]

I usually actually play single-classed characters, so this wouldn't bother me massively. Depends what system, though.

[J-H]

I would have no problem with that, as long as everyone had good class options.

If we're talking 3.5, I wouldn't be too impressed by the idea of playing a dwarven fighter if the human players are a druid, a sorceror, a bard, and a warlock. Make that dwarven fighter a warblade or crusader, on the other hand, and I'm in.

If the elf is stuck as a ranger...I'd argue for some kind of ranger buff - probably switching him over to the Bard spells known/spells per day table using the druid list.

[BWR]

We play mostly 3.5 (some PF) and I rarely multiclass. Like, only once every few years. So, yeah: happily, I would.

Race restrictions: sure. As long as there is a good in universe reason or good story reason, I am totally down with that.
Even, "please, no X because I don't like them" flies with me.

If you can't take a 'boring' race and a 'boring' single class and do something fun with the character you are probably not trying to play a character but focusing too much on mechanics.

[Florian]

I would without hesitation.

[JAL_1138]

As I play 2e (where "multiclassing" was limited to demihumans and amounted to having two classes at once but leveling twice as slowly, or "dual-classing" as a human and being prohibited from using the previous class' features before you passed it in level with your new class), or 5e (where multiclassing is a major trade-off that often delays important class features or prevents them outright, including delaying spell levels), I've played a lot of games where nobody wanted to bother with it.

[Yora]

The campaigns I run don't have options to multiclass. Or classes.

[Vizzerdrix]

The campaigns I run don't have options to multiclass. Or classes.

Oh? What system? I have never been much of a fan of classes.

As for what Id play, I wouldnt. Or more accurately if it was a group I liked, Id instead offer to assist the DM instead.

[Yora]

B/X (four classes), Fantasy Age (three classes), and Barbarians of Lemuria (no classes).

[Rakoa]

In 3.5, heck no. In Pathfinder, absolutely! It all depends.

[kraftcheese]

I usually like to play a single class anyway so it wouldn't bother me.

The "only one PC can be a non-human", however, would probably tick me off if it's in a world where all of those non-human races exist; it just means that people will react to you differently than if you were mostly humans! I think its lazy to just say "oh no, having an orc, two elves and a halflings is UNREALISTIC" just because you don't want to RP the reaction of your NPCs to a rabble of strange warriors.

[NomGarret]

Probably, though it depends on a few things. System is one, though by no means automatic. How many other restrictions are there? Is this a core-only game or are a variety of other sourcebooks available? How much faith do I have in the GM? Is this the extent of it or is this the tip of the house rule iceberg?

I've played in and run plenty of games with race restrictions, and as long as it's pitched as "how to more easily connect your character to the story," it's pretty easy to get buy-in.

As to what feels more boring, I think that will vary from table to table over time. The groups I play with tend towards more stock archetypes and options than me, so I'm ready to take a break from elf Rangers.

[Toilet Cobra]

I sure would. Even if there were strict class restrictions I think there's still plenty of fun to be had with a single-classed character. I don't see multiclassing as all that vital to the experience.

In PF especially it'd be no trouble, but the only thing I'd miss in 3.5 are some of my favorite prestige classes. Really I guess it's all about the level of optimization you're comfortable with, and I prefer it to be as low as possible without dooming myself.

[PersonMan]

It'd depend primarily on whether or not I have a concept I can make be a single-classed character. If yes, sure. If not, I'd either go find another game or, if the pitch is interesting enough, think up a character after making their build.

[Necroticplague]

Depends on system. 3.x/pathfinder? Absolutely not. Restriction of classes allowed is one thing ("Guns don't exist yet, so any gunslingers are gonna have to be Bolt Aces"), but simply disallowing multiclassing makes no sense from the way I view the game (classes are metagame constructs of groups of mechanical abilities, without any representative in-world beyond what they let you do). Thus, someone disallowing multiclassing indicates they most likely have a different view of the game that I do, one that's likely to cause friction (this restriction seems to imply that classes exist as in-game constructs). Thus, this restriction indicates an incompatibility with how we game that would likely cause friction if we gamed together. It's not that big a deal on it's own, but it's the symptom of something that could be a bigger problem.

[Honest Tiefling]

I would be turned off of it. Why? Because how does the RP know that the characters are single classed? It doesn't. The basis of this argument assumes that single classed PCs will somehow contribute to the RP. In most worlds, no two fighters are going to be exactly alike, with one having Warblade levels, another ranger levels, and a different arrangement of feats. Why would the RP care if the Slayer/Hunter/Fighter called themselves a bounty hunter and ran with it?

I would concede if there were other issues with multiclassing, say, the system gets very complicated and there are new players. But I'm going to need a better reason not to pass on the game other then 'I said so' or 'Multiclass characters are automatically special snowflake mary sues'.

As for the race thing, just ban it for everyone, it's more fair that way. If a race isn't so common that you couldn't conceive of most of a party of them, maybe you shouldn't have it as an option at all except in some edge cases with communication with the players and DM.

[Zombimode]

Would you play in a game where the DM ruled "no multiclassing" or "only one person can be a race other than human, elf, dwarf or halfling"? Or would that put you right off?

I would be hesitant and question the DM's reasoning.

The reason is not that I resent playing single classed characters or anything (which would be stupid either way: classes are tools; if my character concept requires multiclassing, I'll do, if it doesn't, I wont), but making restrictions like that is an indicator that the DM has some profound misconceptions concerning the rules and what is actually important for a game.

[EscherEnigma]

Depended on the reasons. If the GM is saying "no multiclass" for RP reasons, then there's some interesting assumptions about class not just being a game mechanic, but a known world mechanic, like the Newton's Laws of Thermodynamics or something. "Elminsters Laws of the Progression of a Wizard" perhaps?

If it's just a mechanical thing "I don't like those rules" then that's fine. If it's a theme thing "I want to run a more archtypical game" then it's probably fine too.

Race restrictions I'm pretty open to, though context matters. If it's "well, I'm running a Greek/Roman inspired game, so Tolkien elves and dwarves don't fit" that's one thing. If it's a more arbitrary "elves are stupid and lame"... well, I'll be more skeptical, especially if it's a GM I don't know too well.

That said, with my current long-time GM (who I've known for ten years and often swap GM hats with), I'd probably go along with anything he put in the character creation rules because we know eachother well, we're friends, and there's a level of trust there, you know?

And all of that said, in the campaign I'm currently running, I included race (almost no non-humans. Half-elves and tieflings are allowed mechanically, but they appear almost human and are known as "half-humans" in the game if people realize they're not full-blooded humans) and class restrictions (no Paladin, Cleric, Wizard), and also background restrictions (all of the PCs are siblings or half-siblings). Why? Because I had a specific story I was trying to tell, and those elements didn't fit nicely.

So I guess what I'm saying is that the reasons for restrictions matter. Issues of mechanics, theme and story are easier to accept then arbitrary restrictions that the GM isn't willing to explain, or that expose a bias that I (as the player) don't like. For example, if a GM says "no elves or bards, they're all a bunch of poofers" then I'm probably not going to play. Not because elves or bards are that important to me, but that the GM's words are a big warning sign with flashing neon lights.

[Pex]

I very rarely multiclass so this wouldn't directly affect me, but I could be philosophically bothered by this. It is not the DM's place to order players how to make their characters. It is the DM's purview to prevent players from making characters that "Win The Game" or even "Lose The Game". If the campaign is one of a specific particular theme as opposed to generic typical then particular restrictions that reinforce the theme are warranted.

The DM already controls everything. He populates and plays the NPCs and monsters. He alone decides what magic items exist. He determines the major campaign plot points. If a player can't make a game session the game can go on. If the DM can't make a game session there is no game. If a situation comes up the rules don't answer or at least not obvious enough for an immediate solution, the DM determines what happens for that moment and decides later what the final answer will be in case it happens again.

A player's character is the only thing he gets to control. He decides the actions the character does. He decides when to use up a resource. He decides the character's motivations, thoughts, and feelings. The player should be the one to decide how the character develops over time in terms of game mechanics as the game progresses. No harm done for there to be a roleplaying reason, but it's not a requirement. If the DM gets to decide this too, then why does he need players at all?

[Faily]

It depends, but I usually wouldn't mind.

If no multi-classing is allowed, I would be much more open to doing it in Pathfinder than in 3.5... though in 3.5, if all ACFs are on the table, along with UA, that would make it more interesting. Mostly for those playing non-caster classes. Really, caster-classes don't need multi-classing.

I guess it would also depend on if Prestige Classes count as multi-classing, though I don't mind PrC being more limited to focus on the "prestige"-aspect of it.


As for restrictions, I usually don't mind them at all, and often have enjoyed games with some restrictions more than "free for all"-kinds. A really memorable game was "The Elf Campaign" (sorry it doesn't have a fancy title, we just call it that), where everyone had to play elves in Dragonlance, because the story was about the elves. At some point someone insisted on playing a Human, and I felt it a real shame that the GM caved in there, tbh. I really enjoyed the focused storytelling of that campaign and all the characters being joined together in fighting for their homeland and their race.

In our Mystara game, we run with some race-restrictions as well. Such as Magus is only available for elves (or a small group of Thyatian humans), only gnomes can pick Alchemists (mostly), Gunslingers so far only exist in the Savage Coast, and no half-elves or half-orcs or planetouched (Aasimar, Tieflings, etc). Only exception to the half-races is Savage Coast, where they are pure-bred.

[napoleon_in_rag]

It is not the DM's place to order players how to make their characters. It is the DM's purview to prevent players from making characters that "Win The Game" or even "Lose The Game".

Nonsense! The DM can choose the ability score rolling method, limit what alignments are allowed, choose what races are allowed, what backgrounds are allowed, what rules or UE are allowed, how much money the character starts with, what weapons and equipment are available for purchase, etc....

Whether multi-classing is allowed or not is completely within the DMs purview.

I know DMs that don't allow multi-classing, I know DMs that allow multi-classing but not certain combinations (Paladin/Warlock for example) and I know DMs that place no limitations on character creation. Heck, I knew a DM 15 years ago who created the characters for the players!

Now as a player, you can have the opinion that not allowing multi-class is a crappy DM style and you always have the option not to play in that DMs campaign, but Rule Zero always applies.

[Winter_Wolf]

Re: OP, I'd actually prefer a campaign like that. I don't need multiple classes or nonstandard races to play what interests me. Then again I'm down with your bog standard fighters sans feats and weapon proficiency rules, so not a high bar, really.

[Odin Asheric]

I absolutely prefer a No class system. The problem with classes isn't that it's complicated when you multiclass it's that I don't want to play your character... i want to play my own character. I have my own idea of what is cool, and each character has a unique blend of spells and abilities that mix and match... both in the real world and in fiction. Multiclassing is a bandaid on an inherently flawed design.

[hymer]

I wouldn't be bothered by such a rule in itself, particularly if advertised well in advance. If it suddenly came up during play, I'd consider it a major red flag, of course.
But for some systems, I'd be worried that one of the things martials do with success and casters do rarely was taken out. Not enough to make me avoid the game, but enough to make me wonder.

[Narmoth]

well, I've played AD&D 2nd ed, so I'm fine with no multiclassing. The problem with later editions is that they often force you into multiclassing or taking prestige classes simply because of poor progression on higher levels (for example the paladin in d&d3.5)

[Pex]

Nonsense! The DM can choose the ability score rolling method, limit what alignments are allowed, choose what races are allowed, what backgrounds are allowed, what rules or UE are allowed, how much money the character starts with, what weapons and equipment are available for purchase, etc....

Whether multi-classing is allowed or not is completely within the DMs purview.

I know DMs that don't allow multi-classing, I know DMs that allow multi-classing but not certain combinations (Paladin/Warlock for example) and I know DMs that place no limitations on character creation. Heck, I knew a DM 15 years ago who created the characters for the players!

Now as a player, you can have the opinion that not allowing multi-class is a crappy DM style and you always have the option not to play in that DMs campaign, but Rule Zero always applies.

Exactly, as is the point of the thread, would I play in a no multiclassing game. That by itself is not a NOPE for me (to reference another thread), but it is worthy of note to me to how the DM treats other aspects of the game. I have no tolerance for DMs who want to micromanage everything a player does. I've quit a game where the DM literally, and I do mean literally, said "I'm a DM who believes a player should never get what he wants."

[TheIronGolem]

I'd start by asking the DM why he doesn't allow multiclassing.

If it's because he's inexperienced at DM'ing and not confident he can handle the increased complexity, I'll probably give it a pass. My stable of favorite characters can mostly be adequately expressed with a single class.

If it's because he thinks "multiclassing is overpowered" or some Stormwind nonsense about how it hurts roleplay, then I'm out (even if I wasn't planning to multiclass anyway). My pretendy-elfgame-funtime is in too short supply to waste on someone with a fundamental misunderstanding of the hobby.

[Kelb_Panthera]

3.5 player/dm here;

With a DM I've played with in the past and I know has a good track record, sure. It's just a challenge to overcome. Though it'd get old if it was for longer than an adventure or two.

With a DM I've never played with but has a good reputation, maybe. I'd be keeping a close eye on some of his other rules and rulings though since this can certainly be a red flag.

With a DM I've never played with and there's no reputation to go on, probably not.

This is a red flag, as I said above, that speaks to a couple of possibilities that are problematic in a DM; fear of PC power, fear of excess complexity, a desire to maintain control of the plot, a desire to control the PC's, etc and so on. If the no multiclassing rule is born from any of these or, worse, more than one of them; that's not a game I'm going to enjoy. If it's just a change of pace thing and isn't accompanied by a bunch of other arbitrary restrictions then it can be okay.

[Knaight]

I used to feel very strongly that the classes were boring and that everyone should be working hard at all times to try and find new and interesting and unique character types - usually through imaginative multiclassing and unusual combinations of race and class. More recently though I've found I really like the idea of a party of four humans, a dwarf and an elf, all of them standard single classes, and the dwarf is a fighter and the elf a ranger. I've come to view these things as archetypes rather than stereotypes and it's changed everything.
I'm all for archetypes, and am more than willing to play a campaign where the PCs being archetypical is part and parcel of the game. I'm also all for complex characters that don't fit archetypes cleanly, and a game where that is the assumption for everyone. The party of four humans, a dwarf, and an elf where the dwarf and elf both fit classic dwarf-elf roles is fine by me, although I'm pretty burnt out on dwarves, elves, and similar and would generally prefer the party of six humans. The thing is, while the classes are nominally archetypical, they don't like up perfectly, and there are archetypes best achieved by multiclassing in any class based game that has multiclassing. A multiclassing ban is an inefficient way to do this.


I suppose most people would say this is a question for each individual player to answer for their character, not for the DM to make rules about. Like disallowing multiclassing for everyone, most people would think was a terrible idea, I guess. But the jadedness about "boring" or "stereotypical" character concepts seems so pervasive that a lot of games seem to end up being about a party composed entirely of tieflings and dragonborn and triple-class characters. My problem is with the situation this creates rather than with individual players making unusual characters. It's a situation where things that we feel should be unusual in the setting are actually completely standard.
There's a big distinction between the tiefling/dragonborn part and the triple-class characters part. Tieflings and dragonborn are both D&D specific things that really don't fit with most fantasy. If you were aiming for archetypes, dropping them makes sense. Triple classed characters can easily be archetypical. For instance, here are some major characters in literature that could be represented by three classes quite well, all of which are pretty archetypical. I'll also stick to PHB and DMG classes plus the particularly well known ones, using 3.5 as a baseline as that's what this forum reliably knows.

Conan - Fighter/Barbarian/Rogue
Mordred (versions that play up the sorcerous connection) - Fighter/Rogue/Beguiler
Mordred (other versions) - Fighter/Rogue/Aristocrat
Aragorn - Fighter/Ranger/Aristocrat
Gandalf - Fighter/Wizard/Eldritch Knight
Cugel - Rogue/Wizard/Fighter
King Arthur - Fighter/Aristocrat/Paladin

It's also worth observing that there are a number of archetypes that the classes (particularly the PC classes) are downright bad at representing, so there's that.


Does anyone else feel like this? Would you play in a game where the DM ruled "no multiclassing" or "only one person can be a race other than human, elf, dwarf or halfling"? Or would that put you right off?
I probably wouldn't, but that's more an aversion to D&D than anything. Were I in a situation where I was playing D&D (and they do happen), this wouldn't make any difference. Similarly, if there was a race restriction like "if you're not human, don't play a mammal" I would also be on board. Both of them communicate a desire to do something other than bog standard D&D settings, and that's very much a good thing.

There's also the matter of setting-side mechanics representation. Particular prestige classes make sense representing in game organizations, but that's about it. Something like Fighter/Rogue is a multiclass that just represents a sneakier warrior with a wider range of skills. The races on the other hand all represent distinct setting elements, and are much less likely to be applicable to a given setting. That's not to say that the same thing doesn't apply to classes individually, particularly as the D&D magic users have the assumptions of the magic system built in, which are pretty setting specific. It's where the differences diverge heavily.

[Temperjoke]

I wouldn't mind. Personally, I'm not for or against multiclassing, but I'm a bigger fan of working with what you have instead of trying to cobble together from different things what you want. It depends on the game system though, some games require multiclassing to get any where.

[Cluedrew]

Personally I think class based systems are usually (there are exceptions) at their best when the classes are pure. Or the system has been designed for multiclassing. None of the games I have seen have really convinced me that they were designed with multiclassing in mind, more like it was added on top later.

So yes, I would be fine with that.

As for race, I also have a some issue with all the exotic races that get played with less variation than actual humans. If you are going to play a different race than could you act like it... even a little?

So also OK with that.

[Honest Tiefling]

There's a big distinction between the tiefling/dragonborn part and the triple-class characters part. Tieflings and dragonborn are both D&D specific things that really don't fit with most fantasy.

In their modern incarnations, sure, but do remember that Merlin in some cases was the son of the Devil. There's also Caliban from Shakesphere who is called a Cambion. Curses from deals with the devils or other powers aren't exactly unheard of either, or even making pacts with demons.

I have no idea where the idea of dragons boinking people came from, however, so don't ask me on that one.

[Knaight]

In their modern incarnations, sure, but do remember that Merlin in some cases was the son of the Devil. There's also Caliban from Shakesphere who is called a Cambion. Curses from deals with the devils or other powers aren't exactly unheard of either, or even making pacts with demons.

That's why I said most. It's not nothing, but it's very genre specific. It's also a broader thing between specific professions and specific races (other than humans). Take the following examples, all of which are pretty broad.
Swordsman - A character who uses a sword and is first and foremost a warrior can crop up in a huge variety of fantasy. You've got your borderline historical fiction, your myth, your high fantasy, your sword and sorcery, the list goes on. It won't always be applicable, but it's something that is only technically setting specific. Yes, something set in the stone age or far enough in the future probably won't have any of these, although that future example is surprisingly permeable. It's still a pretty ubiquitous archetype.

Merchant - A character who buys and sells things professionally. Again, there are settings where this wouldn't work, such as post scarcity settings or anything where all mercantile duties are socially shunted to some other class of people that does something else, or even a really strict feudal structure where possessions just move up the social ladder as taxes, combined with prohibitions on selling things and an extensive gift giving culture. They're weird edge cases though, for the most part a merchant fits. On top of that, all of those categories can have holes in them within the flexibility of the profession.

Elf - Elves are a high fantasy trope, while a different kind of elf fits certain mythologies. That leaves a whole bunch of territory where they are out of place.

Lizardfolk - I'm defining this as any predominantly reptillian species that is sufficiently human like. You've got your aliens, your sword and sorcery creatures, your other fantasy creatures, your occasional superhero offshoot, etc. Still, there are a lot of places where these just don't fit.

[AMFV]

Does anyone else feel like this? Would you play in a game where the DM ruled "no multiclassing" or "only one person can be a race other than human, elf, dwarf or halfling"? Or would that put you right off?

It would depend on the reasoning, and the DM's implementation. If the DM's bestie came in late, and got to play as the only unusual race, that would put me off. But if it's intended to create an aura of scarcity for those races, and it's somehow fairly distributed I wouldn't mind. The "No Multiclassing" rule would bother me in some systems, and not so much in others. If I was asked to come to a game and things were described beforehand without that rule being mentioned (in systems where it's relevant) I would be somewhat put off.

Neither thing would put me off the game in and of itself, at least not enough I would leave the game without there being other mitigating factors.

[HidesHisEyes]

...If it's a theme thing "I want to run a more archtypical game" then it's probably fine too...

It is exactly this.

I wanna be clear that my original post was not meant to imply that I think multi-classing and non-humans are bad or wrong or shouldn't ever be used. Obviously that would be ridiculous. What I meant is that when I read, for example, the 5E PHB I get the feeling there is a sort of basic intended experience of D&D which I've never played because people assume it would be boring. I'm not at all sure that it would.

[HidesHisEyes]

I would be hesitant and question the DM's reasoning.

The reason is not that I resent playing single classed characters or anything (which would be stupid either way: classes are tools; if my character concept requires multiclassing, I'll do, if it doesn't, I wont), but making restrictions like that is an indicator that the DM has some profound misconceptions concerning the rules and what is actually important for a game.

I'd take issue with the term "misconceptions" when we're discussing a game as varied and open-ended as D&D. The game can be played a million different ways. I think what you're talking about is differing preferences.

The kind of game I'm imagining here is indeed one where character classes aren't tools for creating a character concept you have already come up with, but rather concepts in themselves that are there to be played with (and made your own through playing with them). Am I playing the game wrong if I attempt to play a game this second way?

[HidesHisEyes]

I absolutely prefer a No class system. The problem with classes isn't that it's complicated when you multiclass it's that I don't want to play your character... i want to play my own character. I have my own idea of what is cool, and each character has a unique blend of spells and abilities that mix and match... both in the real world and in fiction. Multiclassing is a bandaid on an inherently flawed design.

Flawed if your point of view is that character creation in RPGs is all about making up a concept and then using the system to realise that concept in the mechanics of the game. I totally agree with you, there are probably much better systems out there than D&D if that is what you're after, and they don't involve classes at all.

View D&D as instead "pick a concept from this list" (and shelve whatever reservations you might have at least long enough to try playing it that way) and multi-classing becomes an optional extra or advanced option, rather than a band-aid.

Again, not saying this is the one true way. Just saying it's a seemingly obvious way that seems to get overlooked.

By the way, thanks for the discussion, everyone who has contributed!

[Florian]

I wanna be clear that my original post was not meant to imply that I think multi-classing and non-humans are bad or wrong or shouldn't ever be used. Obviously that would be ridiculous. What I meant is that when I read, for example, the 5E PHB I get the feeling there is a sort of basic intended experience of D&D which I've never played because people assume it would be boring. I'm not at all sure that it would.

Using clearly defined archetypes might make some people feel locked into them too much, but they´re also a tool to facilitate communication and help reach immersion into a scene, if and when all people are on the same page on what the archetype means.

It´s nice for you when you have some specific character in mind that you want to play, but it will become annoying when your fellow players can´t form a real picture of that in their mind, especially when you have to start spending more time explaining some nuances.

Edit to explain that a bit:

L5R is a good example for this:

There are 3 basic classes, Bushi (Fighter), Shugenja (Caster) and Courtier (Social).
With some exceptions, every class can learn the same skills and could perform the same roles. Want to be good with a weapon or competent in a social encounter? Pick up the relevant skill.

When creating your character, you have to pick class, clan and school where you gained your training.
This will create a powerful archetype as well as giving you unique features that only this archetype has.

So, as example, going Bushi > Crab Clan > Berserker doesn´t hinder you one bit from taking social skills, be charming around the ladies and be able to play the simasen, while giving you the iconic ability to blood rage.

This system would break down if whole class features were unique to classes and archetypes, say, like when only a Battle Maiden could ride a horse but would need to multiclass with an Ikoma Bard to be able to be a bit diplomatic.

[Faily]

L5R is a good example for this:

There are 3 basic classes, Bushi (Fighter), Shugenja (Caster) and Courtier (Social).
With some exceptions, every class can learn the same skills and could perform the same roles. Want to be good with a weapon or competent in a social encounter? Pick up the relevant skill.

When creating your character, you have to pick class, clan and school where you gained your training.
This will create a powerful archetype as well as giving you unique features that only this archetype has.

So, as example, going Bushi > Crab Clan > Berserker doesn´t hinder you one bit from taking social skills, be charming around the ladies and be able to play the simasen, while giving you the iconic ability to blood rage.

This system would break down if whole class features were unique to classes and archetypes, say, like when only a Battle Maiden could ride a horse but would need to multiclass with an Ikoma Bard to be able to be a bit diplomatic.

Not to mention that in L5R, some multi-classing is just not possible:

Bushi and Shugenja cannot multiclass with eachother. Both may pick up the relevant skills (a Bushi may learn Spellcraft, Theology, Lore: Elements, and a Shugenja can learn Defense, Battle, Kenjutsu), but the two can never multiclass with eachother.

[Gtdead]

I like customization, especially in the form of prestige classes like 3.5e did.
But I'd rather play a single classed character than bother too much with multiclassing.

I like for example a full caster with a small martial class dip to turn the build into a gish. I don't find it necessary but I will do it because it adds a new dimension to the character.
If I have to do any more than that I quickly lose interest.

So yes, I'd play in a no-multiclassing game without second thoughts but I would naturally pick classes that can do the most things.

[GrayDeath]

Yes I would.

IF I like the theme/preCampaign Concept.
If you are not telling, except "More archetypical", then no.

I ahve to know what I am getting into when I decide once and for all what to play. ;)

[tomandtish]

As I play 2e (where "multiclassing" was limited to demihumans and amounted to having two classes at once but leveling twice as slowly, or "dual-classing" as a human and being prohibited from using the previous class' features before you passed it in level with your new class), or 5e (where multiclassing is a major trade-off that often delays important class features or prevents them outright, including delaying spell levels), I've played a lot of games where nobody wanted to bother with it.

Actually, if you were playing at lower levels, or ignoring the level limits by race, multi-classing was often more effective because it wasn't quite as you explained. Because of the way the XP tables worked, a multi-class character was usually about 1 level behind in each class as a single level character (maybe 2 or maybe none depending on classes). This was because the cost for each level in a class basically doubled until level 9, and is complicated by the fact that each class had different costs. So for example you could have a 9th level fighter OR an 8th/9th Magic User/Thief. Admittedly, HP weren't as good (since it was an average). But you didn't hit the point where levels started coming half as often until you hit about that level 9 range (where the cost maxed out for a level).

Dual-classing was a nightmare, especially trying to create a bard....

And I'd have no problem playing a single class if there's a good reason for it.

Are you including prestige classes in there as well? (I'd be OK with that too if the reason was valid, but some argue that they are completely separate from multi-classing).

[Quertus]

I would have little issue with the rule itself. In fact, if my single class were "Arcane Archer" or "Devoted Defender", this rule would seem advantageous.

However, what the rule represents would probably be an issue. Few DMs who would make such a rule would be worth my time to play under.

[icefractal]

I'd play a single-class character, and have done so, but having that as a basis for the campaign might give me second thoughts. Like for one, the description somewhat makes it sound like we have to archetype-it-up, playing the most classic/stereotypical kind of exemplar for that class. It depends on system too - some systems would have balance issues in doing this.

So overall, it's not an automatic red flag, but it's not itself a draw either. I'd need to know more about the game in question.

[Pluto!]

This shouldn't ever be a problem.

If a system has multiclassing so ingrained into its usage that cutting it would be a problem, that system has probably lost the entire point of classes, and is probably a worse game for using them.

*cough*d20 modern*cough*

[HidesHisEyes]

Interestingly there seem to be a lot of people saying a ban on multiclassing wouldn't be a problem in itself, but the assumptions it would seem to represent would be. That's fair enough, and if I were to run such a game (I'm not actually planning to, just interested in it as an idea) I agree I'd want to be up front with those assumptions at the start.

So the assumption in question, as I've mentioned, is that character classes aren't tools for creating a concept, but rather concepts in themselves. Responses on this thread seem by and large to confirm what I thought, which is that this is currently a very unpopular point of view among gamers (although of course it's a very small sample size).

Has anyone played Feng Shui? Classes in that game are recognisable action movie tropes like "karate cop" and "adventurous archeologist", and there isn't much to character creation beyond picking one of the tropes. If you have Feng Shui at one end of the spectrum and at the other end a classless game where character creation is a big point-buy free-for-all, then you have a spectrum of different views of what character creation is all about. I'd argue that any point on that spectrum is totally valid, and also that D&D seems to me to lend itself to a position more towards the "fixed classes" end, even though it's capable of moving in the other direction too.

So I guess my next question is whether people would even entertain the idea of fixed tropes. Have you played Feng Shui, did you like it and would you play a game of D&D with similar assumptions about character creation? Even if it's not your ideal game, would you try it out?

[goto124]

*slowly raises hand like a mousey student*

If classes are concepts themselves, what problems would arise from mixing and matching concepts?

[HidesHisEyes]

*slowly raises hand like a mousey student*

If classes are concepts themselves, what problems would arise from mixing and matching concepts?

None at all. What I'd like to get away from (at least for a while) isn't mixing and matching existing concepts, it's using classes to create a completely new concept. It often seems to end up in a concept that no other player at the table can get their head around.

I realise banning multiclassing would be a rather heavy-handed way of doing that. Perhaps I should ask: would you want to play in a game where the GM said at the start "please keep your character to a recognisable trope or concept"? I can already see big potential problems with that, mainly to do with fuzziness and subjectivity.

[Florian]

@HidesHisEyes:

You can simplify that whole matter. Think of it as two parallel tracks, one is Job/Archetype, the other is role in a party. You want every position to be filled but aim to avoid overlap so each position is filled.

Jobs are: Beatstick, Skillmonkey, Healer, Caster.
Roles are: Outdoors, Traps, Face, Battlefield Control.

Get your players together and let them discuss how they want to handle those jobs and roles. Both tracks can be filled with a combination of different classes. For example, Barbarian can do Beatstick/Outdoors while Paladin could do Beatstick/Face without a problem.
Make it a gentleman´s agreement to not infringe on one another, like a Cleric to outfighter the Fighter.
When that step is done, watch out when designing your adventures that you give equal opportunities for a roles to shine during play.

[HidesHisEyes]

Florian: interesting idea, yeah. I suppose the best advice of all might just be "do character creation together and aim to create a party, not a random handful of characters".

[Winter_Wolf]

Florian: interesting idea, yeah. I suppose the best advice of all might just be "do character creation together and aim to create a party, not a random handful of characters".

I like the premise, but in my experience trying to do the whole cooperative party building where everyone gets their roles and sticks to them is there's always going to be someone stuck playing something they're bored by. Well I was anyway. Face/Healer isn't my bag, but we "had to" have them and everyone else was being bitchy about it. Maybe I should have gone bard instead of cleric. I've played perfectly functional all fighter merc parties, they're doable and really get a bad rap these days. Or the all rogues thieves' guild game.

[HidesHisEyes]

I've certainly found it's helpful to have at least one or two players who don't mind what they play. Obviously you don't want anyone to be bored, but I also feel there's an onus on each player to make the effort to have fun with whatever character they end up playing, even if it's not one they have a massive interest in. Again, the idea that character creation in RPGs is always about perfectly realising your own concept has grown very prevalent and can be harmful, I think.

I too am not especially interested in healer characters, and certainly not in clerics, on the whole. For years I struggled with video games like Icewind Dale where a cleric is a necessity but held absolutely no interest for me on either a mechanical or conceptual level. Then one day I had the idea of a washed-up alcoholic priest who gets a vision from his god saying he has to give up booze and become an adventurer spreading the word and doing good deeds, or the god will turn his/her back on him forever. Now I wish I was starting in a p&p adventure where they desperately needed a cleric, just so I could play this character. Have to be open-minded about concepts!

[Malimar]

I treat Pathfinder as functionally no-multiclassing anyway, with its dearth of prestige classes and occasionally useful favored class bonuses and other rewards for staying in one class, plus I usually play spellcasters these days and those don't multiclass well. And I'm not fond of VMC, so I'm fine with a game excluding that option.

In 3.5, most of my concepts are prestige class related. So if "no multiclassing" forbids prestige classes, I wouldn't be best pleased with the restriction in 3.5. If it means "one class + one prestige class", that's fine, I don't usually have any need to take more than one prestige class anyway. (Getting up to level 15+ where I'm done with my first prestige class and might want to take a second is only a theoretical possibility that has never actually happened yet.)

In 5e, I haven't even looked at the multiclassing rules yet.

[Winter_Wolf]

I've certainly found it's helpful to have at least one or two players who don't mind what they play. Obviously you don't want anyone to be bored, but I also feel there's an onus on each player to make the effort to have fun with whatever character they end up playing, even if it's not one they have a massive interest in. Again, the idea that character creation in RPGs is always about perfectly realising your own concept has grown very prevalent and can be harmful, I think.!

I'm not super picky about things like "perfect representation of character concept"; in fact my only "nope" is primary casters. I'll work with roles I'm not thrilled about. To a point. That said, if I have to fake having fun, I can do that with work, chores, hanging out with my kids doing "tea time". Literally the one time I'm not going to fake enjoying myself is that precious little chunk of time I've had to carve, haggle, and connive to have free from other obligations. For me there's literally one question when it comes to gaming: "would I rather be doing something more productive than this right now?" I hate mowing the lawn because I actually need a heavy filter mask to get through it on account of allergies; if I'd rather be doing that than playing a game and socializing (which I view as both productive and necessary for a balanced life) then I'm going to excuse myself from the game.

[Honest Tiefling]

I realise banning multiclassing would be a rather heavy-handed way of doing that. Perhaps I should ask: would you want to play in a game where the GM said at the start "please keep your character to a recognisable trope or concept"? I can already see big potential problems with that, mainly to do with fuzziness and subjectivity.

Well...Depends. Is a Mage-Thief, which is to say a mage with informal training or training acquired from a group of thieves combined with some thief-like skills be on the too fuzzy side of things?

Something like the Bushi/Shugenja example mentioned above would actually be fine in my book. I assume there was plenty of setting reason for it, and the two classes would have unique interactions with the gameworld, so that's a nice bonus for agreeing to the rules.

But if the rules get to the point of 'You can't multiclass paladin because your god is apparently an idiot', I am back to being leery.

[Jay R]

I prefer to play each game the way it's designed.

I've played many single-class characters in original D&D, and in AD&D 1e and 2e. I've also played a multi-class elf in 2e.

I've followed interesting class progressions in 3.5e.

I've played TOON and GURPS without classes, because they don't have them.

I play Fantasy Hero and Champions without classes, but each character has more-or-less followed a standard archetype.

I play Flashing Blades with a single class, because "class" in 17th century France means where and by whom you were born and raised.

I played single-class characters in Chivalry & Sorcery, which has no rules for multi-class. (Although I actually played a two-class C&S character. Since the Alchemist goes up in level by specific accomplishments, rather than by experience level, I played a Knight / Alchemist.)

My experience is that games usually play best when you play them as intended, and if there's an aspect you don't like, you're better off playing a different game than playing that one without some of the rules.

[JAL_1138]

Actually, if you were playing at lower levels, or ignoring the level limits by race, multi-classing was often more effective because it wasn't quite as you explained. Because of the way the XP tables worked, a multi-class character was usually about 1 level behind in each class as a single level character (maybe 2 or maybe none depending on classes). This was because the cost for each level in a class basically doubled until level 9, and is complicated by the fact that each class had different costs. So for example you could have a 9th level fighter OR an 8th/9th Magic User/Thief. Admittedly, HP weren't as good (since it was an average). But you didn't hit the point where levels started coming half as often until you hit about that level 9 range (where the cost maxed out for a level).

Dual-classing was a nightmare, especially trying to create a bard....

And I'd have no problem playing a single class if there's a good reason for it.

Are you including prestige classes in there as well? (I'd be OK with that too if the reason was valid, but some argue that they are completely separate from multi-classing).

Bards were a PHB class in 2e; no dual-classing needed. They were very different than the 1e bard, though. And basically were a Mage/Thief MC that leveled as fast as a single-classed Thief, although it had restrictions on spell level maximums, slower spells-learnable progression, couldn't use some Thief skills, and could wear better armor (but not cast in it) and could use any weapon.

And yes, I oversimplified. Mage/Thief was one that worked out well in low-mid levels because of a quirk in level progression that made Mages and Thieves go from about 7 to 9 faster than Fighters and Clerics. Before that you were behind by a bit, after that it leveled off for a short while, and then after that you were either behind again or hit the level caps and stayed behind. Not every race could take this MC, and gnomes had to have a 16 Dex (to qualify for Illusionist). Specialist wizards could never multiclass, except Gnome Illusionists.

Fighter/Cleric really did level much more slowly than either single class, though.

[HidesHisEyes]

Well...Depends. Is a Mage-Thief, which is to say a mage with informal training or training acquired from a group of thieves combined with some thief-like skills be on the too fuzzy side of things?

Something like the Bushi/Shugenja example mentioned above would actually be fine in my book. I assume there was plenty of setting reason for it, and the two classes would have unique interactions with the gameworld, so that's a nice bonus for agreeing to the rules.

But if the rules get to the point of 'You can't multiclass paladin because your god is apparently an idiot', I am back to being leery.

Well, would it? That's what I meant by fuzziness. In 5E I'd be inclined to say if you want to be a Mage/thief then be an arcane trickster, no multiclassing required. If the player then said "oh but arcane trickster is rubbish and I can do it better by multiclassing and..." then I would be a bit annoyed.

Having said that, I do get that for many people experimenting with character build is a big part of the game's appeal. Hell, it is for me, and I'm playing a fighter/ranger in a campaign right now. But as I said, it's not about being against multiclassing, just a feeling I have that sticking to the most archetypal sorts of characters might actually be really cool. No one would know because no one does it. (Probably exaggerating there but it feels that way sometimes).

[Jormengand]

Well, would it? That's what I meant by fuzziness. In 5E I'd be inclined to say if you want to be a Mage/thief then be an arcane trickster, no multiclassing required.

In 3.5 I'd recommend that too, but it's a bit of a different story there. :smalltongue:

[JAL_1138]

Well, would it? That's what I meant by fuzziness. In 5E I'd be inclined to say if you want to be a Mage/thief then be an arcane trickster, no multiclassing required. If the player then said "oh but arcane trickster is rubbish and I can do it better by multiclassing and..." then I would be a bit annoyed.

Arcane Tricksters can only learn spells from the Illusion and Enchantment school. It doesn't let you cast blasty spells or protection spells, for example--which may be what the player wants to cast instead. However, MCing delays Sneak Attack dice progression, feats/ASIs, and other class features, so it's a big trade-off. Compared to 3.PF, classes (other than Warlock, which is often MC'd as a 2-level dip in forum builds, mainly for cantrip damage) aren't terribly front-loaded.


Having said that, I do get that for many people experimenting with character build is a big part of the game's appeal. Hell, it is for me, and I'm playing a fighter/ranger in a campaign right now. But as I said, it's not about being against multiclassing, just a feeling I have that sticking to the most archetypal sorts of characters might actually be really cool. No one would know because no one does it. (Probably exaggerating there but it feels that way sometimes).

"No multiclassing" is the default rule for 5e, though it's usually allowed. But since it's usually a huge trade-off and/or delay of class features, and since it stops you from getting the class capstone, it's not done even in some classes' optimization builds. You'll practically never see a Moon Druid build be MC'd, for instance, because their capstone is so good. Fighters don't MC often (except as a dip) because they lose their last Extra Attack, which is flat-out painful for them. Other classes don't MC well because of overlap or MADness. For those that do MC well, a 2-level dip is as far as many go, because after that you give up too many features or 9th-level spells.

[oxybe]

"Depends"

Depends on the system available.

Depends on the classes available.

Depends on the power level of the game.

Depends on the genre/themes/tropes.

So many depends you'd think it was an old folks home.

[HidesHisEyes]

Arcane Tricksters can only learn spells from the Illusion and Enchantment school. It doesn't let you cast blasty spells or protection spells, for example--which may be what the player wants to cast instead. However, MCing delays Sneak Attack dice progression, feats/ASIs, and other class features, so it's a big trade-off. Compared to 3.PF, classes (other than Warlock, which is often MC'd as a 2-level dip in forum builds, mainly for cantrip damage) aren't terribly front-loaded.



"No multiclassing" is the default rule for 5e, though it's usually allowed. But since it's usually a huge trade-off and/or delay of class features, and since it stops you from getting the class capstone, it's not done even in some classes' optimization builds. You'll practically never see a Moon Druid build be MC'd, for instance, because their capstone is so good. Fighters don't MC often (except as a dip) because they lose their last Extra Attack, which is flat-out painful for them. Other classes don't MC well because of overlap or MADness. For those that do MC well, a 2-level dip is as far as many go, because after that you give up too many features or 9th-level spells.

Yep, I find multiclassing much less problematic in this edition from a "tyranny of powergaming" perspective, that's for sure. You can definitely make strong character builds without it a lot more often.

Again, nothing against multiclassing per se, just interested in the idea of pre-packaged concepts and archetypes. In this hypothetical campaign I'd prefer arcane tricksters to -rogue/mages precisely because the arcane trickster can't cast all of the spells, only certain "trickstery" spells.

[Knaight]

Yep, I find multiclassing much less problematic in this edition from a "tyranny of powergaming" perspective, that's for sure. You can definitely make strong character builds without it a lot more often.
If 3e is the standard, it's worth observing that multiclassing isn't where the powergaming is. Pure power is best achieved by picking one of a handful of primary spell casters, then careful spell selection. If you're going to get rid of it, powergaming avoidance isn't a good reason.


Again, nothing against multiclassing per se, just interested in the idea of pre-packaged concepts and archetypes. In this hypothetical campaign I'd prefer arcane tricksters to -rogue/mages precisely because the arcane trickster can't cast all of the spells, only certain "trickstery" spells.
Out of curiosity, how would you feel about point packages in a point buy game that provide the starting points of a class, while still allowing characters to develop naturally. Something like a 150 point GURPS campaign where there are various 120 point "classes", and 30 points of customization, as just one example.

[HidesHisEyes]

If 3e is the standard, it's worth observing that multiclassing isn't where the powergaming is. Pure power is best achieved by picking one of a handful of primary spell casters, then careful spell selection. If you're going to get rid of it, powergaming avoidance isn't a good reason.

Yeah it's not really about powergaming, that's something that came up in the course of the discussion.



Out of curiosity, how would you feel about point packages in a point buy game that provide the starting points of a class, while still allowing characters to develop naturally. Something like a 150 point GURPS campaign where there are various 120 point "classes", and 30 points of customization, as just one example.

Sounds pretty good to me. I guess it would effectively be similar to 3.x where you pick a class and than customise using feats.

Don't get me wrong, I'd quite like to play GURPS or something similar and build a character completely from scratch, invent my own concept and try to realise it. The point of this thread was only that I don't think that's the only way and I'd quite like to try D&D the opposite way.

[Satinavian]

Yep, I find multiclassing much less problematic in this edition from a "tyranny of powergaming" perspective, that's for sure. You can definitely make strong character builds without it a lot more often.

Again, nothing against multiclassing per se, just interested in the idea of pre-packaged concepts and archetypes. In this hypothetical campaign I'd prefer arcane tricksters to -rogue/mages precisely because the arcane trickster can't cast all of the spells, only certain "trickstery" spells.
I would not like it, probably not even play it.

Not because multiclassing is a such essential tool (i like it as mechanic but an live without) but because i simply don't like playing archetypes. At all. And i would probably not be a good fit for the game you want to play.

In a game without multiclassing and without knowing your reasons for not allowing multiclass characters i would probably bring something like a poison dusk lizardfolk artificer.

[Knaight]

Sounds pretty good to me. I guess it would effectively be similar to 3.x where you pick a class and than customise using feats.

Not really. The thing with classes is that they constrain both the starting archetypes, and future development of said archetypes. What's listed constrains the starting archetype, but future development is much freer. If your big, shaggy, illiterate northern barbarian (certainly an archetype) ends up taking up with a bunch of mercenaries and then becoming bodyguard to a high king*, them eventually becoming literate and likely becoming a better speaker as well makes a lot of sense, along with picking up some mercenary type skills between. Similarly, if you have the grand wizard archetype in full effect, and they get thrown out into the street and have to learn to get by with no money, you might see an entirely different set of skills develop. With classes narrow enough that multiclassing is in the design, that usually doesn't get any support.

*I'm basing this on an actual literary character, and in context it makes a lot of sense.

[JAL_1138]

If 3e is the standard, it's worth observing that multiclassing isn't where the powergaming is. Pure power is best achieved by picking one of a handful of primary spell casters, then careful spell selection. If you're going to get rid of it, powergaming avoidance isn't a good reason.


I didn't mean to imply necessarily that it's a powergaming thing, just that the structure of many classes in 3e is front-loaded enough to encourage, or at least not discourage, multiclassing for more classes, more classes-per-build, and over a somewhat wider level range, than 5e does. So you can come up with builds that get most of the cool stuff from three or four classes (though perhaps not as powerful at them as a single-class might be) and end up with a decent character--whereas in 5e, trying to do the same thing, you'd get fairly little of the cool stuff from three or four classes, delay your ASIs/feats for a good while or prevent yourself from getting them outright, and likely end up less versatile or effective than a single-classed character or a character with a couple-level dip in just one other.

[tomandtish]

Bards were a PHB class in 2e; no dual-classing needed. They were very different than the 1e bard, though. And basically were a Mage/Thief MC that leveled as fast as a single-classed Thief, although it had restrictions on spell level maximums, slower spells-learnable progression, couldn't use some Thief skills, and could wear better armor (but not cast in it) and could use any weapon.

And yes, I oversimplified. Mage/Thief was one that worked out well in low-mid levels because of a quirk in level progression that made Mages and Thieves go from about 7 to 9 faster than Fighters and Clerics. Before that you were behind by a bit, after that it leveled off for a short while, and then after that you were either behind again or hit the level caps and stayed behind. Not every race could take this MC, and gnomes had to have a 16 Dex (to qualify for Illusionist). Specialist wizards could never multiclass, except Gnome Illusionists.

Fighter/Cleric really did level much more slowly than either single class, though.

It depends on what you mean by behind quite a bit. You were never behind by more than two levels until you started hitting the upper ranges. And until then you were usually only one level behind. So if you were running a low level game it did have some advantages.

Let's take 9th level fighter (250000 XP). At single class that would also get you: 9th level Paladin, 8th level Ranger, 10th level Wizard (including specialist), 9th level Cleric, 11th level Druid, 11th level Rogue (Bard or Thief). 1/2 of that is 250,000. 1/3 of that is 83333 (rounded) if you have three classes.

That makes you:

125,000 =

7th level: Ranger, Cleric

8th level: Fighter, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric

9th level: Rogue


83,333 =

7th level: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard,

8th level: Druid, Rogue

10th: Druid

So you're never more than two levels behind (usually one), and you have two classes to work from. Now, whether that trade is worthwhile is entirely up to you.

[Tetsubo 57]

Under 3.5 or Pathfinder I'd do it in a minute.

[HidesHisEyes]

Not really. The thing with classes is that they constrain both the starting archetypes, and future development of said archetypes. What's listed constrains the starting archetype, but future development is much freer. If your big, shaggy, illiterate northern barbarian (certainly an archetype) ends up taking up with a bunch of mercenaries and then becoming bodyguard to a high king*, them eventually becoming literate and likely becoming a better speaker as well makes a lot of sense, along with picking up some mercenary type skills between. Similarly, if you have the grand wizard archetype in full effect, and they get thrown out into the street and have to learn to get by with no money, you might see an entirely different set of skills develop. With classes narrow enough that multiclassing is in the design, that usually doesn't get any support.

*I'm basing this on an actual literary character, and in context it makes a lot of sense.

Interesting. So it sounds like those extra character points could be spent on things excluded from your original build, as opposed to building on that build, so to speak. Might be problematic in a very gamey game like D&D where if that were possible you'd still find yourself underpowered, I guess, having spent resources on getting quite good at something new instead of really good at what you're already good at. Makes a lot of sense for a more cinematic or narrative-driven game.

[Telonius]

I usually play 3.5, so it would be a big red flag for me. I've heard too many stories of DMs who don't have a really solid grasp of the system, and think that a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger/Swashbuckler is cheese fondue but a Wizard20 is just fine.

I am open to persuasion though. If they have a really good understanding of the system and can tell me what they're going to do when they end up with a Cleric, Wizard, Artificer, Monk party, then sure.

[Quertus]

It depends on what you mean by behind quite a bit. You were never behind by more than two levels until you started hitting the upper ranges. And until then you were usually only one level behind. So if you were running a low level game it did have some advantages.

Let's take 9th level fighter (250000 XP). At single class that would also get you: 9th level Paladin, 8th level Ranger, 10th level Wizard (including specialist), 9th level Cleric, 11th level Druid, 11th level Rogue (Bard or Thief). 1/2 of that is 250,000. 1/3 of that is 83333 (rounded) if you have three classes.

That makes you:

125,000 =

7th level: Ranger, Cleric

8th level: Fighter, Paladin, Wizard, Cleric

9th level: Rogue


83,333 =

7th level: Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Wizard,

8th level: Druid, Rogue

10th: Druid

So you're never more than two levels behind (usually one), and you have two classes to work from. Now, whether that trade is worthwhile is entirely up to you.

Now, to be fair, there were other advantages to being single classed.

The single class fighter can specialize. So, picking arbitrary stats, he would get to attack with his... +2 long sword twice, at Thac0 8, for 1d8+6, as opposed to attacking 1.5 times at Thac0 9 for 1d8+4. At full grand mastery, that would be 3 attacks for 1d10+7 at Thac0 7. (I think I have all that math right - AFB).

A grand mastery archer is even more amazing, getting off 5 attacks to the multi-class fighter's 2.

But, for combinations of rogue/cleric/psionicist/homebrew, there was probably little reason not to multiclass at low level.

[tomandtish]

Now, to be fair, there were other advantages to being single classed.

The single class fighter can specialize. So, picking arbitrary stats, he would get to attack with his... +2 long sword twice, at Thac0 8, for 1d8+6, as opposed to attacking 1.5 times at Thac0 9 for 1d8+4. At full grand mastery, that would be 3 attacks for 1d10+7 at Thac0 7. (I think I have all that math right - AFB).

A grand mastery archer is even more amazing, getting off 5 attacks to the multi-class fighter's 2.

But, for combinations of rogue/cleric/psionicist/homebrew, there was probably little reason not to multiclass at low level.

Oh, absolutely. And of course, if you were in high level games and the DM DID follow level limits based on race, then multi-classing would definitely run into a disadvantage there.

I was strictly commenting on Jal's original comment of advancing twice as slowly. Until the "name levels", you weren't. You were only a level or two behind but advancing in two classes. 3E is where it became true advancement at 1/2 speed if you look at multi-classing (10th fighter versus 5/5 fighter/whatever)

Now, whether that's worth it is an entirely different question given (as you noted) there were other considerations.

[SirBellias]

I'd more than likely be fine with that, if multiclassing isn't that important to the system. I favor PbtA games, myself, which kind of have multiclassing built in to increase variety, but I'd be far more happy that someone else is running a game at all to care that much. I don't think I've ever multiclassed when playing d&d, anyways.

[bulbaquil]

Does anyone else feel like this? Would you play in a game where the DM ruled "no multiclassing" or "only one person can be a race other than human, elf, dwarf or halfling"? Or would that put you right off?

I have absolutely no problem with this. I will and have played the "stereotypical" characters in complete earnestness.

[Jay R]

Does anyone else feel like this? Would you play in a game where the DM ruled "no multiclassing" or "only one person can be a race other than human, elf, dwarf or halfling"? Or would that put you right off?

No multiplaying was how I started. The idea of mix-and-match levels in 3e/3.5e seems weird to me. And when I started, nobody could play a race other than Men, Elves, Dwarves, and Hobbits. (Yes, that's what they were called.)

There was a rule telling the DM how to handle somebody who wanted to play, say, a balrog, but no specifics were given.

[One of my favorite trivia questions is, "What were the first five PC races actually referred to in D&D rules?" Technically, humans and halflings aren't on the list.]

[Efrate]

I would gladly play. I can use skills, RP and feats to differentiate within the archtype and still make a character unique, and it has motivated me to make a concept fit. Even disallowing ACFs and everything else. There are a zillion options, so choosing them in a low op game is fine. I like being challenged to make something work, even if its far from optimal. I think it can breed creativity and forces one to think along non-standard lines.

As long as I know ahead of time, as does the rest of party, and we can all agree to not steal the show always (no primary casters for example) I think it can make for a great game.