[3.5] Would you play in a game that disallowed multiclassing?

[ken-do-nim]

I don't run a 3.5 game at the moment, but if & when I ever DM it again I'm thinking of disallowing multiclassing. Now I don't want this thread to turn into a debate about the pros & cons of the 3.5 approach to multiclassing, so I won't even bother explaining my reasons which would invite that. Simply put, I'm curious that if I took the time to create a 3.5 campaign if anybody would be interested in playing anyway considering that restriction. I would think that despite the fact that players would be forced to pick a class and stick with it, the ample amount of feats and races available would still allow considerable character customization. [Of course there are some classes, feats and races I probably wouldn't allow for game balance reasons, reviewed on a case-by-case basis like anything else]

[Armoury99]

Yes. No problem at all.

The most resistence will probably come from min-maxers, and optimising class-dippers. As long as your group isn't primarilly made up of them, you should be fine.

[overduegalaxy]

I could see people wanting to take dips for character reasons (a gnome rogue who really hates kobolds and takes a level in ranger to pick up favored enemy: reptilian), but most of the time there's feats or prestige classes to cover that.

PrCs are still allowed, right?

[Tempest Fennac]

I can't see a problem with that approach at all (I tend to be more concerned with being allowed to use half-animal races then anything to be honest, and I don't multi-class anyway).

[Kaihaku]

Yes I would. Yes I have.

My first 3.0 campaign was no multiclassing though prestige classes were still allowed.

I also played in a year long tabletop game where there was no multiclassing or prestige classing. It's not a big deal.

I like multiclassing, fighter/rogue is fun, but it's exclusion isn't a big deal and really simplifies things.

[BobVosh]

If PrC are, ya, no problem.

Or if it is pathfinder or some other variant where half the levels aren't dead levels.

[kamikasei]

I might, but it would raise the question of why the DM wanted the restriction, and the answer to that might put me off based on what it said about his style or attitude. Several possible motives for such a move are things I'd regard as marks against a DM, though other factors may outweigh them.

[weenie]

Sure, I'd play. I've only played one multiclassed character so far actually.

But really, why would you ban multiclassing? It doesn't really create much balance issues and sometimes people want to make characters that don't fit into any single class.

[Morty]

I'd have no problems with that, myself. I like multiclassing as an option, but I don't like using it myself.

[nagora]

You go for it! Multiclassing sucks big time.

I am considering a return to OD&D's "Elf" and "Dwarf" classes should any of my players ever want to play a non-human again (which seems unlikely but it might happen).

[Saph]

I like playing spellcasters, so sure, I'd have no problem with it. I'd be hesitant to play a single-class Fighter or Barbarian, though, because those classes struggle to keep up if you can't multiclass a bit (or a lot).

- Saph

[Gorbash]

Sure, I'd play a wizard, druid or a cleric. Don't think the party fighter or some other non-spellcasting class would find it intresting at higher lvls, but hey, it's your campaign.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Probably not. It seems like an arbitrary limitation, and really hurts non-casters. Druids, wizards, and clerics have no significant reduction in power if they stick to one class - all their multiclassing is done contingent on getting full casting progression anyway. Meanwhile, fighters, paladins, rogues, and rangers are really screwed; the only non-caster class I'd consider taking all the way is barbarian, and even they're not that hot.

No multiclass combination is going to have the sheer power of the full caster.

[Jim Profit]

Probably not. It seems like an arbitrary limitation, and really hurts non-casters. Druids, wizards, and clerics have no significant reduction in power if they stick to one class - all their multiclassing is done contingent on getting full casting progression anyway. Meanwhile, fighters, paladins, rogues, and rangers are really screwed; the only non-caster class I'd consider taking all the way is barbarian, and even they're not that hot.

No multiclass combination is going to have the sheer power of the full caster.

Nothing a bit of house ruling can't solve. (NOTE: No cool abilities for wizard/druid/cleric, they're good enough..)

Fighter:
Gets to choose one of these abilities when the class is taken.

Fighter Strike (ex) :
Your weapon deals an additional die in damage per odd fighter level.
So for example, say you're a fighter at level 9 and are using a longsword.

Your longsword now deals 5d8 damage, this stacks with any other damage increasing feats or whatever..

Fighter Precision (ex) :
You gain +1 on all attack rolls per fighter level. (Great for overcoming high ACs later level without magic)

Painful Strike (ex) :
Even when your attack with a weapon misses. It still deals 1d12+dex or str mod (depending on the weapon) damage.



Barbarian:
Gets to choose one of the following when taking barbarian class.

Unstoppable (ex) :
Gains 2d6+1 per barbarian level in temporary hitpoints. This can be used as a free action a number of times per day equal to constitution modifier. This temporary HP does not "fade away". It has to be depleted.

Crushing Blow (ex) :
When the barbarian deals damage with a weapon, it deals additional damage to any of the foe's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha) of the barbarian's choosing. The damage dealt is equal to the barbarian's constitution modifier.


Paladin:
Get to choose one the abilities when taking paladin class.

Holy Strike (su) :
Gain +4 on attack rolls against evil alignment creatures. This stacks with any other attack bonus/smite. Even if the attack misses, it still deals 1d4 damage. (This only effects evil creatures)

Petrifying Dogma (su) :
As a full-round action, you can pray, and bestow your weapon with a holy aura. The next time your weapon would strike a foe, the foe has to make a fortitude save DC equal to your charisma+wisdom score. If they fail, they become prone and stunned for 1d4 rounds. The petrifying dogma can be used as often as you want, but you must spend a full-round action everytime and it only has one "charge" per hit...


Ranger:
Choose one when taking the ranger class.

Paranoid Survivalist (ex) :
The ranger's hit die is now d12.

Nature's Wrath (ex) :
Even when your attacks miss with a weapon, they still deal 1d4 damage.


Bard:
Choose one when taking the bard class.

Tweak (su) :
1/day gain +20 to any skillcheck.

Jack of Trades (ex) :
Gain +1 on all skillcheck rolls.


Rogue:
Choose one when taking the rogue class.

Cut-Throat (ex) :
Gain +2 on attack rolls during Attack-Of-Oppurtunity.

Backstab (ex) :
Your sneak attacks deal d8s in damage instead.


Sorcerer:
Choose one when taking the sorcerer class.

Force Orb (sp) :
Melee touch attack. If succesful, deals 1d10 force damage.

Grasping Shadows (sp) :
Foe makes a will saving throw DC equal to the sorcerer's charisma score. If they fail, targets base land speed is reduced by half. (If foe's charisma score is below 12, they're completely stunned) Grasping Shadows can only be used on the ground and when there are shadows present. So if the light is too bright or if it's too dark this spell-like ability is useless. The range of grasping shaodws is 5 feet per 1 charisma point above 10. (So 18 cha=40feet) The foe is stunned/slowed untill the sorcerer fails their concentration check. They must make a concencreation check every round to keep the grasping shadows present..


Monk:
Choose one when taking the monk class.

Trained Body (ex) :
Gains additional HP equal to 5+wis modifier. This stacks with feats and other HP boosting qualities.

Trained Mind (ex) :
You may re-roll any will saving throw you just made. You must take the second roll, even if it's lower.

[Bosh]

Yes. No problem at all.

The most resistence will probably come from min-maxers, and optimising class-dippers. As long as your group isn't primarilly made up of them, you should be fine.

Um, no not really. The most powerful classes are single class casters in 3.5ed...

[Kaihaku]

Fighter Strike (ex) :
Your weapon deals an additional die in damage per odd fighter level.
So for example, say you're a fighter at level 9 and are using a longsword.

Um...wow.

I don't think giving the Fighter class unconditional super non-sneak sneak attack would balance things.

[ken-do-nim]

Sure, I'd play a wizard, druid or a cleric. Don't think the party fighter or some other non-spellcasting class would find it intresting at higher lvls, but hey, it's your campaign.

Well, disallowing multiclassing is certainly for flavor reasons and not balance reasons. Any way you slice it, high-level 3.5 is going to have the usual problems between full casters and the others. I'm not sure what to do about that except leave it as a "cross that bridge when you come to it" kind of problem.

I had a compromise thought. Maybe I'd start the campaign at level 2, and characters can be either (1) level 2 in one class (2) level 1 in two classes or (3) level 1 with a +1 level adjustment from race. After that, no more multiclassing. That way you can get the combo you want, like fighter/rogue or wizard/rogue, and I would allow the DMG prestige classes like arcane trickster, mystic theurge, and eldritch knight.

[Muspelheim]

Like others have said, I would probably play, but it would pretty much restrict my options to playing full casters for what is seemingly no good reason.

Personally, I totally separate fluff from a character's actual classes and just goes by the abilities the given character has. So excessive multiclassing doesn't bother me at all, and I actually encourage it in order to make concepts fit better mechanically with what the player's envision their character to be able to do. For many concepts, especially for non-casters or secondary casters, that can be pretty hard, or outright impossible, to do in a viable way without resorting to multiclassing. Feats only do so much, and most classes gets very few of them anyhow.

So I'd play -and probably start out as somewhat sceptical about the DM's motives for making the decision - and then definitely play a wizard, cleric, druid or sorcerer. Well, or a rogue perhaps.

[AstralFire]

Yes, but only if we had access to most of the important splatbooks.

It's not just an issue of power - and I'm getting annoyed by the "min/maxers'll be the only ones who'd miss it!" since if you remove both multiclassing and a decent amount of splat it's nearly impossible to say, make a wandering mystic monk or a lightly armored frontliner that is not a monk or a bard who focuses on their music to the exclusivity of everything else or...

And frankly, out of the PHB classes:
- I have no interest in playing a Wizard. Ever.
- I have no interest in playing a Cleric. Ever.
- I have no interest in playing a Druid. Ever. (At least without one of the simplified wild shape variants where I don't have to flip through pages and pages every time I want to try something new.)
- Little interest in playing a Sorcerer or Paladin. These classes I do like the flavor, but casting spells developed by Mordenkainen that every Wizard can recognize feels wrong, and I like my Paladins a bit lighter and more dextrous.
- No to Rogues. I don't play opportunistic fighters, they don't interest me. Sneaky, yes, but Sneak Attack is baggage that I don't like to play with.
- Generally 'meh' to Barbarians. Sometimes, maybe.
- Out of the PHB that leaves me with Bards, Fighters, Rangers, and Monks. And I'm often not in the mood for one of those four. Bard is my favorite class ever, but Cheesecake is my favorite food ever and I don't just eat that all the time.

So yeah, basically, no multiclassing is doable as long as you still have a goodly amount of splat. You ditch both and I wouldn't play, just because most of the concepts I am interested in playing (Binder, Duskblade, Swordsage, Psion, Wilder, Warlock, Hexblade, Scout, Soulknife, Shadowcaster) would be gone.

[Tsotha-lanti]

Nothing a bit of house ruling can't solve. (NOTE: No cool abilities for wizard/druid/cleric, they're good enough..)

Cool ideas, but they're not even remotely balanced against each other. (And the bard and sorcerer are already casters; they don't need more benefits.)

Seems easier to just allow multiclassing, which lets non-casters be kind of useful.

[kamikasei]

Well, disallowing multiclassing is certainly for flavor reasons and not balance reasons.

In which case I would have a problem with it because the idea that the specific class-and-level makeup of a character is a part of his "flavour" is one I disagree with and is likely to indicate deeper differences between myself and the DM. I would expect a DM to be approving builds anyway, so it seems far better to me to say that a specific character being presented has some problem in your eyes than to prohibit multiclassing all together.

[Satyr]

The system with classes and level is a major hindrance for the creation and developemnt of charactrers and force the into stereotypic cliché roles. This is bad enpough in standard D&D, but if you cut one of the few possibilities to crarte a rounder and less stereotypic character, I don't think you do the game any favor.

[Aneantir]

Fighter:
Gets to choose one of these abilities when the class is taken.

Fighter Strike (ex) :
Your weapon deals an additional die in damage per odd fighter level.
So for example, say you're a fighter at level 9 and are using a longsword.

Your longsword now deals 5d8 damage, this stacks with any other damage increasing feats or whatever..

Fighter Precision (ex) :
You gain +1 on all attack rolls per fighter level. (Great for overcoming high ACs later level without magic)

Barbarian:
Gets to choose one of the following when taking barbarian class.

Crushing Blow (ex) :
When the barbarian deals damage with a weapon, it deals additional damage to any of the foe's stats (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, or Cha) of the barbarian's choosing. The damage dealt is equal to the barbarian's constitution modifier.

Bard:
Choose one when taking the bard class.

Tweak (su) :
1/day gain +20 to any skillcheck.

These class abilities are COMPLETELY insane. They will not balance these classes against full casters in the least, but will actually cause a whole ton of other problems you'll need to deal with.

[Tsotha-lanti]

In which case I would have a problem with it because the idea that the specific class-and-level makeup of a character is a part of his "flavour" is one I disagree with and is likely to indicate deeper differences between myself and the DM. I would expect a DM to be approving builds anyway, so it seems far better to me to say that a specific character being presented has some problem in your eyes than to prohibit multiclassing all together.

The system with classes and level is a major hindrance for the creation and developemnt of charactrers and force the into stereotypic cliché roles. This is bad enpough in standard D&D, but if you cut one of the few possibilities to crarte a rounder and less stereotypic character, I don't think you do the game any favor.

Heck yes. Limiting characters to one class each is fine if you just want to "play D&D", but if you want to play anything more complex, layered, or deep...

Er, well, you probably wouldn't be playing D&D anyway. Huh.

[nagora]

Heck yes. Limiting characters to one class each is fine if you just want to "play D&D", but if you want to play anything more complex, layered, or deep...

LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet.

[Satyr]

LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet

I have an even bertter idea: Make sure that the Character and his datas are actually linked and interchangeable so that you can play both at the same time!
To a certain degree, people are what they can do. If the character does not represent the charakter, then somenthing went wrong.

[Tsotha-lanti]

LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet.

I tried, but then it turned out you couldn't use swords and magic at the same time unless you were an elf. Go figure.

[Muspelheim]

LOL. Try playing the person instead of the sheet.

Well, that's not really the issue ... It's just nice to match the roleplaying with the mechanics whenever possible. For instance, if you don't want to play a rogue because of whatever, it's really next to impossible to make a dex-based melee combatant that can contribute to the party in combat in any meaningful way unless you use somewhat heavy multiclassing and splat books. So yeah, you can be a fighter with weapon finesse but if you actually have the option to make a character which can be as (mechanically) viable as a classic two-handed weapon wielder, why shouldn't you be able to play that instead, even if it entails picking up a handful of different classes.

Actually, I'd say the quote supports that you should separate a given character's abilities from what its class says it is.

[Eldariel]

Meh. I wouldn't like it, but I'd play it. I suppose the maker of the game just wants everyone to play a Druid, a Wizard, a Cleric or a Sorcerer (at least if the game is planned to proceed beyond level 6). I suppose that's fine, but you can just tell people: "This is a high magic world. Everyone is a spellcaster." instead of "Don't multiclass."

[kamikasei]

Meh. I wouldn't like it, but I'd play it. I suppose the maker of the game just wants everyone to play a Druid, a Wizard, a Cleric or a Sorcerer (at least if the game is planned to proceed beyond level 6).

Now, now, he didn't say core-only. Maybe someone would play a Psion, Beguiler, Psywar, ToB-er, or other relatively viable single-classed build.