OT: D&D and multi-classing.

narf poit chez BOOM · #1 June 18th, 2004, 04:54 AM

Note that aside from CRPG's, I've barely played D&D.

As far as I can tell, it really doesn't pay to multiclass in D&D. Why? Because a lvl 6 wizard has fireball. A lvl 3 fighter/3 wizard has magic missile and can't use very much armor.

Assuming maximum rolls...

pc1: 24hp

pc2: 42hp

Round 1: pc1 fireballs pc2 for 6d6. That's 6-36 points of damage. pc2 runs at pc1

pc1: 24hp

pc2: 6hp

round 2: pc2's only chance is to run in close and for pc1 to not make a single concentration roll. Now, this *might* be even. I've barely played D&D, I wouldn't know what equipment they'd have. But let's look at this another way.

What benifit did pc2 gain from his 3 levels of wizard? Absolutly none. Pc1 would kill him in a wizard duel. He actually lost from it, since he could maybe have leather armor and pc1 after the first round might have been able to simply kill him with his staff/club/darts. And even if he loaded up on fighter armor and shield he still wasted three levels.

This is just one example. About the only good multi-classing I could see would be a fighter taking a level of thief or barbarian for the backstab or rage. Or vice versa. There is really little you can do with multi-classing. And D&D's multi-classing race restrictions make it worse.

What's all this about? Anybody find a way to fix it? I can't.

[ June 18, 2004, 04:03: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Taz-in-Space · #2 June 18th, 2004, 05:33 AM

I'm not too familiar with D&D anymore myself.
However I recall that PC2 would have a slightly better save throw vs magic. ( vs a LEV6 fighter)
Also a LEV6 wizard should take more exp pionts than a Lev 3/3 Fighter/Mage. (At least I remember that the higher you went in levels the more points it took to gain the next level.)
So with equal points, your lev 6 mage would 'only' be level 4 or 5.

narf poit chez BOOM · #3 June 18th, 2004, 05:55 AM

No, in the latest D&D at least, they have class levels, which determine what classes you have and at what levels, and character levels, which is all your class levels added up and which determine experience gain. Plus, there is only one expereince table for all classes. So a level 6 wizard takes exactly the same experience as a level 3 fighter/3 wizard.

As for your other objection, a level 3 fighter/3 wizard has a fort/ref/will save of 4/2/4 and a level 6 wizard has a f/r/w of 2/2/5.

Which means that the 3 fighter/3 wizard will in general resist spells a little better. Fireball has a reflex save for half damage.

Assuming that the fighter/wizards dexterity is the same as he wizards intelligence, unlikely because of the need to spread stats around sometimes when multi-classing, we have a spell level of 3, so a Difficulty Class of 13. on a d20, that mean the average roll will be 12.5

Fireballs allow a reflex save for half.

A little math and we have a 49% chance to make the reflex save. That doesn't seem right. I added them up and divided 13 by the result. Oh Well.

So, 36*51%=18.36. Drop the 0.36

round 1: pc1, 24. pc2, 24

After that, could go to either.

But the fighter/wizard still wasted three levels. A level 6 fighter would have a better chance to dodge the fireball, more hitpoints, better armor, incidental to this but highly nessasary elsewere.

So, he's still wasted 3 levels.

[ June 18, 2004, 04:57: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron · #4 June 18th, 2004, 05:55 AM

Depends on what Version of D&D you are talking about... 3rd edition has no racial penalties for multi-classing. In fact, it has racial bonuses for it, with how the experience point system is set up to penalize multi-class characteras that have more than 4 levels of difference between their highest and lowest levels. Each race has a favored class that is not counted for this experience penalty. Humans just use their highest leveled class as their favored class.

Multi-classing a wizard or sorcerer is IMO generally a bad idea because they only get stronger at higher levels. Now, you can add levels in these classes to a character that started as something else if you want to (such as fighter), but it is a good idea to keep a character started as a wizard as a wizard. The same goes for clerics and druids.

Multi-classing a fighter past about 10 levels is IMO generally a good idea, because they don't get any cool feats at high levels, just more bonus feats. And you can usually get all you need with the feats you have gotten until 10th level, plus those you get for whatever other class you take. Maybe take levels in wizard or cleric to get those level 2 and 3 stat boosting spells to help out with the fighting abilities. Of course, many classes can benefit from 4 levels in fighter because that is the only way to get the weapon specialization feat.

Multi-classing a bard is, quite frankly, fairly stupid (except for 4 levels in Fighter to get weapon specialization), as they are essentially a multi-classed character already.

Paladins might be able to benifit more spell-wise by taking levels in cleric instead of Paladin past a certain point.

Of course, it all boils down to the party you are in. If you have no thief, someone multi-classing a few levels in thief can be a great asset to get some trap and lock removal abilities. Same goes for lack of a cleric and some basic healing spells.

[ June 18, 2004, 04:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

narf poit chez BOOM · #5 June 18th, 2004, 06:04 AM

That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?

What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum. Being able to multi-class all classes without penalty would be better, but I realize would take to much work.

What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something.

I seem to be ranting.

Taz-in-Space · #6 June 18th, 2004, 06:19 AM

Ouch! Advancement by levels where experiance is the same for all levels. That sure would make multi-class characters weaker to play.

When I played AD&D there was a increasing requirement to advance to next level. That a least allowed multiclass some usefulness.

I remember playing a Fighter/Thief and being useful to the group as a Thief that was also handy in a fight. (I remember I used to take the trailing position in the formation to guard against attacks from the rear.)

With the rules as you stated, I would not have been as effective.

Fyron · #7 June 18th, 2004, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?

Because it is called role-playing.

Quote:

What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum.

So be a human or a half-elf.

Quote:

What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something.

So be a human or a half-elf...

Fyron · #8 June 18th, 2004, 06:22 AM

Quote:

Ouch! Advancement by levels where experiance is the same for all levels. That sure would make multi-class characters weaker to play. [Frown]
When I played AD&D there was a increasing requirement to advance to next level. That a least allowed multiclass some usefulness.

Actually... higher levels do require more experience to advance. It is just that all classes require the same experience _at each particular level_ to advance. No more thieves taking 1300 to advance, wizards 2500. Also, they balanced out the level advancements so that any class should gain roughly equivalent amounts of power as any other class for a particular level advancement.

Fighter/thief combinations are just as effective as they used to be, possibly even more so...

In 3rd edition D&D, multi-classing is a better option than it was in 2nd edition and before.

narf poit chez BOOM · #9 June 18th, 2004, 06:24 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

quote:
Originally posted by narf poit chez BOOM:
That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?

Because it is called role-playing.

And I may want to role-play a dwarven cleric/druid without being penalized.

Quote:

quote:
What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum.

So be a human or a half-elf.

Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes. Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to?

Quote:

quote:
What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something.

So be a human or a half-elf...

[/quote]Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes. Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to?

[ June 18, 2004, 05:26: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

Fyron · #10 June 18th, 2004, 06:29 AM

Quote:

And I may want to role-play a dwarven cleric/druid without being penalized.

Then keep the levels of each class within 4 levels of each other, no penalty at all.

Quote:

Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes.

The goal is to create an interesting character, not to tweak out the most powerful character you possibly can... being more diverse and flexible can definitely be a plus. This is why they have classes such as ranger and bard...

Quote:

Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to?

Because there are rules... I don't want to be penalized in spell-casting from wearing heavy armor, but it still happens... And again, you don't have to be penalized. Just keep the levels within 4 difference.