OT: D&D and multi-classing.

[Jack Simth]

If you want to seriously cross the line with classes, go with G.U.R.P.S., as it has no classes at all. No levels or experience, either - it runs a point system; you purchase skills, abilities, and stats with points; a certain number are given to a starting character (dependant on the world, campaign, and GM; usually about 100 points) to initially build the character; after that, they are awarded based on the adventures. You would need to have some explanation (background) for the character - but the (theoretically, anyway) for what skills, abilities, and spells you choose is based on the character concept (and limits of the campaign world, as set by the Game Master). If you want a fighter-style character with some lockpicking abilities, you can - just hold out some points from the fighter design to add the lockpicking skill, and note that your fighter had a misspent youth (where (s)he picked up the skill, of course). Or perhaps the character dabbled as an escape artist. As long as it fits the character concept, fits the campaign world, and won't unbalance the campaign, it's fine.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:

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.

(Ok.)

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...

(Well, I admit I am a munchkin. But not a horrid munchkin and I'm also a roleplayer. I'm quite willing to multi-class and accept that I'll have to take the good with the bad. I just don't want a weaker character than I otherwise would have if I pursued one class.)

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.

---

And I don't have a problem with armor penalties. As a munckin, I want the best character I can get within the rules, as long as the rules are reasonable. And I don't think the multiclassing rules for D&D are reasonable because in most cases, they seem to result in weaker characters than I would have if I pursued one class. Sure, it might be realistic, but this is roleplaying and that should be about choices.

I see multi-classing as trading one thing for another and I don't want to get ripped off or have to choose to multi-class in a certain way, at a certain time to still have an equivelant character.

[ June 18, 2004, 05:44: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Not all multi-classing combinations are very viable... some work great, others do not. Fighter/mage can work as long as you are not trying to be an evocation mage. If you just want to do lots of damage from spells, don't take any fighter levels, stick with pure wizard or sorcerer. But if you want to use magic to enhance your fighting abilities (bonuses to armor class, abilities, etc.), it works out fairly well and you don't need more than 4th or 5th level spells for this. This also frees up the party's real wizard from worrying about using spell slots to beef up your character, allowing him/her to concentrate on other spells, such as more fireballs.

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Hmm...That would only work with a DM that allowed you to put on your armor instantly, or by using a lot of spells. But, ok.

D&D is still to multi-classing restrictive in my opinion though.

Guess we just want different gameplay.

Back to the original question. Anyone come up with D&D multi-classing that's closer to what I want?

Side note, I once came up with a fighter/slash wizard class that got no bonus feats and could choose a feat when all classes get feats that would subtract -5% from armor and shield spell failure. Saves an average of both and max 3 spell slots, i think.

What do you think?

[ June 18, 2004, 06:24: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Fyron]

Or just use light armor and have a really low arcane spell failure chance for that fighter/wizard... A bit of dexterity covers up the lowered AC from the armor (I just love how plate mails kill your dexterity bonus to armor... ).

It is not all that restrictive, unless you really want to have levels in 5 or 6 different classes...

[ June 18, 2004, 06:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ]

[narf poit chez BOOM]

Did you know that plate mail actually doesn't restrict your dexterity if it's well-made?

From what I heard, medieval knights could do cartwheels.

I think you convinced me on the multi-classing thing. Except for druid's. What are they supposed to multi-class as?

For those of you who are wondering 'What??', you missed the #se4 discussion. Go on #se4 more.

[ June 18, 2004, 07:15: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ]

[Jack Simth]

Slight correction - well made armor didn'tslow down people who were trained to it, much; a well made suit of plate armor basically spreads 50 pounds (or whatever it is) of extra weight around you. An acrobat not trained to armor is going to have difficulties doing acrobatics (balance has changed, there is more mass to push and so can't move quite as fast, et cetera). Someone trained to such armor, however, won't have a major problem (used to the altered balance; musles are accustomed to the extra mass, and so apply extra force; et cetera), but will still have some lesser problems (50 pounds is 50 pounds - the plate armored knight will tire faster than the unarmored counterpart; while the armored knight is used to the extra weight and can manuver, it does still slow down the knight's movements slightly (although not as much as someone who isn't used to armor) compared to the knight's unarmored state). The knights of old could do cartwheels in good armor (if they could do cartwheels, that is) but almost nobody else could. Consider it a fighter-type skill "Negate Armor Penalty" or something.

Multi-classing can be really powerful, where the abilities of two or more classes synergise, or where you can cherry-pick abilities from one class to match your main one. A half-orc Cleric with 1-3 levels of Barbarian can - especially with judicious application of Righteous Might, Divine Power and Bull Strength turn into a complete combaat monster while still having all his Cleric spells. Fighter/Thief Barbarian/Thief Ranger/Thief combos work very becasue the dex-based skills (e.g. Tumble) and thief abilities (e.g. sneak attack, flanking immunity) make for a more flexible, more powerful fighter. And of course every power-gamer would take a level of Ranger for Two Weapon Fighting 'til they fixed that in 3.5

Fighter/Wizard combos can work too, but not as dual-role Fighters who can be wizards; more like Fighters who boost themselves with a few spells (True Strike, Shield, Expeditious Retreat (not normally used for retreating as such...), flame arrow etc). But expecting a Fighter/Wizard to be both a good fighter and good wizard is sort of missing the point isn't it? If anyone could be both without much penalty, why would anyone be a single class character?

You can also have fun tinkering with strange character designs who take levels in 4 or more classes to build an individual character concept or style. It's not normally a power-gaming option, but it amuses some players...

[spoon]

Originally posted by Imperator Fyron:
In 3rd edition D&D, multi-classing is a better option than it was in 2nd edition and before.

From a pure power-game perspective, no, multiclassing was stronger in 2nd. You could have a 5th/5th fighter/MU while everyone else was at 6th level in a single class. The current systems favors taking maybe one or two levels in one class (taking advantage of front loaded abilities), and then sticking with a main class.

Narf, talk to your DM. If you want to play a Dwarf Druid/Fighter, maybe he'll let you without the xp penalty in favor of going on some sort of quest or something... who knows. Good DMs will often let you get away with bending the rules if it doesn't break the balance.

[gregebowman]

When I was playing AD&D, I never played multi-class characters. It seemed to take forever to advance, while your single class characters would go up a level at the drop of a hat. But since I never really played with 2nd or 3rd editions, I can't say if I would play them now. I think playing a single class character with a lot of skills would probably be better anyway. But I know people like to play them. I'm just not one of them.