Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 09:53 PM	Spurred on by the de-railing of Etarnon's thread, I figured I would chase this here into its own thread. Multiclassing - bane or boon? Cranewings in the other thread has argued against a character of one class suddenly taking on a new class, and I have to agree that 99 times out of 100, it is an issue of Char Op/Build rather than actual logical multiclassing. I defended it by citing a situation IRL of a soldier becoming a priest after being a soldier then returning to soldier in the event of war, and one other poster also cited an example, specifically a ranger who takes a level of fighter based on a long drawn out series of combat against his favoured enemies. Something about these examples bothered me, and I realized what it was as I was drifting off to sleep - if the ranger in the example given takes a level of fighter, exactly when did he suddenly learn how to wear full plate armour? By the RAW, if the character multiclasses, they gain access to all class skills and abilities of that class, no? Let me illustrate with a better (read: more contentious) example here - a mage in a game has their spell book stolen, runs out of spells and winds up having to fight in combat - consistently. The mage is in no way able to replace the spells yet. So the player decides to multiclass into fighter. Now, when did S/HE suddenly learn to wear armour at all, much less Full Plate, and using her staff and dagger in combat has suddenly wielded great incite into wielding a long sword or polearm? So how would you handle this? For me, and maybe it's my own shortsightedness here, but, the only option for me is to DM Fiat the character class and call it a Proto level or something. Going back to the example of the Wizard... - I could increase his BAB by +1 like a fighter would get. - I can give him d10 hit points instead of d4. - I would give him an improved Fort save instead. - I would not give him a spell level since he wasn't casting spells or improving there. - I would give him a bonus feat of his choice that would be reflected in what he was doing (Dodge, Exotic WP, whatever). - IF/When they get downtime in a civilized area, the character can seek out someone to train him fully in the class option and thus gain the rest of the benefits. This way though, the issues of a player suddenly having access to all these skills and abilities is nerfed until such time as the player can be properly trained. Alternatively, you could simply withhold the character leveling until such time as they can seek out a proper trainer, though in situations where the characters are faced with multiple instances of leveling, this might not be effective. Having the other PCs train doesn't really cut mustard with me either as it will result in "Longsword 101" and "My Armour of Choice For Dummies." Which leads to a slightly more expansive list above, but in the end, still restricted. Of course, those of you with no problems with the system as is can dismiss this thread entirely - this is more for people like Cranewings who are concerned with multiclassing as illogical build to achieve PrC feasibility in unlikely circumstances...
Magikeeper 04-27-08, 10:20 PM	How does killing monsters with fireballs help a sorcerer learn how to cast Secure Shelter? How does killing monsters with martial arts eventually allow you to speak with any creature? For that matter, why does killing monsters help artificers get better at building? If a wizard levels up, do you let him use his new spells or must he take the time (if not money) to put those new spells in his book? Ignoring the fact that an arcane caster could probably care less about gaining the ability to wear armor, perhaps he was practicing it in his free time. Maybe he tried out a fighter school when he was younger (but not enough to take a level in it) before becoming a mage. And when it comes down to a melee class multiclassing into another melee class, I would consider that a continuation of their own personal fighting style. Yes, you pick up a weird ability here or there, but the leveling system in general isn’t exactly the most sensible RP wise.
lifeblender 04-27-08, 10:30 PM	The idea that the set of characters made of distinct player classes does not represent the sum total of characters in a fantasy setting is the primary reason for the multiclassing nature of D&D 3rd/3.5. Let me rephrase that: By the time 3.0 came out, we as players and DMs had used 2nd Ed to make every combination of race, class(es), weapon, and major magic item possible in 2nd edition. We were done. Games systems like World of Darkness, Tri-Stat, GURPS, and more, had already embraced the idea that characters were more fluid than a single class label and a choice of battle tactics. We as players wanted to add a little bit of stealth to our fighters, a bit of wizardry to our rogues, and a bit of piety to our sword-slingers. But only a bit. We couldn't do that in 2nd Ed's multiclassing rules. You are pointing out a valid problem but proposing an unnecessary solution. The problem you point out has been noted many times before, in less complicated contexts. Very simply, it is the question of how a character learns skills and gains abilities. The solution that you have overlooked is that you as a DM are perfectly justified in saying, "No, you can't take a level in Fighter right now. You have enough XP for a level, but if you want to gain your first level in Fighter, you're going to need someone to train you. You can hold off on gaining the level, or you can take a level in (one of) your current class(es)." This dependence on training has been implemented in computer versions of D&D. I played Gateway to the Savage Frontier, and not only did I have to find a trainer to gain a level, I had to pay for the training. I am not proposing a new v3.5 houserule, either. Starting on p. 197 of the DMG, bottom right, are exact mechanics and costs for DMs who would like to require training for skills and/or feats. Extending that to requiring training for starting new classes would be straightforward. Please do not mess around with the multiclassing system, which is complicated enough. Please also do not insult it, as it allows players to more clearly design characters that reflect their imaginations. In most cases it makes sense to assume that a character who takes levels in several base classes before level five or so grew up studying all of those classes. This is particularly and most especially true when a character multiclasses into their own favored class, such as an elf who took their first level as Ranger and then took levels in Wizard thereafter. Such characters can be logical, consistent, flavorful, and sensible. If they are good as a "build", then that reflects positively on the synergy discovered by a character who pursues both interests. Now I'm going to go make an elf who starts as Ranger and takes most of their levels as Wizard. Because I can.
rambaldi 04-27-08, 10:33 PM	Never had this come up in my games due to multiclassing but i had to rule something similar although reversed. was running a module which required the characters to level a couple times or face death, up until that point i had been running it as 1 year per level as per the rules, its in the PHB somewhere, near classes i think. If you follow that requirement then its easy to see where (s)he got the training. Otherwise you are going to have to fiat it away or similar
runestar 04-27-08, 10:42 PM	I agree with Magikeeper than more often than not, I would see multiclassing as a logical extension of your own innate capabilities. You are just developing them in a manner different from what your base class has in store for you, hence the need to prc out before the base class no longer has the mechanics to support your new career path. For example, say I play a rogue with a real knack for hiding. I am so good that it seems that being able to meld into the shadows seems like the next best logical extension of how my skills would develop. In game terms, this is represented by me multiclassing into the shadowdancer prc. Flavourwise, I am not really that different from a core rogue. I have similar skills, just a different area of specialization. The OP raises a very good point, which is one of the reasons why I am actually an advocate of take the time and effort to first properly flesh out your build. This way, you know how your character will progress, and can thus take the opportunity to roleplay him properly, all the better to ease his transition into the next multiclass. For example, say I want to play a fighter1/sorc6/eldritch knight10. I would start as a fighter, then rp him somehow discovering his innate sorcerous abilities. Knowing that he will be taking the EK prc at lv8+, I can "prep" for this by playing him such that he is seen as actively training both his magical powers and fighting capabilities. As a result of doing both, he eventually comes up with a way of doing both more efficiently, which in turn paves the way for his entry into the EK prc. And if I plan to have him take another prc at lv18+, such as archmage, now is as good a time as any to start fleshing out his desire to also one day join the league of the strong spellcasters and the like.
Dash Branaghan 04-27-08, 11:20 PM	The solution that you have overlooked is that you as a DM are perfectly justified in saying, "No, you can't take a level in Fighter right now. You have enough XP for a level, but if you want to gain your first level in Fighter, you're going to need someone to train you. You can hold off on gaining the level, or you can take a level in (one of) your current class(es)." How did I overlook it? It is listed as the option. But this has a downside too - say your character is in a dungeon and wants to level into fighter - they aren't finished the dungeon, so everyone becomes more powerful, and this one character, who wants to become a fighter can't because they chose a class they haven't trained into. This solution also has problems. This dependence on training has been implemented in computer versions of D&D. I played Gateway to the Savage Frontier, and not only did I have to find a trainer to gain a level, I had to pay for the training. Ah, but going back to BG and BGII, you simply selected the new classes and "suddenly" knew everything, even though you'd been merely hack/slashing. Please do not mess around with the multiclassing system, which is complicated enough. Please also do not insult it, as it allows players to more clearly design characters that reflect their imaginations. In most cases it makes sense to assume that a character who takes levels in several base classes before level five or so grew up studying all of those classes. Well, I am entitled to my opinion of it so long as I keep it respectful, just as you are entitled to yours. And what I choose to do to the MC system is my choice - no one says you have to implement it. More to the point, I'm not out to revamp the entire system, but I do see Cranewings concerns (or at least some of them), and I think they are relatively valid, otherwise I wouldn't have brought this into its own thread. This is particularly and most especially true when a character multiclasses into their own favored class, such as an elf who took their first level as Ranger and then took levels in Wizard thereafter. Such characters can be logical, consistent, flavorful, and sensible. If they are good as a "build", then that reflects positively on the synergy discovered by a character who pursues both interests. I'm not against Multiclassing here - and yes, multiclassing can be logical. I'm an optimizer, so believe me, you're preaching to the converted here. As Runestar says somewhat more succinctly below, focus on the build in advance so you know what your character is doing and can RP into it. In his example of the Rogue becoming the Shadowdancer, you can RP into that by consistently hiding, attacking, hiding, attacking, etc. It makes sense, certainly and I have no problem with it. But again, the focus here is on Build first (which is another argument entirely) which may or may not legitimize multiclassing. By the time 3.0 came out, we as players and DMs had used 2nd Ed to make every combination of race, class(es), weapon, and major magic item possible in 2nd edition. We were done. Games systems like World of Darkness, Tri-Stat, GURPS, and more, had already embraced the idea that characters were more fluid than a single class label and a choice of battle tactics. I fail to see how 2ed was not fluid. Any system has a finite limit of options, even GURPS, WoD and Chartmaster. So what is your point here? Battle tactics are still pretty stagnant in D&D - we've exchanged called shots for flanking and creative "skies the limit" tactics for stagnant limited tactics that only expand with each splat book. I would argue (and probably unsuccessfully) that 2ed combat was far more fluid - why? Because if I wanted to do something, I could attempt to do it with the DM determining what I needed to roll and hey, I may or may not be successful. Now I'm going to go make an elf who starts as Ranger and takes most of their levels as Wizard. Because I can. You do that. Might I suggest going ranged style for your ranger and focusing on ranged touch attack spells as your Wizard? :D
MergedLoki 04-28-08, 04:51 AM	I let my pc's multiclass to basically whatever they want. as long as it's a book I own. (one of my group just LOVES to download books so more power to him but I've told him if i dont own the book i dont give a rats ass that he has it on his laptop). I do agree that in some cases it's more about char. opt then say pc background or something. but currently in my group we have a pc who was playing a rogue, and took a level of ranger. I dont see any problem with that as, she was failing HORRIBLY in combat (i dont know that she scored a single hit in the last adventure) and to me the ranger has always seemed the most stealth oriented class of the base melee classes. But on the flip side, there's a barbarian/warlock in my group who took the warlock class solely to get the invocation where you power the eldritch blast into a melee attack (i dont remembe the name). he was doing a ton of dmg (for the groups level) and it was annoying b/c he specifically stated out lout he was doing this multiclass for the dmg bonus. but I then found out either knowingly or unknowingly he's been screwing up big time, so he's gonna be dissapointed as mr. bar/war isn't nearly as powerful as he thought lol.
RobbyPants 04-28-08, 02:50 PM	For example, say I want to play a fighter1/sorc6/eldritch knight10. I would start as a fighter, then rp him somehow discovering his innate sorcerous abilities. Knowing that he will be taking the EK prc at lv8+, I can "prep" for this by playing him such that he is seen as actively training both his magical powers and fighting capabilities. As a result of doing both, he eventually comes up with a way of doing both more efficiently, which in turn paves the way for his entry into the EK prc. And if I plan to have him take another prc at lv18+, such as archmage, now is as good a time as any to start fleshing out his desire to also one day join the league of the strong spellcasters and the like. That is one nice thing about builds. People often complain about how builds are counter-intuitive to role-playing, but in a case like this, I agree that it will help. The problem with the current multiclassing system is that it involves (mechanically) abruptly gaining new abilities, seemingly out of nowhere. If you really wanted to play some type of sneaky melee type (a figher/rogue of some sort), you pretty much have to start out as one, and suddenly take levels in the other. You have no other option as a 1st level character. As such, your entire character concept might not be realized for quite a few levels. If you let the DM know ahead of time what you'd like to do with your character, hopefully it won't be a big deal. OOTS did a really funny strip on this topic where Elan was considering multiclassing into wizard, instantly gaining abilities that took Varsuvius a century to master. Elan said that it was "retroactively assumed" that he had been looking over V's shoulder earlier, learning the basics. :D Classic!
weepingminotaur 04-28-08, 04:02 PM	How does killing monsters with fireballs help a sorcerer learn how to cast Secure Shelter? How does killing monsters with martial arts eventually allow you to speak with any creature? For that matter, why does killing monsters help artificers get better at building? No kidding. Anyone who argues that multiclassing isn't realistic usually forgets that a class itself is an amalgmation of disparate abilities, not all of which are necessarily improved via the course of levelling up. A druid who spends all his time casting spells will still get additional uses of wild shape as he passes levels -- should those extra wild shapes be disallowed because his character didn't do anything in-game to explain how he's able to wild-shape more often?
StSteven 04-28-08, 04:28 PM	I have considered, though never implemented, a rule that says you must take at least 3 levels in any class. In other words, you couldn't take any other class until level 3. Then you had to move up to level 3 in that class before you could take a level in anything but the first 2 classes. This doesn't eliminate your concerns, but it stops the silly class dipping that happens.
weepingminotaur 04-28-08, 04:54 PM	I have considered, though never implemented, a rule that says you must take at least 3 levels in any class. In other words, you couldn't take any other class until level 3. Then you had to move up to level 3 in that class before you could take a level in anything but the first 2 classes. This doesn't eliminate your concerns, but it stops the silly class dipping that happens. So, instead of 'silly' class dipping, you propose a system whereby there is now an arbitrary floor to the amount of expertise a character must gain in a given class? Why three levels exactly? What makes three more acceptable than one from a roleplaying perspective? Why is it any more legitimate than a fighter deciding he wants to know a bit about being a ranger and exploring the wilds, but not so much that it detracts from his mastery of the martial arts?
Zombie_Babies 04-28-08, 05:11 PM	I think the main issue here is that some look at classes as concrete things. To me, they are not. Bob is not a Fighter/Wizard/PrC/PrC to me. He's Bob. The classes do not make Bob who he is- they represent who he has become. Characters in the game have no idea what being a Fighter means. They don't know about bonus feats and BAB. They only know who they are. Class cannot define you. It can only help demonstrate what you are. It's a metagame label that really has a lot less to do with what our characters are than a lot of us like to think. Our characters are not sums of their classes; their classes are the sum of what the characters represent. The wizard in the example could have been trying on armor during downtime. He could also just have a natural knack for it that manifested itself only after the need for it became apparent. How? It's who he is.
Jaxgaret 04-28-08, 05:41 PM	Characters in the game have no idea what being a Fighter means. They don't know about bonus feats and BAB. They only know who they are. Class cannot define you. It can only help demonstrate what you are. It's a metagame label that really has a lot less to do with what our characters are than a lot of us like to think. Our characters are not sums of their classes; their classes are the sum of what the characters represent. That's exactly how I run the game. IMO it makes the most sense, and sidesteps issues that make you simply run in circles like that detailed in the OP.
StSteven 04-28-08, 06:25 PM	So, instead of 'silly' class dipping, you propose a system whereby there is now an arbitrary floor to the amount of expertise a character must gain in a given class? Why three levels exactly? What makes three more acceptable than one from a roleplaying perspective? Why is it any more legitimate than a fighter deciding he wants to know a bit about being a ranger and exploring the wilds, but not so much that it detracts from his mastery of the martial arts? It just means that you must be somewhat committed to a path. Like I said though, I have never implemented it, just thought about it. On a side note, I don't consider PrC's to be multi-classing. They are more like a specialization (in most cases...certainly in the case of the shadowdancer).
Timlagor 04-28-08, 08:48 PM	I'm firmly int he MC camp. Class levels are building blocks to make the character I want. The character is completely blind to class levels, he just learns stuff. I do see a certain logic in requiring training to get into various classes and the NPCs who offer that training might feel slighted if you go off and train with someone else but that is a matter for roleplaying not metagaming.
Winterleaf 04-28-08, 09:03 PM	Some people think of D&D as collaborative storytelling. For those people, the whole system is set up simply as a set of guidelines for describing and limiting what the characters in those stories can do, so that the story doesn't break down into the DM and players yelling back and forth "I killed him!" "No you didn't!" "Yes I did!" ad nauseum. Given that perspective I don't have issues with characters in a story discovering hidden talents, learning how to fight better and use skills they didn't start out being able to use on the fly, and other such developments that exemplify some of the growth characters exhibit during cut-scenes, training montages, flash-backs and other such hand-waving you might encounter in movies, novels and comics. Multi-classing came about just so people could better create the hero they had in mind without arbitrarily rigid restrictions. Fighters who can sneak, rangers with the wild magic of sorcery, a barbarian shaman of the wild gods. . . so much denied to AD&D and 2E players officially opened up with 3.0/3.5. While I agree that there should be some attempt to explain it in-game, and you are free to disallow any attempts to unbalance your game, restricting multi-classing because you don't think the characters should be able to learn that class without going to the appropriate guild (for example) takes the game one step further from role-playing, and one step closer to being a CRPG. Besides. . . isn't a sorcerer's spell casting innate anyway? So the barbarian's sorcery level can easily be explained as being latent until that point he was able to tap into his hidden powers. edit: Excuse, I was reading another's post and misread warlock as "sorcerer". And as i know nothing about warlocks, I'll decline to comment further on that example.
Eldritch_Lord 04-29-08, 12:52 AM	I agree with runestar and Zombie_Babies: A character isn't defined solely by his classes. Bob is a good warrior. Bob can cast some spells. What is Bob? Fighter/wizard? Fighter/sorcerer? Ranger/sorcerer? Etc. Part of the problem appears to be that you gain abilities so abruptly. Fine, Bob the wizard gains levels in fighter; suddenly he can wear heavy armor. Who cares? He's not going to use it because the ASF is too high and sinking money into mithril twilight plate armor is a waste of resources. And if he never wears plate armor, it doesn't matter if he can by the rules--it's as if he doesn't know how to. Just because you multiclass into fighter doesn't mean you have to suddenly wear plate, any more than multiclassing into cleric means you have to become a healbot. What the class can do doesn't matter, next to what the character will do.
VioletTempest 04-29-08, 01:18 AM	In the groups I have played in we ALWAYS have to use a given amount of downtime to level up (usually a week per level). So, MCing isn't really a problem. There has never been any such thing for us as leveling up in a dungeon. We require downtime to explain how you learned all your new stuff (whether it is just another level in your current class or a MC level or starting a prestige class). We have to level up in a town or city, not just in the woods between "adventures". Also, if you are making a big character change (like MCing) you have to do a write up for the DM. Just a couple paragraphs explaining your character's decision and how/where he got the new knowledge. So, MCing has never been the issue for us that it seems to be for you. Maybe you could try our way. But, if your group is definately used to leveling up whenever they have the time, the only way I see it working is if you only allow leveling up in a current class, or require the write-up to at least make you player validate the choice he is trying to make. Cheers, VT
Mad_Jack 04-29-08, 04:50 AM	I've always gone with the houserule that when a player levels up his character, he has to tell me what he's going to be doing for his next level-up. For example, when you hit second level as a rogue, you need to let me know if you're going to be taking a class other than rogue for your 3rd level. I then assume that your character is studying that other class in his downtime while gaining the experience to get him to the next level. I encourage the player to work their character's new interests into their role-playing. If you change your mind before you get to the next level, you need to role-play that change of direction in-game. If a situation arises where the level-up comes in the middle of a dungeon run or someplace inconvenient, I generally rule that the characters need to find a safe place and rest/study for a reasonable amount of time before they get access to their new class features. Just how long they have to spend generally depends on the circumstances of the situation - If the character's been training with a fellow party member in that person's class, generally they *at least* need to be at full health and then get at least one full night's rest in a safe place with no interuptions like the chance of monsters attacking. Hiding in a locked storage room doesn't count. If nobody in the party is a member of the class they've been studying but it's not something odd or unusual, it requires at least two or three days of downtime. If they're leveling up as something wildly different than anything in the party or that they've ever met, then they need to either hold off til they get back to a town or somehow manage a full week of downtime camped out outside the dungeon. Equipment like exotic weapons (or anything that can't be scrounged off a dead guy in-game), spellbooks, holy symbols and component pouches must either have been purchased in advance or they don't get them until they get back to a place where they could acquire them. This encourages players to not suddenly decide they want to be a wizard while they're standing in a pile of dead gnolls. On a related note, I also require a reasonable role-playing reason for that character to take up a new class. All multi-classing is subject to my approval - If it's blatantly an optimization choice, you need to explain to my satisfaction the in-character psychological choices your character made in deciding to pursue that particular class rather than something more in line with his previous classes. Things like a rogue wanting to learn a few spells, a wizard wanting to learn to fight better, or a fighter finding faith in a war god and becoming a cleric almost always get my approval, but bizarre combinations like you see on the CO boards generally get nixed without a damn good story behind them. In my campaigns, I limit characters to having no more than two base classes (three with a valid in-character reason) and no more than one PrC (two with a valid in-character explanation).
IceFractal 04-29-08, 05:05 AM	On the issue of whether multiclassing makes sense, I apply the same principle as for single-classed characters - does the character have an interesting description/personality? Being single-classed doesn't magically give a character any authenticity or roleplaying depth. A character named Smasher McKill whose only purpose in life is "kill things and get gold" is going to be equally bland whether he's a Fighter 20 or a Fighter 4/Barbarian 8/Ranger 2/PrC 6. As for training - this is to pretty much the same issue. Levelling up, whether in the same class as last level or not, grants the character abilities that often don't make sense to have learned in the span that they did. You can either enforce training rules for everyone, or you can hand-wave it. But it makes no more sense that a Rogue 5->Rogue 6 improves their forgery and diplomatic abilities from fighting oozes than that a Rogue 5->Rogue 5/Monk 1 learns to fight better unarmed. Now IMC, I do require a small amount of downtime for levelling, which can represent training or simply having one's innate abilities mature, and it applies whether or not you're multiclassing.
RobbyPants 04-29-08, 09:43 AM	Part of the problem appears to be that you gain abilities so abruptly. Of course, single class characters gain abilities abruptly too. When you take a feat, suddenly you can do something you couldn't before. When you gain various levels as a spellcaster, suddenly you can cast better spells. Rangers suddenly get better at either fighting with two weapons or archery. Paladins suddenly get to add their Cha mod to their saves. No one complains at these sudden developments, but when a chracter multiclasses and gains abilty X, it's a horrible sin.
Zombie_Babies 04-29-08, 09:46 AM	... Also, if you are making a big character change (like MCing) you have to do a write up for the DM. Just a couple paragraphs explaining your character's decision and how/where he got the new knowledge... This is exactly the opposite of what I was saying. This is applying a metagame concept (class) to an in-game concept (character). A character never decides "Ooh! I know! At level 3 I'm gonna' be a Rogue!". That's the player. Requiring a reason from the player is one thing, but forcing them to come up with an in-game reason for the character is metagamey, IMO. The character doesn't decide to be anything (in most cases), he just is who he is. Again, he has no concept of what a class is. So how is it possible to come up with a reason from the character's perspective other than "It's who I am"? **After all that, I just wanted to make it clear that I was not trying to attack the poster quoted or this playstyle. I have no problem with it if it's what the group enjoys and it certainly seems that is the case here. I've even played in games that required training up to level 5 with downtime and had a lot of fun. It is different in a lot of ways from the theory I currently espouse and that is the only reason I chose to quote it and comment the way I did; To demonstrate the difference that I see between the two types of gamer theory this thread was about and the reason for my initial post. No offense intended and hopefully none felt.
nobodyatall 04-29-08, 11:55 AM	Where do I draw the line? Simple. If you can justify it somehow in-game. "Why does Bob take levels of sorceror?" "Because he discovered his innate spellcasting abilities" That is good. "Why does Bob take levels of sorceror?" "Because I wanna become an Eldritch Knight" ...Not so good. As for mid-dungeon leveling, I'm fine with that too. Because I kinda like it cinematically. Suddenly finding out that you are adept at something you never really tried can be really interesting. And in the example of the poor wizard who lost his spellbook, I don't see a problem in letting him lift a sword and use it with a basic modicum of competence off the bat. He shouldn't have to go to fighter college and pay his fighter teacher with fighter tokens to level as a fighter. The opposite, while a TEENSY bit more iffy, is still acceptable. A soldier finds a spellbook in the dungeon, and decides to not just look at it, but to *LOOK* at it, and realizes he understands some of it, maybe enough to cast a few of these spells... I don't care about "silly" class dipping. Heck, I've always thought of the fighter as a "dipping" class more than a full-out career. (You spend a while learning generic fighting? Fighter class levels. That's about as far as Fighter goes, fluff-wise.)
Cranewings 04-29-08, 12:29 PM	I don't care about "silly" class dipping. Heck, I've always thought of the fighter as a "dipping" class more than a full-out career. (You spend a while learning generic fighting? Fighter class levels. That's about as far as Fighter goes, fluff-wise.) I like to give the example of, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. One of the characters in it learned to fight by looking at the pictures in a book.
Cranewings 04-29-08, 12:37 PM	To Dash - I actually REALLY LIKE your solution to the problem. Withholding some of the abilities for a time seems pretty good. In my game, I force everyone to tell me a level ahead of time what their next level taken is going to be so that I can prepare thier character some for it. For example, the rogue that took a level of wizard met a high level arcane archer. He was able to get a little help and was gifted with some scrolls that had his notes from when he learned to cast spells. It also had copies of some simple spells. Later on, another PC wizard joined the party briefly. He helped teach the rogue spells when he took the level of wizard. So in a way, I do a lot of metagaming with it. It has to be planned out well in advance.
Cartigan 04-29-08, 12:38 PM	I like to give the example of, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. One of the characters in it learned to fight by looking at the pictures in a book. That seems to be rather common for Martial Arts. It is exemplified in Avatar: The Last Airbender and Kung Fu Hustle at least. You can find dozens of real martial art style manuals as well.
Cranewings 04-29-08, 12:39 PM	Cartigan, new Avatar DVD comes out this next week (:
Demetri_Knighthawk 04-29-08, 12:41 PM	Let me illustrate with a better (read: more contentious) example here - a mage in a game has their spell book stolen, runs out of spells and winds up having to fight in combat - consistently. The mage is in no way able to replace the spells yet. So the player decides to multiclass into fighter. Now, when did S/HE suddenly learn to wear armour at all, much less Full Plate, and using her staff and dagger in combat has suddenly wielded great incite into wielding a long sword or polearm? So how would you handle this? For me, and maybe it's my own shortsightedness here, but, the only option for me is to DM Fiat the character class and call it a Proto level or something. Going back to the example of the Wizard... - I could increase his BAB by +1 like a fighter would get. - I can give him d10 hit points instead of d4. - I would give him an improved Fort save instead. - I would not give him a spell level since he wasn't casting spells or improving there. - I would give him a bonus feat of his choice that would be reflected in what he was doing (Dodge, Exotic WP, whatever). - IF/When they get downtime in a civilized area, the character can seek out someone to train him fully in the class option and thus gain the rest of the benefits. Let me perhaps take a stab at trying A way to explain multiclassing into a different class using the example above: The wizard, having no spellbook, has taken to swinging his staff around much like a baseball bat to strike the opponents, after a number of fights he realizes that if he changed the grip slightly, he could swing a sword just as easily. (also note in most traning scenes they tend to start with staffs for a reason :P) While the wizard has been swinging his staff like a novice, he has been getting poked, a lot, painfuly. As such he has learned somewhere between getting used to the pain and moving more naturaly to manuver to the sides to take less damage drom the actual hits. While becoming more tollerant to pain he has come to experience some things arent as bad as he used to whine about, he finds himself made from sterner stuff than he first thought himself capable of resisting. After getton poked quite enough for his own taste he takes some time to fold the long sleves of his robes into thicker, dare I say padded, short sleves so he can swing his sword better as well as have some padding on his upper arms. He might even fold the bottom hem of his robes up to thicken his chest into a jacket or coat rather than full robes. At the end of the time away from civalized lands he comes back and realizes that he likes havinng a layer of armor betwen him and the others in case he looses his spells again and perhaps he should at least invest some money into a good iron club rather than his staff, or maby swap out that long dagger of his for a short sword.
weepingminotaur 04-29-08, 12:50 PM	I think people attach far too much weight to 'class' as a bounded container. Really, 'class' is an abstraction that contains just as many anomalies and disparate, poorly explained abilities as 'multi class'. A ranger can track, influence animals, and be real purty with the arrow-shooting. He spends almost all his time being Lord Arrow-Shooter, levels up, and decides to max out in Survival so he can be a better tracker. What exactly has he been doing to justify his 'sudden' increase in tracking skill? Nothing. Yet because he's single-classed, it's all right, whereas woe betide thee if ye gain a handful of equally random skills or abilities through multiclassing. That's somehow bad form. What about a fighter who starts off in the Power Attack tree but then decides to go the Improved Trip route without having once tripped someone in combat? Similarly, we pay altogether too much attention to justifying the process of levelling up, when in fact said process is an abstraction that is only a mechanical way of explaining the gradual, otherwise-imperceptible growth and development of a character. In flavor-based terms, levelling up does not lead to character development; it's only the first visible sign of a stage of character development.
mplindustries 04-29-08, 01:07 PM	I'm totally shocked that this is a question. There are so many people here talking about limiting players, needing class choice to flow "realistically," not liking that someone could learn something new out of nowhere... Lets look at it this way. When you were a little kid, and you got a box to play with, what was it really? It was a box. What did you describe it as? A spaceship? Time Machine? Fort? Cage? A box could be described as anything you want. Did you want a better box? Yep, of course you did. You wanted one that was bigger or sturdier so it wouldn't break as easy. You wanted a second box to expand what you could do. This didn't change what you were describing (a Fort for example), only how well the actual "crunch" of the box held up to your play. This is true of all toys. Obviously, Play-doh is better than Fun-dough. It didn't change your game, though, to get the good stuff. It just made it easier to enjoy. Nerf beat K-mart brand guns or footballs or whatever. I'd rather have G.I. Joe than dollar store "Army Bob" or whatever they had. Anyway, all this is getting to the fact that the fluff of a character and the crunch of a character don't have to have anything to do with each other. You can have a box (Fighter) that you play with as a huge bomb (Samurai). Maybe you attach some paper towel rolls to it (take levels of Ranger), but its still a huge bomb (Samurai), its just more effective and more fun as a toy. Rules are over here in this pile. Optimize your hearts out and build a fun toy. Then, when you're done, come describe it to me however you feel like. Then we'll tell a story.
Justicesays 04-29-08, 02:13 PM	Where do I draw the line? Simple. If you can justify it somehow in-game. "Why does Bob take levels of sorceror?" "Because he discovered his innate spellcasting abilities" That is good. "Why does Bob take levels of sorceror?" "Because I wanna become an Eldritch Knight" ...Not so good. Or how about: DM: "What does Bob take this level ?" Bobs-Player: "Well, He was going to take a level of sorcerer" DM: "Any particular reason?" Bobs-player: "I was planning on him becoming an Eldritch Knight later on" DM: "Ok, cool. So, lets work out how this goes in game. How about we say that Bob suddenly gains sorcerous powers overnight, mysteriously. Maybe I'll work something out in the plot, but this kind of thing happens anyway occasionally. What spells were you going to take?" Bobs-player: "Burning Hands, Mage Armour" DM: "Ok, so lets say you wake up in the morning, before everyone else, and notice the fire's gone out. You cant find the tinderbox, and get a bit frustrated cause its pretty cold. Suddenly, arcane words spring to your lips and you spread your hands over the fireplace, jets of flame spurt out and set it alight." Bobs-player: "Sounds pretty cool" You know, actually work with the players to allow them to have what they want and fit it in game, and add to the atmosphere while (in this case) providing potential plot fodder for later adventures. Just like any story, Ret-con , flashbacks, unusual occurrences can happen. Why did the warrior learn how to pick locks? Well, he and the DM ret-conned in a rogue-in-training childhood friend into his background. Guess who might turn up later as a messenger from the hostile thieves guild? How do anyone know that the wizard isnt a natural plate wearer? The fact he has only just decided to put it on now that he's going to get involved in melee doesn't mean he was bad at it before...In THE STORY. And if he did try to wear plate before and was crippled by it, maybe he worked out the problems he was having in his head before trying it again? You can play it both ways and still have it consistent. How does a first level FIGHTER whos been working for the dirt-poor village militia know how to wear 1500gp plate?
Endarrion 04-29-08, 05:32 PM	I'm totally shocked that this is a question. There are so many people here talking about limiting players, needing class choice to flow "realistically," not liking that someone could learn something new out of nowhere... Lets look at it this way. When you were a little kid, and you got a box to play with, what was it really? It was a box. What did you describe it as? A spaceship? Time Machine? Fort? Cage? A box could be described as anything you want. Did you want a better box? Yep, of course you did. You wanted one that was bigger or sturdier so it wouldn't break as easy. You wanted a second box to expand what you could do. This didn't change what you were describing (a Fort for example), only how well the actual "crunch" of the box held up to your play. This is true of all toys. Obviously, Play-doh is better than Fun-dough. It didn't change your game, though, to get the good stuff. It just made it easier to enjoy. Nerf beat K-mart brand guns or footballs or whatever. I'd rather have G.I. Joe than dollar store "Army Bob" or whatever they had. Anyway, all this is getting to the fact that the fluff of a character and the crunch of a character don't have to have anything to do with each other. You can have a box (Fighter) that you play with as a huge bomb (Samurai). Maybe you attach some paper towel rolls to it (take levels of Ranger), but its still a huge bomb (Samurai), its just more effective and more fun as a toy. Rules are over here in this pile. Optimize your hearts out and build a fun toy. Then, when you're done, come describe it to me however you feel like. Then we'll tell a story. YES! A thousand times yes! This is how it should be seen. There's a favorite quote of mine from someone's sig over on the CO boards. It's something along the lines of, "Do you ever see a soldier in real life use decidedly inferior tactics because of a personality quirk? Only for a short time, I assure you." I hate the multiclass rules. I can build a Ftr 1/ Rng 1/ Barb1/ Sorc 1/ Monk 1 and be within the rules (and suck, but oh well). Yet, in an actual upcoming campaign, I CAN'T play a Crusader 8/ Ftr 2/ Eternal Blade 10 because a wood elf's favored class is ranger. That sounds pretty stupid to me. Good job mplindustries. That was a great analogy.
Senevri 04-29-08, 06:05 PM	Something about these examples bothered me, and I realized what it was as I was drifting off to sleep - if the ranger in the example given takes a level of fighter, exactly when did he suddenly learn how to wear full plate armour? If he never uses a full plate --- did he really "gain" an ability? Rules-wise, yes, but not in-game - which is where you're looking for justification, so it's a moot point. In addition ANYONE can use armor without the necessary feats in the first place. In addition #2: How do people in REAL LIFE learn to "use an armor?" By Putting It On. This experienced character just has the knack for it. So? Let me illustrate with a better (read: more contentious) example here - a mage in a game has their spell book stolen, runs out of spells and winds up having to fight in combat - consistently. The mage is in no way able to replace the spells yet. So the player decides to multiclass into fighter. Now, when did S/HE suddenly learn to wear armour at all, much less Full Plate, and using her staff and dagger in combat has suddenly wielded great incite into wielding a long sword or polearm? Again, he could have used those before, he'd just have incurred some penalties. Due to being in melee combat, his feeble arms get used to the fighting motions and the greatsword isn't as cumbersome in his hands anymore. So how would you handle this? For me, and maybe it's my own shortsightedness here, but, the only option for me is to DM Fiat the character class and call it a Proto level or something. Going back to the example of the Wizard... - I could increase his BAB by +1 like a fighter would get. - I can give him d10 hit points instead of d4. - I would give him an improved Fort save instead. - I would not give him a spell level since he wasn't casting spells or improving there. - I would give him a bonus feat of his choice that would be reflected in what he was doing (Dodge, Exotic WP, whatever). - IF/When they get downtime in a civilized area, the character can seek out someone to train him fully in the class option and thus gain the rest of the benefits. People need to build custom classes more, anyway. The Wizard might not WANT to learn how to use heavy armor anyway, as he might be looking for an opportunity to snatch another spellbook, so trading armor proficiencies for something else would be quite reasonable. This way though, the issues of a player suddenly having access to all these skills and abilities is nerfed until such time as the player can be properly trained. nerfing something the player's looking forward to is a big no-no, on the other hand, and generally not something you should do ( without out-game discussion with the player beforehand. ) In short: - if a PC has an OOC ability they're not using IC, they effectively DON'T have that ability. - It's RIDICULOUSLY simple to justify most advancements. ANYONE picking a level of sorcerer ANYTIME is always okay, as those are spontaneously appearing abilities. A Wizard level is also plausible, but I wouldn't hand them a free spellbook. Remember, adventuring is usually a 8-hour job, usually those other 8 hours are not shown in-game so that's the time when they may have been plausibly training. There are SOME situations where plausibility is stretched but most of the time... it's not. There's not a shred of inconsistency in a, oh, monk 2/ranger 2/Fighter 2/Horizon Walker, who DOESN'T see themselves as a monk, nor a ranger specifically. What would be a REALLY contrived example? Something like a Monk/Rogue suddenly picking Druid levels? Could easily done with a bit of roleplaying, but within a day, mid-dungeon? well, re-fluffing can deal with even that: They have a sacred connection to the good fey, which gives them various powers over nature. Done. Can someone suggest a really contrived or problematic example?
Bauglir 04-29-08, 07:49 PM	I agree with the people who say multiclass restrictions are a poor choice. A character is not defined by his or her class. What's more important are the abilities that class grants. If you have a problem with a Barbarian/Warlock, think about this; the character is claiming (admittedly erroneously) that the Warlock level makes them stronger and that's why they took it. And that's a perfectly good reason in character as well. Warlocks, after all, get their power from unholy pacts by the default fluff, so this Barbarian, possibly having heard of a demonic patron from a cultist in town (who was instructed to let the information slip in the Barbarian's presence), decided that it would be worth his soul to become more powerful. Story explanations can justify practically any combination of powers, especially if you're willing to change the fluff of how those powers work; maybe you make a Dragonfire Adept named Wario, and his "breath weapon" exits from a different orifice.
Winterleaf 04-29-08, 08:03 PM	Where do I draw the line? Simple. If you can justify it somehow in-game. "Why does Bob take levels of sorceror?" "Because he discovered his innate spellcasting abilities" That is good. "Why does Bob take levels of sorceror?" "Because I wanna become an Eldritch Knight" ...Not so good. Bob: "What's a level?" :D
runestar 04-29-08, 08:58 PM	I agree with the people who say multiclass restrictions are a poor choice. A character is not defined by his or her class. What's more important are the abilities that class grants. Exactly. There is nothing which mandates that a person may only start training in base classes. There is nothing preventing me from effectively training in a "class" which is basically an amalgamation of multiple classes and prcs. For example, I could have grown up in a tribe which worships the bear totem and was chosen to harness the powers of the bear spirit. My training has thus revolving around channeling and emulating the strength and ferocity of the bear. In game terms, this could mean that my progression goes something along the line of shifter barb/fighter/warshaper/bear warrior/frenzied berserker. It is very tempting to look at this and scream "munchkin!". But what if you saw it simply as just another class which happened to grant abilities at the same rate as said multiclassed combination? To the PC ingame, he wouldn't know what multiclassing was, or that he was deviating from his training. To him, his singular path just happens to draw from different aspects. He is every bit as focused towards his goal as say, a single classed barb. It would be little different from just creating a new class which grants all the aforementioned abilities (though the latter option has the advantage of not requiring me to burn feats on meeting requirements). Same for the gish example earlier on. He may not think that he is deviating from his fighter training to take up wizardry. Perhaps his training happened to focus on both combat and spellcasting. He just opted to place more emphasis on the former before deciding to focus on the latter. :)
Demetri_Knighthawk 04-29-08, 09:40 PM	Can someone suggest a really contrived or problematic example? A paladin to warlock? Ether chaos or evil, he's gonna loose paladin status.
Bauglir 04-29-08, 10:35 PM	Sure, he just Fell.
runestar 04-29-08, 10:44 PM	Paladin of freedom to warlock.:D
Magrus 04-30-08, 12:17 AM	I'm not terribly picky. I just warn my players if someone goes overboard with char op stuff that borders in game breaking builds, I will enjoy ending their character in a gruesome way. It tends to put and end to such things of a crazy nature. I'm also not big on back stories, and finding ways and reasons for a party to be together, or any of that. I expect my players to have a character in mind, even if that is simply a short concept involving a few personality traits and goals. So long as they follow it, even if they don't tell me it, I am fine with that. Why? The players don't know what the game will have in store for them. They don't know, because I build it around them after I've seen them interact with each other, and what they are capable of. Hence, they may alter their character due to what I do, and that may not fit with an initial concept at all from level 1 when they are at level 5 or level 15. If multiclassing makes the game more enjoyable for the player, and doesn't ruin anyone else's fun I'm all for it. I'm not going to force the rest of the group to take downtime to do so either. Why? It's not always conducive to good fun. Thats what my game is about, fun, and if I must do something, on a regular basis that goes against that, I toss it out of my game.
Zuggster 04-30-08, 08:12 AM	I hate the multiclass rules. I can build a Ftr 1/ Rng 1/ Barb1/ Sorc 1/ Monk 1 and be within the rules (and suck, but oh well). Yet, in an actual upcoming campaign, I CAN'T play a Crusader 8/ Ftr 2/ Eternal Blade 10 because a wood elf's favored class is ranger. That sounds pretty stupid to me. K, I have a couple questions on this..... 1. Are Crusader and Eternal Blade Classes or PrCs? (I can't find them on WotCs listings for either). 2. Assuming one of them is a class, other than the XP penalty, why can't you play them? The XP penalty doesn't preclude you from playing them (though severe, it doesn't stop you from it).
Radijs 04-30-08, 10:37 AM	Crusader is a base class from the tome of battle. Eternal blade is a prestige class from the same.
Senevri 04-30-08, 11:02 AM	A paladin to warlock? Ether chaos or evil, he's gonna loose paladin status. Here's a link to a summary I rather like. (http://forums.gleemax.com/showpost.php?p=14992336#post14992336) Now, for extra cheese, let's pick the Ordered Chaos feat. We now count as lawful or chaotic, whichever is more beneficial at a given time. This is mildly controvertial. The fluff for the powers may seem problematic, but how about this: In the process of fighting forces of evil, you've gained the taint of eldritch powers, which you use to better fight your evil opponents; Fight fire with fire. Of course, there's zero conflict if the power comes from a Fey source instead, or if you just reflavor the abilities.
Zuggster 04-30-08, 11:11 AM	Crusader is a base class from the tome of battle. Eternal blade is a prestige class from the same. Ty. I didn't have it in my normal use items, but I can look ToB up..... Yet, in an actual upcoming campaign, I CAN'T play a Crusader 8/ Ftr 2/ Eternal Blade 10 because a wood elf's favored class is ranger. That sounds pretty stupid to me. So what is actually stopping you. Or is the XP penalty the only thing preventing you from doing so?
Bauglir 04-30-08, 12:10 PM	It's the XP penalty. While it doesn't actually stop you, it doesn't seem right for such an obviously reasonable character to be penalized while the multiclassing at every opportunity character is just fine.