Multi-Class: Establishing Proper Lore/NPC/Trainers

[agewisdom]

One grouse that I have with multi-classes and specializations is that there's very little lore to back it up. I always envison a multi-class as a truimphant achievement where the PC is able to take two very different disciplines and synergize them to achieve something unique.

 

Since PE is a new setting, for each multi-class, I hope there's at least some lore, device and/or NPC attached to it. It doesn't really make sense that the PC can multi-class without learning this somewhere via some means. Originally, someone must have founded an order by learning two separate disciplines before fusing them together. For an established multi-class, learning to multi-class could be easily achieved via learning from books or lore. An established guild or small chapter devoted to the multi-class would be nice.

 

For more exotic multi-class, it should only be allowed if the PC manages to achieve the objectives in a side-quest. A good example of this would be the Arcane Warrior for the mage in Dragon Age: Origins, where you learn the ancient secrets from the Elven Warriors/Mage via a memory gem.

 

Other esoteric multi-class could be introduced by NPCs or companions or via some other means. This is largely what was done is specializations in Dragon Age Origins.

 

Any thoughts?

[Ieo]

Did Obsidian confirm that there will be multi-classing? If not, then I'll just repeat myself from another thread:

 

Honestly, I think the extreme flexibility within the parent class descriptions of Update 15 is intended precisely to counter multiclassing completely.

 

Adding multi-/dual-classing adds a layer of complexity concerning balance, I imagine, thus allowing substantial flexibility within specified limits of a main class description would probably be easier to implement. Not that I'm against multiclassing--I usually do it--but the D&D classes you could combine in BG, for example, were far stricter in actual practice (limitations) than the classes described in U15.

 

I'm thinking that adding multiclass to very flexible classes like this would be too much work for Obsidian...

 

As for stats, I'm good with what Obsidian decides. /shrug

[rjshae]

Level training used to be included way back with the early Gold Box games like Pool of Radiance. Perhaps level training can be re-introduced as an option with the Expert mode? It could be an element of the Adventurer's Hall; giving it another reason to exist.

[Merin]

Multi-classing just feels all about min/maxing and is almost never about role-playing.

 

I'm strongly against it - especially the ridiculous mess that is in 3E.

 

If it's handled like 1st ED D&D or 4th ED, maybe I'd be okay with it. But, overall, I'd just say no.

 

Make each class stand on it's own.

[Ieo]

Multi-classing just feels all about min/maxing and is almost never about role-playing.

 

I'm strongly against it - especially the ridiculous mess that is in 3E.

 

If it's handled like 1st ED D&D or 4th ED, maybe I'd be okay with it. But, overall, I'd just say no.

 

Make each class stand on it's own.

 

I'm only familiar with 2ed, so your first statement makes me laugh. Min-max as I know it is about pure specialization (vertical), never about hybridizing across competencies (horizontal). Unless we're using different meanings.

 

While I'm a hybridizer whenever possible, it sounds like the great flexibility within the classes proposed by Obsidian fits my need to customize horizontally.

 

I don't believe we need the added mechanical complexity and dev work to make multi-class at this point.

[Jaesun]

I personally would LOVE to see the Trainer mechanic back in cRPG's (such as the Gold Box Games). But that is never going to happen.

[Wombat]

Did Obsidian confirm that there will be multi-classing?

Just dropping info. It's still under consideration.

Update #12 - Reddit Q&A with Tim Cain

Bonus question: Are you considering multiclassing?

 

Answer: Bonus questions are cheating…but yes, we are considering adding multi-classing to the game. A better way to put this answer is that we are not ruling them out at this time. If they work well with our final system, we will offer them.

[Merin]

Multi-classing just feels all about min/maxing and is almost never about role-playing.

 

I'm strongly against it - especially the ridiculous mess that is in 3E.

 

I'm only familiar with 2ed, so your first statement makes me laugh. Min-max as I know it is about pure specialization (vertical), never about hybridizing across competencies (horizontal). Unless we're using different meanings.

 

Okay, so let me give you a very brief example of 3E munchkin character building.

 

"I'll take a level of this, it gives me these bonuses. And now I'll take a level of this, as it gives me these abilities. Now I'll take more levels of this third class, as it has the best bang for it's buck... until it's fourth level, at which later additions don't add anything... and now I'll take this prestige class, as it's abilities add well with what I have to make a killer build!"

 

In 3E a lot of the classes give a lot of their bonuses and abilities at the first level - so, for example, grab just one level of Monk for some great stuff! There are also almost no restrictions on multi-classing, certainly not what you had in 2nd ED and earlier. Any race can be any class, and there's no limit to how many classes you can take. And there are prestige classes.

 

2nd ED is a very different game than 3E.

 

Or, to put it another way - go look on any forums or talk to any hardcore 3E players - you'll have a tough time finding anyone who'll advocate you taking a straight class build.

 

This isn't to say there aren't players out there who do it for fun or RP reasons... there are. But they aren't the majority of the people I ran into.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Merin

[Ieo]

Did Obsidian confirm that there will be multi-classing?

Just dropping info. It's still under consideration.

Update #12 - Reddit Q&A with Tim Cain

Bonus question: Are you considering multiclassing?

 

Answer: Bonus questions are cheating…but yes, we are considering adding multi-classing to the game. A better way to put this answer is that we are not ruling them out at this time. If they work well with our final system, we will offer them.

 

Keep in mind all of that was before the classes and parent class descriptions were actually announced (Update 15). If someone can re-confirm it in a live KS Q&A with Feargus now, that'd be great. I highly doubt it's on the table anymore given the current knowledge of class implementation.

 

 

Okay, so let me give you a very brief example of 3E munchkin character building.

 

"I'll take a level of this, it gives me these bonuses. And now I'll take a level of this, as it gives me these abilities. Now I'll take more levels of this third class, as it has the best bang for it's buck... until it's fourth level, at which later additions don't add anything... and now I'll take this prestige class, as it's abilities add well with what I have to make a killer build!"

 

In 3E a lot of the classes give a lot of their bonuses and abilities at the first level - so, for example, grab just one level of Monk for some great stuff! There are also almost no restrictions on multi-classing, certainly not what you had in 2nd ED and earlier. Any race can be any class, and there's no limit to how many classes you can take. And there are prestige classes.

 

2nd ED is a very different game than 3E.

 

Or, to put it another way - go look on any forums or talk to any hardcore 3E players - you'll have a tough time finding anyone who'll advocate you taking a straight class build.

 

This isn't to say there aren't players out there who do it for fun or RP reasons... there are. But they aren't the majority of the people I ran into.

 

Okay, that's way too granular and front-loaded for multi-classing the way I like it. :/ MC should be take 2-3 classes, mush them, overlap weaknesses along with the strengths with slower in-game development.

[agewisdom]

If there is multi-classing, I am just stating that it should make sense, in a logical way, without overly complicated mechanics and min-maxing. Multi-classing should be a difficult process achieved via a series of side quests and established firmly in the game universe.

 

In the old Infinity games, I never quite understood the mechanics of multi-classing. IMHO, most of the rules are quite difficult to undersand and I needed a walkthrough to min-max or game the system. That's exactly what I'm opposed to...

[Merin]

Okay, that's way too granular and front-loaded for multi-classing the way I like it. :/ MC should be take 2-3 classes, mush them, overlap weaknesses along with the strengths with slower in-game development.

 

If it's like 1st or 2nd ED D&D... I'd have no problem with multi-classing. Or 4E's version, even.

 

I can see someone who's been a thief all their life spending some time training with monks and getting some of their abilities, but at a lesser skill level and not all of them (like 4E), or a long-lived race being able to focus on training two skill-sets are once, but doing so very, very slowly (1st and 2nd) or even the dual-classing of old D&D (when you start your new class, your old class stops advancing... if you use abilities from your old class, you don't get XP as your aren't training in your new class.)

 

Running around for weeks casting spells, and saying that the experience (XP) of doing such suddenly means you know how to wear heavy armor and swing a halberd is très stupide.

Edited October 7, 2012 by Merin

[agewisdom]

"Running around for weeks casting spells, and saying that the experience (XP) of doing such suddenly means you know how to wear heavy armor and swing a halberd is très stupide."

 

Exactly my thoughts. If there's to be a multi-class, could we have a series of side quests given by the trainers? For instance, a fighter that wants to multi-class must either:

 

(a) find an apprenticeship with a powerful wizard. The wizard will require him to perform an escalating series of difficult tasks which will help him level up to an basic to intermediate level. After learning the basics of magic, then the PC is free to choose his own development path thereafter.

 

(b) find a powerful NPC battlemage and learn directly from him. Again, it could be via a series of learning quests or paying him substantial amounts of gold and XP to gain his skillsets.

 

Any restrictions or difficulties in multi-classing will be explained by the trainer. If your fighter is too stOOpid to learn magic, the NPC will tell him. If there are certain difficulties in multi-classing, example spells will not be as powerful as a pure wizard - he can learn this the hard way via a side quest when battling a pure wizard. Something alongst these lines in-game.

 

Something that makes sense, without needing to refer to a AD&D manual (or its' equivalent in PE). Not something where, here you reach level 10, now you can dual class. How? Oh refer to the game manual on blah.. blah... blah... and there are penalties... blah blah blah... and you need certain stats... blah blah blah... making it confusing and maybe necessary to refer to some character builds walkthrough.

[Hypevosa]

Multiclassing in 3.5 is supposed to be painful unless your DM is being too easy on you and throws out some of the rules, and forgets to give you encounters that are challenging enough.

 

I'll put it this way, no one ever had more than 2 classes in my campaigns, they knew what they were risking if they diluted themselves too much.

[rjshae]

Okay, so let me give you a very brief example of 3E munchkin character building.

 

I'd like to point out that this would be fully expected, and even encouraged, for a point-build character system. You should be able to build whatever type of character you want to play, while the game's point system balances out the various player options. It's just the archaic, class-based systems that make this behavior seem munchkin-ish.

 

That being said, I'm not opposed to using class-based systems because they still provide 'color' and possess some nostalgia value.

Edited October 7, 2012 by rjshae

[Ieo]

Okay, so let me give you a very brief example of 3E munchkin character building.

 

I'd like to point out that this would be fully expected, and even encouraged, for a point-build character system. You should be able to build whatever type of character you want to play, while the game's point system balances out the various player options. It's just the archaic, class-based systems that make this behavior seem munchkin-ish.

 

That being said, I'm not opposed to using class-based systems because they still provide 'color' and possess some nostalgia value.

 

The class system also allows more replayability, especially for players without munchkin tendencies. Ultimately, a class is merely a template of skills. While I like the flexibility of a skill-based character construction, classes are easier to balance overall and do not require substantial foreknowledge to create (though maybe tweak). They're really a lower barrier to entry, besides of course catering to the classic IE expectations.

[nightcobra]

just my 2 cents, but how about something like this?

 

NPC masters scattered around the world and one for each class, once you talk to one of them you can then pay to have them teach you their ways on one condition...that you must fully dedicate yourself in the new discipline or else the master will think teaching you his/her skills a waste. also such dedication means that your primary discipline cannot be realized to its full potential, for each level you train with the master is a level that you cannot gain anymore for your primary class.

 

ex: level 5 paladin trains with fighter master, gains 1 level of fighter (if the level cap is let's say...30, then the paladin can only level to 29 if he has 1 fighter level in order to always keep the sum of the levels equal to the level cap)

 

 

ps: first post in this forum so please forgive me if i'm not aware of some of the game mechanics like the levelling system.

Edited October 12, 2012 by nightcobra

[Sensuki]

Slightly related: There will not be subclasses or prestige classing.

Edited October 12, 2012 by Sensuki

[agewisdom]

Slightly related: There will not be subclasses or prestige classing.

 

I see. But will there be multi-classing?

[Tale]

Multi-classing just feels all about min/maxing and is almost never about role-playing.

Maybe you're just playing with the wrong people. My Rogue/Rangers and Rogue/Warlocks were always about a character concept. I even built a Rogue/Warlock in 4E when the multiclass was a waste of a feat for her.

 

I don't see where the idea comes from that it's so special to be multiclass. It allows for blending of concepts. Like my previously mentioned Rogue/Ranger I had. He was envisioned as an urban ranger, a man tracker. Does that require some special order be created? Or that he just fight underhanded while following people around and breaking into their homes?

[agewisdom]

[i don't see where the idea comes from that it's so special to be multiclass. It allows for blending of concepts. Like my previously mentioned Rogue/Ranger I had. He was envisioned as an urban ranger, a man tracker. Does that require some special order be created? Or that he just fight underhanded while following people around and breaking into their homes?

 

A rogue/ranger might not require something special, since there's some synergy and overlap between them.

 

When I talk about establishing some background or lore on certain multi-class, it's about those classes that appears to clash heavily with one another. The most typical one that comes to mind is a Battlemage multi-class, a combination of warrior and wizard.

 

How do you explain a warrior suddenly casting magical spells? If we're considering a typical AD&D fantasy, casting spells will requires at minimum, a few years of studies and training under a master before achieving an intermediate skill. Wouldn't that require joining an Order or learning the techniques from a forgotten past?

 

Conversely, is it really believable that an apprentice spending all his time locked up in a tower learning spells can suddenly start learning about fighting just by practicing his sword skills whilst adventuring? More likely, he might have found some way to channel his mana to augment his battle skills in a way that's not available to a typical normal wizard. I'm thinking of something along the lines of the Arcane Warrior in Dragon Age: Origins.

Edited October 12, 2012 by agewisdom

[Tale]

A rogue/ranger might not require something special, since there's some synergy and overlap between them.

 

When I talk about establishing some background or lore on certain multi-class, it's about those classes that appears to clash heavily with one another. The most typical one that comes to mind is a Battlemage multi-class, a combination of warrior and wizard.

 

How do you explain a warrior suddenly casting magical spells?

The same way you explain a wizard casting spells. Because he's a wizard and a warrior, not just a warrior.

 

If we're considering a typical AD&D fantasy, casting spells will requires at minimum, a few years of studies and training under a master before achieving an intermediate skill. Wouldn't that require joining an Order or learning the techniques from a forgotten past?

No, it requires whatever you require of a standard wizard. You're going to have that same problem with regular wizards. How does a wizard jump from level 1 spells to level 2 at all? That's the training issue, but it's not exclusive to multiclass. Just say he was training all along, but it is only strong enough now to manifest or be useful. Levels are discrete because that's the mechanical limitation, but the things they represent are granular and you must imply the smaller steps.

 

Conversely, is it really believable that an apprentice spending all his time locked up in a tower learning spells can suddenly start learning about fighting just by practicing his sword skills whilst adventuring?

Yes. He's a level 1 fighter. That's what, a mere +1 BAB? And a feat? He's not a heavyweight boxing champion from one level. He didn't gain any spellcasting ability from that level, either, unless he's a practiced spellcaster and that's kind of the implication of that feat. Clearly he was doing more training of his physical than his mental during that time period.

 

More likely, he might have found some way to channel his mana to augment his battle skills in a way that's not available to a typical normal wizard.

More likely he made simply adjusted his training regimen.

[agewisdom]

Ok, Tale. You have your own perspective of what a multi-class entails and I don't think anything is going to change your mind. My opinion differs greatly, and I'll just leave it at that.