Multiclassing and Prestige classes.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownasKP 6,524]

How do you feel about Multiclassing and Prestige classes?

Edited November 10, 2012 by KaineParker

[quechn1tlan 102]

Oh, my. Yes. Definitely yes. The more prestige classes and class combinations (

D&D 3.5 NWN2 style, because in tabletop D&D it seems like everyone and their grandmother comes up with their own bs classes just for the fun of it and everything gets out of hand http://www.dandwiki....restige_Classes

) the better. I just love building unique characters with interesting class combinations.

Edited November 10, 2012 by quechn1tlan

[Sacred_Path 489]

I cannot into poll.

 

 

And for the love of god, no multi- or prestige classes. Classes are an old-fashioned concept, but I can live with that. Just give me enough choices via traits or feats to tweak them. OTOH wild and ridiculous multi-classing just takes the entire point out of a rigid class system. It's DnD's policy of "abortions for one group, American flags for the other" that led to this mess.

[quechn1tlan 102]

 

And for the love of god, no multi- or prestige classes. Classes are an old-fashioned concept, but I can live with that. Just give me enough choices via traits or feats to tweak them. OTOH wild and ridiculous multi-classing just takes the entire point out of a rigid class system. It's DnD's policy of "abortions for one group, American flags for the other" that led to this mess.

 

Well, have a flag of Morrowind then and don't screw up my favourite class systems by putting sacreligious thoughts into developers' heads.

[Michael_Galt 159]

I like prestige classes, provided it isn't easy to achieve. Meaning, it should take some sincere specialization and work. I honestly can't think of any good examples of how to implement that, but somewhat similar to how FO:NV did some of its perks, where you couldn't unlock them unless you had the proper prereqs first. So maybe your thief took "crafting" lots of "mechanics" skills, which then allows him to become a "trapper/bombardier". Or you went a different way and only focused on stealth and weapon proficiencies, which allows you to become an "assassin" or a ninja if you have sufficiently high "dexterity + agility" (or however they define nimbleness). The prestige classes need to bring bonuses to the class, of course, not just be some name that means nothing else. And you shouldn't be able to "abandon" your prestige class for another, because you don't like it. It would be better if you really had to think before deciding to adopt/join a prestige class. I do think you should have to get training to be granted it, though. I guess that would be similar to "master trainers" in Arcanum. Perhaps they could even overlap. Maybe there would be 2-4 different "melee masters" (or class masters, alternately), which would all belong to different prestige classes. That way it would be easier to find master trainers, but finding one might not actually help you get the prestige class you are interested in. That could be used to explain different schools of fighting, philosophy, magic, whatever.

[Osvir 1,707]

I'd like to start off as a Wizard, but at the end of the game I might be a, exampl, Wandslinger (dual wielding wands like a boss). I would like ir if my build order built my class. To be honest Kingdoms of Amalur does this in an interesting way.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Osvir

[Alexjh 179]

I went with yes to multiclassing, 3.x rules and no prestige classes.

 

Multiclassing I'm fine with though I don't do it a great deal, as there are some pairings of classes which naturally complement each other in a logical way (although the antithesis classes should be prevented from crossing over as they do in D&D through alignment - combining monks and barbarians for instance just doesn't make sense).

 

Definitly something like the 3.x rules as the 2e were really unwieldy and clunky, I've still never worked out why there was a difference between multiclassing and dual classing for different races and levelling at a linear pace makes things a lot easier to keep track of..

 

On the prestige class front I'm against them though, much as there are some great fun prestige classes (Dwarven Defenders are one of my favourites, having an immovable, unkillable object in the party can be very handy) what I'd rather do is integrate the features of these as optional features within the classes themselves a the presitge class system can quickly become bloated when you start trying to take dribs and drabs of lots of different ones which are all within the remit of one of the core classes anyway.

[Shevek 808]

i HATE 3E multiclasses. It is the most munchkinized system I have ever played. Players choose a class simply from frontloaded benefits (WotC has admitted this is an issue they will address in DND Next). Moreover, the d20 mix and match system was absolutely TERRIBLE for martial/magic multiclasses. See, the levelling system of 3E made 3E multiclasses crappy. In 2E, you could reach 14/14 fighter/mage. In 3E, you were stuck at 10/10.

 

Folks had to take "fix it" feats like practiced spellcaster or take crappy PRCs (like Eldritch Knight) to make martial/magic multiclasses be worth a damn.

It is MUCH better to have static multiclasses. The devs could better balance it that way and players would still be able to custimize the character via skills and feats.

 

Frankly, I would prefer no multiclassing (with an expanded feat/skill system) to 3E multiclassing.

 

Also, PRCs suck. Their only reason to exist is to fix the problems inherent in 3E multiclassing. If you avoid d20 multiclassing, then you just don't need PRCs. You can get all the special powahs you need via feats and skills.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Shevek

[XenoReaper 20]

The main focus of a prestige class is exclusivity, and specialization. If you can achieve this through skills/feats/spell options (by making multiple paths you can take, where you can't max all of them out, just one or perhaps two paths at most) then there really is no need for prestige classes.

 

The other thing about prestige classes is that there was often some flavor element to them... make the world actually notice your advanced skills, and you've pretty much got that part covered too (or make some of them lore-based, like "Hey, you know the X technique from Y school- wow! I heard they only accept Ciphers of the highest caliber. I'm not messing with you!")

 

EDIT: The "paths" idea isn't my way of supporting skill trees, I'm just saying that making some options permanent and possibly exlusive is a good way to achieve the mechanical feel of a prestige class.

Edited November 11, 2012 by XenoReaper

[XenoReaper 20]

As for multiclassing, as others (like Shevek) have said, if you make the base classes flexible enough, you won't really need multiclassing. There is some versatility in multiclassing that's difficult to replicate in any other way (besides pulling something like the Elder Scrolls where all skills are available to everyone). But keep in mind that versatility for the player means a nightmare balancing the game for the devs. I'd rather PE be a polished, balanced game rather than a cautionary tale for what could have been...

[gglorious 40]

I am actually going to come out against multiclassing. It's good if it's the only way to make spell-knight kind of characters or things like that, but I really would prefer flexible main classes where I can have a wizard with specialized warrior talents with a wizardly-flavor than a wizard/fighter. Get the difference? Like, I am totally fine with the basic concept of breaking classes out of their mold, but I'd rather have this semi-tailored to the class, and not just crudely mashed together. I tend to think that DnD 3.x tends to be more of a mashing than a combination though.

 

I think multiclassing is the next best thing though. We should be able to create battle-mages, and thuggish rogues without too many problems. I guess.... part of what makes me wary of the idea is that I don't think that DnD 3.x had a great combination system especially with magical classes, and I think 2.0 wasn't the best either. I guess I really just don't like how cookie-cutter the way DnD handled the classes in the first place though, with a lot of junk and flavoring you may not really want but are saddled with as you level.

[Heresiarch 165]

While I thoroughly enjoyed multiclassing in BG (dual classed from 10+ level fighter to mage to later import the high level character into a new game and kick some major ass as a real spellsword) and IWD (10 Rogue, 3 Fighter, the rest Sorcerer for an unbeatable combo class), I think the mechanic works properly in IWD only. NWN2 proved me right, making multi-classing a tedious and dubious affair with effective, but improbable (sorcerer/paladin? bard/barbarian/RDD?! fighter/monk/IB/paladin?!! really now?!) and likely, but extremely lame combinations. Multiclassing should be mostly done for flavour, not for minmaxing.

 

NWN made me think that milticlassing is plain wrong. I don't mind specialization or prestige classes or whatever you call them, but the options should be fairly limited. Like, say, in DAO, which got at least this part right, whatever you think about the rest of it. That way people don't overdo minmaxing and devs don't have to worry about it too much.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Heresiarch

[Shevek 808]

Well, I am not against multiclassing. I enjoy the 2E multiclassing a great deal. Frankly, I think an ideal system would have multiclassing akin to 2E with a feat/trait system akin to Fallout and a skill system like in 3E.

 

I just don't particularly like the crap you get with 3E multiclasses. In 3E, people just focus on how to synergize certain front loaded class benefits when creating a munchkinized toon. The classic example of the sheer stupidness of 3E multiclassinf is, of course, the 2 Paladin/ X Sorceror but there are many more examples.

 

Here is an example from a random NWN2 build faq I googled (note: no, I haven't tried this specific build - I am just using it as an example of the kind of thing that you can do):

1bard/4fighter/10RDD/5FB

I mean, the sheer amount of unintuitive munchkinosity of this build is ridiculous. I mean, Bard/Fighter/Red Dragon Disciple/Frenzied Beserker? Wtf? How does that make ANY sense at all? 3E is truly the worst multiclassing ever. Give me 2E multiclasses any day.

[rjshae 9,776]

Multi-classing and prestige classes are cludgy attempts to make a class-based system work like a point-based system. They can provide character customization through other means.

[NerdBoner 302]

i kinda don't want multiclassing...I'm hoping for a one class system that has its own set of unique skills/abilites/feats to choose from at the start of each class and progresses down its own unique path with different optional abilities. (so that "no two fighters are alike")

 

For those that want to mix it up you can then purchase skills from other classes once you've met the necessary requirements.

 

In this way you can have Ciphers who can sneak, but are still considered just ciphers...fighters who can cast spells, thieves who can range etc etc.

 

You can plan a spell sword as a single class, you just have to learn magic as a fighter...or swordplay as a mage.

 

with this type of system you can have skinny dextrous fighters, burly armoured mages and everything in between instead of having to have a level of this and a level of that ad infinitum until your character resembles a schizo more than a hero.

Edited November 11, 2012 by NerdBoner

[Pipyui 342]

It seems many share my sentiments that multiclassing is a bit cludgy. I'd eleborate on this more, but the fine folks just above me have already done a pretty good job of it.

 

This isn't to say that I dislike having wiggle room in my class structures. Throwing out an idea here, but what about "core" talents having trees common to all classes? Say magic, stealth, and combat can each have a bare-bones tree available regardless of class. Thus my wizard would have his own unique wizardly talents, but could also learn to pick up a sword from the core combat tree, though perhaps without so much afinity as a fighter (the fighter him/herself having their own unique (or more elaborate core) combat tree).

Yay? Nay?

[FlintlockJazz 2,005]

No to multiclassing. First, it's a new system they are making, let's just focus on getting the classes working right by themselves first for the first game! Second, with mages being able to wield swords and armour anyway, and with the differences between the classes being how they manipulate the power of their souls differently, I'm not sure if it's needed or will fit. Plus multi-classing tends to lead to cludgy weird **** and ceases to make the classes truly unique any more. Seems like it would be better for classes at most to be able to add certain features of other classes like taking weapon proficiencies within their own class, but maybe with a unique spin on it for that class due to the differences in the sources of their power.

Edited November 11, 2012 by FlintlockJazz

[Ieo 1,148]

As for multiclassing, as others (like Shevek) have said, if you make the base classes flexible enough, you won't really need multiclassing. There is some versatility in multiclassing that's difficult to replicate in any other way (besides pulling something like the Elder Scrolls where all skills are available to everyone). But keep in mind that versatility for the player means a nightmare balancing the game for the devs. I'd rather PE be a polished, balanced game rather than a cautionary tale for what could have been...

I am actually going to come out against multiclassing. It's good if it's the only way to make spell-knight kind of characters or things like that, but I really would prefer flexible main classes where I can have a wizard with specialized warrior talents with a wizardly-flavor than a wizard/fighter. Get the difference? Like, I am totally fine with the basic concept of breaking classes out of their mold, but I'd rather have this semi-tailored to the class, and not just crudely mashed together. I tend to think that DnD 3.x tends to be more of a mashing than a combination though.

 

I think multiclassing is the next best thing though. We should be able to create battle-mages, and thuggish rogues without too many problems. I guess.... part of what makes me wary of the idea is that I don't think that DnD 3.x had a great combination system especially with magical classes, and I think 2.0 wasn't the best either. I guess I really just don't like how cookie-cutter the way DnD handled the classes in the first place though, with a lot of junk and flavoring you may not really want but are saddled with as you level.

 

Originally, as more information about PE was coming out during the KS period, I really wanted multi-classing.

 

Then Update 15 came out:

 

If you want to create a wizard who wears plate armor and hacks away with a broadsword from behind a heavily-enhanced arcane veil, we want to let you do that. If your idea of the perfect fighter is one who wears light armor and uses a variety of dazzling rapier attacks in rapid succession, we want to help you make that character. So it's good to think of Project Eternity's classes as being purpose-ready but not purpose-limited.

 

...The design of each class has a solid, distinctive base set of abilities that remain in most builds, but will have a large number of optional specializations and alterations to give players a high level of flexibility in developing an individual character's particular style.

 

Multi-classing with highly flexible classes as those described above would be hell. In terms of technical balancing and resource management, I really think that we should either have very narrow classes plus multi-classing OR highly flexible classes with no multi-classing. It sounds like the latter, so I'm good with that.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownasKP 6,524]

i kinda don't want multiclassing...I'm hoping for a one class system that has its own set of unique skills/abilites/feats to choose from at the start of each class and progresses down its own unique path with different optional abilities. (so that "no two fighters are alike")

 

For those that want to mix it up you can then purchase skills from other classes once you've met the necessary requirements.

 

In this way you can have Ciphers who can sneak, but are still considered just ciphers...fighters who can cast spells, thieves who can range etc etc.

 

You can plan a spell sword as a single class, you just have to learn magic as a fighter...or swordplay as a mage.

 

with this type of system you can have skinny dextrous fighters, burly armoured mages and everything in between instead of having to have a level of this and a level of that ad infinitum until your character resembles a schizo more than a hero.

 

My problem with this system is that it might as well be a classless system(which I would enjoy). From what I take of your proposal, it seems that every class will have access to the other classes' abilities. While I think armored Mages and swashbuckling fighters should be an option(and even quite optimal), I wouldn't like it if Fighters could sling around wizard spells or Barbarians could use prayers with out training as a Wizard or Priest.

 

I believe that in a good class system, each class should have unique abilities(like the Paladin's Aura of Courage or Druids Wildshape in 3.x) that are completely exclusive to that class, to make up for the loss of freedom due to being restricted to a specific class. With multiclassing, you could have characters that sacrifice exceptional mastery of their class abilities to dabble in another class to gain theirs. Not that I don't think that all classes should follow some set path or anything, but having class specific abilities is a huge advantage to using a class system.

[Jarmo 804]

No, there's too many classes in already.

If there had been only warrior/caster/rogue multiclassing would have been just fine.

 

Prestige classes were always a bit stupid, usually simply giving some overpowered feat to justify their existence.

It'd always be better to just give the feat to general consumption, just not in such overpowered form.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownasKP 6,524]

Prestige classes were always a bit stupid, usually simply giving some overpowered feat to justify their existence.

It'd always be better to just give the feat to general consumption, just not in such overpowered form.

 

The problem with defining prestige classes is that there are essentially three different kinds.....

1. Enhancement: Gives one feat or ability that is either a replica or enhancement of another ability. Assassin, Weapon Master, and Red Wizard fall into this group.
    
   
2. Reconciliation: Advances two different classes abilities. Cebremancer, Arcane Trickster, and Divine Fist fall into this group.
    
   
3. Addition: These add unique abilities for several classes. Dragon Disciple, Shadow Dancer, and Bear Warrior call this group home.
   

Of the three groups, I would argue that the first two could be easily accomplished with the addition of feats or tweaking how CL(caster level) is calculated, and can be generally rendered redundant.

 

The last group is the kind of prestige class I would like to see in PE. If they don't want to include them, I would like to see an "archtype" option for classes that allow the player to tweak their characters in interesting ways. Preferably, these "archtypes" would be selected around level 8 or so, so that the players would have time to develop their character a certain way before making a commitment to certain abilities.

Edited November 11, 2012 by KaineParker

[Jarmo 804]

1. Addition: These add unique abilities for several classes. Dragon Disciple, Shadow Dancer, and Bear Warrior call this group home.
   

The last group is the kind of prestige class I would like to see in PE.

 

Shadowdancer is actually what I mostly had in mind as overpowered feat.

It'd have been much better if every thief could "hide in plain sight", only less well or maybe with pooling multiple feats together.

The other shadow-abilities as well, rather see them as a developement tree inside thief class than chopped into a prestige one.

[Starglider 38]

If you are going to have classes, then there should be multiclassing, because the idea that once you chose a career you can learn nothing outside of that career is utterly stupid and unrealistic. Real humans can pick up a huge variety of skills in often surprising combinations. Dividing your attention makes you less well trained in any particular skill, but that is a choice for the individual to make. A mage being physically unable to practice fencing due to game designer fiat is a massive suspension of disbelief breaker.

[Frenetic Pony 125]

I'd love to see prestige classes add a few levels, maybe about 5, you can get in something more specialized than your average class.

 

There's already 11 classes, each supposedly pretty flexible. Having fewer prestige classes is cool, and each of them adding an interesting set of more specialized abilities and powers than the more flexible base classes.

[ArtistFormerlyKnownasKP 6,524]

1. Addition: These add unique abilities for several classes. Dragon Disciple, Shadow Dancer, and Bear Warrior call this group home.
   

The last group is the kind of prestige class I would like to see in PE.

 

Shadowdancer is actually what I mostly had in mind as overpowered feat.

It'd have been much better if every thief could "hide in plain sight", only less well or maybe with pooling multiple feats together.

The other shadow-abilities as well, rather see them as a developement tree inside thief class than chopped into a prestige one.

 

 

Maybe a PE Rogue(since they have soul powers) could have a shadow power tree, but in 3.x, the Rogue did not have any supernatural abilities so Shadow Dancer powers would have seemed strange. We won't really be able to argue about what a PE Rogue should be able to do until we find out what they can actually do.