Your thoughts on multi-classing

[JFSOCC]

I'm aware that multi-classing is not a likely addition to Project Eternity, but it hasn't been explicitly ruled out yet (to my knowledge)

 

I'm very curious what the community thinks about multi-classing, and how strongly you feel about this.

 

Personally, I think multi-classing would add a layer of personalisation and complexity which would allow me to tinker and find interesting new combinations, and help me further make my character unique. If I would otherwise feel limited or pigeon-holed by the class choices available, multi-classing would allow me exponentially more options to role-play my character the way *I* envision.

Instead of 11 options, you would have 11*10 options, in my opinion, this choice is a welcome addition.

 

How about you?

[Messier-31]

I dont like multiclass and I never use them.

 

Ditto.

 

Most of them even don't make any sense, like Baker/Plumber in RL.

[aluminiumtrioxid]

My opinion is that 11 options are already far too much (at least if you want classes to be both balanced and versatile), but I think it could be done similarly to the way D&D 4E handled this - pick up a feat (or, in this case, Talent), and you gain some basic benefits associated with being in said class - usually in the form of a per-encounter minor ability (backstab, healing etc.).

[teknoman2]

i dont really care

[Sarex]

I don't think that it would work that well considering how the classes where designed in P:E.

[Nonek]

Unfortunately i've never particularly cared for multi classing/dual classing, in point of fact I far prefer a classless system.

[Leferd]

PE will already be balanced for a six person party. I should hope that at each character can fulfill a unique designated role negating the need to have a jack of all trades. Plus, as was mentioned, 11 classes are enough - and having more variables to balance is going to take more development time - from a practicality standpoint.

[Walsingham]

Unfortunately i've never particularly cared for multi classing/dual classing, in point of fact I far prefer a classless system.

 

Ironically, given my quasi-feudal upbringing, I too favour a classless system.

[Kissamies]

Unfortunately i've never particularly cared for multi classing/dual classing, in point of fact I far prefer a classless system.

Me too, but if I am stuck with a class system, multiclassing does make it a bit more like classless and bearable.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Kissamies

[Osvir]

Multi-Classing is cool and all but *shrug*

I think a more interesting method would be "Multi-Paths" I suppose, within limitations of the Class.

In essence, builds of some kind. A Fighter that got high DPS or a high Tank value, pick one of the two which you want to build towards. Or a Ranger that is a "Beastmaster" with 2 or 3 animal companions or a flat out Archer. A Wizard that has only Fire Spells, or a Wizard that has only Water Spells.

Or even more closer to "Multi-Classing" (in a sense) that you could build a Fighter that has magical capabilities, such as being able to do some animancy or whatnot to engulf the blade in fire for a hit or two, but can not cast Magic Missiles. I think this method is more interesting than "Multi-Classing", though it might require more work I really don't know.

[PIP-Clownboy]

Prefer not to have full multiclasses since they inevitably break the game and are impossible to balance properly. But I'm all for shared talents/abilities/skills and not being pigeonholed into using certain armor/weapons based on class selection. 

Edited October 5, 2013 by PIP-Clownboy

[Karkarov]

There are already plenty of class options and balancing the game around the idea that you can be a paladin/cipher/barbarian is well... dumb.  There are far better things to spend time on and the concept of multiclassing only every existed in D&D to make up for the fact that Elves etc could not get to level 20 in any class.  Let's not take a broken bad mechanic from D&D used purely to create uber super characters and make the mistake of putting it in PE and blasting any change of actual class/gameplay balance out of the water.

[Jarmo]

My favorite option would be a class-free system, pick up whatever skills you want from whatever skill tree.

Fallout-Arcanum-Elderscrolls

 

The second favorite would be strict classes with their limitations, multiclass to build your own variety.

Fighter/thief/mage/priest, so.. if you want a paladin, pick a few priest levels and then some fighter and so on..

 

PE already has a lot of classes, some of them a kind of hybrids already, add in multiclassing and you've a potential for disaster.

I'd like to see it pulled off, but kind of hope they won't even try.

[forgottenlor]

I voted "yes, for other reasons" namely that it gives more choice in character building. I like 3.X D&D multiclassing, which rarely lead to more powerful characters than single classing did. I put the caveat on this that Project:Eternity may have enough customizing within the classes that multiclassing may be more or less irrelevant.

[forgottenlor]

My favorite option would be a class-free system, pick up whatever skills you want from whatever skill tree.

Fallout-Arcanum-Elderscrolls

 

The second favorite would be strict classes with their limitations, multiclass to build your own variety.

Fighter/thief/mage/priest, so.. if you want a paladin, pick a few priest levels and then some fighter and so on..

 

PE already has a lot of classes, some of them a kind of hybrids already, add in multiclassing and you've a potential for disaster.

I'd like to see it pulled off, but kind of hope they won't even try.

It depends on how it's done. Multiclassed spell casters functioned very poorly in D&D 3.x, which is the reason for all the prestige classes such as Arcane Trickster and Mystic Theurge. For that reason I prefer a well balanced hybrid class (such as a paladin) to an unbalanced multiclassing system.

[Keyrock]

I don't use multiclassing.  I find it unnecessary, not to mention it increases the complexity of balancing.  If a system is built to be robust enough from the start, presumably as Obsidian is doing, then multiclassing should be completely unnecessary as each class should have enough wiggle room to be built in many distinct ways, allowing you to build more hybrid/jack of all trades or specialist characters, all within a single class.

 

tl;dr - Just say no to multiclassing.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Keyrock

[sarkthas]

I like kits from BG, but I'm not too fond of multiclassing. 

[redneckdevil]

I'd be against it if they asked me. Multiclasses means imo that u are playing all those classes (roleplay ideas and mechanics) in one character. If they went the multi classes route I'd rather they not have classes but go with a classless system.

But we already know they have classes in them so I'd rather play one class. Multiclasses in d&d really just seemed more about maximizing ur characters strengths and potentials than actually roleplaying all those classes in one. From my experiences, most players I've seen use the multiclasses wasn't doing it for story or roleplaying, but mainly to either make the character stronger or to make up for a weakness in the class.

 

So no, I'm against multiclassing.

[Osvir]

I like kits from BG, but I'm not too fond of multiclassing. 

That is a really great way of describing "Multi-Paths" actually.

 

Start off as a plain "Fighter" but become a "Wizard Slayer" as the game progresses. In this idea, or vision, you wouldn't be able to pick "Wizard Slayer" at character creation, but it'd be something your character would become after a couple of levels depending on how you allocate points and build your character~ that's the essence of "Multi-Paths" (as I like to call it).

 

More inspiration here.

 

And an elaboration:

 

Character Creation

- I pick Fighter

 

Gameplay:

- I progress and I allocate points, depending on how I build my character it essentially becomes one of these

-- Berserker

-- Wizard Slayer

-- Kensai

 

It is a semi-classless system idea I suppose, except more restricted and boxed in than TES or Fallout. If you pick a Fighter you wouldn't be able to deviate from the Fighter-path, but you could enhance it into a nisched Fighter role.

Edited October 5, 2013 by Osvir

[JFSOCC]

Well, it seems there is more or less consensus.

[PrimeJunta]

IMO this is yet another question that's really hard to answer without knowing how the mechanics hang together. If there's enough variety within classes so you can make a fighty magic-user or magic-using fighter, for example, then I don't see any compelling need to multi-class. If there isn't, then multi-classing can add a lot of welcome variety.

 

For example, if we're looking at D&D, AD&D multi-classing was a disaster, a dreary chore and an exploit at the same time. D&D3 was built with multi-classing in mind to start with, and there IMO it fits very well -- the classes themselves are extremely narrow, but multi-classing lets you build a huge variety of character concepts. (OTOH it's also really easy to produce a multi-class squib, which is perhaps not so desirable.)

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

I like multi-classing in 3.X/PF, but I'm not sure that it would work in PE. Personally, I prefer classless systems, as they allow for easier tweaking and correction to get specific concepts.

[Yonjuro]

 Some combinations seem like a stretch from a RP perspective. Being a Paladin/Assassin/Druid/Monk/Ranger is OK if your character has ADHD, I suppose, so maybe there are role play ideas I haven't thought of.

 

 Overall, I think it depends a lot on how fast you gain levels, class abilities etc. for game balance.  

 

In BG1, dual classing kind of made sense (in that a character might get interested in something new and change professions - I did that for real), and there was a real trade off. E.g. if you dualed Imoen to mage  too early, she needed the knock spell to open any locks and if you did it too late, you were going to have trouble with some nasty traps in certain places (unless you swapped her out for a different thief for only those places with bad traps (in which case you were a munchkin power/meta gamer and none of this 'making sense' stuff applies to you  )).

 

In BG2, dual classing could still make sense for the same reason, a career change, but the downside was almost non-existent since XP came fast enough to gain your first profession back very quickly, so it was an easy way to build an overpowered character.

 

I never played a multi class character because it never seemed to fit a character concept I wanted to play (but I did find Jan Jansen especially useful in several play throughs)

[Osvir]

11 Classes, 12 levels... hmm  http://www.goblinscomic.org/09022005/

[Greensleeve]

I do prefer classless systems. BUT! When dealing with a class-based system, I very much prefer being able to multi-class. I love multi-classing, and I've always been bothered by the limit on amount of classes I can pick in NWN/2. 3/4, respectively? Please. With PrCs in mind, I want to be able to combine 6-7 different classes to further my particular character in question. There's a reason why Star Wars Saga is my favourite table-top RPG, mechanically. 

 

However, I have faith in that Josh will design a mechanically solid game without multi-classing. From what we've seen of classes, there is nothing that leads me to believe otherwise. So I'm not too bummed there isn't multi-classing.