Your thoughts on multi-classing

[redneckdevil]

 

I don't mind multi-classing, but I absolutely despise the one-and-done phenomenon and banned it when I was a DM. Additionally, I required of the players an active in-game effort to aquire the new class and its associated abilities. Ain't no free lunch when Tsuga's sitting at the head of the table, kiddies...

I believe the reason why he banned it was simply because 9 times outta 10, people mainly multiclass not for rp reasons but for mechanical reasons. Most times when a wizard takes a lvl of fighter, its not because the wizard has a "fighters" attitude or even roleplay as someone's who been trained to fight, but most times its because they gain another free feat and gain proficiency in a lot of weapons and armor when their spells have run out for the day.

I believe in his position roleplay over mechanics which I believe is the reason why a lot of posters has said they are against multiclassing in this game.

 

But I will say in pnp, there's technically no "wrong" way to play as long as everyones having fun, its just different strokes and ideas for different folks.

I'm glad I never sat at your table. I don't see how earning XP isn't enough to earn a level in any class the character is eligible for or why a wizard wouldn't take one level of Fighter for some martial ability, especially in a low-level game.

Edit-AND I see I messed up and qouted the wrong qoute lol. Kain I actually like the idea of if they multiclass having something ingame to show for immersion why they are getting that extra class.

Edited October 15, 2013 by redneckdevil

[Rsinthis]

I definitely think multi-classing should be in place. When you look at the voters who state they dont use them/wouldnt use them, then how much does the ability to multiclass really affect you? Probably not much. 

As for balancing, etc, I like the way it worked in BG II. You could multi-class but it most certainly wasnt overpowered. Did it make for some interesting builds though and different ways to play the game? yes.

 

I do think its important that playing a single class be as powerful as a multi-class and that a comparison of multiclass vs single class be similar to comparing a barbarian to a fighter. Both have their strengths and weaknesses and its ultimately up to you, the player, to choose which road you travel.

[Ieo]

My answer is the same since Update 15 in 2012.

 

 

 

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.

 

 

Edit to add: The problem with a lot of people saying "yes" to multiclassing is that they're stuck in the early AD&D mentality of narrow classes -> multiclassing, in other words Baldur's Gate/IWD. You guys aren't actually looking at the Project Eternity classes and flexibility Obsidian wants to put into them.

 

I'm a multiclasser--all my IE games besides PST were multiclassed or dual. But built-in flexibility is great too, and I hope Obsidian sticks with that.

Edited October 16, 2013 by Ieo

[Tsuga C]

 

I don't mind multi-classing, but I absolutely despise the one-and-done phenomenon and banned it when I was a DM.  Additionally, I required of the players an active in-game effort to aquire the new class and its associated abilities.  Ain't no free lunch when Tsuga's sitting at the head of the table, kiddies... 

I'm glad I never sat at your table. I don't see how earning XP isn't enough to earn a level in any class the character is eligible for or why a wizard wouldn't take one level of Fighter for some martial ability, especially in a low-level game.

 

It's all about encouraging roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Do as you wish while playing a cRPG by yourself, but when sitting around the gaming table I was very firm about forcing the players to aquire a mentor or pay for training for their first level in a new class.  To site JFSOCC as a prime offender, if the party didn't have a ranger then how would his character obtain those specific outdoors abilities (ranger-related skills/feats)?  He couldn't, so I'd have forced him to seek out a mentor or paid trainer as part of the campaign in order to pursue advancement as a ranger.

 

Having taken up the new class, I'd have further required him to invest a minimum of 1 more level in said class within the next 5 level-ups or his character would be denied advancement.  Yes, that's right, you'd be looking at a minumum of a 2-level investment for every single class chosen, so multi-classing was no longer an inexpensive, rules-lawyering, technical way of picking up abilities on the cheap. Instead, players truly needed to think about whether or not it was a worthwhile investment over the long haul. Opportunity cost makes life difficult for the powergamers and keeps DMs sane. 

[Amentep]

My general thought on multi-classing is that it defeats the purposes of classes and you'd be better served by a classless system if you want to be able to cherry pick skills/feats or similar.

[Darkodin]

I'm personally in favor of multi-classing although I rarely use and I doubt with PE that would change.

[TMZuk]

My general thought on multi-classing is that it defeats the purposes of classes and you'd be better served by a classless system if you want to be able to cherry pick skills/feats or similar.

Why does it defeat the purpose of classes? That is an extremly rigid interpretation of a simple RPG mechanism, in my opinion.

 

What you say is that an electrician cannot become a soldier. An electrician is a craftsman class, and as such he obviously cannot become a soldier, which is a warrrior class, if we follow this logic through. A warrior might start out as a soldier, and then he may even become a combat-engineer, but that's still not a craftsman.

 

That makes no sense to me. Of course a craftsman can choose to become a warrior. He'll then be learning new skills and abilities while retaining his old. He might even end up a brillant combat-engineer because of his craftsman background. But he'll always be behind the one who's been pursuing a warrior class their entire life in regard to combat abilities.

 

That, I would think, makes sense.

Edited October 18, 2013 by TMZuk

[redneckdevil]

 

My general thought on multi-classing is that it defeats the purposes of classes and you'd be better served by a classless system if you want to be able to cherry pick skills/feats or similar.

Why does it defeat the purpose of classes? That is an extremly rigid interpretation of a simple RPG mechanism, in my opinion.

 

What you say is that an electrician cannot become a soldier. An electrician is a craftsman class, and as such he obviously cannot become a soldier, which is a warrrior class, if we follow this logic through. A warrior might start out as a soldier, and then he may even become a combat-engineer, but that's still not a craftsman.

 

That makes no sense to me. Of course a craftsman can choose to become a warrior. He'll then be learning new skills and abilities while retaining his old. He might even end up a brillant combat-engineer because of his craftsman background. But he'll always be behind the one who's been pursuing a warrior class their entire life in regard to combat abilities.

 

That, I would think, makes sense.

 

 

actually that's not a very good example when we are comparing classes.  I mean a warrior would be a class while an electrician wouldn't be because the electrician would be governed by skills (aka crafting\etc).  the electrician knowledge would fall into the skill points we put in crafting, basically like a blacksmith.  Like with ur example, a lvl 20 fighter can be an electrician because they put skill points in in that knowledge

 

maybe a better example would have been like a cia member.....well no, that be like a prc.  mmm, lets say a nomadic wanderer joins the military and becomes a namodic wanderer/warrior.  But then here we have a reason for the multiclassing, the person went into the military. 

 

ill be inclined to agree with multiclassing IF there was a reason WHY it could be done.  Like with a trainer or going into service or under someones wing, I can get behind.  But just the level up, pick whatever u want...eh not really for that.

Edited October 18, 2013 by redneckdevil

[Amentep]

 

My general thought on multi-classing is that it defeats the purposes of classes and you'd be better served by a classless system if you want to be able to cherry pick skills/feats or similar.

Why does it defeat the purpose of classes? That is an extremly rigid interpretation of a simple RPG mechanism, in my opinion.

 

Because it is a game. For a class system to work, there has to be some differential, meaning and choice to the classes.

 

What is the purpose of multiclassing? If its to allow the player more flexibility in creating their PC then you're actually going against the point of having a class based system. The advantage of a class based system is to create certain predefined roles that a player can fill and have those roles come with inherent limitations and advantages. An argument for flexibility is an argument for a classless system.

 

BTW, the suggestion of the engineer who becomes a fighter is really more in line with what D&D used to call dual classing as opposed to multiclassing. Multiclassing is when you advance as a fighter, mage and thief at the same time.

 

Weirdly, I'd be more okay with a "dual classing" mechanic since I believe it doesn't violate (as much) the choices that should be part of a class based system than a multi class system but would prefer either a strict single class system or a classless, skill based system, to be honest.

Edited October 18, 2013 by Amentep

[Greydragon]

I'm not a fan of multi-classing; it just ends up as a bard-esque character which has too many skills but none of them viable in the long run (mage-cleric-thief-fighter-etc).  

 

Dual classing however could be fun.

 

I'd prefer a specialization system that in places borders on multi-classing, if you choose to go in that way. I'd assume with a dual class character they are either barred from specialization or simply unable to access it until late game due to the various requirements and/or class levels. I assume they would miss out on the highest tier abilities due to the xp cost of leveling two classes simultaneously, thus less capable in their chosen classes than a true specialist, but more adaptable.

 

To elaborate on specialization bordering on multiclassing, I'm suggesting clearcut specializations and non-clearcut ones as options. i.e. a mage can become a necromancer or a summoner which are both pure mage specializations. They also have the option of becoming a trickster-like class, gaining some thief abilities and bonuses as well as magic related to stealth and distraction. 

 

Those are my thoughts on the subject.  

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

It's all about encouraging roleplaying rather than rollplaying.

And if the role someone wishes to play is a Wizard with a small amount of martial training, you have just prevented them from playing the role they want to.

 

Do as you wish while playing a cRPG by yourself, but when sitting around the gaming table I was very firm about forcing the players to aquire a mentor or pay for training for their first level in a new class. To site JFSOCC as a prime offender, if the party didn't have a ranger then how would his character obtain those specific outdoors abilities (ranger-related skills/feats)? He couldn't, so I'd have forced him to seek out a mentor or paid trainer as part of the campaign in order to pursue advancement as a ranger. Having taken up the new class, I'd have further required him to invest a minimum of 1 more level in said class within the next 5 level-ups or his character would be denied advancement.

How would that work for Barbarians and Sorcerers? Sorcerers have an innate magic ability and Barbarians use fury rather than training so seeking out a tutor to learn the class seems contradictory to the concept of the class.

 

Yes, that's right, you'd be looking at a minumum of a 2-level investment for every single class chosen, so multi-classing was no longer an inexpensive, rules-lawyering, technical way of picking up abilities on the cheap. Instead, players truly needed to think about whether or not it was a worthwhile investment over the long haul. Opportunity cost makes life difficult for the powergamers and keeps DMs sane.

Have you played 3.X/PF? I'm asking because taking a level in any class requires the same amount of XP so multiclassing isn't cheap at all. Maybe in previous editions(which outside of IE games I have no knowledge of) you could dip into a new class and gain levels quickly but that isn't the case with PF, where XP is determined by character level instead of class level. Edited October 18, 2013 by KaineParker

[Amentep]

 

It's all about encouraging roleplaying rather than rollplaying.

And if the role someone wishes to play is a Wizard with a small amount of martial training, you have just prevented them from playing the role they want to.

 

And if the game is explicitly set up with no multi-classing, who in their right mind would expect to play a wizard with a small amount of martial training in the first place?

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

And if the game is explicitly set up with no multi-classing, who in their right mind would expect to play a wizard with a small amount of martial training in the first place?

Someone who wants to Gish. If classes are set up to be flexible(as PE is attempting to be) the goals of multiclassing can be accomplished by taking talents instead.

[Amentep]

Right, but my point is, that if the game is set up to have no multi-classing, why would anyone expect to play a wizard with martial training.

 

It's like picking up a Mario game and complaining that it doesn't have CALL OF DUTY FPS gameplay or complaining that you can't have Mario romance blue alien ladies like Mass Effect.

 

At some point you have to play the game based on what it gives you not what you might actually want.

 

(And while PE is attempting flexibility, its not really multi-classing either).

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

You wouldn't. However, Tsuga and I were discussing Multiclassing in D&D, not PE.

[Amentep]

Right, but in the abstract in the "Roleplay" vs "rollplay" argument, you can only play, role or roll, what the game gives you to play.

 

So multiclassing may add options, but not multiclassing doesn't mean you can't role play, you just role play what the game gives you to play.

 

Anyhow, P&P games are totally fudgeable anyhow.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Right, but in the abstract in the "Roleplay" vs "rollplay" argument, you can only play, role or roll, what the game gives you to play. So multiclassing may add options, but not multiclassing doesn't mean you can't role play, you just role play what the game gives you to play.

I don't think anyone is arguing that multiclassing is essential to role playing.

 

While you are confined to what the game allows you to do(in terms of character stats, motivation and personality can always be up to the player) in the game, it does feel like you have more freedom if there is a flexible system implemented so each class isn't a linear path with no variation between members of that class.

 

Anyhow, P&P games are totally fudgeable anyhow.

Which is the reason I prefer them to CRPGs. I suppose you could always mod the game, but that takes much more effort than tweaking PnP rules.

[Amentep]

Yup, P&P is really where its at for roleplaying.

[JFSOCC]

 

 

I don't mind multi-classing, but I absolutely despise the one-and-done phenomenon and banned it when I was a DM.  Additionally, I required of the players an active in-game effort to aquire the new class and its associated abilities.  Ain't no free lunch when Tsuga's sitting at the head of the table, kiddies... 

I'm glad I never sat at your table. I don't see how earning XP isn't enough to earn a level in any class the character is eligible for or why a wizard wouldn't take one level of Fighter for some martial ability, especially in a low-level game.

 

I would have adapted my play to the options available to me, of course, so if you had been my DM, I would have gone and sought for that mentor. But I would still have taken that class as my second.

It's all about encouraging roleplaying rather than rollplaying. Do as you wish while playing a cRPG by yourself, but when sitting around the gaming table I was very firm about forcing the players to aquire a mentor or pay for training for their first level in a new class.  To site JFSOCC as a prime offender, if the party didn't have a ranger then how would his character obtain those specific outdoors abilities (ranger-related skills/feats)?  He couldn't, so I'd have forced him to seek out a mentor or paid trainer as part of the campaign in order to pursue advancement as a ranger.

 

Having taken up the new class, I'd have further required him to invest a minimum of 1 more level in said class within the next 5 level-ups or his character would be denied advancement.  Yes, that's right, you'd be looking at a minumum of a 2-level investment for every single class chosen, so multi-classing was no longer an inexpensive, rules-lawyering, technical way of picking up abilities on the cheap. Instead, players truly needed to think about whether or not it was a worthwhile investment over the long haul. Opportunity cost makes life difficult for the powergamers and keeps DMs sane. 

 

[TMZuk]

 

 

It's all about encouraging roleplaying rather than rollplaying.

And if the role someone wishes to play is a Wizard with a small amount of martial training, you have just prevented them from playing the role they want to.

 

And if anyone wishes to be unbeatable demi god with ulimited strenghts, all the spells all the abilities then we should allow it also?

It remains me of Cartman from South Park in episode "Good time with weapons":

 

 

Kyle: God damn it, Cartman, you can't keep making up powers!

 

Stan: Yeah, dude, that's like the fifth power you've come up with!

 

Cartman: I am Bullrog, and I have lots and lots of powers.

 

Kyle: No, ****! From now on you only get to have one power! So what is it?

 

Cartman: I have the power to have all the powers I want.

 

Kyle: That doesn't count, fat ass!

 

Stan: Yeah, that's it, Cartman, now you don't get to have any powers!

 

[Cartman whines]

 

 

If we want to create jacks of all trade and cherry pick every aspect of a character then we should play classless based RPG, when you have class based system then pick one for Christ sake. Some people are really needy.

 

 

You know, I'm a backer as well as any one else here. And I like dual-classing and multi-classing. It was features I liked a lot in the old Infinity-engine games. If you don't like them, then don't use the feature for crying out loud! Stop telling other people how they should or should not play a game! Multi-classing would be a feature added. It does not take anything away from those who don't want to use it.

 

Some people really walk in tiny, tiny shoes!

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

And if anyone wishes to be unbeatable demi god with ulimited strenghts, all the spells all the abilities then we should allow it also?

Not the same by a long shot. Try again.

[TMZuk]

 

If we want to create jacks of all trade and cherry pick every aspect of a character then we should play classless based RPG, when you have class based system then pick one for Christ sake. Some people are really needy.

 

That is not telling people how they should play?

 

Perhaps you should read what you post! I don't care about you having strong opinions. I care about you telling the rest of us what we should do.

[Stun]

 

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.

 

But that's... not the way the BG series did it at all. Instead, the Kits (which btw, were introduced in BG2) completely replaced the vanilla class. They were actually a hamfisted ret-con if you were importing from the first game. An illogtical one, since in some cases (rangers, for example) just about all your acquired skills were replaced.

 

What you're describing though, is just the uninspired nonsense from Dragon Age. And I'm not in favor of such a system because there's usually no valid reason NOT to "specialize". These specializations usually feature everything from the vanilla class + some special abilities, thereby rendering the choice of just staying vanilla pointless.

 

The reason I strongly favor traditional multi-classing instead is because the above doesn't happen. A fully built single class fighter will always be a better fighter, than say, a multi-classed fighter/mage. And a straight up mage will (obviously) be a better mage than a multi-classed mage. But what you DO get from multi-classing is a completely different type of build. A different experience. And that's always the best way to go when you're designing a class system.

Edited October 20, 2013 by Stun

[ShadySands]

[SophosTheWise]

I'm mildly opposed to multi-classing. I've never cared for it myself. It just seems odd to have a fighter-wizard or a rogue-cleric. I don' know, it's my roleplaying-sense that tells me that some things do not belong together. Also I think a player should be able to be consequent enough to make lasting choices. Of course wizards run out of spells, of course sometimes a fireball right out of a warrior's gaunlet would be comfortable. But that's not what a game should be like all the time. I'm a warrior, so I don't have a fireball at my disposal. I can deal with this. Because I've got plate armour and a greatsword!