Your thoughts on multi-classing

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Then where exactly will we drew the line?

Levels. If someone wants to have all the abilities, that person would have to be level 20 in EVERY class. The amount of XP in the game should not be enough to reach that amount. If that person tried it, he would be very low-level in all the classes, and would be spread too thin to be useful.

 

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.

All true. Even with the Prestige classes in 3.X/PF, you are required to give up advancement in one class to gain the abilities of the prestige class. Specialization should be specialized. not just class+extra ability.

 

Although I'm not 100% sure if PE will need multiclassing if the classes are as flexible as Sawyer is trying to design them, and you are able to create the equivalent of a multiclass by taking certain talents.

Edited October 20, 2013 by KaineParker

[Jarmo]

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. 

 

While I'm mildly opposed to PE having multi-classing, I'm in favor of the concept otherwise.

And also coming from roleplaying side of things.

 

Warrior mages first.

 

In 1st edition D&D all elves were fighter/mage hybrids, heavy armor, weapon skills, spellcasting. All from level 1.

So it seems natural and right to me, to have such characters. But from my viewpoint, combining classes is better than having a set hybrid.

Because it just makes sense there'd be ranger-mages as well, or from priestly class.. ranger-priests. Or fighter-priests, or pure mages.

And maybe it shouldn't be 50-50 all the time. Maybe scholars don't spend as much time in the field, so while they were 50-50 fighter-mages to begin with, they then just continue being mage.

 

Or maybe this culture makes a point of making everybody take military training.

So everybody gets 1 level of fighting class and then can go on doing whatever they want.

 

Or maybe it's a remnant split off an ancient magical culture.

A culture in which everybody has magical potential and everybody studies magic in grammar school.

So you can become a fighter, but you need to have at least a level of a casting class.

 

It's easier to do these things by combining classes than by making a hundred custom classes.

It shouldn't be like... hmmm.. guess I'll take a level of bard next, to get the xxx feat and perform ability..

 

 

Rogue-Cleric.

 

This just seems odd because when thinking of a Priest, one tends to think of a christian priest.

Or one from which ever main religions of the world.

 

Becomes a lot more plausible if you're thinking of a god of mischief, Loki or whatever.

God of hunting, God of murder and death, God of twilight shadows.

 

Again, it shouldn't just be..

hmm.. a couple of levels of priest would give me nice buffs and healing spells, might come in handy.

 

Like before, of course you could do a prestige class for priest of Loki,

but again, it's so much tidier and simpler if priests of Loki just take a couple of rogue levels instead.

[JFSOCC]

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!

I think it would be interesting to see the rogue-cleric or I dunno, Druid-Sorcerer. At least in PnP it gives you the ability to roleplay a nuanced and detailed personality.

 

It would be challenging, sure, but that's part of the fun.

 

I could see a P:E Rogue-Monk happening, I could roleplay that.

[SophosTheWise]

@Jarmo, I can definitely see your point. I've never 1st edition D&D. So that's probably the origin of my disliking warrior mages etc. It just doesn't seem right. It's probably just a personal preference, I just can't get over it. The same with Kung-Fu-Monks in D&D. I just... It doesn't work for me. I'm probably a bit close-minded in that regard.

 

I never liked high-fantasy much, I don't like being a jack-of-all-trades like you can be in Skyrim and other RPGs. I enjoy being a "normal" hero a lot more.

 

@JFSOOC, well of course it would be interesting. But it's nothing I'd play on my first playthough. :D Also, is a rogue-monk not just... some sort of Ninja? :D

[JFSOCC]

Nah, no Ninja She's the philosophical type of rogue. The Zen master of her martial art. Confident, deadly, doesn't usually have to use her abilities for sheer respect earned. Believes personal skill and mastery of self are what makes her more effective as double dealing backstabbing bastard. Believes the end justifies the means. Takes over the criminal underworld and makes her goons follow a code of conduct because it draws less attention from authorities if you don't sell to kids. Loves Nietzsche.

 

Started out as a clever rogue who suffered from arrogance, and took lessons from a monk-mentor who unexpectedly made her think about how she applied herself. Both in practice and in mind.

[SophosTheWise]

Nah, no Ninja She's the philosophical type of rogue. The Zen master of her martial art. Confident, deadly, doesn't usually have to use her abilities for sheer respect earned. Believes personal skill and mastery of self are what makes her more effective as double dealing backstabbing bastard. Believes the end justifies the means. Takes over the criminal underworld and makes her goons follow a code of conduct because it draws less attention from authorities if you don't sell to kids. Loves Nietzsche.

 

Started out as a clever rogue who suffered from arrogance, and took lessons from a monk-mentor who unexpectedly made her think about how she applied herself. Both in practice and in mind.

 

Well, now I want to play a multi-classed rogue-monk. You're probably the first one that made multiclassing attractive to me :D

[Lephys]

The thing is... if you don't overly restrict things in the first place, then there's no need for something like multi-classing to come back in and stretch things out to provide some flexibility.

 

Example:

 

Weapon restrictions. Wasn't it in the earlier versions of DnD, instead of simply lacking a proficiency level, you actually lacked the ABILITY to wield a sword as a Mage, for example? So then, what's ONE thing that being able to take a level in Warrior provides (amongst others)? The sheer ability to wield a sword.

 

In P:E, you can already be a Wizard who wields a sword and wears plate armor, if you really want. So, there's less of a need, from the get-go, for a Wizard to be able to pick some other class to have flexibility.

 

Just an example using one aspect of a dual-class scenario. Now, if you want to HALF use Wizard abilities, and HALF use Cipher abilities... well, in P:E's design, that's a bit convoluted. Do you charge your grimoire with Soul Whip so that you can gain Focus, or do you NEED to wield an actual melee weapon to use it? Do you get Grimoire Slam AND the Cipher's disengagement ability, or JUST one or the other? Do you get a familiar? Do you get to use wand Blasts? Plus, if the Wizard already has a variety of spells, many of which attack the mind, then why would you need to double your mind-attacking repertoire by utilizing both the Cipher's class mechanic (on top of your Wizard one) AND its abilities, as well?

 

In other words, at what point are the lines between classes TOO hazy, and, at that point, wouldn't it just be easier to have a classless system, with all the abilities arrayed before you, and you pick and choose as you go? Same access, but in a more sensical fashion.

 

Basically, most multi-class systems are DESIGNED to support multiple classes. If you design your system to simply allow each class enough flexibility from the get-go, then simply chucking in multi-classing will result in a bunch of unnecessary muddying of the waters.

 

It's not a matter of "Should games with classes in them allow for multi-class or not?" That's not really a question one can answer, since it really depends on the way in which the classes were designed.

 

It's a bit silly to say "I know each class is already SUPER flexible, but I demand the balance-shattering ability to simply overlap these classes' abilities!" and it's ALSO a bit silly to say "The classes SHOULD'VE been designed in a more restrictive fashion, so that I could then choose multiple of them at once and ease the restrictions to my own satisfaction! 8D"

 

At the end of the day, what point is there in being able to deal damage in 15 completely different ways? "I can use an awesome sword technique, OR lash out with a mind attack, OR summon elemental powers, OR call upon the powers of nature, directly, OR use my super awesome precision bow-sniping..." And, again, if you want that, that's literally what classless is for.

[JFSOCC]

There is no doubt that restricting players to single classes will restrict their playstyles. That's just simple logic.

[Amentep]

In 1st edition D&D all elves were fighter/mage hybrids, heavy armor, weapon skills, spellcasting. All from level 1.

I agree with you I thought treating Elf and Dwarf as classes in 1e wasn't a great solution.

 

I still think that, ultimately, if the goal is to allow the player to pick and choose skill sets a classless system is better suited than a classes system w/multiclassing.

 

This just seems odd because when thinking of a Priest, one tends to think of a christian priest.

Or one from which ever main religions of the world.

 

Becomes a lot more plausible if you're thinking of a god of mischief, Loki or whatever.

God of hunting, God of murder and death, God of twilight shadows.

To be honest, when I think "rogue-priest" I think Friar Tuck.

[Jarmo]

 To be honest, when I think "rogue-priest" I think Friar Tuck.

 

 

Which would be a real good example actually.

 

Anyway, yes, I'm a fan of classless systems actually, but it's like.. dunno..

 

In purely single-class system you pick a class and go with it, maybe and probably make some adjustments inside the class.

In a classless system you have the most control over your character build (assuming the system *let's* you have control)***

In a multi-class system, you build your character from big blocks like you'd do with Lego.

 

I think there's room for all, no matter which one you prefer.

 

Now PE, it's the first and maybe the only "PE system" game there is and is going to be.

It's not like D&D where you're assumed to play about 78 campaigns with the same ruleset and you're assumed to roll yourself 78 different characters. There's simply no need for endless variety at this point.

 

Actually I'd have preferred there were just the 4 main classes (and maybe cipher or chanter) to choose from, and no multi-classing either.

better to keep things simple in the beginning, make sure the basic stuff works and then go about adding more and more.

 

 

*** The problem in classless systems is they often give you something like 1) magic attack, 2) magic healing, 3) martial attack

Then you pick and choose, but you'll actually need to take a bit of everything in order to make viable character, so every character ends up looking pretty much the same, with minor variations.

[Lephys]

There is no doubt that restricting players to single classes will restrict their playstyles. That's just simple logic.

A) I said "overly restrict," for what it's worth (in case that was directed at me).

 

B) Even in mutli-classing, you're still restricting their playstyles, as opposed to a single-class system. Unless you have a limitless system, by choosing half of one class's abilities and half of another's (for example), you are restricting yourself from the other half of one class's abilities (which you could've accessed if you had stuck with a single class).

 

In other words... you have a length of string, and you can make whatever shape you want with it, but it's always going to have the same circumference.

 

Also, the more classes you allow to be picked from at once, the more difficult it becomes to design the ability hierarchy. How do you guarantee, for example, that someone with the first 3rd of Fighter, Cipher, and Druid abilities will be as capable as someone with 100% of the Druid abilities? Both ways. If you manage to balance out the selection of abilities so that a third of each of three different classes works really well, how do you make sure that people sticking to a single class don't suffer, and how do you make sure it doesn't became detrimental to NOT multiclass?

 

I'm not suggesting this means mutli-classing is all bad and not in the least good. There are just many things to consider. Everyone acts as though it's as simple as "Do you want people to pick more versatile builds, or not?" As if there are no consequences to consider. We can just flip a switch in options in a given game design and turn on multiclassing, and nothing in the game will be affecting except an increase in choice. It's just not that simple.

 

So, again, SINCE P:E's being designed with single-class-only builds in mind, I think it's not a bad thing in the least, and I believe that a very good amount of build versatility (a surprising amount to some of you vying for multiclassing, I'd wager) is very achievable with the correct design. Is it inherently guaranteed by the choice of design? Not at all. But ANYTHING could be screwed up by the actual designers, no matter how good the initial design logistics are. Humans are fallible. But, I trust a team with Obsidian's experience to all but nullify that possibility, even if they don't get it PERFECT; they'll most likely do it properly.

 

Really, though, when it comes down to it, I believe that single-class-only and classless cover the range of choice most efficiently. If you design a single-class-only system to be versatile enough, you allow for quite a bit of choice in build and role without actually breaching the class lines. You could even just have a pool of abilities that are available to all, so that instead of having to choose what other class you want, you simply choose what abilities outside your class you want. Basically, you'd have class-specific abilities, and non-class-specific abilities, and that's it. Beyond that, it would be silly not to just bridge the rest of the gap to classless, allowing for any and all combinations (within the overall limitations -- total ability points/levels, etc.) to be chosen.

 

But that's just me. *shrug*

[Jarmo]

Forgot to add in my long blahblahblah that the PE option of giving more leeway inside the classes is something I quite look forward to seeing, and not necessarily easily compatible with multiclassing. That's something I enjoyed in D&D 3.x, being able to give a fighter some level of expertise into picklocking or sneaking or whatever, quite a step up from D&D 1st E, where every 5th level rogue is exactly as good at hiding as another, even with different int or dex scores.

 

Now if PE goes even further into this direction, that's definitely something I want to see.

 

One more thing, maintaining balance between classes and multi-classes is not something I'm very keen on.

It's fine if things are balanced, but if, say, mages or priests are way more powerful than anything else, that's fine by me as well.

(Though not if the in game lore maintains eg. that mages rule because their awesome power, while the game experience shows they're useless tools).

 

Finding the perfect class-ability-combo to make übercharacter to rule all, is a metagame I quite enjoy in D&D games.

Kind of takes the point of character building if the game is so well balanced your choices won't make the character better or worse.

[Stun]

Finding the perfect class-ability-combo to make übercharacter to rule all, is a metagame I quite enjoy in D&D games.

Yes. And I don't understand why that's not everyone's preferred system when we're talking about character creation.

 

Volumes of Books have been written about the different combinations offered by 3ed D&D. Even Neverwinter Nights, which only went about half way with what true 3e D&D allowed, STILL gave you enough customization options to fuel whole message boards of build discussion.... for years.

 

I really do miss that level of build choice.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Stun

[JFSOCC]

 

There is no doubt that restricting players to single classes will restrict their playstyles. That's just simple logic.

A) I said "overly restrict," for what it's worth (in case that was directed at me).

 

B) Even in mutli-classing, you're still restricting their playstyles, as opposed to a single-class system. Unless you have a limitless system, by choosing half of one class's abilities and half of another's (for example), you are restricting yourself from the other half of one class's abilities (which you could've accessed if you had stuck with a single class).Sure, but it would still be a lot less restrictive than having only single classes. You still get to choose which half you take, to top this of, there is no requirement to take a second class, if you want to single-class your playthrough, there would literally be nothing stopping you.

 

In other words... you have a length of string, and you can make whatever shape you want with it, but it's always going to have the same circumference. That makes no sense whatsoever, what's important is the shape, not the circumference. It's not the powerlevel, it's the playstyle.

 

Also, the more classes you allow to be picked from at once, the more difficult it becomes to design the ability hierarchy. How do you guarantee, for example, that someone with the first 3rd of Fighter, Cipher, and Druid abilities will be as capable as someone with 100% of the Druid abilities? Both ways. If you manage to balance out the selection of abilities so that a third of each of three different classes works really well, how do you make sure that people sticking to a single class don't suffer, and how do you make sure it doesn't became detrimental to NOT multiclass? Wow, good argument, still, there is a whole bunch I can say to that. It's not my job, or the job of the developers, to perfectly balance all choices. As long as all playstyles are feasible. Generally there are a whole bunch of ways in which balance can be achieved. Good class design would have the single-classes be easier to play, but not necessarily be more powerful to play. Historically, however, I don't think players have ever been punished for choosing to stay with just one class. Key being choice.

 

I'm not suggesting this means mutli-classing is all bad and not in the least good. There are just many things to consider. Everyone acts as though it's as simple as "Do you want people to pick more versatile builds, or not?" As if there are no consequences to consider. We can just flip a switch in options in a given game design and turn on multiclassing, and nothing in the game will be affecting except an increase in choice. It's just not that simple.

 

So, again, SINCE P:E's being designed with single-class-only builds in mind, I think it's not a bad thing in the least, and I believe that a very good amount of build versatility (a surprising amount to some of you vying for multiclassing, I'd wager) is very achievable with the correct design. Is it inherently guaranteed by the choice of design? Not at all. But ANYTHING could be screwed up by the actual designers, no matter how good the initial design logistics are. Humans are fallible. But, I trust a team with Obsidian's experience to all but nullify that possibility, even if they don't get it PERFECT; they'll most likely do it properly. Two paragraphs of hopeful speculation. I hope you're right. But it is speculation.

 

Really, though, when it comes down to it, I believe that single-class-only and classless cover the range of choice most efficiently. If you design a single-class-only system to be versatile enough, you allow for quite a bit of choice in build and role without actually breaching the class lines. You could even just have a pool of abilities that are available to all, so that instead of having to choose what other class you want, you simply choose what abilities outside your class you want. Basically, you'd have class-specific abilities, and non-class-specific abilities, and that's it. Beyond that, it would be silly not to just bridge the rest of the gap to classless, allowing for any and all combinations (within the overall limitations -- total ability points/levels, etc.) to be chosen.

I too, agree, classless would probably have been great. although class-systems allow characters to take more asymmetrical approaches to resolving their conflicts and obstacles. Since mulit-cassing would still limit the choices of a player to a few (but way more than if you had single-class only) you would not lose the distinctiveness of classes, nor do I believe it would become a homogeneous mess.

But that's just me. *shrug*

*Shrug*

 

my response in red.

[Lephys]

my response in red.

A much-appreciated response. All I can really say to that is, while you're right about multi-class versus single-class-only expanding the choice, to say that's the only dynamic at play is oversimplifying it. And I still hold that the figurative shape is not all that counts. The balancing is a big part of the whole shape versus circumference thing; even if you don't need it to be perfect, there's a minimum to avoid huge problems. If a class combo can take out anything with ease, and a single class struggles with half the stuff in the game, that's too blatant of an imbalance if you ask me. You're literally giving one option objectively more tools in a greater quantity, and more inherent effectiveness (before player skill/tactics/cleverness/efficiency even gets applied) than another option. Why is that a problem? Because a core part of the game is a challenge, save when the player specifically alters the difficulty options himself. Class options and character builds, while allowing for more or less efficiency and/or circumstantial effectiveness, are there to provide a spectrum of variation amongst gameplay experience. It is not at all their task to directly address overall challenge/difficulty, and it would be redundant of them to do so (on top of difficulty options).

 

Also, I say (and yes, this is admittedly a lot of hopeful speculation, as you put it, ) that a single-class-only system isn't mandated to have some set amount of restriction and lack of flexibility in builds, and that a GREAT amount of figurative shapes can be accommodated by just single-class options, without the need for multi-classing. And, again, please heavily consider this: At what point on the flexibility scale does it become more efficient to simply abolish class boundaries all-together than to maintain them? At a certain point, your class becomes insignificant, as your character is really just an assorted cluster of abilities and properties.

 

I'm truly not trying to argue that multi-class systems are inherently crap or anything. If you design the game properly, almost the same amount of variety and flexibility can be achieved via either a single-class system OR a multi-class system, really. True, the multi-class system will always have more variety, but, how much of that, above what can potentially be offered by a quite-flexible single-class system, doesn't fall within the "this might as well be a class-less system" range? That's my thoughts on the matter, at least.

 

Mainly just things I think are worth a lot of consideration, whichever system you go with.

[JFSOCC]

If a class combo can take out anything with ease, and a single class struggles with half the stuff in the game, that's too blatant of an imbalance if you ask me.

Perhaps, but I think those problems would then probably also crop up with a six character party involving those same classes. If a Monk-druid somehow manages to be devastating on his own, perhaps the combination of a Monk and a Druid would be as well. They'd involve the same abilities, after all.

 

Mainly just things I think are worth a lot of consideration, whichever system you go with.

That's no lie.

[Tale]

I enjoy limited multi-classing. Take two classes maximum. D&D 2E had a good idea in that. And I tend to like it when the game is built for core archetypes, with the multi-classing allowing expansion of those archetypes.

 

I don't like near unlimited multi-classing. At that point you might as well be using a classless system and I kind of prefer for systems to do so.

[Lephys]

Perhaps, but I think those problems would then probably also crop up with a six character party involving those same classes. If a Monk-druid somehow manages to be devastating on his own, perhaps the combination of a Monk and a Druid would be as well. They'd involve the same abilities, after all.

A valid point. However, it seems like the two are somehow still separate. As in, if you took a single-class-only individual character, and compared it to a single-class-only 6-character party, the differences would be relatively identical to those between a multi-class individual character and a multi-class 6-character party. If that makes sense... o_o. It's just a "seem" thing, heh. I'm no expert. I was never a pert, so I can't be an expert.

 

@Tale:

 

Somehow, you just made me think of something I haven't specifically hit on that irks me about even well-designed multi-class systems:

 

The individual classes in them tend to be riddled with restrictions that make me ask "why couldn't they do more than this in the first place?" Like the "You're a Wizard, so you can't use a sword, but if you were to ALSO take a level in Warrior, you could" example that I made before. That's the sort of thing I mean. It just seems like that restriction is in place for no other reason than to justify the multi-classing options (to clarify, it's ONE aspect of usefulness to the multi-classing to Warrior, in the example). No matter your class, shouldn't you be able, as an individual with arms and motor skills, to wield a sword and learn how to use it, to some degree? So, isn't that sort of independent of class structure? Then, if ALL classes could use a sword, then that no longer becomes a useful choice expansion as the result of multi-classing choices.

 

I guess that's why I question multi-classing so much. There seem to be a LOT of overlaps already, that simply make sense, without a multi-class system. And it seems like you almost HAVE to arbitrarily restrict this flexibility in order to implement a multi-class system without it either screwing things up or essentially trampling the realm of a classless system.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Lephys

[Hrrunstar]

I would rather have a skill based system as I strongly dislike class based...but a game is balanced within it self and, if possible, I would rather have the option to multi-class than not.

[Silent Winter]

If a Monk-druid somehow manages to be devastating on his own, perhaps the combination of a Monk and a Druid would be as well. They'd involve the same abilities, after all.

 

Sure, but there can also be differences:

to take a D&D example - a fighter-mage could cast stoneskin and protection from fire, walk into the midst of the enemy and set off a fireball before wailing on them, taking no damage from their melee attacks.

A mage alone could send the fireball in ahead of time but the single-class fighter doesn't have stoneskin to resist the damage while pummeling.

(Same, I guess for the Druid+Ironskins and Monk combo).

Whether that single example of combo-skills is relevant or not depends on how much of PE's abilities are self-target only.

 

Personally, I've enjoyed playing both multi/dual-class (fighter-mage / fighter->thief) and single-class (sorceror, druid) in BG1+2.  In NWN2 (3.5e) I felt the addition of a few rogue levels really helped my ranger character (better dodge and tumble for running round the battlefield).

I'll wait to see how the PE classes' progression looks before deciding if multi-classing was needed for variety - it depends on how they handle the gaining of skills (fighters can learn stealth for example and mages can learn some weapon skills).

[Messier-31]

Personally the warrior-mage multiclass was the only one I liked. But that could be easily changed into one solid class of a fighting spellcaster.

[Sarex]

Thief-fighter, where at the end levels you could wield any weapon (thiefs had a skill that let them use any item no matter the restriction on it) was the strongest class I saw, with the exception of maybe thief-mage.

[Failedlegend]

OK so looking at the votes it seems pretty split, I mean theres clear winners but its definately not a landslide but the great thing about a single player game is you don't HAVE to multi-class so there's little reason not to include (assuming there time to develop it)

 

I really think there should be almost no limits on multi-classing...at most limit it to 3 classes the fact that you can only choose 1 class per level should be limit enough (ie. a Chanter12/Monk6/Fighter2) and none of that XP penalty BS it's just an annoyance and means nothing at Lvl cap.

 

Mutli-classing makes a HUGE difference in replayability of games like these.

 

A Rogue, A Rogue/Mage and a Fighter/Rogue makes for all entirely different builds and a multitude of possibilities within those builds themselves...not to mention the roleplaying aspect of it...I love making a wicked backstory for at least my PC (I like having companions but their pre-made builds always irk me so I always end up with a merc or two...muliplayer game...transfer save to single player file FTW)

 

I'd also like to see kits like in BG1 except when multiclassing you can choose a kit for each class. ie. A Rogue/Ranger/Wizard can be a Sharpshooter/Beastmaster/Illusionist instead of just a Sharpshooter/Ranger/Mage

Edited October 29, 2013 by Failedlegend

[Failedlegend]

Oh and to clarify I couldn't stand people who made charcarters that looked like this 6/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/2/2/1/1/1 that was just ridiculous. I'd say free multi-classing system with a maximum of 3 classes would be best. This I say as a player and as a DM.

 

Also IMO the stupid XP penalty encourgaed those builds instead of discouraging them (ie. the 6 would be rogue and you choose halfling since its their favored class and the rest either 1 or 2 levels became unaffected by the xp penalty where a far more natrual feeling 12/6/2 or like 15/4/1 got heavily penalized)

Edited October 29, 2013 by Failedlegend

[Cardo]

If you can fit multiclassing into the system, then why not?