Your thoughts on multi-classing

[Silent Winter]

I agree with Osvir - a path-system, similar to BG kits but not necessarily chosen with all the bonuses at character creation, sounds more interesting than multi-classing.

 

It might not make it into PE1 but maybe something to consider for PE2?

[TMZuk]

I love multi-classing, and use it all the time in DnD,

 

Fighter-cleric. Fighter-rogue. Mage-rogue.  I love them.

 

What I don't understand is the fierce opposotion some people display. It's an option ~added~. it doesn't detract anything from the game. You don't like it, then don't use it. More options added should be good, not bad.

 

Some people love creating the balanced party where everyone supplements each other. Good for them. I could care less. I love playing an independent jack of all trades.

 

The balancing argument I just don't get. It's a single player game. Who cares about balance?

[JFSOCC]

I care about balance, but the rest of your post, I couldn't agree more with

[Gfted1]

You don't like it, then don't use it.

There's your problem. The seeming majority of posters literally cant help themselves. See resting.

 

Im not a huge fan of dual/multi classes and prefer the (usual) restrictions that classes apply.

[Messier-31]

More options added should be good, not bad.

 

We have this slavic saying: if something is good for everything, then it also is good for nothing.

[rjshae]

Multi-classing in D&D seemed like a cludge designed to allow the type of flexibility that later became more readily available with a skills-based system. The problem is that multi-classing hard to balance well. An improperly balanced multi-classing system favors a min-maxing approach, making it more of a zero-sum game than is preferable for the role-playing experience. (I.e. it encourages munchkinism.) To me, as long as there is sufficient flexibility of design in the system, then the multi-classing cludge isn't really necessary. Of course, that approach introduces a whole new set of balancing issues.

Edited October 7, 2013 by rjshae

[Kjaamor]

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world who preferred the 2nd Edition class system.

[FlintlockJazz]

Personally I believe that a system should either be classless or only allow one class per character (with flexibility in that class). Multi-classing seems to me to be wanting its cake and eat it (never got that saying, what else do you do with cake?) and ends up breaking the game, watering it down, etc.

 

Thats my opinion anyway for what its worth.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world who preferred the 2nd Edition class system.

You are.

 

@FlintlockJazz, in a BW, you would romance the cake.

[Lephys]

(never got that saying, what else do you do with cake?)

I dunno if you're joking, but, if you aren't, I also didn't get it for a while. Then, I realized, it makes a lot more sense if you use, say, money, instead of cake. If it was "you can't spend your money and keep it, too." It's saying that if you want there to be cake available for noms, you have to leave the cake there. If you eat the cake (because immediate satisfaction), then you no longer possess it.

 

Anywho...

 

I think aside from the fact (I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed?) that P:E isn't being designed with multi-classing in mind at all, I just don't think multi-classing fits super well into the rest of P:E's particular design/lore/etc. as well as it does in a lot of other games.

 

Also, this is necessary to say:

 

LEELOO DALLAS, MULTI-CLASS!!!

[Abtacha]

Personally I believe that a system should either be classless or only allow one class per character (with flexibility in that class). Multi-classing seems to me to be wanting its cake and eat it (never got that saying, what else do you do with cake?) and ends up breaking the game, watering it down, etc.

 

Thats my opinion anyway for what its worth.

Pretty much how I see it as well.

I generally don't like the way multiclassing works, if you want to give the players the freedom to be anything they want make it classless. If you want clearly defined classes don't muddy the waters with multiclassing.

[nikolokolus]

I guess I'm not worried about it because of the way Mr. Sawyer (et. al.) have described the way that the classes will work in this game. It already sounds as though you will have the ability to push characters in a lot of different directions mechanically. Larger than that is the fact that you have a party-based game. If this were a single character game, the ability to customize down to the finest detail would be a lot more important (and I'd rather see a classless system in that case) but if part of the game's challenge mechanically is finding a party composition that allows you to tackle the game's various obstacles then I don't think multiclassing is such a hot idea. 

[rjshae]

A better approach to designing a multi-classing system might be to build it that way from the ground up. That is, start with the assumption that a character will always be built with two demi-classes, then manage the special case where the demi-classes are the same class. (I.e. add in additional options and benefits for specializing in a single class that compensate for the fact that your character is less flexible.) A variant of this approach would be to have a major (67%) and a minor (33%) class, then allow a character to take three minor (3x33%) classes... with some limitations.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world who preferred the 2nd Edition class system.

You are.

 

@FlintlockJazz, in a BW, you would romance the cake.

 

 

BW=Bioware right?

 

In that case, you'd need both a male and female cake to cater for all!

 

 

(never got that saying, what else do you do with cake?)

I dunno if you're joking, but, if you aren't, I also didn't get it for a while. Then, I realized, it makes a lot more sense if you use, say, money, instead of cake. If it was "you can't spend your money and keep it, too." It's saying that if you want there to be cake available for noms, you have to leave the cake there. If you eat the cake (because immediate satisfaction), then you no longer possess it.

 

Anywho...

 

I think aside from the fact (I'm pretty sure it's been confirmed?) that P:E isn't being designed with multi-classing in mind at all, I just don't think multi-classing fits super well into the rest of P:E's particular design/lore/etc. as well as it does in a lot of other games.

 

Also, this is necessary to say:

 

LEELOO DALLAS, MULTI-CLASS!!!

 

 

Yeah, the money one makes more sense.  You're still 'having' the cake when you eat it, but then maybe I'm being pedantic heh.

 

 

Personally I believe that a system should either be classless or only allow one class per character (with flexibility in that class). Multi-classing seems to me to be wanting its cake and eat it (never got that saying, what else do you do with cake?) and ends up breaking the game, watering it down, etc.

 

Thats my opinion anyway for what its worth.

Pretty much how I see it as well.

I generally don't like the way multiclassing works, if you want to give the players the freedom to be anything they want make it classless. If you want clearly defined classes don't muddy the waters with multiclassing.

 

 

Yep, agree 100%.  If you want to give players the ability to customise and change the characters then give them the option within the class, as suggested by others in this thread.

[Yonjuro]

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world who preferred the 2nd Edition class system.

 

Nope. I like it better too. The 3rd edition seemed to me to give the illusion of more flexibility, but the XP progression was exponential, so, if you were a level 10 fighter you could become a level 11 fighter or spend the (exponentially high number of) points to be a fighter10/<someotherclass>1 which is a relatively weaker character considering the cost. Using 2ed. dual classing, you pay once in decreased abilities while  you regain your old class using the point progression of the new class (that is, paying fewer points per level), or, using multiclassing divide points by 2 (or three for a triple class) and use the progressions from all of your classes (division by a constant over an exponentially increasing series = 'good'  ). You never pay a giant number of points for a tiny increase. 

 

That said, I have approximately no experience actually using 3rd ed. so maybe it doesn't turn out bad in practice.

[FlintlockJazz]

 

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world who preferred the 2nd Edition class system.

 

Nope. I like it better too. The 3rd edition seemed to me to give the illusion of more flexibility, but the XP progression was exponential, so, if you were a level 10 fighter you could become a level 11 fighter or spend the (exponentially high number of) points to be a fighter10/<someotherclass>1 which is a relatively weaker character considering the cost. Using 2ed. dual classing, you pay once in decreased abilities while  you regain your old class using the point progression of the new class (that is, paying fewer points per level), or, using multiclassing divide points by 2 (or three for a triple class) and use the progressions from all of your classes (division by a constant over an exponentially increasing series = 'good'  ). You never pay a giant number of points for a tiny increase. 

 

That said, I have approximately no experience actually using 3rd ed. so maybe it doesn't turn out bad in practice.

 

I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high.  This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff.  People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class).

[Yonjuro]

 

 

Sometimes I wonder if I am the only person in the entire world who preferred the 2nd Edition class system.

 

Nope. I like it better too. The 3rd edition seemed to me to give the illusion of more flexibility, but the XP progression was exponential, so, if you were a level 10 fighter you could become a level 11 fighter or spend the (exponentially high number of) points to be a fighter10/<someotherclass>1 which is a relatively weaker character considering the cost. Using 2ed. dual classing, you pay once in decreased abilities while  you regain your old class using the point progression of the new class (that is, paying fewer points per level), or, using multiclassing divide points by 2 (or three for a triple class) and use the progressions from all of your classes (division by a constant over an exponentially increasing series = 'good'  ). You never pay a giant number of points for a tiny increase. 

 

That said, I have approximately no experience actually using 3rd ed. so maybe it doesn't turn out bad in practice.

 

I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high.  This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff.  People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class).

 

 

 

 

 Hmm, that makes sense. I guess my mental model of 3rd edition was leaving a lot of things out.  

 

 It sounds like I should reword my post to say, I liked 2nd edition (including the limitations on class combinations) but don't know enough about 3rd edition to have an opinion.

[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... 

[Kjaamor]

I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high.  This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff.  People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class).

 

 

Try telling that to magic users. Even multi-classing into most of the prestige classes crippled your spell allocation. In 2nd Edition, if you multi-classed magic, you could remain competitive, but clearly inferior to your single-classed brethren. In 3rd, if you tried to equally level two spell schools, you'd be miles off the pace and might as well not bother. A level 5 cleric/level 4 mage in the 3rd edition is not worth a fraction of what a level 9 Mage is.

 

Fighter is very much the exception rather than the rule, since every other class had high level class-specific abilities/traits that rewarded you for maintaining your class.

 

I've said it before, but I find the third edition offers a huge selection of worthless choices while the second offers a limited selection of tactically viable choices that encourage experimentation without penalising you (except, you know, bards, but screw those guys).

[JFSOCC]

in DnD3.5I found it incredibly useful to multiclass a rogue with a ranger, because of the dual wielding combat style bonuses and the favoured enemy bonuses are nothing to sneer at, on top of that 6+int is not that far off 8+int, so you kept your edge as utility character, while also gaining armour and weapon proficiencies that would require the rogue to waste rare bonus feats on.

 

It was basically exchanging an absurdly powerful sneak attack ability for a moderately powerful sneak attack and a lot more combat survivability.

it even allowed you some magic and an Animal companion.

 

On top of that I felt it fit my personality to roleplay a character which loves both the city and nature, who cares about self reliance in any environment, and whom I feel has a lot of dualism in his character.

[Greensleeve]

 

I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high.  This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff.  People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class).

 

 

Try telling that to magic users. Even multi-classing into most of the prestige classes crippled your spell allocation. In 2nd Edition, if you multi-classed magic, you could remain competitive, but clearly inferior to your single-classed brethren. In 3rd, if you tried to equally level two spell schools, you'd be miles off the pace and might as well not bother. A level 5 cleric/level 4 mage in the 3rd edition is not worth a fraction of what a level 9 Mage is.

 

Fighter is very much the exception rather than the rule, since every other class had high level class-specific abilities/traits that rewarded you for maintaining your class.

 

I've said it before, but I find the third edition offers a huge selection of worthless choices while the second offers a limited selection of tactically viable choices that encourage experimentation without penalising you (except, you know, bards, but screw those guys).

 

 

As an avid lover of 3.5 and former regular on the 3.5 Optimisation boards, I would like to alter your last statement into the following: Third edition Core offers a huge selection of worthless choices for anyone but a full caster. (Won't comment on 2nd Ed, as my only experience of the system is through the IE games) 

Throw in the insane number of splatbooks around and you'll get more useful options for everyone. I will, however, willingly agree that quality of 3.5 as a system varied wildly depending on system mastery of the people involved, as well as the writers of the splats. Some of them were atrocious (Lost Empires of Faerun, Serpent Kingdoms, Weapons of Legacy), others were brilliant (Magic of Incarnum, Tome of Magic, Tome of Battle). You could end up with a game that would destroy friendships forever, or you could end up with some of the best tabletop moments of your life. And a new player would have no way of knowing. 

[TMZuk]

I am not certain how they will implement the ability to wary a character without multiclassing. The more I consider it, the more dissaponting it is.

 

I utterly despised the ever more ridiculous sub-classes in Dragon Age, and resented the fact that multiclassing was impossible. I certainly hope that Obsidian does a better job than Bioware did.

 

As to the what some people say about multi-classing not working in games like this, well, in my opinion it worked very well in Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights 1 and 2. I enjoyed my multiclassed characters a lot.

[rjshae]

 

I prefer the atmosphere to 2nd ed, it just felt more colourful and had more defined roles in it's classes while not getting stupid with the multi-classing, but taking another level in a class you already had actually wasn't better than taking a level in another class no matter how high.  This was because although the levels increased in xp needed to get to a higher one the actual benefits you gained per level did not increase much if at all whereas the first level in a class often gave you more stuff.  People often switched from fighter after level 12 for instance because at that level you unlocked the last weapon specialisation level and then only got fighter feats after that (many multiclassed before it as well depending on the type of class they were going for, some even only took one level in fighter to get all the armour and weapon proficiencies and then moved to another class).

 

 

Try telling that to magic users. Even multi-classing into most of the prestige classes crippled your spell allocation. In 2nd Edition, if you multi-classed magic, you could remain competitive, but clearly inferior to your single-classed brethren. In 3rd, if you tried to equally level two spell schools, you'd be miles off the pace and might as well not bother. A level 5 cleric/level 4 mage in the 3rd edition is not worth a fraction of what a level 9 Mage is.

 

Fighter is very much the exception rather than the rule, since every other class had high level class-specific abilities/traits that rewarded you for maintaining your class.

 

I've said it before, but I find the third edition offers a huge selection of worthless choices while the second offers a limited selection of tactically viable choices that encourage experimentation without penalising you (except, you know, bards, but screw those guys).

 

I think this is basically the issue that Prestige classes helped to solve, while providing you with additional ways to fine-tune your character. It's still a hack though. I suspect they just didn't want to jump fully into a point-based system because it was too much of a change.

[Lady Evenstar]

I think multiclassing makes sense when you have fewer, more basic, classes/archetypes. Project Eternity includes enough classes that I see little benefit in the extra work of balancing potential multiclasses. I'd rather development time were spent on other things.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

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.