Your thoughts on multi-classing

[Carados]

I'm personally in midly favour of multiclassing. I tend to favour pure classes, but once you've completed the game twice or something, why not spice things up? Then again first priority is to balance the pure classes and make sure they are fun to play. Only then start worrying about potential class combinations.

 

If multiclassing was allowed, it should come with limitations (not all classes could be multiclassed together) and severe penalties to overcome (like warrior-mage unable to master weapons/spells or cast while wearing armor).

 

Most importantly it should make sense lore wise. Khelgar's sidequest in NWN2 is a perfect example. The dwarf had this ultimate quest of becoming a monk and you as a player had a choise to help him fullfilling his dream or not.  Or like in bg2 where you could help Anomen to redeem his honour and become a paladin. What if few project eternity companions had similar quests. Certainly not all of them, but one or two.

 

As for PC, why not let player unlock the multiclass options in similar fashion. Like if a warrior wanted to learn magic, he or she would need to find some tomes about the subject and maybe ask training from a mage guild or something. Or ask guidance from a companion. Naturally one would have to earn companion's loyalty and ofcourse have the required stats.

[Messier-31]

If multiclassing was allowed, it should come with limitations (not all classes could be multiclassed together) and severe penalties to overcome (like warrior-mage unable to master weapons/spells or cast while wearing armor).

 

Some percentage (depending on the armor weight ) for spell casting failure sounds more promising than a total blockade. Also ability to use weapons, but with penalties, seems more accurate. See, this is why this whole multiclass thingy is overrated.

[JFSOCC]

wow, it went from overwhelmingly opposed to a pretty even spread, who'd have guessed!?

[Jarmo]

 

If multiclassing was allowed, it should come with limitations (not all classes could be multiclassed together) and severe penalties to overcome (like warrior-mage unable to master weapons/spells or cast while wearing armor).

 

Some percentage (depending on the armor weight ) for spell casting failure sounds more promising than a total blockade. Also ability to use weapons, but with penalties, seems more accurate. See, this is why this whole multiclass thingy is overrated.

 

 

 

I doubt the limits on fighter/mages wearing armor would or should be higher than plain mages wearing armor.

 

Though obviously, if one has to put talents into weapon skills, one wouldn't be putting them into casting,

and if being an efficient armored caster requires "armored arcana" or whatever talents, that'd leave even less talents to spread around.

[Shepard]

I personally like multiclassing, but not like in RIFT. I actually don't like what the games have become recently especially the ones that allow you to be whatever you want and don't penalize you in any way for your choices. In good old days magic user couldn't be a heavy melee hitter, or heavy armor wearer. You can also be any class you want from like the get go.

 

Multiclassing or a choice are a good things but everything should come in modesty and make sense.

[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).

So, let's ask the people what they think if they agree with us then it's people demand and if they don't agree with us we will do it anyway? I see a great future in politics for you.

 

 

Uh....no I'm saying the opinion on multi-classing is pretty 50/50 so the best bet is to add it (if there times of course) and the ones who don't like it don't have to use it.

 

I'm personally in midly favour of multiclassing. I tend to favour pure classes, but once you've completed the game twice or something, why not spice things up? Then again first priority is to balance the pure classes and make sure they are fun to play. Only then start worrying about potential class combinations.

 

If multiclassing was allowed, it should come with limitations (not all classes could be multiclassed together) and severe penalties to overcome (like warrior-mage unable to master weapons/spells or cast while wearing armor).

 

Sounds like your fine with multi-classing but only if its clearly an inferior and nigh unusable option.

Edited October 30, 2013 by Failedlegend

[Lephys]

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

Agreed, noting that there's a difference between taking any given class system and simply toggling the allowance of multiclassing, and actually "fitting multiclassing into the system."

 

If they're designing it without the option to multiclass in mind, and they do it right, then I have no qualms about it, as it's just a different way of achieving almost the same results. If they were to design it WITH mutliclassing in mind, from the ground up, then I'd have no qualms with the multiclassing.

 

The only thing I'd hate is for the decision to simply toss in multiclassing to be flippantly made, just because some people think multiclassing can do no wrong and ALWAYS improves the game, regardless of the game's design particulars.

[Carados]

 

Some percentage (depending on the armor weight ) for spell casting failure sounds more promising than a total blockade. Also ability to use weapons, but with penalties, seems more accurate. See, this is why this whole multiclass thingy is overrated.

 

 

Yea it would be better and mine was merely a vague example. It would certainly be more enjoyable if mages could cast while using armors. I never understood why it was so strict in d&d. Yet there were those uber armors like eleven chain that allowed casting..

 

 

Sounds like your fine with multi-classing but only if its clearly an inferior and nigh unusable option.

 

 

Not really. I don't think multiclassing in baldur's gate was inferior. It was certainly a bit more difficult, but later on almost any multiclass build became really versatile. If multiclasses didn't have any penalties, weaknesses or downsides, there would be little point not to multiclass.

[Messier-31]

Yea it would be better and mine was merely a vague example. It would certainly be more enjoyable if mages could cast while using armors. I never understood why it was so strict in d&d.

 

Exactly, a simple idea that was somehow totally omitted in DnD.

 

 

Yet there were those uber armors like eleven chain that allowed casting..

 

Ooh, eleven chain, my favourite right after the twelve chain

[Lephys]

Ooh, eleven chain, my favourite right after the twelve chain

The legendary Chain Mail of Eleven... once owned by a party of great bards known collectively as Spinal Tap. Until the creation of this set of armors, it was thought that the highest armor value of chain that could be produced was ten.

[AGX-17]

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

Potential for OP characters/imbalance, presumably. Although I have full confidence that Obsidian could make a well-balanced system that allows for multiclassing.

 

I like it when it's well done (i.e. not a classless TES-style system of "be the best at everything." Yeah, I'm ragging on Bethesda game design, as usual.) It allows for interesting skillsets/characters.

[DamianDust]

I find that, when properly implemented, multiclassing can be a really fun game dynamic and can strengthen your bond with your character. Playing Pathfinder recently, I had created an alchemist/fighter that I found really fun to play both strategically and from a role playing standpoint. I had conjured in my head the glorious image of burly mad-scientist, training with weapons and augmenting his power with mutagens and other scientific discoveries. Complete with a chain mail lab coat, a helm with goggles, and massive war hammer, he would fly into battle, a flurry of hulk-like power and chemicals. Why wouldn't an intelligent fighter want to know how to make a potion of Bull's Strength, or stone skin? Conversely, I've always found the prospect of a monk/psion hybrid interesting. A master of both body and mind and with a strong sense of discipline, he would perfect himself through training in such a way as to render himself as powerful as any wizard, but with all his power coming from within. None of these should break the game, and I'm not saying anyone should try to make a paladin/rogue(though maybe there's some unseen potential in that?), I'm just saying it can make for a fun way to play the game. There's my two-cents anyway.

[Carados]

 

Ooh, eleven chain, my favourite right after the twelve chain

The legendary Chain Mail of Eleven... once owned by a party of great bards known collectively as Spinal Tap. Until the creation of this set of armors, it was thought that the highest armor value of chain that could be produced was ten.

 

 

hahah

Edited November 3, 2013 by Carados

[ShadowTiger]

I have played a bunch of different games and also pen & paper. I hate multiclassing when it becomes a complicated mess, aka 3rd edition. 2nd edition was a little unbalanced but at least it was simple and binary. Either you multiclass at level 1 or you never do. Once you dual class, you are done with your old class forever. 

 

I think that 4th edition multiclassing was pretty good, where you could spend progression abilities to dip into other classes (with a double feat tax... bleh). Then they added hybrid classes, which lets you start of at level 1 with two different sets of abilities, cut cleanly in half.

 

In D&D Next, they are experimenting with 3rd edition style multi-classing again and I really don't like it.

 

I guess the main problem is that I am both a role player and a roll player. I want my characters to have strong stories, backgrounds, and concepts, and I am willing to sacrifice power for realism. On the other hand, I want my characters to kick ass and make a name for themselves, that requires mastering the system and having enough power to contribute to the battles. Thus I think "Kits" is the best way to customize characters, by having both advantages and disadvantages that customize your character and also help you write the characters.

 

In baldur's gate 2 my party was:
Kensai

Berserker -> Cleric

Archer

Swashbuckler

Skald

Necromancer.

 

Notice that I don't have any pure classes, they are all kits. Thats because pure classes are bland in comparison. I also don't have any multiclass, thats because you can't multiclass kits, and also because I prefer a pure concept. The reason I dual classed to a cleric is because I needed one, but I came up with an awesome backstory for my character and WHY they became a cleric. It would have been cool to do so through in-game quests, similar to multi-classing in planescape torment (not exactly).  

So yeah I am a bit late to this thread but I think the poll indicates a general agreement... multiclassing is cool if its not too much work, as long as the classes are interesting on their own and also it would be nice if it was part of the story/quest/npc system. 

 

At the end of the day, character customization is what we really want, and sometimes multiclassing is an easy way to achieve that.

Edited November 8, 2013 by ShadowTiger

[cleric Nemir]

As someone generally opposed to the idea of multi-classing I was almost ready to click all the "no"s here,but then I saw second part of the poll ( "If multi-classing was available..") and it got me thinking.

 

There would be some interesting moments if the game provided me with situations such as in the option 4. I wouldn't mind if in some point I get the chance to become a member of some secret order of Ciphers or such,where multi-classing to a Cipher would become available ; and looking at option 6 it makes me think that,instead of prestige classes,it would be fun to see a merge of two (or more??) classes that give birth to a similar thing like a prestige class concept,only more fluid and natural,so to say.

Regardless of the fact whether we would play along with it or like it even,I think that kind of concept can have a place in the game.

 

My final voting summary is this: yes,multi-classing should be available,but they would do well to make it an interesting process with an interesting results.

[aozgolo]

My personal preference would be to have dual-classing as an option. Multiclassing requires a bit of balancing ahead of time, but dual classing where you can change your class at a certain level and inherit the benefits of both makes it far more interesting. Dual-classed characters in ID and BG series were very versatile and greatly increased not only the RP potential but the replayability and soloability of the game.

[ronjs666]

I do like playing multi class characters.  BUT!  If the game world has few resources, multi class may not make sense.  I.E. If I spend most of my life perfecting my heavy armor fighting / crafting skills, would it be reasonable to assume a character could also have enough time to master magic?  I think it more reasonable, as in RL, to master 1 trade and count on others for other needs.

[Javaman]

While I don't use multi-classes much (Say 1 out of 6 party members.),  I do appreciate the option. If they can implement it, I'd use it.

[Bryy]

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

Don't.

Multiclass.

The Wizard.

[Hiro Protagonist II]

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)

 

The problem with this line of reasoning is you can apply it to anything. It doesn't necessarily make it right. eg. You don't have to <spam rest, use a +5 vorpal sword, engage in romances, etc> so there's little reason not to include it.

Edited February 17, 2014 by Hiro Protagonist II