Multiclassing?

i understand it's gonna be another week or two before we are in any way close to being concerned with leveling, but  i was curious if multiclassing has been defined yet. because in previous versions i was told you could be able to simply take a level in a different class, and some of the wording for building a character (when you create a character whose first class is ect...) that multiclassing is indeed an option.  does anyone have a clue as how that will work? Or is that just something to be released with the fuller version.
There was an article released that talked about it a little bit not too long ago. I don't remember what it said, but It might have been a "Rule of Three" article. You could look it up on the main site. Of course, I also expect we'll eventually see it in a playtest packet.

Disclaimer: Wizards of the Coast is not responsible for the consequences of splitting up the party, sticking appendages in the mouth of a leering green devil face, accepting a dinner invitation from bugbears, storming the feast hall of a hill giant steading, angering a dragon of any variety, or saying yes when the DM asks, "Are you really sure?"

 

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/13.jpg)

I never liked the fact that 3rd edition screwed multi-classing from 1st and 2nd edition. 3rd ed took 2nd edition's duel classing, polished it up a little bit, made a few changes, and called it 'MultiClassing!'. 1st and 2nd ed multi-classing gave some truely unique option to non-human PC's. I would like to see the original multi-classing brought back - modify it, polish it up (like 3rd ed did to duel classsing), and it would give some truely unique flavor to the game.
to be honest they should only have 3e style multiclassing if they can make it where you can use both your classes ablitys at once and not be overpowered. so a fighter/wizard is as good as he would be if he had god full wizard or full fighter.

and if it is not overpowered, where the best builds have 5 classes and stuff like that.

and if it does not have presige classes that delay concepts because of requirements, like requiring wizard and ranger levels to be an arcane archer, so you cant play your concept until level 7
Insulting someones grammar on a forum is like losing to someone in a drag race and saying they were cheating by having racing stripes. Not only do the two things not relate to each other (the logic behind the person's position, and their grammar) but you sound like an idiot for saying it (and you should, because its really stupid )
to be honest they should only have 3e style multiclassing if they can make it where you can use both your classes ablitys at once and not be overpowered. so a fighter/wizard is as good as he would be if he had god full wizard or full fighter.

and if it is not overpowered, where the best builds have 5 classes and stuff like that.

and if it does not have presige classes that delay concepts because of requirements, like requiring wizard and ranger levels to be an arcane archer, so you cant play your concept until level 7



You can do that with 2e style multiclassing... dual classing was the issue (that was the one where you essentially became a lvl 1 character that couldn't use their other abilities until you got up to level... it was weird and dumb and had to go)  Multiclassing that requires you to keep both classes at equal level is really the best way.  You can keep out the weird experience gain issues, but just enforce the same class equality so that people don't go back to "splashing" a level of this and that.  You want to be a fighter/wizard?  Cool, but you will have to keep them within 2 levels of each other.  So you can have a 5 fighter/5 wizard, a 4 fighter/6 wizard, a 6 fighter/4 wizard but not a 1/1/1/7 fighter, barbarian, bard, rogue.
2e multiclassing was nice but it could have been better. If it was 'polished up, re-worked, tuned up' etc I would be glad to use it again

What would make a good solid 2e style multiclassing? First of all it has to be stated that once you start with this style, you cannot ever, ever, EVER take advantage of 3e style multi-classing. One you have created the PC as a muilti-class you are stuck with your choices. Example: a Fighter-Wizard will be a Fighter-Wizard for the PC's entire existance.
Secondly, the type of multi class I would allow gets ALL of the benefits and ALL of the drawback of ALL of his or her classes. Also you would have to obtain full exp for ALL of your classes in order to go up a level. The examply Fighhter-Wizard needs 500 exp to become a 2nd level Fighter-Wizard (250 x 2 for 2 classes), 1900 for 3rd level (950 x 2) and so on. You get seperate skill dice for each of your classes, seperate Martial dice for each class (If either or both classes get a martial die), and so on.)

If anyone is interested I will write it up sometime and post it here.
A unified 2E-style multi/dual classing is just about right.  All it really needs is a "level 1/2" buy-in for adding a new class.
One you have created the PC as a muilti-class you are stuck with your choices.

Why?

2e multiclassing was nice but it could have been better. If it was 'polished up, re-worked, tuned up' etc I would be glad to use it again

What would make a good solid 2e style multiclassing? First of all it has to be stated that once you start with this style, you cannot ever, ever, EVER take advantage of 3e style multi-classing. One you have created the PC as a muilti-class you are stuck with your choices. Example: a Fighter-Wizard will be a Fighter-Wizard for the PC's entire existance.
Secondly, the type of multi class I would allow gets ALL of the benefits and ALL of the drawback of ALL of his or her classes. Also you would have to obtain full exp for ALL of your classes in order to go up a level. The examply Fighhter-Wizard needs 500 exp to become a 2nd level Fighter-Wizard (250 x 2 for 2 classes), 1900 for 3rd level (950 x 2) and so on. You get seperate skill dice for each of your classes, seperate Martial dice for each class (If either or both classes get a martial die), and so on.)

If anyone is interested I will write it up sometime and post it here.



The math is pretty rough on this though.  If you do it that way, you could have a level 9 fighter OR a level 7 fighter/barbarian.  Do they get hitpoints from both classes?  Do they get MDD from both?  MDB?  Can they add to separate attacks?  Do they get to stack attack bonuses?

Either way you end up with a weak character or an overpowered character.

I think you can avoid the complicated math and just restrict level separation.  That way, you have a 9 fighter or a 5 fighter/4 barbarian and you can add together the total levels to calculate combat expertise bonuses.  But this too would be overpowered, because every class is so frontloaded.

I don't know what the solution is here, its very unclear.  I just know that with current class structures you can't have people splashing classes. 
lets see if I can clear up what I mean: First of all, Qmark, the idea of being "stuck" as what ever classes are chosen is more of a limitation to offset some of the advantages. If someone feels that it would feel "right" to allow a later "buy-in", I would have no problem. I just don't feel it is "right" for how I want it to be in my campaign.


Lord Malkov:You bring up some good points. I am still working on what I want the ability to look like and it still needs some fine tuning. Let's take a 5-5 Fighter-Rogue to use as an example. The PC has paid FULL exp cost for BOTH classes at this point. This can and should be the first point of "fine-tuning". A 10th level has to pay a LOT more in exp to be a 10th lvl PC with 5 levels of Fighter and 5 levels of Rogue. I feels that the 5-5 2e style multi-class should pay the same amount of experience that a 3e style 5thF-5thR would pay. The PC gets the sam amount of HD (Five each d10 and d6). i will toss out more idead later (I am on the library computer since I left my laptop at home)


Let me know what you think.

         


  
I here you, I was suggesting 3e style exp costs with a 2e style enforced class separation.  This is the easiest thing to do.  But no matter how you get there, multiclassing in the current system will be overpowered.

Here's why.  Comparing a 10/10 fighter rouge to a 20 fighter.

the 10/10-F/R will have less Hit points ( 10d10 +10d6 = 90 Hitpoints on average versus 110 for 20d10)

But everywhere else they will be better.  
So if you stack separate Martial Bonuses, you will have  +6 attack bonus 10d6 MDD and +10 MDB.
If you instead stack levels to determine combat expertise, everything will be the same.

Then the major difference will end up being that you have  A rogue scheme, skill mastery, all the rogue's skill tricks, evasion, uncanny dodge, a fighting style, all the fighter's maneuvers, and parry

From a basic fighter's perspective, you are losing combat surge and 1hit point per level to get 4 bonus skills, a rogue talent, 5 rogue skill tricks, skill mastery (which synergizes with parry), evasion and uncanny dodge.  And that is a pretty unbalanced trade.
I here you, I was suggesting 3e style exp costs with a 2e style enforced class separation.  This is the easiest thing to do.  But no matter how you get there, multiclassing in the current system will be overpowered.

Here's why.  Comparing a 10/10 fighter rouge to a 20 fighter.

the 10/10-F/R will have less Hit points ( 10d10 +10d6 = 90 Hitpoints on average versus 110 for 20d10)

But everywhere else they will be better.  
So if you stack separate Martial Bonuses, you will have  +6 attack bonus 10d6 MDD and +10 MDB.
If you instead stack levels to determine combat expertise, everything will be the same.

Then the major difference will end up being that you have  A rogue scheme, skill mastery, all the rogue's skill tricks, evasion, uncanny dodge, a fighting style, all the fighter's maneuvers, and parry

From a basic fighter's perspective, you are losing combat surge and 1hit point per level to get 4 bonus skills, a rogue talent, 5 rogue skill tricks, skill mastery (which synergizes with parry), evasion and uncanny dodge.  And that is a pretty unbalanced trade.



I apologize in advance for the chaotic nature of these opinions:

It would seem to me the issue here isn't multiclassing, but a lack of significant progress past level 10. The abilities at that level seem minor, especially considering what is gained in the first 10 levels. If a fighter continued gaining manuevers, only they are on a different teir than those he gained in the first 10 levels, now you are making a choice between powerful specialization, or gaining new utility. Min-Maxing will always be a part of the game.

Additionally, I think you would continue to progress along the same manuever chain. ie, if you multiclass after ten, you do not gain an entire new assortment of manuevers. if you multiclassed at 5, however, it would allow you access to a different variety of manuevers.

An idea I would love for them to play with would be taking the subclass from another class. a fighter with a rogue scheme, a monk with a fighting style. Some 'paths' might need to be tweaked to be a bit more compatible, and naturally some would mesh better than others, but if you took some arcane oriented background and specialty, it might be feasible for you to be a fighter with an arcane training.

Rogues specifically have always been a multiclass option that could instantly bump a character's power up a notch, even with just one level. ie: oh, you are a decent fighter, let's add sneak attack damage to that, while we are at it. While the combat dice negate this particular ability.

In summation, if the higher levels offer you a new tier of powerful, specialized manuevers/ abilities, unique skills or traits, etc, and/or if multiclassing in made in such a way that you simply keep progessing along an already set maneuver scheme (one at 1st level, one at 2nd, one at 4th, etc...) then you are gaining evasion, uncanny dodge, bonus skills, and maybe skill mastery?

Or maybe you simply don't pick a specialization if you multiclass. so no rogue scheme, fighting style, etc. I really like both ideas of sperating the core class, from the sub class path, and mixing one or the other with different classes and paths.
Mearls said in January's Podcast that they're really pushing for Multiclassing to be present in the next Public Playtest Packet, which I presume will come out either this month or in April at the latest.

Before posting, why not ask yourself, What Would Wrecan Say?

IMAGE(http://images.onesite.com/community.wizards.com/user/marandahir/thumb/9ac5d970f3a59330212c73baffe4c556.png?v=90000)

A great man once said "If WotC put out boxes full of free money there'd still be people complaining about how it's folded." – Boraxe

If you dont get the frontloadef benefits I dont see any problem with 3e style multiclassing. Gives a lot more freedom and gives MULTI classing rather than double classing that is suggested here. I think we will end up seing something along the lines of 4e hybrids. A bit meh, but fair and balanced.
Its all about how they deal with frontloaded classes.  Even after that 3e style multiclassing will be tough.  Because classes are pretty barren past lvl 10 right now (particularly martial classes).  So any combo of 10/10 of any two classes will be pretty OP with anything like 3e style multiclassing.

It is a tall order for them to figure out.  I can only guess that there will have to be some kind of wierd "secondary class" clause set up to reduce the impact of a second class.  I can't see how they will really do multiclassing without either breaking the balance, destroying the feel of a true dual class, or making it a trap option.  Here's hopin' though.
I here you, I was suggesting 3e style exp costs with a 2e style enforced class separation.  This is the easiest thing to do.  But no matter how you get there, multiclassing in the current system will be overpowered.

Here's why.  Comparing a 10/10 fighter rouge to a 20 fighter.

the 10/10-F/R will have less Hit points ( 10d10 +10d6 = 90 Hitpoints on average versus 110 for 20d10)

But everywhere else they will be better.  
So if you stack separate Martial Bonuses, you will have  +6 attack bonus 10d6 MDD and +10 MDB.
If you instead stack levels to determine combat expertise, everything will be the same.

Then the major difference will end up being that you have  A rogue scheme, skill mastery, all the rogue's skill tricks, evasion, uncanny dodge, a fighting style, all the fighter's maneuvers, and parry

From a basic fighter's perspective, you are losing combat surge and 1hit point per level to get 4 bonus skills, a rogue talent, 5 rogue skill tricks, skill mastery (which synergizes with parry), evasion and uncanny dodge.  And that is a pretty unbalanced trade.



I apologize in advance for the chaotic nature of these opinions:

It would seem to me the issue here isn't multiclassing, but a lack of significant progress past level 10. The abilities at that level seem minor, especially considering what is gained in the first 10 levels. If a fighter continued gaining manuevers, only they are on a different teir than those he gained in the first 10 levels, now you are making a choice between powerful specialization, or gaining new utility. Min-Maxing will always be a part of the game.

Additionally, I think you would continue to progress along the same manuever chain. ie, if you multiclass after ten, you do not gain an entire new assortment of manuevers. if you multiclassed at 5, however, it would allow you access to a different variety of manuevers.

An idea I would love for them to play with would be taking the subclass from another class. a fighter with a rogue scheme, a monk with a fighting style. Some 'paths' might need to be tweaked to be a bit more compatible, and naturally some would mesh better than others, but if you took some arcane oriented background and specialty, it might be feasible for you to be a fighter with an arcane training.

Rogues specifically have always been a multiclass option that could instantly bump a character's power up a notch, even with just one level. ie: oh, you are a decent fighter, let's add sneak attack damage to that, while we are at it. While the combat dice negate this particular ability.

In summation, if the higher levels offer you a new tier of powerful, specialized manuevers/ abilities, unique skills or traits, etc, and/or if multiclassing in made in such a way that you simply keep progessing along an already set maneuver scheme (one at 1st level, one at 2nd, one at 4th, etc...) then you are gaining evasion, uncanny dodge, bonus skills, and maybe skill mastery?

Or maybe you simply don't pick a specialization if you multiclass. so no rogue scheme, fighting style, etc. I really like both ideas of sperating the core class, from the sub class path, and mixing one or the other with different classes and paths.



The problem with sub-classes is that some people really do want to be half and half.  And also that the most powerful class features are usually the most class-defining as well.  If you can take barbarian as a sub-class but not get rage.... well that's not a good way to go IMO because rage is the most defining ability of the barbarian.

I think your first point is spot on though.  It was Paizo's fix for rampant multiclassing/prestige classing when they wrote pathfinder.  They put a lot more meat onto the core classes, made sure they were getting abilities all the way through, and added capstone abilities.

Generally they try to give a major class feature at 1st level, another at 11th and a big capstone ability at 20.  
Rogues, for example, get rogue talents (similar to skill tricks), and at 11th they get to pick from advanced talents.  At 20 they get an instant-kill sneak attack ability.  Barbarian rage gets better throughout the levels... multiclass out and it stops progressing and you stop getting more uses of it.  And so on and so on.

Class levels should be attractive.  Staying with a single class throughout your career should be a totally valid option.  I would argue that it should probably be the best option for whatever role that class excells at.  A fighter should be better in combat than a fighter/barbarian.  

So, each class should have "landmark levels".  11 is the most important landmark, because in a 20 lvl game you will only ever be able to get one class's lvl 11 ability.  7th is a good landmark because you could only ever get 2 class's landmark abilities.  And a lvl 14 landmark can be set as well with the lvl 7 landmark in.  After that you have level 1 (of course) and level 20 (there should be some kind of ultimate expression of the class).

So big, class defining cool abilities at lvl 1, 7, 11, 14 and 20.

Every other level should be filled with smaller bonuses, lesser abilities and option rich possibilities.
So giving the fighter access to better maneuvers at the landmark level of 11 is a good idea.
Giving the barbarian an improvement to his rage at 7, 14 and 20 is a good idea.

The empty late levels in DDN need to be filled.  I kind of expect this to happen anyway, but that really is the best way to make sure multiclassing isnt a mess. 
So basically: Learn from their mistakes. Observe what fanmade OGL have done and copy. Its really rather simple, but somehow I dont think its going to happen and that we will get a progressive system thats progressive for the sake of it
So basically: Learn from their mistakes. Observe what fanmade OGL have done and copy. Its really rather simple, but somehow I dont think its going to happen and that we will get a progressive system thats progressive for the sake of it



Yeah, pretty much.

Multiclassing is a complicated issue to handle.  The choice needs to have significant benefits and drawbacks.  There should be no way to get a better character by abusing multiclassing options.  This was a big problem in 3.0 and 3.5.  People were constantly splashing single levels of other front-loaded classes.  Only casters were really loyal to their class because of spell progression, and even that got torpedo'd by the rampant production of over-powered prestige classes.  

This is a big reason that each class needs to be attractive at each level.  Not just at level 1, or only up to level 10.

Everytime you gain a level, you are making a choice, and that choice should have impact regardless of which way you go.  DDN is chock full of dead levels and flatlined progression.  I fail to see how this is an improvement even if multiclassing as an option is ignored.

Example:  
DM: "Okay everyone, you have achieved level 13." 
Frank the Fighter:  "Sweet! What do I get!"
DM: "Ummm, some hitpoints"
Frank the Fighter:  "Really?  That's it?  No attack bonus or damage boost or new abilities?"
DM:  "Ah.... no."
Frank the Fighter: "Skill die?"
DM: "Mmmmm... nope, sorry"
Robby the Rogue: "Wow, that sucks for you Frank, what do get DM?"
DM: "Ummm, you also get some hitpoints"
Frank and Robby together: "Wow, this game sucks" 
Whilst I did find that funny it isnt completely fair
The reason 10+ is dead is becausr theyve only reeeally released 1-10. There is supposef to be some sort of legendary progression from 11-20 that just havnt been released yet. To use a 4e analogy: What we have is level 1-20 but with no paragon path, feats or powers. You could very rightly ask "why would they want that playtested"? And the answer my friend would be blowing in the wind.
I understand that to be the case Keendk, but some of the vague statements from Mearls, specifically from the last L&L leave me wondering.  I think that they are still trying to test out the lower levels and certainly haven't fleshed out the classes just yet.  But I can only comment on what is in the playtest right now, not what might be.

We can only watch and wait.... the lack of feats past 10 might just be a symptom of the very reduced feat list.  Or maybe they have something else planned.  Who knows.  Right now though... the classes are dull as dirt past 10. 
My guess on how multiclassing will work is that if you have two classes that grant the same things, only the higher will be taken. A level 1 Fighter / Level 1 rogue wouldn't get a +1 attack bonus and twice the MDD he would just get whichever is higher. The only part that I'm curious about is how they'll do weapon proficiencies. Currently the playtest has you gaining proficiencies only when you create a character "whose first level is (class)." Which would mean if you're a level 1 wizard, and take a level of fighter, the only thing you can use your newly earned MDD on are slings and daggers, and you're still rocking cloth.
My guess on how multiclassing will work is that if you have two classes that grant the same things, only the higher will be taken. A level 1 Fighter / Level 1 rogue wouldn't get a +1 attack bonus and twice the MDD he would just get whichever is higher. The only part that I'm curious about is how they'll do weapon proficiencies. Currently the playtest has you gaining proficiencies only when you create a character "whose first level is (class)." Which would mean if you're a level 1 wizard, and take a level of fighter, the only thing you can use your newly earned MDD on are slings and daggers, and you're still rocking cloth.



The problem here is that MDD, MDB and the attack bonus all cap out before 20... so what would be the downside to splashing a level of rogue for skill mastery, 4 skills, rogue scheme (with ability), and a skill trick.  Especially if you make this choice as a level 17 fighter going on 18?

You lose 1 use of combat surge per day, but could spend level 18, 19, and 20 picking up:
 skill mastery, 4 skills, rogue scheme (with ability), a skill trick, monastic training for 2 more skills, monastic tradition for Warrior's Gale, way of the fist, iron hide, mindful defense, rage and reckless attack. 

I think there need to be a lot of considerations forr whatever multiclassing system they put in. 
A bit of heresy for y'all...I never enjoyed the multi-classing in 2nd edition...playing a character who is so far behind the other players just because you wanted to play a rogue who augmented his martial prowess with fighter training, or a priest of a deity of magic who decided to (surprise) also study the arcane...etc...isn't fun...multiclassing shouldn't result in your being a drag on the group in higher level battles.

I feel like the feat-based "dash" approach is actually a much better (though not perfect) solution. And in any event, is preferable, to ending up with multi-class characters who get to higher levels and are forced into minor support roles by virtue of their lower level abilities, while the other players get to shine.   The power-purchasing/trading approach allows the player to keep gaining level appropriate skills and powers while still incorporating elements of another class to fit their character concept. I even like that they recognized it as a valid self-created paragon path (though found it silly to limit it to half-elves).

If anything, I'd like to see them push it futher than they did. Making it easier to trade out class features and what in 4e are "at-wills". The Hybrid was a step in that direction.

In short...if modularity is the name of the game, I hope we don't see them limiting us to the 2nd edition approach but allow choice between the approaches to this difficult to balance, but always popular character creation path.

Given the design goals of 5E the aggregate of all past PHB classes should be present in the 5E PHB: Barbarian, Ranger, Rogue, Assassin, Monk, Fighter, Warlord, Paladin, Cleric/Priest, Psion, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard/Mage/Illusionist, Bard, and Druid. Add in one or two Gish/variants and call it perfect.

Not one single edition of D&D has gotten multi-classing right, and I don't know if it's been done right in any RPG.  But, there's been something that didn't work with every system of multi-classing D&D has tried, imo.  I'm hoping that the reason we still don't have multi-classing rules for DDN (and probably a new packet) is that they're really working hard to get it right this time.
grrr multiclassing again, my argument against it for 25 years has been this: Explain to me how in a human's lifetime, a person can possibly learn the intricasies of hand to hand combat AND magic? Especially when you live in a fuedal society? Answer - it is not possible. Only the elves come close to being possible to do that which is why Elf was a CLASS in OD&D.

Just my feedback 2 copper is that multiclassing is a wasted chapter in my games for this reason. If you wanna be a fighter with magic (and this or stealing the thieves job is usually why people multiclass) then be a Paladin or (and I do like this class for this reason) a Swordmage.

I know the min/maxer's won't like my response but I have as much right to the opinion and feedback on this as you so there it is.
 
"I don't like it, therefore nobody should be allowed to do it!" is not a valid argument.
grrr multiclassing again, my argument against it for 25 years has been this: Explain to me how in a human's lifetime, a person can possibly learn the intricasies of hand to hand combat AND magic? Especially when you live in a fuedal society? Answer - it is not possible. Only the elves come close to being possible to do that which is why Elf was a CLASS in OD&D.

Just my feedback 2 copper is that multiclassing is a wasted chapter in my games for this reason. If you wanna be a fighter with magic (and this or stealing the thieves job is usually why people multiclass) then be a Paladin or (and I do like this class for this reason) a Swordmage.

I know the min/maxer's won't like my response but I have as much right to the opinion and feedback on this as you so there it is.
 



Multiclassing doesn't have to just be a "learning" a new class. I typically use it to create a class that isn't represented in the game. I'm not a fighter who becomes a wizard, I'm a spellsword or a bladesinger. Sure, it'd be nice to do it at level 1, I'm okay with having to wait until level 2 (or higher) to get the class I want, as long as that class is possible and playable.
grrr multiclassing again, my argument against it for 25 years has been this: Explain to me how in a human's lifetime, a person can possibly learn the intricasies of hand to hand combat AND magic? Especially when you live in a fuedal society?
 



It's a common enough literary fantasy trope. Without stressing myself, I can think of three authors whose human characters learn both magic and melee. (To whit: Mercedes Lackey, Robert Jordan, and Faith Hunter. And if I'm not mistaken, we also have Andre Norton and Patrick Rothfuss, to run the gamut of older to newer authors.) With the exception of Andre Norton, whose works I have not read in some time, I can select one (or more) characters from each author who learn both during their adolescence and/or just into adulthood.

Heck, Mercedes Lackey has a setting in which there is a an entire organization (the Heralds) who learn at least the basics of melee skills and whatever their flavor of magic is. (Or psionics, to be fair.) In one case, the main protagonist started out fairly well trained in weapons and didn't come into his magic until late adolescence. For his time, he was one of most powerful mages and lauded as a competant swordsman; not to mention a skilled musician and diplomat. All in less than one human lifetime.

All it takes to do this is dedicated desire and/or need.

Since many of us come to D&D from a fantasy literature background, we feel inspired by such literary characters and want to make our own characters in a similar vein.

I prefer something like the swordmage. However, the closest option out of the box is usually multiclassing. Or in the case of 3/3.5, multiclassing *and* a prestige class (Eldritch Knight). It wasn't until much later we got the hexblade and even later the duskblade. 4e gave us the swordmage and brought back the hexblade. Out of the 4e box we had to fake it and it wasn't really worth it until paragon level (Wizard of the Spiral Tower). Oh, and you had to be an elf. :P

Like Bengilmer, I generally use multiclassing as a crutch to cover character concepts that don't have a base class to start with.

So, your premise is faulty and ignores a huge swath of fantasy literature and example characters. *You* may not like it, but some of us do.

As always, your milage may vary,
Calestin Kethal