Reading some posts here make me understand why some hate 3rd edition multiclass while I loved it. In our games, 3rd edition multiclass was a fun aspect that permit all sort of variation that made the game more enjoyable. One of my favorite character was a half-orc rogue/fighter/barbarian. He start as a bouncer in a tavern, then become a soldier and finally an adventurer in search of his race roots. I didn’t create him by selecting the best feats possible in order to do the maximum of damage every round or stop levelling fighter at lvl 4. I just wanted a warrior with an vast array of option. We had a human barbarian in our group and the two were balanced. Sure, when I could rage while sneak attacking, I would do more damage than him but I couldn’t rage as often as him and he had more hit points and wear better armor.
Here, when I read word like "build", my head spin. My group would try to create fun characters, not a combination of race, class and feats. Everything had to be approved by the DM and stacking prestige class were a big no-no and I think that how the system was intended to work. Of course, with the massive amount of options that were eventually available, broken character optimization were possible but we simply stay away from that.
We never really need it but I once though about a practical reason not to do it : mutual assured destruction. If a player would manage to create a broken character, the DM would adjust and put stronger monsters who would eventually kill the others weak characters. The players would then creater others broken characters to replace them so we would end up with a group full of broken stack of class and feats. So now we have a group of, say, 9th level but with the power of 12th level. What did we achieve exactly? Fortunatly, like I said, my groups never needed that theory.
In any case, I’m glad that 3rd edition multiclass is back.
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Answering your questions. At Dragon Disciple 10, the character gains the half-dragon template (and thus an additional +4 Strength, +2 Charisma, and +1 to natural armor not in the class writeup), that's where the extra Strength comes from. Why can't the character continue to advance in bard levels? Because bards have to be non-lawful, and paladins lose all their class features if they cease being lawful good. Blackguard, Fighter, and Cleric could all take the place of Paladin levels, but Paladin has all the right class features we want.
If its the other way around cant you continue leveling in Paladin? Im confused. Good example. Would be even better if you could take it to CL 20.
I know it's been a couple days, but surgery gets in the way of posting. Unfortunately no, Paladins had a special rule that restricted their multiclassing. Under the Ex-Paladins section: "Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities."
I got around to looking up Vassal of Bahamut, and it's fairly easy to qualify for - Lawful Good, BAB +7, Craft (Armorsmithing) 5, Diplomacy 5, Sacred Vow, Vow of Obedience. And you have to single-handedly slay a juvenile or older evil dragon, but you can probably take one solo by the time you have to qualify for Vassal. So if I were to take this to 20, I'd go Bard 1/Paladin 4/Dragon Disciple 10/Vassal of Bahamut 5, which gives you a couple of bonus feats, a bunch of platininum to spend (as long as you do not spend it frivolously or unwisely - though upgrading your gear is specifically neither frivolous nor unwise), some bonuses against dragons, and if you have the wisdom for it (or a Periapt of Wisdom that you bought with all that platinum) a few divine spells. The platinum armor thing is really cool too.
I'd rather have some kind of hybrid styled prestige classes. Where you stop advancing in certain areas of your original class and then start advancing in other areas of your prestige class. Multiclassing could work in the same way. Maybe the Fighter changes to a PrC and stops getting their BAB and start getting the PrC BAB. They keep getting CS dice, but stop getting maneuvers. They gain the PrC's special features. Etc...etc..
If the Fighter swaps to Wizard they can choose to stop getting CS dice, Maneuvers, or BAB. They can pick up a spell slot of the character level (not class level, so a 10th level Fighter swapping to Wizard would get a 5th level spell slot), another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, or the Wizard Tradition effect of the closest level. As they level up they can pick to advance any of the Fighter or Wizard things but they are limited to a specific number (probably around 3-4).
The more I look at what I just typed the more I think this would be the perfect system for multiclassing. They could allow you to multiclass into anything, but you only get the features of the character level you are when you multiclass. So you wouldn't get weapons proficiencies, armor proficiencies, or whatever...
You are just going to give someone 5th lvl spells out of the blue? 3e muticlassing wasnt so broken to require such extremes especially when lvling from warrior to spellcaster. low lvl dips into spell casting classes arent that economical. Its usually a 1-3 lvl fighter who in theory was learning magic and fighting. Their future is as a spell caster. They will give up their ability as a fighter by default. Dipping in magic is less common and more Elvish.
Go check out my thread in D&DNext General about multiclassing. I've updated the idea. You get a 5th level spell slot, but only start getting 1st level spells so you can power up that 1st level spell by putting it in that one 5th level slot. That way your burning hands does a respectable 8d4 damage or whatever.
They are targeting spells to augment their fighting. They give up some lvls as a fighter for mirror image, blur, arrow enchantments, or as a cleric heals, and slight buffs. In that scenario you are already trading warrior class levels.
The problem with this is they then are horrible Fighters and horrible Wizards. Its the same problem the current Sorcerer has once they fix low level spell spamming. The thing about it is you would get one spell slot of 5th level. Out of 4 encounters that might be useful once in one encounter, after that you are a weakened fighter. The trade off is balanced...
I would prefer base classes to be designed such that they could be used to create diverse practical character concepts.
I shouldn't have to "dip into" rogue to get a reasonable number of skill points or into fighter to have enough feats to pull off my concept. If you want character defining things such as barbarian rage or paladin aura's you should be able to take those base classes and STILL make an interesting character.
Agreed Im not talking about dipping aspects im talking about taking the actual class.
I like multiclassing because it just makes more sense.
As a player its a good tool for those players who like to play Jacks of all Trades and dabblers, and every group has at least on of those. If you take away multiclassing, you take away their fun. Those players are willing to accept a detriment of some sort, they just want to be good at sveral things rather then exceptional at one thing.
As a DM, its a good tool for those NPCs that may of had an interesting carreer, how else would you formulate hybrid characters like Drizzt (Fighter/Ranger) and Artemis Rogue/Fighter/Assassin? In fact there is a certain eleglance to that type of character building. Just by looking at the class combination, you can see a history of sorts within that character. Prestige classes is another effective tool for those very specific classes like a Red Wizard, Elven High Mage and so on.
3E multiclassing (in my opinion) was really heading towards the right direction and there was a certain beauty and charm to it. The problem was that there were allot of wholes in it, easilly exposed and taken advantage of by power gamers. With prestige classes being flat out better (rather then just different) and higher levels of the core classes having lesser abilities - multiclassing simply got out of hand... but its not the core idea that was the problem, there was just lack of balance.
Its also the fault of DMs who allowed some of the most rediculous class combinations. I generally don't allow multiclassing in my campaigns unless the players show a change of interest or heart IN CHARACTER, I also make prestige classes difficult to join, some downright impossible if it doesn't fit the setting or local.
As a DM, its a good tool for those NPCs that may of had an interesting carreer, how else would you formulate hybrid characters like Drizzt (Fighter/Ranger) and Artemis Rogue/Fighter/Assassin?
For the record, those characters were created in 1e. Drizzt was consistently written up as a single-classed ranger. I never saw stats on Artemis Entreri but I have no reason to guess he was other than a single-classed assassin. I can't think of a single multiclassed R.A. Salvatore character, now that I think of it.
If this is supposed to be the edition that unites lovers of all older editions, I think there are aspects that can be adopted from each, possibly as modular options.
1e/2e demihuman multiclassing/4e hybrid: Choose to multiclass at level 1 and progress equally. The 1e/2e system, where you get everything but level more slowly, is probably not so good, as it's much easier for DMs to deal with the whole party being the same level, plus figuring out the exact balance is tricky at best. The 4e method was a balancing nightmare (which is why it took them an extra 2 1/2 years to roll it out), and had to be designed class by class, but was more or less a good idea.
3e piecemeal method: The elegance was its simplicity, and the fact that if you added up your levels, you were a level (sum) character. The problems... seem like a lot, but I think it boils down to 3: front-loaded features, horrible treatment of classes that aren't cumulative with other classes (mainly casters), and lack of verisimilitude (both spontaneously adding a class out of nowhere and the silliness you get when you reach your 4th class or so). The first two can be addressed with the right rules, and the verisimilitude issue is something players and DMs should work out with each other.
1e dual-classing: Does anyone really want this back? Raise your hand... I personally think the 3e method adequately captures the "career change" concept without the extremely wonky mechanics and balance.
4e "dabbling" method: I always liked this for what it did. It's a horrible method to achieve true multiclassing--far too costly and adds almost no class features--but it's pretty good for the features it does cover, and for powers. It would be a good model for full casters in Next, I think.
I'm more worried about prestige classes/paragon paths/etc. They added a ton of bloat and garbage, with the tiniest bits of brokenness seeping through for the optimisers to go to town with.
"Edison didn't succeed the first time he invented Benjamin Franklin, either." Albert the Alligator, Walt Kelly's Pogo Sunday Book
The Core Coliseum: test out your 4e builds and fight to the death.
As a DM, its a good tool for those NPCs that may of had an interesting carreer, how else would you formulate hybrid characters like Drizzt (Fighter/Ranger) and Artemis Rogue/Fighter/Assassin?
For the record, those characters were created in 1e. Drizzt was consistently written up as a single-classed ranger. I never saw stats on Artemis Entreri but I have no reason to guess he was other than a single-classed assassin. I can't think of a single multiclassed R.A. Salvatore character, now that I think of it.
If this is supposed to be the edition that unites lovers of all older editions, I think there are aspects that can be adopted from each, possibly as modular options.
1e/2e demihuman multiclassing/4e hybrid: Choose to multiclass at level 1 and progress equally. The 1e/2e system, where you get everything but level more slowly, is probably not so good, as it's much easier for DMs to deal with the whole party being the same level, plus figuring out the exact balance is tricky at best. The 4e method was a balancing nightmare (which is why it took them an extra 2 1/2 years to roll it out), and had to be designed class by class, but was more or less a good idea.
3e piecemeal method: The elegance was its simplicity, and the fact that if you added up your levels, you were a level (sum) character. The problems... seem like a lot, but I think it boils down to 3: front-loaded features, horrible treatment of classes that aren't cumulative with other classes (mainly casters), and lack of verisimilitude (both spontaneously adding a class out of nowhere and the silliness you get when you reach your 4th class or so). The first two can be addressed with the right rules, and the verisimilitude issue is something players and DMs should work out with each other.
1e dual-classing: Does anyone really want this back? Raise your hand... I personally think the 3e method adequately captures the "career change" concept without the extremely wonky mechanics and balance.
4e "dabbling" method: I always liked this for what it did. It's a horrible method to achieve true multiclassing--far too costly and adds almost no class features--but it's pretty good for the features it does cover, and for powers. It would be a good model for full casters in Next, I think.
I'm more worried about prestige classes/paragon paths/etc. They added a ton of bloat and garbage, with the tiniest bits of brokenness seeping through for the optimisers to go to town with.
In the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms sourcebook, Entreri was listed as a ranger/fighter/rogue/assassin so maybe that what’s Slygamer was referring. As for Drizzt, he was sometime listed as a 16th level ranger, sometime as a dual class fighter 18/ranger 16. The first as the problem of ignoring his time in Menzoberrazan where he obviously was a fighter and the second as being outside the rule as dual class was restricted to human.
As such, 3rd edition multiclass was easy to portray him : 10 level of fighter for his training in Menzo, 1 level of barbarian for the time he spend alone in the Underdark and 5 level of ranger that he learn when he left the Underdark.
Go check out my thread in D&DNext General about multiclassing. I've updated the idea. You get a 5th level spell slot, but only start getting 1st level spells so you can power up that 1st level spell by putting it in that one 5th level slot. That way your burning hands does a respectable 8d4 damage or whatever.
.
The problem with this is they then are horrible Fighters and horrible Wizards. Its the same problem the current Sorcerer has once they fix low level spell spamming. The thing about it is you would get one spell slot of 5th level. Out of 4 encounters that might be useful once in one encounter, after that you are a weakened fighter. The trade off is balanced...
That is the balance for such a build. You lose some expertise in the Warrior class for novice spells. Its not always a bad deal. Through adventuring the Warrior might have scored some items that only a novice wizard could use. With three lvls at wizard you would have access to several of these spells: Enlarge, True Strike, Jump, Grease, and Protection from evil at 1st lvl with Mirror Image, Invisibility, Blur, Bull Str, and Cat’s Grace at second. Those spells might have more value than 3 lvls in fighter. Spell dabbling is already relatively balanced. The larger issues are underpowered characters that splits levels evenly with something like Ranger and Sorcerer. That’s an honest build for a feral elf yet still very underpowered. Maybe such characters could have access to the better prestige classes. Another issue that might surface is that Wizard’s commitment to reducing hp bloat could encourage non-caster characters to take on caster lvls if there are cuts in hitdice/hp at later lvls. A remedy for that might be quality combat maneuvers at later lvls.
I generally don't allow multiclassing in my campaigns unless the players show a change of interest or heart IN CHARACTER, I also make prestige classes difficult to join, some downright impossible if it doesn't fit the setting or local.
I would do this too. I would also require the person have some training in the new class. I don't intend to let players simply take another class, and become whatever they can suddenly do.
I like the idea of multiclassing, and I hope they do include it. But I want it to be done properly, and in a way that makes it difficult to create powerbuilds. Multiclassed characters should have a diverse set of skills, not end up better at something than the single-classed characters, so I don't want to see a multiclassed fighter able to be better in melee combat than a fighter.
Everything expressed in this post is my opinion, and should be taken as such. I can not declare myself to be the supreme authority on all matters...even though I am right!
