|
OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Note that aside from CRPG's, I've barely played D&D.
As far as I can tell, it really doesn't pay to multiclass in D&D. Why? Because a lvl 6 wizard has fireball. A lvl 3 fighter/3 wizard has magic missile and can't use very much armor. Assuming maximum rolls... pc1: 24hp pc2: 42hp Round 1: pc1 fireballs pc2 for 6d6. That's 6-36 points of damage. pc2 runs at pc1 pc1: 24hp pc2: 6hp round 2: pc2's only chance is to run in close and for pc1 to not make a single concentration roll. Now, this *might* be even. I've barely played D&D, I wouldn't know what equipment they'd have. But let's look at this another way. What benifit did pc2 gain from his 3 levels of wizard? Absolutly none. Pc1 would kill him in a wizard duel. He actually lost from it, since he could maybe have leather armor and pc1 after the first round might have been able to simply kill him with his staff/club/darts. And even if he loaded up on fighter armor and shield he still wasted three levels. This is just one example. About the only good multi-classing I could see would be a fighter taking a level of thief or barbarian for the backstab or rage. Or vice versa. There is really little you can do with multi-classing. And D&D's multi-classing race restrictions make it worse. What's all this about? Anybody find a way to fix it? I can't. [ June 18, 2004, 04:03: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
I'm not too familiar with D&D anymore myself.
However I recall that PC2 would have a slightly better save throw vs magic. ( vs a LEV6 fighter) Also a LEV6 wizard should take more exp pionts than a Lev 3/3 Fighter/Mage. (At least I remember that the higher you went in levels the more points it took to gain the next level.) So with equal points, your lev 6 mage would 'only' be level 4 or 5. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
No, in the latest D&D at least, they have class levels, which determine what classes you have and at what levels, and character levels, which is all your class levels added up and which determine experience gain. Plus, there is only one expereince table for all classes. So a level 6 wizard takes exactly the same experience as a level 3 fighter/3 wizard.
As for your other objection, a level 3 fighter/3 wizard has a fort/ref/will save of 4/2/4 and a level 6 wizard has a f/r/w of 2/2/5. Which means that the 3 fighter/3 wizard will in general resist spells a little better. Fireball has a reflex save for half damage. Assuming that the fighter/wizards dexterity is the same as he wizards intelligence, unlikely because of the need to spread stats around sometimes when multi-classing, we have a spell level of 3, so a Difficulty Class of 13. on a d20, that mean the average roll will be 12.5 Fireballs allow a reflex save for half. A little math and we have a 49% chance to make the reflex save. That doesn't seem right. I added them up and divided 13 by the result. Oh Well. So, 36*51%=18.36. Drop the 0.36 round 1: pc1, 24. pc2, 24 After that, could go to either. But the fighter/wizard still wasted three levels. A level 6 fighter would have a better chance to dodge the fireball, more hitpoints, better armor, incidental to this but highly nessasary elsewere. So, he's still wasted 3 levels. [ June 18, 2004, 04:57: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Depends on what Version of D&D you are talking about... 3rd edition has no racial penalties for multi-classing. In fact, it has racial bonuses for it, with how the experience point system is set up to penalize multi-class characteras that have more than 4 levels of difference between their highest and lowest levels. Each race has a favored class that is not counted for this experience penalty. Humans just use their highest leveled class as their favored class.
Multi-classing a wizard or sorcerer is IMO generally a bad idea because they only get stronger at higher levels. Now, you can add levels in these classes to a character that started as something else if you want to (such as fighter), but it is a good idea to keep a character started as a wizard as a wizard. The same goes for clerics and druids. Multi-classing a fighter past about 10 levels is IMO generally a good idea, because they don't get any cool feats at high levels, just more bonus feats. And you can usually get all you need with the feats you have gotten until 10th level, plus those you get for whatever other class you take. Maybe take levels in wizard or cleric to get those level 2 and 3 stat boosting spells to help out with the fighting abilities. Of course, many classes can benefit from 4 levels in fighter because that is the only way to get the weapon specialization feat. Multi-classing a bard is, quite frankly, fairly stupid (except for 4 levels in Fighter to get weapon specialization), as they are essentially a multi-classed character already. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif Paladins might be able to benifit more spell-wise by taking levels in cleric instead of Paladin past a certain point. Of course, it all boils down to the party you are in. If you have no thief, someone multi-classing a few levels in thief can be a great asset to get some trap and lock removal abilities. Same goes for lack of a cleric and some basic healing spells. [ June 18, 2004, 04:58: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
That's still a restriction. All races should treat multi-classing the same. Why should I be penalized if I want to play a dwarven cleric/druid?
What I want is to be able to multiclass any class with at least one other class, not a prestige class, without penalty. At a bare minimum. Being able to multi-class all classes without penalty would be better, but I realize would take to much work. What I would like is to feel I have multi-classing options when playing any class, rather than feeling like I'm being penalized for creativity nearly any time I come up with something. I seem to be ranting. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Ouch! Advancement by levels where experiance is the same for all levels. That sure would make multi-class characters weaker to play. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
When I played AD&D there was a increasing requirement to advance to next level. That a least allowed multiclass some usefulness. I remember playing a Fighter/Thief and being useful to the group as a Thief that was also handy in a fight. (I remember I used to take the trailing position in the formation to guard against attacks from the rear.) With the rules as you stated, I would not have been as effective. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/image...s/rolleyes.gif |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
Fighter/thief combinations are just as effective as they used to be, possibly even more so... In 3rd edition D&D, multi-classing is a better option than it was in 2nd edition and before. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">And I may want to role-play a dwarven cleric/druid without being penalized. Quote:
</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="sans-serif, arial, verdana">Multi-classing is still limited except for some specialized purposes. Plus, why should I be penalized if I don't want to? Quote:
[ June 18, 2004, 05:26: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
If you want to seriously cross the line with classes, go with G.U.R.P.S., as it has no classes at all. No levels or experience, either - it runs a point system; you purchase skills, abilities, and stats with points; a certain number are given to a starting character (dependant on the world, campaign, and GM; usually about 100 points) to initially build the character; after that, they are awarded based on the adventures. You would need to have some explanation (background) for the character - but the (theoretically, anyway) for what skills, abilities, and spells you choose is based on the character concept (and limits of the campaign world, as set by the Game Master). If you want a fighter-style character with some lockpicking abilities, you can - just hold out some points from the fighter design to add the lockpicking skill, and note that your fighter had a misspent youth (where (s)he picked up the skill, of course). Or perhaps the character dabbled as an escape artist. As long as it fits the character concept, fits the campaign world, and won't unbalance the campaign, it's fine.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
(Ok.) Quote:
(Well, I admit I am a munchkin. But not a horrid munchkin and I'm also a roleplayer. I'm quite willing to multi-class and accept that I'll have to take the good with the bad. I just don't want a weaker character than I otherwise would have if I pursued one class.) Quote:
I see multi-classing as trading one thing for another and I don't want to get ripped off or have to choose to multi-class in a certain way, at a certain time to still have an equivelant character. [ June 18, 2004, 05:44: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Not all multi-classing combinations are very viable... some work great, others do not. Fighter/mage can work as long as you are not trying to be an evocation mage. If you just want to do lots of damage from spells, don't take any fighter levels, stick with pure wizard or sorcerer. But if you want to use magic to enhance your fighting abilities (bonuses to armor class, abilities, etc.), it works out fairly well and you don't need more than 4th or 5th level spells for this. This also frees up the party's real wizard from worrying about using spell slots to beef up your character, allowing him/her to concentrate on other spells, such as more fireballs.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Hmm...That would only work with a DM that allowed you to put on your armor instantly, or by using a lot of spells. But, ok.
D&D is still to multi-classing restrictive in my opinion though. Guess we just want different gameplay. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Back to the original question. Anyone come up with D&D multi-classing that's closer to what I want? Side note, I once came up with a fighter/slash wizard class that got no bonus feats and could choose a feat when all classes get feats that would subtract -5% from armor and shield spell failure. Saves an average of both and max 3 spell slots, i think. What do you think? [ June 18, 2004, 06:24: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Or just use light armor and have a really low arcane spell failure chance for that fighter/wizard... A bit of dexterity covers up the lowered AC from the armor (I just love how plate mails kill your dexterity bonus to armor... http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon12.gif ).
It is not all that restrictive, unless you really want to have levels in 5 or 6 different classes... [ June 18, 2004, 06:53: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Did you know that plate mail actually doesn't restrict your dexterity if it's well-made?
From what I heard, medieval knights could do cartwheels. I think you convinced me on the multi-classing thing. Except for druid's. What are they supposed to multi-class as? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif For those of you who are wondering 'What??', you missed the #se4 discussion. Go on #se4 more. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif [ June 18, 2004, 07:15: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Slight correction - well made armor didn'tslow down people who were trained to it, much; a well made suit of plate armor basically spreads 50 pounds (or whatever it is) of extra weight around you. An acrobat not trained to armor is going to have difficulties doing acrobatics (balance has changed, there is more mass to push and so can't move quite as fast, et cetera). Someone trained to such armor, however, won't have a major problem (used to the altered balance; musles are accustomed to the extra mass, and so apply extra force; et cetera), but will still have some lesser problems (50 pounds is 50 pounds - the plate armored knight will tire faster than the unarmored counterpart; while the armored knight is used to the extra weight and can manuver, it does still slow down the knight's movements slightly (although not as much as someone who isn't used to armor) compared to the knight's unarmored state). The knights of old could do cartwheels in good armor (if they could do cartwheels, that is) but almost nobody else could. Consider it a fighter-type skill "Negate Armor Penalty" or something.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Multi-classing can be really powerful, where the abilities of two or more classes synergise, or where you can cherry-pick abilities from one class to match your main one. A half-orc Cleric with 1-3 levels of Barbarian can - especially with judicious application of Righteous Might, Divine Power and Bull Strength turn into a complete combaat monster while still having all his Cleric spells. Fighter/Thief Barbarian/Thief Ranger/Thief combos work very becasue the dex-based skills (e.g. Tumble) and thief abilities (e.g. sneak attack, flanking immunity) make for a more flexible, more powerful fighter. And of course every power-gamer would take a level of Ranger for Two Weapon Fighting 'til they fixed that in 3.5
Fighter/Wizard combos can work too, but not as dual-role Fighters who can be wizards; more like Fighters who boost themselves with a few spells (True Strike, Shield, Expeditious Retreat (not normally used for retreating as such...), flame arrow etc). But expecting a Fighter/Wizard to be both a good fighter and good wizard is sort of missing the point isn't it? If anyone could be both without much penalty, why would anyone be a single class character? You can also have fun tinkering with strange character designs who take levels in 4 or more classes to build an individual character concept or style. It's not normally a power-gaming option, but it amuses some players... |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
Narf, talk to your DM. If you want to play a Dwarf Druid/Fighter, maybe he'll let you without the xp penalty in favor of going on some sort of quest or something... who knows. Good DMs will often let you get away with bending the rules if it doesn't break the balance. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
When I was playing AD&D, I never played multi-class characters. It seemed to take forever to advance, while your single class characters would go up a level at the drop of a hat. But since I never really played with 2nd or 3rd editions, I can't say if I would play them now. I think playing a single class character with a lot of skills would probably be better anyway. But I know people like to play them. I'm just not one of them.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
But I got a plan: Buy a starting adventure and start a group. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon7.gif Anyone know any good starting adventures? |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
"Find players and a potential DM available at roughly the same time" remains one of the best starting adventures out there. If you happen to know how to solve this one, please let me know.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
You can't be a jack-of-all trades unless you are willing to be a master of none. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon10.gif
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Boy, does this conversation take me to Way Back When. Haven't played such games since college. But the discussion caught my attention because it reminded me of an article I read awhile back by a guy named Martinez, on the way (A)D&D and modern mass-market fantasy stereotypes the themes and backgrounds in Tolkien's works. It's a bit on the philosophical side, and would probably interest only hard-core gamers and/or Tolkien geeks (I at least qualify in the latter), but it does have interesting points...
<a href="http://www.suite101.com/article.cfm/tolkien/59403" target="_blank">Trampling the Legacy, Remaking the Myth </a> EDIT - Quote from article most pertinent to this thread... Quote:
[ June 19, 2004, 03:26: Message edited by: General Woundwort ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Hmm...typically, barbarians have generations of lore in songs and stories. I don't see that in D&D.
One difference between Tolkien and D&D is that in Tolkiens world, magic is a natural result of certain places (the well that Frodo looked into), emotions (That guys sword telling him that it would gladly drink his blood), the will (like the making of the rings) or a natural extension of that persons being (Tom, Gandalph, Aragorns ability to heal with Kingsfoil). In D&D, magic is something you study and twist to your own ends. Emotion plays no part. It's mechanistic. In both cases, anybody can do magic or interact with it. But in Tolkien's world, it's, well not mechanical. [ June 19, 2004, 04:27: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Well, yes.
D&D isn't about sophisticated role-playing or collaborative story-telling. It's about bashing stuff. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
True, true.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Only if you play with a group that doesn't do sophisticated roleplaying and collaborative storytelling... If you play with the right group, D&D is most certainly about such things. If you play with a group that just wants to hack'n'slash, that is what you get.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
True, but the actual format is tilted towards hack'n'slash. From the hordes of beings with a definite alignment that are there primarily for you to slaughter without a thought if their alignment is one your character doesn't like because after all they can't change to the lack of a description area on the character sheet, D&D is more supportive of hack'n'slash.
It's not a matter of can't, it's a matter of format. 6 adventure's on the begginers adventure box and only one of them involves diplomacy. And that's at swordpoint, once you've defeated him, if you feel like it. [ June 19, 2004, 21:42: Message edited by: narf poit chez BOOM ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Storytellers usually write their own campaigns and adventures... Also, the beginners adventures are supposed to help you learn the rules. The DM can modify them to include more diplomacy if he wishes to easily. Good DMs just use published adventures as a starting point for their own adventures, or as sources of ideas. Additionally, hack'n'slash adventures are easier to write and to play. They sell better, usually. A sad but true fact. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/icons/icon9.gif
Descriptions and such go on pages of lined paper, not on the actual character sheet. There is no room for it there, and what is the point of printing out or photocopying pages of blank lines? The rule books are meant to provide the basic platform from which to build the stories of your adventures. There are numerous campaign settings you can purchase that have lots of backstory type stuff in them, with much more detailed info on various races, rather than a listing of stats. Do you want the monster manual to be 8,000 pages long, or to just have a dozen creatures in it? It is a game. In order to play a game, you need rules. This is what the core rulebooks (and supplemental ones) are. They provide the framework. They are not meant to provide endless stories to roleplay. [ June 19, 2004, 21:55: Message edited by: Imperator Fyron ] |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
I didn't say that you can't have deep roleplaying in D&D, I'm saying that the setting and published material is more encouraging of hack'n'slash. After all, a beginning DM is less likely to modify the rules.
It seems more likely that, when starting RP'ing with D&D, that one will start with hack'n'slash and begin roleplaying from there than start roleplaying and add action elements. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
I haven't really looked at the newer 3rd edition published adventures all that much, but there were a number of non-hack'n'slash adventures out there back when I was actually playing D&D, in the 2nd edition era.
Beginners have to start off by learning the rules before they can really get to the heart of roleplaying. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
If roleplaying and storytelling are your priority, you've got to be better off with a cleaner simpler system. Or not bother with one at all. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Correction: What I have seen and heard of the published material.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
I and a group of friends are currently playing 3.5, but we started out with 3.0. Our group is more into Hack 'n Slash, but we've had our fair share of in depth role playing. Once we had to navigate through a village (The DM designed this play himself to couter all the Hack 'n Slash we were used to) without even killing a mouse (No pun intended Narf). This was actually one of the better asignments we've had.
As to Hack 'n Slash, I enjoy that very much after all, what are you going to do when a huge dragon is in from of you?! Eliminate it!!! That's the whole purpose of the dragon in the quest, it has to DIE!! And what does Aragorn have to do when he's confronted by a cavetroll? Yes he has to kill it. He wouldn't survived when he had kindly asked the troll to back off and to leave. The troll either kills him of he kills the troll. No way around it. Another group I was playing with focussed entirely on the personal issues of the characters, the real in depth role playing. Now that was boring, in my time with that group we encountered no more that 5 creatures. And all they could talk about was how great the group was busy with the enrafeling of the mystery that took place in the group. All they did was talking and moving from one stup[id conversation to another. Really it wasn't my cup of tea. One more fun thing of killing creatures is the treasure. That has been the biggest motive for players since the first D&D books came out. Even in movies the treasure is mostly the motive for the characters to set out on their grand quest. The badguys most frequently guard these treasures fiercely with the most awfull beasts they could find. Hence the love for killing foul creatures by the hundreds. All for the treasure and the glory that goes with it. Oh and multiclassing is cool. Like Fyron pouinted out, you should only do it when you reach level 10 (minimum). Most of the time the requirements don't allow for a multiclassing to take place before level 10. I'm a wizard level 9, I plan to multiclass when I reach level 13. I would like to be a Planeshifter (well that's my choice for now because there will be a book out soon about plane related classes). I could multiclass right now (I have met all the requirements), but then I would miss a great deal of spells. The Planeshifter actually continues to give levels for my wizard. So I plannen that when I reach level 10 Planeshifter I would be a level 20 wizard. Above that you're in the epic levels. I haven't really taken a look at those levels. Botomline is Fyron was right about multiclassing. You shouldn't do it before you reach at least level 10 and it has advantages when you reach the higher levels. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
I think there are several ways to benefit from multi-classing before level ten (though your example of progressing on to a Prestige class is often a good option if you want something different). As I said previously, you can make a powerful warrior out of a Cleric by starting him with a single level of Barbarian. Or make for a very versatile dex-based fighter by starting with three levels of Thief.
Spell-casters often lose out the most by multi-classing, if they see spellcasting as their primary function. But if their "other" class is their main focus, then a few spells can oftern be a real boost. |
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
One of the best Groups I had was when we went "outside the box", and started playing other games besides AD&D (this was back in the 80's). One of other games I fell in love with, and wish I could still play, was GURPS from Steve Jackson Games. It's a skill based system, where you have points and then can buy whatever skills you need. What makes this game system so versatile is that they make supplemental books for just about anything. Fantasy, sci-fi, modern weapons and vehicles, futuristic stuff. I really want to buy their WWII book that came out a couple of years ago. Anyway, some of my best sessions came when we played a fantasy game using this system. There's no multiclass per se; you can be a sword-fighting mage if you want to be. You just have to have enough skill points to buy your skills. I highly recommend it as an alternative to D&D.
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Quote:
|
Re: OT: D&D and multi-classing.
Don't mind me, just cross-linking: http://www.shrapnelgames.com/cgi-bin...;f=23;t=011924
|
| All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:18 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©1999 - 2025, Shrapnel Games, Inc. - All Rights Reserved.