| Author |
 Topic  |
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
 Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:00:55
|
I've been looking at some of the 3rd Edition books and have come to a very basic question. Is the idea in 3rd edition that every character can "multi-class" or "dual class" whenever they want, and can revert back to their old class or be both at the same time?
Is there a limit on how many classes a character can have?
|
|
|
Bladewind
Master of Realmslore
Netherlands
1280 Posts |
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:19:11
|
| I'm seeing characters with 4, 5, and 6 classes. To me this says they must be some kind of dual class character (retired classed). Is this the case or did they just decide its more fun to be able to be a lot of classes at the same time? |
 |
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4690 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:23:48
|
Well can advance in all classes that do not conflict. Can not be Paladin and Bard for example.
If keeping all levels within 1 there is no penalty as to advancement under 3.5, 3.0 there might have been.
An advancement penalty does kick in when class levels are further apart, 10 percent deducted for each class 2 or more levels below highest class level from experience points earned for each class 2 or more away. As I recall 3.5 added favorite class which provided an exemption. Favorite class could be higher or lower then 2 levels and no experience points are suffered. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:25:49
|
| Are there any limits to the number of classes one may take? |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4690 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:29:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
I'm seeing characters with 4, 5, and 6 classes. To me this says they must be some kind of dual class character (retired classed). Is this the case or did they just decide its more fun to be able to be a lot of classes at the same time?
Well they decided muti-class and duel classing had problems. So this was the fix to allow all races the same variety of character development that a player wanted.
There is not retirement as such. A player could start with 2 levels of Fighter, then add a class of Bard, Class of Wizard, a class of Cleric, if bringing all of them to 2nd level could then add another Fighter level with no penalty.
The class is never retired. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:32:58
|
| alright - thank you |
|
|
|
Kilvan
Senior Scribe
Canada
894 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:39:51
|
No limit, and prestige class levels (and racial favored class) do not count to determine exp penalty. This brought an optimizing "technique" to life known as level dipping. It means taking only a single level in a class or Prestige class to gain powerful abilities that do not scale with class level anyway. For example, any mid level wizard or fighter would benefit from a single level in Cleric, gaining 3+ turn undead attempt per day (useless actually vs undeads) then take a very powerful feat that requires those turn undead charges from Complete Divine, and 2 domains with a passive ability (most of the time), some of them a straight feat. Oh, and cantrips and first level divine spells.
The saving throw distribution system also grants +2 at first level, for any class, for specialized saves. So a single level in monk gives a remarquable +2 to all 3 saves.
If optimizing if your thing, possibilities are endless. I personally hate doing it, and I encourage my players to go with flavour instead of power, but whatever floats your boat. |
|
|
|
Kentinal
Great Reader
4690 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:39:52
|
quote:
Originally posted by The Masked Mage
Are there any limits to the number of classes one may take?
Only limit is conflicted classes (non compatible), there certainly can be a limit from adding an 12th class if 10 classes are 2 levels below highest because there would be 100 percent penalty on experience points earned thus impossible to gain a new level. if one is favored class might be able to add the 12th however certainly can not get 13. As there are 10 core classes you would need expansion to even worry about 12 classes.
Oh Prestige classes do not count for out of step as far a advancement is concerned as I recall under 3.5. |
"Small beings can have small wisdom," the dragon said. "And small wise beings are better than small fools. Listen: Wisdom is caring for afterwards."
"Caring for afterwards ...? Ker repeated this without understanding.
"After action, afterwards," the dragon said. "Choose the afterwards first, then the action. Fools choose action first."
"Judgement" copyright 2003 by Elizabeth Moon |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 15:53:47
|
| Looks like I need to spend a few days revising my chief NPC, a high level wizard, to make him a bit more classy :P |
|
|
|
Wooly Rupert
Master of Mischief
USA
36814 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 17:17:11
|
| 2E had all those multiclass restrictions... 3E threw all restrictions out the window. In some cases, this was an improvement -- but I think the commentary here shows how it skewed things too far in the opposite direction. |
Candlekeep Forums Moderator
Candlekeep - The Library of Forgotten Realms Lore
http://www.candlekeep.com -- Candlekeep Forum Code of Conduct
I am the Giant Space Hamster of Ill Omen!  |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 18:06:51
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well can advance in all classes that do not conflict. Can not be Paladin and Bard for example.
If keeping all levels within 1 there is no penalty as to advancement under 3.5, 3.0 there might have been.
An advancement penalty does kick in when class levels are further apart, 10 percent deducted for each class 2 or more levels below highest class level from experience points earned for each class 2 or more away. As I recall 3.5 added favorite class which provided an exemption. Favorite class could be higher or lower then 2 levels and no experience points are suffered.
Actually, one CAN be both a Bard and Paladin, provided the PC was a Bard first before taking the Paladin class. Of course, once the bard becomes lawful (LG required Paladin alignment), he/she can't advance further as a bard- but he still keeps all his Bard abilities already gained. It's a bit of the level-dipping others have mentioned, but it works. I did this combo with a half-dragon PC of mine, and some of the bard abilities worked nicely in combination with the Paladin abilities. Using Inspire Courage together with the Pali's Smite, for instance. In this case, I did it for background flavor rather than for power advantage, but I found that it can be very effective to have a Pali who can also inspire his allies to fight better as well as having his own personal buffs.
However, if using the alternate Paladin options (Palis of other alignments), this restriction goes out the window, and a CG Pali/Bard could perhaps make for a true powerhouse! YMMV, of course. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 19:28:53
|
I agree with Wooly Blue Bubbles, 2E multi-/dual-class rules were a bit stuffy and overly restrictive but 3E multiclassing was easily abused and produced some combinations which seem quite stupid/unlikely from a non-powergaming (actual role-playing) context. People who cut their teeth on 3E generally seem to prefer unlimited interchangeable race/class possibilities, grognards like me generally prefer races and classes to be defined through their classic identities, and reserving unlimited classing for races like humans to give them a tangible advantage.
A 2E paladin/bard is basically impossible, all other requirements aside they have incompatible alignments. A non-LG paladin becomes a fighter, while a bard must be partially Neutral (and general rogues can be any alignment except LG).
A variety of 3E paladin/bard combinations (of nearly any PC race) are possible, provided all requirements are met. Each alignment has a paladin subtype, even an aasimar/half-drow paladin/bard/assassin/necromancer would be possible. And when in Rome, multiclass as the Romans do; most NPC opponents are going to be gish types, so PCs invariably need to mix steel and magic as well.
Preference aside, I can play the game either way. Although I've noticed Realms canon waver and wobble as authors attempt to find a balance between "new" 3E-style race/class characters with "old" 2E-style traditions. Still, I can't help but roll my eyes every time I see things like a paladin/bard or a dwarven sorcerer. |
[/Ayrik] |
Edited by - Ayrik on 02 Feb 2013 19:33:34 |
|
|
|
Hawkins
Great Reader
USA
2131 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 19:47:17
|
| Though multi-classing in 3.x also made a fun way to tell the story of your character, especially if you began in a higher-level campaign. |
Errant d20 Designer - My Blog (last updated January 06, 2016)
One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back. --Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking-Glass
"Mmm, not the darkness," Myrin murmured. "Don't cast it there." --Erik Scott de Bie, Shadowbane
* My character sheets (PFRPG, 3.5, and AE versions; not viewable in Internet Explorer)
* Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Reference Document (PFRPG OGL Rules)
* The Hypertext d20 SRD (3.5 OGL Rules)
* 3.5 D&D Archives
My game design work:
* Heroes of the Jade Oath (PFRPG, conversion; Rite Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 1: Cantrips & Orisons (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Compendium Arcanum Volume 2: 1st-Level Spells (PFRPG, designer; d20pfsrd.com Publishing)
* Martial Arts Guidebook (forthcoming) (PFRPG, designer; Rite Publishing)
|
|
|
|
Razz
Senior Scribe
USA
749 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 20:17:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kentinal
Well can advance in all classes that do not conflict. Can not be Paladin and Bard for example.
Actually there is a feat that allows you to do that. |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 20:33:51
|
| What's wrong with a Pali/Bard? As I said, the PC was a bard FIRST, then later changed class (and alignment) to become a Pali. It was part of his basic concept when I created him, then an event occurred that completely changed his outlook and life-path. That, and I modeled him somewhat loosely on the concept of the old Western "singing cowboy" archtype, a la Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and others. If you've ever seen the movie Rustler's Rhapsody, you'd have a good idea of what I was going for. But for the concept to work, I had to "bend" the rules a bit- and I first built him (and he is a half-gold dragon/[Moon]elf, which at that time was not even possible as a Pali race option due to race restriction on Palis) in 2nd ed, which should give a good idea of how long I've been playing him. The only edition where I've ever found the combo did NOt work, was in 4th, which ironically professes to make characters eisier to run. His race/class simply did not fit into that edition's mold. I found he actually works best in 3.5, but he was still perfectly playable- and FUN- back in 2nd ed when I created him! |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 20:52:25
|
| I wasn't trying to say anything is intrinsically "wrong" with a paladin/bard (in 3E; it is definitively impossible in 1E/2E). And the rules shouldn't supercede fun, there are even some rules and examples in canon which allow all sorts of exceptions. What I meant to say was that 3E-style multiclassing is not my preference. I would personally have more fun playing 2E-style. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Old Man Harpell
Senior Scribe
USA
497 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 20:53:36
|
Although I am definitely a 3.5/Pathfinder adherent (I like Second Edition, too, but my players uniformly despise it, sadly), the one thing I have forbidden in any 3.5/PF campaign I run is multiclassing. Of any sort - the edition's 'Summer of Multiclassing' style is just begging to have player characters run roughshod over a campaign.
Take one level of Thief/Rogue for lots of skill points. Then take one level of Fighter for lots of free Combat Feats. Then advance every level alternating between, say, Druid and Sorcerer.
Forget it. Not happening. Prestige classes are a different matter, but I insist a player pick a single Core class, and then stick to it, with Prestige classes decided later, depending on prerequisites and Feats designed to fill in the gaps.
I know I'm in the minority here in the Keep with this outlook, but to a person, my players are an assembly of some of the most deviously creative bastards ever to toss a polyhedron, my own son being among the worst of the lot. I am seriously pondering converting all the Pathfinder characters into another system that has no levels (like RuneQuest 6th or Hero System, for example) - then the multiclassing headaches will go away, never to be seen again. |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 21:23:50
|
Deviously creative player bastards will always push the envelope and dig for exploits, patch up one thing and create weakness in another. The only workable option to prohibit powergaming is a gross oversimplification of the game rules, basically rebuild the entire game as something elementary, straightforward, locked by childish simplicity (sound familiar?).
Powergaming balance is also a preference, and I personally think it's hardly relevant unless there's a disparity within the group (by which I mean all the players and the DM, his NPCs and adventures have to remain appropriately "balanced"). I've seen groups composed of feeble players, ordinary gamers, powergamers, or shameless munchkins, and some of these have had long-running campaigns which are very fun and engaging.
OMH - I don't really expect moving onto a new game system will correct problems, although your players might feel robbed or restricted or denied the goals and challenges which they find engaging. But good luck, bro. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
The Masked Mage
Great Reader
USA
2420 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 21:47:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alystra Illianniis
What's wrong with a Pali/Bard? As I said, the PC was a bard FIRST, then later changed class (and alignment) to become a Pali. It was part of his basic concept when I created him, then an event occurred that completely changed his outlook and life-path. That, and I modeled him somewhat loosely on the concept of the old Western "singing cowboy" archtype, a la Roy Rogers, Gene Autry, and others. If you've ever seen the movie Rustler's Rhapsody, you'd have a good idea of what I was going for. But for the concept to work, I had to "bend" the rules a bit- and I first built him (and he is a half-gold dragon/[Moon]elf, which at that time was not even possible as a Pali race option due to race restriction on Palis) in 2nd ed, which should give a good idea of how long I've been playing him. The only edition where I've ever found the combo did NOt work, was in 4th, which ironically professes to make characters eisier to run. His race/class simply did not fit into that edition's mold. I found he actually works best in 3.5, but he was still perfectly playable- and FUN- back in 2nd ed when I created him!
Paladin was Richard Boone, not Roy Rogers - I REALLY hope you get that joke :D |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 22:00:38
|
The 'no limits' thing led to 'dipping'
For instance, every character I created in 3e was a human fighter at first level... no matter what direction I wanted to take him later. It was just too good to pass up.
I also had a Monk that was getting AC bonuses from two other Prestige Classes (INT and CHA, IIRC) because of dipping. The guy wore no armor and was practically untouchable.
And that lead to min-maxing, which lead to power-gaming....
Which lead to Paizo taking over the world. 
EDIT: And the above side-chatter made me think about pali-bards, and 'singing knights', and of course I just had to remember the I Love Lucy episode with 'the good Prince Lancelot' ("Who liked to sing and dance-a-lot"). |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
Edited by - Markustay on 02 Feb 2013 22:06:44 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 02 Feb 2013 : 22:24:43
|
LOL!! Yes, I got it, but I was referring to the cowboy SINGERS of old B&W western TV shows, of which Paladin was NOT one (though I loved the theme song for that show...). Roy WAS. They were all cut from the "law, order, and justice" mold, being the clean-cut (a "clean-cut" cowboy? There's an oxymoron, LOL!!) good guys with shiny guns, silver-studded saddles, and the ever-present faithful mounts. Roy had Trigger, the Lone Ranger had Silver (not a singer, I know, but along the same stereotype), and Rex from Rustler's Rhapsody had Wildfire. They were the Pali analogs of the Old West. It was that theme I was going for with that PC, of a law-and-order roaming knight of justice type. You know, the kind who rides into town, defeats the bad guys, kisses the girl then rides into the sunset strumming his guitar. (or lute in this case.) A crooning do-gooder rover in shining armor!
And while he was technically "impossible" going strictly by the rules in 2nd ed, that PC has always been one of my most fun to play, due to the unique nature of the class combo. That was never a problem in our games though, as we had already agreed that if another race besides humans wanted to apply for paladinhood, a church shouldn't deny them just because they happen to be an elf or a dwarf. As for the class combo impossibility, I had a thorough backstory written up on him, and how he and his twin sister had once been attacked on the road (while he was still just a bard) by bandits who, er, defiled her while he was forced to watch, and he swore to become a holy knight to enforce law, chivalry, and justice after that. He'd start every fight with a rousing battle-hymn to his deity, cast a few buff spells before wading into the melee, and smite evil to his heart's content. But he is a bit of a jerk at times, and never "gets the girl" because he took a vow of chastity..... Kind of like how Rex never "got the girl" in that movie, either, lol!
That said, he was never intended as a game-breaker or power-game PC by any means. One of the things I do when coming up with characters is to think of an interesting concept and backstory, THEN try to figure out what race/class combos best define that concept and backstory. I've ended up with some odd combinations that way, but none were ever particularly power-game PC's or munchkins by any means. I do a little optimizing of skills and feats for playability's sake, but not to "break" a class combo. I just like playing truly unique characters that don't always fit the standard molds of core class expectations. My other half-dragon (the sister) is a sorceress/bard (bladesinger) who specializes in force-related spells and protection magic. She uses a lot of the Bigby spells and magic missiles, lol! I'm usually the DM in our games, but when I am on the other side of the screen, I like to play them together, as they work well off each other, and the sibling banter can add a lot of fun to the game. Palx is the strong, silent type with a hot temper when he's not playing in taverns, while Vala is more easy-going and compassionate. She's the Jimmeny Cricket who keeps his temper in check and keeps him on the straight and narrow. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
sfdragon
Great Reader
2285 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2013 : 03:42:29
|
asor the paladin there were various orders taht he/she/it/wahtever/ifever could be a paladin of and siad cahracter could freely mc with classes with that order and a few that had restrictions.
there was also a feat that allowed a paladin to mc with rogue or bard might have been rogue.... |
why is being a wizard like being a drow? both are likely to find a dagger in the back from a rival or one looking to further his own goals, fame and power
My FR fan fiction
Magister's GAmbit
http://steelfiredragon.deviantart.com/gallery/33539234 |
|
|
|
Alystra Illianniis
Great Reader
USA
3750 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2013 : 19:38:52
|
| Meh, I didn't bother using extra feats to do something that was easily explained and done via a simple backstory idea. Take the bard class for a couple of levels, then change alignment and go Pali. Simple. Since ex-bards don't loose any of their abilities (unlike an ex-pali), I lost nothing, and the powers meshed pretty well, so I was happy with it. I just chose not to advance further as a bard, because it wasn't necessary for the PC. |
The Goddess is alive, and magic is afoot.
"Where Science ends, Magic begins" -Spiral, Uncanny X-Men #491
"You idiots! You've captured their STUNT doubles!" -Spaceballs
Lothir's character background/stats: http://forum.candlekeep.com/pop_profile.asp?mode=display&id=5469
My stories:
http://z3.invisionfree.com/Mickeys_Comic_Tavern/index.php?showforum=188
Lothir, courtesy of Sylinde (Deviant Art)/Luaxena (Chosen of Eilistraee)
http://sylinde.deviantart.com/#/d2z6e4u |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 03 Feb 2013 : 22:01:16
|
| We allow ''dipping'' for class features, between similar classes, e.g. paladin and crusader, or summoner-binder. Multiclassing is usually not needed. |
Edited by - Quale on 03 Feb 2013 22:01:45 |
|
|
|
Ayrik
Great Reader
Canada
7989 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 07:54:47
|
I don't entirely agree with "multiclassing is usually not needed". I mean I agree with the particular statement, I prefer limited multiclassing (and traditional level limits for most races!) in my gaming.
But I don't agree that it's the "right" solution for everybody. Some gamers like 2E grognard style, others like 3E unlimited style.
So where do you draw the line? 2E paladins must be human, but some gamers want elven paladins (with more bonuses), some gamers want non-LG paladins or, say, a paladin/bard multiclass. 2E kits are arguably unneeded since anyone can emulate a kit by choosing the appropriate proficiencies and stuff, so why give them extra bonuses? For that matter, why should demihumans be allowed to choose classes and multiclasses (and again, more bonuses) when simpler D&D rules have predefined them with fixed race/class roles? It's all pure preference.
Game rules are just like any other product:
If there was a single universally perfect option then there wouldn't be a vast array of imperfect ones to choose from. |
[/Ayrik] |
|
|
|
Quale
Master of Realmslore
1757 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 08:40:57
|
| I like some of 2e class restrictions, when everyone is allowed everything it loses its charm. Only if the elf was raised in human society, otherwise how else would he become a paladin. Or halfling paladin would be called thain. |
|
|
|
Markustay
Realms Explorer extraordinaire
USA
15724 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 13:05:24
|
I'd love to see a system that does PrCs right - as synergies between base classes. Why do you need a Paladin class? Just multi between cleric and fighter and so long as you keep the two classes within 2-3 levels of each other you get the bonus synergies (like the Paladin's mount).
PrCs can be completely done away with if you have a slew of base classes, and then build everything else with multi-class Feats and synergies.
They moved too quickly in a new direction with 4e - 3e still had a lot of mileage left under the hood if only they had started fixing it (rather then abandoning it). The sad thing is 3e eventually just came down to 'builds', and that goes right back to D&D's roots with just the base classes. Why bother giving folks options when they are all going to build the same damn characters anyway? |
"I have never in my life learned anything from any man who agreed with me" --- Dudley Field Malone
|
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11861 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 23:29:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ayrik
I agree with Wooly Blue Bubbles, 2E multi-/dual-class rules were a bit stuffy and overly restrictive but 3E multiclassing was easily abused and produced some combinations which seem quite stupid/unlikely from a non-powergaming (actual role-playing) context. People who cut their teeth on 3E generally seem to prefer unlimited interchangeable race/class possibilities, grognards like me generally prefer races and classes to be defined through their classic identities, and reserving unlimited classing for races like humans to give them a tangible advantage.
A 2E paladin/bard is basically impossible, all other requirements aside they have incompatible alignments. A non-LG paladin becomes a fighter, while a bard must be partially Neutral (and general rogues can be any alignment except LG).
A variety of 3E paladin/bard combinations (of nearly any PC race) are possible, provided all requirements are met. Each alignment has a paladin subtype, even an aasimar/half-drow paladin/bard/assassin/necromancer would be possible. And when in Rome, multiclass as the Romans do; most NPC opponents are going to be gish types, so PCs invariably need to mix steel and magic as well.
Preference aside, I can play the game either way. Although I've noticed Realms canon waver and wobble as authors attempt to find a balance between "new" 3E-style race/class characters with "old" 2E-style traditions. Still, I can't help but roll my eyes every time I see things like a paladin/bard or a dwarven sorcerer.
The core concept of the 3E multi-classing was great. The problem just came in with the people developing a million prestige classes AND at the same time not making the prerequisites to enter the prestige classes stringent enough. For instance, I love eldritch knight, but I'm sure they could have come up with a little more than just "proficient with all martial weapons and able to cast 3rd lvl arcane spells". What about a certain base attack bonus? What about maybe some skill requirements or feats? For instance, I think it would be perfectly acceptable to make the somatic weaponry feat a requirement of entry (granted, at the time the class was made, somatic weaponry didn't exist yet) |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
sleyvas
Skilled Spell Strategist
USA
11861 Posts |
Posted - 04 Feb 2013 : 23:34:31
|
quote:
Originally posted by Old Man Harpell
Although I am definitely a 3.5/Pathfinder adherent (I like Second Edition, too, but my players uniformly despise it, sadly), the one thing I have forbidden in any 3.5/PF campaign I run is multiclassing. Of any sort - the edition's 'Summer of Multiclassing' style is just begging to have player characters run roughshod over a campaign.
Take one level of Thief/Rogue for lots of skill points. Then take one level of Fighter for lots of free Combat Feats. Then advance every level alternating between, say, Druid and Sorcerer.
Forget it. Not happening. Prestige classes are a different matter, but I insist a player pick a single Core class, and then stick to it, with Prestige classes decided later, depending on prerequisites and Feats designed to fill in the gaps.
I know I'm in the minority here in the Keep with this outlook, but to a person, my players are an assembly of some of the most deviously creative bastards ever to toss a polyhedron, my own son being among the worst of the lot. I am seriously pondering converting all the Pathfinder characters into another system that has no levels (like RuneQuest 6th or Hero System, for example) - then the multiclassing headaches will go away, never to be seen again.
Doing that, the person ends up having really great saves and a base attack bonus that quite literally sucks. Grabbing a couple dips in a few classes may work, but I've rarely seen a person dip into more than 3 base classes and it actually work for them. The only exception might be a non-casting fighter type.... which I kind of don't have a problem with.... the ranger, fighter, barbarian, rogue...it reminds me of Conan. |
Alavairthae, may your skill prevail
Phillip aka Sleyvas |
|
|
|
Diffan
Great Reader
USA
4448 Posts |
Posted - 05 Feb 2013 : 02:05:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
I'd love to see a system that does PrCs right - as synergies between base classes. Why do you need a Paladin class? Just multi between cleric and fighter and so long as you keep the two classes within 2-3 levels of each other you get the bonus synergies (like the Paladin's mount).
PrCs can be completely done away with if you have a slew of base classes, and then build everything else with multi-class Feats and synergies.
I really don't find anything 'prestigious' about that honestly. If anything, I think that Prestige Classes should be more thematic in nature, something a PC strives for to obtain to atain a prestige title or rank. And the mode of which one should go about that might be similiar to 3E's Organization system. You get an affiliation score based on a certain critera like base class, having a specific feat, and/or previously accomplished things and gain MORE stuff as you perform or do quests. So as you level, you maintain your base class info but you gain another layer on top that adds more versatility or complexity to existing rules, not just more power.
What 3E-multiclassing brought to the game was the closest thing D&D has seen to an almost "classless" system like GURPS. Spend a level, gain Fighter feat 1, spend a level and gain Turn Undead 3 + Cha/day, spend a level and gain Rage 1/day. And feats augment these capabilities such as Extra Rage, Destructive Rage, Extra Turning, and Divine feats.
As a min/max'er myself one specific build I played was a Barbarian 2 (4 + Skill pts at 1st level, 12 max HP at 1st level)/ Fighter 2 (two free bonus feats, one to supplement my Reflex via Lightning Reflexes)/ Cleric 1 (turn undead to fuel Divine feats like Divine Shield, Divine Vigor, etc.). By 5th level, my BAB was +4, saves were Fortitude +6, Reflex +2, Will +2 I had versatility out the butt, could heal myself, could rage and be more a potent fighter, PLUS Domain featurs. Compare this to a Straight 5th level Fighter (+5 BAB, Fortitude +4, Reflex +1, Willpower +1 and only 2 extra feats to show for it) and it's not difficult to see what I'm getting at here.
quote:
Originally posted by Markustay
They moved too quickly in a new direction with 4e - 3e still had a lot of mileage left under the hood if only they had started fixing it (rather then abandoning it). The sad thing is 3e eventually just came down to 'builds', and that goes right back to D&D's roots with just the base classes. Why bother giving folks options when they are all going to build the same damn characters anyway?
Because options are good and don't hurt the game so long as everyone is cool with them. I'd like the simplicity of just playing/buidling a Paladin and not be required to delve into min/max'ing if I don't have to. Further, classes like the Paladin, Ranger, Druid, and even newer ones like the Duskblade/Bladesinger/Swordmage ARE iconic to the game and removing them as classes hurts the expectations of customers that are going to play the game. Paladins have been in the game for 20+ years, they're essential to D&D just as much as the Core 4 classes. If D&D:Next were to tell me flat out that they're scrapping the Paladin class and just gave me suggestions on Multiclassing a Cleric/Fighter with some feats, I'd drop it in a heartbeat. Because to me, a class like the Paladin plays completely different than a Clr/Ftr. They have smites, they have conviction, they have auras and the limitied ability to heal themselves and others. They have heavy armor proficiency and are great with all weapons. They might have a mount or channel their deity's power through their weapon.
But what I find funny is that 4E brought back the idea of the iconic class-based game. You can't "dip" in 4E. The idea of multiclassing is that your dabbling in another profession, not a striaght up proficient with that classes features. And 4E got lambasted for it. |
Edited by - Diffan on 05 Feb 2013 02:07:12 |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
3rd Edition Class Rules
