| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
 Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 21:20:34
|
The third edition brought multiclassing to a new level. It allows characters to become more unique but has the downside of allowing SERIOUS min maxing. I allow most multiclass combinations. But there is still one class I will NOT allow people to Multiclass INTO though they may start out as one and multiclass freely.
This class is Barbarian. I cannot see a character entering this class unless they had some sort of history for it in theri right up. If it can be done cleverly, like the rogue from the city decides to stop playing for a year and lives with the Barbarians of the north, then I allow it. But I find it difficult to allow characters to multiclass into Barbarian.
When you multiclass is it arbitrary, or do you make the players work for a level in ANOTHER class?
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
Erik Scott de Bie
Forgotten Realms Author
USA
4598 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 21:51:58
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
The third edition brought multiclassing to a new level. It allows characters to become more unique but has the downside of allowing SERIOUS min maxing. I allow most multiclass combinations. But there is still one class I will NOT allow people to Multiclass INTO though they may start out as one and multiclass freely.
This class is Barbarian. I cannot see a character entering this class unless they had some sort of history for it in theri right up. If it can be done cleverly, like the rogue from the city decides to stop playing for a year and lives with the Barbarians of the north, then I allow it. But I find it difficult to allow characters to multiclass into Barbarian.
When you multiclass is it arbitrary, or do you make the players work for a level in ANOTHER class?
[Snicker] This is half-directed at me, isn't it? 
To ease your head, that's essentially what I did. My character started as a rogue, then got seriously beat up and wanted to gain some fighting expertise.
Driven to perfectionism and wanting to lay waste to everything in sight at whim, he forsook his comrades (who didn't see quite eye to eye with his goal of crushing his foes mercilessly -- he was about as intense a CN as you can get) and wandered into the wilderness to survive on his own. He didn't learn to live like a ranger, for he had no wilderness training or common sense (game: Wisdom). While there, he regressed to a pseudo-primitive state and became, for all intents and purposes, a barbarian.
I see where you're going though -- that's something WotC didn't take into account when devising the multiclass system: prereqs, of a sort, for multiclassing. For instance, you can't just become a sorcerer unless you have untapped magical talent / draconic heritage, and good luck learning a monk's fighting style without training in a monastery.
The way we addressed this in my campaigns was to have an appropriate adventure (when practical), or have the characters train each other (when the campaign took precedence). For instance, the bard could give singing and diplomacy lessons to characters in the group while the rogue teaches her friends how to sneak more quietly or pick locks.
In game terms, this meant you could -- given enough exposure to the group (at least one or three adventures) -- multiclass into any class one of the other characters has. Also, if sufficient time passes between adventures, characters can learn other classes -- so long as they don't do things like item creation to take up the time. They don't get experience for not adventuring, of course, but they come to a point where they can pick up levels of that class if they do gain sufficient xp.
The ones that make it the most problematic are spellcasters, barbarians, and monks. Those classes come from YEARS of training. Even paladins are somewhat believable -- called, suddenly blessed with divine power -- and to an extent clerics, but whence wizards, who have spent decades just casting cantrips?
Part of this is the 4x skill points at 1st level. It means the character has been training in that class for years and represents a none-too-shabby foundation in the skills. If you multiclass into a new class, you don't instantly get lots of skill points. You try picking up rogue at 10th level and then competing with similar leveled thieves!
So that's my take.
Cheers
|
Erik Scott de Bie
'Tis easier to destroy than to create.
Author of a number of Realms novels (GHOSTWALKER, DEPTHS OF MADNESS, and the SHADOWBANE series), contributor to the NEVERWINTER CAMPAIGN GUIDE and SHADOWFELL: GLOOMWROUGHT AND BEYOND, Twitch DM of the Dungeon Scrawlers, currently playing "The Westgate Irregulars" |
 |
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 22:02:48
|
I always had a hard time picturing someone picking up a level of wizard out of the blue, since it seems that in the novels it always takes years and years of training before someone becomes a wizard. I have told my PCs that I would rather they provide a character background that might have included some side training or previous reason for picking up levels as barbarians or wizards, and there are some interesting regional feats in the Realms that help explain the wizard background.
Clerics and Druids have to have gone off somewhere to get some training, but since there are divine forces involved, I only make sure that they have had SOME direction. Sorcerers and favored souls are almost meant to be spontaneously discovered powers.
Rangers I usually don't have a problem with if the character has taken any kind of wilderness training before and spends a least a little time with an actual ranger to pick up the trade. Fighters really are suppose to have a lot of formal training, but I usually let this slide a bit, as long as the character has spent some time in actual combat in real danger. Paladins I treat much like clerics, they have to have some formal training, and they may not even have their official place in the knighthood until they have proven themselves, even if they take a level in the class.
I use Marshalls too in my game, and I usually let a character take a level of Marshall if they have had a "warrior" class that has shown any aptitude for combat tactics, but a wizard or sorcerer or the like that wanted to take levels as a Marshall would have to find some proper training, and likely it should take some time (this hasn't ever come up, so its not something I have comepletely worked out yet). |
|
|
|
webmanus
Learned Scribe
Sweden
338 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 22:04:49
|
According to the PHB 3.0, in page 145, "Characters spend time between adventures training, studying, or otherwise practicing their skills". I will take a look at the DMG. But, I do not think that it is a mandatory rule ... more of a guideline.
Still, multiclassing to Barbarian, or Cleric among other classes, is something that I require some kind of additional training in. For example, a player wanted his PC (Fighter 6) to become a Fighter 6/Cleric 1 of Tempus. So, I told the player that was not possible, unless, the character travelled for some reason to The Abbey of the Sword in Battledale, and spent some time there. I never told the player how much time I thought was necessary (1 minimum of one year) for his character to be in the temple. Becomming a priest is serious business, and, not a simple matter of picking some healing spells.
Actually, multiclassing to a NEW class, although I love it, is something that I require some bit of thought before allowing. Multiclassing to Fighter, or Ranger, that is something that I easely accept. However, to barbarian, cleric, and wizard ... that is more "tricky". |
Link to my homepage: http://user.tninet.se/~bsu242v/ |
|
|
|
webmanus
Learned Scribe
Sweden
338 Posts |
Posted - 22 Aug 2005 : 22:24:57
|
Hi again,
In the DMG 3.0, page 41, there is a section named ADVANCING LEVELS and, there, you will find varriant (optional, additional) rules. For example, training in a new skill, would take 1 week per rank and cost 50 gp per week. A new feat would take 2 weeks.
So, a human Fighter 1 (Int 10), who would like to become Ftr1/Clr1, could be forced to spend at least 3 weeks on training. In addition, the Turn Undead class feature could take two weeks (as a feat). Now, a bit of "Karate Kid" (you do not start kicking and punching, instead you must take care of the dishing, clean the lavatories, etc) training would result in spending 2 days of twe week on actual skill training, and the other time working for the temple. The week, should of course be a tenday. The training could take 25 tendays :) |
Link to my homepage: http://user.tninet.se/~bsu242v/ |
|
|
|
Crennen FaerieBane
Master of Realmslore
USA
1378 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2005 : 02:56:17
|
I generally make people work for their levels a little bit - there has to be a story element to it. Otherwise it just doesn't make sense at all with the story. A fighter can't some day go - "Oh yeah, I want Magic Missle." That's lame.
However, if they did pick up a level of sorcerer, I can understand it since it's all supposed to be an innate gift.
Monk and Paladin - two classes that I just don't think should ever multiclass unless it is into a PrC where you keep gaining the abilities you seek.
Anyway, that's my 2 cents...
C-Fb |
Still rockin' the Fey'ri style. |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2005 : 05:15:02
|
Yeah we are all pretty much on the same page in this thread. I will allow people to multiclass freely into the following classes:
Fighter, Bard (I figure the character had some innate ability to perform, and learns the trade), Sorceror, Rogue. I figure these are things characters can 'pick up on' so to speak. Obviously not a CONCIOUS thing with sorceror, but I allow that players MAY have some innate ability they never discovered. One player I had ACTUALLY took a level of sorceror, and never cast a spell until he achieved 2 more levels in his old class. His character acted very surprised when he finally cast a spell. It was played as (damn I just did not become much better of a fighter this month...)
The second tier requires a story element that does not take a player out of game but requires time inbetween games or requires the use of a story element:
Cleric, Druid, Ranger, Paladin
The third tier is a little more difficult and the player must be out of game for a while or the group agrees to BREAK for awhile.
That is Barbarian, Wizard, and Monk.
I've heard arguments that such and such a class should be difficult and /or easier, but this is what works for me.
|
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Fletcher
Learned Scribe
USA
299 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2005 : 05:26:37
|
I allow multiclassing into anything as long as they spend the time and can come up with a story for it.
even Sorcs and favored souls, I make spend some weeks working with their new powers, because the character shouldn't just suddenly be uber proficient with a brand new ability.
I have a character in my game who is spending 3 months training and being beaten in order to become an invisible blade. I chose that style of training because the player wants to eventually take craven as a feat. So to help him in his character development, I have put him through a very brutal training with lots of random beatings.
|
Run faster! The Kobolds are catching up! |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2005 : 14:38:29
|
I don't have a problem multiclassing as a barbarian. I think you could easily explain the rage ability as a latent one that has only recently manifested; the rogue with the explosive temper realizes that he can use it to his advantage. The the same is true with sorcerers, they may be unaware of their ancestry until their powers manifest.
I should add that I would agree to this only on rare occassions, and that I think more than a little is too much. However, I want my players to be able to play exactly what they want to play, so I try to come up with ideas to facilitate their needs. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
Edited by - Xysma on 23 Aug 2005 14:45:09 |
|
|
|
Mournblade
Master of Realmslore
USA
1287 Posts |
Posted - 23 Aug 2005 : 23:39:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
I don't have a problem multiclassing as a barbarian. I think you could easily explain the rage ability as a latent one that has only recently manifested; the rogue with the explosive temper realizes that he can use it to his advantage. The the same is true with sorcerers, they may be unaware of their ancestry until their powers manifest.
I should add that I would agree to this only on rare occassions, and that I think more than a little is too much. However, I want my players to be able to play exactly what they want to play, so I try to come up with ideas to facilitate their needs.
But barbarians are about far more than rage. How do you explain their uncanny sense and such? |
A wizard is Never late Frodo Baggins. Nor is he Early. A wizard arrives precisely when he means to... |
|
|
|
Snotlord
Senior Scribe
Norway
476 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 00:43:35
|
I allow all kinds of multiclassing and all prestige classes. In my experience are multiclassed characters always weaker than single class (maybe except for ranger/fighter/paladin variant), so if the players want to multiclass they usually does so for story reasons.
I encourage good taste, and ask for in-game explanations. The guys always have their stories worked out, so I have no worries. |
|
|
|
warlockco
Master of Realmslore
USA
1695 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 02:29:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by Snotlord
I allow all kinds of multiclassing and all prestige classes. In my experience are multiclassed characters always weaker than single class (maybe except for ranger/fighter/paladin variant), so if the players want to multiclass they usually does so for story reasons.
I encourage good taste, and ask for in-game explanations. The guys always have their stories worked out, so I have no worries.
Yep as long as it is plausible, and there doesn't seem to be any overt signs of min/maxing, I'm usually pretty free about player's multi-classing. |
News of the Weird
D20 System Reference Document
D20 Modern System Reference Document
|
|
|
|
Edain Shadowstar
Senior Scribe
USA
455 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 07:49:07
|
Myself, I've never been a huge multiclass person (except the rare fighter/mage, eventual Bladesinger, since they rock), and I've always though that it needs justification. Training and skills sets the PC apart from the average NPC. A fighter is not just a person who picked up a blade, that is at best a warrior. If they make a point of citing specialized training differentiating fighters, for instance, then you cannot just become one. Most classes are that way. Wizards needs training in magic, clerics in prayers and religious knowledge, monks in martial arts, rangers in tracking, survival, animal handling, etc., fighters in fighting, barbarians in fast moves and good senses, rogues in their dexterous arts, bards in singing and dancing and carrying on like fools, paladins in being sticks in the mud, druids in being mega-hippies, and, yes, even sorcerers need training in how to annoy the living crap out of me. I find it hard to justify any class as being able to be just aquired one fine morning on a whim. I would imagine even sorcerers need to hone their crafts, since it does not make much sense that they could just wake up one day and throw a perfect Magic Missile.
Multiclassing, for me, has always required and investment of time, money and story. There needs to be a reason, someone to teach you and some kind of cost, otherwise its just too random. Besides why pass up to roleplaying opportunity when your cool fighter wants to be a jerk sorcerer; I mean look at all the heckling possibilities alone.
(Please Note: I do not dislike all sorcerers, just the ones I played with. As for why, that goes with me to the grave. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.) |
Edain Shadowstar
Archwizard of Rel Astra and Waterdeep
"Mmm…pie…"
- Gaius Solarian, Captain General |
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 14:33:19
|
| I almost forgot to mention in my previous post . . . I do go easier on elves that want to pick up wizard as another class, because, depending on the race of elf, I generally asume that most elves are exposed to some magical training in the first hundred years of life or so, and it is their favored class, so there is a built in back story for them picking up wizard class, though they still have to do some work (go back home, find that old spellbook they never quite mastered, etc.) |
|
|
|
Xysma
Master of Realmslore
USA
1089 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 15:55:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by Mournblade
quote:
Originally posted by Xysma
I don't have a problem multiclassing as a barbarian. I think you could easily explain the rage ability as a latent one that has only recently manifested; the rogue with the explosive temper realizes that he can use it to his advantage. The the same is true with sorcerers, they may be unaware of their ancestry until their powers manifest.
I should add that I would agree to this only on rare occassions, and that I think more than a little is too much. However, I want my players to be able to play exactly what they want to play, so I try to come up with ideas to facilitate their needs.
But barbarians are about far more than rage. How do you explain their uncanny sense and such?
The same way basically, I think of a rogue's uncanny sense as having been learned, but a barbarian's as being almost a "sixth sense," which you could easily explain as having always been there, but only recently began to be sharp enough to be of any real help. I'm not saying it's perfect, in fact it's a bit of a stretch, but I want my players to have fun. As far as skills go, there is no reason that you'd have to find a barbarian to train under. For instance, a ranger or a druid could teach the character many of the barbarian's class skills. I guess to answer your original post, it is not arbitrary, but I do whatever I can to facilitate it. Generally, I agree that they should have provided for this eventuality in their character history, but if they didn't, I will work with them to explain it in a way that makes at least a little sense. |
War to slay, not to fight long and glorious.
Aermhar of the Tangletrees
Year of the Hooded Falcon
Xysma's Gallery
Guide to the Tomes and Tales of the Realms download from Candlekeep
Anthologies and Tales Overviews
Check out my custom action figures, hand-painted miniatures, gaming products, and other stuff on eBay.
|
|
|
|
KnightErrantJR
Great Reader
USA
5402 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 16:04:47
|
I had one character in my campaign that started out as a rogue, and when he got into trouble, fled the town (Eveningstar) into the wilderness. After surviving for a while in the wilds, a druid that was watching him decided to take him under his wing and teach him the druidic ways, which took a few months (as I said above, the whole divine connection thing).
Another character in my campaign is contemplating taking on a level of Paladin, and he has been a cleric of Helm for his entire career. His father was a soldier during the Crusade against the Horde, and he has skill ranks in ride as well has having used a feat to learn to use a bastard sword, so if he decides to take a level of paladin, I will likely just have him spend a few weeks learning from the Vigilant Eyes of the Deity, taking his vows and the like, since he has most of the skills already.
My lythari player, who is currently on hiatus, is a sorcerer that wants to take some levels of rogue, which I don't consider a difficult class to pick up, especially since the druid has levels of rogue and can give him pointers on some of the skills he picks up. |
Edited by - KnightErrantJR on 24 Aug 2005 16:06:55 |
|
|
|
Sir Luther Cromwell
Learned Scribe
Canada
158 Posts |
Posted - 24 Aug 2005 : 17:27:52
|
I'm one for the 'you can't multi-class to a barbarian rule' myself. UNLESS, the character has been accepted and brought up for a while in a Barbarian like culture. For instance, a Half-orc who was trained in rogue levels finally finds his birth right clan, and somehow manages to convince them to take him in and show him how to become a true freedom warrior.
One that I DEFINATELY don't allow is multi-classing into a Sorcerer. You can't just decide, 'I'm going to have innate magical powers now'. One loop-hole I might try is if you spend enough time in Anauroch. Anauroch I see somewhat like Arrakis in the Story 'Dune' by Frank Herbert in that after all of that High Magic being built up, altered, broken down, and used in battle, Anauroch might have some magical 'resonence' that might allow somewhat to encase magic into one's self. Otherwise, you have to start with Sorc levels.
For each class, I tell my players that when they multi-class, it better well make sense. If it would help anyone, I have a list of ways to multiclass that generally don't need a lot of jusitification:
Barbarian- Ranger, Druid (wild and free, the barb might further embrace nature in another way, whether by studying it or through its divine powers)
Bard-Any chaotic or neutral based, but no barbarians or Sorcs (jack of all trades, any any time he might choose to specialize to help balance out the party)
Cleric-Diety dependent (a cleric of helm wouldn't gain rogue levels, but fighter levels make sense)
Druid- Ranger (if the Druid finds he needs more skill in combat, he may focus on it. Otherwise, druids don't have enough in common with other classes)
Fighter- Rogues, certain types of wizards: only Evocators, Abjurers, or Necros (the fighter may want to pick up some extra skills and learn humanoid anatomy for extra sneak attack damage. And fighters who take wizard levels probably want combat spells that give results, and dont require a whole lot of creativity)
Monk- Ha, nice try. What am I, stupid?
Paladin- Ditto, and however I'd love to PLAY as a multiclassed Monk/Paladin, when I'm DMing you better damn well prove to me you deserve to multiclass.
Ranger- Rogue, Druid (rangers may go urban, since rangers and rogue typically get along. Or the ranger may wish to move away from combat and more towards being one with nature).
Rogue- Fighter, Ranger, certain types of wizards: only illusionists, enchanters, transmuters, or Diviners. (Rogues may decide after years of having to hide from bigger enemies that some combat skills may be useful, and a rogue may want to become less urban and more natural. Rogues would see spells as 'super skills', in a way that the spell
Invisibility means 'super hide'.)
Sorc- Fighter, Rogue (probably for the same reason that any other class would multiclass to those. Generally, the sorc's chosen spells should make sense).
Wizard- your basic wizard would probably want to stay wizard. Specialized wizards are the most likely to multi-clas to something that suits their class.
This is not to say that I don't allow other combinations, they simply take a great deal of work. |
"At what temperature does a Goblin boil?"
"Any Rakshasa should eat a healthy diet that is high in wood elf, and low in shield Dwarf. One must always watch those cholesterol levels."
"If a Svirfneblin falls in the underdark, does anybody care?" |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
Multiclassing
