|
Post by huntingmoon on Jun 20, 2008 7:53:16 GMT -5
Well 4th edition is more about a slower education. It takes 3 feats and then you have to give up your Paragon Path features to do it. The first feat trains one skill and gives you an ability from the class, the other feats allow you to pick on of thier powers until you hit level ten, they you can start adding more of thier powers freely as you become a level 10 whatever and a level 1 new class. (For example: Warlock 10/Rogue 1)
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Jun 20, 2008 9:06:25 GMT -5
Multi-classing can be done very badly if players just pick out the abilities they most want without having any reasoning behind it. However, if it's done sensibly then it can make sense.
If I spent six months intensively learning how to play the violin then I'd probably be able to do so to some degree or other by the end of that time. If I then put the violin on the back burner - doing enough practice that my standard didn't slide, but making no further advances in my ability to play it - and started playing football four days a week with lots of practice and exercise at other times then I might be okay at football after a few months whilst still being reasonable at playing the violin. The big question is: why would I do that?
If the background reasons for multi-classing are sound (a barbarian who has lived for years by his wits in the wilderness comes to civilisation, finds an organised religion and is moved to study that religion = Barbarian/Cleric perhaps) then it's fine. But if it's a case of, Ooh, I quite fancy a couple of levels in rogue to get some skill points and Evasion, but I want the martial weapons abilities and the Bonus Feats of a fighter.... then that's not so good, although I expect nearly all players think like that to some extent or other.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Jun 20, 2008 9:11:50 GMT -5
Multi-classing should be confirmation of what you already were and had acquired training in rather than the sudden discovery of things you had never done. I agree 183.47%, but the problem is when do people really do that, take the years out of their characters lives in order to build up a base skill set? My concern is simply this, learning the basic for any class takes years of dedicated study, more so than anything we do today (education today is about generalization, in midevil societies it was about specialization). Making the switch is about making a switch from everything the char knows to something completely different. When a char multiclasses he turns his back on decades of living and learning. To me, the logic of multiclassing is the same as multi-nationalising (changing nations). Can one do it? Yes, but how long does it take? In saying this, I do agree with your concerns about cardboard cutouts, but at least in the versions of games I am familiar with their is enough leeway to make your wizard/thief/whatever different from other's through a combination skill/feat selection and roleplaying. An order of wizards who takes as their basic understanding of knowledge is book bound is going to be fundamentally different to an order of wizards who think true knowledge comes from lived experiances. The lived experiences wizards may actually have more in common with fighters or clerics than book bound wizards, even though they are of the same class.
|
|
|
Post by Al on Jun 20, 2008 9:15:49 GMT -5
@ Simey. I think the violin/ football analogy is a little weak. In game terms, it would be about becoming a professional violin player, then rededicating your life to becoming a professional footballer.
The barbarian/cleric example makes sense, but do you know how long it takes to study in the real world to become a minister? Usually about three years of full time study, and you need an appropriate background. While the barbarian could make an excellent cleric, he would need to learn to read and write and master the basics of the religion before embarking on the path to becoming a cleric in it.
|
|
|
Post by Maerin on Jun 20, 2008 11:09:59 GMT -5
Multi-classing is no different than any other element of character creation and subsequent character story development. Some players actually take the time to build the necessary background to support a given element of either character creation and/or subsequent development. If done, then just about any element of character creation or subsequent development can "make sense". Even D&D 3.x multiclassing.
Many players, however, do not bother with that level of creative effort (particularly in advance), arguing that "the game" neither supports nor rewards that level of effort. Though I may not agree with the spirit of their arguement and I may point out that there are game systems out there that do support and reward that level of effort, I cannot disagree with the truth of the point they are making in the context of, say, the D&D family of game systems.
|
|
|
Post by Simey on Jun 20, 2008 17:48:50 GMT -5
@ Simey. I think the violin/ football analogy is a little weak. In game terms, it would be about becoming a professional violin player, then rededicating your life to becoming a professional footballer. Okay, a bit rubbish, but one thing that multi-classing does mean is that you are not an expert at one thing or the other - by doing a bit of this and a bit of that your skills range more widely, but you are not so skilled at any one individual thing. I agree to an extent about multi-classing specifically in D&D, because 1st levels assume a great degree of competency in the abilities of a class, something which could not be gained overnight. But again, it's how the player does it - if a GM allows a player to go to bed as a 3rd level rogue and wake up with a level of ranger added to that then that's fine as long player and GM accept the silliness of it. Being sensible, a looooooong period of training would have to be put in to gain 1st level in a class, but acknowledging that might well be too inconvenient for players and GM. Yup, but this is D&D - it's a game, and not a very realistic one (even taking into account the fantasy elements of it). I suppose you could suggest that multi-classing is an unsatisfactory-but-unbetterable fix to a flawed system of character development. Without it you force an inflexible character development path on your players. With it you make things more fun and varied, but at the further expense of good sense (unless you're very stringent about it). If you're going to enjoy D&D/d20, perhaps you need to accept that it's a bit rubbish in various ways, but it's simple, it works and it's fun. That's how I enjoy it anyway - if I think about the rules for too long (especially the damage and healing ones), I get really frustrated by them. Best just to go with the flow or play something else.
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Jun 20, 2008 18:50:38 GMT -5
First level characters aren't really that powerful at all, and alot of the background study will have involved them infact just learning at learning and being young. A starting knightly squire has spend many years learning histories, riding, and weapons, etc, but really a crash course to an initiated adult who already adventures might only takde weeks or a few months of deddicated training
Asw pointed out, some things are silly. The generic fighter knows all martial weapons, because every village house and trainer has every weapon type lying aroudn and teaches them equally. Instead, the system implies some form of 'they're kinda all the same, once you've trained enough you can pick up weapons and generally use them
So if it's that easy, then a dedicated professional should be able to broaden their skill set in certain things. The barbarian cleric might know all aout the general religious stuff, but only fully devote himself to seriously re-reading it as he becomes a cleric.
Anyway, I guess with sensible players and GM who use the game aspects sensibly, it all kinda works, and if you are having fun and in character, you shouldn't notice the flaws too much, or shouldn't exploit them if they exist!
|
|
|
Post by Beowuuf on Jun 21, 2008 6:15:25 GMT -5
Actually, I forgot one of the statements that has carried on in D&D for level advancement/retention:
"Characters spend time between adventures training, studying or otherwise practising their skills. This work consolodates what they learn on adventures and keeps them in top form. If, for some reason, a character can't practise or train for an extended time, the DM may reduce XP awards or even cause him or her to lose experience points"
Combine this with, in D&D at least, there being experience penalties for going to far from your field in a new class, and you can balance out the realism of multi-classing. You could apply XP penalties for not dedicating enough time to your new class trainign, and further, you can then reduce their old class standing if they don't spend additional time keepign the old skill sets up!
Edit: Actually, looking int othis more with a proper rulebook, the multi-classing does have alot of suggested penalties etc referenced into it (for example ensuring trachers, ensuring you plant this need and the training time welli in advance of levling up), aswell as explicit penalties. The biggest penalty being, if you go for something completely unrelated when further down the path of your previous class (or are developing a brand new class to the exclusion of your original training) you get a severe XP penalty of 20%
So the violinist wanting to be a footballer needs to devote the time and energy to both or else - which of course slows down the multi-class, and ensures that you don't become proficient in a new class overnight as it were
|
|