POLL: True Class vs Multiclass

Remove all ads!

I have read, again and again, of players saying their characters are level X fighter/level Y thief/level Z whatever else. And to one who, almost without exeception, chooses one class and sticks with it I am baffled. Surely gaining twenty levels in the one class is the sure way to victory? Is this a reflection of the player wishing they had more classes to choose from? Is it another facet of the war between roleplaying and powerplaying (powerplayers: those who play the game simply for the gameplay, with intent to create the very strongest characters)?

In any case I would like the opinion of the gaming community, preferably with arguments for and against.

Poll Information
This poll contains 1 question(s). 26 user(s) have voted.
You may not view the results of this poll without voting.

Poll Results: True Class vs Multiclass (26 votes.)

Which approach do you take when creating a character? (Choose 1)
* I use only one class, because I feel this makes the most powerful character. - 23% (6)
* I multiclass because I feel this makes the character the most powerful (or makes the character adaptable). - 23% (6)
* I use only one class because, even though I roleplay, my character is highly focused or intent on his path. - 23% (6)
* I multiclass because I feel the makes the character more interesting to roleplay. - 31% (8)

 

You are not the only one who goes to lvl.20 with one class I'm playing a pure class druid - at lvl 8 he could defeat all henchman together - all lvl 7.
So i think druid is powerful

About beating the game: ANY class can beat it even if one screws up at character creation (like giving a fighter 10 str ).

But generaly multiclasses ARE more powerful than single classes. Take the fighter for example when he reaches lvl 12 or so there is nothing more above than some BAB. So why not take few levels of rogue and get sneak attack damage - 1d6/2 levels.

oh yeah... welcome to the Boards

 

In Neverwinter Nights I am currently using a straight Cleric with no intention to multyclass him, why? The answer is simple, I try to balance between role playing and power gaming and it can be done. Want an example: my pen and paper character is this way. He's a Cleric/Fighter and has a good reason to be this way. He's a Cleric of Tyr and according to his background his family is comprised of soldiers so he has military training. He also believes that one has to fight for justice sometimes. However, I cannot create this same character in the game (my Cleric in the game is loosely based on my pen and paper Cleric) due to the limitations of the rules implemented in the game.

 

I usually stick with one class, but lately I've been multi classing in games. I'm currently going through NWN for the first time and taking advantage of the 3rd ed. multi class rules. I began as a ranger and began taking levels in rogue also to fit with a bounty hunter character idea I had in my head. But in other games, it's either been a case of multi classing because I couldn't make up my mind what class I wanted the character to be, or so that the character was a more flexable character, not for the over powering of the character.

 

wow, I always have played dual class.
I find that I am less dependent on any one character for all their strengths if I have some abilities that will step in should their weaknesses be tapped.
Like theiving or minor spells such as healing.

 

I've always multi-classed because I've always felt that single class characters are boring (for me) to play. Whenever I played single classed cahracters, I'd get to a point where my character just didn't seam to change anymore, compared to during the early levels. Granted, a highly focused character can be very powerfull, but...
Oh well, that's my two cents.

 

I'm a multi class freak just because I like creating unique characters that aren't your run of the mill types. I've got a Barbarian shaman at the moment who's quite fun to play in one world, and a ranger/sorcerer in another.

As for as the way to victory, well, that's debateable. It depends on what situation you're in. A pure wizard or sorcerer for example that is solely focused on spells and has the right selection can steamroll other classes and most any enemy in the right environments. Pure clerics and monks can also be very powerful. So sure, pure class characters can possibly be the best way to go, but certain multiclasses can also be extremely powerful, especially multiclassed warriors. It just depends on the situation. The best way to achieve victory is dependent on the battle being fought.

 

Mutli classing is a great way to individualise a character and in £rd ed D&D rules it also serves to help gain a prestige class. I'm hopefully playing a Multiplayer game online tonight and am thinking of doing a berbarian shaman which is going to be a barbarian/ druid, or there's always the other long list of character idea idea's in my head .

On more thought about this topic I have decided that multi classing a character doesn't make you a munchkin out to make the uber powerful character especially under 3rd ed. rules. Looking at them it's clear that while you will have a wider range of skill's, you won't be quite as powerful in either of them.

 

multiclassing can quickly kill a spellcaster, but if not a spellcaster, many classes should be considered as they imo, give more than they take.

 

Well, for me Multiclassing isn't Cheese or simply Powergaming, but a small touch of reality. Since when did people focus on one small thing, whereas most broaden their horizons, and I think in the time where NWN was set, they would have.

For example; my Paladin is good, and feels the need to help people. He finds he cannot do this enough from the Fighting Justice of Lathander he has become, and therefore studies to become a Healer. In turn, he can further heal and save the very people he fights for.

Does that make sense to you? Because it certainly does to me.

 

well that's why pallies are able to heal, isn't it? or what am I missing.. but I dont see anything wrong with the idea.

 

second edition Dnd was not very nice to multiclass characters and my habit of not using multiclass has carried over to 3rd edition.

 

I didnt use Mc characters much and still dont. But i think i may start. Before, if i were say , a druid, i would need to have a theif with me to find tarps, open doors and such. If i could multiclass to increase my range of skills, it would allow me to recruit different henchmen and change the game even more...just my 2 cents
-matt

 

Heh, I've never used multiclass characters. If my character is a mage, he tends to be one of those overambitious ones that wants to become all powerful. My single-classed cleric can fight just fine (I did take a fighter feat or two) and can cast spells that rival most mages. His conviction is his god, not to any earthly things and he feels that being a cleric is a good way.

I can't equate multiclass or the lack thereof to powergaming. You can get a pretty hardcore character either way. For instance, an 18 mage/2 fighter or a level 20 mage. Both are going to be pretty harcore and a very good match for each other in a fight.

 

Right now i'm playing through NWN for the first time as a ranger, with the sorcerer henchman. I am considering going for a level or two or Thief though, because I hate not being able to open up some chests even when I try to bash them. Or I might just give the ranger a few skill points in open lock the next time I level up. I am liking NWN more and more the more i play it, although it still doesn't come within a mile of the BG series for me.

 

Hmmm i would have to say that pure classes are the best when it comes to any kind of spellcaser. Because think about it the real usful spells come at the higher level anyway all mages have spells to release locks and traps so they dont need rogue levels. Plus if they are developed right a sorceror can undo almost any fighter, except for a extreme powergaming one of course. i play a pure class as that is my roleplaying if i was a mage i would be satified till i was an archmage. i wouldnt let other life goals distract me from my path to power and would see all distractions as others attemt to stop my accent to glory.

[ January 18, 2003, 20:28: Message edited by: purerflames ]

 

I have to disagree.

2nd edition multiclassing rocked. Fighter mages were supremo. The exponential rise of experience points to level meant that a multiclassed character was only a couple of levels behind a single class. A fighter mage had the THACO to fight most creatures plus the magic to handle all but the toughest magic users. The even better plus and for me all important, was that he got to use both types of magical items. Crom Fraaer, plus spell casting? Yes please.

That's what's been the fall down for me with the 3rd edition. I really liked the ac changes - a high dexterity and light armour is almost the same as heavy armour - ideal for a fighter spell caster - I thought.

Except he just gets stuffed by boss or underboss. Doesn't have the hit points or weapons skill to hold his own in melee, or the spells to whip them magically. A real disappointm,ent.
I'm having to rethink my whole strategy....

 

I was a HUGE fan of 2ed multi-classing. I always played BG/BG2/IWD ect. with an Elf F/M/T and it ROCKED.

I was really dissapointed when 3ed rules came out due to the exp level and level cap involved. Where as before I could have a level 30/30/30 F/M/T now all I could get was a 7/7/8 combo!

The one thing that I didn't realise is that attack bonuses in 3ed stack. In other words, in 2ed your f/m/t at 5th level would have the THACO of a 5th level fighter. In 3ed rules you f/m/t (lets say 2f/2t/1m would have the BAB of a level 2 fighter plus the BAB of a level 2 thief plus the BAB of a level 1 MU. not really that bad when you look at it over the long run.

Currently I have been playing a Rogue/MU or a Rouge/MU/Ranger in NWN and I have been pleased with the results. The more and more I play around with multi-classing in 3ed rules the more I like it.

I would suggest doing some searches on this board for multi-classing, and I would also reccomend downloading some of the excelent character creation guides here at SP. I loved the Rogue character creation guide.

 

I checked out the character building guides in hits and tips and found them all pretty obvious.

Didn't look at the rogue guide - I kind of got bored with rogues a while back - I'll have a look.

Interesting that you found MU/T/ ranger working out. Maybe I should give it another go. I played an MU/ranger through the first three quarters of chapter 1 but abandoned it because he got nailed all the time. Probably should have put more points into constitution to make up for the mages hit points. I found I couldn't hold my own in melee, two slaps from a two-handed sword and it was game over. Wasn't even time to drink healing potions.
But points into constitution meant points lost from dex and int . .. I ended up feeling that there wasn't enough points to go round to make a sufficiently tough multi classer. (but I did want to melee it)
Maybe a rogue fighter would be better. Tomi seems to hold his own pretty well in melee.

 

My favorite method of multiclassing is to be almost true class but add a few levels of another. One of my favorites has always been the paladin-fighter combination. You can have an 18/2 paladin/fighter just for two extra feats(Bastard Sword Specialization!)and a few more points in Discipline, or an 18/2 Fighter/Paladin with a saving throw bonus and immunity to fear and disease. I admit this is powergaming, but it's nothing compared to my 25/26 dual class Fighter/Swashbuckler in BG2:ToB... GM in two- handed sword, extra swashbuckler bonus to hit and damage, Use Any Item...hello Carsomyr!