Starting party with no intent to multi class

Remove all ads!

@crucis - how could I make my Homer Simpson based character without being able to make him a Bard 1 / Barbarian X? That's what that character was, a meathead who tried to be a singer once. That's hardly powergaming (more like the opposite - it's underpowered), that's role-playing.

 

I agree with Crucis on this one - that the multi-multi-multi class is an abomination of the games spirit which is supposed to be a D&D based CRPG. A class should represent a sort of "career" and while it makes perfectly good sense for a character to have two or possibly even three RELATED "careers" (with 3 being quite rare) the obvious cherry picking for nothing other than gaming bonuses is just a way to exploit the system. The fact that it can be done without hacking doesn't mean its not exploitive.

This is especially true with the classes like monk and paladin that have class concepts that are totally foriegn to mass multi-classing to the point that they are even restricted by the game rules to a single class that any order may MC to and still take further levels of the chosen class.

 

Then don't multiclass your monks and paladins. Nobody says you HAVE to do it. The beauty of this game is that it has the flexibility to let you do what you want. So you can have your pure Paladin and I can have my Bard 1 / Barbarian X. Everybody wins.

At least in this game, if a Druid takes a level of fighter, he has to give up a level of Druid. Not like BG, where you can give up a level of Druid and get, ooh, 8 levels of Fighter. If anything, IWD2 encourages more pure classes than the BG games do, where you are more or less forced into dual or multiclassing because you get so much more bang for your buck.

 

Replace that useless Rogue with a high INT (for the skills) Wizard or Bard who will handle locks and traps.

 

@crucis
Multi-classing to create a character which pleases the user is not skirting the rules nor dishonoring the spirit of the game. If the spirit of D&D is roleplaying in a swords and sorcery fantasy environment then whats the difference if you play the role of a pure thief as opposed to a thief/cleric/illusionist/pole dancer/pony trainer/dougnut fryer? The very concept of "spirit of the game" is so nebulous that it must be defined by each individual who plays the game. If cherry-picking is not your thing...don't do it. I'm curious as to why you're so adamant about defining the experience for others.

 

I've been lurking on this thread since I like the 2e approach, but I have to call this.

Yes, that's how it should be. But crucis and wanderon are pointing out that it also gives you the freedom to cheese it up with so many classes (for class bonuses or whatever) that it's simply ridiculous. The ability for abuse is, IMHO, staggering, though still not quite enough of a down-side to match the upside of freedom of choice. In PnP sessions I'd imagine pure powergamers get weeded out fairly quickly unless they have some actual RP reason for doing so.

For one thing, where did you get the one level of druid to eight levels of fighter? (I'm sure there's some basis for it, but it'd be the decent thing to do to explain it.) For another, I don't appreciate you lumping BG1 and BG2 together into a statement that at most would apply to BG2 only. In BG1 you get "the most bang for your buck" by single-classing so that you don't end up splitting much-needed XP and HP at such low levels. And for the last one: IWD2 encourages pure classes? That's the funniest thing I've read since Kitrax's latest contribution to the joke thread! 3e is all about the multi-classing, whether it's minimalist like your (very RP-worthy) Homer, or a ridiculous jack-of-all-classes as crucis and wanderon warn about.

 

OK. so I was exaggerating a bit for dramatic effect, but it seems to be a well documented fact on these Boards that in BG2, it is pointless to have a pure Druid when you can have a Fighter / Druid for virtually the same amount of Druid levels as a pure one (due to the relative cheapness of low fighter levels compared to a high druid level).

Anyway, I'm still trying to get across the point that all these games are cool but different. Because you are playing by yourself, it really doesn't matter how cheesey you feel you want to be (it's not like any of these games are entirely cheese-proof after all).

 

The fact is I don't take single levels of a class just for the perks for the same reasons that I limit myself to -2 off the starting racial stats for minimizing stats when building my characters. I play that way becuase I think its more challenging and more in the spirit in which the game was designed.

I never said anything about your barbarian/bard which is indeed a reasonable RP character that I in fact find no fault with. It certainly is in line with the spirit of the game as I see it and I'm not sure why you seem to be so defensive about it.

My point is not that ALL multi-classes are evil its that I happen to think that mass multi-classes are not in the true spirit of D&D RPGs and that I happen to think that a parties main spellcaster should not be MCed at all becuase they will be better spellcasters as a single class. I might add that I came to these conclusions over the course of numerous years of playing and discussing the game on forums like this.

I can't answer for Crucis but since I happen to share most of his thoughts/opinions on this issue I'll answer for myself instead.

I don't personally give a rats patootie how anyone else plays the game. Its their game they bought it (hopefully) and they are free to play it as they wish.

I come to forums like this to discuss the game and to offer my own opinions and advice on any aspects of it under discussion and to get opinions and advice in return.

I've been playing this game since the day it was released and have been participating in forums discussing the game for just as long. There is nothing that has been stated in this thread thus far that I have not seen/heard before.

Some people are indeed of the opinion that anything the games "lets" them do without hacking in some way should not be considered exploitive. They are entitled to that opinion.

I happen to find that notion ludicrous and I am also entitled to my opinion and I am also entitled to state that opinion to others when it suits me to do so and it falls under the topic being discussed.

I never suggested that you had to play the game the same way I do. I never suggested there was anything WRONG with exploiting the game other than to say that I felt it was not in the "spirit" of the game to do so. If it makes your day to do so all the better. The world needs more happy people.

If you are interested in a further discourse on why I happen to feel that oddball multi-multi-multi characters are exploitive or what I percieve the spirit of the game to be I would be glad to accomodate you. Just ask.

 

I just like character generation so I like the flexibility that this allows in this game and the fact that I have a load of decisions to make every time I level up, which adds more interest to the game.

 

And along the same lines as what my buddy Wanderon wrote, if you want to play that way, I'm not stopping you. But exactly why are you adamant in thinking that I don't have as much right to express my opinion as the next person?

You sound like the people who will try to shout down a speaker who you do not agree with politically. I really don't care if you want to madly multiclass. But just because you may want to do so, it doesn't give you or others in this thread the right to think that you can shout down those who have a differing opinion.

Actually, I agree with you on this. I actually don't have a huge problem with the execution of multiclassing in 3e and the flexibility it engenders. However, I do think that that flexibility is abused because so many of the classes are so front-loaded with level 1 abilities that it seduces players into multiclassing in only a single level of some classes (like one level of ranger).

As wanderon mentions, classes should be seen as a "career" choice. And while switching career is fine, switching careers/classes in IWD2 is overpowered due to the exaggerated strength of some classes at level 1 or sometimes level 2.

Exactly correct.

My experience with BG1/2 and IWD1/2 is that the developers basically coded the game engine to represent the raw rules set, be it 2e or 3e or somewhere in between. However, it seems that the difference between CRPG's like the BG's and IWD's and PnP is that PnP play has a DM as a "spirit of the game" filter between the raw rules and the players and the CRPGs do not have that DM filter.

If I had the power as a developer of a D&D based CRPG, I'd try to add some DM intelligence into the raw ruleset of the CRPG. If I were a PnP DM and didn't permit excessive or exaggerated mutliclassing, I would try to extend that into the way that the game engine operated. If the players don't like it, so be it. But as I recall DM'd games, it's the DM's "game", so if you don't like it, tough.

Having said this, I wouldn't be nearly as tough as you might think I am, given what I've written to date. I would probably limit multiclassing to a max of 3 classes. I would establish realistic mins on ability stats (not difficult, just modify the appropriate 2DA file).

And I'd try to modify the classes such that there isn't a great benefit to taking only one or two levels in that class. I suppose that that would end up pushing some class abilities deeper into their development arc (i.e. getting some early abilities after 3 or 4 levels or more, rather than at level 1 or 2). This would enforce a deeper commitment to class development.

[ February 08, 2006, 02:14: Message edited by: crucis ]

 

I became interested in CRPGs with Daggerfall and RTK and addicted with BG1 and have played all the IE games and my favorite of the bunch overall is ID2 and the primary reason for that is becuase of the wide open 3e style multi-classing. I was extremely excited to be able to have more freedom to multi-class as I wished and still am today. That did not mean that I wanted to take a single level of a class just for perks however only that I could combine classes that made sense for me within the framework of the D&D structure I was used to playing.

However as I fooled with classes and played I began to learn that all things have thier cost. Here's an example:

I could never understand why I could not play a ranger/druid in 2e and yet when I got to ID2 and actually tried it I found out very soon that unless I wanted to just take a single level of ranger for the perks and "name" that every level of ranger I took just nerfed my druids spell levels and shape shift levels. Thats not to say that you can't build an MC ranger/druid that will be a fun and useful character but for my money the straight druid was a better character (since the MC was always going to be more druid than ranger in my mind) and I did not like taking a single level of ranger just for the DW and other perks. It just didn't feel right. I felt like I was cheating and not only that but I felt it was not worth it and today if I play a druid I play a straight druid - low str - med dex that uses shapeshifts for melee.

I like to MC rangers with rogue - start rogue - then a level or two of ranger - then all rogue to 10 then all ranger (normal play I don;t play HOF usually).

My own "rule" for MCing is usually a minimum/maximum of class1-X/Class2-4X. To me the 4 to 1 ration is enough to give legitimacy to both classes.

I like barbarian X/ Stormlord 4X for a tank/back up cleric.

I like the idea of barbarian/rogue MC also or a rogue/wizzie.

I have played paladins with some fighter levels but prefer straight pally as I think the weapon spec is over rated compared to the perks for a well built straight pally (enough wis for casting and decent cha for saves).

I played a bard/rogue my first party that beat the game and would not do that again- he was less effective than I wanted as rogue and as a bard so now if I play a bard I play them SC and I M/C the rogue with a warrior usually for a mini tank.

I fooled with a pally/sorc but he turned out to be pretty worthless compared to either a pally or a sorc.

MCs are indeed fun to fool with even if you don't get too carried away.

 

Wow. How did this discussion get so hot? Hot like nunsbanes's thief/cleric/illusionist/pole dancer/pony trainer/doughnut fryer!

Okay, back on my soapbox.

Should? That's not how I see it.

I think someone in the rather jackassed situations that an, "adventurer" would find themselves in would jump at any opportunity to learn valuable life-saving skills that would help them get by from day to day. Going on the Ranger-cherrypicker point, why wouldn't a rogue learn the basic skills of rangers so that he's a little (and I mean *a little*) more proficient in combat? Why wouldn't a cleric concentrate on doing more damage with a sword that they're using so often?

The rogue in question is still going to have a bad BAB, and the cleric is going to miss out on spell levels... so uh... what's the big deal? RP? The reasons for that are obvious, or at least specific to the player. I think you guys are confusing the "spirit" of D&D (roleplaying) with the "spirit" of IWD2 (walk around and beat up hordes... no - HORDES of monsters. Its not exactly immersive...)

P.S. I can't stand rangers or dual wielding, I never use either. Just sayin'.

 

Well the concept of the game (according to the folks who developed it) was to make a D&D based CRPG that implemented as much of the new 3e rules as they could figure out how to get into the engine in the time they had and had the same overt "dungeon crawl" feel as its predecessor but offered numerous new role play (dialoge) options to go with the spiffy new skills and race choices.

I would say since the primary rule set is D&D based that its not much of a stretch to say the "spirit" of the game as the developers wrote it is indeed D&D RP in a dungeon crawl environment.

As for the rogue learning some rangers skills I think that is indeed plausible but to have that same rogue also take vows as a monk, paladin, druid, pole dancer and stable hand is a bit less plausible...

 

This game does include some provisions to discourage rampant multi-classing. That is the whole point of the multi-class penalty when you have too many classes at different levels that are not your favoured class. Also, NWN goes one step further by limiting you to three classes.

 

Actually, ArtEchoke, I've had this discussion many times and it's always the multiclass "abusers" make the topic "hot", because they always feel put upon that someone has a different opinion than theirs, vis-a-vis mass-multiclassing, and those with the opposing views dare, DARE to speak their mind.

I'm not attacking anyone, and neither is wanderon. But in past discussions on this topic, the mad multiclassers are the one's who get all bent out of shape to the point of pretty attacking those defending the spirit of the game with decency and respect.

The problem isn't that taking a level gets you a little better in a given skill, etc. The problem is that a number of classes give WAYYYYYYY too much stuff with only one level in a given class.

This is obvious. Do people take only one level of fighter or one level of wizard? Hell no. Why not? Wouldn't that rogue or cleric get that little extra weapons skill from one level of Fighter? Or someone else get a little bit of something from that one level of Wizzy? Duhhhhhh, of course not. They take one level in certain classes, because those certain classes have a lot (too much) bang for the buck in that first level of those classes, whereas other classes get very little value from a single level.

I disagree. IMHO, the spirit of any D&D game, PnP or CRPG, is roleplaying. Sometimes "roleplaying" is all of that obvious stuff. And sometimes it's playing the character development in a "spirit of the game" manner, not the out of control, powergamey manner. Simply put, taking an INT of 3 is not in the spirit of DnD.

And nunsbanes's "thief/cleric/illusionist/pole dancer/pony trainer/doughnut fryer" is another example.

No problem. The "ranger 1" is a nice simple example for this discussion.

 

Well, see, when you got a wizard in a party that's too small... well he levels faster than he can get scrolls for new levels... I uh, took a random fighter level to fill in the gap with usefull skills until he could get the scrolls to continue progressing as a wizard. So yeah that's me, yes, I multiclass without a giant huge calculated payoff.

See on this we completely agree. I never do any more than taking 2 out of a stat. I just can't justify having a cha or int of 3 (or whatever). Stat min/maxing though, to me, isn't the same thing as multiclassing.

 

No, I understand what you're saying here. But in a sense you prove my small point. You recognized that taking a random fighter level wasn't going to get a huge payoff. And I agree that it makes in this particular scenario. A couple levels of rogue would also be a possibility, of course.

But it comes from the same place, the desires of powergamers to maximize the power of their characters without regard to the spirit of the game.

I've said before that were I doing a game, I'd apply a layer of DM's sanity to stat minimums.

 

I have no qualms at all about multiclassing in general - having a wizzie take some levels of fighter or rogue makes perfect sense to me as do most cases where you might have a character with levels in 2 or maybe even 3 classes.

However when you start taking a single level of several classes in an obvious attempt to exploit the class system by harvesting the most gameplay perks as possible with little or no regard to the "concepts" behind those classes - then I'm sorry but I consider this a form of abuse.

Play it that way if you wish but don't try to whitewash it for anything other than what it is - a convienent exploit.

 

Isn't a party where no character has a stat lower than 8 even more unrealistic than having a party member with 3 in a stat ?

I assume that the extra 16 point you get at the beginning are meant for outlining already higher stats for your profession and not for raising low stats. So I can ignore the 16 bonus points in my calculations.

Let's estimate for each stat that about 60 percent have 8-12, 20 percent have more, 20 percent have less.

Since there are 6 stats per character, only about one quarter have all 6 stats at least 8.

The chance that 6 randomly chosen humans (1 party) have no stat lower than 8 is about 1 of 4000.
(You have to multiply 0.8 with itself 36 times.)

Since probably more than 1 of 100,000 humans have 3 in a given stat like int it's more likely that one of the party member's 36 stats is 3 than having a party with no stat lower than 8.

So parties with no stat lower than 8 are very unrealistic, you can consider them as powergaming with the goal of having perfect humanoids without weaknesses instead of having an easier time during the game.

I don't think that only allowing characters without weaknesses is the true spirit of D&D.

 

I would generally assume that the stats are representative of a bell curve of distribution of people with those given stat values. Thus, I'd assume that the considerable majority of people would fall between 8 and 12.

Furthermore, I don't think that you can make the assumption that adventuring people are at all representative of the population as a whole. I'd tend to think that the average adventurer is well ahead of the average person in the general population in terms of stats across the board.

Just because (to use your stat) 1 in a 100K people in the population might fit the INT 3 profile does not mean that adventurers would exist in the same proportion. Frankly, I think that INT 3 adventurers would be practically non-existant. I doubt that anyone would train someone so lacking in intelligence. And I doubt that they could ever attain the level of skill and training required to even be considered "level 1" in any class.


So, yes, perhaps if you chose 6 people at random, the chances that someone might have a sub-8 stat may be decent. So what? Adventurers are not random, they are self-selecting. They choose to try to be adventurers and the people that train them choose to train them.

Sooo, I do not think that it is unrealistic at all to believe that adventurers would be out of the norm on the high side when looking at their stats. By its nature, adventuring, even when training to become an adventurer, tends to weed out the incompetent rather quickly.