Throwing in a level or two

Remove all ads!

This is quite a new issue, dating only as far ago as 3E (correct me if I'm wrong) and a possible way of becoming too uber too cheaply - perhaps that's why it's, politely said, so controversial.

Whenever I've been on the net, there's always someone bashing munchkins who take a single level or a low number of levels in a class for the purpose of increasing your power by more than you could achieve in your primary class.

Personally, I dislike the CRPG idea of taking sorc(1) for free identification, or a level of whatever to be allowed a certain item.

But, from a more balanced point of view, is increasing your power with a low level mix-in of a different class all that bad?

If you took examples from real life, whether present or past, how many single-class people would you have? Straightforward paladins of level 20? Whole-life fighters? Clerics with no other experience in life? 'Pure' rogues? Eh, I doubt it.

Then, how should multiclassing evenly be better, more serious, or less munchkin-like than getting just a few levels? Even multiclassing is like creating a whole new class. It seems, and is, a planned activity and planned development... more or less like with a single-class character.

We may say that characters maybe know that they're soldiers, healers, priests, mages, knights, scouts, thieves, wilderness survivors etc but the whole concept of class is alien to them. This is largely correct, but not in whole. Characters, as people in real life, aren't powergamers of their own lives, sure. They're more driven by hobbies, whims, feelings, momental decisions etc. However, just why wouldn't a cleric serve himself combat training at the hands of the temple's guard captain? Level one fighter: the reverend now knows what to do with swords, axes, spears and the like. And has some marginally better HP. Later, he might decide to hone his fighting skills until fighter level 4. Several feats, specialisation in a weapon, more stamina, fortitude etc. Depending on the culture, he might take monk levels instead, especially if his DEX is sufficient and his WIS can provide a nice AC bonus. In fact it just needs an Eastern-style temple with monk guardians or a monastery with several priests as closer linked to the higher power the whole community serves, and performing the duties.

Then, we also have the druid. Stats-wise, fighter level 1 gets him more HP, free heavy armour feat and abundance of weapon allowances. At the cost of one level. Better than acquiring those as feats and working on them through a large number of levels, isn't it? In my eyes, it's even more natural. I believe it would also be more natural for a moderately intelligent character aware of the possibility of getting a specialist martial training. Perhaps in case of a druid a ranger or even barbarian would be a more natural teacher than a fighter. They don't differ all so much, but with some micromanagement the difference can be used to the character's advantage. As with the cleric, this is one level or more, not likely exceeding 4. Why not? Well, he's a cleric. Or a druid. He has duties. His service (ministry) is his primary role.

This will also work for rogues (very handy), bards (the most adventuring of adventuring classes and the most natural soloing candidate would surely use extended martial prowess) and psions. Perhaps also for some monks or barbarians whose current whereabouts enable this fighter sort of training rather than the exotic training they have. They may continue their training on their own, but the teacher, if they want any, will more likely be a fighter. Now, the teacher maw well just teach specific skills, feats, techniques etc and kick your ass for better stamina (HP increase), but in some cases this might affect your class. Depends on the player, on the character, on the DM, I think. And well, even without a specific teacher, a barbarian or monk is quite likely to attend a substantially power-increasing course if he's aware of such a possibility. Perhaps an academy, a retired drill sergeant, a wounded champion resting in his estate, or whatever.

By analogy, this could be applied to rogue training. For monks it's almost natural and goes without question. For fighters - sure, why not. Pick a lock or two, search a wall, detect a basic trap. Get some skills they teach... If stat-wise rogues get four times more skill points than most other classes, roleplaying-wise this must be in some way perceived by characters and NPCs, especially because skills and skill allowance is the biggest advantage of rogue training. Come on, what else do they really have?

Similarly, it shouldn't be hard to advance a bit further as barbarian if a character, for someone reasons, actually finds himself in proper surroundings. With a fighter or a ranger it's perhaps a slight change to their curriculum and is even more realistic than furthering fighter levels. With other classes this works like fighter levels - just a different sort of martial training. With enough creativity, there should be enough opportunities. For example, I can imagine a filthy rich thieves guild boss (rogue 15) who has nothing to do with his spare time and arranges for a survival trip (if he's, contrary, too busy, he just needs a holiday and some diversity in life ). Even a wizard guy if he's weird enough Chaotic comportment to his alignment should be enough reason

Not to make this post too long, I'll leave further analogies to your imagination. Maybe paladins would be an exception here, but personally I don't think that adding more bias towards their fighting side would be that much of problem. The argument of no generic class awareness in characters is double-edge. He doesn't see himself as LG human paladin 12 for the purposes of calculating the odds of different ways of further advancement, but neither does he see training with weapons as acquiring fighter levels in their own right. We don't have Level 16 Paladins With Fighting Capabilities Extended At The Cost Of Divine Focus, but we have paladins 12/ fighters 4. Technically, this would also work for paladin/clerics if we separate the cleric class from priestly duties. I think this sounds pretty convincing, contrary to some other ideas of mine that I've been sharing with you for some time Paladin/rogue is not something hardcore RPers would approve, but then, as I said, the non-class awareness argument is double edge. In his own eyes, the paladin is studying technical stuff, learning from thieves by coincidence, receiving special training for the purposes of his role within the ranks of his organisation... or, in case of freelance paladins, extending his potentially useful adventuring skills. Including pickpocket skill, which is NOT only used for stealing. Sneak attack is more of a problem, but then he can always Fall for using this feature Again, with some creativity, we might imagine a situation in which it would be justifiable for a paladin. No? Then make that paladin 8/rogue 5 caught by enemy counter-intelligence and put in prison with 10 HP remaining and the completion of his mission being crucial in defeating some unimaginable evil. Should help. Alternatively, it might be a nice, traditional good vs evil duel, which is one paladin/rogue versus one evil archmage... and a hundred of his minions.

You can always ask why he's a paladin then. Because his father was, the father of his father was too and so was his father and so on until that solar who became friends with a mortal princess. Because he did not choose to become a paladin and he won't abandon his path of paladin either.

One of my favourite CRPG characters is a paladin/diviner evenly multiclassed. Strange, isn't it? But who said life is simple. From my point of view, realism is in those strange things happening, not in everything being neat and orderly and overly simplified. I can imagine a guy who is a paladin because he is and who's still driven by curiosity, willingness to learn and develop his mental and intellectual prowess. Thus he studies magical arcana. For me, there being of a strange geeky paladin with high intelligence (at the cost of dmg, AB, AC and HP through STR, DEX and CON) is enough reason for his study of arcane arts. Still, no one ever chooses to become a paladin Then, would a paladin really and totally abandon his path for other reasons than turning evil or chaotic? Hard to disagree, isn't it?

Ultimately, we have those paladin/clerics. A convinient combination for some players. A cleric could be commissioned as holy warrior in some cultures under some circumstances. Why not. A high priest (lev 20) forced to defend his temple and its surroundings from evil hordes really doesn't seem likely to have problems with his deity granting him paladin levels if he's allowed to fight at all. Of course, he still wouldn't be a 'sir Whatever' kind of dragon-fighting damsel-comforting paladin. For some reasons even an adventuring cleric might serve and appear as a champion of his deity. Deities have strange ways, don't they? In fact, even mortals have, sometimes. Now, paladins turning cleric. A low number of cleric levels without actually acquiring any priestly status is just increasing divine focus at the cost of martial prowess - opposite to paladin/fighters. Depending on the culture, low priestly functions, such as acolytes or counterparts of Christian lay deacons, might well be performed by paladins. Lastly, a paladin might at some point wish for a closer tie with his patron and turn cleric completely, stopping to advance as paladin at all and now being a priest who once was a famous knight. Such was the end of sir Lancelot, for example. Of course, priestly vows would have to override paladin vows, which however isn't that much of a problem if the character's change of class focus is permanent.

So, I believe we now have plenty of material for a long and worthy debate

 

XP penalty.

I'll go on:

Monks and Paladins. They're almost always straight. A Monk or Paladin who multiclasses cannot take levels again in Monk or Paladin. Ever. Unless you're in FR, which I pretty much straightforwardly oppose. Monks and Paladins do not necessarily have a connection with a specific deity, thus they need not be Clerics. A Monk strives for inner perfection; a few serve a deity through becoming a Cleric. A Paladin fights Evil and serves Good; he need not serve a specific deity as a Cleric to further his goals.

Clerics. Depends on domains. St. Cuthbert? Fighter/Cleric. Boccob? Wizard/Cleric. Oldimarra: Rogue/Cleric. It could happen, although straight Clerics should be as much expected.

Fighters and Rogues. The two broadest classes. They go hand-in-hand, and a Fighter/Rogue is a versatile combat. IMO, the stereotypical adventurer.

Bards and Fighters. If you don't multiclass with these, you'll be a bit weaker. A Bard6/Rogue3 is better than Bard9, unless you're focusing on Bardic Knowledge or Spells. A Fighter with Barbarian or Ranger levels can be considerably more effective.

Druids, Barbarians, Wizards, Sorcerers. Your best choice here is to go straight, to take advantage of all the class abilities/spells. It makes more sense too. A Wizard is going to stick to being a Wizard; doing otherwise can hinder the spellcasting of a party, meaning more monster food.

Prestige Classes. Some roleplayers with a strong sense of his character might go for a PrC. A good idea. They will help to continue to define his character in terms of roelplay and stats.

Multiclassing will sometimes help your character be, well, better. Other times, it'll just screw it over, half your XP, and make you ineffective.

Remember this: when it comes to power, a crappy character is one who can do most of the adventuring task so-so. A good one is one who can do about a quarter of those tasks very well, but stink at the other tasks. This is because D&D is a cooperative game, with players and characters working together to overcome obstacles. Keep your fellow players and charactres in mind. A party consisting of a Paladin/Bard, a Fighter/Rogue, a Druid/Sorcerer, and a Cleric/Ranger/Monk, is going to be rather ineffective.

[ November 01, 2003, 17:03: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Favoured class

I'll go on:

Monks and paladins: almost always straight, agreed. Some start in different classes, but that's all. Depending on the order, they're still allowed to multiclass and the reason for not multiclassing freely is not balance but the roleplaying side. If we perceive a class, or at least a really basic class like fighter or rogue, as a set of skills, then it's a matter of fact more than of idea - you learn specific skills and perform specific roles and your class is adjusted accordingly. This way exceptions can and should be allowed. Of course, almost all will still be straight or with foreign levels prior to paladin or monk levels, but there aren't any real and solid obstacles, apart from abandoning your paladin or monk duties and ethos, which may or may not happen. If it happens, your monk carreer is closed or your paladin levels have two new letters and a hyphen in the front

Casters: Power-wise, straight ones are in most cases better. But that's why I said throwing in some foreign levels wasn't necessarily powergaming. Where power is not primary concern, or the way of achieving power isn't clear, a character might well have combat or adventuring (aka thieving ) training just because there's an opportunity and he feels like it. Just why not? It's life, sort of

 

Becoming a Paladin is a sort of calling, as said in the PHB. As such, it is very unlikely for a character to have levels in Fighter, then multiclass to Paladin. The same applies to the Monk. Most Monks are raised in monasteries, where they learn the ways of the Monk. Or they might be runaways at an early age, finding hospitality in a monastery. I still maintain that multiclassed Monks and Paladins are extremely rare.

By the way, whatever order you're in doesn't help with multiclassing. It's not stated in the PHB. It's not suggested as a variant rule in the DMG. It's stated in the FRCS, a supplementary book. If you want to play otherwise, then sure, the restrictions are mostly there for flavor, but you have to understand that that rule is not in the core rules.

Straight casters do have combat and adventuring training. A Wizard or a Sorcerer has a BAB progression, albeit fairly poor. They can take feats like Great Fortitude and Dodge to reflect adventuring experience. And cross-class skills are always available.

 

But aren't levels in different classes more natural then loads of strange skills? I believe characters would still choose the most convinient option. Just like independent humans would. Perhaps learning armour proficiency at the cost of one feat is more natural than just one fighter level, but what about other weapons, shields and armour all at once?

Just like Johnny Player will take one fighter level rather than spend his precious feats, Johnny Character will sign up for a brief course at an academy rather than spend ages developing his fighting skills according to some special plan

As for paladins - right, multiclassed after becoming paladins are a FR thing, depending on the deity they choose. Which doesn't mean that deities from other words wouldn't behave in the same way. I see it as somehow natural for a Helmite paladin to extend his martial training, for a Knight of Mystic Fire to study arcane magic, etc. Different classes before becoming paladins? You can always receive the calling later in life. Or receive it early and resist it until the evil bastard kills whole your village, kills the women and rapes the cattle or something.

 

Paladins are warded by their faith, not their skill. They don't need the skills of the other classes, because their god will provide for them if they have faith.
Else you're just being a devout fighter/wizard/whatever and not a paladin.

 

I'll have to go with Chev at this point. His stand does seem rather logical, although Oaz's grounds on the 'Calling' issue is just as legitimate.

There should be little reason why a Paladin or Monk cannot multiclass a single level before going back to their original vocations. To restrict abuse though, perhaps a variant rule can be implemented such that the 2nd class does not exceed a fixed number or exceeds the 1st class in levels.

That should stop all those pesky barbarians, rangers and paladins from taking 4 fighter levels for weapon spec. and then dumping it.

 

I can see your point here, Chev. Let me demonstrate my argument here:

Alhandra the Paladin: "Well, gosh, fighting these Driders seems more difficult than I imagined. I should learn some martial skills, beyond what I've learned from Paladin school."

*Alhandra takes two levels in Fighter, picking up Dodge and Mobility.*

Alhandra: "Well, that was enlightnening! Better go start taking levels in Paladin again! Yay! Four more levels and I get another Smite Evil!"

Heironeous (Deity of Paladins): "Er, remember the part your teacher told you about being lawful and true to your calling? Sorry, no more Paladin-being for you."

Alhandra: "D'oh! Oh, well, at least I've got Weapon Specialization to look forward to!"

The Monk and Paladin are Lawful classes. They demand focus, concentration, and unwavering dedication. A Paladin isn't just some guy who goes around beating evil guys up. He's a person who utilises Law to further his ultimate mean of spreading Good. The Monk is the same; his class requires being Lawful, all the time. If he doesn't, well, he can always take levels in Rogue.

Asides from that, well, D&D has never seen much of multiclassing with Paladins, Monks, and even Barbarians or Wizards. It's just how it's been all the time. There are few official NPCs that multiclass as Paladins or Monks.

 

Well, I'd like to state that I think that if someone wishes to multi-class a paladin, the other levels should come before the Paladin ones... like someone who is fighting against their calling, distracting themselves with anything and everything they can... and yet, end up being a tin can on legs in the end.

Sound logical?

Probably not.

 

Well, there needs to be some more background, sure. However, I wouldn't agree with there not being any need for other classes' skills. Sometimes you study the ways of your enemies. If you're sir X from military intelligence, you need some search and disarm. If you're some sort of special police in your kingdom, sneaking might not be a bad idea, not only just search and disarm. Sure, those can be taken as cross-class skills, but I see no problem with actual class levels.

I, of course, agree on the vocational thing, there's no such possibility as leaving and coming back at your leisure. However, such is the nature of your calling that you don't abandon it, even if for a period of time you hone other skills that may be useful in your specific mission. For me, a paladin/sorcerer is as legitimate as any other warrior/mage, classic fighter/wizard included. With point buy, getting a high INT instead of more convinient low INT and lots of meat is reason enough. Now background would need to be really convincing, but ultimately I would allow such a character if I DMed the game. Of course, this is a matter of exception, not of a general rule. As a rule, pallies don't multiclass freely after getting paladin levels. Monks, I believe, are much the same with reasons being quite different, but effects much the same.

But what about other classes, not only pallies and monks?

 

*shrug*

It's not like Paladins or Monks have highly adaptable roles. Fighter/Sorcerers and Barbarian/Rogues are highly legitimate (to say nothing of effective), but the Paladin and Monk is pretty much stuck in a rut RP-wise. You can't justify free multiclassing just because the character wants/needs to do it. Read above post (besides, that's what your adventuring buddies are for - versatility!).

Paladins might have connections to a religion, but nothing really beyond that (don't say anything about nobility, because paladin's aren't necessarily nobility, they directly have nearly nothing to do with it). Heck, they might not have connections to a religion either, just plain goodness.

High intelligence over low/medium intelligence and improved physical stats is a poor idea. Paladins excel in melee combat (Lay on Hands versus undead, Smite Evil); the magic and Diplomacy stuff are just add-ons.

Monks are different. Some are part of an order. Some just learn from one mentor or perhaps from a book. They don't have to be dedicated to anything in particular.

Other classes allow for more varied multiclassing. The best ones are Fighter, Rogue, Bard, and Ranger. Others have more restrictive roles (Barbarian: most destruction in least time; Druid: best in nature setting, lots of special abilities with level progression).

The Paladin and the Monk are the most restrictive. They borderline on Prestige Classes.

Sorry Chev. Multiclass Paladins, while sometimes a good idea for power (Divine Grace goes a long way), they don't go very far RP-wise, and have too many restrictions. It sounds like you're confusing Paladins and average run-of-the-mill Fighters, Warriors, or Fighter/Rogues.

 

I think, Arabwel has figured out the right way. I just want to go a step further: The Paladin should be a Prestige Class. Look at the was the Solamnic Knights in the new Dragonlance Campaign Setting are made. It sounds very convincing that a character has to has at least one fighter level (as squire) before he (or she) can become a knight.

Th monk is another matter. It is plausible that a fighter (or any other character) chooses to join a monastery and become monk, but initially a stereotypical monk would have grown up in a monastery.
There is also the very convenient PrC "Sacred Fist" for characters who can cast divine spells.

The choice however has to be supported by roleplaying.

 

The Paladin's got a long history of being a core class with D&D (just like how Wizards get d4s). There's not really much of any other for that, except that I think that most of us see the Paladin as a fairly general concept (I'm sure this applies to the Blackguard too, however).

It's just like with Magic Missile: it should be a level two spell power-wise, but it's always just been the bread-and-butter level one spell.

 

Well, it all comes down to the famous and infamous "House Rules".

But think about it: They changed the Solamnic Knight already (the Krynn paladin), why not changing the paladin as a whole?

 

As far as my opinion goes, not even a PrC (which is, however, a nice idea), but a template.

From the legends and lore used as d&d source, paladin core class isn't justified. PrC would be. But it looks most like a template.

Essentials include: goodness, lay hands (for full healing and restoration, not 2hp/lev), super horse. Maybe the sword, but it's rather your sword getting holy than you getting a holy sword. Otherwise, normal fighter(10). The rest is nice to have, but hardly fitting.

 

Ah, but D&D isn't fully based on legends or lore. Not even history and (wait for it) Tolkein. Just its own brand of fantasy. Paladin's always been a core class; if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

To simplify it, the Paladin is just a Lawful Good fighter with healing and magic. That's about it. The PHB states just about no connections to knighthood, nobility, or even one religion.

By the way, there is a Saint template in the Book of Exalted Deeds.

[ November 19, 2003, 21:14: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

That's exactly why I like taking levels in a different class before becoming a Paladin. Who says the calling will come before his/her adventuring career begins? Besides, it makes for incredible role-playing! Same with Sorcerous powers coming on later.

I like Multi-classing. Please note, if you're playing a spellcaster, you're much more "munchkinny" staying single classed the whole time, rather than multiclassing. Losing spellcasting levels is like the touch of death unto spellcasters.

 

Paladin's Handbook enumerates a whole load of historic and legendary reference. Even 2E basic PH does. I don't remember if 3E PH mentions any, but even if it didn't, that wouldn't cut the roots.

The source of the word paladin is palatinus, of the palace - that is the king's companion. Slightly older than Charlemagne's paladins. If they weren't noble, who was?

Later, the word was used to denote a knight errant, or a powerful and noble knight (more than you would expect from a regular one), fighting for a noble cause.

If this means nothing, we can call a spellcaster fighter.

 

I don't see why you're relating the D&D term Paladin to some medieval word. Historical knight and D&D Paladin are different. Read the PHB. Does it say that all Paladins are nobles? Try the Book of Exalted Deeds for a change? Is every Paladin you see there a noble? Of course not.

The point remains that you can't justify something D&D-wise in terms of historical context (the Spiked Chain is hardly a historical weapon, for example).

Compare it with the Druid. In history, it was some Celtic/Gallic priest (my French history is fuzzy). They worshipped nature gods, but they didn't revere nature in itself. In D&D, well, you all know what a Druid is.

Paladin: Champion of general goodness.

Noble: Some rich guy.

Knight: Whatever the textbooks say (knights and knighthood are basically unaddressed in D&D).

Druid (historical): Celtic/Gallic priest.

Druid (D&D): Nature guy.

[ November 21, 2003, 03:41: Message edited by: Oaz ]

 

Actually, there's quite a lot of official material on knighthood in core books for 2E. For fighters and for paladins. There's only really one ranger kit related to knighthood, but even they have it.

A noble doesn't have to be rich. It's about birth. That a rich person can buy his way in... that's a different story.

Being knighted makes you noble. In British system that's a bit more difficult since there are more meanings of the word 'nobility' in this context, but essentially a knighted individual becomes armigerous (if he hadn't been before) and thus noble. Same it is in d&d. Otherwise, you're just a hired fighter.

Druids weren't in fact priests - at least not originally. More comparable to the Persian cast of magi. They were some sort of aristocrats, educated folk, the elders (not necessarily by age, as membership was hereditary ). They had some priestly functions, right, but that wasn't the main axis. Later, after Roman conquest they might have (and probably had) focused on religion and nature. Druids from assemblies in holy groves fit the nature-focused description, but that's either marginal or legendary. The nature over gods thing is purely a matter of d&d's awful and dumb political correctness. Same goes to 'philosophy' for paladins, for example.