Multiclassing Systems

Click here and disable ads!

I was wrong in my assumption then. I apologize. I would like to know why you consider D&D 3.5 to have the best quality customization of any PnP system out there. I do not share your opinion(I think D&D customization is pretty poor) and thought that my assumption was a reason you might like it so much.

I agree that doing classless get's around the entire point of classes. I was talking about doing that instead of all the supplements and prestige classes. You have already claimed that all the expanded materials allows you a very large degree of customization. That has already largely diminished the value of having clearly defined distinct classes that force you to choose between. There is a prestige class(or combination of them) to accommodate almost any package of assets you would want. Some combinations that grant a lot more combat utility and power than is achievable with the base classes. I was saying once you have reached that point why continue to cling to the class system when you can accomplish the same thing in a much more streamlined and simple way with a classless system.

It is also not hard at all to design a classless system with exclusivity or making it harder to have multiples of certain categories. The easiest way is to put certain things in certain categories and limit selection of them on conditions other than just the total points available for allocation. Spell casting for example (since that is the example). Make it cheap to pick up the first level spell casting in any spell casting type. You can then make it so it is either really expensive to pick up another spell casting school or you can only do it once you've reached a level gate. You could also put soft limits in. Like if you have two spellcasting types it makes it more expensive to raise either of them (or just the secondary if you prefer). That is if you want minimal changes to the D&D mechanics otherwise you could also modify it more to suit your needs.

Some people might like that classes can make leveling up a bit like a puzzle game where you have to figure out the combination of multiclassing to get the abilities and utility you want but that doesn't change the fact that classbased inherently provides less freedom to build your character.

Since class based puts hard limits on what the players can be it is easier to anticipate what they will be able to handle and makes designing encounters and combat easier for the game designers or GM. Class based also doesn't work as well in single character games since they are usually designed to stop one character from having a broad range of utility.

I don't think you have any idea what you're talking about or even understand what I wrote. I guess you could be "debating" by picking arbitrary point of view and trying to "win", but I have no interest in participating in your games.

Read what I wrote again, and again if necessary, google it and study it until you understand what a proper superset means and why all your "points" and the rest of your post are irrelevant.

On thing about class systems is that class is very much what Vincent Baker callse positioning here. I mention this because that little blog post illustrate one of the things I find people frequently miss when talking about class, the positioning isn't just about character abilities. It is about the character's role in the story.

For example, take the sorcerer class in D&D 3e. It comes with lots of assumptions about it, like the character is somehow touched by otherworldly energy. That he is somewhat more delicate and less versed in combat than a militia man or a soldier. That the magic he wields can't be used to cure another person, etc. Yet, who the character is, what is his deal, is still very much open. The whole mystic nature of the sorcerer needs not to, and usually doesn't, figure in the play.The positioning here is strictly about abilities, with minor color details that the player can easily choose to change or ignore.

Now take one of Vincent's own games, the Apocalypse World. AW uses a class system, where each character must be made from a "playbook", that basically describes a class. The books have various options for the player to customize his character, but they are focused not only in what abilities the character will have, but what is his role in the game ahead, and sets this much more tightly than 3e. The hocus, for example, is a cult leader. He is a strange character, with the ability to influence people indirectly through his connection with the "psychic maelstrom" (a feature of the default setting). But his most important ability lies in the fate of the cult he leads. Every game, the comings and goings of these people will either bless the hocus with better means to achieve his goals or curse him with problems he needs to deal with. Other playbooks are similarly bound in their concepts so that their choice is an important aspect of who the PC will turn out to be.

So, why this long post that doesn't even seem to be on topic? Well, I wanted to draw your attention that there can be more to a class choice than simply what skills one could have in the game. The thing about multi-classing is that you need to think about what kind of positioning you are creating. How do the two, or three or the how many classes that are there interact on different levels? How do the abilities of a warrior 5/sorcerer 5 mix together differently? How is his position in the game changed by this? Is the mystic nature of his bloodline more warlike than that of other sorcerers? Is he able to use his magic in ways he wouldn't be able to or dare as a pure sorcerer? What does it mean that you are able to learn abilities of 20 different classes and equip them as needed? Of course, you don't need to answer these questions definitely. Wizardry 6 and 7 had a very loose class system, and yet was a lot of fun to play. Changing from a wizard into a ninja just meant you could use your wizard spells too. Then again there were some serious considerations going on, such as when you would be able to change out of the class again and how your hit points and hit chance would develop.

You're missing the point again. This is true and no one is arguing against this. Semantics or, perhaps, a different way of looking at things seems to be the problem. Let me try to break it up:

You agree that classes are an "add-on" and a constraint to classless systems (open, skill based, whatever you want to call them)? That would make classless systems broader than class-based systems?
If they are broader (proper superset), then they offer ALL options of character building as class-based systems AND extra options (not restricted by classes).
These additional options for character building are what make classles systems superior to class-based systems in terms of character customization. You can do everything (and more, should you wish) in classless systems compared to class-based systems.
Thus they offer EQUIVALENT OR BETTER CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION. Adding more constraints is possible and welcome, of course, you just have a broader starting pool and more options to start with, than if you restricted yourself to classes from the beginning.

This is what darkpatriot (as I understand) was saying and what I wanted to quickly affirm, before moving on with the discussion. My posts have been short and to the point, for what I've been accused to have been ignoring majority of your posts. Would you like me to go into VD-mode and "rebuke" your points (most of which I agree, thus the "ignoring" part) with witty one-liners? Would that make you more receptive to what I'm trying to say?

Using shitty memes and expressions like "full stop" and "I'll say this for the last time" make you seem childish, arrogant and not open to debate. Telling me to read your posts again, will provoke the exact answer you got before. You are either deliberately unwilling to understand what I'm talking about or are simply unable to comprehend the point of my posts after reiterating it several times. In both cases further discussion from my side seems redundant.

And this is not "the 'dex", this is the Codex Workshop, where we (try to) have constructive discussions without inane shit throw in for the lulz.

I win

Marshal, Classless systems have a greater number of possible outcomes. More "customization" as you call it. That is pretty obvious and not a very interesting discussion. However, an ice cream shop with 39 flavours of dark chocolate and 1 flavour of strawberry also has a lot of customization. Number of customization options is something you slap on a feature list, not a goal in itself. The number of interesting choices is far more important.

I said it before, and I'll repeat it here: Differentiation is more important than customization.

Stop advocating customization quantity as if it is some sort of holy grail. Even in a system with 6 billion possible character builds, you are only going to try out a handful of them at best, and closer to [# of party members] on average. A class-based system with a few splash options that offers 1000 different builds still has more possibility-space and decision-space than anyone is going to fully explore. The quality of the choices is more important than the quantity. That's why I made a thread about class-based systems, not about class-based vs. classless systems.

In class-based systems you have far more situations where you have to decide, that yes, I want to give up ever being able to heal anyone in exchange for casting fire spells. As has already been detailed above, yes it is *possible* that these sorts of restrictions could be baked into a class-less system with extremely verbose and particular skill descriptions, but in reality that's not what happens and it wouldn't make for a good class-less system anyway.

No one has been advocating that customization quantity is a holy grail.

It is quite clearly the mantra of those advocating class-less systems.

I always liked the option of exchanging class options, like the one described in D&D 3.0 PHP (the example was a ranger who forfeits an animal companion in exchange for the paladin's mount and detect evil - or something similar; too lazy to look it up) - instead of mixing different class levels, you are playing the same "class" throughout the whole campaign, and it's a unique class customized to your tastes. Shame, because I don't think that option was particularly popular or used - everyone seemed to focus on prestige class mashups instead.

But in PnP, that option was constrained by having the DM approve all changes (and assuming the DM would have a good understanding of the impact the changes would make, and which class features were of the equal "value"). In a cRPG you'd have to have all class features defined as having a particular "value" (depending on how much focus the game puts on it - e.g. Turn Undead could have a lower or higher value depending on how prominent such enemies were in the actual game), and a list of requirements / restrictions for each. Which would sort of bring it into "classless system with complex restrictions" territory... Perhaps separate major class features that can't be traded, and minor ones that could? (which brings us to the major/minor option from the poll, sort of but not really...) Obviously, the devil is in the details.

As an example, I always wanted to make rangers that neither dual-wield nor specialize in bows - and trading those default weapon style feats for single weapon feats sounds like a decent trade-off. But do the feats measure up exactly with the Weapon Focus, Specialization, Improved Critical etc. line? Or should the progression per level be adjusted? Then again, dual-weapon feats work for any weapon, while the replacement feats lock the character to a single weapon type - so the consequences of gaining the feats aren't the same... And if I choose Maces as the character's automatically specialized weapons, the DM can alter the general loot tables slightly, or add a blacksmith willing to make an enchanted mace, or add a quest that rewards one - but it all gets more hairy in a cRPG. Usually, I'd pair such an option with the option of making your own weapon (so a suitable mace can be crafted if it can't be found); congratulations, you've just made your class system dependent on the crafting 'mini-game'.

Of course, nobody prevents me from simply playing a ranger and taking those same feats (and playing a slightly gimped character, but making it up in RP prestige points), or multi-classing with fighter for extra feats. Or, if I want to make a ranger who gains illusion spells instead of nature ones, I could always multi-class with bard. But while the ending result could be very close at the end (let's say the character lives to see lvl 20), the path to get there is quite different, and makes a big difference. (not to mention that bards have to be chaotic, which doesn't necessarily fit my character concept etc.)

Not that I have anything against free-form multi-classing per se. It's just that I usually prefer more restrictions. So, if I want to fool around with a fighter/thief, I'll usually decide to alternate evenly between the classes on each level up, or take rogue levels each third level up etc. - which is pretty far from the default 3.x multi-classing ("so I need 8 ranks in Hide by level 4 and these 2 feats, then I switch to Class X for 3 levels to take maximal numerical advantage from Class feature Y, which feeds into prestige class Z...").

In the end, I'd definitely want a game that allows some kind of multi-classing, but when deciding on the system I wouldn't start with a spreadsheet and an Ideal System, External Use Only. Depending on the focus of the game, the setting, desired gameplay options etc., the system would be chosen to emphasize desired traits. And we'd be back to having to make a new system for each individual game, resulting in a bunch of broken systems that would turn out to be unsuitable in actual gameplay in 90% of the cases

While that is quite clearly your impression no one has said anything like that in this thread. It is certainly not my mantra. It's not even my opinion.

Sure, f course. Sorry, I got lost in trying to expound the basics so much I ended up missing my own point.

Anyway, as I argued, the positioning can occur in many levels. It can be a lore thing, it can be a story-play thing (as in, a part of how the story develops through play), it can be a gamey thing (i.e. just a set of abilities), or a mix of various of these. In some cases, one of the possible definitions will be far more important than the others. In D&D 4e, for example, balance and role in combat are extremely important. Whether you are a damage dealer guy, or a tank or a healer or whatever. So, what kind of abilities you can get is the point of the class. But using the other facets can make a class more interesting, and even strength the main aspect of the positioning.

For example, in League of Legends*,different champions that have similar roles are often differentiated by very different mechanics that better exemplify who they are, and the game is better for it, and not just because of the variety, but because abilities are "appropriate". AD&D 2e handled this a a bit weirdly, with kits adding another layer to the classes, frequently with arbitrary complexity. Does anyone remember the witch kit? And then you also had non-standard magic school specializations and deity-specific clerics which made the whole thing pretty crazy. Still, kits were an attempt to make your character more well defined, and if well used, they managed to do it, and the game was better for it.

So, the big point here is that, as I see it, the best class systems are those that make it all come together to say "you are it". Take the right abilities, the right lore, the right game incentives, and make it all come together into something that has its own personality, and you have a good class. In Star (the game I am developing), the classes try to do all of this. A spy is someone who is caught in the middle of a lie within a lie. When you create a spy, you create a backstory that necessarily binds you to a couple of betrayals and has you hold secrets of other players. Your abilities are good for manipulation, intelligence and betrayal, but the game forces you to and rewards you when you make these things personal, when more than simply "trolling" everyone, what you do has meaning and importance for your character.

And thus, I think that here lies the big difficulty of making good multi-class systems. Making the mix of classes actually matter. Take the good old fighter/cleric from D&D. It's abilities are a mix of the two classes. Conceptually, it is a cleric who had a better military training. Or maybe a particularly religious fighter/mercenary/whatever. All we know about him are his abilities. His abilities are, by the way, very close to the paladin's. But the paladin is more than simply a fighter/cleric. He has a much better defined role in all aspects of positioning. In fact, in some versions of D&D, paladins are more restricted than clerics themselves!

Now, I am not trying to say that static classes with mixed traits are better than multi-classing systems. But these systems should, somehow, rise up to the challenge of making the player's choices when multi-classing become a more definite it.

*I am not trying to argue here that League of Legends is an RPG, or even that it isn't. I merely mention it because it has the closed design a war as sport RPG might have.

I kinda like 2nd Edition D&D over 3/3.5 because while its sometimes nice to pick'n'mix everything, the limits in 2nd Ed provide benefits in a party-based game. 3.5 can sometimes feel a little soulless with the flood of classes and prestige classes, many of which are very similar to each other.

For P&P, the Shadowrun system is really nice.

I prefer jobs based multiclassing, such as GDW or early Star Trek PnP, where you devote time in sets of say 4 years to a particular job which then lets you place skill points into the skills of that job (and a few extra). Learning the basics of a difficult form of spellcasting then requires devotion of 3 sets (12 years) before you know the basics well enough to start learning spells. This way the skillset isn't just an expression of power, but also of time, with age causing creeping negatives. Utilizing such a system, multiclassing isn't just about hybridizing, it has a direct and visible cost/benefit.

Multiclassing a discipline that is supposed to demand years of patient study and focus then visibly does does demand those years. And someone who multis that demanding discipline will consequently have to be older.

I prefer the effects/damages of items to draw from stats, skills, and item modifiers.

If you shoot a bow you raise ranger-type stats and archery skill, when you equip ranger-type armor, its effects are tied to your dexterity and str, aka you use equipment more effectively if you're stronger/agile.

Similar for magery and melee. Int magnifies spell damages, so a warrior can use magery but it's weak if his int and mage-type stats/skills are low and he has a shitty staff.

Leaves it up to the player, maybe they want to develop magery and melee or archery and melee or just focus on 1, or all 3. Easy to do buffs too when you tie swing speed/damage/etc to a stat, you can merely increase a stat for a duration for a number of buffs. Like a simple strength buff would do more damage with melee, increase max health, increase armor rating slightly, by adjusting 1 variable.

3.5 D&D & Pathfinder are a more of a hybrid class/skill system, particular when the expansion sourcebooks are tossed in. You can take a mage and give him the ability to fight well in melee, complate with the ability to wield swords and wear armor while casting spells, without ever dipping into a fighter class simply by choosing fighting-related feats.

In 3.5 and Pathfinder, what a character is and can do often is far more defined by what feats and skills were chosen than what class was. What class mostly does is grant access to a small suite of unique powers, but those powers often no longer represents the core of what made the class the class - a ranger is no longer defined by tracking and survival skills, since anyone can take those. And thus acquiring the new class powers doesn't necessarily make your character feel like he has become more of that class.

The two systems could have maintained a class-based organization by attaching feats and skills to a class. Then, if a mage dipped into a fighter, he would gain access to the ability to fight with weaponry, which he would otherwise remain unskilled at. Doing that, a fighter/mage would be the only way you could successfully do both fighting and spellcasting, and a fighter/mage would again feel like a fighter/mage.

A hard class system loses its main advantage when converted to computers anyway, though. With hard classes, the players in pnp have to work together as a team to succeed. If the fighters don't screen the mage under the old rules, he's likely to get one-shotted. But since a group isn't playing the game on the computer, you don't have to rely on your buddies anyway. Which makes class systems a lot less effective on the computer.

That said, in a multiplayer game, if the option of playing an old-school team-based game were to be developed, I would greatly prefer it.