|
Third Edition D&D Multiclassing may not be as easy as everyone thinks. It probably shouldn't be anyway, particularly for certain classes. This may be obvious, but I think a one or two-page article concerning certain matters is in order. It spells out these concerns for those who already know them, and introduces the concepts for those who never have given it much thought before. This article assumes of the eleven standard classes, each one falls into one of three broad categories. Only three of the eleven standard classes are generally considered truly quick and faceted enough that there is virtually no problem acquiring them later in life. They are CLERIC, FIGHTER, and ROGUE. Multiclassing into these classes after already having another class generally presents no problem. Next, some classes may be considered more difficult to 'join' or acquire later in life. If your PC isn't of one of these classes as their FIRST class, it may be ruled harder or even impossible to learn them later or multiclass INTO them. This is because those classes are thought to take enormous quantities of time - perhaps years in fact - and only those who got a good start while quite young are usually accepted. These classes are BARD, DRUID, MONK, RANGER, and WIZARD. Learning them later in life might be harder. BARDS take years to absorb and learn oral traditions, songs, and stories (hardly something to pick up in a few weeks or even a few months). DRUIDS may spend their youth amid nature, learning its ways and mysteries. MONKS may spend half a lifetime, or at least a handful of years, learning a single discipline. RANGERS are likely to learn their craft from other rangers on a case by case basis, and the lifestyle is more isolated and harder to come by since rangers are relatively rare. Finally, WIZARDS may take years of study to learn complex planar theories such that it would be amazing to learn them virtually over night. Of course, that is a general tradition and all DMs must judge these things on a case by case basis. They may easily treat these first eight classes as similar enough not to worry about it while being realistic enough to suit most people's tastes. The last category, however, is not so easy to ignore because this difference is huge and rather important. The three classes, BARBARIAN, PALADIN, and SORCERER, are not like the other eight insofar as they are probably one's first class in life and should only rarely be allowed to multiclass into them later in life after already first having a different class. This is true of BARBARIAN for the simple reason that one's beginning culture and upbringing determines this. You cannot later in life decide to forget to know how to read, or development an anti social, barbarous outlook toward life, or suddenly lose social skills, or acquire the berserking rage brought on by harsher living conditions of one's childhood. If you started out that way, fine, but the DM should prohibit becoming that later in life. And most barbarians who multiclass into other classes should also lose much of their brutish and barbarous ways and probably shouldn't be allowed to progress further in levels as a barbarian (though they may keep their former barbarian skills and levels, they shouldn't progress further in barbarian levels after they multiclass). Thus, barbarians are generally single class characters from beginning to end, or they become something other than a barbarian. If the DM enforces this, however, no xp penalty should be given due to 'uneven levels' or lack of favorite class status due to their barbarian levels. The PALADIN (HOLY WARRIOR) is generally thought to have been blessed, or marked, or chosen by god (which god is another matter). People do not decide for themselves, 'Today we will be chosen by god.' Far more likely a deity chooses a character who is pure (or whatever, depending on the god) and offers them the opportunity to follow the path of the paladin or holy warrior. They may or may not take this path once offered, but that's up to them, and if you turn down god, it's likely that avenue will forever be closed to you later in life (though you can still worship that god or be his cleric). Of course, players may pick this class at character generation, but that is subtly different from the character picking their class. For the character, either god chooses you or he doesn't. And, though it seems obvious, if a paladin multiclasses into another class, this new class must be compatible with their existing religious views. If the paladin becomes a cleric, it must be a cleric of the same god. If the paladin becomes a wizard, that paladin will shun certain schools and certain magic spells of questionable nature, etc. But the calling of god is so strong that most paladins are single class characters all their lives. I must confess, if a paladin can learn any skill or any feat and that's ok with their god, they should be able to learn any class as well, as long as that class does not violate their alignment or their religion, and 3e's suggestion they may never go up further as a paladin seems inconsistent with itself. Remember, more often than not, classes are just a collection of special skills. The SORCERER is very similar to the paladin insofar as the character doesn't pick his draconic heritage. He either has it or he doesn't. And if he has it, it would likely manifest itself early in life such that this will be one's first class. The point is, however, a character cannot choose to have a draconic bloodline (or whatever it is that makes it possible to become a sorcerer). A player may pick, but a character may not. They either have it or they don't. This should be determined at character generation. So it's likely if they have it, this will be their first class, and if they don't, they can't decide to acquire it or learn it later in life or multiclass into sorcerer. If you employ my house rule, The N level rule, the requirement for N levels before switching to become something else is likely coming not from their trainers, but in the case of these three classes, another quarter. For the barbarian, it takes that long to acquire social skills and ease into society or gain the trust of a more civilized trainer such that he'd risk training them in a second class. For the paladin, god them self would be displeased and may look upon failure to complete N levels as a sin or transgression, or a demonstration they lack faith, commitment, or love for their god. For the sorcerer, this inborn drive may be compelling enough that it takes N levels to master it and control it, and unnecessary distractions (such a learning the demanding task of acquiring a new class before they master their control of their inborn skill) may have some unfortunate, wild magic, random effects and accidental discharges during times of stress. Or in short, they are driven to this minimum. Naturally, DMs may find exceptions to these suggestions or even disagree with some of the basic tenants herein, but I find these notions are generally held and accepted, or at least, acceptable. Thus, since 3e often seems to have a problem with class hopping, I feel it is generally a good idea to place some natural and realistic restrictions on certain classes even above and beyond other limitation they may already have. Though a DM may easily ignore such concepts, my honest opinion is the concern with this level of detail, even if they disagree with some of this, at least demonstrates that particular DM has what it takes to run an exceptional game. Not caring or not giving a rat's tail about such issues, on the other hand, suggests otherwise, and I'd likely avoid such a DM's world in the first place. But like a lot of what I say, this is just my opinion. What's yours? Email Jim Your Comments (Send Praise, Critique, Complaints, Suggestions, Ideas, or Submissions). © December of 2001 |