Do you feel better about your build if you require a multitude of classes?

[RobbyPants]

As a general rule, I don't care, or rather, I don't mind multiclassing to get what I need. My only two complaints on needing to multiclass to make a character are:

1) This typically means the character isn't realized at first level*, and

2) DMs are more likely to assume it's overpowered. I've known DMs who seriously thought the rules limited you to two base classes or one PrC. Or that you had to finish a PrC to take another. All of these weren't cases of houserules, but of the DM misunderstanding them.


* Granted, even a lot of straight-classed PCs aren't fully "realized" at 1st level. A straight-classed druid can't turn into a bear at 1st level. My complaint is more that you have to do some serious hoop-jumping, or take a class you otherwise wouldn't to get a mage who can cast in armor and use a sword at first level. Sure, you could take Duskblade or Battle Sorcerer, but maybe that's not the long-term plan for the PC.

[LordBlades]

Theres a bit of a curve here for me. I very much prefer it aesthetically speaking when the character has a small number of classes, but not necessarily single classed. More than three classes however, just looks ugly.

+1

+2.

However, once I rolled a Wizard with a lot of classes.. something like Wizard/Master Specialist/Nar Demonbinder/Ultimate Magus/Archmage...

+2.5

As in I do have a point where characters start to feel ugly to me, but it relates to the number of different abilities a build has rather than to the actual number of classes. There is just a point where it starts feeling too much for one guy. That being said, I consider a 3 class build that gets 20 different abilities in the process uglier than a 10 class build that gets 10 different abilities.

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

Better too many than too few. Oddly enough my homebrew (which I rarely share) does not follow this...

[Dkonen]

Our group uses some house rules that encourage prestige classes, but restrict the number you can take. While the rules we've put in place to make prestige classes more attractive can lend to a build using a number of base classes to great effect, it's generally a gentleman's agreement to avoid abusing the DM's generosity, much like overuse of antimagic fields and disjunction effects.

So no, we don't see a lot of multiclassing, partly because it's prohibitted for prestige classes, and partly because the effective base class builds can get rather too excessive if applied "properly" and with our games, we like to keep the DM moderately happy. Unhappy DMs make for unpleasant games.

[JohnnyMayHymn]

I prefer multiclassing, gestalt and even triple gestalt w/dual progression classes allowed.  One reason is that it allows sub-par choices to be made, for the flavor, and you still have options.

[Captnq]

No.

[Wyvernhand]

A class should reward you for sticking with it.  If all you are getting are BAB and skill points, you should consider why you are in it.

I like elegant builds.  A build should flow, if multiclassed, from 1 class to the next.  There should be no stranded casting (I hate the Cleric1 dip SO MUCH, despite how good it is).  Abilities should be complimentary.  Stat synergy should be partially or fully realized.  If you are primarily Int based, you probably shouldn't be picking up Cha based abilities, for example.

I hate when people come to the boards and declare that they NEED a PrC for their character.  You don't NEED a PrC.  Sometimes you need another base class (especially so for synergy feats like Daring Outlaw or Swift Hunter), and sometimes, for classes like Druid, the best class to progress is MOAR DRUID.  Simple as that.

Complexity isn't a turnoff, but inelegant choices are.

[CaptRory]

I like to keep things simple. If I can get by with 20 levels of a single class all the better. If I need to dip to get something to work, that's fine.

Regardless I need to have a plan, and the easier it is to follow the happier I'll be.

[belowyn]

I really enjoy mixing up a multitude of classes and PrCs, if it can give me an interesting build. I feel it makes my toon more unique, even tho thats probably some stupid thinking on my hand.

Probably my preference reflects my own personality. Im more of a Jack-of-all-trades in RL, dipping into a bit of this and a bit of that, and I like my toons to do that as well, as long as it makes sense

[JohnnyMayHymn]

Toon?   

[SneeR]

Toon?   

What MMORPG players call their characters. Faster to type in chat.

[McPoyo]

Not faster than 'char', though, which is what used to be used until about 6 years ago. Thanks certain-unnamed-mmo-that-isn't-Blizzard-produced.

[RedWarlock]

Actually, toon was common parlance back in the early EQ days, AFAIK.

I actually remember first hearing it back before EQ came out, in reference to an old Sierra (at the time) pre-definition MMO called The Realm. The characters there were 2D cartoonish sprites, which made it easy to call them 'toons', which carried over to anyone who played both.

[belowyn]

Not faster than 'char', though, which is what used to be used until about 6 years ago. Thanks certain-unnamed-mmo-that-isn't-Blizzard-produced.

I picked it up playing EQ2 for several years
And sorry for those that didnt get it. I though it was close to common knowledge 

[InnaBinder]

Toon?   

From Steve Jackson games, obviously.

[Tonymitsu]

Yes.


Why? I think it has a lot to do with perceived power.
Wizard sounds okay.  Wizard/Master Specialist/Thaumaturge/Malconvoker to the uninitiated sounds like a physical god.  Of course he's really not, and in fact is far from it, and it would probably be much simpler to say, "He's a summoning focused magic user", but that's not nearly as impressive.
I would also guess that it helps make my character seem more like a beautiful unique snowflake.  There are plenty of wizards, probably a more than a few master specialists, likely a couple of thaumaturgists, but probably only a handful of malconvokers.  The more names I can add to my list the more unique and impressive I sound.  It likely stems from the whole "I am my class" mentality take to the logical extreme.  I compare it to the people who work for a living and desire an unnecessarily long title to describe their job, such as "Executive V.P. of Personnel for Overseas Inter-Corporate Relations."  People like to claim Secretary was changed to Executive Assistant for sexism issues, but ask yourself which one sounds more impressive?

Even people who stick to one class I would wager still draw on no fewer than three sources for actually compiling the character.  After a certain campaign, one of the most dangerous thins I can say to my gaming group now when we talk about things we would like to play is "Artificer 20".  But even with that single class I still probably wind up using ESC, Magic of Eberron, Explorer's Handbook, and the Stronghold Builder's Guide for feat selections... and nearly every single book in the D&D multi-verse when picking equipment.

I also don't see anything inherently wrong with it.  It's only a problem when you are trying something new and look at your Archivist/Sacred Exorcist and feel it's not ready to play for no reason other than it doesn't have enough names in the title.

[Nedz]

I think that it is completely irrelevant.
Does the character fill the role/concept I have in mind ?
That is the main question really.