DnD Multiclass combos that don't work

Ganzidan

Being a noob I'm trying to get into some games or to start some games with my friends, and I'm willing to DM but I also want to play. So I've been considering various classes to play and their eventual career paths, part of the reason is in case we try out a mid-high level game rather than starting at level 1, and I was wondering what multi-classing combinations don't work. Please note this doesn't include prestige classes. It can be for any reasons and I welcome explanations and stories of past experiences.

For my personal choice of character I'm interested in playing a Barbarian/Bard because of the role-playing possibilities it allows. But from looking at each class separately it seems very skill intensive so there wouldn't be many points to go around. Is this true? Plus what about Barbarians being unable to read, how would that work out with a bard? Would the starting class have to be a bard and then add the Barbarian to negate this?

If it'd just be a difficult PC to do, then role-playing makes up for the effort, because there's nothing like an artist going berserk over criticism of his performance and smashing up an entire tavern. Or alternatively more of a Viking skald capable of relating back the stories of various battles and legends.

Thanks for the info in advance.

Gabriel_Pitt

Barbarians just start off being unable to read(it's automatic for all other classes, that when you pick up a language, you can read it too) their native language automatically. There's nothing to prevent them from spending the skill point at creation to pick up reading too. And it wouldn't really matter for a bard, because you think of a skald, you don't think of someone reading epic poetry from a thick old tome. Its perfectly fine to keep all the songs, and epics, and ballads in your head, and not on a scroll. Anyways, adding Barbarian as a class later on would feel kind of weird to me.

Echo

Gabriel_Pitt wrote:

Anyways, adding Barbarian as a class later on would feel kind of weird to me.

Doesn't the official Drizzt version have a few levels of Barbarian? I think it was motivated by the time he spent alone in the Underdark.

TDL

Yep.

And I honestly can't think of any class combo that wouldn't work. Some are less useful than others, but barring a 5 class mish-mash I can't think of anything that wouldn't have it's moment in the sun.

TDL

You can roleplay just about anything, and a powergamer will always find a way.

A sorc/wizard would be great in certain circumstances. Not a 1/1 split, but say a 2/10. You wont lose out much from your wizard list, but you can take a few good utility spells that you can cast at will, any time. Very handy if you have your spellbook taken from you. And it can be easily roleplayed as someone born with natural talent who chose to focus it by apprenticing to a Wizard.

And I haven't played DnD in a long time, and never played 3.5, but their levels might even stack for spell damage and duration.

Eliot Dubois

TDL wrote:

You can roleplay just about anything, and a powergamer will always find a way.

A sorc/wizard would be great in certain circumstances. Not a 1/1 split, but say a 2/10. You wont lose out much from your wizard list, but you can take a few good utility spells that you can cast at will, any time. Very handy if you have your spellbook taken from you. And it can be easily roleplayed as someone born with natural talent who chose to focus it by apprenticing to a Wizard.

And I haven't played DnD in a long time, and never played 3.5, but their levels might even stack for spell damage and duration.

I've done sorc/wizard before, its helpful for those times when you absolutely, positively need to cast sleep/color spray/read magic 8 or nine times a day. Some of the sorcerer feats pertaining to their dragon blood stack nicely with wizard feats. But the best gift you could possibly give a level 1 human wizard is a level of something with some hp and a better weapon selection.

TDL

Cleric of a war god. There is never a good reason to not take a level of Cleric.

Hell, it's worth it for Cure Minor alone, instant stabilize.

TDL

Hell no, for a fighter you wouldn't add one, you would add almost as many as you do fighter levels. Fighter/clerics are nasty.

DeepQantas

Ganzidan wrote:

For my personal choice of character I'm interested in playing a Barbarian/Bard because of the role-playing possibilities it allows. But from looking at each class separately it seems very skill intensive so there wouldn't be many points to go around. Is this true? Plus what about Barbarians being unable to read, how would that work out with a bard? Would the starting class have to be a bard and then add the Barbarian to negate this?

As soon as a Barbarian multiclasses with some other class he learns how to read and write.

I wouldn't worry about the skill points too much. Bard is a generalist anyways and getting Survival and stuff from Barbarian just gives him a broader skillset. You don't have to maximize all skills.

Bardic Music ability also requires Bard class levels, iirc, so you don't need to aggressively keep the Perform up. Just up it when you take Bard levels.

Ardent

TDL wrote:

Hell no, for a fighter you wouldn't add one, you would add almost as many as you do fighter levels. Fighter/clerics are nasty.

Not nearly as nasty a pure Clerics with good domain choices and a high Wisdom bonus. Clerics can deal a pretty ridiculous amount of damage in the melee at higher levels if they self-buff and channel inflicts through their attacks. Ridiculous. Like, make the Mage look bad ridiculous. Particularly with Forgotten Realms material. Like the Time domain. That's pretty much handing the Cleric a ticket to whoop on demon ass like it's going out of style.

One thing WotC did right in 3/3.5 was make Clerics viable outside of the healing role. One thing they did wrong in 3/3.5 was make Clerics capable of being the party's best damage dealer as well as primary healer. Clerics make better Paladins than Paladins. That's my assessment and I'm sticking to it.

INeedNoSalt

I'd say pretty much never take a spellcasting class and multiclass into anything that halts your caster level progression.

Cynic Jester

Salt speaks truth. The only dip I'd consider taking from a powergamer point is one level of paladin on a sorcerer. Multi-classing any caster with something that doesn't further your spell progression is a Bad Ideaâ„¢. You lose so much, and what you gain is usually not enough to make up for the loss of higher level spells. If you have 2 wizards in a party, the one that hasn't multiclassed will be far more effective at any given level, especially when you take into account the discrepancy regarding the level they gain the next level of spells.

From a roleplaying view, do whatever works for your character. If he's a Fighter who suddenly developed the spark, make him a Fighter/Sorcerer and so forth.

PiptheFair

rage mages are pretty snazzy you guys

Der Waffle Mous

Ardent wrote:

One thing WotC did right in 3/3.5 was make Clerics viable outside of the healing role. One thing they did wrong in 3/3.5 was make Clerics capable of being the party's best damage dealer as well as primary healer. Clerics make better Paladins than Paladins. That's my assessment and I'm sticking to it.

This was a source of much amusement in the first few days of DDO.

Forar

INeedNoSalt wrote:

I'd say pretty much never take a spellcasting class and multiclass into anything that halts your caster level progression.

Totally agreed.

It's part of why I don't like Sorcerors (being a level behind on the spell level available curve, unless that's changed in 3.5), and when I look at Cleric or Wizard prestige classes, anything that doesn't have "+1 level of existing caster class" in the level up description usually gets skipped for my characters.

I just joined a Return to the Temple of Elemental Evil game, and our DM decided to start us high on the power level, with a 38 point buy. Hell, 32 is snazzy for me, but with that kind of power to throw around, I knew I had to try something... a Gnome Paladin.

He's level 4 now, and at 6 he's getting a Celestial Riding Dog as a mount.

It's going to be glorious.

Ardent

WHY wrote:

Ardent wrote:

One thing WotC did right in 3/3.5 was make Clerics viable outside of the healing role. One thing they did wrong in 3/3.5 was make Clerics capable of being the party's best damage dealer as well as primary healer. Clerics make better Paladins than Paladins. That's my assessment and I'm sticking to it.

This was a source of much amusement in the first few days of DDO.

Oh, I know. I was there for the Beta. I played a Cleric, of course, because I'm fine with being the healer. I'm not a healbot, though, and I think I got reported a few times for refusing to heal people.

I enjoyed occasionally buffing myself out and doing better at meatshielding than the regular meatshield. It ticked 'em off.

dhraad

Forar, I also played a Gnome Paladin in the RToEE campain...i had a dire badger as my mount. He had a complete napolean complex. Hilarity ensued.

MechMantis

Paladin/Bard.



>.>




<.<

Litejedi

I personally think almost anything can work with sufficient creativity. The only one I see being difficult is Monk/Paladin, and only because you really need all 6 stats to be good.

MechMantis

Litejedi wrote:

I personally think almost anything can work with sufficient creativity. The only one I see being difficult is Monk/Paladin, and only because you really need all 6 stats to be good.

Paladin/Bard won't work.


It's impossible.

EmperorSeth

Actually, most of the multiclass spellcaster problems were resolved with new 3.5 prestige classes. For example, if you're going to be a Wizard/Cleric, you might as well take levels in the Mystic Theurge class, which upgrades caster levels in both classes at once.

Branduil

I agree that multiclassing mages rarely works well. Fighter-mages don't really work through multi-classing, although the Duskblade in the PHB II is really nice.

Litejedi

MechMantis wrote:

Litejedi wrote:

I personally think almost anything can work with sufficient creativity. The only one I see being difficult is Monk/Paladin, and only because you really need all 6 stats to be good.

Paladin/Bard won't work.


It's impossible.

There's a feat in complete adventurer that makes it possible.

Pkmoutl

Gabriel_Pitt wrote:

Barbarians just start off being unable to read(it's automatic for all other classes, that when you pick up a language, you can read it too) their native language automatically. There's nothing to prevent them from spending the skill point at creation to pick up reading too. And it wouldn't really matter for a bard, because you think of a skald, you don't think of someone reading epic poetry from a thick old tome. Its perfectly fine to keep all the songs, and epics, and ballads in your head, and not on a scroll. Anyways, adding Barbarian as a class later on would feel kind of weird to me.

You know, I never really thought of that until you mentioned it. Then again, I've never had anyone say, "I'm going to pick up a couple levels of Barbarian next time we level up." Fighter, yes. Rogue, yes. Druid, yes.

From a roleplaying perspective, it seems kind of silly.

"I'm a Wizard and I spent many years in tall towers reading books and learning all things Arcane. Now I'm going to ditch it all and go live in the woods in my own stink and squalor with a bunch of uneducated mongrels who think that magic is evil and attack Jiffy Pop because they think it's magical."

Yeah, it kind of doesn't make sense.

Joeslop

Pkmoutl wrote:

Gabriel_Pitt wrote:

Barbarians just start off being unable to read(it's automatic for all other classes, that when you pick up a language, you can read it too) their native language automatically. There's nothing to prevent them from spending the skill point at creation to pick up reading too. And it wouldn't really matter for a bard, because you think of a skald, you don't think of someone reading epic poetry from a thick old tome. Its perfectly fine to keep all the songs, and epics, and ballads in your head, and not on a scroll. Anyways, adding Barbarian as a class later on would feel kind of weird to me.

You know, I never really thought of that until you mentioned it. Then again, I've never had anyone say, "I'm going to pick up a couple levels of Barbarian next time we level up." Fighter, yes. Rogue, yes. Druid, yes.

From a roleplaying perspective, it seems kind of silly.

"I'm a Wizard and I spent many years in tall towers reading books and learning all things Arcane. Now I'm going to ditch it all and go live in the woods in my own stink and squalor with a bunch of uneducated mongrels who think that magic is evil and attack Jiffy Pop because they think it's magical."

Yeah, it kind of doesn't make sense.

All depends on how you write it. Doesn't have to be a barbarian living in the woods letting his shit land where it falls. Let's say the wizard and his wife are attacked by some bandits one day, who just happen to have an anti-magic field or something, doesn't matter what, the point is that his magic is ineffective. They hold him down and beat him a lot, beat his wife, steal his shit, and generally make him very pissed off. They kill his wife in front of his eyes and laugh at him, then leave him for dead.

The wizard survives however, and is consumed by hatred. He finds out the bandits were employed by such-and-such bad guy a few towns over, and he spends some time learning the ways of martial weapons so he won't be caught helpless again. His anger is getting worse and worse until finally it's uncontrollable and he let's loose in a rage while training, nearly killing the guy he's sparring. He realizes it is time to act before his anger overtakes him completely.

Wizard goes and confronts the bad guy, who's expecting him and is all loaded out with anti-magic things. Then he's very surprised when the wizard goes into a rage and sunders all his crap leaving him defenseless. After beating him around, the wizard calms down enough to use his spells to utterly decimate the guy. His vengeance complete, the wizard returns to his studies of magic, but his rage never completely subsides. Eventually he learns to use it to augment his casting (Rage Mage), becoming feared by a lot of bad guys in the process.

I'm not the greatest writer but hopefully you see where I'm coming from.

Nerissa

There are probably quite a few combos that would require a significant amount of creativity to make work from a role playing perspective. I'm not sure how you would work a cleric or paladin combined with a druid or ranger, just from the deity worship perspective.

Also, I don't recall if druids still need to be true neutral in alignment like they did in 2e (it's been like a year since I looked at 3e druids, I'm thinking they just need to be partly neutral now?) but that would cut out a few combos. It would cut the druid / paladin right out, even beyond the above concern.

Do monks still have the restriction in 3.5 that once you take a level in another class, you can no longer level as a monk? That would restrict their usefulness as a multiclass, I would think. Didn't paladins have the same restriction?

Darth Waiter

Nerissa wrote:

There are probably quite a few combos that would require a significant amount of creativity to make work from a role playing perspective. I'm not sure how you would work a cleric or paladin combined with a druid or ranger, just from the deity worship perspective.

Also, I don't recall if druids still need to be true neutral in alignment like they did in 2e (it's been like a year since I looked at 3e druids, I'm thinking they just need to be partly neutral now?) but that would cut out a few combos. It would cut the druid / paladin right out, even beyond the above concern.

Do monks still have the restriction in 3.5 that once you take a level in another class, you can no longer level as a monk? That would restrict their usefulness as a multiclass, I would think. Didn't paladins have the same restriction?

1.Yes, druids are only required to be partially neutral
2.Yes, monks are restricted from taking monk levels after multiclassing (with some exceptions, like the 3.0 Red Avenger or Weapon Master from Sword and Fist).
3.Yes, paladins have the same restrictions (once again, with exceptions).

Nerissa is batting a thousand today, folks.

Edit: 'cause I can't remember names.

Reynolds

With Paladin and Monk, I believe you can take feats from Unearthed Arcana that give you like...

Your <class> levels count as monk levels for determining unarmed damage. You may continue to advance as a monk even after taking levels in <class>.

But it's only a few specific classes.

Darth Waiter

Reynolds wrote:

With Paladin and Monk, I believe you can take feats from Unearthed Arcana that give you like...

Your <class> levels count as monk levels for determining unarmed damage. You may continue to advance as a monk even after taking levels in <class>.

But it's only a few specific classes.

See, I just throw out that restriction for my games; if a player can come up with solid reason that they want a monk/wizard who uses a boatload of touch attack spells, I'm cool with it. I just make sure to look over the build before I allow it in play; I can appreciate someone cranking out a cool character concept and becoming more versatile, as long as it is within reason.

But then, I luck out because I roll with some homies from work and it's all about having fun and telling a good story rather than cheese.

Lardalish

Ganzidan wrote:

For my personal choice of character I'm interested in playing a Barbarian/Bard because of the role-playing possibilities it allows. But from looking at each class separately it seems very skill intensive so there wouldn't be many points to go around. Is this true? Plus what about Barbarians being unable to read, how would that work out with a bard? Would the starting class have to be a bard and then add the Barbarian to negate this?

If it'd just be a difficult PC to do, then role-playing makes up for the effort, because there's nothing like an artist going berserk over criticism of his performance and smashing up an entire tavern. Or alternatively more of a Viking skald capable of relating back the stories of various battles and legends.

Im going to steal this idea for my next character. This would be amazingly fun to RP I believe.

Nerissa

Darth Waiter wrote:

Nerissa wrote:

There are probably quite a few combos that would require a significant amount of creativity to make work from a role playing perspective. I'm not sure how you would work a cleric or paladin combined with a druid or ranger, just from the deity worship perspective.

Also, I don't recall if druids still need to be true neutral in alignment like they did in 2e (it's been like a year since I looked at 3e druids, I'm thinking they just need to be partly neutral now?) but that would cut out a few combos. It would cut the druid / paladin right out, even beyond the above concern.

Do monks still have the restriction in 3.5 that once you take a level in another class, you can no longer level as a monk? That would restrict their usefulness as a multiclass, I would think. Didn't paladins have the same restriction?

1.Yes, druids are only required to be partially neutral
2.Yes, monks are restricted from taking monk levels after multiclassing (with some exceptions, like the 3.0 Red Avenger or Weapon Master from Sword and Fist).
3.Yes, paladins have the same restrictions (once again, with exceptions).

Ceres is batting a thousand today, folks.

who? I don't think I've even seen Ceres post in this forum. :P

Darth Waiter

SHIT!

Sorry, Nerissa. I have trouble keeping everybody's name properly separated these days and it doesn't help that I'm posting while I'm working.

Fixing now.

Nerissa

Darth Waiter wrote:

SHIT!

Sorry, Nerissa. I have trouble keeping everybody's name properly separated these days and it doesn't help that I'm posting while I'm working.

Fixing now.

Heh, no problem. And I did a quick check on her post history, she has posted here once or twice, but more in G&T, where I never venture. I imagine you're more used to seeing her name around than mine.

Melding

If memory serves Barbarian and Bard wouldn't work with either Paladin or monk outside of feats and such that would allow a lawless monk/paldin or lawful Barbarian/bard.
Just about everything else should and does work really, though a paladin/rogue would be interesting.

Thanatos

Melding wrote:

If memory serves Barbarian and Bard wouldn't work with either Paladin or monk outside of feats and such that would allow a lawless monk/paldin or lawful Barbarian/bard.
Just about everything else should and does work really, though a paladin/rogue would be interesting.

I played a Paladin/Rogue. It was a lot of fun. He was something of a zealot; he only used sneak attack against opponents who didn't fight fair; he saw nothing wrong with using the enemy's tactics against them, just didn't use them against more honorable opponents.

The combination also makes for quite the resilient character; divine grace + evasion ftw.

Darth Waiter

Thanatos wrote:

I played a Paladin/Rogue. It was a lot of fun. He was something of a zealot; he only used sneak attack against opponents who didn't fight fair; he saw nothing wrong with using the enemy's tactics against them, just didn't use them against more honorable opponents.

The combination also makes for quite the resilient character; divine grace + evasion ftw.

I can actually envision this guy as a cross between Lancelot and Daredevil: flipping over people, surprise sneak attacks, dodging every attack, and challenging the BBEG at the end to single combat.

That's just sexy, sir. Just. Plain. Sexy.

Ganzidan

So aside from alignment restrictions and the lack of spell levels/power there really are no combinations that don't work? I guess the balancing of multiple classes with the various skills and powers makes up for the lack of "superior" powers.

Are there any other classes from say the PHB2 that are difficult to multiclass? Same goes for Psionics, etc.

EmperorSeth

You know, I was thinking of doing a fighter/bard the next I play, but a barbarian/bard sounds like good combo too. I'm thinking somethink like a Nordic skald. Or if the DM's more open to anachronism, a more modern rock star or death metalist with magic special effects. Can a barbarian theoretically perform while raging, though? Or will you have to rely on the 3 round window?

Thanatos

Ganzidan wrote:

So aside from alignment restrictions and the lack of spell levels/power there really are no combinations that don't work? I guess the balancing of multiple classes with the various skills and powers makes up for the lack of "superior" powers.

Are there any other classes from say the PHB2 that are difficult to multiclass? Same goes for Psionics, etc.

I'd say that most of the classes in the PHB2 are probably better off single-class than multiclass. I'm playing a Beguiler right now, and it seems to me that it's going to be difficult to maintain the spellcasting/rogue abilities combination if I multiclass.

This goes for most of the base classes in the class books, too.

DeepQantas

Paladin/Bard doesn't work since you lose Paladin abilities when you go non-lawful.

Bard/Paladin works since you don't lose Bard abilities when you go lawful.


Barbarian multiclassing hook for wizards:

The Mystics of the North will only share their sacred knowledge to the members of the tribe. As an outside you must pass the Tests of the Warrior to become one of them.

First you must kill a bear with your bare hands
Second you must survive a week naked on the Ice Peak
Third you must gather 20 Mammoth Tusks (7/20 complete)


Also keep in mind that most barbarians are Commoners or Warriors, not Barbarians with a capital 'B'.

AresProphet

Thanatos wrote:

Melding wrote:

If memory serves Barbarian and Bard wouldn't work with either Paladin or monk outside of feats and such that would allow a lawless monk/paldin or lawful Barbarian/bard.
Just about everything else should and does work really, though a paladin/rogue would be interesting.

I played a Paladin/Rogue. It was a lot of fun. He was something of a zealot; he only used sneak attack against opponents who didn't fight fair; he saw nothing wrong with using the enemy's tactics against them, just didn't use them against more honorable opponents.

The combination also makes for quite the resilient character; divine grace + evasion ftw.

There's also my Inquisitor paladin, who acts as kind of a spy and softens up his enemies from within so that the forces of law can come in and mop up the place. He deceives his foes because it furthers the goals of his deity and serves to bring down evil rulers and restore order. He is devoted utterly to the cause of his deity and upholds those laws above those of mortals, if and when they conflict.

Essentially a Paladin with a level or two of rogue just for the skills (lots of Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate, maybe some basic skills with locks and traps). Think James Bond.