Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[AlphaAnt]

I like simplicity in the rules-- I am having a blast playing Star Wars SAGA Edition because our rules mavens and our theatre guys are both effective. But, simplicity at the cost of options is completely lame.

If it weren't for the spellcasting classes, we wouldn't have needed a new system at all. As SWSE pointed out, when all the classes are basically Martial, the 3.x system worked. Throw in a class whose core mechanic is spellcasting, it's a different story entirely.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Daeger summed up my opinion perfectly here. I don't mind having a *single* multiclass feat, but requiring another one for each power swap is absurd.

What I find baffling about it, is that Star Wars SAGA has such a simple, elegant solution to effective multiclassing. Why not just emulate that? Unless FranktheDM's conspiricy theory is correct: make multiclassing suck (again) to encourage the need for more core classes. Suxxor.

I am not convinced that the Saga multiclassing system was that good, but since I never played it, I might be wrong. It certainly worked, but then, Saga only had 5 classes, right?
It didn't really cover skill access, and getting all the abilities of the free feats of a class also required feat expenditure (not that different from 4E...)

 

[Voss]

Voss-

I tend to agree; that is why class-based systems ultimately suck. D&D approached a point-based system in 3.0/3.5, and then reverted back heavily to class-based (and "role-based") in 4e. That is not progress, it limits options.

I don't really think this is true. 3rd edition had no sense of balance or consistency. Class A would get something completely broken and class B would get something not even worth mentioning.

4e is missing some options right now, but they'll accumulate over time (I'm worried that it will be a muddied mess in 2 years, the way 3e is now). But then, I like a defined class over a classless system. I've never seen a classless system that didn't boil down to 'Everyone is good at everything that matters'.

I like simplicity in the rules-- I am having a blast playing Star Wars SAGA Edition because our rules mavens and our theatre guys are both effective. But, simplicity at the cost of options is completely lame.

EDIT: On a related thought, I was very, very skeptical about how multiclassing would play out months ago, when there was some discussion about how much those rules were in flux during playtesting. I see now why. And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as "concept." If I consider my options at level up, and realize that multiclassing is suboptimal, I have a mechanical reason not to do it. I think that sucks.

I'm not sure that it is suboptimal. There seems quite a potential to min/max, actually. You can crank one stat up to 20 at character creation, and then pile on as many powers that use that stat as possible. Then take even more from a second class. After all the feats we've seen, I've seen very few that I wouldn't give up for the ability to min-max, if thats my goal. +3 damage with crossbows? +1 AC with chainmail? Bah. I'll give my Int based warlord Sleep, Fly, and Force orb over *any* option like that, rather than take a lesser attack working off a lower str or cha bonus.

 

[whydirt]

Well, it's not an easy question to answer unless we've actually seen the entire system and read the books. I just think that having a few powers from another class doesn't make you a multiclass, and I'm starting to think that's an inherent problem with having a 'powers' system where abilities are so strictly defined. It's also hard to answer this without comparing this to 3e and earlier editions.

I think the way I see it is that by your base, you're still a fighter. And you've tacked on a few wizard powers. Not having seen the wizard class in full, I think there will be quite a few things that define being a wizard aside from his powers. The fighter never gets these. There are a few rogue abilities, for example, that aren't powers, but are defining parts of the rogue class. A multiclass won't get these. He might get a few powers, but he never gets what defines the class. I think that's what's missing.

I think paragon multiclassing will work much better, since you're second class is much more defined. I don't think powers alone define a class in 4e.

Pinotage

First, you keep understating what you can do to make your hybrid character. The base multiclass feat already adds a class skill from the new class in addition to a power. Mechanics-wise, D&D characters are their ability scores, skills, feats, powers, and innate class abilities. Ability scores are roughly independent of class. Skills and powers are handled by the new multiclassing feats pretty well, and you can take additional skills from outside your class with Skill Training. While we don't know for certain, I assume that you'll be able to select any feats appropriate to either side of your chosen mix of classes.

This leaves the few innate abilities you get as a Level 1 character of a class. Some of these features are included in the multiclassing feats, such as marking. In the end, a player may have to choose one class to "favor" over the other, but I think most character concepts are weighted toward one class anyway.

I think the old versions of multiclassing are a poor benchmark to measure against, since they were even less flexible than this proposed system. Not to mention that characters are more than their classes anyway. The flavor and details by which you describe your character in-game are much more important than the class titles written on your character sheet.

 

[katahn]

Consider the raw number of abilities a character will have from levels 1-10 of each category. Being "limited" to one of each category through those levels as a multiclass while still being fully effective in your base class seems reasonable to me. It achieves the "fighter who knows some magic" role.

But my concept is someone equally good in melee combat and spellcasting... a true fighter/wizard.

Then at level 11 you can go for a true fighter/wizard multiclass instead of a paragon path. You lose the focused power of the paragon path, but gain tremendous versatility instead. This strikes me again as a reasonable tradeoff.

But what about the triple-class combinations? Or quadruple-class combinations?

If 4e is as easily tweaked into becoming a true classless system, then I imagine tweaking to allow additional forms of multiclassing could certainly be done more easily. Instead of choosing a class, one can select whatever abilities desired by level. From a core or base rules perspective and preserving the idea of combat roles, I can understand the desire to not dilute the meaning of the classes too much.

Multiclassing in 3e or Saga is better!

Respectfully I disagree with 3e multiclassing being better. It only worked really well for melee/melee type combinations, marginally well for melee/divine caster combinations, and abysmally for anything involving arcane spellcasters. Loss of caster levels, sharply restricted spell lists, lower level spells that would be easier for higher level monsters to make saves against, armored spell failure for arcane casters, etc. There's a reason why 3e saw such an explosion of "prestige" classes all designed around making the melee/arcane multiclass trope work.

As for Saga, I'm not familiar with it. Based on comments here it seems to me that the class design of Saga allows its version of multiclassing to work where it wouldn't in 4e. Saga doesn't appear to have classes as strictly defined by their roles in combat that 4e does.

 

[Patlin]

It's possible that the feats section is divided up into heroic/paragon/epic sections. If so, that could conceivably be only the first table of multiclassing feats -- the heroic tier ones.

The problem with these excerpts is that there are so many holes in what we know, you could swim an Aboleth through them.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Level	Enc. 			Daily			Utility
1st 	1 			1			—
2nd 	1 			1 			2
3rd 	3, 1 			1 			2
4th 	3, 1(MC)		1 				2
5th 	3, 1 			5, 1 			2
6th 	3, 1 			5, 1 			6, 2
7th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		5, 1 			6, 2
8th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		5, 1 			6, 2(MC)
9th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		9, 5, 1 		6, 2(MC)
10th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		9, 5(MC), 1 		10, 6(MC), 2
11th 	P(MC7), 7, 3(MC), 1 	9, 5(MC), 1 		10, 6(MC), 2
12th 	P(MC7), 7, 3(MC), 1 	9, 5(MC), 1 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
13th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	9, 5, 1 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
14th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	9, 5, 1 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
15th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
16th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
17th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
18th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
19th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	19, 15(MC), 9 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
20th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	P(MC19), 19, 15(MC), 9 	P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2

MC is the Feat Multiclass power. P(MCX) is the Paragon Multiclass power, assuming it gives you an extra of the multiclass of equal or lower level than the Paragon Power you lose.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I'm torn about all this.

On the one hand, I want the rules to empower me to create the character concept I envision. In a game like DnD, characters are as much what they can do as who they are. As more information has been revealed about 4e, it's become apparent to me that the designers are really focused on the classes in a class-based system. Some would say this method is more structured; others, too rigid.

On the other hand, we've all seen how multiclassing can get... out of hand. The restrictions serve two commonsense purposes in my mind: they prevent broken combinations now and help future proof the system as new classes are introduced.

As someone who rarely felt the need to multiclass beyond 5 levels, I'm fine with this system. In a class-based system, I believe that strong class structure across the board is important. Players should be rewarded for sticking with a class in a class-based system, not dipping into 3 or 4 or 5 choices to achieve a maximum effect.

I've always thought that "fewer base classes, the better." But in 4e, I think this is not the case. Classes are very specific now, but I think the bredth of types won't come from combining classes, but by creating options within the umbrellas; i.e., have more base classes to choose from in the Roles and Power Sources. For example, if we have a variety of options that fill out the Defender (Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, etc.), there may be less need for multiclassing, as the concept (say, a warrior with magical prowess) is better served by a new base class rather than shoehorning a multiclass combination into that role.

 

[drothgery]

Just a quick shout out to drothgery, who independently arrived at the same points that I did: (1) SWSE multiclassing is simple but effective, (2) this one is neither, so (3) there will be lots more core classes.

That's not quite right. The 4e system seems reasonably effective for dabbling; it's probably better than one or two level dip approach (both mechanically and stylisticly) of 3.x for that. Which was always the case for spellcasters in 3.x; it's the case for everyone in 4e.

FWIW, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing; in 3.x, there were tons of new base classes, and many of them were fun and interesting.

 

[dimonic]

You don't need to use Feat retraining. From the multiclassing article.



In other words, you've got a 6th-level Fighter with the Novice Power Feat with a 3rd-Level Spell and 1st-Level Exploit. He just hit 7th-level. He now has a choice. He can keep his 3rd-Level Spell, or he can trade it in for a 3rd-Level Exploint and gain a 7th-Level Spell.

Ah, yes, you are quite right. So it is even better - certainly more than dabbling in a second class.