Rule-of-Three: 03-27-12

[Leatherhead]

What's wrong with that, then? If you only have 3 levels of wizard, you would cast fireballs as a 3rd-level wizard. If you want to get better at being a wizard, you'll have to gain more levels as a wizard. I don't see the problem.

The problem is Scaling, and that problem only gets worse when you consider action economy.

Your level three fireball is dealing 3d6 damage. How good is that at level 20? If it isn't any good at level 20, then having three levels of wizard is worse than being completely useless. It is a detriment to your character, because you could have had three more levels of your other class for actual benefit.

 

[Tallifer]

The problem is Scaling, and that problem only gets worse when you consider action economy.

Your level three fireball is dealing 3d6 damage. How good is that at level 20? If it isn't any good at level 20, then having three levels of wizard is worse than being completely useless. It is a detriment to your character, because you could have had three more levels of your other class for actual benefit.

I would think that someone who only dips into being a Wizard should just be interested in the utility spells. Only a full-fledged (or almost so) Wizard should be allowed to get the full-powered blasts. Most good Wizards concentrate on control and utility, not on damage anyways (see Treant's guides to Pathfinder for example).

My Warlord multi-classed in Wizard for the Rituals, the Arcane Lore, the Monkey familiar and a few handy spells and wands with minor control (slow for example).

I think it would be very imbalanced to have a character who is equally strong at high levels in blasting magic and hard-hitting melee.

I think the Fourth Edition had the best multi-classing solutions: dabbling with feats and splitting your effectiveness using hybrid classes. However I do think that the power swap feats should have been more generous.

 

[Psikus]

Well, as I mentioned previously, I hope that spell power will scale with spell level which will scale with character level. So, a 20th-level wizard and a 10/10 fighter/wizard will both be capable of casting 9th-level spells. However, the 20th-level wizard might have four 9th-level spells per day while the 10/10 fighter/wizard might have only two (but would make up for it by being able to make multiple attacks in the rounds that he isn't casting spells).

They seem to be aiming for a different solution. From the article:

we might say that the extra attacks that the fighter gains as he gains levels are effectively free actions that the fighter takes on his turn. Thus, if my fighter/wizard picked up an extra attack through his levels of fighter, he might be able to cast a spell as his main action and then still get his extra attack, giving him the benefit of all of his class levels.

So, using your example, at level 20, the Wizard 20 might have 4 9th level spells, the Fighter 20 could have 4 attacks, and the wizard/fighter 10/10 could have some 5th level and 4th level spells, but could cast a spell and make an extra attack in a single turn. (Give or take a spell level or extra attack)

The problem is Scaling, and that problem only gets worse when you consider action economy.

Your level three fireball is dealing 3d6 damage. How good is that at level 20? If it isn't any good at level 20, then having three levels of wizard is worse than being completely useless. It is a detriment to your character, because you could have had three more levels of your other class for actual benefit.

As Tallifer says, if you multiclass for just a few caster levels, you are probably not using the spells as your primary attack, but for utility. That said, even that lowly fireball could be of situational use if the character is a melee specialist with no other good options for ranged attacks.

 

[Li Shenron]

Q1: Solo Monsters -> I really didn't get the point of this part of the article

Q2: Multiclassing -> Not on my top priority list, if 5e multiclassing sucks I'll just not use multiclassing. But I have to say the idea on multiple attacks is interesting, never thought of that.

Q3: Cone and Line spells -> I strongly prefer a Euclidian grid, but very good point if the rules support both square and hex grids.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well,

I am not a 4e rules expert, but doesn't it not work that way?

In any case, hopefully they make the math so that the free multiclassing is more uniformly viable.

None of the other comments had much substance. It sounds like they're trying to do monsters "right". Not exactly a news item.

i think it is a typo. My guess is he meant to say 3e (which isnt much of a surprise if the case, as i think 3e style multiclassing is a must to win back the pathfinder crowd). Personally, while i like the simplicity and straightforward nature of 3e multiclassing it had issues. I think there should be more hard in play requirements to gain levels in a given class, so there is less disruption to the setting.

 

[GM Dave]

I think the answer to their problem of Fighter / Wizard combos is staring them in the face and they don't realize it.

Logic Train here;

Q Why did they give fighter's multiple attacks per round?

A A Wizard using one action to cast a fireball that did 10d6 of damage was not comparable to a fighter swinging a 2H sword once.

Q Why does multiclassing have problems between say a fighter and a wizard?

A You are left with choosing between less swings of a sword or a weakened spell. You can not properly combine the two on the same round.

Q How do you combine the equivalent of swings of a sword with casting of a spell?

A You need to decide how many swings of a sword is equivalent to a level of spell.

More specifically, you need to say that the casting of a level 1 or 2 spell is equivalent to one swing of a sword but the casting of a level 6 or 7 spell is equivalent to four swings of a sword.

Now a player can choose on their round to cast several small spells, several swings of a sword, one big spell, or any combination and be in the same action economy as all the others.

If you are a healer than you can do several small heals possibly helping out several people a little bit or go for a bigger heal on one or two people.

You can even apply an 'all out' strategy with melee allowing a person like a 'rogue' to combine all their smaller attacks into one big, all or nothing attack, when things are most favourable.

Everyone's damage and action economy is kept relatively comparable as a result and it makes sense that casting a level 8 spell is going to take more time then a level 1 spell which means that a good wizard should be able to choose between casting several weaker spells or one bigger spell in the same period of time.

 

[GM Dave]

i think it is a typo. My guess is he meant to say 3e (which isnt much of a surprise if the case, as i think 3e style multiclassing is a must to win back the pathfinder crowd). Personally, while i like the simplicity and straightforward nature of 3e multiclassing it had issues. I think there should be more hard in play requirements to gain levels in a given class, so there is less disruption to the setting.

It is funny, since we our group got into PF (back with the free PDF release), we've had a major drop in desire to multi-class. It is even less now that they have the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate books.

The choices for development and variety of choices for development are broad enough now that most players are happier inside their class (especially since the classes are not front loaded with some good things evenly spaced along).

 

[FireLance]

They seem to be aiming for a different solution.

So, using your example, at level 20, the Wizard 20 might have 4 9th level spells, the Fighter 20 could have 4 attacks, and the wizard/fighter 10/10 could have some 5th level and 4th level spells, but could cast a spell and make an extra attack in a single turn. (Give or take a spell level or extra attack).

You're right. Reading comprehension fail on my part.

That's kind of troubling, though - it might balance direct damage spells, but if certain types of lower-level spells become next to useless against high-level challenges (say having low fixed DCs that are easily overcome or insufficient to match the challenges) then it limits the scope of multiclassed characters somewhat. But maybe some would be alright with that since they see it as part of the cost of multiclassing.

 

[delericho]

Q1: Solo Monsters

IMO, this is good. Monster design was one of the best aspects of 4e, so keeping it mostly intact is a good thing. Obviously, there is some tweaking that will be required to various monsters, but that's neither surprising nor a bad thing.

Q2: Multiclassing

A lot of words to say not a whole lot.

Q3: Cone and Line spells

I like that they're assuming you won't be using the grid as standard - that suits me perfectly.

I don't like the idea that if you do use the grid then they'll switch to burst and blast areas of effect. It's just not necessary. Indeed, even the 3e-style "gridded circle" templates aren't necessary.

The best way to model a circular area of effect on a battlemat is to use a circular template. Likewise for lines, cones, and anything else. All the game needs to decide is whether the template has "hot edges" or "cold edges" - that is, is a creature burned by a fireball if it touches it, or does it need to be mostly within the template?

 

[Bedrockgames]

It is funny, since we our group got into PF (back with the free PDF release), we've had a major drop in desire to multi-class. It is even less now that they have the Advanced Player's Guide and Ultimate books.

The choices for development and variety of choices for development are broad enough now that most players are happier inside their class (especially since the classes are not front loaded with some good things evenly spaced along).

I am not very familiar with pathfinder, but this sounds like a good fix. My biggest issue was the class dipping (and the bizarre concepts this sometimes created).