Dimishing Return within Roles and Multiclassing

[Scipio202]

In the multiclassing thread many people have been talking about whether one power from class/role A is "as good" as one power from class/role B. Ari made the point that the between class "balance" of powers is in the context of that class/role. A Wizard and a Fighter are balanced in the sense that when a Wizard adds a Wiz13 power to the (wizard) powers he already has, his usefulness increases approximately as much as the Fighter does when he adds a Fig13 power to his other (fighter) powers. However, a Fighter getting a Wiz13 power on top of his other fighter powers may be more powerful than a Fighter adding a Fig13 power.

One of the ways I've been thinking about this is diminishing return within your role. Each role has powers that let it do one or a few things - focused damage, area damage, etc. The natural variety within an encounter is going to limit how often you're likely to need a particular effect. E.g. monsters aren't likely to be bunched up constantly, so you probably won't need to throw an area effect spell every single round. The 5th area effect power is probably less (incrementally) useful than the first. Similarly, in most encounters you probably won't need to heal someone or grant a save more than a certain number of times, and "extra" powers that do that might not be all that useful. Conversely, if you are a class that doesn't get healing or area effects, getting one power that does that might be very useful. In that one round where all the monsters are bunched up, or several PCs need healing, both you and the wizard can toss a fireball, or both you and the cleric can heal someone.

On the other hand, some effects are probably more "linear" in the sense that extra is always good. The 3rd time you can give an attack bonus in the encounter is probably as useful as the first. Similarly, I'm guessing any numerical bonus is likely linear (AC bonus, damage bonus, etc.). So for linear powers multiclassing may just provide variety, but not power. E.g. I can change from attacking Will to attacking Fort, but I still do 2[W] damage.

So, in looking through the PrRC, I wanted to look at the different roles and see which had a lot of "linear" powers and which had a lot of "diminishing" powers. I'm focusing on encounter powers, since I'm not sure how to think about utility and daily powers in this context.

Leader
Linear: Attack/Damage/AC bonuses
Diminishing: Heal, Forced Flee

Defender
Linear: Extra Attacks, Damage/AC bonuses
Diminishing: Heal, Grant Save
Hard to say: "Target only me"

Striker
Linear: Attack/Damage bonuses, impose attack penalty
Diminishing: Forced Move, Area Attack

Controller
Linear: none revealed
Diminishing: Area attack (some with extra penalty/forced move)

So, it seems like Controllers may have both the most incentive to multiclass out (to trade away "extra" area attacks), and may be the most appealing role for others to multiclass into (since one area attack may be quite useful). Strikers seemed the most linear, though we don't have a lot of powers to go on.

Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to play any 4E demos. For those who have, which kinds of powers/effects did it seem very useful to do once in an encounter, while perhaps less useful to be able to do more times? Which powers/effects seemed equally useful every time?

 

[Cadfan]

Well written.

It is this effect that makes me think that dragonborn fighters will be pretty popular. They come with a built in per encounter area of effect attack.

Now for the things I disagree with.

Personally, I'd label them "situational" versus "bread and butter." And sometimes a power is situational for one character, but not another.

For example, my planned rogue character is going to be a primarily melee fighter. He'll focus on rapier work. Since "hit the guy really hard" is valuable every round in which there's a guy to hit, there's no point where I wouldn't want more per encounter abilities that do this. So that's a linear, or bread and butter, type power for my character.

But what about ranged attacks? A good ranged attack for my character might be a situational ability for me. I will only want to use it once in a while, since my bread and butter is melee.

Meanwhile, for an archery based ranger the arrangement could be reversed. He might want lots of ranged attacks, but only one good option for when he's in melee reach of a foe and can't get away.

 

[Scipio202]

Well written.

It is this effect that makes me think that dragonborn fighters will be pretty popular. They come with a built in per encounter area of effect attack.

Now for the things I disagree with.

Personally, I'd label them "situational" versus "bread and butter." And sometimes a power is situational for one character, but not another.

For example, my planned rogue character is going to be a primarily melee fighter. He'll focus on rapier work. Since "hit the guy really hard" is valuable every round in which there's a guy to hit, there's no point where I wouldn't want more per encounter abilities that do this. So that's a linear, or bread and butter, type power for my character.

But what about ranged attacks? A good ranged attack for my character might be a situational ability for me. I will only want to use it once in a while, since my bread and butter is melee.

Meanwhile, for an archery based ranger the arrangement could be reversed. He might want lots of ranged attacks, but only one good option for when he's in melee reach of a foe and can't get away.

Thanks! I agree, "situational" and "bread and butter" are good terms - probably better than "linear" and "diminishing".

I also think you're right that what is situational depends on the character, but at the level of classes/roles certain kinds of powers are going to be mostly situational.

Given that situational powers by definition exploit a particular situation, given the limited number actions in a round, it may be strictly better to have many characters with one use of a power that exploits the same situation than to have one character with many uses. Situations are fleeting (and given the increase in movement in 4E might be particularly fleeting compared to 3E), so having as many people able to take advantage of the opportunity at a time is a big plus.

 

[KidSnide]

I largely agree with this analysis.

The key difference between 4E and 3.X here is in how powers combine. In 3.X, optimization was mostly about getting modifiers to stack. (Let's put aside, for the moment, the type of 3.X optimization that was about layering PrCs.) Usually, this involved sacrificing bonuses to secondary abilities in favor of bonuses to primary abilities. So, for example, fighters really cared about their to hit and damage bonuses on their primary weapons, but not so much on secondary types of attacks. This is the source of pain for 3.X multiclassers: for spellcasters, you can stack your caster level and your primary casting stat, but improving your melee attacks is a waste of effort.

In 4E, there are stacking modifiers. (For example, a rogue can spend a feat to improve his d6 weapon to a d8 weapon.) But many of the modifiers are taken care of by a steady increase of levels. What is new is a large collection of powers. This is what makes 4E like MtG: your selection of powers is like your "hand" in MtG. And the key decisions that a player makes in 4E is what power to use when.

This is why multiclassing is powerful in 4E. In a given situation, another role's power might be more useful than the powers from your role. For example, you may be a striker, but if there are many brutes charging your back line, a little stickiness goes a long way. Similarly, almost any non-controller is improved by having a single AoE power for when enemies are clumped together. Of course, this comes at the expense of a power within your role, but you will typically have a number of choices. A striker isn't exchanging his strike for an AoE. A striker is exchanging his 6th type of strike for his first AoE attack.

And a party where each member can do an OK job at fulfilling a 2nd role is *much* more powerful than a party where each member is restricted to its own role. In an encounter with many minions, it is really effective if several party members can be controllers for a round. In an encounter going badly, it is very powerful if the party can have manage a "spike" of healing where several people drop Healing/Inspiring Words in the same round. The ability for a party to, in a single round, spend multiple actions of the "right type" (AoE, healing, stickiness, etc...) could easily dominate a party's ability to have the best version of each type of action.

 

[Cadfan]

Given that situational powers by definition exploit a particular situation, given the limited number actions in a round, it may be strictly better to have many characters with one use of a power that exploits the same situation than to have one character with many uses. Situations are fleeting (and given the increase in movement in 4E might be particularly fleeting compared to 3E), so having as many people able to take advantage of the opportunity at a time is a big plus.

I wouldn't use the word "strictly" because, well, its a really ambitious word being used in a really complex game. But overall I agree.

Its also why I think a Warlord is such an interesting class. He can manufacture these fleeting situations on command, by helping his own team maneuver, and forcing his enemies into positions where they can be victimized.

 

[Michele Carter]

This is why multiclassing is powerful in 4E. In a given situation, another role's power might be more useful than the powers from your role.

This, a lot. A fighter with access to a close or area attack (as opposed to his usually single-target attack), or a rogue with some unexpected healing ability, has a lot more impact on the shape of the battlefield than you might think.

 

[Scipio202]

I wouldn't use the word "strictly" because, well, its a really ambitious word being used in a really complex game. But overall I agree.

Its also why I think a Warlord is such an interesting class. He can manufacture these fleeting situations on command, by helping his own team maneuver, and forcing his enemies into positions where they can be victimized.

OK, "strictly" might be too strong, but "very often" might be accurate.

I think the other reason why getting one use of a situational effect is more important in 4E than 3E is because you can get a highest-level use of the effect relatively easily. In 3E having a bunch of 10th level characters who can fire off one 1st level AoE spell isn't that useful. In 4E you can have a bunch of 10th level characters who can fire off a 10th level (or 7th or whatever) spell.

 

[Engilbrand]

I wanted to attempt to clarify something that I've seen. When it comes to Ari's quote, he basically says that the powers are equal for their level and according to who should have them, but that doesn't directly translate to being equal for another class.
I think that a lot of people are skewing what is meant by this.
Look at the Fighter Daily Powers. Now look at the Warlord Daily Powers. Within the classes and roles, these powers make sense and are similar. I'll admit that the Reliable tag is good, but something tells me that a lot of people would rather have the bonus hit points and defense increases, or the ability to start shifting like a madman. Is the Reliable tag worth that much? Maybe. I doubt it, though. As far as I'm concerned, the Warlord powers are better. As such, if I wanted to play a Fighter/Warlord, I would have no problem trading off a 3[W]+STR attack for a 3[W]+STR attack that also gives me six or seven hit points and buffs my allies.
That's how I looked at Ari's statement. Powers are balanced, but there needs to be a tradeoff during the transfer.

 

[Revinor]

However, a Fighter getting a Wiz13 power on top of his other fighter powers may be more powerful than a Fighter adding a Fig13 power.

I don't think that it will be true. Generally, I expect taking powers from other classes to be weaker, rather then better choice.

In many cases you will not be able to use your magic items with new power (your sword +5 won't add anything to fireball). You will not get class specialization bonus for some powers. It might be hard to mix ranged and melee powers (how useful 2[W] melee power is for wizard who is well protected by his friends, as opposed to another fireball-like thingy?). You might be lacking class abilities to get full effect of the power. Etc, etc.

As far as powers are concerned, I think that sticking to your class is best from min-max perspective (especially from the party perspective).

Now, paragon path versus multiclassing... If you can get second base class special abilities instead of getting ones from paragon path, it will be very good choice in many cases (as a Wizard, I would prefer Warlock or Cleric base abilities over ones from Battlemage paragon path).

 

[Scipio202]

I don't think that it will be true. Generally, I expect taking powers from other classes to be weaker, rather then better choice.

In many cases you will not be able to use your magic items with new power (your sword +5 won't add anything to fireball). You will not get class specialization bonus for some powers. It might be hard to mix ranged and melee powers (how useful 2[W] melee power is for wizard who is well protected by his friends, as opposed to another fireball-like thingy?). You might be lacking class abilities to get full effect of the power. Etc, etc.

As far as powers are concerned, I think that sticking to your class is best from min-max perspective (especially from the party perspective).

Now, paragon path versus multiclassing... If you can get second base class special abilities instead of getting ones from paragon path, it will be very good choice in many cases (as a Wizard, I would prefer Warlock or Cleric base abilities over ones from Battlemage paragon path).

I don't want to argue that trading away any power, or even most powers, would make sense. What I want to argue is that (a) some powers/effects are situational in their usefulness, and (b) since classes fit a role, classes tend to give you multiple powers that generate similar effects. Therefore (c) some classes may end up with an "excess capacity" to create an effect useful in a particular situation compared to how often that situation will occur in a typical encounter. In that case, it may be worth it to trade one of those powers for another useful in a different situation. In particular I wanted to look at which classes/roles were more likely to have such an excess, and which classes/roles might be appealing sources of situational powers.

I agree w.r.t. your example both that one wouldn't likely want to trade away a non-situational power, like one that gives you more melee damage against a single target. You're unlikely to have an excess capacity in that. Similarly, other classes non-situational powers aren't going to be very appealing, you'll have your own non-situational powers that will be more effective. Additionally, I agree that power-dependence on stats/equipment/etc. may raise the threshold for swapping powers. But I think for both the individual and the party, some level of swapping into a second role's effects may be useful, even if you are only 90% as good at it as a character naturally within that role (e.g. you can have a similar level to the power, but your stats might not be as good).

As we see more of the powers, we will likely get a better sense of MC-friendly powers, and MC-prone classes.