Dimishing Return within Roles and Multiclassing

[Olgar Shiverstone]

You know, if powers become more interchangable and are roughly balanced with eahc other at each level, we may see the beginning of de-classificatrion of D&D. Think about it ... if all powers of a given level a more or less equally balanced, why not let a character choose from all of them instead of being restricted to a given class list?

I doubt that will happen soon, though -- strong class roles are part of what makes D&D D&D. But the power balance opens up the possibilty.

The other risk from highly balanced powers is the loss of originality. If all powers of a given level are essentially "attack roll plus xdx damage", only differentiated by a "power source" which is merely flavor text, then all characters become the same, just with different dressing. And that would be boring.

 

[mneme]

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)..

Generaly correct (ie, why multiclassing isn't a no-brainer), but...

1. From the playtesting reports we've seen, we know there's a feat that lets you use your weapon as an Implement (so suddenly your +5 sword is spitting out +5 fireballs -- whoot!)

2. This doesn't apply to utility powers -- and I, at least, expect a lot of variance in different classes' utility powers at a given level.

 

[AllisterH]

How much is Invisibility worth to a wizard? vs How much is Invisibility worth to a rogue?
How much is Fireball worth to a wizard vs How much is it worth to a cleric?
How much is Heal worth to a cleric vs How much is it worth to a barbarian?

Would you take the following feat in 3.x?
Spell Master
Req: The ability to cast divine spells
Benefit: When you select this feat, you may choose to replace one of your divine spells with an arcane spell of the same level. Every time you increase in level, you may reselect this spell.

I have to agree with others. You're not going to see fighter's taking things like Tenser's Transformation but powers they simply don't have.

 

[hong]

Err... why wouldn't a fighter take Tenser's? (Or even better, divine favour/righteous might). That is a prime example of synergy in action.

 

[ShockMeSane]

Yea... in fact, I would primarily see a Fighter taking Utility spells if you wanted to purely min/max it. Stuff like Tenser's, defensive buff spells are really the ideal things you're going to want to take for a few reasons:

1) Feats. The feats you spend multiclassing you lose in specialization, and the feats you don't get to spend on your multi-class without nerfing your original role. With feats like Burning Blizzard and Lasting Frost, a dedicated Cold-damage Wizard is going to significantly out-damage your spells anyways.

2) Implements. Even if you can take a feat that allows you to use your weapon as an implement, you are still trading versatility for specialization. In any case, I imagine that higher level magic wands, rods etc will have encounter or passive abilities that are significantly more useful for spells than what a longsword will bring to the table.

3) Ability score. By level 20+, you are going to be WAY behind a 100% Wizard in INT bonus, unless you were willing to completely neglect your STR, which kind of defeats the purpose of picking a fighter in any case. If they go the SWSaga route of +1 in two ability scores every 2 levels, this won't be such a big deal, but if not, a 24 INT wizard will hit 20% more and deal 4 more damage per spell over a 16 INT multi-class anything. The damage may not be a huge deal, but the hit% is.

Even with all that, I still think multi-classing will be good. It is simply a question of versatility versus specialization. Seeing as healing surges grant you a minimum of 25% of your hps, in high level battles I can see how even a single extra Healing Word on your Rogue could be a battle-winner. In any case, the option to throw out an extra fireball in the face of swarms of minions will often be a better choice than having a 5th per encounter single swing at melee ability.

 

[hong]

What broke multiclassing in 3E was unanticipated synergy, not versatility. Noone cared if you could cast from a selection of 1,000 spells, but had a caster level in the basement. It was the guy who could stack bonuses from half a dozen sources to gain AC/saves/attacks of +stupid amounts who caused heartburn.

 

[ShockMeSane]

What broke multiclassing in 3E was unanticipated synergy, not versatility. Noone cared if you could cast from a selection of 1,000 spells, but had a caster level in the basement. It was the guy who could stack bonuses from half a dozen sources to gain AC/saves/attacks of +stupid amounts who caused heartburn.

Having been a DM on the recieving end of this, and making a few insanely overpowered multiclass characters in my day, I know. Of course I'm not sure if you were responding to me, but my point was that giving up specialization for versatility is what it should have been about all along, rather than the 3.x system that made multiclassing an absolute no-brainer. I mean, if you went more than 4 levels of fighter outside of a very specific, feat-intensive (because your prestige required them) build, you were nerfing yourself. When it stops being an interesting decision is when it stops being fun for me.

 

[Minigiant]

There's also the weakening of your base class' ability to do his role. Not all powers that do th same thing do it the same way. There are 4 defense, naby danage types, and a lot of conditions. You might need 5 fighter or wizard enc powers becuse they all have different effects. You scraped your cold, vs Ref, stunning spell for a heal, enter the slow moving teleporting fire monster. We don't how many of the powers we gain that we need to fill your role.

 

[Scipio202]

I'm actually not so sure that bonus-stacking (e.g. Tenser's Transformation) will be the main kinds of effects you'll trade powers for. From what we know, 4E has changed how buffs work. Powers are only going to provide 1-round bonuses it seems, and every class seems to have a similar smattering of bonus-granting effects. It's probably not going to be worth spending a feat to trade one bonus-granting feat for another very often. Longer lasting buffs I believe are supposed to be rituals now. Multiclassing can likely allow a fighter to access that, but via access to class feats. E.g.

Arcane Initiate Feat -> Ritual Casting Feat (normally wizard-restricted) -> Acquire buff ritual (purchase? find?)

Rituals likely won't have the opportunity cost that swapping into cross-class powers will. I.e. will you have to give up a "fighter" ritual to get a "wizard" ritual? I doubt it.

I haven't looked much at which powers attack specific defenses, so it could go either way.
Every class has "linear"/"bread and butter" powers that attack all the defenses -> no need to MC away from/into those powers
Classes specialize in attacking certain defenses -> Then in fact you may want to MC into another class' powers to exploit monsters with certain weak defenses.

 

[malcolm_n]

I just want to interject and say how refreshing it is to see these kind of debates. It sounds like WotC is doing a pretty good job if we can find equal opportunity to argue for or against Multiclassing.