Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Mort_Q]

I need to read the whole PH entry, but as it stands right now, my gut reaction is that the limit of one multi-class (or dual-class as some would have it) is more to protect the PC from becoming underpowered than to prevent the PC from becoming overpowered.

Perhaps there is more in the DMG about this.

That said, it looks good to me so far.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Having played in Ari's group before, and knowing most of the current players well, let me say that at least one of the payers in that group never let mechanics get in the way of concept. He was famous for making terrible characters, mostly multi-classed to death (a few rogue levels, a few bard levels, maybe a dip into Sorc, then add in a prc, etc). If he didn't multi, its because he saw things he liked in a single class, not because he was worried about being weaker.

*blink*

When did you start visiting ENWorld?!

 

[el-remmen]

All of the munchkins...excuse me, optimizers...may not like this, but I sure do.

Well, I am not nearly a munchkin or optimizer, but I still don't like it.

As I said in my first post:

I just wanted to add that I never felt 3E multi-classing was broken. I just think certain playstyles lead to taking adventage of possibilities it technically allows (or for certain combinations to become useless in the context of that particular gameplay), but also think that people who play that way (not that there's anything wrong with it) are always going to find ways to manipulate and take advantage of rules - so confining the rules based on that playstyle is the equivalent to the other end of the spectrum where the DM is expected to handle all aspects of game balance.

 

[Cadfan]

If the powers are balanced correctly, then a character who has 50% wizard powers and 50% cleric powers is not unbalanced. (This is probably a gross simplification, but as a general principle, I think it holds.)

I disagree. Imagine two character classes. One is the 4e Warlord. The other is exactly the same as a 4e Warlord, except that its allowed to pick Fighter powers if it feels like it, up to 50%.

The second is obviously better.

Not only is it better in the sense that it can do something the first class cannot, but it is also better in the sense that it has more chances for powerful synergies between abilities, and a resulting higher power level of characters created with that class.

So, we charge for it a bit. Fixes the problem. Sucks for you if you were intending to create something anti-synergetic, but, we can't base the game on that. Far better to create a new class for anti-synergetic combinations, and balance the game on the assumption that players will pick the more powerful choices available.

 

[Mort_Q]

I just haven't yet seen anything about 4E that bugs me as much as Vancian magic did.

QFT

 

[Mouseferatu]

There are a lot of people saying "If all powers of level X are balanced, there should be no cost (or less cost) for swapping them out!"

But this completely ignores the fact that powers are balanced in context. I tried to get this across earlier, with my "fighter with an area attack" example. The fact that wizard power X is balanced with fighter power X assumes that wizard power X is taken by a wizard, and fighter power X is taken by a fighter. They may remain equal out of that assumed context.

For example--and I'm making this up, not offering a hint of what's in the book --an encounter power that says you can ignore the effects of a successful melee attack made against you is more valuable to a fighter than to a wizard, because the fighter's in melee a lot more often than the wizard is. (As an actually in-the-book example, consider the possibility of a fighter acquiring mirror image.) Similarly, a utility power that says you can throw a ranged or area power without drawing an opportunity attack is more valuable to a spellcaster or an archer (obviously) than to a primarily melee-based fighter.

My point? Powers are balanced in their assumed context. That doesn't mean they're balanced in a vacuum, and that there should be no cost for swapping them out.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

Also on-top of all that Mouseferatu said. I think there is less cost for swapping of powers then the cost of multiclassing in 3e.

You figure with 4e, you use a feat you swap a power. This I think is much less costly then having to progress up any odd number of levels to gain the specific aspect of the class you wished to have.

Thus, the main class you wished to focus in becomes weaker, simply because you wanted a particular aspect of another class. This to me feels much more costly then simply losing a feat (which in my eyes from both gamist and simulationist-side makes perfect sense, gamist: balancing, simulationist: your spending your time and effort to learn a power so you don't gain a feat).

On a more general point too, I like this too since I can nitpick what I want from multiclassing more, instead of being overwhelmed by various class abilities that take away from my character concept.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

Like I said, Pun-pun was not the best example. Your points are well take, and I'm willing to forget him if you are.

Agreed.

I prefer that kind of evolution in a class system with fewer classes. However, if part of your design philosophy is to create lots of classes that cover a lot of different archetypes (and from what we know about 4e, it's moving in this direction), then having lots of "liquid" classes may be to the detriment, rather than benefit.

I believe, when we finally have the books, we'll find that the system is fairly pliable, particularly within class boundaries.

I was thinking along these lines with a 3e revision Wiki that I have been neglecting for a bit. Go back to four classes, and bring the 'sub-classes' back. Except, they would be more 'specialization paths' for the main classes, with some fairly amorphous skills that aren't necessarily siloed with the class. So, a Fighter spends some skill/feat/whatever points to grab some minor Cleric spell casting. Blam! Paladin. The Wizard is tired of cowering in the back in every combat, so spends a slot on combat stuff. Blam! Gish.

I will grant, that is very similar to what 4e is doing, but it is only a very broad overview. I was looking at a bit deeper on the multi-classing.

More on topic, this seems to be more of a 'classed system with a skill system welded on' than 3e was. In the previous edition, you had a pretty severe cost (in some cases) for getting the 'skills' of another class, and 4e appears to have mitigated that. How that plays out in the long term is still up in the air.

 

[HeinorNY]

There are a lot of people saying "If all powers of level X are balanced, there should be no cost (or less cost) for swapping them out!"

But this completely ignores the fact that powers are balanced in context.

I was thinking earlier about this and now after reading your post I just got it.
When poeple say that, they are forgetting that different classes have different HP values, healing surges, armor proficiences.
A 10th level wizard with the X Spell is as powerful as the 10th level fighter with his Y Exploit, but because it takes into account not only the powers themselves, but everything else both classes have which are distinct from each other. Each class has its context.
When you put a Power in a different context you must pay for it.

 

[drothgery]

You know, in all my years of DMing 3e, I never once saw a player create a character with exactly half levels in wizard, and half levels in fighter.

... because everyone knows how sucky it is, and won't do it...

Except at maybe level 4, when they were aiming for a PRC.

... meaning, when they were aiming for PrC that makes their fighter/wizard not suck.