Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[ryryguy]

All this "it costs a feat and a power to get a power" and "it just costs a feat" argument suddenly made me recall something from my dark and distant past. as a bonus it even involves food! (But not generic food - this is a true story!)

I was about four or five years old, at the swimming pool, going to the snack bar to buy a cheeseburger. Now I don't remember the actual sums and coins involved, let's say I had four dimes and four nickels, and the price of a cheeseburger was 55 cents. My grasp of financial matters was still somewhat shaky, but I did understand that you could give more money than the price and get change back. So I put my 60 cents on the counter and asked for the burger.

The snack bar guy naturally slid one of the nickels back over to me - "It's just 55 cents, kid."

But I pushed it back over. "I know how much it is - now you have to give me change!"

"Right, kid, and here's the change!" Sliding the nickel back to me.

"No, that's not change, that's the nickel I just gave you!" Sliding the nickel back to him.

This repeated a couple of times, with the guy teetering between amusement and annoyance. Finally he picked up all the coins, put them in the register, pulled a nickel back out of the register and handed it back along with the burger. At last I was satisfied. "Took him long enough to understand how this works!" I thought.

So... yeah. It cost four dimes and four nickels to get a cheeseburger and one nickel. Just like it costs a feat and a power to get a power.

Net costs: 55 cents; one feat.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

So no Wizards who want to be effective should multiclass/PrC? Because giving up caster levels is almost never worth it power-wise.

They are effective. They're just not as effective as pure spellcasters of equivalent experience, and there is no logical reason why they should be. The dedicated caster "paid the cost to be the boss"- he did the high-level magic studies and research while the multiclasser was out in the practice yard with the Sergeant of Arms doing sword practice.

Because power scales super-linearly with respect to levels, a Wiz6/Rog6 will be MUCH less powerful than a Rog12 or Wiz12 (especially the Wiz12).

As it should be.

You honestly think +3d6 sneak attack and Evasion can make up for the fact that you're casting 6d6 Fireballs or 7d6 Scorching Rays when he's casting 12d6 Cone of Colds and 12d6 Scorching Rays and Polymorph and Evard's Black Tentacles and Cloudkills and Walls of Stone and Disintegrate?

Yes, yes, yes- from a roleplaying perspective, 1000 times yes. The guy with the +3d6 SA and Evasion decided to learn the ways of the back alleys while eschewing time in the stacks of arcane libraries.

No, he can't fight or spellsling properly. <stuff> I challenge you to make a Fighter 6/Wizard 6 that contradicts this (prob start new thread in D&D rules).

I can't, and I never said I could.

He fights like a 6th level fighter and he casts like a 6th level spellcaster- which is as it should be. Why would I expect him to contribute like a 12th level solo-classed PC?

Look at decatheletes. They participate in 10 different track and field events. I'd bet none of them could compete against dedicated specialists in those events, and probably couldn't qualify as Olympians in even a single event against a field of specialists. Heck, they might only just be competitive at the collegiate level within a single event.

I did play M:tG, and this is a horrible analogy.

Not really- I've played since Alpha. I'm a "Mr. Suitcase." (Or, more accurately, a "Mr. Bunchofstoragetrunks.)

You only saw the rise of multiclolored decks after certain cards got banned from tournament play.

As cards cycled in and out of play with the introduction and retirement of sets, mono and chromatic deck designs waxed and waned in power.

But the point remains- no deck counters like a straight blue deck, no deck does direct damage like a straight red deck, etc.

And no caster outperforms a straight caster.

 

[Zelc]

I suppose I should clarify the MtG thing a bit. Doing Rog6/Wiz6 is like taking a mono-red Sligh deck and combining it with a mono-blue Permission deck. It gives you added flexibility (hey, you can swing with creatures AND counter spells!) but it generally doesn't synergize.

Something like Rogue3/Wiz3/Arcane Trickster 6 is like making a R/U aggro-control deck in a format where the legal cards aren't great for making R/U aggro-control decks. You can do it, and there's more synergy than just mashing together the Sligh and Permission decks, but it's not going to be a competitive deck.

Something like Rogue1/Wiz 4/Unseen Seer 7 is like making an R/U aggro-control deck with some cards that are awesome for the aggro-control. Here, this deck may be one of the best in the format, and both colors are adding enough synergy to justify the costs. The reason to make this a 2-color deck is not flexibility, but power.

 

[small pumpkin man]

If those things aren't "of value" to you at 12th level, then you shouldn't have taken them at all.

EXACTLY.

Your perception of "value" and "suck" differ from mine. If being a relatively powerful wizard with some low-level thieving ability is how I envision my PC, then I'm satisfied with the value I'm getting and don't care what others think.

Which is simulated far better in 4e by just taking skill training theivery. (or in 3.x by taking that feat from races of destiny, although even that becomes less useful later on)

If I want my PC to be equally talented in magery and thievery and he's a 12th level PC, then he should probably be equivalent to a Wiz6 and a Rog6 in all ways that matter.

If, OTOH, I want my 12th level PC to be a wizard/rogue who is the equal of a 12th level rogue and a 12th level wizard in all regards...that's munchkinny.

Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I said "I want to be able to do everything and be a complete munchkin", in fact, here's the quote

I want multiclassing to be like playing gestalt in a normal game

*sigh*

Look, I realize CR isn't exact, but when one 6th level Rogue and one 6th level Wizard is worth one level 8 Wizard I think we can safely say someone playing a character who has 6th level Rogue abilities and 6th level Wizard abilities isn't actually able to effect the world like a 12th level character is.

He can fight and spellsling properly- he just can't do so as well as a single classed version of either. Cue the opening chords of White Lion's "When the Children Cry."

No, he can't use it to make a reasonable difference to appropriate level encounters, meaning he might as well not be able to do it all.

This isn't a problem, its a consequence of being a generalist- you pay that price for being flexible.

Did you ever play M:tG? Mono colored decks generally focused on one or two of the major powers of a given color. Multichromatic decks couldn't control as well as a straight Blue deck, couldn't kill as well as a Red or Black deck, couldn't protect as well as a White deck, nor summon as quickly or powerfully as a Green deck, but were all about flexibility and could do a bit of each.

Yes, duh, obviously a tradeoff needs to be made, this is basic designer stuff. But finding that balance is not as obvious as you seem to think, as far as I can tell, it's one of the toughest problems in game design, there are extensive articles about this on Wizard's very site, about the Bard etc, and about how they put far too much importance on the "generalist" aspect for Bards and monks, and far too little in the case of the pure spellcasters various abilities, even Hong has made about 6-7 posts in this very thread saying "we don't need to get into that argument again" but there's always someone, sin't there?

 

[Zelc]

They are effective. They're just not as effective as pure spellcasters of equivalent experience, and there is no logical reason why they should be. The dedicated caster "paid the cost to be the boss"- he did the high-level magic studies and research while the multiclasser was out in the practice yard with the Sergeant of Arms doing sword practice.

[...]

Yes, yes, yes- from a roleplaying perspective, 1000 times yes. The guy with the +3d6 SA and Evasion decided to learn the ways of the back alleys while eschewing time in the stacks of arcane libraries.

[...]

He fights like a 6th level fighter and he casts like a 6th level spellcaster- which is as it should be. Why would I expect him to contribute like a 12th level solo-classed PC?

Why do I expect him to contribute as a 12th level PC*? Because he's a 12th level PC, and he's part of the team who'll be facing 12th level encounters? Because it's really really hard (maybe practically impossible) to design an encounter that can challenge both him and the rest of his party if he's much weaker than the party? Because the game just doesn't work as well if he's not as powerful as a 12th level PC? Because it's not fun to play the gimped character?

Neither the PC nor the DM should be punished this heavily for making a roleplaying decision. I may want my character to learn the ways of the back alleys, but I don't want him to be gimped and be the joke of the party in fights. And if learning the ways of the back alleys requires gimping the character, well, that's a lot fewer people who'll have their characters learn the ways of the back alleys. You should be glad the costs of multiclassing is lower; now people can take up RP opportunities without turning themselves into dead weight in fights.


*Note I did not say "Contribute as a 12th level Wizard and a 12th level Rogue in 1". Obviously, that would be more powerful than a normal 12th level PC.

ETA: Ironically, multiclassing hurts you if you want to be able to do everything and be a complete munchkin". Pun-Pun is best achieved with a single-class character, after all...

 

[Wolv0rine]

QFT...and I wish I had said that!

Why thank you, that may be the first time someone's QFT'ed me in 6 frelling years.

Well you sorta do have access to all divine powers, you simply can only equip one per-feat. However, seeing how you can change that power each level, you can adapt it to suit the circumstance you feel is best for the way your character is developing.

This adds in my eyes a lot of flexibility.

So, you forgo one of your normal class progression abilities and blow a feat, and (in the case of a spellcasting dip) you get one spell, and you can swap out that spell only upon leveling. You don't even get like, 1 floating spell slot... you get one spell. I mean I could see this as being a little more valid if you could change your one spell at any time like other spellcasters can, but only on levelup? Ehh.

IMHO, it’s not a matter of “is it worth a feat?” or any such similar questions, the question is “Is this Multi-classing?”, and to me, the answer is unequivocally (to the point of being faintly insulting) “No”.
This is dipping, as has been pointed out. And if it had been included as a sub-system completely separate from the concept of Multi-classing . . . then it would have been interesting. Very interesting. Class-dipping feats is cool. Class dipping feats as the Multi-classing mechanics is terrible.

A class is defined by its powers and a short list of features, and multi-classing gives you access to another classes powers and some of those features. You agree that when you multi-class, you can't simply add two first level characters together. If we start with 7 powers, when we level up it wouldn't make sense to now have 14 powers. It would be overpowered. So how do you do it? What you call the "dipping" system is what they decided on. So is the problem that the system over-limits you? In what ways could the system change in order to meet your definition of multi-classing? Mechanically speaking.

The system would have to provide me with a means to gain 1 full level of the class I’ve multi-classed into, not ask me to blow a feat and give me a nibble of 1 level of the class I multi-classed into. That’s the thing, you’re not gaining 1 level of the multi’ed class, you’re gaining 1 piece of 1 level of that class.

Seriously? Is this one of the ‘problems with 3E multi-classing’? Because to my mind this is just better class design technique. Of course you spread out class benefits over the levels, otherwise you’ve got a front-loaded class that no-one wants to take more levels in because it’s dull and tasteless after you’ve gotten your initial burst of class benefits. *boggles*

Sweet spot starts at level 1 in fourth edition. The 4E wizard character sheet starts with 7 spells or whatever because the creators are confident that no one is going to do a 1-level dip in wizard in order to get the 7 spells and then run. Because you can't, that's not how multi-classing works anymore. So, you can have fun and interesting classes from the start. In third edition, a 1st level wizard had 1 spell to cast, because like you said, they weren't front loaded. If you enjoy that more, by all means, continue with third edition.

But you’re not getting 7 spells with a 1 level dip, you’re gaining 1 spell. You’re still only getting 1 piece of 1 level. At least in 3E if I take a level in another class, I get all the benefits of that one level. If I multi into 1st level Wizard, I may get one spell… and Summon Familiar, and Scribe Scroll, etc. If I take more levels in Wizard, I’m going to get the full progression of spells for however many levels I took, not just 1 spell per Wizard level I take.

Is this another one of the ‘problems’, that multi-classed spellcasters were less powerful spellcasters (unless they multi-classed into a spellcasting PrC)? Because, that just makes sense to me. If you’ve changed or diminished your study/practice to focus on something else, you’re going to fall a bit behind. And it seems the concept of “giving up some power for concept” is considered a good thing, from the posts in this thread at least. Again, *boggles*.

Not less powerful: unworkable. Giving up spell progression was beyond "less powerful." In fourth edition, you give up a power of equal level, say, level 7, and gain a level 7 wizard ability. So, you don't have to get wizard powers of half your level. Sorry for the brevity, but those are the main points.

I see the points, I just don’t like/agree with them. If I’m multi-classing wizard levels, I know from the start that I’m not going to be a full-power Wizard. If I wanted to be a full-power Wizard, I’d have gone full-Wizard levels. I just don’t understand how making the choice to split your focus makes the system unworkable. I mean, you know going into it that splitting your focus is going to make you less powerful in both/all of your areas of focus. You’re giving up raw power for diversity, but you’re still getting the full measure of the levels you take. Unlike the 4E excerpt, which shows us getting (to borrow from the food analogy earlier up-thread) our choice of a cherry, a banana, a scoop of ice cream, or some chocolate syrup when we ordered a banana split.

And this is on top of the idea that for having feat-dipped, you get that one class ability at the same degree of skill as someone whose single classes the class you multi'ed it from. Which is just a concept that also grates on my sensibilities. I blew a feat and bypassed one of my primary class abilities to learn one trick from another class. BUT, I'm just as good at that one thing as the expert single-classed guy. Does it balance out? Yeah kinda, but it's just... illogical from a non-mechanical POV.

 

[AtomicPope]

Let's put it this way. A 4th-level character with a multiclass training feat has one 1st-level encounter power of his primary class and one 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class. If he selects the Novice Power feat, he can either:

1. Replace his 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class with a 3rd-level encounter power of his secondary class; or

2. Replace his 1st-level encounter power of his primary class with a 1st-level encounter power of his secondary class; or

3. Replace his 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class with a 1st-level encounter power of his secondary class.

Now we're getting somewhere

Ok, the way I'm reading the WotC sneak peek is that when you multiclass the 1st feat gives you:
1) Skill Training - one skill counts as being trained. This is a big deal in Stars Wars Saga since there are no skill points. I heard rumors (dismiss them at will) that class skills (not universal) cannot be trained w/o a feat.
2) Limited access to an At Will power - The powers listed are At Will powers derived from core classes but have an additional limitation. For instance, the Cleric's Healing Word is an At Will 2/encounter power (or so says the rumors). For multiclassers it becomes a 1/day.

A character with a Multiclass power feat gains access to an additional power (the "entry fee") without trading one of their own, thereby gaining (one hopes) some additional functionality in battle. These powers are in addition to their standard class At Will powers. I'm guessing this because there's no indication under Initiate of the Faith that the multiclass character loses their primary class At Will power. To give classes more At Will powers from a different source might be too much.

Given that he has already chosen the 3rd-level and 1st-level encounter powers from his primary class, they can't be too shabby. In fact, they would probably be the powers that the player feels are either most useful or most appropriate to the character. Hence, it is not correct to say that the best power from the seconday class replaces the worst power from the primary class. It is in fact replacing one of the better (if not the best) powers from the primary class.

I find this viewpoint a bit problematic - Better and Best. It's hard for me to say what's better or best for a character without having a concept in mind. Take the Sneak of Shadows for instance. This entry level multiclass feat gives the player access to Sneak Attack once per encounter. If a Ranger or Warlock (both strikers) gained access to this they could stack that with their Hunter's Quarry or Curses, respectively, to do some serious extra damage. What I see is not so much trading powers (in this case, none are lost and a feature is gained), but focusing on a central theme.

In 1e,2e, and 3e it was all but impossible to have a group of adventurers that were all "Mercenary Rogues" for hire. The reason is the skill system wouldn't support it. You couldn't have a Paladin/Rogue (or Thief) in previous editions because he would lose out on so many Pally Powers and have no skills to speak of as a Rogue. Now that's not the case. The Paladin, or Wizard, or Cleric, or Fighter could take Sneak of Shadows and get access to Rogue skills that will be useful, even at higher levels. The same could be said for a group of Wizard adventurers that is entirely affiliated with a god (lets say Boccob) and has access to some priestly abilities, yet loses none of their spell casting powers - Initiate of the Faith.

Now, I do recognize that there is an advantage in gaining a power from another class. What is not clear to me is whether the relative gain in utility is worth a feat (remember, we're replacing the best with the best here). As previously mentioned, I think that one feat for three swaps (replacing the best encounter, utility, and daily powers of the primary class with the best encounter, utility and daily powers of the secondary class) is about right. Alternatively, a single feat could give the player the option to use either of the best powers from his primary or secondary class (i.e. the player selects an encounter power from the seconday class. Once per encounter, he may use that power by spending an encounter power from his primary class of that power's level or lower. So, if he selected a 3rd-level encounter power from his secondary class, he could use it once per encounter by spending his 3rd-level encounter power from his primary class. If he selected a 1st-level encounter power from his secondary class, he can use it once per encounter by spending his 3rd- or 1st-level encounter power from his primary class).

I've read the "PHB Lite" from En World and some of the Spells and Exploits are awesome. What's interesting is the access to class ablities are no longer limited by Stat Scores, only multiclassing is. What I mean is, a Wizard doesn't need to have a 19 Int just to have access to 9th level spells anymore. This frees up characters quite a bit. A fighter could have a high level Cleric Prayer or Wizard Spell with only a 13 Int or Wis (impossible in previous editions). From what I've seen in the demonstrations, Action Points allow characters to perform crazy combinations.

Of course, this assessment is based on what I know of the powers that have been released so far. I'll make a final decision after the rules have been released and I've managed to play around with the system for a while.

Meh, rumors and demos were enough for me

 

[Zelc]

So, you forgo one of your normal class progression abilities and blow a feat, and (in the case of a spellcasting dip) you get one spell, and you can swap out that spell only upon leveling. You don't even get like, 1 floating spell slot... you get one spell. I mean I could see this as being a little more valid if you could change your one spell at any time like other spellcasters can, but only on levelup? Ehh.

This is what happens in 3.5e as well!!

Beguiler 20 vs. Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1. I have the option of giving up a bunch of skill points (both in prereqs and skill points/level) and the Beguiler class ability to ignore SR against flat-footed opponents in exchange for the Mindbender class ability of telepathy 100'. So give up the equivalent of a weak feat to exchange one class ability for another. Of course, this breaks down slightly when you take more than one level of the PrC, but then you're still exchanging your base class abilities for the PrC abilities.

Plus the other spellcasters can only change their spells when they level up in 4e. So no difference here.

I just don’t understand how making the choice to split your focus makes the system unworkable.

Try making a Rogue 6/Wizard 6 that can contribute in a 12th level encounter. Heck, even a Rogue 2/Wizard 10 is probably on par with if not slightly weaker than a Wizard 11.

BUT, I'm just as good at that one thing as the expert single-classed guy. Does it balance out? Yeah kinda, but it's just... illogical from a non-mechanical POV.

The feat could have been used to improve your primary class's capabilities. So you are weaker.

 

[Stalker0]

Why thank you, that may be the first time someone's QFT'ed me in 6 frelling years.

If it makes you feel better, that phrase has only been commonly used on the boards for about a year and change

 

[Wolv0rine]

So, you forgo one of your normal class progression abilities and blow a feat, and (in the case of a spellcasting dip) you get one spell, and you can swap out that spell only upon leveling. You don't even get like, 1 floating spell slot... you get one spell. I mean I could see this as being a little more valid if you could change your one spell at any time like other spellcasters can, but only on levelup? Ehh.

This is what happens in 3.5e as well!!

Beguiler 20 vs. Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1. I have the option of giving up a bunch of skill points (both in prereqs and skill points/level) and the Beguiler class ability to ignore SR against flat-footed opponents in exchange for the Mindbender class ability of telepathy 100'. So give up the equivalent of a weak feat to exchange one class ability for another. Of course, this breaks down slightly when you take more than one level of the PrC, but then you're still exchanging your base class abilities for the PrC abilities.

I’m honestly not familiar with the Beguiler or Mindbender classes. So I’ll use another pair of classes that I am familiar with.
Barbarian 20 vs. Barbarian 19/Assassin 1:

1. Barbarian 20 gets +1/+1/+1/+1 BAB, +1 Fort Save, Mighty Rage and and a 6th rage/day for his 20th Barb level.
2. Barbarian 19/Assassin 1 gets +2 Ref Save, Sneak attack +1d6, Death Attack, Poison Use, and opens up the progression of spell slots for his 20th character level.

The 4E-style Barbarian 19/Assassin 1 ignores all of the BAB and Save stuff because it’s all the same from what I’ve gathered (or that part of the analogy from 3E to 4E doesn’t translate, either way), and he gets to choose Sneak attack +1d6, death attack, poison use, OR the opening up of progression of spell slots for his 20th character level (which also, granted, doesn’t translate, but I’m using a Core Class and a PrC, because being unfamiliar with the classes you referenced, I presumed Mindbender might be a PrC, I could be wrong).
But the point still stands, the 3E multi-classed character got the full measure of that 1 level, he didn’t have to chose either the Ref Save OR the Sneak Attk OR the Death Attk, OR the Poison Use… etc, for his 1 Assassin level.

Plus the other spellcasters can only change their spells when they level up in 4e. So no difference here.

Hmm? From what I’d gathered a 1st level Wizard has 7 spells, and can change which one(s) he has ‘up’ after resting. The feat-dipped Ftr/Wiz has 1 spell, and he can decide to swap it out for a different one when he levels up if he doesn’t like the one he took, as far as I understand it.

Try making a Rogue 6/Wizard 6 that can contribute in a 12th level encounter. Heck, even a Rogue 2/Wizard 10 is probably on par if not slightly weaker than a Wizard 11.

Can I make a Sneak Attack with my magic missile? (DM: Ahh, no) Okay, Rog6/Wiz6… that gives me 4/3/3/2 for spell levels. I’ll ignore the 0-lvl spells because most of them aren’t going to help the point (okay, it’s because it’s nearly 2 am and I don’t want to type a synopsis for every spell level, just the highlights). Spells Prepared (in an attempt to contribute in a 12th level encounter, not from any real way I’d build a character)
1st Level: Protection from (alignment, likely Evil), Ray of Enfeeblement, and Magic Weapon.
2nd Level: Hypnotic Pattern (that’s a potential 14 HD of fascination if I’m lucky), Invisibility (x2)
3rd Level: Fly and Ray of Exhaustion

Right off the bat I’m going to get the benefit of Prot from Evil, that’s good. I Magic Weapon my Weapon, and hit the toughest-looking opponent I can determine with Ray of Enfeeblement (1d6 +3 Str Damage) before I even get into the thick of things (because I’m a Rogue, unless we just got jumped in a wicked ambush I am NOT in front of the marching order). I slap down a Hypnotic Pattern and hope that the dice favor me or the encounter is made up of many smaller HD monsters and not a few higher HD ones so that it at least catches one or a few of them. That’s a “cool if it works, but if not, no big” choice. I cast Invis, close and Sneak Attack. I retreat if possible and cast Fly, Ray of Exhaustion, then Invis again, and Sneak Attack another target. After that (since my Invis is nullified a second time because I attacked) I ride out the duration of Fly and snipe with a bow. When Fly ends, I engage in the battle as a 6th level Rogue.

I’m not tumbling all over the battlefield Sneak Attacking and whatnot as well as a 12th level Rogue, and I’m sure not laying down the arcane artillery like a 12th level Wizard, but even if half the spells (that don’t target myself) don’t have much effect, I still had an interesting tactic available to me during the battle, and given the fact that I decided to MC in the first place, I expected 6 levels ago to not be as smack-down powerful as the single-classed 12th level party members. But boy howdy I got 8 spells for those 6 Wiz levels (not counting cantrips), and I didn’t even include any scrolls I probably scribed at any given point, and completely neglected to include any uses I might try to put my (carefully chosen to match my character’s personality and style, of course) familiar. So yeah, I’d be happy to say I made a healthy contribution in the 12th level encounter. Maybe not stellar, maybe no-one went “WOW!”, but I was in there.

The feat could have been used to improve your primary class's capabilities. So you are weaker.

Yes, you are weaker by one feat, you are weaker in your primary class, and as your reward you get 1 fraction of a level of another class. IMO, our theoretical “you” just got robbed.