Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Storm-Bringer]

It was an extreme example, I'll certainly grant you that. My point remains the same; multiclassing in 3e was not perfect. It was (and I'd argue still is) the most robust multiclassing system we have in DnD. However, it was prone to wonky results. Its freedom allowed cherry-picking and wonky results like pun-pun. It didn't work well for non-casters. Most of the classes in the PHB are spellcasters, so multiclassing hurts most of the core classes. There were entire PrCs were constructed in order to bandaid certain concepts (fighter/wizard, cleric/wizard, etc.)

I think I see what you are getting at, but again, Pun-pun doesn't demonstrate that multi-classing is the problem. The only (core) class Pun-pun has is... Wizard.

I don't necessarily disagree that some multi-classing choices are problematic, but see my reply above to JohnSnow.

Proxies
A divine proxy speaks and acts on behalf of the divine being. When the demand for a deity’s presence is too high, the deity may use proxies.
Proxies are divine minions invested with a small portion of the deity’s power. A deity may invest 1 rank of its power (reducing its divine rank accordingly) in a single servant for as long as the deity chooses. The minion must be physically present for the deity to perform the investiture. While so invested, the proxy gains any salient divine abilities held by the patron deity as well as the powers and abilities of a rank 1 demigod. Without the requisite ability scores or divine ranks, the proxy may not be able to use all those powers and abilities. A deity may have more than one proxy, but it must lose 1 divine rank for each proxy it invests. A deity can retrieve a single divine rank as a standard action, and doing so it does not require the physical presence of the proxy.

I mean, right there, Pun-pun is a demigod. Already out of the realm of 'mortal' limitations.

Secondly,

Petitioners
Some spirits demonstrate their devotion to their deity by traveling to the deity’s home plane. Those that survive the journey across the planes become servants of their deity. While a few may remain disembodied spirits, most become petitioners through the divine will of their patron deity.
In general, petitioners appear in the form that they had when they died, though they may be remade by deities to fit the nature of their particular afterlife. In general, petitioners who become divine servants are creatures that originally had at least 1 Intelligence and 1 Wisdom.
The following creature types may become petitioners depending on the deity: aberrations, animals, dragons, fey, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, and plants, oozes, and vermin with sufficient ability scores. Constructs and undead are not usually made into petitioners, though the spirits of their original forms may be. Elementals and outsiders tend to meld with their native planes, and as such do not become petitioners. Their spirits may still be called back from the dead, however.
The template presented below is for NPCs, not player characters. If dead characters who are petitioners are later restored to life (once again becoming player characters), they forget any of their experiences as petitioners.

Pun-pun had to be dead first, and at any rate, all the admonitions in the article about not allowing Pun-pun as a PC are redundant. You can't apply the Petitioner template to a PC anyway.

In any case, without the sarrukh, none of it is possible. Again, one poorly thought out ability of a single monster allows all of that. Pun-pun is a very strong argument for more transparency in game design, so you don't have later splats causing all kinds of problems. But it has nothing whatsoever to do with multi-classing.

4e has made a point of creating strong, tightly focused classes. I think they've done this well. As a result, multi-classing was not a priority for them and got pushed to the side. It leaves something to be desired for many people. (I may or may not be in this camp... haven't completely decided). However, I think the devs ignored multiclassing because each implementation has presented its own strange, sometimes detrimental problems. Multiclassing actually takes away from a strong class-based system, in that it puts too much focus on getting the most out of multiple classes, rather than just one.

If one is building a class based system, why dilute that system rather than strengthen it? It seems to me that if one wants a "multiclass character," one is better off looking at classless systems that allow a much different kind of advancement.

I can't disagree with any of this, either. If the argument is that D&D is to be strongly classed, you make excellent points. But using the 'evolution' argument that seems to be going around these days, D&D was evolving away from a strongly classed game since the latter days of 2nd edition. Kits, in particular, and various Player's Option books demonstrated that.

 

[Phloid]

You would think that with the reworking of all mechanics being "power" based and each class having mechanically similar powers to choose from at each level that are roughly balanced with each other, that the designers could have come up with a multiclass system that was actually taking multiple classes instead of this dabbling thing they devised. Or at least in addition to this thing in case you just wanted to dabble instead of multiclassing.

I know that there could be a balance issue with multiclass characters becoming "gestalt" if precautions aren't taken, and I don't condone a rise in power level in any shape or form. In fact this is another reason I anticipate not liking 4th Ed.

Even though I'm tempted to go into the other reasons I think 4th Ed will not be to my liking, this isn't the right forum.

I do think that there could be a fairly simple and balanced way for a player to take powers from more than one class without the need to spend feats and allow for an even distribution of class features. This would of course blur the lines of party role of both classes, but if properly balanced, could make an excellent 5th character.

 

[JohnSnow]

I don't often agree with Mr. Snow, but I had to say: Thank God for you.

...

Ok, we can go back to disagreeing now.

*LAUGH*

The thing is Storm-Bringer, we usually disagree on matters of "feel" rather than balance issues. I think as far as our sense of how the game works (or ought to), you and I tend to be of the same mind.

Where we tend to disagree, I think, is on how the game plays and some of the flavor aspects of it. And on how important those things are to how much like D&D it feels. Of coruse, I'm not sure I'm as much in favor of all the Fourth Edition changes as you might think - I just haven't yet seen anything about 4E that bugs me as much as Vancian magic did.

 

[Scipio202]

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.)

There is a difference between balanced overall, and equally good in every circumstance.

Suppose there are 3 types of encounters: A, B and C. In your typical campaign, they occur with equal frequency.

Suppose Wizards and Cleric each have three powers.

Wizard 1 is Excellent if A, Poor otherwise
Wizard 2 is Excellent if B, Poor otherwise
Wizard 3 is Decent in any encounter

Cleric 1 is Excellent if B, Poor otherwise
Cleric 2 is Excellent if C, Poor otherwise
Cleric 3 is Decent in any encounter

Wizards and Clerics are balanced overall as classes, and (for appropriate exact values of "Excellent", "Decent" and "Poor") the powers are balanced both within the class and between the classes.

However, a PC who can pick Wizard 1, Wizard 2 and Cleric 2 is strictly better than either pure class.

 

[Remathilis]

Whew. I finished the entire thread. Do I get a level now?

Here is my point on multi-classing.

In third (forget 1e/2e for a moment, they just strapped a second PC on your back and made you share hp between them), multi-classing had only two options.

1.) Uber-build that does your job better than a single class.
2.) Watered-down nerf-sticked PCs who can't do their job.

The first was the area of munchkins, CharOp boards, and finding the PERFECT combination of cherry-picked levels, prestige classes, and such that created horrible synergies. It also made some classes nothing more than "grab a level of" for others. (Swashbuckler was ripe pickings for rogues, as was ranger. And what fighter didn't benefit from one level of barbarian?) If you were going for a very specific build, you could really work miracles with cherry-picking (so much so, ranger, paladin and bard all got heavy revision in 3.5 to combat it).

The second came if you actually tried to fill two roles, rather than cherry-pick. Fighter/wizards lacked the caster level to beat spell resistance. Rogue/Monks lagged in disable device, making trap rolls impossible. A fighter/cleric lacked true healing power to make him a primary healer. So onward came the "patch" prestige classes (eldrich knight, mystic theurge) and soon enough, almost every conceivable class combo (primarily those with spellcasting or similar) got its own gestalt prc. Often times, a multi-classed PC trying to actually fill two roles fell behind in both, creating a less than optimal character.

(As an aside: I love the fact paragon paths are welded to classes for this reason as well. We all know you could theoretically get into any PrC with nearly any class combo, but in practice, most PrCs were built for one or two classes, and everyone else gained nothing for it. If you made the pre-reqs too loose, it lost value. If you made the bennies too good, there was no reason not to take it. In essence, PrCs became what paragon paths are now (extra cool abilities that make you different from one rogue to the next) without having to make them "balance" against the core classes nor dilute them from their primary roles to take them)

So, all this brings me back to 4e and multi-classing. Clearly, WotC would rather have a controlled version of type 1 and chuck part 2 altogether. IMHO, that's good. Any multi-class rules that made a hybrid class combo equal to his peers in either profession was too good, and any that made you hopelessly ineffective was just the opposite. Maybe this isn't quite "goldi-locks" level yet, but the fact I can still have elven warriors cast some spells without overshadowing actual wizards or failing at being actual warriors, thats a big plus in my book.

 

[Mouseferatu]

And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as "concept."

Given that you don't know my group, and don't know what we discussed and agreed upon back when we first started playtesting 4E, I find this presumptuous in the extreme.

 

[Storm-Bringer]

also included in the book is a spell called venom fire. add that with a fleshraker from mm3. It was clearly the book that was broken, NOT multi classing.

Ok, so I am not hallucinating about the bit where it falls completely apart without the sarrukh? Whew. Thanks for the confirm. After all the talk about this Pun-pun, I thought I had missed something critical when I was reading it.

 

[Kaisoku]

My only real concern over the new multiclassing is that I won't be able to create characters like I had in the past, without coming up with new rules or new abilities that basically copy others.


For example, in my current game I'm playing the following character build:

Human
Fighter 4, Barbarian 3, Ranger 3, Rogue 3, Commander 3*, Psychic Warrior 4
*War of the Burning Sky


This character was actually built organically. I started out entering the game at 8th level or so, with a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger background with skill points in Social skills and built as a guerrilla fighter (yay Gatepass!).

Rogue levels were added to increase my skill capability in social skills and spot as they were becoming increasingly important.
Commander levels were added because I was starting to become more aware of how much tactics influenced combat, we had participated in more than a couple war situations, and the character had been made a Noble, gaining at least some assumed leadership in-character.

Finally, nearing the end of the recent activities, we've encountered Psionics for the first time *Edit* Removed minor potential spoiler *Edit*. This opened up an avenue of character development unforseen.


It all makes logical sense, in character, and the only cheese factor is the Spiked Chain I'm using to full effect. However being that this is Core Rules only (with psionics now), this barely keeps my character caught up to the power the Cleric and Wizard have.

This is a really nice character build with a lot of options, that I hadn't even planned from the beginning to turn out like this. It legitimately has 6 base classes that all work well together, giving my a lot of in-combat and out-of-combat options as a character, without being hideously overpowered.


This wouldn't be possible according to 4e rules.

Which saddens me. Regardless if they did it in 1e or 2e, I loved that this was possible in 3e. In fact, in previous editions that I DM'd, I was constantly crafting new abilities or whole classes for players that wanted something outside of the box that "kits" wouldn't really help cover.

So while it's not always been in the rules, I've been playing by the spirit of 3e multiclassing all my game time.


In 4e, my current character build would need the following optoins:

- Defender skills (tripping, stopping people, high defense/hitpoints)
- Rage
- Track, a little bit of ranged combat capability (rapid shot)
- Sneak Attack
- Enough skill bonuses to accomodate some bonus to knowledge skills, Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff/Sense Motive, Spot, Tracking (survival), Psionic skills (autohypnosis and concentration).
- Some leader bonuses (allowing extra attacks, movement, bonuses to combat, and ability to communicate surreptitiously between comrades)
- A smattering of combat-focused psionics.

I could see this potentially working if I were allowed to take multiclass from more than one class. Otherwise it's back to building new base classes that happen to encompass a large enough portion of what I want... but even then, being able to double as Defender with a smattering of Leader doesn't allow Psionics to come into play naturally later...


I know this character is rather unique in build...
It's just... a little disappointing to see that this option has been neutered because it's not "mainstream".

 

[Storm-Bringer]

*LAUGH*

The thing is Storm-Bringer, we usually disagree on matters of "feel" rather than balance issues. I think as far as our sense of how the game works (or ought to), you and I tend to be of the same mind.

Where we tend to disagree, I think, is on how the game plays and some of the flavor aspects of it. And on how important those things are to how much like D&D it feels. Of coruse, I'm not sure I'm as much in favor of all the Fourth Edition changes as you might think - I just haven't yet seen anything about 4E that bugs me as much as Vancian magic did.

Heretic.

Otherwise, I think your analysis is spot on.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

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.

I can't disagree with any of this, either. If the argument is that D&D is to be strongly classed, you make excellent points. But using the 'evolution' argument that seems to be going around these days, D&D was evolving away from a strongly classed game since the latter days of 2nd edition. Kits, in particular, and various Player's Option books demonstrated that.

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.