Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[hong]

At the moment, I really cannot see people sinking more than 1-2 feats at most into multiclassing. I'm assuming here that feats will actually be significant contributors to a character's usefulness.

Multiclassing is basically a nerfed dipping. Creating character concepts that don't fall neatly into the existing classes, or are close to same, looks to be something that will be achieved via custom classes.

 

[AZRogue]

I can't read all this at the moment, unfortunately, but still feel like commenting, so here it goes:

I like the 4E system in a way. It will be all right BECAUSE I think, in 4E, it will just be easier to make a new Class than to try and make a 50/50 split character. This is fine by me. A single new Class for, say, a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric concept would be best and it's not something I'm afraid to do myself and, hopefully, not something that WotC or the 3pp's shy away from. The rules as presented are more than adequate for "dipping".

I do want to say, though, that nothing so far has equaled the fun of playing AD&D (and 2E) multiclassing. Superb. Powerful? You betcha, but I designed the encounters and took that into account. The Golden Age of multiclassing, IMO.

But, as I said, designing a specific Class to accomplish an effective evenly split multiclass character, like the older versions, will be adequate.

 

[Bill Bisco]

I think that 4E multiclassing is less about options to build a character and more about options to realise a character concept.

So let's try - give me a character concept that 4E multiclassing cannot handle (apart from obvious things like psionics, nature magic, and so on, because the base classes are missing).

Cheers, LT.

My 2nd edition character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage Half-Elf. Being of mixed heritage he similarly applied himself in many areas. He casted Divine and Arcane Spells in addition to learning fighting techniques.

He did this at 1st level.

 

[Mokona]

It's advisable to have all four classes, just as it's always been advisable to have a balanced party. i've played in a lot of parties that are not balanced, however, and you can still be succesfull and have fun without all roles being filled.

You agree with me that D&D is written with rules and guidelines so that it is better to have one of each role. So why punish parties that choose to fill the "missing" Controller role with mutliclassing? The punishment is making multiclassing too expensive.

Below Andy makes my point that you should have each role even if you have to multiclass to cover a missing role.

Quote Andy and Greg Collins, "Sibling Rivalry, Take Two", http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20060110a:

Andy: I can already see the DMs out there nodding along. We've all seen this happen -- somebody decides to change characters, without necessarily realizing that they're also vacating a crucial party role.

Particularly at low- to mid-levels, every character in the party must bring something to the group that no one else has. Each character may (and in fact, probably should) be a specialist, but the group as a whole has to cover the crucial bases in order to have a good chance of succeeding (much less surviving).

In D&D, the four basic party roles are usually defined as follows:

* "Bruiser" (the tough melee-based character who serves as the primary line of defense against big, bad monsters);
* "Blaster" (the ranged-attack specialist, traditionally an arcane caster with plenty of area spells such as fireball);
* "Sneaker" (the eyes, ears, fingers, and quiet feet of the party, who usually mixes melee and ranged attacks); and
* "Healer" (the one who keeps everyone else on their feet during the fight, and patches everyone up afterward).

While plenty of variations on these four roles exist (and some classes don't quite fit), going entirely without any one of them means you're likely to have a significant vulnerability to cover in other ways.

 

[Rechan]

At the moment, I really cannot see people sinking more than 1-2 feats at most into multiclassing. I'm assuming here that feats will actually be significant contributors to a character's usefulness.

We have been told that they are not. That the majority of a player's usefulness comes from their Powers.

 

[Mokona]

Both of these statements are the opposite of true.

I'll quote the source here because it actually supports my original post. WotC_Shoe is not yet sure that his party which is missing a key role isn't suffering too much. He, like me, is worried that they're suffering too much and so he plans to watch the issue closely.

Quote WotC_Shoe, "Are you ready for some dice rolling?", http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=43622&pagemode=2&blogid=2074:

At any rate, despite the occasional negative hit point totals accrued by the weekly group, they are still able to achieve a reasonable "day's" worth of adventuring before they need to stop for an extended rest. At least I think they are. I get a feeling that the weekend group can last an extra encounter or two. Now that the rules have settled down a bit, I'll be keeping track of the number of rounds in each fight and the number of (combat)encounters in a "day", and attempt to confirm my hypothesis.

 

[Voadam]

Given the way 1st and 2nd Edition XP worked, a 1st Edition Fighter/Wizard 6 was in a party with a Wizard 7 and a Fighter 7 (roughly, I don't have my 2e XP tables handy). Compared to the wizard, he's missing his best spell and he's one hit die down, but he's got fighter hit points and to-hit, and he can wield fighter weapons and wear armor. Compared to the fighter, he's lagging behind 1 point on his to-hit, but has the full range of spells available to a 6th-level wizard. You're telling me that's balanced? Are you high?!

Actually there are a few more balance points.

The 6/6 F/Mu does not have 6th level fighter hp. He gets half the F HD and half the MU HD in 1e and in 2e he rolls both HD and averages the results. So he's got about 6d7 HD under either method instead of the 7d10 of the straight fighter. So 24 hp vs. 38.5 before any con bonuses. Down by more than 1/3 in hp. At 7th level the fighter also gains his first bonus attack every other round going at 3/2.

As a fighter MU he also can't cast in armor (in 2e they have that elven mithril chain exception), so his AC is also likely not as good as the straight fighter who will likely be wearing at least plate mail at 7th level.

As a wizard he gives up 1 caster level, his highest level spell, and a second level spell (he has 8 total spells a day versus 10 of the straight caster).

Here are the xp charts up to 8th
Mage
1 0
2 2,500
3 5,000
4 10,000
5 20,000
6 40,000
7 60,000
8 90,000

1 0
2 2,000
3 4,000
4 8,000
5 16,000
6 32,000
7 64,000
8 125,000

So if you take a number like 80,000 xp that would give us your 6/6 F/M or the 7 F or the 7 M. Good guess. I always guestimated old edition multiclassers as about a level behind straight class characters, though there are some wonky spots due to the wierd advancements.

 

[hong]

We have been told that they are not. That the majority of a player's usefulness comes from their Powers.

That doesn't mean feats can't be useful either.

 

[drjones]

To be fair, some of us have never played 1 or 2E(though I have played the latter). Heck, some of us here didn't even exist when 1 or 2E came out...

I played both of them and I despised multiclassing. I still tried to do it in the 2e video games but it was full of arbitrary restrictions (race based class restrictions.. why?) that did not seem to further game balance. It basically was a sign that said 'you can multiclass if you really want to but we can't balance it well so here are a few hoops to jump through and a kick in the nads for trying'.

But if 2e was the overly-strict-homeschooling-ex-marine-dad 3e was the recently-divorced-spoil-you-rotten-yuppie-dad. Looks like they are trying to hit somewhere in the middle.

 

[Rechan]

That doesn't mean feats can't be useful either.

Useful like getting one power for another?