-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)
- Thread starter jaelis
- Start date
Scrollreader
Explorer
hong said:
Mmm. I suppose we're all just whistling in the dark, here.
In 3.X, I don't think you'd get any arguments that this ability would be worth a feat. Just look at all the CO builds that used the 'extra power known' feat from the XPH or the number of people who picked domains entirely for a single high level spell (Shapechange being a particular offender, but not the only one). And I'm pretty sure, with the right spell (Divine Power springs to mind) you'd have many, many people willing to give up substantial class features or whole schools of magic for acess to it, even if it cost a feat.
The hope is that 4e will not have as big a disparity between equal level options, especially from the same list. Hence, the payoff will be smaller. However, from what we've seen, it looks like feats will also be less variable. So are we giving up Dodge for this? Or Karmic Strike? Power attack or heavy armor optimization? I think feats will be useful and en masse, a contributor of some substance. I think an individual feat will be less so, and a cleverly chosen power can offer more benefit than the cost. Ultimtely though, I don't think we have a solid basis to discus the value of feats as currency, and the difference now is just one of degree and personal preference. Shall we agree to disagree?
And if not, there's always paragon multiclassing. However that ends up working out.
occam
Hero
It occurs to me that a well-balanced rule will generate the greatest amount of conflict, because it makes the optimal choice non-obvious. In fact, it makes the optimal choice very situation- and person-dependent. So far, we've got almost 20 pages on this topic in about a day; maybe WotC has achieved their goal with 4e multiclassing.
Then again, I am polishing off a 22-oz. near-12% abv imperial stout, so I may not be in the clearest state of mind at present.
Then again, I am polishing off a 22-oz. near-12% abv imperial stout, so I may not be in the clearest state of mind at present.
Orius
Unrepentant DM Supremacist
First off, I am not reading through 550+ posts before commenting here. I'll forget half of what I want to say, and I don't have the time to go through all those posts anway.
From what I can tell, it looks like it has potential. Having played enough pre-3e and 3e, I've seen how D&D's multiclassing worked in the past. Even if these rules turn out to be bad, the designers are addressing one of the weak points in the game.
Old-school multiclassing was restricted to demihumans only, humans were stuck with that horrible dual classing stuff in 2e and maybe earlier. Even then, the rules had limited numbers of multiclass options (given racial class restrictions), and there was only a single triple class option available, the elf (or was it half-elf?) fighter/thief/mage. While XP slowed down a bit, the characters tended to be pretty strong, and always got the best THAC0 (usually fighter) and saves.
Then 3e had its problems with dipping. I'm sure there are those who absolutely loved 3e's multiclassing (and I do agree it was an improvement over the old stuff) who'll disagree, but there were problems. Like taking a level of fighter just for full armor and martial weapon proficiency. Like taking a level of monk with a divine caster for the Wis bonus to AC. Like taking a level of paladin for the Cha bonus to saves. And so on. Yes, there were the XP penalties for doing that, but builds that worked with a favored class got around that. In addition, multi-classing was a bad option most of the time for a caster, simply beause of lost spell levels. Multiclassing in 3e was good when it involved 2 or 3 fairly compatible classes that worked well together, but the system was a bit too abusable, and penalized spell casters disproportionally.
This doesn't look too bad. In essense, it seems to go back to the tradition of two classes only while avoiding the overpowered mutliclasses of yore. There's no need for a jack-of-all-trades multiclass build in the game, since D&D has long about teamwork and having a party of specialists who wrok together to overcome challenges.
From what I can tell, it looks like it has potential. Having played enough pre-3e and 3e, I've seen how D&D's multiclassing worked in the past. Even if these rules turn out to be bad, the designers are addressing one of the weak points in the game.
Old-school multiclassing was restricted to demihumans only, humans were stuck with that horrible dual classing stuff in 2e and maybe earlier. Even then, the rules had limited numbers of multiclass options (given racial class restrictions), and there was only a single triple class option available, the elf (or was it half-elf?) fighter/thief/mage. While XP slowed down a bit, the characters tended to be pretty strong, and always got the best THAC0 (usually fighter) and saves.
Then 3e had its problems with dipping. I'm sure there are those who absolutely loved 3e's multiclassing (and I do agree it was an improvement over the old stuff) who'll disagree, but there were problems. Like taking a level of fighter just for full armor and martial weapon proficiency. Like taking a level of monk with a divine caster for the Wis bonus to AC. Like taking a level of paladin for the Cha bonus to saves. And so on. Yes, there were the XP penalties for doing that, but builds that worked with a favored class got around that. In addition, multi-classing was a bad option most of the time for a caster, simply beause of lost spell levels. Multiclassing in 3e was good when it involved 2 or 3 fairly compatible classes that worked well together, but the system was a bit too abusable, and penalized spell casters disproportionally.
This doesn't look too bad. In essense, it seems to go back to the tradition of two classes only while avoiding the overpowered mutliclasses of yore. There's no need for a jack-of-all-trades multiclass build in the game, since D&D has long about teamwork and having a party of specialists who wrok together to overcome challenges.
hong said:
Now we're arguing two different points. I'm not saying the feat cost of multiclassing is balanced or fair or good--we can't make that decision until we see the PHB and can gauge whether Initiate Power is comparable with Toughness or Weapon Focus or whatever options there are. I'm just trying to point out that you aren't "losing" a power for multiclassing.
occam said:
Well, too be fair, we've got twenty pages of people arguing about what the rules might be, not what the rules are. If we get twenty pages in a day around, say, June 13th or so,then you might be on to something.
Then again, I am polishing off a 22-oz. near-12% abv imperial stout, so I may not be in the clearest state of mind at present.
[Threadjack] Very nice--what are you drinking? I'm a huge imperial stout fan myself.[/Threadjack]
occam
Hero
Kordeth said:
It's The Czar Imperial Stout, from Avery Brewing in Boulder, CO. Not bad, but some aging to bring out the flavors and improve the body would probably do it some good. Definitely packs a punch, though.
I'm still waiting for Full Sail to come out with another Black Gold Imperial Stout, which they're supposed to be doing this year, IIRC. Yum!
Back to your regularly scheduled thread....
occam said:
Delicious indeed. If you can find it out in Colorado, I heartily recommend Stone Brewing's Russian Imperial Stout, or Port Brewing's Santa's Little Helper. Both very excellent beers, and I'm privileged enough to live within driving distance of both breweries.
Err, right. Multiclassing. Yep. Suuuuuuuure do love that multiclassing.
