Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Lurker37]

At the expense of increased tactical options in situations the class is intended for.

Let's say I'm a greatsword-using fighter. Sure, I could gain a ranger archery power that opens up a new tactical option, but that's at the expense of one of my own melee-focused powers, a power that keys off my prime attribute, works in more situations I will find myself in, works with the weapon I've been upgrading, and doesn't force me to spend actions to switch weapons.

I'm not saying your argument lacks any merit, just that it isn't quite as nice and easy as you make it seem.

Agreed. I tried to cover that by specifying that the power had to be well-chosen. I fully expect that some classes and/or roles will get more mileage from certain multiclass powers than others. While I hope that this is not going to introduce a new form of system mastery, we unfortunately currently lack the information required to examine this in more detail.

And I don't expect to get these answers next month. It will probably take a month or so after the rules are released before we really begin to see how well these rules actually work in play. That's why I'm paying such close attention to what the playtesters say.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Personally, I see dipping as less a problem of the multiclassing system and more a problem of the internal design of classes- the more front-loaded the "kewl" powers within a class are, the more it makes sense to dip.

If, for example, a PrCl got all of its powers at 1st level, but at a very weak level (limited uses, diminished power, whatever), dipping might not be ideal. Ditto making a PC stick in the class until lvl 5 or so. Or perhaps basing a power's effectiveness on "class" levels, rather than PC levels.

Instead, many of the "problem" classes (base or PrCl), had some of the most valuable powers doled out at a significant power level very early on.

Consider: How many popular spellcaster PrCls give you access to an additional level of spells while making you sacrifice other class abilities. Now ask yourself, how many popular ones give you a completely different spell progression plus some powers.

And where are the ones that give you all kinds of abilities, but almost completely eliminate progressing as a spellcaster? Dragon Disciple and...?

 

[small pumpkin man]

Optimization Schmoptimization- those commandments are garbage.

Multiclassing exists to help you find the best in-game representation of your mental vision of a PC, to realize that character & personality within the framework of the rules. To do otherwise is to massage some rules to create a game artifact and slap a name on it- you might as well name them PC#1, PC#2, PC#3...PC#N.

And if the idea in your head isn't like Rincewind or Roger Wilco except without the amazing ability to suceed without skill, you would do well to follow those rules.

Nobody's barred from actually multiclassing- you just see it as somehow unfair that a multiclassed spellcaster actually has to give up something of value (N number of spells of Z levels) in order to gain something else of value (extra combat feats, sneak attack, whatever).

Okay, see, no. The problem is that if your a 12th level Wizard, those things aren't "of value" to you at all. Not in the slightest.You don't care. And you're giving up caster levels. this means as has been pointed so many times in such discusions, that you suck. You have no greater variety for lessened power, you, just, suck.

Do you honestly think that its usually the case that a general practice physician is as good at brain surgery as a dedicated specialist? Or that someone who is a world-class marksman who plays piano is equally good at it? What about a person who bowls once a week as opposed to someone who bowls twice a day?

NO- generally speaking, the person who picks one thing to practice is almost invariably better at it than those who dabble, and the 3.x multiclassing rules reflect that.

No, a Fighter/Rogue works like that, they can do both but not as good as a pure Fighter, or a pure Rogue, but it's can do both enough to contribute, that works. A 3.x Fighter/Wizard can neither Fight properly, nor blast/control/party buff/whatever Wizards normally do properly, making it a waste of everyone's time.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Characters that "multiclass" by using Feats/Paragon powers are not supposed to necessarily be "more powerful" or "more playable" than characters that don't. There are a ton of similar feats and even powers that are situational. Like Ray of Frost or pretty much any non-healing Warlord ability.
They just make playing your character different. Perhaps more flexible.
I believe that the ability to retrain makes power-swapping feats worthwhile as they are, 1 feat for 1 swap; others may disagree about the number of feats-to-powers, but overall it's apparent that the concept, for dabbling, is sound.

As I think I show in my thread, 4E makes it easier to "multiclass 50/50" from the get-go by simply making a class that combines the selection of powers in a way that makes sense. The integration of systems formerly used to determine effects of abilities makes it possible in ways it wasn't before.
And if you don't want to go 50/50, dabbling seems to work fine. And much, MUCH better than 3.x.

If you don't want to think hard about a good, standard combo class, let me know and I'll make it for you.

 

[Ipissimus]

Yup, not having read this whole thread, please bear that in mind, I'll go over my thoughts.

Overall, it looks pretty good. There isn't really one of these that pops out as 'better' than the others, though Student of the Sword comes close. But then 'Fighter: skill training' sounds like 'Military Intelligence' and the other feats give you comparable crunch. Gish will probably have to pick up an armour training feat if they want it.

I will be more impressed with it if they release feats that allow a PC to 'cherry pick' other class abilities from other classes in a limited fashion. I think 1/encounter is a nice limitation when the core class gets to do it whenever they like.

The point that I have to disagree with is that a PC should sacrifice power for versatility, which is probably why I feel it's a little off making a multiclass character spend a feat to swap a power. Rather, you're already sacrificing specialization for versatility which is a minor difference in phrasing, I'll admit, but one with deep implications (that should probably be the subject for another thread, so I won't waste anyone's time here on that). On the other hand, just giving a power away for a feat is too much in this case with inevitable synergy problems cropping up. A better 'deeper multiclassing' option might have been more feats that give extra encounter or daily powers from the at-will/encounter powers of other classes. Heck, those feats could even work alongside the ones presented to give everyone more options as to how their character works.

Aside from Conan, my other benchmarks for multiclassing rules are Cloud Strife and Sephiroth - if just for their visual thematics. Right now, the Wiz or Lock/SotS is looking fairly close to that image. As of now, though, this does not bode well for the conversion of my Mystic Theurge... though I'll admit, it might make the Wizard a little more useful from the back line.

I can see why they don't want more than one other class, though. I mean, imagine the 'front line' Wiz/SotS/IotF. Cool, yeah, but a little too cool.

 

[Andor]

I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.

Is this really worth a feat?

Would I spend a feat to allow my Wizard to give up Wind Wall in exchange for gaining Cure Serious Wounds? You'd better freaking believe it!

Would I spend a feat to have my 5th level rogue give up 1d6 of his sneak attack in order to cast Invisibility once per day? Probably. Most rogues would think that's a pretty sweet deal.

Would I spend a feat to allow my Paladin to give up his special mount in exchange for casting Fly once per day? Depends on the Paladin, but for most, yeah.

Would a Druid spend a feat to give up his Wildshape in exchange for 1d6 sneak attack damage? Hell no! But he wouldn't whine about having the option.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Okay, see, no. The problem is that if your a 12th level Wizard, those things aren't "of value" to you at all. Not in the slightest.

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

You don't care. And you're giving up caster levels. this means as has been pointed so many times in such discusions, that you suck. You have no greater variety for lessened power, you, just, suck.

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.

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.

A 3.x Fighter/Wizard can neither Fight properly, nor blast/control/party buff/whatever Wizards normally do properly, making it a waste of everyone's time.

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."

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.

 

[Zelc]

Personally, I see dipping as less a problem of the multiclassing system and more a problem of the internal design of classes- the more front-loaded the "kewl" powers within a class are, the more it makes sense to dip.

Here's the other problem. If you can't front-load classes, then many classes are awful to play in the first few levels because they haven't gotten their defining abilities. This provided a significant constraint on class design, which is especially noteworthy if you've tried to make a homebrew class. You want to make it play and run smoothly from level 1, but you can't because then it'd be too good for dips.


And again, I'd like to re-emphasize that a lot of PrCs in 3.5 works exactly like the multiclassing system in 4e: you give up the prerequisites (feats, skill points, etc.) and the class abilities in your previous class in exchange for the prestige class's abilities. See my example of the Beguiler 20 vs. the Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1. Where this broke down (get PrC abilities at a low cost due to no good class abilities) was where the biggest opportunities for power-gaming came in.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Here's the other problem. If you can't front-load classes, then many classes are awful to play in the first few levels because they haven't gotten their defining abilities.

That is the eternal conundrum of the class-based RPG system.

And again, I'd like to re-emphasize that a lot of PrCs in 3.5 works exactly like the multiclassing system in 4e:

But if you're multiclassing with another base class, it seems as if you get one aspect of the new class without any of the underlying stuff- its a little like getting a roof without a foundation and a little like cutting in line.

 

[Zelc]

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

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

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.

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.

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). 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?

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."

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

No, he can't fight or spellsling properly. That +9 BAB and 6d6 Fireballs just won't cut it against 12th level monsters (note you can't cast both in one turn...). Heck, a buffed Wiz12 with Polymorph (or possibly even Tenser's Transformation!) fights better in melee than a Fig6/Wiz6. In an proper-CR encounter, a Fighter6/Wizard 6 will almost always contribute less to the fight than a Fighter 12 or Wizard 12, and the expected contribution will most definitely be less. I challenge you to make a Fighter 6/Wizard 6 that contradicts this (prob start new thread in D&D rules).

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.

I did play M:tG, and this is a horrible analogy. Multicolor decks often created tons of synergy and powerful/broken combos. Blue-green Madness comes to mind. I also played a ton of T1, and pretty much every deck was multi-colored because the single-colored decks just couldn't keep up in sheer power. Mono-blue decks often weren't the best control decks because they had limited ways of dealing with stuff that actually gets past the counterwall.

Adding another color splash to a deck just for the purposes of added flexibility (i.e. adding White or Green just for Disenchant/Naturalize to deal with enchants/artifacts) often creates color-screw issues and weakens the deck as a whole. And it's not nearly as bad in MtG as it is in D&D.