Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Delgar]

Well I think it's clear with the number of people saying the tradeoff is worth it, and the number of people that say it's not worth it, that they got it right.

It's clearly not a MUST have option and it's clearly not a completely terrible option, and that sounds balanced to me.

 

[chitzk0i]

If you are only allowed to order eggs benedict if you order your cheeseburger without cheese you are.

So you would have A+B +feat. Of you can swap the feat to get A+C. A=B=C

In the former case you have 2 options plus the power of the feat (no matter how small it may be). In the later you just have two options and no added feat

Because you sacrificed the feat to get C instead of B and since B&C are equally powerfull you did not gain any increase in power from that to balance out for the lost power of the feat.

I think you're losing something by simplifying it that much. A, B, and C are not identical like you've asserted. A and B are distinct from each other and belong to a set of objects. C belongs to another set of objects. Is it worth it to pay resources to draw objects from two different sets instead of drawing from just one set?

To answer that question, we would need to know the differences between the objects in each set and the value of the resource we're giving up. We don't know for sure any of that. We know a few of the objects in each set and we can make some educated guesses about the value of the resource we're giving up, but that's all. We don't know enough.

 

[Voss]

The question then becomes, will another class's power generally be worth the combined cost of losing a feat and the best available in-class power? If the powers of the classes are finely balanced enough that the best available out-of-class power doesn't make you more powerful than the best available in-class power, the answer will be no; selecting a cross-class power will always be a suboptimal build because you gave up both an in-class power and a feat, and in exchange got a power only as powerful as your in-class power.

It isn't quite that simple, however. If you choose a power that functions better with your other choices (synergy) or uses a better stat than the other powers available to you (optimizing), you aren't making a suboptimal choice. Plus, given that powers do many, many different things, 'more powerful' becomes something extremely complex. If your class doesn't have any defensive powers or extra action powers or area effect powers, it may be useful to pick one up. A lot of powers don't function on an easily rated 'this does the most damage, so is therefor most powerful' rubric.

You're also, of course, paying for the ability to upgrade more often than you normally would.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I actually waded through the posts since my last one, and all I got was a slight fever (actually, that's not from reading, but I wanted to add some drama... )

Is this for of multiclassing more dipping then anything else?
Possibly.

Let's be honest, multiclassing in 3E also was often similar to "dipping" - pick a level of Rogue for skills and sneak attack, or a level of Fighter for a bonus feats and heavy armor proficiency, or a level of Barbarian for Rage. In all these examples, you still got to improve your "core" abilities - BAB, Saves, HD. You couldn't do this for spellcasting, because for some reason, no one in 3.0 or 3.5 found a way to let BAB, spells per day, spells known or caster level stack, and the fix where Prestige Classes. (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge...)
Many multiclassed characters also used this dipping to multiclass in PrCs.

4E has two design elements that need to be considered:
- Frontloading of classes, so you feel like a member of the class at level 1
- Every character is like a spellcaster
Maybe there would have been a different approach, but this is the approach 4E did, and at this point, you'll have to decide how to handle multiclassing with these elements.
3E style multiclasing is overpowered for front-loading, but fails in regards to spellcasting.

So, how do you balance each aspect?
- Reduce the benefits of the "front-loadedness" for multiclassing. (This was first done in Starwars Saga Edition). You get only a subset of the normal 1st level abilities.
- Let the "caster levels" stack, but don't add more spells/powers per day for multiclassing. You can choose powers from an expanded list, but still can pick the highest level powers.

The question is - what's the cost for this expansion? Should there be a cost at all? There is already the opportunity cost, after all?
3E multiclassing did rarely cost something for non-spellcasters. You usually got the most interesting stuff with 1-4 levels, and didn't really lose something. So this might be a bad basis for cost determination.
Starwars Saga Edition might come closer - if you multiclass from Noble into Soldier, you don' get that much. If you really want to "Soldier" more, you will need to expend feats and skill training feats to get Soldier-abilities, which means not only do you not advance in your Noble talents (that's expected opportunity cost), but you also pay with feats.

4E takes a similar approach. You pay the opportunity cost, and you pay with some feats. Is it worth it? That might depend on what you select.
A Fighter with an Ice Wall power doesn't sound so bad. First round, mark a foe, second round, put a wall between you and him - now he either has to select different targets (taking the -2 penalty) or waste some time walking around the wall. (Oh, and he will take some damage, too.) A Cleric with the Rogue's tumble power can safely reach a comrade to heal him. At this point, we don't know what other Cleric or Fighter powers might do, but I think this definitely shows that there are situations in where such powers seem useful enough. A lot of the powers usability might depend on party composition and a specific tactical situation.

...

There are, off course, other concerns to multiclassing. It's not always about power, it can also be about making the character concept work you had in mind, and organic growth. A Rogue constantly forced to fight in the front-lines might multiclass into Fighter in 3E, and wear a heavier armor. A 4E Rogue could now take a multiclass feat for Fighter, or pick a heavier armor profiency feat. The "trouble" might begin if the Rogue in our example now wants to pick up a third class - maybe he's travelling a lot through the wilderness, and would find tracking and archery more useful. In 3E, the solution would probably be to multiclass into Ranger. In 4E, he couldn't just multiclass into Ranger if he already multiclassed into Fighter. But on the other hand, he sure could pick up bow profiency or skill training in Nature.

An interesting "feature" here is: The character in 4E can retrain per default. If he sees that he doesn't really benefit from his fightery abilities any more, he could just choose to retrain his fighter training feats or his armor profiency, and pick up the Ranger multiclass feats or skill training in Nature.

Now, some people will undoubtly argue that they don't like retraining. Organic growth (to them) means that I can still see what the character did half a year or 3 levels ago. Well, that's a matter of taste, but I don't see much wrong with the idea of people losing their aptitude in a certain area, and regaining it in a new area. Sure, it can feel a bit awkward, if all it takes is one level (which could be gained in two days) to "forget" heavy armor profiency, but then, it also takes only the same level and two days to gain heavy armor proficiency, or learn two new spells (the latter 3E only )


If it was just me, I'd consider saying that you can could take a "Vancian" approach to feats and powers you have, and you can choose each day (or a larger, arbitrary unit of time) to regain an ability you previously knew and chose to relearn. But that's house rule territory (as far as we know), so it doesn't exactly help the discussion.

---

On the now seemingly no longer that interesting topic on the profileration of more core/base classes: D&D is a class-based game. There is a limit to what a class can represent. There is a continuum on how strictly defined a class is. 3E tended to have a mix of class definitions - each spellcaster was tightly defined, as a result, multiclassing them was hard. Each non-spellcaster class was a lot more losely defined, the synergy between them was higher and multiclassing was easier with them. Prestige Classes basically where either trying to tighten a class focus stronger (you're not just a Fighter, but a Weapon Specialist, or you're not just a WIzard, but a Loremaster), or expanding them (Mystic Theurge the most prominent example)

4E seems to define classes more strictly. Paragon Paths seem to enforce this further, while multiclassing expands a little. But in the end, instead of expansion through PrCs or multiclassing, we will get new core classes. This has the advantage that you start in your desired class from day and level one, and don't get there at a later point. This has its appeal to me... (Even though I used to be more a fan of class-less games...)

 

[Vysirez]

Lots of interesting discussion on this. I will first admit that this post is going to ramble a bit.

I do have to say that this is a lot what I expected from comments made by Devs. So I'm not surprised. I do agree that 4e multiclassing looks to lean more towards dabbling then full 50/50 split. But I'm not sure that it's as much toward dabbling as many fear. I think that the ability to take class specific feats and PPs will add more flexibility then the article seems to indicate at first.

One thing I found amusing about 4e multiclassing is cherry picking. The Devs have stated that they didnt like cherry picking in 3.5 and so felt they had to design classes less frontloaded. But when it comes to 4e mutliclassing, cherry picking is built in. I think that 4e multiclassing is balanced around the fact that you are going to cherry pick the best powers and best secondary class for your build.

One comment I wanted to make on the 3e cleric taking a feat to get access to wizard spells. The counter arguements was that it was just 1 spell. But while sort of true, it's also kinda misleading. A spellcaster in 3e would have far more spells per day then a 4e character is going to have powers. So while 1 spell in 3e is a fairly small portion of your daily load, 1 power is a much larger chunk.

An issue that has been discussed a bit in the thread is that not all powers are equal. While theoretically all classes are balanced overall, powers are not balanced between classes. A figher gets heavy armor, more hps, more healing surges. In return for this his powers are going to tend to be a bit weaker then a wizard. So a fighter picking up wizard powers is going to gain more then a wizard getting fighter powers. The question is how much of a difference is there, and does it break anything.

All in all I think the 4e mutliclassing system will work well enough for me. What we have seen so far is a bit lacking, but I think once I see all the class specific feats, and the range of powers available, I think it will work fairly well. There will be a lot of options open since even if you have the same multiclass combo, say Fighter with Wizard multi, you still wont always take the same powers. Or the same feats. I really think getting access to class specific feats will make a bigger difference then some people seem to believe.

 

[Shazman]

Ugh. Although there is an overwhelmingly positive bent on these boards toward 4th Edition and I will likely be flamed or at least contested I have to take the negative side of this.

These multiclassing rules are not what I want. They look like solid rules for dabbling in another class, but they are not "Multi-Classing." In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?" You might, but new players to the game won't unless the PH says to call it that. Even then, the name still won't fit. To me it is a wizard with sneak attack. Not a multiclass wizard/rogue. Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it. And only one other class? Bah!

Am also annoyed that I have to give up multiple feats in order to "multiclass." I want my feats for other things.

I'm well aware that multiclassing rules in the previous editions were not good, but neither is this. They should work, but they are not "multiclassing." It is "class dabbling."

I'm just more discouraged every time they reveal something about the game. I'll read the PH and play a game or two before I pass final judgment but it looks bad in my eyes, and keeps getting worse.

I have to agree with you. While my previous posts may have been a bit too negative, this is not what they promised us. Instead of trying to make a multiclassing system that works for everyone, especially casters, they avoided multiclassing alltogether and made some dabbling feats. 3.5 multiclassing works really well, except for spellcasters, but anyone who play 3.5 understands this. They know that a wizard 10/fighter 10 will not have access to effective spells at higher levels. They also know that playing an eldritch knight is better. What's wrong with that? I can play a barbarian/ranger/rogue and have him be just as effective as the player playing a sraight fighter. It woulnd not be difficult to make some dabbling feats for 3.5, but I certainly wouldn't call it multiclassing. 4E dabbling lets you get a few powers from only one and no more than one other class. That is weak and lazy game design. You may not believe me, but I really have tried to like 4E. The problem is that I really dislike pretty much everything they release about it. First it was the overemphasis on roles. Then we found out that many iconic classes and races would be in limbo for a while and cost extra later. Then we saw extremely weak, and bland excerpts on the pit fiend , rogue, and warlord. Then we see anemic, bland paragon paths, and this class dabbling passing as multiclassing. It's almost like they really don't want me to like the game.

 

[Masquerade]

Well I think it's clear with the number of people saying the tradeoff is worth it, and the number of people that say it's not worth it, that they got it right.

It's clearly not a MUST have option and it's clearly not a completely terrible option, and that sounds balanced to me.

After reading over 600 posts of this thread (I deserve a medal!), this is the same conclusion at which I have arrived.

In 3.5, multiclassing produced some of the most powerful characters and some of the weakest. It seems that 4e multiclassers are going to be about on-par with non-multiclassers. There are reasons to take the feats and reasons not to. Sounds like a good rule to me.

 

[satori01]

I have a number of issues with what I have read regarding "multi-classing".

1) I think fundamentally this design does not address some fundamental complaints about multiclassing & PrCs, namely: complexity & delay in time for a concept to kick in.
Arguably you can say multi classing is easier now since it requires solely a feat investment, and Saving Throws and To Hit charts are simplified. Of course given that every class is now just a list of powers you pick and chose from means classes are fundamentally all like spell casters of previous editions.

Delay in a concept is also a big concern. You wanted to play a Fighter/Mage in 3.5...there where a billion & 1 ways to do it, some at 1st level, some thru feats or magic items, some thru PrCs.....but the concept could kick in in force between 7-10th level. Look 4E and now that has become 11th level....whaaa? The delay got longer...
Whaa?

2)Is Cherry Picking 1 power really multiclassing? If a Fighter that throws the occasional Fireball really a Fighter/Mage. Sure the player can play up the "magical training" they have had and everyone at the table can play along......but come on this is more like putting lipstick on a pig, and everyone at the prom pretending its a real date. Can we not already predict what classes will be "multiclassed to" people will pick up area attacks if area attacks are rare, people will pick up rogue, because Thievery as a skill lets you do all of the cool things that skill ranks and dedication in terms of level required previously. People for the most part will probably not chose fighter unless they are martially minded because HPs being static makes it the new Multiclassing problem as spell casting was in 3E.

You will see fighters that lob fireballs, but not as much I suspect of Wizards that can fight, because do you want to be the guy with lower Hit Points than a defender Marking the solo mob....I think not.

3) If 3E multiclassing was so elegant why abandon it completely? I hate disingenious statements like that. A magical BAB system solves the multiclassing issue there.
4e designers wanted to build from the ground up. That is fine. What I suspect though is that classes are just long lists of narrowly defined powers. Like WoW characters there will be nuance differences say between 2 different Warlocks, but not alot of fundamental ones.

This is a big change from 3.5 where with the multiclassing, PrC, & feats characters of the same class could be vary different.

Star Wars Saga has been mentioned a few times, and I think the points people have made are interesting. One thing I have fear for in 4e is that my reaction to classes is going to be similar to my opinion of Star Wars Saga classes:

Interesting mechanics, but no soul.

If everyone has the same to Hit table, if everyones powers are balanced to military like precision, if every class is a list of powers and feats alone, with no quirky other features, then to quote the Incredibles: "everyone is special, and thus no one is".
4e mechanics sound fine, I like them, but this "multiclassing" system sounds like a compromise due to the fundamental nature of some design decision, and one has to wonder do these great mechanics have heart.

 

[Voss]

Shazman, can you specify what they promised? You seem to have a precise idea of what it was, while I only seem to have a vague idea.


Anyway. This subsystem (whether you feel it should be called multiclassing or not), doesn't strike me as 'weak and lazy'. Its definitely different from the 3rd edition system, but I don't think thats a bad thing in its own right. (though, I should mention that I don't really think 3rd edition has anything of value) I'm not sure I like the one class restriction, but I'm also not sure more would be necessary for anything beyond a thought exercise. I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with it, and it doesn't break the game the way multiclassing can in 3rd edition, so I'm fairly satisfied.

Finally, if you don't like 4e, thats all well and good. Nothing bad happens to anyone if you don't. Personally, except for the fluff, I largely like it. The wizard is a bit naff, but the only thing I'd describe as bland is the temporal-cat-centaur thing, and various other legacy monsters that 3e is responsible for (goofy aberrations and the like) and the horde of not-quite-exactly-the-same monstrous humanoids that have built up since first edition.

 

[Shazman]

I couldn't have said it better myself. That Incredibles comment was pure gold. They are so concerned with balance, that they removed the specialness from the classes. That pretty much defeats the point of having classes. If the fighter's daily power and the warlock's daily power do the same amount of damage, what's the point. You might as well have a skill or powers based system instead of a class system.