D&D 4E I like 4E math.

[FourthBear]

The level of complexity in the PC class-based bonuses doesn't worry me, as each PC will have a dedicated player devoted to tracking these numbers that should change only upon leveling. It should only impact those DMs who insist on generating their NPCs and monsters using the PC method of construction.

 

[Keenath]

Unfortunately, that's actually more complex than the existing system (albeit marginally) - instead of just adding, we have to apply stacking rules.

Ummm... how so?

It's actually much simpler using the SWSE defense method (which I strongly suspect is how attack works in 4e, too) -- Everyone gets the same 1/2 progression, and then you add a number based on your class selections. If you have more than one class, you use only the best bonuses -- so, for example, if you have a level of Fighter that gives you +3 attack, +2 Fortitude, and +0 for the other defenses, and you take a level of wizard (+1 attack, +3 Will), then your totals are +3 attack, +2 fort, +0 reflex, and +3 will. You don't have to do any weird stacking math; you just look at all your classes and ask, "What's the best Attack bonus of all of them? What's the best Reflex bonus?" etc.

Moreover, that's a one time calculation. You never have to make it again unless you add a level of a new class. Your class bonuses don't change every time you level up. Frankly, that's much simpler than 3e's multiclassing rules, where you practically need a calculator to work out what your BAB is if you start mixing progressions.

Example: If you have 1 level of rogue and 1 level of wizard, what's your BAB? If you add up the numbers on the charts, you get +0, but if you add the fractional values of the progression, you'd be at +1. Now, quick -- what's your BAB if you have ten levels of rogue and five of wizard? (Answer: +10 if your DM count fractions, and +9 if he won't.)

 

[Mentat55]

I suspect that stacking of class-based Defense bonuses (or any other class-based bonuses) will not exist, if the multiclassing system is based around these Class Training feats we've heard about. Therefore, you'd only have to remember (1) 1/2 character level progression and (2) whatever bonuses afforded to you by your class. Seems pretty straightforward.

E.g., if you're a fighter, say you get a +3 class bonus to your Fort Defense and attack bonus. When you take the Wizard Training feat, you don't get wizard class bonuses, but rather special abilities (presumably powers, spells, what have you).

This is, of course, largely baseless speculation, and just one possibility for how the Class Training feats and multiclassing work in 4e. But I don't think there are going to be fighter/mages, or wizard/rogues, or whatever anymore, but rather fighters with a few wizard powers, wizards with a smattering of rogue powers, etc.

 

[Mercule]

I am also curious if the system will be easy to tinker with, considering that the math is supposed to be so ironclad. Will too many houserules make the system collapse into utter imbalance?

Two burning questions for me too.

Likewise. One of my biggest frustrations with 3E was the house of cards that came down when tweaking various rules.

 

[delericho]

Ummm... how so?

For a single classed character, you used to just look up one of twelve tables. Now, you look up the one table, and add your class-based bonus. That's marginally harder.

For a multi-classed character, you used to look up the appropriate tables, and add the results. Now, you look up the one table, and the appropriate bonuses, determine which is the best bonus, and add that. That's marginally harder.

It's actually much simpler using the SWSE defense method (which I strongly suspect is how attack works in 4e, too) -- Everyone gets the same 1/2 progression, and then you add a number based on your class selections. If you have more than one class, you use only the best bonuses -- so, for example, if you have a level of Fighter that gives you +3 attack, +2 Fortitude, and +0 for the other defenses, and you take a level of wizard (+1 attack, +3 Will), then your totals are +3 attack, +2 fort, +0 reflex, and +3 will. You don't have to do any weird stacking math; you just look at all your classes and ask, "What's the best Attack bonus of all of them? What's the best Reflex bonus?" etc.

But that is stacking math! In this case, class bonuses don't stack.

Moreover, that's a one time calculation. You never have to make it again unless you add a level of a new class. Your class bonuses don't change every time you level up. Frankly, that's much simpler than 3e's multiclassing rules, where you practically need a calculator to work out what your BAB is if you start mixing progressions.

The old way, you just had to check whether the numbers on the class you were adding had gone up. The new way, you have to check whether the numbers on the master table have gone up and check if your new class has better bonuses than the old.

For a single classed character, or a multi-classed character taking the 2nd or subsequent level in his existing class, the new way is very marginally better than the old. For a multi-classed character taking his first level in a new class, the old way is very definately better.

Moreover, the above assumes that it is, indeed, a one-time calculation. If the Rogue gets a +2 Reflex at 1st level, which increased to +2 at 5th and +3 at 10th, then that's three times he has to do the calculation. On those levels, and for single classed characters, that's marginally tougher than the current rules. For multi-classed characters, however, it becomes just a bit tougher.

(It should be noted that 4e will probably feature far fewer multi-classed characters than 3e, due to the replacement of Prestige Classes with Paragon Paths and Epic Destinies. The 3e paradigm probably favours the old rules rather more strongly that the 4e one will - it's not clear how much of an effect that would have, of course.)

Anyway, there's really not much in it. Especially since levelling up is really not something that gets done all that often in the course of a campaign, and adding the fixed bonuses is such a small part when compared with selecting just the right feat/spell/skill.

Example: If you have 1 level of rogue and 1 level of wizard, what's your BAB? If you add up the numbers on the charts, you get +0, but if you add the fractional values of the progression, you'd be at +1. Now, quick -- what's your BAB if you have ten levels of rogue and five of wizard? (Answer: +10 if your DM count fractions, and +9 if he won't.)

Counting fractions is a House Rule. If I house rule THAC0 back into 4e, can I claim that the whole system is inherently clunky and awkward?

Without the fraction counting, it's dead simple: look up the Rogue table, look up the Wizard table, and add. In 4e, I have to look up the Master table (okay, that's trivial - but so is the Wizard BAB in 3e), look up the Rogue bonus, look up the Wizard bonus, and add one of the two bonuses to the BAB.

 

[Lackhand]

Del: We're quibbling over a few operations here, but I don't think the New Math is harder.
Specifically, your "marginally harder" is my "not at all harder" -- for instance, I suspect that I could build a multiclassed character in my head if the New Math really is "one half level to everything, a few class-based static modifiers to relevant things", while I couldn't do it in 3.x, due to different scales for everything, and division by three.

Go figure, right?

Basically, stop treating "1/2 your level" as needing some Master Table Lookup. It's not, it's a nice "one-half-your-level" layer-thick bonus laid atop everything you do. Easy peasy

 

[delericho]

This is, of course, largely baseless speculation, and just one possibility for how the Class Training feats and multiclassing work in 4e. But I don't think there are going to be fighter/mages, or wizard/rogues, or whatever anymore, but rather fighters with a few wizard powers, wizards with a smattering of rogue powers, etc.

If that's right, then the system will, indeed, be simpler. But it will come at the price of a massive hit in terms of the resolution of characters that can be modelled by the system, at least until the get around to giving us the Mageblade, and Priestblade, and Magepriest, and Arcane Trickster, and... classes. Class Training feats are good for doing "a fighter with a bit of wizard", or whatever, but they'll fall short when trying to sit in the middle of the two.

And yes, I know that 3e isn't good in this regard either. The "multiclass spellcaster" problem was #2 on my list of "must have fixes" for 4e (right behind fixing Level Adjustment). But saying "you can't play this way until we get around to it" isn't a fix of the problem, since it leaves us no better off than we are now.

 

[Emirikol]

Just thought this fit the occasion:

jh

 

[Keenath]

For a single classed character, you used to just look up one of twelve tables. Now, you look up the one table, and add your class-based bonus. That's marginally harder.

You don't really have to look up the table. Unless dividing by 2 in your head is really a problem. My understanding is that that 1/2 level sort of applies across the board -- to skills, to attack, to defenses, etc. -- so it's not so much a problem.

But that is stacking math! In this case, class bonuses don't stack.

Then it's not stacking. "Stacking math" implies that you have to figure out whether or not to stack the numbers; this is a flat rule -- take the best number. There's no confusion to it, which was always the issue with trying to figure out stacked effects.

Counting fractions is a House Rule. If I house rule THAC0 back into 4e, can I claim that the whole system is inherently clunky and awkward?

If it's a house rule, it's the most common one I know of. I don't think anyone thinks it's right that a rogue 2/cleric 1 should have a BAB of 1 instead of 2 when they have the same BAB progression.

 

[Keenath]

I suspect that stacking of class-based Defense bonuses (or any other class-based bonuses) will not exist, if the multiclassing system is based around these Class Training feats we've heard about.

That is not my understanding of the system. From what i've heard, it sounded like you can full-on multiclass, or take the Training feat for a much smaller, more limited multiclass. Training, then, allows a Rogue to have one or two spells at his disposal, while multiclassing gets him some wizard class abilities and a wider selection of magic.