D&D 4E I like 4E math.

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

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.

If a majority of the abilities of a class are part of their list of powers, I think multiclassing will per default work better, because you can just exchange your Class X powers with your Class Y powers. In 3E, a lot was based on level dependend benefits - specifically BAB and Caster Level & spell slots/known.

A possible implementation for multiclassing in 4E might be that you just pick your "CLass Training Feat" and the next time you gain a power, you can choose a power from that class instead of your "normal" class. Unlike in 3E, you won't be forced to pick the 1st level equivalent of a spell if you multiclass at level 11, you can get a level 11 appropriate wizard power. But you will have to give up one of your class powers for it, which means it's an oppertunity cost.
Fly or Vampire Stealth Move?
Fire Shield or Warcry of Megadamage?
Lightning Blade or Healing Lorecall?
(Or whatever the names for 4E poweres will be )

Well, that's just a guess. It might be that the Training feats work similar to this, but there is still a "real" multiclassing variant.

I also think that a customized class will always work better in implementing a new archetype (even if it's a blend of two existing archetypes) then any kind of multiclassing.

 

[inkmonkeys]

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?

Too many houserules make any system collapse.

Jokes aside, my experience is that the clarity of the system makes it easier to predict the effect a given houserule or set of houserules will have on the game.

Propaganda machine, away!

 

[rkanodia]

Just thought this fit the occasion:

jh

Looks like someone's forgotten the first two rules of 4E Math Club...

 

[Larrin]

Looks like someone's forgotten the first two rules of 4E Math Club...

You're Right!

Rule 1: No one in 4E math club uses soap!
Rule 2: No one in 4E math club uses soap!


But seriously, I do like the half-level math. You can convert all bonuses to level gains...for example a fighter with a +2 bonus to BAB is essentially 4 levels better at fighting, a wizard with +3 to will defence is 6 lvls better at 'willing'. The fighter will always be 4 levels better at fighting (assuming its a one time bonus) and you can take this into account. It might not be a usefull way to think, but i find myself enjoying the prospects that it might be. Your enjoyment may vary.

 

[Mostlyjoe]

Okay. Maybe it's not so much as math = bad. Is that a lot of the math is flatned out. Bonuses stack based on a defined BAB and save. Your choices alter that and you don't have to worry about synergy (Thanks, that's the core of my issues.) bonuses tripping over item bonuses. Etc, etc.

 

[kennew142]

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.

OTOH, I have never known any gamers who tracked fractional BAB. I'd never even heard of it until this post.

 

[Dragonblade]

Too many houserules make any system collapse.

Jokes aside, my experience is that the clarity of the system makes it easier to predict the effect a given houserule or set of houserules will have on the game.

Propaganda machine, away!

Not bad, but you will have to reveal more than that if you want us to go nuts and start 15 threads with your name on them. Mearls has you beat there.

 

[inkmonkeys]

Not bad, but you will have to reveal more than that if you want us to go nuts and start 15 threads with your name on them. Mearls has you beat there.

I think I'll just let him get the threads. It's less stressful.

 

[Ipissimus]

OTOH, I have never known any gamers who tracked fractional BAB. I'd never even heard of it until this post.

Agreed. The PHB just says you take the listed bonuses for the right levels and add them together.

I just wish the same philosophy had been applied to fractional skill points. I loathe the 1/2 skill point like nothing else in 3e but it sounds like it'll go the way of the dodo in 4E and this is a good thing. Ok, I know for practical purposes, the 1/2 skill point works. But it's so awkward and unnecessary, it annoys the living @#$% outta me. Particularly when you can just alter DCs as needed, why not just assign skills on a 1 for 1 basis? Needless complexity.

 

[Keenath]

OTOH, I have never known any gamers who tracked fractional BAB. I'd never even heard of it until this post.

Agreed. The PHB just says you take the listed bonuses for the right levels and add them together.

Wow, really? I'm shocked.

The most common place I see this is in the rogue/cleric or similar who says, "They have the same progression, so I'll just use one of the tables and look up the BAB for my character level." But I have also seen people wanting to count the half-BAB from a wizard level to kick their rogue BAB up by a point.

I'm surprised this isn't general practice, actually!