Multiclassing: "Any combo, any level, always works."

[LightPhoenix]

Like someone else said the only difference is in term. Martial (caster level/power source) whatever... I dont care what they call it as long as it works and functions how they intended it to work!

Exactly. Since the beginning of 3E we've had numerous base and prestige classes that have specified they stack for caster level, bard song usage, uncanny dodge, trap sense, monk abilities, or sneak attack, to name a few. Simplifying all those interactions could only help with both balancing the classes and lessening the complexity of making a character.

 

[hong]

I want them to call it Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Bard etc. I want it to be about the classes, not blanket groupings or "power sources"

In Iron Heroes, they were called "feat masteries".

 

[FireLance]

I think we will see some or all of the following in 4e, which will make it easier to maintain parity between pure-classed and multi-classed characters:

1. Stacking of caster level/caster level dependent on character level. This will help equalize a character's increase in effectiveness when taking a level in a previous class and when taking a level in a new class.

2. Lifting of spell caps/auto-scaling of spell effect with caster level (similar to psionic augmentation in 3.5e). This enables even a low-level spell to remain effective and useful at high levels.

3. Number of spell slots tied to character/caster level, and spell slots de-linked from spell level. Instead of having X 1st-level spell slots and Y 2nd-level spell slots, a character might just have N spell slots, which can be filled with spells of any level. If spell slots depend on character level, they might even be de-linked from class, so a multiclassed fighter/wizard might be able to fill his slots with either martial maneuvers or arcane spells, as he wishes.

4. Talent trees that allow some minor blending of class abilities, e.g. a mystic warrior talent tree for the fighter class that grants knowledge of a few arcane spells and allows them to be cast in armor, or a battle mage talent tree for the wizard class that provides some bonuses to attack rolls and access to some maneuvers.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

By that definition of "working," the quote is entirely meaningless.

Far from it. It essentially means (as I see it) that alignment restrictions are out the door; and as a "secret" to let leak out at the time of the announcement I think it is a good enough teaser. I have heard of many groups that complete dropped these restriction and one of the Eberron books (the core setting book? I might be wrong) have feats that work around these.

In theory, for that podcast they didn't read the questions ahead of time. Conspiracy theorists can easily say "the producer seeded that question" or "the duplicated question was faked" (one of the questions they had already answered in that podcast) and so on. There may even be some truth to those - I don't know.

My point is, to me the quote means "the alignment restrictions are gone" and at the time (GenCon) we didn't know that alignments were taking a hit in mechanical importance. So now I can make a savage who is a devout warrior to his god (Barbarian/Paladin) without taking any ability penalties.

 

[RandomCitizenX]

I personally am very much looking forward to the new take on multiclass. In our first 3e game. (which started as soon as the PHB and DMG were out) I ended up playing a 6 monk/6 rog/6 psiwar/1 Duelist/1 Planar Champion. Mechanically I was a mess which could not compete damage wise with anyone else, but theme wise I had made my dream swashbuckling moral hero (he was lawful neutral in a world that had gone CE), In the new edition it sounds very much like this character would not have been so far behind the curve in everything but AC and Saves

 

[cwhs01]

I want them to call it Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, Wizard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger, Bard etc. I want it to be about the classes, not blanket groupings or "power sources"

And i'd like to think of it as the characters sum of knowledge. In game, characters don't think of themselves as fighter x/magic-user y/ranger z, but as a melee competent character with tracking skills and basic knowledge of magic. Profession mageslayer? The breakdown Fighter x/ etc. is purely mechanical, an easy way of describing what skills a character has access to. Its an out-of-game feature, but has no in-game function. IMO

 

[Merlion]

And i'd like to think of it as the characters sum of knowledge. In game, characters don't think of themselves as fighter x/magic-user y/ranger z, but as a melee competent character with tracking skills and basic knowledge of magic. Profession mageslayer? The breakdown Fighter x/ etc. is purely mechanical, an easy way of describing what skills a character has access to. Its an out-of-game feature, but has no in-game function. IMO

I realize that, and agree. But I mean on a metagame level, within the books.

I dont want the books to constantly talk about a Martial Striker...I want it to talk about the Rogue. I don't want to hear Divine Defender, I want to hear Paladin.

I want the "power sources" and "roles" to be metagame shorthand used now and then, not replacements for the actual names and natures of the classes.

 

[Merlion]

3. Number of spell slots tied to character/caster level, and spell slots de-linked from spell level. Instead of having X 1st-level spell slots and Y 2nd-level spell slots, a character might just have N spell slots, which can be filled with spells of any level. If spell slots depend on character level, they might even be de-linked from class, so a multiclassed fighter/wizard might be able to fill his slots with either martial maneuvers or arcane spells, as he wishes.
.

I kind of doubt this, since its a big change from the current system and seems like it might be a bit hard to balance. I think the actual spellcasting element will remain much the same. The only thing that to me points in any other direction is the whole 30 levels of spells deal...but still, if you just have a certain number of slots, that can be used for spells of any level, its going to be hard to balance. You'll have exactly the same "pool of power" for your most powerful spells as for your least.

 

[Cam Banks]

Am I the only person who hopes that, should a wizard multiclass with fighter, his spellcasting is in fact hosed?

How unfair would it be to have one guy be a fighter/wizard and another be a straight wizard, with the fighter/wizard not only being as good a spellcaster as the straight wizard but able to kick ass with a sword and so forth?

Where does 'hosed' start?

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Cadfan]

Cam Banks-

There should be a tradeoff, certainly. But look at the present system.

If a wizard multiclasses to cleric, he can end up with both cleric and wizard spellcasting at relatively high levels. With a prestige class, he can end up with character level X, and wizard and cleric levels of X-3.

I'm not sure if that's the exact mark I'd use. Its got a couple flaws I could go into at length. But its a good guideline.