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

[Cadfan]

Oh, for crying out loud.

They're allowed to say things like, "X used to be lame, now X is TOTALLY AWESOME!!!11!!!" Its a bit advertiser speak, sure. But that's the way this stuff works. You can't honestly expect them to say, "X used to be lame, now we have a new way of handling it, and hopefully it will be less lame."

A company spokesperson is supposed to be positive about his product. Meanwhile, we know that he's a company spokesperson, and can take his statements with the appropriate context. And "appropriate context" doesn't mean "hate on them for doing their job and speaking positively about something they created."

 

[pawsplay]

You can't honestly expect them to say, "X used to be lame, now we have a new way of handling it, and hopefully it will be less lame."

Why not? Or just say it will be AWESOME? No one was complaining about the ZOMG awesomness!, just the claim that any multiclassing combo will work.

 

[Jedi_Solo]

Why not? Or just say it will be AWESOME? No one was complaining about the ZOMG awesomness!, just the claim that any multiclassing combo will work.

There is a difference between "working" and "working well". I don't see in that quote anything that says 'any combination will work as well as any other combination.' I have no doubt that in 4e a Fighter 10/This Class Rocks 10 will be a better combination than a Fighter 10/This Class Sucks 10. But because of that quote I fully expect a Fighter 10/This Class Sucks 10 to a playable combination if I so choose and keep all of my abilities.

 

[Jhaelen]

Color me sceptical.

Yeah, it's a pretty bold statement.
Not having listened to the podcast myself I cannot tell, however, if maybe the quote was taken a bit out of context.

What I fully expect from 4th.ed. is this: 'Multiclassing: is viable and works a lot better than in 3.X'.

 

[breschau]

Yeah, it's a pretty bold statement.
Not having listened to the podcast myself I cannot tell, however, if maybe the quote was taken a bit out of context.

What I fully expect from 4th.ed. is this: 'Multiclassing: is viable and works a lot better than in 3.X'.

The context was this: each WotC staffer at GenCon had one secret about 4th Edition they could reveal if asked.

The lightning round question was: What was your GenCon secret?
Answer: "multi-classing: any combo, any level, always works."

 

[Zaruthustran]

This is probably a statement that directly looks at the problem of "GISH" (yeeech) being very substandard compared to straight fighters or mages in its origins. I doubt it means what it says at face value, but I have been fooled before. In other words, multi-classers will be a much better blend than what they are in 3.x, without overshadowing the straight classed characters.

I think Henry's on the right track. I imagine that a simple fix like pegging the effectiveness of abilities at CHARACTER level, as opposed to class level, will solve a lot of multiclass issues.

For example your fighter 5 / wizard 1 will be able to cast only a single spell, but the spell will be at 6th level power/caster level. So if that single spell is "Do 1d6/level Fire damage to a single target", then you do 6d6 damage--just like the 6th level wizard casting the exact same spell*.

Compare to a Ftr 5 / Wiz 1 in 3E, where that puny 1st level combat spell (cast at caster level 1) is so weak at 6th level as to be almost useless.

-z

* Now, the 6th level wizard's spell will likely still be a little better because he's a full wizard. He's probably taken feats and talents that somehow augment his casting ability. That's the tradeoff for multiclassing/reward for focusing, but at least your 1 spell is still viable.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Compare to a Ftr 5 / Wiz 1 in 3E, where that puny 1st level combat spell (cast at caster level 1) is so weak at 6th level as to be almost useless.

... but he can take a feat to get it at caster level 5!

Yes, I like that feat, but I recognize it as a patch.

 

[Zaruthustran]

Oh, I think that multiclassing 3/4 BAB melee types can give you a good run for the money on that one. If your character concept involves one level in each of a few 3/4 BAB classes, there are enough of those around now that you can get pretty high up before you even hit BAB of 1 - which is sad when you're trying to be a melee build. It's an artifact of the rounding that can make for some really interesting twists.

Yep. That's my biggest pet peeve with multiclassing. A bard and rogue are both supposed to be somewhat skilled at fighting, but a bard 1/rogue 1 is worse at fighting than a wizard 2.

In Star Wars Saga edition, multiclassing into a class only grants a portion of the class's "starting" features. For example, you only get to choose one of the class's "Starting Feats", and you don't get to stack the class's "Starting Defense Bonuses" to any defense bonuses you already may have.

Point is, WotC has already introduced a multiclass system that is more than simply "add together all the 1st level stuff and go". It'd be easy to list, under Multiclassing: BAB, a rule that states "Add existing BAB to new class's BAB. If total BAB = 0, then adjust BAB to +1".

 

[pawsplay]

There is a difference between "working" and "working well". I don't see in that quote anything that says 'any combination will work as well as any other combination.' I have no doubt that in 4e a Fighter 10/This Class Rocks 10 will be a better combination than a Fighter 10/This Class Sucks 10. But because of that quote I fully expect a Fighter 10/This Class Sucks 10 to a playable combination if I so choose and keep all of my abilities.

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

 

[Caliber]

We're moving into off-topic territory here but ...

I read an idea once (I *think* on this board, although I suppose it may have been the once or twice I've steeled my courage and braved that which the call the WOTC boards ...) where you'd just give classes a BAB advancement level. Fighters = good, Clerics = moderate, Wizards = poor, or whatever terminology have you. You wouldn't have any actual numbers in the class description, though, you'd have to reference the master BAB tables for that.

Multiclass 1/1 into two moderate BAB advancement classes? Easy enough, you have a level 2 Moderate BAB. Add 3 levels in a Poor? Add level 2 Moderate to level 3 Poor. Would prevent a lot of duplicated info (only have to print each BAB progression once!) and would eliminate the Cleric 1/Rogue 1 fights worse than a Wizard 2 issue. Hell, you could do it with saves, and any other numerical progression that might be added (Def bonuses, Reputation, what have you).