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

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

That's called "Fractional BAB," and it's a common house rule and appeared, IIRC, in AU (or UA?).

 

[psionotic]

I don't think that by 'any combo works' we're supposed to think that every multiclass combination is equally powerful or optimal, but more that anything you can come up with is doable.

My guess is that Favored Classes and multiclass penalties are gone, alignment restrictions are pretty much dead too, and that they've come up with some way to mix casters with bashers in a way that doesn't gimp you at both.

 

[Elder-Basilisk]

Ahh. Marketing speak. Which is a code-word for "the BS that our marketing department like you to believe but which only accidentally bears any resemblance to the truth."

Maybe all they meant to say is that they are adjusting to fractional BAB, fractional saves, etc. Maybe not. The wording certainly seems to imply a good deal more than that you CAN create a character with multiple classes or any combination of classes you want. (That's nearly true in 3.x, but while you might be able to say "[nearly] any class/ [nearly] any level" in 3.x, you wouldn't be able to say "always works." Quite simply, a lot of class combos don't work--or at least don't bring anything to the table that single class characters didn't have already. Fractional BAB, etc may make a difference in that by removing the two biggest pitfalls of 3.x mutliclassing, but I don't see that they can entirely eliminate the stupidity quotient. ("OMG, I'm 10th level and I have a BAB of 5; how do I keep up with the real fighter?" and "OMG, I'm 10th level and can only cast 2nd level spells; why do I even bother to cast them each round?").

As for designers, etc, I expect that kind of BS from marketing people. That's why I don't believe anything I hear from a marketing person or sales person without independent verification. But if they're going to do designer interviews and articles, I want to hear sober design and clear thought rather than pie in the sky BS. Now, admittedly, if this what you describe then the designer criticism doesn't apply, but a lot of the same kind of rhetoric seems to have found its way into the interviews and designer notebook articles too--and that's not a good sign.

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."

 

[KingCrab]

So you're saying that THACO kept the riffraff out?

If so then maybe they should consider introducing THACS "To Hit Armor Class Seven" just to make the math more complex.

 

[Mouseferatu]

If so then maybe they should consider introducing THACS "To Hit Armor Class Seven" just to make the math more complex.

And then the new "Advanced D&D" can include THACPi.

 

[pawsplay]

I don't think that by 'any combo works' we're supposed to think that every multiclass combination is equally powerful or optimal, but more that anything you can come up with is doable.

That's true now, aside from alignment restrictions.

 

[Agamon]

And some of those alignment restrictions seem to be going away. Paladin was mentioned specifically.

Some? I'm hoping for all. Alignment should, at best, be a label, not a restriction (or a reason to take damage for that matter...).

 

[Agamon]

And then the new "Advanced D&D" can include THACPi.

Hmmm, Orc and THACPi.

 

[dbm]

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).

This is a great idea. It brings the benefits of fractional development whilst shielding people from the mathematical complexities.

Cheers
Dan

 

[TheArcane]

I just saw a quote that they're trying to get a (censored race) ranger/cleric/wizard to work, and I just had a thought... Why on earth would someone want to have this particular class combination, and moreover, what king of twisted background would a character like this have?
Why not take an entirely different, arguably more "realistic", look on multiclassing instead of attempting to make any combination work? For example, it should be horribly difficult for a veteran fighter to learn wizardry, and vice-versa. A good cleric would have a major crisis of faith or personal event to drive him to scoundlery, while a rogue would have to atone and gain the favor of a deity to become a cleric.
What I mean is that beside having mechanical difficulties and contrivances, making multiclassing easy and open for all is just plain improbable. IMHO certain multiclass combinations should not work out well, and some should be downright near impossible to pull off.
And yes, I know I can rule 0 this in my games, but I'd really like to see a system that pulls this off without just saying that class X can only multi with classes Y and Z, like older editions.