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

[Mercule]

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

I wouldn't say "hosed". I would, however, say that there should be a noteworthy difference in magical power.

 

[D.Shaffer]

I'm thinking that the the main difference between a single classed character and a multiclassed will be a difference between specialised and generalised abilities. A multiclass character will have similar levels of power, but lack the versatility of the single class.

A multiclass wizard may be able to hit as hard as a single class wizard when it comes to casting a fireball, but the single class wizard will be able to cast lightning bolt, or freezing ray instead.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

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.

I suspect that's kind of how they will be.

After all, magic item slots were referred to, in-house, as "chakras" for quite a long time.

Brad

 

[Sadrik]

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"

We have no idea what they are going to do. However if you are faced with two mechanical options:
Add arcane caster levels from multiple arcane classes together or keep the each classes caster levels separate (as in 3.5). I choose the former over the latter.

It would go a long way in shoring up the spellcaster multi-classing issue.

 

[Sadrik]

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.

This ideas was not pulled out of a vacuum: precedence is in both Bo9S and in the XPsi.

 

[Merlion]

We have no idea what they are going to do. However if you are faced with two mechanical options:
Add arcane caster levels from multiple arcane classes together or keep the each classes caster levels separate (as in 3.5). I choose the former over the latter.

It would go a long way in shoring up the spellcaster multi-classing issue.

Only with multiclasses between spellcasters of the same "power source" of which as it stands theres only 2 anyway..

 

[Ruin Explorer]

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

I'm sure you're not the only one, but "hosed" is where we're at in 3E, and it's a really stupid place, imho.

I liked where we were in 2E, personally, where the Fighter/Mage (more often Fighter/Mage/Thief) was some levels behind the Mage in terms of his casting, but not absolutely laughable, as they tend to be in 3E, unless they're some sickening and specialized "build".

In 4E, what I'd hope to see is this:

Whilst you're a caster, you gain abilities beyond just "spellz" (I'm pretty sure this will be the case).

When you multiclass (assuming a 3E-like multiclassing structure), you'll stop gaining "class features", i.e. the non-spell abilities, but any you already have will keep scaling (at perhaps a reduced rate, say, your caster levels + half your other class levels), and that you will continue to gain new spells, albeit at a reduced rate.

Sure, the most "munchkin" combos will thus involve multi-multi-classing, but the restrictions will likely mean that in practice they're not so hot, I would imagine, and most importantly, they don't steal the role from the pure-classer.

3E multiclassing of casters was Just Plain Sad, though, imho, so really, anything better than that is an improvement (so long as we're not forced to do the questionably-balanced PrC dance).

 

[FireLance]

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.

As Sadrik noted, this is pretty much the system for maneuvers in Bo9S. Since you can only ready one "copy" of each maneuver at a time, the effective restriction is on the number of maneuvers you know.

 

[Merlion]

As Sadrik noted, this is pretty much the system for maneuvers in Bo9S. Since you can only ready one "copy" of each maneuver at a time, the effective restriction is on the number of maneuvers you know.

I was talking about spells.

 

[Plane Sailing]

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

While you may not be alone, I would guess that you are probably in the minority, because a large number of people for a long time have been identifying how sub-par fighter-caster characters tend to be.

3.5 patched the problem with prestige classes and it sounds like WotC think it is a big enough problem that the standard system is worth fixing completely in 4e

I'll be glad to see it, certainly.