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

[FireLance]

I was talking about spells.

A similar system could work for spells, too. This would mean some re-working of spellcasters who normally "know" all the spells on their spell list (such as the cleric and the druid), or who can add to their list of spells known rather easily (such as the wizard). This may not be entirely a bad thing.

 

[RPG_Tweaker]

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?

It does seem to follow that if Borzak the WIZ-3 switches to FTR for the next three levels that his wizardly studies will stagnate during that time. It's the logical result of a class-based system where learning new career abilities works in tandem.

But the alterations being discussed here assumes that Borzak continues to study new wizardry techniques concurrent to his study of fighting. Isn't that a subtextual call for abandoning class-based advancement?

Otherwise, to maintain the class-based system, it would seem more appropos to design several specific base classes or prestige classes to realistically capture the study of multiple career abilities simultaneously... which is the current 3E way of doing it.

Why the added complexity of a new layer of sub-level career growth?

 

[Merlion]

A similar system could work for spells, too. This would mean some re-working of spellcasters who normally "know" all the spells on their spell list (such as the cleric and the druid), or who can add to their list of spells known rather easily (such as the wizard). This may not be entirely a bad thing.

Retaining the idea of both spell slots and spell levels, but not linking them together would be basically a total overhaul of the magic system.

From what we've been told, *spells* are going to remain much the same.

 

[Cam Banks]

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.

The ideal, of course, is that if offered either a straight fighter, a straight wizard, or a multiclassed fighter/wizard, the decision on which you play shouldn't be predicated on "the other two suck." The wizard, devoted to magic and eschewing martial skills, should be a better wizard than the fighter/wizard. Right? Otherwise, why play a straight wizard?

I assume that folks don't really want the fighter/wizard to be just as good at casting spells as the straight wizard, but (martial talents included) capable enough at wizardry that he does not regret dividing his career.

Cheers,
Cam

 

[Gentlegamer]

For me, character balance is long term, over the course of varied adventures and campaigns, not in individual fights - so for me, frequently enough bards are 'as effective' as fighters, even though the rest of the world thinks bards stink...

This is my view, as well.

EDIT: This is my 1337 post!

 

[Merlion]

The ideal, of course, is that if offered either a straight fighter, a straight wizard, or a multiclassed fighter/wizard, the decision on which you play shouldn't be predicated on "the other two suck." The wizard, devoted to magic and eschewing martial skills, should be a better wizard than the fighter/wizard. Right? Otherwise, why play a straight wizard?

I assume that folks don't really want the fighter/wizard to be just as good at casting spells as the straight wizard, but (martial talents included) capable enough at wizardry that he does not regret dividing his career.

Cheers,
Cam

Yea thats basically it. A fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be as good a fighter or a wizard as a fighter 20 or a wizard 20. But the fighter10/wizard 10 shouldnt suck mechanically either, and should be competent in both the areas.

 

[Voadam]

The ideal, of course, is that if offered either a straight fighter, a straight wizard, or a multiclassed fighter/wizard, the decision on which you play shouldn't be predicated on "the other two suck." The wizard, devoted to magic and eschewing martial skills, should be a better wizard than the fighter/wizard. Right? Otherwise, why play a straight wizard?

I assume that folks don't really want the fighter/wizard to be just as good at casting spells as the straight wizard, but (martial talents included) capable enough at wizardry that he does not regret dividing his career.

Cheers,
Cam

Obviously straight classed characters should be better at their specific schtick than other characters who dip in or dilute it. But that does not require hosing the multiclass characters. There is mechanical room to bring in the three concepts as viable choices to each other without requiring hosing the multiclasses to make the straight classes shine in comparison.

Right now a barbarian/fighter is roughly comparable to a straight fighter or a straight barbarian, and pretty much at most character level and multiclass level combinations. The straight fighter can master more feat chains, and the barbarian develops stronger rage and DR et al earlier but roughly equal in combats. All 3e classes are designed to be roughly equal power in combat as straight classed characters. Spellcasting classes, however, currently do not multiclass as well to make a combat viable character. There are a few strategies to try to stay competitive but many combinations drop their power far below their peers at similar levels because of the caster level and max spell levels for slots.

Multiclass spellcasters have plenty of room to be closer to combat viable for their level without hosing the straight classes.

Choosing between fighter, wizard, and fighter wizard should ideally be a choice based on character concept preference, not mechanical combat power effectiveness considerations.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Otherwise, to maintain the class-based system, it would seem more appropos to design several specific base classes or prestige classes to realistically capture the study of multiple career abilities simultaneously... which is the current 3E way of doing it.

Why the added complexity of a new layer of sub-level career growth?

Screw realism in the ass, dude, this is D&D, it's about fun, not "realism", and non-crap multiclassing was a feature of D&D until 3E. Hell, it still is, if you pick similar classes (classes, ironically, it would have been illegal to multiclass under 2E rules).

Why? Because it's fun and it works better! It's not a terribly hard concept is it? Multiclassing in 3E currently is utter crap, because you need to practically make up a base class or a PrC just to multiclass with even basic effectiveness with certain common combos. That's an idiotic situation, frankly, and if 4E can correct it, it should, even at the cost of some "added complexity" which will only come up between games in the first place.

 

[Lonely Tylenol]

Yea thats basically it. A fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be as good a fighter or a wizard as a fighter 20 or a wizard 20. But the fighter10/wizard 10 shouldnt suck mechanically either, and should be competent in both the areas.

Well, a fighter 10/wizard 10 should be as good as a fighter 20 or a wizard 20, but just not as good at being a fighter as the fighter 20, or as good at being a wizard as the wizard 20. He should, despite multiclassing, still be a 20th level character, but not be able to outshine specialist characters in whatever domain they're specialized.

Choosing between fighter, wizard, and fighter wizard should ideally be a choice based on character concept preference, not mechanical combat power effectiveness considerations.

What he said.

 

[mmu1]

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

Nope. I actually think that 3E multi-classing was just fine. Just because someone can think of putting two particular classes together, it doesn't mean it's a good idea, that it was meant to be, or that the system is defective for not making it an easy choice.

I think the Practiced Spellcaster feat was a very good idea, but that's about it - I have no use for the various PrCs that let you advance in two classes at once. I don't think they "fix" anything, I think they're just affirmative action for people who aren't good at playing the game, and something to abuse for those who can game the system.

I actually think 3E/3.5 is a pretty forgiving RPG system when it comes to making hybrid characters. Most point-buy (rather than level-based) RPGs out there make it a lot harder to make one those. Still, a lot of people actually think 2e multi-classing was balanced, so naturally, they think the world's being unfair to them with 3E.