Multiclassing Moritorium

[Mercule]

So the question is, will it be worth multiclassing or dabbling in 4E? Could it still be beneficial for a Wizard to take a few Fighter abilities to help him survive toe-to-toe in cramped dungeon environments? Or will specializing in one job alone be more beneficial to the party in the long run?

My hopeful expectation is that it'll be much less punitive to multi-class in 4e. That's been all but confirmed. I don't think that it'll be particularly rewarding -- potency wise -- though. It will (again, hopefully) be a choice of style.

If you want to be the world's greatest swordsman, then you should stick with fighter all the way. Dipping into wizard will have an opportunity cost that you won't recoup. On the other hand, if you want to be a particularly pious rogue, and have that reflected in your abilities and approach to situations, then dipping into cleric should be a good option.

Likewise, building Tenser as a wizard/fighter should make him stand out from the other members of the Circle of Eight in an appropriate and flavorful way. It shouldn't disqualify him from membership, though, based on his capabilities as a wizard. The other wizards should still feel like peers, even if Tenser has a slightly reduced breadth of magical knowledge.

So far, I haven't seen anything that would counter that hope, and I'm still maintaining it. I expect someone who is as evenly split between fighter and wizard as possible to be noticeably different from a purist of either class, but I don't such a character will still be appropriately powered, overall, for the level.

I am also getting the impression that the character's first level choices will determine, forever, whether they are a fighter (defender) who is exceptionally learned in the ways of magic or a wizard (controller) who is also a competent combatant. Note that I included the roles in that statement, too. You may have multi-classed characters, but I think multi-roled characters will be difficult to build and probably as problematic as multi-classed characters at their 3e worst.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm quite concerned about this.

On the one hand, I'm okay with a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 being different from a Wizard 1/Fighter 1 (or however they try to express it). On the other hand, I am definately not okay with multiclassing which doesn't actually make you quite like the class you're multiclassing into. I mean, if a Fighter wants to invest quite a considerably amount of whatever it is you need to invest (levels, Feats, etc.) in Wizardly-ness, I'd really hope he was quite effective as Wizard-stuff as a result.

Things that would suck:

1) You can only multiclass with one other class. That would be retarded, frankly.

2) 3E-style "one level of this, one level of that, and we'll suck at both!"-type multiclassing. This is unlikely, at least.

3) Any kind of multiclassing that leaves you significantly inferior to and vastly more limited than a pure-class of either of the "main" classes. If your effectiveness as a multiclass is more than 2-3 levels behind at level 10, then the system isn't a good one, I'd suggest.

4) Multiclassing that effectively makes you as good as both, full-levelled, with cherry-picked abilities. This would obviously be a problem.

As for multiclassing = powergaming, that's a social problem, and the game should not be locked down simply because some people in a few groups are powergaming maniacs. That's an appalling point of view, frankly. For every "powergaming" multiclasser I've seen, I've seen a dozen players who just didn't like the narrow limitations of one class and it's style of action/abilities. Perhaps this will be less of a problem in 4E, with all it's fancy stuff, but somehow I don't anticipate my players, who were virtually all multiclass in 2E, and loved the Gestalt rules in 3E, would be keen on the idea that they can only really have abilities from one class.

YMWV.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

The 'gish' for starters - the warrior/mage. Or the holy warrior, warrior/cleric. Or what about the magical trickster, the rogue/mage. There are loads of them - I'm hoping that the while you don't get all the abilities of a particular class, you get enough to make these viable.

Ah, I see. Well, I am very confident they have this covered. I remember them talking about that at the Gencon 2007 seminars or soon after, in one of the blogs. They acknowledged that multi-class characters would probably be less effective in a certain Role than a "pure" class, but they still wanted to make it at least a viable choice. That's enough assurance for me, though I admit it's not for everyone.

 

[Mercule]

Hum.... Well, I am intrigated. My first character would be an Human Cleric of Ioun, and considering a scholarly side to him, I would at least train him sideway as Wizard - the credo of knowledge and all that.

So, it is of interest to me. Tell me more on how training work, if you get news.

I'm interested, too. In 3e, I played a rogue (acrobat/athlete) who grew very educated. I dipped one level of wizard, but all it really bought me was not having to roll some UMD checks and a couple of magic missiles. The wizard was only supposed to be some flavor, and not really a career option. Still, it felt pretty worthless for even flavor by the time I reached tenth level.

 

[Mercule]

I'm quite concerned about this.

On the one hand, I'm okay with a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 being different from a Wizard 1/Fighter 1 (or however they try to express it). On the other hand, I am definately not okay with multiclassing which doesn't actually make you quite like the class you're multiclassing into. I mean, if a Fighter wants to invest quite a considerably amount of whatever it is you need to invest (levels, Feats, etc.) in Wizardly-ness, I'd really hope he was quite effective as Wizard-stuff as a result.

I suspect that a build that actually started as, say, a fighter, then tried to primarily shift to wizard would be extremely unusual. I could conceive of it, but I don't think enabling such a build is a major criterion of success.

Things that would suck:

1) You can only multiclass with one other class. That would be retarded, frankly.

I tend to agree. Again, I'm not really sure how likely a fighter/rogue/wizard build who is "heroic" in all of them is. It would be unfortunate for an attempt to be prohibited, though. That's especially true in light of "dips", like a gnomish fighter/wizard who is good at disabling and setting traps.

2) 3E-style "one level of this, one level of that, and we'll suck at both!"-type multiclassing. This is unlikely, at least.

My understanding is that avoiding this is an explicit design goal for 4e multi-classing.

3) Any kind of multiclassing that leaves you significantly inferior to and vastly more limited than a pure-class of either of the "main" classes. If your effectiveness as a multiclass is more than 2-3 levels behind at level 10, then the system isn't a good one, I'd suggest.

4) Multiclassing that effectively makes you as good as both, full-levelled, with cherry-picked abilities. This would obviously be a problem.

My hope is that a fighter/wizard, for example, is going to be a bit like a paladin. Wait! Hear me out.

The paladin is, like the fighter, assigned the role of defender. He fills this role, stylistically, differently than the fighter, though. Rather than relying on pure martial ability, he calls on the aid of his deity (divine power). A fighter/wizard also fills the defender role. But, it sacrifices some martial power for some arcane power.

A wizard/fighter, on the other hand, would fill the controller role. He would just include some martial means to do so. If a pure wizard is Aes Sedai, a wizard/fighter would be Asha'man.

 

[Ipissimus]

Haven't listened to the podcast yet, but... is there anything to indicate that 3E-style multiclassing even exists any more?

Yes, they difinitively state in the podcast that multiclassing is in in addition to class training feats. They specifically state that you can take a level of another class rather than a level in the same class. What they're doing is specifying the bonuses you get according to how many levels of multiclassing you do, in their words 'how deep' you delve into the second class.

My concern with multiclassing now is that, with the level capped at 30th, we're going to hit a situation where nobody will multiclass because a multiclass character will never gain access to the upper level powers of their class. Of course, they'll probably get their Epic Destiny powers and Race powers, so this might not be such a big deal.

What I've always liked about multiclassing is that it gives characters a bit of added depth and personality. A multiclass character feels like it has evolved more naturally, even if it is powergamed. Of course, I've never seen a multiclass build that was 'more powergamed' than a powergamed single class character.

Besides, my all-time favourite fantasy hero is the Grey Mouser. In 4E, I suspect that the Grey Mouser could be easily represented as a Rogue/Fighter with some Wizard Training Feats.

As for the name of this thread... it seemed catchy to me.

 

[Quartz]

Two of the big problems with multiclassing in 3e are spellcasters and BAB. The canned adventures in Dungeon et al assume a full spellcasting progression and full BAB. So there's immediate discouragement from multiclassing.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Ah, hence why I added 'ime' in my experience. Your experience differs from mine obviously as I have never had a player state any of those as his reason for multi-classing. And you would fear power gaming if you had some of the players I have had. Believe me.

Perhaps maybe. Just pointing out that your experience isn't universal.

 

[Ipissimus]

True, and I just thought of an interesting multiclassing ability based on what we've heard from the playtests.

Rogue/Wizard will probably get cantrips at the very least, right? One of those Cantrips is Mage Hand, and one of the playtesters mentions using a minor action to send the hlafling paladin's thrown warhammer back to him.

Thrown Dagger + Sneak attack, use minor action to retrieve dagger. Who needs the returning power?

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

I'm interested, too. In 3e, I played a rogue (acrobat/athlete) who grew very educated. I dipped one level of wizard, but all it really bought me was not having to roll some UMD checks and a couple of magic missiles. The wizard was only supposed to be some flavor, and not really a career option. Still, it felt pretty worthless for even flavor by the time I reached tenth level.

Bah to Magic Missile! Power Attack and True Strike with a Quarterstaff are where it's at!

Personally, my rogue took a level of cleric, for the saves, domain power (Reroll please!), and flavor. And to power his Blade Dancer-based PrC, and so he could push a CLW wand around. And use a Staff of Lightning Storm.

Brad