Multiclassing Moritorium

[helium3]

Exactly. (And I remember not long ago (4 or 6 weeks ago) Mr. Mearl's rambling about how much 4E was flexible... that it could almost be a classless system.

I assumed at the time that what he meant was that you could pretty much take the various at will, encounter, utility and per day powers from different classes and combine them all into a big list that players could choose whatever combination they wanted from.

There's still all the benefits unrelated to powers that a specific class gets for taking even a single level in the class. You know, like being able to do sneak attack damage and stuff. So your class still matters for those things.

So in a "classless" game either those 1st level "frontloaded" benefits just disappear and everyone simply has powers or somehow you find a way to represent those normally frontloaded benefits with powers, feats or something else.

I don't think anything we've learned contradicts what he said if the above is true. However, if the reason you must multi-class is because some combination of powers from different classes results in breakage that must be opposed by an initial cost, than his statement didn't really represent the truth as accurately as it should have or he was speaking in a specific context without revealing that context.

 

[MaelStorm]

double again

 

[MaelStorm]

I assumed at the time that what he meant was that you could pretty much take the various at will, encounter, utility and per day powers from different classes and combine them all into a big list that players could choose whatever combination they wanted from.

There's still all the benefits unrelated to powers that a specific class gets for taking even a single level in the class. You know, like being able to do sneak attack damage and stuff. So your class still matters for those things.

So in a "classless" game either those 1st level "frontloaded" benefits just disappear and everyone simply has powers or somehow you find a way to represent those normally frontloaded benefits with powers, feats or something else.

I don't think anything we've learned contradicts what he said if the above is true. However, if the reason you must multi-class is because some combination of powers from different classes results in breakage that must be opposed by an initial cost, than his statement didn't really represent the truth as accurately as it should have or he was speaking in a specific context without revealing that context.

Maybe it was an overstatement, but I felt disappointed a bit because I was expecting that you could easily modify existing class to create new hybrid class. We haven't seen the rule yet, but in Podcast 20 he did mention they were discouraging multiclass flexibility. I can live with it, but I feel that all the robustness of the 4E system rely on being very restrictive.

 

[MaelStorm]

If they could come up with a set of metarules to create new power sources, new classes, new powers, new feats, etc., so we could create what we want instead of waiting for the supplement or the next PHB to come out, that would change everything. Instead of multiclassing you create a new class from the ground up. If these rules are clear and strict, OK. But I guess it would be bad for sales.

 

[helium3]

MaelStorm]Maybe it was an overstatement, but I felt disappointed a bit because I was expecting that you could easily modify existing class to create new hybrid class. We haven't seen the rule yet, but in Podcast 20 he did mention they were discouraging multiclass flexibility. I can live with it, but I feel that all the robustness of the 4E system rely on being very restrictive.

That they're discouraging flexibility implies that either there are bad combinations that look good, combinations that are simply broken or both. Which means that yeah, creating new classes and modifying old ones isn't really any easier. And I guess that's fine. I'm done with trying to mod an existing RPG system to make it do something that isn't exactly what it's designed to do, beyond my current campaign.

It'd be nice to see some context around the whole "classless D&D" that he was talking about.

There's one thing I don't get though. If wizards can wear armor now why is a Gish still so difficult to create as a class? Isn't it just an obvious mix and match of fighter and wizard powers with some arcane source personal buffs thrown in?

If they could come up with a set of metarules to create new power sources, new classes, new powers, new feats, etc., so we could create what we want instead of waiting for the supplement or the next PHB to come out, that would change everything. Instead of multiclassing you create a new class from the ground up. If these rules are clear and strict, OK. But I guess it would be bad for sales.

In an ideal world you could just look at the progression of the powers of the existing classes and create stuff that's approximately the same in "oomph." Just like you make new feats and spells in 3.X.

If the determination of a power's attributes is wholely algorithmic (which the various developer chatter implies in my opinion) then I really doubt they're going to give away the actual "code." It's far more likely we'll get something like the table that's supposed to be in Monster Manual. The one that gives appropriate attribute ranges for monsters of a given level and role.

 

[Bandreus]

3E multiclassing is definitelly gone.
You multiclass by choosing training feats. "Wizard training feat" "Rogue training feat" and so on.

The pregen half-elf warlock actually lists a wizard spell among her at-will powers. although someone suggested it could be due to a racial trait, I'm most inclinet to think she got the "Wizard training feat".

And yes, as you can ear in the podcast, by choosing the same x-class training feat multiple times you can dvelv deeper into that class. But you will gain only a subset of that class powers, not the whole thing.
Further on, The designer clearly said in that way they have a lot more control about how you shape your character by multiclassing, thus avoiding ending up with weird things (sucking at both classing) as overpowering your character.

I just wont say so strongly that WotC is discouraging players from multiclassing. Remember in 4E every class can choose every feat (no class specific feats), so multiclassing is more likely just another way to spice up you character, imo

 

[MaelStorm]

That they're discouraging flexibility implies that either there are bad combinations that look good, combinations that are simply broken or both. Which means that yeah, creating new classes and modifying old ones isn't really any easier. And I guess that's fine. I'm done with trying to mod an existing RPG system to make it do something that isn't exactly what it's designed to do, beyond my current campaign.

I know it's not the kind of work a lot of DM like to spend on. It can become tedious after a while.

It'd be nice to see some context around the whole "classless D&D" that he was talking about.

Yes, that'd be soooo nice! But I guess it was a tease or something.

There's one thing I don't get though. If wizards can wear armor now why is a Gish still so difficult to create as a class? Isn't it just an obvious mix and match of fighter and wizard powers with some arcane source personal buffs thrown in?

Good question. I think you could easily create a Gish now with the class training feats.

In an ideal world you could just look at the progression of the powers of the existing classes and create stuff that's approximately the same in "oomph." Just like you make new feats and spells in 3.X.

I guess that after one or two years of buying core books and supplements I will be able to create anything a want with 4E. I just have to be patient and see what 4E will shape up to in the years to come.

If the determination of a power's attributes is wholely algorithmic (which the various developer chatter implies in my opinion) then I really doubt they're going to give away the actual "code." It's far more likely we'll get something like the table that's supposed to be in Monster Manual. The one that gives appropriate attribute ranges for monsters of a given level and role.

Of course. I guess it's the kind of classified stuff that only strong third party designers would get (with a decent amount of cash!!! naturally ). As long as there are tables to help, that would be fine. Too much expectation is bad for my health!

 

[Scarbonac]

Multiclassing sounds like it'll result in a lot of dual-wielding of daggers and wands or daggers and longsword or wands and long swords.

Hmmm...