Multiclassing: What I'm hoping for

[Lanefan]

I've always thought something like a "battlemage" should be a base class. I'm really surprised it's something that isn't added till much later in most editions.

I suspect it's because a "class" like that is seen as trying to cover too many niches at once - it's a jack of all trades (and if not reined in properly, a master of all trades) that doesn't really need much of a party along to adventure with.

The benefit of specialized classes (e.g. a Fighter fights but does not cast spells, a Wizard casts spells but really should stay well away from the front lines) is that they each have weaknesses that need to be covered off by others. Hence, the need to take others along into dangerous places; hence, the adventuring party.

Characters who can "do it all", either by inherent class design or by multiclassing, don't need the party nearly as much.

Lanefan

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The benefit of specialized classes (e.g. a Fighter fights but does not cast spells, a Wizard casts spells but really should stay well away from the front lines) is that they each have weaknesses that need to be covered off by others. Hence, the need to take others along into dangerous places; hence, the adventuring party.

Characters who can "do it all", either by inherent class design or by multiclassing, don't need the party nearly as much.

For that reason there are days that I think that classes should be defined more by their prominent weakness than by their strengths. Maybe:

Fighter - can't do squat with magic, better than most with weapons, well-rounded skills.

Wizard - really avoids melee combat like the plague, better than most with magic, well-rounded skills.

Of course, that gets trickier with rogue and cleric, nevermind other classes.

 

[Incenjucar]

While I doubt 5E will be compatable with the model, a really functional method would be to just allow someone to divide a character's abilities into thirds. Normally these thirds would be race/theme/class, but a multiclass character could eschew some or all race and theme options so that they can have race/class/class or class/theme/class or class/class/class abilities.

 

[GM Dave]

Well, yes, but...

I have a big problem with the use of feats in both 3e and 4e - they try to have that one mechanism cover too much ground. I'm inclined to think that they need to silo them out into two categories: those that give numerical customisations to the character (which I tend to think of as feats), and those that either give new powers or modify existing powers (which I would generally roll into the more general 'powers' category).

So, yeah, if feats remain as they are, then it seems entirely reasonable that characters could invest a feat into picking up some lower-level feature of another class. But if, as I'd prefer, feats are silo'ed out, then the cost would be something else.

I like the point of feats being broken up.

You currently have lists that are are 1000 choices to go in one or two spots.

There is just too much customization being crammed into too narrow a choice spot.

The mechanical advantage feats are too powerful and drown out the other ideas.

Peronally, if players were only allowed to make choices from certain piles and the future writers were kept to keeping the piles neat (to avoid the double dips of power) then this would be a good idea.

My big fear is that if you name silo A as being for weapon boosting then some future writer won't have caught the point of putting all the weapon boosting in silo A and insist that silo B and silo C should have equivalent choices to allow 'more freedom' from mechanical limitations of a silo system.

 

[Savage Wombat]

Does anyone else think they may have to rename "feats" in order to get away from the baggage of the two previous editions?

It's pretty clear that they didn't serve the same role in 4th as in 3rd, and it's looking like they'll be different in 5th as well. Maybe using a different word would keep people from making untoward assumptions.

 

[El Mahdi]

Does anyone else think they may have to rename "feats" in order to get away from the baggage of the two previous editions?


It's pretty clear that they didn't serve the same role in 4th as in 3rd, and it's looking like they'll be different in 5th as well. Maybe using a different word would keep people from making untoward assumptions.

Maybe. I'm used to the word "Feats", but in context the word doesn't really fit.

How about Proficiencies, Focuses, or Talents...?

 

[Gryph]

I got into 4e about half way through when they replaced whatever they had in the beginning with "Hybrid Classing".

In a nutshell, you pick the two classes you want to hybridize right off the bat.
You then get the lowest set of proficiencies, most of the class features, and can take feats(I think one per tier) to pick up other class features.
As you choose powers you get to basically go on and off picking between each class. IE: when you get your first two "at will" powers, you have to take one of each.
You never "take levels" in either class, you are effectively a new single class, that qualifies for anything each one qualified for.
You never pick up or add in any other classes.

I thought they were a little undertuned. In my campaign I allowed the players a free hybrid feat at creation and then they could take their heroic tier hybrid feat in addition.

Overall, I thought the system was a very slick way to incorporate 1e style multiclassing and I really liked it. I hope that kind of system remains an option even if its one of several options.

The other interesting system of multi-classing that might make for an interesting option is C&C's class and a half system. Essentially, you add half the XP cost of a second class to your progression chart. You then have a character with all the features of your main class/level and the features of your second class at half your level. It's kind of a cool way to emulate the "dabbler" concept.

 

[Sunseeker]

I thought they were a little undertuned. In my campaign I allowed the players a free hybrid feat at creation and then they could take their heroic tier hybrid feat in addition.

I think getting the lowest profeciences was what really brought them down, it kept good builds as either highly synergistic ones(1-2 stat reliance) or high-feature-similarity(fighter/paladin, invoker/avenger, ect..).

Lets say every class has 6 features. I would have liked if the hybrid class system let you choose which six features you wanted between the classes, minimum say, 2 from each class. So you could go 2/4, 3/3, 4/2.

Overall, I thought the system was a very slick way to incorporate 1e style multiclassing and I really liked it. I hope that kind of system remains an option even if its one of several options.

I agree, I've never been a fan of the "dip for full features with a single level" style that was common in 3.X. Multiclassing needs to have some driving force behind it other than "your base class sucks, you need this other class to fix it".

The other interesting system of multi-classing that might make for an interesting option is C&C's class and a half system. Essentially, you add half the XP cost of a second class to your progression chart. You then have a character with all the features of your main class/level and the features of your second class at half your level. It's kind of a cool way to emulate the "dabbler" concept.

XP-cost changes for just about anything in the game bother me, because I don't like to run games with XP. I award levels based on plot points/quest completion, so if there's a way to become more powerful with an XP cost, it really breaks my games.

 

[Ratskinner]

Does anyone else think they may have to rename "feats" in order to get away from the baggage of the two previous editions?

It's pretty clear that they didn't serve the same role in 4th as in 3rd, and it's looking like they'll be different in 5th as well. Maybe using a different word would keep people from making untoward assumptions.

I don't know if they need to for the rules...but sometimes I think we need to for discussing things around here. Several discussions seem to blow up when it comes to this issue as devotees and opponents of 3e and 4e have preconceived notions of what exactly a "Feat" may represent.

As far as a new name goes...I guess it depends on what the things actually *do* by the time 5e hits the shelves. I could be happy with Talents, Proficiencies, or Features depending on what they do (with some overlap as well.)

 

[Greg K]

Just make the fighter/magic-user a base class, and then the system can be freed from that difficulty to do multiclassing.

Also, don't make this base class automatically flavored for elves, or for singing, or for casting spells through a sword. Those would be great ways to flavor an otherwise varied class--just the way other base classes have a variety of interpretations.

Agreed, I would like to see such a class and don't want to see the class as duskblade or spellsword by default.