Multiclassing

[Daz]

I have a few concerns with the snippets we've seen about multiclassing in 4ed. I think it could either go very good or very bad. None of the playtest characters that were supposed to be multiclass are described as warllord 5/cleric 3. This leads me to believe that they might force you to pick a primary class, which is the oone you start with, and then give you the option to take talents from another class at some later point.

I find tis disconcerting, as this method severely limits multiclass character concepts. It is cool to have a fighter that has a few spells that can back up his combat. But what happens when my fighter has a mid-life crisis and deides to apply to wizard college?

Personally, I think that the best form of multiclassing would be the one found in ToB. I would really like to see multiclass characters as acually taking levels in both classes, and gaining some sort of slow progression as far as talent trees work.

Does anyone else have any comments on this? Are my fears unfounded?

 

[Anthtriel]

I find tis disconcerting, as this method severely limits multiclass character concepts. It is cool to have a fighter that has a few spells that can back up his combat. But what happens when my fighter has a mid-life crisis and deides to apply to wizard college?

Depends on how important that starting class is. If they do it the Saga way, i.e. starting skills and hitpoints are determined by starting class, then there are slight problems for hybrid concepts, but nothing that cannot be houseruled relatively easily.

If they set some variable that can never be changed (equivalent of HD or Bab) then indeed, it would be pretty sucky. I don't think that will happen though.


At any rate, I hope it's not possible to have a Level 20 Wizard with 1 Wizard and 19 Fighter abilities.

Personally, I think that the best form of multiclassing would be the one found in ToB. I would really like to see multiclass characters as acually taking levels in both classes, and gaining some sort of slow progression as far as talent trees work.

Nah, a Level 29 Fighter splashing one level of Wizard should get something worthwhile, a Level 16 ability would be too weak.
Abilities should be based on character level only.

 

[Nahat Anoj]

I have a few concerns with the snippets we've seen about multiclassing in 4ed. I think it could either go very good or very bad. None of the playtest characters that were supposed to be multiclass are described as warllord 5/cleric 3. This leads me to believe that they might force you to pick a primary class, which is the oone you start with, and then give you the option to take talents from another class at some later point.

I find tis disconcerting, as this method severely limits multiclass character concepts. It is cool to have a fighter that has a few spells that can back up his combat. But what happens when my fighter has a mid-life crisis and deides to apply to wizard college?

Personally, I think that the best form of multiclassing would be the one found in ToB. I would really like to see multiclass characters as acually taking levels in both classes, and gaining some sort of slow progression as far as talent trees work.

Does anyone else have any comments on this? Are my fears unfounded?

I think 4e will be very open to the idea of retraining (as seen in the PHB 2) or at least respeccing your character. So the midlife crisis fighter/mage should be easy to do - just redesign the character to where you think he "should" be and you'll be good to go.

 

[CleverNickName]

I never really liked multiclassing, especially in 3.x Edition. It seemed that if you wanted to play a unique and interesting character, you had to multiclass in order to accomplish it. Suddenly, everyone in the party is a fighter slash wizard slash whatever, and gaining a level became about as fun and complicated as filing your income taxes.

I was hoping that talent trees would eliminate the need for multiclassing altogether, but it doesn't sound like it. Bummer.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I say let them experiment. While 3rd edition was a huge jump forward, no version of D&D has done multiclassing particularly well. It's one of the areas where a tweak could actually be useful, so long as it's playtested thoroughly.

 

[Daz]

Depends on how important that starting class is. If they do it the Saga way, i.e. starting skills and hitpoints are determined by starting class, then there are slight problems for hybrid concepts, but nothing that cannot be houseruled relatively easily.

If they set some variable that can never be changed (equivalent of HD or Bab) then indeed, it would be pretty sucky. I don't think that will happen though.


At any rate, I hope it's not possible to have a Level 20 Wizard with 1 Wizard and 19 Fighter abilities.


Nah, a Level 29 Fighter splashing one level of Wizard should get something worthwhile, a Level 16 ability would be too weak.
Abilities should be based on character level only.

THe problem with using only character level, is that my midlife crisis fighter decides to pursue the wizard class, then within three levels or so he is just as good at spellcasting as the party wizard.

I agree that multiclass character abilities should be based on character level, but definetely not FULL character level. You should still have some reward for sticking with a class. Otherwise you end up with one character who's amazing at everything.

 

[Daz]

I think 4e will be very open to the idea of retraining (as seen in the PHB 2) or at least respeccing your character. So the midlife crisis fighter/mage should be easy to do - just redesign the character to where you think he "should" be and you'll be good to go.

I know I can always retrain, but that wasn't what I was talking about. What if I want to play a general who retired and took up sorcery. He still has all of his knowledge of the sword and tactics.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Multiclassing seems to end up in a catch-22 situation. Either single class characters who specialize are given rewards for doing so and those who muliclass complain because their characters aren't as powerful or else the multiclassers are made as powerful as the specialists so there is no point in anyone being a specialist. 3X seemed to have chosen the first option and 4E from what it sounds like is going with the second option. I am curious to see how they resolve this.

 

[DreamChaser]

Okay, starting from the point of not agreeing with the prevalent idea that 3e multiclassing was useless (even for spellcasters), I would like to contribute.

Multiclassing seems to end up in a catch-22 situation. Either single class characters who specialize are given rewards for doing so and those who muliclass complain because their characters aren't as powerful or else the multiclassers are made as powerful as the specialists so there is no point in anyone being a specialist. 3X seemed to have chosen the first option and 4E from what it sounds like is going with the second option. I am curious to see how they resolve this.

I don't think it is quite so binary and the current rules reinforce this. In many ways, a fighter 3 / ranger 4 is a better ranger than a ranger 7 (barbarian / ranger or ranger / rogue works even better). Why? Because you are combining complementary abilities (physical combat). The problem is that magic was never included. It was complementary with nothing (not even itself) and so was exclusive.

ToB showed a new paradigm: the idea that it is possible to overlap some abilities. For example, a fighter 4 / warblade 4 is treated as a 4th level warblade for number of maneuvers known and readied but a 6th level warblade for maximum maneuver level learned and initiator level. Now rather than complementary / exclusive we have a third dimension; we can call it supplementary.

The key to success with multiclassing as I see it is to play up the supplemental aspects of a class. All classes get complementary features (BAB, SAVES, HP) that anyone can benefit from. All get exclusive features that should be their bread and butter and no one should have them unless they belong to that class (turn undead, wild shape). Some abilities should fall into a middle range where a multiclassed character can benefit but not excel.

For example:

Imagine that a muliclassed sorcerer could add half of other levels to his caster level and for spells per day but not for spells know. A sorcerer 1 / fighter 6 (CL 4) would know 4 cantrips and 2 first level spells (for 1st level sorcerer) but would be able to cast 6 cantrips and 6 first per day. He would also have 3 second level spells that could only be used for metamagic (because he knows no 2nd level spells). His burning hands would deal 4d4 instead of 1d4 damage as well.

This sort of balance (obviously this was generated on the fly) would allow said sorcerer / fighter (we'll call it sort of a gish) to hold his own but never outshine the 7th level sorcerer.

My hope is that this is the sort of direction that 4e multiclassing will go; partial benefit to class abilities so that you're still stronger doing single class but you gain the benefits to create a unique concept that is workable as well.

DC

 

[Flobby]

THe problem with using only character level, is that my midlife crisis fighter decides to pursue the wizard class, then within three levels or so he is just as good at spellcasting as the party wizard.

I agree that multiclass character abilities should be based on character level, but definetely not FULL character level. You should still have some reward for sticking with a class. Otherwise you end up with one character who's amazing at everything.

But he wouldn't be as good as the wizard because he would only have one or two wizardly abilities. That fighter might have one wizard power, but would never be as a wizard who has x levels worth.