"Playtest PH3 Dual Classing"
- Thread starter frogged
- Start date
You mean beyond the editorial calendar?
It appears we exist in different dimensions.Well to be fair, multiclassing was still horridly overpowered in 3E as well
Well let me clarify, it was potentially overpowered for certain builts, and crappy for certain others. But still overall, it was OP (and if you ever hit Epic then it was OP for any class because of practiced spellcaster or whatever it was called.)
In 2E I don't think I ever had balance concerns to notice how OP multiclassing was; but then I was younger back then and those were simpler times
In 2E I don't think I ever had balance concerns to notice how OP multiclassing was; but then I was younger back then and those were simpler times
CapnZapp
Legend
I am interested in rules that allow a character to
1) be an even blend between two existing classes. A Rogue/Wizard for instance.
and
2) have a change of heart mid-play. The Fighter who experiences a revelation and changes into Cleric, for instance.
As for 1) I feel a general set of rules that allow all combinations of classes X and Y is more interesting than solving the issue by adding new classes. Making a Swordmage isn't quite the same as allowing a Fighter/Wizard. And it certainly does nothing for the Ranger/Wizard or Fighter/Ranger.
As for 2), I'm not merely talking about a rule that allows your Fighter L9 to "retrain everything", essentially becoming a Cleric L9. I want rules that allow my Fighter L9 to take his tenth level as Cleric.
What I am not interested in, however, is gestalt rules.
I don't need anyone else telling me how to create overpowered characters. What I need rules for is concepts that aim to maintain balance with the basic game.
So my hopes for this article are waning when I hear they've renamed it from "dual" into "hybrid"...
1) be an even blend between two existing classes. A Rogue/Wizard for instance.
and
2) have a change of heart mid-play. The Fighter who experiences a revelation and changes into Cleric, for instance.
As for 1) I feel a general set of rules that allow all combinations of classes X and Y is more interesting than solving the issue by adding new classes. Making a Swordmage isn't quite the same as allowing a Fighter/Wizard. And it certainly does nothing for the Ranger/Wizard or Fighter/Ranger.
As for 2), I'm not merely talking about a rule that allows your Fighter L9 to "retrain everything", essentially becoming a Cleric L9. I want rules that allow my Fighter L9 to take his tenth level as Cleric.
What I am not interested in, however, is gestalt rules.
I don't need anyone else telling me how to create overpowered characters. What I need rules for is concepts that aim to maintain balance with the basic game.
So my hopes for this article are waning when I hear they've renamed it from "dual" into "hybrid"...
wayne62682
First Post
The thing I hate about 4E multiclassing is that you can't create a hybrid character effectively, unless you wait several levels (basically the same issue I had with 3.x multiclassing, minus the abuse for "dipping"). You should be able to take "best of breed" and create a Rogue/Wizard or Cleric/Wizard that's good, but not overpowering.
I'm extremely interested in seeing how WotC is tackling this. IMO the absolute best type of multiclassing was the 3.x Gestalt rules, but they were insane and thus required the "all or nothing" approach. But they actually let you be GOOD in both of your classes, not suck until 9th level and even then have to dip into PrCs (3.x mutlciassing) or barely able to do anything apart from minor, pretty well useless tricks without sacrificing more than you should (4E multiclassing)
I'm extremely interested in seeing how WotC is tackling this. IMO the absolute best type of multiclassing was the 3.x Gestalt rules, but they were insane and thus required the "all or nothing" approach. But they actually let you be GOOD in both of your classes, not suck until 9th level and even then have to dip into PrCs (3.x mutlciassing) or barely able to do anything apart from minor, pretty well useless tricks without sacrificing more than you should (4E multiclassing)
I'm A Banana
Potassium-Rich
It seems that old-school "dual classing" is mostly covered in the retraining rules, so I don't really know what they're hiding in their bag of tricks for whatever this is going to be next. I'd be interested in a gestalt thing, but 4e kind of struggles with the idea of niche protection + no accidental suck. These two concepts together means that, first of all, no Defender can be as good at being a Striker as a Striker is, but that also, if they're expected to be a Striker, they can't be as good a Striker as they are a Defender.
To put it another way, you can never be as good a Rogue as you are a Fighter (you're a Defender not a Striker), but you also can't just be someone who isn't that great of a Rogue or a Fighter (so you can't be a Defender/Striker and just be a "lower level" defender/striker).
I'm pretty confident that you'll NEVER see a "true" multiclass build where someone does both classes with full effectiveness. The closest you'll get is probably "hybrid" classes like the Swordmage who is a fighter who can also use a lot of controller-esque powers (but who still isn't a full fighter/wizard).
Given that, I'm interested in seeing what's coming down the pipe for that. I'm already a bit of a fan of the "non-classed" multiclass feats presented in the Art of the Kill article, so I think their strategy has merit, even if it won't please those who want to do two things with equal skill.
To put it another way, you can never be as good a Rogue as you are a Fighter (you're a Defender not a Striker), but you also can't just be someone who isn't that great of a Rogue or a Fighter (so you can't be a Defender/Striker and just be a "lower level" defender/striker).
I'm pretty confident that you'll NEVER see a "true" multiclass build where someone does both classes with full effectiveness. The closest you'll get is probably "hybrid" classes like the Swordmage who is a fighter who can also use a lot of controller-esque powers (but who still isn't a full fighter/wizard).
Given that, I'm interested in seeing what's coming down the pipe for that. I'm already a bit of a fan of the "non-classed" multiclass feats presented in the Art of the Kill article, so I think their strategy has merit, even if it won't please those who want to do two things with equal skill.
questing gm
First Post
Anyone thinking that they be referring to the 'sub-classes' like the Gladiator and Assassin and turn them into core by calling them Hybrid classes?
lutecius
Explorer
That's how i feel too.It's about two PHBs late.
I wouldn't hold my breath. Unless it's something they took into account when designing classes features (ie planned from the start, not a response to fan complaints), I think hybrid classes will be just as restrictive, for the reasons Kamikaze Midget mentioned.
I don't see the designers giving back the flexibility they've taken away now. Or rather, I don't see how they can do so without breaking the game's balance.
Maybe they'll have sold enough new classes and mc feats by then so phb3 will be power creep time again
Well to be fair, multiclassing was still horridly overpowered in 3E as well
some muticlassed builds may have been slightly ahead of straight non-spellcasting classes but the most common complaint I've heard about 3e mc is that it was suboptimal.
Last edited:
