The new multiclassing: comboclassing

[muffin_of_chaos]

It would be very difficult for WotC to craft every combination of the base classes--determining which base class powers should be available for any given combo--with the effort of keeping them balanced. Too many.
(Cleric/Fighter, Cleric/Paladin, Cleric/Ranger, Cleric/Rogue, Cleric/Warlock, Cleric/Warlord, Cleric/Wizard, Fighter/Paladin, Fighter/Ranger, Fighter/Rogue, Fighter/Warlock, Fighter/Warlord, Fighter/Wizard, Paladin/Ranger, Paladin/Rogue, Paladin/Warlock, Paladin/Warlord, Paladin/Wizard, Ranger/Rogue, Ranger/Warlock, Ranger/Warlord, Ranger/Wizard, Rogue/Warlock, Rogue/Warlord, Rogue/Wizard, Warlock/Warlord, Warlock/Wizard, Warlord/Wizard)

But the balance problem isn't in the same realm as 3.x multiclassing, and if groups who accepted that system are complaining about 4E, comboclassing is their easy solution.

 

[FadedC]

It's not entirely clear to me exactly what the fighter-mage in the example gives up in order to have free access to all the wizard spells. He seems to have every ability that a fighter would get anyway, in addition to access to all of the mage abilities. He doesn't even have to give up his fighter dailies in exchange for mage ones.

I do note that he has marginally fewer hit points, But I'm not quite sure that's a balancing factor there.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

It's not entirely clear to me exactly what the fighter-mage in the example gives up in order to have free access to all the wizard spells. He seems to have every ability that a fighter would get anyway, in addition to access to all of the mage abilities. He doesn't even have to give up his fighter dailies in exchange for mage ones.

I do note that he has marginally fewer hit points, But I'm not quite sure that's a balancing factor there.

The only question is how the normal Fighter Armor/Weapon proficiencies should be modified. Since they aren't pinned down at the moment, I just left 'em unchanged. But probably you'd have to take a feat to get full access.
The Fighter loses some hitpoints, some healing surges, a skill rank, and a class feature.
In exchange, he gets cantrips and the ability to replace some Wizard powers in place of Fighter powers.
'Spose I should adjust the Encounter and Daily powers like I did the At-Will. Yar.

If I had a full list of powers, I might tailor the Fighter-Mage's access to each class's powers. And that would be really easy.
And that's my point. Making hybrid classes by utilizing the powers that already exist is really easy, and probably not terribly unbalanced, since each power supposedly has some inherent value. Watching to make sure Curse/Ranger's Mark/Sneak Attack doesn't happen would be pretty much the biggest issue. And that also wouldn't be hard.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

Sounds like 3.5 to me. 3.5 multiclassing worked fine except for some spellcasters. 3.5 solved with with PrCs and New Base classes to hake those combos work. 4E multiclassing works fine except where it doesn't so new base classes are introduced to fix the problem.

 

[DreamChaser]

Not a negative...more an affirmative plus a "duh"

As the multiclassing article stated (and I agree with this point) true "dual classing" where you progress evenly in two classes is essentially impossible to balance in a robust class-based system (just as a "point accounting" system for class abilities / powers is inherently problematic).

Why?

Because there are too many variables inherent in what during any given game is a closed system. Within the 4-5 character party, each character ought to have the same short- and long-term efficacy. This means taking (powers of class A / 2) + (powers of class B / 2) doesn't work; the character will lack the powers needed to excel or sustain as either.

I imagine that they developed rules that got close by breaking down classes into "critical" "primary" and "supplemental" abiltiies and assessing the affects of combining each of the classes (as in 3e, palading / fighter gave up nothing; monk / wizard lost out big), what the trade off would need to be, how to scale this up into paragon levels, etc.

At which point it probably occurred to them that they would use less space (and confuse fewer people) by adding in a "Gish" class, a Drizzt class, etc.

I'm happy with dabbling for mc and the options at the paragon levels look promising as well.

DC

 

[Irda Ranger]

If you want a class that covers the powers of more than one class, then just make one.

Respectfully, I decline your offer. I am done with Mystic Theurges, Spell Thieves and Spellswords. I will pay for new base classes that allow fully new things (such as a Barbarian, Druid or Bard), but I do not want (nor will I spend the time to make myself or pay for) a base class that's just a reshuffle of previously paid for base classes.

Personally, while I'll need to see it how it works when I have all the rules, I'm pretty sure I'm fine with the new system. The base classes we have are exactly the kind of strong archetypes I am looking for, and adding a little spice and flavor around the edges (without changing the core ingredients of the dish) is all the flex I need.


Note the change in orange below (I also corrected two typos - use Firefox if you can).

I imagine that they developed rules that got close by breaking down classes roles into "critical" "primary" and "supplemental" abilities and assessing the affects of combining each of the classes (as in 3e, paladin / fighter gave up nothing; monk / wizard lost out big), what the trade off would need to be, how to scale this up into paragon levels, etc.

I agree with this statement once you replace "classes" with "roles." D&D is a team-based game, and as anyone who plays baseball knows, you can swap out right-handed fastballer for a left-handed knuckballer, but you can't swap out a pitcher for a second short-stop. You just can't play the game that way.

Now, D&D is a bit more flexible than baseball (there are many ways to kill things and take their stuff), but the point remains that Multiclassing must not be allowed to take a strong Defender and make him useless at both Defending and {Striking, Leading, Controlling}. He must remain a strong Defender to properly support his team. To use DreamChaser's terms, Multiclassing cannot let him give away the "critical" powers, only to swap around supplemental ones.

I expect that WotC will release new classes (like the Swordmage) that ostensibly allow you to play a "Fighter-Mage", but they really won't. The Swordmage is a Defender. Period. He will have what it take to be a Defender, which means that even if it's described as "Arcane powered magic", he won't be anything like a Fighter-Mage. No Sleep or Web. That's for controllers.

How "hybrid" classes fit in remains to be seen.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Aye, we aren't talking about trying to make comboclassers into viable party members, because that hasn't or shouldn't ever have been the point.

As hybrids their ability to perform specific roles is necessarily weaker.

Personally I like the new system of multiclassing. I think it allows taking multiple class abilities without being completely unbalanced like 3.x. This is not meant to be a replacement for it.

But if people want to complain about 4E multiclassing as being to restrictive, and they really do, they can't unless they disregard the fact that the rules make comboclassing intuitive by its coherent class structure. Which would be hard.
And I'm guessing that's why none o' them have responded with anything other than "it might not work" and "just because it works, doesn't mean that it's an intuitive feature that fixes the problem." Obviously it is an intuitive feature...just choose from different features and at-will, encounter and daily powers. You can argue that unless any specific combo is playtested, it might be unbalanced, but real balance wasn't even remotely possible in 3.x with different classes.

The only real problem with "comboclassing" is that you wouldn't be able to completely change classes midstream. I don't know a fix for this yet, but I'm sure some smart person will think of one if they try.

~the muffin

 

[Cadfan]

I expect that WotC will release new classes (like the Swordmage) that ostensibly allow you to play a "Fighter-Mage", but they really won't. The Swordmage is a Defender. Period. He will have what it take to be a Defender, which means that even if it's described as "Arcane powered magic", he won't be anything like a Fighter-Mage. No Sleep or Web. That's for controllers.

How "hybrid" classes fit in remains to be seen.

There are a lot of different things we could try calling a "fighter/mage."

1. A character who mostly fights in melee, but occasionally throws a fireball, could be a fighter/mage. 4e seems to do this better than 3e.

2. A character who mostly casts spells, but has a weapon trick or two for when things get close quarters, could be a fighter/mage. 4e seems to do this better than 3e as well.

3. A character who always fights in melee, but uses magic to buff himself to fight in melee more effectively, could be a fighter/mage. 3e agonized over this for years, with multiple prestige classes and eventually several base classes. 4e is using the Swordmage for this role.

4. A character who always fights in melee, but who uses ritual magic outside of combat, could be a fighter/mage. We don't know if 4e will permit this, but it might. If it does, we don't know how good it will be- if one feat opens up all ritual magic, it will be awesome. If it lets you pick up a suite of rituals (all divination for which you meet prereqs), it will probably be awesome. If one feat lets you choose one ritual, well, who knows. Probably will end up being awesome for some rituals, and crappy for others.

5. A character who spends half his time casting offensive spells and the other half of his time fighting in melee, could be a fighter/mage. In 4e, this requires spending a bunch of feats and maybe a paragon path to pick up abilities from your second class. I don't know if 4e will do this well. Probably, it won't, because its such an anti-synergetic combination that it seems like you should almost be given extra powers to make up for your craptastic ability score allocation and the fact that you have twice as much ground to cover when using feats to boost your basic abilities. For what its worth, I can't think of any other edition (or game) that handles this problem well. This sort of choice might work well for a Fighter/Warlord, or other similar combinations, but I doubt it will work well for Fighter/Mages.

Basically, the multiclass rules have to be balanced based on the assumption that players will pick powerful things when they multiclass. This leaves you in a situation where if, for thematic reasons, you want something that isn't powerful, you're paying feats for the opportunity to suck. See 3e Fighters using Weapon Finesse for reference.

Obviously I'd love a system where obtaining powers that are synergetic with your current class and which help make you a more powerful character are appropriately costed (maybe a feat as they cost now) while powers that are anti-synergetic and require weakening your character to use are free, or even come with a reward for choosing them. But I cannot think of any possible way to accomplish that other than using paragon paths and new base classes to widen the character options, and to present prepackaged, properly balanced nuggets of abilities.

 

[Torchlyte]

Not everyone would concede the point that these multiclass rules aren't good enough to cover most, if not all, character concepts. I wouldn't.

 

[DreamChaser]

I pretty much agree with every word Cadfan said above.

The issue appears to be less "can I create a concept that I want that actually works?" because the feat based seems to do that pretty well. More the issue seems to be "can I create the 2e half-elf fighter / mage?" which did both as well or better than a single class.

Realistically, a jack of all trades is rarely a master of any of them. The rules really can't support those rare occasions because it would be unfair to the other players / characters.

So, if your character is going to be a fighter / mage...
If he is a spell-slinging warrior, fighter with wizard multiclass...
if he is a Gandalf-esque sword-swinging wizard, wizard with fighter multiclass...
if he is truly balanced between the two and isn't more one than the other, then a new class is really the best way to reflect this.

It is like the psion / fighter versus the psychic warrior. The latter has an advantage because from the ground up the class was designed to synergize the two aspects. The former would need to either favor one or end up taking feats / prestige classes to attempt some sort of balance.

DC