The new multiclassing: comboclassing

[DreamChaser]

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.

I feel that they cover all concepts that are both worth playing and fair to the other players / characters.

The only ones I see being problematic are ones that (as above) aren't really multiclass concepts but whole new concepts altogether.

DC

 

[DM_Blake]

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.

That has got to be the most wrong thing I've read on these boards all month (although, admittedly, today is the first day of May...)

I'm sorry, but reading that line, I paraphrase: "We are talking about trying to make comboclassers into non-viable party members".

So, your whole thread is about making useless classes that are not viable party members? That's why you posted this thread?

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.

I'm not sure I understand.

3.5e let a fighter/rogue multiclass, gain benefits from both classes, without being unbalanced. A 6/6 fighter/rogue has fewer HP, lower BAB, fewer feats, and fewer attacks per round than a 12 fighter, and has fewer skills, lower values in some critical skills, weaker sneak attacks, and fewer class abilities than a 12 rogue. But, in combat, he's still pretty much as effective as either 12th level class, and in utility, he can handle many of the core rogue functions as well, or nearly as well, as a 12 rogue. He is certainly not more powerful than either 12th level base class.

3.5e let a fighter/wizard multiclass, but a 6/6 fighter/wizard is essentially broken and worthless. He cannot fight as well as a 12 fighter, nor can he provide useful combat or utility spells of the same or even close to the same power level or quantity. Essentially, this kind of multiclass in 3x is doomed to be non-viable, and needed fixing.

Is that the kind of unbalanced you meant?

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

Iit is obvious that if you want to multiclass 50/50 like you tried and failed to do in 3.x, you should get your DM to devise a base class that splits basic features and can select powers from both. It won't be terribly balanced, but it'll be much better balanced than 3.x can be given flagrant disregard of balance in system mechanics, which should be good enough for you. And it is a purer form of multiclassing 50/50 than 3.x in all cases.
Not purer than 2.0, but also not suffering from the exp problem.
If you don't want to multiclass 50/50, but just want to multiclass a bit, then it is dabbling in a class and the current official multiclassing rules work and you should be satisfied.
If you want to go really nuts, you can just create a class and a bunch of class features/powers to go along with it. But that form of homebrewed class isn't the same thing.
I'll probably make a thread compiling together comboclasses for people who are dead-set on playing a real Warlock/Wizard or Rogue/Warlord. And change 'em to adjust for balance as playtesting ensues.
I do not advise anyone to comboclass. But I don't discourage it either. This thought exercise is merely to show that complaints against the 4E multiclassing system are unfounded.
~the muffin

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

That has got to be the most wrong thing I've read on these boards all month (although, admittedly, today is the first day of May...)
I'm sorry, but reading that line, I paraphrase: "We are talking about trying to make comboclassers into non-viable party members".
So, your whole thread is about making useless classes that are not viable party members? That's why you posted this thread?

That's a poor reading. I'm not saying I'm trying to make comboclassers into unviable party members, but that I'm not trying to make them into viable party members. There's a subtle difference. What if it isn't possible, for instance? Not the issue.

Is that the kind of unbalanced you meant?

The kind of unbalanced I mean is the entire system. Fighters and Rogues in and of themselves weren't designed to be balanced classes, due to a certain lack of foresight. And the difference between Bard and Cleric is staggering.

 

[DM_Blake]

...*someone* reply and give me a good reason why this wouldn't work...I know you're out there...
I should get a copyright to the term "comboclass" while it's hot.

If it is up to the player to pick and choose which abilities he keeps from two classes, and which he doesn't keep, munchkin players will be able, after gaining "system mastery" of the rules, to choose the strongest abilities of the two classes and discard the weakest.

Assuming every class has some good stuff, and some blah stuff, which I can already see in the pregen characters, combining all the good without any of the blah results in a more powerful comboclass.

Try it.

Go pick any two official pregen classes. Build a comboclass by asking yourself "what's best to keep and what's best to discard, based on evaluating which powers make me the strongest I can be" (you know, basic munchkin mentality).

Then, once you're done, go duel your new combo class against the original pregens (1 vs. 1 dueling). Do it a few times and weed out the oddities where one duelist rolls constistently badly, or constistenly well, and dominates the duel strictly on the basis of random dice variance.

See which class wins the most consistently: pregen 1, pregen 2, or comboclass.

Then take it even a bit farther. Do this will all comboclass possibilities and dual the comboclasses. My hypothesis is that some comboclasses will dominate in this round-robin tournament much more easily than some other comboclasses, and some won't dominate at all. I base this hypothesis on the assumption that not all core classes are perfectly balanced, that some core classes have abilities or powers that are marginally better than others, and that a comboclass that starts with two of the most powerful core classes will be intrinsically better than a comboclass that doesn't.

All this means is that crafty players will quickly figure out how to comboclass a munchkin that is more powerful, even overpowered, compared to the rest of the characters in the party who stick with a single core class, or who comboclass poorly.

This would be bad for the other players (jealosy that Fred can do more than they can do), bad for the campaign (hard to make engaging, balanced challenges and encounters when Fred is always dominating them), bad for the DM (always having to send the ogre to attack Fred and the orcs to attack the rest of the group gets very tiresome).

This is why making blanket rules that instruct players to pick their favorite powers from two classes and make a hybrid comboclass out of them is probably not a good idea.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

If it is up to the player to pick and choose which abilities he keeps from two classes, and which he doesn't keep, munchkin players will be able, after gaining "system mastery" of the rules, to choose the strongest abilities of the two classes and discard the weakest.

It'd be up to the DM. Ipso facto, it'd be up to whoever the DM deems appropriate to design. If he wants his characters to munchkin, more power to them.

Assuming every class has some good stuff, and some blah stuff, which I can already see in the pregen characters, combining all the good without any of the blah results in a more powerful comboclass.

This is true. Again, balance is not the issue, as the contention that hasn't been contested is that it would be very hard to do this and be as unbalanced as any sort of multiclassing in 3.x.
If I were the DM, I would attempt to balance as I could. It wouldn't be hard.

This would be bad for the other players (jealosy that Fred can do more than they can do), bad for the campaign (hard to make engaging, balanced challenges and encounters when Fred is always dominating them), bad for the DM (always having to send the ogre to attack Fred and the orcs to attack the rest of the group gets very tiresome).

But infinitely intrinsically better than 3.x. Again, not saying you should adopt the idea, but it's still superior to the amount of powergaming potential in the last edition.

This is why making blanket rules that instruct players to pick their favorite powers from two classes and make a hybrid comboclass out of them is probably not a good idea.

That's why I'd probably change the power selection based on information on what all of the actual powers are. Regardless, every power has a use, excepting two at-will powers that happen to be exactly the same; this is not the same as in 3.x.

 

[DM_Blake]

That's a poor reading. I'm not saying I'm trying to make comboclassers into unviable party members, but that I'm not trying to make them into viable party members. There's a subtle difference. What if it isn't possible, for instance? Not the issue.

Then please explain the subtlety, because I don't get it.

If you're going to propose alternate rules, or house rules, why not propose rules that create viable results?

No, I get it, you're not deliberately trying to make comboclassing a non-viable option.

But on the other hand, by not trying to make it viable, by making a half-hearted, weak attempt at suggesting these rules, by allowing the resultant rules to make non-viable comboclasses because you didn't try to prevent that, well, the end result is the same thing: your rules allow for non-viable comboclasses.

Which, judging from the posts you yourself made, is perfectly OK with you because you weren't trying to avoid that outcome.

The kind of unbalanced I mean is the entire system. Fighters and Rogues in and of themselves weren't designed to be balanced classes, due to a certain lack of foresight. And the difference between Bard and Cleric is staggering.

I don't believe your point of arguing that imbalanced classes and a lack of forsight in class design is a valid point for justifying an imbalanced multiclassing system.

Me, I would prefer a good, balanced class system (4e might be fairly close to this, closer than an previous D&D edition anyway) with a good, balanced, viable multiclassing system (4e doesn't seem to have this yet, since multiclassing requires characters to burn feats for no appreciable gain, compared to single-classing characters who can select feats that improve their characters).

Your proposed solution, from the original post, might indeed be a better step in this direction, but not if it is player implemented as a house rule, and not if it is just a paragraph or two in the PHB that tells players they can do this.

It would need stronger guidelines, with balancing decisions made by the rules system (not by individual DMs or players) to prevent characters from cherry-picking the best stuff and discarding the weakest stuff and thereby generating an overpowered comboclass.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

But on the other hand, by not trying to make it viable, by making a half-hearted, weak attempt at suggesting these rules, by allowing the resultant rules to make non-viable comboclasses because you didn't try to prevent that, well, the end result is the same thing: your rules allow for non-viable comboclasses.
Which, judging from the posts you yourself made, is perfectly OK with you because you weren't trying to avoid that outcome.

I'm not saying it isn't viable. I actually think that the combo class I made up there would be "viable" primarily because I don't believe that a party should be Defined by the roles of the classes played. Even if I did believe it, I think comboclassing could make up for holes in groups adequately.
I'm saying that the theory of what multiclassing should be, as put forth by fans of 3E in that stupidly long thread, is more possible in 4E.
They aren't saying that a class should fill a role equally well as classes that are designed to fill roles; merely, that they want to be more "multiclassy" and comboclasses do this better than they ever could in 3.x.

Your proposed solution, from the original post, might indeed be a better step in this direction, but not if it is player implemented as a house rule, and not if it is just a paragraph or two in the PHB that tells players they can do this.
It would need stronger guidelines, with balancing decisions made by the rules system (not by individual DMs or players) to prevent characters from cherry-picking the best stuff and discarding the weakest stuff and thereby generating an overpowered comboclass.

You would need stronger guidelines. Myself, I run with a savvy DM who knows the difference between cool and overpowered.

Edit:
I'm guessing that standard comboclasses with limitations on power selection will be designed and posted on this site, that are playtestested to exhaustion to keep them fairly balanced, so stay tuned.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

I think that the hybrid class suggested by the op is overpowered, gaining full unrestricted access to all powers and feats from two classes is a bit too much.

That said, I suspect that if one took fighter at level one and multied in to Warlock and spent every feat on Warlock power you would have a pretty effective character. You would not be a good defender, though you would retain some defender attributes but you would be a very resilient striker. (Although fighter/ranger might be better)


The big problem in 3e was loss of BAB and/or caster levels. Since there is no low bab progression in 4e this is less of an issue. You may be sub optimal but you will not suck.

The big flavour advantage to this, as someone pointed out in the other multiclassing thead, is it allows the 'Harry Potter' campaign where every one everone starts out as wizard/something or something/wizard for setting flavour purposes.

 

[Leatherhead]

Here is a good reason: There are too many combinations to make a brand new class for each hybrid, especially if I have to make abilities so that the diverse powers synergize with each other and make the "comboclass" more than a little of column A and a bit of column B.

If I am going to put that much work into it I would rather just create a new class system from scratch.

eidt: typo