D&D 4E What 5E needs to learn from 4E

[AbdulAlhazred]

You find it lackluster. It works closer to how I an my gamer friends think 3e should have worked when taking a new class after first level. We disliked that a character in 3e could multiclass after first level and get all of a clases armor and weapons + other abilities and/or gain 1st level spells without first having have had to have known 0-level spells.
To fix it, we took numerous steps. For instance:
1 Multiclassing did not grant the new classes armor and weapon proficiencies. A character needed to spend a feat (could be the use of a fighter class bonus feat) to get proficiency in one armor category or weapon for which the character meets the pre-requisites
2. Multiclassing into a class that grants 1st level spells at level 1 requires the character to first have taken a feat granting 3-0 level first arcane spells representing learning the basics
(the above is in addition to requiring a trainer to pick up a new class)

This does not mean I don't want a representation of something more like hybrid multiclasing or AD&D multicilassing for first level characters starting off as two classes (I use 0/0 level multi-classing from the 3.0 DMG, UA style class variants, and third party classes to cover this when I run 3e). It is just that I want something with more verisimilitude for a character gaining a new class after first level. The same for those with whom I game and other gamers with whom I have discussed this.

Yeah, I thought overall 4e MCing has a lot going for it. Hybrids work pretty well. The downside is the need for a hybrid writeup for each class. These weren't always flawless and some classes clearly hybridized better than others (Swordmage, Warlock, Paladin, and Avenger seem to have been the best IME). A few others simply didn't seem to work well at all as hybrids, but overall Hybrids made an excellent way to create a character that just didn't fit well within the existing classes. I suspect a cleaned up basic class hierarchy with a few less classes and built from the start with hybrids in mind would work quite well.

4e MCing really works as a "I'm changing my ways" or "I want to learn a new tactic in a different tradition" kind of thing. It was definitely somewhat overpriced in 4e but that's very easy to fix. There's some good synergy here too with Themes, which can reinforce your MCing efforts or vice versa.

It is a FAR less problematical system than 3e's. 3e's MCing has a few problems. One is just the geometrically increasing amount of combinations of almost anything that can happen with different classes as you increase the number of classes and class features. This can happen with hybrids too, but they can only combine at level 1 and you can cut things out. PrCs just amplify this problem too. Secondly you cannot MC at level 1 in 3e (aside some extra special case rules that add more moving parts). The issues with front loading of classes and cherry picking also forces you to either make MC specific versions of 3e style classes or seriously alter the class progressions in undesirable ways.

 

[Shadeydm]

You find it lackluster. It works closer to how I an my gamer friends think 3e should have worked when taking a new class after first level. We disliked that a character in 3e could multiclass after first level and get all of a clases armor and weapons + other abilities and/or gain 1st level spells without first having have had to have known 0-level spells.
To fix it, we took numerous steps. For instance:
1 Multiclassing did not grant the new classes armor and weapon proficiencies. A character needed to spend a feat (could be the use of a fighter class bonus feat) to get proficiency in one armor category or weapon for which the character meets the pre-requisites
2. Multiclassing into a class that grants 1st level spells at level 1 requires the character to first have taken a feat granting 3-0 level first arcane spells representing learning the basics
(the above is in addition to requiring a trainer to pick up a new class)

This does not mean I don't want a representation of something more like hybrid multiclasing or AD&D multicilassing for first level characters starting off as two classes (I use 0/0 level multi-classing from the 3.0 DMG, UA style class variants, and third party classes to cover this when I run 3e). It is just that I want something with more verisimilitude for a character gaining a new class after first level. The same for those with whom I game and other gamers with whom I have discussed this.

I'm not all that familiar with 4E hybrids so i can't really say much about it, but I don't see much value in 4E's feat based multiclassing to be more specific. Again i'm not saying I like the 3E version any better. I just feel like the 4E version didn't go far enough. Mechanically its a better alternative if you really wanted to pick up a non class skill or an extra heal via leader multiclass. (In a game where I ran a bard half the party went MC bard for extra healing and the running gag was that we formed a barbershop quartet!) I might have had a different view if the MC gave you an at wll as an at will instead of as an encounter. As written its never inspired me to use it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This kind of relates to a phenomenon known as the Clever Hans effect, although it is more of an issue for psychological research.

EDIT: As a side issue, consider the possibility that all those times that your players seemed to know what you were thinking as a DM, they were simply picking up cues that you were giving out involuntarily and without even being conscious of the fact.

EDIT2: And if you add to that the not-unlikely possibility that players who have gamed for a long time with one particular DM get very good at picking up his cues - perhaps involuntarily and without being conscious of the fact themselves ...

I think when you're with a bunch of your friends and associates and you say "what do you think of this" and we're talking about a shared activity and an opinion that said person clearly has a big stake in there's a strong tendency to just say "yeah, I agree". I mean if my gaming friends voice an opinion on some version of a game that we're not playing and perhaps I have not played or barely looked at am I going to get into a debate with them about it? Of course not. I'm there to play, not argue about some game I'm clearly NOT playing.

There can be a billion reasons for groups to voice consensus or at least not disagree. It could be lack of desire for conflict, it could be just basic agreement, or it could be a desire to be agreeable with the DM, etc.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I'm not all that familiar with 4E hybrids so i can't really say much about it

They are more or less the AD&D "demihuman" multiclassing system. You get half of each of two separate classes.

I might have had a different view if the MC gave you an at wll as an at will instead of as an encounter. As written its never inspired me to use it.

Only a few of the at wills are worth it, but a few do come to mind. Wizard: Storm Pillar. The ability to place down a 6' tall tesla coil that does automatic damage to anyone trying to run past is only situationally useful so it's almost as useful as an encounter as an at will. But can be an extremely useful encounter. Invoker: Hand of Radiance. A shot at three minions at once can add quite a bit of flexibility. In fact most of the controllers have one or two powers like this that are worthwhile as encounter powers because the option is extremely useful.

And most of the non-controller multicass feats do other things than give you an at will. (For that matter, so do most of the controller ones). The wizard, bard, and invoker all have multiclass feats that give you Ritual Caster (a feat on its own). The leaders all have multiclass feats that give you a healing word type ability. The strikers all offer you an extra damage ability.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm not all that familiar with 4E hybrids so i can't really say much about it, but I don't see much value in 4E's feat based multiclassing to be more specific. Again i'm not saying I like the 3E version any better. I just feel like the 4E version didn't go far enough. Mechanically its a better alternative if you really wanted to pick up a non class skill or an extra heal via leader multiclass. (In a game where I ran a bard half the party went MC bard for extra healing and the running gag was that we formed a barbershop quartet!) I might have had a different view if the MC gave you an at wll as an at will instead of as an encounter. As written its never inspired me to use it.

Yeah, notice that the game NEVER allows you to get another class' at-will as an at-will, at least until you PMC or can get Versatile Master (which is pretty much broken powerful). Hybrids also let you stack at-wills from different classes with class features of other classes, but at least the designers have a chance there to cut things back and even then MCing to Ranger for Twin Strike or Warlock for Eyebite is pretty obvious. At-wills, being infinitely usable, tend to combine in obnoxious ways with other class' features. It isn't really a good idea to allow MCing unlimited access to them. Encounter access is already pretty nice anyway.

In the context of 5e though the question comes back to why would the cost of 4e MCing matter? 5e can establish some different cost/benefit equation, so it is the CONCEPT that should be assessed, not the cost in 4e or other specific details. 5e is a different enough system that the concept would certainly end up quite different in detail anyway (honestly it is questionable if it is even a viable concept given the sad refusal to have a common power structure).