Where did my options go? - The New Paradigm

[GnomeWorks]

Pre-3E Multiclassing slowed your progression as you had to split your XP but you advanced in -both- classes gaining the whole benefits of the two. In 3E you could swap class at any level but you gained only the features of that class level. In both cases you may be well behind your buddies in terme of character power, especially if you're a caster; being 10th lvl Wizards and 10th lvl Fighter certainly do not equate to be a 20th lvl Wizard imho.

This approach made sense to me, but you're right - it ultimately made you mechanically inferior, if you chose the wrong pairing (I'm playing a 3.5 fighter/rogue at the moment, and it is fantastic, so not all combinations are bad ones).

I think the problem with 3.5-style multiclassing is that the classes all have different resource-management styles, which also impacts the strength of their abilities: fighters can use their feats all the time, so they are generally of less mechanical impact than a wizard's Vancian spells. The abilities are perhaps too silo'd, in such a way that you cannot meaningfully combine them in one character to produce something roughly equal to another single-classed character.

I imagine that 4e would be able to handle 3.5-style multiclassing much better, except that they backed off a step and made all the classes "top-heavy," and also made a few new class-based mechanics that would be difficult to make sense out of if 3.5-style multiclassing were allowed (healing surges and hp/level, specifically, though I imagine there are more).

 

[Plageman]

Spycraft has (had ?) an interesting option: It define Core Class Abilities that are available ONLY to you first class pick. If you later multiclass in the said class you get the other benefits but not the Core Class Abilities. The same goes with PrC if I remember correctly; first PrC CCA, second no CCA.

Funnily the 4E do the reverse somehow; when you multi you only get the CCA (and later on some "treats") but not the full class treatment. However you're supposed to continue to grow in your main class un-stymied.

What lacks at 4E release is more distinct Class Paths. I guess it would have been "easier" if they did use the Talent Trees like in SWSE or D20Modern but I'm quite sure people would have balked at it too ^_^

 

[Shabe]

Just a small comment on the number of play options available in combat to people. Given that all classes use the same power progression, all characters will have the same number of viable options in combat as each other except for a couple of small exceptions.

-Characters focused on str will have more options due to grab/bull rush.

-Dwarves gain no ability due to their racialness, merely have a standard action encounter power upgraded to a minor action encounter power.
(Dragonborn - Breath Weapon Elardrin - Teleport Elf - reroll Half-elves - extra encounter "at will" Halflings - reroll an enemy hit Humans - extra at will Tieflings - Infernal Wrath)

So erm fighters seem to have more options than wizards in combat, dun dun duuuun *dramatic chipmunk*

Shoot i skipped class features...

Cleric: Healing Word, Channel Divinity
Fighter: Marking (although only a choice when theres another "mark"er on the party)
Paladin: Divine Challenge, Channel Divinity, Lay on Hands
Ranger: Hunters Quarry
Rogue: Sneak Attack
Warlock: Misty Step, Curse, (Pact Bonus)
Warlord: Inspiring Word
Wizard: Cantrips, Implement Mastery

disclaimer: I've only read the phb twice I may have missed out some options

Okay so maybe the paladin turns out as having the most options. But we are only talking about a difference of 2 or 3.
Overall it takes away the fact that one person is dithering over their options while the fighter decides to full attack/trip, and leads to the fact that everyone understands that they have a few options to mull over and it might all be a bit quicker and less painful if they plan their upcoming actions, hopefully.

 

[Lizard]

So what can other, non-caster classes do at first level that compares to the above?

Survive more than one round in melee.

If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard, as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.

In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)

 

[Plageman]

Well in BD&D you even didn't cast as spell as 1st level Cleric. I agree that if we discuss ONLY low-levels, spellcasters do suck somehow. Now let's start to discuss MU at lvl 10+...

 

[Lizard]

Well in BD&D you even didn't cast as spell as 1st level Cleric. I agree that if we discuss ONLY low-levels, spellcasters do suck somehow. Now let's start to discuss MU at lvl 10+...

Well, for the first time EVAR, I am playing a primary caster to high-ish levels. Raven humanoid (SS), Wizard 6/Blood Magus 5 (CL 10). With small size and a base Strength of 6, he isn't entering melee, ever, if he can avoid it.

He does have some useful tricks -- the words "Sudden Maximized Firebrand" come to mind. But he can pull that off *once*, and often, it's not the best thing to do -- especially if his allies are in melee. Our DM doesn't usually let us get away with "We're going to go into combat, let's buff" -- combats come to us. We're in the middle of a nice diplomatic dinner, when one of the diplomats suddenly signals for the Totally Expected Betrayal. And since everyone is scanned for magic before entering, we can't just buff up before dinner; it's not only rude, it might get us all killed. (We are in a setting where arcane magic, while not quite *illegal*, is very Socially Unacceptable, and where using any kind of spells, including divination, on an unwilling subject is basically asking for a death sentence -- and there are high level clerics and druids watching out for it in most social situations.) Or we're on a long journey through the Swamp Of Undead, and we don't have a nice five minute warning to let us start buffing. So my choice each round is "Buff myself, or do something useful", and it's usually the latter. So let's toss out the "Uber Wizard Buffs" meme, in a well run game, you don't have the luxury.

In actual combat, my tactical options are shaped by my low hit points (though still good for a caster, thanks to high Con and being a Blood Magus) and crap AC. I have a lot of huge area blasting spells (some might say he's compensating...) and a reserve feat that let's me toss a 5d6 fireburst around. Both require my allies to be out of the friggin' way. Because I don't know what I'll encounter, my spell mix for the day is usuall broad -- my character's personality is such that he usually has Chain of Eyes and Prying Eyes prepared, and of course Dispel Magic sucks down several 3rd level slots. If I know we've only got one encounter for the day, I can unload all my nukes early, but, 9 times out of 10, we don't, and our DM usually structures things so, no, the monsters will NOT patiently wait for us to nap between every combat. We usually have 2-3 sessions of pure RP followed by The Big Battle, and once that starts, we're invariably on a tight time limit with no way to just rest up. Either we battle through, no matter how low we are on resources, or we fail in our mission, often with dire consequences. (Like, changing all history...for the worse). 10 minute adventuring day? I friggin' wish!

So I really don't get this whole "Wizards r00l!" stuff. Yes, my character is powerful -- but he has limited resources he has to carefully dole out, he often has spells which aren't appropriate, he must waste actions to get away from foes, he sucks down healing because he can't take more than 1-2 direct hits, etc. His at-will nuke is weak for his level, and has a Reflex save most creatures will make. He's not useless by any stretch, but he's not t3h ub3rne55, either. He's a fun, balanced, character with strengths and weaknesses, and I don't see him shooting ahead of the others in a few levels.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Survive more than one round in melee.

If you're using the Magic Precognitive Wizard who knows each encounter for the day and has prepared exactly the right spells, saved them for exactly the right moment, and never had a monster save against them, wizards are "too powerful". In the wonderful world of Actual Play, however, you often find half your spells are useless or inappropriate, targets make saves, you misjudge what you'll be fighting, and, of course, even at high levels, you have fewer hit points than an asthmatic weasel. I wonder how many of the "Wizards are t3h ub3rz ZOMG!" folks have actually *played* one in a game run by a competent DM. Dispel Magic, Spell Resistance, or simply encounters built around a character's weaknesses do a great deal to humble the "mighty" wizard, as does making sure he's the target of the enemy's damage dealers as much as possible. Sorcerors have it even harder; they choose spells based on the overall shape of the campaign, and its easy to find you've got a headful of nothing when an unexpected encounter hits.

In actual play, the wizard/sorc doesn't open the Spell Compendium on his initiative and pick just the right spell for the moment (and no one saves against it, ever). Yet the criticisms of him make it sound like that's the case. (And, of course, you only have a tiny subset of available spells to even pick from each day...)

Oh, we have played a few high level games with 3E. With casters.

I once played a Druid/Shifter. Another character was a Cleric/Paladin/Fighter/Hospitaler. And another character was a Drow Wizard. The weakest was a Bard/Gatecrasher. He later replaced the character with a Rogue/Paladin.

We rocked the house. Our DM really had to try hard to "beat us". And trust me, the DM for that campaign might not be good, but he had a certain "adversial" streak.

Preparing or knowing the right spells isn't that difficult at high levels. It's trivially easy. Spells you can't prepare go into Scrolls. Low Level Buff spells go into Wands. Healing, naturally too.

It was probably one of the most fun campaigns, but it was still pretty ridicilous.

Later, we tried to be creative. Having Bard/Fighter/Cleric/Ranger as a party configuration. That was a lot harder. Having no Wizard hurts a lot. To much utility magic is lost, and let's not even discuss fighting groups of foes...

 

[Plageman]

I think one of the thing those who find MU "uberish" try explain is that -some- spells in the MU/Cleric arsenal are unbalanced. While this might never happen in your campaign it has ruined other DM (and often Pcs) fun. So it's not that ALL MU/Clerics are overpowerd, it's that some BUILDs are. I can only imagine that WotC wanted to "nerf" those unbalanced builds by modifying the system and splitting the spells the way they've done.

About planning you spells, I admit that if you "just" run dungeon-like adventures you may have hard times preparing the right spell for the right event, but if you play more RP/investigation scenarios you may have the time to research, expand and exploit your whole spell library. Providing you campaign theme do not put a drastic limit to the way spell casters are handled (i.e. Clerics are only Healers otherwise they're outlaw, MU are seen as "diabolical" entities and hunted).

 

[ladydeath]

Assuming this rogue/wizard character is a 3e character, I'd have to ask -- why in the world would you do that? Just play a Beguiler or Spellthief. You keep the flavor and lose the terrible character.

At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.

 

[Lizard]

At first level how do I know what I am going to be 12 levels down the line?
I would like to be able to play a character who can develop based on what happens to that character not just what I would like to be in 12 levels.

In actual play, though, this tends not to happen. As long as you stay within the melee classes (in 3e), you can do the 'rogue joins the military (gains fighter levels) and then finds god (gains paladin levels)' routine -- sort of -- and still be effective. Once you add in spellcasting, though, it becomes much harder. A level or two of a pure caster class tends to benefit a mostly-melee character; the reverse, not so much.

4e, actually, allows this a bit more, with retraining. You can always retrain a low level feat to be a multiclass feat instead. Your rogue discovers a talent for magic at level 6? Retrain Backstabber to Arcane Initiate -- you have spent time studying magic, and you're a *little* less stabby than you used to be due to neglecting your Stabbing Practice while you learned how to make your enemies BURN from Quite A Long Way Away.

Granted, you can only pull this trick with one multiclass at a time, which is problematic for more complex characters. Again, though, we get back to Actual Play. I've never seen a PC with more than two base classes+one PrC; the mythical This 2/That 3/The Other 2/PRC1 4/PRC2 3 never seems to show up at a real gaming table.

3e's system modeled well the fact people can learn new skills all the time (pick up different classes) and let you have your class reflect what you're character was doing at any given moment. The in-play mechanics, though, tended to punish dabbling (and sometimes reward it in very odd ways, like huge save bonuses). 4e "fixes" this by (as is typical for 4e) nerfing it to hell and gone. The 4e mantra seems to be "If it's too complex to be balanced, simplify it until it can be." Whether this leads to a more satisfying play experience over the long term, especially over multiple campaigns where people want to try out new things, remains to be seen.