Why do we want to multiclass?

[RillianPA]

There are obviously many reasons people have wanted to multiclass in past editions of D&D. Sometimes it is for a flavor, or a character concept. Sometimes for a specific ability or combination of abilities. Sometimes there are other reasons.

Wizards has been very clear that the "flavor" of abilities can and should be changed to match the interests of the player. So, for example, you could make a single class fighter character, and say that he has arcane abilities, by describing some of his powers as arcane, without changing any mechanics. Thus you have a "fighter/wizard" in flavor, if not mechanics.

Clearly that is not enough for many people.

The current multiclass system allows a character to swap a number of powers (even paragon paths). While this system can be mechanically underbalanced, I am reading many complaints even from people that think it is balanced.

So, while not clear, I believe that specific abilities and combos are not the issue either.

I believe that what many people want from multiclassing (maybe most people), is for one character to be able to perform more than one Role. It doesnt necessarily mean they want the character to be as good at each Role as a single class character of that Role, but they want to be effective, nontheless. Multiclassing as it stands clearly ignores this desire.

Ok so...So what?
Well it seems to me that the next question, if you accept my premise, is: Should the game allow one character to perform more than one Role?
If the answer is no, then the rest of this discussion probably doesnt interest you.

If, however, the answer is yes, then the rules need some sort of major change that allows a character to perform the new Role with at least partial effectiveness, but without becoming strictly "more powerful". This is a very difficult proposition, and I wouldnt be surprised if Wizards found it too difficult to achieve (thus the failure to address it).

If you agree with the premise, and think that multiclassing to support the premise is a good idea, I would appreciate your ideas for how to change the system. I still have no idea how to change it, but will post if anything occurs to me.

 

[Syrsuro]

Yes, No, Maybe.

The earlier editions allowed characters to perform more than one role, and to do both rolls significantly more poorly than a single class in either role (speaking here of 'multi-role multiclassing, not synergistic multiclasses that made a single role stronger).

And characters that have more than one role should be gimped.

If you can take on more than one role, and do all roles as well as a character who is specialized in a single role - the rules have a serious imbalance: You are now making other characters in the game superfluous. A specialist in a single role (i.e. a character with only one role) ought to be better at that role than a generalist (i.e. a character with multiple roles).

And if you assume (as the rules clearly do, and the way the game's been heading for the last couple decades) DMs running one-size-fits-all adventures off the shelf, rather than tailoring the adventures and its obstacles to the parties strengths and weaknesses, then a character who is weaker than expected in a given role is going to be inadequate when the party needs that role filled.

So the questions are: a) should the system make is possible for the players to gimp themselves (take on multiple roles and end up with a character that does neither role well) and b) if the system allows this, should it make it easy for the character to gimp himself.

I think the answers to these are Yes and No. The basic rules - the ones that those who are new to the game or inexperienced with the subtlies of character design will follow should NOT allow accidental gimping. This was something that 3.x was highly prone to: There were many many builds that just didn't work. And, based on limited experience so far, I think that 4E handles this better than any of the prior editions (including AD&D).

But there is no reason not to have an optional set of rules that can allow the character to take on multiple roles, with its optional status making it clear it is for those who are experienced enough to understand the consequences of their decision.

What those rules would be in 4E, I don't know. But I'd be interested in seeing them.

Carl

 

[Stalker0]

The goal of any RPG system has to be to incorporate "archetypes". The sagely wizard, the fast talking rogue, the stalwart fighter are all classic archetypes.

A class system has a number of advantages, but one of its disadvantages is that its mechanics force people into some specific archetypes, and many time the "ideal" character for the player is somewhere in between.

Multiclassing is a compromise between the static class system and the true free form system. But 4e's multiclassing doesn't do blending very well, its more of a dip system, which doesn't hit some of the archetypes that people want to see.

 

[RillianPA]

A multi Role character should be "gimped" to some degree in performing any secondary Roles, but not in his primary Role. He should be no worse at performing that primary Role, but at the same time he must NOT be "better" than a single class character either.

This is the hard part.

 

[Syrsuro]

To turn that around:

A character who is specialized (all of his training was dedicated to a single role) therefore should not be any better at that role than a character - with the same primary role - who has chosen to spend part of their training picking up a second role?

I disagree.

If you are learning skills from another role, you are - of necessity, imho - choosing to NOT spend that time learning skills from your primary roll. Perhaps you can pick and choose what parts of your prime roll you are less apt at, and thus mitigate the effect of this. But there should be a cost.

Carl

 

[fuindordm]

A multi Role character should be "gimped" to some degree in performing any secondary Roles, but not in his primary Role. He should be no worse at performing that primary Role, but at the same time he must NOT be "better" than a single class character either.

This is the hard part.

Reducing the effectiveness of the primary role might not be detrimental to the party, especially in large parties where the roles are already covered. I think it should be allowed in general.

I think the current system does an admirable job of protecting the player's primary role, but goes too far. To take a brief example, the Fighter/Wizard retains a vast array of weapon and armor proficiencies, but can never learn a single cantrip. The Wizard/Fighter is given a 1/enc marking attack, but doesn't get any additional proficiency in arms and armor. Technically, he's a "student of the staff", not a "student of the sword". In fact, it is highly likely that the magic missile/marking power are not what the player want.

WotC designed the multiclassing feats so that you are required to take a secondary class ability that supports the secondary role. But filling both roles might not be the player's goal in multiclassing.

They might want an extra trick up their sleeve to support their primary role (e.g. the staff wizard's 1/enc defense bonus for a fighter, or Tide of Iron for a wizard who finds Thunderwave too clumsy), or an ability with great role-playing potential, or an ability they will use only rarely but simply must have because it matches their backstory so perfectly.

There should be a mechanism in place to acquire class features from the secondary class, not just powers. It would be entirely fair if the player had to exchange class features; for example "I give up proficiency in martial weapons for cantrips". It would even be fair if this were only permissible at 1st level.

 

[Raven Swords]

I think it's to early to say the multi class feats do not work. I see no reason why they will not be added to, new ones as new class's are added, new ways to access existing classes and hell I can see no reason why you can't use the same method to introduce mini classes that don't exist (want your rogue to be a poisoner then take the poison master cross class feat - grants you access to the following dozen powers and the brew poison skill; a skill not normally studied by adventurers)

I also think multi class characters can be a life saver when you are adventuring with a undersized party - when this happens you want your character to be able to perform at least as well as a single class character in one area if not two.

 

[RillianPA]

Ok let me try again:

My premise:
I believe that what many people want from multiclassing is for one character to be able to perform more than one Role. It doesnt necessarily mean they want the character to be as good at each Role as a single class character of that Role, but they want to be effective, nontheless.

Multiclassing, as it stands, clearly ignores this desire, as it does little or nothing to allow the character to fulfill the secondary Role.

If you accept this premise, then the rules need some sort of major change that allows a character to perform the new Role with at least partial effectiveness, but without becoming strictly "more powerful".

Please limit yourself to helping develop these new rules. If you want to discuss the premise, or what multiclassing does/does not do, please start a branched thread.

 

[77IM]

You might want to change the name of your thread. I was about to answer the question when I realized that this constitutes disagreeing with the premise.

-- 77IM

 

[Paul Strack]

I think it is difficult if not impossible to have a character creation system that is both balanced and flexible. There are plenty of systems out there that let you build exactly the character that you want. GURPS, the Hero system and M&M come to mind. Those systems require player cooperation and GM intervention to prevent people from building broken characters. The rules themselves can't prevent it.

So, if you want a flexible multi-class system, I suggest you give up on trying to keep it balanced. Or rather, I suggest you expect the DM and the players to be collectively responsible for balance.

If you go that route, I think a flexible enough multi-class system shouldn't be too hard to concoct. I'd keep the basic class-specific multi-class feats, but ignore the higher level ones. I'd let a character who multi-classes to freely mix and match powers and class features between the two classes, as long as each power/feature was traded for an "equivalent" feature. The DM can veto any combination he thinks is too broken (for example, disallowing having both Hunter's Quarry and Sneak Attack).

I think this will still keep the multi-class character less optimal than a focused character, because the multi-class character will have more primary ability scores. Therefore, she won't be able to focus on just one or two like a single class character could. That's probably enough "gimping" to pay homage to the play-balance gods.