Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?

Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?
Or should the order you take the classes in make a difference?


I'd vote the same.  But i'd also want a wizard5/fighter5 to be balanced against a wizard 10 and a fighter 10.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

It's currently impossible for the two to be identical, with DDN hosing frontload exploits and currently no real way to ever get that swag.
The obvious flaw with hypothetical DDN multiclassing is that "Always start as Fighter" is just plain better than any other way.
Class design isn't set in stone.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

The only ways to make it work are to let multiclass exploit frontloads, or just get rid of the frontloads.
Neither is particularly desirable.
Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?
Or should the order you take the classes in make a difference?



I say they should be the same. I really hope they find a good way to do multiclassing, but I get the feeling it's going to suck, because they're doing it as an afterthought. I felt like multiclassing should have been in the game from the start, as opposed to something they're going to add later.
but I get the feeling it's going to suck, because they're doing it as an afterthought.

Seems that way.

A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.
I prefer them different.

The 1st level should mean more. For example you should only get a fighting style/tradition/deity/from one class. Or something of that sort.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

Is it set in stone that multi-classing will be done the same way that it was done in 3E? Because I must say that I was not a fan of that system. I would much rather they have a separate section detailing "multiclass variants" for each class, similar to what 4E did with Hybrid classes. That way, Fighter5/Wizard5 and Wizard5/Fighter5 don't even exist. Instead, we have the Fighter 10, the Wizard 10, and the (Fighter/Wizard)10.

Why, yes, as a matter of fact I am the Unfailing Arbiter of All That Is Good Design (Even More So Than The Actual Developers) TM Speaking of things that were badly designed, please check out this thread for my Minotaur fix. What have the critics said, you ask? "If any of my players ask to play a Minotaur, I'm definitely offering this as an alternative to the official version." - EmpactWB "If I ever feel like playing a Minotaur I'll know where to look!" - Undrave "WoTC if you are reading this - please take this guy's advice." - Ferol_Debtor_of_Torm "Really full of win. A minotaur that is actually attractive for more than just melee classes." - Cpt_Micha Also, check out my recent GENASI variant! If you've ever wished that your Fire Genasi could actually set stuff on fire, your Water Genasi could actually swim, or your Wind Genasi could at least glide, then look no further. Finally, check out my OPTIONS FOR EVERYONE article, an effort to give unique support to the races that WotC keeps forgetting about. Includes new racial feature options for the Changeling, Deva, Githzerai, Gnoll, Gnome, Goliath, Half-Orc, Kalashtar, Minotaur, Shadar-Kai, Thri-Kreen, Warforged and more!
A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.

I've suggested something similar before.

It also opens up the zero-to-hero aspect some people like.  Where level 0 is a 10 year old kid who grabs a pitch fork and has trouble with a single kobol.

guides
List of no-action attacks.
Dynamic vs Static Bonuses
Phalanx tactics and builds
Crivens! A Pictsies Guide Good
Power
s to intentionally miss with
Mr. Cellophane: How to be unnoticed
Way's to fire around corners
Crits: what their really worth
Retroactive bonus vs Static bonus.
Runepriest handbook & discussion thread
Holy Symbols to hang around your neck
Ways to Gain or Downgrade Actions
List of bonuses to saving throws
The Ghost with the Most (revenant handbook)
my builds
F-111 Interdictor Long (200+ squares) distance ally teleporter. With some warlord stuff. Broken in a plot way, not a power way.

Thought Switch Higher level build that grants upto 14 attacks on turn 1. If your allies play along, it's broken.

Elven Critters Crit op with crit generation. 5 of these will end anything. Broken.

King Fisher Optimized net user.  Moderate.

Boominator Fun catch-22 booming blade build with either strong or completely broken damage depending on your reading.

Very Distracting Warlock Lot's of dazing and major penalties to hit. Overpowered.

Pocket Protector Pixie Stealth Knight. Maximizing the defender's aura by being in an ally's/enemy's square.

Yakuza NinjIntimiAdin: Perma-stealth Striker that offers a little protection for ally's, and can intimidate bloodied enemies. Very Strong.

Chargeburgler with cheese Ranged attacks at the end of a charge along with perma-stealth. Solid, could be overpowered if tweaked.

Void Defender Defends giving a penalty to hit anyone but him, then removing himself from play. Can get somewhat broken in epic.

Scry and Die Attacking from around corners, while staying hidden. Moderate to broken, depending on the situation.

Skimisher Fly in, attack, and fly away. Also prevents enemies from coming close. Moderate to Broken depending on the enemy, but shouldn't make the game un-fun, as the rest of your team is at risk, and you have enough weaknesses.

Indestructible Simply won't die, even if you sleep though combat.  One of THE most abusive character in 4e.

Sir Robin (Bravely Charge Away) He automatically slows and pushes an enemy (5 squares), while charging away. Hard to rate it's power level, since it's terrain dependent.

Death's Gatekeeper A fun twist on a healic, making your party "unkillable". Overpowered to Broken, but shouldn't actually make the game un-fun, just TPK proof.

Death's Gatekeeper mk2, (Stealth Edition) Make your party "unkillable", and you hidden, while doing solid damage. Stronger then the above, but also easier for a DM to shut down. Broken, until your DM get's enough of it.

Domination and Death Dominate everything then kill them quickly. Only works @ 30, but is broken multiple ways.

Battlemind Mc Prone-Daze Protecting your allies by keeping enemies away. Quite powerful.

The Retaliator Getting hit deals more damage to the enemy then you receive yourself, and you can take plenty of hits. Heavy item dependency, Broken.

Dead Kobold Transit Teleports 98 squares a turn, and can bring someone along for the ride. Not fully built, so i can't judge the power.

Psilent Guardian Protect your allies, while being invisible. Overpowered, possibly broken.

Rune of Vengance Do lot's of damage while boosting your teams. Strong to slightly overpowered.

Charedent BarrageA charging ardent. Fine in a normal team, overpowered if there are 2 together, and easily broken in teams of 5.

Super Knight A tough, sticky, high damage knight. Strong.

Super Duper Knight Basically the same as super knight with items, making it far more broken.

Mora, the unkillable avenger Solid damage, while being neigh indestuctable. Overpowered, but not broken.

Swordburst Maximus At-Will Close Burst 3 that slide and prones. Protects allies with off actions. Strong, possibly over powered with the right party.

I prefer them different. The 1st level should mean more. For example you should only get a fighting style/tradition/deity/from one class. Or something of that sort.


I agree with this. One thing I really did like about 4e was that when you chose a class at 1st level it was a meaningful decision, not just a placeholder for something you REALLY wanted to go into but it was better to take X at first level. Now do I want a return of 4e's multiclassing? Hell no. But I do like the idea of your primary (first chosen) class giving you something that multiclassing cannot.
My two copper.
Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?
Or should the order you take the classes in make a difference?

In a way, that's like what a DM asked me the first time I tried multiclassing (1st Ed) a fighter/mage. He asked, "Well, do you want a fighter with magical help, or a wizard who can use a sword?" The difference was crucial to the character she started out as, and what she has evolved into.

That's what drives my answer to the question. I do not think they should be the same. Which class you take first should determine the focus of the character.

However ...

I'm a big fan of the 1st Ed multiclassing, where you take both classes at the same time. Since WotC has mentioned they'll be using a 3e-type of multiclassing, that sort of throws out my mental concept of an elf who grows up learning both fighting and magery. I'll see how it's addressed as we move forward.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Yes

A fighter5/wizard5 multiclass, a wizard5/fighter5 multiclass and a fighter5/wizard5 dualclass should all be available and different.

Orzel, Halfelven son of Zel, Mystic Ranger, Bane to Dragons, Death to Undeath, Killer of Abyssals, King of the Wilds. Constitution Based Class for Next!

I prefer them different. The 1st level should mean more. For example you should only get a fighting style/tradition/deity/from one class. Or something of that sort.


I agree with this. One thing I really did like about 4e was that when you chose a class at 1st level it was a meaningful decision, not just a placeholder for something you REALLY wanted to go into but it was better to take X at first level. Now do I want a return of 4e's multiclassing? Hell no. But I do like the idea of your primary (first chosen) class giving you something that multiclassing cannot.

I agree with this.

Perhaps they might try something else.  Since they are playing around with names (themes, specialties, etc.) perhaps they might call Multi-classing, Themes.  Themes would be specially designed packages of abilities that would progress as you put experience into them, much like levels.  However, they would be designed to be limited versions of what you were 'multi-classing' into.  

You might have a Spellblade Theme, and Arcane Archer theme, a Holy Knight theme, a Forester theme, etc (don't mind the names, they're not the point).  Basically, you'd get limited abilities similar to one of the other Core Classes, that had been designed to balance specifically for multi-classing.  You'd spend XP to gain levels (or maybe actually abilities you can buy with XP).
A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.



Yep, 3.x gave 4 levels worth of stuff (give or take, but for the vast majority of things it's four levels worth) at level 1. So linear classes like warriors dipped like crazy, while quadratic classes like casters hardly ever multiclassed at all except into full progression prestige classes.

D&DNext may be getting rid of quadratic wizards. We'll see. But if level 1 gives 4 levels of stuff, then call it level 4 and say that everyone starts at level 4.

A system doesn't NEED to be consistent if being consistent interferes with being fun, but I'm not seeing the unfun part of calling the starting level "level 4", and in this case the consistency of what a level gives you makes multiclassing work FAR BETTER.

If you still want low levels to be "one hit kill" territory then double or tripple everything's damage. Since level 1 doesn't give max HP you'll only have about 3x HP so 3x damage will be fine.

If someone WANTS to play gimpy the wonderboy and start at level 1, well, he can.
If someone WANTS to start out multiclassed, he can.
You don't need an extra feat at level 1, or 6 different class features at level 1, or +2 to "good" saves at level 1, or any of the rest of that crap.

Spread the level 1 stuff over 4 levels, and multiclassing will work because there is no front-end loading to tempt people to dip 6 different classes.
Yes A fighter5/wizard5 multiclass, a wizard5/fighter5 multiclass and a fighter5/wizard5 dualclass should all be available and different.



+10000000000

This, more or less, highlights what people want out of multiclassing. I can only think of 2 or 3 real 'multi-classed' characters in fantasy. Those characters started down a path, then changed their attitudes and started down a different path (something about a warrior Orc who takes up the path of a shaman...). I can think of a lot more characters who use truly martial magic to accomplish their goals (some book about a kid who rides a dragon...).

I would be happy if they made a good 'gish' class for those who want it rather than a seperate 'dual-classing' system, but the point is the two systems are different.
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

I wrestled with it before conceding that 3e multiclassing is the way to go for making characters that fit setting. 
community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

I wrestled with it before conceding that 3e multiclassing is the way to go for making characters that fit setting. 



I havent come to grips with it still chewing our initial responses seem very  similar.
This struck home...  and not just because of odd combinations but because there didnt seem much effort to make the combinations in to a new thing. Its like paint dots splashed at a canvas.


The odd combinations of classes gave me a headache. Who's idea of D&D was this? And its not like anyone explained what this new form of multiclassing was about.



... so far I think liberal use of themes is the better multiclassing, but that is perhaps my 4e experience so without consistant structure of classes they are less valuable for that purpose.

4e also had hybriding the result of which feels very like 1e/2e duoclassing (I think that was what it was called). where a level 5/5 cost as xp much as a 6.



  Creative Character Build Collection and The Magic of King's and Heros  also Can Martial Characters Fly? 

Improvisation in 4e: Fave 4E Improvisations - also Wrecans Guides to improvisation beyond page 42
The Non-combatant Adventurer (aka Princess build Warlord or LazyLord)
Reality is unrealistic - and even monkeys protest unfairness
Reflavoring the Fighter : The Wizard : The Swordmage - Creative Character Collection: Bloodwright (Darksun Character) 

At full hit points and still wounded to incapacitation? you are playing 1e.
By virtue of being a player your characters are the protagonists in a heroic fantasy game even at level one
"Wizards and Warriors need abilities with explicit effects for opposite reasons. With the wizard its because you need to create artificial limits on them, they have no natural ones and for the Warrior you need to grant permission to do awesome."

 

I think it should be possible to pull it off.

The way things are looking at the moment we have spellcasting classes working off one style of progression - spells per level, and martial characters working off another kind - XD.

If these are kept level within a class - or even relatively level, then the pure spellcaster multiclass and pure martial multiclass should be ok - it just means you have to deal with disallowing the frontloading... Same with the magical classes - if they can work out how to spread the traditions and deities throughout the levels then the spell per level progression will hold the class up. 

The big solution for the above is to just remove frontloading from all the classes, Wizard only gets one At Will at first level - and gains more later, as well as his tradition power. Fighter only starts with the one maneuver - but increase the amount of maneuver gain for the class. It would mean level 1 characters would be considerably less versatile than they are now... but they are level 1 characters

The next problem is a mixed multiclass - between the two different styles. 

The obvious fix to this (for me anyway) is to see what a Gish class looks like (that has both spells and XD). I don't know whether this will be the Bard, or the Paladin, or the Swordmage - but these will certainly give a fair indication of what the multiclass Wizard/Fighter and Cleric/Rogue etc should look like.

And then you have to make sure that the Swordmage plays and feels differently to the Wizard/Fighter etc etc. 

They have a lot of work ahead of them, but I do believe that it is possible. 
NEW IDEA!

So we remove Fighting Style, Rogue Scheme, Traditions, and Deity from Clss Features at 1st lvel. Then we turn them into Themes that prerequisite their respective classes.

Slayer Theme, Defender Theme, Prerquisit: Fighter
Scoundrel Theme, Trickster Theme, Prerequisite Rogue
etc.

That might help with the frontloading prolems.
A gish class is all fine and good. A friend of mine has been wanting a class where the character really combines martial and magical techniques into something new and different for a while.

But what I want out of multi-classing isn't that at all. I want to be a character with a university dual-major. I know people who dual-major in music and political science. Entirely different fields with very little overlap. You aren't going to use your musical talents to interpret politics. They are different areas you happen to have an interest in.

I want my 10th level fighter/wizard character to be someone who casts 4th level spells and fights a bit better than a single class cleric. He should be able to fill the role of the party wizard in a pinch. He isn't just someone who uses magic to enhance his melee abilities. He is a character who might swing a sword, or cast a fireball, depending on the situation. He is a character who can practice swordplay with the single class fighter, trading combat stories, while later on having a discussion with the single-class wizard over who gets to scribe that scroll into his spellbook.

It's a character tradition that has been hallowed by generations of non-D&D gaming, but which only found true D&D expression in the AD&D demi-human multi-classing rules (and the BECMI elf class).

As the forerunner and inspiration for this concept in modern fantasy gaming media, D&D owes it to its own product identity to bring the concept back home and put it in Next.
Some thoughts I had in another topic...dunno how well it would work...

It seems like there is so much potential for abuse in multi-class mechanics, so much so that it sometimes produces a result far greater than the sum of their parts.  Let me give an example.  Back in 3rd edition, a character starts as a rogue.  He gets a lot of skill points.  He then takes levels of fighter for durability and feats.  Returns to rogue to up skills that he can't on the fighters list as easily.  Returns to the fighter to get class related goodies, such as weapon specialization: Scythe.  Goes back to rogue for skills and more sneak attack damage.  As far as I am concerned, that character can outfight a fighter while being a pretty good rogue. 

My point is that maybe we need a new mechanic for multi-classing and perhaps a subclass/mundane prestige class sort of structure could be the way to go.  It could slide over the existing class and specify what is gained and what you don't end up getting from your base class(if applicable)

For instance, maybe a "shadow priest" or cleric/rogue class could work something like this...

Shadow Priest:

Requirement: at least one level in cleric or rogue
Level 1: Divine or skill mastery(you gain the other component of your multi-class, but don't get everything you'd get for just being that class: May have some options for the sake of customization)
Level 2: +1 divine caster level, +1 level rogue expertise
Level 3: +1 level rogue experise, rogue maneuver
Level 4: +1 divine caster level, +1 level rogue expertise
Level 5: +1 divine caster level, unique divine spell-like ability feature
...and so on...
+1 level rogue experise:  Treated as a rogue of one level higher for purpose of determining expertise dice
+1 divine caster level: Treated as gaining a level in cleric for the purpose of determining spells/day

This above example is imbalanced because it was made up spontaneously.  Only performing as a cleric and rogue of one level lower at level 6 is too much.  I was merely trying to show an alternative set of mechanics.  My issue with multi-classing as it has performed historically is that the practice just begs for you to dabble in classes for the sake of attaining an early class feature.  In my opinion, a first level character has some experiences in his or her vocation to that point that warrants having that bonus.  I don't really want to see the following anymore...

Fighter:  I want to take a level in druid so I get an animal companion.  C'mere tiger...

Tiger: *growls* 



But what I want out of multi-classing isn't that at all. I want to be a character with a university dual-major. I know people who dual-major in music and political science. Entirely different fields with very little overlap. You aren't going to use your musical talents to interpret politics. They are different areas you happen to have an interest in.


You could also have a major in music, with a minor in political science.

3e style multiclassing allows for this, the unrestrained, fine-resolution specification of a particular mix of classes. 

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you started off with some music classes, took a little political science, and then finished off with music.  Or if you started with political science for a bit, and decided it wasn't your thing and went to music.  The end result is the same:  on graduation, you have a music major and a political science minor.  What you know at the end is the same, but the process to get there was different.  This is exactly how 3e style multiclassing works.  So, yes, wiz5/ftr5 = ftr5/wiz5.

3e style multiclassing also allows for a mechanical representation of major life changes, as well.  A scurrilous rogue who finds religion, and becomes a cleric.  He never forgets his techniques that he used, and he can still call on them, but he uses them in service of his god, instead of his own pockets.  Requiring class determination to be chosen at character creation, whether single-class, multi-class, hybrid/dual-class, eliminates this possibility without a complete character rewrite.  That involves too much mechanical retcon, to me.
D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
But what I want out of multi-classing isn't that at all. I want to be a character with a university dual-major. I know people who dual-major in music and political science. Entirely different fields with very little overlap. You aren't going to use your musical talents to interpret politics. They are different areas you happen to have an interest in.


You could also have a major in music, with a minor in political science.

3e style multiclassing allows for this, the unrestrained, fine-resolution specification of a particular mix of classes. 

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you started off with some music classes, took a little political science, and then finished off with music.  Or if you started with political science for a bit, and decided it wasn't your thing and went to music.  The end result is the same:  on graduation, you have a music major and a political science minor.  What you know at the end is the same, but the process to get there was different.  This is exactly how 3e style multiclassing works.  So, yes, wiz5/ftr5 = ftr5/wiz5.

3e style multiclassing also allows for a mechanical representation of major life changes, as well.  A scurrilous rogue who finds religion, and becomes a cleric.  He never forgets his techniques that he used, and he can still call on them, but he uses them in service of his god, instead of his own pockets.  Requiring class determination to be chosen at character creation, whether single-class, multi-class, hybrid/dual-class, eliminates this possibility without a complete character rewrite.  That involves too much mechanical retcon, to me.


I understand the argument you are making, but I don't think 3e really allow for it, not in the straight-up way I described. To attempt to simulate it by the book, I'd have to use prestige classes like eldritch knight (which I prefer not to), and I'd usually end up with a mechanically weak character, since vertical power in spellcasting is so much more useful than breadth of abilities in 3e.

I eventually came up with a house-ruled modification to the gestalt rules that more or less allows duplication of the concept, but it was a lot of work and only counts at my own table.

I don't want to have to houserule my multi-classing in Next.
Different.

From what I gather since multiclass classes will be different from base classes I'd like to see that play out in practice.

So a Figher 5 who takes 5 levels in Multiclass Wizard is different from a Wizard 5 who takes 5 levels in Multiclass Figher if only slightly. I'd like to believe they would look almost more like a Fighter 8/Wizard 6 and a Wizard 8/Fighter 6. Multiclass classes should improve the base classes abilities slightly as well.
All that being said, I have no problem with an option to take class levels a la carte like 3e, as long as it doesn't end up with some of the problems, and maintains some sorts of limits on the number of classes and benefits derived from dabbling. I just want my old-school, full-powered, high-octane, dual-majored multi-classing supported by the books.
So a Figher 5 who takes 5 levels in Multiclass Wizard is different from a Wizard 5 who takes 5 levels in Multiclass Figher if only slightly.

I would hope that the frontloads would be all backloaded by level 5.  Three or four levels seems about enough to me to be able to 'grow' into full competency in a second class.

All that being said, I have no problem with an option to take class levels a la carte like 3e, as long as it doesn't end up with some of the problems, and maintains some sorts of limits on the number of classes and benefits derived from dabbling. I just want my old-school, full-powered, high-octane, dual-majored multi-classing supported by the books.

The problems are what I am afraid of, though.  3 and 3.5e were great...when powergamers didn't manipulate the system so badly that they come up with a result much greater than 20 levels of a pure class.  That doesn't even factor in what they could do with prestige classes.  WoTC needs to make this system, so it takes the best of 4.0(which was better at limiting the powergamer a bit, but not perfect), meld it with what was good in 3.0 and 3.5, and new mechanics and improvements of this new version...
I'd like to think it'd be possible for both to be somewhat the same and somewhat different and balanced to level 10 fighters and wizards.

  1. Remove spell slot levels entirely

  2. Frontload level 1 abilities, giving each class 3 maneuvers/spells and 2 expertise dice / spell slots on top of 3 class features as well


  • Multiclass characters can choose 1 maneuver + 1 spell and gain 1 expertise die / spell slot, as well as 1 class feature from each class they came from


  • You gain additional maneuvers / spells and expertise dice / spell slots as you level


    • Multiclass characters can choose to gain an expertise die or a spell slot, but not both

    • Similarly, multiclass characters can choose to gain a new maneuver or a new spell, but not both



    That way, let's say by level 10, you'd have as a baseline of


    • 10 Fighter with 4 Expertise Dice and 11 maneuvers

    • 10 Wizard with 4 Spell Slots and 11 spells

    • 10 Fighter / Wizard with 3 expertise dice + 1 spell slot, 2 expertise dice + 2 spell slots, or 1 expertise die + 3 spell slots, and a total of 10 maneuvers + spells


    So you don't get screwed out of not going to level 10 in one class, but at the same time you're not too powerful by going multiclass.  Plus, you can customize your multiclass nature in a myriad of ways, all without breaking the bank so to speak

    EDIT: To clarify, the idea is that getting a level in a different class would not grant you the entire level 1 feature of the class, and at best trades what you should've gotten in your original class with something else from the new class.  There's potential for abuse yes, but frankly it could work if only multiclassing (and possibly classless design) is given serious consideration in the design.

    Show

    You are Red/Blue!
    Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
    Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

    You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

    D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

    57047238 wrote:
    If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
    I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
    This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging

    Different, but not so different as the playtest suggests.


    Going back to the question "fighter with magical help or wizard that can use a sword," the playtest rules supply "1st level" abilities that allow for a fighter to have magical help, but I can't be a wizard that can use a sword 'cause the multiclass lvl 1 fighter grants no additional weapon or armour proficiencies.


    I can understand the armour, but I think a few of the basics with weapons should be covered.


    I've always liked the idea of 3e multiclassing and I've used it tons so more of that is fine, but I do love the concurrent AD&D multis. 4e hybrids felt a lot like the AD&D multis but eesh, all those tables.

    Thematically I'm more comfortable with your first class being front loaded, with each additional multiclass level offering perks of that class while still keeping you on your primary path. So I find that a F* is not a W*. As said by others, a Fighter with some spells is different than a wizard that is pretty good with a sword.

    I think the biggest challenge factor with multiclassing is making it so that class dipping doesn't overpower, nor does it underpower compared to a full class. There have been some suggestions in here that could do that.
    I understand the argument you are making, but I don't think 3e really allow for it, not in the straight-up way I described. To attempt to simulate it by the book, I'd have to use prestige classes like eldritch knight (which I prefer not to), and I'd usually end up with a mechanically weak character, since vertical power in spellcasting is so much more useful than breadth of abilities in 3e.


    This is a failure of class design in 3e, not multiclass design.
    D&D Next = D&D: Quantum Edition
    MULTICLASS WIZARD

    A wizard gets 1 spell slot per level.  The highest level spell he can cast is half his character level.

    Wizard 10: 2 2 2 2 2
    Wizard 7/Fighter 3: 2 2 1 1 1
    Wizard 3/ Fighter 7: 1 1 1 0 0

    Cool? 
    Just give us 4e Hybrids please.
    A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.



    Yep, 3.x gave 4 levels worth of stuff (give or take, but for the vast majority of things it's four levels worth) at level 1. So linear classes like warriors dipped like crazy, while quadratic classes like casters hardly ever multiclassed at all except into full progression prestige classes.

    D&DNext may be getting rid of quadratic wizards. We'll see. But if level 1 gives 4 levels of stuff, then call it level 4 and say that everyone starts at level 4.

    A system doesn't NEED to be consistent if being consistent interferes with being fun, but I'm not seeing the unfun part of calling the starting level "level 4", and in this case the consistency of what a level gives you makes multiclassing work FAR BETTER.

    If you still want low levels to be "one hit kill" territory then double or tripple everything's damage. Since level 1 doesn't give max HP you'll only have about 3x HP so 3x damage will be fine.

    If someone WANTS to play gimpy the wonderboy and start at level 1, well, he can.
    If someone WANTS to start out multiclassed, he can.
    You don't need an extra feat at level 1, or 6 different class features at level 1, or +2 to "good" saves at level 1, or any of the rest of that crap.

    Spread the level 1 stuff over 4 levels, and multiclassing will work because there is no front-end loading to tempt people to dip 6 different classes.



    I don't see why more people don't feel this way.  This approach is simple to design, easy to learn and use, and stops "class dipping" from breaking the game.
    Having the order in which you take different classes just needlessly makes the game more complicated.  Everyone who's arguing otherwise seems to be forgetting an important part: once you choose to multiclass, you can still gain levels in your original class (this isn't the old-school human-only Dual Class rules).  Examples:



    • Albert takes 5 levels of Fighter and then 5 levels Wizard.

    • Burtrom takes 5 levels of Wizard and then 5 levels of Fighter.

    • Charles takes 1 level of either Fighter or Wizard, and alternates between the two until he has 5 of each.


    All of these characters have put the same amount of effort into each class.  They should all have the same amount of "fighterness" and "wizardness".

    If you say Albert should be more of a fighter than a wizard, then I ask you "Why? He hasn't been working on fighting as much recently, so shouldn't he more wizardy?".  If you say he should be more wizardy that fightery, then I ask you "Why?  After 5 levels of fighting, do you think he'd forget how to weild a sword?".  And what about Charles?  If I create Charles at an even level, then he doesn't really have an "initial class".  What's the benefit of forcing one on him?
    MULTICLASS WIZARD

    A wizard gets 1 spell slot per level.  The highest level spell he can cast is half his character level.

    Wizard 10: 2 2 2 2 2
    Wizard 7/Fighter 3: 2 2 1 1 1
    Wizard 3/ Fighter 7: 1 1 1 0 0

    Cool? 





      

    Why give the
    Wizard 3/ Fighter 7 an advantage? You are giving fireball two levels ahead as a reward for also knowing how to fight. That will outshine single class. Its not like I have a much better solution. Actually I have a similar solution. Mix in a few levels of Swordmage to bump the Wiz slots, and rebalance magic so its not so top heavy.

    Something about a "formative class" makes sense to my brain. The reality of how people develop skills isn't in any way represented by character classes anyway, but the idea that someone started with a certain perspective and that shapes their development as a character is a strong narrative statement that's easy to latch onto and turn into a story.


    I would also argue that by class level 5 the characters would probably have gained most if not all the things a new character would gain at level 1. A big part of the continuity problems multiclassing 3e style presents is that level 1 is considered to be preceded by a period of training we never see. Occasionally someone will roleplay out preludes or scenes where a character completes their training or comes of age or whatever, but usually we all just assume that's done with.


    If multiclassing can happen on the campaign trail, you get into this situation where a guy can level up, to go bed, and suddenly have mastered a bunch of stuff that nobody's seen him do before. In terms of the story, it's a weird convention. Mechanically, it's a nightmare.


    I do agree that probably by 5/5, the character's figured out how to be a fighter with some magical help AND a wizard that can use a sword. Maybe a little later than 5/5, but probably not a lot later.

    Just give us 4e Hybrids please.



    Yep, pretty much this. For me, this is simple and elegant and makes sense from a 1st level perspective. Sure, it'll probably be a lot more in terms of page-count and perhaps not included in the 1st PHB but we don't need the brokeness and ridiculous stuff people did in 3E anymore.
    MULTICLASS WIZARD

    A wizard gets 1 spell slot per level.  The highest level spell he can cast is half his character level.

    Wizard 10: 2 2 2 2 2
    Wizard 7/Fighter 3: 2 2 1 1 1
    Wizard 3/ Fighter 7: 1 1 1 0 0

    Cool? 





      

    Why give the
    Wizard 3/ Fighter 7 an advantage? You are giving fireball two levels ahead as a reward for also knowing how to fight. That will outshine single class. Its not like I have a much better solution. Actually I have a similar solution. Mix in a few levels of Swordmage to bump the Wiz slots, and rebalance magic so its not so top heavy.



    The wizard 3/Fighter 7 has spent VASTLY more XP on those 3 levels of wizard than a single classed wizard 3. He's not getting an advantage, it's still a disadvantage.

    A level 10 character needs to be doing level 10 STUFF. I don't care if the stuff is casting spells, or swinging a sword, or backstabing with a dagger, or turning undead. His actions need to be appropriate for a level 10 character.

    You can go with AD&D like buying levels in different classes with different XP pools, or you can go with 4th edition dipping a couple of level appropriate powers, but the actions need to be level appropriate, and that means not asking a fighter to give up his expertise dice progression to be able to cast a couple of level 1 spells.

    Adding a class like swordmage to do what 3.x multiclassing is SUPPOSED TO DO ON ITS OWN, that is, allow a fighter/magic user, is an open admission that the multiclassing system has FAILED. And even in 3.x where there were 50 or so caster/non-caster or caster/caster hybrid prestige classes the universal judgement was that such builds were STILL too weak unless you were advancing a prestige class casting like UrPriest.

    D&DNext low level spells are SUPPOSED to stay somewhat relevant. If so then this may not be as big a problem. But asking someone to give up levels 8-10 of one class to have levels 1-3 of another class simply does not work, because you only get one action per turn, and that action needs to be level appropriate.

    A Fighter20/Wizard1 for example is obviously a dabler in magic, but he's an EPIC dabbler, his dabbling should either produce better results than Joe the apprentice gets or have only a negilgable cost to his fighter abilities.
    Having the order in which you take different classes just needlessly makes the game more complicated.  Everyone who's arguing otherwise seems to be forgetting an important part: once you choose to multiclass, you can still gain levels in your original class (this isn't the old-school human-only Dual Class rules).  Examples:



    • Albert takes 5 levels of Fighter and then 5 levels Wizard.

    • Burtrom takes 5 levels of Wizard and then 5 levels of Fighter.

    • Charles takes 1 level of either Fighter or Wizard, and alternates between the two until he has 5 of each.


    All of these characters have put the same amount of effort into each class.  They should all have the same amount of "fighterness" and "wizardness".

    If you say Albert should be more of a fighter than a wizard, then I ask you "Why? He hasn't been working on fighting as much recently, so shouldn't he more wizardy?".  If you say he should be more wizardy that fightery, then I ask you "Why?  After 5 levels of fighting, do you think he'd forget how to weild a sword?".  And what about Charles?  If I create Charles at an even level, then he doesn't really have an "initial class".  What's the benefit of forcing one on him?


    I beg to disagree.  If the difference between pre-adventure (level 0?) and level 1 was the same as the difference between level 1 and level 2, perhaps that would make sense, but that means that if a PC took 5 years to become a level 1 fighter and he's now 20 years old, that means that by level 10 the fighter would be 65 years old.

    However, most of the time the difference between levels is a matter of months, days or sometimes even minutes, which means that when it comes to multiclassing 3.x style, a level 1 Fighter would more likely be "picking magic up as you go", while the level 1 Wizard would be "practicing your swings as you go".  So why would a level 2 Fighter -- who would pick up just a feat (or in the case of DDN, just one maneuver) -- suddenly learn less than a level 1 Fighter / level 1 Wizard?  Did he just go Matrix-style and upload the entire 5+ years of "how to cast spells" in the same time period as the level 2 Fighter?

    I think what they're doing with Specializations and Classes is basically the same thing they did with 4E multiclassing: if your character concept involves merely "dabbling" into another class' ability, then you can get a Specialization fit for that concept, instead of multiclassing.  Meanwhile, the Multiclassing module would involve somewhat of a mix between 4E Hybrids and pre-3E multiclassing, in which you gain the benefits of both classes simultaneously, but at a slower pace than single classes, so that whatever you lack from one side can be made up by the other.

    Which is exactly why I proposed what I did in my previous post: since spells involve preparation or memorization and not actual power capacity, why not just remove spell slot levels, lower the number of spell slots you can acquire, have multiclassing as a way to customize your character in such a way that your overall capabilities are no greater than non-multiclass characters -- you are after concept, and not munchkining, right? -- and keep with the concept that you can't have it all?
    Show

    You are Red/Blue!
    Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
    Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.

    You are both rational and emotional. You value creation and discovery, and feel strongly about what you create. At best, you're innovative and intuitive. At worst, you're scattered and unpredictable.

    D&D Home Page - What Monster Are You? - D&D Compendium

    57047238 wrote:
    If you're crossing the street and see a city bus barreling straight toward you with 'GIVE ME YOUR WALLET!' painted across its windshield, you probably won't be reaching for your wallet.
    I Don't Always Play Strikers...But When I Do, I Prefer Vampire Stay Thirsty, My Friends
    This is what I believe is the spirit of D&D 4E, and my deal breaker for D&D Next: equal opportunities, with distinct specializations, in areas where conflict happens the most often, without having to worry about heavy micromanagement or system mastery. What I hope to be my most useful contributions to the D&D Community: DM Idea: Collaborative Mapping, Classless 4E (homebrew system, that hopefully helps in D&D Next development), Gamma World 7E random character generator (by yours truly), and the Concept of Perfect Imbalance (for D&D Next and other TRPGs in development) Pre-3E D&D should be recognized for what they were: simulation wargames where people could tell stories with The Best Answer to "Why 4E?" Fun vs. Engaging
    Sign In to post comments