Martial Damage Bonus and Gishes

25 posts / 0 new
Last post
The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.

Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.

And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.

How will 5E handle multiclassing? How will it handle Gishes? My first suggestion would be through the use of Martial Maneuvers that let you attack and cast spells at the same time. A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.

How do you want to see gishes and multiclassing handled? 4E was unsatisfactory, though the hybrid system did work. 3E had holes (a Fighter/Wizard would often be a Fighter2/Wizard3/PrestigeClass10/PrestigeClass5 ...). How will 5E be better? 
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
I think 4e hybrid classes have been the best implementations of multiclassing I've seen in D&D (I've played 3, 3.5, and 4). Hopefully D&DN will use a similar system.

I didn't enjoy the multiclass feats a whole lot though. I can't recall anyone in my playgroup even taking one. 
I think 4e hybrid classes have been the best implementations of multiclassing I've seen in D&D (I've played 3, 3.5, and 4). Hopefully D&DN will use a similar system.

I didn't enjoy the multiclass feats a whole lot though. I can't recall anyone in my playgroup even taking one. 


I used them to some good effect, but then I had to fix them first.  I ruled that taking the MC feat also gave you all three power swap feats for free.  I reasoned that swapping two equal options shouldn't require you to spend a feat anymore than putting down one longsword and picking up another one should.
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

How do you want to see gishes and multiclassing handled?


I'm really not sure about MC'ing.  However, gishes should be relatively easy.  For starters, simply creating a set of magical maneuvers that are available to fighters is a good start.  You could also allow them to trade MDD for spell slots or cantrips or magical riders.  Another idea, maybe a gish could choose to deal energy damage with their MDD.  Essentially the gish is wreathing their weapon in magical energy instead of just hitting harder (and that one would require only a minimal mechanical change to implement, that is, allowing the character to turn the MDD damage into energy damage).
There are a great many problems that can be circumvented by players and DMs having a mature discussion about what the game is going to be like before they ever sit down together to play.

 

The answer really does lie in more options, not in confining and segregating certain options.

 

You really shouldn't speak for others.  You can't hear what someone else is saying when you try to put your words in their mouth.

 

Fencing & Swashbuckling as Armor.

D20 Modern Toon PC Race.

Mecha Pilot's Skill Challenge Emporium.

 

Save the breasts.

...what's a chaotic evil githyanki fighter/magic-user got to do with it...what's gish, but a secondhand emotion...
multiclassing... ok here we go


in my current game i have run multiple multi class options at once

ok so keep this in mind, xp is a pool and things gained on the character level up table are based on character development and not class level.

1) gestalt/hybrid: to gestalt requires using your first level feat to select the second class. both classes level at the same time and you acquire all the abilities of both. with any crossover number (HD, AC bonuses, MDD, etc) you take the higher of the two numbers. the trade offs are using your first level feat and every level requires 50% more experience.

2) multiclassing: to multiclass requires using your feat when you level up, so instead of becoming a level 3 fighter, you are a level 2 fighter and a level 1 wizard. with the xp pool, to get to a level 3 fighter (950XP) you will require an extra 700 XP (the difference between level 2 and 3) or to level up your wizard to level 2 you would be required to have 250XP in your pool. but like i said before, this adds to how much more you are required to get another level. so a level 2 wizard, level 3 fighter would require 1900XP (700 extra for level 3 fighter and 250 spent on level 2 wizard)


my players like this, tell me what you think


and yes, they can take both

EDIT: i forgot to add, character level is based of the total XP pool, not what you have spent. so at 2,250 XP you will still get your level 4 bonus, even if you multiclass
...what's a chaotic evil githyanki fighter/magic-user got to do with it...what's gish, but a secondhand emotion...


Classic.
My two copper.
1st if any multiclassing is to be made, ALL classes should have expertise/damage dices(let's call them points) and they should be available at the same pace for all classes 1+1/2 per level.

then by picking maneuvers you define how much of what class you learn(empower, maximize, quicken spell can all be maneuvers).

Also if any spell power will be tied to "per level" scale it should use total character level not just caster class.

Also feats that increase spellcasting capacity(like you gain +4 levels of wizard for number and level of spells you can cast. Your wizard level can't be higher than your character level).

Or feat to gain +2 to magic and +2 weapon attack: your weapon attack cant be higher that fighters attack of your level and your magic attack cant be higher than wizards attack of your level.

I think 4e hybrid classes have been the best implementations of multiclassing I've seen in D&D (I've played 3, 3.5, and 4). Hopefully D&DN will use a similar system.



Yeah, I liked the 4E hybrid system. The feat system wasnt' bad either, it was just way too expensive. But at the very least, the whole principle of swapping one level-appropriate ability for another was great. The only real issue I had with 4E multiclassing was simply that the ability score bases for attack pretty much limited what you could multiclass into, so you had basically some combos that worked, like swordmage/wizard and paladin/warlock and others that miserably sucked like rogue/artificer.

Of course, I have no idea how you'd use that multiclass method like that without the AEDU system.

Since we have vancian, we may be best just going with the AD&D multiclass system.

The 3E system was actually a really nice idea too, but it just isn't compatible with vancian casting at all. It'd be interesting to see a class system built specifically to take the 3E multiclassing into consideration, as oppsoed to adding it as an afterthought. Of course, that ship has long sailed and we've got to work around vancian magic, so I'd say AD&D multiclassing is about the only way to go.

As long as the fighter/wizard can actually hit with his melee attacks and spells I don't see any problem with him being less effective as both.



E.g. a fighter10/wizard10 having the damage dice/bonus of a 7th level fighter and the spell slots/known/damage of a 7th level wizard, but with the attack bonus expected of a 20th level character (let's say +4 to both as opposed as the +5 each single classes would have)

The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.

Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.

And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.

How will 5E handle multiclassing? How will it handle Gishes? My first suggestion would be through the use of Martial Maneuvers that let you attack and cast spells at the same time. A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.

How do you want to see gishes and multiclassing handled? 4E was unsatisfactory, though the hybrid system did work. 3E had holes (a Fighter/Wizard would often be a Fighter2/Wizard3/PrestigeClass10/PrestigeClass5 ...). How will 5E be better? 


Why would anyone choose to play a single class if this were the case?

Would the fighter/rogue be able to attack with his sword and pick a lock in the same action? How about the cleric/wizard, two spells in the same action? The idea is game-breaking.
I like the Pathfinder's Magus concept of dual-wielding a weapon and spell. Balancing the damage won't be any more difficult than balancing two weapon fighting. The challenge will be balancing spell effects with damage. Having most of the spells be "word of power"-like would be a start, although using mixed maneuvers would work as well.

Perhaps the real key is lumping the mixed concept into yet another casting style?

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.

Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.

And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.

How will 5E handle multiclassing? How will it handle Gishes? My first suggestion would be through the use of Martial Maneuvers that let you attack and cast spells at the same time. A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.

How do you want to see gishes and multiclassing handled? 4E was unsatisfactory, though the hybrid system did work. 3E had holes (a Fighter/Wizard would often be a Fighter2/Wizard3/PrestigeClass10/PrestigeClass5 ...). How will 5E be better? 


Why would anyone choose to play a single class if this were the case?

Would the fighter/rogue be able to attack with his sword and pick a lock in the same action? How about the cleric/wizard, two spells in the same action? The idea is game-breaking.



It's not game breaking at all when the suggestion was for a 10th level 5/5 Figther/Wizard to be able to attack as a 5th level Fighter and then as a 5th level Wizard as an action. As long as the damage of the two didn't add up to more than the one, it would be fine (if wizard spells are typically 1d6/level, and fighter martial damage dice is typically +1d6/2 levels ...).

It's about action economy. If I have to give my action up to do something weaker than what all the rest of my party are doing, I feel like I'm not contributing; in the worst cases, I'm not contributing, and the party loses. 
Poe's Law is alive and well. Emerikol is right*
If we don't care about balance, than any multiclassing system works - 1e, gestalt, 4e, etc.

But, if we're trying for balance between single and multiclass, I don't see how any system can do it much better than 4e. A person looking to multiclass will always cherry pick the best levels, so there needs to be a cost for multiclassing. The proposals I hear most popular around here include things like: give multiclass bonuses not on total level of a class, but total level of a char. While that sounds good, I fear if will immediately turn too good - unless a rogue gets a Mbd every level, it'll be better for the rogue to pick cleric for any level they don't get anything other than feat (which they get as cleric anyways)

Effectively, that kind of multiclassing will mean that a "dead level" is any level you get the same as someone else but less, and those levels you should pick the other class.

It just feels like many times the multiclassing rules are slanted waaay too much in Favor of multiclassing. I'd like to see balance, but even with mearls chart of level progression for every class, I don't see it.
The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.

Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.

And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.




You're comparing very different approaches to multi-classing without pointing out their specifics.

A multi-class character in 2ed could be just a few levels under a single-class one.
Say, 9/10th level as opposed to a 11th level.

However, a 5/5 character in 3ed gained a lot more than a 5/5 in 2ed.

For example, the Base Attack of a 5/5 Fighter/Wizard in 3ed would be +7, while a 5/5 Fighter/Mage in 2ed would have the THAC0 of a 5th level fighter (+5 if converted to 3ed rules).
Not to mentions the feats and skill points of a 10th level character, not a 5th level one.

3ed's Multiclass system itself was good. Simple and brilliant.

The problem lay in how the Vancian magic system interacted with Multiclassing in 3ed.
Multiclassing a spellcaster, even if taking another casting class, took too great a toll on a character's ability to cast spells.

That is something I would like to see improved, perhaps, in the 5ed.
But the basics of 3ed Multiclassing are excellent and they'd fit just well in the 5ed rules.



4ed was... OK, in that aspect. It had an interesting system for borrowing a few abilities from another class.
But it was not a real Multi-class system.

Rast, what counts as "real
Multiclass system" is going to differ from person to person. But, the hybrid system was multiclassing to many people.
Comparing the two, the hybrid system at least attempted to be balanced and did okay. Many people used to 3e found they couldn't express a 3 fighter/7 mage, but that seemed to shorthand for "taking more powers as Mage than fighter" which was certainly possible.
The parts that weren't possible in 4e hybrid were starting a multiclass at anything other than 1st level, and more than 2 hybrid classes.

3 allowed for infinite flexibility, admittedly, but didnt penalize dipping enough, IMHO, to avoid the fighter 1/rogue 1/barbarian 12
Rast, what counts as "real Multiclass system" is going to differ from person to person. But, the hybrid system was multiclassing to many people. Comparing the two, the hybrid system at least attempted to be balanced and did okay. Many people used to 3e found they couldn't express a 3 fighter/7 mage, but that seemed to shorthand for "taking more powers as Mage than fighter" which was certainly possible. The parts that weren't possible in 4e hybrid were starting a multiclass at anything other than 1st level, and more than 2 hybrid classes. 3 allowed for infinite flexibility, admittedly, but didnt penalize dipping enough, IMHO, to avoid the fighter 1/rogue 1/barbarian 12


I recall the section on hybrids saying that it broke things that were put in place to balance things. More balanced relative to 3e maybe, but it was the opposite of trying to balance things by design.

Big Model: Creative Agenda
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th Edition
Reality Refracted: Social Contracts

My blog of random stuff 

Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl

"It is a general popular error to suppose the loudest complainers for the publick to be the most anxious for its welfare." - Edmund Burke
A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.

Opinions vary on this.  I definitely want my fighter/wizard to decide whether to make a weapon attack or cast a spell (not both), and be able to take advantage of whichever is better for the situation to make up for reduced proficiency in each category. 

If a fighter 10 is in trouble against a high-AC enemy and a wizard 10 is in trouble against a magic-resitant enemy, then I want my fighter/wizard to act like a wizard 8 against a high-AC enemy and a fighter 8 against a magic-resistant enemy (and let the pure classes shine +20% against anyone who is weak to neither martial nor melee).

The metagame is not the game.
(and let the pure classes shine +20% against anyone who is weak to neither martial nor melee).



you mean 99.9 percent of the time....
  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."

 

Rast, what counts as "real Multiclass system" is going to differ from person to person.



When I said it wasn't a real multiclass system I didn't mean it was "bad and because of that shouldn't count as multiclass."

It's just that it has another goal.
4ed's system is more like something to differentiate some characters by borrowing a few features from another class than a real attempt at developing a system for you to mix 2 or more classes the way you like.
In 4ed you couldn't actually take more than one class.
You couldn't take your 3rd level Fighter and suddenly say: "You know what? I think from now on I'm gonna put my martial training aside and become a Wizard", no longer investing in fighter levels.

That's not to say that other system for borrowing from other classes is bad.

I find the two proposal so different from each other, that both systems could actually coexist, as two separate options for players to mix roles in the game.
If WotC introduces an arcane base class of the cleric (martial/magical hybrid), the need for multiclassing is only needed for the characters that have a vocational change during their adventuring career (not terribly common IME, but it does happen). That it took a third party (Paizo) to develop one (magus) first has me /facedesk'ing if I think on it too long. Yes, the 4e swordmage and bladesinger are true hybrids, but the concept was far too narrowly implemented for a base class.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
That it took a third party (Paizo) to develop one (magus) first has me /facedesk'ing if I think on it too long.

The Magus class is very similar to the Duskblade from late 3.5 - they share the signature ability to cast touch spells through a weapon as part of a melee attack.

The metagame is not the game.

I find the two proposal so different from each other, that both systems could actually coexist, as two separate options for players to mix roles in the game.



4es hybriding worked fine alongside the dabbling (which was still over expensive most of the time)

That said if somebody dramatically reconcieves a character ... rebuilding the character comes to mind.
  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."

 

That it took a third party (Paizo) to develop one (magus) first has me /facedesk'ing if I think on it too long.

The Magus class is very similar to the Duskblade from late 3.5 - they share the signature ability to cast touch spells through a weapon as part of a melee attack.

That's true. I forget about the Duskblade, it came out a bit late for me. I was burnt out of 3.5 by then. It still seems odd WotC left the concept to a single class in 4e, and in a campaign sourcebook at that. I hope to see one soon in a future playtest packet.

Magic Dual Color Test
I am White/Green
I am White/Green
Take The Magic Dual Colour Test - Beta today!
Created with Rum and Monkey's Personality Test Generator.
I am both orderly and instinctive. I value community and group identity, defining myself by the social group I am a part of. At best, I'm selfless and strong-willed; at worst, I'm unoriginal and sheepish.
I like 4e, but I wouldn't call what 4e called multiclassing a multiclassing system. It was a power-swapping system, or, more frequently, just a feat tax on taking feats or PrCs that had other classes as prereqs. I would call its hybridding system a multiclassing system, and a really good one, albeit one that could have been better had it been around from the beginning, allowing classes to be constructed a little more with it in mind and potentially avoiding some of the awkwardness it brought along.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer. Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.