|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 7:52AM
#71
|
Date Joined:
Jan 10, 2012
|
If I can't make a fighter/mage at first level I won't be happy with the multi-classing system.
Agreed. However, it isn't really important whether or not I have both fighter and mage written on my sheet. I just want the possibility to mix concepts, SOMEHOW, from the get-go.
Yes there is nothing worse then having to wait an entire level or more just to see your character concept realized. I really hope the devs understand this!
I agree with you, but I would also add that the system shouldn't be limited to only two classes. If I want to make a fighter/mage/thief I should have that option as well.
Utterly doable in 4e by the way... The main issue is overly diverse emphasis tends to reduce competance by way of attribute dispersion. Between, hybriding, backgrounds, themes and feats, see multiclassing in 4e isnt in one bucket.
Yes and I agree, we don't need a 1000 different ways to facilitate multi-class concepts. It makes the system confusing and less intuitive.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 8:01AM
#72
|
|
|
If I can't make a fighter/mage at first level I won't be happy with the multi-classing system.
Agreed. However, it isn't really important whether or not I have both fighter and mage written on my sheet. I just want the possibility to mix concepts, SOMEHOW, from the get-go.
Yes there is nothing worse then having to wait an entire level or more just to see your character concept realized. I really hope the devs understand this!
I agree with you, but I would also add that the system shouldn't be limited to only two classes. If I want to make a fighter/mage/thief I should have that option as well.
Utterly doable in 4e by the way... The main issue is overly diverse emphasis tends to reduce competance by way of attribute dispersion. Between, hybriding, backgrounds, themes and feats, see multiclassing in 4e isnt in one bucket.
Yes and I agree, we don't need a 1000 different ways to facilitate multi-class concepts. It makes the system confusing and less intuitive.
Agreed, and as Garthanos, I think, is trying to point out the main obstacle to effective MCing (and hybriding for that matter) is attribute dependency. Lets imagine that 5e were to remove ability score bonuses to to-hit then this would be a MAJOR improvement. You'd not HAVE to be high dex to add in some rogue combat stuff. Nor would you have to feel 'gimped' by that choice if what you wanted was mainly some non-combat goodness from the rogue to add to your wizard or whatever, or for that matter just think having a little bit of 'backstab' on your wizard would be a cool way to make a 'gish light' or something like that. Now you can probably allow 1:1 swapping in of some limited secondary class this way. Your damage bonus with the second class stuff will usually be a bit lower, but basically you're a bit more diverse and only a little bit less effective. Given that various options will pay out in some situations it becomes a reasonable strategy. Even in 4e this was SOMEWHAT true, it was just not usually true for pure combat stuff, though some roles are pretty easy to graft onto a character (like a bit of leader or controller).
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 8:06AM
#73
|
Date Joined:
Mar 20, 2010
|
I actually had an idea that I thought fixed 3e multiclassing. Lets use my aforementioned 5th level Fighter taking a level of Bard as an example (those of you who have the 3e books will be better able to see what I'm doing, but I'll try to explain it adequately). So the level 5 Fighter takes a level of Bard; he is now a 6th level character. Instead of giving him the benefits of a lvl 1 Bard, you give him the benefits of a 6th level Bard minus the benefits of a 5th level bard. Now this may sound confusing at first, but the concept is to give the fighter only the bonuses that a bard would gain for advancing from level 5 to level 6.
At level 6 a bard has 3 lvl 0 slots, 3 lvl 1 slots, and 2 lvl 2 slots.
(-) At level 5 a bard has 3 lvl 0 slots, 3 lvl 1 slots, and 1 lvl 2 slot.
This means the fighter/bard would gain 1 lvl 2 spell slot instead of two lvl 0 slots.
At lvl 6 a bard has a +4 BAB.
(-) At lvl 5 a bard has a +3 BAB.
This means the fighter/bard would gain a +1 to his BAB instead of a +0.
At lvl 6 a bard's save bonuses are +2/+5/+5.
(-) At lvl 5 a bard's save bonuses are +1/+4/+4.
This means the fighter/bard would gain a +1/+1/+1 to his saves instead of a +0/+2/+2.
etc.
While I was reading this a thought came to me. What if the level of your character determined what the max level of spell you could cast would be but then the level of your casting class determined who many spells you could cast. Flip the spell progression charts over and get something like this.
Standard spell progression
|
1
|
2
|
3
|
1
|
1
|
|
|
2
|
2
|
|
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
Flipped spell progression
|
-2
|
-1
|
Max
|
1
|
|
|
1
|
2
|
|
|
2
|
3
|
|
2
|
1
|
4
|
|
3
|
2
|
5
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
So a level one Wizard always has one spell slot of the max level a character of his level can cast. If that level in wizard was level 50 or level one it's still one spell slot of a level of power apropriate to your character.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 8:28AM
#74
|
|
|
So a level one Wizard always has one spell slot of the max level a character of his level can cast. If that level in wizard was level 50 or level one it's still one spell slot of a level of power apropriate to your character.
I think this kind of thing can work. I've said in other places I'd generalize the whole concept, which makes it a lot like 'treasure' (boons specifically). You can get stuff that is relevant to your level, and it isn't really a big deal WHICH stuff you get. Your class is more about the story of HOW you can get it and less about which things you can get. You could then MC, but that would be more about fluff than anything else (IE MCing into wizard lets you call your awesome stuff spells and put it in a book). At that point MCing can really not be an issue, just let people poach whatever they want, at most it will add some nominal support mechanics for a certain way that you can get 'stuff' on your character, but it doesn't really open up different pools of stuff.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 8:34AM
#75
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
If I can't make a fighter/mage at first level I won't be happy with the multi-classing system.
Agreed. However, it isn't really important whether or not I have both fighter and mage written on my sheet. I just want the possibility to mix concepts, SOMEHOW, from the get-go.
Yes there is nothing worse then having to wait an entire level or more just to see your character concept realized. I really hope the devs understand this!
I agree with you, but I would also add that the system shouldn't be limited to only two classes. If I want to make a fighter/mage/thief I should have that option as well.
Utterly doable in 4e by the way... The main issue is overly diverse emphasis tends to reduce competance by way of attribute dispersion. Between, hybriding, backgrounds, themes and feats, see multiclassing in 4e isnt in one bucket.
Yes and I agree, we don't need a 1000 different ways to facilitate multi-class concepts. It makes the system confusing and less intuitive.
Agreed, and as Garthanos, I think, is trying to point out the main obstacle to effective MCing (and hybriding for that matter) is attribute dependency. Lets imagine that 5e were to remove ability score bonuses to to-hit then this would be a MAJOR improvement. You'd not HAVE to be high dex to add in some rogue combat stuff. Nor would you have to feel 'gimped' by that choice if what you wanted was mainly some non-combat goodness from the rogue to add to your wizard or whatever, or for that matter just think having a little bit of 'backstab' on your wizard would be a cool way to make a 'gish light' or something like that. Now you can probably allow 1:1 swapping in of some limited secondary class this way. Your damage bonus with the second class stuff will usually be a bit lower, but basically you're a bit more diverse and only a little bit less effective. Given that various options will pay out in some situations it becomes a reasonable strategy. Even in 4e this was SOMEWHAT true, it was just not usually true for pure combat stuff, though some roles are pretty easy to graft onto a character (like a bit of leader or controller).
I do like subtle differences achieved by having such diverse route to representing a character concept the fact that it can take system mastery to do so in a way that is satisfyingly competant is annoying.
You are certainly right about to hit and it could be a great leap. The game could also improve the ease of competant multiclassing by allowing skills to trigger off multiple different attributes.
With attributes dependence changed even the many elements would still be easy to handle especially when they were presented and accounted for in a nicely orgaized fashion in an inital release.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 9:57AM
#76
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
How would any of you convert a high level 2nd Ed Fighter/Mage/Thief who wields a longsword to 4th Ed?
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 9:58AM
#77
|
|
|
How would any of you convert a high level 2nd Ed Fighter/Mage/Thief who wields a longsword to 4th Ed?
Hybrid Swordmage/Bard, background to take training in Stealth (or MC Rogue). Or just Swordmage with MC Rogue for Stealth, background for Thievery.
Or, just a bard that uses a longsword with all the musical junk fluffed out of his spells.
Another day, another three or four entries to my Ignore List.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 10:06AM
#78
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Hybrid Swordmage/Bard, background to take training in Stealth (or MC Rogue). Or just Swordmage with MC Rogue for Stealth, background for Thievery.
Or, just a bard that uses a longsword with all the musical junk fluffed out of his spells.
*buzzer* ...next.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 10:09AM
#79
|
|
|
How would any of you convert a high level 2nd Ed Fighter/Mage/Thief who wields a longsword to 4th Ed?
Start with the arcane class that best fits the "mage" you have in mind, then add some skills (thievery, stealth, etc) and see how melee can fit. The bladedancer wizard or the swordmage could both work well as starting points, or maybe some straight wizard builds (eladrin would help for race) could be good too.
Heck, depending on how you envision "fighter", you could go with a warlord as the base (str + int or cha is caster-friendly) and add some skills + a few multiclass feats or just ritual casting, depending on how into the magical side you were.
Some hybrids could work too - the question is more what makes you happy.
Ed_Warlord, on what it takes to make a thread work: I think for it to be really constructive, everyone would have to be honest with each other, and with themselves. Quotation of the moment
Show
Areleth: How does this help the problems we have with Fighters? Do you think that every time I thought I was playing D&D what I was actually doing was slamming my head in a car door and that if you just explain how to play without doing that then I'll finally enjoy the game?
Quotation of ALL moments
Show
TD: That's why they put me on the front of every book. This is the dungeon, and I am the dragon.
A word of warning though: I'm totally not a level appropriate encounter.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 04, 2012 - 10:16AM
#80
|
Date Joined:
Mar 26, 2007
|
Start with the arcane class that best fits the "mage" you have in mind, then add some skills (thievery, stealth, etc) and see how melee can fit. The bladedancer wizard or the swordmage could both work well as starting points, or maybe some straight wizard builds (eladrin would help for race) could be good too.
Heck, depending on how you envision "fighter", you could go with a warlord as the base (str + int or cha is caster-friendly) and add some skills + a few multiclass feats or just ritual casting, depending on how into the magical side you were.
Some hybrids could work too - the question is more what makes you happy.
Would definitely need access to some classic Wizard spells, so a Rogue/Wizard hybrid sounds good, but we have the longsword problem.
Just a little more background: the character is a drow and has always been a solo character/campaign (I've been DMing him on and off since 1987, he started as 1st Ed).
|
|
|
