|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 1:24PM
#61
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
4e multi-classing is a complete mess. The real point of multi-classing is to cover hybrids and 4e does a very very poor job of that. You can create a mage and take a couple fighter powers, but you cannot build a real fighter/mage. One of the problems is the front-loading of classes. Each class starting off with too many iconic powers means that it is not feasible to create balanced hybrids and thats why we were left with 4e's weak so-called multiclassing.
Furthermore, the class design made hybrid builds difficult to implement. 4e painted themselves in a corner when every class received their own unique powers at every level. The more classes introduced (which often would be real hybrids) meant more classes to expand powers for. Now supplement books had to account for each and every existing class (or break them up in thirds - martial, divine, arcane) and each book would have to split its content up between all existing classes. In turn as the number of classes grew, it became obvious that each book contained less and less useful content for any particular class. It reached the point where players who tended to play a single class felt it wasn't worth it to buy future books as paying $30 for a book with 6 new alternative powers for their class seemed a bit much.
We come back to the usefulness of front-loading. Front-loading of powers makes it much more difficult to properly multi-class as the 1st level of any class gives far more abilities than any future level. This is why 3e multi-classing was so good. It wasn't perfect. Multi-classing casters created weak characters since spell level is so crucial to caster power. Also, poorly balanced powers low in a class build created opportunities for abuse. The first issue is the difficult one, the second just required better balancing. I still believe that 3e multi-classing was a far better system than 4e any day.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 1:44PM
#62
|
|
|
4e multi-classing is a complete mess. The real point of multi-classing is to cover hybrids and 4e does a very very poor job of that. You can create a mage and take a couple fighter powers, but you cannot build a real fighter/mage. One of the problems is the front-loading of classes. Each class starting off with too many iconic powers means that it is not feasible to create balanced hybrids and thats why we were left with 4e's weak so-called multiclassing.
Furthermore, the class design made hybrid builds difficult to implement. 4e painted themselves in a corner when every class received their own unique powers at every level. The more classes introduced (which often would be real hybrids) meant more classes to expand powers for. Now supplement books had to account for each and every existing class (or break them up in thirds - martial, divine, arcane) and each book would have to split its content up between all existing classes. In turn as the number of classes grew, it became obvious that each book contained less and less useful content for any particular class. It reached the point where players who tended to play a single class felt it wasn't worth it to buy future books as paying $30 for a book with 6 new alternative powers for their class seemed a bit much.
We come back to the usefulness of front-loading. Front-loading of powers makes it much more difficult to properly multi-class as the 1st level of any class gives far more abilities than any future level. This is why 3e multi-classing was so good. It wasn't perfect. Multi-classing casters created weak characters since spell level is so crucial to caster power. Also, poorly balanced powers low in a class build created opportunities for abuse. The first issue is the difficult one, the second just required better balancing. I still believe that 3e multi-classing was a far better system than 4e any day.
3e MCing was a hot mess, lol. All not front-loading does is mean that the character EVEN IF IT IS SINGLE CLASSED is only 'part of its class' for some number (usually a significant number that may often span the life of the entire game) of levels. You're IMHO applying a double standard here, a 4e hybrid is 'broken' because it doesn't have all the features of its hybrid classes, but a 3.x character that has only half its class features because it hasn't attained the levels where they are available yet is fine. Makes no sense at all to me.
The whole POINT with 4e was that if you are going to be a mix of classes (a hybrid) you will NOT be the whole genuine entire thing. You'll have some essential features of the hybrid classes, but you will generally lack of others. Remember, you have things like the hybrid talent feat to help you capture what IS essential for your character. 4e hybrids are really a way to 'make your own class' in a controlled fashion. I think the IDEA was similar with 3e but the design was horribly flawed as it was entirely an invitation to cherry-pick. The fact that many (probably numerically the VAST majority of 3e class combinations) were actually pretty sub-par didn't help. In fairness I think you can level some of the same charges against 4e hybrids too.
However, 4e hybrids aren't MCs. It is a bit different. 4e MCing DID prove to be weak, but it was weak because it was designed too conservatively, not because of any inherent flaw in the concept. Plenty of people have suggested perfectly good fixes for that, many of which people use as house rules. I'm sure 5e can incorporate one or more of those. I'd also note that most class features CAN be acquired via feats by MC characters. Largely the reason these aren't super good options isn't because they don't work or are bad, but because there were so many practically required feats out there that it was just a raw deal. If feats IN GENERAL are properly implemented, then using them to acquire MC features is not a bad thing. Even so there's no reason why a character SHOULD be capable of having 100% of the features of a single-classed character in any one of its classes, only that it should overall be on par.
I don't think 3e style MCing can EVER be balanced. The problem is that it requires considering the interactions between almost infinite combinations of classes, and it would require designing every feature strictly with those interactions in mind. Because 4e classes LARGELY are intended to work on their own wtihout too much admixture the design task is greatly simplified. I just don't think there are enough game designers in the world to get 3e MCing right. It is one of those ideas that is great in theory, but in practice the theory is totally flawed.
That is not dead which may eternal lie
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 3:40PM
#63
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
What you call playing one-fifth a class, I enjoy. I love to level up and gain new unique capabilities. From level 1 to level 7 or so was the most enjoyable part of 3e. Playing a weak undeveloped character is a building experience and one can use early failures. When you do gain the majority of iconic class features, it's an accomplishment!
To be honest, I found 4e gameplay to be boring. You start out with at-wills, encounters and dailies. Each level you gain more similar powers that are only marginally better if that often-times you replace an existing power. Maybe now I can do the same damage and slide someone a square. Seriously, in 4e I felt like I was playing the same character at level 1 as I was at level 7. In 3e, many levels were exciting, you gained something useful, new and interesting; a 1st level character was much different from a 7th. In 4e, 1st to 7th, not really that much different. Why? Because everything was front-loaded, everything else was a variation of the same theme.
Let's put it another way. You can play Superman at 1st level, have X-Ray Vision, Deflect Bullets, Super Strong. So what are your next levels? More HP? More BAB? I'd rather be the person with budding superpowers who cannot fully control them. When I figure them out, I know I'm going to be powerful, and this learning, building, getting stronger is what makes the game fun.
As I've said before, if you don't like weak characters one-step above peasants, your DM and gaming group can start at 6th level. But if 6th level is defined as 1st, there is no way for those of us who like to play through the difficult years to play the game we like. Your option of fully front-loading characters is game limiting. Gradually implementing class features doesn't force you to start at 1st, hence not game limiting.
P.S. Pathfinder seems to have found a way to balance multi-classing in 3e, it doesn't seem broken at all with their small tweeks.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 4:05PM
#64
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Not quite, saves and skills are handled better, but you still can't multi-casters without a specific prc.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 4:30PM
#65
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
I'll grant Pathfinder multi-classing isn't perfect (especially for casters) but its also doesn't seem broken or abused and is certainly not a "hot mess". All Pathfinder did was give a small bonus for single-classing (usually 1 HP or 1 skill point, your choice) and more carefully place class skills. 4e has its issues too neither system is perfect, both seem workable in their own frames of reference although for the most part multi-classing is very limited in 4e.
I know this. In 3e many players made very interesting characters using the multi-classing rules without trying to unduly break the rules. They enjoyed it, it fueled many interesting discussions about the game and kept a lot of interest in the game. I really hope some form of the 1st-3rd edition multi-classing is available in Next.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 5:21PM
#66
|
|
|
I really hope some form of the 1st-3rd edition multi-classing is available in Next.
It's odd to me that you see continuity there. Pre-3E multiclassing had a lot of effectiveness built in. 3E MCing was all about optimization.
For example, a fighter/magic-user 7/7 in an AD&D party averaging 8th level or so was solid. He could choose whatever spells a normal wizard would and cast them well. A fighter 7/wizard 7 in 3E was far worse than the wizard 14, and the spells he used had better be buffs, utility, or no-save-just-lose. Even then, having an occasional EBT or Solid Fog to use against CR 14+ monsters - while your buddy is using Forcecage and Magic Jar - is really marginal. Double-caster combos were similarly constrained. Thief MCs were maybe a level behind in AD&D, whereas in 3E MC rogues would see their skills fall behind without either restricting themselves to small dips in other classes or narrowing their focus considerably. For example, a rogue 5/fighter 5 would either focus narrowly on a few skills or be 5 ranks behind in the usual repertoire. If he wanted to specialize, the timing of his rogue level-ups would be very important, due to max ranks in class skills.
Old-school MCing was very constrained in order to be reasonably balanced and effective. 3E MCing was full of awful traps and overpowered combos. Straight monk or fighter was pretty weak, for example, but dipping in for some free feats and proficiencies or maybe a hefty AC and save bonus (for druids and clerics dipping into monk) was something people could do to exploit the system.
IMO the only connection between 3E and TSR edition MCing was superficial. Sure, a few things on the character sheet would resemble the original MC character concept. But most of what worked well in the actual game pre-3E was no longer viable. Merely replicating some details on the character sheet is not the same as being able to make the same character.
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 ::
May 05, 2012 - 5:25PM
#67
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Well I don't know which edition this is form precisely, but wasn't one of the older methods to essentially progress both classes independently by splitting you exp between them, and halving your base hp per level per class?
That seems problematic.
One option would be to make each class give a special set of bonuses to characters who take that class as their first class, these would be establishing abilities like weapon/armor profs, skills your class is automatically associated with, the extra spells a caster gets at first level so they have something to do, as well as some other nifty stuff so the starting packages are balanced out and everyone doesn't take their first level in fighter or rogue.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 7:05PM
#68
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
What I see as being similar is that on a level by level basis, one chose whether to pursue another class (at least as humans were involved). If I recall correctly, demi-humans chose to split xp at character creation. Either way, the first 3 editions added class levels where 4e is more of a cherry-picking of abilities rather than actually putting a level in the new class.
I'm open-minded in the actual mechanics of multiclassing through adding levels of classes. Maybe to aid caster multiclassing a simple rule could be for caster level and/or # and level of spells the effective caster level = (levels in the caster class) + (1/2*other levels) [round down] [max 2*caster class]. This in many ways simulates 1e and 2e caster multi-classing.
Thus a level 5 fighter/5 wizard would have spells and cast as if he were level 7 and a level 5 cleric/5 wizard would be level 7 for casting either spell. You wouldn't necessarily need special prestige classes and could mix and match between any casting class this way.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 7:12PM
#69
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Or we could try NOT overcomplicating the game.
Simply remove caster level from the game and have the powers either get traded out for better spells at higher levels of the spells auto-level based on your character level.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
May 05, 2012 - 7:35PM
#70
|
Date Joined:
Mar 28, 2004
|
The real question is which magic progression Next will have. Most of the problem of 3e caster level was the exponential increase in power each spell level had. A level 5 caster had access to only 3rd level spells and a 10th had 5th level which were far more powerful and capable. By endgame and 9th level spell casting, you had wishes at 17th, which was far more powerful than 5th level spells.
4e never gets to wishes or prismatic walls and class caster progression is far slower. In 4e, a 5th level caster isn't really that far behind a 10th in terms of spell power (at least not as compared to earlier editions). If power progression is stretched out like it was in 4e, being that many levels behind is less of an issue.
And seriously, the above system really isn't very complicated and if someone chooses to multi-class, it's easy enough the handle.
|
|
|
