Is Multiclassing in 4ed?

14 posts / 0 new
Last post
I'm having some trouble finding out if multiclassing has been explicated addressed in 4ed. From what I've gotten, it seems that they might be focusing more on flushing out the hybrid classes rather than implement multiclassing. I guess the reason for this is so that the classes have this more 'definite' rolls in the game and its much easier to have a class called Spellsword than Wizard/Fighter.
There's definitely multiclassing. If I remember correctly a couple of the Devs wrote in their blogs about focusing on the multiclass dynamic. I thing that was the week after GenCon.
Haha if there weren't multiclassing, WotC would lose at least 5% market share, instantly.
Well that's a relief, thanks for clarifying that for me.
I'm having some trouble finding out if multiclassing has been explicated addressed in 4ed. From what I've gotten, it seems that they might be focusing more on flushing out the hybrid classes rather than implement multiclassing. I guess the reason for this is so that the classes have this more 'definite' rolls in the game and its much easier to have a class called Spellsword than Wizard/Fighter.

There will be multiclassing. One or two of the "playtest" reports mentions it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Multiclassing will be VERY similar to what is found in the Tome of Battle. Half of your non-initiator levels count as increasing your initiator level with regards to your highest level maneuver/stance known. Now, this can be applied across other classes. If something like class specific abilities/feats are being used, this makes even more sense to include. It even works for spellcasting.

Let's take a look at two classics; the Gish and the Mystic Theurge.

The Gish
I'm just going to go with the tank gish for this example. The tank gish ends up as a Wizard 4/Fighter 2/Spellsword 5/Eldritch Knight 9, with a caster level of 15 and a Base Attack Bonus of +18. Nothing very fancy, though it does jump through a few hoops to get there. Not using gish-like PrCs ends up as a train wreck, relying on two base classes.

So, with ToB style multiclassing, how does that work out?

This assumes Fighters get some class specific stuff that is better than feats, such as they've hinted at in the reports.

Fighter 10 / Wizard 10 (if this was 3.X, run for your lives!)
1-4 - Fighter levels: no caster level here, move along : BAB +4
5 - Wizard 1 - Caster Level (CL) 3 : BAB +4 (2nd level spells right off the bat. Still behind a full caster, but not nearly useless.)
6 - Wizard 2 - CL 4 : BAB +5
7 - Wizard 3 - CL 5 : BAB +5 (3rd level spells, one spell level behind)
8 - Wizard 4 - CL 6 : BAB +6
9 - Fighter 5 - CL 6 : BAB +7
10 - Fighter 6 - CL 7 : BAB +8 (though, no new spells, as ToB does it)
11 - Wizard 5 - CL 8 : BAB +8 (4th level spells)
12 - Wizard 6 - CL 9 : BAB +9 (5th level spells)
13 - Wizard 7 - CL 10 : BAB +9
14 - Wizard 8 - CL 11 : BAB +10 (6th level spells)
15 - Fighter 7 - CL 11 : BAB +11
16 - Fighter 8 - CL 12 : BAB +12
17 - Wizard 9 - CL 13 : BAB +12 (7th level spells)
18 - Fighter 9 - CL 13 : BAB +13
19 - Wizard 10 - CL 14 : BAB +14
20 - Fighter 10 - CL 15 : BAB +15

Well damn. 8th level spells and BAB +15. Not as good as jumping through the hoops of 3.X to get there, but as a core only mechanic this works. And, of course, adjusting up or down on either side is pretty easy to do.

I know, some people will inevitably point to the C.O. gish that jumps through even more hoops and gets CL 18 with BAB 18 or some such. Yes, you can currently jump through those hoops and take the correct PrCs to get that. What I posted above is taking two core, base classes, without jumping through those hoops!

The Mystic Theurge
Lets look at two core options:

What does current core look like with even levels using the MT (Wiz 5 / Clr 5 / MT 10):
Wiz CL 15 (8th level spells)
Clr CL 15 (8th level spells)

Or, sacrifice one to pump the other (Wiz 3 / Clr 7 / MT 10)
Wiz CL 13 (7th level spells)
Clr CL 17 (9th level spells)

And now, each of those using the ToB style idea instead, and no PrCs (Wiz 10 / Clr 10)
The first one …
2: Wiz 1 / Clr 1: CL 1 in each.
4: Wiz 2 / Clr 2: CL 3 in each (2nd level spells)
6: Wiz 3 / Clr 3: CL 4 in each
8: Wiz 4 / Clr 4: CL 6 in each (3rd level spells)
10: Wiz 5 / Clr 5: CL 7 in each (4th level spells)
12: Wiz 6 / Clr 6: CL 9 in each (5th level spells)
14: Wiz 7 / Clr 7: CL 10 in each
16: Wiz 8 / Clr 8: CL 12 in each (6th level spells)
18: Wiz 9 / Clr 9: CL 13 in each (7th level spells)
20: Wiz 10 / Clr 10: CL 15 in each (8th level spells)
...ends up the same. Caster Level 15 in each side (arcane/divine).

The second one… (Wiz 6 / Clr 14)
Wiz CL 13 (7th level spells)
Clr CL 17 (9th level spells)
… ends up the same. Without hoops to jump through.

Pretty neat, if you ask me.
What gets interesting to me is say that you take 16 levels of Fighter, then 1 wizard then 1 cleric then 1 psion. You end up really good as a fighter and a good talent from each of the 1 level dips.
Yes but the downside will always be less abilities in the classes you dont have as many levels in. A Wiz 1 in 4E should not have as much mojo to cast around as a Wiz 16 for example

But their power-level (ie: damage, viability of spells cast) should be near-even.
I don't expect this to be well recieved, but hear me out. I've done some thinking and I feel like I've come up with a pretty cool concept, but it is just that, a concept. I understand many D&Ders feel change is bad(Hence the usual argument over 1.0 being better than 2.0, 2.0 being better than 3.0), but the chart below is my idea of how one could deal with the concept of multi-classing. Keep in mind, my concepts are based on 3.0 and 3.5 experience.

(Below should be a chart, but obviously this posting system didn't allow that)
(If a better explanation is needed, I'll gladly post it. In the mean time, I'm going to figure out -how- to better explain this.)


Class Names / Focus of Attributes

Fighter / STR4th
Wizard / INT4th
Priest / CHA4th
Psion / WIS4th
Battle Warlock / STR3rd INT1st
Battle Cleric / STR3rd CHA1st
Battle Monk / STR3rd WIS1st
Warlock / STR2nd INT2nd
Cleric / STR2nd CHA2nd
Monk / STR2nd WIS2nd
Mystic Warlock / STR1st INT3rd
Divine Cleric / STR1st CHA3rd
Psychic Monk / STR1st WIS3rd
Mystic Theurgist / INT3rd CHA1st
Mystic Conjurer / INT3rd WIS1st
Theurgist / INT2nd CHA2nd
Conjurer / INT2nd WIS2nd
Divine Theurgist / INT1st CHA3rd
Psychic Conjurer / INT1st WIS3rd
Divine Prophet / CHA3rd WIS1st
Prophet / CHA2nd WIS2nd
Psychic Prophet / CHA1st WIS3rd

DEX and CON would be things that are more independent of class decisions, I would think.

Also, I know it seems real complicated, but it isn't, yet. If you're a full fighter, you are 4 out of 4 parts physical. If you're a priest, you're 4 out of 4 parts divine magical(a divine wizard, so to speak). In my mind, what makes rangers, thieves, barbarians, and fighters different is their skill set, just as what makes spell casters different would be their choice in divine, arcane, or psychic abilties. Rangers and thieves sneak. Rangers are wilderness(or variant: urban) survivors and trackers. Thieves are tricksters(stealing from or outwitting/outmaneuvering their opponents, also assassins could be said to be a part of the thief group, though I prefer the idea that the ranger class is closer to an assassin than a thief, but that's getting bogged down in the concept of how -I- see assassins). Barbarians are more based on a feral fighting ability and their bodies, while fighters are more based on strict training and their equipment(there are always exceptions).

Monks, Bards, Rangers(to a lesser extent), Druids(more divine magic than physical), and Sorcerers are decidedly different(forgive me if I skip a class that fits in here), as they have some sort of inherent divine/arcane power. I think this comes primarily from trying to balance the game in 3.0 as opposed to 2.0. Examples: Chi, as it is often described for the monk and wizard spells with restrictions but spontaneous casting for the Sorcerers(seems more like divine in concept). Paladins and Clerics are similar to monks, though, paladins and clerics have few differences between them. I mean, they are Divine fighters, but divine in that they hold power from their chosen deity(though some are empowered by things such as "War" domain, which I never really understood the need for. Too complicated.)

Basically, there is no real concept of a pure divine spell caster. A priest. That bugs me. Why? We have a pure arcane spell caster, and variants there-of. But, a paladin is a fighter with holy abilities. A cleric is a holy character with fighting abilities. There is no pure priest(the divine counter to an arcane spellcaster). The arcane and divine really overlap in where bonuses/buffs/damage are, but arcane can buff/debuff or damage someone, but divine can heal, buff/debuff, and damage. It also seems to me like arcane being affected by armor should go for divine spells as well or neither, though I would prefer both being affected. (Seems like, again, a strange concept. Perhaps a divine spell should be buff/debuff/heal, no damage, and arcane should be buff/debuff/damage, no heal.)

Aside from base attack bonus and hit points, they really only differ in where they prefer to place their attribute points and what feats they start with. I dislike the arbitrary concept of unequal base hit points, as well as making wizards inherently weak and warriors inherently strong. This removes the possibility of a lot of interesting combinations. If you want to argue that a warrior should be really healthy and a wizard should be sickly, that is your perogative, but my system would allow you to go either way. If I don't want to focus on health, I will focus on damage dealing, speed, etc. I think it would be nice to have everyone share a same base hp(less to have to balance against later on), + whatever con modifier they get from assigning attribute points. This can be customized to a certain extent, I know, but it can also be a pain because you have to stick with a base template. Cookie-cutters may ensue, but cookie-cutters are already part of the system anyway.

I like the idea of being a physical or magical character or multi-class, a mix of the two. Granted, it really comes down to magical(divine, arcane, psychic) vs physical(ranged, melee) or a combination there-of.


I understand if this is not well recieved, but as I asked before, give it a good once-over and let me know what you think. I also realize this seems to be the direction 3.0 took the game(2.0, as I understand it, was far more restrictive) that players were given more options, so many options(and not always well-balanced/accounted for) that it is really easy to get bogged down in modifying a class into what you want it to be(but this always feels more like trying to break the current system, to me, than just following the rules the system gives for a guide). I feel the ideas I've presented above might be even simpler to grasp and easier to follow without the conflict(between customization and conformity) the current system seems to create.

Again, let me know what you think. I'm really excited about what I've come up with as a solution and even if 4.0 doesn't come close to this, I can develop it as a house ruleset.

Thanks for your time!
There will be multiclassing. One or two of the "playtest" reports mentions it.

I'm going to go out on a limb here.

Multiclassing will be VERY similar to what is found in the Tome of Battle. Half of your non-initiator levels count as increasing your initiator level with regards to your highest level maneuver/stance known. Now, this can be applied across other classes. If something like class specific abilities/feats are being used, this makes even more sense to include. It even works for spellcasting.

How exactly does this work with more classes?

Ftr2/Wiz2:
Okay, so half the fighter levels count as Wiz levels towards Wiz casting progression. And half Wiz levels count as Ftr levels toward Ftr feat (or whatever) progression. So you're essentially Ftr3/Wiz3. Fine.

But now you add two Clr levels: Ftr2/Wiz2/Clr2:
Now are you a virtual-Ftr4/Wiz4/Clr4?

Keep adding more classes:
Ftr2/Wiz2/Clr2/Rog2/Sorc2/Druid2 becomes Ftr7/Wiz7/Clr7/Rog7/Sorc7/Druid7.
Leaving game balance out of it, it becomes a ridiculous headache to keep track of what levels add how many virtual levels to which ability progressions in which classes, for a total of what.
I don't know if this should be an edit to my previous post, so I'm going to make this a new post.

Multi-classing, as a concept, would not be ruled out using my chart above, either. It would just be taking a specific set of attributes. A level 2combination wizard + fighter would be equal to a level 2 Warlock, though they would have had different histories(One was a warlock from the beginning, the other was a wizard, then a fighter).

And no, none(i repeat, NONE) of this has anything at all to do with World of Warcraft or any other game. It's all D&D concepts/scratch concepts.

I'm not sure how training would come about for these, but I assume it would come from mentoring, to gain first level, and questing, really, for further pursuit. (Questing being the idea that a warrior would either go live in the forest fighting to survive, the wizard seeking out old tomes of knowledge/mentors/conjuring spirits of old, etc.)

Again, common sense would play a great role in this situation.

As far as what Otto the Bugbear has to offer, I agree it may be too complicated. But would the concept I presented be too complicated? I don't think so, but maybe the reason his doesn't feel too complicated to him would be that he understands his concept better than anyone else, the same would be said of myself, I suppose.
How exactly does this work with more classes?

Ftr2/Wiz2:
Okay, so half the fighter levels count as Wiz levels towards Wiz casting progression. And half Wiz levels count as Ftr levels toward Ftr feat (or whatever) progression. So you're essentially Ftr3/Wiz3. Fine.

But now you add two Clr levels: Ftr2/Wiz2/Clr2:
Now are you a virtual-Ftr4/Wiz4/Clr4?

Keep adding more classes:
Ftr2/Wiz2/Clr2/Rog2/Sorc2/Druid2 becomes Ftr7/Wiz7/Clr7/Rog7/Sorc7/Druid7.
Leaving game balance out of it, it becomes a ridiculous headache to keep track of what levels add how many virtual levels to which ability progressions in which classes, for a total of what.

Good questions. I wonder how the ToB handles that?

Now, all this will assume that each class has real abilities that are both class specific, plus they're actually level appropriate for when they're gained. Something like the way ToB handles it with better and better maneuvers.

A few definitions before I get rolling. This is to help define what I'm talking about. Overall, it works basically just like ToB, but we need names for each class-specific combat option.
Maneuver = Fighter specific tricks, only gained through taking an actual Fighter level. These have an Initiator Level (like caster level in 3.X).
Spell = Arcane Spell, only gained through taking an actual Wizard level. These have a Caster Level (like caster level in 3.X).
Prayer = Divine Spell, only gained through taking an actual Cleric level. These have a Piety Level (like caster level in 3.X).
Trick = Rogue specific tricks, only gained through taking an actual Rogue level. These have a Trickery level (like caster level in 3.X).
Charm = Sorcerer specific tricks, only gained through taking an actual Sorcerer level. These have an Influence level (like caster level in 3.X).

So, the routine becomes this...

Level 1
Fighter 1 - Initiator Level 1, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 1st level play)

Level 2
Fighter 2 - Initiator Level 2, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play)

Level 3
Wizard 1 - Caster Level 2, Spell Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); Initiator Level 2, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); Also, at this stage, he doesn't gain any new Maneuvers, since he didn't actually take a level of Fighter.

Level 4
Wizard 2 - Caster Level 3, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 3, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); Again, no new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter.

Level 5
Cleric 1 - Piety Level 3, Prayer Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Caster Level 3, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 3, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); No new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter. No new Spells, since he didn't take a level of Wizard.

Level 6
Cleric 2 - Piety Level 4, Prayer Level 2 (appropriate for 4th level play); Caster Level 4, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 4, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); No new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter. No new Spells, since he didn't take a level of Wizard.

Time for a pause.

At level 6, he now has # of divine spell known as a 2nd level cleric, with a highest spell level of 2, and casts them at CL 4. He has # of arcane spells known as a 2nd level wizard, with a highest spell level of 2, and casts them at CL 4. (Oh, and his BAB is ****.

Level 7
Rogue 1 - Trickery Level 4, Trick level 2 (appropriate for 4th level play); Piety Level 4, Prayer Level 2 (appropriate for 4th level play); Caster Level 4, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 4, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); No new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter. No new Spells, since he didn't take a level of Wizard. No new Prayers, since he didn't take a level of Cleric.

Level 8
Rogue 2 - Trickery Level 5, Trick level 3 (appropriate for 5th level play); Piety Level 5, Prayer Level 2 (appropriate for 4th level play); Caster Level 5, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 5, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); No new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter. No new Spells, since he didn't take a level of Wizard. No new Prayers, since he didn't take a level of Cleric.

Level 9
Sorcerer 1 - Influence Level 5, Charm level 3 (appropriate for 5th level play); Trickery Level 5, Trick level 3 (appropriate for 5th level play); Piety Level 5, Prayer Level 2 (appropriate for 4th level play); Caster Level 5, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 5, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); No new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter. No new Spells, since he didn't take a level of Wizard. No new Prayers, since he didn't take a level of Cleric.

Level 10
Sorcerer 2 - Influence Level 6, Charm level 3 (appropriate for 6th level play); Trickery Level 6, Trick level 3 (appropriate for 5th level play); Piety Level 6, Prayer Level 2 (appropriate for 4th level play); Caster Level 6, Spell Level 2 (appropriate for 3rd level play); Initiator Level 6, Maneuver Level 1 (appropriate for 2nd level play); No new maneuvers since he didn't take a level of Fighter. No new Spells, since he didn't take a level of Wizard. No new Prayers, since he didn't take a level of Cleric. No new tricks, since he didn't take a level of Rogue.

Second pause.

Fighter - He has a couple 1st level maneuvers, though his initiator level is boosted to 6th. He only has the initial crop chosen, plus what was gained at 2nd level, so very few of them.
Wizard - He has a couple 1st level spells, and a couple 2nd level spells, though his caster level is boosted to 6th. He has very few of those low level spells.
Cleric - Like wizard, except he gets to have 2nd level spells at CL 6, and very few of them.
Rogue - 3rd level tricks (as for 5th level play), and very few of them.
Sorcerer - 3rd level spells at CL 6th, and very few of them.

If you want, I'll keep going. All the way through 20 levels if necessary. Right now this is starting to look a lot less alarming with a longer explanation, and applying the ToB concept across the board.
Note that levels from the same power source might be fully added to your caster/intitiator/whatever level :

A rogue 2 that take a level in figther might be able to learn his figther manoeuver from the level 2 list.

In fact, if all classes use a manoeuver or spell system, it might be viable to keep full spellcasting level when multiclassing :

fighter 1 : some level 1 manoeuvers
fighter 2 : more level 1 manoeuvers
fighter 2/wizard 1 : learn some level 2 spells (caster level 3), and initiator level (for fighter manoeuvers) increase to 3
fighter 3/wizard 1 : level 2 manoeuvers, caster level and initiator level both increased to 4

and so on ...

Seem overpowered ? Not exactly, as such a character would have the same power level as someone with only one class, but will have his special powers coming from two power sources : martial and arcane.

He would have some spells, and be as powerful as a monoclassed wizard the same level, but wouldn't know as many spells.
He would be as powerful as a monoclassed fighter, but would know as many manoeuvers.

It all classes are done with the same basic structure (with special powers gained each level for all classes, plus feats and talents each other levels as in SW SAGA) so that no class is gimped by multiclassing, it might work (if done correctly and heavily tested)

Currently it couldn't work in 3.5, with some classes using only at will powers (fighters), and others only /per day powers (spellcasters)

With all classes having at will, per encounter, and per day powers, multiclassing might mean chosing powers from another class, but not losing raw power.
I'm having some trouble finding out if multiclassing has been explicated addressed in 4ed. From what I've gotten, it seems that they might be focusing more on flushing out the hybrid classes rather than implement multiclassing. I guess the reason for this is so that the classes have this more 'definite' rolls in the game and its much easier to have a class called Spellsword than Wizard/Fighter.

Honestly, my impression was the opposite. As has already been mentioned, we've been promised that multiclassing works at any level. The general impression I've gotten is that the design philosophy is more toward having fewer classes but more customisation/options within those classes (which cover the roles of other classes), with the promise of workable multiclassing as well then we end up with no need for hybrid classes since you should be able to pull off the same result simply with multiclassing.
hear hear, fewer classes and more breadth of play for those classes! :D