Legends & Lore: Gen Con Bound! (August 12)

I hope the next packet is around the corner. The math fixes seem important

I like how they are doing 3.x multiclassing. Without havving ridiculous things like instantly learning all armor and weapons if you take 1 level of fighter. I also like the mix and matching of casters. I am however concerned about might and magic combos. I think fixes with subclasses are not really a solution. Especially the half and half situation should be viable.
After the last playtest packet, we're almost done with the classes, races, and other core elements of the game. We haven't shown off multiclassing yet, but it will be in the next packet.



Yep, told you so. A couple packets left and its over with people. You can head on home if what we have in our hands isn't what you were looking for.


  • In order to multiclass, you simply take a level in a new character class when you gain a level.

  • The math for attack bonuses, saving throws, and so on scales based on your overall character level, so you don't have to worry about accidentally breaking your character.

  • Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.

  • What if you combine a fighter and a mage, or a caster class with one that isn't a caster? If you want to dive deeply into such a combination, we're designing a set of subclasses that cater directly to spellcasting. The eldritch knight is a fighter subclass that augments a fighter/mage combination. The warden subclass gives a ranger/druid the flavor and forms of that character class.

  • Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels.

  • For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor.



How does the math on attack bonuses scale with character level? We know that saves don't scale unless you up ability scores, or get class features, something that with the feats we have will be the last option not the first.

Spells and spell power sounds ok like he describes here, except that you can only pick scaling spells if you multiclass like that or you are wasting your time.

Patched on sub-classes don't need to be in the game. They need to use those classes for what they are iconically for and not patches.

The last few are sound, except for the fact that some people don't want to play gritty at the first three levels...
"Unite the [fan] base? Hardly. As of right now, I doubt their ability to unite a slightly unruly teabag with a cup of water."--anjelika
1-4E play style
The 4E play style is a high action cinematic style of play where characters worry less about being killed in one hit and more about strategy and what their next move is and the one after it. The players talk back and forth about planning a battle and who can do what to influence the outcome. 4E play is filled with cinematic over the top action. An Eladrin teleports out of the grip of the Ogre. The Fighter slams the dragons foot with his hammer causing it to rear up and stagger back in pain. The Cleric creates a holy zone where their allies weapons are guided to their targets and whenever an enemy dies the Clerics allies are healed. 4E is about knowing when to lauch your nova attack, whether its a huge arcane spell that causes enemies to whirl around in a chaotic storm, or if its a trained adrenaline surge that causes you to attack many many times with two weapons on a single target, or a surge of adrenaline that keeps you going though you should already be dead. Its about tactics and the inability to carry around a bag of potions or a few wands and never have to worry about healing. Its about the guy that can barely role play having the same chance to convince the king to aid the group as the guy that takes improv acting classes and regularly stars as an extra on movies.
Stormwind Fallacy
The Stormwind Fallacy, aka the Roleplayer vs Rollplayer Fallacy Just because one optimizes his characters mechanically does not mean that they cannot also roleplay, and vice versa. Corollary: Doing one in a game does not preclude, nor infringe upon, the ability to do the other in the same game. Generalization 1: One is not automatically a worse role player if he optimizes, and vice versa. Generalization 2: A non-optimized character is not automatically role played better than an optimized one, and vice versa. ...[aside]... Proof: These two elements rely on different aspects of a player's game play. Optimization factors in to how well one understands the rules and handles synergies to produce a very effective end result. Role playing deals with how well a player can act in character and behave as if he was someone else. A person can act while understanding the rules, and can build something powerful while still handling an effective character. There is nothing in the game -- mechanical or otherwise -- restricting one if you participate in the other. Claiming that an optimizer cannot role play (or is participating in a play style that isn't supportive of role playing) because he is an optimizer, or vice versa, is committing the Stormwind Fallacy.
The spells we should getLook here to Check out my adventures and ideas. I've started a blog, about video games, table top role playing games, programming, and many other things its called Kel and Lok Games. My 4E Fantasy Grounds game is currently full.
Given the recent pattern of releasing packets before each new season of Encounters, I would say we are looking at November for the next major packet.
I am intrigued by the prospect of subclasses like the eldritch knight and the warden. Perhaps we might see an arcane trickster and an inquisitor for rogues. Or a divine fanatic for barbarians.

IMAGE(http://www.nodiatis.com/pub/10.jpg)

Didn't they release a new packet with the Barbarian at the last Gen Con? If so, its possible we might see a new packet with the Bard fairly soon. 
"After the last playtest packet, we're almost done with the classes, races, and other core elements of the game."

/spit take

Really? Classes are utter garbage, and races are still rife with issues. If this is done... I can't even think about the result. This has to be a bad joke. Where's Ashton Kutcher telling me I've been Punk'd?

" Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.

What if you combine a fighter and a mage, or a caster class with one that isn't a caster? If you want to dive deeply into such a combination, we're designing a set of subclasses that cater directly to spellcasting. The eldritch knight is a fighter subclass that augments a fighter/mage combination. The warden subclass gives a ranger/druid the flavor and forms of that character class."

This was one of the worst elements of 3.5. Why in the world would you want to replicate it?

"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."

Not really. Apprentice Levels don't prevent synergy. They only limit players who want to play something other than farm hands at first level (I can already hear the replies to which I am going to have to respond with AT FIRST LEVEL!) or who want 20 levels of the Adventurer Tier.

This L&L seems to be validating all of the pessimistic thoughts many people have had for months.
How does the math on attack bonuses scale with character level? We know that saves don't scale unless you up ability scores, or get class features, something that with the feats we have will be the last option not the first.



I'm pretty sure that most static bonuses from classes are going to reworked to be from +1 to +6 and scale at a standard rate. Proficiencies will then determine whethor or not you apply that class bonus to a roll or not. Consequently, the "penalty" for acting outside of your character's proficiencies will increase as characters gain levels. But yeah, the distribution of features over the levels for each class will make multiclassing a mess, especially now that feats and abilty scores are dependent on it. Oh well.
Given the recent pattern of releasing packets before each new season of Encounters, I would say we are looking at November for the next major packet. I am intrigued by the prospect of subclasses like the eldritch knight and the warden. Perhaps we might see an arcane trickster and an inquisitor for rogues. Or a divine fanatic for barbarians.


During one of the live streams we were told likely after gencon for a play test packet.  Of course it's always possible that the one we just got was meant to be that one but the impression I had after the confirmation bards and multiclassing will be in it I don't think it's that far off.

I'm more worried bards will be one of those subclasses to augment multiclasses than the release date on it, however.
I think it's important that caster/non-caster multiclassing works as well as caster/caster multiclassing.

What they could do is design a scaling class feature for each martial class which is only gained by characters that do not multiclass into caster classes; and let those who do trade this class feature for an additional caster level (in terms of spells per day, highest spell level etc) of, say 1/2 per non-caster class level.
After the last playtest packet, we're almost done with the classes, races, and other core elements of the game. We haven't shown off multiclassing yet, but it will be in the next packet.



Yep, told you so. A couple packets left and its over with people. You can head on home if what we have in our hands isn't what you were looking for.


I'd be a lot more impressed if you hadn't been "telling us so" every packet since like Octobre. You say the next packet will be the last one every packet and you're bound to be right eventually. But the state of the mechanics has changed drastically since you started telling us it was almost over. And they still haven't even started their math fix. That will take at least two more packets, one to show us their math fixes and get our feedback on them, and a second to adjust further based on feedback. It may be more if their math fixes are way off. In fact, now more than ever is the time to get involved if you care about making sure the math works well, which I do. They came right out and told us they were not worried about the math until the got the base mechanics down. They've almost got them down now, so we can finally get to the really important part.


  • In order to multiclass, you simply take a level in a new character class when you gain a level.

  • The math for attack bonuses, saving throws, and so on scales based on your overall character level, so you don't have to worry about accidentally breaking your character.

  • Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.

  • What if you combine a fighter and a mage, or a caster class with one that isn't a caster? If you want to dive deeply into such a combination, we're designing a set of subclasses that cater directly to spellcasting. The eldritch knight is a fighter subclass that augments a fighter/mage combination. The warden subclass gives a ranger/druid the flavor and forms of that character class.

  • Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels.

  • For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor.



How does the math on attack bonuses scale with character level? We know that saves don't scale unless you up ability scores, or get class features, something that with the feats we have will be the last option not the first.

Spells and spell power sounds ok like he describes here, except that you can only pick scaling spells if you multiclass like that or you are wasting your time.

Patched on sub-classes don't need to be in the game. They need to use those classes for what they are iconically for and not patches.

The last few are sound, except for the fact that some people don't want to play gritty at the first three levels...

 
do you actually read the L&Ls and Q&As, or just skim them for things to criticize? Mearls has already said (I think it was in the L&L before last) the next packet is going to contain a big math fix, which will include a scaling bonus to both attacks and saves based on character level (as opposed to level in your class).

Yep, multiclassing has advantages and disadvantages. Were you expecting otherwise?

The purpose of the subclasses is to balance multiclassing, not to shoehorn a concept into the game. Don't get your knickers in a twist over the nomenclature, there are sure to be full classes to cover what ever concept you could want in future splats.
Wouln't it be easier to just letter a caster/noncaster have spells per day of a caster of his character level but only prepare the spells off his caster level?

So a mage3/fighter 3 has 4/3/3 but can only prepare 4 spells.

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!

Wouln't it be easier to just letter a caster/noncaster have spells per day of a caster of his character level but only prepare the spells off his caster level?

So a mage3/fighter 3 has 4/3/3 but can only prepare 4 spells.



That doesn't work for me becaue I think there needs to be some kind of safeguard against it being stupid to stay full martial instead of getting that one level in wizard for the ability to cast level 9 sleeps and such.
Wouln't it be easier to just letter a caster/noncaster have spells per day of a caster of his character level but only prepare the spells off his caster level?

So a mage3/fighter 3 has 4/3/3 but can only prepare 4 spells.



When I first read it, this is what I thought he meant - and it seemed great at first. The biggest problem I saw with this after a while was that you could be a 19 Fighter 1 Wizard would have all the Fighter stuff AND cast as many spells as a Level 20 Wizard (even if he could only cast Burning Hands or similar first level spells).

The fix I found for this would be to have the caster level determine how many spells of each level (cascading backwards from the max spell level the character would be allowed to cast) - and then the character level determine what the maximum level spell would be.

(So a 19 Fighter 1 Wizard would have 2 Spells at Level 9 (2lvl9), whereas a 15 Fighter 5 Wizard  would have 2lvl9 3lvl8 4lvl7 spell slots)

How does that sound?

That doesn't work for me becaue I think there needs to be some kind of safeguard against it being stupid to stay full martial instead of getting that one level in wizard for the ability to cast level 9 sleeps and such.



See above solution. (Ok, the Fighter can still cast 9th level Sleep, but he can't ALSO cast 8th Level Sleep and 7th Level Sleep, and 6th Level Sleep etc.)

Also this way we don't need a Fighter subclass to allow the above to happen anyway. 
Wouln't it be easier to just letter a caster/noncaster have spells per day of a caster of his character level but only prepare the spells off his caster level?

So a mage3/fighter 3 has 4/3/3 but can only prepare 4 spells.



That doesn't work for me becaue I think there needs to be some kind of safeguard against it being stupid to stay full martial instead of getting that one level in wizard for the ability to cast level 9 sleeps and such.



How about if noncasters count as half

So mage3/fighter 3 has the spells per day of a mage 4 and the perpared spels of a mage 3.

A fighter 19/mage1 has the slots of a mage 10. With DCs bases on spell level, he would be able to cast offensively against on level challengers.

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!

So wait if I'm reading this right.... combine two casters, get the best of both worlds from both with no sacrifices. Combine a caster and a non-caster, and to get the benefits you have to give up your subclass on the non-caster side?



I mean I can understand having a cost to maintain full spell progression while multiclassing. That's a big ****ing deal. But why is there not a subclass option for Wizard or Cleric to allow them to combine with another casting class, rather than just giving it to them automatically for free?

I mean, did we really need more ways to introduce more versatility to casting classes? Really? 
So wait if I'm reading this right.... combine two casters, get the best of both worlds from both with no sacrifices. Combine a caster and a non-caster, and to get the benefits you have to give up your subclass on the non-caster side?



I mean I can understand having a cost to maintain full spell progression while multiclassing. That's a big ****ing deal. But why is there not a subclass option for Wizard or Cleric to allow them to combine with another casting class, rather than just giving it to them automatically for free?

I mean, did we really need more ways to introduce more versatility to casting classes? Really? 




According to what I see it isn't free for dual casters.
You get the spells per day of your full character class.
But you prepare from your actual class levels.

So a mageX/clericY can only prepare X+1 mage spells and Y+1 cleric spells and get the domain spells of a level Y cleric. You lose versalitility withiin your class. Factor in MAD and longer waiit times for abilities boosts, a dual caster will be very limited.

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!

So wait if I'm reading this right.... combine two casters, get the best of both worlds from both with no sacrifices. Combine a caster and a non-caster, and to get the benefits you have to give up your subclass on the non-caster side?



I mean I can understand having a cost to maintain full spell progression while multiclassing. That's a big ****ing deal. But why is there not a subclass option for Wizard or Cleric to allow them to combine with another casting class, rather than just giving it to them automatically for free?

I mean, did we really need more ways to introduce more versatility to casting classes? Really? 



I don't realy see what problem you are hinting at.

To me it eems they will make the spells per day for difrent classes the same so there is 1 level based spell slot progression.
So a level 5 wizard/ level5 cleric  would have the same number of spell slots availible as a 10 level wizard or 10 level cleric.
But the wicard/cleric would share these slots between the 2 classes.

for example i will take the current wizard spell progression.

10 level mage can prepare 11 mage spells and would have 4/3/3/3/3 spell slots availible.

A level 5mage/5 cleric can prepare 6 wizard and 6 cleric spells and has 4/3/3/3/3 spell slots availible, so his spell slots are now shared between the 2 classes.

a level 5 wizard/level 5 fighter could prepare 6 mage spells and has 4/3/3/3/3 spell slots availible.
the eldritch knight would add benefits for this combination like being able to cast touch spells trough weapon attacks

 
Youngy, Orzel: see my suggestion in post #9 in this thread:

I think it's important that caster/non-caster multiclassing works as well as caster/caster multiclassing.

What they could do is design a scaling class feature for each martial class which is only gained by characters that do not multiclass into caster classes; and let those who do trade this class feature for an additional caster level (in terms of spells per day, highest spell level etc) of, say 1/2 per non-caster class level.



So I do think 1/2 caster level per non-caster level is the way to go. But there really needs to be a further trade-off; otherwise, going Fighter/Wizard level 19/1 for caster level 10 over Fighter level 20 is still a no-brainer.

As to the nature of the trade-off class feature: if indomitable were a scaling +x to all saves instead of advantage, that would be an obvious candidate. It even makes some sense fluff-wise to trade this particular benefit for spellcasting power, imho. But the details aren't important right now; I'm sure the design team could come up with something good.
I used to be against the +1 -> +6 uniform to all classes, but I now see that it's the only way to keep the core game simple in light of the 3.0 multiclassing. 

I'm really happy at this.

If Mearls can just nuke Second Wind from the fighter, it's getting close to being ready for me.

Hopefully for next packet we can then focus on helping them tweak the math rather listen to so many wild ideas in every direction that really have zero chance of being in the core rules. 

Also loved the bit about ranger / druid as warden.

and ps. A level 19 fighter + 1 wizard will still be weaker than a level 20 fighter IMO, even with a level 9 buffed sleep spell. Maybe once they come out with tons of scaling spells in splatbooks it could be more easily broken. This is the perfect edition for Wuxia-style fighters !! Take 5 levels of wizard so you can actually cast Fly, and stop pretending magical powers are non-magic. I love it.

Seems weird to want to gloat at a logically consistent narrative being adhered to in an RPG with elves and dragons, but I will indulge myself for a brief moment due to all the grief this board has given me. Hehehe. 

Lokiare, you did call it, didn't you. I was sometimes skeptical whether Mearls would be able to hold out vs the vocal minority on the boards and trust his instincts (backed by the playtest poll results), but there are so many good ideas in here, that it's a good time after the next packet to find all the math bugs in this paradigm, focus on fixing those rather than pie-in-the-sky delusions about changing the game as-is drastically into something unrecognizable such as no d20 rolls, or mana-systems for wizards, or DR instead of AC ( I used to love that idea but realized it mostly just slows the game down. HP already simulates DR, kinda)
I hope the next packet is around the corner. The math fixes seem important

I like how they are doing 3.x multiclassing. Without havving ridiculous things like instantly learning all armor and weapons if you take 1 level of fighter. I also like the mix and matching of casters. I am however concerned about might and magic combos. I think fixes with subclasses are not really a solution. Especially the half and half situation should be viable.

But what about the monk?  He seems to get the most features at level 1.
This sounds like a colossal mess waiting to happen.  Do not want.
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.

After the last playtest packet, we're almost done with the classes, races, and other core elements of the game.



I sure hope not.

In order to multiclass, you simply take a level in a new character class when you gain a level.

The math for attack bonuses, saving throws, and so on scales based on your overall character level, so you don't have to worry about accidentally breaking your character.



Sounds good so far.

I'm curious how multiple attacks are handled, however.

And since you give each class its own feat progression, how does that work? This is yet another reason to have feats progress based on character level, rather than class level. Doing otherwise is just not going to work well with 3rd edition style multiclassing! 

Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.



Interesting. But since each class has a different spells per day progression, which one do you get? Do you just take the better one?

What if you combine a fighter and a mage, or a caster class with one that isn't a caster? If you want to dive deeply into such a combination, we're designing a set of subclasses that cater directly to spellcasting. The eldritch knight is a fighter subclass that augments a fighter/mage combination. The warden subclass gives a ranger/druid the flavor and forms of that character class.



So if you want to be an effective multiclass character that mixes a magic and non-magic using class, you have to be a certain subclass? I don't like that at all. Why can't you just give them the spells per day of their total character level, but only spells prepared of their caster class's level?   
 
Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels.



If you say so.

For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor.



This I totally disagree with. Why should one fighter/wizard have fewer proficincies than another fighter/wizard, just because he happened to take wizard first?
   

Mmm, retrofitting 3e-style multiclass in through special cases and exception rules... I can see this not going through too smoothly.


Hoping for the best, but preparing for the worse: can we have multiclassing at least spelled out as optional, so that if it turns out to be a mess it can be taken off easily without big arguments at the table?

Looking forward to the multiclassing rules. The Apprentice Tters of play will help with class dipping. Proficiency fracturing also means you won't just get all of a class Profs by multiclassing. All in all it sounds more balanced than 3.x multiclassing. 
I think fracturing weapon proficiency is unnecessary at this point.

The issue in the 3e was that the warrior classes had no strong scaling classes. Their BAB wasn't that far ahead. No one wanted more than 1 or 2 bonus feats and few fighter feats scaled. And warrior class features don't scale.


Now, everyone has the same to hit, weapon skill is tied to multi attacks, and feats are optional.

So what if a wizard snatches proficiency with all weapons, they still stink in combat.

The issue is armor proficiency. Multiclassing cannot grant thoses due to the streamlining of armor.

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!

The issue is armor proficiency. Multiclassing cannot grant thoses due to the streamlining of armor.



Should a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 have better armor proficiencies than a Wizard 1/Fighter 1?
I don´t believe a fighter 19/mage 1 is the worst idea. The shield spell cast at level 1 is good enough to warrant a level dip in mage. He also gets the utility of quite a few useful spells and he does not even lose attack bonus. So I don´t believe it is a bad tradeoff.
The real problematic case is fighter10/mage10 as the fighter gives up his triple attack and does not even get 6th level spells. Maybe there will be an elegant solution, but i can´t think of any.

A Mage 19/Fighter 1 is also more problematic, as he does not even give up spell slots for quite some improved survivability.
In my opinion the solution would be not only having limited acces to proficiencies for multiclassed fighters, but IMHO every class should only have their full set of proficiencies at 3rd level. A fighter could reasonably start with only medium armor proficiency and a single melee or ranged martial weapon at level one. This would also increase customizability. At second level he would get another proficiency and maybe even heavy armor, and finally at level 3 he gets all the rest.

As to deciding which class gets whichspel list. I would welcome a unified spell list for mages and ceric. The now slightly better table for mages should be going to the wizardry entry. Either a wizard can cast one more spell of level 1 at level 1, 2 at level 3 etc. Or the arcane recovery feature should be improved (which was my favourite). This way, the nova potential would be reduced.
A different kind of idea would be giving the wizard another option to recover an already cast spell: Once per encounter if he is out of spells, he could be able to spend an action to recover an already cast wizard spell which he used that encounter. Would be a nice alternative to cantrip spamming.
Multiclassing with spellcasting classes is somewhat similar. Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast. Your levels in those individual classes determine which spells you can prepare. For instance, a 3rd-level mage/3rd-level cleric casts spells per day as a 6th-level character, but can choose to prepare spells available to a 3rd-level wizard or to a 3rd-level cleric. Luckily, our scaling spells ensure that you can still get the most bang for your spells.



How does this work with Paladins and Rangers? Can they take 1 level in wizard to get a wizard's spells per day?
The issue is armor proficiency. Multiclassing cannot grant thoses due to the streamlining of armor.



Should a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 have better armor proficiencies than a Wizard 1/Fighter 1?



Yes. He also has better hp. Question is: what gets the wizard 1 in return. My favourite option would be cantrips which should not be available to Fighter1/Wizard1
The real question is, should there be a difference between a fighter 10/wizard 10 who gets it by going 10 levels of fighter then 10 levels of wizard, vs one that goes 10 wizard 10 fighter, vs one that alternates W/F/W/F through his career versus one that alternates F/W/F/W vs one that goes 3W/2F/2F/3W/... or whatever.  And why should there be?  Why add this quadratic level of awkwardness and complication to a game whose expressed goal is to be simple and accessible to players from all editions?
Harrying your Prey, the Easy Way: A Hunter's Handbook - the first of what will hopefully be many CharOp efforts on my part. The Blinker - teleport everywhere. An Eladrin Knight/Eldritch Knight. CB != rules source.
My biggest concern is still bounded accuracy, and having a boring, flat game, without any level of distinction for armor or related items. Basically everything it determine when the character starts and maybe add a few adjustments. So where you had increasing scale in 3E and 4E, you remove it in 5E. Same problem, just a different way of dealing with it, and you lose options as a result. So with anything in 5E the solution to making something challenging is add to the game, i.e. more hit points, more monsters, more magic, etc. or worse add invulnerability, only hit by magic, or other cheesy bandaids with legendary creatures. And we have even discussed fixing monsters yet.

And finally, the fighter and other martial characters still needs abilities to immobolize, stun, or related abilities similar to a ranger being able to automatically track, hide, etc. The types of abilites for each class are all over the place, including sub-systems like the fighter rolling expertise dice against attribute modifiers without any scaling to distinguish the high level fighter versus a lower one, and features like push are very weak, and will never be used.

It does not look like a game I would purchase, so I hope they have a rabbit and a hat and hope for the best.

It does not look like a game I would purchase, so I hope they have a rabbit and a hat and hope for the best.


I am with you.  I just wonder how many people will get it because they print "Dungeons & Dragons" on the box(so thinking of Tommy Boy right now).

The issue is armor proficiency. Multiclassing cannot grant thoses due to the streamlining of armor.



Should a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 have better armor proficiencies than a Wizard 1/Fighter 1?



Yes and no

The issue is not equal multiclassing.
It is dipping. In 3e, PCs got little from dipping other than broken math and meeting prereqs. The DDN idea would do the opposite, stable math and power.

The problem DDN ties offense to level (# of attacks, higher slots) but defense to gp (armor costs).

Giving a wizard a greatsword does nothing because weapon effectiveness increases with # of attacks.

Giving a wizard plate increase their defense as the wizard doesn't need X fighter levels to have good AC.


DDN is cursed by its simplicity.
By having no arcane check or banning casting in armor, the wizard causes a problem.

Its the same as what is happening with skill classes but no core skill system.

Spells DC but no saving throw bonuses.

etc etc. 

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!

The issue is armor proficiency. Multiclassing cannot grant thoses due to the streamlining of armor.



Should a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 have better armor proficiencies than a Wizard 1/Fighter 1?



Yes and no

The issue is not equal multiclassing.
It is dipping. In 3e, PCs got little from dipping other than broken math and meeting prereqs. The DDN idea would do the opposite, stable math and power.



Why is it "dipping" for a 2nd level character, gaining his first level in fighter, to get all martial weapon and all armor proficiencies, but not for a 1st level character, gaining his first level in fighter? If proficiencies are going to be automatically granted to members of a class, they shouldn't take that away from multiclass characters "just because." Proficiencies were never the best things to "dip" for, anyway.

Giving a wizard plate increase their defense as the wizard doesn't need X fighter levels to have good AC.



Wizards can already have a good AC, if they have a good Dex and have mage armor. All heavy armor proficiency does is let a wizard have a good AC without having a good Dex or casting mage armor, but at the cost of certain drawbacks (like disadvantage on stealth, encumberance, and most importantly: reduced speed). I'm not seeing a problem.
The problem is no one is going to invest in heavy armor unless they get it for free. To many advantages for taking the dexterity route with medium armor or spells. They probably only need two types of armor, i.e. light and heavy. You can add dex to light armor and str to heavy. If you class allows it, then con can be added to no armor. Which would make perfect sense for a monk or even a barbarian, because they have more hit points, since they do not rely on armor. And con also represents the extra training it takes to survive in a world with armor, and thus the bonus to AC.
If you multiclass a lot you will not be seeing feats ever so it may end up like Pathfinder where multiclass is not worth doing that much.

 Looks like they are also using elements from SWSE where MCing did not get you all of the soldiers armor and weapon proficiencies. Probably see more interest and hype as well although the usual suspect will be "the sky is falling".

 Fear is the Mind Killer

 

The mage1/fighter1 to fighter1/mage1 asymmetry can be easily fixed by:

1. Spreading armor proficiencies over apprentice tier levels (1 for light, 2 for medium, 3 for heavy).

2. Adding an additional [max(higher) - default(higher)] - [max(lower) - default(lower)] hit points when multiclassing into a class with bigger hit dice. So for mage1 to mage1/fighter1, that's (10-6) - (6-4) = 2 additional hit points. You are thereafter treated as if you had started with a maxed d10 for further multiclassing purposes.

A more serious problem is the ease of grabbing second wind by getting a single fighter level, and action surge by getting just two.
So much for a modular D&D for everybody. Looks like they've decided to ram 2.5E combined with one of the worst aspects of 3E down everybody's throat.

 
...whatever
The issue is armor proficiency. Multiclassing cannot grant thoses due to the streamlining of armor.



Should a Fighter 1/Wizard 1 have better armor proficiencies than a Wizard 1/Fighter 1?



Yes and no

The issue is not equal multiclassing.
It is dipping. In 3e, PCs got little from dipping other than broken math and meeting prereqs. The DDN idea would do the opposite, stable math and power.



Why is it "dipping" for a 2nd level character, gaining his first level in fighter, to get all martial weapon and all armor proficiencies, but not for a 1st level character, gaining his first level in fighter? If proficiencies are going to be automatically granted to members of a class, they shouldn't take that away from multiclass characters "just because." Proficiencies were never the best things to "dip" for, anyway.

Giving a wizard plate increase their defense as the wizard doesn't need X fighter levels to have good AC.



Wizards can already have a good AC, if they have a good Dex and have mage armor. All heavy armor proficiency does is let a wizard have a good AC without having a good Dex or casting mage armor, but at the cost of certain drawbacks (like disadvantage on stealth, encumberance, and most importantly: reduced speed). I'm not seeing a problem.



Mage armor costs a spell slot (or cantrip).

A issue is a raw fighter dip by a mage gives you access to light and medium armor (as plus second wind and more HP).

The mage just goes a level behind on ability increases and subclass and can prepare one less spell. But wearing real armor removes the need for preparing mage armor (canceling it out. Curse my powergaming muscles).

The key is to make the first level useable but not too attractive. That is how 4e feat based multiclassing failed.

So you have to either nerf multiclassing, change the class, or change the offending rules. 

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 can see that several of the players in our Friday night group will be designing subclasses to create 2e-style "multiclassed" characters. The 3e method just won't work for those. Some of us want to play the blended character at 1st level.

In memory of wrecan and his Unearthed Wrecana.

Sign In to post comments