|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 7:33PM
#21
|
Date Joined:
Apr 16, 2009
|
A blog relevant to the current discussion - Monkey's Musings: On Multi-Classing.
Edit: Linking isn't working, here's the URL - community.wizards.com/crazy_monkey/blog/...
I like the idea of a MC theme, but I think you're making it too hard by saying you need an individual theme for every class. I think you could have a generic multiclass theme that will work with every class more or less. Powers at least would be simple (you gain an at-will power from the class as the theme's granted encounter power, similar to Dilettante, and beyond that you could swap out x number of powers). The only hard part would be finding a way to handle class features, but I think with some trial and error it could be done.
And I think the best and easiest way to deal with that "only hard part" is to have AT LEAST one multiclass theme per class. Many, perhaps most, would need more than one.
The multiclass themes would look somewhat like 4E Hybrid Talent options, with the 4E multiclass powerswaps thrown in for free.
Maybe multiclassing could come in 3 stages with each as prerequisite for the next:
1) A 4E-style multiclass entry feat - for the dabbler who picks up a trick. Include using one level-1 at-will attack power as an encounter power, or a free utility-power power-swap, or something like that.
2) A multiclass theme - for everyone from the freelance student to the true dual-classer, and your leveling-up must be divided between the two classes.
3) A second multiclass theme - for the convert, once you take this you level up as if single-classed in your new class only. You never advance further in your original class.
"The world does not work the way you have been taught it does. We are not real as such; we exist within The Story. Unfortunately for you, you have inherited a condition from your mother known as Primary Protagonist Syndrome, which means The Story is interested in you. It will find you, and if you are not ready for the narrative strands it will throw at you..." - from Footloose
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 7:41PM
#22
|
Date Joined:
Aug 30, 2007
|
And I think the best and easiest way to deal with that "only hard part" is to have AT LEAST one multiclass theme per class. Many, perhaps most, would need more than one.
That is one way to do it. I'm still working on the details, but I'm convinced that there is an easier way.
Owner and Proprietor of the House of Trolls.
God of ownership and possession.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 7:56PM
#23
|
Date Joined:
Feb 16, 2012
|
here's an unusual idea.
What if you had some "initiation feats", which would be very similar to the Mundane zero levels like Cavaliers used to have in order to qualify for level 1.
You can then dump XP into the new class. I don't know.. I was just thinking there's different approaches on how to handle attack bonuses and Hit points. In AD&D your hit points became stupid (as in they stopped using dice) around level 9, which meant there were all sorts of Heroes and demigods with unexplainably high hit points. I figure since the player characters are supposed to become the heroes of the campaign, there's no reason they should be barred from the same advanced HP.
Perhaps if Heroic and godlike beings had Max hit points added from all levels, and then characters on an ascension or legend path could earn say, 5,000 XP to 20,000 XP per hit point to get their hit points up to their Dice maximums?
So lets' say you rolled 19d10+38, and got 168 hit points. Your technical maximum would be 228, so you would need to earn 300,000 to 1,200,000 extra experience points to fix your hit points. You could then say something to the effect of "you must max out your hit points before you can quest for immortality".
This kind of system would allow epic characters to be more consistent with Heroes, Legends, and Deities, but would also make Multiclass hit points more clean.
Complex Attack Bonus Solution
Perhaps if characters had to pay increasing increments for their attack bonus, then the lower increment bonuses you might get for multiple classes wouldn't be so horrible. Let's say Fighters got points equal to their level, while other characters got 2/3rds, 1/2, or 1/3rd.
So to get from 0 to +1 costs 1,
to get from 1 to 2 costs 2,
to get from 2 to 3 costs 3,
and so on.
to get from 0 to +10 costs 55 total.
to get from 0 to +20 costs 210 total.
Now my math is a bit fuzzy and there's probably a better way of saying what i'm saying, but the point is, if you are a level 20 fighter level 20 barbarian, you only have 420 points to spend on Attack bonuses, but 420 only buys the following:
420-210 = 210 (+20)
210-21 = 189 (+21)
189-22 = 167 (+22)
167-23 = 144 (+23)
144-24 = 120 (+24)
120-25 = 95 (+25)
95-26 = 69 (+26)
69-27 = 42 (+27)
42-28 = 14 (+28)
For a total of +28, with 14 points to spare. you might be able to buy specializations this way too - increasing the cost each time.
Other Classes at level 20:
Cleric: 140 points
Rogue: 105 points
Mage: 70 points
This math isn't perfect, and some may find it really complicated, but the idea is, when you have a bunch of levels added together, you don't end up with +60 or whatever to hit. You still get some bonuses, but they aren't broken.
Options are Liberating
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 8:38PM
#24
|
|
|
What if you had some "initiation feats", which would be very similar to the Mundane zero levels like Cavaliers used to have in order to qualify for level 1.
I like this idea a lot, and I personally feel the biggest problem with Prestige Classes in 3e was that they often lacked a real mechanical requirement ("Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus +6" does not count as a real requirement, if you catch my drift). I think if all classes, heroic and prestigious (and epic) had forced-feat related prerequisites (like 2 or 3 each), you would see less of the "beardyness" of multiclassing from 3e, but you would still be able to have the "dabble in another class" of 4e.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 8:58PM
#25
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
I like this idea a lot, and I personally feel the biggest problem with Prestige Classes in 3e was that they often lacked a real mechanical requirement ("Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus +6" does not count as a real requirement, if you catch my drift).
Those sort of things was just a roundabout way of saying "Must be Fighter or similar" (or similar, for the not-fightery PrCs). Otherwise, I didn't catch your drift at all.
A better way of handing Prestige Classes would be to just have a single requirement, for all of them, of an arbitrary character level (like, say, ten?). It's usally pretty obvious what basic classes are meant to go into what prestige classes, but there's really no need to overtly forbid someone from experimenting with a "wrong" one.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 9:06PM
#26
|
|
|
I like this idea a lot, and I personally feel the biggest problem with Prestige Classes in 3e was that they often lacked a real mechanical requirement ("Prerequisite: Base Attack Bonus +6" does not count as a real requirement, if you catch my drift).
Those sort of things was just a roundabout way of saying "Must be Fighter or similar" (or similar, for the not-fightery PrCs). Otherwise, I didn't catch your drift at all.
You caught my drift, which is why I said I didn't consider those to be "real prerequisites," and prestige classes like that did nothing to stop the multi-multi-multi-classing bloat. If all classes had a 2-3 feat requirement (not necessarily dissimilar to the way 4e PHB1 handles multiclassing, but I could see other methods), and only then could you level up in that class, it would really cut down on a lot of that horizontal bloat, but still allow for ratios beyond 90/10 and 50/50.
Somnia, the Evanescent Plane -- A 3-set Block
Show
Theora, A World of Modern Science
Show
Build Around This
Show
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 9:21PM
#27
|
Date Joined:
May 18, 2002
|
You caught my drift, which is why I said I didn't consider those to be "real prerequisites," and prestige classes like that did nothing to stop the multi-multi-multi-classing bloat.
And the opposite of that was the way Saga Edition handled PrC's, which encouraged "multi-multi-multi-classing bloat".
The root cause was 3E's class structure trying too hard to be "not 2E" and discarding the concept of Subclasses, which then forced the designers to use those sort of "BAB 7", "arbitrary ranks in various Rogue class skills", etc. to appear open to pretty much anyone, when what they really wanted was "seven levels of Fighter or subclass", "five levels of Rogue or subclass" etc.
But even worse were the PrC's that all but completely mandated a player's build from the very first level.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 9:55PM
#28
|
Date Joined:
Nov 15, 2007
|
I think the best thing to do is to take the best from each edition, but slightly tweak them. Take 2nd edition Dual Classing but remove the human only restriction and modify the no usage of previous class abilities. I’m not even sure it still needs to be there. This would portray the person starting as one thing but switching to something else. Probably needs to have a minimum level, though I’m not sure. I think this should definitely be restricted to two classes only. If you want a third you would use one of the other two options. Take 3.5 Gestalt (which is mostly 4E hybrid). The benefit to choosing this instead of 4E’s hybrid is that it doesn’t have to happen at level one. This covers the people who want bits of two classes blended together. Take 4E feats but make them better. I don’t have specific improvements on this one, but there needs to be more options and a better cost/benefit set up. If done right this should cover the 3.5 dipping, but not be as exploitable. I believe this would cover just about every possibility. Though, I’m not sure. Does anyone have any examples that could not be created under this system?
Because you like something, it does not mean it is good.
Because you dislike something, it does not mean it is bad.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it everyone's opinion.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it truth.
Because it is your opinion, it does not make it the general consensus.
Whatever side you want to take, at least remember these things.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Mar 14, 2012 - 10:49PM
#29
|
|
|
While I agree that the 3.x ed multiclassing was bloated and overpowered, I don't think that it should be restricted to having to choose at 1st level. I like the option of multiclassing later on in the game due to story twists and turns that you cant plan on.
As far as prestige classes go, I agree there needs to be better more fitting requirements than BAB +6. The idea of certain feats or class restrictions placed in the description or whatever would go along way with this. Obvisously to veteran and experienced players, we can look at a prestige class and tell what class it was designed for, but not necessarily for a new player.
|
|
|
|
1 year ago ::
Apr 01, 2012 - 2:02AM
#30
|
Date Joined:
Jan 12, 2012
|
I like the way that 3ed multiclassing adds to the story of my character. A fighter can suddenly find his god and become a cleric, or a barbarian can end up in bad company and become a thief.
But one of the problems with 3ed is the fact that the get a lot of special abilities at first level. Therefore you gain too much from starting a fighter character as a barbarian or thief.
Hopefully 5ed multiclassing can be done in a way that doesn't favour specialized builds.
DISCLAIMER: I never played 4ed, so I may misunderstand some of the rules.
|
|
|
