|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:04PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2006
|
I know that the game should be perfectly playable without even taking multiclassing in consideration, but the point of modularity, and thus the point of Next, is that of providing options. And if multiclassing is even to be considered an option at all (and it certainly has to), it has to be engineered into the system very early on. You could argue that we need to see all the classes to then think about multiclassing. I argue the contrary: I think we need a solid multiclassing system to be playtested in parallel, also because this way the classes that will come in the future will already consider the multiclassing problem. Not that they'd then need to be shaped around it: they could also discover that the multiclassing needs reshaping. But that's the point of testing multiclassing early: becoming aware of the problems little by little, and shaping the system at a low level. I kind of get this request will not be answered by the developers, but I still feel the need to post it. Personally, although I see the dabbling potential of Specialities, I think that's only a start, and multiclassing should go muh deeper than that. I'd give the following options, in order of "magnitude of multiclassing":
- Take a speciality that makes you dabble in something typical of another class, like Magic User.
- Take levels in another class (and this should address things like spell level nicely. For example, a Fighter/Wizard should definitely have less spell slots than a full Wizard but still have access to the same spell level of a Wizard of the same total character level, so as not to become underpowered the 3.x way)
- Take levels in another class and take a "multiclass speciality" that lets you truly mix the class features instead of having them too separated. For example, the above Fighter/Wizard would take an "Elditch Knight speciality" that little by little grants thing like casting with at least light or medium armor, combining maneuvers with spells and things like these.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:29PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 19, 2011
|
While not incredibly urgent, I do agree with the sentiment. Multiclassing is likely going to be difficult to balance, so getting our inout asap would be good.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:32PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Dec 11, 2006
|
Hated 4e multiclassing, love Pathfinder muticlassing, just saying.
Taking 3 in fighter, then picking up 1 in wizard, for a Class Level of 4, but a Caster Level of 1 works for me just fine.
Browncoats Unite...
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:32PM
#4
|
|
|
I agree that multiclassing needs to be something that, if it's going to be a thing, needs to be something that is explicitly designed around, which means that the earlier ideas about it start to gel, the better. This is particularly true because D&D does not exactly have an existing multiclassing model that it can look back to that I would call particularly exemplary; on the contrary, I think that multiclassing rules have been some of the least satisfying aspects of the game in most editions. Trying to retrofit a multiclassing system onto a leveled class system has not produced the most awesome results in the past. (I'm assuming that that's what went on in 3&4 at least - that multiclassing was one of the last things addressed. It certainly feels that way, or else it was simply the case that it wasn't given any real attention or that the bar for it was pretty low.)
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
Swanmay Syndrome: Despite the percentages given in the Monster Manual, in reality 100% of groups of swans contain a Swanmay, because otherwise the DM would not have put any swans in the game.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:34PM
#5
|
Date Joined:
May 24, 2012
|
While not my top priority, I really want my characters to be able to change concepts via the many takes on multiclassing. My favorites were PF/3.5 style classing where you can start in a new class and go from there and 4e's hybriding where you can mash two classes together at once. If that and more is perfected 1-2 years in advance, SWEET! But, since it's a lesser priority, I want to see the regular classes themselves perfected and appealing first.
Disgruntled ghost of the Knights of W.T.F.
(Keep D&D alive, end the edition wars!)
"And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you." - Friedrich Nietzsche
Disclaimer: Most of my posts are based on opinions (and are sometimes humorous, other times inspirational)
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:40PM
#6
|
|
|
I expect to see 3e-style multiclassing with elements from the 4e hybrid system.
Watched a vid where Mearls mentions the designers learned some things about mullticlassing from the hybrid system.
So they seem to have some ideas in their head already about how to approach it.
/\ Art
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 5:50PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I honestly hope there is zero NEED for multiclassing. I'd rather see more flexible classes so you can build the concepts that you want.
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 6:16PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Nov 27, 2003
|
I know that the game should be perfectly playable without even taking multiclassing in consideration, but the point of modularity, and thus the point of Next, is that of providing options. And if multiclassing is even to be considered an option at all (and it certainly has to), it has to be engineered into the system very early on.
You could argue that we need to see all the classes to then think about multiclassing.
I argue the contrary: I think we need a solid multiclassing system to be playtested in parallel, also because this way the classes that will come in the future will already consider the multiclassing problem. Not that they'd then need to be shaped around it: they could also discover that the multiclassing needs reshaping. But that's the point of testing multiclassing early: becoming aware of the problems little by little, and shaping the system at a low level.
I kind of get this request will not be answered by the developers, but I still feel the need to post it.
Personally, although I see the dabbling potential of Specialities, I think that's only a start, and multiclassing should go muh deeper than that.
I'd give the following options, in order of "magnitude of multiclassing":
- Take a speciality that makes you dabble in something typical of another class, like Magic User.
- Take levels in another class (and this should address things like spell level nicely. For example, a Fighter/Wizard should definitely have less spell slots than a full Wizard but still have access to the same spell level of a Wizard of the same total character level, so as not to become underpowered the 3.x way)
- Take levels in another class and take a "multiclass speciality" that lets you truly mix the class features instead of having them too separated. For example, the above Fighter/Wizard would take an "Elditch Knight speciality" that little by little grants thing like casting with at least light or medium armor, combining maneuvers with spells and things like these.
1) I agree
2) The underpoweredness of a fighter/wizard more came from the inability to combine the abilities of a fighter and wizard in 3.X. You can't full attack and cast a spell for instance. That kind of thing could be fixed mostly if the combat rules were adjusted some. If you could cast a spell and take the additional attack from a full attack (like the pathfinder magus, for instance), is one way. The damage output also goes up in a non-linear way for both classes a bit too.
3) This sounds good too
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 6:31PM
#9
|
- Forum Guide
- Hero Craftsman Gold Medalist
- Master Dungeon Master
Date Joined:
Jun 23, 2005
|
I kind of get this request will not be answered by the developers, but I still feel the need to post it.
The developers answere dthis question directly in the PAX seminar from earlier today. Next multiclassing will resemble 3e multiclassing in which you can take a new class each level. It will be playtested in a future packet.
|
|
|
|
10 months ago ::
Sep 01, 2012 - 6:42PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jan 14, 2006
|
I kind of get this request will not be answered by the developers, but I still feel the need to post it.
The developers answere dthis question directly in the PAX seminar from earlier today. Next multiclassing will resemble 3e multiclassing in which you can take a new class each level. It will be playtested in a future packet.
Great to hear!  I also hope that they really are considering the feel of 4e hybrids, in that they were able to fully use their class abilities, just not all at once or all combined. taking levels in a class is fine, but some additional rules are needed to clarify the interactions and synergies...
|
|
|
