Yes, we 100% plan to include multiclassing. Some specialties give you a light touch of another class, but the full system allows you to integrate multiple classes. I see this as simply another area where players can choose how deep they want to go into a class or archetype.
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had a Hybrid Class character.
3.x and Star Wars, on the other hand, had stupidly beneficial multiclassing. There was no real benefit to taking a single class character (barring Prestige Classes, some of which can arguably be considered just a specialization of a basic class). And that's not touching some of the beardy cheese that CharOp would sometimes vomit forth. For example, a monk build that can choke out any spellcaster within a one-mile radius, in one round.
Now, because multiclassing was so stupidly beneficial, it also made character development and leveling really confusing. One mistake and your character would go from useful to useless. Some of this was because of math holes and tax feats; having to take an accuracy feat to still be able to hit monsters on less than a 17, for example. You also had the problem of Attack Bonus calculations because you had 1, 3/4, and 1/2- AB classes. Again, taking a level in the wrong class would totally destroy a combat build.
So with all that in mind, why does WotC keep trying to force multiclassing on us? I just don't see it being beneficial to 5e at all, compared to the damage it can inflict on game balance and design.
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had
So with all that in mind, why does WotC keep trying to force multiclassing on us? I just don't see it being beneficial to 5e at all, compared to the damage it can inflict on game balance and design.
You could use the optional module where the players do not use the multi-classing rules?
You could use the optional module where the players do not use the multi-classing rules?
You also had the problem of Attack Bonus calculations because you had 1, 3/4, and 1/2- AB classes. Again, taking a level in the wrong class would totally destroy a combat build.
Yes, we 100% plan to include multiclassing. Some specialties give you a light touch of another class, but the full system allows you to integrate multiple classes. I see this as simply another area where players can choose how deep they want to go into a class or archetype.
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had a Hybrid Class character.
3.x and Star Wars, on the other hand, had stupidly beneficial multiclassing. There was no real benefit to taking a single class character (barring Prestige Classes, some of which can arguably be considered just a specialization of a basic class). And that's not touching some of the beardy cheese that CharOp would sometimes vomit forth. For example, a monk build that can choke out any spellcaster within a one-mile radius, in one round.
Now, because multiclassing was so stupidly beneficial, it also made character development and leveling really confusing. One mistake and your character would go from useful to useless. Some of this was because of math holes and tax feats; having to take an accuracy feat to still be able to hit monsters on less than a 17, for example. You also had the problem of Attack Bonus calculations because you had 1, 3/4, and 1/2- AB classes. Again, taking a level in the wrong class would totally destroy a combat build.
So with all that in mind, why does WotC keep trying to force multiclassing on us? I just don't see it being beneficial to 5e at all, compared to the damage it can inflict on game balance and design.
Because some people would like the option of doing it. Why completely not make a rule when you can more easily just ignore it? If you leave it out, no one gets to multiclass, if you include it some people do and some people don't. I don't see the upside to leaving it out.
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had
If the game gets so complicated at the higher levels that everyone has to multiclass I will still require my players not to multiclass. I have had too many games with power gamers who ruined the experience because their Bard/Wizard/Paladins could take out entire armies before the other players even touched the enemy.
If the game gets so complicated at the higher levels that everyone has to multiclass I will still require my players not to multiclass. I have had too many games with power gamers who ruined the experience because their Bard/Wizard/Paladins could tak
Personally, I think more options is always a good thing - but multiclassing is an option that should be discouraged, if not mechanically then by text explaining why it's usually a bad idea added along with the multiclass rules.
If the game gets so complicated at the higher levels that everyone has to multiclass I will still require my players not to multiclass. I have had too many games with power gamers who ruined the experience because their Bard/Wizard/Paladins could take out entire armies before the other players even touched the enemy.
What? How could Bard/Wizard/Paladin possibly be more powerful than just straight wizard? I realize it's a bit off topic, but I'm very curious as to what the build was.
Personally, I think more options is always a good thing - but multiclassing is an option that should be discouraged, if not mechanically then by text explaining why it's usually a bad idea added along with the multiclass rules.What? How could Bard/Wi
If they do multiclassing I hope they do it using the 4E Hybrid rules or something along those lines. They should cap the number of classes you can take to 2 classes and 1 prestige class. If they did that it might be workable. It would be even better if they broke each class down into packages and you picked packages from each. Like the Wizard would be broken down into 4 packages of 1 spell slot each (So one 1st level slot, one 2nd level slot, one 3rd level slot, one 4th level slot, one 5th level slot, etc...etc...). So a Fighter/Wizard could take armor proficiency package and a number of spell slot packages and end up with:
If they do multiclassing I hope they do it using the 4E Hybrid rules or something along those lines. They should cap the number of classes you can take to 2 classes and 1 prestige class. If they did that it might be workable. It would be even better
What? How could Bard/Wizard/Paladin possibly be more powerful than just straight wizard? I realize it's a bit off topic, but I'm very curious as to what the build was.
A DM who is incredibly liberal on what she allows Diplomacy to accomplish?
A DM who is incredibly liberal on what she allows Diplomacy to accomplish?
If they do multiclassing I hope they do it using the 4E Hybrid rules or something along those lines. They should cap the number of classes you can take to 2 classes and 1 prestige class.
Why have a hard cap when its already discouraged in 3e with xp penalties and the incentive to reach high lvls in a single class?
Why have a hard cap when its already discouraged in 3e with xp penalties and the incentive to reach high lvls in a single class?
If they do multiclassing I hope they do it using the 4E Hybrid rules or something along those lines. They should cap the number of classes you can take to 2 classes and 1 prestige class.
Why have a hard cap when its already discouraged in 3e with xp penalties and the incentive to reach high lvls in a single class?
While this is 100% true, there were those few exeptions that made multiclassing crazy good. I mean cmon, splashing 1 level of fighter alone was pretty sweet. Instant Armor Profs, Weapon Profs, d10 hit die, and a feat to boot. All you needed was 1.
But yes, I don't think multiclass as a whole was too good in 3.5, I just think those specific little combos were too good >.> But this is something you are never going to be able to avoid with the legion of powergamers out there
Why have a hard cap when its already discouraged in 3e with xp penalties and the incentive to reach high lvls in a single class?[/quote]While this is 100% true, there were those few exeptions that made multiclassing crazy good. I mean cmon, splashing
When complaining about 3e style multiclassing, there is no point in complaining about actual 3e class features. Look at 5e class features and extrapolate what 3e style multiclassing would look like with them.
When complaining about 3e style multiclassing, there is no point in complaining about actual 3e class features. Look at 5e class features and extrapolate what 3e style multiclassing would look like with them.
I like multiclassing. I never enforced Favored Class penalties since I didn't like penalizing my players for creativity. I actually liked the idea of the 2nd edition multiple classes at creation multiclassing (not dual classing). Now there is nothing that says that Next multiclassing will be like 3rd edition or 4e hybridization. Let's wait and see what they present before breaking out the pitchforks and torches and scream about how they ruined everything.
I like multiclassing. I never enforced Favored Class penalties since I didn't like penalizing my players for creativity. I actually liked the idea of the 2nd edition multiple classes at creation multiclassing (not dual classing).Now there is nothing
Personally I like multi-classing in theory, but I've never pursued it in practice. It seemed impractical and I usually was better off just sticking with my original class.
Add it or not, I probably won't use it.
Personally I like multi-classing in theory, but I've never pursued it in practice. It seemed impractical and I usually was better off just sticking with my original class.Add it or not, I probably won't use it.
While this is 100% true, there were those few exeptions that made multiclassing crazy good. I mean cmon, splashing 1 level of fighter alone was pretty sweet. Instant Armor Profs, Weapon Profs, d10 hit die, and a feat to boot. All you needed was 1.
Or take a lvl in Barbairan and get Barbarian rage, or Paladin for aura of courage or rogue for a load of base skills. Learning the basics of a second class was sensible strategy that created diverse, practical characters. I even made them realistic with the way I required players to call their next class before advancement and pay for training if they couldn't find a proper instructor. It was also balanced since doing the same with a third class forced you to include your race's fave class in one of the three, and level up a 2e styled utility character.
The only thing broken about 3e's multiclassing was that it created huge complex stat blocks and certain class combo's had stacking issues with feats based on ability scores.
Or take a lvl in Barbairan and get Barbarian rage, or Paladin for aura of courage or rogue for a load of base skills. Learning the basics of a second class was sensible strategy that created diverse, practical characters. I even made them realistic
While this is 100% true, there were those few exeptions that made multiclassing crazy good. I mean cmon, splashing 1 level of fighter alone was pretty sweet. Instant Armor Profs, Weapon Profs, d10 hit die, and a feat to boot. All you needed was 1.
Agreed. The designers should have gone the Star Wars: Saga route in which Armor Profs and Weapon Profs are listed under the class as various feats. A starting first level gains all of those feats to reflect their trainig leading up to the start of play. In contrast, a multiclass character must choose between an armor proficiency feat, a weapon feat, or another class feat (which would include the the fighter bonus feat) and can gain others through additional feat choices as they level (including class bonus feats if on the class feat list).
Agreed. The designers should have gone the Star Wars: Saga route in which Armor Profs and Weapon Profs are listed under the class as various feats. A starting first level gains all of those feats to reflect their trainig leading up to the start of
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off...
It was actually very easy to follow the rules for multiclassing in AD&D. Multiclassing into a 2e bard wasn't hard but it was arduous. you level really slowly in AD&D so making even the quickest bard took twelve levels or something.
90% of the characters in my pile of personal PCs from those by gone years are multiclassed. The real problem was that at least until the unearthed arcana came out the restrictions on what levels you could achieve were very low.
A dwarf for instsnce needed a really high wisdom score if he ever wanted to see 8th level as a cleric, or 9th level as a fighter with an 18 strength.
An elf could never be more than an 11th level magic user and he needed an 18 intelligence score to do it.
Many players didn't multiclass, but it was because there wasn't much point in doing it, not because it was hard. Then again simple division and adding percentages to the result might be concidered too hard for some players. I know I've suffered through them at the table often enough.
Others didn't like being a couple of levels behind the rest of the party, although in game it meant at worst one spell level , but usually only a spell or os less than a straight caster and being ten percent behind the fighter for attacks never really mattered with armor classes staying within a range where even the wizard to hit for most of the game.
I actually loath 3e multiclassing. I have hated it for so many reasons since I first tried to convert AD&D multiclassed characters over to 3e.
It was actually very easy to follow the rules for multiclassing in AD&D. Multiclassing into a 2e bard wasn't hard but it was arduous. you level really slowly in AD&D so making even the quickest bard took twelve levels or something. 90% of the charact
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off...
It was actually very easy to follow the rules for multiclassing in AD&D. Multiclassing into a 2e bard wasn't hard but it was arduous. you level really slowly in AD&D so making even the quickest bard took twelve levels or something.
90% of the characters in my pile of personal PCs from those by gone years are multiclassed. The real problem was that at least until the unearthed arcana came out the restrictions on what levels you could achieve were very low. .
I assumed he was actually referring to dual-classing which was hard to qualify for. Multiclassing in AD&D was, as you indicated, as easy as just saying "I'm a multiclass character".
Carl
It was actually very easy to follow the rules for multiclassing in AD&D. Multiclassing into a 2e bard wasn't hard but it was arduous. you level really slowly in AD&D so making even the quickest bard took twelve levels or something. 90% of the charact
If the game gets so complicated at the higher levels that everyone has to multiclass I will still require my players not to multiclass. I have had too many games with power gamers who ruined the experience because their Bard/Wizard/Paladins could take out entire armies before the other players even touched the enemy.
I have seen this happen
personaly i say keep multiclassing but make it harder to do. 3.Xe multiclassing kinda broke the book. But if you take that and mix it with Prereqs or something to make it harder to do. Then maybe.
Truthfully a fighter who has never tried to learn about magic should not beable to become a wizard and vice versa. Multiclassing takes time, lots of time, you basicly have to learn everything anew.
I have seen this happen personaly i say keep multiclassing but make it harder to do. 3.Xe multiclassing kinda broke the book. But if you take that and mix it with Prereqs or something to make it harder to do. Then maybe.Truthfully a fighter who has n
I cant speak for 1e. Played it but dont remember the rules. Multiclassing in 2e was a horrible. Dual classing was far more OP than anything in 3e and the other form of multiclassing was underpowered, lacked individuality, and restricted to non-humans. I would take 2e's unequal xp tables.
I cant speak for 1e. Played it but dont remember the rules. Multiclassing in 2e was a horrible. Dual classing was far more OP than anything in 3e and the other form of multiclassing was underpowered, lacked individuality, and restricted to non-humans
Multiclassing from 3E was one of the worse features of the game from my perspective, even if you do not consider prestige classes. Too many classes were front loaded with abilities. At least with 1E multiclassing or even dual classing the progresson was slower. In 5E everyone will take rogue for skill mastery, caster levels for spells with HP thresholds, auto damage, rituals, etc.
I admit it will offer a wide variety of choices in 5E, but I thought the core rules were supposed to be as simple as possible.
Multiclassing from 3E was one of the worse features of the game from my perspective, even if you do not consider prestige classes. Too many classes were front loaded with abilities. At least with 1E multiclassing or even dual classing the progresson
Multiclassing from 3E was one of the worse features of the game from my perspective, even if you do not consider prestige classes. Too many classes were front loaded with abilities. At least with 1E multiclassing or even dual classing the progresson was slower. In 5E everyone will take rogue for skill mastery, caster levels for spells with HP thresholds, auto damage, rituals, etc.
I admit it will offer a wide variety of choices in 5E, but I thought the core rules were supposed to be as simple as possible.
Do you know how the favorite class and xp penalties worked in 3e? If you tried to dabble in more than one class that wasnt your race's favorite your progression would be slower than 2e's multiclassing. Dual classing was nothing more than an exploit. Take 8 lvls in fighter then switch to mage with an 8th lvl party your mage lvls are going to develop at rapid pace while you sit back and throw darts. Pick Cleric and its even faster. Those types of combinations were far more powerful than any type of build. Its the most unblanced rule D&D has ever produced.
Do you know how the favorite class and xp penalties worked in 3e? If you tried to dabble in more than one class that wasnt your race's favorite your progression would be slower than 2e's multiclassing. Dual classing was nothing more than an exploit.
Do you know how the favorite class and xp penalties worked in 3e? If you tried to dabble in more than one class that wasnt your race's favorite your progression would be slower than 2e's multiclassing. Dual classing was nothing more than an exploit. Take 8 lvls in fighter then switch to mage with an 8th lvl party your mage lvls are going to develop at rapid pace while you sit back and throw darts. Pick Cleric and its even faster. Those types of combinations were far more powerful than any type of build. Its the most unblanced rule D&D has ever produced.
This is all well and good on paper but it has come to our attention that a whole lot of DM's house ruled experience points out of their games. A goodly number of them ignore class, level, prerequisite, and/or favored class in their games.
Many of these people are no doubt the same people complaining that 3e multiclassing is broken. I wonder why.
I personally don't like it since it doesn't produce the same type of character AD&D multiclassing does.
This is all well and good on paper but it has come to our attention that a whole lot of DM's house ruled experience points out of their games. A goodly number of them ignore class, level, prerequisite, and/or favored class in their games. Many of the
The need for multiclass should be lessened as we get more and more specialties that emulate other classes. You don't necessarily need to be a Fighter/Wizard if all you want is a touch of magic. Be a Fighter with a magic-themed specialty.
I would prefer it if the PHB presented 0 options for multiclassing. Put the basic rules in the DMG and allow DM's to decide if they want it in their game.
The need for multiclass should be lessened as we get more and more specialties that emulate other classes. You don't necessarily need to be a Fighter/Wizard if all you want is a touch of magic. Be a Fighter with a magic-themed specialty. I would pref
This is all well and good on paper but it has come to our attention that a whole lot of DM's house ruled experience points out of their games. A goodly number of them ignore class, level, prerequisite, and/or favored class in their games.
Many of these people are no doubt the same people complaining that 3e multiclassing is broken. I wonder why.
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the vast majority of players would not take xp penalties so the combinations would be easy to justify. As a player I knew that unbalanced combinations with high lvls in one class and low in others would make for more realistic combinations. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I personally don't like it since it doesn't produce the same type of character AD&D multiclassing does.
What?? Compare the two
2e multiclassing restricted to nonhumans racial restrictions racial lvl limits advancement at half or one third speed underpowered at high lvls All classes have to be within one lvl of eachother
3e multiclassing Too complex to bullet point. A common multiclass build is a lot like 2e multiclassing except that its not as underpowered at high lvls or restricted. Im talking about when you have two classes that arent your favorite. To avoid penalties you have to multiclass like a 2e character with the lvls within one of themselves until maybe you earn a Prestigue class. How is that not 2e's multiclassing without the eventual suck?
The other common build was the favorite class dabble. Your multiclass lvls didnt have to be within one lvl of the other if one was your favorite class. If you tried to dabble in a third class it pretty much shut down your advancement. The further away you were the greater the xp penalty. I dont understand why the 1st lvl benefits are a concern since it only happened with one class and that was already in 2e. So now for the first time in D&D history we had Elves. Real elves. Elves typically dont split their classes evenly neither do halflings, dwarvs, humans etc.
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the
The need for multiclass should be lessened as we get more and more specialties that emulate other classes. You don't necessarily need to be a Fighter/Wizard if all you want is a touch of magic. Be a Fighter with a magic-themed specialty.
I would prefer it if the PHB presented 0 options for multiclassing. Put the basic rules in the DMG and allow DM's to decide if they want it in their game.
Too restricitve. I picture Link from Zelda when someone mentions a fighters with a magic theme.
Too restricitve. I picture Link from Zelda when someone mentions a fighters with a magic theme.
Back in the olden days of 1e and 2e, I multi-classed like a freak. I also allowed (and even encouraged) my players to do the same in my own campaigns.
But that was before class-dabbling mechanics were introduced in later editions, with feats, skills, etc., that allowed characters to cross-pollinate mechanically.
At this point, I see multi-classing pretty much as the same thing as saying, "how can we introduce an awkward, game-breaking mechanic without actually breaking the game just so people can have more than one class?"
I think 5e should be above this tactic. Especially since it is on on the right track with backgrounds, specialties, schemes, themes, feats/skills, etc.
Back in the olden days of 1e and 2e, I multi-classed like a freak. I also allowed (and even encouraged) my players to do the same in my own campaigns.But that was before class-dabbling mechanics were introduced in later editions, with feats, skills,
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the vast majority of players would not take xp penalties so the combinations would be easy to justify. As a player I knew that unbalanced combinations with high lvls in one class and low in others would make for more realistic combinations.
What?? Compare the two
2e multiclassing restricted to nonhumans racial restrictions racial lvl limits advancement at half or one third speed underpowered at high lvls All classes have to be within one lvl of eachother
3e multiclassing Too complex to bullet point. A common multiclass build is a lot like 2e multiclassing except that its not as underpowered at high lvls or restricted. Im talking about when you have two classes that arent your favorite. To avoid penalties you have to multiclass like a 2e character with the lvls within one of themselves until maybe you earn a Prestigue class. How is that not 2e's multiclassing without the eventual suck?
The other common build was the favorite class dabble. Your multiclass lvls didnt have to be within one lvl of the other if one was your favorite class. If you tried to dabble in a third class it pretty much shut down your advancement. The further away you were the greater the xp penalty. I dont understand why the 1st lvl benefits are a concern since it only happened with one class and that was already in 2e. So now for the first time in D&D history we had Elves. Real elves. Elves typically dont split their classes evenly neither do halflings, dwarvs, humans etc.
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you got with the extra classes helped but in the long run your elf was still going to be an 11th level wizard and a 9 th level fighter and what ever level thief you got to before you were forced to retire the character.
Humans didn't have to worry about level limits everyone else did. Two classing a character seemed onerous because you had to start at 1st level when you switched, but you earned experience so fast that after three or four adventures you were almost ready to start using your old class abilities.
Multiclassing the 3e way was merely card blanc for players to build obscene monstrocities. There really isn't any reason to multiclass in 3e or 4e since the reason it existed went away when they stopped treating non humans like second class citizens.
I actually liked having the full spectrum of class abilities from all of my classes when I multiclassed. This idea that you have one level of this and two levels of that and a couple of levels from some overpowered prestige class, but you actually used the combined total of levels as your actual level which made for some pretty weak and ineffective characters unless you combined classes that complemented each other, and then you were as God.
I'll take the slower progression and have all of the spells a mage has and be as effetive as the fighter of my level and maybe have all the skills of a rogue (although right now the rogue is a wasted opportunity since everyone else can do pretty much what they do as well for the price of a background).
Level dipping is one of the worst things 3e brought to the game and 3e brought a whole lot of garbage to D&D. It is supposed to take years of training to learn the skills of an adventurer. The starting ages fro the wizard and cleric in AD&D put them near middle age, how can anyone just gain a level's worth of xp and suddenly without the slightest bit of training become an entirely nother class and still continue on with their first one. It gets even more insane when they add even more classes to the ones they have. The only place it makes sense is in game terms as a set of rules. I want to play a role playing game that thinks it's real life with some fanasy stuff and some science stuff and a whole lot of make believe in it.
I don't want to have to justify how my 1st level wizard spent six or ten years learning to be a mage while the party fighter just made second level and took a level of wizard without having to go to the wizard academy for the better part of a decade.
Right now next has found a way to shrug off the cumbersome combat rules associated with WotC's version of D&D, but what it's replacing much of the other stuff with isn't working as planned.
Each version of the spells I've seen use mechanics that severly limit the caster's abiblity to function, or come with so much damage that it's over kill.
The rogue can sleep walk through any skill check he's trained in.
1st level characters that need to roll a 10 to hit ac 17 my god who's idea is that? Defensive maneuvers that totally negate monster damage, that's if the poor saps can even hit you, the list goes on and is constantly growing.
There's a lot of things that need to be rethought before this one is ready for prime time.
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you g
Its like 4e's rituals. Its one of those things that some people just missed, or didnt try before freaking out. Its understandable when many of the NPCs in the books had wild class combos with gods freeing them of xp penalties. As a DM I knew that the vast majority of players would not take xp penalties so the combinations would be easy to justify. As a player I knew that unbalanced combinations with high lvls in one class and low in others would make for more realistic combinations.
What?? Compare the two
2e multiclassing restricted to nonhumans racial restrictions racial lvl limits advancement at half or one third speed underpowered at high lvls All classes have to be within one lvl of eachother
3e multiclassing Too complex to bullet point. A common multiclass build is a lot like 2e multiclassing except that its not as underpowered at high lvls or restricted. Im talking about when you have two classes that arent your favorite. To avoid penalties you have to multiclass like a 2e character with the lvls within one of themselves until maybe you earn a Prestigue class. How is that not 2e's multiclassing without the eventual suck?
The other common build was the favorite class dabble. Your multiclass lvls didnt have to be within one lvl of the other if one was your favorite class. If you tried to dabble in a third class it pretty much shut down your advancement. The further away you were the greater the xp penalty. I dont understand why the 1st lvl benefits are a concern since it only happened with one class and that was already in 2e. So now for the first time in D&D history we had Elves. Real elves. Elves typically dont split their classes evenly neither do halflings, dwarvs, humans etc.
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you got with the extra classes helped but in the long run your elf was still going to be an 11th level wizard and a 9 th level fighter and what ever level thief you got to before you were forced to retire the character.
Humans didn't have to worry about level limits everyone else did. Two classing a character seemed onerous because you had to start at 1st level when you switched, but you earned experience so fast that after three or four adventures you were almost ready to start using your old class abilities.
Multiclassing the 3e way was merely card blanc for players to build obscene monstrocities. There really isn't any reason to multiclass in 3e or 4e since the reason it existed went away when they stopped treating non humans like second class citizens.
I actually liked having the full spectrum of class abilities from all of my classes when I multiclassed. This idea that you have one level of this and two levels of that and a couple of levels from some overpowered prestige class, but you actually used the combined total of levels as your actual level which made for some pretty weak and ineffective characters unless you combined classes that complemented each other, and then you were as God.
I'll take the slower progression and have all of the spells a mage has and be as effetive as the fighter of my level and maybe have all the skills of a rogue (although right now the rogue is a wasted opportunity since everyone else can do pretty much what they do as well for the price of a background).
Level dipping is one of the worst things 3e brought to the game and 3e brought a whole lot of garbage to D&D. It is supposed to take years of training to learn the skills of an adventurer. The starting ages fro the wizard and cleric in AD&D put them near middle age, how can anyone just gain a level's worth of xp and suddenly without the slightest bit of training become an entirely nother class and still continue on with their first one. It gets even more insane when they add even more classes to the ones they have. The only place it makes sense is in game terms as a set of rules. I want to play a role playing game that thinks it's real life with some fanasy stuff and some science stuff and a whole lot of make believe in it.
I don't want to have to justify how my 1st level wizard spent six or ten years learning to be a mage while the party fighter just made second level and took a level of wizard without having to go to the wizard academy for the better part of a decade.
Right now next has found a way to shrug off the cumbersome combat rules associated with WotC's version of D&D, but what it's replacing much of the other stuff with isn't working as planned.
Each version of the spells I've seen use mechanics that severly limit the caster's abiblity to function, or come with so much damage that it's over kill.
The rogue can sleep walk through any skill check he's trained in.
1st level characters that need to roll a 10 to hit ac 17 my god who's idea is that? Defensive maneuvers that totally negate monster damage, that's if the poor saps can even hit you, the list goes on and is constantly growing.
There's a lot of things that need to be rethought before this one is ready for prime time.
This is why I suggested a system based on 4E's hybrid system.
You level at the same pace as everyone else, but you get some features from each class which you choose. You can pick a couple Wizard spell slots and grab the fighters weapons, or you can grab 1 spell slot and the fighters weapons and armor or you can pick one spell slot and the fighters weapons and CS mechanic, or .... you get the idea you build the character you want, but you can't get more than two classes going and you can't just grab a class at any time you have to do it from the start...
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you g
Look, the point of multiclassing was to allow people who wanted to play a non human character for more than six or eight levels. A three classed character was exactly two levels behind his single classed counterpart. Believe me the extra power you got with the extra classes helped but in the long run your elf was still going to be an 11th level wizard and a 9 th level fighter and what ever level thief you got to before you were forced to retire the character.
This spoiled the Gold Box games. A racially diverse party in Pool or Radiance would never make it through Pools of Darkness. Im not a freak when it comes to balance but thats pretty broken.
Humans didn't have to worry about level limits everyone else did. Two classing a character seemed onerous because you had to start at 1st level when you switched, but you earned experience so fast that after three or four adventures you were almost ready to start using your old class abilities.
I know how it worked. It was like you took the worse flaw in 3e's multiclassing and turned it into an overpowered exploit.
Multiclassing the 3e way was merely card blanc for players to build obscene monstrocities. There really isn't any reason to multiclass in 3e or 4e since the reason it existed went away when they stopped treating non humans like second class citizens.
How were they monstrosities when the great majority of the builds were either two classes alternating lvls or a dabble with one class and the race's signature class? I can understand why you wouldn't appreciate the facets of multiclassing when you accepted such an inane reason for it in 2e...."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />
I actually liked having the full spectrum of class abilities from all of my classes when I multiclassed. This idea that you have one level of this and two levels of that and a couple of levels from some overpowered prestige class, but you actually used the combined total of levels as your actual level which made for some pretty weak and ineffective characters unless you combined classes that complemented each other, and then you were as God.
I'll take the slower progression and have all of the spells a mage has and be as effetive as the fighter of my level and maybe have all the skills of a rogue (although right now the rogue is a wasted opportunity since everyone else can do pretty much what they do as well for the price of a background).
If thats what you wanted you had the option to do it in 3e and you were pretty much required to lvl that way if one of the classes werent your favorite. Also your character didnt become obsolete. It was somewhat underpowered most of the time but thats the nature of a utility combo. You have less overall power but you might compliment a party that lacks diversity. We should expect people to want to roleplay unbalanced combinations. Those are real character types in literature. The elf that knows just enough magic to enchant arrows or put goblins to sleep, the monk that takes a lvl in fighter to mix his martial arts, the wizard that takes a lvl in fighter when his body guard dies or a few lvls in rogue to avoid combat. Rogue fighter combos are the norm for halfings, Clerics will often dabble in the class of their domain.
Level dipping is one of the worst things 3e brought to the game and 3e brought a whole lot of garbage to D&D. It is supposed to take years of training to learn the skills of an adventurer.
Not for every class. One lvl in fighter is like bootcamp or a karate class. Sorcerer's and Wild Fire mages dont have to work for the first spark. A lvl in Cleric could just be a divine reward or a calling. Other classes are harder to justify so I homebrewed it. You had the same problem in 2e but worse. It was dual classing. In 2e you could take a lvl in wizard without calling it or paying for training. Just out of the blue you could be a wizard. A wizard with amnesia that forgot forgot everything about their previous class except how to roll with punches, since your hp stayed the same. You could quickly and easily develop a character that was more godly than anything from 3e.
Right now next has found a way to shrug off the cumbersome combat rules associated with WotC's version of D&D, but what it's replacing much of the other stuff with isn't working as planned.
Each version of the spells I've seen use mechanics that severly limit the caster's abiblity to function, or come with so much damage that it's over kill.
The rogue can sleep walk through any skill check he's trained in.
1st level characters that need to roll a 10 to hit ac 17 my god who's idea is that? Defensive maneuvers that totally negate monster damage, that's if the poor saps can even hit you, the list goes on and is constantly growing.
There's a lot of things that need to be rethought before this one is ready for prime time.
True. Im starting to see how much of a WIP it is though a lot of my issues were around before Wotc.
This spoiled the Gold Box games. A racially diverse party in Pool or Radiance would never make it through Pools of Darkness. Im not a freak when it comes to balance but thats pretty broken. I know how it worked. It was like you took the worse flaw in
Personally - I could easily do without 3.x style multi-classing. I'd much rather see something more like Hybrid classes and multi-class feats from 4E than 3.x style multiclassing. I consider that something that 4E got right - it avoided the straightjacket of AD&D whlie at the same time avoiding the problems of 3.x multiclassing.
Combine this with specialities and you can still make your multiclass character.
But I don't think that we need to resurrect the 3.x approach. At the very least, I'd suggest that it be made an optional rule/ module. That way it's easier to ignore.
There are still ways to make it better, I'm sure (for example, in 4E I changed the effectiveness of the multiclass power-swap feats to allow swapping multiple powers - but they may not have an equivalent in 5N anyway). But the hybrid approach is superior to the 'pick a class' approach of 3.x. Especially if there are ways to choose themes or specialities (or PrCs) later in life - you can use that to demonstrate the major life change that some people seem to want to use multiclassing to show.
On the other hand - I think there was a comment somewhere by Mike (?) which implied that they were considering something more hybrid like. Or at least that when you take a second class you don't necessarily get all the class features you would have gotten if you took that class as your primary class. It was a weak inference and I'm not sure he meant it the way it sounded - but it at least gives me hope. Not much hope - because I every other indication sounds more like they intend 3.x-style multiclassing. But a small bit of hope. Maybe I'll try to find it and listen to what he said again....
Carl
Personally - I could easily do without 3.x style multi-classing. I'd much rather see something more like Hybrid classes and multi-class feats from 4E than 3.x style multiclassing. I consider that something that 4E got right - it avoided the straigh
I'm not a fan of free and unrestricted multiclassing, for one reason and one reason only: it encourages powerbuilds.
I've seen some shockingly ridiculous powerbuilds. People do things like take one level of Shadowdancer to get that Hide in Plain Sight ability, a few levels of Druid so that they can get a few of their abilities, one level of Fighter so that they can do it while wearing plate armour, one level of Bard because it's a pre-req to Red Dragon Disciple, and one level of Barbarian so that they can run really fast.
I know what you're all thinking: why should I have a problem with what other people do? Well, I have played games before where I felt like I was punished for trying to create a believable character - since I didn't powerbuild, min/max and combine classes that didn't logically go together, my ranger basically sucked compared to everyone else. I generally come across very few believable characters when playing 3rd edition.
That's why I'd want multiclassing to be harder than it was in 3rd, or restricted in some way - something more than "I take a single level of fighter. I am now skilled in all weapons and armour, and can do what my companion spent 20 years learning how to do!" (since a level 1 class is supposed to be what the character spent his life learning to do).
My 2 coppers:I'm not a fan of free and unrestricted multiclassing, for one reason and one reason only: it encourages powerbuilds.I've seen some shockingly ridiculous powerbuilds. People do things like take one level of Shadowdancer to get that Hide i
I'm not a fan of free and unrestricted multiclassing, for one reason and one reason only: it encourages powerbuilds.
I've seen some shockingly ridiculous powerbuilds. People do things like take one level of Shadowdancer to get that Hide in Plain Sight ability, a few levels of Druid so that they can get a few of their abilities, one level of Fighter so that they can do it while wearing plate armour, one level of Bard because it's a pre-req to Red Dragon Disciple, and one level of Barbarian so that they can run really fast.
You present it as if its done with one character. If you take one lvl of anything you are making a commitment that has to be weighed against several factors. How about a real example that is ridiculous, powerful and also unrestricted by the rules and ability score prerecs.
I know what you're all thinking: why should I have a problem with what other people do? Well, I have played games before where I felt like I was punished for trying to create a believable character - since I didn't powerbuild, min/max and combine classes that didn't logically go together, my ranger basically sucked compared to everyone else. I generally come across very few believable characters when playing 3rd edition.
That's why I'd want multiclassing to be harder than it was in 3rd, or restricted in some way - something more than "I take a single level of fighter. I am now skilled in all weapons and armour, and can do what my companion spent 20 years learning how to do!" (since a level 1 class is supposed to be what the character spent his life learning to do).
A single level in fighter does not make you skilled in weapons. You simply arent penalized as someone who has never used them. A 1st lvl fighter could easily fall to the good strike of a commoner and would probably lose in a fist fight against a 5th lvl mage.
The reason why your Ranger sucked isnt that you didnt take a lvl in another class. That would have made your Ranger even less effective unless party had needs for a utility character. With all of the melee builds I assume your Ranger was an archery build. Archery was less effective in 3e. Rate of Fire was removed. With Rof everyone that used a regular bow had two attacks per round at first lvl. Weapon Speed usually gave the archer an initiative advantage too. These were full attacks too not the weaker multi turn attacks you get later in 3e or the weaker rapid shot attacks that you had to spend a feat on. This didnt combine well with 3e's hp bloat.
You present it as if its done with one character. If you take one lvl of anything you are making a commitment that has to be weighed against several factors. How about a real example that is ridiculous, powerful and also unrestricted by the rules an
Yes, we 100% plan to include multiclassing. Some specialties give you a light touch of another class, but the full system allows you to integrate multiple classes. I see this as simply another area where players can choose how deep they want to go into a class or archetype.
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had a Hybrid Class character.
3.x and Star Wars, on the other hand, had stupidly beneficial multiclassing. There was no real benefit to taking a single class character (barring Prestige Classes, some of which can arguably be considered just a specialization of a basic class). And that's not touching some of the beardy cheese that CharOp would sometimes vomit forth. For example, a monk build that can choke out any spellcaster within a one-mile radius, in one round.
Now, because multiclassing was so stupidly beneficial, it also made character development and leveling really confusing. One mistake and your character would go from useful to useless. Some of this was because of math holes and tax feats; having to take an accuracy feat to still be able to hit monsters on less than a 17, for example. You also had the problem of Attack Bonus calculations because you had 1, 3/4, and 1/2- AB classes. Again, taking a level in the wrong class would totally destroy a combat build.
So with all that in mind, why does WotC keep trying to force multiclassing on us? I just don't see it being beneficial to 5e at all, compared to the damage it can inflict on game balance and design.
So... 3e failed at something mechanically so we should remove it from the game and not even try and make it work?
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had
I'm not a fan of free and unrestricted multiclassing, for one reason and one reason only: it encourages powerbuilds.
I've seen some shockingly ridiculous powerbuilds. People do things like take one level of Shadowdancer to get that Hide in Plain Sight ability, a few levels of Druid so that they can get a few of their abilities, one level of Fighter so that they can do it while wearing plate armour, one level of Bard because it's a pre-req to Red Dragon Disciple, and one level of Barbarian so that they can run really fast.
You present it as if its done with one character.
Maybe because he's seen it done with one character.
I know I have, although I wouldn't guarantee that I've seen that exact combination.
That's why I'd want multiclassing to be harder than it was in 3rd, or restricted in some way - something more than "I take a single level of fighter. I am now skilled in all weapons and armour, and can do what my companion spent 20 years learning how to do!" (since a level 1 class is supposed to be what the character spent his life learning to do).
Something that starts with 4E-style multiclassing feats, perhaps. You get a SMALL taste of the target class.
But from there, 4E multiclassing gives you rather limited ability to grow into the class, and it's quite expensive. Definitely not good.
4E hybriding is better, but MUST begin at level-1 character creation. Which restricts what it can be used for.
You present it as if its done with one character.[/quote]Maybe because he's seen it done with one character.I know I have, although I wouldn't guarantee that I've seen that exact combination.[/quote]Something that starts with 4E-style multiclassing f
Compromise I can live with, at least. I'm sure others will differ.
3.x style multiclassing - but you are limited to no more than two classes.
(If they really want to make it complicated - allow that one multiclass event to be taking Hybrid as a class - effectivey giving you a taste of three classes).
Carl
Compromise I can live with, at least. I'm sure others will differ.3.x style multiclassing - but you are limited to no more than two classes.(If they really want to make it complicated - allow that one multiclass event to be taking Hybrid as a class
Just eliminate the rampant frontloading and dead levels, and the problems largely go away.
In 3E and SWSE, it was extra super beneficial to multiclass because level 1 of any given not-wizard class was piles of weapon/armor proficiencies, buckets of class-skills, and various early-level swag, while there were way too many times when all the next level (past about 5 or so) of [current class] offered was another hit die and +1 to some save (or in SWSE's case, getting away from a dwindling pool of useful talents in [current class], or just leveling an off-class for a feat).
Just eliminate the rampant frontloading and dead levels, and the problems largely go away.In 3E and SWSE, it was extra super beneficial to multiclass because level 1 of any given not-wizard class was piles of weapon/armor proficiencies, buckets of cl
Also, looking through the specialities, there are those that become redundant with free mutliclassing - why take Acolyte, for example, when you can just multiclass to Cleric, and get everything the Acolyte can do and more?
I'm in favour of requirements - something that indicates that you have some grounding in the workings of that class. For example, the Acolyte feats could be a pre-requisite to Cleric, since you start off as a novice/initiate/acolyte/whatever and eventually become a full cleric. Magic User could be a pre-req to wizard.
Fighter and Rogue should probably just require one or two skills (Rogue: stealth and maybe locks or traps; Fighter: military lore) - I think the requirements should vary based on what you actually get. If you're just being a bit better at fighting, it shouldn't require a great deal, but if you're going from "no magic potential whatsoever" to "full ability to cast magic", it should take a bit more.
Some classes you shouldn't be able to multiclass TO (sorcerer, barbarian), simply because it doesn't make sense from an RP perspective (Okay, so I suddenly find out that I have the innate power to do magic, that I never knew anything about until now! Yeah, that's believable...)
Maybe the requirements only need to be one skill:
Fighter: Military lore Ranger: Survival Rogue: Stealth Cleric: Religious lore Wizard: Arcane lore etc....
I just think that a character should have to do more to get another class than to simply announce that he wants to dual-class, gain a shed-load of new stuff, and decide that he was, apparently, studying this during the one week that they spent travelling from the Mizulrak Mountains to the Valley of Vagnarok.
Also, looking through the specialities, there are those that become redundant with free mutliclassing - why take Acolyte, for example, when you can just multiclass to Cleric, and get everything the Acolyte can do and more?I'm in favour of requirement
Also, looking through the specialities, there are those that become redundant with free mutliclassing - why take Acolyte, for example, when you can just multiclass to Cleric, and get everything the Acolyte can do and more?
Obviously, two more orisons. The specialities allow for 4e-style pseudomulticlassing, more or less. A feat to get some off-class swag is far less an investment than throwing a whole level into something, assuming a 3e-style MC model.
Obviously, two more orisons.The specialities allow for 4e-style pseudomulticlassing, more or less. A feat to get some off-class swag is far less an investment than throwing a whole level into something, assuming a 3e-style MC model.
I know I have, although I wouldn't guarantee that I've seen that exact combination.
Give me an example. The combinations the good Ranger gave would make for such an ineffective character that no player would choose it. It would take forver to build up your prereqs for Shadowdancer, or lvls in Druid with xp penalties. The character would be so behind in advancement and so awash in base abilities that they would be of no use in a party of their Character Level.
Give me an example. The combinations the good Ranger gave would make for such an ineffective character that no player would choose it. It would take forver to build up your prereqs for Shadowdancer, or lvls in Druid with xp penalties. The character w
I am for 3E multiclassing being an optional rule, because that is a big area of contention for 3E, the level of complexity, and system mastery. Prestige classes in 3E has the same problem. Specialities and backgrounds aready offers a limited set of multiclassing that is well suited for the core rules. But to be fair, hybrid rules from 4E should be optional as well.
I am for 3E multiclassing being an optional rule, because that is a big area of contention for 3E, the level of complexity, and system mastery. Prestige classes in 3E has the same problem. Specialities and backgrounds aready offers a limited set of m
I know I have, although I wouldn't guarantee that I've seen that exact combination.
Give me an example. The combinations the good Ranger gave would make for such an ineffective character that no player would choose it. It would take forver to build up your prereqs for Shadowdancer, or lvls in Druid with xp penalties. The character would be so behind in advancement and so awash in base abilities that they would be of no use in a party of their Character Level.
Okay.
Paladin 4/Bard 1/Dragon Disciple 10.
At fifteenth level, you have +8 Strength, +2 Constitution, Intelligence, and Charisma, about 94 + 15x CON hit points, you have a claw and bite attack that you can always use, if you have at least 12 WIS, you have blindsense, you have wings, you have darkvision, you are immune to the energy type of your choice, you have up to 8 first-level paladin spells, you can use heavy armor, you can use martial weapons, you're immune to disease and get your Charisma bonus to saving throws, you have an always on +1 to attack and damage that helps the whole party, you have Turn Undead so you can qualify for the Divine Might feat, you have the ability to use bard and paladin spell-completion/spell-trigger items, and if your first level was Bard, you have an awful lot of skill points for a combat monkey.
You also can't ever advance in either of your base classes again, since Bards must be non-lawful (though unlike ex-Paladins or ex-Barbarians, ex-Bards don't lose any class features), and to keep your Paladin features, you have to be Lawful Good. The most complicated part is changing your alignment after your first level of Bard. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Compare to Fighter 15.
The fighter has +15 BAB, but doesn't have Inspire Courage +1 or Divine Might to grant him bonuses to his attack rolls, so he's actually -behind- the Dragon Knight above in terms of attack bonus, not to mention the +8 to Strength the Dragon Knight is rocking. He can also wear heavy armor, but doesn't have the natural armor bonus the Dragon Knight does. He has to rely on his friends to do all the spellcasting. He only has on average 87 + 15 x CON HP. So what does the fighter have that the Dragon Knight doesn't? Seven bonus feats. That's it. And access to Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus, so he catches up a little bit.
Regarding the XP penalty, if you built right, you never saw it. Humans and Half-Elves have Favored Class: Any, and Prestige Classes straight up don't count towards your penalty, so a Human or Half-Elf Dragon Knight is still gaining experience at the same rate, and you probably qualify for another Prestige Class by this point. Maybe Vassal of Bahamut from The Book of Exalted Deeds would fit the flavor.
Oh, and other than Divine Might and the shout out to BoED at the end, all of this is core. The only iffy thing is the alignment change.
Give me an example. The combinations the good Ranger gave would make for such an ineffective character that no player would choose it. It would take forver to build up your prereqs for Shadowdancer, or lvls in Druid with xp penalties. The character w
I know I have, although I wouldn't guarantee that I've seen that exact combination.
Give me an example. The combinations the good Ranger gave would make for such an ineffective character that no player would choose it. It would take forver to build up your prereqs for Shadowdancer, or lvls in Druid with xp penalties. The character would be so behind in advancement and so awash in base abilities that they would be of no use in a party of their Character Level.
Okay.
Paladin 4/Bard 1/Dragon Disciple 10.
At fifteenth level, you have +8 Strength, +2 Constitution, Intelligence, and Charisma, about 94 + 15x CON hit points, you have a claw and bite attack that you can always use, if you have at least 12 WIS, you have blindsense, you have wings, you have darkvision, you are immune to the energy type of your choice, you have up to 8 first-level paladin spells, you can use heavy armor, you can use martial weapons, you're immune to disease and get your Charisma bonus to saving throws, you have an always on +1 to attack and damage that helps the whole party, you have Turn Undead so you can qualify for the Divine Might feat, you have the ability to use bard and paladin spell-completion/spell-trigger items, and if your first level was Bard, you have an awful lot of skill points for a combat monkey.
You also can't ever advance in either of your base classes again, since Bards must be non-lawful (though unlike ex-Paladins or ex-Barbarians, ex-Bards don't lose any class features), and to keep your Paladin features, you have to be Lawful Good. The most complicated part is changing your alignment after your first level of Bard. ..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Compare to Fighter 15.
The fighter has +15 BAB, but doesn't have Inspire Courage +1 or Divine Might to grant him bonuses to his attack rolls, so he's actually -behind- the Dragon Knight above in terms of attack bonus, not to mention the +8 to Strength the Dragon Knight is rocking. He can also wear heavy armor, but doesn't have the natural armor bonus the Dragon Knight does. He has to rely on his friends to do all the spellcasting. He only has on average 87 + 15 x CON HP. So what does the fighter have that the Dragon Knight doesn't? Seven bonus feats. That's it. And access to Weapon Specialization and Greater Weapon Focus, so he catches up a little bit.
Regarding the XP penalty, if you built right, you never saw it. Humans and Half-Elves have Favored Class: Any, and Prestige Classes straight up don't count towards your penalty, so a Human or Half-Elf Dragon Knight is still gaining experience at the same rate, and you probably qualify for another Prestige Class by this point. Maybe Vassal of Bahamut from The Book of Exalted Deeds would fit the flavor.
Oh, and other than Divine Might and the shout out to BoED at the end, all of this is core. The only iffy thing is the alignment change.
Good Example. I know they are out there especially when you include 10 lvls in a Prestige class. There are hundreds of prestige classes so some are bound to be more powerful than others. Im more concerned with combinations that stack AC benefits like a Monk and a Duelist though that would be less of an issue with 5e's rollback on magic enhancements and I think 3.5 might have banned it anyway.
The alignment change would probably just involve a short xp free quest.
Couple questions. Where are you getting the +8 str? Just an assumption as to what the player is likely develop? Why cant this character continue to advance in Bard after the 10 Disciple lvls and shouldn’t you compare this character to another fighter Prestige class?
This build is more of an example of Prestige Class balance. Maybe its too easy to become a Dragon Disciple. Im on the fence there.
Give me an example. The combinations the good Ranger gave would make for such an ineffective character that no player would choose it. It would take forver to build up your prereqs for Shadowdancer, or lvls in Druid with xp penalties. The character w
Regarding the XP penalty, if you built right, you never saw it. Humans and Half-Elves have Favored Class: Any, and Prestige Classes straight up don't count towards your penalty, so a Human or Half-Elf Dragon Knight is still gaining experience at the same rate, and you probably qualify for another Prestige Class by this point. Maybe Vassal of Bahamut from The Book of Exalted Deeds would fit the flavor.
This was the irony of XP penalties in 3e, if you planned your build, you could easily avoid them. In fact, since you only needed 2 levels of most classes, you could dip a few different classes and then jump into a PrC and not really miss anything. Thus, they only actually penalized "organic" builds, such as the 7th level Elven Fighter who has a religious awakening and takes a level of Cleric.
This was the irony of XP penalties in 3e, if you planned your build, you could easily avoid them. In fact, since you only needed 2 levels of most classes, you could dip a few different classes and then jump into a PrC and not really miss anything. Th
This was the irony of XP penalties in 3e, if you planned your build, you could easily avoid them. In fact, since you only needed 2 levels of most classes, you could dip a few different classes and then jump into a PrC and not really miss anything. Thus, they only actually penalized "organic" builds, such as the 7th level Elven Fighter who has a religious awakening and takes a level of Cleric.
You dont need rules to deter multiple dabbling. Having one main class while going 1,2,1, in a bunch of others makes for a rather weak character. You will have a load of talents that dont move the bar.
As a general rule I give all races fighter as a favorite option since its the most common in all the cultures.
You dont need rules to deter multiple dabbling. Having one main class while going 1,2,1, in a bunch of others makes for a rather weak character. You will have a load of talents that dont move the bar. As a general rule I give all races fighter as a f
You dont need rules to deter dabbling. Having one main class while going 1,2,1, in a bunch of others makes for a rather weak character. You will have a load of talents that dont move the bar.
Depends on the classes. That was often the only way to avoid crap levels in most of the warrior classes in 3e. The Fighter was functionally a 4 level class, and the Monk had 2 levels, because they simply didn't give you anything useful enough after that to warrant continuing in the class.
Now, for spellcasters? Dipping like that for a spellcaster was stupid, yeah.
Depends on the classes. That was often the only way to avoid crap levels in most of the warrior classes in 3e. The Fighter was functionally a 4 level class, and the Monk had 2 levels, because they simply didn't give you anything useful enough afte
Depends on the classes. That was often the only way to avoid crap levels in most of the warrior classes in 3e. The Fighter was functionally a 4 level class, and the Monk had 2 levels, because they simply didn't give you anything useful enough after that to warrant continuing in the class.
Now, for spellcasters? Dipping like that for a spellcaster was stupid, yeah.
Eventually you are going to have to pick a warrior class to lvl past 2 and when you do the single class or single dabbles will have you beat. If you were to compare an 8th lvl monk to ft4,monk2,barb1,Pal1 (if thats even posible) the bastard would have a chance in a head to head fight since it is warrior vs warrior. As a member of an adventure party the pure Monk is more valuable. By lvl 10 the Monk has an advantage head to head, by 15 its a wash.
Eventually you are going to have to pick a warrior class to lvl past 2 and when you do the single class or single dabbles will have you beat. If you were to compare an 8th lvl monk to ft4,monk2,barb1,Pal1 (if thats even posible) the bastard would hav
Good Example. I know they are out there especially when you include 10 lvls in a Prestige class. There are hundreds of prestige classes so some are bound to be more powerful than others. Im more concerned with combinations that stack AC benefits like a Monk and a Duelist though that would be less of an issue with 5e's rollback on magic enhancements and I think 3.5 might have banned it anyway.
The alignment change would probably just involve a short xp free quest.
Couple questions. Where are you getting the +8 str? Just an assumption as to what the player is likely develop? Why cant this character continue to advance in Bard after the 10 Disciple lvls and shouldn’t you compare this character to another fighter Prestige class?
This build is more of an example of Prestige Class balance. Maybe its too easy to become a Dragon Disciple. Im on the fence there.
Answering your questions. At Dragon Disciple 10, the character gains the half-dragon template (and thus an additional +4 Strength, +2 Charisma, and +1 to natural armor not in the class writeup), that's where the extra Strength comes from. Why can't the character continue to advance in bard levels? Because bards have to be non-lawful, and paladins lose all their class features if they cease being lawful good. Blackguard, Fighter, and Cleric could all take the place of Paladin levels, but Paladin has all the right class features we want.
Finally, shouldn't I be comparing this to Fighter + Prestige Class? Well, no. The point of this excercise was to show how a crazy multiclass character could make the single class player feel useless. I suppose it would have been more fair to compare to the Paladin or the Ranger since Fighter is considered to be one of the weakest classes in 3.5, but the comparison does show how you can be completely outclassed in your role. And that's really the biggest argument against 3.x multiclassing, it was really underpowered compared to previous editions' multiclassing, until you started finding ways to abuse Prestige Classes. If you keep it to just Base Classes, multiclassing is generally a weak option outside of dips for a few useful class abilities. (Fighter 2/Rogue 18 gives up 1 die of sneak attack, +1 Reflex and a special ability for two bonus feats, +3 fortitude, full martial and armor proficiency, and a little bit of health at early levels. If you can sacrifice a little more for Fighter 4/Rogue 16, you even get a 4th attack.)
Answering your questions. At Dragon Disciple 10, the character gains the half-dragon template (and thus an additional +4 Strength, +2 Charisma, and +1 to natural armor not in the class writeup), that's where the extra Strength comes from. Why can't t
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Answering your questions. At Dragon Disciple 10, the character gains the half-dragon template (and thus an additional +4 Strength, +2 Charisma, and +1 to natural armor not in the class writeup), that's where the extra Strength comes from. Why can't the character continue to advance in bard levels? Because bards have to be non-lawful, and paladins lose all their class features if they cease being lawful good. Blackguard, Fighter, and Cleric could all take the place of Paladin levels, but Paladin has all the right class features we want.
If its the other way around cant you continue leveling in Paladin? Im confused. Good example. Would be even better if you could take it to CL 20.
Finally, shouldn't I be comparing this to Fighter + Prestige Class? Well, no. The point of this excercise was to show how a crazy multiclass character could make the single class player feel useless. I suppose it would have been more fair to compare to the Paladin or the Ranger since Fighter is considered to be one of the weakest classes in 3.5, but the comparison does show how you can be completely outclassed in your role. And that's really the biggest argument against 3.x multiclassing, it was really underpowered compared to previous editions' multiclassing, until you started finding ways to abuse Prestige Classes. If you keep it to just Base Classes, multiclassing is generally a weak option outside of dips for a few useful class abilities. (Fighter 2/Rogue 18 gives up 1 die of sneak attack, +1 Reflex and a special ability for two bonus feats, +3 fortitude, full martial and armor proficiency, and a little bit of health at early levels. If you can sacrifice a little more for Fighter 4/Rogue 16, you even get a 4th attack.)
I would have preferred a comparison to another Prestige class. Reason being I always viewed Prestige classes as your base class or classes with more cool stuff. A simple example is wizard vs red wizard. So any build that is CL 15 with 10 lvls in a Prestige class should stomp any single class. I still think its a good example for one I didn't clarify that and two I want Prestige classes in 5e. I would like to see them balanced better. Is a Dragon Disciple really an extension of a Paladin/Bard? At the very least the requirements should specify what type of arcane magic. I have never known a Dragon to sing spells that would have delayed the DD lvls.
I love those Fighter Rogue combos. To still Nelyo's word. Those types of build seem organic even when they are rooted in min maxing
If its the other way around cant you continue leveling in Paladin? Im confused. Good example. Would be even better if you could take it to CL 20.I would have preferred a comparison to another Prestige class. Reason being I always viewed Prestige clas
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I would have preferred a comparison to another Prestige class. Reason being I always viewed Prestige classes as your base class or classes with more cool stuff. A simple example is wizard vs red wizard. So any build that is CL 15 with 10 lvls in a Prestige class should stomp any single class. I still think its a good example for one I didn't clarify that and two I want Prestige classes in 5e. I would like to see them balanced better. Is a Dragon Disciple really an extension of a Paladin/Bard? At the very least the requirements should specify what type of arcane magic. I have never known a Dragon to sing spells that would have delayed the DD lvls.
No. The point of a Prestige Class is to give you access to new mechanics that your base class does not have AND give you a story hook that ties your character closer to the world. Going from a normal Wizard to becoming a Red Wizard is a big deal. Not only are you gaining cool new Tattoo powers but you are a member of an evil society bent on world domination. You now have friends, enemies and contacts you never had before. The story of your character expands a great deal as you suddenly become apart of a much larger meta-story.
No. The point of a Prestige Class is to give you access to new mechanics that your base class does not have AND give you a story hook that ties your character closer to the world. Going from a normal Wizard to becoming a Red Wizard is a big deal. Not
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />No. The point of a Prestige Class is to give you access to new mechanics that your base class does not have AND give you a story hook that ties your character closer to the world. Going from a normal Wizard to becoming a Red Wizard is a big deal. Not only are you gaining cool new Tattoo powers but you are a member of an evil society bent on world domination. You now have friends, enemies and contacts you never had before. The story of your character expands a great deal as you suddenly become apart of a much larger meta-story.
Becoming a Red Wizard didnt put you in a clique. Its more of a style than an organization. Thay was ruled by the Zulkir's who were tops in their school of magic. They had their states and in their states you had people who functioned like Lords or mayors and governors. If you were a newb Red Wizard those were the people you worked for and they were far removed from the chain of command, or outright insubordinate. The only reason you had to be non-good is the nation practiced slavery and other bad stuff that no good character would support. If you packed up and left they wouldnt follow you unless you owed them money.
Now if you are talking the Harper Prestige Class then yeah you are joining a society.
Becoming a Red Wizard didnt put you in a clique. Its more of a style than an organization. Thay was ruled by the Zulkir's who were tops in their school of magic. They had their states and in their states you had people who functioned like Lords or ma
You dont need rules to deter multiple dabbling. Having one main class while going 1,2,1, in a bunch of others makes for a rather weak character. You will have a load of talents that dont move the bar.
Be that as it may, my point was that the people who like 3e style multiclassing seem to like it for its ability to model organic characters and to represent unusual character concepts. A complaint of 4e multiclassing was that it didn't allow you to completely stop progression in your base class and go off in another direction. If they want to reintroduce that kind of system, then they should probably reconsider the XP penalty aspect since it gets in the way of the good aspects of the system.
Be that as it may, my point was that the people who like 3e style multiclassing seem to like it for its ability to model organic characters and to represent unusual character concepts. A complaint of 4e multiclassing was that it didn't allow you to c
You dont need rules to deter multiple dabbling. Having one main class while going 1,2,1, in a bunch of others makes for a rather weak character. You will have a load of talents that dont move the bar.
Be that as it may, my point was that the people who like 3e style multiclassing seem to like it for its ability to model organic characters and to represent unusual character concepts.
Precisely this.
The downsides of 3e's multiclassing are clear and readily apparent to anyone who looks at the 3e system. And knowing those failures, we can learn from them.
Complaing about how all of the things 3e did wrong is fine. It should be encouraged, even. But claiming that we can't fix the problems? That we can't keep the good, and get rid of the bad? That I will not accept.
Just because a thing had problems in the past does not mean that it must have the same problems in the future.
Be that as it may, my point was that the people who like 3e style multiclassing seem to like it for its ability to model organic characters and to represent unusual character concepts.[/quote]Precisely this.The downsides of 3e's multiclassing are cle
You dont need rules to deter multiple dabbling. Having one main class while going 1,2,1, in a bunch of others makes for a rather weak character. You will have a load of talents that dont move the bar.
Be that as it may, my point was that the people who like 3e style multiclassing seem to like it for its ability to model organic characters and to represent unusual character concepts. A complaint of 4e multiclassing was that it didn't allow you to completely stop progression in your base class and go off in another direction. If they want to reintroduce that kind of system, then they should probably reconsider the XP penalty aspect since it gets in the way of the good aspects of the system.
Its a good point. I agree. What would be your suggestion? I wonder if there is a multiclass cap in 3e. Lets make it two not including fave class and Prestige. So two with a possible three or four. How would you tweak it?
Be that as it may, my point was that the people who like 3e style multiclassing seem to like it for its ability to model organic characters and to represent unusual character concepts. A complaint of 4e multiclassing was that it didn't allow you to c
Lets dump the favorite class idea as unnecessary racial fluff and make it three total, including PrCs.
Carl
This sounds reasonable to me, depending on how they handle PrCs (i.e. as a class you multiclass into or as something which overlays your class like a paragon path). 4e limited you to multiclassing to one other class (with a paragon path on top), and that never felt particularly onerous. Where 4e multiclassing was restrictive was in the degree to which you could pursue your second class, not that you couldn't pursue as many classes as you liked.
And I'll second the notion of favored classes being utterly unnecesary.
This sounds reasonable to me, depending on how they handle PrCs (i.e. as a class you multiclass into or as something which overlays your class like a paragon path). 4e limited you to multiclassing to one other class (with a paragon path on top), and
Lets dump the favorite class idea as unnecessary racial fluff and make it three total, including PrCs.
Carl
This sounds reasonable to me, depending on how they handle PrCs (i.e. as a class you multiclass into or as something which overlays your class like a paragon path). 4e limited you to multiclassing to one other class (with a paragon path on top), and that never felt particularly onerous. Where 4e multiclassing was restrictive was in the degree to which you could pursue your second class, not that you couldn't pursue as many classes as you liked.
And I'll second the notion of favored classes being utterly unnecesary.
I'd rather have some kind of hybrid styled prestige classes. Where you stop advancing in certain areas of your original class and then start advancing in other areas of your prestige class. Multiclassing could work in the same way. Maybe the Fighter changes to a PrC and stops getting their BAB and start getting the PrC BAB. They keep getting CS dice, but stop getting maneuvers. They gain the PrC's special features. Etc...etc..
If the Fighter swaps to Wizard they can choose to stop getting CS dice, Maneuvers, or BAB. They can pick up a spell slot of the character level (not class level, so a 10th level Fighter swapping to Wizard would get a 5th level spell slot), another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, or the Wizard Tradition effect of the closest level. As they level up they can pick to advance any of the Fighter or Wizard things but they are limited to a specific number (probably around 3-4).
The more I look at what I just typed the more I think this would be the perfect system for multiclassing. They could allow you to multiclass into anything, but you only get the features of the character level you are when you multiclass. So you wouldn't get weapons proficiencies, armor proficiencies, or whatever...
This sounds reasonable to me, depending on how they handle PrCs (i.e. as a class you multiclass into or as something which overlays your class like a paragon path). 4e limited you to multiclassing to one other class (with a paragon path on top), and
While this is 100% true, there were those few exeptions that made multiclassing crazy good. I mean cmon, splashing 1 level of fighter alone was pretty sweet. Instant Armor Profs, Weapon Profs, d10 hit die, and a feat to boot. All you needed was 1.
Or take a lvl in Barbairan and get Barbarian rage, or Paladin for aura of courage or rogue for a load of base skills. Learning the basics of a second class was sensible strategy that created diverse, practical characters. I even made them realistic with the way I required players to call their next class before advancement and pay for training if they couldn't find a proper instructor. It was also balanced since doing the same with a third class forced you to include your race's fave class in one of the three, and level up a 2e styled utility character.
The only thing broken about 3e's multiclassing was that it created huge complex stat blocks and certain class combo's had stacking issues with feats based on ability scores.
I would prefer base classes to be designed such that they could be used to create diverse practical character concepts.
I shouldn't have to "dip into" rogue to get a reasonable number of skill points or into fighter to have enough feats to pull off my concept. If you want character defining things such as barbarian rage or paladin aura's you should be able to take those base classes and STILL make an interesting character.
Or take a lvl in Barbairan and get Barbarian rage, or Paladin for aura of courage or rogue for a load of base skills. Learning the basics of a second class was sensible strategy that created diverse, practical characters. I even made them realistic
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />I'd rather have some kind of hybrid styled prestige classes. Where you stop advancing in certain areas of your original class and then start advancing in other areas of your prestige class. Multiclassing could work in the same way. Maybe the Fighter changes to a PrC and stops getting their BAB and start getting the PrC BAB. They keep getting CS dice, but stop getting maneuvers. They gain the PrC's special features. Etc...etc..
If the Fighter swaps to Wizard they can choose to stop getting CS dice, Maneuvers, or BAB. They can pick up a spell slot of the character level (not class level, so a 10th level Fighter swapping to Wizard would get a 5th level spell slot), another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, or the Wizard Tradition effect of the closest level. As they level up they can pick to advance any of the Fighter or Wizard things but they are limited to a specific number (probably around 3-4).
The more I look at what I just typed the more I think this would be the perfect system for multiclassing. They could allow you to multiclass into anything, but you only get the features of the character level you are when you multiclass. So you wouldn't get weapons proficiencies, armor proficiencies, or whatever...
You are just going to give someone 5th lvl spells out of the blue? 3e muticlassing wasnt so broken to require such extremes especially when lvling from warrior to spellcaster. low lvl dips into spell casting classes arent that economical. Its usually a 1-3 lvl fighter who in theory was learning magic and fighting. Their future is as a spell caster. They will give up their ability as a fighter by default. Dipping in magic is less common and more Elvish.
They are targeting spells to augment their fighting. They give up some lvls as a fighter for mirror image, blur, arrow enchantments, or as a cleric heals, and slight buffs. In that scenario you are already trading warrior class lvls.
I would prefer base classes to be designed such that they could be used to create diverse practical character concepts.
I shouldn't have to "dip into" rogue to get a reasonable number of skill points or into fighter to have enough feats to pull off my concept. If you want character defining things such as barbarian rage or paladin aura's you should be able to take those base classes and STILL make an interesting character.
Agreed Im not talking about dipping aspects im talking about taking the actual class.
You are just going to give someone 5th lvl spells out of the blue? 3e muticlassing wasnt so broken to require such extremes especially when lvling from warrior to spellcaster. low lvl dips into spell casting classes arent that economical. Its usually
Reading some posts here make me understand why some hate 3rd edition multiclass while I loved it. In our games, 3rd edition multiclass was a fun aspect that permit all sort of variation that made the game more enjoyable. One of my favorite character was a half-orc rogue/fighter/barbarian. He start as a bouncer in a tavern, then become a soldier and finally an adventurer in search of his race roots. I didn’t create him by selecting the best feats possible in order to do the maximum of damage every round or stop levelling fighter at lvl 4. I just wanted a warrior with an vast array of option. We had a human barbarian in our group and the two were balanced. Sure, when I could rage while sneak attacking, I would do more damage than him but I couldn’t rage as often as him and he had more hit points and wear better armor.
Here, when I read word like "build", my head spin. My group would try to create fun characters, not a combination of race, class and feats. Everything had to be approved by the DM and stacking prestige class were a big no-no and I think that how the system was intended to work. Of course, with the massive amount of options that were eventually available, broken character optimization were possible but we simply stay away from that.
We never really need it but I once though about a practical reason not to do it : mutual assured destruction. If a player would manage to create a broken character, the DM would adjust and put stronger monsters who would eventually kill the others weak characters. The players would then creater others broken characters to replace them so we would end up with a group full of broken stack of class and feats. So now we have a group of, say, 9th level but with the power of 12th level. What did we achieve exactly? Fortunatly, like I said, my groups never needed that theory.
In any case, I’m glad that 3rd edition multiclass is back.
Reading some posts here make me understand why some hate 3rd edition multiclass while I loved it. In our games, 3rd edition multiclass was a fun aspect that permit all sort of variation that made the game more enjoyable. One of my favorite character
..."window.parent.tinyMCE.get('post_content').onLoad.dispatch();" contenteditable="true" />Answering your questions. At Dragon Disciple 10, the character gains the half-dragon template (and thus an additional +4 Strength, +2 Charisma, and +1 to natural armor not in the class writeup), that's where the extra Strength comes from. Why can't the character continue to advance in bard levels? Because bards have to be non-lawful, and paladins lose all their class features if they cease being lawful good. Blackguard, Fighter, and Cleric could all take the place of Paladin levels, but Paladin has all the right class features we want.
If its the other way around cant you continue leveling in Paladin? Im confused. Good example. Would be even better if you could take it to CL 20.
I know it's been a couple days, but surgery gets in the way of posting. Unfortunately no, Paladins had a special rule that restricted their multiclassing. Under the Ex-Paladins section: "Like a member of any other class, a paladin may be a multiclass character, but multiclass paladins face a special restriction. A paladin who gains a level in any class other than paladin may never again raise her paladin level, though she retains all her paladin abilities."
I got around to looking up Vassal of Bahamut, and it's fairly easy to qualify for - Lawful Good, BAB +7, Craft (Armorsmithing) 5, Diplomacy 5, Sacred Vow, Vow of Obedience. And you have to single-handedly slay a juvenile or older evil dragon, but you can probably take one solo by the time you have to qualify for Vassal. So if I were to take this to 20, I'd go Bard 1/Paladin 4/Dragon Disciple 10/Vassal of Bahamut 5, which gives you a couple of bonus feats, a bunch of platininum to spend (as long as you do not spend it frivolously or unwisely - though upgrading your gear is specifically neither frivolous nor unwise), some bonuses against dragons, and if you have the wisdom for it (or a Periapt of Wisdom that you bought with all that platinum) a few divine spells. The platinum armor thing is really cool too.
If its the other way around cant you continue leveling in Paladin? Im confused. Good example. Would be even better if you could take it to CL 20.[/quote]I know it's been a couple days, but surgery gets in the way of posting. Unfortunately no, Paladin
I'd rather have some kind of hybrid styled prestige classes. Where you stop advancing in certain areas of your original class and then start advancing in other areas of your prestige class. Multiclassing could work in the same way. Maybe the Fighter changes to a PrC and stops getting their BAB and start getting the PrC BAB. They keep getting CS dice, but stop getting maneuvers. They gain the PrC's special features. Etc...etc..
If the Fighter swaps to Wizard they can choose to stop getting CS dice, Maneuvers, or BAB. They can pick up a spell slot of the character level (not class level, so a 10th level Fighter swapping to Wizard would get a 5th level spell slot), another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, another spell slot of the character level, or the Wizard Tradition effect of the closest level. As they level up they can pick to advance any of the Fighter or Wizard things but they are limited to a specific number (probably around 3-4).
The more I look at what I just typed the more I think this would be the perfect system for multiclassing. They could allow you to multiclass into anything, but you only get the features of the character level you are when you multiclass. So you wouldn't get weapons proficiencies, armor proficiencies, or whatever...
You are just going to give someone 5th lvl spells out of the blue? 3e muticlassing wasnt so broken to require such extremes especially when lvling from warrior to spellcaster. low lvl dips into spell casting classes arent that economical. Its usually a 1-3 lvl fighter who in theory was learning magic and fighting. Their future is as a spell caster. They will give up their ability as a fighter by default. Dipping in magic is less common and more Elvish.
Go check out my thread in D&DNext General about multiclassing. I've updated the idea. You get a 5th level spell slot, but only start getting 1st level spells so you can power up that 1st level spell by putting it in that one 5th level slot. That way your burning hands does a respectable 8d4 damage or whatever.
They are targeting spells to augment their fighting. They give up some lvls as a fighter for mirror image, blur, arrow enchantments, or as a cleric heals, and slight buffs. In that scenario you are already trading warrior class levels.
The problem with this is they then are horrible Fighters and horrible Wizards. Its the same problem the current Sorcerer has once they fix low level spell spamming. The thing about it is you would get one spell slot of 5th level. Out of 4 encounters that might be useful once in one encounter, after that you are a weakened fighter. The trade off is balanced...
I would prefer base classes to be designed such that they could be used to create diverse practical character concepts.
I shouldn't have to "dip into" rogue to get a reasonable number of skill points or into fighter to have enough feats to pull off my concept. If you want character defining things such as barbarian rage or paladin aura's you should be able to take those base classes and STILL make an interesting character.
Agreed Im not talking about dipping aspects im talking about taking the actual class.
You are just going to give someone 5th lvl spells out of the blue? 3e muticlassing wasnt so broken to require such extremes especially when lvling from warrior to spellcaster. low lvl dips into spell casting classes arent that economical. Its usually
I like multiclassing because it just makes more sense.
As a player its a good tool for those players who like to play Jacks of all Trades and dabblers, and every group has at least on of those. If you take away multiclassing, you take away their fun. Those players are willing to accept a detriment of some sort, they just want to be good at sveral things rather then exceptional at one thing.
As a DM, its a good tool for those NPCs that may of had an interesting carreer, how else would you formulate hybrid characters like Drizzt (Fighter/Ranger) and Artemis Rogue/Fighter/Assassin? In fact there is a certain eleglance to that type of character building. Just by looking at the class combination, you can see a history of sorts within that character. Prestige classes is another effective tool for those very specific classes like a Red Wizard, Elven High Mage and so on.
3E multiclassing (in my opinion) was really heading towards the right direction and there was a certain beauty and charm to it. The problem was that there were allot of wholes in it, easilly exposed and taken advantage of by power gamers. With prestige classes being flat out better (rather then just different) and higher levels of the core classes having lesser abilities - multiclassing simply got out of hand... but its not the core idea that was the problem, there was just lack of balance.
Its also the fault of DMs who allowed some of the most rediculous class combinations. I generally don't allow multiclassing in my campaigns unless the players show a change of interest or heart IN CHARACTER, I also make prestige classes difficult to join, some downright impossible if it doesn't fit the setting or local.
I like multiclassing because it just makes more sense. As a player its a good tool for those players who like to play Jacks of all Trades and dabblers, and every group has at least on of those. If you take away multiclassing, you take away their fun.
As a DM, its a good tool for those NPCs that may of had an interesting carreer, how else would you formulate hybrid characters like Drizzt (Fighter/Ranger) and Artemis Rogue/Fighter/Assassin?
For the record, those characters were created in 1e. Drizzt was consistently written up as a single-classed ranger. I never saw stats on Artemis Entreri but I have no reason to guess he was other than a single-classed assassin. I can't think of a single multiclassed R.A. Salvatore character, now that I think of it.
If this is supposed to be the edition that unites lovers of all older editions, I think there are aspects that can be adopted from each, possibly as modular options.
1e/2e demihuman multiclassing/4e hybrid: Choose to multiclass at level 1 and progress equally. The 1e/2e system, where you get everything but level more slowly, is probably not so good, as it's much easier for DMs to deal with the whole party being the same level, plus figuring out the exact balance is tricky at best. The 4e method was a balancing nightmare (which is why it took them an extra 2 1/2 years to roll it out), and had to be designed class by class, but was more or less a good idea.
3e piecemeal method: The elegance was its simplicity, and the fact that if you added up your levels, you were a level (sum) character. The problems... seem like a lot, but I think it boils down to 3: front-loaded features, horrible treatment of classes that aren't cumulative with other classes (mainly casters), and lack of verisimilitude (both spontaneously adding a class out of nowhere and the silliness you get when you reach your 4th class or so). The first two can be addressed with the right rules, and the verisimilitude issue is something players and DMs should work out with each other.
1e dual-classing: Does anyone really want this back? Raise your hand... I personally think the 3e method adequately captures the "career change" concept without the extremely wonky mechanics and balance.
4e "dabbling" method: I always liked this for what it did. It's a horrible method to achieve true multiclassing--far too costly and adds almost no class features--but it's pretty good for the features it does cover, and for powers. It would be a good model for full casters in Next, I think.
I'm more worried about prestige classes/paragon paths/etc. They added a ton of bloat and garbage, with the tiniest bits of brokenness seeping through for the optimisers to go to town with.
For the record, those characters were created in 1e. Drizzt was consistently written up as a single-classed ranger. I never saw stats on Artemis Entreri but I have no reason to guess he was other than a single-classed assassin. I can't think of a
As a DM, its a good tool for those NPCs that may of had an interesting carreer, how else would you formulate hybrid characters like Drizzt (Fighter/Ranger) and Artemis Rogue/Fighter/Assassin?
For the record, those characters were created in 1e. Drizzt was consistently written up as a single-classed ranger. I never saw stats on Artemis Entreri but I have no reason to guess he was other than a single-classed assassin. I can't think of a single multiclassed R.A. Salvatore character, now that I think of it.
If this is supposed to be the edition that unites lovers of all older editions, I think there are aspects that can be adopted from each, possibly as modular options.
1e/2e demihuman multiclassing/4e hybrid: Choose to multiclass at level 1 and progress equally. The 1e/2e system, where you get everything but level more slowly, is probably not so good, as it's much easier for DMs to deal with the whole party being the same level, plus figuring out the exact balance is tricky at best. The 4e method was a balancing nightmare (which is why it took them an extra 2 1/2 years to roll it out), and had to be designed class by class, but was more or less a good idea.
3e piecemeal method: The elegance was its simplicity, and the fact that if you added up your levels, you were a level (sum) character. The problems... seem like a lot, but I think it boils down to 3: front-loaded features, horrible treatment of classes that aren't cumulative with other classes (mainly casters), and lack of verisimilitude (both spontaneously adding a class out of nowhere and the silliness you get when you reach your 4th class or so). The first two can be addressed with the right rules, and the verisimilitude issue is something players and DMs should work out with each other.
1e dual-classing: Does anyone really want this back? Raise your hand... I personally think the 3e method adequately captures the "career change" concept without the extremely wonky mechanics and balance.
4e "dabbling" method: I always liked this for what it did. It's a horrible method to achieve true multiclassing--far too costly and adds almost no class features--but it's pretty good for the features it does cover, and for powers. It would be a good model for full casters in Next, I think.
I'm more worried about prestige classes/paragon paths/etc. They added a ton of bloat and garbage, with the tiniest bits of brokenness seeping through for the optimisers to go to town with.
In the 3rd edition Forgotten Realms sourcebook, Entreri was listed as a ranger/fighter/rogue/assassin so maybe that what’s Slygamer was referring. As for Drizzt, he was sometime listed as a 16th level ranger, sometime as a dual class fighter 18/ranger 16. The first as the problem of ignoring his time in Menzoberrazan where he obviously was a fighter and the second as being outside the rule as dual class was restricted to human.
As such, 3rd edition multiclass was easy to portray him : 10 level of fighter for his training in Menzo, 1 level of barbarian for the time he spend alone in the Underdark and 5 level of ranger that he learn when he left the Underdark.
For the record, those characters were created in 1e. Drizzt was consistently written up as a single-classed ranger. I never saw stats on Artemis Entreri but I have no reason to guess he was other than a single-classed assassin. I can't think of a
Go check out my thread in D&DNext General about multiclassing. I've updated the idea. You get a 5th level spell slot, but only start getting 1st level spells so you can power up that 1st level spell by putting it in that one 5th level slot. That way your burning hands does a respectable 8d4 damage or whatever.
.
The problem with this is they then are horrible Fighters and horrible Wizards. Its the same problem the current Sorcerer has once they fix low level spell spamming. The thing about it is you would get one spell slot of 5th level. Out of 4 encounters that might be useful once in one encounter, after that you are a weakened fighter. The trade off is balanced...
That is the balance for such a build. You lose some expertise in the Warrior class for novice spells. Its not always a bad deal. Through adventuring the Warrior might have scored some items that only a novice wizard could use. With three lvls at wizard you would have access to several of these spells: Enlarge, True Strike, Jump, Grease, and Protection from evil at 1st lvl with Mirror Image, Invisibility, Blur, Bull Str, and Cat’s Grace at second. Those spells might have more value than 3 lvls in fighter. Spell dabbling is already relatively balanced. The larger issues are underpowered characters that splits levels evenly with something like Ranger and Sorcerer. That’s an honest build for a feral elf yet still very underpowered. Maybe such characters could have access to the better prestige classes. Another issue that might surface is that Wizard’s commitment to reducing hp bloat could encourage non-caster characters to take on caster lvls if there are cuts in hitdice/hp at later lvls. A remedy for that might be quality combat maneuvers at later lvls.
That is the balance for such a build. You lose some expertise in the Warrior class for novice spells. Its not always a bad deal. Through adventuring the Warrior might have scored some items that only a novice wizard could use. With three lvls at wiz
I generally don't allow multiclassing in my campaigns unless the players show a change of interest or heart IN CHARACTER, I also make prestige classes difficult to join, some downright impossible if it doesn't fit the setting or local.
I would do this too. I would also require the person have some training in the new class. I don't intend to let players simply take another class, and become whatever they can suddenly do.
I like the idea of multiclassing, and I hope they do include it. But I want it to be done properly, and in a way that makes it difficult to create powerbuilds. Multiclassed characters should have a diverse set of skills, not end up better at something than the single-classed characters, so I don't want to see a multiclassed fighter able to be better in melee combat than a fighter.
I would do this too. I would also require the person have some training in the new class. I don't intend to let players simply take another class, and become whatever they can suddenly do.I like the idea of multiclassing, and I hope they do include i
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. For example, a wizard who takes a level in fighter gains proficiency with a specific category of martial/finesse/heavy weapons or leather armor (along with the ability to cast spells while wearing armor), Combat superiority and a fighting style. As he gains levels in fighter, he gains combat maneuvers and expertise dice as normal, but must choose to either gain proficiency with a type of armor 2 "steps" up the armor table (like going from proficiency with leather armor to displacer beast hide and mithral proficiency, or just 1 step up, if stepping between categories) or proficiency with weapons of a specific type within a specific category (like blades within finesse weapons) every time he gains a level in fighter, while CS dice progress normally. Since the "to hit" bonus scales slowly, with weapon attack bonuses and spell attack bonuses, only the highest one between classes should count (for example, a fighter/wizard's attack bonus will usually progress better as the character takes levels in fighter, and their spell attack bonus should progress better if they take more levels in wizard), while special combat abilities should scale normally, as they are usually not front-loaded. This system would make XP penalties less necessary, as front-loaded features would be less prominent.
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. For example, a wizard who takes a level in fighter gains proficiency with a specific category of martial/finesse/heavy weapons or l
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. .
That appears to be what they are planning.
Carl
Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I don't know how they are going to do this, seems like a cool idea, but a fine line to walk.
That appears to be what they are planning.Carl [/quote]Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. .
That appears to be what they are planning.
Carl
Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I don't know how they are going to do this, seems like a cool idea, but a fine line to walk.
My first guess was maybe have the same number of spells as a L1 wizard, but make the spell levels appropriate to your total character level.
So a L1 wizard gets 3 L1 spell while a L6 rogue/ L1 wizard gets 3 L4 spells.
Or - if that is too much too fast - maybe they get 1 L4, 1 L3 and 1 L2. Or something along those lines.
Carl
That appears to be what they are planning.Carl [/quote]Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. .
That appears to be what they are planning.
Carl
Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I don't know how they are going to do this, seems like a cool idea, but a fine line to walk.
My first guess was maybe have the same number of spells as a L1 wizard, but make the spell levels appropriate to your total character level.
So a L1 wizard gets 3 L1 spell while a L6 rogue/ L1 wizard gets 3 L4 spells.
Or - if that is too much too fast - maybe they get 1 L4, 1 L3 and 1 L2. Or something along those lines.
Carl
Just take what they get at the character level over what the previous level was.
At level 4 a Wizard gets just one more level 2 spell. So if you have a Fighter 3/Wizard 1 then just give them 1 level 2 spell. If they get level 5, give them 2 level 3 spells...
That appears to be what they are planning.Carl [/quote]Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I
Accoring to L&L I would say so. As well, they mention something about looking into a scaling multiclass system where taking the 1st level of a spellcaster class isn't useless at higher levels. I don't know how they are going to do this, seems like a cool idea, but a fine line to walk.
I really dont want to see that. 1 lvl of mage offers the ability to use wands, rods, scrolls, and a handful of 1st lvl spells that were actually useful in certain situations. Just giving someone spells beyond the xp required is the type of artificial balance that masks its asymmetry. That typically causes imbalances in other areas.
I really dont want to see that. 1 lvl of mage offers the ability to use wands, rods, scrolls, and a handful of 1st lvl spells that were actually useful in certain situations. Just giving someone spells beyond the xp required is the type of artificial
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. .
That appears to be what they are planning.
I quite like that idea! Would be interested to see how it works in practice, but IMO, that makes a lot more sense than being able to suddenly gain years of background training with a simple career change.
It'd be interesting to have some kind of "apprentice" system for multiclassing, where you start as an apprentice/initiate/whatever in the new class, and can eventually gain the equivalent prowess of a first level character in that class, but it takes a bit longer, to represent the fact that it's an ongoing training thing, rather than a simple decision that you can make and then instantly forget about once you have a bunch of cool new abilities.
That appears to be what they are planning.[/quote]I quite like that idea! Would be interested to see how it works in practice, but IMO, that makes a lot more sense than being able to suddenly gain years of background training with a simple career cha
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. .
That appears to be what they are planning.
I quite like that idea! Would be interested to see how it works in practice, but IMO, that makes a lot more sense than being able to suddenly gain years of background training with a simple career change.
It'd be interesting to have some kind of "apprentice" system for multiclassing, where you start as an apprentice/initiate/whatever in the new class, and can eventually gain the equivalent prowess of a first level character in that class, but it takes a bit longer, to represent the fact that it's an ongoing training thing, rather than a simple decision that you can make and then instantly forget about once you have a bunch of cool new abilities.
Personally, I think the only fundamental function of multiclassing is to given flexibility to let players 'flavour' a class to their taste. It looks like dnd Next already has, in the form of specialities and backgrounds, plently of opportunity to fine tune a class. I think this is more than enough 'dimensions' that need to be exist, provided that the specialities list isn't too tied to classes (Clerics shouldn't synergise too well with Healer for example - the power of speciality plus class should have incremental benefit beyond the 'sum of the parts' only in a roleplay sense).
I'm not averse to optional rules multiclassing if as part of the story arch a player learns under some mentor (maybe like the "apprentice" system mentioned above), but I would prefer if the developers spent more time on the specialities. Its a neat system that I fear would end up underdeveloped in lieu of multiclassing.
So my two cents is - forget multiclassing, rethink specialities and make them less tied to individual classes. Put all your variety in there. Maybe take two of them for a bit more choice.
That appears to be what they are planning.[/quote]I quite like that idea! Would be interested to see how it works in practice, but IMO, that makes a lot more sense than being able to suddenly gain years of background training with a simple career cha
Maybe there should be different advancement tables for a character's starting class and classes taken levels in later. .
That appears to be what they are planning.
I quite like that idea! Would be interested to see how it works in practice, but IMO, that makes a lot more sense than being able to suddenly gain years of background training with a simple career change.
It'd be interesting to have some kind of "apprentice" system for multiclassing, where you start as an apprentice/initiate/whatever in the new class, and can eventually gain the equivalent prowess of a first level character in that class, but it takes a bit longer, to represent the fact that it's an ongoing training thing, rather than a simple decision that you can make and then instantly forget about once you have a bunch of cool new abilities.
The more I think about it the more I like it. Its similar to what I tweaked in 3e. I'm picturing something like the Elder Scrolls except you gain experience in class instead of skills. A wizard that is preserving magic while fighting with a sling or staff could gain experience as a fighter though not in total since they could still gauge potential use of touch and range magic in martial combat.
That appears to be what they are planning.[/quote]I quite like that idea! Would be interested to see how it works in practice, but IMO, that makes a lot more sense than being able to suddenly gain years of background training with a simple career cha
My first guess was maybe have the same number of spells as a L1 wizard, but make the spell levels appropriate to your total character level.
So a L1 wizard gets 3 L1 spell while a L6 rogue/ L1 wizard gets 3 L4 spells.
Or - if that is too much too fast - maybe they get 1 L4, 1 L3 and 1 L2. Or something along those lines.
Carl
Just take what they get at the character level over what the previous level was.
At level 4 a Wizard gets just one more level 2 spell. So if you have a Fighter 3/Wizard 1 then just give them 1 level 2 spell. If they get level 5, give them 2 level 3 spells...
That's what I was thinking at first, too, but you end up with weird floating spell levels. E.g. a ftr3/wiz1 gets 1 level 2 spell, but if that character then becoems ftr4/wiz1, they lose the level 2 spell and gain 2 level 3 spells. Even worse, a ftr2/wiz1 has 2 level 2 spells, but then loses one when they gain another fighter level.
Also, dipping becomes too powerful ("I only know one spell... but that spell is miracle.") No, I agree with the devs that a simple algorithm isn't going to work, and separate tables for first class and second+ class are better.
Just take what they get at the character level over what the previous level was.At level 4 a Wizard gets just one more level 2 spell. So if you have a Fighter 3/Wizard 1 then just give them 1 level 2 spell. If they get level 5, give them 2 level 3 sp
My first guess was maybe have the same number of spells as a L1 wizard, but make the spell levels appropriate to your total character level.
So a L1 wizard gets 3 L1 spell while a L6 rogue/ L1 wizard gets 3 L4 spells.
Or - if that is too much too fast - maybe they get 1 L4, 1 L3 and 1 L2. Or something along those lines.
Carl
Just take what they get at the character level over what the previous level was.
At level 4 a Wizard gets just one more level 2 spell. So if you have a Fighter 3/Wizard 1 then just give them 1 level 2 spell. If they get level 5, give them 2 level 3 spells...
That's what I was thinking at first, too, but you end up with weird floating spell levels. E.g. a ftr3/wiz1 gets 1 level 2 spell, but if that character then becoems ftr4/wiz1, they lose the level 2 spell and gain 2 level 3 spells. Even worse, a ftr2/wiz1 has 2 level 2 spells, but then loses one when they gain another fighter level.
Also, dipping becomes too powerful ("I only know one spell... but that spell is miracle.") No, I agree with the devs that a simple algorithm isn't going to work, and separate tables for first class and second+ class are better.
I meant that they gain what they get at the level they take and don't lose anything they didn't have. I mean even just 1 miracle spell at 18th level is not that overpowering especially if the cleric next to you can cast it 2-4 times to your one plus about 23 other spells. You can fluff it as your deity granting you power equal to your tasks. They aren't going to grant you cure light wounds and 'magic lantern +1' to fight that ancient red wyrm right?
As far as Wizard's go, they would be studying that one spell slot and those 1-3 spells they learned and focusing on just that until they finally master the excercises to memorize just one of those spells, when they level up all that practice and training finally pays off...
Just take what they get at the character level over what the previous level was.At level 4 a Wizard gets just one more level 2 spell. So if you have a Fighter 3/Wizard 1 then just give them 1 level 2 spell. If they get level 5, give them 2 level 3 sp
Yes, we 100% plan to include multiclassing. Some specialties give you a light touch of another class, but the full system allows you to integrate multiple classes. I see this as simply another area where players can choose how deep they want to go into a class or archetype.
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had a Hybrid Class character.
3.x and Star Wars, on the other hand, had stupidly beneficial multiclassing. There was no real benefit to taking a single class character (barring Prestige Classes, some of which can arguably be considered just a specialization of a basic class). And that's not touching some of the beardy cheese that CharOp would sometimes vomit forth. For example, a monk build that can choke out any spellcaster within a one-mile radius, in one round.
Now, because multiclassing was so stupidly beneficial, it also made character development and leveling really confusing. One mistake and your character would go from useful to useless. Some of this was because of math holes and tax feats; having to take an accuracy feat to still be able to hit monsters on less than a 17, for example. You also had the problem of Attack Bonus calculations because you had 1, 3/4, and 1/2- AB classes. Again, taking a level in the wrong class would totally destroy a combat build.
So with all that in mind, why does WotC keep trying to force multiclassing on us? I just don't see it being beneficial to 5e at all, compared to the damage it can inflict on game balance and design.
3rd ed multiclassing seems to be the consensus favorite. Everyone I talk to prefers 3rd editions or 3.5 multiclassing because of the benefits. It cuts both ways with it. Dms can build NPc accordingly if there is a challenge issue. Its up to WOTC to balance the classes so that you don't have this surge like you had in previous editions with classes. You also gotta ask yourself why the hybrid came to be, ,, because 4th ed multiclassing wasn't cutting the mustard for people so it was a better alternative
1e and 2e had multiclassing. It was rare because it was fairly hard to actually pull off, barring a few places where it was essential- like 1e PHB bards and PHB Appendix psionics. 4e had similar multiclassing, but it was either Feat-based or you had
Instead, you build your own class using some set of rules for doing so.
Don't think its that radical - just have a couple of classes for core mechanic differences.
The 'set of rules' could be specialities - choose more and make them more powerful.
Then you dont need to make a multiclass, you have building blocks to make your character how you envisage.
Don't think its that radical - just have a couple of classes for core mechanic differences.The 'set of rules' could be specialities - choose more and make them more powerful.Then you dont need to make a multiclass, you have building blocks to make yo
