|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 3:17PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
Aug 10, 2009
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 3:49PM
#2
|
|
|
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?
Pro DnD Member of the Axis of Awesome Fighters: Using socks to kill monsters since 2012 DnD Next: Now with more then 4 minutes of Roleplay per gaming hour Spoiler:
Show
"If you can't make an interesting human fighter, then you aren't ready to play anything else yet" Edymnion
"The idea of resting up between encounters to fill-up on hit points and spells struck my meta-gaming nine-year-old as a distinct possibility. "Are you mad?" says my seven-year-old "This place is full of monsters!" "jamesgrahamuk
All characters have a story. Spoiler:
Show
Sometimes that story is short and sometimes it is long. They can be tragic, comic or absurd. Some teach. Some are just to fill the empty spaces in our lives. Rarely it is a transcendent fugue only half remembered but wondered at. And frequently: "it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." -William Shakespeare
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 4:09PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
I just hope they keep favorite classes. Ill take a full port of 3e multiclassing.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 6:44PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
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.
This does not appear to be an issue with 5e.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 6:48PM
#5
|
|
|
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.
My two copper.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 7:16PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Sep 20, 2010
|
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.
Ant Farm
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 7:46PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
May 25, 2012
|
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.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 8:10PM
#8
|
|
|
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:
With 1 spell slot package:
level spell slots (2 spell slot packages)
1st 2nd 3rd
1 1
2 1
3 1 1
4 1 1
5 1 1 1
With 2 spell slot packages:
level spell slots (2 spell slot packages)
1st 2nd 3rd
1 2
2 2
3 2 2
4 2 2
5 2 2 2
With 3 spell slot packages:
level spell slots
1st 2nd 3rd
1 3
2 3
3 3 2
4 3 3
5 3 3 2
It would work out very well...
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 8:50PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Nov 17, 2003
|
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?
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 13, 2012 - 10:05PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Jun 24, 2005
|
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?
|
|
|
