|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:03PM
#1
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Legends & Lore
Multiclassing in NextBy Mike Mearls Over the course of the summer, the R&D team had the chance to meet a lot of people at conventions such as Origins, Gen Con, and PAX. The rules for multiclass characters came up a few times in panels or in random conversations, so I thought now would be a good time to give you an overview of our goals for those rules. Talk about this column here.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:15PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Ambitious, it'd be awesome if it works, I'm not convinced it'll turn out that way though.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:23PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jun 27, 2004
|
I don't get it. I mean, I get that it's 3e multiclassing, except (a) it's optional and (b) they're hoping to make "level-dipping" not overpowered and (c) they're hoping to make multiclassing into a spellcasting class not a waste of time.
But I don't get how they're currently dealing with (c). "We can build the rules to give you a bit more power to keep that gap reasonable" doesn't sound right to me.
What I think (hope?) he's saying is that things like "multiclassing into a spellcaster class" can take into account your total character level - and give you access to spells of an appropriate level (just fewer of them). That might actually be what he's saying, but I didn't get it from the article clearly.
Feedback Disclaimer
Show
Yes, I am expressing my opinions (even complaints - le gasp!) about the current iteration of the play-test that we actually have in front of us.
No, I'm not going to wait for you to tell me when it's okay to start expressing my concerns (unless you are WotC).
(And no, my comments on this forum are not of the same tone or quality as my actual survey feedback.)
A Psion for Next (Playable Draft)A Barbarian for Next (Brainstorming Still)My 4e Projects
Show
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:28PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
That was my impression as well. Kinda sloppy but I'll let it slide because it's not in crunch.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:30PM
#5
|
|
|
It sounds like they're perfectly and precisely aware of exactly what the major issues with 3e multiclassing are (they list them explicitly) and are designing the multiclassing system to account for that. That's very encouraging, and about as much as anyone could hope for.
Dwarves invented beer so they could toast to their axes. Dwarves invented axes to kill people and take their beer.
"Feel free to claim I said anything you like. How's someone going to call you out on it? Are they going to be all like, 'I know all of the things that Gary said, and that's not one of them?'"
- Gary Gygax
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:30PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Mike Mearls: You can expect that the multiclass rules will break out abilities so that a player cannot take a single level in one or more classes in order to combine a number of signature abilities.
This is the important bit i look forward to with DDN multiclassing.
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:31PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
No, i can hope for a heck of a lot more, as it is this is a lot better than i honestly expected though.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:33PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
May 12, 2009
|
Mike Mearls: I’m sure that we’ll allow multiclassing as an option in our organized play campaigns—but the system will still serve as an option for DMs to use in their campaigns.
Also glad to hear about Organized Play even if as insignificant as it might be 
Yan
Montréal, Canada
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 10:36PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
I don't get it. I mean, I get that it's 3e multiclassing, except (a) it's optional and (b) they're hoping to make "level-dipping" not overpowered and (c) they're hoping to make multiclassing into a spellcasting class not a waste of time.
But I don't get how they're currently dealing with (c). "We can build the rules to give you a bit more power to keep that gap reasonable" doesn't sound right to me.
What I think (hope?) he's saying is that things like "multiclassing into a spellcaster class" can take into account your total character level - and give you access to spells of an appropriate level (just fewer of them). That might actually be what he's saying, but I didn't get it from the article clearly.
I am also confused by this.
In general, I dislike the 3E multiclassing method anyhow; so, I'll be opting it out.
I hope that they will also include an AD&D style multiclassing option (multiclassing must be chosen at character creation and advancement is, mostly, concurrent).
What I mean by concurrent is that all typical experience points are divided equally among all of a character's classes; although, I tend to give additional experience out for use of class specific features (spellcasters' spell use, ranger's tracking, bard's musical features, etc.) which will allow non-concurrent advancement to a certain degree.
|
|
|
|
9 months ago ::
Sep 16, 2012 - 11:48PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
I read it as saying: There is "Fighter" = the class. Then there is "Multiclass Fighter" = the multiclass.
Fighter - the class - is front loaded and designed to feel like a fighter from level 1. Fighter - the multiclass - is not front loaded and gives you your abilities at a more measured pace.
When you start at level 1, you take your class of choice. If you later multiclass - you don't take the new class as Fighter - the class; you take Fighter - the multiclass. As a 5Rogue/1Fighter - you may not have all of the same fighter class abilities as a 1Fighter would have.
Because Fighter - the multiclass is being designed from stage one as a multiclass option, they can put abilities in there which make it more useful as a multiclass option. For example - perhaps Wizard - the multiclass has an option to cast spells in light armor which Wizard - the class does not. Or perhaps wizard - the multiclass has a spell progression table based on the total character levels rather than the class level; maybe as a 7Rogue/1Wizard (multiclass) you still get only three spells - but your three spells can be fourth level.
The point is - by designing the multiclass as a multiclass you can put things in that make it work better as a multiclass but that would be problematic or illogical as a base class.
But since we have no details, we will just have to wait for the actual implementation.
My biggest concern is that this may make a 7R/4W very different from a 4W/7R and if so I'm not sure how I feel about that.
Carl
|
|
|
