Community

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:37AM, mellored wrote:

Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?
Or should the order you take the classes in make a difference?

I say they should be the same. I really hope they find a good way to do multiclassing, but I get the feeling it's going to suck, because they're doing it as an afterthought. I felt like multiclassing should have been in the game from the start, as opposed to something they're going to add later.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:05AM, Dwarfslayer wrote:

but I get the feeling it's going to suck, because they're doing it as an afterthought.

Seems that way.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:34AM, WpgDave wrote:

A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.

I've suggested something similar before.

It also opens up the zero-to-hero aspect some people like.  Where level 0 is a 10 year old kid who grabs a pitch fork and has trouble with a single kobol.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Orzel wrote:

I prefer them different. The 1st level should mean more. For example you should only get a fighting style/tradition/deity/from one class. Or something of that sort.

I agree with this. One thing I really did like about 4e was that when you chose a class at 1st level it was a meaningful decision, not just a placeholder for something you REALLY wanted to go into but it was better to take X at first level. Now do I want a return of 4e's multiclassing? Hell no. But I do like the idea of your primary (first chosen) class giving you something that multiclassing cannot.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:37AM, mellored wrote:

Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?
Or should the order you take the classes in make a difference?

In a way, that's like what a DM asked me the first time I tried multiclassing (1st Ed) a fighter/mage. He asked, "Well, do you want a fighter with magical help, or a wizard who can use a sword?" The difference was crucial to the character she started out as, and what she has evolved into.

That's what drives my answer to the question. I do not think they should be the same. Which class you take first should determine the focus of the character.

However ...

I'm a big fan of the 1st Ed multiclassing, where you take both classes at the same time. Since WotC has mentioned they'll be using a 3e-type of multiclassing, that sort of throws out my mental concept of an elf who grows up learning both fighting and magery. I'll see how it's addressed as we move forward.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:42AM, Jenks wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:35AM, Orzel wrote:

I prefer them different. The 1st level should mean more. For example you should only get a fighting style/tradition/deity/from one class. Or something of that sort.

I agree with this. One thing I really did like about 4e was that when you chose a class at 1st level it was a meaningful decision, not just a placeholder for something you REALLY wanted to go into but it was better to take X at first level. Now do I want a return of 4e's multiclassing? Hell no. But I do like the idea of your primary (first chosen) class giving you something that multiclassing cannot.

I agree with this.

Perhaps they might try something else.  Since they are playing around with names (themes, specialties, etc.) perhaps they might call Multi-classing, Themes.  Themes would be specially designed packages of abilities that would progress as you put experience into them, much like levels.  However, they would be designed to be limited versions of what you were 'multi-classing' into.  

You might have a Spellblade Theme, and Arcane Archer theme, a Holy Knight theme, a Forester theme, etc (don't mind the names, they're not the point).  Basically, you'd get limited abilities similar to one of the other Core Classes, that had been designed to balance specifically for multi-classing.  You'd spend XP to gain levels (or maybe actually abilities you can buy with XP).

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:34AM, WpgDave wrote:

A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.

Yep, 3.x gave 4 levels worth of stuff (give or take, but for the vast majority of things it's four levels worth) at level 1. So linear classes like warriors dipped like crazy, while quadratic classes like casters hardly ever multiclassed at all except into full progression prestige classes.

D&DNext may be getting rid of quadratic wizards. We'll see. But if level 1 gives 4 levels of stuff, then call it level 4 and say that everyone starts at level 4.

A system doesn't NEED to be consistent if being consistent interferes with being fun, but I'm not seeing the unfun part of calling the starting level "level 4", and in this case the consistency of what a level gives you makes multiclassing work FAR BETTER.

If you still want low levels to be "one hit kill" territory then double or tripple everything's damage. Since level 1 doesn't give max HP you'll only have about 3x HP so 3x damage will be fine.

If someone WANTS to play gimpy the wonderboy and start at level 1, well, he can.
If someone WANTS to start out multiclassed, he can.
You don't need an extra feat at level 1, or 6 different class features at level 1, or +2 to "good" saves at level 1, or any of the rest of that crap.

Spread the level 1 stuff over 4 levels, and multiclassing will work because there is no front-end loading to tempt people to dip 6 different classes.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:44AM, Orzel wrote:

Yes A fighter5/wizard5 multiclass, a wizard5/fighter5 multiclass and a fighter5/wizard5 dualclass should all be available and different.

+10000000000

This, more or less, highlights what people want out of multiclassing. I can only think of 2 or 3 real 'multi-classed' characters in fantasy. Those characters started down a path, then changed their attitudes and started down a different path (something about a warrior Orc who takes up the path of a shaman...). I can think of a lot more characters who use truly martial magic to accomplish their goals (some book about a kid who rides a dragon...).

I would be happy if they made a good 'gish' class for those who want it rather than a seperate 'dual-classing' system, but the point is the two systems are different.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 12:23PM, Rory wrote:

community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/758...

I wrestled with it before conceding that 3e multiclassing is the way to go for making characters that fit setting. 

I havent come to grips with it still chewing our initial responses seem very  similar.
This struck home...  and not just because of odd combinations but because there didnt seem much effort to make the combinations in to a new thing. Its like paint dots splashed at a canvas.

The odd combinations of classes gave me a headache. Who's idea of D&D was this? And its not like anyone explained what this new form of multiclassing was about.

... so far I think liberal use of themes is the better multiclassing, but that is perhaps my 4e experience so without consistant structure of classes they are less valuable for that purpose.

4e also had hybriding the result of which feels very like 1e/2e duoclassing (I think that was what it was called). where a level 5/5 cost as xp much as a 6.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:18PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

But what I want out of multi-classing isn't that at all. I want to be a character with a university dual-major. I know people who dual-major in music and political science. Entirely different fields with very little overlap. You aren't going to use your musical talents to interpret politics. They are different areas you happen to have an interest in.

You could also have a major in music, with a minor in political science.

3e style multiclassing allows for this, the unrestrained, fine-resolution specification of a particular mix of classes. 

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you started off with some music classes, took a little political science, and then finished off with music.  Or if you started with political science for a bit, and decided it wasn't your thing and went to music.  The end result is the same:  on graduation, you have a music major and a political science minor.  What you know at the end is the same, but the process to get there was different.  This is exactly how 3e style multiclassing works.  So, yes, wiz5/ftr5 = ftr5/wiz5.

3e style multiclassing also allows for a mechanical representation of major life changes, as well.  A scurrilous rogue who finds religion, and becomes a cleric.  He never forgets his techniques that he used, and he can still call on them, but he uses them in service of his god, instead of his own pockets.  Requiring class determination to be chosen at character creation, whether single-class, multi-class, hybrid/dual-class, eliminates this possibility without a complete character rewrite.  That involves too much mechanical retcon, to me.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:27PM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:18PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

But what I want out of multi-classing isn't that at all. I want to be a character with a university dual-major. I know people who dual-major in music and political science. Entirely different fields with very little overlap. You aren't going to use your musical talents to interpret politics. They are different areas you happen to have an interest in.

You could also have a major in music, with a minor in political science.

3e style multiclassing allows for this, the unrestrained, fine-resolution specification of a particular mix of classes. 

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you started off with some music classes, took a little political science, and then finished off with music.  Or if you started with political science for a bit, and decided it wasn't your thing and went to music.  The end result is the same:  on graduation, you have a music major and a political science minor.  What you know at the end is the same, but the process to get there was different.  This is exactly how 3e style multiclassing works.  So, yes, wiz5/ftr5 = ftr5/wiz5.

3e style multiclassing also allows for a mechanical representation of major life changes, as well.  A scurrilous rogue who finds religion, and becomes a cleric.  He never forgets his techniques that he used, and he can still call on them, but he uses them in service of his god, instead of his own pockets.  Requiring class determination to be chosen at character creation, whether single-class, multi-class, hybrid/dual-class, eliminates this possibility without a complete character rewrite.  That involves too much mechanical retcon, to me.

I understand the argument you are making, but I don't think 3e really allow for it, not in the straight-up way I described. To attempt to simulate it by the book, I'd have to use prestige classes like eldritch knight (which I prefer not to), and I'd usually end up with a mechanically weak character, since vertical power in spellcasting is so much more useful than breadth of abilities in 3e.

I eventually came up with a house-ruled modification to the gestalt rules that more or less allows duplication of the concept, but it was a lot of work and only counts at my own table.

I don't want to have to houserule my multi-classing in Next.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:56PM, DragonGuardian wrote:

So a Figher 5 who takes 5 levels in Multiclass Wizard is different from a Wizard 5 who takes 5 levels in Multiclass Figher if only slightly.

I would hope that the frontloads would be all backloaded by level 5.  Three or four levels seems about enough to me to be able to 'grow' into full competency in a second class.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 4:57PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

All that being said, I have no problem with an option to take class levels a la carte like 3e, as long as it doesn't end up with some of the problems, and maintains some sorts of limits on the number of classes and benefits derived from dabbling. I just want my old-school, full-powered, high-octane, dual-majored multi-classing supported by the books.

The problems are what I am afraid of, though.  3 and 3.5e were great...when powergamers didn't manipulate the system so badly that they come up with a result much greater than 20 levels of a pure class.  That doesn't even factor in what they could do with prestige classes.  WoTC needs to make this system, so it takes the best of 4.0(which was better at limiting the powergamer a bit, but not perfect), meld it with what was good in 3.0 and 3.5, and new mechanics and improvements of this new version...

1. Remove spell slot levels entirely
2. Frontload level 1 abilities, giving each class 3 maneuvers/spells and 2 expertise dice / spell slots on top of 3 class features as well
• Multiclass characters can choose 1 maneuver + 1 spell and gain 1 expertise die / spell slot, as well as 1 class feature from each class they came from
3. You gain additional maneuvers / spells and expertise dice / spell slots as you level
• Multiclass characters can choose to gain an expertise die or a spell slot, but not both
• Similarly, multiclass characters can choose to gain a new maneuver or a new spell, but not both

That way, let's say by level 10, you'd have as a baseline of

• 10 Fighter with 4 Expertise Dice and 11 maneuvers
• 10 Wizard with 4 Spell Slots and 11 spells
• 10 Fighter / Wizard with 3 expertise dice + 1 spell slot, 2 expertise dice + 2 spell slots, or 1 expertise die + 3 spell slots, and a total of 10 maneuvers + spells

So you don't get screwed out of not going to level 10 in one class, but at the same time you're not too powerful by going multiclass.  Plus, you can customize your multiclass nature in a myriad of ways, all without breaking the bank so to speak

EDIT: To clarify, the idea is that getting a level in a different class would not grant you the entire level 1 feature of the class, and at best trades what you should've gotten in your original class with something else from the new class.  There's potential for abuse yes, but frankly it could work if only multiclassing (and possibly classless design) is given serious consideration in the design.

Different, but not so different as the playtest suggests.

Going back to the question "fighter with magical help or wizard that can use a sword," the playtest rules supply "1st level" abilities that allow for a fighter to have magical help, but I can't be a wizard that can use a sword 'cause the multiclass lvl 1 fighter grants no additional weapon or armour proficiencies.

I can understand the armour, but I think a few of the basics with weapons should be covered.

I've always liked the idea of 3e multiclassing and I've used it tons so more of that is fine, but I do love the concurrent AD&D multis. 4e hybrids felt a lot like the AD&D multis but eesh, all those tables.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:46PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

I understand the argument you are making, but I don't think 3e really allow for it, not in the straight-up way I described. To attempt to simulate it by the book, I'd have to use prestige classes like eldritch knight (which I prefer not to), and I'd usually end up with a mechanically weak character, since vertical power in spellcasting is so much more useful than breadth of abilities in 3e.

This is a failure of class design in 3e, not multiclass design.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 11:42AM, Doug_Lampert wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 10:34AM, WpgDave wrote:

A simple way of dealing with the fronloading issue is to, instead of getting a bunch of things at level 1, get all of your core class abilities over multiple levels, say 3.  Then, clearly state that adventurers should always start at level 3 or above -- level 3 becomes the new level 1.  The only problem with this is that it would upset people who think there's something sacred about starting at level 1.

Yep, 3.x gave 4 levels worth of stuff (give or take, but for the vast majority of things it's four levels worth) at level 1. So linear classes like warriors dipped like crazy, while quadratic classes like casters hardly ever multiclassed at all except into full progression prestige classes.

D&DNext may be getting rid of quadratic wizards. We'll see. But if level 1 gives 4 levels of stuff, then call it level 4 and say that everyone starts at level 4.

A system doesn't NEED to be consistent if being consistent interferes with being fun, but I'm not seeing the unfun part of calling the starting level "level 4", and in this case the consistency of what a level gives you makes multiclassing work FAR BETTER.

If you still want low levels to be "one hit kill" territory then double or tripple everything's damage. Since level 1 doesn't give max HP you'll only have about 3x HP so 3x damage will be fine.

If someone WANTS to play gimpy the wonderboy and start at level 1, well, he can.
If someone WANTS to start out multiclassed, he can.
You don't need an extra feat at level 1, or 6 different class features at level 1, or +2 to "good" saves at level 1, or any of the rest of that crap.

Spread the level 1 stuff over 4 levels, and multiclassing will work because there is no front-end loading to tempt people to dip 6 different classes.

I don't see why more people don't feel this way.  This approach is simple to design, easy to learn and use, and stops "class dipping" from breaking the game.

• Albert takes 5 levels of Fighter and then 5 levels Wizard.
• Burtrom takes 5 levels of Wizard and then 5 levels of Fighter.
• Charles takes 1 level of either Fighter or Wizard, and alternates between the two until he has 5 of each.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 6:25AM, Aesurtiel wrote:

MULTICLASS WIZARD

A wizard gets 1 spell slot per level.  The highest level spell he can cast is half his character level.

Wizard 10: 2 2 2 2 2
Wizard 7/Fighter 3: 2 2 1 1 1
Wizard 3/ Fighter 7: 1 1 1 0 0

Cool? 

  

Why give the Wizard 3/ Fighter 7 an advantage? You are giving fireball two levels ahead as a reward for also knowing how to fight. That will outshine single class. Its not like I have a much better solution. Actually I have a similar solution. Mix in a few levels of Swordmage to bump the Wiz slots, and rebalance magic so its not so top heavy.

Something about a "formative class" makes sense to my brain. The reality of how people develop skills isn't in any way represented by character classes anyway, but the idea that someone started with a certain perspective and that shapes their development as a character is a strong narrative statement that's easy to latch onto and turn into a story.

I would also argue that by class level 5 the characters would probably have gained most if not all the things a new character would gain at level 1. A big part of the continuity problems multiclassing 3e style presents is that level 1 is considered to be preceded by a period of training we never see. Occasionally someone will roleplay out preludes or scenes where a character completes their training or comes of age or whatever, but usually we all just assume that's done with.

If multiclassing can happen on the campaign trail, you get into this situation where a guy can level up, to go bed, and suddenly have mastered a bunch of stuff that nobody's seen him do before. In terms of the story, it's a weird convention. Mechanically, it's a nightmare.

I do agree that probably by 5/5, the character's figured out how to be a fighter with some magical help AND a wizard that can use a sword. Maybe a little later than 5/5, but probably not a lot later.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 7:10AM, AtG wrote:

Just give us 4e Hybrids please.

Yep, pretty much this. For me, this is simple and elegant and makes sense from a 1st level perspective. Sure, it'll probably be a lot more in terms of page-count and perhaps not included in the 1st PHB but we don't need the brokeness and ridiculous stuff people did in 3E anymore.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:37PM, Rory wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 6:25AM, Aesurtiel wrote:

MULTICLASS WIZARD

A wizard gets 1 spell slot per level.  The highest level spell he can cast is half his character level.

Wizard 10: 2 2 2 2 2
Wizard 7/Fighter 3: 2 2 1 1 1
Wizard 3/ Fighter 7: 1 1 1 0 0

Cool? 

  

Why give the Wizard 3/ Fighter 7 an advantage? You are giving fireball two levels ahead as a reward for also knowing how to fight. That will outshine single class. Its not like I have a much better solution. Actually I have a similar solution. Mix in a few levels of Swordmage to bump the Wiz slots, and rebalance magic so its not so top heavy.

The wizard 3/Fighter 7 has spent VASTLY more XP on those 3 levels of wizard than a single classed wizard 3. He's not getting an advantage, it's still a disadvantage.

A level 10 character needs to be doing level 10 STUFF. I don't care if the stuff is casting spells, or swinging a sword, or backstabing with a dagger, or turning undead. His actions need to be appropriate for a level 10 character.

You can go with AD&D like buying levels in different classes with different XP pools, or you can go with 4th edition dipping a couple of level appropriate powers, but the actions need to be level appropriate, and that means not asking a fighter to give up his expertise dice progression to be able to cast a couple of level 1 spells.

Adding a class like swordmage to do what 3.x multiclassing is SUPPOSED TO DO ON ITS OWN, that is, allow a fighter/magic user, is an open admission that the multiclassing system has FAILED. And even in 3.x where there were 50 or so caster/non-caster or caster/caster hybrid prestige classes the universal judgement was that such builds were STILL too weak unless you were advancing a prestige class casting like UrPriest.

D&DNext low level spells are SUPPOSED to stay somewhat relevant. If so then this may not be as big a problem. But asking someone to give up levels 8-10 of one class to have levels 1-3 of another class simply does not work, because you only get one action per turn, and that action needs to be level appropriate.

A Fighter20/Wizard1 for example is obviously a dabler in magic, but he's an EPIC dabbler, his dabbling should either produce better results than Joe the apprentice gets or have only a negilgable cost to his fighter abilities.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 12:07PM, WpgDave wrote:

Having the order in which you take different classes just needlessly makes the game more complicated.  Everyone who's arguing otherwise seems to be forgetting an important part: once you choose to multiclass, you can still gain levels in your original class (this isn't the old-school human-only Dual Class rules).  Examples:

• Albert takes 5 levels of Fighter and then 5 levels Wizard.
• Burtrom takes 5 levels of Wizard and then 5 levels of Fighter.
• Charles takes 1 level of either Fighter or Wizard, and alternates between the two until he has 5 of each.

All of these characters have put the same amount of effort into each class.  They should all have the same amount of "fighterness" and "wizardness".

If you say Albert should be more of a fighter than a wizard, then I ask you "Why? He hasn't been working on fighting as much recently, so shouldn't he more wizardy?".  If you say he should be more wizardy that fightery, then I ask you "Why?  After 5 levels of fighting, do you think he'd forget how to weild a sword?".  And what about Charles?  If I create Charles at an even level, then he doesn't really have an "initial class".  What's the benefit of forcing one on him?

I beg to disagree.  If the difference between pre-adventure (level 0?) and level 1 was the same as the difference between level 1 and level 2, perhaps that would make sense, but that means that if a PC took 5 years to become a level 1 fighter and he's now 20 years old, that means that by level 10 the fighter would be 65 years old.

However, most of the time the difference between levels is a matter of months, days or sometimes even minutes, which means that when it comes to multiclassing 3.x style, a level 1 Fighter would more likely be "picking magic up as you go", while the level 1 Wizard would be "practicing your swings as you go".  So why would a level 2 Fighter -- who would pick up just a feat (or in the case of DDN, just one maneuver) -- suddenly learn less than a level 1 Fighter / level 1 Wizard?  Did he just go Matrix-style and upload the entire 5+ years of "how to cast spells" in the same time period as the level 2 Fighter?

I think what they're doing with Specializations and Classes is basically the same thing they did with 4E multiclassing: if your character concept involves merely "dabbling" into another class' ability, then you can get a Specialization fit for that concept, instead of multiclassing.  Meanwhile, the Multiclassing module would involve somewhat of a mix between 4E Hybrids and pre-3E multiclassing, in which you gain the benefits of both classes simultaneously, but at a slower pace than single classes, so that whatever you lack from one side can be made up by the other.

Which is exactly why I proposed what I did in my previous post: since spells involve preparation or memorization and not actual power capacity, why not just remove spell slot levels, lower the number of spell slots you can acquire, have multiclassing as a way to customize your character in such a way that your overall capabilities are no greater than non-multiclass characters -- you are after concept, and not munchkining, right? -- and keep with the concept that you can't have it all?

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Doug_Lampert wrote:

 
The wizard 3/Fighter 7 has spent VASTLY more XP on those 3 levels of wizard than a single classed wizard 3. He's not getting an advantage, it's still a disadvantage.

Rebalance XP so the low levels arent a blip then maybe. XP isnt really based on what you learn. Its just a tool. Its very mechanical. Not much of a simulation. Im on the fence. 

A level 10 character needs to be doing level 10 STUFF. I don't care if the stuff is casting spells, or swinging a sword, or backstabing with a dagger, or turning undead. His actions need to be appropriate for a level 10 character.

You can go with AD&D like buying levels in different classes with different XP pools, or you can go with 4th edition dipping a couple of level appropriate powers, but the actions need to be level appropriate, and that means not asking a fighter to give up his expertise dice progression to be able to cast a couple of level 1 spells.

The opposing principle is that arcane magic is hard to pick up and its even harder as you go along. The archmage is the baddest humanoid on the planet. They have contingency spells and stuff blah blah. I've gotten old. I actually like that stuff. I'm trying to balance the 5/5 vs the 10. After that its time for a spellcaster to focus on spells.  

Adding a class like swordmage to do what 3.x multiclassing is SUPPOSED TO DO ON ITS OWN, that is, allow a fighter/magic user, is an open admission that the multiclassing system has FAILED. And even in 3.x where there were 50 or so caster/non-caster or caster/caster hybrid prestige classes the universal judgement was that such builds were STILL too weak unless you were advancing a prestige class casting like UrPriest.

Its a system that promotes its setting. Characters that actually fit the setting are typically better. The even split wiz/ftr is an odd mix. The typical Wizard would only take Ftr levls and Rogue levels to survive early then focus focus on magic. A pure ftr isnt going to learn magic at high levels unless its to shoot wands or to compensate from age. If its age they best be uncommonly intelligent and have a teacher that is willing to take a senior principle.  I dont see how they are to learn magic faster than someone of better int. Someone that is following a creed like a Bladesinger would learn faster since there is a slighter focus on arcane magic.   

D&DNext low level spells are SUPPOSED to stay somewhat relevant. If so then this may not be as big a problem. But asking someone to give up levels 8-10 of one class to have levels 1-3 of another class simply does not work, because you only get one action per turn, and that action needs to be level appropriate.

A Fighter20/Wizard1 for example is obviously a dabler in magic, but he's an EPIC dabbler, his dabbling should either produce better results than Joe the apprentice gets or have only a negilgable cost to his fighter abilities.

Next isnt too backloaded until that expertise boost at level 10. I doubt those high levels in martial classes will have as much value as they did in 3e and 4e with top tree feats. Even if there are some real class perks why would any character turn away from those perks? Im not in a hurry to hand out cookies for such a dabble. Give em a wand and a smile. Its a tough balance. Im more conservative out fear of an environment where every top shelf fighter mini dual classes for lightning bolt, or fly. In 2e high level fighters barely improved. A first level wizard in Next has more advancement than most of the high levels for fighters in 2e.  

Nov 20, 2012 -- 10:08PM, Rory wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:32PM, Doug_Lampert wrote:

 
The wizard 3/Fighter 7 has spent VASTLY more XP on those 3 levels of wizard than a single classed wizard 3. He's not getting an advantage, it's still a disadvantage.

Rebalance XP so the low levels arent a blip then maybe. XP isnt really based on what you learn. Its just a tool. Its very mechanical. Not much of a simulation. Im on the fence. 

A level 10 character needs to be doing level 10 STUFF. I don't care if the stuff is casting spells, or swinging a sword, or backstabing with a dagger, or turning undead. His actions need to be appropriate for a level 10 character.

You can go with AD&D like buying levels in different classes with different XP pools, or you can go with 4th edition dipping a couple of level appropriate powers, but the actions need to be level appropriate, and that means not asking a fighter to give up his expertise dice progression to be able to cast a couple of level 1 spells.

The opposing principle is that arcane magic is hard to pick up and its even harder as you go along. The archmage is the baddest humanoid on the planet. They have contingency spells and stuff blah blah. I've gotten old. I actually like that stuff. I'm trying to balance the 5/5 vs the 10. After that its time for a spellcaster to focus on spells.  

Adding a class like swordmage to do what 3.x multiclassing is SUPPOSED TO DO ON ITS OWN, that is, allow a fighter/magic user, is an open admission that the multiclassing system has FAILED. And even in 3.x where there were 50 or so caster/non-caster or caster/caster hybrid prestige classes the universal judgement was that such builds were STILL too weak unless you were advancing a prestige class casting like UrPriest.

Its a system that promotes its setting. Characters that actually fit the setting are typically better. The even split wiz/ftr is an odd mix. The typical Wizard would only take Ftr levls and Rogue levels to survive early then focus focus on magic. A pure ftr isnt going to learn magic at high levels unless its to shoot wands or to compensate from age. If its age they best be uncommonly intelligent and have a teacher that is willing to take a senior principle.  I dont see how they are to learn magic faster than someone of better int. Someone that is following a creed like a Bladesinger would learn faster since there is a slighter focus on arcane magic.   

D&DNext low level spells are SUPPOSED to stay somewhat relevant. If so then this may not be as big a problem. But asking someone to give up levels 8-10 of one class to have levels 1-3 of another class simply does not work, because you only get one action per turn, and that action needs to be level appropriate.

A Fighter20/Wizard1 for example is obviously a dabler in magic, but he's an EPIC dabbler, his dabbling should either produce better results than Joe the apprentice gets or have only a negilgable cost to his fighter abilities.

Next isnt too backloaded until that expertise boost at level 10. I doubt those high levels in martial classes will have as much value as they did in 3e and 4e with top tree feats. Even if there are some real class perks why would any character turn away from those perks? Im not in a hurry to hand out cookies for such a dabble. Give em a wand and a smile. Its a tough balance. Im more conservative out fear of an environment where every top shelf fighter mini dual classes for lightning bolt, or fly. In 2e high level fighters barely improved. A first level wizard in Next has more advancement than most of the high levels for fighters in 2e.  

I'm thinking that part of the problem with the viability of a level 19 Fighter / level 1 Wizard vs. a level 19 Wizard / level 1 Fighter vs. a level 20 Wizard is the spell slot subsystem of the Vancian spellcasting system.  The very fact that you have spell slot levels means that even if you made the switch at level 19, you're no better at magic than a level 1 Wizard.

I think the AD&D multiclassing / 4E hybrid system works much better than the 3E class dipping system because even if you can conceptually create any character with the 3E multiclassing system -- which is virtually the same as GURPs, but taking classes instead of investing in points -- the conceptual and mechanical complications of class dipping is very, very real.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 12:35AM, AtG wrote:

4e hybriding is easy to understand, easy to use, easy to design and easy to balance.  Just do it already.

In 4e you could take almost any two classes, hybrid them, and get something that wasn't cripplingly awful, with barely any system mastery required.  You can't do that with 3e multiclassing.  Make our lives easier please, not harder.

First of all, we know that 4e multiclassing strategies are off the table at this moment. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go ahead and say that you'd rather it be put back on the cards, but a more compelling argument for 4e style hybridisation than "it works in 4e" would be an interesting read and might work to change their minds more.

There are a few things about the 4e hybrid system that make me think it's not suitable here:

1. It does not allow for more than two classes. Of course, you could must pick two hybrid classes and multi those. If you're cunning you could pull off the equivalent of the AD&D fighter/mage/thief, but I don't think I should have to do gymnastics to get a classic D&D build when I'm playing D&D.
2. It requires an additional table for each class. Honestly, I hate that more than anything. I want all my class information to exist in a single table with a couple of pages of text around it to explain things long form. I don't think this is insurmountable through the use of a universal progression table, but the jury is out on whether that can also accomodate the unique mechanics being brought into play by each class.
3. It relies on a universal format for class design. Not possible here. The class design so far is not universal and they're playing around with what unique mechanics they can layer into each class. It's been watered down in the most recent packet but it's one of the stated goals of the edit, which means 4e hybrids just won't work the same as they do in 4e.
4. It does not allow the player to start branching into an new class at any point. Honestly, I don't think this is as big an issue as some folks make it out to be, but it's something to consider. There are roleplaying opportunities if characters are able to pick up fighter levels after being a pure cleric for some time.

There are more but those are the big things.

Also, on xp cost vs multiclass payoff: I still think the best way is for a player to spend xp on levels based on their individual class levels. If things are done properly with the exceptions given with the classes we have now, that would probably best reflect the xp investment vs relative gain.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 1:27AM, kadim wrote:

Nov 21, 2012 -- 12:35AM, AtG wrote:

4e hybriding is easy to understand, easy to use, easy to design and easy to balance.  Just do it already.

In 4e you could take almost any two classes, hybrid them, and get something that wasn't cripplingly awful, with barely any system mastery required.  You can't do that with 3e multiclassing.  Make our lives easier please, not harder.

First of all, we know that 4e multiclassing strategies are off the table at this moment. That doesn't mean you shouldn't go ahead and say that you'd rather it be put back on the cards, but a more compelling argument for 4e style hybridisation than "it works in 4e" would be an interesting read and might work to change their minds more.

There are a few things about the 4e hybrid system that make me think it's not suitable here:

1. It does not allow for more than two classes. Of course, you could must pick two hybrid classes and multi those. If you're cunning you could pull off the equivalent of the AD&D fighter/mage/thief, but I don't think I should have to do gymnastics to get a classic D&D build when I'm playing D&D.
2. It requires an additional table for each class. Honestly, I hate that more than anything. I want all my class information to exist in a single table with a couple of pages of text around it to explain things long form. I don't think this is insurmountable through the use of a universal progression table, but the jury is out on whether that can also accomodate the unique mechanics being brought into play by each class.
3. It relies on a universal format for class design. Not possible here. The class design so far is not universal and they're playing around with what unique mechanics they can layer into each class. It's been watered down in the most recent packet but it's one of the stated goals of the edit, which means 4e hybrids just won't work the same as they do in 4e.
4. It does not allow the player to start branching into an new class at any point. Honestly, I don't think this is as big an issue as some folks make it out to be, but it's something to consider. There are roleplaying opportunities if characters are able to pick up fighter levels after being a pure cleric for some time.

There are more but those are the big things.

Also, on xp cost vs multiclass payoff: I still think the best way is for a player to spend xp on levels based on their individual class levels. If things are done properly with the exceptions given with the classes we have now, that would probably best reflect the xp investment vs relative gain.

I dunno about "requiring an additional table for each class"; last I checked, the "additional table" only had hybrid class features involved, as all powers available to both classes were available to the hybrid.  Adjustments need to be made, but given how 4E's hybrid system was pretty close to AD&D multiclassing anyway, it should certainly be something to be considered, at least for inspiration.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 1:37PM, Rory wrote:

Nov 20, 2012 -- 6:25AM, Aesurtiel wrote:

MULTICLASS WIZARD

A wizard gets 1 spell slot per level.  The highest level spell he can cast is half his character level.

Wizard 10: 2 2 2 2 2
Wizard 7/Fighter 3: 2 2 1 1 1
Wizard 3/ Fighter 7: 1 1 1 0 0

Cool? 

  

Why give the Wizard 3/ Fighter 7 an advantage? You are giving fireball two levels ahead as a reward for also knowing how to fight. That will outshine single class. Its not like I have a much better solution. Actually I have a similar solution. Mix in a few levels of Swordmage to bump the Wiz slots, and rebalance magic so its not so top heavy.

He's not exactly getting anything earlier. He's still getting fireball at level 6 or later. Also, his Save DC bonus will be lower and inmy engisioned version, less metamagic.

Nov 20, 2012 -- 2:53PM, chaosfang wrote:

I beg to disagree.  If the difference between pre-adventure (level 0?) and level 1 was the same as the difference between level 1 and level 2, perhaps that would make sense, but that means that if a PC took 5 years to become a level 1 fighter and he's now 20 years old, that means that by level 10 the fighter would be 65 years old.

However, most of the time the difference between levels is a matter of months, days or sometimes even minutes...

Whoa.  Minutes?  If your characters gain levels in a matter of minutes then I don't think we're even talking about the same thing.  It sounds like your deffinition of what a "level" represents is very different from mine.

As for the level 1 fighter who's 20 years old, you think he spent 20 years doing nothing but fighting?  No, the vast majority of that time was spent doing other things.  So what does a level represent to you?  To me, each level represents a certain amount of learning.  The reason why level 2 can be gained faster than level 1 is not because level 1 knowledge is superior to level 2 knowledge, but because you learn a lot faster through practical experience (level 2) than through basic training (level 1).

Anyone looking at job applications knows this.  Do you want to hire a PHD student with no industry experience to be your sys admin or a guy with an undergrad degree and 2 years in the industry?  You want the latter.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 7:47AM, AtG wrote:

Kadim, I totally understand and acknowledge all of those.  Even so, 4e hybriding is just so much easier to actually use that I think it should win out.  You can do fighter/mage/thief as a hybrid + specialty, btw.  I also don't think it really needs a universal format for class design.

I thought it was a decent method of multiclassing... specialties totally aren't multiclassing and I'd be super annoyed if they tried to fob feat selections on me and call it a class.

I think they should make a nod to concurrent multiclassing in 5e and probably the 4e hybrids are the thing to draw from, but I think the system as we see it - not to mention the attitude of its audience - demands something a bit more fluid than what 4e offered.

And I still think we should be purchasing class levels with xp and using our xp total to track our character level.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:27PM, Mand12 wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 3:18PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

But what I want out of multi-classing isn't that at all. I want to be a character with a university dual-major. I know people who dual-major in music and political science. Entirely different fields with very little overlap. You aren't going to use your musical talents to interpret politics. They are different areas you happen to have an interest in.

You could also have a major in music, with a minor in political science.

3e style multiclassing allows for this, the unrestrained, fine-resolution specification of a particular mix of classes. 

Furthermore, it doesn't matter whether you started off with some music classes, took a little political science, and then finished off with music.  Or if you started with political science for a bit, and decided it wasn't your thing and went to music.  The end result is the same:  on graduation, you have a music major and a political science minor.  What you know at the end is the same, but the process to get there was different.  This is exactly how 3e style multiclassing works.  So, yes, wiz5/ftr5 = ftr5/wiz5.

3e style multiclassing also allows for a mechanical representation of major life changes, as well.  A scurrilous rogue who finds religion, and becomes a cleric.  He never forgets his techniques that he used, and he can still call on them, but he uses them in service of his god, instead of his own pockets.  Requiring class determination to be chosen at character creation, whether single-class, multi-class, hybrid/dual-class, eliminates this possibility without a complete character rewrite.  That involves too much mechanical retcon, to me.

+1

I really think 3E multiclassing had it right, it just needs ways to avoid front-loading and abuse

Nov 22, 2012 -- 9:04AM, Rory wrote:

^^Are you serious?

Yes I am serious, why would I post it if I wasn't?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion — d20 system/3.5/PF wouldn't be so popular (currently more popular then all other editions might I add) if it was so terrible.

Honestly if they can keep 3E multiclassing and manage to balance the abuse/problems it had at the same time... then how is that not a good multiclassing system go by?

Nov 22, 2012 -- 9:29AM, Rory wrote:

Not you sly. You posted too fast. I'm talking about the fella above you. Ironically I don't disagree with you at all. I recently examined my preference for 3e multiclassing and came to the conclusion that it was a genius system. If you go back a few pages you might find the post.

Lol OK no problem

Nov 19, 2012 -- 9:37AM, mellored wrote:

Should wizard5/fighter5 be the same as fighter5/wizard5?
Or should the order you take the classes in make a difference?


I'd vote the same.  But i'd also want a wizard5/fighter5 to be balanced against a wizard 10 and a fighter 10.

No they should not be the same. Unless both have the exact same stats at 1st level and choose the same feats, themes, backgrounds, usw...

Nov 22, 2012 -- 9:13AM, Gwathir wrote:

Nov 22, 2012 -- 9:04AM, Rory wrote:

^^Are you serious?

Yes I am serious, why would I post it if I wasn't?

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion — d20 system/3.5/PF wouldn't be so popular (currently more popular then all other editions might I add) if it was so terrible.

Honestly if they can keep 3E multiclassing and manage to balance the abuse/problems it had at the same time... then how is that not a good multiclassing system go by?

Because screw path dependence.

Nov 22, 2012 -- 8:50AM, CastielThomson wrote:

I think an interesting way to do multi classing without worrying about front loading would be when a fighter 5 takes a level of wizard, he will take wizard level 6...he wont get anything other than what a wizard 5 gains from taking level 6...so the fighter 5/wizard 1 would have all the fighter levels 1 -5 ablilities and the spell slot(s) that a wizard adds for level 6, as well as the hit die and anything else a level 6 wizard is given.

The obvious flaw here is taking one wizard level at exactly the point where one "rewrite how the cosmos works" spell comes online.
Also, dead levels.  Taking one level of [class] and ending up with hitpoints and nothing else just isn't useful at all.

How about something similar to the ToB multiclass rules, where your non-initiator classes grant you 1/2 initiator level? Something like that and also close to the elegant 2e multiclass rules. Perhaps instead of merely adding to your initiator level, it also gave you the equivalent of that level's class features. For example:

A fighter 2/wizard 2 would have the class features of a level 3 fighter and a level 3 wizard combined. This includes caster level, expertise dice, spells per day, maneuvers, etc.

The first column is the character level, which is the level a single-class character of the same XP would be. The second column is for the multiclass progression, and what the character's abilities would be if he were a 3.5 multiclass character. The third column is for my proposed fix to multiclassing, inspired by the 1/2 initiator progression for non-ToB classes in 3.5. The fourth column shows how much the multiclass character lags compared to a single class character (first column).

The problem rears its ugly head at around level 10, when both sides of the multiclass are three levels behind a single class character, and reaches its peak at around level 18, when both sides are five levels behind. Perhaps increase the ratio to 3/4 progression? Or would that be too powerful?

CharLevel  Multi Progression      Class Equivalent                    Offset
Level 1  = Fighter 1            = Level 1 Fighter, Level 0 Wizard   = -0/-0
Level 2  = Fighter 1/Wizard 1   = Level 1 Fighter, Level 1 Wizard   = -1/-1
Level 3  = Fighter 2/Wizard 1   = Level 2 Fighter, Level 2 Wizard   = -1/-1
Level 4  = Fighter 2/Wizard 2   = Level 3 Fighter, Level 3 Wizard   = -1/-1
Level 5  = Fighter 3/Wizard 2   = Level 4 Fighter, Level 3 Wizard   = -1/-2
Level 6  = Fighter 3/Wizard 3   = Level 4 Fighter, Level 4 Wizard   = -2/-2
Level 7  = Fighter 4/Wizard 3   = Level 5 Fighter, Level 5 Wizard   = -2/-2
Level 8  = Fighter 4/Wizard 4   = Level 6 Fighter, Level 6 Wizard   = -2/-2
Level 9  = Fighter 5/Wizard 4   = Level 7 Fighter, Level 6 Wizard   = -2/-3
Level 10 = Fighter 5/Wizard 5   = Level 7 Fighter, Level 7 Wizard   = -3/-3
Level 11 = Fighter 6/Wizard 5   = Level 8 Fighter, Level 8 Wizard   = -3/-3
Level 12 = Fighter 6/Wizard 6   = Level 9 Fighter, Level 9 Wizard   = -3/-3
Level 13 = Fighter 7/Wizard 6   = Level 10 Fighter, Level 9 Wizard  = -3/-4
Level 14 = Fighter 7/Wizard 7   = Level 10 Fighter, Level 10 Wizard = -4/-4
Level 15 = Fighter 8/Wizard 7   = Level 11 Fighter, Level 11 Wizard = -4/-4
Level 16 = Fighter 8/Wizard 8   = Level 12 Fighter, Level 12 Wizard = -4/-4
Level 17 = Fighter 9/Wizard 8   = Level 13 Fighter, Level 12 Wizard = -4/-5
Level 18 = Fighter 9/Wizard 9   = Level 13 Fighter, Level 13 Wizard = -5/-5
Level 19 = Fighter 10/Wizard 9  = Level 14 Fighter, Level 14 Wizard = -5/-5
Level 20 = Fighter 10/Wizard 10 = Level 15 Fighter, Level 15 Wizard = -5/-5

Nov 23, 2012 -- 12:36AM, Vic_Ferrari wrote:

The most important thing to do is eliminate cherry-picking, and yes, one class being the obvious one to take for your first level.

Yes.  The critical flaw in how 5E multiclassing is vaguely looking, thus far, is that starting with Fighter is the obvious best plan.

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:10PM, Joseph_Silver wrote:

How about something similar to the ToB multiclass rules, where your non-initiator classes grant you 1/2 initiator level? Something like that and also close to the elegant 2e multiclass rules. Perhaps instead of merely adding to your initiator level, it also gave you the equivalent of that level's class features. For example:

It's a better system than many for the type of multi-classing I'd like, but it's unlikely to happen in 5e.

I'd like to see the rules discourage class dipping, but make commited multiclassing equal to single classing.

Nov 19, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Garthanos wrote:

4e also had hybriding the result of which feels very like 1e/2e duoclassing (I think that was what it was called). where a level 5/5 cost as xp much as a 6.
00

It was dimihuman multiclassing. Dualclassing was just a mess. I dont see how its like 4e hybrids. Dimihuman mutliclassing was pretty unique though similar to an even split in 3e with less xp cost. 

Unless duaclassing is that late edition dimihuman multiclassing for humans.

The challenge with such a system is that it is painful to balance against single classes since its all about experience and the advancement arc of 5e is hardly set.  

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:20PM, Qmark wrote:

Yes.  The critical flaw in how 5E multiclassing is vaguely looking, thus far, is that starting with Fighter is the obvious best plan.

I wouldnt worry about that. Bigger fishes to fry. I dont think wotc is going implement a system were fighters can multiclass at later levels and get spells based on CL. If that happened yeah who wouldnt start off as a fighter?

Nov 24, 2012 -- 10:03AM, Rory wrote:

Nov 19, 2012 -- 1:13PM, Garthanos wrote:

4e also had hybriding the result of which feels very like 1e/2e duoclassing (I think that was what it was called). where a level 5/5 cost as xp much as a 6.
00

It was dimihuman multiclassing. Dualclassing was just a mess. I dont see how its like 4e hybrids.  

Maybe I am wrong... but the results are in someways functionally similar perhaps rather than being mechanically similar.  Hybriding worked out pretty well in 4e In terms of balance and not having your character be either worthless or too awesome, at some levels the choices of powers made it feel like you were creating a custom class. Basically you are still a level 6 character not incompetant on 1 side (like a level 3) and incompetant on the other (also level 3)... which I hear could easily happen in 3e multiclassing.

Its main issue and limit on hybrids was you had to start out your character design with the mix in mind

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:10PM, Joseph_Silver wrote:

How about something similar to the ToB multiclass rules, where your non-initiator classes grant you 1/2 initiator level? Something like that and also close to the elegant 2e multiclass rules. Perhaps instead of merely adding to your initiator level, it also gave you the equivalent of that level's class features. For example:

A fighter 2/wizard 2 would have the class features of a level 3 fighter and a level 3 wizard combined. This includes caster level, expertise dice, spells per day, maneuvers, etc.

• Cleric: Deity
• Fighting: Fighting Style
• Rogue: Scheme
• Wizard: Tradition or Wizardry

Nov 24, 2012 -- 10:19AM, Garthanos wrote:

 Maybe I am wrong... but the results are in someways functionally similar perhaps rather than being mechanically similar.  Hybriding worked out pretty well in 4e In terms of balance and not having your character be either worthless or too awesome, at some levels the choices of powers made it feel like you were creating a custom class. Basically you are still a level 6 character not incompetant on 1 side (like a level 3) and incompetant on the other (also level 3)... which I hear could easily happen in 3e multiclassing.

Its main issue and limit on hybrids was you had to start out your character design with the mix in mind

2e dimihuman multiclasses, a 3e even split and 4e hybrids are all similar. I would just say that hybrids stand out more in mechanical differences with AEDU while I cant think of anything that separates 2e dimihuman and even splits in 3e beyond the cheaper xp cost of 2e and the stacking bonuses in 3e. In 3e hp stacked so while it was an advantage it didnt make up for the cheaper xp cost. I would rather use 4e hybrids as customizable prestige and tweener classes.

You could pretty much ignore 2e while building Next's multiclass system since 4e hybrid's and prestige classes settled the same function with more depth while 3e's multiclassing addressed other character types. Those character types are IMO extremely necessary. That is the overwhelming reason that overshadows everything kadim listed as to why I favor 3e's multiclass system as a frame. 

Nov 24, 2012 -- 11:52AM, Rory wrote:

I cant think of anything that separates 2e dimihuman and even splits in 3e beyond the cheaper xp cost of 2e and the stacking bonuses in 3e.

You're missing the most important point, and the reason many of those who liked 2e demi-human multiclassing are not satisfied with equal level 3e style multiclassing: vertical power.

In 2e a multiclass character with the same XP total as an average 10th level single-classed character would function as around a 9th-level member of each class. In 3e he would function as a 5th level member of each class.

When it comes to spellcasting, that's the difference between 3rd level spells and 5th level spells. That complete loss of vertical power isn't acceptable for many of us.

The corresponding problem with the 4e solution is that you lose horizontal flexibility (class features). The (mechanical) draw of the AD&D system was that you sacrificed a little bit of vertical power for horizontal flexibility.

If your character concept is "I'm pretty good in both classes, but not quite as good as a single class character in either of them," then the mechanics of 3e don't support it. The mechanics of 4e actually fail to support it also, as your vertical power in your class is equal to that of a single-classed character, but you lose horizontal flexibility in each class.

There need to be changes to truly make a 2e style multi-class character balanced, both at all levels and with other classes. But it can't be replicated by a straight up 3e style multiclassing system.

I'm confident that the designers are aware of this and are working hard on the problem.

Nov 24, 2012 -- 2:38PM, Sword_of_Spirit wrote:

 You're missing the most important point, and the reason many of those who liked 2e demi-human multiclassing are not satisfied with equal level 3e style multiclassing: vertical power.

In 2e a multiclass character with the same XP total as an average 10th level single-classed character would function as around a 9th-level member of each class. In 3e he would function as a 5th level member of each class.

I didnt miss that. I listed that as the most notable difference. The xp tables are slanted so 2e characters are more overpowered than 3e are underpowered when compared to single class characters. Its just that in 2e you had harsh race restrictions so it was rarely realized.

When it comes to spellcasting, that's the difference between 3rd level spells and 5th level spells. That complete loss of vertical power isn't acceptable for many of us.

Only if you tweak the xp tables "right". A prestige class or a hybrid is an easier tweak. Im not against playing with the xp tables.

The corresponding problem with the 4e solution is that you lose horizontal flexibility (class features). The (mechanical) draw of the AD&D system was that you sacrificed a little bit of vertical power for horizontal flexibility.


If your character concept is "I'm pretty good in both classes, but not quite as good as a single class character in either of them," then the mechanics of 3e don't support it. The mechanics of 4e actually fail to support it also, as your vertical power in your class is equal to that of a single-classed character, but you lose horizontal flexibility in each class.

3e supports it until you get to the 5-9 level kick ass spells while doing so much more with other character types. After translating hybrids ie dumping AEDU you are going to be left with a ton of excess horizontal options. I would guess that it would do the same thing without the xp balancing.  When the fluff was right prestige classes did much the same thing too. This was especially true with the Eldritch Knight.

There need to be changes to truly make a 2e style multi-class character balanced, both at all levels and with other classes. But it can't be replicated by a straight up 3e style multiclassing system.

I'm confident that the designers are aware of this and are working hard on the problem.

Its already in the DNA.    

Nov 24, 2012 -- 10:08AM, Rory wrote:

Nov 23, 2012 -- 9:20PM, Qmark wrote:

Yes.  The critical flaw in how 5E multiclassing is vaguely looking, thus far, is that starting with Fighter is the obvious best plan.

I wouldnt worry about that. Bigger fishes to fry. I dont think wotc is going implement a system were fighters can multiclass at later levels and get spells based on CL. If that happened yeah who wouldnt start off as a fighter?

The only real mechanism for adding weapon/armor proficiency, thus far, is to start in Fighter or maybe Cleric.

Nov 21, 2012 -- 12:35AM, AtG wrote:

4e hybriding is easy to understand, easy to use, easy to design and easy to balance.  Just do it already.

In 4e you could take almost any two classes, hybrid them, and get something that wasn't cripplingly awful, with barely any system mastery required.  You can't do that with 3e multiclassing.  Make our lives easier please, not harder.

You make it sound like an average player can't come up with bad combinations with 4e's hybrid system.  You can, and it ain't hard to do.