|
5 months ago ::
Jan 01, 2013 - 8:54PM
#11
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.
Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.
And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.
How will 5E handle multiclassing? How will it handle Gishes? My first suggestion would be through the use of Martial Maneuvers that let you attack and cast spells at the same time. A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.
How do you want to see gishes and multiclassing handled? 4E was unsatisfactory, though the hybrid system did work. 3E had holes (a Fighter/Wizard would often be a Fighter2/Wizard3/PrestigeClass10/PrestigeClass5 ...). How will 5E be better?
Why would anyone choose to play a single class if this were the case?
Would the fighter/rogue be able to attack with his sword and pick a lock in the same action? How about the cleric/wizard, two spells in the same action? The idea is game-breaking.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 6:10AM
#12
|
Date Joined:
Jan 29, 2005
|
I like the Pathfinder's Magus concept of dual-wielding a weapon and spell. Balancing the damage won't be any more difficult than balancing two weapon fighting. The challenge will be balancing spell effects with damage. Having most of the spells be "word of power"-like would be a start, although using mixed maneuvers would work as well.
Perhaps the real key is lumping the mixed concept into yet another casting style?
Magic Dual Color Test
Show
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 02, 2013 - 11:45PM
#13
|
Date Joined:
Jan 20, 2002
|
The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.
Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.
And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.
How will 5E handle multiclassing? How will it handle Gishes? My first suggestion would be through the use of Martial Maneuvers that let you attack and cast spells at the same time. A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.
How do you want to see gishes and multiclassing handled? 4E was unsatisfactory, though the hybrid system did work. 3E had holes (a Fighter/Wizard would often be a Fighter2/Wizard3/PrestigeClass10/PrestigeClass5 ...). How will 5E be better?
Why would anyone choose to play a single class if this were the case?
Would the fighter/rogue be able to attack with his sword and pick a lock in the same action? How about the cleric/wizard, two spells in the same action? The idea is game-breaking.
It's not game breaking at all when the suggestion was for a 10th level 5/5 Figther/Wizard to be able to attack as a 5th level Fighter and then as a 5th level Wizard as an action. As long as the damage of the two didn't add up to more than the one, it would be fine (if wizard spells are typically 1d6/level, and fighter martial damage dice is typically +1d6/2 levels ...).
It's about action economy. If I have to give my action up to do something weaker than what all the rest of my party are doing, I feel like I'm not contributing; in the worst cases, I'm not contributing, and the party loses.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 3:32AM
#14
|
|
|
If we don't care about balance, than any multiclassing system works - 1e, gestalt, 4e, etc.
But, if we're trying for balance between single and multiclass, I don't see how any system can do it much better than 4e. A person looking to multiclass will always cherry pick the best levels, so there needs to be a cost for multiclassing. The proposals I hear most popular around here include things like: give multiclass bonuses not on total level of a class, but total level of a char. While that sounds good, I fear if will immediately turn too good - unless a rogue gets a Mbd every level, it'll be better for the rogue to pick cleric for any level they don't get anything other than feat (which they get as cleric anyways)
Effectively, that kind of multiclassing will mean that a "dead level" is any level you get the same as someone else but less, and those levels you should pick the other class.
It just feels like many times the multiclassing rules are slanted waaay too much in Favor of multiclassing. I'd like to see balance, but even with mearls chart of level progression for every class, I don't see it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 5:06AM
#15
|
|
|
The Fighter/Wizard has always been a fun archetype at the game. 2E balanced them by having XP split between your two classes: When a Fighter is level 10, and a Wizard is level 11, a Fighter/Wizard is 9/10. In 3E, when a Fighter or Wizard was 10, a Fighter/Wizard would be 5/5. While I like the "take a level in a class when you level up" model, as it feels organic, those 3rd level spells at caster level 5 mean a whole lot less at 10th level.
Worse still, the Fighter/Wizard's actions are split between being a fighter, or a wizard. He can attack as a 5th level fighter (since Wizard levels don't grant any martial damage bonus), or he can attack as a 5th level wizard (since fighter levels don't boost his spell capacity at all). Yeah, he may use those spells to empower himself (which are odd spells to be on the wizard list, since the wizard will hardly get any use out of them), but he's still splitting actions.
And when the CR system of 3E told us that a level 10 was equal to two level 8s, who have their own whole turns of actions ... the 5/5 starts to seem less and less workable.
You're comparing very different approaches to multi-classing without pointing out their specifics.
A multi-class character in 2ed could be just a few levels under a single-class one.
Say, 9/10th level as opposed to a 11th level.
However, a 5/5 character in 3ed gained a lot more than a 5/5 in 2ed.
For example, the Base Attack of a 5/5 Fighter/Wizard in 3ed would be +7, while a 5/5 Fighter/Mage in 2ed would have the THAC0 of a 5th level fighter (+5 if converted to 3ed rules).
Not to mentions the feats and skill points of a 10th level character, not a 5th level one.
3ed's Multiclass system itself was good. Simple and brilliant.
The problem lay in how the Vancian magic system interacted with Multiclassing in 3ed.
Multiclassing a spellcaster, even if taking another casting class, took too great a toll on a character's ability to cast spells.
That is something I would like to see improved, perhaps, in the 5ed.
But the basics of 3ed Multiclassing are excellent and they'd fit just well in the 5ed rules.
4ed was... OK, in that aspect. It had an interesting system for borrowing a few abilities from another class.
But it was not a real Multi-class system.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 9:23AM
#16
|
|
|
Rast, what counts as "real
Multiclass system" is going to differ from person to person. But, the hybrid system was multiclassing to many people.
Comparing the two, the hybrid system at least attempted to be balanced and did okay. Many people used to 3e found they couldn't express a 3 fighter/7 mage, but that seemed to shorthand for "taking more powers as Mage than fighter" which was certainly possible.
The parts that weren't possible in 4e hybrid were starting a multiclass at anything other than 1st level, and more than 2 hybrid classes.
3 allowed for infinite flexibility, admittedly, but didnt penalize dipping enough, IMHO, to avoid the fighter 1/rogue 1/barbarian 12
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 9:31AM
#17
|
|
|
Rast, what counts as "real Multiclass system" is going to differ from person to person. But, the hybrid system was multiclassing to many people. Comparing the two, the hybrid system at least attempted to be balanced and did okay. Many people used to 3e found they couldn't express a 3 fighter/7 mage, but that seemed to shorthand for "taking more powers as Mage than fighter" which was certainly possible. The parts that weren't possible in 4e hybrid were starting a multiclass at anything other than 1st level, and more than 2 hybrid classes. 3 allowed for infinite flexibility, admittedly, but didnt penalize dipping enough, IMHO, to avoid the fighter 1/rogue 1/barbarian 12
I recall the section on hybrids saying that it broke things that were put in place to balance things. More balanced relative to 3e maybe, but it was the opposite of trying to balance things by design.
Love 4e? Concerned about its future? join the Old Guard of 4th EditionReality Refracted: Social ContractsD & D: A Documentary Kickstarter ( http://kck.st/SyKNzf) 
Dreaming the Impossible Dream
Show
Imagine a world where the first-time D&D player rolls stats, picks a race, picks a class, picks an alignment, and buys gear to create a character. Imagine if an experienced player, maybe the person helping our theoretical player learn the ropes, could also make a character by rolling ability scores and picking a race, class, feat, skills, class features, spells or powers, and so on. Those two players used different paths to build characters, but the system design allows them to play at the same table. -Mearl
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 11:31AM
#18
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
A person playing a fighter/wizard wants to be a fighter and a wizard, not a fighter then a wizard. Let them drop a burning hands and then slash with their sword, or do both in the same action.
Opinions vary on this. I definitely want my fighter/wizard to decide whether to make a weapon attack or cast a spell (not both), and be able to take advantage of whichever is better for the situation to make up for reduced proficiency in each category.
If a fighter 10 is in trouble against a high-AC enemy and a wizard 10 is in trouble against a magic-resitant enemy, then I want my fighter/wizard to act like a wizard 8 against a high-AC enemy and a fighter 8 against a magic-resistant enemy (and let the pure classes shine +20% against anyone who is weak to neither martial nor melee).
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 11:33AM
#19
|
Date Joined:
Jan 15, 2009
|
(and let the pure classes shine +20% against anyone who is weak to neither martial nor melee).
you mean 99.9 percent of the time....
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 04, 2013 - 11:50AM
#20
|
|
|
Rast, what counts as "real Multiclass system" is going to differ from person to person.
When I said it wasn't a real multiclass system I didn't mean it was "bad and because of that shouldn't count as multiclass."
It's just that it has another goal.
4ed's system is more like something to differentiate some characters by borrowing a few features from another class than a real attempt at developing a system for you to mix 2 or more classes the way you like.
In 4ed you couldn't actually take more than one class.
You couldn't take your 3rd level Fighter and suddenly say: "You know what? I think from now on I'm gonna put my martial training aside and become a Wizard", no longer investing in fighter levels.
That's not to say that other system for borrowing from other classes is bad.
I find the two proposal so different from each other, that both systems could actually coexist, as two separate options for players to mix roles in the game.
|
|
|
