|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 12:42PM
#1
|
|
|
Legends & Lore: D&D Next Goals, Part 3by Mike Mearls This thread focuses on the descriptions of multiclassing in this weeks L&L article. “The characters in the standard game are a more diverse lot, with a focus on options to build unique stories, combinations of abilities, and so forth. Most notably, we see multiclassing and prestige class rules as part of the standard game. Advancing to 3rd level as a fighter, then grabbing a few levels as a rogue before becoming an executioner of the Dusk Shadow Guild, is a great way to use the game rules to customize your character.” “Create 3E-style multiclassing that creates balanced characters within reasonable mixtures of class levels, if not all such mixes. In other words, we might not get a fighter 19/wizard 1 right, but a fighter 3/wizard 2 should feel like a fully effective character. By the same token, rein in abuses that make DMs regret allowing multiclass characters.” Note, there are three layers of game rules. • Basic rules: the core minimalist gaming rules • Standard rules: options for character customization, and monster customization • Advanced rules: options for playstyles, such as grid mechanics Multiclassing is part of the character building options in the Standard rules.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 12:58PM
#2
|
Date Joined:
May 27, 2012
|
Being able to play a fighter 3/ wizard 2 without it feeling like a complete joke is way up there on the list of things I look for in a system.
The metagame is not the game.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:01PM
#3
|
Date Joined:
Jul 23, 2012
|
More reason to ditch classes.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:03PM
#4
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
There was some discussion in an earlier Legends and Lore about how it might work - and this seemed consistant with that approach. I wonder if they will finally roll out those rules as well in the next packet. www.wizards.com/dnd/article.aspx?x=dnd/4...Carl
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:04PM
#5
|
|
|
This description of multiclassing in D&D Next, seems to be a blend of previous editions: 1e multiclassing, 3e multiclassing, and 4e hybriding.
Explicitly, Next looks to 3e for multiclassing, to combine classes in a freeform manner, according to narrative considerations. Next works well for combining two classes, such as “Fighter 3/Wizard 2”.
However, the description warns, Next system will only work well where levels are comparable. 3/2 works well, but 19/1 will be less effective. This suggests that characters that “dip” into several classes will be less powerful than characters that dedicate themselves evenly between two classes. On the one hand, this is a good thing because it discourages a known abuse of the 3e system. On the other hand, this is a less good thing because it makes choosing classes on the fly - for narrative reasons - riskier. Choosing a class seems to need a commitment to dedicate oneself to it.
The pressures of mechanical optimization tend toward a Next multiclassing that chooses two classes and then maintaining levels evenly. Therefore it resembles 1e multiclassing that likewise requires the multiclass character to split experience points evenly between classes.
The Next multiclassing also resembles 4e hybriding because of its ability to “blend” two classes together, in a way that works effectively.
It seems the Next multiclass system will vaguely remind players of all of the systems in previous editions, yet function in a new way.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:17PM
#6
|
Date Joined:
Mar 21, 2010
|
3e multiclassing or 1e 'character with two classes' suggests that a character is of a given class then changes, learning a new class. 1e/2e multiclassing or 4e hybriding suggests the character is a unique concept that is simply half one class, half another.
Both sound nice to have. If a character envisions a character thats a little more bad-ass in combat than a rogue, but a little more sneaky outside of combat than a fighter, he shouldn't have to alternate levels of fighter and rouge, then take some half-assed prestige class to cement the combo and not really feel like the character he's going for at 1st level or maybe even not until he gets that PrC. or if you want to play the Grey Mouser, he was was an aprentice mage who became a theif, but in 3e, starting as a wizard then going to rogue kinda sucked because you missed out on a couple of hps and a lot of skill points, so he'd probably do it the other way round for mechanical reasons in defiance of his backstory.
I understand a lot of people like the 3e "builds' but a lot of us also just want to play the character we envision from first level on.
Enough good classes could allow that but if multiclassing is required to make a character concept work itd be nice if it could work from first level not require you to walk some build tightrope
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:26PM
#7
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
Based on what they said, there will probably be little to no resemblance to AD&D or Hybrid multiclassing.
It will be (going on the earlier article) a 3E system - with measures in place to both avoid the pitfalls (gimped characters) and exploits (cherrypicking) of the 3E approach.
What the earlier comments were construed to mean was that there would be a Class Feature progression table for a character that starts out as class X (which is frontloaded because frontloading is good if that is your only class because it lets you feel like that class from the start) and a different Class Feature progression table for a character that multiclasses into class X (which spreads the various iconic class features out over several levels because frontloading is bad for multiclassing because it rewards dipping into many classes to exploit the multiclass system).
In the context of the latest system: A 3/2 character would have all of the frontloaded features of one class and some of the frontloaded features of the second class (more than they would have had as a 4/1 but less than they might have as a 3/3) but the 19/1 character might have only a few of the class features of the new class.
But this is all speculation at this point. I am anxious to see what they did (if only so we can tear it down and rebuild it into something that works).
Carl
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:32PM
#8
|
Date Joined:
Feb 12, 2009
|
We are already discussing this topic, multiclassing in next, elsewhere, namely in the thread for the L&L article, having multiple threads on the same exact subject makes the conversation hard to track.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:34PM
#9
|
Date Joined:
Mar 11, 2008
|
I liked AD&Ds multi-classing, but the system only really worked because each class had different XP charts. Conceptually 3E Multi-classing was great, until you realized that all spellcasting classes failed miserably at it, and there were several abusive combos as well. I didn't like the 4E Hybrids, because they were either too strong or pathetically weak (no balance whatsoever). I think a limited form of 3E multi-classing might work, but they need to make sure all the Standard Classes work with it.
A simple solution to playing a split character out the gate at Level 1 would be to create a 1/2 Level for each Class that grants about half the benefit of that Class. At Level 2, you gain full benefit of both Lv 1 in each Class. 3E had an option for this, but I don't know of anyone who used it.
|
|
|
|
5 months ago ::
Jan 22, 2013 - 1:37PM
#10
|
Date Joined:
Dec 21, 2011
|
With bounded accuracy, and the idea that most level gains add maneuvers, skill tricks or abilities (spells being included) that don't become irrelevant as a PC advances levels, the 3e multiclassing should work better with D&DNext than it did with 3e.
Two specific things made a lot of multiclassed PCs inadequate in most of the previous versions: 1) "to hit" disparity vs. monsters that gained higher and higher AC, and 2) sacrificing a super ability from the core class that was all but necessary to defeat new threats to gain a minor ability in the fledgling class. If multi-classing in D&DNext gives manaeuvers, skill tricks, abilities and spells that can be used through many levels of play (not just for low level) multiclassing will add more versitility that is useful not irrelevant, and the trade-off will be that the PC doesn't gain a maneuver, skill trick or ability from his core class, which if done properly won't gimp a multi-class PC as badly as it might have done in previous editions.
On the other hand, to prevent abuse, WotC will need to make sure that multi-classing does not gain too much from front loading too many class features, maneuvers, skill tricks and spells.
I'm interested to see how it all works out.
|
|
|
