|
3 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 6:31PM
#51
|
Date Joined:
Apr 10, 2009
|
They have already described their intent for 5E multiclassing (although things, obviousy, could have changed since then).
It will be 3.x style multiclassing (when you level up, you choose what class you want to level up in).
But there will be a 'first class' progression of class abilities (front loaded because front-loaded is preferred for single classed characters) and there will be a 'multi-class' progression of class abilities (with the same abilities spread out over a wider spread of levels, i.e. not front-loaded because front-loading is bad when you are multiclassing).
And then there will be unspecified ways of making sure that the powers you gain are relevant at the level you gain them. This is where they are least clear, but I suspect this entails basing many functions on total level not class level.
It is an attempt to allow for the flexibility of 3.x multiclassing while fixing the problems of 3.x multiclassing. FOr more information, go back into the archives and find the columns where MM described their intent.
Carl
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 11:00PM
#52
|
|
|
EDIT: Actually, on re-reading that I'm not sure I understand what you mean by "increasing marginal utility". I don't have an issue with PrC's any more than any other type of Multiclassing, but appreciate that they were an easy way for the 3.x team to patch a lot of things that didn't work very well in that edition such as the Gish. I am hopefull that they won't be used the same way in DDN, but that remains to be seen.
It sounds like you actually do understand though, Marginal utility is just a technical term for how much "power" a new choice gives you based upon your previous choices. The spellcasters in the 3.X systems had increasing marginal utility because the number of their spells increased geometrically (and also because the spells also scaled with level too). Many melee classes in 3.X had diminishing marginal utility because they got most of their exciting class features and bonuses in the first few levels (Fast Movement, Uncanny Dodge, Divine Grace, Bonus Saves, etc.) This is why melee builds level dipped and spellcasters only took classes that continued their spellcasting progression.
So for "linear" classes, such as 3e fighter, 3e multiclassing isn't very problematic. The issue with introducing it to D&DN is that it has a lot of "non-linear" classes features whose scaling needs to be carefully addressed. Unfortunately making the class features scale linearly would probably mean starting over for both the spellcasting and martial damage dice systems. It might also require sacrificing the classic "feel" that the designers hold in high priority. As such they're creating a lot more work for themselves and it's questionable how balanced the final system will be.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 13, 2013 - 11:23PM
#53
|
Date Joined:
Oct 11, 2009
|
I'd like something along the lines of the 3rd edition style multiclassing, but with a bit more limitation and fine tuning.
I always felt that the unlimited class dipping led too often to characters that just didn't make sense. At a certain point, there isn't really any reason to have a class based system if you can make a Wizard 1/Cleric 1/Fighter 1/Rogue 1/etc.
So I think I woud limit characters to 3 classes at most.
The next step is coming up with a separate multiclass advancement table. This both prevents the issue of frontloaded classes from 3rd edition and also the issue of unequal exchange. Unequal exchange is what happens as a result of classes getting better and better abilities at higher levels. And yet when you take a new class, you get the level 1 features. So a Fighter 1 taking a level of Wizard would be fine. A Fighter 1/Wizard 1 is a fair trade from a Fighter 2. You get some nice wizard stuff in exchange for your 2nd level Fighter feature (which isn't going to be much more powerful than your level 1 stuff). But now flash forward. The character is a Fighter 9/Wizard 1. At this point, they have effectively traded the level 10 fighter feature for the same Wizard stuff. And that is an unequal exchange.
I think when you multiclass, you are going to progress in all your classes, even if the progression isn't equal. So, for example, the Fighter 9/Wizard 1 has spent a lot more time focusing and advancing their Fighter side, but it isn't as if they never use their magic. So it is only natural that the Wizard part advances too.
Mechanics wise this is pretty easy to do, it just might require some slightly complex tables. The Fighter 9/Wizard 1 counts as a 10th level character. So you look at the Wizard chart and see that a 10th level Wizard can cast 5th level spells; your character can thus also cast 5th level spells. But you have only taken 1 level of wizard, so you can only prepare X spells/day (what a 1st level Wizard could prepare). In this way, the benefit of your second class continues to improve to compensate for the features you are giving up from your other class.
I completely disagree with this idea. There is no logical reason for this thinking.
The character may be a total of 10th level, but it isn't 10th level in either class; so it shouldn't be able to do the same types of things that a 10th level character from any class should do. The character's over-all ability should be on par with a 10th level character, when all things are considered together not separately.
I don't have a problem with the Fighter9/Wizard1 being able to cast a 1st level spell (he only a fledgling Wizard, after all) as if he were casting it in a higher level slot; I wouldn't go straight to the combined level for power level in additional classes, I would divide the character level by the number of classes to determine power level for additional classes. Then the Fighter9/Wizard1 could cast Magic Missile as a 3rd level slot spell; this would reflect both the fact that he is just learning magic (only getting access to 1st level spells) and the fact that he is more powerful than Wizard1 character. However, it doesn't make him as powerful as the Fighter10 (in melee), who has trained slightly more or had a bit more experience in melee, or the Wizard10 (in magic), who has trained much more in magic.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 12:21AM
#54
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
The answer to unequal exchange is to make the xp cost for advancement based on the level of the class you're advancing to, not the character level. So a fighter 1 who wants to go wizard 1 would pay the xp cost for a level 1 wizard, and a fighter 9 who wants to go wizard 1 would also pay the xp cost for a level 1 wizard. 3e's issue in that regard is the fact that the level 1 class abilities still cost the fighter the xp it would take them to get the level 10 class abilities, so let's fix it by making the thing cost effective rather than pumping up the benefits of multiclassing. I think another gigantic issue with 3e's multiclassing is the fact that PrCs offer so much more than base class mixing that you basically can't mix classes. That's an easy one to avoid though. edit: the other thing we know about the new approach to multiclassing is that extreme descrepancies will not be balanced. So barbarian 5/sorcerer 2 will be balanced with barb 7 or sorc 7, but barb 19/sorc 1 will not be balanced with barb or sorc 20.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 12:36AM
#55
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Well I've liked a couple forms of multi-classing over the years.
I really like D20 legend's track system, though it has a few issues due to some tracks not being equal and some class frameworks not being equal so a class with a good framework can pick up tracks from a class with a weaker framework and probably net nifty a power boost, to say nothing of the various track synergy dangers.
The other one that I liked was the variant classes of 3.5 or alternate archetypes as pathfinder labled them. You take levels in a class but some of your abilities have been swapped out for other classes' abilities or even new ones. Raging monk was a favorite of mine.
Both of these however lack something that 3e's primary multi-class system had, the ability to choose how far you wanted to go.
That's why I think a feat based multi-class is a decent idea, you spend feats and they give you traits of the other class(es) and you take what feats you want. Some class abilities will of course be weakened, or completely unavailiable in this form but frankly that seems perfectly legit.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 12:38AM
#56
|
Date Joined:
Apr 15, 2001
|
Pathfinder also watered down PrCs and buffed the normal classes and gave you extra hit points or skills if you stayed single classed.
Reducing a character to a list of dice rolls and modifiers is not role playing*
*pg 30, AD&D 2nd Ed DMG, 1989.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 12:39AM
#57
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Feat based multiclassing.... Yeah we've been down that road. It's good for minor things and tweaks but it lacks the mechanical firepower most folks are looking for with multiclassing.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 12:48AM
#58
|
Date Joined:
Oct 26, 2004
|
Actually some of the earlier specialties made feat based multi-classing look really good.
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 1:28AM
#59
|
Date Joined:
Aug 13, 2004
|
D&D is based on classes, which are inherently "stupid" because totally artificial. But archetypes are adequate to mimic classic profiles encountered in fiction.
Multiclassing is a try to conciliate a system to tell stories and the knowledge that people matching perfectly an archetype are as rare as good Superman stories.
There's no way a multiclassing system can be perfect, as it's a way to simulate deviance from the "perfect" archetypes.
In old editions, there was a big balance problem between the number of options offered and the low counterpart. Curisously, a rogue (thief or rogue) was often part of the multiclass, offering skills more interesting in multiclass or dual class than for the single rogue class (read languages for wizards, stealthy mode for durable classes making them far more better scout options, and far better for the rare situations when backstab was usable).
Dual class was a joke, as going back to low levels meant big XPs from the higher level encounters. Curiously, the second class was often a rogue (thief or bard), the quickest one to level, offering an additional hit die at 10th level and big Con mod. for combatants.
Don't listen to people who tells you that older editions were optimizer free, as I forgot to precise that thieves were also chosen in multiclass because they had a big XP boost from the value of each treasure found. So the thief multiclass could be a neat benefit in character progression. Wizards loved the thief multiclass. It was the reason behind capping the class levels for non-humans.
3rd edition multiclass and PrCs was playing against the (then) classic archetypes structure of D&D.
You totally stopped being what you were to become something new, removing any reason to keep a class structure to D&D except tradition.
4th edition, said to be the tradition breaker, tried to come back to the old ways and enforce the importance of the prime character class. The first try with feats and paragon progression was very bad, as the counterpart for the invested parts of the character was far too low. It could have worked with more powerful feat chains and specific multiclass paragon paths, but they favored the tradition and prefered to develop hybrid multiclass.
Hybrid muliclass is more "traditional" as you are creating a class and not denaturing your current class, but a lot of these hybrids are not corresponding to any fantasy archetype.
My choice would be about chosing a class and only be able to deviate a part of it level by level. Each class would have a core that can't be altered, often corresponding to a visual identity associated with this archetype, and a part with class options that could be traded with other classes options or even another class core.
My problem with the 3rd edition MC and PrC system is that you cannot justify having classes in this system, and D&D as always been about archetypes. It's not that I'm against a classless system, it's just that I don't think it's pertinent regarding D&D.
"They are making it clear that when modern design and common sense come into conflict with tradition, tradition wins." - thecasualoblivion
"Vancian isn't broken, you just have to set your game to the wizard's clock!" - Oxybe
"In many ways, making a new edition of D&D is alot like trying to sell a car to the Amish." - Dwarfslayer
"Encounters are the heart of the AD&D game" - PHB AD&D 2nd edition.
"you shouldn't even bother trying to become like me." - Gary Gygax (Elfcrusher confirmed)
"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
|
|
|
|
3 months ago ::
Mar 14, 2013 - 2:17AM
#60
|
Date Joined:
Jun 21, 2012
|
Actually some of the earlier specialties made feat based multi-classing look really good.
They look good when given the context that we all knew there is proper multiclassing in the works, with some telltale signs that they were considering the real thing in the presentation of classes (if you take this class at your first level, you get...).
Multiclassing is not done with feats. As a means to represent dabbler concepts, great. As a multiclass character, not so much. I'm also convinced the 4e feat based multiclassing would have been very well received if proper multiclassing had been there as well.
|
|
|
