PDA

View Full Version : Multiclassing/4.0 Class Balance



F.H. Zebedee
2008-04-03, 01:07 PM
Am I correct in that:
D&D v.2: Multiclassing was almost neccessary to having an optimized character if players were building a caster for power.
D&D v. 3: Multiclassing was a BAD idea for any spellcaster. You'd be best off with a simple single class/PRC run.
D&D v.4: Multiclassing will once more allow spell casters to progress at a decent rate while becoming decent Melee fighters.

Does anybody else feel that this could possibly lead to the strongest builds in 4.0 being a pretty mandatory multiclassing between a strong meleer and a caster of some sort? Granted, it seems that abilities are a bit more modular for a class, but still...

Morty
2008-04-03, 01:14 PM
I don't think we have any amount of information about multiclassing in 4ed to allow more than rampant speculations based on this or other preconcieved notion. At least I don't recall anything concrete about 4ed multiclassing.

kamikasei
2008-04-03, 01:34 PM
As I understand it, multi- or dual-classing in 2e was close to gestalt in 3e, and so obviously the most powerful option, with the caveat that you were levels behind your single-classed allies (like playing a wizard 5//cleric instead of a wizard 3/cleric3/mystic theurge 1).

3e was of course 3e, where each of your multiple classes progressed according to class rather than character level, and since the most powerful features (spellcasting) didn't synergize or boost one another, it was rarely a good idea.

As for 4e, as M0rt says, we don't really know that much about how multiclassing will work. My guess is that it will be closer to ToB than to 2e. I seem to recall hearing claims that a lot more abilities are keyed off of character level now instead of class level. So perhaps you might build a wizard 3/fighter 3 who has the spells and exploits known of a wizard 3 and a fighter 3, but can fill those slots with powers individually on a par with those of a wizard 6 or fighter 6.

This is only speculation, though. And there is a lot more on which we are totally ignorant, so trying to guess at this point how precisely optimized builds will look seems thoroughly premature.

Artanis
2008-04-03, 01:39 PM
Am I correct in that:
D&D v.2: Multiclassing was almost neccessary to having an optimized character if players were building a caster for power.
D&D v. 3: Multiclassing was a BAD idea for any spellcaster. You'd be best off with a simple single class/PRC run.
D&D v.4: Multiclassing will once more allow spell casters to progress at a decent rate while becoming decent Melee fighters.

Does anybody else feel that this could possibly lead to the strongest builds in 4.0 being a pretty mandatory multiclassing between a strong meleer and a caster of some sort? Granted, it seems that abilities are a bit more modular for a class, but still...
I'm with M0rt and kamikasei on this one: we have no f***ing clue how optimal multiclassing will be in 4e.

toddex
2008-04-03, 01:42 PM
From the way it was explained to me in second edition. Its not really like gestalt more of you are two different classes at once, not the best of both at once. Also all your xp is split between the two. So your xp is pretty much halved. Good news is obviously each class had a different leveling rate. Pretty sure wizards needed alot of xp compared to other classes. The few times ive played 2nd edition ive been a priest or a fighter. Never dual classing. Others dual classed though.

fendrin
2008-04-03, 02:09 PM
On 2e:
Humans could dual class, meaning they they took x # of levels in one class, and then y levels in another. However, so long as x was greater than y, you took half (?) XP if you used any of your first class's abilities. Non-humans could not dual class.
Non-humans could multi-class, but your multi-class options were determined by what race you were. You could have two, three, or even four classes (I think that elves were the only race that could by a fighter/thief/priest/wizard, but I might be misremembering). If you were multi-classed, you split the XP you earned evenly among your classes, so you were lower level than your party mates, but I think you got the hit dice from each of your classes. I don't recall what happened with THAC0 and saving throws. Humans could not multi-class.

4e:
From what has been said, I think there will be a feat that allows you to take powers from a different class. I am guessing that you will always have the same number of powers, regardless of class, so 'multi-classing' wouldn't get you any additional powers, just a larger drawing pool. It might work like the incarnum or ToB feat allowing you to select a meld or maneuver regardless of your class... But I hope it will be better than that.

As for truly taking multiple classes, I haven't a clue.

Morty
2008-04-03, 02:14 PM
Well, while we don't know anything about it yet maybe, just maybe, most warrior/mage hybrids won't end up as someone who can neither cast spells nor fight really good and gets eaten by CR-appropriate monsters.

Lapak
2008-04-03, 03:17 PM
Am I correct in that:
D&D v.2: Multiclassing was almost neccessary to having an optimized character if players were building a caster for power.Definitely not. If you wanted to multi-class as a demihuman, you were at least one level behind your teammates, since you split the experience between your classes. Since experience in AD&D2 progressed levels geometrically, doubling the experience needed for each level, you were only one level behind (assuming classes that needed the same amount of experience) but that's never good, still. This is made worse by the often-houseruled-away upper limits on advancement for basically every class/race combination except human/anything; you'd hit level 11 (or whatever) as an elven mage and never get to advance that class again, but you'd still only get half XP for your other class. Mechanically, you took the average hit dice (roll a die and divide by the number of classes you're multi in for each class that levels) and got many of the benefits of each class. A fighter/mage still couldn't wear armor, but you could use weapons and have a good THAC0.

Humans could dual-class, which gave them the benefits of both classes once they advanced all the way from first level to their previous class's level + 1. This meant that for quite a while, at least one level's worth of adventuring for everyone else in the party, you were playing catch-up in terms of power. Admittedly, once you did pass your old class level you were pretty good, but it was hardly optimal in terms of actual playing if you were trying to make an effective character; it definitely wasn't necessary to make an effective spellcaster.


D&D v. 3: Multiclassing was a BAD idea for any spellcaster. You'd be best off with a simple single class/PRC run.In terms of raw power, pretty much.

D&D v.4: Multiclassing will once more allow spell casters to progress at a decent rate while becoming decent Melee fighters.And on this score we have no real information yet, beyond the fact that career paths will be available to more than one base class.

EDIT: just to note that amusingly, the doubling-XP progression in 2e cut off at just about the same levels that were the demihuman level limit. Just when you think you can start catching up, you stop advancing at all! :)

Kurald Galain
2008-04-03, 03:43 PM
D&D v. 3: Multiclassing was a BAD idea for any spellcaster. You'd be best off with a simple single class/PRC run.

Yes, but with the understanding that taking multiple prestige classes can vastly increase your power, assuming you stick to the (many) prestiges with full caster levels.

RukiTanuki
2008-04-03, 07:49 PM
Chiming in: My understanding is similar: that multiclassing in 4e will allow you to pick individual parts of the new class to enhance your character. As I imagine it: a Wizard 8 has many spells available for their use, whereas a Fighter 4/Wizard 4 has traded some of his melee versatility for a small but useful set of spells, about as powerful as the melee abilities he lost by not going Fighter 8. (If I'm on the right track, that lends strength to the idea that magic won't be an order of magnitude more powerful than other classes' powers.)

Grommen
2008-04-03, 09:18 PM
I miss my 1st and 2nd edition Fighter/Mage

Typically you ended up a level behind in each class verses other characters that had only one class. Got worse at higher levels when the game quit doubling experience needed to gain another level. In 2nd edition you all got to stop at 20th level so it really didn't matter. And who ever played with that stupid level restriction on classes and races is a putz.

And ya when you were split classed you halved your hit points, then picked the better of every thing else (Attack bonus, Saves, etc.). If you had a spell caster class you still could not wear armor (Less you got ahold of Elven chain and were elven or half-elf).

Funny thing was we never really thought of this as powerful. Many times the Fighter/Mage got laid out when he charged into battle due to the lack of AC and hit points. And if he tried to out cast a pure spell caster he got his junk smoked because the few levels he was lower as a mage really mattered. You eventually found a nice middle ground where you could devastate casters and blade swingers. Had to learn when to make your move and when to bail out or end up taking the dirt nap again.

Still loved them.

Split classing a spell caster in 3rd ed blows. I've spent a lot of time reading books trying to find stuff that will fix the problem. It's out their but it feels like cheating.

4th ed will be 4th ed. It will fix nothing, only put to bed some older problems, wile making many....many more.