A modest proposal on multiclassing - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

A modest proposal on multiclassing

Post/Author/DateTime Post
#1
Eric888
Jun 04, 2008 17:54:53 It seems like RPGs always reward specialization over versatility. With that in mind, it seems like multiclassing would work fine without having any penalties, so long as you require that the two classes come from different roles and power sources, and that they divide the powers as evenly as possible. (e.g. a first level wizard/fighter would have to have one wizard at will, one fighter at will, his encounter power would have to come from one and his daily would have to come from the other.)

I think that having to juggle multiple prime attributes, handle wildly different implements/weapons at the same time, and trying to select powers from classes that play entirely differently in combat, would require enormous commitment that would offset any apparent advantages. The character would be good at both classes, but not as great as someone who was able to focus all his powers, feats, and attribute bonuses on one class.

HP would be a perfect average. Defenses would be divided evenly as well (+1 to one that one class provides, and +1 to the other). You would only get the class features of one of the two (presumably you would use a multiclass feat to gain the one you don’t have).

Obviously this is wild speculation, but from everything I’ve seen, I don’t see a problem in this straighforword/penalty free approach.

I think I will try in the 4e game I run, I just want to know if anyone sees a problem with it that I haven’t thought of.
#2
frog8986
Jun 04, 2008 19:18:56 I don't think that would work due to the 4e game design of every class being largely front loaded.
#3
Eric888
Jun 05, 2008 16:33:35 Front loaded?
#4
zainal
Jun 05, 2008 17:46:44 I think that any thread whose title includes the phrase "A Modest Proposal" should talk about eating babies.

Seriously though, the only way to evaluate the idea would be to run it and see how plain fighters and wizards stand up against the multiclass. 4th seems to give a lot at first level so you might miss out on certain abilities and never be able to pick them up.

I still haven't got my books though, so how useful this post will be is debatable.
#5
tequila_sunrise
Jun 05, 2008 18:25:20
Front loaded?

It means the classes give a ton of benefits at 1st level compared to later levels.

TS
#6
tiwaztyrsfist
Jun 05, 2008 20:00:25
I think that any thread whose title includes the phrase "A Modest Proposal" should talk about eating babies.

Seriously though, the only way to evaluate the idea would be to run it and see how plain fighters and wizards stand up against the multiclass. 4th seems to give a lot at first level so you might miss out on certain abilities and never be able to pick them up.

I still haven't got my books though, so how useful this post will be is debatable.

Speaking of eating babies, I think that allowing characters to freely take powers from their multi-class option in place of core class powers is completely balanced, provided that the character be required to eat humanoid babies (at least 2 a day) to power their non-core class powers.
#7
Eric888
Jun 06, 2008 10:52:38 You might be right (about being 'front loaded', not the eating babies part). Powers would probably be balanced if you have to divide them evenly, but then there are class features and weapon/armor profs to worry about.

I guess I can play the game as it is before trying to radically alter multiclassing.
#8
slaughts
Jun 11, 2008 18:34:57 This looks to me to be an interesting path of action. It would be interesting to see how it works in play.

But I have a feeling that the numbers of powers are so few at low levels that splitting them in two is going to leave holes in a PCs role and capabilities. You may have to give a multi classed PC an extra encounter power so the PC has encounter powers from both class.
#9
Pyrate_Jib
Jun 11, 2008 23:00:51 Where I struggle is creating the character that I want to play. What if I envision a street orphan who groups up in a tough back alley gang but eventually becomes a Cleric. In 3E I could start as a Rogue and then take levels of Cleric.

Now we all know that when you mix classes like this your character isn't as powerful as a straight Cleric or Rogue. But what if I (as the Player) don't care? What if I am a role player who likes that background? What if my DM likes it too? How can you work this with 4E? Maybe it will be cleared up in later publications...

Okay, let the Trolls and smart quick witted retorts begin!
#10
ceiling90
Jun 12, 2008 21:58:43 So for that Scenario... I say, start rogue... then take the multiclass feats. It's not like you're going to be a worse rogue cause you went cleric. Im not quite sure what to do with the early multiclassing... cause yeah, even if you say, get an at will early, it's not be very... different I think.
#11
makeshiftwings
Jun 12, 2008 23:02:34
Where I struggle is creating the character that I want to play. What if I envision a street orphan who groups up in a tough back alley gang but eventually becomes a Cleric. In 3E I could start as a Rogue and then take levels of Cleric.

Now we all know that when you mix classes like this your character isn't as powerful as a straight Cleric or Rogue. But what if I (as the Player) don't care? What if I am a role player who likes that background? What if my DM likes it too? How can you work this with 4E? Maybe it will be cleared up in later publications...

Okay, let the Trolls and smart quick witted retorts begin!

I think one big difference is that a 1st level rogue isn't just a street orphan learning the ropes. He's an expert, one of the best rogues and deadliest fighters in town. 1st level characters are already heroic. If you want to be someone who was a petty thief as a child but is now a cleric, I would just be a Cleric and leave your dark childhood as background fluff. Just because you stole bread as a kid doesn't mean you should be able to eviscerate people with daggers like a ninja. If you want, take Skill training in Thievery or Stealth, but even that's not totally necessary. A petty thief doesn't have skill training in Thievery, only highly trained thieves do.
#12
philosofool
Jun 13, 2008 23:54:08 This looks like a good proposal to me for a house rule, though I'd like to hear how the play test goes; I wouldn't be surprised to find that it works smoothly, but same if there are heinous exploits.

Probably the biggest problem from the developers point of view is that it's not a very complete system: what about fighter/rogues?

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 Eric888 Jun 04, 2008 17:54:53	It seems like RPGs always reward specialization over versatility. With that in mind, it seems like multiclassing would work fine without having any penalties, so long as you require that the two classes come from different roles and power sources, and that they divide the powers as evenly as possible. (e.g. a first level wizard/fighter would have to have one wizard at will, one fighter at will, his encounter power would have to come from one and his daily would have to come from the other.) I think that having to juggle multiple prime attributes, handle wildly different implements/weapons at the same time, and trying to select powers from classes that play entirely differently in combat, would require enormous commitment that would offset any apparent advantages. The character would be good at both classes, but not as great as someone who was able to focus all his powers, feats, and attribute bonuses on one class. HP would be a perfect average. Defenses would be divided evenly as well (+1 to one that one class provides, and +1 to the other). You would only get the class features of one of the two (presumably you would use a multiclass feat to gain the one you don’t have). Obviously this is wild speculation, but from everything I’ve seen, I don’t see a problem in this straighforword/penalty free approach. I think I will try in the 4e game I run, I just want to know if anyone sees a problem with it that I haven’t thought of.
#2 frog8986 Jun 04, 2008 19:18:56	I don't think that would work due to the 4e game design of every class being largely front loaded.
#3 Eric888 Jun 05, 2008 16:33:35	Front loaded?
#4 zainal Jun 05, 2008 17:46:44	I think that any thread whose title includes the phrase "A Modest Proposal" should talk about eating babies. Seriously though, the only way to evaluate the idea would be to run it and see how plain fighters and wizards stand up against the multiclass. 4th seems to give a lot at first level so you might miss out on certain abilities and never be able to pick them up. I still haven't got my books though, so how useful this post will be is debatable.
#5 tequila_sunrise Jun 05, 2008 18:25:20	Front loaded? It means the classes give a ton of benefits at 1st level compared to later levels. TS
#6 tiwaztyrsfist Jun 05, 2008 20:00:25	I think that any thread whose title includes the phrase "A Modest Proposal" should talk about eating babies. Seriously though, the only way to evaluate the idea would be to run it and see how plain fighters and wizards stand up against the multiclass. 4th seems to give a lot at first level so you might miss out on certain abilities and never be able to pick them up. I still haven't got my books though, so how useful this post will be is debatable. Speaking of eating babies, I think that allowing characters to freely take powers from their multi-class option in place of core class powers is completely balanced, provided that the character be required to eat humanoid babies (at least 2 a day) to power their non-core class powers.
#7 Eric888 Jun 06, 2008 10:52:38	You might be right (about being 'front loaded', not the eating babies part). Powers would probably be balanced if you have to divide them evenly, but then there are class features and weapon/armor profs to worry about. I guess I can play the game as it is before trying to radically alter multiclassing.
#8 slaughts Jun 11, 2008 18:34:57	This looks to me to be an interesting path of action. It would be interesting to see how it works in play. But I have a feeling that the numbers of powers are so few at low levels that splitting them in two is going to leave holes in a PCs role and capabilities. You may have to give a multi classed PC an extra encounter power so the PC has encounter powers from both class.
#9 Pyrate_Jib Jun 11, 2008 23:00:51	Where I struggle is creating the character that I want to play. What if I envision a street orphan who groups up in a tough back alley gang but eventually becomes a Cleric. In 3E I could start as a Rogue and then take levels of Cleric. Now we all know that when you mix classes like this your character isn't as powerful as a straight Cleric or Rogue. But what if I (as the Player) don't care? What if I am a role player who likes that background? What if my DM likes it too? How can you work this with 4E? Maybe it will be cleared up in later publications... Okay, let the Trolls and smart quick witted retorts begin!
#10 ceiling90 Jun 12, 2008 21:58:43	So for that Scenario... I say, start rogue... then take the multiclass feats. It's not like you're going to be a worse rogue cause you went cleric. Im not quite sure what to do with the early multiclassing... cause yeah, even if you say, get an at will early, it's not be very... different I think.
#11 makeshiftwings Jun 12, 2008 23:02:34	Where I struggle is creating the character that I want to play. What if I envision a street orphan who groups up in a tough back alley gang but eventually becomes a Cleric. In 3E I could start as a Rogue and then take levels of Cleric. Now we all know that when you mix classes like this your character isn't as powerful as a straight Cleric or Rogue. But what if I (as the Player) don't care? What if I am a role player who likes that background? What if my DM likes it too? How can you work this with 4E? Maybe it will be cleared up in later publications... Okay, let the Trolls and smart quick witted retorts begin! I think one big difference is that a 1st level rogue isn't just a street orphan learning the ropes. He's an expert, one of the best rogues and deadliest fighters in town. 1st level characters are already heroic. If you want to be someone who was a petty thief as a child but is now a cleric, I would just be a Cleric and leave your dark childhood as background fluff. Just because you stole bread as a kid doesn't mean you should be able to eviscerate people with daggers like a ninja. If you want, take Skill training in Thievery or Stealth, but even that's not totally necessary. A petty thief doesn't have skill training in Thievery, only highly trained thieves do.
#12 philosofool Jun 13, 2008 23:54:08	This looks like a good proposal to me for a house rule, though I'd like to hear how the play test goes; I wouldn't be surprised to find that it works smoothly, but same if there are heinous exploits. Probably the biggest problem from the developers point of view is that it's not a very complete system: what about fighter/rogues?