D&DNext: Playtest Review

[deaddmwalking]

I'd almost like to see something like 'gestalt' as the core option. It might not necessarily have to be Class 1 level x Class 2 level x. It could be 1x/2x-4 or something, but that'd give some pretty good flexibility for most classes.

Something like a 'Major Sphere' and a 'Minor Sphere' for each class. But that'd be too far outside of what traditional D&D has been for them to go for it (but of course, since everything can be a 'module', they might just take that and release it in a supplement).

[Seerow]

I'd almost like to see something like 'gestalt' as the core option. It might not necessarily have to be Class 1 level x Class 2 level x. It could be 1x/2x-4 or something, but that'd give some pretty good flexibility for most classes.

Something like a 'Major Sphere' and a 'Minor Sphere' for each class. But that'd be too far outside of what traditional D&D has been for them to go for it (but of course, since everything can be a 'module', they might just take that and release it in a supplement).

Sounds like you're basically looking for D&D to adopt Legend's multiclassing rules.

[Mistborn]

I always thought the way martial adepts multiclassed where you use half your levels in other classes for your intiator level was close to the ideal for multiclassing.

So say you're a Fighter 4 and take a level of rogue, you get sneak attack and trapfinding as a 3rd level rogue but you don't get evasion or any abilities unlocked at a later level.

Of course that means that everyone will dip into other classes unless they're a class like wizard where every level counts but people alread where doing that in 3e

[ishy]

No, that is the worst multiclassing system ever. You don't want a fighter 10 / warblade 1 to be a lot stronger than a fighter 2/warblade1/fighter 8

[RadiantPhoenix]

I'm pretty sure that the only "good" multiclassing systems are ones where you always select powers based on your whole character level.

[Username17]

I'm pretty sure that the only "good" multiclassing systems are ones where you always select powers based on your whole character level.

Well, you can make a subclassing system, that would work.

-Username17

[Mistborn]

No, that is the worst multiclassing system ever. You don't want a fighter 10 / warblade 1 to be a lot stronger than a fighter 2/warblade1/fighter 8

So not exactlly like the ToB. That sort of problem is fairly easy to hotfix if you're re-writing the rules. In that particular case most of the problem goes away if you let people swap some manuvers every time their initator level goes up.

[Bill Bisco: Isometric Imp]

I'm pretty sure that the only "good" multiclassing systems are ones where you always select powers based on your whole character level.

Well, you can make a subclassing system, that would work.

-Username17

You don't need subclasses. At level 2 you get a level 2 power. At level 3 you get a level 3 power, at level 26 you get a level 26 power and so on.

[hogarth]

I'm pretty sure that the only "good" multiclassing systems are ones where you always select powers based on your whole character level.

The easiest variant of 3.5 that I've seen proposed is some kind of pseudo-gestalt method. E.g. a rogue 10/wizard 10 gets the class features of a level 15 rogue and a level 15 wizard (or whatever).

[Username17]

I'm pretty sure that the only "good" multiclassing systems are ones where you always select powers based on your whole character level.

Well, you can make a subclassing system, that would work.

-Username17

You don't need subclasses. At level 2 you get a level 2 power. At level 3 you get a level 3 power, at level 26 you get a level 26 power and so on.

Well, that is a system where you always select powers based on your whole character level, like Radiant Phoenix was talking about. And yes, that can work. It can work with either "class templates" that you select based on the powers you have or pure power-based division of abilities. Subclasses is an entirely different system in which you get a minor set of powers that can (and presumably must) come from a different class.

The easiest variant of 3.5 that I've seen proposed is some kind of pseudo-gestalt method. E.g. a rogue 10/wizard 10 gets the class features of a level 15 rogue and a level 15 wizard (or whatever).

Virtual Casting Levels has the advantage of being easy to explain, but I've never seen a version of it that wasn't horribly broken and which wasn't severely min/maxable based on algebra. In the simplest case (the one in which every level counts 1/2 for your other class), you are often confronted with a "choice" between "gain a level of Rogue" and "gain a level of Rogue and gain a level of Wizard".

-Username17

[Juton]

I don't think Mearls has a strong idea how capable a Fighter 10/Wizard 10 should be. For instance how well should such a multiclass character fight? I'd be gob smacked if Mearls had any rationale for his decision.

I think with these multiclass rules it is inevitable that we will have the same situation as in 3.5 that some class combinations only work with the right PrC. So WotC can make money by releasing splat books that give players the tools they need to play certain concepts.

[RadiantPhoenix]

So, would an example of a subclassing system be:

You have a main class and a subclass. You get a main class ability every level, and a subclass ability at every odd level. Subclass abilities are selected as though you were {two levels lower / half your level / w/e.}.

?

[OgreBattle]

If you do subclasses, is that a thing that is mandatory (like XI) or do you lose some main class feature to pick up a sub.

[Juton]

I think that something like a mix of AD&D multiclassing and 3.5 gestalt handles the broadest range of class combinations. In my experience I find a character can still be near level appropriate performance being two character levels behind. So in a party of 10th level characters I think a Fighter/Wizard 8 can still contribute equally to the rest of the party.

[CCarter]

I'm pretty sure that the only "good" multiclassing systems are ones where you always select powers based on your whole character level.

This brings in a question of how valuable flexibility is vs. raw power.
Picking up powers based on [total character level] is pretty balanced and a big step up from normal 3.x
A multiclass character might be better than a single classed character in this situation though, since they gain flexibility?

4E did manage to somehow make "multiclassing" suck despite such a character level based system, since the feat costs are exorbitant and all the classes are virtually identical in any case, but if say, Spell Resistance or Damage Reduction or immunity to sneak attack actually existed in it, then multiclassing could have significant benefits for a character in terms of overcoming these. Hence a character level based system could well be overpowered rather than underpowered.
So I second the Hogarth model I guess although admittedly it guarantees some problems, and would work better with a flatter power curve than in say 3.x.

[Username17]

If you do subclasses, is that a thing that is mandatory (like XI) or do you lose some main class feature to pick up a sub.

you'd definitely make it mandatory. If you really want to be "just a Red Mage" you can always be a Red Mage that subs Red Mage or something.

-Username17

[Grek]

The key to doing Mutliclassing right is to have modular levels. Character advancement is divided up into tiers (let's say 4 of them) with a set number of levels per tier (let's say 5). Each class has a bunch levels that you can take in each tier. More than the number of levels in that tier. Each level is supposed to be balanced against every other level and give independant powers, so you can take them in any order and have your stats add up correctly. Example levels:

Fighter:

• Beserker: +1d12 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, Rage as a barbarian equal to character level.
• Dirty Fighter: +1d8 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, +1 Ref, Weapon Finesse & two of Improved Disarm, Feint or Trip.
• Horse Cavalry: +1d10 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, Mounted Combat, Ride-by-Attack & Spirited Charge.
• Archer: +1d10 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, Point Blank Shot & 2 of Far Shot, Precise Shot or Rapid Shot.
• Duel Wielder: +1d10 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, Two-Weapon Fighting & Two-Weapon Defense.
• Two-Hander: +1d10 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, Cleave, Power Attack & Improved Sunder.
• Smart Fighter: +1d8 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, +1 Will, Blind-Fight, Improved Initative & Combat Reflexes.
• Monk: +1d10 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, +1 Ref, Improved Unarmed Strike, Deflect Arrows & Improved Grapple, improved unarmed damage as per Table: The Monk.

Fighter Proficencies: Gain proficency in 4 simple weapons, 2 martial weapons or 1 exotic weapon for each level in fighter you have. Improve armour and shield proficenies by one (None -> Light -> Medium -> Heavy and None -> Normal -> Tower) per level as well.

Warlock:

• Summoner: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Conjuration (Summoning) spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Conjurer: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Conjuration (Creation) spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Illusionist: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Illusion (Figment) or Illusion (Glamer) spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Mentalist: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Enchantment (Compulsion) spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Mesmerist: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Enchantment (Charm) or Illusion (Pattern) spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Diviner: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Divination spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Necromancer: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Necromancy spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Abjurer: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain one Abjuration spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA.
• Totemist: +1d8 HD, +1 Will, +1 Fort, Gain all of the Animal's Attribute line of spells with spell level less than 1/2 character level rounded up as SLAs.
• Domain Haver: +1d4 HD, +1 Will, Gain 1 cleric Domain power. All of the spells granted by that domain are SLAs.
• Evoker: +1d8 HD, +1 Will, +1 Ref, Gain one Evocation spell per 2 character levels (rounded up) as an SLA. Ignore damage caps for Evocation spells.

Spell Like Abilities: Except where specified otherwise, all Warlock SLAs have caster level equal to character level, have a max spell level equal to 1/2 character level rounded up and all SLAs of a single spell level can be used cumulative total of 4 times a day.

Rogue:

• Sniper: +1d8 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, +1 Ref, Gain proficiency with one ranged weapon, can sneak attack when sniping a target within 60'.
• Thug: +1d8 HD, +1/2 BaB, +1 Fort, and can sneak attack when flanking a living humanoid.
• Hunter: +1d6 HD, +1/2 BaB, +1 Ref, and can sneak attack when flanking a living animal.
• Trapfinder: +1d6 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Ref, Trapfinding, Trap Sense equal to 1/2 character level, Evasion and Uncanny Dodge.
• Opportunist: +1d6 HD, +1/2 BaB, +1 Ref, and can sneak attack whenever taking an attack of opportunity.
• Stealth Fighter: +1d6 HD, +1/2 BaB, +1 Ref, and can sneak attack whenever concealed from the target.
• Poisoner: +1d8 HD, +1 Fort, Poison Use (Ex) and a bonus to Craft(poison) equal to character level.
• Monster Hunter: +1d8 HD, +1 BaB, +1 Fort, and can sneak attack on undead, constructs, oozes, plants and incorporeal creatures.

Sneak Attack: Does +1d6 damage per 2 character levels rounded up. Can only be performed if explictly specified.

So a Fighter 2/Rogue 3 should be equal to a Fighter 5 should be equal to a Wizard 4/Rogue five on the grounds that they get access to the same number and quality of powers.

[Josh_Kablack]

Well you can't both

A> Have a fighter 5 balanced against a Rogue2/Wizard 3 balanced against a Monk4/Cleric 1 and so on for all possible multiclass permutations

AND

B> Have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher class levels.

Those two are mutually exclusive design principles.

[RobbyPants]

Well you can't both

A> Have a fighter 5 balanced against a Rogue2/Wizard 3 balanced against a Monk4/Cleric 1 and so on for all possible multiclass permutations

AND

B> Have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher class levels.

Those two are mutually exclusive design principles.

Well, I think the idea is that when your Rogue 2/Wizard 3 takes his first wizard level (at character level 3), he's getting a 3rd level wizard ability. So, at 5th level, he'd have rogue abilities leveled 1 and 2, and wizard abilities leveled 3 - 5.

The problem with that, is it becomes the biggest kind of pain in the ass to play test all of the combinations.

[Mistborn]

To be perfectly honest if you can't staple 5-6 well chosen class abilities/spells/feats to make something mindblowing then the people writing your game are being too timid. The occasional broken combo as far less of a problem at real tables then the game being boring because the game doesn't offer meaningful options.

[Grek]

Well you can't both

A> Have a fighter 5 balanced against a Rogue2/Wizard 3 balanced against a Monk4/Cleric 1 and so on for all possible multiclass permutations

AND

B> Have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher class levels.

Those two are mutually exclusive design principles.

This is why you have tiers, as explicitly fucking stated above. All of the Wizard 1-5 levels are balanced with the Rogue 1-5 levels, but neither is balanced with the Fighter 6-10 levels. The 6-10 levels have higher level powers that aren't balanced in low level play.

[Mistborn]

This is why you have tiers, as explicitly fucking stated above. All of the Wizard 1-5 levels are balanced with the Rogue 1-5 levels, but neither is balanced with the Fighter 6-10 levels. The 6-10 levels have higher level powers that aren't balanced in low level play.

Guess what Grek you're getting design credit on my next project. Not only is that a neet way to balance multiclassing you can steathfully remove mudane classes a high levels by not giving non-SU levels at higher brackets.

[Pedantic]

Not only is that a neet way to balance multiclassing you can steathfully remove mudane classes a high levels by not giving non-SU levels at higher brackets.

It's a really sensible idea that D&D players, of course, are violently opposed to. I've been advocating it as a solution on the purple board forever. Bizarrely, the 4e crowd is opposed to it for the same reason as the grogs: they firmly believe mundane classes should somehow remain competitive with magic ones without ever sullying their "normality." The only real difference is that 4rries at least acknowledge you need to make magic suck to make that work, grogs close their eyes and sing "lalalala "creative problem solving" lalalala" until you go away.

[RadiantPhoenix]

Well you can't both

A> Have a fighter 5 balanced against a Rogue2/Wizard 3 balanced against a Monk4/Cleric 1 and so on for all possible multiclass permutations

AND

B> Have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher class levels.

Those two are mutually exclusive design principles.

Which is why you drop B> and have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher character levels instead.

e.g., being a Ftr 1 / Rog 1 / Wiz 2 gives you the first level features of a fighter, the second level features of a rogue, and the third and fourth level features of a wizard.

[Previn]

Well you can't both

A> Have a fighter 5 balanced against a Rogue2/Wizard 3 balanced against a Monk4/Cleric 1 and so on for all possible multiclass permutations

AND

B> Have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher class levels.

Those two are mutually exclusive design principles.

Which is why you drop B> and have classes grant bigger and better abilities at higher character levels instead.

e.g., being a Ftr 1 / Rog 1 / Wiz 2 gives you the first level features of a fighter, the second level features of a rogue, and the third and fourth level features of a wizard.

And is a nightmare for bookkeeping?