Article here (http://www.wizards.com/dnd/Article.aspx?x=dnd/4ll/20130812)
It seems like Mearls was in such a rush to get ready for Gencon, he rushed this article and had a lot of ambiguity in it. I think he would have been best served to clearly explain what the intentions are for multi-class, because there are a lot of questions with this, especially around multi-classed casters.
The reaction is to be expected, yet disappointing. It seems a lot of folks are throwing fits because they're "just gonna take one level of fighter and one level of mage, and then the rest as a other class!"
Once again, munchkins ruin the game; acting like an RPG is all about min/maxing mechanical bonuses rather than actually role-playing in a fantasy came world where such combinations make no sense whatsoever.
How about we just not have multi-classing?
That's generally how I ran 3.x and it worked just fine.
Sure the system wanks and the like hated it but I didn't want them infecting my game anyway.
Win-win.
If you want multi-classing, play the Elf class or the Dwarf class.
Problem solved.
I don't understand the complaint you mention in the first post.
"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."
and
"For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor."
Both of those seem to address the issue you raised. Single-level dipping seems to have been addressed, so what is the issue, and where are you seeing this complaint expressed?
In my opinion, it's really a person problem and not a rules problem.
If a player is wanting to make a particular build, let's say he's been adventuring as a barbarian for a few sessions and has leveled up. Now he wants to be a mage because it min/maxs his character, even though he has not done anything in character to reflect this. That's a person problem because that player is ignoring what is happening in the game world and instead is placing all focus on metagaming
If the DM allows this, then this is also a person problem because the DM is changing or ignoring common sense to cater to a player.
Either way, not a rules problem. The simplest solution is that as a DM, I won't allow players to make builds based on min/maxing. They have to make sense in the context of the character's personality, actions, and game world.
This is why we can't have nice things though.
Quote from: Mistwell;680406I don't understand the complaint you mention in the first post.
"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."
and
"For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor."
Both of those seem to address the issue you raised. Single-level dipping seems to have been addressed, so what is the issue, and where are you seeing this complaint expressed?
I was more talking about the people online who are whining about this. Go look at TBP for a clear example.
The caster rules are weird. There is some interpretation that if you dip into a cleric level 1 and are a 9th level fighter, you can cast spells like a 10th level cleric
Quote from: YourSwordisMine;680404If you want multi-classing, play the Elf class or the Dwarf class.
Problem solved.
The dwarf class isn't multiclassing. The classic dwarf is a fighter with some racial abilities.
Quote from: Mistwell;680406I don't understand the complaint you mention in the first post.
"Our approach to low-level characters removes the abuses you can achieve by dipping into several classes by spreading out features over the first few levels."
and
"For things such as weapon and armor proficiencies, we have multiclassing-specific rules to ensure that you gain some new proficiencies, but not all of them. You can't dip into fighter to gain all weapons and armor."
Both of those seem to address the issue you raised. Single-level dipping seems to have been addressed, so what is the issue, and where are you seeing this complaint expressed?
The largest number of complaints I remember about 3E multiclassing were from those who wanted to have the casting abilities of full character level even after taking several levels of fighter.
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680410The caster rules are weird. There is some interpretation that if you dip into a cleric level 1 and are a 9th level fighter, you can cast spells like a 10th level cleric
I don't think the article can be any clearer:
"Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast."
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680408Either way, not a rules problem. The simplest solution is that as a DM, I won't allow players to make builds based on min/maxing. They have to make sense in the context of the character's personality, actions, and game world.
[munchkin rage]
So a player has to suck your dick to play the class they want?
[end munchkin rage]
You
know someone was going to say it. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sacrosanct;680408If the DM allows this, then this is also a person problem because the DM is changing or ignoring common sense to cater to a player.
So, include the rules, and specify that they're subject to GM approval. Everybody wins; char op fans get to char op, simulation fans get to do what makes sense, and GM's who find a player who insists on multiclassing because IT IS IN THE RULES SO YOU MUST LET ME! can kick the player (resulting in a thread about GM tyranny, and the player ending up looking like a shit). Everybody wins!
Or you could go the Dungeon World route, where each class has 'take an ability from another class' as one of their advancement options, but under strict limits (of classes allowed, powers allowed, and effectiveness in use). You can game it, sure, but not much.
Quote from: Chairman Meow;680414I don't think the article can be any clearer:
"Your overall levels in classes that cast spells determines how many spells you can cast."
What I mean is, if you're a 5th level mage/5th level cleric, can you cast a number of spells per day as a 5th level caster in each class, or do you cast a number of spells per day as a 10th level caster, up to the highest spell level per class?
For example, do you have:
Cleric spells: 3/2/1
Mage spells: 4/3/2
or
Cleric spells: 3/2/2
Mage Spells: 4/3/3
Fuck multi-classing. I could see its merits in AD&D, where there wasn't much scope for character customization. But there's no need for it Next, and there wasn't any need for it in 3E. It's just a sop to munchkins. Why not just make it clear up-front that this isn't the edition for them? Or just nerf it by saying you always gain experience in whatever class you have the lowest level in. Done.
Quote from: Haffrung;680452Fuck multi-classing. I could see its merits in AD&D, where there wasn't much scope for character customization. But there's no need for it Next, and there wasn't any need for it in 3E. It's just a sop to munchkins. Why not just make it clear up-front that this isn't the edition for them? Or just nerf it by saying you always gain experience in whatever class you have the lowest level in. Done.
I am open to multiclassing as long as it is slightly 'weaker' than single classing.
My logic is that multiclassing should be for charcater concept and not for 'being uber'
Quote from: Bill;680742I am open to multiclassing as long as it is slightly 'weaker' than single classing.
My logic is that multiclassing should be for charcater concept and not for 'being uber'
Agreed. If you want flexibility and a cool concept, fine. You're going to give up power, though. Only gaining experience in your lowest level is the way to do that.
I see. What he left out of his very brief description is:
1) When multiclassing between classes which are already sort-of half-caster (like Ranger or Paladin) and a full caster (like Wizard), what is the basis of your spells prepared and known? and
2) Why would a character that starts as Fighter and then multi-classes as wizard known all those martial proficiencies, while a character that starts as wizard and multi-classes as fighter know less proficiencies? and
3) the question Sarcrosanct asked.
I am sure they have answers for those, he just spun off the article quick before heading to GenCon and didn't delve into those finer detail level questions.
Personally, I think they need to go back to the TSR era rule for dual-classing (which is what multi-classing in this context is). I.e., you need to have a minimum attribute before you can take that class.
You're a 3rd level fighter who wants to be a mage? You need a minimum INT of 16.
I think that would help mitigate all the F1/Rng3/MU6/C1/Bar4 builds.
Quote from: Bill;680742I am open to multiclassing as long as it is slightly 'weaker' than single classing.
My logic is that multiclassing should be for charcater concept and not for 'being uber'
Agree in principle.
But 3.0/3.5/PF has eleven classes in the core rules. The webpage http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/lists/class lists 175 core classes, even if some of them are repetitive.
Why not make a list of core classes that covers most of the multi-class options. It may not be perfect, but it is hard to find a lot of class ideas that could not be handled by a well thought out core class.
Fighter/Mage could be a Hexblade or a Duskblade.
Is there really a lot of daylight between an Urban Ranger and a Fighter/Thief?
I love multiclass characters so its good they're in. If nothing else, they're great for when there are only one or two PCs in the group.
OTOH, 3.x is about the worst system I can think of for multi-classing. I'd like characters to be able to have 2 or 3 classes, not 20, want to be able to actually start off with two if it fits the character, and it should offer more flexibility rather than bizarre and game-breaking combinations.
You could more or less prove mathematically that 3.x multiclassing sucked since (from the CR system) gaining 2 levels was supposed to double a character's power. If that's right then being a 10th level wizard is equal to being a 8th level fighter + an 8th level wizard (more like what the levels would've been for an AD&D fighter/magic-user) rather than being 5th/5th. Splitting the levels directly meant they had to invent a bunch of weird bandaid PrCs like Eldritch Knight or Mystic Theurge.
But the CR system was... not very good. :)
I like multiclassing, I like 3e multiclassing (yes, its holes are well-documented, but its main virtue is that it allows characters to have careers that cover a wide ground, which I like a great deal), and I care little for the sanctity of archetypes, but I was under the impression that the 5e backgrounds pretty much covered the ground that multiclassing does, which I am also fine with if that's true. So, whatever.
Quote from: Piestrio;680403How about we just not have multi-classing?
That's generally how I ran 3.x and it worked just fine.
Sure the system wanks and the like hated it but I didn't want them infecting my game anyway.
Win-win.
I agree with this. They could do some Specializations or whatever they Hell they are calling them in the newest version to scratch that itch just fine. In fact, it LOOKED like they were heading in that direction instead of putting in classes like Paladin and Ranger early on.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;681030OTOH, 3.x is about the worst system I can think of for multi-classing. I'd like characters to be able to have 2 or 3 classes, not 20, want to be able to actually start off with two if it fits the character, and it should offer more flexibility rather than bizarre and game-breaking combinations.
Just so. 3.X multiclassing was a godawful system where you had to wait until 6th level-- or later-- for the mechanics to support your character concept and where you were rewarded for building illogical character combinations.
I've been trying to fix it for years. The closest I've been able to come are systems where you get class features (but not numerical benefits) as class level + 1/2 non-class levels, with feat taxes, or using Gestalt rules with fixed progression and Level Adjustment per number of classes. Neither option is remotely satisfying.
The fact that D&D Next is going back to 3.X multiclassing-- variant or not-- instead of either AD&D multiclassing or some refinement of the 4e system is one of my major disappointments with it.