WotC says, "Baby, come back! You know I didn't mean it!"

[Anastasia]

Interesting. It's rare that I hear a call for "smaller core, more splat", it's usually the other way around. One of the biggest complaints I see about 3.x was the whole "weighed down by too many splatbooks" thing.

I think that was a strength of 3.5. Core had problems, but the later material was generally better balanced and introduced more options.

[Merc]

I don't mind if they design with maps/grids/minis in mind again, but they really need to have a virtual tabletop available that's easy to use and free. For 4e, they had planned to have one and then they either killed the plan for it or were planning to make it a 'for paid subscribers only' thing.

I'd prefer a format that doesn't require them, but if they do keep them, then I really, really hope they don't do what they did with 4e's virtual tabletop.

I'd like to be able to multiclass/mix-and-match again. I looked at the 4e version and tended to think "what's the freaking point?"

[VySaika]

Balancing multiclassing being useful and neat without being dominating is hard. I think PF does a fair job of it? But I haven't seen high level PF yet and how multiclass chars compare to single class there.

[Anastasia]

Balancing multiclassing being useful and neat without being dominating is hard. I think PF does a fair job of it? But I haven't seen high level PF yet and how multiclass chars compare to single class there.

From casual knowledge single-classing is superior to multiclassing in Pathfinder, but both can be serviceable.

[Dracos]

Hey Jon:

This is with the mod hat on.  It kind of fits badly as I haven't been given real reason to do this in a long time and it disappoints.

Don't do that.  Pretty much nothing you did in this thread was in the vein of a friendly hangout.  I know you have zero filter between mind and mouth, but really, this was ridiculous.  Pretty much from entrance to exit in this thread, you treated it like it was a Something Awful thread, where snarky meanspirited lines are fine.  We're not Something Awful, and largely we try and keep a pleasant philosophical tone to our RPG discussions.

I'd like you to take a break from RPG discussions and threads for a while.  I'd mentally say 'try about six months', but instead let's go until I say otherwise.  You can feel free to ask first if you really think it's worthwhile.  If you wish to join a game, private message the person running to ask.  You may continue participating at the rest of the boards.

If I see you not taking a break, I'll elevate to a ban. 

For the rest:
Please don't feed the fellow unintentionally trolling.  There's no reason to rise to it.

[Dracos]

Truthfully, I think a little weighting toward Single Classing is actually better.  Personal preference there though, but I largely think when I see a character with 3 or 4 or 5 classes that I'm instead seeing something that has become disassociated with discussing 'what this person is, knows, and does'.  Not that there isn't very cool results from multi-class, but I think 3.x (both versions) were too far down the line of not having robust interesting single class routes compared to elaborate splat driven "a pinch of this, a hint of that".

Personally, I like the 1 class -> Prestige class direction, but many of those often require 2 or 3 classes.

[Dracos]

I was recently reading http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/1941/roleplaying-games/playtesting-4th-edition-part-1-combat which someone linked in one of the rooms and puts me in an interesting mindset as far as considering a 5th.

4th did do interesting things, but I think that they did indeed provide a solid ground for other companies to eat money in a place that they had dominated.  I don't know how profitable 4th ed has been (It's been 4 years, so probably not impressive figures since they're already moving but then they could just be being proactive too?).  That's something that WotC would be wise to keep an eye on as not providing fertile ground for competition pays dividends that are far larger than just the profit of keeping customers around.  If good competition doesn't have a good chance to set up consistent money lines, then they won't have the funding to produce more content that competes head to head for timeshare with D&D offerings.  Paizo has a very solid community now that it was poor step providing the space for that to happen in.

On one hand, it's kind of encouraging seeing them go.  I don't think a return to old is what is needed, but 4th ed all-together wasn't a right direction either.  Pathfinder is closer, but as we've mentioned a number of times: There really needs to be better core mechanics from the get-go.  Other than that, what happened with 3rd was actually quite acceptable.

I am...doubtful.  The one at the front of their design crew is Mike, and from what I've seen, there's no far level eye for probability and balance there.  My doubt is less in the community and more in the steering insight of those in charge.  But then, you never know.

[Iron Dragoon]

I always noticed that with the single-multiclass weighing, too. While, conceptually, multi-classing *should* be the 'better in the long run' route, it rarely is. It seems like the concept has fallen into a weaker 'you're this class, but with tricks from this class' pit fall.

I've been wondering if something like the skills synergy concept might help. After all, if Diplomacy can give you a basic, functional understanding of Intimidate, then why can't being a fighter give your experience/ability as a thief a benefit to the thief BaB, Fort save, STR based skills, or a different set of tactics? Similarly, your experience as a thief or fighter should give your sorceror a leg up in agility/stealth or on defensive/offensive abilities. A thief-sorceror should be better at stealthy and misdirection magic (like invisibility or mirror image) and a fighter-sorceror should, logically, be better at offensive stuff.

How to do this, I don't know. Maybe something like adding your fighter class level to your caster levels for access to spells or something. It just seems to me that there should be some sort of benefit to certain skills/abilities that relate to your 'past' experiences from your original class.

Again, that may just be me.

[Brian]

I'm going to disagree on the concept of multiclassing should be better than pure classes.

To me, that's the creators effectively saying, "Here's your bases, and it's up to you to surpass their limitations."  Feels like they're being lazy and not bothering to support what they created if they go that route.

Multiclassing should in no way be 'better' than a pure, or else you end up in the (to me) 3.5 rut of, "Which kind of one-trick pony did you decide to be?"  I'm talking about 'My build is all around me destroying things with my one special move' classes, not, 'I'm a melee type' or 'I'm a caster' -- both of those give you multiple 'tricks'.  Multiclassing just to stack +damage to fire (or whatever) is fine, but if your +fire damage surpasses anything the pure class can do in every way, and you're just as defensively viable as a pure class?  Well--  You've not enhanced the value of multiclassing, you've made it mandatory, and now there's a 'pure' penalty.

I hate that design--  And that's why I love Pathfinder actually bringing respect and support to the core classes instead of throwing them out with a disinterested, "This is what you'll wade through before getting to be your prestige class of choice."  Multiclassing is (and should be) the new Bard.  More versatile at the expense of being not-quite-as-good.  If you want to make up the difference, multiclass only to qualify for a prestige class.

Don't implement something that's going to come across as a penalty for people who fail to play in a specific way; the game is about having fun, right?  Make flexibility fun, not required.

[Dracos]

You know, that's a great way to put it.

Multiclassing comes with an inherent benefit: Flexibility, Uniqueness, and Customization.  When not blocked by large walls *eyes some classes* it can be 'not as strong' while still naturally being an interesting option.  Gish builds dominant because they are simply better in 3.5, instead of coming out naturally under the 'Hey, it's interesting having a fighter who can cast a spell in a pinch, or can turn his sword ablaze to fight trolls!'.

Variety is a strength into and of itself, even when the numbers are lower.

I like capable base classes.  No player should be a 'fool' because they're just picking one of the core concepts and going all the way with it.

Edit:

I think as well that 3.5 introduced the notion that 'Multiclass builds must deliver powerful benefits' alongside with the notion of blocking them by producing feat, training, and quest requirements.  Even though a starter at a prestige class was usually not mechanics-wise different from the core for quite a few levels in, they had to have worked their build around it for some time.  This returns with making the blend a Reward powerup for picking up the related requirement pack.

Mmm, now I'm blending multiclass and prestige class freely.  I'm gonna go have my fondue instead.

[VySaika]

the Base -> PRC style is one I generally endorse as well. Or Base -> Base -> PRC for ones that combine the two base classes(Monk/Cleric/Sacred Fist being my favorite example of course~). I am generally a fan of finishing out PRCs instead of dipping in to grab a couple things and back out as well, so making that more attractive as an option would be nice.

[Anastasia]

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/articles/view/editorials/9329-Speak-Your-Mind-in-the-Next-Version-of-Dungeons-Dragons

Another article.

[Brian]

Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

This time it will be different.

* Brian froths at the mouth a little.

Haaaaaaaate when companies call something a beta test when it's really just a free demo.  I had no idea about this, but it sure does make me grit my teeth even more at WotC.  That's straight up Steinwinder-level-jerkassness!  "Play our game!  Give us feedback!  (We don't actually want feedback; we know our game is perfect.  This is really just a free sample of what you will learn to love~! :D)"

Ughughugh.

Really hope they do better this time around. -_-

[Anastasia]

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2012/01/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons/

Another article. This one mentions that Pathfinder is outselling 4th edition (and all other RPGs) for the past two quarters. No wonder 5th edition is coming.

[Dracos]

Other than my name among the hundreds of play testers in the back of the 4th edition Player's Handbook, nothing I submitted made it into print. Our feedback was summarily ignored, and Mearls admitted that was essentially true of all the feedback Wizards received from the 4th edition play test.

This time it will be different.

* Brian froths at the mouth a little.

Haaaaaaaate when companies call something a beta test when it's really just a free demo.  I had no idea about this, but it sure does make me grit my teeth even more at WotC.  That's straight up Steinwinder-level-jerkassness!  "Play our game!  Give us feedback!  (We don't actually want feedback; we know our game is perfect.  This is really just a free sample of what you will learn to love~! :D)"

Ughughugh.

Really hope they do better this time around. -_-

As a developer, that stuff offends me.  Playtests aren't cheap.  They cost, at minimum, dozens of manhours.  Tossing away the feedback sight unseen is a monsterous waste.


Re Ana's comment:

Yeah, I couldn't find the numbers, but that sounds reasonable.  4th Ed is in a way officially being declared a failure.  It doesn't matter if it was profitable or they got commercially saavy fans, it was the first D&D that hasn't lasted even 5 years before being thrown out.

Problem?  They're too late.  Even if they work hard at this, they got 2 years minimum to really polish a strong competing product and playtest it.  Pathfinder is gonna be an even mightier beast when that happens.