Multiclassing

From a simple design and level tier standpoint, all of this sounds pretty standard, cut and dry.  The real deep and dirty question is, what do the classes look like as you level up in them.  Are there going to be logical paths to follow?  Can you "multi-class" across different trees of Warrior, Theurge, or Mage?
 
What happens when I want to make a warrior class who's good at taking a serious beating, but has been a warrior long enough he knows how to take a different stance and actually turn around and do significant damage with skills like cleaves and whirlwinds (burst) even if they're not as powerful as someone who's specialized in doing just that?  What if someone wants to be able to do more damage as a sorcerer, but suppliment it with the ability to inflict status effects from the warlock tree?  Are we going to allow that?  I know that Thad has mentioned in the past that once someone started down one tree that was where they were stuck, I think this is certainly the place to consider what happens when they do that.
 
The advantage of the cheaper early levels is the XP sting isn't nearly as bad.  When it takes 2-3 games after your first couple, and 3-4 more as you progress farther than that as you pass 12 in our current system just to pick up a trivial skill, or you sacrifice several months gimping yourself by not picking up key skills in the leveling process its painful.  Being able to guarantee getting to lvl 3 of a class in 3 games is nice, considering you can do it anywhere throughout your carreer.
 
Something that I do worry about with the current leveling structure is the increased time it takes going from lvl 7+ if you're going to stick with one class, 8-9 now takes 3 full games even with boon where it used to take 2, so we're slowing down progresison significantly after that point.  Not that I have a problem with that, however, we're going to want to look into what happens for character progression BETWEEN games when they're not getting a level.  I can see very quickly lots of people going the 8/8/8 route and being able to do a lot of stuff all the time if things start to slow down and we have nothing for them to do or learn between games.  So something that seems to be more pressing to me at this point in the discussion is XP to Skill Points, what it means to level up, and character progression before we can even consider having a productive discussion about multi classing as we have very little to go on as to what it would look like to multi class and if the skill trees are worthwhile to take the level dips for.

No, I hadn't planned on allowing folks more than one path within a class. I may be in the minority on this, but I like the idea that some decisions are mutually exclusive and no one character can master every facet of a particular discipline. It makes that choice all the more significant, and the character who makes it all the more special.

The XP idea you propose seems sound enough to me. It makes the trade off of power for more versatility seem a lot more reasonable, since you can, for example, do 5th level actions in 2 different trees instead of 8th level actions in one tree.  I also like the idea of being able to pick up a level in a new class after any game if the player really wants to add some versatility.
 
The idea of levelling professions by using them intrigues me.
 
One question comes to mind though, and I'm sure this is more for another topic, but after deciding to get rid of Class affinities and since this new system does away with SP, what are Races going to do?

The current working concept is that your classes and race don't grant anything in and of themselves; they're simply qualifiers for learning other things. In this setup, actions will all go on the same list (i.e., no more separate lists of Wizard Action, Warrior Action, Empyrean Actions, etc.) and be prepared from the same pool. There will then be actions you can learn by virtue of your race, actions you can learn because of your class, and actions you can learn because of a combination of the two (e.g., both empyreans and seers can learn a one-packet Soothe, but only an empyrean seer can learn a Burst Soothe).
 
That's the working concept anyway. You don't get any additional action preparations because of your race, but you do get a slightly broader selection and incentive to follow certain paths within your class. These are otherwise prepared from your normal allotment of actions.

I like this but as for finding over all character lvl i would say go buy the chart above. At 500 exp you have reached you characters max lvl and need to plan and ending of it. same would go for the number of actions the character would have and so on. This would give a major insentive to stick it out in one class instead of multiclassing know that you wouldnt end up in with every action avalible. As for the other paths being resticted i like this as well but if I want to play a multiclass mage I think I should have the opption but you would have to go back and take 3 lvl of the base mage archtype and then choose another path to take.

I agree with Drux on this one.  And I typically play a multiclass.  Can you lay out how to take a particular path and then keep a low level multiclass?  Or would both classes level together?

 The trees that I worry about multiclassing in the most at the moment are the rogue and caster trees.  The class specialty trees are likely to be so diverse  that they're going to feel and look like multiple classes.  The original reason that I initially suggested the 4 archetype entry points in the design scheme was so you could take things from other classes within the same archetype.
 
Lets take mage for example:
 
Lets say that Billy has a character concept where he wants to be a wizard who begins to dabble in the dark magics.  He's already played for a season and reached level 7, so he decides that he has enough base skill in wizard for the time being that he wishes to look into the skills that warlocks have.  In order to do such, he should continue to level as a mage but be able to take talents that would be granted to him as a warlock, and likely at a slightly accelerated rate (he would have already had the level prereq in the mage class) because they already have a base knowledge of the arcane arts.
 
Note - at this point, they would not be getting the low levels of warlock as if they're spending into it for the first time - they'd be spending any skills that they'd earn at lvl 8 and spending full points for the priveleage.  This would allow someone to be able to take skills from a different class of the same archetype without having to duplicate all the basic learning skills.  Ranks of a skill would still need to be purchased in order, so if he wanted a Drain 4 at level 8, he'd still have to purchase Drain 1/2/3/4 like he would have normally, but he wouldn't have to wait to put 8 levels into warlock, he'd likely be able to do it in 2-3.
 
Rogues have a similar issue in my mind.  Assassin and Scout are very similiar in nature, but what about Engineer and Bard?  While it doesn't make as much sense for an asssassin to be singing to the party, what if that was his cover?  Kill from the shadows and vanish into plain sight?  Be the popular person that everyone wants around, even though they know you might very well just stab them in the back.
 
Limiting options by saying you can only ever take one tree defeats the purpose of even talking about multi classing in my mind.  But I'm only once voice, I'm happy to go with the crowd, just offering a different view point.
 
Of course, that goes back to class design, and generally defining what the signature moves of each class are, why they're so cool, and what would be the natural pre-requisite for the class.

After some clarification from Scotticus, I know understand this a bit better.  And I have the same question.  The layout he gave in the example of Assassin/Bard is sort of how I plan to play Glimmer in the new system, and pretty close to how I play her now.  I know that I take Druid for extra healing, but the Bard idea has the same healing patterns.  I won't be able to multiclass into Bard though if I understand this correctly from Scout.  Can you explain why a bit further please?

Josh, that's pretty much what I had in mind. Your cumulative XP total would determine your overall character level, while how you spent that XP would determine your class level(s). Character level would be used to determine your character's overall power (number of actions, etc.), while class level would determine your mix of abilities. I would make the argument that most people wouldn't multiclass into very similar classes (e.g., sorcerer/wizard, druid/hierophant, savage/warrior), and I could probably back that up with statistics from the current system, but it would be a moot point since multiclassing is broken at the moment.

Scott, I would make the counterargument that what you're proposing sounds more classless than anything. If choosing one path doesn't prevent you from picking up a different path, each of the classes blur together. Since we already have that happening with their base line of common abilities, it almost defeats the purpose of having a class system at all. I'm not saying a classless system is a bad thing, mind you, but it's not really what we're going for.

What we're really weighing here is flexibility/homogeneity versus restrictiveness/distinction. Distinct paths create a system where character design is more restrictive but characters are nonetheless more distinct. Allowing characters to dip into multiple trees at once creates a system where character design is much more flexible but the characters themselves become homogeneous. Both are valid approaches, but seeing as we're already adding a lot of flexibility, I favor being restrictive with a character's choice of path.

I think your question, Heather, is based on the idea that bards are healers, but they won't be. They're social rogues. They inspire the party and outwit opponents through cunning use of charisma. They may get some small healing ability, but it will be secondary to their core focus. So what you're really talking about is pairing one type of rogue with another. If healing is what you want, you're better off picking up theurge.

One minor sideline note, respending for boon may be a factor in the decision here. It is a planned part of the new system, so respending your path with boon is a viable option, even though you still only get one. I'll just throw that out there and see if it changes any minds.

Please explain how allowing players to dip into multiple trees makes them more homegenous then a bunch of people focusing on one thing?
 
People don't currently multi class into very similar things because for the first several levels there is absolutely NO BENEFIT, there are no new skills, there are no new affinities, there are no new actions until at least level 4, so you're giving up 4 actions slots which are arguably the most precious resource that we have in game at the moment to potentially get one or two additional actions later on.  Any notions on how things work in the current system are clearly moot because we're trying to break trends and refocus the system.
 
What we have now creates homogenous characters.  Every character being forced into one primary path creates homogenaity.  Every Warrior is the same, every Savage is the same, every Monk is the same.  If what I'm proposing is a classless system, then perhaps yes, that is what I've been proposing since day one.  Diversity is created through offering compelling options, not by pigeonholing.
 
Perhaps we're just not talking about the same thing and have been missing each others point for months.  I've always been talking about diversity of character options, I've never once spoken to diveristy of class structures.  Diversity of class structures looks great on paper, but, that's exactly what we have now, and I thought that's what we were talking about getting away from.

Yes, Scott, it seems we are talking about two different things. I do want classes. This system redefines them as paths within a common theme for the sake of simplicity, and there is more flexibility with multiclassing, but this is still intended to be a class-based game. For what it's worth, I apologize if I ever misrepresented that.

Would it be too powerful in some way to allow people to buy the third level in a different class in the same tree, without buying the first two again?
 
Say, at 154 points, you could be a 6th level wizard, 6th level warlock, and 5th level sorcerer. Or you could be 5th level wizard, 5th level assassin, 5th level monk.  Or just a 10th level Druid.  This gives you slightly more versatility, but also gives you slightly more strength in exchange for specializing in a particular class tree.  All three of these still give you 10 actions and the skill selections of a level 10, but for picking up classes in only the mage tree, you could get access to slightly more powerful abilities than in normal multiclassing.

So multiclassing is the process of picking up more than one class (Fighter, Mage, Rogue, or Theurge). What there seems to be a desire for here is multi… pathing?

I'll have to give it some more thought. My first thought is yes, Nathan, that would be too powerful, but it would also be redundant to allow people to pick up the same class twice the way Heather describes; you'd basically be wasting 24 XP just to pick up the second path, and then you'd have to pay even more to advance them separately even though your core abilities would overlap. This seems like an option so non-optimal as to be consigned to oblivion the way true multiclassing is currently.

On the other hand, I like the idea that the choice of path is defining, and allowing multiple paths within the same class too freely kills the importance of that decision. Letting people dip into whatever path they choose as far as they choose isn't the way I want to go, beside the fact that it's an invitation to min-max (e.g., dip into warrior just far enough to grab Deflect).

No, the choice needs to be restrictive, at least somewhat. Maybe not mutually exclusive, but it should be more significant than putting a few points here and a few points there. I'm open to ideas on how to do that, provided that a character's choice of path is just as important and defining as his or her choice of class or race.

 The option as you describe it (in reference to Heather) is exactly what we have now, just at a highly accelerated rate due to the fact that early levels are significantly cheaper.  That is, in essence D&D 2nd Ed. but there you can never go back to your original class.
 
If we're worried about having people dip into a class only so far as to get one ability, just make that ability a defining ability of the class and make it a higher level.  I think that there is merit in both mindsets, and its taken me some time today to think about what you're proposing Thad.  I honestly feel its too restrictive for long term character growth.  If we're talking about capping characters at 500 xp - you're talking 63 games without spending boon, or 50 with a full boon buildout (and most people will likely stop using boon for skill points at a certain level until it makes it worthwhile to do it again).  Assuming an average player can make it to 6 games a year, even if you're still looking at a character livespan of 9-10 years.
 
Are you suggesting that over a 10 year carreer that there are never skills that I'm going to be able to pick up no matter how hard I try?  There's no way that I can be an arch wizard who's dabbled in the arcane for years, but finds it impossible to manipulate magic the way a sorcerer does to throw a basic fireball, or that I'll never be able to peruse a lost and forbidden book of necromancy and be able to raise the dead?  It sounds like the only way that I'd be able to do that is to completely respend my character with boon, and in turn changing everything about the way I've played my PC up to now.  That idea just doesn't sit well with me when it comes to long term character progression.

LIke I said, I don't have an issue with multipathing provided that it meets the requirements I've specified. A character's choice of path should be as defining as their choice of class and race. It should be significant, much moreso than was originally proposed. I should be stuck with that decision, at least for a little while, or I should have to pay a high enough cost that I think twice about picking up additional paths within the same class.

That's what I'm looking for. Short of that, I'm happy to say you pick a path at 3rd level in a class and that decision is mutually exclusive to other paths.

Can you please give us a bullet point list of the requirements that are required to be met for multi-pathing so I have something to reference quickly as I brainstorm ideas?  I can see this discussion getting interesting and would simpliy like something to look back at for quick reference.

Just a quick thought, but would it be possible to include multi-pathing in a manner similar to 4th ed?  As in, pick a skill or trait that gives you a touch of the abilities available to that path that you normally wouldn't have access to.
 
I.E.  A Wizard takes the "Warlock Neophyte" Skill/Trait and uses this to gain access to the weaker warlock abilities?
 
Or even just make this a trait or condition plot can give for roleplaying reasons, so if a Wizard did find the Necronomicon, he could learn some of the weaker Warlock abilities from it.

my idea behind saying you have to go back and choose the mage class again and then another path was making it so that it isnt more powerful than multiclassing mage/fighter. I think going back you should still be able to take general mage skills but no path skills ie if you already had spell 2 you could pick up spell 3 but if you were a seer you couldnt pick up sooth because that is a path skill.

Okay. I just got off the phone with Nick and we came up with a possible compromise:

• Instead of mandating that you must pick up a path, the choice is optional. If you wish to remain a Generalist Fighter or Mage, for example, you can for as long as you like.
• Within each class, there will be three kinds of actions: Generalist, Specialist, and Dual (poor nomenclature, I know, but bear with me).
• Generalist actions will be available to everyone regardless of path. These are bread and butter actions you need to fulfill your role in a party. Every member of a class gains them at the same level.
• Specialist actions will only be available to those who choose a specific path. These are the super special neat and wifty abilities that define that path. Generalists can never learn these.
• Dual actions will be a blend of the two. You can pick them up as a specialist at a certain level or as a generalist at a somewhat higher level.
• For example, a Warrior may get Deflect (a Dual action) at 3rd, while a Generalist Fighter may get it at 5th, but only the Warrior can learn Deflect All (a Specialist action) at 7th; the Generalist Fighter can never learn it. Meanwhile, Monks and Savages can't even learn the Deflect, but all of them can learn Fierce Attack.

In this way, if you want to blend the abilities of multiple paths, you may by refraining from choosing a path and remaining a generalist. You won't gain access to certain abilities as quickly, and some will be forever beyond your reach, but you will get a more even mix of them.

What does everyone think? Does this resolve the multipathing issue to your liking?

When you decide to stop being a generalist, what happens?  Say I'm a 5th level generalist, do I spend the required exp to become a warrior at 6th level or do I have to buy 3rd level warrior?

I would say the choice to specialize or not, and which path you choose if you do, could go one of two ways. Either you make the decision at 3rd and are stuck with it after that, so being a generalist is just as significant a choice as any other, or you can pick up your path at any point after 3rd. This way, if you get to 5th and decide you've finally found your calling, you can adopt the path, lose your dual actions, and gain your new specialist actions.

I'm a fan of the second alternative. It's a bit more forgiving for those who may not be sure of their path, or who may favor multiple. The choice is always there if they want to make it, but there's nothing forcing them to. They can remain a Fighter, Rogue, Mage, or Theurge and learn a little bit of everything without ever gaining the signature abilities of each path.

I like it

 sorry ive been working alot during this discussion. my question is why are we using trees to just level up class why dont we doo that with the actions of the class that way say im a level 4 savage annd i want sorcerer abilitys but i dont want all of them. so i spend my pionst in the levels of a certain action and not in others that way im not a strong savage and weak mage. Insted a have my plus 20 one swing but not my burst  and i also have some magic actions but not others.

A lot of that was involved in my original idea of restructuring of classes into Archetypes.  What I just sent everyone was a quick overview of the mage class skills side by side (removing multi packet attacks of sorcerer as I believe Thad decided those were going to go away) to see who had what and what things would be viable for "common" actions.  The best way in my opinion to speak to how multi-whatevering should work is to have a common knowledge of what a single specialized class should look like when finished.  This will also give us time to brainstorm other "high end" actions to define what a specialist should be able to look forward to by giving up other things in the tree.
 
I'm a large fan of saving skill points that could be spent into ranks of a skill that I'm not going to use if I can save them to put them into something later (assuming all pre-reqs are met).  As I said before, I'm of a mindset that more options in the deveopment of the characters as they level will foster a wider variety of characters and reduce the look of everyone following the same paths and being nearly identical.

Alright.  This particular topic is a bit overwhelming to me for some reason.  The best I can tell, I'm still with Scott, thoug I do understand the path Thad and Nick discussed as an option.  Can you touch on how the pre-reqs will work?

I think we're talking ahead of ourselves on many levels.  I suggest we table this discussion for a moment, and speak more to how an indidual character would go about leveling up as a single class before continuing down a multi class path that way we can all have a single frame of reference to speak to instead of all coming at this with different ideas on how leveling up and character progression work.

I think I've got a pretty good idea what I want to do here. Much as it may be contrary to what you had in mind when you first pitched the idea, Scott, I'm going to go ahead and say we're proceeding with the idea as stated. PCs will purchase class levels with XP, and will have the option to choose a path at 3rd level. We may keep the generalist idea, or we may introduce some other option that allows PCs to diversify within the same class, but the choice of path will nonetheless remain defining in any event.
We may return to this at a later date if I feel it needs to be revisited. For now, I'm going to go ahead and call this discussion.

Thad, at a later date, would you simplify this down for me?  I'm up to par on basic path until 3rd level, but for some reason, I'm just not getting it.  Maybe when I see it layed out I will.  Sorry for not being much help here!