Multiclassing Feats & Powers

[theNater]

1st - Sorry for delay in responding - could not login in 2 days.

No problem. Good to see you again, I find this discussion quite invigorating.

Now: If it needs to be limited more try not allowing multiclassing before a certain level (8th as example) and eliminate the power swap feats so the powers you have before multiclass you have to keep.

Sure, that's one way. Another way is to keep the power swap feats and not allow characters to take powers from their second class when acquiring new powers.

True, but even under the powers section where replacement is talked about, it does not state weather you can replace with second class power. However the rules that keep being quoted state you may only have a total of 2 encounter and 2 daily powers from your second class. If you were allowed to replace with second class powers you could end up with more than that.

Page 27, right near the bottom. "At 13th, 17th, 23rd, and 27th levels, you can replace any encounter attack power you know from your class with a new one of your new level", so you can replace an encounter attack power from your class with a new encounter attack power from your class.

The daily power rules on the next page are written a little differently, I assume to keep people from falling asleep while reading. However, I don't think it's too great a leap to assume that it works the same way, as the most generous reading allows characters to replace their dailies with dailies from any class.

Heroic Tier feats seem to be mostly +1 and +2 bonuses, Paragon Tier feats seem to be mostly +1 and +2 bonuses, and Epic Tier feats seem to mostly be Improved Critical feat from 3.x. They do not seem any larger or smaller to me.

Sure, heroic and paragon tier feats are mostly +1 and +2 bonuses, but the paragon feats are usually bonuses to more things(Back to the Wall, Combat Anticipation), or to more valuable things(defenses, speed, what have you). The epic tier feats that increase your critical chance are extremely powerful, as by epic tier a critical hit is generally providing three or four times your average damage.

OK - so the value of the feats is in the eyes of the individual players.

True.

If the selection of a feat to get a possible +1 damage, is weighed against the selection of a feat to get a +2 bonus to defenses (or even if we cut it to 1 to defenses) is IMO not worth it. I would rather have a full time bonus over a part time bonus.

I'm with you there. But notice that the paragon tier feats that provide damage bonuses either provide +1 to several things(Back to the Wall), +2 in common situations(Blood Thirst, Light Blade Precision), or +3 under fairly rare conditions(Sly Hunter, Steady Shooter). At no point are a possible +1 to damage and a permanent +2 to a defense competing.

You are correct, although I do not agree with those rules. IMO if you drop your guard you provoke an AoO. (Drop your guard should be defined as thinking of something other than the battle, or taking you mind off of the battle, taking your eyes off your opponent, etc)

You may house rule it if you wish, but doing so makes the Quick Draw feat slightly less valuable. Complaining that a feat is weak because you've changed the rules to make it weak is a bit unfair.

OK - so spending 2 feats might be worth it to some, not to me. Especially when I can already deal that +1 Damage with a two-handed weapon, or use a one-handed weapon and a heavy shield and get a better bonus to AC than from the feat. And especially when I can only attack once per round.

Note that both of your listed options give you one or the other, damage or shield bonus. The two weapon feats give you the damage of a two handed weapon and a (smaller) shield bonus.

Now if I had the ability to use both weapons in a round (2 attacks), that would be a horse of a different color.

And if you are bound and determined, there are some ways. You can use an action point, attacking once with one weapon and once with the other. Or you can get some ranger powers that allow you to attack with each weapon as one action. But you can't get two attack actions every round with a single feat.

It is becoming obvious we will not agree on what feats are useful and what is not. You have your opinions and I have mine.

For accuracy's sake, can we say that we disagree on which feats are valuable and which are not? Fast Runner inarguably has uses, our disagreement is on whether those uses have value.

Note that you do, however, get to choose the six feats that are most valuable to you out of a list of many more than six feats that all do something.

I will conceed this only because the feat descriptions have changed drastically. But, I do not think that expecting a feat to be a special thing is unreasonable.

Well, it all depends on how powerful a thing has to be to be special. Alertness isn't hugely powerful, but it does make characters with it different than characters without it, in its own little way.

This is a big change for all classes. Casters are limited to knowing a max of 17 spells for thier entire career.

Casters will know a max of 17 spells at any given time during their career. They will be leaving some 1st level spells by the wayside as they level up. Also, note that wizards, with their spellbooks, will know more spells than other casters.

Anyway, the fighters tools were the weapons, not the feats, and the casters tools were the spells. The feats were tools that all classes used to empower thier tools. They increased the spells area, damage, duration, even changed thier energy types. They (feats) increased melee attacks through additional training (so to speak) like weapon focus, and weapon specialization. They (feats) helped clerics with bonuses on turning undead, and helped rogues with bonuses on sneak attacks. The feats IMO is what made your character special over the normal character of the same class.

The thing that differentiated one fighter from another was less choice of weapon than choice of feats. Yes, fighters had three distinct weaponry categories: two-handed, one-handed and shield, or two-weapon, but within those categories the choice of weapon didn't matter much. It was the feats that controlled what a fighter could do. Now, powers do that.

Feats still do many of the things you mention, but to a lesser degree. They aren't as powerful or flexible as they used to be, but feats can still increase a spell's area(Resounding Thunder), damage(Burning Blizzard, Dark Fury, etc.) and durations(Spell Focus); they can still improve melee attacks(Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus, any of the feats that improve specific weapons), improve a cleric's turn undead(Astral Fire) and help rogues with bonuses on sneak attacks(Backstabber).

However, the thing that makes one member of a class different from another member of the same class in 4th edition is more the choice of powers than the choice of feats. This is one of the major differences between 4th edition and 3rd edition.

I have to disagree with you here. Every opponent you face is going to make attacks against one of your defenses, that is the most common scenario and because of that reason I say those feats (Great Fortitude, Lightning Reflexes, and Iron Will) can be the difference of life and death.

Every opponent attacks one of your defenses. Most of the attacks I've noticed so far target your AC, and there is no feat that provides a permanent +2 bonus to AC. There will be fights where Great Fortitude does not help you. Even these are situational bonuses, they're just easy to track situational bonuses. Just because they are very helpful in the situation they are suited to doesn't mean they are better than every other feat.

I will. I've writen WotC late Friday evening, don;t expect to hear anything back till at least Monday.

Excellent. Looking forward to the news.

You get the HP, surges and features of the class you start in. If this seems unfair because of a wizard wearing armor with no spell failure, then impose one while wearing armor. Or another possibility is when the powers become more than 40% as example then that would be primary class now and impose some type of penality for using the improper features of other class.

I have no objection to a wizard wearing armor without spell failure. That option is, in fact, one of the things I like about 4th edition. I have an objection to a wizard having fighter hit points, because the hit points are one of the factors of class balance.

Given that the number of powers a character knows changes over the course of their adventuring career, I balk at the idea of checking their relative power count every time they get a power. It seems like a very complicated fix to a fairly uncommon problem. How about instead we just leave a character's class features intact and limit how many powers they can get from another class? This way we can keep the changes that occur at level up to a reasonably minimal amount. It does have the down side that a character who wants to be a full-blown wizard at level 30 needs to be a wizard at level 1, but if he already knows that he wants to be a wizard, there's no reason for him to start as a fighter.

 

[Arakim]

Wow.

Interesting read, I just have one question at this point.

Why does everyone assume you can only take the swap feats once?

 

[theNater]

Wow.

Interesting read, I just have one question at this point.

Why does everyone assume you can only take the swap feats once?

Generally, you can't take the same feat more than once, and most of the time you wouldn't want to. A few feats, however, specify that you can take the same feat multiple times.

People assume that you can only take the swap feats once because they don't specify that you can take them more than once.

 

[DracoSuave]

Why does everyone assume you can only take the swap feats once?

Because you can only take a given feat once unless it says otherwise.

 

[zookeeper]

First of all, the 40% figure doesn't work. For one thing, paragon multiclassing will make almost 50% of your powers from the secondary class. For another, what happens when you have enough powers from both classes so they are both over the 40% threshold (say, a 50/50 split)? Finally, it can be a pain in the butt. What happens if changing class abilities means you no longer meet the prereqs for a feat?

The current system is much simpler: with paragon multiclassing, you get up to 50% of your at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers from your second class, and 2/7 utility powers (4/7 from your main class and 1/7 from your epic destiny). You want to go over 50%, then you should have used the other class as your base class. Your system effectively allows me to play a Wizard with 9+Con healing surges and 15+Con/6 HP, compared with 6+Con surges and 10+Con/4 HP.

I'm not sure if you've followed this discussion from the begining, the main discussion is technically not over the percentage of the powers, its about a wizard (or other caster) single classed only being allowed to know a total of 17 spells for thier entire career. Or a multiclassed caster only knowing 6 spells for his entire career. (or at least the part you quoted is)

Although mainly about the latter, why couldn't a multiclassed caster select powers from either class?

 

[zookeeper]

Wow.

Interesting read, I just have one question at this point.

Why does everyone assume you can only take the swap feats once?

Because it states on pg 209, under the Power Swap Feats
" Any time you gain a level you can alter the decision. Effectively, pretend you're choosing the power swap feat for the first time at the new level. You gain back the power that you gave up from your primary class, lose the power you chose from your second class, and make the trade again."

 

[zookeeper]

No problem. Good to see you again, I find this discussion quite invigorating.

TY - good to be back, and I'm glad this discussion is exciting.

Sure, that's one way. Another way is to keep the power swap feats and not allow characters to take powers from their second class when acquiring new powers.

This is the way the rules are written.

Page 27, right near the bottom. "At 13th, 17th, 23rd, and 27th levels, you can replace any encounter attack power you know from your class with a new one of your new level", so you can replace an encounter attack power from your class with a new encounter attack power from your class.

The daily power rules on the next page are written a little differently, I assume to keep people from falling asleep while reading. However, I don't think it's too great a leap to assume that it works the same way, as the most generous reading allows characters to replace their dailies with dailies from any class.

Right, that what I was talking about, but you can not replace with your sceond class power.

Sure, heroic and paragon tier feats are mostly +1 and +2 bonuses, but the paragon feats are usually bonuses to more things(Back to the Wall, Combat Anticipation), or to more valuable things(defenses, speed, what have you). The epic tier feats that increase your critical chance are extremely powerful, as by epic tier a critical hit is generally providing three or four times your average damage.

I'm with you there. But notice that the paragon tier feats that provide damage bonuses either provide +1 to several things(Back to the Wall), +2 in common situations(Blood Thirst, Light Blade Precision), or +3 under fairly rare conditions(Sly Hunter, Steady Shooter). At no point are a possible +1 to damage and a permanent +2 to a defense competing.

But, those are still only possible bonuses. Back to the wall only applies when you are adjacent to a wall. Combat Anticipation only applies to ranged, close or area attacks. Whereas Great Fortitude grants a permenant, full time +2 bonus to a defense. So, there is the competition. And Improved Critical (Epic Tier feats) used to be (in 3.5) bonuses a fighter could get at level 8.

You may house rule it if you wish, but doing so makes the Quick Draw feat slightly less valuable. Complaining that a feat is weak because you've changed the rules to make it weak is a bit unfair.

Yes, I agree. But, the rules from 3.5 were changed to this to make Quick Draw different. In 3.5 Quick Draw was only to draw weapons in less time, and in 3.5 Drinking a potion did provoke an AoO, even if you already had it in your hand.

Note that both of your listed options give you one or the other, damage or shield bonus. The two weapon feats give you the damage of a two handed weapon and a (smaller) shield bonus.

Point here was that you did not need to spend 2 feats to get the same bonuses. Example: One-handed weapon, Light Shield, and Weapon Focus does the same (actually using a Heavy Shield would add +1 AC and +1 Ref Def) with only spending 1 feat.

And if you are bound and determined, there are some ways. You can use an action point, attacking once with one weapon and once with the other. Or you can get some ranger powers that allow you to attack with each weapon as one action. But you can't get two attack actions every round with a single feat.

Oh - I'm sure there are ways around every rule. But, as stated previously in 3.5 you gat additional attacks as you leveled up. You spent a while training (lower levels) and eventually got better and faster so you could make additional attacks each round (assuming you did not move). Now in 4.0 no matter how long you've trained and gained experience you will never get any faster, never get a second attack each round.

For accuracy's sake, can we say that we disagree on which feats are valuable and which are not? Fast Runner inarguably has uses, our disagreement is on whether those uses have value.

Same difference, if its not useful its not valuable. Some people think things are useful and therefore valuable, where others have quite the opposite opinion. Does not make a big difference.

Note that you do, however, get to choose the six feats that are most valuable to you out of a list of many more than six feats that all do something.

OK - You got me there, I decided that those feats are not valuable, but I still want more that have value for me to pick from.

Well, it all depends on how powerful a thing has to be to be special. Alertness isn't hugely powerful, but it does make characters with it different than characters without it, in its own little way.

I supose your right, powerful and special are relitive terms.

Casters will know a max of 17 spells at any given time during their career. They will be leaving some 1st level spells by the wayside as they level up. Also, note that wizards, with their spellbooks, will know more spells than other casters.

Wizards will know more but can only cast 1 of each level per day. Also that brings up another question which I do not understand. Why after casting this 1st level spell for soooo long you replace it and all of a sudden you can't remember it anymore. That is like driving your car daily to and from work, and the day you licence expires you suddenly don't know how to drive. Since I read this the first time, I thought it might be better to learn a new power rather than replace and forget.

The thing that differentiated one fighter from another was less choice of weapon than choice of feats. Yes, fighters had three distinct weaponry categories: two-handed, one-handed and shield, or two-weapon, but within those categories the choice of weapon didn't matter much. It was the feats that controlled what a fighter could do. Now, powers do that.

I both agree and disagree with this. The differences were probably the feats. But, the feats didn't control the what the fighter could do or how they could do it, it was more of the bonuses the fighters recieved from the feats. Weapon Focus (+1 to Hit), Weapon Specialization (+2 Damage), Greater of each (Additional +1 and +2 respectively), Improved Critical, Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, (disarming your opponent and/or breaking thier weapons were great), I could go on for a while. With all the additional "Splat" books for 3.5 there were over 4000 feats in total.

Feats still do many of the things you mention, but to a lesser degree. They aren't as powerful or flexible as they used to be, but feats can still increase a spell's area(Resounding Thunder), damage(Burning Blizzard, Dark Fury, etc.) and durations(Spell Focus); they can still improve melee attacks(Combat Reflexes, Weapon Focus, any of the feats that improve specific weapons), improve a cleric's turn undead(Astral Fire) and help rogues with bonuses on sneak attacks(Backstabber).

These spell feats you mention only work with certain spells. And Spell Focus adds 2 to the save of a spell nothing for duration. In 3.5, Extend Spell increased the range by 50%, Empower Spell added 50% Damage, etc. and they worked with all spells.

As for melee feats see previous paragraph. Astral Fire has nothing to do with turning undead, but Extra Turning in 3.5 granted additional attempts to turn undead. Backstabber almost seems to be a neccessity for the 4.0 rouge. The 3.5 rouge at 19th level had 10d6 sneak attack damage where the 4.0 rouge has a max (with the feat) of 5d8.

However, the thing that makes one member of a class different from another member of the same class in 4th edition is more the choice of powers than the choice of feats. This is one of the major differences between 4th edition and 3rd edition.

This I have noticed, and from my reading it does not seem like a good change (IMO), but I will reserve final judgement until I have played a few times so I can make a decision based on play rather than one reading. Don't want to judge a book by its cover (so to speak).

Every opponent attacks one of your defenses. Most of the attacks I've noticed so far target your AC, and there is no feat that provides a permanent +2 bonus to AC. There will be fights where Great Fortitude does not help you. Even these are situational bonuses, they're just easy to track situational bonuses. Just because they are very helpful in the situation they are suited to doesn't mean they are better than every other feat.

You are correct, most attacks will be against AC. But it is far easier to raise your AC (via new armor or magics) than it is to raise your Fortitude Defense.

Great Fortitude or other defense feats are not situational. In both versions the feat is described as "+2 Bonus to Fortitude" Only difference is the last word(s). 3.5 says "saving throws" and 4.0 says "defense". And I am not trying to say they are better than every other feat. I'm saying (IMO) they are very useful and therefore very valuable, and even more at lower levels.

I have no objection to a wizard wearing armor without spell failure. That option is, in fact, one of the things I like about 4th edition. I have an objection to a wizard having fighter hit points, because the hit points are one of the factors of class balance.

OK - I see that point. But in situations like fighting (as with the game) I don't think there is any reason for class balance. A melee fighter is going to take the brunt of things and has high HP to do so, a wizard usually stands back and throws spells around not getting hit too much and therefore should be a weaker character class.

Given that the number of powers a character knows changes over the course of their adventuring career, I balk at the idea of checking their relative power count every time they get a power. It seems like a very complicated fix to a fairly uncommon problem. How about instead we just leave a character's class features intact and limit how many powers they can get from another class? This way we can keep the changes that occur at level up to a reasonably minimal amount. It does have the down side that a character who wants to be a full-blown wizard at level 30 needs to be a wizard at level 1, but if he already knows that he wants to be a wizard, there's no reason for him to start as a fighter.

OK - using the rules as written is an idea. But it does not do much for the type of character I like to play. I like the character that can do a little of everything. I like playing a character that is a controller/striker/defender. Which was usually a fighter/wizard combo, but could also be cleric/rouge or fighter/cleric, and I even played a cleric/wizard which was a mistake on my part, but we needed it. Thats probably why I'm so down or upset by these rules.

 

[theNater]

This is the way the rules are written.

Right, and I think it works fairly well.

Right, that what I was talking about, but you can not replace with your sceond class power.

I'm glad we have the same understanding of the rule here. It shows we can agree on some things, at least.

But, those are still only possible bonuses. Back to the wall only applies when you are adjacent to a wall. Combat Anticipation only applies to ranged, close or area attacks. Whereas Great Fortitude grants a permenant, full time +2 bonus to a defense. So, there is the competition.

Back to the Wall gives you multiple bonuses conditionally. So, although it is competing with a permanent +2 to a defense, it is better than a conditional +1 to damage. As are the others. That was my point.

And Improved Critical (Epic Tier feats) used to be (in 3.5) bonuses a fighter could get at level 8.

Again, comparing 4th edition feats to their 3rd edition versions will almost always make them seem very weak. They are different kinds of things, and comparing them directly is unfavorable to the 4th edition feats.

Yes, I agree. But, the rules from 3.5 were changed to this to make Quick Draw different. In 3.5 Quick Draw was only to draw weapons in less time, and in 3.5 Drinking a potion did provoke an AoO, even if you already had it in your hand.

Right. Quick draw is one of the rare occasions when a 4th edition feat is more powerful than its 3rd edition counterpart. The rules have been changed in a way that makes it stronger, changing them back will make it weaker again.

Point here was that you did not need to spend 2 feats to get the same bonuses. Example: One-handed weapon, Light Shield, and Weapon Focus does the same (actually using a Heavy Shield would add +1 AC and +1 Ref Def) with only spending 1 feat.

Okay, lets consider Bob the fighter. He's a level 4 fighter, and with no weapon or shield he's got an AC of 19 and a reflex defense of 15. He likes axes, so his level 1 feat was Weapon Focus: Battleaxe or Weapon Focus: Greataxe, depending on which he uses. Damage amounts below do not include strength bonuses, which will be the same across the board.

With a greataxe, he has AC 19, reflex 15, and 1d12 + 1(avg. 7.5) damage.

With a battleaxe and a heavy shield, he has AC 21, reflex 17, and 1d10 + 1(avg 6.5) damage.

If he takes both two-weapon feats, then uses a battleaxe with a handaxe, he has AC 20, reflex 16, and 1d10 + 2(avg 7.5) damage.

The two-weapon feats cost a little, but they give him a happy medium between the defense-priority fighter and the offense-priority fighter. Also, he has a ranged weapon readied at all times and suffers none of the check penalties associated with using a heavy shield.

Oh - I'm sure there are ways around every rule. But, as stated previously in 3.5 you gat additional attacks as you leveled up. You spent a while training (lower levels) and eventually got better and faster so you could make additional attacks each round (assuming you did not move). Now in 4.0 no matter how long you've trained and gained experience you will never get any faster, never get a second attack each round.

While it is true that you rarely get a second attack each round, you do get better attacks, as your training and experience permits you to perform more complicated maneuvers. Higher level powers are significantly better than lower level powers, even if they don't include multiple attacks.

OK - You got me there, I decided that those feats are not valuable, but I still want more that have value for me to pick from.

Now that's something I can understand. Let me recommend that you give some of those situational bonuses at try. You may find that they grow on you.

Wizards will know more but can only cast 1 of each level per day. Also that brings up another question which I do not understand. Why after casting this 1st level spell for soooo long you replace it and all of a sudden you can't remember it anymore. That is like driving your car daily to and from work, and the day you licence expires you suddenly don't know how to drive. Since I read this the first time, I thought it might be better to learn a new power rather than replace and forget.

This is not a part of the game designed to be realistic. As far as I can tell, the reason characters lose old powers as they gain new powers is so that the player never has so many powers that they forget what some of them are. I had a lot of trouble remembering the details of my second level spells by the time I got eighth level spells, because I didn't cast them very often once I had fifth level spells.

If it helps, you can think of it in this way: when you reach 13th level, 7th level spells become avaliable to you, along with the special ability that you can use your 1st level spell slot in conjunction with your new 7th level spell slot to get an 8th level spell. The intermediate steps have been removed, and what 4th edition calls 13th level spells are akin to the 8th level spells of 3rd edition. This is not a suggestion from any official source, just an idea I had to make it more palatable.

I both agree and disagree with this. The differences were probably the feats. But, the feats didn't control the what the fighter could do or how they could do it, it was more of the bonuses the fighters recieved from the feats. Weapon Focus (+1 to Hit), Weapon Specialization (+2 Damage), Greater of each (Additional +1 and +2 respectively), Improved Critical, Improved Disarm, Improved Sunder, (disarming your opponent and/or breaking thier weapons were great), I could go on for a while. With all the additional "Splat" books for 3.5 there were over 4000 feats in total.

This is actually my point. Without Improved Disarm, disarm attempts were a very bad idea. Without Improved Sunder, sunder attempts were a very bad idea. You were permitted to attempt those special moves, but without the feat were nearly destined to failure. This is what I mean when I say feats controlled what the fighter could do. They didn't control what he could attempt, but what he could achieve.

In 3rd edition, you could get a good feel for a fighter's tactics by reading his feat list. In 4th edition, you get that same feel by reading the power list.

These spell feats you mention only work with certain spells. And Spell Focus adds 2 to the save of a spell nothing for duration. In 3.5, Extend Spell increased the range by 50%, Empower Spell added 50% Damage, etc. and they worked with all spells.

I did mention that they were more limited, as you have noticed. However, please note that (save ends) is a duration. Spell Focus makes such spells last longer.

As for melee feats see previous paragraph. Astral Fire has nothing to do with turning undead, but Extra Turning in 3.5 granted additional attempts to turn undead. Backstabber almost seems to be a neccessity for the 4.0 rouge. The 3.5 rouge at 19th level had 10d6 sneak attack damage where the 4.0 rouge has a max (with the feat) of 5d8.

Astral Fire boosts radiant damage, which is the kind of damage Turn Undead does.

Sneak Attack damage is lower than it used to be, but it now works on more targets. Many of the numbers have changed with the edition switch. Rogues still do impressive damage, though, it just comes from powers as much as from sneak attack.

This I have noticed, and from my reading it does not seem like a good change (IMO), but I will reserve final judgement until I have played a few times so I can make a decision based on play rather than one reading. Don't want to judge a book by its cover (so to speak).

Ooh! What character will you be playing in your first game? My first character is a dwarven paladin of Moradin. He's pretty fun.

You are correct, most attacks will be against AC. But it is far easier to raise your AC (via new armor or magics) than it is to raise your Fortitude Defense.

Great Fortitude or other defense feats are not situational. In both versions the feat is described as "+2 Bonus to Fortitude" Only difference is the last word(s). 3.5 says "saving throws" and 4.0 says "defense". And I am not trying to say they are better than every other feat. I'm saying (IMO) they are very useful and therefore very valuable, and even more at lower levels.

Great Fortitude is situational. It only gives you a bonus if a monster attacks your fortitude defense.

Note also that you can pick up neck slot items that increase your defenses in the same way that magical armor increases your AC, and at least some of the powers that increase your AC also increase your other defenses.

OK - I see that point. But in situations like fighting (as with the game) I don't think there is any reason for class balance. A melee fighter is going to take the brunt of things and has high HP to do so, a wizard usually stands back and throws spells around not getting hit too much and therefore should be a weaker character class.

This is exactly why balance is important. If the wizard is able to stand in the front lines and take the brunt of things while throwing spells, the fighter is superflous. So measures need to be taken to ensure that a character cannot be built with the fighter's ability to take hits and the wizard's ability to toss spells. That's what class balance is all about.

OK - using the rules as written is an idea. But it does not do much for the type of character I like to play. I like the character that can do a little of everything. I like playing a character that is a controller/striker/defender. Which was usually a fighter/wizard combo, but could also be cleric/rouge or fighter/cleric, and I even played a cleric/wizard which was a mistake on my part, but we needed it. Thats probably why I'm so down or upset by these rules.

You may find that a fighter/wizard works surprisingly well for you in 4th edition. If a fighter goes for a two-handed weapon, he can still soak damage pretty well while dishing out damage pretty significantly. A few wizard powers will give you a handful of solid control options. As a 4th edition fighter/wizard you'd be a better defender than a wizard, a better striker than a wizard, and a better controller than a fighter. Admittedly, you wouldn't be as good a striker as a rogue, as good a defender as a fighter, or as good a controller as a wizard, but if you could be all of those things, that wouldn't be very fair to the single-class players at the table.

 

[NorthSaber]

You may find that a fighter/wizard works surprisingly well for you in 4th edition. If a fighter goes for a two-handed weapon, he can still soak damage pretty well while dishing out damage pretty significantly. A few wizard powers will give you a handful of solid control options. As a 4th edition fighter/wizard you'd be a better defender than a wizard, a better striker than a wizard, and a better controller than a fighter. Admittedly, you wouldn't be as good a striker as a rogue, as good a defender as a fighter, or as good a controller as a wizard, but if you could be all of those things, that wouldn't be very fair to the single-class players at the table.

How about an Eladrin Fighter/Wizard with Ritual Caster and Thievery taken through Eladrin Education? You could play the role of the fighter, the wizard, the healer (via rituals) or the rogue, depending on the situation...

PS: remarkably civilized discussion, really a pleasure to read!

 

[DracoSuave]

How about an Eladrin Fighter/Wizard with Ritual Caster and Thievery taken through Eladrin Education? You could play the role of the fighter, the wizard, the healer (via rituals) or the rogue, depending on the situation...

PS: remarkably civilized discussion, really a pleasure to read!

Chances are.... if you need rituals to do your healing... it's a bit late for healing (raise dead)