Multiclass Feat Weirdness?

[Raith5]

Actually, I'd argue that in 3e multiclassing wasn't broken when using only the core rulebooks and enforcing the XP penalties as written in the rules.

What broke it was people not imposing those penalties and the endless splat books with classes that allowed ridiculous/broken combinations.

With 4e we're given broken/weak multiclassing in the core alone.

This corresponds to my experience of 3rd ed - It was not ideal but I did not think it was totally broken.

My problem with 4th ed multiclassing is that I am not sure feats are a good currency for multiclassing:

1) Using a lot of feats to be reasonably multiclassed robs a lot of the flavouring options that would otherwise enhance a given character,
2) Feats appear to be very variable in their value,
3) Multiclassing combos seem to be extremely variable as Otterscrubber (that is a word I never thought I would have to type!) indicates.

I also think the designers held to tightly to the idea of roles.

I gotta play more but these are my impressions at the moment.

 

[Lurker37]

And yet, those who playtested it say it works well in play.

 

[Particle_Man]

Actually, I'd argue that in 3e multiclassing wasn't broken when using only the core rulebooks and enforcing the XP penalties as written in the rules.

What broke it was people not imposing those penalties and the endless splat books with classes that allowed ridiculous/broken combinations.

With 4e we're given broken/weak multiclassing in the core alone.

Let's compare apples to apples. We are at the beginning of 4th ed, so the beginning of 3rd ed is...3.0.

3.0 core multiclassing: Wizard/Sorceror, Wizard/Cleric, Cleric/Sorceror, Wizard/Druid, etc. were all pretty damn weak. IF you want to go crazy, try a Bard/Wizard/Sorceror/Druid/Cleric sometime...if you are a masochist.

3.5 core multiclassing: now you had the mystic theurge, which slightly mitigated, but in no way completely eliminated, the weakness of a double caster class. And you needed the feat Practiced Spellcaster, sometimes twice.

And I don't think they ever got a decent cleric/rogue prestige class going, though they tried.

 

[theNater]

Ya, its seems weird that some class combos work great (warlock/fighter) while others seem impossible (ranger/paladin or paladin/ranger). They give you access to that class's paragon path, only if the requirement requires nothing more than to be that class. If, for example the ranger paragon, the path require the class and two-weapon fighting, then simply taking a multiclass feat does not qualify you. That simply does not make sense.

I understand the difficulty with paladin/ranger(or, really, any/ranger), but what's the difficulty with ranger/paladin? Did I miss something?

 

[Particle_Man]

I guess the closest to a "triple class" in 3rd ed is the half elf who multiclasses.

They take class A, with a racial ability to take a tiny bit from class B, and then use feats to multi-class into class C.

 

[SableWyvern]

And yet, those who playtested it say it works well in play.

I wonder if the playtesters were allowed to take paragon paths from their multiclass classes, because it seems to me that that's where things start to break.

Whether you like or hate the multiclass rules, the basic fundamentals of multiclassing and paragon multiclassing seem to function in a straightforward manner with no great surprises. However, when you start trying to take paragon paths opened up thanks to multiclassing, you get situations where you can't actually use the powers in the path you've selected, or, despite the multiclass feat indicating paragon paths will be open, you discover there are additional requirements you can't possibly meet.

 

[Nifft]

And yet, those who playtested it say it works well in play.

Are they allowed to tell us what combos they play-tested? Or if these were even the rules they used?

Honestly, the multi-classing section looks rushed.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Kordeth]

For example, underneath the Class-Specific Feats subheader on page 209, it mentions that taking the Cleric multiclass feat will allow a character to qualify for any feat that has Cleric as a prerequisite. There's one problem with this, however: there are no feats that have "cleric" as a prerequisite... only feats that have channel divinity as a prerequisite, and this is a power that the multiclass feat doesn't grant.

As others have said, the fact that there are no feats that specifically require "cleric" as a class and nothing else in PHB 1 doesn't mean there are never going to be such feats, and thus adding the rule that multiclassing allows you to qualify for feats as though you were a member of either class makes designers' jobs easier later (remember when the first few 3.0 supplements came out and forgot to tell us which feats were fighter bonuses?)

Moreover, the cleric is something of an anomaly in not having any feats to itself in the PHB--most other classes do have feats that you can qualify for by multiclassing. Just like there are feats that require, for example, that the character be a halfling and have the second chance racial power. It seems redundant, until the hypothetical Book of the Wee Folk adds a slew of hypothetical alternate racial powers for halflings to select instead of second chance--now there are no weird rules inconsistencies with halflings taking feats to improve racial powers they don't have.

It's not an error, it's forward compatibility.

 

[rkanodia]

You know, I don't have a cite, but I seem to remember a playtester (Mouseferatu?) specifically stating on this that the multiclass rules from the PHB were not the same as the ones they had tested.

 

[Scholar & Brutalman]

I was going to post a nearly identical comment but I thought it was Massawyrm who said it.

Has anyone come up with good uses of the multiclassing feats, except for the entry feats and access to Paragon Paths? They seem so expensive for what you get.