Multiclass Feat Weirdness?

[Stogoe]

Warlock is the one that really stands out... It states that you can take the paragon path, but the paragon path abilities require the Warlock Curse, which multiclass characters don't get. So while you could take the paragon path, you wouldn't be able to use any of the abilities of that path.

That can't be the way it's intended. That I've seen, the other multiclass paragon paths don't rely on a class skill that the multiclass feat doesn't grant, except warlocks.

I've been looking at that, and I think I'd give multiclass-warlock paragon characters the following ability:

Warlock's Curse*:
As a minor action, you can curse the closest enemy. Unlike the Warlock class ability, this deals no extra damage; however, an enemy you've cursed with this ability counts as cursed for your paragon path abilities.

I think that resolves the issues.

I'd also let a multiclass-ranger characters qualify for ranger paragon paths depending on their character's shtick (archery or twf) even though they lack the 'style'.

 

[theNater]

Sorry that does not cute it for me. I can reword the whole book then why stop at flavor text.

I stop at flavor text because flavor text has no effect on game balance. Once you start rewriting mechanics, things sometimes stop working.

Thing is that they said 4e had MCing at 1st lvl where you were both classes. That was a HUGE stretch of the truth.

I sympathize with you on feeling decieved. However, I don't think that having a character who is as good a ranged attacker as a Ranger and as good a healer as a Cleric is a good idea.

Well for one as a Range/Cleric you dont get Healing Word once per Encounter. You get it once per day. Same with the Warlord inspiration. Not good in my book.

Yup, I misremembered that. Sorry. Ranger/Cleric does not provide very much healing. I stand by my claim that Cleric/Ranger provides a decent amount of archery, especially if you're willing to reflavor Cleric powers.

Also, I'd like to point out that a 4th edition Cleric using a basic ranged attack with a bow is more likely to hit than a 3rd edition Cleric attacking with a bow.

One thing Im seeing is ppl who find the MC rule good or ok are telling those that have HUGE problems with it that they are looking at it wrong or "Just wait, splat books will have it"

I have never said either of those things. However, I do feel that some people are having more trouble than necessary reconcepting their characters. There are Cleric builds for healing while attacking at range. They don't use a bow by default, but they are there.

TO me that is crap and you obviously dont get why we are upset/dislike the rules.

I admit that I don't get why you dislike the rules. They don't have an easy way for you to build exactly the same character as you had in 3rd edition. But that was never promised.

They don't let a character have a 50/50 split on character abilities. But they do let the character be very good at his primary thing while not making him completely unable to do other things.

Is the problem one of those things? If not, can you elaborate on what it is?

As core books that was said to have MCing I find it VERY limiting and to say it will come in splat books is crap. I didnt buy the core books to need to buy splat books.

I hope they errata the crap out of MCing to be useful soon.

There is a lot you can do with just the core books. And the suggestion that multiclassing is useless is quite inaccurate. It is not universally useful, but there have been a few suggested multiclass builds that use synergies between classes to devastating effect.

 

[Stogoe]

Thing is that they said 4e had MCing at 1st lvl where you were both classes. That was a HUGE stretch of the truth.

Not at all. Not at all. Take a 1st level character in 4e who has taken a multiclass feat, and compare it to any first level character in 3rd. The 4th edition character at level 1 is far more multiclassed than was possible at 1st level in 3rd edition.

 

[silentounce]

Not at all. Not at all. Take a 1st level character in 4e who has taken a multiclass feat, and compare it to any first level character in 3rd. The 4th edition character at level 1 is far more multiclassed than was possible at 1st level in 3rd edition.

I refer you to page 40 of the 3.0 DMG.

And that system was very easily converted to 3.5.

 

[melkoriii]

I stop at flavor text because flavor text has no effect on game balance. Once you start rewriting mechanics, things sometimes stop working.

I sympathize with you on feeling decieved. However, I don't think that having a character who is as good a ranged attacker as a Ranger and as good a healer as a Cleric is a good idea.

Yup, I misremembered that. Sorry. Ranger/Cleric does not provide very much healing. I stand by my claim that Cleric/Ranger provides a decent amount of archery, especially if you're willing to reflavor Cleric powers.

Also, I'd like to point out that a 4th edition Cleric using a basic ranged attack with a bow is more likely to hit than a 3rd edition Cleric attacking with a bow.

I have never said either of those things. However, I do feel that some people are having more trouble than necessary reconcepting their characters. There are Cleric builds for healing while attacking at range. They don't use a bow by default, but they are there.

I admit that I don't get why you dislike the rules. They don't have an easy way for you to build exactly the same character as you had in 3rd edition. But that was never promised.

They don't let a character have a 50/50 split on character abilities. But they do let the character be very good at his primary thing while not making him completely unable to do other things.

Is the problem one of those things? If not, can you elaborate on what it is?

There is a lot you can do with just the core books. And the suggestion that multiclassing is useless is quite inaccurate. It is not universally useful, but there have been a few suggested multiclass builds that use synergies between classes to devastating effect.

Thanks for trying.

One thing though is that I dont see how this is being "As good" as.

Cleric (with all cleric options) MCing to Ranger
swap one at-will for Ranger at will.
Get or swap one Ranger Trained Skill.
Classed as a Ranger for pereqs

4th lvl Feat
Swap One Class attack Encounter Attack power for a Ranger one

8th lvl feat
Swap One Class attack daily Attack power for a Ranger one

10th lvl feat
Swap One Class Utility power for a Ranger one

11+ Can Pick MC Paragon Path

So with this I only have 4 powers of the Ranger

To me that is not as good as but definitely I would call it Mced Ranger

 

[theNater]

Thanks for trying.

One thing though is that I dont see how this is being "As good" as.

Cleric (with all cleric options) MCing to Ranger
swap one at-will for Ranger at will.
Get or swap one Ranger Trained Skill.
Classed as a Ranger for pereqs

4th lvl Feat
Swap One Class attack Encounter Attack power for a Ranger one

8th lvl feat
Swap One Class attack daily Attack power for a Ranger one

10th lvl feat
Swap One Class Utility power for a Ranger one

11+ Can Pick MC Paragon Path

So with this I only have 4 powers of the Ranger

To me that is not as good as but definitely I would call it Mced Ranger

Can we meet partway? At-wills are the fundamental abilities of a class, the only thing they always have access to, and I don't want the Ranger to feel that the Cleric is stepping on his toes. How about the following modified Ranger power as an at-will when you multiclass into Ranger:

Reduced Twin-Weapon Strike Multiclass Ranger Attack 1
At-will * Martial, Weapon
Standard Action Ranged weapon
Target:One creature in range
Attack:Dex vs. AC
Hit:1[W] + Dexterity modifer damage.

This way you can fire off your bow every round, and the Ranger can be different than you even after a long fight, when you're both out of encounter and daily powers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Healing is far more cleric-y than casting attack spells.

I disagree.

First, I didn't say attack spells, I said "casting spells." In a world where everyone can heal but only a precious few can cast spells- and of those, Clerics are one of the few full casters- a cleric who can't cast spells is much less cleric-y. Spellcasting is the scarcer PC resource by far.

I'll grant you that Channel Divinity is as cleric-y as Healing Word, but not more.

Considering that it opens up Turn Undead and other abilities, I'll disagree as well.

Healing Word merely bolsters other PC's inherent abilities. Spellcasting and Channel Divinity bring a resource to the table that almost no other PC has- the Paladin is the sole exception at this point.

Sure, if you Multiclass into Cleric you can't take any of the channel divinity feats; but you can take <list of abilities>.

And of those, which of them makes your PC more cleric-y? Answer- NONE.

When converting characters, remove 3.x class names, and just note abilities. Then find what in 4e does that, and choose that class or classes.

And when you find that the abilities your PC from the earlier edition cannot be emulated by having only 2 4Ed "classes" (which describes probably 75% of my PCs) you're out of luck.

Heck, even some of my 2 class PCs have abilities that you can't have in a single 4Ed PC, because they have all of the abilities of those classes (at their relevant levels), not just a cherry-picked few.

I admit that I don't get why you dislike the rules. They don't have an easy way for you to build exactly the same character as you had in 3rd edition. But that was never promised.

They don't let a character have a 50/50 split on character abilities. But they do let the character be very good at his primary thing while not making him completely unable to do other things.

Is the problem one of those things? If not, can you elaborate on what it is?

3.X allowed a lot of flexibility in PC development- I mean that both from a mechanical and RP standpoint.

That we cannot at this point in 4Ed do a PC who splits his attentions and abilities evenly between 2 or more classes, dabbles in one class then finds his true calling for the rest of his life, and a host of other design choices seems a great step back, not just from 3.X, but even from the 1Ed rules. While multiclassing/dual-classing in that edition wasn't particularly elegant, even then you could choose more than 2 classes for your PC.

Simply put, 4Ed multiclassing rules don't support 75% of my PC concepts from 30 years in the game.

Warlock's Curse*:
As a minor action, you can curse the closest enemy. Unlike the Warlock class ability, this deals no extra damage; however, an enemy you've cursed with this ability counts as cursed for your paragon path abilities.

I think that resolves the issues.

IOW, add an ability that has no effect other than to qualify the PC for the paragon path...and still requires a minor action?

 

[Drakhar]

Just a note for those saying that Channel Divinity is more 'Clericy'.

The Paladin would like to have a word with you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Again, I already said that Paladins have that power- the only other class that does so.

Just like only Wizards and Warlocks cast arcane spells...

But everyone heals- ChaDiv and divine spellcasting are by far a rarer resource than healing.

 

[Dormain1]

I wonder if people could post some of the previous versions of MC rules they playtested

the way it looks to me is that they found the initate feat too powerful if it granted 1 @will as an encounter and the other class abilities so they nurfed it

lets look at them one by one

fighter init +1 1 rd/encounter and mark and a skill

cleric init healing word 1/day a set skill and implement

paladin init div challenge 1/encounter and a skill and implement

ranger init hunter quarry 1rd/encounder and a skill

rogue sneak attack 1rd/encounter and a set skill

warlord inpire word 1/day and a skill

wizard 1@will as an encounter and a set skill and a implement

each one as a feat is powerful, skill training and a power but it is not mutliclassing

the powers are rather weak when you look at them ie the fighter one is not worth it IMO, the cleric one is not bad but what if you don't want that ability

I think the problem is that people cannot choose their own power but if WotC did it any other way it may become unbalance

It probably should have been grant 1 skill from class list, and shift all class features gained one over ie @wills become encounter, encounter become daily's etc AND only accessable at first level

that makes the feat really powerful sure but being only able to take it at first balances it somewhat even take out the bonus skill

some people will think its the way to go to optimise but all it does is give some versitility

I don't have a problem with the other MC feats just the initiate feat