Multiclassing.

[AtomicPope]

The "problem" I see is that it is almost only by feats. I wished that it would also be via Powers. As we can see from the article, you have to be very loyal to your prim.class Powers, since you need to waste a feat just to be able to trade a prim.class Power for sec.class Power. You don't add anything at all, you just trade them.

Regarding the sec.class feats though, it's a total swing party.

I'm glad it's not being done via Powers. They needed to place a restriction on how many abilities a class has and feats is the easiest way to do it. Since all of the classes get the same number of Feats, At Will, Encounter, and Day Powers, by allowing PC's to trade abilities they must give up something otherwise there is no quid pro quo.

Feats are just an easy trade. Players spend feats to widen their range of abilities. When players select from a list that isn't from the Primary Class then they're slightly penalized. It's a simple solution.

Compare this to 3e where no two classes are remotely equal and some downright stink. Druid has oodles of class features while Sorcerers have one - at 1st level. Fighters only have feats - no class features. In 4e everyone has the same "template" but accesses different purpose abilities. Since class level doesn't matter for spells they needed another mitigating factor.`

 

[Mouseferatu]

If it were so feasible, Rich Baker wouldn't have had to write a new "Swordmage" class to cover the fighter/mage concept. I predict that we will see a whole bunch of new classes, since the new multiclassing rules will be woefully inadequate to cover a great number of concepts which were easily doable in previous editions.

But previous editions didn't cover the fighter/mage concept well by multiclassing. In 1E and 2E, you were well behind everyone else in levels. In 3E, a multiclass f/m was horribly underpowered, unless you took a prestige class--or used one of the new classes, like duskblade.

The 4E multiclass system won't be all things to all people (I personally like most aspects of it, but not all)--but let's not pretend the previous systems were perfect, either.

 

[srn]

2) I was hoping to be able to spend any number of Feats on multiclassing. But from appearances, there's nothing to indicate that you can take the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, or Adept Power Feats more then once. I hope I'm wrong on that, but it's a shame if you can only have one of each.

My reading of it is that you can only spend that number of feats on swapping powers - BUT you can take additional class-specific feats from the "other" class as well as from your own. So you might take a 2nd level cleric feat instead of a rogue feat, for example.

So, you could take all your feats in the "other" class, if you wanted to. Whether that would be useful or not is another question that perhaps only the full PHB will reveal.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

For gods sakes he wants a fighter/rogue straight out of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, is it that hard to divine. A concept that all of those handled more or less well and was neither broken nor unviable in any of them.

But that's too easy! Play a Fighter with the Rogue Multiclass feats! Or a Rogue with the Fighter mutliclass feats! Done.

It's a new edition, it doesn't have to mimic the exact results of previous or later editions. In all editions, you are definitely someone that mixes Rogue and Fighter abilities, not just a Fighter wearing dark cloak or a Rogue wielding a bigger sword.

 

[Green Knight]

But previous editions didn't cover the fighter/mage concept well by multiclassing. In 1E and 2E, you were well behind everyone else in levels. In 3E, a multiclass f/m was horribly underpowered, unless you took a prestige class.

The 4E multiclass system won't be all things to all people (I personally like most aspects of it, but not all)--but let's not pretend the previous systems were perfect, either.

Quick question for you, since I figure being a playtester you might know the answer, and answering probably wouldn't be a big deal.

When it comes to the multiclass feats (Novice Power, Acolyte Power, Adept Power), can you only take one of each, or are they the kind of Feats that you can take several times? I suspect it's the former, but I just want to make sure. Thanks.

 

[Green Knight]

My reading of it is that you can only spend that number of feats on swapping powers - BUT you can take additional class-specific feats from the "other" class as well as from your own. So you might take a 2nd level cleric feat instead of a rogue feat, for example.

So, you could take all your feats in the "other" class, if you wanted to. Whether that would be useful or not is another question that perhaps only the full PHB will reveal.

True enough. Power of Amaunator, for instance, is a Feat. And taking Initiate of the Faith, I imagine, will open that up (Assuming it's limited to Clerics). So it'd be pretty neat to have that, for instance. Of course, that multiclass combo would probably be for a Paladin character. I wonder if they also gain access to Channel Divinity Feats?

 

[Sammael]

But previous editions didn't cover the fighter/mage concept well by multiclassing. In 1E and 2E, you were well behind everyone else in levels. In 3E, a multiclass f/m was horribly underpowered, unless you took a prestige class--or used one of the new classes, like duskblade.

The 4E multiclass system won't be all things to all people (I personally like most aspects of it, but not all)--but let's not pretend the previous systems were perfect, either.

I'm not pretending anything, but 1e/2e Fighter/Mages in elven chain were among the more powerful class combos out there. 3e Fighter/Mages, on the other hand, certainly weren't as viable. But what I expected from 4E is to finally fix multiclassing once and for all. Instead, what we got looks like a half-baked solution which wasn't really thought through (and this assumption is supported by various designers' statements on the topic of multiclassing, in which it was apparent that multiclassing was put on the back burner until a very late date in the design process).

There were problems with 1e/2e multiclassing.

There were problems with 3e multiclassing, although not as many (and of a different nature) as in 1e/2e. The main benefit of 3e multiclassing was how streamlined and elegant the whole process was. The main problem was to create a viable multiclassed spellcaster.

4e effectively bans multiclassing for characters under level 11, introduces the new, highly restrictive "multi-feating" concept, and creates a number of problems of its own, not the least of which is the loss of elegance introduced in the 3e concept. A lot of 4e multi-feating problems stem, IMO, from the new concept of powers, which is very problematic in and by itself.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Quick question for you, since I figure being a playtester you might know the answer, and answering probably wouldn't be a big deal.

Unfortunately, it is a big deal. I'm literally not allowed to share anything that WotC hasn't already made public. Pointing out the formatting error on the table was one thing, because the info was public, just not clear. But I can't say anything about what's in the book beyond what they've said.

Sorry.

 

[Pistonrager]

Unfortunately, it is a big deal. I'm literally not allowed to share anything that WotC hasn't already made public. Pointing out the formatting error on the table was one thing, because the info was public, just not clear. But I can't say anything about what's in the book beyond what they've said.

Sorry.

Then why are you even in the forums discussing it? that seems like a vary dangerous game to play.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But what I expected from 4E is to finally fix multiclassing once and for all. Instead, what we got looks like a half-baked solution which wasn't really thought through (and this assumption is supported by various designers' statements on the topic of multiclassing, in which it was apparent that multiclassing was put on the back burner until a very late date in the design process).

"Late in the process" doesn't equal "not thought through."

I've seen enough playtest drafts to know that multiclassing has worked this way for quite some time. It's definitely been not only thought through, but tested.

As far as whether it's fixed the problems, I guess that depends what your problems are. AFAIAC, it's a perfect system for "dipping"; that is, for playing a fighter who dabbles in wizardry, or a paladin who survived as a street thief in his youth.

No, it doesn't seem to allow for a perfect 50/50 split. Whether that's a problem or not depends on one's personal tastes.

4e effectively bans multiclassing for characters under level 11

Um, no. That's what the feats are for. They may not be the sort of multiclassing you'd prefer, but they're multiclassing.

introduces the new, highly restrictive "multi-feating" concept

Only restrictive if you want the 50/50, as above.

the loss of elegance introduced in the 3e concept.

The 3E system only looked elegant. The fact that it needed a few dozen patches in the form of PrCs or new base classes says to me that it wasn't nearly as elegant as all that, though.

A lot of 4e multi-feating problems stem, IMO, from the new concept of powers, which is very problematic in and by itself.

*shrug* Then I don't think much of anything about PCs in 4E is going to appeal to you, since powers are basically at the core of everything.