The new multiclassing: comboclassing

[muffin_of_chaos]

Hey, everybody: the new form of multiclassing is only for Dabbling in another class!
In 4E, you can Dabble to a huge extent by epic level (we assume) but it isn't multiclassing!
Give yourselves a hand! You are right about something.

...But so freaking what?

The very definition of "multiclassing" is silly. If you want a class that covers the powers of more than one class, then
just
make
one.
Stretch your creative muscles and accept the ease with which 4E has integrated the class system with the best mix of an intuitive and functional combat system devised in (soon-to-be) popular circulation.

The only reason you wouldn't be able to do this is if you hold WotC's published material as holy. Maybe if you're heavily into some sort of tournament play, or your DM's some sort of stickler.
Maybe you care greatly about WotC's methods of balancing their classes. But if you did, you'd probably also like their new method of "multiclassing."

I'm gonna make a Fighter/Wizard comboclass by looking at the PrRC.


Fighter-Mage
Role: Hybrid (Defender/Controller)
Starting HP: 12+Con score
HP per level: 5
Healing surges per day: 7+Con mod
Trained skills: 3
Attack and Defense Bonus: +1 Attack, +1 Fortitude, +1 Will
Power Source: Martial and Arcane
Key Abilities: Strength, Constitution, Intelligence
Armor Training: (same as Fighter)
Weapon Training: (same as Fighter)
Class Skills: Athletics, Endurance, Arcana, History

Automatic Features:
Cantrips: (as Wizard)
Combat Challenge 1: When you attack you may mark the enemy, giving a -2 to attack targets other than you, only one mark per enemy, new mark supersedes old ones.

Optional Features (pick 1, other can be attained by spending a feat):
Combat Challenge 2: When an adjacent enemy shifts, make an immediate melee basic attack against them.
Combat Superiority: (as Fighter)

Powers:
At-Will: For each At-Will power, pick one from either the Fighter or Wizard lists. You must always have at least as many At-Will Fighter powers as At-Will Wizard powers
Encounter: For each Encounter power, pick one from either the Fighter or Wizard lists. If you have multiple Encounter powers, they must be split as evenly as possible between the Fighter and Wizard lists.
Daily: For each Daily power, pick one from either the Fighter or Wizard lists. If you have multiple Daily powers, they must be split as evenly as possible between the Fighter and Wizard lists.


I haven't playtested this class, but it would most likely be really easy to determine how to modify it so that it's better balanced.

Cheers.

 

[hong]

Everyone can make a homebrew class. In fact, I would bet that there will be a profusion of homebrew classes after 4E comes out.

1. Whether they would "work" is the sticking point.

2. Just because you can fix it doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I believe this principle even has a fancy name.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

1. Whether they would "work" is the sticking point.

I made this class in 10 minutes, and it's probably out of whack, but I'm guessing two playtesting sessions would make it perfectly viable for first level, considering how easy it is to adjust the stuff, unlike 3.x.

2. Just because you can fix it doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I believe this principle even has a fancy name.

My point is that it will be much easier to fix any particular player's problem with their class in 4E than any previous edition.
3.x has an issue too...there weren't enough prestige classes for there to be an infinite number of prestige classes! People might have wanted a prestige class, but it just wasn't one of the 600 in existence. The completely unrelated variations of classes and power types and what-have-you made multiclassing in an even reasonably balanced way downright impossible.

 

[Scrollreader]

You've also neglected paragon path multiclassing (though to be fair, there isn't info on it, yet). It's a bit early to be declaring that multiclassing is dead, though. Especially before you have any idea what the rest of the paragon paths, rules, avaliable powers, and so forth entail.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

What the heck, I need more negative responses. Guess I'll change the title.

Edit:
For the record, my homebrewed class was extremely un-homebrewed, as it includes one new class ability and Feat, and that's it.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

...*someone* reply and give me a good reason why this wouldn't work...I know you're out there...
I should get a copyright to the term "comboclass" while it's hot.

 

[HeinorNY]

2. Just because you can fix it doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I believe this principle even has a fancy name.

The Oberoni Fallacy

 

[small pumpkin man]

Everyone can make a homebrew class. In fact, I would bet that there will be a profusion of homebrew classes after 4E comes out.

1. Whether they would "work" is the sticking point.

2. Just because you can fix it doesn't mean there isn't an issue. I believe this principle even has a fancy name.

It's called the Oberoni Fallacy. It's appropriate so I'll post it.

This my my take on the issue.

Let's say Bob the board member makes the assertion:

"There is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."

Several correct replies can be given:
"I agree, there is an inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X."
"I agree, and it is easily solvable by changing the following part of Rule X."
"I disagree, you've merely misinterpreted part of Rule X. If you reread this part of Rule X, you will see there is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."


Okay, I hope you're with me so far.
There is, however, an incorrect reply:
"There is no inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue with Rule X, because you can always Rule 0 the inconsistency/loophole/mechanics issue."


Now, this incorrect reply does not in truth agree with or dispute the original statement in any way, shape, or form.

It actually contradicts itself--the first part of the statement says there is no problem, while the last part proposes a generic fix to the "non-problem."

It doesn't follow the rules of debate and discussion, and thus should never be used.

 

[muffin_of_chaos]

A reason why it won't work, not a reason why it commits the Oberoni fallacy, which is irrelevant because if we're accepting logical fallacies we also have to accept the lack of evidence that these rules that I've created don't actually exist, as the full ruleset hasn't actually been stipulated.

I mean, unless the Oberoni fallacy is all you've got. In which case WotC should hire me.

 

[HeinorNY]

A reason why it won't work, not a reason why it commits the Oberoni fallacy, which is irrelevant because if we're accepting logical fallacies we also have to accept the lack of evidence that these rules that I've created don't actually exist, as the full ruleset hasn't actually been stipulated.

I mean, unless the Oberoni fallacy is all you've got. In which case WotC should hire me.

There is already a fighter/wizard type on the way, it's the Swordmage, the arcane defender.

But you general idea makes sense, I can see WOTC coming this way. I mean, the idea of getting the concept of the most popular multiclass combinations and turn them into a whole new base class.