What is your thoughts on multiclassing?
- Thread starter DM-Rocco
- Start date
Mathew_Freeman
Adventurer
Multiclass on 4E? Where?
Right there in the PHB, surprisingly. Snarky comments with nothing else? Where?
Aside from that, and on topic without threadcrapping, I am enjoying multi-classing in 4e.
I have a Cleric who has multiclassed into Fighter - I'm thinking about taking a fighter encounter power when I level up to 4th (by spending the feat, obviously). It strikes me that giving up a feat is pretty minor compared to the sorts of excellent powers I could pick up that might really suit me.
As a Cleric of Kord, being able to potentially take on some fighter powers (that also rely on my prime stat, strength) makes me very happy.
4e Multi-classing also avoids the old "I trained for 10 years to become a wizard, yet you have managed it in two weeks because of a multi-class!!?!" scenario that was parodied very well in Order of the Stick.
avin
First Post
Here!
Haven't played 4E yet, I only DM it - so I have no experience multiclassing.
No player of mine wanted to multiclass - so no player of mine has experience.
I read the rules and, without further thoughts, dislike it.
I like it!
The first feat is definitely worth it. Imho, it's among the best things you can spend a feat on.
The power-swap feats aren't as great. Depending on your character concept they can still be worth it.
Paragon-multiclassing is something I don't like. As it is right now it's an overall weaker option than taking a paragon path.
Fallen Seraph
First Post
I find that multiclassing in 4e is both fun/exact and makes sense.
It is fun since it allows for you to have more control over multi-classing in various different ways; pick which Powers you want, whether to PP multi-class, pick feats or PPs based off specific multi-classing combos, etc. It allows for you to make a much more precise character concept from multi-classing then you could before.
It makes sense since if you were dividing your learning you wouldn't suddenly know all the basics of a certain class only bits and pieces. It would also mean that if you wished to learn a specific skill, ie; Power from that class others would suffer (the one replaced).
I would say if I could pick one thing alone I prefer in 4e multi-classing it is that you don't have to waste multiple levels and get things that don't fit your character concept just to get a couple things that do.
It is fun since it allows for you to have more control over multi-classing in various different ways; pick which Powers you want, whether to PP multi-class, pick feats or PPs based off specific multi-classing combos, etc. It allows for you to make a much more precise character concept from multi-classing then you could before.
It makes sense since if you were dividing your learning you wouldn't suddenly know all the basics of a certain class only bits and pieces. It would also mean that if you wished to learn a specific skill, ie; Power from that class others would suffer (the one replaced).
I would say if I could pick one thing alone I prefer in 4e multi-classing it is that you don't have to waste multiple levels and get things that don't fit your character concept just to get a couple things that do.
Radiating Gnome
Adventurer
I'm enjoying it too, as a player.
I have a gnome rogue that has gone a little feylock. In early levels, it set up a great 1-2 punch given an action point . . . . eyebite to go invisible, then move in and attack with combat advantage . . . . I was able to wreak some fun havok that way.
As a gnome, without racial feats to choose from, I found that multiclassing was a good way to supplement my choices -- I might not have gone with the multiclass feat otherwise.
Now, at 7th level, my attack bonus with eyebite -- and my damage -- are not quite as good as my other attacks, and I find that I'm not using eyebite very often. But I still like the flavor that the feylock adds to my gnome, so I've been keeping it for that reason. I've been able to use the skill training in Arcana to good effect, too.
In many cases, in a situation where you would like to take skill training in a particular skill, you can actually get more bang for your buck by taking a multiclass starter feat that will get you training in that skill. You can only do that once, of course, but that does get you a little more.
All in all, when I think about retraining my rogue out of his multiclass feat and into one of the feats he does not have yet, I still find myself sticking with it. I mean, believe it or not, my little gnome doesn't have backstabber yet. But when I measure being trained in arcana and the extra encounter power against an average of 2 points of damage on my sneak attacks . . . it seems like a lot to give up. I'm not the biggest damage dealer in the party (we have a party heavy on strikers), which makes it easy to take it easy on damage dealing.
Besides, I'm having a ball roleplaying the fey pact -- he pretends to be able to talk to the fey spirit he has a pact with -- calls him brother rat . . . it's been fun. I would hate to give that up.
I have a gnome rogue that has gone a little feylock. In early levels, it set up a great 1-2 punch given an action point . . . . eyebite to go invisible, then move in and attack with combat advantage . . . . I was able to wreak some fun havok that way.
As a gnome, without racial feats to choose from, I found that multiclassing was a good way to supplement my choices -- I might not have gone with the multiclass feat otherwise.
Now, at 7th level, my attack bonus with eyebite -- and my damage -- are not quite as good as my other attacks, and I find that I'm not using eyebite very often. But I still like the flavor that the feylock adds to my gnome, so I've been keeping it for that reason. I've been able to use the skill training in Arcana to good effect, too.
In many cases, in a situation where you would like to take skill training in a particular skill, you can actually get more bang for your buck by taking a multiclass starter feat that will get you training in that skill. You can only do that once, of course, but that does get you a little more.
All in all, when I think about retraining my rogue out of his multiclass feat and into one of the feats he does not have yet, I still find myself sticking with it. I mean, believe it or not, my little gnome doesn't have backstabber yet. But when I measure being trained in arcana and the extra encounter power against an average of 2 points of damage on my sneak attacks . . . it seems like a lot to give up. I'm not the biggest damage dealer in the party (we have a party heavy on strikers), which makes it easy to take it easy on damage dealing.
Besides, I'm having a ball roleplaying the fey pact -- he pretends to be able to talk to the fey spirit he has a pact with -- calls him brother rat . . . it's been fun. I would hate to give that up.
Gothmog
First Post
4e multiclassing is by far a better system for representing a character who wants to diversify his abilities. The core class abilities are still the main focus, but the character can gain some useful abilities starting from level 1 in his multiclass, without his multiclass abilities overshadowing his core abilities. There is a meaningfull small sacrifice that multiclass character loses some effectiveness in his core class for a broader range of abilities. Makes sense to me.
In contrast, 3.x multiclassing was almost always broken, sometimes underpowered but more often overpowered. I'm glad the days of cherry-picking a level or two of ranger or barbarian for two-weapon fighting or rage are gone. Also not missed will be those multi-multiclass builds whose only reason for existing were strictly for twinkery (I'm looking at you barbarian/scout/rogue- that one was stupidly powerful, among many others). Finally, the ability to stack save bonuses for some multiclass characters until they were far better than their core class was ridiculous.
I understand what 3.x multiclassing was trying to represent and applaud the idea, but the implementation was truly horrible and lead to a LOT of abusive situations. For me and my group, 4e multiclassing is superior in every regard.
In contrast, 3.x multiclassing was almost always broken, sometimes underpowered but more often overpowered. I'm glad the days of cherry-picking a level or two of ranger or barbarian for two-weapon fighting or rage are gone. Also not missed will be those multi-multiclass builds whose only reason for existing were strictly for twinkery (I'm looking at you barbarian/scout/rogue- that one was stupidly powerful, among many others). Finally, the ability to stack save bonuses for some multiclass characters until they were far better than their core class was ridiculous.
I understand what 3.x multiclassing was trying to represent and applaud the idea, but the implementation was truly horrible and lead to a LOT of abusive situations. For me and my group, 4e multiclassing is superior in every regard.
Admiral Caine
First Post
My opening disclaimer is that I haven't had a lot of practical experience with multi-classing as a player. And I haven't GMed yet.. so everything I'm about to say is somewhat in the abstract.
I see 3E mult-classing as a response to the fact that some players didn't like the Core classes as written, or they didn't like the fact that D&D is a classed based game and not a Point Allocation game.
So, not liking the perception that their character has been stamped with a cookie cutter, multi-classing and optimization happens until players feel they have something more unique to play. Plus all the other benefits that come with multi-classing.
4E comes along and taps the player on the shoulder and says, "Hey, this is a classed based game. Just in case you forgot that basic premise. M&M and True20 are over there."
It remains to be seen whether that is the right thing to do or not. Or if any disappointment with 4E's multi-classing options is due to unrealistic expectations considering a core mechanic of the game. Like being furious at D&D for not being M&M.
Bear in mind, I'm not passing a value judgment one way or another.
If I do have a bias, as a GM, I tend to fall on the side of wondering why people have such a strong draw to hybridization. Though, I readily concede if you're burnt out on core material, then you're burnt out- and I can appreciate that.
EDIT: And some of the hybridization can be munchkinism and twinkery as the previous poster pointed out. I suppose I'm responding to situations where that isn't strictly the case.
I see 3E mult-classing as a response to the fact that some players didn't like the Core classes as written, or they didn't like the fact that D&D is a classed based game and not a Point Allocation game.
So, not liking the perception that their character has been stamped with a cookie cutter, multi-classing and optimization happens until players feel they have something more unique to play. Plus all the other benefits that come with multi-classing.
4E comes along and taps the player on the shoulder and says, "Hey, this is a classed based game. Just in case you forgot that basic premise. M&M and True20 are over there."
It remains to be seen whether that is the right thing to do or not. Or if any disappointment with 4E's multi-classing options is due to unrealistic expectations considering a core mechanic of the game. Like being furious at D&D for not being M&M.
Bear in mind, I'm not passing a value judgment one way or another.
If I do have a bias, as a GM, I tend to fall on the side of wondering why people have such a strong draw to hybridization. Though, I readily concede if you're burnt out on core material, then you're burnt out- and I can appreciate that.
EDIT: And some of the hybridization can be munchkinism and twinkery as the previous poster pointed out. I suppose I'm responding to situations where that isn't strictly the case.
Last edited:
Mustrum_Ridcully
Legend
After having played a Fighter/Wizard (and not some of those nansy-pansy Swordmages ), I think multiclassing - including Paragon multiclassing rocks.
Maybe the synergy between Fighter and Wizard is particularly good (since marking only relies on making attacks, nothing else), but it was very effective.
I will have to try more multi-classing combinations. The hardest part is the same as in 3E - managing the multiple ability dependency. But at least you lose the other problems, like BAB stacking, Saving throw problems, skill point management, not getting the neat stuff.
I think both Multiclassing and Paragon Path fix one of the glaring problems in 3E multiclassing - the cherry-picking between multiple classes goes away. You can't go into a Class or PrC just to get the first two neat special abilities and then leave before the boring ones come. Multiclassin your Barbarian with the Fighter to get an extra feat and heavy armor proficiency. Or Multiclass your Fighter with Barbarian to get Rage and then pick Extra Rage. Multiclass your first level in Rogue to get some extra skill points and Sneak Attack and then continue with Fighter.
You buy the entire package. (Though multiclassing still allows some limited cherry picking, but you get to pick only one cherry of all the classes, not a cherry from every class)
), I think multiclassing - including Paragon multiclassing rocks. Maybe the synergy between Fighter and Wizard is particularly good (since marking only relies on making attacks, nothing else), but it was very effective.
I will have to try more multi-classing combinations. The hardest part is the same as in 3E - managing the multiple ability dependency. But at least you lose the other problems, like BAB stacking, Saving throw problems, skill point management, not getting the neat stuff.
I think both Multiclassing and Paragon Path fix one of the glaring problems in 3E multiclassing - the cherry-picking between multiple classes goes away. You can't go into a Class or PrC just to get the first two neat special abilities and then leave before the boring ones come. Multiclassin your Barbarian with the Fighter to get an extra feat and heavy armor proficiency. Or Multiclass your Fighter with Barbarian to get Rage and then pick Extra Rage. Multiclass your first level in Rogue to get some extra skill points and Sneak Attack and then continue with Fighter.
You buy the entire package. (Though multiclassing still allows some limited cherry picking, but you get to pick only one cherry of all the classes, not a cherry from every class)
