Classes by primary stat

[Stuntman]

The concept of giving up a feat in order to swap out one power and swap in another is totally silly. Gaining an additional power with a feat? Fine. Gaining a class feature with 1 or 2 feats (if 1 feat is not enough for some class features)? Fine. Or even limiting which hybrid class features can be acquired is fine.

The way the power progression in 4E works, you have a cap of how many powers of each kind you can have. As you gain enounter or daily power, you end up having to swap out lower level powers. I think part of the reason is that low level powers become trivial at higher levels. Another reason is perhaps to limit the number of powers you need to keep track of. At least this seems to be how the power progression is set up.

The power swap feats (multiclassing or otherwise) are designed to fit within this framework. You do not gain an additional encounter power with the Novice Power feat. You do not gain an additional power with a familiar or skill power feat. Instead, you swap.

I quite understand the feeling that this seems lame. It definitely feels like you're not gaining anything. It's like paying some money in a restauraunt just so you can look at a second menu and then having to still pay full price for what you selected off that second menu. Even if what you order off that second menu goes really, really well with something else you ordered off the first menu, it does feel like you got short changed.

The way it is designed today though, it's Class Dabbling in the case of multiclassing and it's Power Dabbling (and for many hybrids, being semi-crippled in the process) in the case of Hybrid.

Sorry, but I consider that totally lame.

I'm not sure what it is that you are really looking for in a system that combines two classes together. 4E multiclassing is dabbling in another class.

If you want to be able to get more from a second class, hybrids appear to be the option. You gain more features and can more freely mix powers from two different classes. I don't see them as being really semi-crippled. They have the most important class feature(s) from both classes to be able to function as both classes well enough. The missing class features hybrids do not get are not such a great limitation considering you have so much flexibility to function as 2 classes.

Note: Hybrid is semi-ok as is if the DM allows Hybrid Talent to be taken multiple times.

I think that single classed characters should retain some advantages over multiclass or hybrid characters. If you want all and full class features as a single classed charcter, then you should be a single classed character and not a hybrid. With whatever system there exists for combining two classes together, there should still be something significant that is only available to single classed characters.

It still has the silly "must take a power from the other class" limitation, but meh.

Well, I don't see an issue with tying class features and powers together. If you are going to be a hybrid paladin, you should have paladin powers and should play like a paladin at least part of the time.

I do see some situations where this feels very limiting. If you want to take any power swap feats, you must have a third power of that kind before you can swap powers. This issue comes up with skill utility powers. You cannot actually use a power swap feat to swap a utility power with a skill power until you reach level 10. The reason is that you need at least one power from each of your hybrid classes.

When I look at the hybrid system, it looks pretty good to me. They get some nice benefits and flexibility in using powers and abilities from two different classes. They do have some disadvantages that single classed characters do not have and some seem rather unusual.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think this may lead to many players expecting multiclassing in 4E to do more or something completely different than what it currently does. In any case, the 4E definition of multiclassing means dabbling or dipping into another class. It would seem it ammounts to only a very small set of abilities. Whether or not this should be called, "multiclassing" is probably the issue some people have.

My issue is with the entire concept.

What is multiclassing to most people in 4E? It's a way to get a single skill and a single other ability and possibly to meet a prerequisite for a feat, or a Paragon and/or Epic class.

Period. End of story.

It's totally game mechanics.

Very few people using Multiclassing to acquire powers from another class. Nobody uses it to acquire so much as a single class feature from another class.

It's not even dabbling. It doesn't rate that strong of a term.


The entire idea of multiclassing from a game perspective in RPGs has historically been is the ability to acquire abililties from two or more classes. Even changing the word to dualclassing is not sufficient because it does not do that.

Multiclassing in 4E does not do that. Neither does Hybrid.

Both allow the PC to have powers from two classes (at an extreme cost), but neither of them allows a PC to actually have multiple class features from two classes.

One cannot pick two Fighter skills and two Wizard skills with multiclassing unless there is already overlap.

How is this comprehensible as MULTI - CLASSED if one cannot even get two skills from each of the classes?

 

[Stuntman]

And of course, the Bard can (must?) take COmbat Virtuoso and use Charisma for everything.

Now that I think about it, why can't there be something like that for other classes, like a rogue feat that allows him to use Dex instead of Str for multiclass attack powers.

Unlike other classes, a Bard can take multiclass feats from more than one class. It is quite possible that without Combat Virtuoso, a bard would end up having powers with 3 or more different attack stats via the class specific feats and power swap feats. If a bard only multiclasses into one other class, then Combat Virtuoso is not a must take. If a bard multiclasses into 2 or more other classes and amongst all classes more than 2 different attack stats are use, then it becomes difficult to be effective unless you take Combat Virtuoso.

Other classes can only multiclass into one other class, so maintaining two attack stats is achievable within reason.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think that single classed characters should retain some advantages over multiclass or hybrid characters. If you want all and full class features as a single classed charcter, then you should be a single classed character and not a hybrid. With whatever system there exists for combining two classes together, there should still be something significant that is only available to single classed characters.

Even with allowing Hybrid Talent multiple times, single class characters have abilities that the hybrid does not.

As a simple example, Rogue vs. Rogue/Barbarian (where the R/B can take Hybrid Talent multiple times):

Rogue:

First Strike, Rogue Tactics, Rogue Weapon Talent, Sneak Attack


Rogue/Barbarian:

Sneak Attack (limited), Rampage


Wait, one has 4 class features to the other's 2 (and one of those 2 is limited).

What if the Rogue/Barbarian takes Hybrid Talent 5 times.

Now, it's 4 class features vs. 7 class features. It sound huge. But wait, the R/B gave up 5 feats in order to accomplish this.


And what does the R/B have that the Rogue does not (in this example)?

1) An ok once per encounter ability (Feral Might).
2) Rampage which is a free basic attack typically less than once per encounter.
3) A slight bonus to light AC.
4) Hide Armor.
5) Slightly better hit points (1 per two levels, fairly weak).


What does the Rogue have that the R/B does not?

1) A feat.
2) A feat.
3) A feat.
4) A feat.
5) A feat.
6) A version of Sneak Attack that can be used with every attack power.


I think single class characters do quite fine against hybrids, even if you house ruled that Hybrid Talent can be taken multiple time. But with Hybrid Talent only allowed once, the hybrid PC is totally screwed over. Woo Hoo. 3 class features and one of them is restricted and it cost a feat versus 4 class features and not having to use a feat.


Sorry, but just because WotC put something into print does not make it worthwhile.

When it comes to multiclassing/hybrid future player desires, it's not about powergaming and min/maxing. It's about having a PC that has options from two (or more) classes without being raked over the coals to achieve this.

This is what multiclassing should represent (not the lamo thing WotC sold everyone on). A PC that has options from two (or more) classes without being raked over the coals to achieve this. It's ok for a multiclass PC to have a few less options to counter the versatility, but that's not what we have yet.

I totally understand the restrictions that Hybrid put on and it's pretty ok if one allows Hybrid Talent multiple times.

But, Multiclassing is totally lame with regard to having a PC with abilities from two classes.

Maybe WotC will try to address this with new Bard-like classes for the other power sources in the future. Maybe not.

But I consider Bards and Hybrids to be WotC's attempt at fixing the totally lame Multiclassing system. I think that they are fair first attempts, but still not right.


And I consider Multiclassing to be so lame because it was WotC's first attempt in a game system that was being rushed out the door. Well designed multiclassing is more complex than many other game elements. A real significant balance has to be achieved. I just think that 4E rushed out the door without it, just like Battlerage Vigor rushed out the door without taking minions into account. IMO.

 

[Stuntman]

My issue is with the entire concept.

What is multiclassing to most people in 4E? It's a way to get a single skill and a single other ability and possibly to meet a prerequisite for a feat, or a Paragon and/or Epic class.

Period. End of story.

It's totally game mechanics.

Very few people using Multiclassing to acquire powers from another class. Nobody uses it to acquire so much as a single class feature from another class.

It's not even dabbling. It doesn't rate that strong of a term.

I think I understand where you are coming from. You feel that players are picking a multiclass feat because of the mechanics not because they actually want to partially be that class. Someone who perhaps decides to want the Arcana skill takes Arcane Initiate. Is this correct?

I don't know how you can really blame the system. If someone choses character options for mechanical (and not role playing) purposes only, that person would do that not matter what system is used. This happens whether it's 4E or D&D or some other game.

If I want to play a fighter/wizard, I feel the system allows me to do so. For instance, I can take the Arcane Initiate feat and choose an at-will which I use once per encounter. Later I can take additional multiclass feats to swap powers or gain more class features.

If I'm a fighter and simply wanted to have more area effects so I can mark multiple enemies with Combat Challenge, I can do the same thing and pick Scorching Burst to use as an encounter power. Later, I can swap more AoE powers with power swap feats.

Both characters may end up being very similar for very different reasons.

The entire idea of multiclassing from a game perspective in RPGs has historically been is the ability to acquire abililties from two or more classes. Even changing the word to dualclassing is not sufficient because it does not do that.

Multiclassing in 4E does not do that. Neither does Hybrid.

Both allow the PC to have powers from two classes (at an extreme cost), but neither of them allows a PC to actually have multiple class features from two classes.

One cannot pick two Fighter skills and two Wizard skills with multiclassing unless there is already overlap.

How is this comprehensible as MULTI - CLASSED if one cannot even get two skills from each of the classes?

I'm not sure I understand your issue here. What is so special about the number 2 that you have to have two class features and two skills from your two classes before you are considered multiclassed? If you look at the class features of each class, there is a bare minimum that you need to at least function adequately as that class. Other class features over and above this are not critical for you to function. Also, not all class features are equal. Some class features do more for a class than others. Gaining both the ability to weild a one-handed weapon in your off-hand and prime shot does not really make you functionally a ranger. Getting Hunter's Quarry alone does.

If you really need to take a 4th skill before you really feel like you multiclassed, you can always just use a feat. I know you do not feel that a skill is worth a feat, but at least the option is there.

Regarding the price of being able to function as two classes, there needs to be a price. Also, any character needs to fit within some parameters so that the character is functional, but not overpowered. A fighter has to be able to do the things a fighter is designed to do. A wizard has to be able to do the thing (different things) that a wizard is designed to do. What should a fighter/wizard mix be able to do? If a fighter/wizard can do both a fighter's job as well as a fighter and a wizard's job as well as a wizard then there is a problem. There should be something a fighter should be able to do that a fighter/wizard mix cannot do. There should be something that a wizard can do that a fighter/wizard cannot.

I'm not sure what the threshold is before you can call yourself a fighter or wizard if you are a mixed class. That is likely very subjective. You seem to feel that the threshold is higher than what is possible at what you feel is a reasonable cost.

Multiclassing and hybrids already has an inherent disadvantage in that you may need two different primary stats. Add to that the cost of feats and it would appear that many but the most optimised mixed characters are weaker than a single classed character. The value of flexibility is also difficult to measure. I've seen two instances of hybrid characters and one mix simply works way better than the other.

My speculation is that the cost is set so high to ensure the best mix class combos is not unbalanced. The power level of multiclassed and hybrids can vary greatly. It seems to me that they decided to err on the side of making multiclassing and hybrid weaker rather then stronger.

 

[Flipguarder]

Karinsdad, from what I can tell, you want players that mc to be VASTLY superior to players that don't. Can you describe what you WOULD want, if not that?

 

[KarinsDad]

Karinsdad, from what I can tell, you want players that mc to be VASTLY superior to players that don't. Can you describe what you WOULD want, if not that?

I want versatility with a PC.

I don't want vastly superior multiclass PCs.

As an example, I wouldn't probably bitch about the multiclass rules too much if the original rules had been the current hybrid rules combined with allowing the Hybrid Talent feat to be taken multiple times. In fact, I probably would have liked that to be the rules.

In that case, single class PCs have the strength of the niche and more feats, hybrid PCs have the versatility.

Even as is, there are many aspects of Hybrid PCs that are fairly lame, even if someone were to allow Hybrid Talent multiple times.

But something like that was what I was looking for with 4E Multiclassing: Dualclassing. I want to play a Cleric/Ranger. Ok, do so.

With the rules as is (without houseruling), that's not possible or even close. But, that is what I would like to see. And in my own game, I can houserule Hybrids real easy. So, no harm no foul.

 

[Garthanos]

I play the game to have fun.

I don't play it to emulate reality.

I suppose it was fun to have multi-classing that broke the game.... because being able to sample a class easily and get core abilities to a class was underestimated to the point that it was abuseable and I think 4e's mc and hybrid break my verisimilitude less it deserves the props for it.

Power swapping for a feat is almost always quite lame and I agree with you on that element.... the times when it isnt lame is probably because somebody has figured out a nice synergy they want to exploit

But, I also have totally ok with a gradual multiclassing aquisition idea of either:

Note: Hybrid is semi-ok as is if the DM allows Hybrid Talent to be taken multiple times. It still has the silly "must take a power from the other class" limitation, but meh.

I think Hybrids are great.... not semi-ok,

Official rules being cautious allowing 2 class features the latter enabled via pp it, means I as a DM can house rule easy enough to allow more class features... and the players can say wow look the dm is nice.
If they went the other way and went with making you just as capable in both classes as a single class character is in one?... somehow nobody would end up single classed... versatility is a form power and pretending it isnt seems disingenuous and an accident waiting to happen.

I tend to have even hybrid characters take a mc feat yup for the skill and touch stone power.... and the flavor.

Gandalf The Grey - Deva, Avenger|Invoker, Flame of Hope , with MC Learned Spell Caster.

 

[Garthanos]

And in my own game, I can houserule Hybrids real easy. So, no harm no foul.

And in the long run I would say you and I mostly agree

I just dont resent the earlier rules for multiclassing being inadequate or the current hybrid ones for being a bit cautious

 

[KarinsDad]

I just dont resent the earlier rules for multiclassing being inadequate

I do remember when the 4E PHB first came out, a lot of people said WT??? when they looked at multiclassing. Our group even wanted house rules for it (one of the few house rules initiated by the players, not the DM).

And who takes Paragon Multiclassing? Virtually nobody, yet that was the first stab at having things such as At Wills from two classes.

But, I think as the year+ has gone by since the release of 4E, people have started to get really used to the concept of multiclassing as a way to get a skill and set up a Paragon class and it just became the status quo of just another way to get some cool synergy, not to have a dual class PC.