D&D 4E 4e and Multiclassing

[Klaus]

I'd like to see a return of the 1st-level multiclass characters. If you wanna play a Fighter/Wizard, at 1st-level you're stuck with playing either a Fighter or a Wizard.

 

[Rydac]

All right, then try this on for size:

Ftr5/Wiz5 has martial 7, arcane 7.

Ftr4/Wiz4/Clr2 has martial 7, arcane 7, divine 6

I don't know that either example will be a problem at all.
We'll have to see how many more martial maneuvers a 10th level fighter
will have over a 7th, and what being three spell levels behind means to a wizard
now that each level equals a spell level.

In the second example the character has a caster level of 6th for
divine spells, but as a 2nd level cleric isn't going to have that much to
cast and we don't know enough about the per encounter and at will powers.

 

[The Grackle]

...In 3e even taking a single level in another class decreases the effectiveness of most characters (especially rogues and spellcasters)... since multiclass characters are weaker from the get-go, it should be a % bonus! I miss the olden days when a fighter/wizard/thief type character could actually be fun to play and not just the party pissboy.

My monk/fighter/psychic-warrior/kensai/dervish disagrees with you.

Seriously though, check out the Character Optimization boards at the WotC forums sometime. Multiclassing is TOO effective as is. For non-spellcasters anyway.

 

[Ranger REG]

I'd like to see a return of the 1st-level multiclass characters. If you wanna play a Fighter/Wizard, at 1st-level you're stuck with playing either a Fighter or a Wizard.

Nope. Don't want those Apprentice-level character rules coming back, since WotC neglected them when introducing new base classes after the core rulebooks (back in 3.0e).

You're better off starting as a level 2 character, DM permitting and accepting by fellow players.

 

[jasin]

All right, then try this on for size:

Ftr5/Wiz5 has martial 7, arcane 7.

Ftr4/Wiz4/Clr2 has martial 7, arcane 7, divine 6

Quite right, I see the issue now.

Still, depending on how exactly the classes work, even this might work out OK. If you pick class powers like Saga talents, at odd levels, the Ftr5/Wiz5 could have 6 powers, with a 7th-level fighter power and a 7th-level wizard power as his two best powers. The Ftr4/Wiz4/Clr2 would only have 5 powers with a 5th-level cleric power or a 6th-level fighter or wizard power as his best one.

Obviously, I'm making things up as I go along here, but I think it's not inconceivable that these characters might be balanced despite the Ftr/Wiz/Clr's superior "caster levels".

 

[Jhaelen]

edit: Of course, I'm making these comparisons based on 3.5 assumptions. I think we can assume that if multiclassing rules in 4e operate on an "add 1/2 your other levels" basis, the classes will be designed to accommodate that.

Yup.
It's already been mentioned that the power curve will no longer be exponential but 'more smooth'. So the difference in power between, say, level 10 and level 5 won't be as big as it was in 3.X.

 

[Sadrik]

Still, depending on how exactly the classes work, even this might work out OK. If you pick class powers like Saga talents, at odd levels, the Ftr5/Wiz5 could have 6 powers, with a 7th-level fighter power and a 7th-level wizard power as his two best powers. The Ftr4/Wiz4/Clr2 would only have 5 powers with a 5th-level cleric power or a 6th-level fighter or wizard power as his best one.

I agree, this may be ok. Because just like feats/abilities in 3rd ed. the overall number you get is tied to your overall character level I think this will be too- ie not tied to class level.

They also said that feats will be around but will not be a combat ability. Abilities will be combat abilities and feats will be feats. It was something in regards to which feats were selected can vastly change a monsters fighting potential- IIRC.

Going with a character who is F4/W4/C2 (M7/A7/D6) instead of F5/W5 (M7/A7). When the character gains 1 level they separate- because note that all of the 4/4/2 levels are even and the other ones are odd. A couple of examples:
4/4/3 (7/7/7)
6/5 (8/8)
4/4/4 (8/8/8)
6/6 (9/9)

And to reiterate a point, a 4th level wizard can only select powers of up to what a 4th level character can select but his caster level would be 7 or whatever it was. IMO I would rather have a 10th level wizard using much higher level powers with his caster level of 10. the next best option would be a character split by 2 classes maybe (guessing here) going fighter 2/wizard 8- because then you would be able to use up to 8th level arcane powers and have a caster level of 9, then you would still have up to second level martial powers with a caster level of 6.

 

[Merlion]

My monk/fighter/psychic-warrior/kensai/dervish disagrees with you.

Seriously though, check out the Character Optimization boards at the WotC forums sometime. Multiclassing is TOO effective as is. For non-spellcasters anyway.

Yep. And this is a problem.

For a Fighter, there is little to no reason not to take levels of Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin or even Rogue. Likewise, the reverse. Many melee characters gain huge benefits from a level or two in various other melee classes.

On the other hand, a spellcaster taking even a level or two in basically ANY other base class is immediately disadvantaged, and usually gains little in return that is much use to them mechanically. This is of course especially true for mage-type casters.


Now mind that I am speaking of multiclassing among base classes, not prestige classes. That is some times a whole other situation.

A slight reduction in the benefits of multiclassing for melee types...especially Fighters and Rogues...would not go amiss.

And multiclassing for spellcasters really needs to be improved. It should be viable, and it should be viable to do it in a variety of different ways for different concepts. As it as to for instance create a really viable fighter/mage type you more or less have to go Spellsword, or something similar.

 

[Sir Brennen]

Other than spellcasters and monks, multiclassing is fine in 3.5.

"Other than that, how was the play, Mrs. Lincoln?"

Seriously, multiclassing is not fine if half the likely character options are "weak sauce", and I for one like conceptually those type of characters, but find them frustrating in actual play in the current edition. (Though my fighter mage in 2nd Ed. was probably overpowered.)

Finding a balance so *any* combo is viable would indeed be a welcome improvement in 4E.

 

[jasin]

They also said that feats will be around but will not be a combat ability. Abilities will be combat abilities and feats will be feats.

Source?

I haven't heard this before, but it sounds very similar to something Mearls said about feats on rec.games.frp.dnd.