4E "Multi-classing": Someone please explain

[mattdm]

It seems to handle "a Rogue with a hint of Fighter" reasonably well (although even this will be sub-optimal), but it doesn't handle even splits at all well (so, the classic Fighter/Mage really isn't viable, and won't be until WotC deign to give us the Swordmage - and repeat for any other combination you care to name).

Well, in fairness, this is the case with 3/3.5 too. You can mix classes with a full BAB progression basically at will, and mixing those with rogue works acceptably too. But multiclassing spellcasters is a trainwreck, even with the Practiced Spellcaster feat. So in order for those concepts to work, they needed to create special prestige classes like Mystic Theurge — and even those turned out to be pretty weak, so finally they turned to making full-on base classes to deal with this concept, like the Duskblade.

So I'm pretty sure all this wasn't on accident — it's based on experience.

Meanwhile, the multiclassing that does exist provides the potential for a lot of flavor — and one that gets you multiclass abilities at their full power, not reduced versions.

The other thing it doesn't do is allow a character to change focus (unless the DMG contains extensive 'rebuilding' rules that I haven't reached yet) - so while the system does handle early-Conan (Rogue with hint of Fighter) and later-Conan (Fighter with hint of Rogue), it doesn't provide any means to get from the one to the other.

Yeah, there's no rule for it. However, as a DM I would allow a wholesale flip if a player so desired, and I'd try to build that pivotal moment into the plot. Certainly much better than the player losing interest in the character and wanting to bring in a whole new one.

 

[Doug McCrae]

as I understand it, under 4E rules, "once a Priest always a Priest?" Come on!

Absolutely and as I see it that's a feature, not a bug.

D&D at its heart is a class-based game. What a class does fundamentally is limit your character. In classless rpgs such as HERO you can spend your points on whatever you want - any stat, any skill, any power. 3e's free multiclassing wasn't enough of a limitation. It made the game too much like HERO and not enough like D&D.

In fact I even feel that 1e and 2e's multiclassing was going too far. The concept of multiclassing itself goes against the most basic principle of D&D, that a character is 'this' and by being this, he cannot be 'that'. You have to have the focus to say 'my character is this and not that'. Shout it out so that all the table can hear.

 

[delericho]

Well, in fairness, this is the case with 3/3.5 too. You can mix classes with a full BAB progression basically at will, and mixing those with rogue works acceptably too. But multiclassing spellcasters is a trainwreck, even with the Practiced Spellcaster feat. So in order for those concepts to work, they needed to create special prestige classes like Mystic Theurge

Oh, I agree that multi-classed spellcasters were always a cludge, and not a pretty one at that. In fact, it was one of two things that I felt were essential to fix in a new edition (the other being LA races - and I felt that if they fixed those two things, then that alone would justify a new edition).

Unfortunately, they haven't so much fixed the problems as eliminate them at a stroke. Multiclass spellcasters aren't a problem, because they just don't exist in anything resembling the same form. And LA races aren't an issue because you just can't play monsters as races except where they specifically support it.

Yeah, there's no rule for it. However, as a DM I would allow a wholesale flip if a player so desired...

FWIW, I would do the same. But I'm not sure that's really relevant to the question of what the rules support.

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Yeah, I'm afraid multiclassing is one of the biggest weaknesses of 4e, IMO.

It seems to handle "a Rogue with a hint of Fighter" reasonably well (although even this will be sub-optimal), but it doesn't handle even splits at all well (so, the classic Fighter/Mage really isn't viable, and won't be until WotC deign to give us the Swordmage - and repeat for any other combination you care to name). The other thing it doesn't do is allow a character to change focus (unless the DMG contains extensive 'rebuilding' rules that I haven't reached yet) - so while the system does handle early-Conan (Rogue with hint of Fighter) and later-Conan (Fighter with hint of Rogue), it doesn't provide any means to get from the one to the other.

What exactly do you want from a Fighter/Mage? That's a questions I've not seen answered by anyone who doesn't like the current multi-classing rules.

If you want a Fighter who can cast a few very Wizardly spells (eg Fireball) then the 4e rules work perfectly (assuming you're willing to have your ability scores favour Str and Intelligence).

If you want a Wizard who has a few neat tricks for when they get into (or find themselves in) melee combat then the current rules work.

If you want a fighter that uses magic in melee combat to defend themselves and hurt the enemy - then you do indeed need a base class as those sorts of powers aren't suitable for what the straight Wizard does, nor should a straight Fighter have magic powers. I'm confused as to why it's assumed that Multi-classing should entail mashing two wildly different classes together and expecting them to work.

Personally, I like the rules, as it prevents people repeating the scenarios of previous editions (frankly, aside from level limits, why wouldn't you play a fighter/cleric, say, from 2e, when they're so much more powerful than either a straight fighter or cleric? In 3e, the choice was less stark, but obviously lots of people used the cherry-picking technique to build very powerful characters). The 4e rules also force you to make a choice - sacrificing feats to create a character that has great versatility.

 

[Drkfathr1]

As a long time DM, through various editions (20+ years), I have to say, the 4th Edition multiclassing system is the best I've seen.

Earlier editions were a pain, and 3rd edition, while it worked well, had 2 big problems:
1. Spellcasting sucked for multi-classed characters because you were always behind the curve compared to your level.
2. Non-spellcasters became too powerful and were unbalanced in comparison to single-classed characters.

If you want to "dabble" or make yourself a bit more "versatile", the 4th ED rules make you actually choose what your going to give up in exchange, and at least what you pick stays at a level of power equivalent to your actual level.

Sorry, but if you want an "uber" character that can do "everything", you'll have to look elsewhere.

 

[moritheil]

Oh, I agree that multi-classed spellcasters were always a cludge, and not a pretty one at that. In fact, it was one of two things that I felt were essential to fix in a new edition (the other being LA races - and I felt that if they fixed those two things, then that alone would justify a new edition).

I can't agree with this at all. The ability to play a double or triple threat character was one of the most entertaining aspects of 3.5.

Thus far, my understanding is that a 4E character can play at doing this, but lacks actual competence in anything outside his or her original field.

 

[frankthedm]

This seems absurd. I designed a "Legends of Excalibur"-type class system for my 3.5 game, and it absolutely demands the capacity to actually, not superficially, multi-class. A Priest might wish to genuinely become a Knight, for example, and as I understand it, under 4E rules, "once a Priest always a Priest?" Come on!

Then 4e [ notably the multi classing system ] is not suited for that campaign. Even 3E is not that grand for splashed caster levels. I'd strongly recommend WFRP 2E with the Knights of the Grail hardcover for such a campaign.

 

[Drkfathr1]

Thus far, my understanding is that a 4E character can play at doing this, but lacks actual competence in anything outside his or her original field.

Nope. A 4E character, that chooses the multi-classing feats, is JUST as competent with those new options as his or her original field. That's the beauty of it. Nothing is "lagging" behind.

 

[mattdm]

I can't agree with this at all. The ability to play a double or triple threat character was one of the most entertaining aspects of 3.5.

Thus far, my understanding is that a 4E character can play at doing this, but lacks actual competence in anything outside his or her original field.

To the contrary — they're very competent at the out-of-class features they know. In general, much more so than in 3E. They just don't have the full breadth of ability that someone with the base class would have.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Multiclassing is pretty restrictive. Can't really disagree with that, and given the multiclassing standard in 3e, I can see why it bugs folks. While I liked the granularity of the system, it presented its own strange bugs (e.g., massive Save boosts) and in practice ended up being less free than I'd originally thought. For example, a Fighter 15/Wizard 5 is marginally good at buffing himself, while a Wizard 15/Fighter 5 is not very good at casting spells (less spells per day, no 9th level spells, smaller caster level check for SR) and does not having enough of the Fighter's good points (low hit points, no armor, poor BAB) to make up for the lost Wizard abilities. This kind of problem was somewhat mitigated by the "Fix" PrCs like Eldritch Knight, but either these fixes were pretty lackluster (EK) or they could be combined into some kind

On the one hand I'm torn, because I liked the freedom of 3rd edition. On the other, part of me feels like that freedom is actually very limited.