4E "Multi-classing": Someone please explain

[Aqua Vitae]

I have not yet elected to plunge off of the cliff of 3.5 into 4E, and one of the reasons is what I hear of the "multi-classing," if you can call it that, that goes on in 4E.

I understand that the system will not actually allow you to pick up levels in another class? That you take a feat in order to "dabble" in the powers of another class?

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!

 

[Skywalker]

I understand that the system will not actually allow you to pick up levels in another class? That you take a feat in order to "dabble" in the powers of another class?

It is true that in 4e you maintain your base class at all times. However, this is only a small part of the story. Your class is mostly defined by the Powers and Feats you choose. The 4e multiclass system is focussed on allowing PCs to choose Powers and Feats from other classes. It seems a little strange to start off with (though not as much as 1e or 2e), however the end result is actually pretty versatile.

There are two steps in mutliclassing:

Step One: You take 4 multiclassing feats. These allow you to gain a Skill and a Class Feature from the other class, and two swap out 3 Powers for those of the other class.

Step Two: At 11th level, you can take a Paragon Path of the other class or the other class as your Paragon Path. This result in 4 more Powers of the other class.

The end result is that you get 1 Skill, 1 Class Feature, 1 out of 2 At Wills, 2 out of 4 Encounter, 2 out of 4 Dailies and 2 out of 7 Utilities from your other class, producing a pretty even split once you take into account feat selection. Also note that unlike 3e, these Powers are able to be at your current character level, not a class level so it doesn't gimp spellcasters.

So 4e multiclassing can handle a change of focus in a PC, just in a different way to previous editions. I agree it isn't quite dual-classing like we saw in 1e/2e or 3e. If anything it is more of a balanced and tailored 1e/2e multiclass system.

 

[mattdm]

Well, yep, there's the rules. I'm not sure "absurd" really applies, though, just very different. They work pretty simply: you take feats which give you minor features of the class, and then further feats which let you swap your powers for powers from that class.

What are you trying to accomplish with "a Priest might wish to genuinely become a Knight"? What does "genuinely" mean, and what does it mean to become a knight?

The Paladin base class (which is less Dudley Do-Right than ever before, so there's more flexibility) might actually be exactly what you need just as-is.

But I'm assuming you want to play the transition out in game. I'd suggest this: start with the cleric class, and then have the character multiclass into paladin or fighter (the fighter class is in many ways more like the knight class from 3.5E PHBII than it is like 3.5E fighter). Then, at some pivotal point, flip it and rebuild the character as paladin or fighter with cleric multiclass.

From an optimization standpoint this works pretty well, since Wisdom is the primary cleric ability followed by either Strength or Charisma; Strength is of course primary for fighter, with Wisdom being a good secondary option; and paladin is Strength followed by Wisdom or Charisma. So you probably wouldn't even need to remap those to be effective.

 

[mattdm]

This seems absurd. I designed a "Legends of Excalibur"-type class system for my 3.5 game [...]

So, one other thing to be aware of is that class design is a lot more work than it might be in 3.x, because every class has its own unique selection of powers and feats, all the way up to level 30.

Of course, it may be possible to say "the priest can choose cleric powers" or "the knight gets options from this subset of the fighter class powers + this subset from paladin + this subset from ranger", even though none of the core classes do that.'

Then, for each class, you create a multiclassing feat which describes what it means to multiclass to that class. I do recommend, though, keeping these on the power level of those for the core classes and doing the wholesale rebuild switch in case of in-game conversion.

 

[Dr. Strangemonkey]

Well for the specific case you mentioned it all depends on how you define 'Knight.'

If 'Knight' is a paragon path keyed off of Fighter or Warlord 4e actually makes it easier to become a knight. Your priest simply takes the Fighter or Warlord multi-class feat and then picks up the Knight paragon path at 11th level. Eazee Peazee.

If 'Knight' is a base class then the Priest has two options:

1.) They can pick up cross-training as a 'Knight.' They won't unlearn their powers as a cleric until they've trained up to the level that they can take the multiclass paragon path option. They'll probably have to dedicate a lot of feats to picking up the armor and weapon proficiencies if that's important to them as well. This would represent someone honestly wanting to make the effort it takes to switch vocations rather than the 3.X model where charactes can either take 15 years to learn the first level in a class as their first level or one night to learn the first level in a class as their second level.

2.) The Priest can dabble enough to pick up what he or she considers the essential aspects of the 'Knight' class through feats and then be a hybrid Priest/Knight. Which would be fairly true to the Arthurian tradition, actually.

 

[mattdm]

If 'Knight' is a paragon path keyed off of Fighter or Warlord 4e actually makes it easier to become a knight. Your priest simply takes the Fighter or Warlord multi-class feat and then picks up the Knight paragon path at 11th level. Eazee Peazee.

This is a good point. Unlike what I just said in my last post, paragon paths are relatively simple — a few abilities and a handful of signature powers. So, if your base class is fighter, knight could be a paragon option designed to be available to anyone with the multiclass feat. Or, if you still want to have unique base classes, maybe instead of fighter you start with "squire".

 

[thundershot]

The biggest problem with multiclassing (that I can see) is that you essentially blow 4 feats in order to take stuff from another class. You don't get much for your sacrifice, IMO. But that irks me is that you can't possibly get the basic stuff from the other class (like wizard cantrips, or paladin abilities). That's what I want... the basics and the ability to take powers and feats from the other class.



Chris

 

[delericho]

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.

 

[mattdm]

The biggest problem with multiclassing (that I can see) is that you essentially blow 4 feats in order to take stuff from another class. You don't get much for your sacrifice, IMO.

I think the basic feats are pretty good. Remember that feats are far less precious in this game — you get more, and they do less. The paragon path multiclass seems weak, though.

But that irks me is that you can't possibly get the basic stuff from the other class (like wizard cantrips, or paladin abilities). That's what I want... the basics and the ability to take powers and feats from the other class.

Heh. The most old-school player in my gaming group basically considers this to be the only redeeming feature of 4E.

But I see where your're coming from — it's a big shift. Again, though, what are you trying to accomplish? "I want my character to be able to do everything in his class, plus everything someone else's character can too!" doesn't sound so hot.

On the other hand, if that someone else doesn't exist, the situation might be different. I think there's room in that case for a more powerful multiclassing option, particularly for groups of 3 players. Something like the Gestalt Character rules from 3.5E Unearthed Arcana.



PS: I find the poor punctuation in your animated sig graphic to be pretty funny.

 

[Pbartender]

I have not yet elected to plunge off of the cliff of 3.5 into 4E, and one of the reasons is what I hear of the "multi-classing," if you can call it that, that goes on in 4E.

I understand that the system will not actually allow you to pick up levels in another class? That you take a feat in order to "dabble" in the powers of another class?

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!

Remember, there's also retraining...

Thus, a the cleric could swap out all his namby-pamby healing healing powers for more smite-oriented healing powers, and then trade out some of his divine-based feats for armor proficiencies, weapon proficiencies and more combat-based feats... Voila! A cleric (who is still to a certain degree very much a cleric -- he can't give it up entirely), who becomes, effectively, a knight.