4E "Multi-classing": Someone please explain

[Remathilis]

I thought of that more as a reward for spending a lot of time in character building.

[snip]

3.x wasn't really about what any one individual class offered. It was about what you could do with your character, given a certain number of levels to work with.

I hate to quote myself, but THIS is what I was referring to in another thread.

3.x character building was akin to deck building in Magic: The Gathering. Free multi-classing option FORCED everything to be equal. the first level of ranger was just a valid as the 20th level of monk. Power attack was just as valid as toughness. Silenced Ray of Frost was just as valid as magic missile. The system weighed them the same amount (1 levels worth of XP, one feat slot, one spell slot, etc).

Except we know thats not true. There were sub-par choices. There were super-optimal choices. This meant it was imperative to find the best "combos" like deckbuilders do. It also broke down players like M:TG does; casual (my goblin deck is fun, even if I don't win alot), serious (my white deck is well tuned), professional (you should see my white/blue denial deck!) and fanatic (lets see, two red mana and two green mana tapped, I lay down channel then fireball, oh look! 20 damage in 1 round. I win. Next?)

In short, 3.x rewarded you for finding the best "bang" for your buck in ways older editions didn't. 4e went back and tried to fix that, or at least curtail it.

Amusingly, some of the people who griped and complained about half-gold dragon, celestial gelatinous cube crusader/paladin/purple dragon knight/knight protector/cavalier PCs now are complaining to being constrained to one class and dabbling in another...

 

[Jer]

In short, 3.x rewarded you for finding the best "bang" for your buck in ways older editions didn't. 4e went back and tried to fix that, or at least curtail it.

I would also like to pipe up and add that both editions cited here did what they did ON PURPOSE. These are not accidental design flaws of either edition. 3e was built to reward "mastery" of the character generation system. 4e has been designed to reward "mastery" of the tactical system at the table.

Amusingly, some of the people who griped and complained about half-gold dragon, celestial gelatinous cube crusader/paladin/purple dragon knight/knight protector/cavalier PCs now are complaining to being constrained to one class and dabbling in another...

Are they really the same people?

Even if they are the same folks, I wouldn't discount the "middle ground" here. I can see folks being irritated at the wide expanse of choices available in 3.x and also being irritated at the narrower band of choices available in 4e. Not my players (who are, frankly, somewhat delighted by the choices available for the most part - though the tiefling is going to be the butt of many a joke, I think), but I can see it.

 

[pawsplay]

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.

It doesn't even handle the 3e Street Fighter well. If you try to mix powers, you end up low on feats. If you stick with one set of powers or the others, the multiclass feat is kind of weaksauce, but more importantly, you end up leaning more to the left or to the right.

More and more, "new base class" is the answer, but that's a lot harder than it used to be.

 

[Thunderfoot]

Yes, this is exactly the sort of thing I'm leery of. You can't really call something a double or triple threat unless it can actually perform roughly as you would expect for its level. At 21st level in 3.x, it was entirely feasible to have 9th level spells, epic spellcasting, the ability to trade blows in melee with a 20th-level pure fighter and come out ahead, and the ability to detect traps and sneak around like a 20th-level rogue, all in one character.

In short, you could do it all. You didn't have to be deficient at anything unless you wanted to be. There were so many multiclassing options and feats to aid them that careful use of them would typically result in a double/triple threat that could do its job better than one of the base classes on one side, while not giving up anything on the other.

Can you do this in 4E?

I think the issue here is more of a play-style perception than actual rules issue. I for one could not stand the multi-classing system of 3.X and would not allow base PrCs because they created"triple-threats" as you call them. The fact is a generalist is much less effective than a specialist. A Fighter 10 should be able to wipe the walls with a Fighter5/anything else 5, period. #.X departed from the original D&D mold in this aspect and I am grateful to see it come home that multi classing only really helps at LOWER levels, not higher levels.

As for multi-classing in 4e compared to 3.X, there is no comparison, if you want the 'power-monger" I can do it all and do it well aspects of 3.X, then no you cannot have it in 4e, however if you are looking for the utility swing player that was originally envisioned by multi-classes then I would say that 4e does that just fine.

However, with paragon paths and epic destinies, I think you would be happy with the end results. Me personally, I don't like either and am having to figure out how I am going to work around them. (I hated PrCs BTW)

 

[mattdm]

I think the issue here is more of a play-style perception than actual rules issue. I for one could not stand the multi-classing system of 3.X and would not allow base PrCs because they created"triple-threats" as you call them.

So, if one does want the "triple threat" approach (or at least double threat) I think 4E lends itself pretty well to the "gestalt character" house rule option. I think this'd be pretty silly in a party of normal size, but if you've only got a couple of players might be an interesting way to go — way better for role-playing than each player controlling two characters.

Since there's no level-based class powers to go on, it's pretty easy: you get all class features from two classes (three is probably pushing it).
For hit points and healing surges, take the best. Use bonuses to defense from both classes, and all proficiencies. You also get the skill options from both classes, but with skills shared by both classes mandated as first choices (so a cleric/rogue gets insight, religion, stealth, thievery, plus three of the other rogue skills and two of the other cleric skills. And, whenever you would normally gain a power, you gain one from each class.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

Wow

I didn't expect this much of a reaction.

Well, I haven't read most of your replies (in fact, only two or three), but please let me amend a few initial comments:

I have been using an alternative class system based loosely on the "Legends of Excalibur" rule system. My system uses a Knight class, a Priest class, a Harlequin class, etc. etc. in place of a Fighter or Paladin, Cleric, or Bard, respectively. I do not use the core classes in 3.5.

Hence, if I were to simply export my system into 4E, it just wouldn't work. The 5th level Priest in my campaign might be able to take a "multi-class feat" (that's sound so silly) and "get some Knight abilities," but he'll never be a Knight...just a Priest with some of knightly abilities.

I can just as easily utilize the core classes to make my point.

How does a Cleric in 4E "become" a Paladin? Does he/she ever...really?

What becomes of a Cleric or a Paladin in 4E that suddenly disavows all of the gods, and in the case of goodly Clerics, turns "evil"? How do you deal with possibilities like this? What recourse is there in 4E?

So, I don't see how I can adopt 4E for my game. I think I'll just stick it out with 3.5.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

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.

[...]The 4e rules also force you to make a choice - sacrificing feats to create a character that has great versatility.

Yeah, but the "If you want..." question seems to be applicable only up to a point. What if I start out with (in my campaign, these are base classes) a Knight who gets to 2nd level, and completely and utterly abandons his liege lord, doesn't wish to crusade anymore, etc. etc. and decides to devote the rest of his entire life to being a Magus?

Or, to use conventional D&D classes, the Fighter who reaches 2nd level and decides to completely devote himself to Wizardry?

Even better: What if that very same character decides that Wizardry is not for him after all, and wishes to done priestly vestments and become a Cleric? Does the local church turn him away because his application notes that he originally decided to be a Fighter and dabbled as a Wizard? What would my brethren 4E DMs do in such a case?

 

[Skywalker]

Hence, if I were to simply export my system into 4E, it just wouldn't work. The 5th level Priest in my campaign might be able to take a "multi-class feat" (that's sound so silly) and "get some Knight abilities," but he'll never be a Knight...just a Priest with some of knightly abilities.

I can just as easily utilize the core classes to make my point.

How does a Cleric in 4E "become" a Paladin? Does he/she ever...really?

What becomes of a Cleric or a Paladin in 4E that suddenly disavows all of the gods, and in the case of goodly Clerics, turns "evil"? How do you deal with possibilities like this? What recourse is there in 4E?

So, I don't see how I can adopt 4E for my game. I think I'll just stick it out with 3.5.

3.5 does have the most flexible multiclassing system of the 2 editions, so that may be the best choice.

However, as I mentioned in my post, in 4e, PCs are primarily defined by their Powers and Feats. Things like HP, Attacks, Defences, Proficiencies are much less defining. As such, with 4e's multiclassing you can pretty effectively change a Cleric to a Paladin.

 

[mattdm]

Hence, if I were to simply export my system into 4E, it just wouldn't work. The 5th level Priest in my campaign might be able to take a "multi-class feat" (that's sound so silly) and "get some Knight abilities," but he'll never be a Knight...just a Priest with some of knightly abilities.

How does this differ in 3E?

What becomes of a Cleric or a Paladin in 4E that suddenly disavows all of the gods, and in the case of goodly Clerics, turns "evil"? How do you deal with possibilities like this? What recourse is there in 4E?

In 3E you're basically in trouble without the DM making up some options for you. There may be some prestige classes that open up to you, but in general this isn't really a workable option without some DM involvement to fit the situation.

Same thing with 4E — see my posts way up at the beginning of the thread.

So, I don't see how I can adopt 4E for my game. I think I'll just stick it out with 3.5.

Sure, no one's forcing you, and it sounds like you've got a lot of work invested in it. On the other hand, I think 4E can work better than you think.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

3.x wasn't really about what any one individual class offered. It was about what you could do with your character, given a certain number of levels to work with.

I second that! And it is all the more pertinent in a much more RP-oriented campaign such as mine.