4E "Multi-classing": Someone please explain

[Voadam]

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.

OK, first, take as your example Gandalf from the LotR Movie. A full wizard who is competent in melee. I expect Aragorn or Boromir or Gimli or Legolas from the movie to beat him in a sword/melee weapon fight but he happily wades into mobs of orcs swinging his staff or magic sword Glamdring around and has a great time hacking and slashing well enough to have fun and not get curb stomped.

So in 4e he wants all the rituals and cantrips and utility magic and such so we want a base wizard with some multiclassing into a melee oriented class. What can he pick up doing this and how well does he work in 4e? Is he a competent melee combatant or "just have a few tricks for if he gets caught in melee"? Is he good enough at melee to choose melee combat as an effective or nonfoolhardy option?

 

[Voadam]

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?

Use a combination of the multiclassing and retraining rules as he advanced I bet.

Retraining allows you to change your whole class I believe.

 

[Aqua Vitae]

In short, 3.x rewarded you for finding the best "bang" for your buck in ways older editions didn't.

Well, not "my" players! ;-)

 

[Pbartender]

Retraining allows you to change your whole class I believe.

Not quite...

Each time you gain a level, it allows you to replace one feat, power or trained skill with another.

So, it's slow and you can't change your class entirely, but it does allow you some leeway in correcting bad choices or rebuilding your character over the long haul.

 

[moritheil]

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

Wait, you're me? So human cloning is a success?

There were sub-par choices. There were super-optimal choices. This meant it was imperative to find the best "combos" like deckbuilders do.

I acknowledged this, but only if you play with powergamers (as I do, but as many others do not.) In which case it's reasonable to suggest you are probably amenable to a bit of powergaming (or you would find a different group.)

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.

Rather than "fixing it," I would say that 4e has put someone who does not care much for their character on the same level with someone willing to devote the time and effort to really thinking about their character. It does not reward investment in the game (investment in terms of time, not money.)

 

[Aqua Vitae]

Thanks

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.

Thanks. I've looked seriously at 4E in the past few days.

I actually just ordered Troll Lord's "Castles and Crusades" d20 game. It may actually turn out to be even more palatable to me than 3.5.

 

[mattdm]

Use a combination of the multiclassing and retraining rules as he advanced I bet.

Retraining allows you to change your whole class I believe.

Not by default it doesn't. It's much more restrained. However, I think allowing a whole-class switch has a place in many long-running games, so I made some quick but hopefully well-considered rules for it.