Classes by primary stat

[KarinsDad]

I'm not seeing how Melee Training has anything to do with multiclassing, since what it affects are your Melee Basic Attacks, and not your multi-class powers. It's more about defeating the cognitive dissonance that arises when you have a melee-focused hit-monkey like a rogue or avenger suddenly unable to hit the broadside of an enemy who has turned their back and walked away, or when the party warlord has provided a nice opening.

For a Eladrin Wizard, it allows him to melee fight reasonably with a longsword.

No, it doesn't give him the fancy extra bonus ability that most melee attacks have, but it allows him to melee. The feat allows any PC to melee, hence, it is a multiclass-like feat.

When a foe gets past the front line, I wanted this PCs to be able to melee with that foe in the back lines. I wanted him to Defend when doing this as well, but I could not find a good way to do that yet.

It doesn't matter if the Wizard role is to control. When a foe is in this PC's face, he's going to melee him. That's multiclassing. A Wizard fighting with a sword like a Fighter.

No, that's not 4E game mechanics multiclassing. It's 4e game roleplaying multiclassing. The Wizard acting like a Fighter. Hence the reason I said that this feat shores up the multiclassing rules. It by itself is not "a multiclassing rule", it allows the PC to do a multiclassing-like activity.

I wouldn't doubt that other multiclassing-like feats might not be added to the game in the future. If you think about it, even something as simple as Armor Proficiency Leather is a multiclassing-like feat. It allows a Wizard to armor up without penalty, something only other classes are allowed to do.

Any feat that allows a given PC to do something that only other classes are allowed to do is a multiclassing-like feat.

 

[Garthanos]

The Wizard acting like a Fighter. Hence the reason I said that this feat shores up the multiclassing rules. It by itself is not "a multiclassing rule", it allows the PC to do a multiclassing-like activity.

I wouldn't doubt that other multiclassing-like feats might not be added to the game in the future. If you think about it, even something as simple as Armor Proficiency Leather is a multiclassing-like feat. It allows a Wizard to armor up without penalty, something only other classes are allowed to do.

Any feat that allows a given PC to do something that only other classes are allowed to do is a multiclassing-like feat.

Yup and I think of the Skill Powers in the same category... sort of once removed... if you have already spent a feat to have athletics or used a background to do so then you can do some utility power things which are not all like a wizard.

 

[Dan'L]

For a Eladrin Wizard, it allows him to melee fight reasonably with a longsword.

No, it doesn't give him the fancy extra bonus ability that most melee attacks have, but it allows him to melee. The feat allows any PC to melee, hence, it is a multiclass-like feat.

When a foe gets past the front line, I wanted this PCs to be able to melee with that foe in the back lines. I wanted him to Defend when doing this as well, but I could not find a good way to do that yet.

It doesn't matter if the Wizard role is to control. When a foe is in this PC's face, he's going to melee him. That's multiclassing. A Wizard fighting with a sword like a Fighter.

No, that's not multiclassing. That's the Eladrin wizard doing something he could already do, but do it better. It's not hugely different (in concept, not math) than taking a weapon expertise feat. Really, it's no different than most other feats -- i.e. taking something you can already do and enable you to do it better. It's certainly not more flexibility of options, which is what you seem to be requiring from multiclassing.

Simply swinging a sword to make an MBA does not a fighter nor a defender make.

-Dan'L

 

[KarinsDad]

No, that's not multiclassing. That's the Eladrin wizard doing something he could already do, but do it better.

Can Wizards effectively melee?

Nope.

That feat allows them to do so.

I explained what I meant by the phrase shoring up multiclassing.

 

[Dan'L]

Can Wizards effectively melee?

Nope.

That feat allows them to do so.

I explained what I meant by the phrase shoring up multiclassing.

Yes, but just because you explained what you meant doesn't make it meaningful or useful. Let's review; you said:

No, it doesn't give him the fancy extra bonus ability that most melee attacks have, but it allows him to melee. The feat allows any PC to melee, hence, it is a multiclass-like feat.

Since EVERY class can already melee with an MBA, and the feat in question only increases accuracy with MBAs, it does not add anything to that class' performance that could truly be considered multi-classing.

I think part of the problem here is that you've yet to condense a useful, usable definition for what you feel multi-classing should encompass. So, let me give it a stab:

Multi-classing is picking up definitive traits from a class other than your base class.

Since the ability to make a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack, effectively or otherwise, is by no fair means definitive of any class. Would you consider a Figher taking Skill Training in Thievery to be a feat that is "shoring up multiclassing" since it lets them be more effective at it, like a Rogue? Or similarly ST in Religion because it makes them more Cleric-y?

At some point, you've got to realize that some feat choices for increased effectiveness are just that, and not something that was made as a crutch for what you view as a weak system for multi-classing. Just because you found that the pickled beets made for an unsatisfying meal doesn't mean that the chocolate mousse was crafted to make up for it.

-Dan'L

 

[DracoSuave]

Saying every class can melee because they have an MBA is like saying every person can cook because they have a stove.

Meanwhile the wizard's only going to burn water without Melee Training.

 

[Dan'L]

Saying every class can melee because they have an MBA is like saying every person can cook because they have a stove.

Meanwhile the wizard's only going to burn water without Melee Training.

Sure, but does that make Melee training a feat designed to "shore up multiclassing?"

-Dan'L

 

[KarinsDad]

Sure, but does that make Melee training a feat designed to "shore up multiclassing?"

Yup.

It allows the Wizard to cook eggs, just like the Fighter.

Egg cooking was a province of melee PCs.

Now, Wizards can cook eggs as well, they just have a tough time with omelets.

Before, the Wizards burnt the eggs almost every time.


It shores up the sharing of the melee class feature of egg cooking with all PCs. No doubt about it.

Something one set of classes could really only do reasonably well is now available to every class.


Just like Ritual Casting now allows Fighters to cast spells. Just not as well as spell casters.

It's limited, but it is still class ability sharing and hence, it shores up the normal multiclassing rules with yet another way to partially do this type of thing.

 

[DracoSuave]

Right, and it's a very apt comparison... as any character can use scrolls for rituals, but only a Ritual Caster can master them.

But you'd hardly call someone without a ritual casting feat of one type or another a ritual caster, now would you?

 

[Dan'L]

It's limited, but it is still class ability sharing and hence, it shores up the normal multiclassing rules with yet another way to partially do this type of thing.

Sorry, I'm calling BS on this. Melee fighting is not a class ability, it is not definitive of a class nor it is not indicative of a unique class. So, you're saying that a Wizard who can effectively swing a sword makes them have multi-class fighter traits? Why fighter, and not: avenger, barbarian, bard, cleric, paladin, ranger, rogue, swordmage, warden, or warlord? Are you stuck on the notion fueled by previous editions' lack of fighter options that a fighter's defining choices have to be variations of the melee basic attack?

What defines a class in 4ed, enough to make it meaningfully different from other classes? What traits and abilities are definitively unique to a class that make them worthwhile touchstones for measuring multi-class flexibility? One thing that isn't class definitive is the ability to swing a sword in melee; as written any class can do this; proficiency and a high str/melee training make it more likely to hit, but nothing prevents it.

Just like Ritual Casting now allows Fighters to cast spells. Just not as well as spell casters.

Why wouldn't they be able to cast as well as a spell caster? They'd be likely only a few points behind on the skill checks, and those aren't exactly as crucial as to-hit rolls. (For this, I'm assuming rituals, not class powers labeled as "spells", because comparing the two is like comparing apples and eggs.)

The point is, EVERY feat gives either more flexibility or more effectiveness. If you wanted to, you could probably twist out a situation where any of them reflect what a different class could do. That doesn't mean that they are meaningfully "shoring up multiclassing." It just means that you find them useful in building up a character concept that varied slightly from the 100% base class build. That's exactly what every feat is for: taking the central nugget of a pure class and tweaking it to better reflect the character you want to play. It's not about multiclassing, it's about character building. Multiclassing is one tool in character building, but not every tool for character building is about "shoring up multiclassing."

-Dan'L