Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Stuntman" data-source="post: 4972320" data-attributes="member: 84817">I think I understand where you are coming from.  You feel that players are picking a multiclass feat because of the mechanics not because they actually want to partially be that class.  Someone who perhaps decides to want the Arcana skill takes Arcane Initiate.  Is this correct? I don't know how you can really blame the system.  If someone choses character options for mechanical (and not role playing) purposes only, that person would do that not matter what system is used.  This happens whether it's 4E or D&D or some other game. If I want to play a fighter/wizard, I feel the system allows me to do so.  For instance, I can take the Arcane Initiate feat and choose an at-will which I use once per encounter.  Later I can take additional multiclass feats to swap powers or gain more class features. If I'm a fighter and simply wanted to have more area effects so I can mark multiple enemies with Combat Challenge, I can do the same thing and pick Scorching Burst to use as an encounter power.  Later, I can swap more AoE powers with power swap feats. Both characters may end up being very similar for very different reasons.  I'm not sure I understand your issue here.  What is so special about the number 2 that you have to have two class features and two skills from your two classes before you are considered multiclassed?  If you look at the class features of each class, there is a bare minimum that you need to at least function adequately as that class.  Other class features over and above this are not critical for you to function.  Also, not all class features are equal.  Some class features do more for a class than others.  Gaining both the ability to weild a one-handed weapon in your off-hand and prime shot does not really make you functionally a ranger.  Getting Hunter's Quarry alone does. If you really need to take a 4th skill before you really feel like you multiclassed, you can always just use a feat.  I know you do not feel that a skill is worth a feat, but at least the option is there. Regarding the price of being able to function as two classes, there needs to be a price.  Also, any character needs to fit within some parameters so that the character is functional, but not overpowered.  A fighter has to be able to do the things a fighter is designed to do.  A wizard has to be able to do the thing (different things) that a wizard is designed to do.  What should a fighter/wizard mix be able to do?  If a fighter/wizard can do both a fighter's job as well as a fighter and a wizard's job as well as a wizard then there is a problem.  There should be something a fighter should be able to do that a fighter/wizard mix cannot do.  There should be something that a wizard can do that a fighter/wizard cannot. I'm not sure what the threshold is before you can call yourself a fighter or wizard if you are a mixed class.  That is likely very subjective.  You seem to feel that the threshold is higher than what is possible at what you feel is a reasonable cost. Multiclassing and hybrids already has an inherent disadvantage in that you may need two different primary stats.  Add to that the cost of feats and it would appear that many but the most optimised mixed characters are weaker than a single classed character.  The value of flexibility is also difficult to measure.  I've seen two instances of hybrid characters and one mix simply works way better than the other. My speculation is that the cost is set so high to ensure the best mix class combos is not unbalanced.  The power level of multiclassed and hybrids can vary greatly.  It seems to me that they decided to err on the side of making multiclassing and hybrid weaker rather then stronger.</blockquote>

Verification