Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Fallen Seraph]

You know just thinking. There could be different class-variants for each classes multiclass. Since they did individually name them.

So there could be three different Ranger multiclass-feats, three different Fighter multiclass-feats, etc. Each would focus on different skill, class feature, etc.

 

[frankthedm]

Yep 1/encounter you can throw a little magic missile that does less damage than your weapon (because your int is lower) and has a lower chance to hit (because your int is lower).

Oh yeah, really feeling the fighter/wizard in this version

For only $40 you can get the Swordmage.

As for the novice/acolyte thing, I can understand that WOTC was concerned about cross class synergies, so they made a feat the cost of branching into other power trees. What I don't understand is why they though it needed to be 3 feats to get 3 powers. How about 1 feat to get access to all 3? You still have to be high level, you still have to give up your regular powers, unless you multiclassed just right you'll likely have a weaker ability score for those powers, and you still paid a feat. Seems like a much more reasonable tradeoff to me.

Feats are plentiful in 4E and do not grant extra abilities most of the time. Thus each trade is charged one feat because the feat pays for the trade.

 

[FireLance]

I second this. Take the rogue: do you think a rogue will be able to get a level 16 utility power as useful as Greater Invisibility? Probably not, not to him anyway. The combination of perpetual combat advantage and sneak attack is greater than the sum of its parts.

Depends on what the level 16 rogue utility powers are like.

Anyway, I'm still not sure whether the combination of "The target becomes visible when it attacks" and "Sustain minor" means that:

1. You can sustain the spell with a minor action, but after the target attacks, it becomes visible and the spell ends; or

2. The target becomes visible when it attacks, but with a minor action, you can cause the target to become invisible again.

The first interpretation means that a rogue with the ability to cast the spell would not need a wizard around to maintain his invisibility (since he can sustain the spell on himself), but would only be able to gain automatic combat advantage once per day.

 

[hong]

Depends on what the level 16 rogue utility powers are like.

Anyway, I'm still not sure whether the combination of "The target becomes visible when it attacks" and "Sustain minor" means that:

1. You can sustain the spell with a minor action, but after the target attacks, it becomes visible and the spell ends; or

2. The target becomes visible when it attacks, but with a minor action, you can cause the target to become invisible again.

The first interpretation means that a rogue with the ability to cast the spell would not need a wizard around to maintain his invisibility (since he can sustain the spell on himself), but would only be able to gain automatic combat advantage once per day.

I'm pretty sure it was concluded here that it's the first interpretation.

 

[Stalker0]

For only $40 you can get the Swordmage.

Heck yeah!! I mean, why even put multiclassing in the game, let's just sit back, relax, and wait for WOTC to release core classes for every single possible character concept we can think of.

Phew, that's a load off my mind

 

[oberixie]

I like how it looks plenty of room to create a sweet concept without making MC the best possible option.

I mean come on an eldrian warlock with a rogue dip

stealth eyebite sneak attack misty step feystep curse backstabber feat more then likely a way to make eldrich blast usable for sneak attack sounds like a very good assassin to me.

 

[frankthedm]

Heck yeah!! I mean, why even put multiclassing in the game, let's just sit back, relax, and wait for WOTC to release core classes for every single possible character concept we can think of.

Phew, that's a load off my mind

While sarcasm can be appreciated, this situation DID happen with 3E and PRCs. I can't say for certain they borked multiclassing intentionally to make the inevitable deluge of Core classes more appealing, but it would have been a very shrewed move to do so.

 

[FireLance]

I'm pretty sure it was concluded here that it's the first interpretation.

My balance-fu agrees, but it's the same balance-fu that tells me that a single power swap is probably* not worth a feat.

* Since I haven't seen 4e in its entirely yet, of course.

 

[FireLance]

Take the Student of the Sword feat, for instance. If there are a limited number of attack bonus boosting feats--even if many of them are better than Student of the Sword, it's still an obvious power choice for a warrior type. And no matter how often the designers pretend that healing word 1/day is as good as +1 to hit, there are a lot of characters for whom the +1 to hit is going to be a lot better.

Or maybe it's +1 to attack once per encounter.

 

[Fobok]

Personally, I really like this new multiclass system. To me, the real kicker is the ability to qualify for another class' Paragon Path. (Not as a Paragon Path, but a Rogue taking Kensai for example.) That, to me, is where you'll see the real specializations.

Really, the power-swapping feats and such seem weak, but I see them as for the Heroic tier, not any farther. At lower levels, those will delve you pretty deep in. It's the Paragon Paths (and the ability to get more multiclass powers instead) where you see the deep delving for the higher levels. You can't really see these things as separate, they're both part of the same package.