Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[FireLance]

I'm sorry, but the balancing factor from feat to feat is not "Well what if they want another feat." All feats need to be balanced with one another so that none are a "no brainer".

Which boils down to: what is the value of an additional option? Obviously, you think it is more valuable than I do.

 

[hong]

1) You don't know if you have N rounds or if it's going to be O rounds or L rounds.

2) You might not be able to use that power N times; you may only be able to use it once because it's an Encounter or a Daily.

The point is, you still only have N times in which you can use encounter powers. You can just choose from a few more than N powers.

Illustrating an example in 3.x terms becauseshowing what's balanced and what isn't there is easier than doing so in an edition that we don't even have yet?

Because the multiclassing in this edition is so different, apparently, that all comparisons to previous editions are bad.

 

[Spatula]

I really don't know where the idea that "all powers are 100% equal" is coming from. WotC has said that the classes are balanced overall. Nobody ever said that every power of level X is identical.

Some powers do more damage; others do less but bestow conditions; others do less but affect more targets, or have secondary effects, or allow you to boost a companion, and so forth.

So if a class is designed primarily to be a one-on-one damage dealer, taking a power that suddenly allows it to attack a whole mess of people at once is a big deal. It opens up a whole range of tactical options.

Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?

I thought we were starting from the assumption that 3e's multiclassing was deeply flawed. "Everyone" didn't justify 3e's multiclassing system, and those that do probably aren't the ones questioning the cost-benefit ratio of 4e's multiclassing.

As far as power balance, I think we understand that powers have different effects, but the expectation is that at any given level, the available powers are roughly comparable. An area attack is hugely beneficial, especially if you normally don't have one, but it's not going to deal the same damage as your single-target attack. If the powers aren't roughly balanced, then multiclassing in 4e is going to be the cherry-picker's delight.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I should probably think about bowing out of this, since I'm having trouble making myself clear without going into more detail than I probably should. But I'll try once more...

I'm not saying that powers aren't roughly equal. But that's in context. Giving a fighter an area-attack at range is a much bigger deal than giving one to a wizard, because the wizard already has them; the fighter probably doesn't.

So while that area attack spell might be mechanically balanced with a fighter power of the same level, the fighter may well feel that it's worth more, because it lets him do something he couldn't previously do.

 

[Spatula]

In a party-based game, you "plug a hole" by having someone play a PC with the requisite schtick. Anything else is likely to be inferior.

Yep, the multiclass is going to be a back-up, at best, in a normal party. If your party had no leader, taking cleric/warlord multiclass feats would be huge, because it opens up some combat healing power that the group didn't have previously. But the group shouldn't be without a leader in the first place. In a normal group, the cleric/warlord multiclass still has useful abilities (more combat healing, can stand the real leader back up if he goes down) but won't have as much impact.

 

[Spatula]

I should probably think about bowing out of this, since I'm having trouble making myself clear without going into more detail than I probably should. But I'll try once more...

I'm not saying that powers aren't roughly equal. But that's in context. Giving a fighter an area-attack at range is a much bigger deal than giving one to a wizard, because the wizard already has them; the fighter probably doesn't.

So while that area attack spell might be mechanically balanced with a fighter power of the same level, the fighter may well feel that it's worth more, because it lets him do something he couldn't previously do.

Well, sure. No one is saying that the multiclass character isn't more versatile. But is it worth a feat and a power to select another class' power? (edit: given that there's almost certainly someone else in the group who can already do something similar - if not, then the cross-class power obviously has more benefit, but that shouldn't be the norm) You said yourself that no one in your playtest group went past the initiate feat.

 

[Mouseferatu]

But is it worth a feat and a power to select another class' power?

I think so, if it fits the character concept.

You said yourself that no one in your playtest group went past the initiate feat.

Yes, but that's because nobody chose to play a (heavily) multiclassed character for conceptual reasons. As I said, we wanted to stay fairly basic for our first 4E game.

 

[Khaalis]

For me, at least, it's always been a question of how much power for how much versatility. In the case of the 4e power swap feats, it seems like too much power for too little versatility.

This is exactly how I feel. Its too high a cost for too little gain. You aren't gaining additional powers, but simply gaining "different" powers, and it costs you a feat per power to do it. I honestly think this will probably be the first major House Rule topic for 4E.

Right now, my gutt says the system works fine for dabbling, but not true "multiclassing". I do however agree, that there needs to be some cost in power for versatility. However, I think that to make the system more 'deep' multiclass friendly, we would have to change the structure of the Power feats.

Something along the lines of from:
"Novice Power
Prerequisites: Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
Benefit: Swap one encounter power with one of multiclass"

To:
Novice Power
Prerequisites: Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
Benefit: When you gain a new encounter power, you may choose it from your class or any class for which you have the multiclass feat. You may not have more encounter powers from your multiclass than from your base class.

This would allow you (at 30th) to have:
* Encounter: 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* Daily: 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* Utility: 1 Epic, 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 3 Core Class, 2 Multiclass

Granted we need to see the complete rules, but I do believe this will likely be one of the most house ruled topics of 4E.

 

[FireLance]

Novice Power
Prerequisites: Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
Benefit: When you gain a new encounter power, you may choose it from your class or any class for which you have the multiclass feat. You may not have more encounter powers from your multiclass than from your base class.

This would allow you (at 30th) to have:
* Encounter: 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* Daily: 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* Utility: 1 Epic, 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 3 Core Class, 2 Multiclass

So, would your proposed feat allow you to swap a paragon power for a multiclass class power? Otherwise, its net effect is pretty much the same as the original Novice Power feat: two core class encounter powers, one multiclass encounter power.

 

[hong]

Well, looks like multiclassing handed off the heavy work to the feat subsystem. Now we just need to know what that looks like....