Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Khaalis]

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.

This is a mixed bag of course. Even if the fighter's equivalent power is of "equal power level" to the wizard's ranged AoE, as you said it comes down to Perceived Value. In this case is it better for the Fighter to gain a power that is specifically geared to do what a Fighter does (STR based attacks in melee)? Or is it better to give him a new "trick" where he can he lob a ranged AoE 1/encounter? Some will argue for both sides. I personally think that giving the fighter an option to do something when he normally couldn't (since most fighters end up twiddling their thumbs until they can enter melee) is a better option, which of course proves your point.

 

[Samuel Leming]

Very easily done, staring with a rogue or ranger base, and choosing the right feats. I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

Sold. I'm going to hold you to this...

Can you do a swashbuckler without multiclassing?

Looks like these strikers make better fighters/martial artists than the fighter class. Seems kind of backwards.

Sam

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Okay, this might be slightly off-topic by now, but this was what I was just writing as an answer in the other ("pre-scoop") thread before it was closed...

In my opinion, and as a preference in my (somewhat simulationist) games, background must be defined mechanically to be meaningful. If I say that my character is a great swimmer who can swim for miles without needing to rest, but I then don't put any ranks in Swim and assign a Con score of 8 without bothering to take the Endurance feat, then the background doesn't have any meaning. Stats, to me, must support role-playing assumptions.

This is another point where 4E designers and I obviously differ a lot.

I don't think it is that much of a difference. There are some things you probably classify as "relevant" to defining a character they don't see as that important.

They focus on adventure-relevant skills. Climbing, Swimming or Endurance is adventure relevant, which is why there are skills covering it. Crafting (mundane) or Professions are not relevant for adventuring, that's why it seems not to be covered by the 4E skill system.

I appreciate this approach, especially if the alternative means having to choose between non-adventuring stuff and adventuring stuff. There is no "game" reason to choose the former. I wouldn't mind a seperate subsystem for non-adventuring stuff, but - does it ever matter?

 

[Khaalis]

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.

The notation of "1 Paragon (or 1 Mutliclass)" is simply to reference the fact that the rules say you can take a Multiclass Option instead of a Paragon Path. Overall, the only real gain from rewording the feat this way is that you end up with 1 additional Multiclass Utility Power. This may still be too high a cost for some as it still costs 4 feats in the end.

The other option would be to remove the restriction on more multiclass feats than core. If you really wanted say a Fighter/Wizard build that had the Fighter's Base stats (HP, Healing Surges, Armor, etc.) but all Wizard Powers, you could do it with this...

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.

For someone who wanted to allow more freedom of multiclassing you could simply make it a Single feat cost so that multiclassing becomes a 2 Feat cost, not 4.

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

You still end up with...
* Encounter: 1 Paragon, 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* Daily: 1 Paragon, 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* Utility: 1 Epic, 1 Paragon, 3 Core Class, 2 Multiclass

...but at the cost of 2 feats vs. 4 and get a net gain of 1 cross-class Utility power (assuming you take max number of cross-class powers) over the proposed core rules.

These are just raw ideas I'm tossing out to show how this "Could" be house-ruled to get more of the right Multiclass feel for individual people's games.

Make sense?

 

[Pinotage]

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.

Sure, but at the same time instead of taking a multiclass feat that gives him something he couldn't do, he takes another fighter feat which will presumably allow him to do something he couldn't do before as well. I see what you're saying, but the multiclass feats are like dabbling. I figure most people just won't bother until they hit paragon level, and hopefully that'll look a bit more meaty than just having one power from another class, which might be something you could just get from a magical item, for example. The feats give you powers, and as I understand it, so do magical items.

Pinotage

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

Having read through the thread (thank you Mouseferatu!) I think I can say that I like the multi-classing rules. It's aimed at people who want to dabble (hello Grey Mouser!) and pick up bits and pieces of other classes, rather than the old 2e 50/50 split, and I like that.

Fundamentally, a 50/50 character is a very different one from it's two "parents", and as such deserves it's own class with it's own powers, IMO.

For example, the SwordMage is likely to have melee focussed defence power that neither the fighter nor the wizard would really want or need - given the fighter has his high AC and the wizard will seek to avoid melee if possible.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I see what you're saying, but the multiclass feats are like dabbling.

Well... Yeah. That's exactly what they are. You're a fighter who's dabbled a bit in wizardry, or a paladin with a few leftover rogue skills from his childhood. They're meant to indicate a bit of dabbling. And for a lot of characters--the kind that, in 3E, would've been represented by a 1 or 3 level dip--that's entirely appropriate.

 

[Pinotage]

Well... Yeah. That's exactly what they are. You're a fighter who's dabbled a bit in wizardry, or a paladin with a few leftover rogue skills from his childhood. They're meant to indicate a bit of dabbling. And for a lot of characters--the kind that, in 3E, would've been represented by a 1 or 3 level dip--that's entirely appropriate.

Well, you obviously know more about the system than we do, but from where I'm sitting, this kind of dabbling just doesn't look worth it. Mechanically speaking, of course. It's barely the equivalent to a 1 level dip in 3e, which would likely be more beneficial by far than these feats. I don't know - it looks like the 'real' multiclassing only starts at paragon tier.

Pinotage

 

[Falling Icicle]

While alot of people are (understandably) pointing out the things you can't do with this system that you could do in 3e, I think it's worth mentioning the things that this system does so much better.

For one thing, it's possible to dabble now, especially in magic. If I want to play a Fighter with Fireball, I only need to spend 2 feats to get it. And my fireball is no less effective than a Wizard's (save possibly for having a lower Int). That's a very cool option, and I think it's worth the cost. In 3e, such a character would have required an investment of 5 levels in Wizard (getting alot of extra baggage I may not want), and due to the importance of caster level, it wouldn't even be effective. I'd also lose alot of HP, 2-3 points of base attack bonus, and fighter feats, making me both a crappy wizard and a crappy fighter. All that headache and loss to obtain the one or two spells I wanted.

Trading one power of your own class for another at the cost of a feat may seem like a net loss, but think about it. It enables you to do things that your class isn't supposed to be able to do. You can have flying rangers, eyebiting rogues, thunderlancing warlords and paladins that can call upon amaunator's power for crazy radiant damage smites. Versatility can be tremendously effective, especially since it opens up alot of combinations and tactics that wouldn't be available otherwise.

No, you don't have all the flexibility of 3e multiclassing, But you don't have any of its many drawbacks either. It's certainly going to be alot simpler to make multiclass characters now. You don't have to look up each class's chart, add up saves and attack bonuses, etc. And instead of having to meticulously plan your character out ahead of time, you can just pick up multiclassing next time you get a feat, or even retrain if you don't want to wait. This system allows you to be more care free and spontaneous about it. In 3e, if you screwed up and got levels in a class you didn't like, you had no recourse to reverse that decision without house rules. Now, if you decide you don't like your second class, you can just retrain and try something else.

In my experience, most people who multiclassed in 3e did so not for roleplaying reasons, but for min-maxing reasons. If anything, I think *more* people will multiclass for roleplaying reasons now, since the system is less cumbersome, allows more combinations to be effective, isn't as costly to the character and doesn't require pre-planning to be effective.

 

[Khaalis]

I don't know - it looks like the 'real' multiclassing only starts at paragon tier.

I'm not so sure even that will make the "deep multiclasser" happy. This is what I expect to see from the Paragon Multiclassing.

• 11th: Multiclass Class’ feature – Only way to gain a class feature power of a second class (such as Channel Divinity, First Strike, etc.).
• 11th: Multiclass Class’ At-Will feature -- Only way to gain an at-will class feature Powers of a second class (such as Eyebite, Deft Strike, etc.). replaces the Paragon Path's Action Point boost.
• 11th: Multiclass Class’ encounter power
• 12th: Multiclass Class’ utility power
• 16th: Multiclass Class’ feature – Only way to gain a 2nd class feature power of a second class.
• 20th: Multiclass Class’ daily power

We also don't know if a Paragon Path's powers will be more powerful than a class' powers. If they are roughly equivalent, the only thing I suspect you will lose out on is the Action Point Boost. However, if the Paragon Path powers are more powerful than 'standard' powers, then you are losing the option of more power for more versatility.