Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[TwoSix]

Simplifies, yes. To the point where it's not really multiclassing. It's just gaining another power unrelated to the class, if you see what I mean. Taking a feat is that gives you another class' power is hardly multiclassing. A fighter with fireball is hardly a multiclassed fighter - he's just like a 3e fighter with a Necklace of Fireballs. Having one or two powers of a class doesn't, IMO, imply multiclassing. I think the only real multiclassing you'll find is in the paragon path. I just wish they'd included that bit rather than this 'thing' they call multiclassing which isn't really at all.

Pinotage

Can you explain what "real multiclassing" is? Preferably, without referring back to previous editions.

 

[LordArchaon]

As I mentioned before, it may very well be possible to multiclass into a third class by trading in the Paragon Path. The two class restriction is only in relation to those four feats and nothing more. It doesn't say anything about applying to multiclassing by trading in a Paragon Path.

In addition, the designers have explicitly mentioned multiclassing three classes. Doubt that would've come up if you couldn't do it.

GREAT! I had forgot that designer's talk. However, at this point I can also start thinking that that option could be set to come with PhB2...

Because you see, it doesn't make much sense to get "additional" multiclass benefits by giving up the paragon path if that class isn't related to the feats you already took. I could be wrong though.

 

[dimonic]

Simplifies, yes. To the point where it's not really multiclassing. It's just gaining another power unrelated to the class, if you see what I mean. Taking a feat is that gives you another class' power is hardly multiclassing. A fighter with fireball is hardly a multiclassed fighter - he's just like a 3e fighter with a Necklace of Fireballs. Having one or two powers of a class doesn't, IMO, imply multiclassing. I think the only real multiclassing you'll find is in the paragon path. I just wish they'd included that bit rather than this 'thing' they call multiclassing which isn't really at all.

Pinotage

Well, not exactly - your Fighter would be a Fighter with Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, and Fireball. This does suggest a little more than a fighter with a necklace of Fireballs.

 

[LordArchaon]

Well, not exactly - your Fighter would be a Fighter with Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, and Fireball. This does suggest a little more than a fighter with a necklace of Fireballs.

And you're forgetting the utility power, which can also be used during social encounters. You can charm people while talking, like a Jedi...

 

[el-remmen]

Can you explain what "real multiclassing" is? Preferably, without referring back to previous editions.

Huh? Obviously, multi-classing can only be compared to how it was handled in previous editions of the game, and for those of us who like the method or at least the idea of how it was implemented are going to see this implementation as something way short of what we want and are used to.

It is just this taking feats things doesn't seem like "multi-classing" as you don't really have multiple classes, you just have a power or two from another class in addition to your main class.

 

[Voss]

There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.

I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics. 4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling. 1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.

Actually, 1st and 2nd edition multiclass characters were stronger than single classed characters. They were only a level behind and could do *everything* a single classed character could do, beyond some armor/weapon use. The only thing that made them suck was the level caps in the upper levels.
But take a 5th level fighter and a 4th level fighter/magic-user. The 4/4 was down a point of thaco, had slightly lower hit points, but had 4 levels of spellcasting, better saves and a lot more options. And with a spell or two, was probably a better fighter.

 

[Wormwood]

I foresee lots of custom classes.

+1 enthusiasm point.

 

[el-remmen]

All that matters is what he looks like now.

Yeah, I get that. Not happy with the idea of re-training either, personally. For me, the potential drawbacks of organic character-building is part of the fun and challenge of the game.

ETA: Yeah, and of course 3 or 4 other people already made the same comment in the page I hadn't gotten to yet. Sorry.

No problem. This thread is growing faster than than the Blob!

 

[dimonic]

There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.

I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics. 4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling. 1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.

Ok, so a 10th level fighter, with Arcane Initiate, Novice Power, Acolyte Power and Adept Power will have Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, a level 4- Wizard encounter power, a level 8- Wizard utility power, and a level 10- Wizard daily power.

Parlor tricks? I think not.

 

[TwoSix]

Huh? Obviously, multi-classing can only be compared to how it was handled in previous editions of the game, and for those of us who like the method or at least the idea of how it was implemented are going to see this implementation as something way short of what we want and are used to.

It is just this taking feats things doesn't seem like "multi-classing" as you don't really have multiple classes, you just have a power or two from another class in addition to your main class.

But when 95% of a class's identity comes from its powers, and you have 30-40% of your powers from another class... I don't know, seems pretty much like you're two classes in one.