Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[That One Guy]

Ranger training presumably picks Nature or Dungeoneering as trained skills and gains Quarry 1/encounter. Rogue training presumably gets Thievery _and_ Stealth and gains Sneak Attack 1/encounter. Rogues get two auto-trained skills whereas rangers only get one; perforce, rogue training must be balanced elsewhere.

I hope you're right, but it does not currently state that. If it's true, then yeah... rogue training is pretty nice.

 

[Shazman]

Eh, well. . . regardless that is academic as the scope of the new classing dabbling that will pass for multi-classing is anything but satisfying.

I agree. They "fixed" multiclassing by reducing it to a get a few powers from this class feat. You can do this with 3.5 feats. This isn't multiclassing, it's just getting another feat. They promised multiclassing with any combo would work well. Instead they gave us no real multi-classing. Good job wizards. One more addition to the long string of failures that is 4E.

 

[Kishin]

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.

If by that, you mean, performing multiple roles suboptimally and thereby making yourself a third wheel, yes.

D&D (and party based RPGs) have, and always will be, about specialization. 90% of all multiclassing I saw in 3E was to further bolster a party member in fulfilling one specific role.
4E allows you to grab a few things from other fields to shore up party weaknesses (Someone mentioned an example of a fighter picking up an AoE in a party that lacked a controller).

I'm sorry for the people who thought that Wizard10/Fighter10 was ever an effective way to build a character, but that's the kinda dross that gets sacrificed to further other design goals.

Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Therefore, there is no benefit in Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.

Actually, its been stated quite the opposite, several times, by Mike Mearls himself, on these forums.

 

[That One Guy]

You might want to read the whole thing...

I take it you're pointing out that the ranger could take the power-swap feats. Yes, that would be a viable solution in the long run, but it may not be what the ranger/warlord wants at level 1 to the point of an oddly absurd degree. However, I'm not entirely sure what flaw you're trying to point out in my summary. I wonder if you're referring to, "Each class has a class-specific multiclass feat that gives you access to features from that class." What I am saying is that I hope it does not work entirely like that, or that they implement more multi-class feats.

*Alas, typoness.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I think this is exactly what you'll be seeing.

Right, and I'm basically cool with that, even as someone who has never (and will never) buy every supplement under the sun. In the interest of having strong, desirable base classes I'm psyched.

Since the new PH omits the Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Sorcerer, having so many archetypal classes presumably for the PH2 will make the PH2 as a whole much more mainstream - in the same way that the Warlock and Warlord will be very mainstream because they are in PH1.

Probably. I think having lots of base classes is ok. Many people probably wondered how balanced these bonus classes were. In this system, all base classes receive the same amount of powers and the same level of powers at the same time. So we're looking at a more stream-lined base class creation process as well, which ultimately makes for a better class system. Which I like.

 

[Alimaius]

Stalker0

The balance issues do not seem so glaring to me, and if they are they are certainly easily remedied. Both the warlord and cleric feats give 1/day powers, I believe because they revolve around the use of the healing surge, a mechanic which becomes important over the course of a day rather than an encounter. A "true" warlord or cleric is able to use it one or more times per encounter because it is assumed that a party will only be using one or two healing surges per encounter. The feat allows a character to give the party an extra healing surge "edge" during an encounter, or keep one extra in case of emergencies. Like most of the multiclass feats, it is designed NOT to allow the multiclassing character to actually fulfill the role they are multiclassing into.

However, you do raise a good point about the rogue's ability: which for the rogue is almost totally reliant on being able to do it multiple times in conjunction with other rogue's abilities. My guess is most of these abilities will not be straight transcriptions of the class's power: maybe changing the objectionable mechanics. Whatever the case, the balance issues should be easy to spot: a 1/encounter sneak attack that does not require combat advantage is hardly unbalancing, so institute that as a rule, or else allow the character to use the rogue's first strike ability as far as sneak attacks go.

Overall the mechanic pleases me. The powers mechanic makes sure to balance the different classes' powers against each other. And perhaps the SINGLE most important advantage of the system is that a multiclass character gains powers from their secondary class at AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL. This way you don't have tenth level characters forced to make do with third level spells which most opponents of that level won't even blink at. It has been said before, because it bears repeating: I think this is the only system that delivers satisfactorily on that count. Fusing two classes, and tracking advancement for them separately, just doesn't cut the mustard

 

[Stalker0]

Also, I think the Sneak Attack 1/encounter means once per fight a successful hit that would trigger a sneak attack automatically does

This is a good point, one I hadn't considered. It could read like this:

Once per encounter after making a successful attack against a creature you have combat advantage against, you can add +2d6 damage.

Then at least you wouldn't have to worry about wasting your power if you miss the attack roll. That would shore up the rogue/ranger discrepancy at least a bit.

 

[drjones]

I agree. They "fixed" multiclassing by reducing it to a get a few powers from this class feat. You can do this with 3.5 feats. This isn't multiclassing, it's just getting another feat. They promised multiclassing with any combo would work well. Instead they gave us no real multi-classing. Good job wizards. One more addition to the long string of failures that is 4E.

Yeah one more screwup like this and I am going to love this game, damn you WOTC!!!!

 

[Nail]

No cherry picking proficiencies- great.
Not expanding the absolute number of abilities a character has- also good.
Not watering down caster levels- fantastic.
Allowing 1 for 1 swaps of powers- excellent.

All in all, while it is not the same, it is a workable solution. All of the munchkins...excuse me, optimizers...may not like this, but I sure do.

Me too.

 

[JohnSnow]

Okay. I managed to slog through the entire thread. I have some observations.

I don't know that everyone agrees with this approach, but the obvious intent here is to deliberately prevent someone from creating a character that is equally good at being both a fighter and a wizard. That's not an accident - it's on purpose.

The only way that the above would be acceptable is if the character in question is both not as good at being a fighter, and not as good at being a wizard as the single-classed characters. This is Third-Edition multiclassing. And, let's be honest, being crappy at two jobs is something nobody wants.

What some people seem to want is to be as good a fighter as a single-classed fighter, and as good at being a wizard as a single-classed wizard. This is blatantly, and categorically, utter munchkin crap. You shouldn't be able to replace two characters.

One of the key benefits seems to be that the multiclass feat "unlocks" the class-specific feats.

General cross-training is probably the province of general feats.

Some of these feats give you more of the class flavor than you realize.

In Fourth Edition, what defines a rogue? It appears to be "training in the stealth and thievery skills, sneak attack, and the ability to choose rogue-specific powers and feats." By contrast, a 3e rogue was defined by sneak attack, a massive skill list, and tons of skill points.

I started thinking about the way to make various concepts. And it seems to me that general feats may help with it as much as multiclassing does. For example, we know (or can assume) that there are feats that grant proficiency in weapons or armor that your base class does not. There are also feats that grant skill training in skills your base class does not. There may be feats that allow the character to gain the ability to cast rituals, use cantrips, take combat styles, or various other class abilities. And those feats may be needed to make multiclassing concepts work as much as the actual multiclassing feats are.

Want to dabble in magic, or play a former apprentice wizard without taking the arcane initiate feat? Maybe there's a feat called "cantrips." Heck, maybe you'll play a rogue who takes skill training (arcana) and cantrips. And then he takes Arcane initiate at 2nd-level. Sure, he hasn't boosted his rogue skills with feats, but he's got some pretty nice magical "oomph" when he needs it (kinda like the Grey Mouser).

As a side note, given that there are feats with prerequistes of 4th, 8th, and 10th level, I suspect we'll be getting feats at 1st and every even level thereafter. That jives with the 10th-level character with 6 feats (1 at 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th), assuming the character in question wasn't human (since it seems humans get an extra feat).