Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Spenser]

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.

Wow, I can take a single feat in 3.5 that lets my 18th level fighter cast Meteor Swarm? Awesome! That seems much better than Dodge.

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.

Define "real multiclassing". Half your powers coming from your other class -- sounds like "real multiclassing" to me. And thanks to 4e's leveling mechanics, you can actually land those powers on your enemies.

This is system is a huge win for anyone who wants to make a caster multiclass. Good riddance, Mystic Theurge.

 

[Phloid]

Ugh. Although there is an overwhelmingly positive bent on these boards toward 4th Edition and I will likely be flamed or at least contested I have to take the negative side of this.

These multiclassing rules are not what I want. They look like solid rules for dabbling in another class, but they are not "Multi-Classing." In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?" You might, but new players to the game won't unless the PH says to call it that. Even then, the name still won't fit. To me it is a wizard with sneak attack. Not a multiclass wizard/rogue. Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it. And only one other class? Bah!

Am also annoyed that I have to give up multiple feats in order to "multiclass." I want my feats for other things.

I'm well aware that multiclassing rules in the previous editions were not good, but neither is this. They should work, but they are not "multiclassing." It is "class dabbling."

I'm just more discouraged every time they reveal something about the game. I'll read the PH and play a game or two before I pass final judgment but it looks bad in my eyes, and keeps getting worse.

 

[That One Guy]

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).

I agree with most things that you said. A multiclass should not be as good as the main class in doing the things that they do (A fighter who sticks to melee focused feats will rock something fierce melee-style as opposed to a gish who can fight and cast). If there are feats that expand the features available, like your example of cantrips, that'd be rockin' sweet. I tried to examine the table as if it was the whole picture, but leaving room for it not being so. If there are more feats to help a person pick up aspects of other classes, then it'll work exactly how I hope and I'll be thrilled. If what we have is pretty much the extent of multi-classing then I think a lot of character concepts won't be able to be fulfilled.

I'm guardedly optimistic, but very much hoping that you are correct.

 

[Alimaius]

Also: a quick point

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a

The table in this article seems to indicate you never know more than a few (at most 6 utility powers at high level) powers from your class. Since this multiclassing system is specifically a heroic tier thing, let's look at those: a tenth level character will know eleven powers. Assuming they have gone full multiclass, they will have swapped three of those out for multiclass powers as well as one freebie, giving them twelve powers, four of which are their second class. This is a third of the character: no small percentae. A fighter/wizard who fully multiclasses is going to feel quite different from a fighter who does not or mutliclasses into another class.

This is to respond to criticisms that multiclassing is not extensive enough, from the point of view of both mechanics and concept: I guarantee you one sixth of a character's abilities is not going to make the difference between the concept you want to play and one you don't, it just isn't that important. By the same token your character is not going to be able to do that much more or less based on two powers (ones you probably wouldn't be seeing much of anyway).

The other main criticism: that doing this with feats is unbalancing, neglects the fact that feats have been changed in 4e. They do not do nearly as much as they did in 3e, where granting class features and in some cases exotic new powers was commonplace. They mostly provide modest bonuses. These feats: were they to represent the simple ADDITION of powers to the characters repetoire, would be horrendously unbalanced, especially for the heroic tier. Who the hell would want to take "Lost In The Crowd" when you could just take a multiclass progression and get three free powers. The point is they allow the secondary class to fill a spot in your character's statistics rather than just grafting it on

 

[Irda Ranger]

Okay. I managed to slog through the entire thread.

You're a better man than I.

After sleeping on this, I think it's a good system within a class-based, strong-roles RPG. I like strong archetypes and roles, and I like playing in groups where there's teamwork and specialization (e.g., Fantastic Four or X-Men), rather than four uber-generalists (e.g., the "Four Clerics" 3E D&D group). To sum up JohnSnow, you can't allow any one person on the team to morph into an uber-generalist without making the rest of the team superfluous and eventually going solo (e.g., Wolverine).

And since I like strong roles and specialized teams, a system that allows a little flex in character design but keeps you firmly in your Role (allowing you to support your team as you're supposed to) seems like a good system to me.

Apropos of nothing, I think I'm going to refer to all Martial characters as "Fighting Men", all Arcane characters as "Magic-Users." Fighting Men will have four sub-classes: Stalwart, Courageous, Canny and Daring. Magic-Users will have two sub-classes: Reckless and Studious.

 

[Pinotage]

What doesn't sound Rouge-y about that to you? What do you think he needs to be more Rogue-like? The ability to catch people flat-footed? There was another feat that offered that ...

Well, the tumble example was fairly weak on my part, and you have provided a much clearer example that doesn't make the multiclassing look so bad. Still, it requires several feats to get even the rudimentary aspects right of the rogue - tumbling, sneak attack, combat advantage, and then I'm not sure how this even goes with the Fighter as a defender who now has to wield a light blade and likely light armor. But, you gave a good example. It doesn't look so bad. Thanks!

Pinotage

 

[Voss]

These multiclassing rules are not what I want. They look like solid rules for dabbling in another class, but they are not "Multi-Classing." In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?" You might, but new players to the game won't unless the PH says to call it that. Even then, the name still won't fit. To me it is a wizard with sneak attack. Not a multiclass wizard/rogue. Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it. And only one other class? Bah!

Out of curiosity, though I can understand not being pleased by 4e changes, is calling it a wizard/rogue important in some way? I mean, really, does the label actually matter, and something so clunky in particular..?

On to the second point, which seems more important- 50/50 class split with just the feats? No. 1/3 of one class and 2/3rds of the other. But switch out the paragon path for a 'multiclass path', and yes, it probably is roughly 50/50.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

I'm well aware that multiclassing rules in the previous editions were not good, but neither is this. They should work, but they are not "multiclassing." It is "class dabbling."

The problem with the class based system is the trade. Unless you do something like the gestalt rules from UA, there's no such thing 100% multiclassing. Either you're a dabbler, you're half as effective as single classed characters, or you're somewhere in between. Or, if you're a spellcaster you're even worse off, because the maximum effect of your spells is only based on one of your class's levels.

One of the foundations of 4e is a stronger classes. They're tighter and more focused. Mearls came right out and said, multiclassing was an afterthought. IMO, this is because multiclassing is very difficult to do in a class-based games. So, we have dabbling. And frankly, we still don't know exaclty how far MCing can go; we don't have all the details on the "second class as a paragon path" thing. That could go a long way to open things up.

But, you don't like it, you don't like. It's a taste thing. It's more limited than 3e, but supposedly more balanced.

 

[Wormwood]

In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?"

Probably not, but then again why would I want to? Wizard/rogue sounds like fighter/magic-user to these old ears, and I'm bored before I finished this sentence.

Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it.

Still not sure why a 50/50 class split is a good thing when you're multiclassing, but a bad thing when designing a new class.

But ultimately, I agree with you. They should retire the term "Multiclassing" and move on already.

 

[drjones]

Well, the tumble example was fairly weak on my part, and you have provided a much clearer example that doesn't make the multiclassing look so bad. Still, it requires several feats to get even the rudimentary aspects right of the rogue - tumbling, sneak attack, combat advantage, and then I'm not sure how this even goes with the Fighter as a defender who now has to wield a light blade and likely light armor. But, you gave a good example. It doesn't look so bad. Thanks!

Pinotage

No, no no you are supposed to ignore the advice and demand a fully powered fighter with a fully powered thief welded to his back. Then say it does not matter because the multiclassing system is not 'to your taste'. If this rational productive discourse continues it will be time to visit the punishment box!