Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Scipio202]

Guessing at Paragon Level Multiclassing

Given the structure of the Paragon Path benefits, perhaps we can guess how the paragon-level multiclassing works.

For Paragon Paths you get
11th: Paragon Feature, Action Point option, Paragon Encounter Power
12th: Paragon Utility Power
16th: Paragon Feature
20th: Paragon Daily Power
(as well as getting from your base class a utility at 16th)

So, I'm going to assume that any feature from your paragon path becomes a feature from your secondary class, and any power from your paragon path becomes (a) an increase in your overall power "count", as well as (b) an extra primary/secondary class "swap". I'm also going to assume that the action point option is instead picking up one of the at-wills from your secondary class. Unfortunately we can't easily guess what class level the power should be from. Then you'd have.

11th: Secondary Class Feature, Secondary Class At-will, Encounter Power&Swap
12th: Utility Power&Swap
16th: Secondary Class Feature Feature
20th: Daily Power&Swap
(as well as getting from your base class a utility at 16th)

You can then look at what % of your power count for each power type you can have from your secondary class, assuming both full heroic and paragon multiclassing (again abstracting from which levels you pick)

At Will: 0% from 1-10, 33% from 11-20
Encounter: 0% from 1-3, 50% from 4-5, 33% from 7-10, 50% from 11-20
Daily: 0% from 1-9, 33% from 10-19, 50% at 20
Utility: 0% from 1-7, 50% from 8-9, 33% from 10-11, 50% from 12-15, 40% from 16-20
(this ignores the bonus encounter power from the initial feat).

So, while not completely 50-50, it's not far off, and you could increase the "feel" of the secondary class a bit more by taking your swaps always at the highest level. Plus you'd have almost all the features of the secondary class, which should help increase the "feel" of being 50-50.

edit: last sentence, clarity

 

[Storm-Bringer]

On the other hand, we've all seen how multiclassing can get... out of hand. The restrictions serve two commonsense purposes in my mind: they prevent broken combinations now and help future proof the system as new classes are introduced.

That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing. The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster. Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.

I never had the chance to look it up before, but is this seriously the Pun-pun that causes all the brouhaha?

 

[Alimaius]

No, but you could, in theory, have a character who is good at 1/2 of what a fighter does and 1/2 of what a wizard does, and be as powerful as a single-classed character. That's the ideal multiclass situation, as far as I'm concerned. I like the 4e dabbler model just fine, though, since I expect my ideal multiclass model would be hell to design.

The problem though is that isn't balanced. Players are going to naturally chose powers which benefit them the most, while harming them the least. The strength of a cleric is that they have a lot of healing and buff spells, but a weaker selection of overt attack spells. A wizard is going to have the opposite problem. Allowing a class access to both makes a character who can heal/buff AND sling damage, which is overpowered. The only solution to this is to either reduce the effectiveness of both aspects (make the class unable to access high level healing or damage spells) or reduce the effectiveness of one. Wanting a character that is any kind of competent in two areas (especially when the two original areas are traditionally weaknesses for either original class) is, as JohnSnow says, utter munchkin crap.

Also, are you really going to be DOING that much in combat? No matter what system you use to create it fact is most fighter/casters either use a few solid damage spells, a few solid buffs, or some limited combination of the two. Then they wade in. Do people really want the entire wizard spell list at their fingertips? Because I guarantee there are going to be a lot of fireballs and precious few charm persons being cast. A wizard doesn't need to fight: a fighter doesn't need to wizz, so if you have the powers of both you are going to end up doing one or the other,

 

[JohnSnow]

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

The thing is, I think that a character who tumbles into combat, gaining combat advantage and such, and shanks people with sneak attack is predominantly a rogue, not a fighter. Assuming you want a classic swashbuckler type, it would make sense to start with a rogue with toughness and proficiency in a fighter-y weapon (like the rapier or even the longsword), and then take "student of the sword" to add some extra fighter-y goodness to the character (higher to-hit and the ability to mark once per encounter). Then, when you want, throw in Novice Power to gain a fighter power to further complement your rogue-y goodness. By fourth level, you'll have 2 rogue at-will powers, +2d6 damage when you have combat advantage, either Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel, the ability to mark once per encounter, tumbling (assuming you take it as your level 2 utility power), 1 rogue encounter power (positioning strike looks good), 1 fighter encounter power (Passing Attack, perhaps?), and 1 rogue daily power.

Off the top of my head, I can see some awesome synergy between Positioning Strike (with Artful Dodger), and Passing Attack.

For example:

Tumble to enter combat (move action).
Positioning strike to slide one target closer to another.
Spend an action point and use Passing Attack to smoke them both. If you have combat advantage, this is a pretty rocking skill.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

This means that even aside from questions of balancing the base training feats (which they aren't from this excerpt, but are probably more so in the actual printed material with more details), the Power switching feats cannot be balanced--the appropriate cost for letting a wizard swap his daily for a fighter's daily (for the most part, negative; the wizard should pretty much never do this) cannot be equivalent to the appropriate cost for letting a fighter swap his daily for a wizard's (in this case, the cost is two feats with some other benefits; that's probably about right). So rather than force every fighter to be a fighter/wizard just to keep up, they've made some combinations less than viable--sure, this means you're going to see a lot less multiclassing into fighter than the other way around (though the per-encounter abilities might be interesting enough to trade a wizard per-encounter, for the right class), and certainly far less power-trading in that direction than fighters grabbing up, oh, say, cleric, warlord, ranger, and wizard powers (for healing, tactics, striking, and AoE, respectively), but it does make all combinations viable even if they optimize very differently.

The Fighter training feat is perhaps the best out of the multiclass feats, many players would want it just for the +1 to attacks, who cares about getting the fighter powers.

 

[Engilbrand]

Look at Eberron. Look at the Dragonmark feats. By themselves, they're weak. They give a minor skill bonus and, normally, a worthless spell. The major benefit, though, is that they open up new avenues in terms of mechanics (PrCs and other feats) and roleplaying (Dragonmarked Houses- Duh!)
The same can be said for the "Training" feats. Alone, they're a little weak. But they can add a lot to the character as time goes on and they open up feats and Paths and Destinies.
There are plenty of ways in character to show a gradual change to a new class. People seem to forget that retraining if a part of the system now. It doesn't have to be the cheesy, "I can cast Fireball, but I forgot how to swing a sword!" If done well, from a character standpoint, it is closer to, "I can cast Fireball, but I'm a little our of shape and I'm not up on my forms to be able to {X}."
I don't think that previous forms of multiclassing make sense. The new ways shows how you're gradually learning new abilities and getting better at them. Eventually, you may have perfected them, but your previous abilities have atrophied.
And think of the fun that can be had with mixing Classes, feats and Paths. I actually like the idea of the Fighter with a couple of spells who can fry an enemy when he's unarmed and is able to immediately retaliate if hurt enough. A Fighter with some Wizard Feats who enters the Battle Mage Path. That seems a little like Richard Rahl from the Sword of Truth series.

 

[Moon-Lancer]

That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing. The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster. Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.

I never had the chance to look it up before, but is this seriously the Pun-pun that causes all the brouhaha?

also included in the book is a spell called venom fire. add that with a fleshraker from mm3. It was clearly the book that was broken, *edit* Multiclassing is very hit and miss in 3.5

 

[Nahat Anoj]

Hey guys, they changed multiclassing quite a bit! I think this'll generate some controversy.

*reads thread*

Oh my ...



I don't mind it - I usually only multiclassed with two classes anyway, and at least this way my Knight/Paladin wouldn't have been shafted so much on smites. Although I must admit some regret over being unable to fulfill my youthful dreams of a viable fighter/mage/thief. I'll have to wait until the Swordmage comes out - maybe some Rogue training will suffice.

 

[Cerulean_Wings]

We continue our joyful dance on the grave of 'system mastery'.

To me it's more like an ever-burning efigy, left there to remind us of what we have left behind

 

[Mirtek]

The Fighter training feat is perhaps the best out of the multiclass feats, many players would want it just for the +1 to attacks, who cares about getting the fighter powers.

But is it supposed to be permanet? The "and" indicates that both the bonus and the ability to mark are limited to 1/encounter.