Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[cdrcjsn]

Did I miss something? Are you a playtester, or was there some scoop I missed about retraining class choices in 4E?

We have been told that you can retrain feats as you level.

Multi-classing is now a feat choice.

So that means you can switch out your splash class every level if you felt like it.

* Edit - and I just read what the quoted person wrote (and the person who he was quoting) and realized that my post went off on a tangent. nm.

 

[Lizard]

Oh well, it's 20 pages in, and I might as well comment.

I'm glad I waited, since my first comments would have been based on a misunderstanding of the rules -- I thought you could only get three powers, max, from the second class, which would have been t3h suxx0r. But it seems you can get about 1/3rd of your powers from the second class (if you spend all your feats on them), which is pretty good. It's not 50/50, obviously, but it does let you do a lot.

Given the feats we've seen, powers seem like a better choice. Especially since there's no tiers or levels or prequisites. I'm trying to see why EVERYONE won't multiclass in 4e. Take the novice feat at first level, grab some Cool Bennies (more than I think you'd get for a feat), then wait until that cool power that synergizes perfectly comes along. Every fighter can toss a Fireball to weaken the enemy before closing with them or cleaning out minions. Actually, it seems spellcasters will be less likely to multiclass, as it's more useful for a fighter (who gives up no hit points or save bonuses) to gain some area-effect spells than it is for a wizard (who GAINS no hit points or ability to use armor, etc) to get some trivial extra trick he can do with his staff -- which he shouldn't be wielding in melee anyway if everyone else is doing their job right. Indeed, I think "two feats for a nuke" is a tradeoff every melee class will want to make -- especially since it's not a permanent choice and you can swap out powers any time you level. Just taking the training feat so you always have the option to grab cool powers strikes me as no-brainer. Wizards and Warlocks synergize nicely, too.

Have we seen how 'multiclassing instead of paragon' is going to work yet?

It's a long step from the 'build your own class' model of 3x, but it seems to work within the 4e paradigm of strictly defined roles and niche protection uber alles. The one-class-limit seems to be a "We admit we couldn't get this working right but the deadline is due" fix, a limitation which has no in-game logic at all. If Joe Fighter can grab wizard training at 12th level, why can't he also grab ranger training at 14th? Hell, if he can drop powers, why can't he drop Wizard and pick up Ranger? If multiclassing was a choice you had to make at first level -- representing childhood training or whatever -- the one class limit would make sense.

 

[Exasperation]

So, multiclassing is the first big disappointment I've had since I started paying attention to the 4e previews. There have been a few minor annoyances, but nothing that I was really upset about.

After the initial shock of disappointment wore off, I started feeling puzzled. I couldn't quite place my finger on why I was disappointed. The more I read of the discussion, the more puzzled I became. Whatever it was that I didn't like, none of the arguments against the new multiclassing seemed to match it, and none of the arguments for it put my unease to rest.

When I did figure out what was bothering me, I went and registered with ENWorld so I could share it. Now that the registration has gone through, here goes:
Do you remember the arguments about Wizards getting at-will powers? What was the primary reason that supporters of at-will spells gave for having them? It was that they wanted to feel like a wizard, and just being able to cast one magic missile before having to switch to a crossbow didn't cut it.

Thinking about the info we have on character classes, and the pregen characters we have, it seems to me that most of the feel of a character class in combat comes from a combination of your at-will powers and your class features - exactly the areas that access to is heavily restricted or outright denied by the multiclassing feats.

(Of course, in between my registering and being able to post, someone else touched on this issue, but it seems to have been mostly ignored in favor of arguments about the definition of opportunity cost.)

2)Is Cherry Picking 1 power really multiclassing? Is a Fighter that throws the occasional Fireball really a Fighter/Mage. Sure the player can play up the "magical training" they have had and everyone at the table can play along......but come on this is more like putting lipstick on a pig, and everyone at the prom pretending its a real date.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

We have been told that you can retrain feats as you level.

Multi-classing is now a feat choice.

So that means you can switch out your splash class every level if you felt like it.

I am not talking feats and changing what to splash in but changing primary classes over time. Going from Bard3 to Bard3/Ranger7 means my character switches from one primary class to another, not a change in what is dipped into. As far as I know once a player starts as one class in 4E they are stuck in that class forever (with only dips into other classes).

med stud's solution was to have the GM allow the player to rebuild the character after awhile. Starbuck_II stated that this sort of class retraining was part of 4E. That is what I wanted clarification on.

 

[rhm001]

All right, slogged through the whole *22* pages. That was a lot of posts, so forgive me if I accidentally repeat a point already made.

People seem to want to compare the benefits of earlier editions' and 4e's multiclassing, as well as one of the costs---feats, I don't believe anyone has mentioned some of the costs that no longer apply. Specifically, when you multiclassed in 3e you paid for it in one or more of to hit, potential hit points and saving throws, as well as the lost class abilities. Obviously, each of those costs was higher for some classes than others, but they were all costs that had to be balanced against benefits. With the 4e system, you keep the standard hit points for your class for a given level, as well as the standard progression for the other numbers. For defenders and strikers in particular, that's a reduction in costs. I don't think that it automatically validates replacing those costs with feats in and of itself, but it needs to be part of the equation.

I also want to go WAY back and mention that, although the rogue's sneak attack can only be used once against a target with the relevant feat, while the ranger multiclass feat's potentially lasts for an entire encounter, the number for sneak attack goes up with level, while the other number appears to remain static at 1d6 (or 1d8 with the appropriate feat). Again, not sure it's equal, but should be considered.

 

[Torchlyte]

And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.

I challenge you to find me a character concept that can't be represented with this system.

Whoa, hold on there. You jumped from "character concept" to "specific mechanics." "Equally talented in magery and thievery" is a character concept. "Wiz 6/Rog 6" is just one of any number of ways that concept could be implemented in-game.

If you want to be equally talented in magery and thievery, your "wizard half" should probably have a power level roughly equivalent to your "rogue half." There are lots of ways to implement that, and basic level-for-level multiclassing is only one of them. Wiz6/Rog6 meets your requirements. So does Wiz 3/Rog 3/Unseen Seer 6. So does a Wiz11/Rog11 gestalt. And so does a 4E character with half wizard powers and class features, and half rogue powers and class features.

Now, in practice, 4E multiclassing won't give you a fifty-fifty split; estimates here suggest the most heavily multiclassed characters in 4E will be about two-thirds primary class to one-third secondary class. However, I don't think I've ever seen a case in which a character concept actually demanded a fifty-fifty split. The concept usually only requires that the character be a talented mage and a talented thief (or whatever), which 4E's system provides.

I've got a character right now who's a favored soul 4/sorceror 4/mystic theurge 8. She's a priestess of a deity of magic, water, and the moon; as such, she combines arcane and divine magic. But y'know what? In 4E, I could make that same character as a cleric with wizard multiclass feats, and it would fit the concept like a glove, even though she wouldn't have a fifty-fifty split any more.

This brings up another point. If I have just two cleric powers, but I use them all the time, I'm essentially 50/50 anyways.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Is anyone else a little annoyed at those ability score requirements? Strength is a req in fully 4 out of the 8 Initiate feats (and in 2 of them is the sole option). Intelligence and Wisdom come in at 1 each.

I was starting to think about how to convert one of my characters, a gnome wizard, to 4E. Given his military background, the Student of Battle feat for a little warlord training looked attractive. Unfortunately, with a Strength of 5 he's not going to come anywhere close to qualifying. I understand this to to prevent novice players form screwing up, as warlord powers we've seen so far are all strength based. However, surely there are some Tactical warlord powers out there that are intelligence based and would make sense for a wizard!

 

[Wormwood]

You know that it is balanced if there's a 20+ page long thread discussing about it.

22 pages and I finally smile.

 

[Torchlyte]

All right, slogged through the whole *22* pages. That was a lot of posts, so forgive me if I accidentally repeat a point already made.

People seem to want to compare the benefits of earlier editions' and 4e's multiclassing, as well as one of the costs---feats, I don't believe anyone has mentioned some of the costs that no longer apply. Specifically, when you multiclassed in 3e you paid for it in one or more of to hit, potential hit points and saving throws, as well as the lost class abilities. Obviously, each of those costs was higher for some classes than others, but they were all costs that had to be balanced against benefits. With the 4e system, you keep the standard hit points for your class for a given level, as well as the standard progression for the other numbers. For defenders and strikers in particular, that's a reduction in costs. I don't think that it automatically validates replacing those costs with feats in and of itself, but it needs to be part of the equation.

I also want to go WAY back and mention that, although the rogue's sneak attack can only be used once against a target with the relevant feat, while the ranger multiclass feat's potentially lasts for an entire encounter, the number for sneak attack goes up with level, while the other number appears to remain static at 1d6 (or 1d8 with the appropriate feat). Again, not sure it's equal, but should be considered.

1. It would also be an increase in cost for lower HP classes.

2. That, and it doesn't require a minor action. I'm going off of a fuzzy memory here, but I'm fairly certain that Hunter's Quarry takes a minor action.

3. This links to the complaint about the Cleric's healing once per day. True, it's a little underpowered... but power swapping with the Cleric is also especially useful. With two feats, I imagine that it balances things out. We'll just have to trust WotC on this until we get all the rules.

 

[katahn]

Spellcasting Multiclass: 3.x failed in multi-classing spellcasters, IMO, because of 2 key failings:

1) no explict CL stacking (unlike BAB)
2) spell level tied into highest caster level (hence the biggest problem with dual spellcaster mulitclasses)

That's it. Fix those, you've fixed the system

3) Remove arcane spell failure or apply "spell failure" to all spell casting classes evenly. Cleric/Druid casters are already stupidly overpowered compared to arcane casters and to add insult to this they don't have spell failure.

Just pointing out, you missed one.