Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[SteveC]

Now that we've finally seen the multiclassing rules, I have to say, for the first time in a 4E preview, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The thing is: we're not all that far from the mark, the "spend a feat, get a feature" aspect works for me just fine, but the actual abilities are just weak.

What would be wrong with something like this:

[Class] Training
Benefits:
Pick a class feature from [Class]. You can perform this feature as if you were a member of [class]. You may purchase this feat multiple times: each time you do so, select an additional class feature.
Special: [Class] training qualifies you for any Paragon Paths that have [Class] as a prerequisite.

In addition to that, keep all of the other feats for powers as normal. What would be wrong with that?

Bewildered,

--Steve

 

[katahn]

Now that we've finally seen the multiclassing rules, I have to say, for the first time in a 4E preview, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The thing is: we're not all that far from the mark, the "spend a feat, get a feature" aspect works for me just fine, but the actual abilities are just weak.

What would be wrong with something like this:

[Class] Training
Benefits:
Pick a class feature from [Class]. You can perform this feature as if you were a member of [class]. You may purchase this feat multiple times: each time you do so, select an additional class feature.
Special: [Class] training qualifies you for any Paragon Paths that have [Class] as a prerequisite.

In addition to that, keep all of the other feats for powers as normal. What would be wrong with that?

Bewildered,

--Steve

Because class features/powers are more potent than feats in 4e, and trading a feat to get something better than a feat with absolutely zero tradeoff translates into a character spending feats to become what amounts to a gestalt of the two classes. They have more powers than a single-class, could theoretically fulfill all four core roles as the feat you described is not limited to only one other class and thus render even having classes as pointless.

If you want to gestalt in 4e, just run a gestalt campaign. Multiclassing rules are meant to work with classes, not make them redundant or pointless.

 

[Scipio202]

Magical Items and the % split

One thing that I don't think has come up: since the devs have suggested that the major role of magical items is to grant new powers, we should be counting those powers when we assess whether a Fighter/Wizard "feels" like a 50/50 split. I'm guessing some (many?) power-granting magical items will have class (or perhaps power source) restrictions. As I read it, multiclassing into wizard should allow you to use wizard-specific magical items.

Would a Fighter/Wizard feel like a 50/50 "gish" if every encounter he's using 2 fighter exploits, tossing off a fireball, AND shooting an ice beam from a wand/ring/etc.?

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Now that we've finally seen the multiclassing rules, I have to say, for the first time in a 4E preview, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The thing is: we're not all that far from the mark, the "spend a feat, get a feature" aspect works for me just fine, but the actual abilities are just weak.

What would be wrong with something like this:

[Class] Training
Benefits:
Pick a class feature from [Class]. You can perform this feature as if you were a member of [class]. You may purchase this feat multiple times: each time you do so, select an additional class feature.
Special: [Class] training qualifies you for any Paragon Paths that have [Class] as a prerequisite.

In addition to that, keep all of the other feats for powers as normal. What would be wrong with that?

Bewildered,

--Steve

The individual features are not balanced against each other. Only adding them all together, and taking starting hit points, healing surges and skills, you achieve something balanced. I suppose that the feats are as specific as they are, because only this way, the multiclass feats can be balanced.
In 3E terms. Compare gaining a Familiar with gaining Rage (both possibly with full advancement by character level)

 

[rhm001]

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

Not necessarily. The HP cost itself will increase (from a net gain to no value) for those classes, yes. That's part of the reason I noted that the costs will all differ. But I don't think we can say whether it's an increase in total cost. For example, before, arcane spellcasters gained the most in terms of HPs; no other class carried a penalty, and all except another arcane caster class carried a benefit. There was a shorter list of classes that granted a divine caster HP. But casters always lost the most as well: spells and spell levels. Everyone seemed to accept that a loss of spells and spell levels outweighed durability. Now, there is no HP benefit, but no caster level loss, either (and it's a power swap rather than a loss, but the analogy starts to break down there).

And just to cover them: For striker classes, who saw both HP benefits and penalties before, there's no skill penalty, no damage increase penalty, and a potentially broader range of ability benefits.

 

[Stalker0]

Alright, two days after I've read the rules and I've calmed down completely now Took a lot of time to rethink the system, and here are my thoughts:

The Initiate Feat

Thinking about it more, I'm okay with this feat. There are some advantages to it. For one, you can multiclass at 1st level, something you couldn't do in 4e. That's a plus. Second, the potential for balance is much higher than before. Now, whenever we get new classes, we should expect a multiclass feat to go with it. Using that, everyone class should be a balanced option compared to each other. Definitely a plus.

Frankly, the feat couldn't be any stronger, or it would be a must have.

I still believe that the biggest problem with the feat is twofold.
1) That the initiate feats are not balanced with each other. But I'm a man a of science, and I recognize that seeing a few words on a page, when we may not even have the full text of the feats, is a poor judge of balance. I'm big enough to admit a wait and see approach is a better judge.

2) That the multiclass feats don't allow enough mixing of the classes. I'm of the opinion that multiclassing is a patch for the class system. The class system provides a lot of benefits, but its biggest drawback is each class provides a limited archetype. In order for players to play the character they want, you need to blend those archeytpes a bit.

I get that one feat is not enough to do a full mix of two classes, nor probably should it for balance reasons. But I think we can do a bit better than what we have here. For example, allow a second initiate feat to pick up another class ability (again strict control on which one).

Or force the person to give up something from their original class to gain a bit more in the multiclass. For example, let's say that every class has an * next to one of their class abilities. The fighter's +1 to attack for example. Then the multiclass feat would allow you more strength in your multiclass, but at the cost of some of your original ability.

For example, change the Ranger feat to the following:

Ranger initiate feat (forgot the name)
Prereq: Str 13 or Dex 13
Benefit: You gain skill training in one ranger class skill you currently don't have training in. Once per encounter you can use the hunter's quarry ability.
Special: If you give up your * class ability, you can now gain the ranger's tactic ability (TWF or archery).

Multiclass Powers

My opinion is still that 3 feats to gain 3 powers seems weak. However, once again until I see the full feat system and what kind of awesome wizard powers I can get for the fighter it would be ignorant of me to create strong judgements.

One thing I would like to see is a "practiced spellcaster" type feat that would allow multiclasser some help getting their new powers up to speed. For example, a fighter with an 18 strength and 13 int may love his new wizard power, but its going to be extremely weak comparatively (both in damage and in attack roll). Perhaps a feat to bump that power as high as your primary stat or something of the note.

If a person is willing to spend all of those feats to get a power, then he should be entitled to be good at it.

 

[Wolfwood2]

Multiclass Powers

My opinion is still that 3 feats to gain 3 powers seems weak. However, once again until I see the full feat system and what kind of awesome wizard powers I can get for the fighter it would be ignorant of me to create strong judgements.

I don't really expect that most multi-classers will spend 3 feats to gain 3 powers. I expect most of them will spend 1 feat to gain 1 power. They'll look at their concept and make a decision as to in what manner their PC is going to draw on the secondary class. Is it going to be a utility power? A once-per-encounter signature trick? A once-per-day big boom to shock opponents? I don't believe that most concepts will require all three feats.

For example, on another board someone cited Dilvish the Damned as a potential multiclass character. Dilvish definitely solved most problems with cold steel. It was only in extreme situations that he would pull out one of his mega-powerful Awful Saying spells. Dilvish as a PC would likely want the Adept power feat, but not the Initiate or Acolyte feats.

An Initiatie feat plus one feat for one power is the same trade-off, but a much smaller investment. It still leaves plenty of feats for enhancing your base class abilities.

 

[Dausuul]

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.

Can't say I agree with this. It's more that divine and arcane casters operate in different spheres. At mid- to high levels, divine casters are the supreme gods of conventional, chop-off-the-hit-points combat. Arcane casters can't match CoDzilla's damage output or staying power; but they can redefine the battlefield so as to make chop-off-the-hit-points combat irrelevant.

 

[rhm001]

One thing I would like to see is a "practiced spellcaster" type feat that would allow multiclasser some help getting their new powers up to speed. For example, a fighter with an 18 strength and 13 int may love his new wizard power, but its going to be extremely weak comparatively (both in damage and in attack roll). Perhaps a feat to bump that power as high as your primary stat or something of the note.

If a person is willing to spend all of those feats to get a power, then he should be entitled to be good at it.

Two things:

1) Some of the "starters," particularly the rogue backstab look like they will ramp up from the start; nothing says it isn't subject to the standard damage increase at higher levels.

2) The powers taken with the later feats can be replaced at each level. Granted that requires the swap out of a higher level power, but it is a more powerful version of what you spent the first feat on. On the other hand, an additional feat that gave you the ability to add an effective level or two, so you could trade a level 3 ability for a level 4 or 5 ability (provided you were high enough level to use it) might not be a bad/broken idea. Have to see the powers first.

 

[SteveC]

The individual features are not balanced against each other. Only adding them all together, and taking starting hit points, healing surges and skills, you achieve something balanced. I suppose that the feats are as specific as they are, because only this way, the multiclass feats can be balanced.
In 3E terms. Compare gaining a Familiar with gaining Rage (both possibly with full advancement by character level)

...and that makes perfect sense to me as well. That's why when Mike Mearls talked about a table of how many features you get with how many feats made me think there would be a sort of multiclassing tree where the more feats you spend, the better features you get.

This way is interesting: I can see a Warlock taking ranger training to cause a lot of damage with a combined curse/quarry, but that's more of a synergy rather than any sort of true multiclassing. This is one of the things I'll have to see in actual play, but I suspect this will be one of the first real houserules I end up making for my second campaign (I always run one "by the book" to get an idea of how these things work in actual play, first).

--Steve