Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[FadedC]

- why are gaining powers from a different class so expensive? You've already spent a feat to multiclass, why additional feats to swap one of your perfectly good powers for one of those perfectly good powers?

I wouldn't say the feat your spending to multiclass is much of a cost. If you look at the things it gives you, it seems to be signifcantly more then you'd otherwise expect to get out of a single heroic feat. If it gave you even more on top of that it would be pretty insane.

On the fighter/magic missle discussion.....yeah I doubt the fighter is going to take magic missile. But in addition to scorching blast there's also ray of frost....a little slowing utility might not be bad at all for the fighter. And the lower attack bonus from less int can be made up for by the fact that it targets fortitude rather then ac.

 

[Daeger]

Honestly? I don't like this one bit. This is probably the first 4th edition excerpt that has left me completely disappointed. As the article mentions - multiclassing is being introduced as an afterthought. I thought feats for multiclassing were merely going to be one of the many options - learning that you can't ACTUALLY multiclass and instead take feats to emulate it is really lame.

 

[Pinotage]

- why are gaining powers from a different class so expensive? You've already spent a feat to multiclass, why additional feats to swap one of your perfectly good powers for one of those perfectly good powers?

Yip. Given that all powers are generally balanced between classes, so that each class delivers roughly the same damage output but in a different way, I don't see what you'd gain by swapping a power other than class flavor, which in itself might be worthwhile.

I understand the reasons behind the multiclassing, but I'm not that impressed with it. I would much rather have seen a generic multiclassing path that could be taken, akin to a paragon path, but something that you could get at any level. The path would allow you to advance in any other class via multiclassing, and could be built similarly to a paragon path.

Pinotage

 

[vagabundo]

As per usual, the simplicity and straightforward way of 4e throws me for a loop. It is funny, but for multiclassing, I knew what was coming, yet I still had that 0_o moment. Is that it?, I thought.

Allowing the new system to settle, I can see now how it will work and interact with the other parts of 4e. Simplicity is power. This system is nice and balanced, conservative even. But could help create a wide range of characters. And it is easy to extend: a new batch of multiclass feats for the core classes.

I also like the roleplaying possibilities of these feats. Each seems to have a little bit of potential back story associated with it.

The 4e system, multiclassing and retraining, tell you to make the best character for your concept now. Don't wait, don't plan, optimise at every level, try new things, go crazy! You can retrain later if it doesn't work out.

 

[Rechan]

stealth eyebite sneak attack misty step feystep curse backstabber feat more then likely a way to make eldrich blast usable for sneak attack sounds like a very good assassin to me.

...

YOINK.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I really don't know where the idea that "all powers are 100% equal" is coming from. WotC has said that the classes are balanced overall. Nobody ever said that every power of level X is identical.

Some powers do more damage; others do less but bestow conditions; others do less but affect more targets, or have secondary effects, or allow you to boost a companion, and so forth.

So if a class is designed primarily to be a one-on-one damage dealer, taking a power that suddenly allows it to attack a whole mess of people at once is a big deal. It opens up a whole range of tactical options.

Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Looks nice, very nice. I must say it is very hard to analyze this excerpt without the retraining rules known for sure. It looks like you cannot retrain from playing with one class but would it be possible? To be a fighter who takes some rogue at low levels and some wizard at high? That would be pretty powerful.

Any good version of the retraining rules out there?

 

[IceFractal]

It's not a bad system, it's just ... underwhelming. I mean, some of the preview articles promised a five-star lobster dinner and what we get is a bologna sandwich.

For example, I recall something along the lines of "any class, any combination, works" being bandied about a few months ago. That might be technically true, but only if your idea of multiclassing is a light dip, you're willing to be four feats and a paragon class behind the rest of the party for the sake of concept, and you happen to pick a class combination which is actually synergistic - something which 4E doesn't seem to solve much better than 3E did. Heck, you can't even multiclass three classes!


Honestly, light-dip multiclassing was something that already worked decently well in 3E. If you were, say, a Rogue, then picking up one or two levels of Sorcerer gave you some useful abilities without putting you unduly behind. It was trying to do something like Fighter 10/Wizard 10 that had problems, and apparently the 4E solution to those problems is "wait until a Fighter/Mage base class is released".

And yeah, I'm going to comment on this:

The 4th Edition design had three primary goals for multiclassing:
1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them.
2. Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations.
3. Institute controls to make every combination as playable as possible.

So balancing something is more important than making it usable? Balance is great, but it should be secondary to fun and usability - there's no point balancing something that nobody wants to play.

 

[IceFractal]

Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?

Just wanted to respond to this separately - I don't know about other people, but IMO, that was a large part of the problem with 3E multiclassing, not part of it's justification.

Originally it was thought that something like Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would be fine because of versatility. Then most people realized that versatility is no substitute for actually being able to do stuff, and that the Mystic Theurge was a necessity. Fast forward to the Bo9S, and there's attempts to let people be versatile without becoming powerless.

So sure, a lot of 3E combinations did give up too much power for their versatility, but that doesn't mean 4E should do things the same way.

 

[Daeger]

I recall something along the lines of "any class, any combination, works" being bandied about a few months ago. That might be technically true, but only if your idea of multiclassing is a light dip, you're willing to be four feats and a paragon class behind the rest of the party for the sake of concept, and you happen to pick a class combination which is actually synergistic - something which 4E doesn't seem to solve much better than 3E did. Heck, you can't even multiclass three classes!

My thoughts exactly. I'm disappointed that if any solution does arise - we're going to have to wait for supplements. I am not satisfied with dabbling. I don't 'dabble' multiclassing. My multiclassed characters are almost always half and half.