• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

I mentioned earlier that I liked the Power of Amaunator feat, and after a bit more thought, I have concluded that I would like the power swap feats more if they functioned like that feat.

As far as I know, Power of Amaunator does not require a cleric to lose one of his existing uses of Divine Channeling in order to gain it. Instead, it provides an additional option for Divine Channeling, even though in any one encounter, the cleric can only use one Divine Channeling ability.

I think the power swap feats could function in a similar fashion. When you take the Novice Power feat, you select one encounter ability from your secondary class. Once per encounter, you can use that ability, but you must expend another encounter ability from your primary class of that ability's level or higher. When you gain a level, you can change your choice of encounter ability from your secondary class.

In this manner, you're spending a feat to give you the option to use a power from your secondary class, but you are never worse off compared to a character who has not taken the feat. If the power swap feats were done in this way, I think they would be worth that feat.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mouseferatu said:
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?

Having had at it (4e multiclassing) for a while. How have you found it? Does it allow you to create concepts that are outside the the standard classes? As the core classes now seem a little more focused than in 3e.

If you multiclass have you found the character suffers much power loss compared too his peers?
 

IceFractal said:
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.

I agree that some of the 3E multiclasses gave up too much power for their versatility. But the problem was one of degree, not one of concept.

Versatility is worth a certain amount of power. If you can be equally as powerful as a single-classed character and more versatile, it's clearly the superior option. The solution is figuring out how much power loss is worth the versatility.
 

vagabundo said:
Having had at it (4e multiclassing) for a while. How have you found it? Does it allow you to create concepts that are outside the the standard classes? As the classes now seem a little more focused.

If you multiclass have you found the character suffers much power loss compare too his peers?

Nobody has done much multiclassing in my group; we all decided we wanted to start the new system with some pretty basic concepts. Nobody has taken anything more than the very first multiclass feat (the class-specific ones).

I think the system looks good for dabblers, less so for people who want 50/50. But most of that is based on my understanding of the system, as opposed to direct observation in play.
 

FireLance said:
As far as I know, Power of Amaunator does not require a cleric to lose one of his existing uses of Divine Channeling in order to gain it. Instead, it provides an additional option for Divine Channeling, even though in any one encounter, the cleric can only use one Divine Channeling ability.
The thing about PoA is that it's a rider. It's not a full on power in its own right, it just modifies another power with a boost of damage. A nice boost yes, but that's it.

In this manner, you're spending a feat to give you the option to use a power from your secondary class, but you are never worse off compared to a character who has not taken the feat. If the power swap feats were done in this way, I think they would be worth that feat.
The problem I have with this is that it's TOO good; why wouldn't someone take that? To expand their options, so they have something that can fill that hole when Encounter Power X doesn't fit the situation?
 

Mouseferatu said:
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.
Well, you probably know more about the rules than I do, but I would think it works out in the long run. The striker gains mass damage capability, but loses some single-target effectiveness. The party as a whole becomes better at dealing with masses of opponents, but less able to take out solo monsters. Given a variety of challenges (meaning: the DM does not specifically tailor the encounters to play to either the party's strengths or weaknesses), it's probably a wash.
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?
For me, at least, it's always been a question of how much power for how much versatility. In the case of the 4e power swap feats, it seems like too much power for too little versatility.
 

Rechan said:
The problem I have with this is that it's TOO good; why wouldn't someone take that? To expand their options, so they have something that can fill that hole when Encounter Power X doesn't fit the situation?

Because they might want to spend that feat slot on something else, of course.
 




Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top