Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Green Knight]

Here's my question: we know humans get a bonus at-will power at first level. If they take a multiclass feat at first level, can they choose that bonus at-will from the other class?

Damn, that is a good question. I hope so.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Not too well. First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class. Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multi classing. 4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization. One more reason not to switch.

It is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization by multi classing multiple classes.
But ~80 powers and approximately 15 feat slots instead of 7 feat slots seem to open up entirely new ways to customize your specific character.

It could also help that we might not get boring stuff like "Better Attack Bonus", "Even Better Attack Bonus", "More Damage", "Even More Damage", "More Damage and More Attack Bonus - Yay!!" customization. Or "Improved Combat Maneuver", "A better Improved Combat Maneuver" "Use Combat Maneuver in a different situation then usual", or "Cast the Same Spell, but better" types of customization. Though this hope might be premature.

 

[Wormwood]

Honestly, I'm fine with all this because dabbling is more interesting... if you're doing a half and half or a triple class I'd rather just make a brand new class that fills the role more precisely.

Exactly. A gish class is inherently more interesting to me than a 3e half-fighter, half-wizard.

 

[katahn]

Not too well. First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class. Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing. 4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization. One more reason not to switch.

Actually it was 3e that was the kick in the pants, not 4e. Although 4e isn't necessarily making it much better it certainly isn't making it worse. 3e multiclassing simply did not work for any caster multiclasses other than possibly some combinations of cleric/melee or druid/melee. Heavy restrictions on caster level and failure with armored arcane spellcasting and limited to lower level spells that were easier for higher level things to save against all made a lot of the traditional multiclassing tropes a fast way to a gimped character.

4e, even with limited feat-based MCing, will absolutely handle the fighter/arcane caster trope considerably better than 3e ever could. That is, better than 3e could without resorting to the over-used workaround of prestige classing. I lost count of the number of 3e prestige classes that were designed around fighter/wizard and included special abilities to reduce arcane spell failure for casting in armor...

So criticize 4e multiclassing all you like, but please don't pretend that 3e multiclassing was somehow better for anything other than fighter/rogue or melee/CoDzilla combinations without inventing whole new classes.

 

[Polyhedral_Columbia]

Overall I like it. Two snags for me:

1) The limit to two classes feels like 4e lopped off a happy AD&D tradition. Surely there's some way a three multiclass system could work, even if it was mostly a token rule. For example, the third multiclass might provide an even smaller set of class features. I'm not opposed to limiting it to three classes though, since this was the maximum number in First Edition.

2) The Fighter multiclass name, "Student of the Sword" doesn't seem to fit with Fighters who use other weapons besides Swords. I'd rather the name be something like "Student of the Fight".

Travis

 

[DonAdam]

I too am fine with mechanics treating dabbling and even-splits as different creatures, and requiring new classes for the latter.

This is especially true when classes are not only concepts but also "roles." Trying to get a middle of the road character would probably be too swingy.

Also, the "mix" classes will have to fit a role, which is probably a good thing. Relatedly, I'm *hoping* that Bladesinger will be an Arcane Striker instead of a Paragon Path for Sword Mage.



Do we know that you can only take the power-swap feats once each? Seems like it would be a natural fit for taking multiple times.

 

[Engilbrand]

This is a much simpler system. I like it. It adds some versatility to a class, which is definitely a good thing. The only thing that I see that could be tricky (and I realize that this may be covered somewhere else) is the inherent problem of a character changing over time.
Mike's a Wizard. After adventuring for 5 years, he realizes that he's satisfied with his body of knowledge and would like to move on to learning something else. He wants to learn the ways of the Rogue, too.
In 3.5, Mike would have 8 levels of Wizard and then start taking Rogue. In 4th, though, he would probably just start taking the multiclass feats as he levels up. He may even then take a Paragon Path for a Rogue to emphasize his growing skills. What's the problem that I see? Well, he's just as powerful as he's always been, even though he's not focusing on his spellcasting.
That's the only problem that I have. Thankfully, it's a minor one that I can easily live with. I'll probably stay with one class, throw in a little bit of something else, and then happily take my Paragon Path. I'm not too worried about a character making a major change like that.
In retrospect, though, after taking enough of the multiclass feats, it would probably make sense to retrain to being a Rogue with Wizard feats. That would show that his arcane abilities are starting to atrophy and he's becoming specialized as a Rogue.
Well, I think I just completely solved my minor "problem" with the whole multiclassing thing.


For those who have problems with the whole "only 2" thing:
Picture, if you will, a college kid. He's studying Law, Medicine and Education. He does his internship to be a doctor. After school, he becomes a teacher who practices a little law on the weekend. Eventually, he decides to just focus on teaching.
You can only really have one career. Anything else is a job. As time goes on, our hypothetical student probably forgot a lot of his medical stuff. When he's old and ready to retire, he probably won't be up to date on current laws and will probably have forgotten most of the things he used to know.
In 3.5, they would have you believe that, at the age of 75, this guy would still be as fine a doctor as he was 50 years before, he could be thrown into a courtroom after being out of one for 45 years and be just as effective as he was back then, and he was as good a teacher as he was a few years before that (which makes sense). Technically, though, 3.5 wouldn't be able to recognize the teaching and lawyering as happening at the same time.
In 4E, though, by the age of 75, he's forgotten nearly everything about medicine, enough that it doesn't even really matter anymore. He spent most of his life as a teacher, so has all of his class levels there, and he might have a few "feats" when it comes to being a lawyer.
Is 4E perfect? Nope. I'm sure that you can come up with arguments against it. Does it make more sense than 3.5? Yes.

 

[katahn]

Overall I like it. Two snags for me:

1) The limit to two classes feels like 4e lopped off a happy AD&D tradition. Surely there's some way a three multiclass system could work, even if it was mostly a token rule. For example, the third multiclass might provide an even smaller set of class features. I'm not opposed to limiting it to three classes though, since this was the maximum number in First Edition.

2) The Fighter multiclass name, "Student of the Sword" doesn't seem to fit with Fighters who use other weapons besides Swords. I'd rather the name be something like "Student of the Fight".

Travis

I don't know, I think it would be possible to hit three class combinations (sort of) with paragon rules. The "multiclass" option doesn't imply needing feat-based multiclassing as a prerequisite, at least not that way I read it.

Class A, multiclas via feats into B
Paragon -> add multiclass into C instead of taking a paragon path.

If the option exists with epic, you could theoretically have a character strong in 3 roles with dabbling into a 4th via feats.

Epic -> add multiclass into D instead of taking an epic path.

You wouldn't have the cool ultra-specialized toys of a paragon or epic path necessarily, but you'd have an amazing range of versatility. Might be worth it.

 

[DonAdam]

Mike's a Wizard. After adventuring for 5 years, he realizes that he's satisfied with his body of knowledge and would like to move on to learning something else. He wants to learn the ways of the Rogue, too...
In retrospect, though, after taking enough of the multiclass feats, it would probably make sense to retrain to being a Rogue with Wizard feats. That would show that his arcane abilities are starting to atrophy and he's becoming specialized as a Rogue.

This was my first concern too, but I think you've hit upon the right solution. If a player really went this way, I'd build in a span of time between tiers for plausibility and let them "reinvent" the character in between.

 

[Torchlyte]

Not too well. First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class. Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing. 4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization. One more reason not to switch.

I challenge you to find me a character concept that cannot be accomodated with these multiclassing rules. I will then show you that you are wrong.