Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Green Knight]

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.

The designers have talked about three class multiclassing, so I think it's still a possibility. For instance, you can trade out your Paragon Path for additional multiclassing. I imagine that doing so will allow you to take abilities from some other class unrelated to any multiclassing Feats you may have. So, for example, I may start with a Cleric character, and then take four Feats to multiclass as a Ranger. Then I could potentially trade in my Paragon Path in order to then multiclass into a Wizard. That may very well be a possibility.

 

[Valamyr]

The first feat and the 1-class limitations are fine by me... and the paragon paths mechanics looks okay.

But the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, Adept Power thingies are ridiculously underpowered, thats wasted feats if it works as written...

Here's my understanding of how it should work; at levels 4, 8, and 10, if you have picked a multiclass feat, you automatically get the option to swap a power if you wish. Why would feats be wasted? You shouldnt have to trade usefulness for flavor. I'm guessing we are misreading the article or something...

 

[Mathew_Freeman]

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'm really not seeing this.

From what the excerpt says, you can choose ANY base class, add class powers from ANY other class - and you think this isn't going to lead to diversity and customisation?

Now I can create a smart fighter, who, at 15th level (if you get a feat at 15th, anyway) can take a Wizard power to allow him to fly. Or a Cleric who can fade into Shadows, as befits a Cleric of Illusion. Or a Warlock who channels the power of the Far Realms to heal his friends...or a million varieties that take things out of the Fighter / Wizard / Cleric / Rogue core ideas.

This article leads to MORE customisation and more diversity, not less.

When you say it eliminates multi-classing, I agree that the days of the fighter10/wizard10 are gone - but frankly I think it's a good thing, and that that sort of multiclassing was certainly not more customisable than 4e is shaping up to be.

 

[FourthBear]

I like the system overall, although that's not a big surprise since I'm a fan of strong, central character classes in D&D. Even in 3e, I never really saw the "problem" with multiclassed spellcasters having a significant knock in power. If you don't focus, why should you expect to be near the level of character who *do* focus? I actually disliked the fact that classes like rogue and fighter got relatively little at higher levels, so there was little reason to stick with them. This made other people happy, since you could multiclass these "easily", because you were giving up so little. I always wished that not gaining those high level fighter or barbarian levels was actually a somewhat painful trade-off, rather than "Meh, I'm not missing much and gaining a whole raftload of novel class abilities that stack great! Multiclassing martial classes is great! They don't get anything cool at high levels!" OK, that's an exaggeration, but this *is* the internet.

Given that the DMG is going to be apparently focused on how DMs can customize and make changes that suit their own campaigns, I'd guess that there will be a discussion of altering the multiclassing rules. Mearls has already noted that 4e could be changed into a classless game much more easily than previous editions and I think we can certainly see how. For those campaigns that don't mind quadruple classed character concepts and easy access to class features, I think that the house rules to break those barriers down should be pretty straightforward. Just allowing anyone taking a Class Training feat to select that classes' powers as a straight swap (will to will, encounter to encounter) doesn't seem too crazy. I do think it might lead to lots of poorly conceived multiclassed characters because it does seem too much to me.

 

[Voss]

Some comments-

the article itself isn't written that well. The write-up of the power-swap feats took a couple readings to understand exactly what they were saying. Any sentence thats starts with 'Effectively, pretend...' isn't going to a good place. Its a sign post for 'we know we are writing this really poorly'.

However, it is largely what I expected, with an extra-versatility built in with the at each level swap (something other characters may not get to do). Though, like with retraining, that aspect is something I don't particularly care for. I can't forget how to dribble a soccer ball in order to instantly learn how to dribble a basketball. The lack of verisimilitude bothers me.

But, overall, I like it. I am also amused at how some of the 4e supporters are having a moment of doubt over this.

But, I like it- the only thing I'm particularly leery about is the only one class restriction. It seems as much a 'We must save you from making sub-par characters' as much as 'We must stop you from making something too good'.

The swap is what I expected. The initial feat with a skill and a bit extra is an interesting bonus. I am curious how things like hunter's quarry will work- the usable once per encounter is odd. I take it means that you can select one target as your quarry once per encounter, and it lasts until he falls or the end of the encounter, as normal, and not 'it lasts for one hit'. Pretty tasty ability for someone like a warlock to pick up. Curse and quarry = lots of damage.

Healing and Inspiring word are of course, good for anyone. Wizard training is useful, of course, since it allows someone to take a minion-clearance spell or two without anyone in the party saddling himself with the class-role just so the party has a controller.

The power swaps are good, both conceptually and mechanically. Yes, optimizers, there is a lot you can do. Take a warlord-wizard. Max out your INT, take your int based warlord powers, and when you run out, replace a str or cha based power with more INT based wizard powers. There's definitely some min-maxing potential here. At the same time there is a lot of room for dabblers, concepts and simple neat tricks. The Grey Mouser is almost perfect as a Rogue with wizard training at first level. And of course, unlike 3rd edition multiclassing, things are actually level appropriate, without giving you more stuff which would make you severely overpowered.

And I figure the paragon path replacement will work roughly the same way Khaalis does. Class features at 11 and 16, at will or something else, and then just powers at 11, 16, 20. It comes late, but it works.

 

[whydirt]

I think people are overlooking an important reason behind the feat cost of getting out-of-class powers. When you choose a power from another class, you're giving up the least useful power available from your main class for the most useful power from the new class. That difference in utility is paid for with the feat.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I like the system overall, although that's not a big surprise since I'm a fan of strong, central character classes in D&D. Even in 3e, I never really saw the "problem" with multiclassed spellcasters having a significant knock in power. If you don't focus, why should you expect to be near the level of character who *do* focus? I actually disliked the fact that classes like rogue and fighter got relatively little at higher levels, so there was little reason to stick with them. This made other people happy, since you could multiclass these "easily", because you were giving up so little. I always wished that not gaining those high level fighter or barbarian levels was actually a somewhat painful trade-off, rather than "Meh, I'm not missing much and gaining a whole raftload of novel class abilities that stack great! Multiclassing martial classes is great! They don't get anything cool at high levels!" OK, that's an exaggeration, but this *is* the internet.

Given that the DMG is going to be apparently focused on how DMs can customize and make changes that suit their own campaigns, I'd guess that there will be a discussion of altering the multiclassing rules. Mearls has already noted that 4e could be changed into a classless game much more easily than previous editions and I think we can certainly see how. For those campaigns that don't mind quadruple classed character concepts and easy access to class features, I think that the house rules to break those barriers down should be pretty straightforward. Just allowing anyone taking a Class Training feat to select that classes' powers as a straight swap (will to will, encounter to encounter) doesn't seem too crazy. I do think it might lead to lots of poorly conceived multiclassed characters because it does seem too much to me.

Your comment on 3E non-spellcasters "topping out" at level 10 gives me an interesting idea of extending tiers, which is only tangentially relevant to this discussion:
If people don't feel comfortable with Paragon or Epic Tiers, they could instead gain powers from other classes.
If you've become a 10th level Fighter, you instead use paragon and epic path powers to gain new level 1-10 powers from different classes (or possibly your own class?). E10 is the new E6. We knew that already, but this is an interesting way to achieve it, without letting the Paragon and Epic progression go to waste...

 

[neceros]

D&D is a class based system. If you take away the class, you don't have a system. Multiclassing is equivalent to being half, or worse, of a character.

In 3.5, Multiclassing was horrible. Multiclassing, by the way, involves Exp Penalties and ensuring you aren't too far apart in class levels. Prestige classes are not multiclassing.

Fourth Edition, as true to making life better, decided that Multiclassing as we know it will break, and would ruin the game (As it had many editions before it.) It's, instead, given us the illusion of multiclassing, so we can be happy without breaking our little characters into something unbalanced and under privileged.


I applaud Wizards for their work.

 

[el-remmen]

Just when I thought there could be nothing more about 4E I could dislike.

Actually, there have been some things lately that I found interesting, but I don't like this at all.

Mearls said it right in the article: This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3e system.

As soon as he mentioned swapping powers he lost me. Don't you think this overcomplicates the process? Esp. when creating characters starting at higher levels?

Also, the inability to triple class is lame, though looking at how this works, I can see how the swapping and regaining of powers would be even more complicated with 3 (or god forbid 4) classes.

If anything, it doesn't really seem like multi-classing at all, and thus is another step away from those core features of D&D that are familiar and comfortable for me.

Ah well. . . the world moves past us as we older. I'm getting used to it.

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I never felt 3E multi-classing was broken. I just think certain playstyles lead to taking adventage of possibilities it technically allows (or for certain combinations to become useless in the context of that particular gameplay), but also think that people who play that way (not that there's anything wrong with it) are always going to find ways to manipulate and take advantage of rules - so confining the rules based on that playstyle is the equivalent to the other end of the spectrum where the DM is expected to handle all aspects of game balance.

 

[Klaus]

Sounds much less intuitive, with the "swap, then get it back, then swap again".

We need to see the rules for Retraining to get a full notion of how multiclassing works. One of the best characters in my 3.x campaign started as a Wizard, then started dabbling into Rogue, and then the rapier-wielding took over as she became a sort of bladesinger. So in the end she was neither a wizard who dabbled as a rogue, nor a rogue who dabbled as a wizard.