Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Green Knight]

Presuming that those powers exist at those levels, for which we have no evidence.

Check out the Tiers article.

 

[TwoSix]

I think the strongest multi-class options will be ones where you chose a paragon path for the class you have dabbled in via feats. The Rogue-Kensai people have mentioned seems a lot more exciting and thematic than a Rogue-Fighter, for instance.

Warlord with Arcane Initiate into Battle Mage makes me all kinds of giddy, personally.

 

[Cadfan]

I can all but guarantee that my first character will be an elf rogue multiclassed into ranger. Gets me the Nature skill, Hunter's Quarry once per encounter (which is all you need it for versus a solo), and opens me up to use things like Fox's Cunning to add a little extra mobility to what will probably be a brawny rogue who uses daggers and shuriken. That's probably worth two feats. I consider 4e Skill Training feats to be worthwhile, so this is probably worth it as well.

 

[Kraydak]

With four feats, a third of your powers come from another class. With paragon slots, half of your powers are from another class. This is dabbling?

And as for them being "parlor tricks", I think you're getting 4e confused with 3e. _3e_ let you trade 9th level sorcerer spells for 2nd level cleric spells. Your 4e multiclass abilities will be maximum-level powers- that is, the _opposite_ of dabbling in parlor tricks.

Going by the DDXP sample characters, the abilities a fighter gets to fulfill the role of defender... are not Exploits. You cannot act as a defender, even if you invest heavily in fighter MC. If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling.

Of course, being able to pick up a second class-role through feats would probably be overpowered, which is why previous editions made doing so cost levels.

 

[el-remmen]

I contend that it is a better design, and will tend to create far fewer silly loopholes and overpowered characters.

Well, we can only hope so. . . But I have little faith this is true. I have more faith (if it can be called that) in gamers' ability to find ways to manipulate and abuse the rules than I do in designers to foresee the ways in which this is accomplished.

What I posted in the "EDIT" of my original post still stands.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm pretty happy with it. "Fill multiple roles with less power" never really worked all that well unless the DM took it specifically into account, because "maximum power" was often a near-requirement for dealing with the baddies. Though I'll agree that it hardly seems like "true multiclassing," I'm totally okay with only legendary heroes being able to both cast powerful magic and wield mighty blades.

 

[drothgery]

I foresee lots of custom classes.

Well, yeah. A SWSE-style extremely multiclass-friendly (especially with a few common house rules) setup would, unfortunately, negatively impact WotC's ability to sell books with new classes in them. If you can make a perfectly good gish out of a fighter with wizard training or a wizard with fighter training, then you don't need the book with the swordmage in it.

 

[Gimby]

I can see where people who don't think this is "real" multiclassing are coming from, particularly in reference to older editions.

Comparing 3e to 4e multiclassing, in 3e when taking a level of the new class, you got their Hit Dice, weapon and armour proficiencies, BAB, saves, skills, skill points per level and class features.

In 4e however, everyone has the same save, attack bonus and skill advancement rate. Difference in healing surges are similar to getting a max HD at first level. The missing trained skill is similar to getting 4x skill points at first level. The class features are similar to powers.

Given this, the difference between 3e and 4e multiclassing seems to be that you don't get the hit dice and proficiencies of the new class when you take the multiclassing feats, and that multiclassing costs feats.

In 3e though, to make multiclassing really worthwhile would also cost feats (Practiced Spellcaster and so on). Plus you only got access to low-level versions of each classes powers, while in 4e you get access to level appropriate versions of both classes powers.

I'm not seeing too much of a difference.

 

[Green Knight]

Going by the DDXP sample characters, the abilities a fighter gets to fulfill the role of defender... are not Exploits. You cannot act as a defender, even if you invest heavily in fighter MC. If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling.

Soldier of the Faith gives you the Paladins Divine Challenge ability right at first level. It's that ability that makes a Paladin a Defender. Student of the Sword gives you the ability to mark, but it's not clear what that means, if you gain the combat challenge ability. Either way, you can partially fill the rolls of other classes through these multiclass feats, and right at first level.

Soldier of the Faith gives you some ability to be a Defender. Sneak of Shadows and Warrior of the Wild give you some ability to be a Striker. And Initiate of the Faith and Student of Battle gives you a bit of the healing ability of a Leader.

 

[Klaus]

As I mentioned before, it may very well be possible to multiclass into a third class by trading in the Paragon Path. The two class restriction is only in relation to those four feats and nothing more. It doesn't say anything about applying to multiclassing by trading in a Paragon Path.

In addition, the designers have explicitly mentioned multiclassing three classes. Doubt that would've come up if you couldn't do it.

No, not really.

All Paragon Paths have a Prerequisite, that being the class from which that Paragon Paths spins out of (Justiciar has "Requirement: Paladin"). So you can only choose a Paragon Path from your class, or from the class of your Multiclass feat.