Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Ximenes088]

Yip. That's pretty much what I was going to say in reply to the same question. Having one power from another class isn't multiclassing. It's just another power. To multiclass, you need to capture the flavor of what the multiclass suggests. A fighter/wizard should act like one. He shouldn't be a fighter that's capable of only a fireball once per encounter. He should be more. Likewise a Cleric of Trickery, such as a cleric/rogue, should be more than just a cleric with one rogue power that allows him to tumble, for example. I don't think feat multiclassing does enough to justify the term 'multiclass'.

Pinotage

But if you're seriously investing in your multiclass, you have roughly 1/3 of your powers from your second class. Is one-third of you entire powerset not enough to give you the flavor you want, considering that third is as high-level as your primary class powers? A 10th level Fighter/Wizard isn't just getting a fireball 1/encounter, he's getting Scorching Blast 1/encounter, Fireball 1/encounter, a utility spell 1/encounter, and a daily. Three rounds out of every fight can be spent blasting AoE/hoodoo effects. Once he hits 11th level, he can grab the spell-shaping paragon feat and open up fights by throwing Scorching Blast on _himself_ to nuke everyone around him- or stand at ground zero of his own fireball. That's not a real fighter-mage?

 

[Pinotage]

But I agree that it's not the same as a 1:1 multiclass. You're two (maybe three) parts Fighter, and one part Wizard. Paragon-Multiclassing might add more, but you won't get parity.

Yeah, I wish they'd included the bit about paragon multiclassing as well. I think I'm just concerned that having one or two powers from another class doesn't really capture the concept of the particular multiclass well. I think paragon multiclassing can work - I just wish they'd allow it sooner rather than at strict tier level.

Pinotage

 

[Green Knight]

Soldier of the Faith gives you Divine Challenge... as a per encounter ability. You cannot fulfill the role of defender in any meaningful way with that.

As you said, "If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling." You can, in fact, fulfill a second class role, even if it is crappy. Therefore it's not dabbling.

Besides, fulfilling the role is entirely dependent on the numbers of your opponents. If you're fighting a Solo creature then you're performing it just as well as any full-fledged Paladin. Even with greater numbers, you can still target the biggest, most powerful creature with Divine Challenge and keep him from attacking the weaker characters. That is fulfilling your role. You may not be able to do it twice or more per encounter, but so long as you use it on the toughest opponents, I doubt you'd have much cause to use it more then once.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

***forget it***

 

[Voss]

Daeger summed up my opinion perfectly here. I don't mind having a *single* multiclass feat, but requiring another one for each power swap is absurd.

What I find baffling about it, is that Star Wars SAGA has such a simple, elegant solution to effective multiclassing. Why not just emulate that? Unless FranktheDM's conspiricy theory is correct: make multiclassing suck (again) to encourage the need for more core classes. Suxxor.

Saga doesn't have any class features, though. Just crappy feats and crappy talent trees. The difference in what classes are plays a big role in the difference in multi-classing. Just picking up one of the starting feats and advancing normally in the class wouldn't work with the way D&D classes are constructed.

 

[rowport]

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.

Just a quick shout out to drothgery, who independently arrived at the same points that I did: (1) SWSE multiclassing is simple but effective, (2) this one is neither, so (3) there will be lots more core classes. Meh. I am not impressed.

 

[rowport]

Saga doesn't have any class features, though. Just crappy feats and crappy talent trees. The difference in what classes are plays a big role in the difference in multi-classing. Just picking up one of the starting feats and advancing normally in the class wouldn't work with the way D&D classes are constructed.

Voss-

I tend to agree; that is why class-based systems ultimately suck. D&D approached a point-based system in 3.0/3.5, and then reverted back heavily to class-based (and "role-based") in 4e. That is not progress, it limits options.

I like simplicity in the rules-- I am having a blast playing Star Wars SAGA Edition because our rules mavens and our theatre guys are both effective. But, simplicity at the cost of options is completely lame.

EDIT: On a related thought, I was very, very skeptical about how multiclassing would play out months ago, when there was some discussion about how much those rules were in flux during playtesting. I see now why. And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as "concept." If I consider my options at level up, and realize that multiclassing is suboptimal, I have a mechanical reason not to do it. I think that sucks.

 

[Pinotage]

Aside from being able to write Fighter X / Wizard Y on your character sheet, what does the new system of multiclassing lack in terms of actual use in-game? You say they should be more, but you don't say what's specifically missing.

Well, it's not an easy question to answer unless we've actually seen the entire system and read the books. I just think that having a few powers from another class doesn't make you a multiclass, and I'm starting to think that's an inherent problem with having a 'powers' system where abilities are so strictly defined. It's also hard to answer this without comparing this to 3e and earlier editions.

I think the way I see it is that by your base, you're still a fighter. And you've tacked on a few wizard powers. Not having seen the wizard class in full, I think there will be quite a few things that define being a wizard aside from his powers. The fighter never gets these. There are a few rogue abilities, for example, that aren't powers, but are defining parts of the rogue class. A multiclass won't get these. He might get a few powers, but he never gets what defines the class. I think that's what's missing.

I think paragon multiclassing will work much better, since you're second class is much more defined. I don't think powers alone define a class in 4e.

Pinotage

 

[Knight Otu]

Interesting...
I can definitely see why the 2-class limit is in place. Someone taking the three striker multiclass feats, for example... doesn't mean I like it. Maybe at some point, there might be secondary multiclass feats allowing for less dangerous multi-classing.
I'm kind of surprised there seems to be no feat to swap or gain at-will powers, outside the ones granted by the multiclass feats themselves (which change category anyway). That would go quite some way for better flavor, I think.
Three powers plus some features is dabbling, no doubt. As said, it is more of a 1/4 multiclassing than a 1/2 multiclassing. Maybe the power-swap feats can be taken multiple times?
I'm not sure if the feat cost is right, too low, or too steep, but I'm leaning towards too steep. I'll have to see how it works in practice.

 

[Pinotage]

But if you're seriously investing in your multiclass, you have roughly 1/3 of your powers from your second class. Is one-third of you entire powerset not enough to give you the flavor you want, considering that third is as high-level as your primary class powers? A 10th level Fighter/Wizard isn't just getting a fireball 1/encounter, he's getting Scorching Blast 1/encounter, Fireball 1/encounter, a utility spell 1/encounter, and a daily. Three rounds out of every fight can be spent blasting AoE/hoodoo effects. Once he hits 11th level, he can grab the spell-shaping paragon feat and open up fights by throwing Scorching Blast on _himself_ to nuke everyone around him- or stand at ground zero of his own fireball. That's not a real fighter-mage?

Without having to retype what I mentioned in another post, I don't think powers alone define a class. Or at least I hope it's not the case in 4e. I might be wrong, but we've seen abilities in classes that are not powers, and the multiclass doesn't get these. I also think that many powers are going to be very similar in a way, just affecting a different defense, for example, and that to make feat multiclassing work you'll need to very carefully select the powers you want. Is a fighter with the rogue multiclass feat and the tumble power a rogue? I don't think so. Having the ability to tumble doesn't define being a rogue.

Pinotage