Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Mokona]

having fireball avaliable when you don't have a controller is /definately/ worth a feat, as far as I'm concerned.

Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Therefore, there is no benefit in Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.

If you are an Arcane controller dabbling in Psionic controller you're just trying to get more flavor or very slightly different powers. This isn't worth a feat unless feats are a dime-a-dozen.

If you are a Striker dabbling in Controller powers you're just trying to get a certain flavor (perhaps because they party of five characters has two full Strikers of which you're one but only one Controller) or you're trying to cover for the Controller if they're overwhelmed/temporarily disabled. This is not worth a feat if I only get 10 but it would be worth a feat if I got 30 feats.

What resource is used to make magic items? I'd say that is about the level of power/resource I'd be willing to give up in order to swap a power I already get for a slightly different power. Or, if all multiclass powers were less often (at-will becomes encounter, encounter becomes daily) then you wouldn't need any cost at all.

 

[Charwoman Gene]

Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Mokona is incorrect. They've said the game is very playable with alternate mixes, but basically assumes you have the rough capabilities of the 4 roles.

I've seen Mike Mearls say as much at I-Con and at Gen Con Last year. Please provide you repeated evidences to support your assertion.

Companies can't state things. They are not people.
Games can't desire things.

 

[That One Guy]

This is long.

I think the best multi-classing will come from half-elves. I'm afraid that it might be worthless for anyone else to multi-class, because all a person acquires is a skill and one ability usable sometimes. The most absolute glaring flaw is that one cannot determine what one borrows from another class. If a ranger wanted to be tactical he should be able to grab a Warlord or Cleric power, not just their healing abilities once per day. If there are truly only one feat/class available then it will defeat a lot of players' hopes.

Ironically, I do like the system for flavour-oriented characters (or half-elves). I assume that the sample half-elf warlock does not have Arcane Initiate because she does not have that feat listed, not the Arcana skill. Under that assumption, a fighter as base class could pick up Scorching Blast 1/encounter and Magic Missile 1/encounter. If this gishy fighter fights five encounters, then he/she will be able to get 5 uses out of each spell/day. Going backwards is not as effective (unless the fighter's Combat abilities are actually feats that they can acquire... then anyone can be as sticky and I retract complaints) because the wizard can blast a lot more spells, but his/her health is not as good and w/out a feat cannot wear heavier armour. Hypothetically, the wizard/fighter could get toughness, heavy armourprof, and the fighter training feat... but even a half-elf wizard/fighter wouldn't feel as right as the other way around. (Also, I dislike no ability to acquire cantrips as a nonwizard. Night Haunt forever. A side complaint against 4e - I want Orisons.)

By the way, half-elf Fighter/paladin is pretty groovy.

Another complaint that has been expressed, and is quite valid, is the fact that the chart does not list Sneak of Shadows as getting First Strike. That makes the person a lot less valid as a Fighter/Rogue (unless they pick up Seize the Moment from Paragon-level feats... but that's just dumb). Also, I think the Sneak Attack 1/encounter means once per fight a successful hit that would trigger a sneak attack automatically does, since sneak attack is something that normally triggers as long as its reqs are met (I imagine one could actively attempt not to have it trigger for that fight... but that seems odd to me, unless it's a minion).

Posssibility... every few levels the 1/duration abilities increase in number. Even if it was every third level, that would be beneficial.

As far as fighters go... "Fighter: skill training, +1 to attack and mark 1/encounter" not having a comma after the word attack is not actually indicative of anything. It could be a typo or be using the dated grammar style where lists do not use the comma adjacent to and.

My overall conclusion is that it works for some character concepts, and can be done effectively if one multi-classes in certain directions correctly... However it is sorely weak when multi-classing in the opposite direction, and in some situations the multi-class concept completely fails regardless of direction (Unless more feats are revealed, or the feats listed scale in effectiveness).

 

[Ximenes088]

Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Therefore, there is no benefit in Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.

Uh, where do they say this? Having each role filled is good, and they've said it's what they're assuming, but nowhere have I seen them claim that "no group should exist that doesn't have" one of each. In fact, I seem to recall Mike Mearls indicating that you could run an entire no-magic campaign with Warlords, Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters. No Controllers in that list.

 

[zsek320]

I think our problem is that we are yet to see the whole picture.

We do not have a list of all the feats that core will have nor do we have a list of all the powers each class will have. We also do not know all of the paragon paths that will be released.

Depending on the ruling there might be the possibility of gaining 3 classes (base, multiclass feat and paragon replacement) with a final Epic path (for a total of 4) and perhaps you can replace an epic path with a paragon path.

Unfortunately the multiclass article seems to have brought up more questions than answers...

 

[Patlin]

Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Find me a party of 3 "smart enough" to handle all four roles without multiclassing.

I think you are misinterpreting Wizards. It's advisable to have all four classes, just as it's always been advisable to have a balanced party. i've played in a lot of parties that are not balanced, however, and you can still be succesfull and have fun without all roles being filled.

 

[Kobold Avenger]

What resource is used to make magic items? I'd say that is about the level of power/resource I'd be willing to give up in order to swap a power I already get for a slightly different power.

Apparently all you need is the Ritual Casting Feat, which really doesn't have anything to offer in combat, but a lot to offer out of combat. Since not only you can create magic items, you can also cast spells like Alarm, Fire Trap, Remove Disease, Phantom Steed, Locate Object, Remove Curse, Commune, Speak With Dead and more... And apparently any class can take that feat if they want to.

 

[Green Knight]

because all a person acquires is a skill and one ability usable sometimes. The most absolute glaring flaw is that one cannot determine what one borrows from another class. If a ranger wanted to be tactical he should be able to grab a Warlord or Cleric power, not just their healing abilities once per day. If there are truly only one feat/class available then it will defeat a lot of players hopes.

You might want to read the whole thing...

 

[SuperGnome]

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.

This bumps into something I've been thinking about, and this thread made me think about more. We're sort of playing with two approaches to a roleplaying system: Class based and Skills based (which I prefer to think of as Modular).

Old D&D (up to 2e prolly, but including the red box and other 'basic' sets) was strictly class-based. Your rogue was your go-to guy for traps, your wizard casted arcane spells, your cleric healed, etc. You chose your roll. End of story. 2e did work in multiclassing, but it was still class based.

3.x was MUCH more modular. You could mix and match different feats/skills and could emulate other classes to a much higher degree, and be far more successful at combining them to suit your character concepts. The strict Class-based system was pretty flimsy at that point, and it leaned far more towards a Modular approach IMO.

4e seems to be providing a much more controlled atmosphere, while still avoiding being more Modular or more Class based. It's a different approach than 3e, but closer to that than the more strict Class based ideal of past versions.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not.
Do I like the idea of Class-based systems? I do from a standpoint of simplicity and nostalgia, but I've -always- been quickly bored with going through the same progression over and over.
Do I like the idea of a stricly Modular system? I do for the versatility, but would it seem to water down the classic nostalgia of the core classes? It could, but I doubt that'd be the case.
Do I like somewhere in between (a la 3e and 4e)? It does offer each of the core ideas of the other two options, but pulls in both of their flaws as well.

The way multiclassing works in 4e seems pretty sweet to me, but I can't say I'd call it multiclassing in the traditional sense (and I know 4e is supposed to be pretty nontraditional). If I think about it against the backdrop of fantasy fiction and character concept without the chronology of D&D multiclassing, it seems pretty slick to me.

Anyone still reading this?

*just to qualify my use of "Modular" vs "Skills Based" - Imagine a pool of abilities (Combat, Arcane Spells, Stealth, etc...) or feats for that matter... just the elements each class is built of. You could pick and choose these in a skills based system in a modular fashion, and with no limit on which you could combine.

[edit] - Unless I'm mistaken here... Skills Based could be everyone has the same skills and assigns points to what they want to be good at. Occurred to me after I submitted. And btw, the 2e DMG had rules for modular character class creation by assigning points to various abilities from the classes. Since that was back in the days of non-standard class level progression, you didn't really have a ceiling if I recall.. in any case, it was a cool effort, but ended up being a mess.

 

[Lacyon]

Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Therefore, there is no benefit in Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.

Both of these statements are the opposite of true.