Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Rechan]

Even if another member of the party can do it better in general, that doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be redundant. There are cases--many cases--where having two party members capable of doing the same thing, even if one is worse at it, is extremely valuable. If a bunch of enemies are clustered together, and the wizard blasts them all, it may still be a good idea for the warlord/wizard to blast them all again. If the situation is reversed, and the bunched-together party just took a massive hit from an enemy controller, it can be extremely handy to have a second character to help with the healing.

Forget even bothering to add MC into the mix; I anticipate that many parties will have two people of one role in them.

Hell, if 5 party members is the new standard, then I think two of one role is even expected since there's only 4 roles.

 

[Gargazon]

I haven't finished reading through the thread, yet, so maybe somebody's already mentioned this, but... I don't see where it says you can take any of the power-swap feats only once. It seems that if you wanted to, you could spend all your feats on swapping out powers with your secondary class, which could end up making a fighter look quite magey.

Um... unless it says explictly in a feat's description, you can only ever take the feat once. Y'know, like you couldn't take power attack twice in 3.5.

 

[JohnSnow]

*scratches head* So no one ever used 3e multiclassing rules? Huh?

Oh, they used them. They just complained bitterly about how their spellcasting was "subpar" or their lower-level spells were "worthless." So yeah, people used them. They just hated them.

Any quotes for that? I think you are straw-manning here.

1st, 2nd and 3.5 all allowed decently balanced, multi-role characters. 4e doesn't. I have no problem with the mechanics as presented, but I find their name, multi-classing, to be dishonest.

For everyone complaining about 3e spell-casting multi-classing: yes, 3.0's spell-caster MCing was broken-weak. However, 3.5 fixed it by the simple addition of the Theurge type PrCs. The final equation was: 2 classes=-3 caster level, +/- 1. 3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance. 4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.

Emphasis mine.

As for quotes to support that some people are asking for precisely that, there's plenty on pages 6-10 of the thread. I read them all. I don't feel like going back and pulling specific examples. Anyone who's claiming you should be able to have all the powers of a cleric and all the powers of a wizard (without spending feats) is asking to be as good as their single classed counterparts of the same level.

People aren't complaining it can't be done. They're complaining that it's unfair that you should have to "waste a feat" to do it. Or, alternatively, that the cost is too high. Moving on...

Given the way 1st and 2nd Edition XP worked, a 1st Edition Fighter/Wizard 6 was in a party with a Wizard 7 and a Fighter 7 (roughly, I don't have my 2e XP tables handy). Compared to the wizard, he's missing his best spell and he's one hit die down, but he's got fighter hit points and to-hit, and he can wield fighter weapons and wear armor. Compared to the fighter, he's lagging behind 1 point on his to-hit, but has the full range of spells available to a 6th-level wizard. You're telling me that's balanced? Are you high?!

With more balance XP tables and exponential power growth, 3e's "balance" via prestige classes works - kinda. It's a band-aid, but it works. On the other hand, it's pretty suboptimal at low levels. For instance, the Mystic Theurge has to be at least 3rd-level in each class, so by the time he takes his prestige class, he's 7th level, and still casting 2nd-level spells. By contrast, his single-classed counterparts are casting 4th-level spells and have basically been kicking his ass for 4 levels now. Things start to improve at 8th when he gets 3rd-level spells, but that's 8th-level, almost halfway through the (non-Epic) game.

The 3e system is also ridiculously beneficial to dipping. You get WAY too much for taking a 1 or 2-level dip into, say, fighter (and many other classes). As such, they can only give so much to classes at 1st-level, so that sometimes iconic features must be postponed until later levels (c.f. the 3.5 ranger). That's a bug of the 3e system. It's one that SWSE fixed.

All of the above are just my own observations, not (necessarily) gospel truth.

 

[JohnSnow]

Um... unless it says explictly in a feat's description, you can only ever take the feat once. Y'know, like you couldn't take power attack twice in 3.5.

And of course, you've read the feat descriptions? Or see them in the article? 'Cuz I sure don't. Those kind of things have never shown up in the table.

There were many feats you could take twice, provided they weren't stacking, but instead applying to different areas. For example, off the top of my head, you could take the following feats multiple times:

Martial Training (from Tome of Battle)
Martial Stance (from Tome of Battle)
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Skill Focus
Spell Focus (and Greater Spell Focus)
Weapon Focus (and Greater Weapon Focus)

Not totally sure about the names of the first two. My copy of ToB is at home. All of those feats are things that add new capabilities to your character, rather than boosting existing ones. That's exactly the situation with these cross-training feats. Ergo, it stands to reason to assume they'll follow similar rules (especially regarding the Tome of Battle example, the guts of which we have been told were back-converted from 4E).

 

[Mouseferatu]

For everyone complaining about 3e spell-casting multi-classing: yes, 3.0's spell-caster MCing was broken-weak. However, 3.5 fixed it by the simple addition of the Theurge type PrCs. The final equation was: 2 classes=-3 caster level, +/- 1. 3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance. 4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.

See, here's where your argument runs off the rails, for me.

In 3.5, you couldn't get the 50/50 half-caster character with just multiclassing. You had to add a PrC, most of which (except the mystic theurge itself) weren't core.

In 4E, you can't get the 50/50 half-caster character with just multiclassing; you'll need one of the forthcoming classes, like the swordmage.

I see no real difference between the two, except that one uses the term "multiclass" and one doesn't. In both cases, though, you have to use a new mechanic in addition to the multiclassing.

So, 4E has a system that handles dabbling well (and, at least for some people, arguably better than prior systems), but needs new mechanics for an even split. The same was true of 3.5. Where's the big difference?

 

[pawsplay]

That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing. The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster. Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.

I never had the chance to look it up before, but is this seriously the Pun-pun that causes all the brouhaha?

Pun-pun is a worse case scenario. But he shows what a bad idea Supernatural Transformation is.

 

[WhatGravitas]

So, 4E has a system that handles dabbling well (and, at least for some people, arguably better than prior systems), but needs new mechanics for an even split. The same was true of 3.5. Where's the big difference?

I don't know if this is true, but I have the feeling that it's more than dabbling.

Using the generic wizard/fighter:

Play a wizard, pick up the multi class feats. Pick up a fighter paragon path or the fighter class as paragon path. Then sink all your feats into melee-related feats and feats that make you sturdier (Toughness), since you fulfil the prerequisites for fighter-only feats/options.

This sounds much closer to 50/50 than dabbling - it's at least something like 30/20.

Cheers, LT.

 

[mach1.9pants]

As an aside to the main discussion going on I think that the class specific feats are pretty good value. Because not only do you get the power/class feature from the class you also get training in a skill for that feat. So unless the skill training feat gives you 2 skills trained it is a good feat to get even if you don't want the power just the skill.

 

[mach1.9pants]

This sounds much closer to 50/50 than dabbling - it's at least something like 30/20.Cheers, LT.

That applies to halfling fighters only

 

[Rechan]

I don't know if this is true, but I have the feeling that it's more than dabbling.

Using the generic wizard/fighter:

Play a wizard, pick up the multi class feats. Pick up a fighter paragon path or the fighter class as paragon path. Then sink all your feats into melee-related feats and feats that make you sturdier (Toughness), since you fulfil the prerequisites for fighter-only feats/options.

This sounds much closer to 50/50 than dabbling - it's at least something like 30/20.

Cheers, LT.

Really, I think you'd get more benefit out of going Fighter, then multiying into Wizard. You get all your Defender HP/defs, surges, plus the stuff that makes a controller a controller. It's the better of the 30/20 split.