Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Rechan]

Isn't that the exact problem some people have with the feat?

No! Their problem is that it's a waste.

Not only will normal feats offer plenty of appealing choices, they'll make a character more capable! But you're saying these power-swap feats will give access to different appealing choices, but without actually gaining any capability? And you're saying that's a good thing?

Of course you're gaining capability! You're getting abilities from someone else's list! You're getting something that makes you capable!

Are we talking past each other?

 

[FireLance]

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.

No, you're giving up the most useful power from your primary class for the most useful power from your secondary class of that level or lower. If you didn't have the option of picking from a secondary class, you would have picked the most useful power from your primary class, right?

 

[Wolv0rine]

Would all this "multiclassing or not" debate be a bit different if WotC just called these rules what they admittiedly are... Dual-classing?

Or would people say that these rules don't even do dual-classing well?

Just my random thought of the day

Nope, this isn't even Dual-Classing. Dual-Classing pretty much is a 50/50 split, dividing your XP 2 ways. This is... regulated cherry-picking.

 

[Bishmon]

Of course you're gaining capability! You're getting abilities from someone else's list! You're getting something that makes you capable!

At the expense of giving up an equal-level power from your own list! If I toss $5 in the garbage, and then take $5 from a friend, I haven't gained anything (except an angry friend).

But this is irrelevant, because of this:

To put it in 3e terms, let's say you're a 6th level cleric; you can cast say, 3 spells of 3rd level. But you only see two really good ones on the cleric list. Let's say that now you could pick a spell off the wizard's list, so you can pick the best 3rd level Arcane AND divine spells. All 3rd level spells are supposed to be equal with the other 3rd level spells, but we all know that some are better than others. Contagion doesn't hold a candle to searing light, etc.

So you're basing your comments on the assumption that powers of the same level will not be balanced. Ok. Fine. That will indeed make the multiclassing feats more useful. I'm not eager to see what those imbalances will do to the rest of the system, though.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

This is... regulated cherry-picking.

QFT...and I wish I had said that!

 

[small pumpkin man]

Its neither.

In both traditional multiclassing and dual-classing, you have full access to all of a class' powers for a given level, not this ability or that. This is more like the 2Ed Players Option PC building rules.

Don't get me wrong- I've proposed something like this 4Ed multiclassing for 3.X- but as a supplement to, not a replacement for multiclassing.

To me this change smacks a bit of Babies & Bathwater™- tossing a pretty intuitive system to a something else entirely because of a few details some people don't like.

You don't like the 3.X "level penalties" for multiclassing? Ditch them. You don't like how some classes are nearly barred from multiclassing? Ditch that rule too.

You don't like the loss of spellpower attendant to multiclassing? To that I say "Tough"- I see no reason why someone who devotes part of their time and effort to being a spellcaster should be as mystically powerful as someone who devotes all their time to the arcane arts.

Cutting off multiclassing from an entire power source was not "a few details". The idea that Arcane power is more "special" than other sources of power is exactly the type of geek wankery led us to so many editions of overpowered Wizards and people thinking monsters have to be spellcasters to be usable as proper enemies, and I'm so very happy 4e is getting rid of it.

 

[Kordeth]

At the expense of giving up an equal-level power from your own list! If I toss $5 in the garbage, and then take $5 from a friend, I haven't gained anything (except an angry friend).

By that logic, no power you pick up is a gain, because no matter what power you pick, you're giving up 3 or so equal-level powers from your class list. Do you see the logical flaw here? If I have three powers at third level, and gain another one at fourth level, I have gained a power. If that power is gained from my own class list, I'm "losing out" on anywhere from 3-5 (probably) other powers I could have taken at that level. What difference does it make whether I'm "giving up" powers from my own class list to pick the one I want from that list or "giving up" powers to pick from another class's list?

 

[Rechan]

At the expense of giving up an equal-level power from your own list! If I toss $5 in the garbage, and then take $5 from a friend, I haven't gained anything (except an angry friend).

But getting access to something that opens new options that you Would Not have had before is Worth a feat!

90% of the feats that we have seen seem applicable only in certain situations. +1 to Saving throws. +2 to AC only when you're beside two larger opponents. +2 against opportunity attacks. +2 when you use Encounter Power X. +3 When you use an Action Point. You don't give an enemy CA when you are surprised. You get weapon training with x weapons.

Those are very narrow, specific situations. They're like turn undead: they make you useful, only in this situation, or only by expanding your options slightly. How is getting trained in another skill, or access to these weapons over here, GREAT? It's not; it just an extention of an option. Just like the MC feats.

So you're basing your comments on the assumption that powers of the same level will not be balanced. Ok. Fine. That will indeed make the multiclassing feats more useful. I'm not eager to see what those imbalances will do to the rest of the system, though.

Grr. I'm not assuming that some powers will just flat out suck. But I am saying that not every option that everyone has in their class is going to appeal to them for their build.

For instance, if you're playing a Rogue who uses thrown weapons and crossbows, and you want to stay out of combat, you likely aren't going to pick up abilities that rely on melee attacks, or being in hand to hand combat, right? But all the rogue abilities we've seen rely on melee attacks.

So what do you do: you get access to another class's abilities that have more ranged options, such as a Ranger who has those nice ranged powers.

 

[Dormain1]

As someone who has enjoyed multiclassing and dualclassing for many years in all edition, i really dont mind the new rules, i dont think they are really true multi or dual classing as we know them and i can see how people would think it as cherry picking and false advertising

As per older ed. MC is advancing in two or more classes at the same time, slower and with lower level powers(CL, HP, thaco) but vastly more powerful overall

DC was when you stopped advancing in one class and started going up in another

3rd ed combined them and was open to abuse for cherrypicking which is what most well known examples of MC PC's are

So WotC decided to make it easier to cherrypick, more balanced, and harder to break but there will be no more double class advancing or triple etc

there will be less character builds and more character variations

someone will create a classless class like they did for d20

I will wait until we have all the rules before saying its great or not but as is it doesn't look so bad, hopefully there will be a way to turn those per day to per encounter etc.

 

[AtomicPope]

No, you're giving up the most useful power from your primary class for the most useful power from your secondary class of that level or lower. If you didn't have the option of picking from a secondary class, you would have picked the most useful power from your primary class, right?

Wrong. If you want to give up the most useful power from your primary class then by all means, do so. It seems pretty obvious that this is in an attempt to stultify the discussion with low-brow, superficial quips. You're completely ignoring the inherent design of emergent complexity within the class features and powers. When coupled with Action Points as a standard feature for Player Characters it allows for power combinations of the likes that characters have never possessed before.

Multiclassing provides characters with access to powers from other sources. Since power sources and character roles are well defined (unlike previous editions where copy n paste was all the rage), a multiclassing character can viably function in multiple roles. Access to alternate power sources and role features is most useful when it fits a character's intended design. This coupled with emergent complexity allows the character to function outside of their original role but not to outperform/outshine a purist (something that 3e couldn't claim).