Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[hong]

Well you sorta do have access to all divine powers, you simply can only equip one per-feat. However, seeing how you can change that power each level, you can adapt it to suit the circumstance you feel is best for the way your character is developing.

This adds in my eyes a lot of flexibility.

That auto-levelling of your cross-class power is certainly what keeps it from being a dead loss. I am intrigued, and not about to write it off completely just yet.

 

[Henry]

Huh? As far as I can remember, in 2E anyway, if you were a multiclass Fighter/Magic User, you could not cast wizard spells (arcane spells) in metal armors save for elven chain. At least in 3E you had the chance to cast in metal armor, you just have Arcane Spell Failure. In 2E, the answer to casting arcane spells in metal armor was simply "NO!"

Please correct me if I am wrong. It's been a long time since I played 2E and even longer since I played 1E. But if they DID have a way for magic users to cast in metal armor, I'd like to be reminded of it.

Actually, 1e allowed F/M-U's to cast spells in metal armor, BECAUSE it didn't prohibit it. The quote from the 1E PHB says: "Fighter/magic-User: Obviously, this combination allows excellent armor protection, the use of weaponry, and spells. Hit points are good on the average... Elves and Half-elves may be fighter/magic-users." I don't think Gary would have spelled it out like that (especially when, for instance, he mentions earlier than multi-fighter-clerics can use edged weapons) if he didn't want them to cast spells AND wear armor. After all, they were being lopped off at the knees halfway through progression, anyway.

 

[Vendark]

Least objectionable is close enough to best (given his options) that my point that he is replacing the best with the best still stands.

But he's still trading the power he likes least of his current powers for the one he likes most of the other class' powers. There's clearly some value added here, in a way that "replacing best with the best" doesn't convey.

 

[Scrollreader]

I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.

Is this really worth a feat?

It is if it's shapechange.

The ability to maintain a high end level appropriate ability from outside of your normal class and role is worth a feat, IMO. We've seen it stated before, that classes are balanced against classes. If powers were all the same, we'd not have as many classes as we do, because they'd all have the same HP, surges, roles and class abilities. I'm certain it's possible for the feat to be a bad investment. In fact, I can virtually guarantee that a specific one of my players will do so, because he likes to make suboptimal choices with multiclass characters. I'm also certain that it won't take long at all for the min/max forums to come up with ways for these feats to be mechanically superior. Somewhere in the middle, are the people for whom it is cool, thematically interesting, and the feat investment is worth it for a mix of mechanical and conceptual reasons.


As a quick question for you Hong: If I'm playing a fighter, with int 18 and str 8. It takes no feat investment to swap powers, so I take all wizard powers. Now I'm a wizard, with better armor and weapon profs, better HP, and more healing surges. Why do you maintain that this is not more powerful than being a straight wizard? If you agree that it is more powerful, then all we're discussing is the relative value of feats as currency, which is something we lack enough information to discuss at all reasonably.

 

[Bishmon]

The class power isn't part of the cost. All characters get the same number of power selections every time they gain the appropriate level--"losing" a class power in this instant is absolutely no different than choosing, say, Cleave instead of Tide of Iron from your own class's list of powers.

Except you're not using a feat to select Cleave instead of Tide of Iron.

 

[lkj]

While it's fascinating to argue whether or not your are 'giving up' a power an a feat, I don't think that semantic point is really the crux of the issue.

For a moment, let's just accept this premise-- You spend a feat and give up a power in order to gain a power from another class.

The real question is "Is it worth it?" It might well be. A fighter might find that being able to cast a fireball (something a fighter can never do otherwise) is worth spending a feat and a power for. I think that's entirely plausible. More generally, one might find that the combination of an arcane and martial powers is more 'powerful' or 'useful' than just having that extra martial power. So it's worth spending a feat.

Even more generally, it might be that certain cross class powers in combination are more useful or powerful than combinations of within class powers. So, it might be worth taking the feat.

Now this ignores whether having access to paragon paths you wouldn't be able to take or perhaps feats that you wouldn't have access to otherwise adds benefit.

Of course, there's no way to tell whether it's worth it till we have the full ruleset. Which brings me to a second and separate question than whether it's worth spending a feat and a power to get another power:

Can I build the fighter/mage I'm envisioning using these multiclass rules?

Unfortunately, I don't think we know yet. Until we see the paragon paths, the class specific feats, all the powers, etc. , I just think it's too hard to tell.

Anyway, only a few weeks till we can start this argument all over again with new data.

AD

 

[Kordeth]

Except you're not using a feat to select Cleave instead of Tide of Iron.

Which maybe is the reason I said the feat is the cost of multiclassing.

 

[fuzzlewump]

IMHO, it’s not a matter of “is it worth a feat?” or any such similar questions, the question is “Is this Multi-classing?”, and to me, the answer is unequivocally (to the point of being faintly insulting) “No”.
This is dipping, as has been pointed out. And if it had been included as a sub-system completely separate from the concept of Multi-classing . . . then it would have been interesting. Very interesting. Class-dipping feats is cool. Class dipping feats as the Multi-classing mechanics is terrible.

A class is defined by its powers and a short list of features, and multi-classing gives you access to another classes powers and some of those features. You agree that when you multi-class, you can't simply add two first level characters together. If we start with 7 powers, when we level up it wouldn't make sense to now have 14 powers. It would be overpowered. So how do you do it? What you call the "dipping" system is what they decided on. So is the problem that the system over-limits you? In what ways could the system change in order to meet your definition of multi-classing? Mechanically speaking.

Seriously? Is this one of the ‘problems with 3E multi-classing’? Because to my mind this is just better class design technique. Of course you spread out class benefits over the levels, otherwise you’ve got a front-loaded class that no-one wants to take more levels in because it’s dull and tasteless after you’ve gotten your initial burst of class benefits. *boggles*

Sweet spot starts at level 1 in fourth edition. The 4E wizard character sheet starts with 7 spells or whatever because the creators are confident that no one is going to do a 1-level dip in wizard in order to get the 7 spells and then run. Because you can't, that's not how multi-classing works anymore. So, you can have fun and interesting classes from the start. In third edition, a 1st level wizard had 1 spell to cast, because like you said, they weren't front loaded. If you enjoy that more, by all means, continue with third edition.

Is this another one of the ‘problems’, that multi-classed spellcasters were less powerful spellcasters (unless they multi-classed into a spellcasting PrC)? Because, that just makes sense to me. If you’ve changed or diminished your study/practice to focus on something else, you’re going to fall a bit behind. And it seems the concept of “giving up some power for concept” is considered a good thing, from the posts in this thread at least. Again, *boggles*.

Not less powerful: unworkable. Giving up spell progression was beyond "less powerful." In fourth edition, you give up a power of equal level, say, level 7, and gain a level 7 wizard ability. So, you don't have to get wizard powers of half your level. Sorry for the brevity, but those are the main points.

 

[occam]

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.

1. We haven't seen the full feat descriptions.
2. Technically, you can take feats twice in 3.5, it just usually doesn't do you any good:

If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.

In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.

We don't know if the same general rule is in effect for 4e, but even if it is, the power-swap feats could easily be seen as non-overlapping.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Apparently I wasn't clear, I meant spellcasters were cut off from multiclassing, not the other way around, it's such a big deal it's on the ten commandments of optimization twice.

Optimization Schmoptimization- those commandments are garbage.

Multiclassing exists to help you find the best in-game representation of your mental vision of a PC, to realize that character & personality within the framework of the rules. To do otherwise is to massage some rules to create a game artifact and slap a name on it- you might as well name them PC#1, PC#2, PC#3...PC#N.

Nobody's barred from actually multiclassing- you just see it as somehow unfair that a multiclassed spellcaster actually has to give up something of value (N number of spells of Z levels) in order to gain something else of value (extra combat feats, sneak attack, whatever).

Do you honestly think that its usually the case that a general practice physician is as good at brain surgery as a dedicated specialist? Or that someone who is a world-class marksman who plays piano is equally good at it? What about a person who bowls once a week as opposed to someone who bowls twice a day?

NO- generally speaking, the person who picks one thing to practice is almost invariably better at it than those who dabble, and the 3.x multiclassing rules reflect that.