Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Shazman]

Shazman, can you specify what they promised? You seem to have a precise idea of what it was, while I only seem to have a vague idea.


Anyway. This subsystem (whether you feel it should be called multiclassing or not), doesn't strike me as 'weak and lazy'. Its definitely different from the 3rd edition system, but I don't think thats a bad thing in its own right. (though, I should mention that I don't really think 3rd edition has anything of value) I'm not sure I like the one class restriction, but I'm also not sure more would be necessary for anything beyond a thought exercise. I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with it, and it doesn't break the game the way multiclassing can in 3rd edition, so I'm fairly satisfied.

Finally, if you don't like 4e, thats all well and good. Nothing bad happens to anyone if you don't. Personally, except for the fluff, I largely like it. The wizard is a bit naff, but the only thing I'd describe as bland is the temporal-cat-centaur thing, and various other legacy monsters that 3e is responsible for (goofy aberrations and the like) and the horde of not-quite-exactly-the-same monstrous humanoids that have built up since first edition.

They said that any combo of multiclassing works. But they eliminated multiclassing. It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing. And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules. If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised? I think not.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

They've kicked the can down the road to 5th edition.

<shrug>

 

[vagabundo]

If everyone has the same to Hit table, if everyones powers are balanced to military like precision, if every class is a list of powers and feats alone, with no quirky other features, then to quote the Incredibles: "everyone is special, and thus no one is".
4e mechanics sound fine, I like them, but this "multiclassing" system sounds like a compromise due to the fundamental nature of some design decision, and one has to wonder do these great mechanics have heart.

3e classes and multiclassing produced some very suboptimal characters, I'll take a dose of balance for fun anyday. No more players making a bad decision and their character getting sidelined in the game.

Everyone is useful in and out of combat, the PCs are special, they're "heroes". My players are having a ball in 4e (easily 4E=3Ex2 in terms of fun in combat), so the test of the puddin' is in the eating and I think this system will fit nicely with what we have seen so far and will be a little bit of icing on the character creation cake.

PS I'd describe 3e multiclassing as a lot of things, but not elegant.

 

[Wolv0rine]

Amen, Shazman. I'll tell you, with every excerpt they release, I become more and more comfortable with the group I primarily work with's decision that we're not going 4E. (The problem is, of course, that everyone wants to do a "3.75E", from Pathfinder to whoever else wants to grab the tossed-aside edition and make those real tweaks that were too risky to try on the customer base when 3E (no, I will NOT specify between 3E and 3.5E, it's silly) was the Big Show. But that's another thread entirely, sorry for that momentary thread-jack everyone... I'm sleep-deprived AND have been reading this thread since yesterday. )

 

[neceros]

I'll sum it up as best I can.

Mutliclassing is unneeded. In third edition, you multiclassed for a specific purpose, usually. A wizard needed weapon feats, or armor, or wanted BAB, or whatever. Rogues and Fighters wanted more combat prowess without giving away their Sneak Attack dice, yatta yatta.

In fourth edition, it's not required because you can just take the required feats to get what you need. Wizards will have generally the same base attack as a fighter with his magic. If he wants to use a sword, give him the feat. Armor? Same thing.

The only reason you'd need to multiclass is to get the powers. That's basically the only difference between classes now, but it's a big one.

In both games you have resource conservation as a major method of controlling players. In Third, you gave a player 20 levels, 7 feats (on average), and if you were a spell caster, spells if you took that one base class only. (Remember, Prestige classes are not multiclassing. We're talking only about real multiclassing, 5 Wizard / 5 Fighter.)

In fourth edition, you have 20 levels (We're assuming you don't go epic, for simplicity), ~15 feats (based on assumptions), and everyone has powers. Not only that, but you don't have to stay in your base class to continue gaining your natural powers. They come to you no matter what once you pick your class. If you pick to multiclass at level 11, you continue leveling as a Paladin, but you also start leveling as a Wizard! (Or whatever.)

The real difference in Fourth is the fact that your character is only limited to what feats you take. Some would argue that this was true in third, as well, but it's much more so. As stated earlier, you had class levels you could trade in for free class abilities in most instances. You had way more class levels to give than you had Feats, so it made sense to take a level of Fighter to gain a BAB (Which is way better, by the way), than to pick Weapon Focus to get better to hit.

In short, Fourth edition is giving you a much more elegant, and powerful way to make your character who you want him or her to be.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[TwoSix]

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?

Absolutely, yes.

 

[occam]

Delicious indeed. If you can find it out in Colorado, I heartily recommend Stone Brewing's Russian Imperial Stout, or Port Brewing's Santa's Little Helper. Both very excellent beers, and I'm privileged enough to live within driving distance of both breweries.

I actually live in Washington, and have appreciated many a Stone beer. However, we just started getting distribution of Port Brewing's stuff like last month (although I've visited Pizza Ports in San Diego a few times), and I am very much enjoying working my way through the various Port and Lost Abbey beers. Love the Old Viscosity!

 

[TwoSix]

They said that any combo of multiclassing works. But they eliminated multiclassing. It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing. And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules. If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised? I think not.

Considering "multiclassing" has no dictionary definition, they're not being "untruthful" at all. Calm yourself, Iago.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

I couldn't have said it better myself. That Incredibles comment was pure gold. They are so concerned with balance, that they removed the specialness from the classes. That pretty much defeats the point of having classes. If the fighter's daily power and the warlock's daily power do the same amount of damage, what's the point. You might as well have a skill or powers based system instead of a class system.

I sometimes have the feeling that people don't really get what the powers and the roles for 4E mean. I am not sure I get all of it myself, since it is different from what came before.

What definitely is important is that a Warlock and a Fighter power generally will not do the same damage. And more importantly, they will also have different "secondary" effects. Dealing damage at range is different from dealing damage at melee and pushing your enemy around. Neither is superior, and both might deal damage, but they feel and work differently, and open different tactical options.

And these differences is what the roles are all about. And the new tactical option granted by multiclassing will significantly change the feel of a character. A Fighter capable of throwing a fireball will use different tactics then a fighter that is capable of disrupting an enemy attack against one of his allies and dealing damage to him (hypothetical power). And this will apply for every single combat encounter he participates in (if it's an encounter power).

 

[katahn]

They said that any combo of multiclassing works. But they eliminated multiclassing. It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing. And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules. If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised? I think not.

How exactly have they eliminated multiclassing? All I see is that two specific forms of multiclassing are basically gone: the 1e/2e system where you levelled simultaneously in multiple classes and the 3e system where you serially levelled multiple classes. Those are not the be-all and end-all of multiclassing systems.

At its core, multiclassing just means having abilities/powers that come from more than just one class. This fits that very general definition.

In 1e/2e multiclasses were simply better than single-class variants. Being a level or 2 down in each multiclass compared to a single-class character was not enough to balance our having equivilent power in multiple other classes. Playing a single-class character was a dumb move unless you were dealing with games beyond the non-human level caps, and even then every non-human MC tended to involve "thief" which had no level limits...

In 3e multiclassing absolutely did not work for spellcasting classes and was especially punative on arcane spellcasting classes. The cumulative effect of fewer caster levels (to beat spell resistance), lower spell levels (enemies had an easier time with saving throws), fewer spells, and for arcane casters the need to use 'still spell' to get around spell failure exacerbated the lower spell level issue. It took splatbooks and innumerable prestige classes to get around how incredibly disfunctional the multiclassing system in 3e was.

Conversely in 4e I can begin at level 1 as an eladrin fighter(wizard) and have a bit of arcane magic use to add flavor to my fighter; for only that basic feat I can also freely select any wizard-as-prerequisite feats I might wish by adding them to the list of feats I can select from. As I gain levels I can swap out selected fighter abilities in exchange for adding wizard abilities. Paying for this priviledge in the form of feats balances what I see as a huge benefit of being able to select out-of-role and out-of-class abilities as a fighter.

My 4e fighter/wizard can cast spells armored without needing to invest a feat to get the still spell metamagic feat. My 3e fighter/wizard had to make that sacrifice and suffered above and beyond that the effective loss of my highest level of spells because I couldn't combine them with still spell.

My 4e fighter/wizard's wizard spells will always be effective in a fight. My 3e fighter/wizard's spells were easier to make saving throws against due to lower spell level and were far less likely to bypass spell resistance due to lower caster level relative to what the monsters were designed to be prepared for.

My 4e fighter/wizard can elect to exchange a lower-level known spell for a higher-level spell without making any additional sacrifices of feats or class levels. My 3e fighter/wizard could not do that.

My 4e fighter/wizard is still a fully effective fighter who only lacks a bit of versatility in my core role in exchange for the added flexibility of wizard spells. My 3e fighter/wizard will be anywhere from 5-10 levels behind any other fighter in a level 20 campaign and be noticeably less effective in his core role as a result - a loss of effectiveness that is not sufficiently redressed in having 5-10 levels of wizard without resorting to the hacked work-around of prestige classes.

So please, explain to me how multiclassing doesn't really exist in 4e when it did in 3e. Because I see traditional multiclassing in 3e that failed to live up to its promise far too often and I see this new variant form of multiclassing in 4e that does.