Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Voss]

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.

Ah. I was hoping for a link of some sort. More of the precise and less of the 'he said, they said'.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

I have seen comments so far on dipping and 50/50 multiclassing, and it was mentioned once or twice way back in the thread to point out how 4E multiclassing doesn't work. The one area I haven't seen how 4E deals yet is the case of essentially class switching. Say starting a character as say a Bard for for 3 levels (because that is your character concept at the time) then realize that after playing for awhile that Ranger makes more sense now and better fits both story and player desire and then do the next 7 levels as Ranger for a Bard3/Ranger7.

In 3.x this works because over time the Ranger levels catch up and then surpass the Bard levels creating a Ranger with some Bard thrown in. In 4e this is not possible. Once a Bard (once the PHB2 comes out) always a Bard, no mid career changes. In 4E if I start at level 10 then no problem, I can make a Ranger and dip into Bard, but if I start at level 1 this is impossible.

 

[Kwalish Kid]

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.

Oooh, let me! Let me!

In the new system, you can't multiclass and make use of the same amount of feats that everyone else can.

Am I right?

 

[neceros]

I have seen comments so far on dipping and 50/50 multiclassing, and it was mentioned once or twice way back in the thread to point out how 4E multiclassing doesn't work. The one area I haven't seen how 4E deals yet is the case of essentially class switching. Say starting a character as say a Bard for for 3 levels (because that is your character concept at the time) then realize that after playing for awhile that Ranger makes more sense now and better fits both story and player desire and then do the next 7 levels as Ranger for a Bard3/Ranger7.

In 3.x this works because over time the Ranger levels catch up and then surpass the Bard levels creating a Ranger with some Bard thrown in. In 4e this is not possible. Once a Bard (once the PHB2 comes out) always a Bard, no mid career changes. In 4E if I start at level 10 then no problem, I can make a Ranger and dip into Bard, but if I start at level 1 this is impossible.

Yeah, they are trying to stop people from being able to do that.

Not only will you have 3 useless levels, but you'll be three levels behind the class you actually wanted to play. Even more, you'll have an exp penalty. Yuck, yuck, yuck,

I have a feeling that there will be some sort of retraining rule in the PHB, or PHBII to help people with this issue. Multiclassing should not be a corrective event, but a character concept.

 

[med stud]

I have seen comments so far on dipping and 50/50 multiclassing, and it was mentioned once or twice way back in the thread to point out how 4E multiclassing doesn't work. The one area I haven't seen how 4E deals yet is the case of essentially class switching. Say starting a character as say a Bard for for 3 levels (because that is your character concept at the time) then realize that after playing for awhile that Ranger makes more sense now and better fits both story and player desire and then do the next 7 levels as Ranger for a Bard3/Ranger7.

In 3.x this works because over time the Ranger levels catch up and then surpass the Bard levels creating a Ranger with some Bard thrown in. In 4e this is not possible. Once a Bard (once the PHB2 comes out) always a Bard, no mid career changes. In 4E if I start at level 10 then no problem, I can make a Ranger and dip into Bard, but if I start at level 1 this is impossible.

You can always redesign the character from the ground up. Lets say that you play a ranger and dip into bard. After a while you feel that you want to play a bard with ranger splashed in instead. By the RAW, that's not possible. In that case, you switch the classes around so that your character is now primarily a bard.

The amazing thing with PnP-games is that options aren't coded. A group of players can easily go outside the rules if they feel that it leads to a better game.

 

[katahn]

Oooh, let me! Let me!

In the new system, you can't multiclass and make use of the same amount of feats that everyone else can.

Am I right?

That's about the only difference I can think of. Well that and the fact you can't make a class that is capable of being effective in more than one core role (without sacrificing a paragon path presumably) and actually can effectively make use of second-class abilities that are taken instead of primary-class abilities.

Personally I'm fine with sacrificing a feat or three instead of sacrificing class levels that before long leave my character underpowered at everything. But that's just me and maybe I'm crazy.

 

[Dausuul]

Your perception of "value" and "suck" differ from mine. If being a relatively powerful wizard with some low-level thieving ability is how I envision my PC, then I'm satisfied with the value I'm getting and don't care what others think.

Okay, splendid. That's exactly what 4E gives you. Where's the problem?

If I want my PC to be equally talented in magery and thievery and he's a 12th level PC, then he should probably be equivalent to a Wiz6 and a Rog6 in all ways that matter.

Whoa, hold on there. You jumped from "character concept" to "specific mechanics." "Equally talented in magery and thievery" is a character concept. "Wiz 6/Rog 6" is just one of any number of ways that concept could be implemented in-game.

If you want to be equally talented in magery and thievery, your "wizard half" should probably have a power level roughly equivalent to your "rogue half." There are lots of ways to implement that, and basic level-for-level multiclassing is only one of them. Wiz6/Rog6 meets your requirements. So does Wiz 3/Rog 3/Unseen Seer 6. So does a Wiz11/Rog11 gestalt. And so does a 4E character with half wizard powers and class features, and half rogue powers and class features.

Now, in practice, 4E multiclassing won't give you a fifty-fifty split; estimates here suggest the most heavily multiclassed characters in 4E will be about two-thirds primary class to one-third secondary class. However, I don't think I've ever seen a case in which a character concept actually demanded a fifty-fifty split. The concept usually only requires that the character be a talented mage and a talented thief (or whatever), which 4E's system provides.

I've got a character right now who's a favored soul 4/sorceror 4/mystic theurge 8. She's a priestess of a deity of magic, water, and the moon; as such, she combines arcane and divine magic. But y'know what? In 4E, I could make that same character as a cleric with wizard multiclass feats, and it would fit the concept like a glove, even though she wouldn't have a fifty-fifty split any more.

 

[Starbuck_II]

You can always redesign the character from the ground up. Lets say that you play a ranger and dip into bard. After a while you feel that you want to play a bard with ranger splashed in instead. By the RAW, that's not possible. In that case, you switch the classes around so that your character is now primarily a bard.

The amazing thing with PnP-games is that options aren't coded. A group of players can easily go outside the rules if they feel that it leads to a better game.

Actually, by RAW in 4th, you can retrain so you are now a Bard with Ranger splashed instead.
We don't know if trainingin 4th is like PHB 2 in 3.5, but it might be.

 

[rowport]

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowport
And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as "concept."

Given that you don't know my group, and don't know what we discussed and agreed upon back when we first started playtesting 4E, I find this presumptuous in the extreme.

Ari-

Fair enough! I also saw that one of your players posted that at least one of your group typically plays heavily multiclassed characters in 3.5, and (my sense from his post) not for powergaming/optimizing reasons. That player sounds like a perfect test case for somebody who enjoys character customization (as opposed to optimization) who for some reason is opting not to do so in 4e. Presuming that you know your player, and/or can ask him directly, would you mind posting his rationale? I am genuinely curious, not looking for an argument.

 

[rowport]

*blink*

When did you start visiting ENWorld?!

Ari-

I could not bear to go find his post in this immense thread, but that is the player post that I meant.