Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Cadfan]

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?

Probably, yes.

I think everyone is on the same page. You pay one feat and one power in exchange for a new power of equal or lower level to the one you gave up from a list that you would not otherwise be permitted to access, and which may contain powers that accomplish things that the powers you are normally permitted cannot accomplish well, or perhaps at all.

If you wanted to think of it differently, you could think of it as paying one feat for the opportunity to choose an upcoming power selection from two lists, rather than from one list.

Everyone's on the same page, we just disagree on whether its worth the cost.

I think it is, personally. At least, I think it will be worth the cost in enough of the possible cases and combinations of classes and power lists that it will end up getting used. It may not be worth it in all cases, but I think it will be useful in enough cases.

 

[rowport]

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?

Ari-

From my perspective, 3.5 was a poor multiclassing system, since it was clear that a 50/50 class split was *never* as powerful as a 100 core class (at least with any casting classes in the mix). You are very right that kludges like prestige classes and/or feats improved the situation but did not fully fix it. Most notably, Practiced Spellcaster is nearly a must-have feat to make it work.

I understand your point to be that 4e is as good or "arguably better" but I am still disappointed as I thought it would be *fixed* where clearly it is not. If anything, reverting back to "dabbling" instead of multiclassing (i.e. adding a dash of magic to your fighter instead of creating a fighter-mage) with a two-class maximum is a big step in the wrong direction.

As a few posters here have said, as has Buzz of my own home group, I might be happier playing HERO or GURPS again and just leaving D&D. That might be right. I guess I am bummed that I thought a clear design flaw should be fixed, not just marginalized as it is in this solution.

And, I am very puzzled why other options were rejected on multiclass solutions. The power curve in Bo9S maneuvers adjusted to multiclassing without the need for feat kludges. So do the skill-based Force powers in SWSE. I dunno. I just seems like this is the least-elegant option, not really much different than a 4e version of Practiced Spellcaster.

 

[Warbringer]

Spellcasting Multiclass: 3.x failed in multi-classing spellcasters, IMO, because of 2 key failings:

1) no explict CL stacking (unlike BAB)
2) spell level tied into highest caster level (hence the biggest problem with dual spellcaster mulitclasses)

That's it. Fix those, you've fixed the system

In 4e part 2) seems to be fixed because the at will/per enc/per day seemed to be flatter with the increases scaled into character level. Regarding part 1) hard to tell, but the fix seems to be your caster level effectively is you character level and you add the caster powers to your pool of potential choices (not sure yet if you have to sacrafice an existing power)

In philosophy it sesm 4e treats muliticalassing spellcasting differently

 

[drjones]

I think the discussion of 'is it worth it?' is entirely premature until we see: All feats, All Powers and All tiers of multiclassing. Sorry but the only folks who know are under NDA.

But that said, some posters seem to feel that multiclassing is a failure unless a MC character is more powerful than a single class character. If this is the case than there should never be a single single class character because it is a suboptimal choice. I liked making interesting synergistic builds in 3.5 and I can see why others would still want to make the same monsters in 4e but I think balance around the table is more important than a feeling of personal min/max mastery.

 

[Brown Jenkin]

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.

Did I miss something? Are you a playtester, or was there some scoop I missed about retraining class choices in 4E?

 

[DandD]

You know that it is balanced if there's a 20+ page long thread discussing about it.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Ari-

From my perspective, 3.5 was a poor multiclassing system, since it was clear that a 50/50 class split was *never* as powerful as a 100 core class (at least with any casting classes in the mix). You are very right that kludges like prestige classes and/or feats improved the situation but did not fully fix it. Most notably, Practiced Spellcaster is nearly a must-have feat to make it work.

I understand your point to be that 4e is as good or "arguably better" but I am still disappointed as I thought it would be *fixed* where clearly it is not. If anything, reverting back to "dabbling" instead of multiclassing (i.e. adding a dash of magic to your fighter instead of creating a fighter-mage) with a two-class maximum is a big step in the wrong direction.

As a few posters here have said, as has Buzz of my own home group, I might be happier playing HERO or GURPS again and just leaving D&D. That might be right. I guess I am bummed that I thought a clear design flaw should be fixed, not just marginalized as it is in this solution.

Do you really think that it is a "clear design flaw"? I mean, how do you define a character that is combining fighting with spellcasting, without him ending up overpowered compared to a character that focuses only on one of these two aspects?
How would you do it?

Even (or especially?) point-buy based systems do this - you have limited set of build points, and if you want to be create at swordmanship and sorcery, this will cost you. And most likely, it's suboptimal to not specialize in one area.

And, I am very puzzled why other options were rejected on multiclass solutions. The power curve in Bo9S maneuvers adjusted to multiclassing without the need for feat kludges. So do the skill-based Force powers in SWSE. I dunno. I just seems like this is the least-elegant option, not really much different than a 4e version of Practiced Spellcaster.

The skill based Force powers are probably not so greatly balanced. At low levels, you gain a significant starting boost, and at higher levels, your powers lose effectiveness, since defenses improve faster then skill bonus.

The Bo9S maneuver system wasn't that bad, I suppose. Their class identity wasn't very strong, though, and they didn't try to cover all core classes with them. Essentially, they were just "fightery" classes, and they didn't multiclass with spellcasters, either.

In the end, classes are supposed to represent archetypes. If you broaden the archetypes of a single class to much, you eliminate the advantages of having classes in the first place.
A real "Fighter-Mage" is an archetype. Why not create a class for him?

---

What wasn't discussed a lot in this thread yet is the fact that the multiclassing feats seem to be only part of multiclassing in 4E. At Paragon levels, you can choose to forgo paragon pathes and instead multiclass. Yes, it is relatively late in the career (comparing the levels 1-20 of 3E to the 1-30 of 4E, around the same time as picking a PrC in 3E), but it allows you to expand your multiclasing even further. Judging from the excerpt, you might get full access to a lot more class features by then. What I don't get yet is if you are also allowed to add a 3rd class, or are still constrained to a previous multiclass class.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

And a side note. We're always talking about the stupid loved Fighter/Mage.

How does this shape up for Fighter/Thieves*Rogues or Fighter/Paladins, or Cleric/Wizards?


*I really wrote Thief at first - why? I play D&D only since 3E, I don't even know how the Thief Classes looked like! Curse you, grognards, for slipping your dated terminology in my vocabulary!

 

[drothgery]

The skill based Force powers are probably not so greatly balanced. At low levels, you gain a significant starting boost, and at higher levels, your powers lose effectiveness, since defenses improve faster then skill bonus.

Well, that's largely because they're skill vs. defenses, and the skill, attack, and defense progressions are not all the same in SWSE. This has the nice effect of making Jedi act like they do in the movies (Force powers work easily on mooks, but when high-powered Force users fight, it usually devolves into a lightsaber duel), but isn't all that balanced. With 4e math, this would work better.

 

[Cadfan]

Prediction- once you bring utility powers into the mix, almost every single multiclass combination will have at least some reason to be used.