Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)

[Spatula]

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.

Well, that's pretty much been the pattern of many of 4e's fixes to 3e's thorny problems. We made combat simpler by getting rid of all the maneuvers! We fixed Dispel Magic by removing all the stuff it used to be able to do! So in 4e terms, yes, you did deliver.

But once again, it is too early to say what you "can" and "cannot" do with multiclassing. We only have half the picture - the heroic tier half. The paragon tier multiclass option is still unknown to us. Can you pick a 2nd multiclass as your paragon path? Because that would result in a three-class combo. But we don't know if it would be allowed (and even if not, it would probably be very easy to houserule). And I think others have looked at the power progression from the Tiers excerpt and posited that if you take the 4 heroic feats, and if the paragon multiclass gives you cross-class powers in place of the paragon powers (a likely scenario), you end up with close to a 50/50 (or was it 60/40?) power split. And the powers are the class-defining abilities.

 

[katahn]

Can't say I agree with this. It's more that divine and arcane casters operate in different spheres. At mid- to high levels, divine casters are the supreme gods of conventional, chop-off-the-hit-points combat. Arcane casters can't match CoDzilla's damage output or staying power; but they can redefine the battlefield so as to make chop-off-the-hit-points combat irrelevant.

I can't really say I've seen that straight-class arcane casters' abilities noticeably make the lack of spell failure for divine casters a balanced equation. But even if I were to agree in the case of the wizard, conceptually arcane spell failure for a sorcerer (who's magic is innate rather than studied) just doesn't makes sense to me. Of course I'd balance the supposed superior utility of an arcanist against the fact that they have weaker hit dice, poorer nonmagical combat ability, and don't start with any sort of armor proficiencies rather than all of that plus spell failure.

The real reason for spell failure was (IMHO) because if it weren't for that every wizard/sorcerer in the game would multiclass with Fighter 1 to get all three armor proficiency feats plus a boost in HP and extra weapon skills. Losing one caster level for that would probably be worth it. If taking level 1 of a class didn't give such a front-loaded benefit, the game-balance reasons for arcane spell failure would cease to exist.

 

[mneme]

I'm glad I waited, since my first comments would have been based on a misunderstanding of the rules -- I thought you could only get three powers, max, from the second class, which would have been t3h suxx0r. But it seems you can get about 1/3rd of your powers from the second class (if you spend all your feats on them), which is pretty good. It's not 50/50, obviously, but it does let you do a lot.

*waves to the Lizard*

To be fair, we don't know whether you can get the power-switching feats multiple times -- I think the 1/3 number actually assumes you can only get them once (9 powers by 10th level, of which 3 are switched). OTOH, we don't know what multiclassing is like past 10th level ("true" multiclassing starts at 11th; these -are- training feats, and we don't know if there are Paragon-level muticlassing feats as well), and I'd guess that you can take these feats multiple times anyway (which means that by 20th level, you could actually have all your powers traded out if you wanted--you have 11-12 feats by then, which is about as many powers as you have).

Given the feats we've seen, powers seem like a better choice. Especially since there's no tiers or levels or prequisites. I'm trying to see why EVERYONE won't multiclass in 4e. Take the novice feat at first level, grab some Cool Bennies (more than I think you'd get for a feat), then wait until that cool power that synergizes perfectly comes along. Every fighter can toss a Fireball to weaken the enemy before closing with them or cleaning out minions.

Pretty much. I'd guess that some builds will be more feat-intensive, but for many, two feats for a 1/day bomb will be a no-brainer.

Have we seen how 'multiclassing instead of paragon' is going to work yet?

Nope. We can guess (bonus powers from the other class, class features widened to or towards the "full" base features for the class, -maybe- the ability to pick powers from either class on level, thus getting to retrain power switching feats), but we've not gotten the full skinny by any means.

Certainly, if there's a "true" 50/50 split, it is likely to be here.

grab ranger training at 14th? Hell, if he can drop powers, why can't he drop Wizard and pick up Ranger? If multiclassing was a choice you had to make at first level -- representing childhood training or whatever -- the one class limit would make sense.

Very much agreed that the "one class limit" is an acknowledgement that these feats are overpowered; if they were balanced, there'd be no reason to have the limit. I'm guessing a fix will happen later. But you definately -can- drop a multiclassing feat and replace it with a different multiclassing feat via retraining later -- why wouldn't you be able to? Hell, given the power switching feats and the way they work, you could even switch over a whole power set at a new level (prediction: eratta saying that if you do this, you -must- switch over all your power switching feats; you can't keep powers from the old class! But I doubt this will be clear except by inference in the printed rules; it's too much of a corner case).

 

[Michele Carter]

And a side note. We're always talking about the stupid loved Fighter/Mage. ... How does this shape up for ... Cleric/Wizards?

Well, I can only speak to mine, but it's great.

My dwarf wizard is high-Wisdom anyway, for the control aspects. Her background is all about serving in a temple of Ioun, so taking the cleric multiclass feat made perfect sense at 1st level. That got me the Religion skill and a healing word once per day; might not seem like a lot, but believe me, it's just super-handy to have an extra healing spell at the right moment. Especially from an unexpected source.

At 5th level she's only got the Novice Power feat so far, but trading out a wizard spell for a cleric prayer has absolutely been worth it, both roleplaying wise (yes! it's still a factor!) and in combat. The wizard spell I traded *might* have done more damage, but the cleric prayer allows for a bigger area effect AND party aid. I plan on her taking the other two power-swap feats as she gains levels, and will strongly consider paragon multiclassing when she hits 11th. Even if I don't go that way, she'll always have three cleric prayers at her disposal. Considering they could be at her highest level, that feels pretty darn cleric-y to me.

 

[Spatula]

I also want to go WAY back and mention that, although the rogue's sneak attack can only be used once against a target with the relevant feat, while the ranger multiclass feat's potentially lasts for an entire encounter, the number for sneak attack goes up with level, while the other number appears to remain static at 1d6 (or 1d8 with the appropriate feat). Again, not sure it's equal, but should be considered.

The problem with the sneak attack power (aside from requiring combat advantage, etc.) is that sneak attack can only be used with small blades, slings, and hand crossbows, which no one but the rogue has much reason to use. The benefit from the ranger feat is just a hell of a lot better. The rogue multiclass feat perhaps would have been better off granting the rogue's get-the-drop ability, as everyone would find that useful.

 

[Scipio202]

Another advantage of this form of multiclassing is it makes it easier for the DM to have themed campaigns because if everyone takes two feats, everyone can have the same utility power (especially movement powers). If you want to make flying really important, or breating under water, or whatever, then you can make it so everyone has the same power without stopping being their main roles.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

I challenge you to find me a character concept that can't be represented with this system.

By this system I assume you mean 4th ed.

The ultramystic who has access to all magical powers. In third 3d I could take levels in Cleric, Wizard, Incarnate and Psion. I might not be really powerful at any of them, but by concept I could touch all powers (made for a fun Gestalt though ).

That was in basic answer to the question.


Personally I like the new multiclassing. I can't wait for the full rules so I can see how things work completely.

 

[The Shadow]

I'm really not understanding all the love for "50/50" multiclass splits. Such a thing has never been possible in any edition of D&D.

Yes, you could have 50% of your *levels* from each class. But certainly not 50% of your effectiveness, nor 50% of your concept. And most assuredly has there never been a D&D character who spent 50% of his rounds in combat being fightery and 50% of his rounds being wizardly. (Most *especially* not in 1e and 2e.)

Frankly, the multiclass system here looks quite good enough to handle any character concept I've ever come up with. And that's *without* seeing the paragon multiclassing. And *without* any new classes being created.

I'm getting the impression out there that some people regard a "character concept" as involving class features? Really? Do you really need to sneak attack more than once an encounter to indicate that you're from the mean streets, despite a later change in career? (How "realistic" or "verisimilitudinous" is it for someone to pursue two very different careers to the same extent, I might add?)

The one concern I do have with the system as presented is that it sure looks like a fighter/wizard is getting a lot better deal than a wizard/fighter. (It appears the wizard will have to expend a good deal of other feats to be able to really help out as a secondary defender.) But I could be wrong about that, and *either* of those two looks like a better mesh between classes than what's gone before.

And yes, in 3e I would spend a feat to give my wizard a single cleric spell a day so fast it would make your head spin. Much less a *quarter of my daily spells*. (3e doesn't have per-encounter spells, do recall.)

 

[Kishin]

In 30+ years of playing D&D, I have played very few single-classed PCs- perhaps as little as 5%- and I have not once missed the power of a solo-classed PC. Concerns about effectiveness are, have always been, and always will be secondary to my concerns about whether a particular set of abilities (in whatever system) most accurately represents the idealized version of the PC floating in my head.

This is one of those things in 4Ed that makes me feel as if they're trying to get me to trade my heroes for ghosts.

This is ultimately one area of gaming in which its probably impossible for the sides to reconcile with each other, so let's just agree to disagree (profoundly).

I understand your concerns, and agree to disagree. I consider myself more about building to a concept, but in a lot of cases with multiclassing, I've never seen the marriage between concept and effectiveness work out, most notably at higher levels. I would argue that it was easier to play to the concept of a magic using melee character using the Duskblade class rather than multiclassing. Your mileage obviously varies. Most of the multiclassing I've seen in the last many years of 3E has been done to further specialize a character into their niche (I suppose this sounds a bit odd) rather than a broadening of role. Everyone approaches D&D a different way, though.

What I think is interesting is the stated design goal of constructing the system in a way that makes every combination not lag behind, while still maintaining its own flavor, something a friend has referred to as very 'Disney'. In short, it seems they're aiming to make it so that bad multiclassing is at a minimum.

Well, I can only speak to mine, but it's great.

My dwarf wizard is high-Wisdom anyway, for the control aspects. Her background is all about serving in a temple of Ioun, so taking the cleric multiclass feat made perfect sense at 1st level. That got me the Religion skill and a healing word once per day; might not seem like a lot, but believe me, it's just super-handy to have an extra healing spell at the right moment. Especially from an unexpected source.

At 5th level she's only got the Novice Power feat so far, but trading out a wizard spell for a cleric prayer has absolutely been worth it, both roleplaying wise (yes! it's still a factor!) and in combat. The wizard spell I traded *might* have done more damage, but the cleric prayer allows for a bigger area effect AND party aid. I plan on her taking the other two power-swap feats as she gains levels, and will strongly consider paragon multiclassing when she hits 11th. Even if I don't go that way, she'll always have three cleric prayers at her disposal. Considering they could be at her highest level, that feels pretty darn cleric-y to me.

Your posts are always so refreshing/informative, Miko. Its nice to hear how things are being played on the ground floor.

Just a quick question: Is there a pure cleric in the party, or is your character responsible for a larger portion of the buffing/healing than might be expected?

 

[DeusExMachina]

And yes, in 3e I would spend a feat to give my wizard a single cleric spell a day so fast it would make your head spin. Much less a *quarter of my daily spells*. (3e doesn't have per-encounter spells, do recall.)

QFT... I actually used that feat that lets you use one power or spell from other spell lists quite a few times. Assassin with the suggestion spell, psychic warrior with the schism power (extremely effective, one half of your mind buffs while the other fights), etc. Extremely effective because of specific synergy bonuses. You had to look for the good ones, but it was totally worth it...