D&D 4E Love It or Leave It: 4E Multiclassing

[CleverNickName]

Another major rules scoop, another binary "do you like it or not" poll. Because if I don't do it, someone else will.

As you can see from the front page, and from the many different threads posted on the topic, Wizards of the Coast has released some crunchy information on how multiclassing will work in 4E. Multiclassing has been a bone of contention for D&D fans ever since it first appeared on the scene ~20 years ago...many gamers would agree that historically, multiclassing has caused more problems than it solved, and still hasn't been "fixed" in a satisfactory way.

So now that we have a pretty good idea of how multiclassing is going to work in 4E, and now that we've had a chance to look it over and discuss the ins and outs of it, what is your overall impression?

If you're like me (and I know I am), your opinions fall somewhere between liking and loathing it. Which is understandable, since we haven't been given all of the information yet. So just vote in the direction you are leaning, based on what you've seen so far.

 

[CleverNickName]

Me? I'm not liking it so much. I don't care for the 11th level limit, or the apparent trade-off for epic destinies and paragon paths. And I really don't like how powers can be traded, collected, and swapped around like baseball cards.

I reserve the right to change my mind in June, of course. But for now? Thumbs down.

 

[Cadfan]

Love it.

Its very different from 3e multiclassing. But its a better solution.

A 3e multiclass character often fell far from both trees. For example, if you played a multiclass 50/50 fighter/wizard, and you ever tried to rely on straight melee with no magical buffs, you were a fool. You lacked the HP, attack bonus, and AC to accomplish that. Likewise, if you tried to rely on throwing fireballs at someone, you were (less, but still) a fool. Your best bet was to create a hybrid buff/power attack/polymorph combination that resembled none of the original classes. Or, run as fast as you could for a PRC.

Now, we don't have full 50/50s. But we DO have a structure that lets a Fighter/Wizard cast a Fireball and expect it to rock someone's world. That fireball is no longer massively gimped by coming from a multiclass character. Likewise, a Wizard/Fighter who wants to bust someone's head with an ax can take a Fighter power that lets him do that, and gains a great backup for when things get dirty and close quarters.

Meanwhile, the 50/50s sucked before until you got a PRC to fix them. Now they'll need base classes. Its not that different, but it does have a "we meant to do it this way" vibe that 3e multiclass PRCs did not. I'm ok with that. We've already got one (in spite of what people pretend, paladin is a cleric/fighter hybrid, always has been). The spellblade or whatever the heck its called is coming out rather soon for those who want magical buffs and teleports to augment their melee.

 

[Masquerade]

Like it.

It's basically Martial Study from Bo9S or the the feats from Complete Arcane that gave you a couple of spells, but for all classes.

 

[Daeger]

Hate it. It seems more like an afterthought than anything. 3E's multiclassing wasn't perfect, but supplements made it work - granted that 4E supplements might come along and add in more options, but one of the things I was hoping 4th Edition would fix is the reliance on additional products so the core game could stand on its own if need be.

I'm not a dabbler, when I make a multiclass character I find the prestige I want to go for and I create a character build that suits what I need. I've made successful fighter/psions, mage/fighters, rogue/clerics, and mage/clerics.

I knew there was going to be a feat system for the dabblers, but I didn't think they'd leave us 50/50's high and dry like this. What's more, it's arguable that it doesn't even forfill dabblers due to a very limited scope of what you can do with those feats.

 

[Lackhand]

Cadfan speaks only truth and wisdom.

With a dash of "oh, now you can give characters abilities at first level without it destroying the world".

 

[Daeger]

With a dash of "oh, now you can give characters abilities at first level without it destroying the world".

..what? If anything multiclassing left you weak at lower levels. It shined for mid-level play, which is what 3.5 was good at anyhow. Balance issues cropped up at higher levels - but the higher levels in 3.5 were generally an unbalanced mess anyway.

 

[Midknightsun]

Generally positive. I actually like the idea of stronger class roles anyhow, but the ability to splash in other class abilities--without them being pathetically weak--is nice. Of course, I am one of those who thought 3e multiclassing was an abomination, so anything is an improvement to me

 

[Voss]

Its good. You can actually start out as an <A> with <B> training, which 3e lacked entirely. It doesn't break the game at any point, you can both optimize around it (for all classes) and build interesting concepts around it.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I'm really liking it, particularly the feats method.

Much simpler than previous editions, and doesn't require you to gimp yourself just to acheive a concept or have to make a beeline for a prestige class just to be effective.