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

[JohnSnow]

I generally like it. I also think there are probably some general cross-training feats that we haven't seen.

getting access to spells/exploits etc from other classes is OK, but what about some of the basic class features? What if you want someone to be able to sneak attack at will but otherwise not be a rogue?

If you want to sneak attack at will, you pretty much want to be a rogue. That's the defining feature of the rogue class. Explain to me how this works conceptually. You want a fighter who can go toe-to-toe except that he can sneak attack whenever he feels like it? Don't you realize that this is probably unbalanced?

Now, with enough feats to pick up the ability, maybe it's balanced. Maybe. There may be feats that let you gain sneak attack damage - we know there are feats that increase the rogue's damage (Backstabber) - maybe if you pick up enough of them, you can sneak attack at-will. But, IMO, getting the ability to take over another class's role at-will ought to be expensive.

What if you've got a ranger who would like to be able to take on the core defensive abilities of a fighter (re opportunity attacking) alongside his own stuff.

What are, in your mind, "the core defensive abilities of a fighter?" Better hit points? Take toughness. Proficiency with Heavy Armor? That's probably a feat. Opportunity attacking? Perhaps there are feats that improve the fighter's skill (and let other classes do it a little bit). Those feats may be fighter-specific, requiring you to take the multiclass feat first. But again, why are you trying to subsume the fighter's role on top of your own?

I'm confused at the validity of any character concept that says "I'm a fighter, except for any time when it's better to be a mage" or vice-versa. Or with any two classes.

Someone justify it, please.

 

[Plane Sailing]

I

If you want to sneak attack at will, you pretty much want to be a rogue. That's the defining feature of the rogue class. Explain to me how this works conceptually. You want a fighter who can go toe-to-toe except that he can sneak attack whenever he feels like it? Don't you realize that this is probably unbalanced?

Since I wrote the post you quoted I've ploughed through two thirds of the giant 'multiclassing' thread and there have been some very cogent arguments relating to powers being balanced in context, the potential gained in terms of access to class specific feats for other classes and so forth.

As a result, I step back from the concerns I expressed earlier.

The core issue at stake is probably just that this is a new way of doing multiclassing which will need a new mindset (in just the same way that 3e introduced a new way of doing multiclassing which needed a new mindset). In 3e it was impossible to duplicate the F/MU/T of earlier editions; nonetheless the possibilities which 3e opened up far exceeded the possibilities in the older editions.

I think that the same consideration will apply in 4e. You just can't duplicate some of the multiclassed characters which existed in 3e, but there will be a far greater number of possibilities in the long term with the 4e method. (the thread about Paragon Paths highlighted this for me - the fact that just in the core books with 30 paragon paths and 8 classes, multiclassing makes any paragon path open to any base class, giving hundreds of different 20th level characters in the long run*)

The other big unknown is to what extent feats may enable certain features to be made available - for example, if someone wanted a two-weapon fighting paladin... can that be done? We don't really know yet.


* e.g. it may be that for each paragon path there is one class which can enter it directly, plus 7 ways in which that base class can be multiclassed, plus 7 base classes which could be multiclassed with the 'normal' base class, giving about 15 combinations for each paragon path. If the pattern follows, then 30 paragon paths could give 450 class combinations at 20th level.

 

[The Eternal GM]

Ideal for me.

Free multi-classing options like 3.5 had going would hit some classes hard (monk) and make other classes all too obvious a choice (fighter) while prohibiting others (paladin), all for no reason that the supposed freedom to cross-class at any time.

D&D is a class-based game, therefore I'm happy to stick to the classes, under the premise that the classes do what they should. Free cross-classing rules is just a headache. It means the DM and the players have more to remember, and honestly the class abilities create so much rules confusion that they aren't worth it.

4th Edition seems a compromise that will suffice, rather than going essentially classless or utterly restrictive. It might not be realistic (oh look, there's that word again!) and it will certainly stomp the stuffing out of every little power gamer wet dream (good!) but it will also keep classes in check, and make multi-class magic users viable options.

At least... All this is assuming the system works. Myself? I don't care... Won't be cross-classing much anyway, certainly not to begin with.

 

[AllisterH]

To those unhappy with the multiclass rules presented, what would a 50/50 fighter/mage actually look like in 4e at level 2, 6 and 10?

 

[Baka no Hentai]

A 13 ability score really isn't that hard to obtain. Most classes seem to prefer that you have a decent score in at least 3 abilities, which gives you plenty of multiclassing options.



Actually, the tiers of play article shows that you do get to increase ability scores as you go up in level.

"Originally Posted by http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a
3. Determine Ability Scores. Generate scores as for a 1st-level character, applying racial modifiers. Then increase those scores as shown on the Character Advancement table in the Player’s Handbook, with increases at 4th level, 8th level, 11th, 14th, and so on. (You can also use the NPC Ability Scores table on page 187 of the Dungeon Master’s Guide.)"

Thanks Falling! I completely missed that article, so that removes my only real complaint with the new multi-classing system.

And I didnt mean to imply that it would be initially hard to get a 13 ability score in a couple of areas at character creation, just that the system would require some planning if you wanted to multi-class and couldnt raise ability scores.

Thats very interesting though, so we will not only be getting a +1 modifier every other level, but the score itself will also increase (thus further increasing the modifier, I would imagine.) I guess they really do want high-powered play in 4E.

 

[Surgoshan]

To those unhappy with the multiclass rules presented, what would a 50/50 fighter/mage actually look like in 4e at level 2, 6 and 10?

As far as I can tell there are two ways to get a 50/50 fighter/mage in 4e. Either you are a fighter until level 10 and then multiclass to mage for your paragon path, or you're a mage to 10 and multiclass to fighter for PP.

So at 2, 6, and 10, you'd be just the one class.

The other method (feats to trade powers) wouldn't get you a 50/50 split.

 

[Scipio202]

As far as I can tell there are two ways to get a 50/50 fighter/mage in 4e. Either you are a fighter until level 10 and then multiclass to mage for your paragon path, or you're a mage to 10 and multiclass to fighter for PP.

So at 2, 6, and 10, you'd be just the one class.

The other method (feats to trade powers) wouldn't get you a 50/50 split.

Well, you can do both. In the megathread I made some assumptions about how paragon MCing would parallel the structure of Paragon Paths. If you both heroic feat MC and paragon MC, then from 1-10 you're typically 66/33, and then from 11-20 you're typically 55/45.

This counts only E/D/U powers, and not the additional effect on % split/feel that class-specific feats, class-specific magical items, and the ever-mysterious rituals will provide.

Overall I'm a fan of 4E MCing. Quite different from 3E. I think it'll be less about bonus-stacking, and more about expanding your options. And it seems like you'll be able to get one option from another class at maybe 80-90% effectiveness, rather than having to enter at 1st level abilities.