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

[malraux]

I'm right in the middle. But I think the multiclassing is losing more than it's gaining. While 3e multiclassing did not work for some classes, it did work for (pretty much) all non caster based class combos. To me, the better answer would have been to fix the way spell progression worked rather than gimp the whole thing.

That said, 4e multiclassing looks workable in and of itself, I think. My only objection is that it only allows concepts of the "I'm a foo, who dabbles in bar", and rules out concepts of "I'm a foobar."

 

[mmu1]

It's not multi-classing. It's cross-class training, or something.

It's the typical 4E baby-with-the-bathwater approach. So, no, I don't like it much.

 

[Kzach]

This is the first thing I've seen of 4e that I don't like.

I'll reserve full judgement until I can see it in action and tinker around with some characters to test it out, but in principle I don't like it.

 

[drothgery]

Meh. It's simple and effective for what it's trying to do (allow you to be one class with a few things from another), but basically solves the fighter 10/wizard 10 problem by saying 'you can't do that'.

 

[malraux]

Its good. You can actually start out as an <A> with <B> training, which 3e lacked entirely.

Not true. 3e had the option of multiclass at first level. It didn't make it into the 3.5 DMG, but was in the 3.0 DMG.

 

[WhatGravitas]

It's not multi-classing. It's cross-class training, or something.

It's the typical 4E baby-with-the-bathwater approach. So, no, I don't like it much.

While I like that system, I agree that the name "multiclassing" is a bit misleading.

The only thing I miss is a way to pick up a third class - but if the combo feats for one class and paragon path for another class really works, then I have three classes and then I'm pretty happy with it.

Cheers, LT.

 

[GoodKingJayIII]

Not one to multiclass much, I'm generally ok with it. But I can understand the concerns as well. Basically, is benefit worth the cost?

 

[keterys]

I'm middle (so not voting). I like some aspects quite a bit, but others I didn't like. I guess by making multiclassing based on feats they made it more of an accent to your character (because if it were too good, everyone would have to spend their feats on it), but I'd like a method that makes it easier to swap powers. This one feels too expensive/limited.

 

[Ghaerdon Fain]

I'm positive... BUT want to see more. Not "great" atm.

 

[Mercutio01]

This is the first thing I've seen of 4e that I don't like.

I'll reserve full judgement until I can see it in action and tinker around with some characters to test it out, but in principle I don't like it.

Very much a ditto here. I created concepts for characters then used the rules to fill out the idea. I didn't want a rogue who could dabble in magic. I wanted a rogue with rudimentary magical skills who used magical daggers to assassinate people. (rogue/wiz/daggerspell mage/assassin). The character was not a Rogue-Wizard-DM-Assassin in game. He was just a cold-blooded hitman. The multiclass system was a convenient way to collect character traits.

I just object to the idea that a character is a role and will never be anything more than a role that can dabble a little. I liked having a character. I didn't want to be the healbot. I wanted to be a religious character that worked in the shadows for his religion ferreting out the nefarious members of the faith - Cleric-rogue-shadowbane stalker.

It just seems like this is going to be a limitation on what kind of character concepts can be supported.

For instance, it doesn't appear like you can make a Razor Charlie under the new rules.