Modified Paragon Multiclassing

[Plane Sailing]

I'm looking at the paragon multiclassing rules, and I'm thinking that they look a little weak, particularly in comparison to the paragon paths.

Both get an 11th level attack power, 12th level utility power and 20th level attack power (although the paragon multiclass gets lower level versions of the powers from another class)

However, where the paragon path gets two or more 11th level class features and a 16th level class feature, the paragon multiclass gets to swap one of its at-wills for one from another class.

This seems extremely weak to me; a very bad deal for the paragon multiclassers. Not least because despite giving up the benefits of a paragon path they are -still- second rate in their multiclass, since they are missing out on class features.

My proposed solution:

11th level - gain an additional at-will taken from your multiclass
11th level - gain one of the class features of your chosen multiclass
16th level - gain another one of the class features of your chosen multiclass.

This means that paragon multiclassed paladins could actually lay on hands, clerics can turn stuff, wizards can use implements, rogues sneak attack and so on.

I think this would provide a better balance with the existing paragon paths in terms of what you get out of it (especially considering the much stronger investment required to get *into* it), and it would also deal with some of the multiclassing woes that I've seen people mention in terms of re-enabling certain multiclasses to work a little more like in 3e.

Do you like it? Are there any obvious abusable loopholes here?

Cheers

 

[Kzach]

Class features would make it... interesting. I'm hesitating to say overpowered but my gut tells me that it would be.

Partly this comes from having dabbled with a multi-class fighter-wizard where I thought the idea of getting the staff implement power would be a very nice synergy with two-handed weapon bonus.

Hmm... I think I'd have to see and probably make up myself a few characters made up with both rules first to be able to see any potential loopholes. Too many combinations possible to think off the top of my head what may be broken.

Of course, I believe part of their justification for the multi-classing rules that power comes through versatility. So by having a power from another class, you're getting a very big advantage. Granting class features as well might just be too much.

 

[Plane Sailing]

Of course, I believe part of their justification for the multi-classing rules that power comes through versatility. So by having a power from another class, you're getting a very big advantage. Granting class features as well might just be too much.

This could indeed be a problem - but the thing that concerns me is that class features is essentially what makes the class, and without the ability to get some of the class features a multiclass rogue/cleric will never actually feel like a cleric if he can't ever turn undead (for instance).

It would be great to hear the results of any 'testing' you do though.

 

[keterys]

Makes it too good to take a striker multiclass, unfortunately. That's just a lot of raw damage added for any class.

 

[mattdm]

My current preferred solution for this is: leave paragon multiclassing exactly as it is, except you can get it as a feat instead of by giving up your paragon path. The feat would have the same prereq — all of the power swap feats for your class.

 

[Kzach]

Makes it too good to take a striker multiclass, unfortunately. That's just a lot of raw damage added for any class.

Yeah, a ranger with sneak attack. Ouch!

 

[DonAdam]

I thought exactly the same thing, and posted stuff a while back in keterys's thread. I think it's best to specify what they get--i.e., make them full-blown paragon paths.

Makes it too good to take a striker multiclass, unfortunately. That's just a lot of raw damage added for any class.

This isn't an issue if you assign a common type to sneak attack, warlock's curse, and hunter's quarry. Then they can't stack. "Precision" damage?

 

[keterys]

This isn't an issue if you assign a common type to sneak attack, warlock's curse, and hunter's quarry. Then they can't stack. "Precision" damage?

Sadly, no - it's still good, just means that non-strikers can do striker damage and strikers got no similar recourse.

Adding 3d8-5d8 to your attack every round is just a _ton_ of damage and very few things begin to compete with it.

 

[DonAdam]

Fair enough.

The only real problem is that stupid Warlock's Curse. With the other classes, its easy to just give the other features instead. But all the warlock class features depend on the curse.

Guess I'll just have to write up a paragon version of the blasted thing that only gives a +1 per tier to damage or something like that.

 

[Xethreau]

Here is my opinion.

11th Level Path Feature > Multiclass Class feature NOT provided by MC feat

11th Level AP Feature > 1st Level At-Will Power from multiclass (gain, not switch)

Powers from Paragon Multiclassing > As normal

16th level Path Feature > Upgrade class feature gained from MC feat to the power provided by the original class.

What do you guys think? Your powers are not as powerful as the PP powers, and most of your class features are not either. The only broken instances are for Strikers, which are kind of broken anyway.

A way I think that that can be fixed is that these "bonus damage" features cannot stack. It seems reasonable to me, and there is no reason why one would not be able to use both at the same time (same encounter on same enemy). For instance, someone could easily WC an enemy and deal damage to that enemy like that for most of the battle, and ocasionally come in with a sneak attack. Damage would not stack, but the player still enjoys the versitility.