Multiclass Feat Weirdness?

[HP Dreadnought]

What theNater said.

Due to narrowing the focus of classes, many concepts that were single-class before are now multiclass setups, like the ranger(cleric) above.

Actually. . .

I think many class concepts before. . . regardless of how they were built. . . . will have dedicated base classes under 4E. They're just not out yet.

Two years from now there will be a slew of options of every kind and flavor. . . it's just going to take time to build up the base system.

 

[theNater]

Here's one: Arcane Reach, page 202, is a feat that only works with Arcane powers.

Well spotted! I retract my claim; I now know that power source has a mechanical effect.

I still stand by my claim that multiclassing into cleric immediately gives you divine power, however.

 

[the_redbeard]

As to the rest of my stable of PCs, I frequently design PCs with more than 2 classes. One of my oldest PCs has full Druidic shapechange, full access to top level Arcane & Divine spells, and is a Ranger besides.

Seeing as how to gain TWF, he'd have to be a Ranger, that means he'd be losing out on either Arcane or Divine spellcasting...and he sure wouldn't be Shapechanging at any point in the near future. Oh yeah...his most common blast spell was Lightning bolt- most of his arcane spells were transmutation spells.

Another PC was a warrior and thief for many many years...then discovered that the practice of casting illusions made him an even more effective assassin. He's equally proficient in war, thievery, and arcane magic. Except there isn't much illusion magic in 4Ed yet.

My Githzerai polearm-flurrying PsyWar/Monk/PrCl (3rd party, but could have been a WotC one) is completely out in the cold. No psi (Inertial Armor, Expansion, etc.), no monk, seemingly gimped polearm rules. The MM PC version of the race seems much watered down.

My TWF (multiple warrior classed)/Diviner/SpellSword is also going to have to wait a long time before being realized- very few damaging/controlling spells in his repertoire, and no spell-channelling ability in the game as yet.

My Fighter/Cleric of Tyr? Despite having only 2 classes, this isn't a low-level PC, being well into the Paragon level (to use 4Ed lingo) in both. She's specialized in longsword and can turn undead well enough to destroy them. But before you look at her abilities, realize that she advanced as a human fighter for 14-15 levels before devoting herself to Tyr. This isn't mere mechanics, this was a result of the plot of the campaign. This means you can't design her as a cleric first with a smattering of warrior powers- she must be designed as a Fighter first, which in 4Ed means she never gets Channel Divine. Meaning those undead don't get turned and destroyed.

How many of your PCs could you make in 3.5 with only the PHB, DMG, MM?

For your Gith, did you use optional level buy off (srd but not core, and not in the beginning of 3.5) or did you start 4 levels below everyone else?
Also for your gith, note that when the warforged got their write up in the dragon, they got several feats of their own that expand their abilities. The player races in the 4e MM have only their basic write up - not their racial feats. They'll likely get their higher powered abilities in later material (dragon, splat book, whatever) just like warforged got their capabilities expounded upon.

Yes, it isn't perfect, yes, it needs more errata for things missed. It needs additional material to have all the options we're used to having.

But you're going nuts on what you expect out of a new edition a week after release.

 

[SSquirrel]

But everyone heals- ChaDiv and divine spellcasting are by far a rarer resource than healing.

You keep saying this, but you're saying it wrong. The number of classes that can trigger healing surges in their allies is very limited. Offhand, I'm pretty sure it is just the Paladin, Cleric and Warlord. (I could easily be wrong) Healing Word allows you the ability to let you're friends spend a surge, which can't just be done willy nilly. They also get extra healing on top of that surge's normal health gain.

So yes everyone can use Second Wind and Healing Surges, but only when opportunities allow. Healing Word gives that opportunity.

 

[On Puget Sound]

OH and Im also not happy that even classes limite you to what concepts you can use in 4e in general.

Try Making a Ranged weapon (not magic) Fighter, Cleric, Warlord, Paladin. You cant use any of your attack powers because they are all Melee.

VERY limiting and something that I would have screamed about if I was a Playtester.

TO me it seems the playtesters they got were very close minded on how rules were to WHAT the rules should allow.

<sigh> how many months of this do we hae to go through?

Ranged weapon fighter:
1. Make a ranger.
2. Give him an armor proficiency feat.
3. Take a magic marker and scribble out the word "ranger" at the top of your sheet.

You now have a ranged fighter. As for ranged clerics or paladins... they can use crossbows with basic ranged attacks; you can give them weapon prof longbow or make them elves, but you basically have as good ranged capability as paladins or clerics had in 3E. And I would submit that, in ANY edition, if a cleric is shooting his crossbow there is probably something better he could be doing.

Class names in 4E do not equate to similar named classes in 3E. Instead, they define roles in the party. "Fighter" means "melee tank". Asking the rules to facilitate making a "ranged-weapon melee tank" is kind of silly.

 

[On Puget Sound]

3.5 had tens of thousands of viable character builds. I loved playing with the rules and building them. 4E has at best a few hundred, and since most of the world has only had the rules for a week, we haven't even found most of those.

4.0 has moved the options from character creation to combat; you can't make as many kinds of characters, but whatever character you do make will have more interesting options in each round of combat.

As the owner of a spiked-chain tripmonkey (ftr2/rog3/exotic wpn master-2/thief acrobat-1/occult slayer-3), I had lots of fun making characters who could do one thing and do it well. But let's face it, combat tended to be repetitive. Either your schtick worked and you were happy, or the foe was resistant to it (I hated swarms, oozes, flyers...) and you were frustrated.

 

[Chris_Nightwing]

I don't think you can compare any current or recent multiclassing to 2E. Dual-classing was a munchkin's wet dream given that if a DM asked for characters of level X, you simply chose a previous class you used to have and summarily all of the abilities.

You can't have the abilities of every class without significant investment any more. You can't dip into classes at almost no cost. I like the limitations.

 

[Archus]

Even without Multi-Classing.

Cant have a Bow using Cleric or Warlord (all weapon powers are melee/str only)

This is the part I had to pipe up on since I've had a similar discussion with some players.

Everyone has a basic melee and basic ranged attack. And as far as I can tell the only disadvantage with not being proficient with a weapon is that you don't get the proficiency bonus to attack rolls.

So every Cleric and Warlord can use a bow. Both are only trained in simple ranged so it is crossbows and slings to get the proficiency bonus.

Sure the powers don't used ranged weapons but you can use ranged weapons. How many of the cleric 3.X "powers" used a ranged weapon? Very few, there were some spells like magic weapon that gave arrows a magic bonus or the like but only an arcane archer really had "powers" in their arrows.

The ranged powers of the Cleric don't use ranged weapons but they do have ranged prayers similar to what they had in 3.X.

Right now the only classes that have powers with a ranged weapon are the Rogue and Ranger and the Ranger is king in this department. I expect it will change in the future.

For character concepts that are masters of the bow, in 4.0 you either are a Ranger or multi-class to one. Some of my players are having a really hard time with the idea their "Fighter" can't be a master of the bow, but that is obsessing on class names instead of role. Other players are upset their "Ranger" doesn't have druidic powers. Another class name obsession; renaming the ranger might have helped but they are more in line with Lord of the Rings rangers.

I have not problems with swapping at-wills, encounters and dailies when MCing.

You lessen your ability to do one role to gain some ability to do another role.

How is that unbalanced?

Personally I think that swapping out at-wills should be allowed and that the MC rules need some work. I understand why you don't get all the class features since that could make some combos too killer. Imagine a rogue/ranger/warlock stacking their curse, hunters mark, and sneak attack all the time (even so the ranger's mark in the MC rules is superior since it lasts all encounter on one foe). Or a rogue using a warlock's shadow-step to always get backstabs, etc.

Also the MC rules as they stand give you a skill for free. Why take skill training when you can multiclass and get a skill and some powers (you can always retrain MC away later if you want)?

My personal rules for MC initiate are tending toward:
* No skill gain, maybe a skill requirement (like Arcana, Religion, etc.)
* No extra encounter power
* Swap one at-will power with MC
* Get some limited class feature

 

[Particle_Man]

(even so the ranger's mark in the MC rules is superior since it lasts all encounter on one foe).

I think there has been errata to limit that to end of the next turn.

 

[Mirtek]

Not at all. Not at all. Take a 1st level character in 4e who has taken a multiclass feat, and compare it to any first level character in 3rd. The 4th edition character at level 1 is far more multiclassed than was possible at 1st level in 3rd edition.

Actually that's not true. 3e had rules for being lvl 0 in a class so that you chould make a Ftr0/Clr0 as a first lvl MC character.

3.5e however got rid of this option.