Multiclass Feat Weirdness?

[WereMike]

I think the use of the label "Multiclass" has become a misnomer in 4E. It feels much more like a "Minor" in a college degree, as in my character majors in "Fighter" and minors in "Wizard."

I need to gather some empirical evidence on how it plays out.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

To address some stuff I had to pass over before:

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

By base concept? Most of them, though to make some of them truly sing required a few key non-Core Feats and spells. Part of that is the gamers I play with- a standard 3.X campaign setup in my 2 main groups is Core + Completes only (PHB races only, non-core Classes, PrCls, Feats & Spells by DM approval), no 3rd party sources.

But for the most part, I don't use any of the base classes from the supplements.

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?

The Githzerai, as published in XPH, had a LA of +2 and no HD. So yes, I did start him as a 1st level Monk in a 3rd level party.

How about you stick to just those characters you could build and that would not totally suck in core 3.0? Hmm?? That would not be unreasonable, seeing as you're using 8 years of supplements there.

Of the ones I listed, one used the XPH and another one used a non-Core PrCl. The rest could be made pure core.

True, you can no longer have all of the abilities of a top-level druid, a top-level sorcerer, and a top-level ranger. This is a feature, not a bug.

To you, perhaps (and FWIW it was druid, specialist wizard and ranger). For at least a portion of long-time players, it may be a fatal flaw.

Either it is a direct connection to the divine which all multiclass clerics have, or the presence of the divine keyword doesn't actually mean anything.

Divine does mean something. In 4Ed, it means a real (single-classed) cleric can do a wide variety of things with his divine connection, and the (multiclassed) cleric comes up truncated in his.

By this reasoning, you can't have a single-classed character in 4th edition.<snip>

Not at all. A single classed PC has access to the class' every possible skill, feat or power option from which to choose. And they have full access to the Paragon path. Multiclassed PCs don't.

Its less pronounced (almost nonexistent, really) in the Fighter, but in the 4Ed spellcasting classes? The IotF feat gives you one pre-selected specific ability, not the choice of the several the Cleric has. You don't get the at will abilities at all.

Try a cleric/ranger.

1) The Cleric/Ranger doesn't get TWF- the Rgr multiclass feat only grants a skill and the 4Ed equivalent to favored enemy.
2) The 4Ed Cleric isn't a reasonable substitute for Druid- nothing about the class bespeaks a connection to nature. (This is, FWIW, one of the things I think 2Ed did better than 3.X- you could, using the "Priests of specific mythoi" rules in that edition, make a nature cleric who looked as good in his own way as a druid.)

Rogue, with Ritual Caster.

1) That build would not grant the PC the Fighter's proficiency with weapons (essential, since that's what he started out as), which was coupled to devastating effect with his backstabbing ability.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I put it to you that if everyone could aquire Channel Divine, it would cease to feel clericy.

In 3.X, anyone could, if they multiclassed into the right class.

A multiclassed cleric can't do much with anything beyond the skeleton/zombie/ghoul zone in 3e, unless it is mostly cleric, and the character you're describing sounds like it is mostly fighter.

The PC was evenly divided between Ftr and Cleric.

I suspect that if you approached it by looking for solutions rather than looking for problems, you might be more impressed.

I'm looking at the game from 2 different sets of criteria:

Set 1: How good is the game as a replacement for previously published versions of D&D as a Player and DM.

Set 2: How good is the game in and of itself (as player & game master)- as a FRPG with the numbers filed off (IOW, ignoring its connection to D&D).

From the perspective of Set 2, it does pretty well. The lengthening lists of typos & editing errors notwithstanding (there's a whole thread on it stickied for ease of use) game is fairly clean.

From the perspective of Set 1, its getting an "D" from me, and also from a host of other gamers of my acquaintence, each with long histories of gaming. As of yet, not a one has considered purchasing the game or, more importantly, teaching it to their kids.

What would they pass on to the next generation of gamers? 1Ed? Some would, and 2Ed, a few more. 3.X is, in their eyes, a resounding success that they're more than willing to play with their kids. 4Ed, though...

Besides, the main "solution" we're looking for is continuing using the established campaigns we're playing, regardless of ruleset. Were Q to pop up and destroy all of the universe's 3.X books in order to make us update to 4Ed, we'd still have to wait at least a year before doing so...if we could. Our Gnome (MM only, not in PHB) Cleric/Monk (not in 4Ed), our 1/2 Orc (not in 4Ed) Druid (not in 4Ed)/Barbarian (not in 4Ed), our Fighter/Druid (not in 4Ed), our Ftr/Rgr (no TWF in 4Ed multiclassing)/SpecWiz Diviner (not in 4Ed)/Spellsword would all be gone. Some others would have lost abilities and/or flexibility.

Think of it like a legacy software problem. I've already been through an update in which a particular software company replaced its own database/spreadsheet product with another one so different, it couldn't even import the data (and, as it turned out, neither could anyone else's). I had to pay someone $$$$ to handle the data translation (or re-enter a decade of data by hand) in order to get access to those databases & spreadsheets again.

 

[theNater]

Not at all. A single classed PC has access to the class' every possible skill, feat or power option from which to choose. And they have full access to the Paragon path. Multiclassed PCs don't.
Its less pronounced (almost nonexistent, really) in the Fighter, but in the 4Ed spellcasting classes? The IotF feat gives you one pre-selected specific ability, not the choice of the several the Cleric has. You don't get the at will abilities at all.

A character who has taken a class-specific multiclass feat counts as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifying for paragon paths

OTOH, the power swap feats don't let you have anything from the "At Will category," nor anything from the (as yet non-existent) non-Attack category of Clerical Prayers. Should something like that be added to the game, PC's will need to burn more feats.

Every class has a mix of attack powers (used to harm your enemies in combat, more or less directly) and utility powers (used to overcome a variety of obstacles both in and out of combat).

Why are you inventing problems?

 

[Wolf in the Meadow]

What some people seem to be forgetting, in regards to 4th Ed here is that the first tier is called "Heroic Tier" and not "Jo-Schmo Tier". By the time you hit level 1 in 4th ed, you're character is already an established hero in whatever field they have chosen... Which is why you can kill goblin "minions" in one hit instead of getting eaten like ORDINARY people. Your character tried being fighter, dind't really like it, decided to be a wizard... so you're a wizard with "military weapons" as you're first feat. There are plenty of ways of doing things that provide for character development without being some kind of rediculous genuis fighter with bulging muscles and the entire supply of the Realm's magic at your disposal. Realism over ego-boosting.

Drizzt Do'Urden was supposed to have great potential with magic, but you don't see him running around throwing fireballs. He dind't get 1 level of wizard for his training (which he had). He just has knowledge. Drizzt actually works as a ranger in 4th ed instead of a fighter/ranger like in 3rd (.5) Well, except for the fact that I don't think you can weild two scimitars in 4th ed as they don't have the "off-hand" keyword...

You can be influenced by multiple classes without gainind EACH AND EVERY advantage of them... can you seriously tell me that if you worked you way up from being a nobody, to being a heroic fighter, all the way up to being a paragon, sombody famous throughout the land, and then suddenly decided to be a wizard, that you'd instantly have full access to magic? No! You might train in magic, but your first impluse would always be to rech for a weapon, that is just the nature of martial trainnig. Nobdoy just stops being what they are, so it makes sense that whatever they decide to change to, takes second fiddle.

This has been a rant inspired by Complainers with no Imagination (C).

I'm glad I don't have to play with you.

 

[silentounce]

Why are you inventing problems?

True, 4e has so many that this is unnecessary.

 

[Rel]

This has been a rant inspired by Complainers with no Imagination (C).

I'm glad I don't have to play with you.

Welcome to ENWorld, Wolf in the Meadow. I'm sure you will have many valuable contributions to our community during your time here. That being the case, you should probably try to understand that you'll best be served by making your points in a less insulting and rude way. That way lots and lots of people won't be putting you on their Ignore lists.

Enjoy your stay.

 

[hamishspence]

rangers

rangers get one-handed weapons wieldable in their off-hands. You can have twin-scim Drizzt. In fact, given that in last ed one-handed weapons were sub-par for rangers compared to light weapons (big penalties) your version of Drizzt will be rather more fun to play than .5 version.

the tricky part is weapons: icingdeath has never really had anything that quite matches the book version.

Closest approximation would be taking the dragonbane weapon rule and customising it: +3 Firebane: bonuses vs creatures with attacks with the fire type, resistance vs fire, punches through resistances of creatures with fire attacks.

Twinkle has no 4th ed counterpart since defending weapons went away: maybe +4 magic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

can you seriously tell me that if you worked you way up from being a nobody, to being a heroic fighter, all the way up to being a paragon, sombody famous throughout the land, and then suddenly decided to be a wizard, that you'd instantly have full access to magic?

No, that's not what is bugging me at all.

What bugs me is that someone in 4Ed who just started multiclassing as wizard (and some of the other spellcasters)- analogous to taking his first level as a wizard in 3Ed- has a fraction of the Wizardly options available to a PC who starts off as a 4Ed Wizard. Its as if the School of Wizardry decided to let him call himself a Wizard without all the schooling another person had to take- something like someone with an honorary degree calling himself "Doctor."

No, I take that back...its more like social promotion. The warrior who joins the School of Magic as a "1W" still gets to call himself a wizard, despite not having mastered a second Wizardly at-will power, or any of the class' Daily or Encounter powers, unlike his classmates.

I also quite dislike the limitation on taking classes. Historically speaking, for many of my PC concepts, leveling in 2 classes has proven to be insufficient to the task of rounding them out in the way I envisioned them. Regardless of build suggested by theNater, my 1Ed/2Ed/3Ed Rgr/Druid/MU has to sacrifice aspects of himself in order to be approximated in 4Ed.

Why are you inventing problems?

I'm big enough to admit I misread the thing about qualifying for paragon paths- I mentally substituted the word "powers" for "paths."

However, I'll stand by the general substance of the other statement you quoted. The Novice and Adept Power-swap feats explicitly only let you swap out attack powers. Acolyte Power does let you get utility powers, many of which (as I skim through them) seem to be attack/melee oriented. None lets you get at-will abilities.

rangers get one-handed weapons wieldable in their off-hands.

Only if you start off as a ranger- the multiclassing feat grants Hunters Quarry and a single skill.

 

[Victoly]

In a world where everyone can heal but only a precious few can cast spells- and of those, Clerics are one of the few full casters- a cleric who can't cast spells is much less cleric-y.

Clerics don't cast spells, only warlocks and wizards do. Clerics have "prayers". So, right there, your whole argument pretty much falls apart.



Seriously though, congrats to theNater. You're owning this thread. Basically, if you're not willing to re-write fluff to suit your gaming needs, you're not doing it right. Some of you would be completely disgusted with the way my friends and I played 3e. "So, your character is just a normal dude who found an alien raygun? Just make a sorcerer and change the flavour text so that your "spells" are the different settings you discover on the gun." Etc.

Also, silentounce, it's pretty ridiculous that you claimed that your keyboard was sticky when you wrote "$E" and then claimed that you were being "dead serious". Most people who are dead serious don't resort to sarcasm and hyperbole.