Multiclass Rules

[Gladius Legis]

Yeah, I'm in the "not fully satisfied but it's a whole lot better than what we had before camp."

It's more flexible and intuitive than AD&D multiclassing without the disgusting twink factor of 3.x multiclassing.

 

[Cadfan]

I voted "extremely satisfied." I think that the multiclass rules are so great that in a few years you won't be using them.

What I mean by this is:

There are three ways I see to "multiclass." Note that I am putting multiclass in scare quotes because to me multiclassing isn't "getting stuff from another class," its "mixing themes and ways of fighting from multiple classes."

1. Multiclass feat, plus power swap feats. This works great for cherry picking, and as a dedicated cherry picker, I'm fine with it.

2. Skip your paragon path and take a specialization in another class. This is your catchall. It covers every possible combination, and provides a framework of rules for people to use if they can't achieve their character design goals in any other way. As a last-ditch option, it isn't bad. But the REAL multiclassing, I predict, is in method three, below.

3. Paragon Paths. From your class, or from other classes. There is SO MUCH DESIGN SPACE HERE. They could EASILY replace multiclassing. Very easily. And they could do so in three ways. So time for more numbering!

3a. You can take a multiclass feat, then select a paragon path from another class. If your cleric was going to give up his paragon path in order to take fighter powers, why not consider just taking a fighter paragon path, like Kensai?

3b. Paragon paths can be designed that push characters ever so slightly towards specializations from other classes. For example, a Fighter paragon path could be designed that makes your character a bit better at mobility and killing enemies who grant you combat advantage. It could still use strength based powers, but be focused on slightly more striker-ish behavior than a stereotypical Fighter. Essentially, paragon paths focus you a bit on one aspect of your character. If that aspect overlaps with another class, focusing on it is much like multiclassing. This is a sort of "soft" multiclassing that most people won't call multiclassing, but it can accomplish a lot of the things that are desired by the sorts of people who used to do things like create Fighter/Rogues.

3c. Full class-combination paragon paths can be created. Imagine a paragon path for a rogue that requires training in Arcana for entry. The paragon path then provides a host of magic powers related to roguery. This provides a more seamless multiclass of rogue and wizard than we might otherwise have. I expect this to be big. This is the design technique that I think will devour multiclassing in the long term.

I can't guarantee that the game design will go in this direction, but I'm pretty confident it will. I can see the shape of the design space, so I've got a fair idea what's going to fill it. The 3c choice is almost inevitable- designers will create paragon path multiclass characters, look at them and decide that they could design something more elegant, realize that there's no reason NOT to do so, and soon we'll see a couple pages of these in the back of each splatbook.

 

[77IM]

In the past, if you wanted to play a swordmage, you played a fighter/wizard. In 4.0, what you want to do is play a Swordmage (which I realize isn't available to play just yet).

That's why I voted "extremely dissatisfied." I want to play the character that I want to play. I don't want to play one of a short list of pre-approved concepts dictated by WotC. I don't want to have to wait to buy a book with a swordmage class and another with the arcane trickster and a third with an archer-warlord (or whatever that guy would be called).

A really solid multi-class system would give the "best of both worlds:" people who like classes could use the classes to their fullest, and those who want to step outside those boundaries could multi-class. I actually really like the mechanic of 4e's multi-classing, because it seems easier to balance than the 3e method. I just feel that the current implementation is too weak and winds up underpowering most characters who try it.

-- 77IM

 

[Alkiera]

The paragon path multiclass, which WotC admits is underpowered compared to taking an actual Path, is woeful. I have no problem with the power choices. It's that you trade 'get a nice action point ability, get 2 Nice path abilities' for 'swap an at-will'.

IMC, if someone wants to multiclass that fully, I'll probably give them some choices. PPs usually have 3 path abilities, 2 at 11, and 1 at 16. I'll treat these as a kind of 'feat' choice with several options:
* Upgrade the class ability from the MC feat to the full version. (ex. sneak attack 1/encounter to 1/round)
* Gain an additional class ability from the MC class. (So your fighter/warlock can curse people.)
* Move the encounter 'at-will' from the MC feat choice to be actually at-will.
* Gain an additional at-will power from the MC class.(once)

I think this at least makes it close to balanced with the Paragon Path option. In some ways it's better, getting an additional at-will is a pretty rare thing, but it's a versatility gain, where the PP abilities are almost all a raw power gain. I mean, really... as a DM, I'd fear the Ranger(rogue) who takes Daggermaster, and gets or makes a pair of +4 Vicious Daggers.

 

[Scalding]

I voted neither satisfied nor dissatisfied. I would be satisfied or extremely satisfied if there were additional feats that would allow access to class features, even at a reduced rate. For example, if you multiclass to Warlock, you'll never get Warlock's Curse, which the Pact Blade and many powers key off of, not to mention the Pact Boon. Several classes have this kind of omission. It wouldn't be hard to house rule them in, but I'm trying to run RAW for a while before mucking with things, and this thread is about the RAW.

 

[Thasmodious]

The concept is great, on concept alone, I am very satisfied. Its execution in the first book to deal with it is good, in general, but seems to have a few holes. Most of those are fairly easy to fix.

For example, Ranger paragon paths through multiclassing. All archery path is, as a choice for rangers, is defensive mobility. That + ranger multiclass feat becomes prereq for ranger paragon paths (perhaps at least one archery style power as well) of the archer variety. Two blade fighter, make it the TWF feat + toughness maybe, and you are qualified for two blade paths. And, you aren't as good as a straight ranger at it, since you can't use a one handed weapon in your off hand.

Paragon multiclassing is not the poor choice some of you seem to think. I'd suggest you stat out a few 15th-20th level multiclassed characters and compare with their single classed counterparts. I think it shakes out fairly well. Of course you give up a bit, but its not a huge hit or anything. And, again, if you wanted to beef it up, it would be very easy. Work with your DM and figure out a couple class abilities for your character at 11th and 16th, one with an AP use (or leave that solely for single classes). You could get some class abilities from the 2nd class you've always wanted, maybe remove the restriction on use from the ability granted by the original multiclass feat (like a character with rogue multiclass could start gaining full rogue sneak attack dice and ability at 11th; or a fighter multiclass could use marking just as a straight fighter could). You and your DM could also design an unique class ability or two for 11th level that lets you benefit from being both a XX and a YY.

Either way, I think the concept is great and will be extremely satisfied if it is shored up a bit, rules wise, in later books.

 

[Wombat]

See, this is an aspect of the current game rules that I really dislike -- in many ways it shows me why 3.whatever was better for my tastes.

Under the previous rules, there were hordes of options for a character, even with simply the PHB in hand. You could multiclass, mix up your class, and be whatever you wanted without having to wait for a whole new class to be created (which I felt was a major limiting factor with earlier editions of D&D); now, we have gone back to the pre-3e problems.

Sure, we will eventually have a swordmage and other such classes, but the image here is of slotting -- Tab A into Slot B, without variance. Players and GMs are to accept pre-determined, limited paths rather than allowing wider variances. Once you choose a path, you are pretty much limited to that path -- anything you do to mix things up very, very quickly becomes, to say the least, sub-optimal.

3e was all about choices; 4e is about making a decision at the beginning of your character's career and then limiting what you can do with that after the fact.

 

[Gladius Legis]

3e was about the illusion of choice. If you have 1000 possible combinations, but 995 of them are unplayable, then that is the illusion of choice. And that is exactly how 3e played out. 3e didn't know whether it wanted to be a classless or class-based system, and that was its failing.

 

[melkoriii]

See, this is an aspect of the current game rules that I really dislike -- in many ways it shows me why 3.whatever was better for my tastes.

Under the previous rules, there were hordes of options for a character, even with simply the PHB in hand. You could multiclass, mix up your class, and be whatever you wanted without having to wait for a whole new class to be created (which I felt was a major limiting factor with earlier editions of D&D); now, we have gone back to the pre-3e problems.

Sure, we will eventually have a swordmage and other such classes, but the image here is of slotting -- Tab A into Slot B, without variance. Players and GMs are to accept pre-determined, limited paths rather than allowing wider variances. Once you choose a path, you are pretty much limited to that path -- anything you do to mix things up very, very quickly becomes, to say the least, sub-optimal.

3e was all about choices; 4e is about making a decision at the beginning of your character's career and then limiting what you can do with that after the fact.

This is my thing about these so called MC rules.
You cant make a Ranged weapon Cleric or Warlord.

What they should have done is have each class have a bonus that is added to any of there powers. Like Rangers add Wis to damage rolls. Or the Fighters free OA on mobs shifting in reach.

Then Allow MCing into a class at first lvl and allow swapping one at-will for and then at 4th 8th and 10th the other power swapping. At first lvl give the class features that allow you to perform as that class jut not get the cool thing that you only get from your main class.

That way a Fighter/Cleric is almost the same as a Cleric/Fighter (since there should be really no difference) Only difference would be the one cool thing that set the two apart.

Spycraft has something like this.

 

[Agamon]

Compred to 3e, I'm satisfied. At first blush, the 3e multiclass rules looked both awesome and elegant. But like the saying goes, if looks too good to be true....

That said, I was expecting the new rules to be something revolutionary. I thought I had a couple really good ideas concerning this. They kinda went that way, but not quite.

So overall I'm satisfied, but I think they could have allowed for a little more crossover.