Multiclass Rules

[Cedric]

Personally, I am very disappointed by the multi-class rules. I don't think it's going to ruin my enjoyment of the game, but it's possible.

I started with the limited, interesting options in 1st ed. Then was happy to see those open up a bit in 2nd ed. Then, with 3 and 3.5, I was ecstatic, those were just great.

But now, it's almost completely been removed from the game. I can't multiclass, I can barely dabble in a second class, never actually gaining any level of proficiency in that class without spending every feat and ability I have.

 

[small pumpkin man]

They're decent. I like the starting feats, and unlike certain people, I think the Power swap feats are fine. Choosing another class's Paragon Path has specific issues (Warlocks & Rangers to be specific) and the actual swapping out a Paragon Path for "full" multiclassing seems like a complete waste of time, but I feel these are specific problems, not problems with the underlying system.

 

[Mengu]

My biggest complaint with multi-classing is it's name. People keep trying to associate it to its predecessor rules, and are disappointed by it. Here is my take:

Multi-classing is gone. 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).

Multiclassing was one of the most difficult aspects of the game to keep balance because 1 level something gives you a ridiculous number of useful abilities, especially for certain combinations (remember the 3.0 rogues who pretty much by default got a level of ranger?) Multi-classing was the dream of every min-maxer (especially if the DM was lenient about using splat books). This version of multi-classing is gone, and I'm quite glad for it. It's replacement will simply be the introduction of more classes via PHB 2, 3, etc.

If they had gotten rid of the name "Multi-classing" and called the feat something like "Dabbler", it would have been much more descriptive of what the feat does. If I have a Warlord who came across some arcane books, and can chuck a Scorching Burst every once in a while, it's not a multi-class character, it's just a Warlord, who dabbles a bit in arcane magic. Similarly if my Warlock wants to help his allies once in a while with an Inspiring Word, that does not make him a multi-class Warlord.

So I think of old multi-classing as new classes we will see down the road, and the new multi-class feats as dabbler feats.

 

[Nifft]

I dislike the current rules. That whole section feels rushed, and doesn't seem to work well.

Cheers, -- N

 

[Ander00]

The impression i get from the multiclass system is that they probably had something quite a bit different in place, which satisfied multiclassers. Then they likely discovered that it was a bit too good, the pendulum swung way back and resulted in a wreck that nobody really bothered to fix. Either due to time constraints or because they wanted to have an increased emphasis on roles and felt that, if anything, multiclassing was to be discouraged, even if they did not want to officially slaughter that sacred cow after going on about how grand the new multiclass rules were going to be.


cheers

 

[Mercule]

Works better than previous editions. I like strong archetyping (that's the point of a class-based system) and the feat-based dips into other classes allows for some customization without breaking the archetype.

 

[Darth Cyric]

They're not perfect (in particular, Paragon Multiclassing is a waste), but I have never been satisfied with multiclassing in any previous edition of D&D and, truth be told, 4e's is the least offensive it's been.

 

[Tervin]

Lets see...

At level 10 you have 6 feats. A maximum of 4 of those could be dedicated to multiclassing - and 1 of those 4 also provides an extra skill in almost every case. (Not with Paladin/Cleric multiclassing.) So even if you have done all you can to multiclass, you still have a couple of feats left. As for powers you would have two dailies in your major class, one in your minor. Same with utility and encounter powers.

To me that looks really good. You get the versatility of having powers from two different classes, and you still have room for some other feats that can either boost one of your classes, or your character in general. Yes, you would have more feats freed up if you stuck to only one class, but that seems like a fair trade to me.

Past level 10 the multiclassed character has twice the usual choice of paragon paths (multiclassing there seems a little too weak and probably not as much fun - but I could very well be wrong) which means even more chance to develop the character in a new and exciting way.

So, to me multiclassing is fine in the new edition. Yes, less free than in the last edition, but with retraining so many other things are so much freer now...

 

[SableWyvern]

My initial impression of epic-level multiclassing is that I like it. The versatility vs raw power trade-off seems balanced.

What I don't like is that paragon multiclassing looks underpowered, and quite of few of the apparent options for taking paragon paths in your second class are either not actually available (Ranger) or offer powers you can't actually use (Warlock).

 

[Argyuile]

My initial impression of epic-level multiclassing is that I like it. The versatility vs raw power trade-off seems balanced.

What I don't like is that paragon multiclassing looks underpowered, and quite of few of the apparent options for taking paragon paths in your second class are either not actually available (Ranger) or offer powers you can't actually use (Warlock).

I have to agree that it seems fine at higher levels and meek at lower levels. Having said that its about a billion times better then the abomination that was 3E multiclassing.