Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dead Scribe" data-source="post: 5629793" data-attributes="member: 21288">My experience with multiclassing is that it's not really multiclassing as conceived of in previous editions.&nbsp; That type of multiclassing doesn't really exist in 4e.&nbsp; It disappointed me three years ago when the game came out, but now it doesn't even seem necessary.&nbsp; Why would you need to be a fighter/mage when we now have many options for arcanists who dabble in melee (swordmage, spellsword, hexblade, and even bard and sorcerer) in every role?&nbsp; Is there a strong need for a fighter/cleric or fighter/rogue when those classes are already quite competent in melee?&nbsp; The existing classes already cover a lot of bases.&nbsp; Like most I don't see the power-swap feats as particularly useful.&nbsp; If your ranger wants to cover traditional thieving duties, just training in Stealth and Thievery should be enough to cover the concept.&nbsp; If you really want some of the rogue's stealth utility powers, then maybe a power swap feat or two is worth it.&nbsp; But at some point, if your character wants that many rogue powers, perhaps they should consider just being a rogue.&nbsp; And if they truly want a split between two classes, then the Hybrid options fit the bill.I'm not saying that the multiclass feats are totally useless.&nbsp; I just see them as condiments.&nbsp; A wizard with a few assassin feats is still a wizard, but he's picked up a few funny tricks.&nbsp; He is not a wizard/assassin.&nbsp; I think that's ok; it works fine.&nbsp; Multiclassing as it once was might not really be necessary anymore.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dead Scribe, post: 5629793, member: 21288"] My experience with multiclassing is that it's not really multiclassing as conceived of in previous editions. That type of multiclassing doesn't really exist in 4e. It disappointed me three years ago when the game came out, but now it doesn't even seem necessary. Why would you need to be a fighter/mage when we now have many options for arcanists who dabble in melee (swordmage, spellsword, hexblade, and even bard and sorcerer) in every role? Is there a strong need for a fighter/cleric or fighter/rogue when those classes are already quite competent in melee? The existing classes already cover a lot of bases. Like most I don't see the power-swap feats as particularly useful. If your ranger wants to cover traditional thieving duties, just training in Stealth and Thievery should be enough to cover the concept. If you really want some of the rogue's stealth utility powers, then maybe a power swap feat or two is worth it. But at some point, if your character wants that many rogue powers, perhaps they should consider just being a rogue. And if they truly want a split between two classes, then the Hybrid options fit the bill. I'm not saying that the multiclass feats are totally useless. I just see them as condiments. A wizard with a few assassin feats is still a wizard, but he's picked up a few funny tricks. He is not a wizard/assassin. I think that's ok; it works fine. Multiclassing as it once was might not really be necessary anymore. [/QUOTE]

Verification