D&D 4E Multiclassing theory for 4e

[Ipissimus]

The way Mearls and others are talking, I think people are on the right track thinking that the class training feats are the new multiclassing. I think it was Podcast 20 where they said that what they had with multiclassing handled 'shallow' multiclassing well (ie dipping) but didn't enable 'deep' multiclassing... I'm still trying to figure out what they mean exactly by 'deep' and likely I won't know until I have the books.

My theory is that each class will have a class training feat tree. Feat number one gives you X array of class powers/abilities. Feat number 2 gives you THIS. Etcetera. There may be some ammount of choice in what you get, eg 'choose between x and y benefits from this feat', or feat branches that allow you to customize exactly what you get depending on how far up the core feat 'trunk' you are.

This gives you an in-built level limit in line with the availability of feats. And we've already seen feats that give access to powers (from the DDXP cleric). It could be that multiclass powers work much like the Divine Channeling feats from here: use x class daily/encounter power or y class training feat daily/encounter power but not both in the same day/encounter. Which leaves at-will powers just tacked on to your existing at-will powers.

Or, it could be more like wizard spell memorization. Choose between x class power or y class training feat power at the beginning of the day.

The good thing about doing it this way is scaling powers, retaining the usefulness of the feat at high level. Since it has been indicated that you will swap out old powers for better ones as they become available by level, there's no reason that you won't be able to do the same with powers gained from class training feats. Quite elegant, really.

 

[small pumpkin man]

A good guess. Sounds like it could work.

However, I think it will be more than that. For instance, How would you get the ability to Sneak Attack without starting a rogue? Could anyone besides a rogue gain Sneak Attack?

Those are the issues I want handled.

In the podcast it was mentioned that there were various "amounts" of multiclassing, depending on how "deep" one wanted to go. I would assume that actual class abilities would be available, but that this would be "deeper" multiclassing.

 

[Vempyre]

... and there will be multiclassing by taking levels of another class.

Havn't seen that anywhere.

 

[Jhaelen]

Based on what? It's been strongly suggested that when you take a power from multi-classing it will be appropriate in power to all other powers you can take.

Fail to see how this won't make you character stronger

Using a power requires an action: Either a standard, move, minor, or immediate action. Once you've got a good power for each type of action gaining another power using the same action type won't do much for you. You don't get more actions from gaining new powers. Therefore feats that grant a continous bonus should be superior to additional powers.

 

[RigaMortus2]

A lot of character builds in 3E (except straight up spellcasters) really benefited from multiclassing. It was mainly the only reason to dip into Fighter. A melee build benefited with a dip or two into a spellcasters, such as to get True Strike.

But it seems to me, 4E might be trying to discourage multiclassing. It seems that just want you to play a class straight from level 1 to 30. And to appease those who like multiclassing, they might throw some half-assed mechanic in to do so. I don't think multiclassing is going to be what it was in 3E. Taking a feat in order to multiclass? Bah... What I think they should do, is what they did similiar to Tome of Battle. When you multiclass, you are equal to half your character level when deciding on what powers and such you are available for in your new class.

DISCLAIMER: The above is my impression, and I am assuming a lot here, so like everything you read, take it with a grain of salt. It just worries me since we don't know much about multiclassing yet.

"It's the impression that I get..." - Mighty Might Bostones

 

[wrightdjohn]

Here is a post I made on the WOTC forums..

I talked to Mike Mearls at D&DEXP. He was somewhat vague of course but here is what I took from the conversation with him.

Full Multiclassing...
1. Your classes all go up in levels together
2. You get powers assigned based on some kind of multiclassing table. I'm guessing that there are dual class and triple class tables. (but thats a guess).
3. I also got the impression that your character has a level as opposed to your individual classes. e.g. Fighter/Wizard 10th level as opposed to Fighter 5/Wizard 5.

Splash Multiclassing...
1. You are a single class player who wants just a small part of another class.
2. You expend a "training" feat.
3. You now have access to something in the other class. Not very specific on this though.

He definite did say that multiclassing is more restrictive in 4th and in 3rd but that yes there would be multiclassing. (as opposed to just training feats).

 

[HeinorNY]

Since the books went to printers already, they could just tell us finally all the secrets about multiclassing.
Unless multiclassing is not supported in the PHB...

 

[small pumpkin man]

A lot of character builds in 3E (except straight up spellcasters) really benefited from multiclassing. It was mainly the only reason to dip into Fighter. A melee build benefited with a dip or two into a spellcasters, such as to get True Strike.

But it seems to me, 4E might be trying to discourage multiclassing. It seems that just want you to play a class straight from level 1 to 30. And to appease those who like multiclassing, they might throw some half-assed mechanic in to do so. I don't think multiclassing is going to be what it was in 3E. Taking a feat in order to multiclass? Bah... What I think they should do, is what they did similiar to Tome of Battle. When you multiclass, you are equal to half your character level when deciding on what powers and such you are available for in your new class.

DISCLAIMER: The above is my impression, and I am assuming a lot here, so like everything you read, take it with a grain of salt. It just worries me since we don't know much about multiclassing yet.

"It's the impression that I get..." - Mighty Might Bostones

No, you take a feat to get a power, like ToB, then if you want more, you multiclass properly. Yes I'm sure it's going to be more structured, which is going to restrict some things, but it's also going to open up others. You probably wont be able to make the equivalent of a Paladin2, Fighter4, Barbarian4, Ranger2, Crusader3, Rogue2. But no character concept NEEDS that, and so long as you can make your character feel right, who cares? If you can make a Fighter/Wizard or a Cleric/Rogue which works well right out of the box (which hopefully you will), then as far as I'm concerned it's in front of 3.x with regards to multiclassing.

Since the books went to printers already, they could just tell us finally all the secrets about multiclassing.
Unless multiclassing is not supported in the PHB...

Or, you know, you could just read the book when it's out? Or at least read reviews? I really don't get this "they better tell us every detail or I'm going to assume they've intentionally screwed us over". They specifically said they want to leave some things for a surprise, and there's really no reason for them to leak character creation details onto the internet.

 

[HeinorNY]

Or, you know, you could just read the book when it's out? Or at least read reviews? I really don't get this "they better tell us every detail or I'm going to assume they've intentionally screwed us over". They specifically said they want to leave some things for a surprise, and there's really no reason for them to leak character creation details onto the internet.

Yes, I can and will certainly look at it when the books are out, but the question is, why can't they just tell us now? Is it gonna hurt business so much? Are we gonna be so sad that we won't be able to be surprised about multiclassing anymore when we get the books?

 

[Stalker0]

A wise mom once said, "Why buy the cow when you can get the milk for free."