Multiclassing via Feats. Thoughts?

[Cadfan]

Feat-based multiclassing, if it is going to avoid min-max type exploiting, is going to have to depend on each individual class having the same number of "virtual feats" built into it. If starting off as class A of an A/B multiclass gives 3-4 more virtual feats than starting off as class B does, then I'd say the class design for 4e has fallen short of the mark.

This is only true if everything in a class is available through feat based multiclassing, AND if combining two classes 100% is a good idea.

 

[Puggins]

In terms of suspension of disbelief, the incremental approach to multiclassing that feats offer is light years ahead of 3.x.

I know it was mechanically suboptimal, but in terms of consistency, how much sense did it make for a 7th level wizard to take a single level of fighter and suddenly become completely familiar with literally dozens of weapons that he had hitherto been barely able to swing or shoot? Or, in the contrary case, wouldn't it be a bit odd that a 7th level fighter would be able to take a level of wizard and be able to match the spell capabilities of an apprentice that has been studying magic for years and years?

Yes, yes, we made all sorts of weird explanations to shoehorn the whole concept into our games, but really, the "he's been studying it all in the background!" Really felt sorta flat and uninspired. A more incremental approach would have been far, far better.

Of course, there is the matter of play balance, but that's for when we see the actual system itself- no need to worry about something we haven't even seen yet. I avidly applaud the fundamental concept.

... And as an aside, I'd love for Mr. Mearls to confirm or deny that one of the pregens had already begun multiclassing.

 

[Cirex]

The only thing I'm worried about is that the lure of multiclassing is too strong.

For example, what other feat could compare to a fighter gaining the hunter's quarry ability, effectively granting him +1d6 damage to all his attacks?

But its not a strong worry, I'm sure the system is a bit more complicated than I think and takes care of the balance issues.

Hunter's Quarry seems to be a class exclusive ability(class feature), kinda like Lay of Hands for a paladin, so I guess you can't pick that one.

 

[JohnSnow]

Huh.

Just realized that there *are* a number of feats that directly translate into class features, arn't there?

Toughness for example bumps you up one HP category. Armor training does the same for armor and weapon training for weapons. They'll probably also have the bonus to reflex/will/fort feats. Seems like because these feats exist, they have to balance class features in such a way so that you don't just take the class that gives you the most "virtual feats" first (fighter for example) and then multiclass into another one via feats.

It looks like the fighter has somewhere around 7 or so virtual feats up on the wizard, so that's a bit odd. What's the wizard getting in return? Cantrips, the spellbook, implement mastery? What else? Ritual casting? Skills?

Ritual casting certainly counts. On the other hand, the fighter has many more healing surges. However, as far as skills, near as I can figure, the fighter gets probably four of choice. Kathra, the dwarf fighter released at DDXP, seems to have been trained in Athletics, Endurance, Heal and Streetwise. By contrast, the wizard seems to get Arcana and 2 of choice. Skamos, the Tiefling wizard, was trained in Arcana, History, Nature and Stealth, but he'd taken Skill Training (Stealth) as his feat. And a wizard that isn't trained in Arcana makes next to no sense.

 

[katahn]

This is only true if everything in a class is available through feat based multiclassing, AND if combining two classes 100% is a good idea.

The point I'm getting at is class A starting with more feats than B in an A/B multiclass mattering is it is reminiscent of the problems in certain kinds of multiclassing in 3e. If I want to do A with a little B I'm ok, but if I want to do B with a little A I'm suddenly gimping my character. If I want to go 50/50 A/B (good idea or not) it shouldn't matter whether or not I start with A or B, but if it does matter then suddenly a character is "gimped" if they started with the wrong class... not what I'd call ideal.

The entire point of any particular A/B (or more) multiclassing working is that it shouldn't matter which of the classes is your base, it shouldn't matter if you're 90/10 or 50/50 or 20/80. If it matters, then I'd say it would take more than a "little tweaking" to make a classless 4e D&D game (not that I'd want to, but the point remains.)

 

[JohnSnow]

... And as an aside, I'd love for Mr. Mearls to confirm or deny that one of the pregens had already begun multiclassing.

Well, I'd love it if Mike would come in and confirm or deny that as well. However, I'll point out three things:

The character in question (Tira) is a half-elf, and one of the blogs mentioned that "half-elves multiclass well."
Unlike all the other pre-gen characters, Tira has two[/i] per-encounter powers rather than just one.
One of those two powers (Ray of Frost) is specifically called out as a "Wizard Attack" power, rather than a Warlock one, even though Tira is a Warlock.

To me, that implies that Half-Elves may get a single "free multiclass ability" as a racial power.

Take that as you will.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Well they did say it wouldn't be hard to make classless D&D straight out of the box.

I always wonder, when I read things like that, if mearls meant "Not hard for Irda Ranger" or "Not hard for mearls." If it's the latter, it could still be very hard for Irda Ranger.

 

[Cadfan]

Sure, its reminiscent of a problem with 3e multiclassing, but its not 3e multiclassing. It doesn't work the same way, and more importantly, what you're producing isn't the same thing as it was before. The idea of 90/10 doesn't necessarily make sense anymore because you're not mixing levels like you were before. The outcome of "8 levels wizard, 2 levels fighter" isn't what you're getting. You're adding class abilities to a different class. The outcomes, "fighter with 5 abilities from a wizard" or "wizard with 5 abilities from a fighter" are inherently different from one another.

The "virtual feat" insight is important for people who want to multiclass, but it doesn't have strict game balance implications.

 

[Vempyre]

So, based on the GTS scoop, it looks like you'll have to decide when converting a 3e multiclassed character over just how much he was class A and how much he was class B. Settle on one or the other, and then use the 4e rules to poach appropriate elements of the other class using feats (or whatever the method ends up being).

I think converting 3E characters to 4E will be an exercice in futility as in close to impossible, especially multiclassed 3E chars and chars with PrCs.

lvl 1-20 vs lvl 1-30, totally different multiclassing, no PrCs anymore, totally different magic system, mostly different magic items. Combine all of those together and it becomes pretty much mission impossible, especially when you think many (would most be too strong here?) 3E characters are multiclassed.

 

[Alkiera]

Vempyre -
Agreed that 1-30 do not map 1-to-1 with 3Es 1-20. A more accurate comparison (if you were to pit a 4E char vs. a 3E char) is 1-30 4E is roughly 4-19 in 3E. I've done the math, and it works out surprisingly well, as far as attack bonuses, etc. There are some obvious balance changes for low-BAB/hp classes like wizard, but they lost some of the crazy powerful stuff from 3.5 too. Fighters match up quite nicely.

However, if you do that, it might mean a major shift in the campaign, where your party was fairly low level, they are now level 1 again; and if they were mid-to-high level, they're now epic.

Really, I agree that it might be a good idea to figure out what tier you want them to be in, and have players 're-imagine' their PCs using the new rules, at whatever you deem to be the right level for continuing the story. The best idea is probably to just start all over, and avoid some of the weird of starting out high level(tho it sounds like the rules for that are decent.)