Multiclassing via Feats. Thoughts?

[katahn]

The bold portion would be the key quote. And it goes further than that. Every bit of information we have so far indicates to us that 60/40 is not a good way to measure 4e multiclassing.

In short, Multiclass A/B is NOT the same as Multiclass B/A in 4e. Not in the sense that one is disadvantaged in comparison to the other, or that either A or B is a better place to start, but rather in the sense that they are simply not the same thing at all and comparing them is an apple to oranges comparison.

60/40 or any X/Y doesn't mean X levels of A and Y levels of B. It is a measure of how many of the abilities a character has come from A and how many come from B. In a 60/40 split a character with 5 abilities has 3 from A and 2 from B. With 10 abilities that is 6 and 4.

In other words, it is a measure of percentages, not of levels.

As for the rest, assuming that a "most reasonable" result of multiclassing is that 1/4 to 1/3 of one's total abilities derived from feats+class abilities come from "class B" then I am of course fine with A/B being different than B/A. My point is that if feat-based multiclassing can achieve a state where the total number of abilities one has come 50% from A and 50% from B that it should absolutely not matter if you started A and added B or started B and added A.

 

[Voss]

A warlock with scorching burst is very different from a wizard with eldritch blast? I can get behind that.

 

[Cadfan]

Right, and what I'm saying is

1. That a 50/50 split of abilities is probably impossible. You continue to level up in your original class. You get class abilities about every level. You get feats every other level. Trying to use feats to catch your secondary class abilities up to your new class may be a losing proposition. Its like trying to catch a car by running behind it down the highway. The longer you try, the further behind you become.

2. That even if a 50/50 split IS possible, and even if one class IS a better choice for achieving this split, that does NOT mean that the base classes themselves are broken. Why would it? The power level of, say, a Rogue in comparison to a Warlock, is based on the Rogue and the Warlock. It isn't based on the cost of turning the Rogue into a Warlock and vice versa.

3. Further, we don't think of any other combination of class + feats this way. If you and I both create a rogue, and you choose your feats well while I choose feats that relate to things I do very rarely, and your character is more powerful than mine as a result, that's not the game's fault.

4. That "virtual feats," while a useful concept to keep in mind for anyone trying to create a 4e multiclass character, are not something you can count up in order to declare a class' power level. If nothing else, synergy effects guarantee that this is so. A class with two virtual feats that synergize well may be more powerful than a class with three virtual feats that synergize poorly (but which are, perhaps, thematically appropriate) even if the second class multiclasses into something else more effectively than the first.

5. Most importantly, the value of multiclassing is determined by whether you can do useful and cool things with it. It is NOT determined by whether or not you can do the same thing two different ways with equal efficiency. If a Fighter multiclassed with some Wizard abilities makes a cool character, and a Wizard multiclassed with a Fighter makes a cool character, then who cares which one is more efficient at creating some hypothetical character poised at a theoretical (and most likely nonexistent) midpoint.