Multiclassing woes

[Lord Mhoram]

What if i have a character concept that doesn't fit the existing classes? What if i don't want to be stuck in a role? Should i just be thankful for "still getting to pick the 'many' options within that class"?
Why don't I just try a different combo that does works like other suggested in this thread? Or should I buy books until the class I want is published?

I've had like 6 character ideas with current multiclassing already. A Tiefling Paladin (A LG kind, sort of the traditional paladin, which the GM is thinking of Houseruling is the only kind) with Warlock- Infernal Pact multiclass. The warlock stuff is chosen by the player (i.e. me), but is an aspect of the Tiefling curse internally - so you have a paladin using infernal power to do good, and fighting the temptation to abuse it....

I can't wait to play him.

 

[Larry Hunsaker]

To remedy the lack of curse, just rule that the power, when used, treats the target as if under a virtual curse (like 3.5 virtual feats) so the power works but the target is not actually cursed.

 

[Zsig]

Pact > At-Will Spell you get from the Feat

Fey > Eyebite at-will spell
Infernal > Hellish Rebuke at-will spell
Star > Dark Radiance at-will spell

None of these at-will spells requires that you Curse the target in order to use...

...so yeah, I don't understand what you're all talking about.

 

[Spatula]

The Warlock Initiate feat should definitely work like the Ranger & Rogue version, i.e. give the curse instead of an at-will as an encounter power.

Paragon multiclassing was definitely an afterthought. You don't get anything but an at-will (that replaces one of your normal ones) to replace the 3 abilities that paragon paths normally provide. Really, you should be getting the at-will, some sort of AP power, and some class ability on a permanent basis.

What if i have a character concept that doesn't fit the existing classes? What if i don't want to be stuck in a role? Should i just be thankful for "still getting to pick the 'many' options within that class"? Why don't I just try a different combo that does works like other suggested in this thread? Or should I buy books until the class I want is published?

New base class for new concepts is the 4e way of doing things. Kinda like the last few years of 3e.

 

[Banshee16]

I think it's great. 3E eventually got to be too much like GURPS. With all the classes and prestige classes to cherry pick from, you devolved into a kind of build-your-own-class system. In 4E, class is much more important, but you still get to pick from many options within that class.

I like that.

Multiclassing lets you dabble in another class. I've found that multiclassing into warlord or cleric is almost always a good use of a feat, since it gets the party another minor-action surge in combat, as well as giving breadth to your character by adding a skill.



Well, yeah, not all classes combos will work.

Not all of us like the idea of multiclassing only allowing "dabbling". If someone wanted a ranger/sorcerer or something, of an equal split in power between the two classes, am I incorrect in stating that the new edition does not sound like it'll allow that?

Bansheee

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Not all of us like the idea of multiclassing only allowing "dabbling". If someone wanted a ranger/sorcerer or something, of an equal split in power between the two classes, am I incorrect in stating that the new edition does not sound like it'll allow that?

It doesn't. The multiclass system is designed to make sure you'll always be able to fulfill your primary role without usurping someone else's. You also can't gimp yourself by accident by multiclass.

The idea is that you choose a class that does what you want it to. Then if you want to change it up a bit, you take feats to give your class a little variation. However, if you start as a fighter, you'll always be a defender. Your job will always be to take damage and to be the target. You may be able to trade one of your attacks for a fireball, but you'll still be good at hitting people in melee and marking them so they don't hurt your allies.

This is in contrast to the 3rd Ed method of "I'm a Wizard 5/Fighter 5, I can cast fireballs for too little damage to matter at my level and I have too few hitpoints to act as the tank." OR the other 3rd Ed method, "I've managed to pick and choose classes so well, that my BAB is 1 less than the fighters, but I cast just as many and the same spells as the wizard, my hitpoints are 5 less than the fighters, but my AC is 5 points higher due to the combination of spells and armor. I can act as the controller, striker, and defender all at the same time. I don't need you people."

 

[Samurai]

That's unfortunate. I understood your point about not getting curses from feats the first time around, and had no issue with it. I do want to quibble with the "twice as good" analysis, though. From what we've heard from people like yourself who have the books, several warlock powers and the warlock paragon paths are tied directly to specific pacts. (Please feel free to clarify this if I have misunderstood the posts.) If that's correct, then, once you choose the path with the feat, you're limited in the powers and paths you can later select. That's not the case with the other classes. There may be a separate balance argument as to whether broader choice is outweighed by a secondary effect from the initial power, but I'm not sure it's so simple as "twice as good."

Can you list/describe what the other two pacts give you? That may help the "overpowered" argument.

You are correct that many Warlock Paragon Path powers rely upon the Warlock's Curse to work.

For the Doomsayer, 1 of the 3 abilities and 1 of the 3 Powers requires the Curse.

In the Feytouched PP, 2 of the 3 abilities and 1 of the 3 powers requires the Curse.

For the Lifestealer PP, 2 of the 3 abilities and 1 of the 3 powers requires the Curse, and the other 2 powers are less effective without the Curse but can still function.

However, when choosing powers to swap, I don't see any standard Warlock powers that require the Curse except for the pact abilities (which you don't get anyway as a multiclasser). So the real problem is the Paragon Paths, not the actual Warlock powers by themselves..

 

[Samurai]

Not all of us like the idea of multiclassing only allowing "dabbling". If someone wanted a ranger/sorcerer or something, of an equal split in power between the two classes, am I incorrect in stating that the new edition does not sound like it'll allow that?

Bansheee

Well, let's see. Under the rules as written, if you were to take the Multiclass Feat at 1st level, Novice Power at 4th and 6th, Acolyte Power at 8th, and Adept Power at 10th, you'd have the 1 additional power at a reduced frequency, gained with multiclassing, and 2 of your 3 Encounter powers, 1 of your 3 Utility powers, and 1 of your 3 Daily powers could be from the other class. That's not quite a 50/50 split, and you gave up 5 feats in order to just swap powers around, but it is more than just dabbling, I'd say...

 

[Surgoshan]

Well, the full multiclass is to give up your paragon path so that you more fully mingle your two classes. Instead of your paragon path powers, you instead take powers from your second class. And you only have to use four feats to get there (multiclass feat, novice, acolyte, adept). That gets you, by level 20, eight powers out of fifteen for your second class, unless I've misunderstood.

In short, other people will have used their feats and their paragon path to become specifically very good at their single role, but you'll have become fully multiclassed. Yeah, if you want the warlock's curse and the warlock's pact boon, you'll have to start as a warlock. If you want to take a warlock paragon path, you'll have to start as a warlock. If you want to multiclass as a warlock, that's still entirely doable.

 

[MindWanderer]

Novice Power at 4th and 6th

Do the power-swap feats specify that you can take them multiple times?