Multiclassing.

[neceros]

3.x got it half right. Fighter type multiclassing worked just fine. Ranger/Barbs, Fighter/Rogues, Ranger/Rogues, Paladin/Fighters were all worthwhile multiclasses. We all acknowledge that spellcaster multi classing sucks in 3.5

The main issue with multiclassing in 3.5 were balance. If I wanted to hit things as a warrior could I had to choose classes with BAB, even if they did not give me Sneak Attack, or did not give me spell casting, etc.

Also, the fact that some builds were used so often because they were powerful, yet other builds gave nothing (yet my friends took them) was outright horrible.

 

[CleverNickName]

Only if you look at your character's stats as some sort of definition of what the character is, as opposed to a descriptor of what the character can do. Things like class and feats and powers are there to describe how the character is capable of interacting withthe world, requiring them to tell a story of how the character got where they are overburdens them unecesarily.

But spellcasting is quite a big part of a character...not just some new trick she learned. Summoning forth eldritch powers from the Elemental Nexus and bringing it to bear against those who oppose her? That's not learning a new hobby; that is character-shaping awesomeness. Such power is as much a part of who/what a character "is" as her name and race, and can shape the plot and story significantly.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I just need it to make sense from a storyteller's point of view, because a big part of my job as a DM is storytelling.

 

[Scrollreader]

3.x got it half right. Fighter type multiclassing worked just fine. Ranger/Barbs, Fighter/Rogues, Ranger/Rogues, Paladin/Fighters were all worthwhile multiclasses. We all acknowledge that spellcaster multi classing sucks in 3.5

I'm going to assume that you worked with a group that allowed monk or paladin multiclassing, since otherwise your statement doesn't make sense. But even if we leave that out of the 3.5's 'worthwhile' multiclassing, there are still quite a few things that 3.5 made difficult to do with multiclassing. Mostly due to the need to /keep/ people from cherry picking all the good stuff, like they did with the 3.0 ranger. Lets take an example at oh, level 5. I'm a paladin 2/Fighter 3. Oh, wait no, that doesn't work. I'm missing some iconic paladin abilities, and fighter three is useless. Lets see. Fighter 2/Rogue ... wait, crap. I forgot to take my class with more skill points first. Okay so. Ranger 3 ... crap. No animal companion, wand or spell use, etc. Damn. I guess I can take barbarian stuff, so long as I never want better rage, and keep my number of fighter levels even and low.

You /never/ could do more than a splash of even non caster multiclassing in 3.5. Not without a PrC designed for your concept. With the sole exception of fighter, because fighter didn't /have/ any class features. And with the right splats, barbarian, since it was frontloaded and you could feat for more rage. (And even then, it assumes rage is the only class feature you care about). You were splashing already. Now you you can splash without sucking as your main class. Is the 4e way perfect? Not at all. But it's certainly not /worse/ than 3.5, IMO. And in some ways, alot better.

 

[Jack99]

Ack, multi-classing is horrible!

 

[Mouseferatu]

For example, the Rogue multiclass feat would require skill training: thievery, but would give you sneak attack at-will (not once per encounter).

Not balanced at all. That extra damage is one of the defining factors of the rogue, and one of the things that mechanically defines the rogue as a "striker" class. Two feats is still not nearly enough of an opportunity cost for giving that to someone else at will.

 

[Scrollreader]

But spellcasting is quite a big part of a character...not just some new trick she learned. Summoning forth eldritch powers from the Elemental Nexus and bringing it to bear against those who oppose her? That's not learning a new hobby; that is character-shaping awesomeness. Such power is as much a part of who/what a character "is" as her name and race.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done. I just need it to make sense from a storyteller's point of view, because a big part of my job as a DM is storytelling.

I just don't really see this as a huge deal. But rhen, I don't see why turn undead doesn't work for you as a spell. "I used to pray to Pelor for blessings in battle. But after the wight ate my grandma, I've realized the error of my ways. My prayers now scourge the undead, and I hunt them wherever I find them"

It shouldn't be any harder than any of the other retraining, which we've known about for awhile. If you can justify that, this is easy. if you can't, you have other problems.

 

[CleverNickName]

I just don't really see this as a huge deal. But rhen, I don't see why turn undead doesn't work for you as a spell.

Erm...not to go off-topic, but turn undead has been a first-level cleric spell in my homebrew for almost a year now. Evocation [Good], Clr1 and Pal1, Will negates. Same for greater turning, rebuke undead, and control undead. It seems to work pretty well.

 

[Falling Icicle]

Not balanced at all. That extra damage is one of the defining factors of the rogue, and one of the things that mechanically defines the rogue as a "striker" class. Two feats is still not nearly enough of an opportunity cost for giving that to someone else at will.

You're still not as good at it as a rogue. You don't have the ability to sneak attack people who haven't acted yet, for example. Nor do you get the brawny/trickster rogue benefits. You don't have their mobility powers, like tumble, without investing additional feats, making you a much less effective a striker. Plus, sneak attack only works with specific weapons, so presumably, you'd have to spend additional feat(s) just to be able to use it with your preferred weapon (unless your fighter just happens to prefer whimpy rogue weapons, in which case he needs the boost anyway).

 

[Pistonrager]

again... I think the basic powers you get from the first feat aren't as important as opening up secondary feats and paragon paths.

from what I've seen there are really only a few differences between powers, mostly range, damage type, and area. so having access to buffing feats will probably be enough to get the flavor you want for the multiclassing.

 

[Mouseferatu]

You're still not as good at it as a rogue. You don't have the ability to sneak attack people who haven't acted yet, for example. Nor do you get the brawny/trickster rogue benefits. You don't have their mobility powers, like tumble, without investing additional feats, making you a much less effective a striker. Plus, sneak attack only works with specific weapons, so presumably, you'd have to spend additional feat(s) just to be able to use it with your preferred weapon (unless your fighter just happens to prefer whimpy rogue weapons, in which case he needs the boost anyway).

All true.

It's still not an equitable trade, given the different purposes and power levels between "powers" and "feats" in 4E.