Multiclassing.

[Ximenes088]

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.

Am I mis-remembering, or does the rogue get _two_ trained feats as class trained skills? I think the balance in his case is that he gets Thievery and Stealth as free trained skills.

 

[Scrollreader]

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.

So what's the problem if my rogue with cleric multiclass feats gains a level and switches out some cleric 'spellcasting' for turn undead? You've had 3 and a half editions of justifying 'my god has given me different miracles today than yesterday'. Or did I completely misunderstand the post where you said you'd find this difficult to explain?

 

[Olfactatron]

I like how multi-class work in 4E, because it makes your initial class, and second class decision more important. Gone are the days of players choosing to multi-class in 3, 4, or 5 classes.

I loved having 4 classes in 6 levels. Building interesting combinations was one of the most interesting parts of the game for me. 4e clearly doesn't support that, and frankly, so far it's the only thing I'll miss about 3e.

 

[neceros]

I loved having 4 classes in 6 levels. Building interesting combinations was one of the most interesting parts of the game for me. 4e clearly doesn't support that, and frankly, so far it's the only thing I'll miss about 3e.

Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.

 

[Vaeron]

Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.

I did most of my "weird combinations" in NWN2... Some of them were fun, or outrageously powerful. But it would be too much work and hassle to try to do pen & paper, I think. And too artificial, since NWN and similar games only 'imitate' roleplaying.

 

[Sammael]

Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.

IMC, practically all multiclassing came from the "organic growth" of characters. And there was a lot of it.

 

[RigaMortus2]

I loved having 4 classes in 6 levels. Building interesting combinations was one of the most interesting parts of the game for me. 4e clearly doesn't support that, and frankly, so far it's the only thing I'll miss about 3e.

I agree. In 3x you could do this if you wanted to. And if you were of the mind that multiclassing 6 difference classes was too absurd, you didn't have to allow it. However, in 4E, it is no longer an option (w/o some heavy houseruling).

It is as I feared. Multiclassing was done half arsed...

This must have been one of the last minute things they threw together to get 4E out the door ASAP.

 

[neceros]

IMC, practically all multiclassing came from the "organic growth" of characters. And there was a lot of it.

My problems came from people who planned their levels, feats and abilities, exactly when they would switch alignments, exact knowledge of everything taught in all the books, to make a monster of a character who did things perfectly. If something went wrong, they had to start over.

I've seen it, and it's ugly.

 

[Olfactatron]

Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.

With all respect, you probably should have been playing another game.
It's totally possible that that was the only game your friends were into at the time, and you played it because gaming is fun, and generally I find that a game that isn't my favorite is still fun. Or maybe you just got sick of 3e. I know I did for a while. I managed to get my group hooked on the Riddle of Steel, which is a great game for playing a full character and not just a set of numbers. We got through whole sessions without picking up dice sometimes. I digress.
D&D hasn't ever, at it's core, been about characters. It's about going into dungeons killing nasty looking things and taking their stuff. The books are largely about monsters or combat. If getting into character is more your thing than building characters, D&D isn't really about supporting that.

 

[Ondo]

I agree. In 3x you could do this if you wanted to. And if you were of the mind that multiclassing 6 difference classes was too absurd, you didn't have to allow it. However, in 4E, it is no longer an option (w/o some heavy houseruling).

It is as I feared. Multiclassing was done half arsed...

This must have been one of the last minute things they threw together to get 4E out the door ASAP.

Or perhaps it was done in order to meet the design goals they spelled out in the article.