Multiclassing.

[Olfactatron]

Um... NO. They simply made the classes better and restricted multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters. If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.

I agree with your first point, the classes are better, and they've reeled in the power or gimping that that could come about from multiclassing. Making a classed system in which first levels are as interesting and exciting as later levels is a fantastic achievement in my book. Clearly you couldn't have simple 3e multiclassing, where one takes level one and then takes level one again in another class, the 4e character would literally be almost twice as powerful. The way they've got it set up means that you can't have a fighter sneak attacking all the time, but the real key is you can't have a ranger or warlock sneak attacking all the time. The problem lies not in the 50/50 role split, but in the 100/100 role synergy. If that happened, with any class, if you made a defender even more like a defender or a leader even more like a leader you start running into places where non multiclassed characters can't compete. Which I fully acknowledge was a problem with 3e.

But I take umbrage with your second point. You seem to be saying that if I come up with an idea that isn't currently modeled in the game system, but I could achieve that outcome by mashing the first few levels of a number of classes together, I shouldn't do it? I once made a barbarian/ranger/scout/fighter. I like the idea of a highly mobile guy dual wielding greatwords, sue me. But I couldn't get the abilities I wanted with any single one of those classes, so to you the character is invalid? Why should a character be defined by one thing he can do rather than the summation of his abilities?
I'm getting severely off track here, I'm not a 100% behind the new "multiclassing rules." They seem a little tacked on and not the integrated solution most of us were hoping for. It seems to me that this is the first thing that a lot of people are going to house rule.

 

[Samuel Leming]

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

You and Neceros were not playing the same game. The same rules maybe, but not the same game.

Sam

 

[AtomicPope]

I think the idea of having 4 classes in 6 levels is the worst example of min-maxing that makes 3.x unbearable. A DM I used to play with would throw uber tweaked characters against the party just to give us a dose of our own medicine. The kind of damage a tweaked NPC class can dish out is absurd. When players have to face themselves, a multi-class nightmare, they don't like it. It usually involves lots of Raise Dead spells.

I'm very good at min-maxing characters but the problem with that is other players end up getting left behind after a few levels. Then the DM has to pick up the slack because one character is too good while the others just suck.

The problem with 3.x is certain multi-class options were far too good or no good at all. Many players would dip two levels into fighter, then another into warrior. It gives you three feats, a great BaB, and a great Fort Save. Both of those classes suck except for the fact that you pick up a boat load of feats in short order. Most classes are better when you multiclass in 3.whatever, and that is a problem. When classes fall victim to power creep then a core feature of the game needs revision.

Classes are the game, not multiclasses.

 

[Olfactatron]

D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, about kicking arse and taking names, and about trash talking and telling a story about it, not spending 3 hours picking you spells and your prestigue class levels so that your party isn't insta-gibbed by the high level Lich. 4e is doing that right.

*sheepish* I liked finding cool combos in my spells.


I was playing an lvl15 incantatrix that had a way to drop 98d6 on a single target in one round. Tee hee.

 

[neceros]

I played a "slacker" type character that was a drifter who never applied himself at anything for too long. He was human nobility but 20th in line for the throne. I played him from 1st to 12th level (when the campaign ended) and he had 12 different classes.

And yes he was an effective character.

I imagine that if you posted the classes and levels you gained them you'd get a lot of people telling you how wrong you are.

 

[Pistonrager]

Given that classes in 4E are more narrowly defined than before, I don't see why picking up lots of classes should be penalised. If anything, they should be anticipating people picking up lots of classes to represent character concepts that don't fit neatly into the predefined buckets.

More narrowly defined how? combat roles are basically the same, meatshield, caster, skirmisher, boss. The ideas behind the characters are basically the same.

You don't have to force the mechanics of the game to fit the flavor of you character, you can change the flavor of the mechanics to fit the character.

 

[AtomicPope]

I once made a barbarian/ranger/scout/fighter. I like the idea of a highly mobile guy dual wielding greatwords, sue me.

Woe to the game group that has such brilliant ROLL-Playing. Seriously. Dual-wielding "GREATWORDS" isn't a character concept, it's a debate style (or fighting style if you had a typo )


Combat mechanics are a character facet, not a character.

 

[Olfactatron]

I think the idea of having 4 classes in 6 levels is the worst example of min-maxing that makes 3.x unbearable.

4 warrior classes in 6 levels is hardly the worst kind of min/maxing in 3e.

You should have seen the gestalt campaign I ran. One guy had a rogue/druid/monk what would turn into a flying giant squid and pounce on something with roughly 15 attacks each gaining sneak attack for something like 105d6 sneak attack. That's not only game breaking, a flying ninja squid is also incredibly silly. But, hell, what good is a game if you can't have fun with it.

 

[small pumpkin man]

*sheepish* I liked finding cool combos in my spells.

I was playing an lvl15 incantatrix that had a way to drop 98d6 on a single target in one round. Tee hee.

I don't actually have problem with people who do that. I do that more than most people in my group. I just feel that the game shouldn't be designed intentionally to encourage it, as this marginalizes the people who aren't interested in doing that more than is necessary.

 

[Olfactatron]

Woe to the game group that has such brilliant ROLL-Playing. Seriously. Dual-wielding "GREATWORDS" isn't a character concept, it's a debate style (or fighting style if you had a typo )


Combat mechanics are a character facet, not a character.

No, at that point, it was a character.