Multiclassing.

[AtomicPope]

I, for one, am curious to see exactly how the Multi-Classing works in 4e. I've had minimal experience with 4e thus far (as can be expected) so I can only guess. It seems as if the player chooses a "Primary Class" then takes feats to dip into other classes. So I think the question a player needs to answer would be:

What class best suits your character concept?

By choosing a solid primary class you'll spend less time dipping into the Multiclass feats. Although, with players getting access to more feats, I don't think that the multiclass Feats will "cost" a player all that much.

Again, I'll have to wait and see.

 

[Pistonrager]

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.

Point 1. Thank you.

Point 2. Yes. I'm saying you shouldn't do it. Not that you can't, but shouldn't. You took classes that allowed you to do what you wanted, but... why in hell would you want to dual wield greatswords? two weapons bigger than you and not balanced at all. Just assuming now... Monkey grip, two weapon fighting(free), oversized offhand weaponry,dodge, mobility, spring attack(eventually).
with penalties, it's what -6/-6 on the two attacks? for the chance of doing rediculous amounts of damage if you get a full round attack(which defeats the purpose of being crazy fast.)...

Point 2.1 that being said... I'm playing a straight fighter basically doing the same thing with a large bastard sword(from a module) and a sword of the planes(same module). If I can't hit it with my massive suite of attacks, I switch to 2 handing the large bastard sword... which puts my attacks from a single digit bonus to hit, to a high teens bonus to hit.

 

[hong]

I don't think we can say this until we see the power lists. Each class is going to have about 80 powers, as I understand it. I think it will be completely possible to build a lot of tweaked concepts entirely out of well-chosen standard powers, with no need whatsoever to reach outside of the class. A swashbuckling rogue doesn't _need_ to buy Fighter multiclassing; he just grabs rapier proficiency and chooses the rogue powers that give him the nicest swashy flavor. In fact, multiclassing into fighter may actively hinder him if the rogue power list gives him enough choices to meaningfully fill out his power list.

A swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword is kinda out of luck.

 

[neceros]

I, for one, am curious to see exactly how the Multi-Classing works in 4e. I've had minimal experience with 4e thus far (as can be expected) so I can only guess. It seems as if the player chooses a "Primary Class" then takes feats to dip into other classes. So I think the question a player needs to answer would be:

What class best suits your character concept?

By choosing a solid primary class you'll spend less time dipping into the Multiclass feats. Although, with players getting access to more feats, I don't think that the multiclass Feats will "cost" a player all that much.

Again, I'll have to wait and see.

You've got it spot on.

 

[hong]

That's never how I saw it. Let's take the Warlock, for example. My party hated the Warlock (in 3.5) because it was too draculaisk. I made a character that was the warlock class, but instead made him more Dragon-like (This was before Dragon Magic.)

Flavor change without multiclassing.

Yes, you can do that. This has nothing to do with multiclassing to fill out character concepts that aren't neatly handled by existing classes.

 

[Olfactatron]

Is it still fun when a DM uses characters like that to TPK in a single round?

Well, no. But what's fun for at least one of my players is having a crazy character, and I try to make that work as best I can. I've only had a TPK once, and it was because I designed the encounter poorly. When I GM, I don't go for TPKs as I've heard some GMs do. I don't consider that winning or having a good time. Getting a TPK is as simple as saying "You all die." But what is fun is designing an NPC so close to the edge that it looks like it could be a TPK but the party ends up defeating it.

 

[Imp]

Exactly. The buckets are no longer broad, so the multiclassing mechanic has more work to do.

The game plan appears to be, "sell a whole bunch of different little buckets." Like, with different builds and features for fighters and rogues being in that Martial Power book or whatever it's called. You want an evenly split rogue/wizard type or whatever, though they said they fixed multiclassing in this edition?... wwwait for the book!

So my game plan is, I'm waitin' for some books, to see what they come up with.

 

[hong]

The game plan appears to be, "sell a whole bunch of different little buckets." Like, with different builds and features for fighters and rogues being in that Martial Power book or whatever it's called. You want an evenly split rogue/wizard type or whatever, though they said they fixed multiclassing in this edition?... wwwait for the book!

So my game plan is, I'm waitin' for some books, to see what they come up with.

This is indeed most likely to be the case. When classes are narrow, no multiclassing hack can be good as a custom-designed class.

Oh well, time to update my martial artist!

 

[small pumpkin man]

A swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword is kinda out of luck.

Explain why this character isn't just a Ranger and I'll think about it.

 

[Olfactatron]

why in hell would you want to dual wield greatswords?

Because it's simultaneously silly and awesome. I even had them chained together at the pommel.

If I wanted to take balance and weight into account I'd go bust out the GURPS rules. But I wanted a guy to run at something like a bladed cruise missle because I like the mental image.