Multiclassing.

[Pistonrager]

Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.

weaker because it's not easily abused?
weaker because people might actually have to think about a slightly more realistic character?(damn you char-op board)

But more specifically I was talking about changing the FLAVOR of an ability to make it fit with a concept. For example I'm going to be making a great axe wielding fighter, that is going to be pretty sneaky, but I'll probably take the brutal strike ability(the first level fighter daily) and reflavor it to a precision based attack... with my axe, right between the shoulder blades.... and boom, I'm a fighter, but rogue styled and sneaky. no need to multiclass. no mess, and no confusion.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.

Which is exactly what Wizard wants. Multiclassing in 3.x is overpowered, even as per the article:

where “clever” players simply took one level of as many classes as possible (or layered single levels on to a primary class) to reap the benefits of ungodly saving throws and bizarre but ultimately frightening combinations of class abilities that—like chocolate and pickle relish—were never meant to be combined by men and women of good taste.

Multiclassing in 4ed is supposed to be a lot more centered around keeping the overall game balanced but still being able to take elements of other classes and adding them to yours. So if in 3.x you were a multiclasser who went for total min/maxing, 4ed multiclassing is going to be disappointing because Wizard intentionally is undoing that. However if you multiclassed just to get other powers and to broaden your specializations of skills/abilities in 3.x, your style of multiclassing shouldnt really be effected as much (unless you want to multiclass into more than one other class, but on that front I think we need more info on classes overall).

 

[Simon Marks]

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

Are they?

WOTC_Miko I'm sure pointed out that she took a feat to allow her rogue to use a Rapier as a light blade sorta thing.

Feats are how you customise your character now, so a swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword seems to be done via feats, not multiclassing.

In 3.5, multiclassing was the primary way to customise your character in some respects.
in 4e, it's all feats.

There are hundreds of them, apparently - we'll have to wait and see.

 

[Cadfan]

Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.

Its not weaker, its different.

Before, if I wanted to play a character who was a Fighter, who did Fighter type stuff, had fully Fighter abilities and the same melee power as a typical Fighter, BUT who also knew some good healing magic, or who could toss a meaningfully dangerous glob of magical acid at his foes, I was pretty much out of luck. Those ever so slightly high level abilities required a big trade off in terms of levels, came saddled with a lot of unwanted other abilities, and then stopped scaling once I went back to leveling as a Fighter, rendering them obsolete.

Now, that seems very easy to accomplish. And for the true concept mixer, mixing paragon paths seems to have a lot of available diversity of option.

The real loss in diversity seems to be here:

In 3e, certain multiclass characters weren't truly mixes of classes. They were strange, new hybrid classes that functioned entirely different from both parent classes. For example, a Fighter/Mage tended to NOT be a fighter who tossed a fireball or two. That was the absolute WORST, most stupid way to multiclass a fighter and a wizard, because you ended up with a crap attack bonus, crap hit points, and a fireball for low damage with a crap DC. Instead, a fighter/mage turned into a character who fought in melee after obtaining obscene bonuses due to stacking magical buffs and polymorph exploits, and power attacking. These combinations weren't "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," per se, but rather... they were like adding 2+2 and getting a banana. Something entirely different and not evidenced in the original material.

Well, now the "fighter who changes it up with a fireball or two" is entirely valid. But the weird hybrid classes are not. It seems like the game needs whole new classes to cover the basic "fighter who fights by buffing with magic" type characters (at least if you want more than one buff, since you could get that with the multiclass utility feat), and so on. Fortunately, that one at least is already written.

 

[hong]

weaker because it's not easily abused?

Weaker because it can no longer be used to represent character concepts that might have been possible previously, despite not being particularly outrageous.

weaker because people might actually have to think about a slightly more realistic character?(damn you char-op board)

Let us not go to the CharOp board. It is a funny place.

But more specifically I was talking about changing the FLAVOR of an ability to make it fit with a concept. For example I'm going to be making a great axe wielding fighter, that is going to be pretty sneaky, but I'll probably take the brutal strike ability(the first level fighter daily) and reflavor it to a precision based attack... with my axe, right between the shoulder blades.... and boom, I'm a fighter, but rogue styled and sneaky. no need to multiclass. no mess, and no confusion.

Your point is...?

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

The problem is the "Can of Worms" in DnD multiclassing. When a character can do more damage than an entire party then how, as a DM, do you make that challenging? When is it a challenge and when is it a TPK?

The problem is one of game balance. On one hand, you have a ridiculous character that is based on throwing as many dice in combat as possible, and on the other hand you have the rest of the group. When you make the game challenging for an Uber Cheese PC it can easily become a TPK when UPC dies.

 

[hong]

Are they?

If you are a rogue, you can multiclass to fighter, or you can multiclass to ranger. Not both.

 

[Pistonrager]

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.

hmmm.... I'm tempted to yell, scream and fume about how a certain media type from an island nation has ruined and warped the minds of America... But the image is awesome if a bit ridiculous. Fantasy HERO is the system that would be best for the character idea... but I digress....

 

[hong]

Its not weaker, its different.

Before, if I wanted to play a character who was a Fighter, who did Fighter type stuff, had fully Fighter abilities and the same melee power as a typical Fighter, BUT who also knew some good healing magic, or who could toss a meaningfully dangerous glob of magical acid at his foes, I was pretty much out of luck. Those ever so slightly high level abilities required a big trade off in terms of levels, came saddled with a lot of unwanted other abilities, and then stopped scaling once I went back to leveling as a Fighter, rendering them obsolete.

I'm not talking about fighter/wiz or fighter/cleric. Those are bad.

I'm talking about stuff like fighter/rogue, fighter/monk, fighter/rogue/monk, etc. Basically, non-spellcasting characters who don't fit neatly into "heavily armoured tank", "mobile fragile striker" and so forth, but are more of a blend of these.

 

[AtomicPope]

Weaker because it can no longer be used to represent character concepts that might have been possible previously, despite not being particularly outrageous.

Such as Ninja Squids?

What you're doing is speculating based on very limited knowledge. Rather than say, it might be weaker, you're giving an absolute answer when you really don't have but a clue. Big Ego.


I dare say that it could most cover character concepts rather nicely, but what it won't do is allow a character to dish out 500pts damage at lvl 9 - Ever. And that's a good thing.