Multiclassing.

[hong]

Such as Ninja Squids?

Those could work too.

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.

You say this like it's a negative thing.

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.

It is good to know you have formidable hurdles for a multiclassing mechanic.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

Considering a cleric can use healing word twice per ENCOUNTER and your fighter gets it once per DAY I wouldn't call your healing good.

And considering your glob of magical acid is based on int, and unless your fighter suddenly decided to forgo his strength in favor of int, your magical acid isn't going to be that dangerous.

 

[Pistonrager]

Your point is...?

My point is you don't HAVE to multiclass to get the FLAVOR of the character! You don't.

Getting additional mechanics involved just because you think you need them is not helping you to Roleplay your character.

 

[Olfactatron]

It would be intersting to split up the multiclass feats by roles. So if you were taking a feat that gave you access to a cross-role class, lets say the fighter multclassing to rogue, you got more of the abilities than if you were going from role to same role in the case of a ranger/rogue. My reasoning is that a defender that wants to act like a striker is going to need more help than the striker that want to be better at being a striker.
So the fighter would get thievery sneak attack 1/enc, and swap an at will power.
The ranger would get thievery and sneak attack 1/enc.
I don't know if this idea has any merit, but it's something to consider. I definitely feel that the percieved nerf on multiclassing was to cap the upper limit on power rather than versatility.

 

[neceros]

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.

Tactical D&D is about resource management. Those recourses include Feats, class levels and (now) powers.

In 3.5 you had 7 feats normally, plus bonus feats, etc. With 7 feats, they were very, very rare. In fact, you had 20 class levels to your 7 feats. Therefore, class levels were more easier to give up, because all class levels gave you some form of a BAB, HP, saves, etc. However, feats were very, very rare compared.

4e is almost the opposite. We are given many, many feats (Almost twice as much, if I can count) and class levels are the same. Even so, you can't choose your class levels now. You are your class, and that's it. Ergo, you get more feats, and now you have powers as well which help define your character.

Fourth edition is making it easier to design your character. Character concepts aren't about multiclassing anymore, because you don't have to. Take the feats that support your character (Which is what they are for, making your character different then everyone else) And powers that give you your abilities.

Class levels are almost meaningless. At this point we're arguing the difference between 2nd and 3rd editions. It just doesn't compare.

 

[hong]

My point is you don't HAVE to multiclass to get the FLAVOR of the character! You don't.

Getting additional mechanics involved just because you think you need them is not helping you to Roleplay your character.

You don't need anything to roleplay a character. But sometimes having crunchy bits helps.

 

[Imp]

My point is you don't HAVE to multiclass to get the FLAVOR of the character! You don't.

Getting additional mechanics involved just because you think you need them is not helping you to Roleplay your character.

If you can easily get the flavor of a bunch of different character types by changing a few words, then you don't have strongly defined classes. Which is it?

 

[Fallen Seraph]

You know just thinking. There could be different class-variants for each classes multiclass. Since they did individually name them.

So there could be three different Ranger multiclass-feats, three different Fighter multiclass-feats, etc. Each would focus on different skill, class feature, etc.

 

[AtomicPope]

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.

Wait a minute. Those are bad? Why? Now all of a sudden something is bad. Because you don't like?

So if it's not your baby, it's an ugly baby.

 

[hong]

Fourth edition is making it easier to design your character. Character concepts aren't about multiclassing anymore, because you don't have to. Take the feats that support your character (Which is what they are for, making your character different then everyone else) And powers that give you your abilities.

Show me which feats to use to build a blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.

Class levels are almost meaningless. At this point we're arguing the difference between 2nd and 3rd editions. It just doesn't compare.

Class levels are meaningless. Classes are very meaningful indeed.