Multiclassing.

[neceros]

To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.

Then, as I said before. Spend all of your feats on gaining 50% defender 50% striker powers and you're not a heavy defender who can skirmish the field with sneak attacks, or ranger abilities. If you want pure half and half, then at level 11 take another class instead of a paragon path. 20 Defender, 10 Rogue.

 

[Stalker0]

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.

You can't look at feats over 30 levels and make a comparison. Many people never played 3e at 20th level, likely many will not play 4e at 30th.

Let's look at the first 10 levels. You will likely get feats at 1,2,4,6,8, and 10. That's 6 feats compared to 4 in 3.5. So 50% more feats. Definately useful, but its not like feats are falling from the sky like candy. I've played 9th level fighters with 10 feats, and I was still painfully having to choose them. Feats to multiclass is a heavy cost in 4e, I just hope its worth it.

 

[AtomicPope]

To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.

So a fragilly-heavy, tank striker?

I'd make him half-elf, half-dretch, half-AT4.

 

[ForbidenMaster]

And is the result as useful as a heavily armoured tank or a lightly armoured, fragile striker...?

Now you are turning into the bard issue. A character that does multiple things must not do them any one of those things as well as a character who is specialising in one of those specific things, otherwise the multi character is broken (and which is why multiclassing in 3.5 is broken).

As an example, a core rogue should be a better rogue then a multiclassed rogue, but is is clearly evident that in 3.5 that doesnt hold true.

 

[Ximenes088]

A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.

That's not a role, that's a hermaphrodite. How does _any_ system support a character that is simultaneously heavily-armored and lightly armored, or simultaneously tough and fragile? Either your character goes around in light armor or he goes around in heavy. Either he can stand in the front line or he can't.

But you want a medium point between them? Ranger with Toughness and armor proficiencies. Or Rogue with the same if you're more about single melee weapons; it works out much the same. Toughness bumps a Striker's hit points into the same HP bracket as a Defender and armor proficiencies will let him wear the same gear. No multiclassing needed.

 

[hong]

Then, as I said before. Spend all of your feats on gaining 50% defender 50% striker powers

This will be hard when there's exactly 4 multiclassing feats, which have to be spent.

and you're not a heavy defender who can skirmish the field with sneak attacks, or ranger abilities. If you want pure half and half, then at level 11 take another class instead of a paragon path. 20 Defender, 10 Rogue.

It would be nice if this could be done before 11th level, though.

 

[AtomicPope]

You can't look at feats over 30 levels and make a comparison. Many people never played 3e at 20th level, likely many will not play 4e at 30th.

Let's look at the first 10 levels. You will likely get feats at 1,2,4,6,8, and 10. That's 6 feats compared to 4 in 3.5. So 50% more feats. Definately useful, but its not like feats are falling from the sky like candy. I've played 9th level fighters with 10 feats, and I was still painfully having to choose them. Feats to multiclass is a heavy cost in 4e, I just hope its worth it.

Yeah but a fighter ONLY had feats. It's a weak comparison. A fighter doesn't have any manuevers, any class features, any distinguishing abilities. At least in 3e.

BTW - I hope it's worth it too. I'm on the fence on this one. On one hand, I like the idea that multiclassing isn't all lame or all powerful; on the other hand, I'm thinking that it might be too simple. I also try to keep in mind that the Core Rules have changed quite a bit. For instance, Wizards can simply take an armor prof. and weapon prof. and they can fight and cast. At higher levels it's been revealed that wizards can use a "weapon implement" if they choose a particular feature. It means not having to multi-class as much. All I can really say is, "fingers crossed."

 

[hong]

That's not a role, that's a hermaphrodite. How does _any_ system support a character that is simultaneously heavily-armored and lightly armored, or simultaneously tough and fragile? Either your character goes around in light armor or he goes around in heavy. Either he can stand in the front line or he can't.

He can stand in the front line but not as long as a dedicated tank. Similarly, he can dish out the damage, but not as much as someone who is 100% ninja.

But you want a medium point between them? Ranger with Toughness and armor proficiencies. Or Rogue with the same if you're more about single melee weapons; it works out much the same. Toughness bumps a Striker's hit points into the same HP bracket as a Defender and armor proficiencies will let him wear the same gear. No multiclassing needed.

Hmm, this is a good point. Diluting the ninja factor is likely to be as much about feat selection as multiclassing.

 

[Imp]

There seems little reason that two half-defender half-striker characters can't be basically as effective as one full defender and one full striker, esp. since 4e makes a point of not letting specific adventuring functions be only the province of one particular role, specifically in this case, full BAB vs. skillmonkeying. So there should be little trouble with the fighter-rogue concept, if it approached nondogmatically.

 

[HeinorNY]

This will be hard when there's exactly 4 multiclassing feats, which have to be spent.

By taking the class-specific feat you are also allowed to buy that secondary class-only feats too.