Multiclassing.

[neceros]

4e effectively bans multiclassing for characters under level 11, introduces the new, highly restrictive "multi-feating" concept, and creates a number of problems of its own, not the least of which is the loss of elegance introduced in the 3e concept. A lot of 4e multi-feating problems stem, IMO, from the new concept of powers, which is very problematic in and by itself.

Again, multiclassing in previous editions was required or wanted because of design flaws. A fighter could not be as powerful as a wizard, so she trained as both to be both.

In fourth edition, you don't need to multiclass for your character concept, unless that character concept is literally dabbling in other classes or half/half. If you want to play a fighter mage, be a Wizard who has some feats aimed to proficiencies and Toughness. If your mage needs to be a defender, then multiclass into a defender archetype.

Multiclassing just isn't as much of a requirement as it was in earlier editions. Multiclassing is less powerful because you don't need it anymore.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Then why are you even in the forums discussing it? that seems like a vary dangerous game to play.

Um, because I enjoy discussing the parts of the game that have been made public.

 

[CleverNickName]

So what's the problem if my rogue with cleric multiclass feats gains a level and switches out some cleric 'spellcasting' for turn undead? You've had 3 and a half editions of justifying 'my god has given me different miracles today than yesterday'. Or did I completely misunderstand the post where you said you'd find this difficult to explain?

This is the part of the thread where I start sounding like a simulationist, and we start going back and forth about it. But we've got enough of those threads already.

My favorite part of D&D is the story...how it changes over time, how everyone contributes in shaping it, all of the plot hooks and tangents, the tale of a handful of unlikely folk who face overwhelming odds and save the world. There are thousands of ways to tell that story (and my way of telling it isn't any better than anyone else's), but the way that I like to do it is through the lens of believability. Even things as absurd as magic and dragons can be acceptable if they are explained properly and kept consistent throughout the story...but "because it's more awesome, that's why!" isn't the sort of explaination I am looking for.

Yes, I could dream up an explaination to explain how a character knows how to do something on Friday and forgets how to do it over the weekend. Or I could just hand-wave it and ignore it altogether, like a plot hole in a bad sci-fi movie. But honestly, I would prefer for it to never be an issue in the first place, that's all.

I'm sure I will feel better once I've read the books and learned more about all of these feats and powers. Right now, though, my gut reaction is to start houseruling it like crazy.

 

[Sammael]

a paladin who survived as a street thief in his youth

Out of curiosity, how would you go about creating this character in 4e, using the published rules? In 3.x, he'd clearly be Rogue 1/Paladin X. How would you mechanically describe him having more than one trained rogue skill in 4E, if you make him a Paladin 1 with Rogue training?

And yes, I highly dislike the wuxia-inspired powers. Hated the Bo9S, too.

 

[hong]

You want someone to switch between the two styles? Like say "Today, I'll leave my plate mail at home and wear leather armor, since we need to sneak a lot..."

Or do you want a Heavily Armoured Tank Striker?

The second sounds... broken.

The first sounds impossiblehard, but doeable. (It wouldn't really be "effective" in 3E, either, but maybe you had a certain illusion it was this case.)

I want to play a swashbuckler. Or a wuxia swordsperson. That is, someone who can take damage, but not as much as a dedicated tank; and can deal damage, but not as much as a dedicated ninja. This shouldn't be hard. Whether it actually is hard remains to be seen.

 

[Green Knight]

Unfortunately, it is a big deal. I'm literally not allowed to share anything that WotC hasn't already made public. Pointing out the formatting error on the table was one thing, because the info was public, just not clear. But I can't say anything about what's in the book beyond what they've said.

Sorry.

No problem. In retrospect, I was asking a bit to much. Just wish I knew for certain if the Feats were the kind that you can only take once, or if they're the kind that you can take several times.

 

[hong]

Again, multiclassing in previous editions was required or wanted because of design flaws. A fighter could not be as powerful as a wizard, so she trained as both to be both.

In fourth edition, you don't need to multiclass for your character concept, unless that character concept is literally dabbling in other classes or half/half.

A swashbuckler sounds very much like a half/half. Or third/third/third, if we want to add TWF to the mix.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Out of curiosity, how would you go about creating this character in 4e, using the published rules? In 3.x, he'd clearly be Rogue 1/Paladin X. How would you mechanically describe him having more than one trained rogue skill in 4E, if you make him a Paladin 1 with Rogue training?

I'd either make him human and give him Skill Training as well as the Sneak of Shadows feat, or I'd simply give him a high Dex and assume that accounts for a lot of his thiefly abilities in his youth. I might take Skill Training later on down the road, and justify it as his old skills coming back to him.

And yes, I highly dislike the wuxia-inspired powers. Hated the Bo9S, too.

I don't personally find most of the 4E martial powers to feel particularly wuxia; in fact, I was pleasantly surprised at how little they felt (in terms of flavor, not mechanics) like some of the more out there Bo9S stuff. There are some exceptions at epic tier, but I think inhuman feats of skill are to be expected of 21+ level characters.

 

[Mouseferatu]

I want to play a swashbuckler.

Very easily done, staring with a rogue or ranger base, and choosing the right feats. I really don't think you have anything to worry about.

 

[Fallen Seraph]

A swashbuckler sounds very much like a half/half. Or third/third/third, if we want to add TWF to the mix.

Honestly hong, I will bet my 4e books there will be some kind of Paragon Path called Swashbuckler, which opens up TWF to multiple classes.

I also think there may be other multiclass-feats for each class, as such there may be another Ranger one that gives TWF. My basis for that being, each feat is individually named, so there may be more then one multiclass feat for each class, thus there needs to be name distinction.