Multiclassing.

[Sammael]

This is not multiclassing. And whatever it is, it is horribly unintuitive and non-elegant. Epic fail.

EDIT: To elaborate, it seems that we had the following situation in 3.x: multiclassing is a simple, streamlined process, which is fine as long as you multiclass between reasonably similar classes. If you mix spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes, you will be less powerful than a single-classed character. Suggested fix for this problem was to introduce feats and prestige classes that increased the power of multiclassed characters. If you kept your classes reasonably within each other's level, you had no penalties - which is a rule a lot of DMs chose to ignore, i.e. there were no multiclassing penalties AT ALL. In other words, you had OPTIONS and then you had even more OPTIONS.

Whereas in 4E, multiclassing requires the expenditure of feats or replacement of the paragon path, doesn't work the same for all classes, necessitates the design of new feats each time a new class is introduced, and you are limited to dabbling in just one additional class. In other words, there are RESTRICTIONS, followed by even more RESTRICTIONS.

The vast majority of PCs in my campaigns were multiclassed. It only made sense, in the context of the story, that, as they experienced the world, they learned various new things and became curious about using approaches somewhat different than the one they originally learned. Unfortunately, this can no longer be done. It's all about the COOL NEW POWERS, isn't it?

 

[ncc4781]

after seeing the article it occurred to me, What if a Warlock took the warrior of the wild feat. He could apply the curse and hunters quarry to the same guy and be doing +2d6 or more damage (with other feats). That is my kind of striker

 

[Surgoshan]

How is it cherry picking? You can only do it for a single other class, you have to spend a feat to do it, you only get the one power per feat, you have to lose one of your powers to get it, and you can't use it as frequently as someone of that class! Who cares if you can continue to swap it out (and then only when you level)?

 

[small pumpkin man]

Thing is, why the heck do I need to wait until 10th level to swap out a daily power? I mean, if I'm a fighter/wizard, and I'm willing to give up a fighter's daily to gain a wizard, what's wrong with doing that at 1st level?

I'll be honest, the more I'm thinking about this, the more I don't like it.

The encounter power is one level after you get two per encounter powers and the utility is also a couple of levels after you get two utility powers, those make sense because they don't want you to have more abilities from your "other" class than your primary class, but for the Daily you have to wait untill one level after you have three, so I'm not completely sure on the reasoning there.

 

[Shroomy]

You know, everyone is focusing on the multi-class feat system and power swaps, but I have the feeling that the access to another classes feats and paragon paths are probably as important, if not more so.

 

[ncc4781]

Question: if you play a half elf and of class A, can you take as your racial ability a power from class B, and Then take multi class feast from class C?

 

[CleverNickName]

How is it cherry picking? You can only do it for a single other class, you have to spend a feat to do it, you only get the one power per feat, you have to lose one of your powers to get it, and you can't use it as frequently as someone of that class! Who cares if you can continue to swap it out (and then only when you level)?

Well, there are a few things that I don't like about this, but the biggest one that stands out is that it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of the story. How does a character spontaneously learn the complicated ability to weave magic, then instantly forget it all because he learned how to turn the undead?

I understand why the rules need it to work that way, but it destroys the story-side of character development.

 

[neceros]

Thing is, why the heck do I need to wait until 10th level to swap out a daily power? I mean, if I'm a fighter/wizard, and I'm willing to give up a fighter's daily to gain a wizard, what's wrong with doing that at 1st level?

I'll be honest, the more I'm thinking about this, the more I don't like it.

Because in Fourth Edition you are required to accommodate a role. If you are able to multiclass too early then you will fail that rule and be useless. This isn't to say some people are able to balance their role without hard-rules, but it is to say that most people cannot. I can attest to this through experience: Most people suck at balance.

The archetypes are there so no one is useless. I'm personally tired of my teammates trying too hard to imitate this concept or that gimmick and become useless in combat.

 

[Mort]

I like the concept - that you can some of another classes another classes abilities based on how much you are willing to "invest" in the class.

What I don't like:

Some abilities seem MUCH better than others - isn't this exactly what they were trying to avoid?

If your going to allow partial access into a class - why does everyone have the exact same benefit from multiclassing? wouldn't it be better to say "if you pick a feat regarding class x you can choose 1 y level ability from this class (with z limits)" and abilities increasing as you sink more feats. Giving everyone the same exact benefit seems very limiting considering the possible options this approach they propose could have.

 

[Scrollreader]

I'm not seeing how to have a fighter with the ranger's two-weapon fighting, but perhaps there are ranger powers that are TWF oriented.

Simple. Take the ranger feat and then go into the ranger paragon path we've seen previewed. Instant TWF mojo. Or replace your paragon path with access to ranger abilities, like we already knew was possible. Or use the feats to pick up an at will TWF ranger attack. Or, or, or. You can do this several ways, depending on what you want out of it, and what you're willing to invest.