Multiclassing.

[Pistonrager]

I agree. In 3x you could do this if you wanted to. And if you were of the mind that multiclassing 6 difference classes was too absurd, you didn't have to allow it. However, in 4E, it is no longer an option (w/o some heavy houseruling).

It is as I feared. Multiclassing was done half arsed...

This must have been one of the last minute things they threw together to get 4E out the door ASAP.

Um... NO. They simply made the classes better and restricted multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters. If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.

 

[neceros]

The books are largely about monsters or combat. If getting into character is more your thing than building characters, D&D isn't really about supporting that.

On the contrary, I love D&D because it has the rules for hard combat and mechanics that other systems tend to leave for the DM to figure out (I'm looking at you, BESM.) My issue isn't with the system: I love the tactics of picking your powers and abilities with caution. However, when it gets in the way of someone actually having a concept for their character (Which is chapter 1: Figure out who you want to play, then make mechanics based on it.) I get a little agitated.

It's my problem that it annoys me, I admit it, but I'm glad 4e is helping to maintain the immersion value of a story while keeping the mechanics as rules.

 

[hong]

Um... NO. They simply made the classes better and restricted multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters. If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.

Given that classes in 4E are more narrowly defined than before, I don't see why picking up lots of classes should be penalised. If anything, they should be anticipating people picking up lots of classes to represent character concepts that don't fit neatly into the predefined buckets.

 

[Incenjucar]

We really need to know the full scope of abilities to judge this (as with everything else). Considering combinations like Hunters Quarry+Sneak Attack+Torturous Strike=OW

 

[sunbear]

My problems came from people who planned their levels, feats and abilities, exactly when they would switch alignments, exact knowledge of everything taught in all the books, to make a monster of a character who did things perfectly. If something went wrong, they had to start over.

I've seen it, and it's ugly.

I had to ban the WotC optimisation boards. It made my life (as a GM) hell at the mid levels of Shackled City.


As far as the new multi classing goes....not a big deal. I can still play a character that was a street thief before being taken in by the Pelorian Brotherhood (paladins), or a ranger with really strong spiritual beliefs, or a wizard that has studied fencing his whole life, etc. It seems to me the RPing aspect of MCing is still there, the min maxing, optimization stuff not so much (as a consolation prize the battlefield tactics has opened way up for the optimization geniuses out there).

 

[ncc4781]

Um... NO. They simply made the classes better and restricted multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters. If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.

I played a "slacker" type character that was a drifter who never applied himself at anything for too long. He was human nobility but 20th in line for the throne. I played him from 1st to 12th level (when the campaign ended) and he had 12 different classes.

And yes he was an effective character.

 

[Simon Marks]

character concepts that don't fit neatly into the predefined buckets.

Character concepts that don't fit into neatly predefined buckets don't belong in D&D!

In my day, all Dwarves were the same!


More seriously, the point of a class-n-level based system is the pre-defined buckets. Unless the buckets are exceptionally broad (and I liked the Smart/Tough/Fast hero division), many concepts won't fit.

I'll have to see how it plays, but sacrificing the ability to make broad concepts to ensure you don't accidentally gimp yourself for the rest of the game seems good for D&D

It's not as flexible as 3.5, but more flexible that 1e and I'm ok with that.

 

[Serendipity]

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?

I was wondering that too - I mean they keep telling us "half elves multiclass well."

 

[bjorn2bwild]

Hmm, with the inability to gain class "styles" from multiclassing, that leaves some paragon paths for main-class characters only, such as Stormwarden (prereq: ranger, TWF style)

This I like.


While I enjoyed the mix-and-match 3e multiclassing, I'm not terribly upset by 4e throwing that out the window.

 

[small pumpkin man]

With all respect, you probably should have been playing another game.
It's totally possible that that was the only game your friends were into at the time, and you played it because gaming is fun, and generally I find that a game that isn't my favorite is still fun. Or maybe you just got sick of 3e. I know I did for a while. I managed to get my group hooked on the Riddle of Steel, which is a great game for playing a full character and not just a set of numbers. We got through whole sessions without picking up dice sometimes. I digress.
D&D hasn't ever, at it's core, been about characters. It's about going into dungeons killing nasty looking things and taking their stuff. The books are largely about monsters or combat. If getting into character is more your thing than building characters, D&D isn't really about supporting that.

D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, about kicking arse and taking names, and about trash talking and telling a story about it, not spending 3 hours picking you spells and your prestigue class levels so that your party isn't insta-gibbed by the high level Lich. 4e is doing that right.