Oops, is my multi screw up bad?

[Hambot]

Just finished playing our second session of 4e after a 3 month hiatus due to poor health.

So I'm rusty. And I forgot that bit about multiclassing feats only letting you use that extra at-will power once per ENCOUNTER.

Is this going to wreck my game? My wife happily used scorching burst about half the time all night, as it is a little more evocative than the rogue powers. Plus they had lots of minions and a couple of swarms to deal with. (they are a 2 PC + one monster "hireling" party)

Would requiring spending a feat to be able to do this restore balance? I just saw the words "At will" and assumed you had an extra weapon in your arsenal. I'm loath to go back and forbid her from doing this, but I need to know now if that will wreck things further along the track.

 

[IceFractal]

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Although the design of 4E seems to be very sparing with at-will powers, there's no actual necessity for that - a character with 1000 at-wills has no more raw power than a character with two, just more versatility.

This definitely does make the multiclass feats much better as feats, and if you find they're outweighing any other choices, then requiring a second feat for this could solve that.

 

[WalterKovacs]

Perhaps allow her to power-swap one of her at-wills [so she doesn't actually have an "extra" at-will, just one power swapped in as an at-will]. It's still quite powerful, but odds are she's going to need to get a magic weapon and a magic implement to keep both powers going well. [and if she doesn't take more power swap feats she needs a wand/orb for a single power].

 

[Cadfan]

Personally, I wouldn't worry about it. Although the design of 4E seems to be very sparing with at-will powers, there's no actual necessity for that - a character with 1000 at-wills has no more raw power than a character with two, just more versatility.

Versatility IS power.

If Power A is perfect for Situation 1, and Power B is perfect for Situation 2, then a character with Power A and Power B both is more powerful than a character with just one of the two choices, because they can use the perfect power in both situations.

Normally I would say to nerf this quick, but, since Rogue/Wizard is such a weird multiclass combination anyways, and your gaming group doesn't seem too militant (someone else would have noticed by now if it was), I wouldn't worry. I'd say your current situation is good enough for casual play, although not good enough for rulebook writing.

 

[Hambot]

She is an Eladrin rogue/wizard because it was a solo campaign, so this gave her skills, tricks, and a little bit of magic with potential to get rituals. Then one of our friends joined in too, he decided to be a cleric. It's far less likely I'll kill them by accident now with a cleric around, so I was glad he chose that. The third character is a kobold piker dressed up to be a human, with ability to gain xp. He's now second level so I'm giving him the fighter healing surges, with weapon and armour proficiencies. He's supposed to be as simple as possible. He was originally put in as a person she could flank with, because rogues can't do much damage without a buddy.

 

[FireLance]

Versatility IS power.

If Power A is perfect for Situation 1, and Power B is perfect for Situation 2, then a character with Power A and Power B both is more powerful than a character with just one of the two choices, because they can use the perfect power in both situations.

While the above is true, I wouldn't overstate the case, either.

If you already have at-will A and at-will B, the relative power of adding at-will C will depend on:

1. How often you will be using an at-will ability in the first place (instead of an encounter or a daily, for example).

2. How often at-will C will be better than at-will A or at-will B.

3. How much better at-will C will be than at-will A or at-will B.

In this case, scorching burst was the superior option because there were plenty of minions and swarms. If the PCs were facing smaller numbers of more powerful opponents (and you really ought to be using more of these, to play to the rogue's strengths in a solo/two-player game), I don't think it would be as useful.

 

[Syrsuro]

It's bad. But not for the reasons you might expect.

It's not going to break your game. It's not going to prove to be overpowering.

What it will do is allow that one character to "shine" brighter than the other characters. That character will have the right tool for the job more often than the other characters and the other player's may feel that their own characters are weaker and less relevant by comparison.

Whether this is a problem for you and your group is another matter, and one that only you can decide.

(I'd also question whether this is a precident you want to set or whether you want to settle this question now before your Paladin takes the Warlock multi feat and starts Eyebiting at will, etc.)

Carl

 

[Ibixat]

The simple solution really is to explain to her the proper rule, and the cleric guy as well, and ask them "I'm ok leaving it as we were playing, but if we add more people to the game or start a new one we'll use the correct rule" *IF* that is even important to you. With just 2 players allowing them to be a little more powerful/versatile really won't be a problem if you all agree to play with the houserule.

 

[Stalker0]

You made multiclassing a lot stronger, but that's not a bad thing is every one gets to play with it. Just recommend that everyone picks up a multiclass and go with that.

 

[Cadfan]

While the above is true, I wouldn't overstate the case, either.

*SNIP*

Right, right. But this is probably the most powerful extra at will you could think up for the given character.

The rogue is already very competent against single foes in melee reach. This grants the rogue powers that are useful against multiple foes at range.

If the at will were something like Reaping Strike, I wouldn't care much, because Reaping Strike doesn't do much that you couldn't already do with Rogue at will powers. But Scorching Burst covers an entirely new role.