"Playtest PH3 Dual Classing"

[avin]

My guess is that dual classing will be a featless system which gives you additional powers and class features but at a cost. Either an XP (...)

I don't think it's going to cost XP... I get this feel that 4E likes every party member with the same level...

 

[Rodrigo Istalindir]

I see the current multiclassing rules being bashed and I cannot help but ask, what is so wrong with them? Sure they do not allow for making a hybrid character. But what they do allow is for your character to dip in another class and grab a few features and powers. And that they do quite well. The entry feats for most classes are almost all better than average feats and for almost any class there will be a couple of powers on another class' list that will be very powerful for your character. It is paragon multiclassing that is problematic, not multiclassing in general.

The limiting factor for a character in 4e is the number of powers he has and their types. That is fixed regardless of the classes or classes he has access to. With 4e, there is very little of the synergy between classes that there was in 3e, and even when there is (eg, being a multiclass rogue with a cross-class power that grants combat advantage) there are so many other restrictions (sneak attack only 1/rd) that the benefits aren't nearly as abuseable. And given the arbitrary restrictions on a lot of powers, the subset of cross-class powers that are even feasible is limited.

Given that a non-human character gives up four of his first five feats, the cost is high relative to the benefit. It punishes a character for not adhering strictly to the single-role model.

 

[Nymrohd]

Yes, if you are going for paragon multiclassing it is bad. Spending 2 feats to grab an additional class skill, some useful benefit and a power that let's you do something you could not normally do (especially if you grab a utility with it) sounds both balanced and fun for me. Spending 4 feats to get a sucky multiclass with no paragon specials does suck and I never debated that. Just saying that if the multiclass system was designed for dipping and the dual class for hybrids (and there was talk of two systems for multiclassing before launch), then the multiclass system works. They just added paragon multiclassing as a temporary solution (well, unless you are a half-elf that is).

 

[thecasualoblivion]

WotC has shown no signs of altering their vision of 4E to this point, and I don't expect to see a change with the playtest of Dual classing. An expansion maybe, but not a revolution. I think its a little healthy to think about what Dual Classing is not going to be:

1. It isn't going to devalue existing classes. 4E is a class based system, and this isn't likely to change. 4E has embraced class based design.
2. It isn't going to be modular. 4E is not modular, and being so would go against the focus of the system on class.
3. It isn't going to change the character creation structure(number of feats and powers ect.) in a revolutionary fashion.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, I am sure that whatever the Dual-classing does, it will not change the number of feats, powers etc in a big way. With the current multi-classing you can get one more daily or encounter power, but the only other way to get more powers is to get the right magic items.

And that, in my way of thinking, is what keeps the current multi-classing balanced. You can change powers, by spending feats, and theoretically get new abilities, but at a cost of feats. On the plus side, some of the power you choose can close gaping holes in your character or give you very useful power, otherwise why take them?

 

[fissionessence]

The release calendar now marks this as 'hybrid classes'.

Discuss.

~

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Wow this was really fast reaction to nerd rage...

hybrid classes sounds like you can begin your career in 2 classes right fom the beginning!

 

[Tectuktitlay]

The release calendar now marks this as 'hybrid classes'.

Discuss.

~

Wow, ok, so no epic destiny. This does indeed sound like neo-gestalt rules.

 

[Nymrohd]

What we predicted, the intented rules for more complete hybrids instead of just dipping. Glad they gave up on the 2E terminology.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, for not multi-classing is restricted to powers(non-at-will), feats and paragon paths, and excludes class features, unless you take some of the paragon feats, which generally give you the weakest class features of another class.

But a Hybrid class sounds even more like Gestalt that Dual-classing did. I think dual-classing sounds better, but with its connotations to the absolutely ridiculous 2E version, i can understand why they want to avoid that word like the plague.

Of course multiclassing in 2E was massively overpowered, but we have had an edition of separation for that word, to help mute the same comparison.

If I had to guess Dual/Hybrid classing will focus on the class abilities, and if it allows free choice will be very abusable. I'm really looking forward to the article.