D&D 4E Problem with 4e Multiclassing

[jackston2]

The stat requirements aren't as harsh as before. You can really skimp on CON if you have good STR. Likewise, you won't need to much DEX if you've got INT. So a Warlock/'lord would only need a few stats: STR, INT, CHA. Very attainable.

 

[Ximenes088]

I don't know why they have the stat limits on multiclassing. It seems arbitary and, well, dim. Especially as there's such a poor spread of required stats on them.

Anyone got any inkling why they went that route?

Because without the ability requirement, multiclass feats are just Better than a Skill Training feat in a covered class skill. Also, if you don't have at least a +1 in your multiclass' prime attribute, you'll be fairly terrible with its powers. And finally, a significant stat investment means that you're serious about multiclassing and not just grabbing it for a cheap +1 to hit.

 

[Jer]

All right, so let's say I'm playing a warlock, a single-target blaster with high Charisma who derives her power from extraplanar beings. But she's not as selfish as the average warlock- her ultimate aspiration is to found her own House and start a dynasty, and to do that she needs to make a name for herself and get people following her. In other words, she has a splash of Leader ability, for all that her primary combat style is blowing things up from the back rank.
...
What would you all do about this in your games?

I'd probably point out to my player that the only reason the role is called "Leader" is because "Support Monkey" didn't test well with the focus groups...

If you're just talking about a character who has general leadership abilities - inspires the crowds charismatically, inspires loyalty in followers, can convince men and women to lay down their lives in her defense, etc. - then I don't see why you need to dip into a "Leader" role class at all. The "Leader" roles are all about the particular combat tactic of buffing other characters, that's all, and you don't need to be a "Leader" to lead people.

Now if what you're REALLY asking is "how do I make an arcane character who can be an effective multiclass arcane striker/support monkey" - I dunno yet. I imagine that eventually there will be an "Arcane Leader" class that might fit easily into what you're talking about. If I had a player come to me with a great striker/support monkey concept I'd probably work with him to reflavor the warlord support monkey powers to make it fit with the concept - but that's only if the player really had a good concept and wasn't trying to cherry pick stuff from the warlord that would create weird synergies to give him some kind of bonuses he wouldn't get otherwise.

(As an aside - this is why I hate that they named the role "Leader" instead of "Support". Sure Leader sounds sexier than Support but using the term "Leader" is going to make people think that the wizard can't be a party leader, or the paladin can't be a leader, or that the guy who picks the cleric automatically has to be the "party leader". Which, frankly, generally doesn't happen in my games. The support guy taking the cleric or the bard is rarely the guy who ends up standing in front of the village elders and apologizing for the way the rest of the party trashed the town square the night before...)

 

[Ingolf]

The problem with the OPs scenario isn't character classes, it's the approach. He's confusing combat roles (Leader) with character stories, histories and personality.

From a mechanics perspective, character class is the main determinant in how your character goes about overcoming discrete challenges in the game. Most challenges take the form of combat, but traps and hazards fit the role as well. The four combat roles of Leader, Defender, Striker and Controller are only relevant in regards to these discrete challenges.

What the OP is talking about is almost exclusively a role-playing issue. The challenge - establish a dynasty - isn't a discrete one and shouldn't be handled by something as inorganic as game mechanics, it should be handled by the player and DM working out the details together. Perhaps having Diplomacy as a trained skill might be a rules related requirement, but there are many ways to achieve that without multi classing.

Put another way, suppose the question had been "I want to play a Cleric who is the foremost defender of his church, but I don't want to multi class into Paladin since my charisma won't be that high and I don't like playing fighters. This is therefore a problem because those are the only two defender classes in the PHB." The flaw there is obvious.

 

[thc1967]

Wait - why do we assume that Warlord is only strength-based? I seem to recall reading some preview material that hints it may be a choice between Strength and something else, like INT or CHA...

 

[Lacyon]

Wait - why do we assume that Warlord is only strength-based? I seem to recall reading some preview material that hints it may be a choice between Strength and something else, like INT or CHA...

The warlord's primary stat is Strength. He also can get benefits from a high INT or CHA (or both). Just like the Rogue's primary stat is Dex, but the Rogue can get some extra benefits from a high Cha or Str (or both).

 

[mmu1]

I think you'll see this is not a problem once we get more information on Rituals.

 

[DandD]

All right, so let's say I'm playing a warlock, a single-target blaster with high Charisma who derives her power from extraplanar beings. But she's not as selfish as the average warlock- her ultimate aspiration is to found her own House and start a dynasty, and to do that she needs to make a name for herself and get people following her. In other words, she has a splash of Leader ability, for all that her primary combat style is blowing things up from the back rank.

The logical way to do this would be a dip-multiclass into Warlord. But that...requires Strength 13, because it's a martial class, and every inspiration-related power we've seen has required you to bang on things with a weapon, which is not exactly the flavor of the character. Likewise, she's not a cleric- no gods are involved. I could ask the DM to let me reflavor the class, but even then, she'd need a high Wisdom to use any of their powers, which is certainly not appropriate for a stary-eyed kid with delusions of grandeur.

Possibly the unreleased rules will fix that, but I kind of doubt it. The way it seems to be going is that all martial classes use strength and a weapon for every action, and clerics use wisdom for every action. So if you're really charismatic but not strong or wise, forget it. I dunno, maybe they'll eventually release an arcane Leader. Obviously I could just go single class and roleplay like a warlord, but I thought the whole point of the new system was to make combinations feasible.


What would you all do about this in your games?

Why does your character even need a warlord level? Is she going to lead big armies on the battlefield in person against orc hordes, demon armies and devil legions? If yes, then it really makes sense that you have to be a somehow tough warrior too. Because the Warlord does fight on the front. He's basically just the 3.X-Fighter with White Raven Maneuvers/Tactics from Book of Nine Swords.

If you simply want to roleplay your character having a great retinue, being famous and giving orders from far far away, you don't need any other leader-class-level.

 

[Wolfwood2]

I don't know why they have the stat limits on multiclassing. It seems arbitary and, well, dim. Especially as there's such a poor spread of required stats on them.

Anyone got any inkling why they went that route?

To prevent players from screwing themselves over by making bad multi-classing choices, I guess. I too have considered a low strength wizard character that I would like to have dip into warlord. My conclusion is that if I can actually find some useful warlord powers that don't depend on strength but on intelligence, I'll petition the DM to waive the stat requirement. If I can't, then the requirement was a wise one.

 

[MyISPHatesENWorld]

Possibly the unreleased rules will fix that, but I kind of doubt it. The way it seems to be going is that all martial classes use strength and a weapon for every action, and clerics use wisdom for every action. So if you're really charismatic but not strong or wise, forget it. I dunno, maybe they'll eventually release an arcane Leader. Obviously I could just go single class and roleplay like a warlord, but I thought the whole point of the new system was to make combinations feasible.

It might be one of those things that pops up in the martial handbook or later handbook. Maybe specific Warlord powers that require Class: Warlock that would thus be usable by Warlord/Warlocks or Warlock/Warlords or something even more tailored like:

Warlord Encounter power
Requirements: Class: Warlock, Feat: Novice Power

Warlord Utility Power
Requirements: Class: Warlock, Feat: Acolyte Power

Warlord Daily Power
Requirements: Class: Warlock, Feat: Adept Power

That way you could balance taking into account the four feats expended on multiclassing and it might prevent a single-classed warlord from statting in a way that allowed him to exceed system parameters and abusing a feat you built to be used by someone who multiclassed (if that is a concern after all is said and done). It also would allow you to create a little giveback for a specific class that had to add some MAD to their build in order to fit a concept. And, it could smooth the blending of two classes to make people feel more like a multiclass character rather than a single-class character that dabbles.

EDIT: And there is also the possibility of future initial multiclassing feats that could have specific requirements and/or an alternate class ability and/or trained skill to bring together two classes.