Rodney Thompson on Multiclassing

[Sadrik]

Actually, considering the Cha synergy with Artful Dodger and assuming Sorcerer is still Cha based, Sorcerer/Warlord/Rogue sounds mighty appetizing...

or how about Warlock/Warlord/Rogue. Of which all theoretically have a CHA base...

 

[Cadfan]

I'm glad there's a way to use a weapon as an implement. I'd worried about that before. If you're playing as a fighter/wizard hybrid of some kind, and you've got a weapon in one hand, a shield in the other, you have no way to carry an implement. And without the implement, your spells are going to be at a noticeable disadvantage at higher levels where magical weapons and implements are more expected.

 

[wherwrthal]

Vargas spends a lot of his time with Anvar, our dragonborn fighter, so lately he's been studying the art of the sword with the fighter.

Fluff, or requirement?

The little part in the back of my brain that screams this should make sense says "OH, YEAH!"

The other part (that DM's my group's games) holds to the maxim "Continutity... Schmontinuity, whatever, man!"

 

[Ipissimus]

or how about Warlock/Warlord/Rogue. Of which all theoretically have a CHA base...

Oh, yes, I did consider that. But then, that build sounds to me like less of a defender's buddy and more of a mobile troubleshooter. The problem is that Sneak Attack only works with light blades, crossbows and slings, eliminating Eldrich Blast Sneak Attacks. Still, a Warlock would love the Artful Dodger ability when she's in the thick of things (particularly Fey Pact Eladrins, I can see teleport abilities being great but they could also get you into alot of trouble).

The other thing is that the Warlord powers we've seen so far seem to be based off of Strength rather than Charisma. Great synergy with Fighters, which you'd expect. I think we might see alot of Warlock/Rogues dipping into the Bard class when it comes out for Leader abilities, but it depends. We really haven't seen enough of the classes yet.

Honestly, I can't wait to get my hot little hands on the books and have a play with the combinations, I'm seeing alot of potential just in what we have now for character customization.

 

[Plane Sailing]

"and once I start getting a wider array of spells,"

That is the bit I find encouraging - that wizards will eventually gain a wider variety of spells

 

[Stogoe]

The problem is that Sneak Attack only works with light blades, crossbows and slings, eliminating Eldrich Blast Sneak Attacks.

Well, for now. Just wait until you get your Arcane Trickster paragon path.

 

[FabioMilitoPagliara]

if a sword can be an implement so can be a dagger for some other paragon path

and Thompson is so much playing the character I will play when 4e hit the streets

 

[Syrsuro]

Something to keep in mind as you design these hypothetical 4E characters:

My impression, and nothing has been said to make me question it so far, is that you do not make multiclass characters (no Sorcer/Warlock/Rogues) they way you do in 3E. You make a single class character and 'borrow' abilities from the other classes.

This is based, in part, on comments such as this:

The key difference between 4E and 3E is that there is a difference between a ranger who's multiclassed to paladin and a paladin who's multiclassed to ranger.
... you don't know how multiclassing works, what options feats provide, and so on. But there's ways to make three paladins very different from one another (and I don't mean "One took Power Attack and the other took Dodge"); they simply don't involve taking a LEVEL of ranger.

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4122477&postcount=280

Maybe instead of calling the character a Sorcerer/Warlock/Rogue, we should refer to them as being a Sorcerer (Warlock/Rogue)? Or just a Sorcerer with an Eldritch blast and Sneak attacks (or whatever)?

Carl

 

[Voss]

The apparent 4E notion of "We just hit sixth level and are over halfway to paragon tier, however, so it's time for me to start thinking ahead to paragon paths." makes me happy.

As opposed to the 3.0/3.5 version "I'm starting to build a 1st level PC, so I'd better hammer down my eventual PrC requirements now or I'll never make it in before level 18."

I'm not so sure about this. It could be just a matter of having an extra 4 levels to do it in. Nothing in the preview material, particularly the D&D XP material suggests that 4e will be any less about optimizing (on the mechanical side of things) than 3e was. It looks a bit easier, since you only ever have to care about 3 stats, unless you have a class dependent on 'paired' stats, but thats about the only difference that suggests itself. And I think the classes with paired stats are going to get tossed into the rubbish bin like the monk and fighter were in 3e, at least by the optimizers.

 

[Ipissimus]

Stogoe: I hope so. However, I'd expect that combo will take a significant commitment of feats as well to pull off on top of needing a specific paragon path. I think Sneak Attack is going to be hard to get, the way they sound like they're arranging things with feat trees.

Syrsuro: Yes, i understand. When the books come out, we'll probably be talking like 'Rogue with x feats' rather than slashes. Just using the old syntax as a form of shorthand.


Edit: forget what was here, re-read the post...