What changes/additions to multiclassing would you like to see?

[jbear]

Re: Multi Classing: It would be cool if the Multiclass feat directly gave you the choice to choose 1 encounter and 1 daily from the other class in place of your main class, it would add a new cool dimension to multiclassing. Getting access to class features seems like hybrid ground.

Re: Hybrids: I wonder if you separated class features and access to the classes armour with two seperate feats, perhaps this would add a few more to the list of viable combinations without breaking anything. I often find that I can make some cool combos, but I just can't solve the AC issues. So 1 feat would be Hybrid Talent and another Hybrid Armour Training.

Or perhaps Hybrids need a feat to choose 1 dominant Primary power, all hybrid attacks are based off that power. It wouldn't affect secondary power effect. Limitations to features would remain the same. The Bard can do this, maybe if hybrids could as well would resolve MADness issues? Would it break anything if a Wizard/Fighter used Intelligence or Strength of ALL of its primary attacks? Especially if it cost a feat to invest in this?

 

[Dice4Hire]

Well, multiclassing needs to use fewer feats, and it needs to give better paragon abilities. One thing that really hurts paragon multiclassing (besides the 4 feats needed to do it) is the loss of the nice AP abilities. Or the 16th level boost that PPs grant. That can really hurt. Add in messing with different implements/weapons and ability scores and it can turn your character into a mess in a hurry.

I am huge fan of multiclassing, and I did a lot of it in 3.5 and also early 4E, but I have given up on it. It is just too cost-prohibitive. The initial feat with free skill training is not bad at all, iti s everything else that comes later.

 

[Destil]

Every class should have one or more paragon paths that require 'Multiclass X'. They would give balanced class feature like abilities from the class. So if you want to be an X/Fighter you get some limited marking and punishment at 11th and 16th, fighter power access (maybe even at-will trading).

These would replace paragon multiclassing rules (which suck, too many feats and too few benefits).

 

[Mircoles]

If they bring the broken multiclassing of 3e back, then I'm done with D&D.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I dislike the feat-driven nature of 4Ed multiclassing, and find Paragon Multiclassing to be utterly horrid. Hybrids, OTOH, are OK, and I think letting PCs take Hybrid Talent more than once would be pretty safe.

(And I say all of that running a Starlock MC-ed into Psion. I didn't Hybridize the PC because, for once, the MC worked better for the PC concept than the Hybrid rules.* I think.)

One thing they NEED to do is expand the MC and Hybrid rules to fully include the Essentials classes.








* Hybridizing was not an option when we started off, but when it did become one, I felt the Hybridizing of those 2 classes didn't make sense for my PC.

 

[TikkchikFenTikktikk]

Dungeons and Dragons needs to seriously, professionally explore psychographics similar to Magic: the Gathering's "Timmy, Johnny, and Spike" and Melvin-Vorthos cross-categorizations.

The only acceptable use for multi-classing IMHO is to make the concept of a character more playable. For example, the concept of a strong, tough, thief a la Fafrd in the Lanhkmar tales.

But the way it seems multiclassing is only ever used is to give players a way to make DMs responsibilities to develop interesting encounters moot because the multiclassed characters are insane. that, pardon my french.

Oh, you tried to hit me? I'm sorry, I'm a fighter, thief, cleric, mage. You can't hit me except on a natural 20. And if you roll a natural 18-23 on a d20 I get to immediately attack you which will end your attack which automatically kills you and all your allies within 1 squares, plus all mermaids and unicorns the DM has ever even considered casting in this adventure immediately start weeping, which adds 6d40 to your attack roll.

Are you happy now?

Yes, I know you are happy because you made mermaids and unicorns and the DM cry. It was a rhetorical question.

 

[Zaran]

In my campaigns I give the power swap feats for free if they qualify for them(have the level prerequiste). I see no reason to spend a feat to replace a power with another.

 

[AlioTheFool]

Obsidian Portal asked that question on behalf of me.

Personally, I dislike the Hybrid rules and have since they were first previewed. I'm no fan of the multiclass feats either, which as others have said cost more than their value. The previous edition argument doesn't apply to me, since I didn't play D&D prior to 4E.

The reason I want more multiclassing or cross-classing options is because I want to be able to play interesting combinations of characters. I don't care at all about optimization, I just don't want a PC that is cool to me in concept and completely gimped when in the middle of a fight.

I'm a fan of Bards and Wizards. The concepts, not the powers. Trying to hybrid those classes leaves you with a PC that can't do a lot though. Never mind if I want to add in some Rogue or Assassin (borrowing some concepts from Dragon Age).

Some people have commented that WotC has been scared to put in powers that allow people to break the game, and I believe that's true. I don't blame Wizards for being afraid to allow min-maxers to blow up class builds in order to gain advantages, especially given the focus on public play. However, for those of us who have no need or desire to make Superman with a Sword, there should be viable options to make conceptually rich options without being handcuffed.

Keep in mind, these options are under playtest by Wizards. They haven't been released, and the team continues to work with the design. I'm confident that WotC won't just release a broken design that allows power gamers to destroy the game's structure. I just hope the new option(s) are viable.

 

[Neonchameleon]

The only acceptable use for multi-classing IMHO is to make the concept of a character more playable. For example, the concept of a strong, tough, thief a la Fafrd in the Lanhkmar tales.

And that's not a problem in a decent class-based system. Strong rogue shouldn't be hard to work - and indeed was in the PHB1 in 4e (Brutal Scoundrel). What it should be used for is for someone who comes late to a certain path - the wizard who decides he wants to learn to use a sword to defend himself after being used as a chew toy, and focusses on that. Or the fighter in whom Mystical Power is found.

 

[Dungeoneer]

I just dont think there is that great a need in 4e. With themes and paragon classes, hybrids and (current) multiclassing, its so easy to get a nice, conceptually interesting character. The reason most people keep thinking "multiclassing" is because they had it pre-4e, but that just doesnt seem a compelling reason to have it in 4e.

I was helping someone put together a "Fighter/Mage" concept the other day. Went down to a hybrid swordmage/wizard, but that wasnt quite a good fit for what the player wanted, so we ended up with a (Dark Sun) fighter with Veiled alliance theme. Bingo!

Yeah, between builds, themes, paragon paths and epic destinies 4e characters have access to a ton of options without ever even looking at another class. The classes themselves also fill a lot of the niches that you formerly had to multiclass to get.

I'm not saying mutliclassing is badwrongfun, but I think there's a lot less need for it in 4e. Whether you're a min-maxer or just have an idea for a character that's not an official class, there's almost always a way in 4e to get what you want without taking three different classes.