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

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yes they do, but not as much as multi-classing. A theme brings in a few powers to blend with everything in the game. MCing can blend class features, 100+ powers and a slew of class feats, which is just so much more to balance. I would definitely prefer wizards design a 'theme' for each existing class as a multiclass.

Plus, themes don't detract from another choice - everyone can take them. With multiclassing, you're choosing either to multiclass or single class. If multiclassing becomes a more optimal build, then all single classes consequently suck.

Except that existing 4e MCing is very light, and thus while technically your character is 2 classes you rarely notice that much. Especially if the 2 are similar, which they usually are due to mechanical considerations. So who cares if MCing is 'more optimal'? Besides a blanket statement like that can't be true for all cases by far. There is no danger of a single class becoming some kind of ultimate class to MC into due to the way 4e works.

The problem with using a 'theme' as an MC is a theme is a small thing. You attach a few powers to it, maybe a few feats, etc. There's no way that kind of 'one-size-fits-all' taste of another class is going to meet more than a very small percentage of people's needs for MCing. It may well be that themes as used in DS and whatever may come out later will assuage the need for a lot of players to MC, perhaps. Themes are fundamentally intended for a different purpose though, or at least a specific purpose which isn't always why you MC. You may in fact want to do both.

I think the existing MC system is actually pretty good. It is just too feat intensive and doesn't usually give you enough back in return to make it worth going far with. The fact that it is all based strictly on power swaps actually pretty well keeps things in line and yet makes it interesting. I still think 2 feat MCing is about the optimum.

 

[AlioTheFool]

I'm not going to spend a lot of time on making this an argument. I finally had a chance to hear the question and answer on the Tome Show podcast of the Q&A session. Mike Mearls and Trevor Kidd were clearly excited about the state of their multiclassing testing, which excites me.

You might have a problem with multiclassing, and that's fine, but I want better* MC rules in my D&D 4E game, and WotC is clearly in favor of adding more options. I'm excited and I can't wait to see what they've come up with.




* "Better" according to me.

 

[AntlerDruid]

I would rather have MCing be like how themes work. You take the MC feat and then like themes you can switch powers out - having to spend feats to get an Encounter, Daily & Utility is too much of a feat tax.

 

[GameDoc]

My request?

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP BEING SO STINGY WITH CANTRIPS!

You have to be a full on wizard to get the most basic of all arcane powers.

A fighter who is MC into wizard can at least spend a feat to learn to cast a fireball, but cannot learn cantrips? Nor does a hybrid wizard get them. No other arcane class has a way to get them either.

I've seen several DM's just hand wave that and allow such characters to have cantrips for free or with a feat, but something like that shouldn't require house ruling.

I don't think they're game breaking powers.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

*The Evil Gods of Balance stir uneasily*

Yeah, there's really no reason to be stingy with the small stuff.

 

[pemerton]

FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, STOP BEING SO STINGY WITH CANTRIPS!

You have to be a full on wizard to get the most basic of all arcane powers.

A fighter who is MC into wizard can at least spend a feat to learn to cast a fireball, but cannot learn cantrips? Nor does a hybrid wizard get them.

I think hybrid wizards get cantrips as a class feature.