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

[OnlineDM]

I personally feel that the multiclass rules in 4e work pretty well, though I was never a 3e player. I also see the concern that opening the rules on multiclassing up farther could lead to horrible brokenness. Power balance in 4e is one of its strengths; I'd hate to see that go away if a certain group of multiclass options were to become "optimal."

I think that it's also reasonable to house-rule multiclassing as you see fit in your home games (though if you use the Character Builder, this is not a great option). If you want to say that you can take any power you want from your secondary class without having to spend a feat, great! Seems reasonable as long as it's not abused (which you can keep an eye on in a home game). But opening up the options too much could lead to broken builds for organized play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I personally feel that the multiclass rules in 4e work pretty well, though I was never a 3e player. I also see the concern that opening the rules on multiclassing up farther could lead to horrible brokenness. Power balance in 4e is one of its strengths; I'd hate to see that go away if a certain group of multiclass options were to become "optimal."

I think that it's also reasonable to house-rule multiclassing as you see fit in your home games (though if you use the Character Builder, this is not a great option). If you want to say that you can take any power you want from your secondary class without having to spend a feat, great! Seems reasonable as long as it's not abused (which you can keep an eye on in a home game). But opening up the options too much could lead to broken builds for organized play.

I think the 'one feat gets you all 3 power swaps' idea basically works. It lets you dip pretty far into the second class, at the reasonable price of 2 feats overall, for which you also get a skill and some other benefit. If you pick up all 3 power swaps, then you can PMC and at the cost 2 vs 4 feats that becomes a lot more reasonable option. Most players will still avoid it, but I suspect a lot more would do SOME power swapping vs nowadays just picking an MC feat to get around some prereqs and get a skill, which seems kind of paltry.

Beefing up PMC a bit in general doesn't seem like a bad idea either. The loss of the action point mechanics and whatnot is a pretty big deal. There could be some way to make up a bit for that. Making a whole set of MC PPs seems excessively onerous, but maybe each class could have a single generic AP feature you can pick up. It doesn't rise to the level of a full PP, but you ARE getting a lot of flexibility as it is and you do get to pick class powers from the second class in lieu of PP powers already, so it isn't that bad. Most PPs have at least 1 dud power anyhow, so in some ways you're already ahead of the game.

I'd be good with WotC doing something like that. It won't break the game and it will make MCing a much more viable option. In some ways it might actually be clearly better than the existing hybrid system, which is interesting but has its own issues for sure.

 

[Solvarn]

Feat Starved

First a quote from the DDXP Q&A session:
"Q: Do you guys have any plans on exploring options for cross-classing/multi-classing in fourth edition more similar to third edition?

A:
(Mike Mearls) Yes.
(Trevor Kidd) I've been play-testing some of this. I'm really excited about some of this.
(Mike Mearls) Yeah, It's definitely something we are working on and thinking about and testing."

Personally, I feel that current multiclassing is a little too feat intensive and paragon multiclassing trades away too many paragon path features for not enough versatility. I'd probably be happy with anything that addresses those issues.

They need to just change Hybrid Talent so that it can be taken once per tier.

Hybrids look great on paper, but as someone that tends to optimize I can tell you that I feel that after extensive testing I don't feel the versatility is worth the loss of efficiency. At best you just confound your DM with all the weird crap your PC can do.

Everyone being equal on turns received, I am spending each action being half as effective at one role, with roughly 70% of the feat support that I might have otherwise for that turn. I run a warlock/swordmage, and everything else being equal, I can run a defender that defends better and a striker that strikes better if I optimize that direction.

The Friday group I play in flip flops between two groups of PC's. Both of my PC's in that group are hybrid. I started a new campaign and went with an Essential cavalier and I really like it. It feels a lot more powerful and focused, I'm only picking feats to support one role.

I think the fears about 4E multiclassing turning in 3.5 munchkinism are pretty unfounded. For one, the system is balanced a lot better against each other. It is a completely different system altogether with a different philosophy on how the overall game runs. This is true from class building to the opposition that is thrown against you. Classes are roughly balanced against each other, classes within roles are certainly balanced against each other. Paragon paths are much more specific in the benefits they grant. Very few benefit more than one class. Overall there is a much lower mechanical benefit for multiclassing than there was in 3.5.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Do your players actually use this? I don't like the idea of spending life energy to get an extra encounter power. Seems to miss the point of multiclassing. Multiclassing, to me, is to make a character that doesn't fit the mold.

I'm having a bit of trouble parsing what you're saying here.

You don't like the idea of spending healing surges to get an extra encounter power. Fair enough. What would you like to spend to get an extra encounter power? You're going to have to spend something, and swapping out an existing power is a high price and messes with the role system. There is a price you will have to pay for your extra power. An alternative of handing out "power surges" was discussed, but since 4e rules are extremely gamist and ask you to accept things like second winds and warlord scream-heals, I don't personally feel that healing surges violates the reality of the game any worse than it's already vioalted. Still, power surges can work fine, as long as the characters have other things to spend them on (perhaps they get X power surges/day, and using a daily or encounter power uses one, so if they use their multiclass encounter power, that's one less encounter power they can use in the next combat...or something). The point is that it be a cost for this rise in power that makes it a risk to use. Multiclassing shouldn't go back to the 2e model of "oh, well, you're just BETTER than a single-classed character."

You also says it "misses the point of multiclassing," but I don't really grok how. The point of multiclassing as I've seen it has always been to blend ability sets. A character in this system has maximum freedom to blend ability sets, with the only limit imposed being that it takes them more effort to blend ability sets then to stick to their own.

And then you say that multiclassing's point is to make a character that doesn't fit the mold. These rules allow you to do that. They just acknowledge that when you don't fit the mold, it is tougher for you. This is both balance-true and narrative-true.

I do think the 3e model of multiclassing was perhaps the Best Rules Evar for multiclassing, but it's not really compatible with 4e's role philosophy. The role philosophy has its strong points (party play, everyone feels useful, there are no especially weak or especially strong classes) that I wouldn't be willing to just toss for a return to a 3e model. I don't think my quick sketchy rules are the endpoint, but they certainly get to the blending of power sets, the freedom to "break the mold" that multiclassing entails.

And I'm interested in hearing what you'd want a character to give up for access to abilities outside of their class that won't gimp the character's role or make them steal someone else's.

 

[Mengu]

I think the 'one feat gets you all 3 power swaps' idea basically works. It lets you dip pretty far into the second class, at the reasonable price of 2 feats overall, for which you also get a skill and some other benefit.

There is already the epic Bard feat that lets you do 2 power swaps for the price of 1 feat, so 3 power swaps is not too much of a stretch. I could see that.

But I worry. Optimization is an attractive beast. For instance, Fighter is already a very attractive multiclass. If say a dwarf gouge barbarian could, for the price of 2 feats, get Battle Awareness (skill and basically a free attack per encounter), Rain of Blows, Rain of Steel, and Glowering Threat (or Clear Headed), I would be hard pressed not to.

 

[Mapache]

They need to just change Hybrid Talent so that it can be taken once per tier.

Hybrids look great on paper, but as someone that tends to optimize I can tell you that I feel that after extensive testing I don't feel the versatility is worth the loss of efficiency. At best you just confound your DM with all the weird crap your PC can do.

Everyone being equal on turns received, I am spending each action being half as effective at one role, with roughly 70% of the feat support that I might have otherwise for that turn. I run a warlock/swordmage, and everything else being equal, I can run a defender that defends better and a striker that strikes better if I optimize that direction.

If you build a hybrid carefully, you can pretty much fulfill two full roles at once. Strikers and Controllers basically need to dedicate their Standard Actions to their role. Defenders and Leaders, however, can get their job done through Minor and Immediate Actions and passive effects (with the exception of Hybrid Fighters, who need to use Fighter attacks to mark things, but who can be combined other Hybrid Defenders for gobs of marking potential).

Nearly all the characters I play in LFR any more are Hybrid Striker|Leaders. Optimize the hell out of your Striker at-will and spam that every turn. Take every Minor Action attack and Immediate power you can, pick up any Utility powers that grant extra heals, and look for feats that give your allies bonuses. You give up some of the nova potential of non-at-will Striker powers, but, in general, I feel that Leader dailies are much encounter-shaping and can give your whole party huge boosts. You'll be able to operate as 90% of a Striker and 60-75% of a Leader. Striker|Non-Fighter Defenders can similarly put out top-notch damage while fully defending. (Warlock|Paladins can actually do more damage that straight-up Warlocks can, though that isn't necessarily saying that much, given where Warlocks fall.) A pack of Striker|Leaders and a Striker|Defender is pretty much the nuclear option of party composition.

 

[Dice4Hire]

My group plays a semi-hybrid system, and while, of course, some combos just do not work out, some are good. If you can get away with focusing as much as possible on one side of hte character, it seems to work a lot better. Of course the Hybrid talent feat pretty much forces you to, if you use it for something more than armor poficiencies, which I think most people do.

 

[AlioTheFool]

Yeah i could see that. But i think multiclassing has a huge potential to magnify any of those underlying issues. To create any blanket rules that allow the combination of so many powers and features in the game just seems destined to cause problems.

Do Themes in Dark Sun bother you? I have a feeling Wizards is working with that framework to put multi-classing into all of 4E. And Themes are already in 4e. They just need to be expanded to all classes.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Do Themes in Dark Sun bother you? I have a feeling Wizards is working with that framework to put multi-classing into all of 4E. And Themes are already in 4e. They just need to be expanded to all classes.

Themes would be a good way to put multi-classing into 4E in a smoother way.

 

[hayek]

Do Themes in Dark Sun bother you? I have a feeling Wizards is working with that framework to put multi-classing into all of 4E. And Themes are already in 4e. They just need to be expanded to all classes.

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.