4th edition multiclassing variation.

[Mystic Muse]

I was wondering whether this was too unbalanced. I think the multiclassing in 4.0 should work more like in 3.5 but it doesn't. right now I can't see why anybody would want to multiclass. what I'm proposing is you can multiclass at any level if you meet the requirements and you get the features of the class you multiclass into. however you have to choose which class you want to level up each time. this is mainly to prevent player from being cleric/30 fighter/30 wizard/30 rogue/30 ranger/30 Paladin/30 warlord/30 whatever the heck the class I'm forgetting is /30

would this work in a game well or is it supreme cheese?

[Ashes]

It wouldn't work. You'd be breaking the design completely.

You can do what you propose, with Paragon multiclassing. Instead of a Paragon path, you choose a class to advance. Needless to say, this is rarely done.

[Mystic Muse]

It wouldn't work. You'd be breaking the design completely.

You can do what you propose, with Paragon multiclassing. Instead of a Paragon path, you choose a class to advance. Needless to say, this is rarely done.

it's because the way they set up multiclassing sucks. nothing you get is anywhere near worth it.

and why exactly wouldn't it work? isn't breaking the design the very idea of homebrew?

[Gralamin]

I was wondering whether this was too unbalanced. I think the multiclassing in 4.0 should work more like in 3.5 but it doesn't. right now I can't see why anybody would want to multiclass. what I'm proposing is you can multiclass at any level if you meet the requirements and you get the features of the class you multiclass into. however you have to choose which class you want to level up each time. this is mainly to prevent player from being cleric/30 fighter/30 wizard/30 rogue/30 ranger/30 Paladin/30 warlord/30 whatever the heck the class I'm forgetting is /30

would this work in a game well or is it supreme cheese?


it's because the way they set up multiclassing sucks. nothing you get is anywhere near worth it.

and why exactly wouldn't it work? isn't breaking the design the very idea of homebrew?

Multiclassing doesn't actually suck, just Paragon Multiclassing does. And Homebrew's purpose is to add something to the game that enhances the gaming Experience.

There are a multitude of problems with this approach

The Reason for doing this is unclear. Why Should it be more like 3.5? What does it add to the game? What possible character concept could be built with the 3.5 style that couldn't be done with 4e Multiclassing or Hybridizing and reflavoring?
By allowing multiple multiclasses, your going to have to give the Bard something in exchange.
Class features are defining features of the class, and your just giving them away. It's supposed to be difficult to gain the class features of another class.
How do you decide where powers go? For sake of argument lets go with something simple: "If you were to gain a power, you must take it from the class whose levels you are currently taking." If your considering just overall giving more powers (IE: A Warlock 1/Wizard 1 having 4/2/2 (At-Will/Encounter/Daily)) is going to make it overpowered
A Fighter 7 / Ranger 3 is going to have 2 at-wills (Both Fighter, unless you allow retraining it to a Ranger one), 3 Encounters (All Fighter), 3 dailies (1 Ranger), And 3 Utilities (1 Ranger) if you do this in any fair way. This build won't see to many powers now, but its blocked from getting the best powers of its own class, or of any class. In addition, Depending on how you rule, When he levels up he may or may not be able to take a paragon Path.
Powers don't scale Linearly. A Fighter 5/Ranger 4/Warlord 3 Isn't going to have any paragon tier powers, despite being level 12. Thus, almost all of their powers are going to be weak.


I could continue on, but I just suggest dropping the whole Idea. It simply won't work well in this system.

[Mystic Muse]

okay. thanks for a more explanatory post than "it breaks the design." it's discouraged me from the idea. I think I just didn't get the point of class features being encounter powers when you switch. same with an at-will power from the class. I doubt my players would care if they could do this anyway.

[serok42]

right now I can't see why anybody would want to multiclass.

I don't think I have ever made a character in 4e that did not multiclass.

At the very least you get another skill and something extra from the class. You also get access to feats and PPs of the other class. Even if you do not power swap (which I rarely do) I think it is worth it as is.

[Burley]

First, in response to your original post: Your main problem is that you are comparing 4th Edition D&D to another edition of D&D. This is going to get you wrapped up in troubles, everytime. They are different games, with similar or identical flavors. You can compare them as different games, but when you start saying trying to incorporate X into Y between systems, you might as well be mixing Mutants and Masterminds with Fading Suns. (Interesting Concept, but you're effectively creating a new system, not mixing two others.)

okay. thanks for a more explanatory post than "it breaks the design." it's discouraged me from the idea. I think I just didn't get the point of class features being encounter powers when you switch. same with an at-will power from the class. I doubt my players would care if they could do this anyway.
Now, in response to the above quote: I know it's a little hard to go from "Woo, Sneak Attack dice!" to "Wha? Sneak Attack once per encounter?" In actual game play, a rogue may get his sneak attack only a couple times per encounter, if at all. Combat Advantage isn't always easy to get, and sometime a rogue just can't do it. But, for a character who is in a different class, like a ranger or sorcerer, and uses light blades (like a short sword or dagger) can benefit quite a bit from a multiclass feat. Here's why multiclass feats rule:
When a 4e party rolls up characters, they are going to try to fill each of the 4 roles, generally. Say the guy playing a striker (me) wants to play a sorcerer because arcane magic rules. So, I've got a high dex striker now, and because nobody wants to step on my toes, nobody plays a rogue or sorcerer. But, wait... that means that nobody has Thievery? Lame. So, I can do one of three things: A) Ignore it, and let the fighter break everything. 2) Take Skill Training (Thievery), but that's one feat for one skill. c) I can multiclass into rogue, gain Thievery as a skill, and get Sneak Attack once per encounter. Another feat lets me trade out an encounter power, or I can take the First In feat, which gives me the Rogue's First Strike class feature as a class feature.


Which seems like the best option to you. Yeah, my sorcerer is already cool, but now he can pick locks (with his rat familiar:smalltongue:) while throwing orbs of destruction. With his high initiative and First Strike feature, he can add his sneak attack damage to the first thing he hits! He's even better now!

[Tengu_temp]

If you want multiclassing that gives you access to class features, I suggest hybrid classes from Dragon 375 - they're available only at character creation, but the way I'm seeing it, if someone wants to play a fighter/cleric, there is no reason he should wait for some level instead of starting with it.

[Tiki Snakes]

A surprising thing about the hybrid rules, that I have noticed, is that it really, really opens up multiclassing in suprising ways.

Because you do not automatically get all of a classes class features, they mix better. For example, I whipped up a two-weapon fighting Swordmage for another thread, using swordmage | ranger. Because he doesn't start with the swordmage's warding AC boost, you aren't 'throwing away' the bonus when you pick up the second weapon. I added in the Ranger's two-weapon fighting class feature, took bastard-sword proficiency, and bingo. You've essentially got a dual-greatsword weilding magical swashbuckler, with a variety of types of attack and pretty good damage when he wants it.

Trying to build the same character using the multi-classing rules would not give the same feel at all. The lack of at-will powers particularly makes it feel less fully mixed, but the sheer wait to really get your hands on the other class's powers, and the difficulty with ever getting their features...

Basically, I'm really looking forward to the Character Builder being updated with the phb2 classes, so I can go to town. :D

It's good stuff.

[LibraryOgre]

As to why you'd ever multiclass in 4.0, that's simple: It's better than skill training.

[Eurantien]

I play a mulitclass wizard/warlock and it works like a dream. I took the Expanded Spellbook feat and now everytime I gain a warlock daily power, I also gain a wizard daily power, but as I'm not bound by the rules of a wizard's spellbook I can use them both =D It's not actually too overpowered, surprisingly, but it does work well and felt like a good use of two feats.

[Tengu_temp]

http://www.superdickery.com/images/stories/misc/morbo.jpg

EXPANDED SPELLBOOK DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!

Thank you Morbo.

[AstralFire]

I always thought it was Morbo.

[Tengu_temp]

Right, typo.

[AstralFire]

Oh. thisconceptoftypoconfusesandinfuriatesus

Carry on.

[Burley]

While I understand that Expanded Spelbook does, indeed, not work that way, I'm curious as to why Eurantien thought it did. I mean... looking at the feat, I can't imagine why you thought it would... The feat specifically says each time you learn a "Wizard Daily Attack Spell" you get a second one. Why would gaining a Warlock spell give you one?
And, why would having double your usable daily spells not be overpowering? Cause.... It's totally overpowering.

[Calemyr]

The way I proposed it for my campaign was as follows: If you take the feat for a second class, you can choose any/all of your level-granted powers from either pool. You only get what class feature is listed in the feat, and multiclassing can easily become very Multiple Ability Dependent, but you do not need to take a half dozen feats and a paragon path to let your sword mage cast magic missile and fireball. It doesn't seem to break the game too bad, at least not so far.

Bards might be able to do it, but nobody has wanted to play one.

[Yakk]

You only get what class feature is listed in the feat, and multiclassing can easily become very Multiple Ability Dependent, but you do not need to take a half dozen feats and a paragon path to let your sword mage cast magic missile and fireball. It doesn't seem to break the game too bad, at least not so far.Isn't it 2 feats to let your swordmage cast magic missile and fireball?

---

As an aside, given the rules above, you could build a Superior Crossbow Rogue with Twin Strike, or Ranger MC Barbarian who uses 2 handed weapons and Barbarian powers only, or... you get the idea.

[Totally Guy]

I think that paragon multiclassing ought to grant a bonus feat at levels 11 and 15 to compensate for the investment taken between levels 4 and 10. Or does that just make the power swap feats less attractive for someone that does not paragon multiclass?

That said I have made a paragon multiclass character that worked quite well.

[Kurald Galain]

The way I proposed it for my campaign was as follows: If you take the feat for a second class, you can choose any/all of your level-granted powers from either pool. You only get what class feature is listed in the feat, and multiclassing can easily become very Multiple Ability Dependent, but you do not need to take a half dozen feats and a paragon path to let your sword mage cast magic missile and fireball. It doesn't seem to break the game too bad, at least not so far.

I'm not surprised that it doesn't break the game.

See, it isn't particularly overpowering to let e.g. a paladin choose cleric powers, or a warlock choose wizard powers. The main issues are that (1) leveling up takes much longer now, (2) it muddles the already-vague bordereis between classes, between roles, and power sources, and (3) it makes it easier to get certain broken combos.

Note that the broken combos are already accessible with the RAW multiclass rules. What makes those combos broken is not the proposed MC variation. Yes, a player that wants to cheese out can totally go to town with such rules; but such players already go to town in a variety of other fashions, and the problem is fundamentally with that kind of player.

Overall, 4E is quite a bit too paranoid about things breaking the game. In 3E, giving your fighter the ability to cast Fireball once per day wouldn't be overpowered either. Many options are just nowhere near as big a deal as WOTC is making them out to be.

[Indon]

How do you decide where powers go? For sake of argument lets go with something simple: "If you were to gain a power, you must take it from the class whose levels you are currently taking." If your considering just overall giving more powers (IE: A Warlock 1/Wizard 1 having 4/2/2 (At-Will/Encounter/Daily)) is going to make it overpowered

Why would this be overpowered? As you say, those powers will be weaker than what they would have single-classing.

Admittedly, 4th edition combat has more rounds than 3.5 combat, but you still only have so many actions to take, and it would lead to characters who could spam encounter powers (albeit weak ones) over long combats rather than daily powers.

[Gralamin]

Why would this be overpowered? As you say, those powers will be weaker than what they would have single-classing.

Admittedly, 4th edition combat has more rounds than 3.5 combat, but you still only have so many actions to take, and it would lead to characters who could spam encounter powers (albeit weak ones) over long combats rather than daily powers.

More effective uses of your actions each round. Plus, Take say a fighter.
Now multiclass into ranger. You now have an additional 2 at-wills, 1 encounter, and 1 daily all of which may be used at full strength.
Now multiclass into Barbarian, hey basically same thing.
How about Warden? Once again the same thing!
etc.
The difference between, say a Fighter 4 compared to a Fighter 1 / Ranger 1 / Barbarian 1 / Warden 1 is vast. Notably you have 8 at-wills, 4 encounters, and 4 dailies. Fighter 4 has 2 encounters, 2 at-wills, 1 utility, and 1 daily.
While powers of lower levels are usually worse, the sheer difference in amount makes the second build do better for a long time.

[Indon]

So the system needs a provision that grants initial powers more slowly for the first 3-4 levels, to prevent low-level polydippers.

Say, at level 2 of a multiclassed class, you gain the level 1 Encounter power, and at level 3 of the multiclassed class, you gain the level 1 Daily power.

[Burley]

So the system needs a provision that grants initial powers more slowly for the first 3-4 levels, to prevent low-level polydippers.

Say, at level 2 of a multiclassed class, you gain the level 1 Encounter power, and at level 3 of the multiclassed class, you gain the level 1 Daily power.

That is still a drastic change to a system that works fine.
Stop trying to make oranges into apples.

[Indon]

That is still a drastic change to a system that works fine.
Stop trying to make oranges into apples.

The class gestalt optional ruleset in 3.5 is basically the same sort of thing - that doesn't mean it's not fun, or that the additional mechanical option does not increase versatility.

[Kylarra]

Needless to say, this is rarely done.Except for half elves. :smalltongue:

[Yakk]

If you want to make something like Gesalt, go right ahead.

For a Gestalt power game right now, I'd do the following:
You pick a PRIMARY and a SECONDARY class.

For your SECONDARY class, use the benefits of being a HYBRID member of the class. If your SECONDARY class has more armor/shield options, you may take 1 armor/shield feat that your SECONDARY class grants proficiency in as a bonus feat that you qualify for.

You gain 1 at-will from your SECONDARY class at level 1.

At level 11 and 21, you get to pick a Hybrid Talent from your secondary class.

You get an extra encounter atttack power at level 1 and 7. You get an extra encounter attack power retrain at level 14 and 24.

You get an extra daily attack power at level 4 and 8. You get an extra daily attack power retrain at level 18 and 28.

When you gain a utility power, you gain one from both your primary and secondary classes.

When you pick attack powers, you can pick them from either class -- but if you have 2 or more, you must have one from each class.

---

That would generate something like a higher powered gestalt feel to the game. I'd expect characters to be 1.5 times as powerful (in terms of XP budgets) as standard 4e characters.

But note that I'm talking about upgrading character power -- in 4e, you can get lots of power through a smart selection of multiclass powers. That is why they cost feats.

[Burley]

The class gestalt optional ruleset in 3.5 is basically the same sort of thing - that doesn't mean it's not fun, or that the additional mechanical option does not increase versatility.

Okay. What you said is correct.

Where your logic is flawed: 4e is not 3.5e. Just because multiclassing works one way in one game, doesn't mean can/should/would/will work in another.

Multiclassing in 3.5 gives you class abilities and bonuses as you level. When you multiclass, you don't gain ever ability the class can gain.
4e gives you all your class abilities at first level, and increases them at regular intervals. The fighter's abilities and the rogue's abilities would completely broken.

Also, each encounter is based off of not only the PC's average statistics, but also how many encounter powers (and, to a lesser extent, dailies) they have to blow through. Double the available resources (number of powers), would halve the threat of a monster. If a combat encounter would take a 1st level party 8 rounds to finish, it would take 4 rounds if they have 2 encounter powers each.
What about if you multiclass a cleric, a bard, a shaman, and an artificer in the way you suggest? Is it right for a single PC to have 8 uses of healing per encounter? Does this not change the flow of battle?

Would you also suggest overhauling the encounters? Increasing the difficulty of encounters, to account for the fact that your Fighter in heavy armor can use his wizard powers to target NADs?

What you suggest is a fundemental change to a working system. You are trying to make 4e (orange) into 3.5 (apple).

[Indon]

Okay. What you said is correct.

Where your logic is flawed: 4e is not 3.5e. Just because multiclassing works one way in one game, doesn't mean can/should/would/will work in another.
Gestalt isn't how multiclassing works in 3.5e. It's a very complex, completely extraneous optional ruleset that a lot of people really like 'cause it's nifty.


4e gives you all your class abilities at first level, and increases them at regular intervals. The fighter's abilities and the rogue's abilities would completely broken.
I think an unwritten assumption of this system would be to replace all class feature progression with class level rather than character level.


Also, each encounter is based off of not only the PC's average statistics, but also how many encounter powers (and, to a lesser extent, dailies) they have to blow through. Double the available resources (number of powers), would halve the threat of a monster. If a combat encounter would take a 1st level party 8 rounds to finish, it would take 4 rounds if they have 2 encounter powers each.
As noted elsewhere, higher-level powers are strictly more powerful than lower-level powers: It's the Mystic Theurge principle in action.


What about if you multiclass a cleric, a bard, a shaman, and an artificer in the way you suggest? Is it right for a single PC to have 8 uses of healing per encounter? Does this not change the flow of battle?
I imagine an optimized single-class character would be able to get a number of healing powers per encounter as well - so? A character dedicated solely to healing is a character not dealing damage.


Would you also suggest overhauling the encounters? Increasing the difficulty of encounters, to account for the fact that your Fighter in heavy armor can use his wizard powers to target NADs?
That would require playtesting on the part of interested individuals. I consider it more likely that, barring exploitation of already broken system features (I'm sure you could multiclass an Orbizard creatively with this variant), the variant would tend to generate characters as or less powerful compared to standard characters.


What you suggest is a fundemental change to a working system. You are trying to make 4e (orange) into 3.5 (apple).

You suggest both that 4e's balance works robustly within the scope of the game as written, and that 4e's balance is so brittle that introducing the equivalent of the Mystic Theurge or Ultimate Magus would break it.

[Yakk]

There is a Mystic Theurge in 4e -- namely, a Hybrid character.

Note that by 4e standards of balance, 3e Mystic Theurge is a mechanical failure. (As is the 4e orbzard at high levels).

The particular standards of balance I'm referring to is the encounter-XP building system.


I imagine an optimized single-class character would be able to get a number of healing powers per encounter as well - so? A character dedicated solely to healing is a character not dealing damage.
Artificer, Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman -- 4 splash levels in exchange for 8 heals/encounter as minor actions, 4 daily attack powers (even if weak for dailies, they are stronger than some level 30 encounter attack powers), a boatload of class features, 4 encounter attack powers (even if weak, they are stronger than a level 30 at-will attack power).

You end up at level 26. So you are missing a your level 27 encounter attack, and your level 29 daily attack power.

I'm saying your implementation, as described, sucks. It might be possible to make an implementation that works. I don't see a way to do it both good and elegantly.

Note I don't consider 3e's PrC-fest and splash-fest multiclass system a good elegant system either. 3e tried and failed.

[Indon]

Artificer, Cleric, Warlord, Bard, Shaman -- 4 splash levels in exchange for 8 heals/encounter as minor actions, 4 daily attack powers (even if weak for dailies, they are stronger than some level 30 encounter attack powers), a boatload of class features, 4 encounter attack powers (even if weak, they are stronger than a level 30 at-will attack power).
I noted earlier that it'd be good to stagger starting powers across the first three levels - so you'd lose 8 levels getting all four encounter powers, and 12 getting the daily powers.

[Burley]

I believe what Yakk is trying to say, and what I'm trying to say is:
While the idea would be pleasant, the most elegant way to do this (Hybrid) has already been done.
4e doesn't need to be changed so dramatically. Adding in so many rules goes against the simplicity that 4e is prided on, and would be detrimental to game play. The multiclass system and hybrid systems are well made, and don't need to change.
If you want 3.x rules, play 3.x.

[Indon]

Houserules aren't always about elegance - the gestalt system in 3.5, my earlier example, certainly isn't.

If you want the simplicity of 4th edition, it's not like that can go away - just go by the rules as written and don't play with any houserules or anything.

Nothing about this system mandates its' use.

[Burley]

But, nothing about the system merits it's use, either.
The rules already in place to it simpler and better.

[Yakk]

The square-root power of 4e characters, by design, is roughly 5^((L+2)/5).

This approximation relies on only comparing characters within +/- 4 levels of each other, or so. And it is described by the XP encounter-budget system (which is a quadratic scale of monster / player power).

To generate this, there are the various methods to get modifiers to the d20 attack/defence rolls, and and powers that deal escalating amounts of damage and status effects (and soak escalating amounts of damage and status effects).

One could figure out a way to work out the proper trade off of getting low-level powers from another class vs higher level powers from your main class -- but it would be both tricky and pretty cludgy.

---

If I wanted multiclassing to be stronger in 4e, I'd use feats.

Feat 1: As-is.
Feat 2: Swap a power. Gain some hybrid properties from the other class.
Feat 3: Swap a power. Gain some hybrid properties from the other class.
Feat 4: Swap a power. Gain some hybrid properties from the other class.
Feat 5: Swap a power. Gain some hybrid properties from the other class.

The trick would be figuring out how to slice the properties of the other class into a few equal chunks. The hybrid rules already include some of the work, but more work would have to be done.

Then you would implement paragon multiclassing to go "all the way" possibly -- by the end of paragon multiclassing, you might have a nearly complete set of features from the other class, as well as from your class, and freedom to pick powers from either class.

You do run into the 'double dip striker problem' -- the power allocated to a paragon path isn't as much as the power allocated to initial class features.

[Indon]

But, nothing about the system merits it's use, either.
The rules already in place to it simpler and better.

I dunno about either of those - the default rules are lacking and the hybrid rules require the purchase of additional material (which I haven't purchased - thus why I don't know).

So that's one clear benefit - houserules are free.

[eepop]

How many people are in your play group? Can you really not collectively scrap together $10 every 6 months or so for a one month subscription?

3.5 SRD aside, DDi is the best gaming value out there.

[Kurald Galain]

How many people are in your play group? Can you really not collectively scrap together $10 every 6 months or so for a one month subscription?

I don't believe it's allowed to share an account among more than one person.

[TheOOB]

Only one person has the account, but if you print up a few pages of dragon your whole group can use those.

[Decoy Lockbox]

Our group is using the second revision of the hybrid rules, and I like them quite a bit. I vastly preferred the multiclassing of AD&D to 3rd edition, and I feel like the hybrid rules capture the feel of an AD&D multiclass character without getting bogged down by the problems of that particular system (namely, split xp progression).

I'm currently running a no-wealth 4e campaign, and half of the party is playing hybrid characters -- we have a fighter/cleric, an avenger/cleric and a ranger/sorceror (bow ranger + dex sorceror synergy). The avenger/cleric was, in my opinion, a highly dubious character choice, but thats just my opinion. Its going pretty well so far, and I think the hybrid characters really enjoy their versatility.