PDA

View Full Version : 4e Multiclassing Article



Xefas
2008-04-30, 12:37 AM
The Multiclassing Article is up. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a)

I'm going to use my incredible powers of divination to predict that all the people who like 4th edition will say they like it, and all the people who don't like 4th edition will say that they don't like it, and both parties will be mean and hateful to each other for 4-6 pages.

The Sandman
2008-04-30, 12:40 AM
The Multiclassing Article is up. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a)

I'm going to use my incredible powers of divination to predict that all the people who like 4th edition will say they like it, and all the people who don't like 4th edition will say that they don't like it, and both parties will be mean and hateful to each other for 4-6 pages.

Yeah, but even an illiterate half-orc barbarian with Int as his dump stat could probably have made the DC on that Knowledge check. :smallamused:

Artanis
2008-04-30, 12:48 AM
The Multiclassing Article is up. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a)

I'm going to use my incredible powers of divination to predict that all the people who like 4th edition will say they like it, and all the people who don't like 4th edition will say that they don't like it, and both parties will be mean and hateful to each other for 4-6 pages.
4-6 pages? You're certainly feeling optimistic today, aren't you?

*runs off to read the article*

Rockphed
2008-04-30, 12:48 AM
Looks pretty straight forward, though it lakes the finesse of 3rd edition's multiclass system. And it won't let you be a fighter/rogue/mage/cleric/barbarian/nuclear physicist, but then multi classing like that normally either sucked horribly, or PWN!ed utterly.

Rutee
2008-04-30, 12:55 AM
...Uh, Multiclassing seems to suck. The theory was good right up until you give up a feat to /swap/ a power. The mix n' match would have to be direly worth it , I should think. I dunno, maybe that's possible. We don't know how many Feats we get either, though we do know we get a lot of powers.

Artanis
2008-04-30, 12:58 AM
Looks pretty straightforward.

I sure as hell hope that we get a LOT of feats though, or otherwise it will, as Rutee said, suck.

Ascension
2008-04-30, 01:09 AM
Interesting. So apparently the feat-based multiclassing was done so that they can front-load the base classes with features without having people dip multiple base classes just to get the front-loaded features.

No more Lion Totem Barbarian, in other words.

They also recognize that despite all their various gishy PrCs, multiclassing was a bad idea for casters in 3.5. Good, this shows they have an ounce of common sense.

I don't really get what the frequent mentions of fighter/rouge are about... who does that, really, unless they're just dipping for weapon proficiency and a feat? Rogue/Swordsage, on the other hand, I can understand, and this fighter is getting maneuvers, more or less...

Looks like the feats basically give you one limited class feature, a class skill, and a coupon that says "come back when you reach a higher level if you want to swap out some of your powers." Seems just a wee bit weak for a feat, but then everything seems to be generally numerically weaker in 4E so far.

I'd really have to see some examples of power swaps before I come to any sort of conclusion, and I don't think we've seen enough of the powers to be certain about this. I am vaguely reminded of the mystic swordsage variant, but at least in this situation the wizard's spells are designed to be used in the same way as maneuvers, cutting down on the cheese. I'm sure there'll be a way to break this within a month of 4E's release, but for now I can't tell the true extent of its power.

It will be rather humorous to see a fighter suddenly bust out a magic missile from nowhere, though. "I've been cross-training in wizard, can you tell? I had to trade away my Stabby Death power, but this Missile is sure worth it."

Xefas
2008-04-30, 01:11 AM
I sure as hell hope that we get a LOT of feats though, or otherwise it will, as Rutee said, suck.

Well, considering you take the 3 power-swap feats at 4th, 8th, and 10th level, I would hazard a guess that you probably get a feat every Even-Numbered level.

Also, I read (I think over on enworld, but maybe the WotC boards) that the table is kind of messed up. The "...feats, Xth level" portion in the Benefit area should be tacked onto the end of the Prerequisites section for each feat.

I'll see if I can find what exactly they said.

sonofzeal
2008-04-30, 01:13 AM
I love 3rd Ed's system; I usually point to it as the prime reason to use 3rd over 2nd (and I know a surprising number who still use 2nd). That said... well, I'm still in the "wait and see" camp. I can see why the choice was made, and the only thing I have a problem with is limiting you to one secondary class. But really, everything always comes down to implimentation, and I'm willing to be pleasantly surprised.

Eldmor
2008-04-30, 01:18 AM
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say classes gain feats identical to Bonus feats from the 3.x Fighter.

Xefas
2008-04-30, 01:18 AM
One of the 4th edition playtesters posted this on ENworld:


Formatting on that table's a little off. That's going to confuse some people.

The phrases "feats, xth level" should be with the prerequisites, not the benefits.

IOW, the prerequisite of "Acolyte Power" should read:

Any class-specific multiclass feats, 8th level.

And the benefit should read:

Swap one utility power with one of multiclass

Just in case the table confused anyone.

Dragoon
2008-04-30, 01:23 AM
For those who can't see the site themselves

“We'll get to you,” we'd tell it, “but first we have these shiny new classes to finish first. You used to push classes around and tell them how they had to be designed. Well, now the tables have been turned, you bullying jerk.”

This made multiclassing very sad. Even game mechanics hate being called jerks, but deep down it knew it was true. Back in the old days, it was a great tool for building what amounted to your own class. Magic-user/thieves, fighter/clerics, and even the rare but potentially awe-inspiring fighter/magic-user/thief walked the land, like chimeras wrought by strange rites involving Player's Handbooks, an overactive imagination, and a DNA splicer.

3rd Edition gave us a simpler, elegant, and intuitive solution that worked wonderfully… for characters who didn’t cast spells. The system also forced the core classes to delay abilities after 1st level to avoid cherry picking, where “clever” players simply took one level of as many classes as possible (or layered single levels on to a primary class) to reap the benefits of ungodly saving throws and bizarre but ultimately frightening combinations of class abilities that—like chocolate and pickle relish—were never meant to be combined by men and women of good taste.

The 4th Edition design had three primary goals for multiclassing:

1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them.
2. Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations.
3. Institute controls to make every combination as playable as possible.

In 4th Edition, we strived to make each character option useful. Since D&D lacks a competitive or deck building element, it's silly to hide bad choices in the rules. Multiclassing had to obey this rule in order to justify its existence.

In the end, we came up with a system of feats that allow you to borrow abilities and powers from other classes. At 11th level, you can choose to forgo your paragon path in order to further specialize in a second class. This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3E system, but it allows us to tone down or boost a class's multiclass options as needed. If everything works as planned, you have the flexibility to mix classes without making your character into a juggernaut or a cripple. Combos like fighter/wizard now work much better, while traditional choices like fighter/rogue still function just fine. Going forward, we'll introduce new feats for new classes, ensuring that all classes play well together.

So, that's multiclassing. Whether you missed playing a cleric/wizard from older editions or liked the flexibility of building a fighter/rogue in 3R, we've got you covered.

Multiclass feats allow you to dabble in the class features and powers of another class. You might be a fighter who dips his toe into wizardry, or a warlock who wants a smattering of rogue abilities. Each class has a class-specific multiclass feat that gives you access to features from that class.
Class-Specific Feats

There are two restrictions on your choice of a class-specific multiclass feat. First, you can’t take a multiclass feat for your own class. Second, once you take a multiclass feat, you can’t take a class-specific feat for a different class. You can dabble in a second class but not a third.

A character who has taken a class-specific multiclass feat counts as a member of that class for the purpose of meeting prerequisites for taking other feats and qualifying for paragon paths. For example, a character who takes Initiate of the Faith counts as a cleric for the purpose of selecting feats that have cleric as a prerequisite. These feats can qualify you for other feats; for example, a warlock who takes Sneak of Shadows can use the rogue’s Sneak Attack class feature, which means that he meets the prerequisite for the Backstabber feat.
Power-Swap Feats

The Novice Power, Acolyte Power, and Adept Power feats give you access to a power from the class for which you took a class-specific multiclass feat. That power replaces a power you would normally have from your primary class. When you take one of these power-swap feats, you give up a power of your choice from your primary class and replace it with a power of the same level or lower from the class you have multiclassed in.

Any time you gain a level, you can alter that decision. Effectively, pretend you’re choosing the power-swap feat for the first time at the new level you’ve just gained. You gain back the power that you gave up originally from your primary class, lose the power that you chose from your second class, and make the trade again. You give up a different power from your primary class and replace it with a new power of the same level from your second class.

You can’t use power-swap feats to replace powers you gain from your paragon path or epic destiny. If you use retraining to replace a power-swap feat with another feat, you lose any power gained from the power-swap feat and regain a power of the same level from your primary class.

Multiclass Feat Table
{table=head]Name|Prerequisites|Benefit
Initiate of the Faith|Wis 13|Cleric: Religion skill, healing word 1/day
Student of the Sword|Str 13|Fighter: skill training, +1 to attack and mark 1/encounter
Soldier of the Faith|Str 13, Cha 13|Paladin: skill training, divine challenge 1/encounter
Warrior of the Wild |Str 13 or Dex 13|Ranger: skill training, Hunter's Quarry 1/encounter
Sneak of Shadows|Dex 13|Rogue: Thievery skill, Sneak Attack 1/encounter
Pact Initiate|Cha 13|Warlock: skill training, pact at-will 1/encounter
Student of Battle|Str 13|Warlord: skill training, inspiring word 1/day
Arcane Initiate|Int 13|Wizard: Arcana skill, wizard power 1/encounter
Novice Power|Any class-specific multiclass 4th level|Swap one encounter power with one of multiclass feats,
Acolyte Power|Any class-specific multiclass 8th level|Swap one utility power with one of multiclass feats,
Adept Power|Any class-specific multiclass 10th level|Swap one daily power with one of multiclass feats, [/table]

You mean like this Xefas?

Now to go read it. :smallsmile:

tyckspoon
2008-04-30, 01:28 AM
I don't really get what the frequent mentions of fighter/rouge are about... who does that, really, unless they're just dipping for weapon proficiency and a feat? Rogue/Swordsage, on the other hand, I can understand, and this fighter is getting maneuvers, more or less...

The skilled fighter/combat-trained scout/spy/thief represented by the blend is a pretty common archetype, I think. They're just politely pretending that Fighters didn't suck in 3.5 so you might theoretically do it with more than one or two levels of Fighter.


Looks like the feats basically give you one limited class feature, a class skill, and a coupon that says "come back when you reach a higher level if you want to swap out some of your powers." Seems just a wee bit weak for a feat, but then everything seems to be generally numerically weaker in 4E so far.

I'd really have to see some examples of power swaps before I come to any sort of conclusion, and I don't think we've seen enough of the powers to be certain about this. I am vaguely reminded of the mystic swordsage variant, but at least in this situation the wizard's spells are designed to be used in the same way as maneuvers, cutting down on the cheese. I'm sure there'll be a way to break this within a month of 4E's release, but for now I can't tell the true extent of its power.


They also give you access to other class-specific feats built on those class features, which may be very useful if said feats are any good (or if you've just taken all the feats for your own class that you think are worthwhile.) As balance goes, I doubt it'll be easy to significantly break a single character this time around. My bet is that the first major exploits will be found in coordinating the party. Say, having everybody take the Wizard multiclass training feat and then a power-swap to switch one of their Daily or Encounter powers for the best Controlling power currently available. Now instead of having a chance to completely shut down an enemy (or group) once per day/fight, the party as a whole can do it 4 times day/fight. Possibly without significantly damaging their effectiveness at their own roles because they still have their normal at wills, encounter, and/or daily power to use for it.

Xefas
2008-04-30, 01:36 AM
Say, having everybody take the Wizard multiclass training feat and then a power-swap to switch one of their Daily or Encounter powers for the best Controlling power currently available. Now instead of having a chance to completely shut down an enemy (or group) once per day/fight, the party as a whole can do it 4 times day/fight. Possibly without significantly damaging their effectiveness at their own roles because they still have their normal at wills, encounter, and/or daily power to use for it.

This actually sounds pretty cool, though I see the theory breaking down against elite and solo opponents. Elites have a base 65% chance to shrug off any debilitating effect at the end of their turn, and Solos have an 80% chance. Coupled with the fact that without the damage-dealing dailies, they'll last several rounds longer, allowing them more opportunities to recharge their more powerful attacks and royally screw the PCs.

Though such a tactic sounds like it would mow through the mooks quite easily...

Jothki
2008-04-30, 01:37 AM
It will be rather humorous to see a fighter suddenly bust out a magic missile from nowhere, though. "I've been cross-training in wizard, can you tell? I had to trade away my Stabby Death power, but this Missile is sure worth it."

Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, it's just a specialized technique that they put in effort to learn. You don't necessarily need to understand the fundamentals of magic to be able to go through the motions for a spell.

Tallis
2008-04-30, 01:37 AM
Sounds too limited to me, but I'll have to wait until I see it to know for sure. The swapping powers every level thing seems kind of weird to me too.

Starsinger
2008-04-30, 01:42 AM
Not to mention they let you qualify for a different set of paragon paths...

Ascension
2008-04-30, 01:49 AM
Doesn't seem that unreasonable to me, it's just a specialized technique that they put in effort to learn. You don't necessarily need to understand the fundamentals of magic to be able to go through the motions for a spell.

I never said it was unreasonable, I just think it's potentially funny, especially if you get into more obscure admixtures than the age-old gish. In fact, trading for a per encounter ranged magical ability could very well serve the fighter better than trying to use ranged weaponry, if D&D's typical treatment of ranged combat continues. I'm picturing Roman legions using their 1/encounter magic missile/acid arrow/whatever instead of throwing a pilum before charging.

Xefas
2008-04-30, 01:55 AM
Not to mention they let you qualify for a different set of paragon paths...

Maybe it's just because we only know the actual Powers of two of the Paragon Paths, but a Eladrin Rogue/Stormwarden plants a funny image in my mind.

How great an ambush this would make:

Move Action: Move into Position hiding in the nearby bushes/alcove/etc
Free Action: Use Action Point
Free Action: Activate Stormwarden Action Point Power to Teleport 3 Squares into the midst of the enemy
Standard Action: Cold Steel Hurriance to attack everyone around you twice while yelling "SNEAK ATTACK!" for an extra 3d6 on all of the 2-16 hits
Standard Action: Fey Step back into your hiding place

Starsinger
2008-04-30, 02:08 AM
Maybe it's just because we only know the actual Powers of two of the Paragon Paths, but a Eladrin Rogue/Stormwarden plants a funny image in my mind.

How great an ambush this would make:

Move Action: Move into Position hiding in the nearby bushes/alcove/etc
Free Action: Use Action Point
Free Action: Activate Stormwarden Action Point Power to Teleport 3 Squares into the midst of the enemy
Standard Action: Cold Steel Hurriance to attack everyone around you twice while yelling "SNEAK ATTACK!" for an extra 3d6 on all of the 2-16 hits
Standard Action: Fey Step back into your hiding place

That actually sounds pretty good...

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 02:11 AM
I'm picturing Roman legions using their 1/encounter magic missile/acid arrow/whatever instead of throwing a pilum before charging.

That is actually pretty freaking awesome.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-30, 03:46 AM
It looks all nice and good and balanced, except for one thing: this isn't multi-classing. This is a wizard taking Arcane Disciple, or a rogue taking Martial Weapon Proficiency.

While you can be a member of class A that dabbles in class B, or a member of class B that dabbles in class A, you're no longer able to be a hybrid that does A and B both equally. Say, a character that gets its powers from two classes, but gets them all a few levels later; the standard "power for versatility" tradeoff that we know isn't optimized, but can be fun to play.

That said, it does look useful, and I predict lots of people taking the warlock and wizard feats because those seem to give the most different options. And I'm sure the charop board can have a field day with analyzing which class is best for which paragon path.

Kurald Galain
2008-04-30, 03:53 AM
How great an ambush this would make:

Standard Action: Cold Steel Hurriance to attack everyone around you twice while yelling "SNEAK ATTACK!" for an extra 3d6 on all of the 2-16 hits

While that sounds very cool, I'm afraid that it may not be allowed, since by the rules you can only sneak attack once per round and against one enemy at a time.

"Once per round, when you have combat advantage against an enemy ... your attacks against that enemy deal extra damage."

Ascension
2008-04-30, 03:54 AM
While you can be a member of class A that dabbles in class B, or a member of class B that dabbles in class A, you're no longer able to be a hybrid that does A and B both equally.

Or rather you can, but you have to wait ten levels before you can do that, and then ten more levels before you can do that again. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that the paragon paths are better than ten levels in a second base class.

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-30, 03:57 AM
And you can no longer multi into 3 different classes. Yes they were less strong, but you could be a Fighter 2/Rogue X with one level of Sorcerer spells. Yeah, less powerful, but dang fun.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 03:59 AM
It looks all nice and good and balanced, except for one thing: this isn't multi-classing. This is a wizard taking Arcane Disciple, or a rogue taking Martial Weapon Proficiency.

While you can be a member of class A that dabbles in class B, or a member of class B that dabbles in class A, you're no longer able to be a hybrid that does A and B both equally. Say, a character that gets its powers from two classes, but gets them all a few levels later; the standard "power for versatility" tradeoff that we know isn't optimized, but can be fun to play.

That said, it does look useful, and I predict lots of people taking the warlock and wizard feats because those seem to give the most different options. And I'm sure the charop board can have a field day with analyzing which class is best for which paragon path.

You can have a character that has only a few more powers of class A than of class B, I think. That's pretty close. I think sacrificing the ability to be a Fighter 7/Wizard 7 (and suck horribly, and 3.5, or totally rock, if 2nd Edition) is worth functional, easy, balanced multiclassing.

Ascension
2008-04-30, 04:17 AM
You can have a character that has only a few more powers of class A than of class B, I think. That's pretty close. I think sacrificing the ability to be a Fighter 7/Wizard 7 (and suck horribly, and 3.5, or totally rock, if 2nd Edition) is worth functional, easy, balanced multiclassing.

Everything comes later, though. Even at 8th you have a whopping three powers of the secondary class, one in each category. To multiclass whole hog you have to wait for 10th. In many 3.5 multiclass builds you could have the bulk of your build in place by 6th.

Don't get me wrong, I have faith that this sort of multiclassing will cut down on a lot of cheese. It's just that it'll also relegate some not-so-cheesy but just-plain-fun character concepts to the wastebin. It's a trade off. In many, many ways 4E appears to be trying to play it safe in terms of power level. This is another one.

Oslecamo
2008-04-30, 05:16 AM
Wotc continues with his policy of "you broke it in 3e, so we totally crippled it in 4e. Try to breack it now ******!"

So I just have to say:

MULTICLASSING IS DEAD! LONG LIVE SINGLE CLASS CHARACTERS!

Because, like someone mentioned, this isn't multiclassing at all. This is like 3e feats that mimic other classes abilities, or taking UMD rancks no matter what you are and playing caster.

But wait, it's even worst, because you can only dip ONE class.

Not that it is a bad thing. I always felt like something was wrong when I saw a single character wich had more classes and prcs than years of life.

Wotc continues to play safe in 4e, trying to cut as much combo potential as possible. But heed my words, once it comes around, people will still complain that combination X is 3% more effecient than combination Y, and threads will pop up everywhere whining about it, and after some years 4.5 will come out and the cycle will begin anew.

Reinboom
2008-04-30, 05:22 AM
Hmmm...
Color me unimpressed, the only thing I got from this article is the odd craving for pickle relish and chocolate.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 05:26 AM
Wotc continues with his policy of "you broke it in 3e, so we totally crippled it in 4e. Try to breack it now ******!"

So I just have to say:

MULTICLASSING IS DEAD! LONG LIVE SINGLE CLASS CHARACTERS!

Because, like someone mentioned, this isn't multiclassing at all. This is like 3e feats that mimic other classes abilities, or taking UMD rancks no matter what you are and playing caster.
It's feats that give you one of the class' class features, and give you their class-exclusive powers. A significant portion of your powers can be from your secondary class, and you can even take its Paragon Path!
That sure seems like multiclassing to me.
It's like a fighter with full Initiator Level and Martial Study for all his bonus feats, not like UMD.


They are playing it safe, but more in the sense that this frees them up to design class abilities however they want. They don't have to worry about everything combined with everything... and as a player, you don't have to wait until level 5 for your paladin's Divine Challenge, etc.
But wait, it's even worst, because you can only dip ONE class.

Not that it is a bad thing. I always felt like something was wrong when I saw a single character wich had more classes and prcs than years of life.

Wotc continues to play safe in 4e, trying to cut as much combo potential as possible. But heed my words, once it comes around, people will still complain that combination X is 3% more effecient than combination Y, and threads will pop up everywhere whining about it, and after some years 4.5 will come out and the cycle will begin anew.[/QUOTE]

Reinboom
2008-04-30, 05:31 AM
I wonder how Elminster will react (he's living, right?, of course he is.. he was one of the first three characters thought up).
I believe he was statted to a Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard.. whatever?
(Which makes quite a bit of sense book wise).

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 05:44 AM
I wonder how Elminster will react (he's living, right?, of course he is.. he was one of the first three characters thought up).
I believe he was statted to a Fighter 1/Rogue 2/Cleric 3/Wizard.. whatever?
(Which makes quite a bit of sense book wise).

Well, the Fighter is just subsumed by the everyone-gets-half-level-to-stuff thing, and the rogue is a couple of Skill Training feats. He's got a cleric multiclass feat or two. Voila.

Oslecamo
2008-04-30, 05:44 AM
It's feats that give you one of the class' class features, and give you their class-exclusive powers. A significant portion of your powers can be from your secondary class, and you can even take its Paragon Path!
That sure seems like multiclassing to me.
It's like a fighter with full Initiator Level and Martial Study for all his bonus feats, not like UMD.

They are playing it safe, but more in the sense that this frees them up to design class abilities however they want. They don't have to worry about everything combined with everything... and as a player, you don't have to wait until level 5 for your paladin's Divine Challenge, etc.[/QUOTE]

A significat amount of powers can come from your secondary class, but this will severly cripple you.

Each time you take that feat, you gain 1 new power, but you lose one of your own powers and the feat itself.

You're sacrificing two things to gain just one. And characters don't have that many daily/ecounter powers to sacrifice. If you abuse, you'll end up not being able to do what your class was intended to do in the first place and have no real feats at all.


And people will still complain. In 3e they complained how broken their barbarian/wizard/warblade/rogue was.

Now they're gonna complain that they can't make their fighter who shoots firebals from his left hand, heals with his right hand and delivers sneack attacks with his feets.

Skjaldbakka
2008-04-30, 05:47 AM
So . . . you have to take a feat, and then that feat doesn't actually give you anything, it just lets you pick one power from a different class list, and you apparently have to take it each time. Right. I'll pass on this one.

Also, I'm one of those mythical fighter/rogue players, and also a former fighter/magic-user/thief player. And yes, the fighter/rogue is typically fighter 1-4/rogue the rest (or PrC).

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 05:58 AM
So . . . you have to take a feat, and then that feat doesn't actually give you anything, it just lets you pick one power from a different class list, and you apparently have to take it each time. Right. I'll pass on this one.
Did... did you even read the article? Look at the table?
The multiclass feat itself gives you skill training, gives you what amounts to a power equivalent of their class ability (add Sneak Attack 1/encounter and you've essentially gained an encounter power--that's pretty significant, since you can't just take feats to get more powers!), and lets you qualify for that class' paragon paths (getting a Paladin into a healer-y cleric Paragon Path, maybe, or giving a rogue a Fighter's tank-y Paragon Path for more front-line endurance).




A significat amount of powers can come from your secondary class, but this will severly cripple you.

Each time you take that feat, you gain 1 new power, but you lose one of your own powers and the feat itself.[/quote]
Yeah, OK. But you're gaining whole new options. Maybe the fighter takes Mirror Image; you can't see how that synerizes? Maybe the Ranger snags a Rogue power and becomes able to attack Fortitude or Reflex rather than AC. Maybe the Fighter gains one of the Warlord's heal-the-other-person powers, letting him and the Warlord trade off heals while fighting.


You're sacrificing two things to gain just one. And characters don't have that many daily/ecounter powers to sacrifice. If you abuse, you'll end up not being able to do what your class was intended to do in the first place and have no real feats at all.
You get a lot of feats. Using them all on multiclassing will eat up your feats and lose you your own powers...
...so don't use them all on multiclassing! Just use some of them.

Plus, the book might include a clause about having to have at least X powers of your class, or more powers of your class than another.

It's really not that complicated. Gaining access to powers you had no access to before is an advantage... so it costs a feat.


And people will still complain. In 3e they complained how broken their barbarian/wizard/warblade/rogue was.

Now they're gonna complain that they can't make their fighter who shoots firebals from his left hand, heals with his right hand and delivers sneack attacks with his feets.
Okay. So? that doesn't make this bad game design, or 3E multiclassing good game design (it was in a few ways, but definitely not in others).

Xefas
2008-04-30, 06:02 AM
I want to know how Cantrips work with this thing. Presumably, they're weaker than At-Will Powers, and the Wizard gets them in addition to all their actual powers.

Do you think there should be just a normal feat that has nothing to do with multiclassing that could give 1 cantrip as an at-will power to someone? Since the Wizard doesn't seem to need to give up any slots for it, surely it isn't worth an already existing power.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-30, 06:10 AM
It's feats that give you one of the class' class features, and give you their class-exclusive powers. A significant portion of your powers can be from your secondary class, and you can even take its Paragon Path!
That sure seems like multiclassing to me.
It's like a fighter with full Initiator Level and Martial Study for all his bonus feats, not like UMD.


They are playing it safe, but more in the sense that this frees them up to design class abilities however they want. They don't have to worry about everything combined with everything... and as a player, you don't have to wait until level 5 for your paladin's Divine Challenge, etc.
But wait, it's even worst, because you can only dip ONE class.

Not that it is a bad thing. I always felt like something was wrong when I saw a single character wich had more classes and prcs than years of life.

Wotc continues to play safe in 4e, trying to cut as much combo potential as possible. But heed my words, once it comes around, people will still complain that combination X is 3% more effecient than combination Y, and threads will pop up everywhere whining about it, and after some years 4.5 will come out and the cycle will begin anew.[/QUOTE]

Technically, you dip 3 classses.

Fighter with Wizard feats and Paragon'd into Warlord and Rogue (for Epic Destiny).
Granted both multiclassing through Paragon/Epic give more than the feats but the opitunity cost is higher (paragon Prcs look sweet).

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 06:13 AM
I want to know how Cantrips work with this thing. Presumably, they're weaker than At-Will Powers, and the Wizard gets them in addition to all their actual powers.

Do you think there should be just a normal feat that has nothing to do with multiclassing that could give 1 cantrip as an at-will power to someone? Since the Wizard doesn't seem to need to give up any slots for it, surely it isn't worth an already existing power.

Frankly, I'm cool with stuff like Mage Hand and Prestidigitation at will being a wizards-only perk. It's very stylish, but it's not actually very useful--if you make it accessible as a feat then wizards don't get their special flashy magic mastery, and other people spend a feat just for some extra cool.



Technically, you dip 3 classses.

Fighter with Wizard feats and Paragon'd into Warlord and Rogue (for Epic Destiny).
Granted both multiclassing through Paragon/Epic give more than the feats but the opitunity cost is higher (paragon Prcs look sweet).[/QUOTE]
What? If you take Arcane Training, you get access to wizard Paragon Paths, not any others. I don't get what you're saying.

Abardam
2008-04-30, 06:15 AM
The initiate feats might be too good.

Fighter/rangers could own Solo encounters pretty easily just by standing next to the boss. Hunter's Quarry that sucker and you're dealing, what, 1.5 times as much damage? While simultaneously locking him down. Ranger/warlock, and hey, you've just doubled your own Hunter's Quarry. I'd take that over Lethal Hunter any day. Any non-melee/paladin and you're marking guys from the safety of "behind your defender". For one minor action.

So, yeah, I don't know.

Roderick_BR
2008-04-30, 06:20 AM
The Multiclassing Article is up. (http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a)

I'm going to use my incredible powers of divination to predict that all the people who like 4th edition will say they like it, and all the people who don't like 4th edition will say that they don't like it, and both parties will be mean and hateful to each other for 4-6 pages.
No, I'm a guy that likes 4th edition, but don't like that article just to mess with your theory. MWahahahahaha... not really =p

Seriously, yeah, no more "normal" multiclassing. I guess this variation is interesting. You get the abilities you want from multiclassing without having to completely change into something else. I don't know why you can't get more than one multiclass feat, though. I'll have to see it, but I don't think it would be too bad to allow a character more multiclass feats.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-30, 06:31 AM
What? If you take Arcane Training, you get access to wizard Paragon Paths, not any others. I don't get what you're saying.

Start as Fighter take Wizard feats
Paragon choose Warlord
Epic choose Rogue

Is that hard to understand?

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 06:34 AM
Start as Fighter take Wizard feats
Paragon choose Warlord
Epic choose Rogue

Is that hard to understand?

Yes. You can't do that. You have to have X Training to take X powers, and you can only have one of those.
What you're sugesting isn't based on anything we know about the rules.

Xefas
2008-04-30, 06:37 AM
Frankly, I'm cool with stuff like Mage Hand and Prestidigitation at will being a wizards-only perk. It's very stylish, but it's not actually very useful--if you make it accessible as a feat then wizards don't get their special flashy magic mastery, and other people spend a feat just for some extra cool.

Well, I'm not saying take it away from the Wizard. I just think it'd be neat to get that little bit of extra cool that doesn't actually do anything useful if you want it.

For instance, I had an old paladin character who traded in his super special paladin mount summoning ability for the ability to summon the spirit of his dead wife from the Upper Planes. While she didn't serve as a very good mount, she provided other, less useful things, like knowledge checks and the fact that it made my paladin unique.

In 4th edition, I thought it might be kind of awesome to have a paladin take a feat so he can be followed around by an incorporeal disembodied hand that helps him out, and play it as if he's being followed around by his dead wife's spirit.

How cool would it be to have a line like:
"Skeletons, eh? A sword won't do. Honey, get me my bashin' stick."
As the spectral hand materializes out of nowhere and uses it Minor Action power to switch out the Paladin's Longsword for a Warhammer from his pack. To which he says:
"Thanks, shnooknums"
makes a kissing face to the air, and the hand waves at him and disappears.

JBento
2008-04-30, 06:43 AM
True, but he CAN take Warlord at 11th intead of a paragon path and (presumaly) Rogue at 21st instead of an epic destiny. Is it worth it? What does he gain from that style of multiclassing? Are paragon paths/epic destinies REALLY that good to justify NOT taking another class? guess we'll haev to wait and see...

Eldariel
2008-04-30, 06:44 AM
This is satisfactory. I think they could've done better, but then again, they aren't superhumans so I'm not surprised they weren't able to come up with an open, yet fair system. Now we get a rather limited yet fair system; I'll take it.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 06:45 AM
True, but he CAN take Warlord at 11th intead of a paragon path and (presumaly) Rogue at 21st instead of an epic destiny. Is it worth it? What does he gain from that style of multiclassing? Are paragon paths/epic destinies REALLY that good to justify NOT taking another class? guess we'll haev to wait and see...

Ah, I missed the second-class bit. There's nothing to show that you can take a third class instead of an epic destiny, though.

JBento
2008-04-30, 06:46 AM
Hence my presumably. :smallsmile:

I fully admit that part to be pure speculation, and therefore subject to total incompatibility with reality :smallbiggrin:

Duke of URL
2008-04-30, 06:52 AM
The Good

It's simple, and let's you essentially "cross-breed" any two classes (but only two).

The Bad

Limits the amount of multiclassing available. Benefits of the second class are generally minor, without the investment of a lot of feats to swap in extra powers.

The Ugly

The power swap feature leads to the following situation.


Player A: Who-hoo! Level X! I just got access to cool new power Y.
Player B: *takes feat* I have it too, nyahh!
Player A: Aaaaaaaaargh!

What's worse than just letting the multiclassing character have any power from the second class is that the choice isn't static, and he can continue to stay "current" with the secondary class' best power at each level.

Abardam
2008-04-30, 07:20 AM
I'll have to see it, but I don't think it would be too bad to allow a character more multiclass feats.Human Warlock, take Sneak of Shadows, Warrior of the Wild. Eyebite, Curse, Quarry on first round, Eldritch Blast on second round for 1d10+Cha+2d6(Sneak Attack)+1d6(Curse)+1d6(Quarry), averaging 19.5+Cha damage. And if he's not yet dead by then, you're still dealing 12.5+Cha damage every round after that.

Every encounter. Okay, so it takes a round to set up. So what, you're dealing daily power-comparable damage every encounter. And if you crit, that's, well, that's a lot of damage.

Let's take the hobgoblin soldier. 47 hp. With luck, you've just bloodied him -- or you will the next round. This is a level 3 creature, mind you.

Please prove me wrong here, because I really want to multiclass more than once.


The Ugly

The power swap feature leads to the following situation.


Player A: Who-hoo! Level X! I just got access to cool new power Y.
Player B: *takes feat* I have it too, nyahh!
Player A: Aaaaaaaaargh!

What's worse than just letting the multiclassing character have any power from the second class is that the choice isn't static, and he can continue to stay "current" with the secondary class' best power at each level.The character just gave up a feat and a power for it, I think he deserves to swap out. Besides, characters can swap out their own powers at certain levels anyway. I don't see how this is any different.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-30, 07:23 AM
Interesting. I'll have to see it in practice before I pass judgement on it... but it will cut down on a lot of the time I spend building characters...

I'll have to find another way to slack off at work... :smalltongue:

InaVegt
2008-04-30, 07:37 AM
Yes. You can't do that. You have to have X Training to take X powers, and you can only have one of those.
What you're sugesting isn't based on anything we know about the rules.

We've all been talking about the multiclass feats here, but they start out with multiclassing (note the lack of feat) in the article.


In the end, we came up with a system of feats that allow you to borrow abilities and powers from other classes. At 11th level, you can choose to forgo your paragon path in order to further specialize in a second class. This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3E system, but it allows us to tone down or boost a class's multiclass options as needed. If everything works as planned, you have the flexibility to mix classes without making your character into a juggernaut or a cripple. Combos like fighter/wizard now work much better, while traditional choices like fighter/rogue still function just fine. Going forward, we'll introduce new feats for new classes, ensuring that all classes play well together.
(Emphasis added)

They still don't say anything about epic destinies, but it seems like you /can/ give up your paragon path for your multiclass.

Reinboom
2008-04-30, 07:44 AM
Well, the Fighter is just subsumed by the everyone-gets-half-level-to-stuff thing, and the rogue is a couple of Skill Training feats. He's got a cleric multiclass feat or two. Voila.

It is not the ends, it is the means.

The character did not start out a wizard, he started a 'fighter' (working with the bandit brigades of what was left of the old rule).
You try to start as a fighter here, and then, that's it. You're a fighter who has just lost a lot of feats as you try to still be a wizard.
I like the options of just being, not being suddenly stuck because of your first option.

It might not be that difficult to change, however, it's the first significant negative for 4E for me. Hm.
This'll take a bit of houserule crafting to do.

==Edit==
Hm, if the paragon would allow them to just be a wizard, then that'll work. Depends.

wodan46
2008-04-30, 07:49 AM
Basically, Multiclassing works like this:
1. Use feat to multiclass, gain a weakened version of a class feature, a trained skill, and can qualify as the class for pre-reqs.
2. Use additional feats to swap your primary class powers for the new class's powers.
3. As you may retrain feats and powers, you can replace low level regular abilities or multiclass abilities with high level regular abilities or multiclass abilities (IE you can drop the multiclass and use the feats for something else, or exchange the multiclassing power feats for higher level ones).
4. Lastly, you can exchange a Paragon path for a multiclass. This is implied to and logically would give you a better range of new class features.

As for how many feats you have, one should have at LEAST 7 feats by level 14, possibly more (based on statements regarding the retraining of feats among other information). So expect 1 feat every other level roughly, and a little more than that at the start.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 07:53 AM
It is not the ends, it is the means.

The character did not start out a wizard, he started a 'fighter' (working with the bandit brigades of what was left of the old rule).
You try to start as a fighter here, and then, that's it. You're a fighter who has just lost a lot of feats as you try to still be a wizard.
I like the options of just being, not being suddenly stuck because of your first option.

It might not be that difficult to change, however, it's the first significant negative for 4E for me. Hm.
This'll take a bit of houserule crafting to do.

==Edit==
Hm, if the paragon would allow them to just be a wizard, then that'll work. Depends.

So he started out as a fighter.
Then he got to rebuild his character, and turned into a multiclassed wizard.

Starbuck_II
2008-04-30, 07:58 AM
True, but he CAN take Warlord at 11th intead of a paragon path and (presumaly) Rogue at 21st instead of an epic destiny. Is it worth it? What does he gain from that style of multiclassing? Are paragon paths/epic destinies REALLY that good to justify NOT taking another class? guess we'll haev to wait and see...

I appreciate the back up. Maybe I'm just no good at explaining things.

Now the oppotunity cost is big: I mean, presumaly Epic Destinys and Praragon Prcs are supposed to be really good. The question is than: are Prcs better than multiclassing (into another class)?

We would have to compare them all to get a good feel.

Valairn
2008-04-30, 08:16 AM
Poorly written articles = more confusion for all....

Its almost like they did it on purpose.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 08:17 AM
Hmmm...
Color me unimpressed, the only thing I got from this article is the odd craving for pickle relish and chocolate.

Must agree. Well, not about the pickle relish and chocolate. That's still icky.



Limits the amount of multiclassing available. Benefits of the second class are generally minor, without the investment of a lot of feats to swap in extra powers.


This is actually why I'm not liking this mechanic. It seems like the ability swap is either going to be too weak to do much or way too over powered, depending upon which is chosen. I can easily see there being a handful of abilities that all say, fighters, want from the mage list pretty much regardless of build and some other things that they don't want at all.


The Ugly

The power swap feature leads to the following situation.


Player A: Who-hoo! Level X! I just got access to cool new power Y.
Player B: *takes feat* I have it too, nyahh!
Player A: Aaaaaaaaargh!

What's worse than just letting the multiclassing character have any power from the second class is that the choice isn't static, and he can continue to stay "current" with the secondary class' best power at each level.

Yeah. That's one of the issues I'm talking about. Particularly if the newly aquired power is really good (or overpowered).


I would be very surprised if most Wizard Prcs Paragon Paths were enterable just by 'multiclassing' for some of the abilties. I have no proof of this, but my impression from the article is that doing the multiclass thing would allow you the potential to get into some Paragon Paths if you also invest a bunch of other stuff.

In the end, as always with these topics, we shall have to wait and see for the full system.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-30, 08:21 AM
Human Warlock, take Sneak of Shadows, Warrior of the Wild. Eyebite, Curse, Quarry on first round, Eldritch Blast on second round for 1d10+Cha+2d6(Sneak Attack)+1d6(Curse)+1d6(Quarry), averaging 19.5+Cha damage. And if he's not yet dead by then, you're still dealing 12.5+Cha damage every round after that.

Every encounter. Okay, so it takes a round to set up. So what, you're dealing daily power-comparable damage every encounter. And if you crit, that's, well, that's a lot of damage.

Let's take the hobgoblin soldier. 47 hp. With luck, you've just bloodied him -- or you will the next round. This is a level 3 creature, mind you.

Please prove me wrong here, because I really want to multiclass more than once.

The character just gave up a feat and a power for it, I think he deserves to swap out. Besides, characters can swap out their own powers at certain levels anyway. I don't see how this is any different.

Mais non. You can only dabble in ONE second class. Which means, only EITHER sneak of the shadows or warrior of the wild. Your cheese falls down.

Abardam
2008-04-30, 08:22 AM
Mais non. You can only dabble in ONE second class. Which means, only EITHER sneak of the shadows or warrior of the wild. Your cheese falls down.That's what I said.

EDIT: To clarify, he (Roderick) wanted multiple multiclasses, and I gave an example of such a character.

Azerian Kelimon
2008-04-30, 08:26 AM
Then, why craft a scenario that cannot happen?

The possible solution, of course, would be to let you SPLIT the benefits you can get.

Example: You really want Magic missile. So, you take the wizard training feat and whatever Novice to get MM. But you also want the Warlocks fake flight, so you pay up three feats to get that utility power. And finally, you want Crimson Edge, so you pay FOUR feats to get that daily.

Hey, allowing that SHOULD work. You can only have ONE daily/utility/encounter power from other classes, but you can have all of those coming from different classes at a heavy feat cost.

SamTheCleric
2008-04-30, 08:28 AM
We still need a lot more information to make concrete decisions about it...

But I'd imagine that they will be introducing hybrid type base classes as well, seeing as the Swordmage will be coming out with the forgotten realms book...

Swordmage with Multiclass Feats into Rogue... there, now you're a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue hybrid. :smallbiggrin:

nerulean
2008-04-30, 08:30 AM
I'm liking the 4th ed. stuff we've seen so far, but I'm concerned about the amount of homogenizing that seems to be going on. It seems like there's going to be a rather limited capacity to alter what WotC produces to match a particular concept, and if you want to play a particular odd combination you're going to have to wait for them to bring it out in a splat book, which could very easily take forever. On the other hand, it looks like it's going to be much easier to produce genuinely balanced homebrew, so maybe it won't be too bad.

AKA_Bait
2008-04-30, 08:31 AM
We still need a lot more information to make concrete decisions about it...

But I'd imagine that they will be introducing hybrid type base classes as well, seeing as the Swordmage will be coming out with the forgotten realms book...

Swordmage with Multiclass Feats into Rogue... there, now you're a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue hybrid. :smallbiggrin:

This is one of the things that both gives me hope and distresses me. The way multiclassing is set up here, it seems to limit player options in terms of build and possibly in terms of the mix of abilities the character ends up with as a result of the build. If there are enough goo hybrid classes, this isn't really a problem. However, if there aren't the game will be much poorer for it than it would have been if there were more liberal multiclassing rules and cruddy gish classes.

KIDS
2008-04-30, 08:44 AM
I generally like it but can't really comment. Depending on how skills work and how they have been merged together as well as whether there are such things as caster and initiator levels, it could be godly or suck completely.

However, while the result is uncertain I'm delighted to see that they talk about common problems like save stacking or caster multiclassing and take them seriously. Whether they will fix it correctly has yet to be seen.

Person_Man
2008-04-30, 09:00 AM
There is a group of gamers who love to multiclass because they love to optimize. There is another group of gamers who love to multiclass because their combination of classes fits some elaborate story that they've built up in their heads. They're a minority of all players, but they're a sizable block of activist players who post online, go to cons, and buy a lot of products.

This system seems to punish/penalize you for multi-classing. And for the life of me, I can't figure out why WotC would want to screw their activist base. The first group is still going to find a way to optimize and potentially mess with power balance regardless. The second group is just going to feel like the system doesn't let them create the type of character they want to play, and they don't really care if their Wizard/Barbarian is weak.

I think a better solution would be to find a way to fix scaling - either by removing all scaled powers, or by having every power scale regardless of class, or by linking class abilities to Skills and fixing how they scale. Peg Saving Throws and BAB to character level, not class level.

wodan46
2008-04-30, 09:00 AM
At level 10, which is when your power/feat growth peaks and you start getting paragon path stuff, you should have at least 6 feats and 9 encounter/utility/daily powers. Thus,you could have more than half your powers come from the other class. However, it is more likely that you just take the useful abilities from the other class.

It is worth noting that multiclassing does not normally allow you to obtain at will abilities, from the looks of it. the one exception might be wizards, of whom you might be able to obtain an at-will as a per encounter ability for the initial multiclass, though it isn't clear (it might be talking about rituals or cantrips of the choice of 2 dailies thingy).

So multiclassing is never going to be the ability you do every round, but it can contain your key backup spells or your most powerful finishers. For example, a fighter might want to multiclass to wizard for a spell that lets his sword hurt incorporeal enemies more effectively.

Its worth remembering that multiclassing no longer requires you to spend levels on it, which makes it significantly less expensive for a fighter to obtain a wizard spell, for example. Instead of taking a level of crap BAB bonuses and low HP as it would happen in 3.5, instead you just drop a feat to get that vital spell you wanted.

So its less about obtaining magic missile type abilities for your fighter, as it is for taking useful tricks, like an emergency heal (many cleric encounter abilities seem to do this), or invisibility for an emergency escape, a stunning spell to give you the opportunity to pulverise the opponent, or a sneak attack to give your first smack in the battle extra oomph.

That said, things like Fighter-Rangers are going to be scary, as the Ranger multiclass feature lets you per encounter deal +1d6 damage extra, which means that the Defender can do Striker damage against a single target, which becomes exceptionally annoying when combined with the free attack when an adjacent opponent shifts and +2 to opportunity attacks.

InaVegt
2008-04-30, 10:00 AM
We still need a lot more information to make concrete decisions about it...

But I'd imagine that they will be introducing hybrid type base classes as well, seeing as the Swordmage will be coming out with the forgotten realms book...

Swordmage with Multiclass Feats into Rogue... there, now you're a Fighter/Wizard/Rogue hybrid. :smallbiggrin:

I'd think the swordmage is a defender with the arcane power source, really.

fendrin
2008-04-30, 10:32 AM
Hmm...

First thought: BLARG! multiclassing is too weak. You 'flavor' one class with another, rather than blending them. At least you can do it at first level, which I could even do in 2 or 3e, but not in 3.5...

Second thought: Well hold on, we aren't seeing the big picture. We have the basic structure of multiclassing, but we don't have much of the meat of the classes (i.e. the powers). We really need to see a few examples of multiclass characters at various levels and 'mixing' before we can really get a sense of how it will work.

Overall impression: Need more info.

Vortling
2008-04-30, 10:38 AM
The new multiclassing seems rather restrictive. Overall it doesn't look very good since you can't do much of anything until you've nearly hit paragon tier. Oh well.

Fhaolan
2008-04-30, 10:51 AM
A thought...

This might be the Multiclassing rules, but what a lot of people think of as 'Multiclassing' now is a combination of Multiclassing and what was called 'Dual Classing' in older editions. Perhaps the rules they're showing here cover only the old form of multiclassing, and there are further rules for the dual classing equivalent.

In which case the 4ed multiclassing will cover those situations where a character is attempting to progress with two classes' features. There might be a 'retraining' ruleset that will cover what happens when a character attempts to abandon one class completely, and progress in a different one. In old editions, when you do that you can't access your old class features without penalty. I can see in the new edition simply losing your old class features in exchange for a new set (at some kind of loss to cover the retraining cost).

Just an idea.

obliged_salmon
2008-04-30, 10:58 AM
I've never multiclassed in 3.x, primarily because I felt like doing so would effectively make me one level behind everyone else, in turns of level-oriented base class progression. That and it's obnoxious to have to pull up new relevant info and figure out which skills are class skills, etc. I think I might actually use this variant of multiclassing though, since it's simple and doesn't limit your base class progression at all. Just a thought.

Ascension
2008-04-30, 11:01 AM
Its worth remembering that multiclassing no longer requires you to spend levels on it, which makes it significantly less expensive for a fighter to obtain a wizard spell, for example. Instead of taking a level of crap BAB bonuses and low HP as it would happen in 3.5, instead you just drop a feat to get that vital spell you wanted.

A feat and a power. I don't think anyone here would be complaining if you just dropped a feat and got a spell. The thing is you have to drop a feat and one of your fighter powers, giving up two things in exchange for a bit of versatility which may or may not be worth it (depending heavily on what you're trading and what you're trading it for). To use a horrible exaggeration, before we know how powerful this is we need to know whether we're trading out Weapon Specialization for Wish or Power Attack for Mage Hand.

The main benefit of this sort of multiclassing, it seems to me, is that it would be fairly easy to take on two party roles to some extent if you're willing to sacrifice effectiveness in both of them, which, I suppose, would aid those who are playing with small parties (two or three PCs). In a game where every major party role is filled, though, it seems like multiclassing would send you the way of the core 3.X bard... too much of both and not enough of either.

Valairn
2008-04-30, 11:22 AM
Of course as we well know, losing the ability to be good at one thing while gaining another ability to compliment you, can be ridiculously overpowering. Take a look at specialist wizards. If you are giving something up, to gain something you wouldn't be able to attain otherwise, it isn't necessarily a sacrifice. Two for one being a bade thing, while it makes sense in an economy where all things are equal, has never made sense in DnD where one thing can vastly out value the other two.

Mewtarthio
2008-04-30, 11:23 AM
Is anyone else curious as to what an Arcane Initiate with Battlemage would be like? Looking at the paragon path, I assumed that Battlemage was meant for mages who get into melee too often: A path focused primarily on giving you enough power that you don't mind as much when someone slips past the Defenders. Giving this to a class that's already melee-oriented, like a Rogue, will likely be either really good (ie "If this makes a sucky Wizard a badass, imagine what it'll do for me...") or really bad (ie "But I do all this already!").

Either way, the look on the Wizard's face would be priceless:

"Hey, check it out! I'm a Battlemage now!"
"What? What sort of cruel joke is this? Five weeks ago you didn't have the slightest hint of arcane might!"
"Nuh-uh! I could cast magic missile like one time in between rests! I was dabbling on the side!"
"But I've been dedicating my life to the arcane arts for years! You've just been reading a few books over the past few months. You couldn't possibly have the in-depth knowledge and mastery of the arcane arts necessary to become a Battlemage!"
"Mister Electric Fist here would like to disagree with you..."

Valairn
2008-04-30, 11:31 AM
That's not particularly different than it is now.

"Hey when did you learn how to cast spells. Just yesterday all you could was swing a sword."

"Dude... its called a DING!"

Talya
2008-04-30, 11:46 AM
I like the basic concept. I've thought of using a houserule something like it for SW Saga: take a feat to give you access to the talents of another class (and get one talent at the time you take the feat).

I don't like the limitations of it. I like the design of actual real multiclassing, and especially prestige classes. And I like building characters with 3-4 classes.

It might work, though. /shrug. Sortof irrelevant for me.

My DM is planning to celebrate the release of 4th edition by switching from our 3.5e campaign to Exalted for a month. :)

Mewtarthio
2008-04-30, 12:19 PM
That's not particularly different than it is now.

"Hey when did you learn how to cast spells. Just yesterday all you could was swing a sword."

"Dude... its called a DING!"

True, but in that case you're only able to cast a few weak, simple spells. In this system, you're suddenly a Battlemage, despite not even being all that dedicated to magic.

Granted, that can be justified to a certain extent. You're a melee combatant, so you've been studying magic to see if it can't help you be a stronger melee combatant, and you just neglect the typical fields of study and go straight for the specialized Battlemage stuff, but still...

On the other hand, I just noticed that the "DING I can use magic now" problem is pretty much averted in the new system. It takes at least two feats to use an actual power from the class, so you've been studying magic/religion/combat for quite a good length of time before you can do anything particularly impressive.

Trog
2008-04-30, 02:17 PM
Seems all right I guess. Looks like "multiclass" people below 11th level will merely be dabbling in another class. And I never was one for triple-classing anyway so no big objection there. I'll have to try it and see. Dabbling might actually be more of what I would want in a multi-class character. then again I always have been big on single class characters.

Artanis
2008-04-30, 02:48 PM
Y'know, using a feat to swap out a power could easily be worth it if that swap lets you make some really useful combos. I mean, just looking at the DnD XP character sheets:

* A Defender-type might find the Warlock's Witchfire - which causes damage and inflicts a -4 penalty to the target's attack rolls - to be so much more handy than the "attack two guys" Encounter power on the Fighter's sheet that it's worth a feat.

* The Warlock, in turn, might decide that a Wizard's Force Orb - an AoE attack - is so much more handy for a Striker than his debuffing Witchfire that it's worth a feat.

And so on.


And if you don't like the decision or the swap becomes obsolete, you get to choose a new swap if you like any time you level. So that feat sticks with you and continues to give just as much benefit (much like how 3e Metamagic feats stay handy at any level, not just the one you take it at).


*shrug* guess we'll find out in 36 days, won't we?

Draz74
2008-04-30, 03:42 PM
Hmmm. I was a little underwhelmed, but it's growing on me. I guess now I'm just whelmed.

It's not the "five-course lobster banquet" they promised us multiclassing would be, but within the relatively simplistic framework that is 4e, it seems like it will work fine.

One thing I'm really wondering is how the multiclass-instead-of-a-Paragon-Path option stacks with the feat-MC option. If I want to be a Gish, can I be a Fighter with Arcane Initiate (and three other feats, for a total of 4 spells available), and then take more Wizard powers by having Wizard MC as my Paragon Path? Or if I really want to triple-class, can I indeed do so? (One base class, one class dipped into via feats, one class studied via PP.)

My "whelmed" response is contingent on the answer to these questions being "yes."

Some concepts seem to work better than I was afraid with this framework. Others, not so well. Examples:


Seems like you could bring back the classic 2e Elven Fighter/Mage/Thief reasonably well. Pick an unusually high Charisma, then be an Eladrin (Artful Dodger) Rogue, spend four feats on Warlock powers, and take "Warlord" as your Paragon Path. (Of course, this idea might be obsolete when they give us the promised Bladesinger Paragon Path.)
Maybe Swashbucklers aren't totally impossible in 4e after all (until they actually give us a Swashbuckler class). Go Rogue with Student of the Sword, then take a Fighter-based Paragon Path (e.g. Kensai).
Originally when they told us Druids wouldn't be in the PHB I, I thought, "that's OK, you can make a decent nature-priest just by playing a Cleric and selecting nature-themed Powers, maybe with some Ranger multclassing." But with the level of narrowness that things in 4e seem to have, it doesn't look like Cleric will have any nature-themed powers to choose from. And Ranger multiclassing seems much more focused on fighting ability than on "being one with nature." So druids really seem to be out.
Bards, on the other hand, seem somewhat viable. I don't know whether a Warlord with Sneak of Shadows, or Rogue with Student of Battle simulates a Bard better. Probably the latter. Then you can take Wizard as your PP. (Or Warlock, since, as I noted under the multitalented elf idea, then you'd have three classes that all share good CHA synergy.)
Standard Gish seems pretty doable. Either Fighter/Arcane Initiate/Wizard PP, or Fighter/Arcane Initiate/Battlemage. Or, for a twist, Paladin/Pace Initiate/whatever!
It seems like this system will make it so you don't have to have a Wizard in every party to fill the Controller role. *whew* You could even possibly have a well-rounded party with less than 4 characters.


On that last note, I think I'll start to have fun thinking up party compositions. How's this sound?

Dragonborn Warlord
Halfling Warlock (Arcane Initiate)
Elf Fighter (Warrior of the Wild)

Rachel Lorelei
2008-04-30, 03:47 PM
Maybe Swashbucklers aren't totally impossible in 4e after all (until they actually give us a Swashbuckler class). Go Rogue with Student of the Sword, then take a Fighter-based Paragon Path (e.g. Kensai).
...it seems to me like a Rogue with Artful Dodger, taking Athletics and Acrobatics (or whatever they called them) rather than Stealth, is already a better swashbuckler than the 3.5 Swashbuckler class. I'm not sure you need to do any multiclassing for that!

fendrin
2008-04-30, 04:11 PM
...it seems to me like a Rogue with Artful Dodger, taking Athletics and Acrobatics (or whatever they called them) rather than Stealth, is already a better swashbuckler than the 3.5 Swashbuckler class. I'm not sure you need to do any multiclassing for that!

Agreed. However, I might still be tempted to MC some Ranger in for some TWF action. Probably because it is a staple of so many (media depictions of) renaissance fencers (rapier and dagger, mostly).

On a separate (but related) note:
It seems that MCing in 4e could probably be classified into two forms.

Multiclassing to reinforce/amplify one's role (such as a rogue MCing Ranger)
Multiclassing to add variety of options (such as a fighter MCing Wizard)

I have a feeling that this system will end up working better for one type than the other (probably better for 1 for 2, but I can conceive of it being the other way).

wodan46
2008-04-30, 04:39 PM
The 1st is always useful as it strictly improves your character, whereas the second is useful only if your party variety and needs to make up for it.

For example, if you already have a fireball slinger warlock, there is no need for the fighter to learn how to sling fireballs, but it would be useful for the fighter to learn hunter's quarry to take on elite monsters, or mirror image to avoid enemy attacks.

Reel On, Love
2008-04-30, 04:49 PM
The 1st is always useful as it strictly improves your character, whereas the second is useful only if your party variety and needs to make up for it.

For example, if you already have a fireball slinger warlock, there is no need for the fighter to learn how to sling fireballs, but it would be useful for the fighter to learn hunter's quarry to take on elite monsters, or mirror image to avoid enemy attacks.

It might still be useful for the fighter to learn how to sling a fireball, for when the enemies are far away/in a tight group. It'd probably be more useful for the Fighter to take a power that attacks Will or Reflex, so he has more options when it coms to attacking weak points. That's gaining variety, I'd say.

fendrin
2008-04-30, 06:59 PM
Additionally, with #1 you may sacrifice more than you get.

Indon
2008-04-30, 08:17 PM
I'm not really caring about the system. It's neither impressing me nor filling me with dread. So meh.

And it's not really a multiclassing system (as has been noted), not until you're level 21. 90% of the systems (because there are two, the class-as-path and power-swapping feat systems) are dual-classing.


Say, a character that gets its powers from two classes, but gets them all a few levels later; the standard "power for versatility" tradeoff that we know isn't optimized, but can be fun to play.

Well, the thing is that 4'th edition looks like they're removing most (well. Up to 'most', but more than 'much') of the ability of players to control their characters' versatility. They will be versatile, but not too versatile, and there's nothing you can do about it - that's how powers work.

But we already knew that Wizards was taking character customization capabilities from players, as it was necessary for a balanced game.


They are playing it safe, but more in the sense that this frees them up to design class abilities however they want.

Without people on the internet complaining, you mean. Wizards doesn't exactly not have design freedom over their product, they just feel compelled to produce products under certain limitations.

EvilElitest
2008-04-30, 08:18 PM
Interesting system, i have no moral qualms with it, through i do wonder if it will work
from
EE

Da King
2008-04-30, 10:27 PM
I love it. This should be fun for making a Rogue/Wizard style character, something I have always wanted to do, but never got around to. 36 days till 4th ed? yay!

Sstoopidtallkid
2008-04-30, 10:31 PM
I love it. This should be fun for making a Rogue/Wizard style character, something I have always wanted to do, but never got around to. 36 days till 4th ed? yay!Beguiler?words

Rutee
2008-04-30, 10:33 PM
Isn't Beguiler more like Rogue/Enchanter, with only access to Enchantment, Illusion, and the like?

Xefas
2008-04-30, 11:59 PM
A feat and a power. I don't think anyone here would be complaining if you just dropped a feat and got a spell.

I just want to butt in here a second and add that there's precedent for "dropped a feat and got a spell". As I recall, the "Power of Amaunator" was a feat that granted an encounter power of the same name to the Cleric (without any sort of swapping).

Reel On, Love
2008-05-01, 12:30 AM
I just want to butt in here a second and add that there's precedent for "dropped a feat and got a spell". As I recall, the "Power of Amaunator" was a feat that granted an encounter power of the same name to the Cleric (without any sort of swapping).

Wasn't that another possible use of the Channel Divinity (or whatever) power, of which he already had two? That's more like a third of a power. He can only use it in one way per encounter, after all.

Kurald Galain
2008-05-01, 02:39 AM
Isn't Beguiler more like Rogue/Enchanter, with only access to Enchantment, Illusion, and the like?

Yes, but that's what Arcane Disciple is for.
The main drawback of using a beguiler sa a rogue/caster is that you don't get sneak attack.

kc0bbq
2008-05-01, 02:25 PM
I think defining it as giving up a feat to have a wider selection of powers to choose from is a less pessimistic way of reading it. :)

Tren
2008-05-01, 02:27 PM
I think defining it as giving up a feat to have a wider selection of powers to choose from is a less pessimistic way of reading it. :)

Agreed, especially if you consider it as spending a feat to get a swapable power slot.

Talya
2008-05-01, 02:30 PM
Isn't Beguiler more like Rogue/Enchanter, with only access to Enchantment, Illusion, and the like?

Yeah, sorta. They do get access to spells from enough schools at high enough levels that they actually qualify for archmage, but they are mostly from Illusion and Enchantment.

Jerthanis
2008-05-01, 05:17 PM
I have to admit, I don't really like this much, but I see why they did it.

The longer I try to articulate why I don't like it though, the more I seem to be liking it, so maybe I'll quit trying for now until I have the book in my hands.

It does seem like there'll be character concepts that won't be able to be represented mechanically in the new system, but it could be equally possible that other concepts will be much more easily represented mechanically under the new system.

EvilElitest
2008-05-01, 09:30 PM
I have to admit, I don't really like this much, but I see why they did it.

The longer I try to articulate why I don't like it though, the more I seem to be liking it, so maybe I'll quit trying for now until I have the book in my hands.

It does seem like there'll be character concepts that won't be able to be represented mechanically in the new system, but it could be equally possible that other concepts will be much more easily represented mechanically under the new system.

Why don't you like it by the by?
from
EE