# Multiclassing.



## Pistonrager (Apr 29, 2008)

Ok this link should work in about 10.5-11 hours... just thought I'd grab the Scoop with my power of logic!(or try to anyway)....

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a

Multiclassing!  Hopefully not as broke as it used to be.


----------



## Guild Goodknife (Apr 29, 2008)

Linking to previews that aren't even released yet? Yeah, we're definitly getting desperate - 4E better come soon


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 29, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok this link should work in about 10.5-11 hours... just thought I'd grab the Scoop with my power of logic!(or try to anyway)....
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a
> 
> Multiclassing!  Hopefully not as broke as it used to be.




::stabs you in the face for optimistically getting my hopes up:: 
_edit: friendly-like stabbings, of course. Let's not get silly._


----------



## fnwc (Apr 29, 2008)

Lackhand said:
			
		

> ::stabs you in the face for optimistically getting my hopes up::
> _edit: friendly-like stabbings, of course. Let's not get silly._



Like a camel.


----------



## TerraDave (Apr 29, 2008)

It does say "not live *yet*", so you may be on to something. 

Of course, it would be better to have the actual article.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 29, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok this link should work in about 10.5-11 hours... just thought I'd grab the Scoop with my power of logic!(or try to anyway)




Of course, you realise that we will be honour-bound to respect the first actual scooper, and not this pre-emptive scoop attempt, right?


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 29, 2008)

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Of course, you realise that we will be honour-bound to respect the first actual scooper, and not this pre-emptive scoop attempt, right?



These scoops aren't really are that big. I suggest that we give dibs on this one to Pistonrager just for the bright idea. Assuming, of course, that the link is right.

After this one, we can say, "No calling dibs!"


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 29, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> These scoops aren't really are that big. I suggest that we give dibs on this one to Pistonrager just for the bright idea. Assuming, of course, that the link is right.



I agree, award creativity and quick thinking. I kind of RP XP award thingy







> After this one, we can say, "No calling dibs!"



Unless, of course, they cross their fingers and dance 5 times around the maypole....in their pants...or something


----------



## GoodKingJayIII (Apr 29, 2008)

[sarcasm]Man, that article... what a load of tripe!

The new multiclassing rules are terrible.  Discuss.[/sarcasm]


----------



## cangrejoide (Apr 29, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok this link should work in about 10.5-11 hours... just thought I'd grab the Scoop with my power of logic!(or try to anyway)....
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a
> 
> Multiclassing!  Hopefully not as broke as it used to be.




Okay you people are really getting desperate.


----------



## breschau (Apr 29, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Ok this link should work in about 10.5-11 hours... just thought I'd grab the Scoop with my power of logic!(or try to anyway)....
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a
> 
> Multiclassing!  Hopefully not as broke as it used to be.




Lame. Why don't you just post links to all the excerpts that will come out until the release. You can scoop 'em all. They're released every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, just find the dates. You've got the naming conventions for the link, go ahead.


----------



## webrunner (Apr 29, 2008)

cangrejoide said:
			
		

> Okay you people are really getting desperate.




Bah, I've got you all beat:
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/5.5ex/20160518a


----------



## A'koss (Apr 29, 2008)

Yeah, "stake claiming" is banned on a lot of boards and probably should be here too...


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 29, 2008)

This is just cruel.

You will be sentenced to playing a blink elf for your entire 4E career.


----------



## Nytmare (Apr 29, 2008)

Damnit, you train-wrecked my impeccable comedic timing!


----------



## Gundark (Apr 29, 2008)

The real test to see if this scoop counts is if people post here when the real scoop hits.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 29, 2008)

Just in case this thread is used for the real scoop, I'll prepare my opinion.

Hmmm, interesting.[Talk about the path they have taken for multiclassing.][Brief comparition with 3.5].[Multiclassing with feats, multiclassing at paragon path.][Random multiclass paths that I would like to play.][Whine because I DM 90% of times, so I won't have a chance to play those multiclass paths].

[Brief summary of ideas and final opinion.]


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 29, 2008)

And ... [Goes on to denouce how 4E multiclassing is "broken", how it wasn't like that in the good old days of 3E, and how 1E dual classing is infinitely better.  Then recants and admits that the 4E approach might be OK, and concludes post guardedly optimistic.]


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 29, 2008)

Wow.  I really like the [placeholder]


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 29, 2008)

Well, as long as this post is here, here's my random guesses.

All class progression in features is now through feats. A class feature might get slightly more powerful to remain somewhat useful at higher levels, but you will never randomly get new options from leveling up. All class progression is feats and classes are made of feats.

Since classes are just assembled out of a bunch of feats, multiclassing is taking the feats that make up the base features of another class. The first feat you need to take before any others in a class is the "multiclass X" feat. This allows you a certain amount of access (perhaps even full) to their power list when picking new powers. It also gives you the ability to take future feats that are class abilities of theirs.

Abilities that would be overpowering as one feat are broken into two or more. You might only get 2d4 sneak attack with the first feat but the second raises it to 2d6.

There's also a training line of feats that allows you a small benefit that's in the style of the class, but you do not count as the class for prerequisites. The nice thing about this line is you get an immediate use from the feat. The multiclass feat means you practically have to burn a feat who's sole purpose is to give you access to that class' feat and power lists.

Since any feat can be retrained as far as we know, that means you can also unmulticlass if you wish. This is why you will always be your first class from 1-30. You cannot retrain your base class.

Anyway, yeah. Random guesses 5 and a half hours before we find out.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos (Apr 29, 2008)

why is this not a rickroll.


----------



## Delemental (Apr 29, 2008)

For everyone complaining about this 'preemptive scoop', just remember it could have been a rickroll.

Edit: Blast! Ninja'd by a muffin!


----------



## WhatGravitas (Apr 29, 2008)

jeremy_dnd said:
			
		

> Wow.  I really like the [placeholder]



I feel that this is, compared to 3.5E multiclassing, like [generic food metaphor].

I see, why [generic rationalization], but it's on the expense of [placeholder for concept].

Perhaps, they should have tried it that way: [generic fan homebrew idea].

[generic salutation], [insert poster name].


----------



## Protagonist (Apr 29, 2008)

/waits vor Derrhongen to post


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Apr 29, 2008)

Error in the original URL.  Corrected:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430


----------



## Andor (Apr 29, 2008)

fnwc said:
			
		

> Like a camel.




You just made me sprain my palatte. Ow.   

And, my god, could those multi-classing rules rip off WoW any more closely?


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 29, 2008)

[ snide comment about an irrelevant detail in the article ]


----------



## jedrious (Apr 29, 2008)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Error in the original URL.  Corrected:
> 
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430



good thing I always check the status bar befre clicking, no rickrolling allowed


----------



## Sojorn (Apr 30, 2008)

Andor said:
			
		

> You just made me sprain my palatte. Ow.
> 
> And, my god, could those multi-classing rules rip off WoW any more closely?



Now my brain hurts from thinking about the meta-physical implications of replicating a non-existent concept perfectly.

WotC is obviously attempting to destroy the universe with these multiclassing rules. They must be stopped.


----------



## hbarsquared (Apr 30, 2008)

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I feel that this is, compared to 3.5E multiclassing, like [generic food metaphor].



Well, only if you feel that 3.5E was like [another generic food metaphor].

[Exposition on the comparabilities of the foods, using "proof by analogy" to make a point.]



			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I see, why [generic rationalization], but it's on the expense of [placeholder for concept].



You're hardly addressing:
 [bulleted list of specifics]



			
				Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Perhaps, they should have tried it that way: [generic fan homebrew idea].
> 
> [generic salutation], [insert poster name].




I think they did it just fine.  It's like a combination of [personal house rules], [alternate rules in published settings], and not to mention the numerous [suggestions from posters].

Your [generic fan homebrew idea] does sound appealing, though.

[muses]

[rambles]

[apologizes for rambling]

Thanks!


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

No preemptive posting? Ludicrous. A competition based on who posts first is ridiculous. Leave the OP alone.


----------



## Xethreau (Apr 30, 2008)

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> why is this not a rickroll.



That would be so epic. XD


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 30, 2008)

'Bag o Rats!'


----------



## Baron Opal (Apr 30, 2008)

What's a rickroll? Besides, of course, why people named Richard shouldn't eat sushi?


----------



## Leatherhead (Apr 30, 2008)

There is some deeper meaning to all of this that I can't help but feel that nobody is getting.


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 30, 2008)

Umm.   Stuff.  Lets all put placeholders in.

Politics
Religion
Filesharing


----------



## Charwoman Gene (Apr 30, 2008)

Baron Opal said:
			
		

> What's a rickroll? Besides, of course, why people named Richard shouldn't eat sushi?




Hey, the real info is up early!
Here!


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 30, 2008)

_space reserved for deep thoughts_


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 30, 2008)

SURPRISE SURPRISE!
I think the web adm heard our call and release the info earlier!!

I couldn't expect that 4E multiclassing would be so cool, it feels like music!!

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a


----------



## Remathilis (Apr 30, 2008)

before the lock?


----------



## Nyaricus (Apr 30, 2008)

webrunner said:
			
		

> Bah, I've got you all beat:
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/5.5ex/20160518a



AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 30, 2008)

Awesome idea...  Maybe this will prevent the 5 simultaneous "scoops" that show up on the front page every other day.


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 30, 2008)

Has anyone else ever clicked on a link you KNEW was RickRoll, just 'cuz you hadn't experienced it in a week or so?

...

... errr, yeah, me neither.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

A'koss said:
			
		

> Yeah, "stake claiming" is banned on a lot of boards and probably should be here too...



Actually, I was going to suggest either the mods or regular forum posters do something like this to prevent the rushing to get "first scoop" when the article first comes up. It's common in webcomic forums where you have a similar situation (in that you know when the point of the thread is coming, so everyone sits there refreshing the page and post at the same time).

Of course it's generaly considered polite in such threads to not actually post there until the object of the thread is available


----------



## Saeviomagy (Apr 30, 2008)

When did posting about somebody elses post become a competitive sport?


----------



## Reaper Steve (Apr 30, 2008)

A ccokie to whomever pastes the text on this board (deosn't have to be this thread) so I can read it from my mil computer in Afghanistan (which blocks wizards but oddly lets me access here!)
Thanks!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Apr 30, 2008)

So it is actually up now, Reaper Steve- here you go (probably along with 16 others!)
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a
Edit: d'oh sorry RS but see below, wasn't thinking!


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 30, 2008)

We’ve introduced the Player’s Handbook and one of its classes—the warlord. But what of multiclassing? In today’s preview, we asked Mike Mearls to explain 4th Edition’s design goals for a multiclass system.

His response:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

“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:

Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them. 
Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations. 
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

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 Swap one encounter power with one of multiclass feats, 4th level 
Acolyte Power Any class-specific multiclass Swap one utility power with one of multiclass feats, 8th level 
Adept Power Any class-specific multiclass Swap one daily power with one of multiclass feats, 10th level 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Be sure to return Friday for a look at racial benefits and a new monster from the Monster Manual!


----------



## drjones (Apr 30, 2008)

darn ninjas!

But on topic - I await the cries of 'But how can I make the Pally/Wizard/Monk/Druid I have been planning???  What garbage system denies the glorious Pank Drizard??  Why must you kill my role playing WOTC??'


----------



## Kitirat (Apr 30, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Has anyone else ever clicked on a link you KNEW was RickRoll, just 'cuz you hadn't experienced it in a week or so?
> 
> ...
> 
> ... errr, yeah, me neither.




OK so rickroll is having a link which sends you that youtube song?  Still do not get it fully (i.e. watched the whole damn thing waiting for the punchline).


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 30, 2008)

Too slow, Drjones, too slow.


----------



## ThirdWizard (Apr 30, 2008)

Almost exactly what we had expected!


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 30, 2008)

I'm a little annoyed that apparently you can't get Warlock's Curse with warlock training. I liked the idea of a sinister-looking fighter who gives the enemy the evil eye just before he enters combat with them.

Still, if the Ranger multiclass feat can offer Hunter's Quarry 1/encounter, I'll bet you can swap the warlock at-will pact power for 1/encounter Curse.


----------



## cferejohn (Apr 30, 2008)

Kitirat said:
			
		

> OK so rickroll is having a link which sends you that youtube song?  Still do not get it fully (i.e. watched the whole damn thing waiting for the punchline).




Lol "that youtube song". Never Gonna Let You Go by Rick Astley (the little man with the big voice!) was one of the seminal moments of 80s music. 

So, umm, yeah, there's nothing to get other than a wave of nostalgia.

You can swap one power out to force enemies to hear it once/encounter.


----------



## Reaper Steve (Apr 30, 2008)

Thanks! Girl Scout Lemon Chalet Cremes to you all. Nom Nom!


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 30, 2008)

Kitirat said:
			
		

> OK so rickroll is having a link which sends you that youtube song?  Still do not get it fully (i.e. watched the whole damn thing waiting for the punchline).




That's pretty much it.  It's a classic bait-and-switch.  They promise you something juicy, and when you click the link you end up listening to good ol' Rick.  Though, to be fair, the video itself is kind-of its own punchline.


----------



## drjones (Apr 30, 2008)

Kitirat said:
			
		

> OK so rickroll is having a link which sends you that youtube song?  Still do not get it fully (i.e. watched the whole damn thing waiting for the punchline).



The punchline is: I heard about this on the internets, everyone says it is hilarious.  Like a lolcat or a racist joke your uncle forwards to you.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

many internet wins on my part for starting this thread...

but far more internet loss for not rickrolling the entire slavering 4E  board... I'm sorry internets....

anyway the thing is up now.


----------



## fba827 (Apr 30, 2008)

Kitirat said:
			
		

> OK so rickroll is having a link which sends you that youtube song?  Still do not get it fully (i.e. watched the whole damn thing waiting for the punchline).




(begin thread hijack)

It's really just an online running joke.   You post a link that people want to see, but instead of seeing what they expect, they end up at a sight that shows them the rickroll video   (there are separate fake URLs that will take you there without making it obvious that you're going to youtube).

Basically, the joke is "you click the link with expectations of something you really want, only to end up getting "rickrolled" instead"


(end thread hijack)


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 30, 2008)

Essentially, it seems that multiclassing means giving up two or more feats for the ability to swap out one or more powers for an entire level. I can't say that's really too impressive, though it is easy.

I'm not seeing how to have a fighter with the ranger's two-weapon fighting, but perhaps there are ranger powers that are TWF oriented.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

Is it just me or do the multiclass feats seem horribly imbalanced with each other?

For example, getting hunter's quarry 1/encounter is pretty nice. I can mark a big enemy, and I have an average 3.5 extra damage on him for the whole fight. For a paladin or fighter, that's pretty good. Heck that's good for anyone!!

Or I can take rogue. I can sneak attack, assuming I'm using a light weapon (poor fighters and paladins and wizards and warlocks and...um yeah). But hey I get 2d6 extra damage....once per fight. I can get 3.5 damage all fight long, or 7 damage for one swing. Man, I hope I don't miss.

Or the cleric feat. There is such a huge difference between 1/encounter and 1/day its not even funny. The way 4e goes you can often run 4-5 combats a day. The ability to heal 1/day seems pretty weak compared to any of the per encounter abilities.


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 30, 2008)

I notice that the highest level power you can swap out is 10th level.

What do you guys think?  Are there more feats like Novice Power/Adept Power/Etc... as you move up in tiers, or are you forced to take the paragon path to advance further?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> I notice that the highest level power you can swap out is 10th level.
> 
> What do you guys think?  Are there more feats like Novice Power/Adept Power/Etc... as you move up in tiers, or are you forced to take the paragon path to advance further?





			
				WotC said:
			
		

> 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.



to put it simply, that's not a limit on the highest level you can take it, it's might be a limit on the lowest level you can take the feat, but honestly, I'm ont sure what those levels mean.


----------



## lkj (Apr 30, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> I notice that the highest level power you can swap out is 10th level.
> 
> What do you guys think?  Are there more feats like Novice Power/Adept Power/Etc... as you move up in tiers, or are you forced to take the paragon path to advance further?





According to Mousferatu in the other thread, that might be an artifact of bad table formatting:

"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"

If so, it isn't limited to 10thlevel.

AD


----------



## Boarstorm (Apr 30, 2008)

Here's hoping you guys are correct.


----------



## lkj (Apr 30, 2008)

Boarstorm said:
			
		

> Here's hoping you guys are correct.





Given that Ari (Mouseferatu) has seen the rules and is doing design work for 4e, I'd say it's a pretty good bet.

Here's the original post:

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4195044&postcount=8


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 30, 2008)

Glad I'm not the only one confused by that portion of the excerpt.

There were some broken images when I looked; are they tables or line breaks, I wonder?


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 30, 2008)

WotC said:
			
		

> 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.



Fail.  This is not multiclassing; this is turning core classes into the equivalent of "prestige" classes.  (EDIT: come to think of it, taking a prestige class in 3.x is a form of like multiclassing.  But it still fails, because prestige classes are a lot more interesting than core classes.)



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> 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.



Fail.  Multiclassing (such as it is) in 4E sounds like it will be 90% cherry-picking.  Just like it was in 3.x.



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> 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.



Win.  I retract my previous statement about cherry-picking.  This check-and-balance seems plausable.



			
				WotC said:
			
		

> 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.



Fail.  I re-instate my previous remark about cherry-picking.  Why take something away if you are just going to give it back again?  Maybe I'm just confused here; he uses the word "power" 18 times in 9 sentences and the article gets hard to follow...

Overall impression: Fail.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

Thing is, why the heck do I need to wait until 10th level to swap out a daily power? I mean, if I'm a fighter/wizard, and I'm willing to give up a fighter's daily to gain a wizard, what's wrong with doing that at 1st level?

I'll be honest, the more I'm thinking about this, the more I don't like it.


----------



## jaldaen (Apr 30, 2008)

One thing I noticed is 2 feats = 1 power... which is what I was guessing at in my racial breakdowns.

For example, a Fighter takes Soldier of the Faith (and gains its benefit), but once he chooses one of the "_____ Power" feats he swaps the benefit from Soldier of Faith for a Paladin power.

Nice and elegant.  (The 2 feat = 1 power part, not necessarily the multiclassing part. I'm still pondering that one)


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

This is not multiclassing. And whatever it is, it is horribly unintuitive and non-elegant. Epic fail.

EDIT: To elaborate, it seems that we had the following situation in 3.x: multiclassing is a simple, streamlined process, which is fine as long as you multiclass between reasonably similar classes. If you mix spellcasting and non-spellcasting classes, you will be less powerful than a single-classed character. Suggested fix for this problem was to introduce feats and prestige classes that increased the power of multiclassed characters. If you kept your classes reasonably within each other's level, you had no penalties - which is a rule a lot of DMs chose to ignore, i.e. there were no multiclassing penalties AT ALL. In other words, you had OPTIONS and then you had even more OPTIONS.

Whereas in 4E, multiclassing requires the expenditure of feats or replacement of the paragon path, doesn't work the same for all classes, necessitates the design of new feats each time a new class is introduced, and you are limited to dabbling in just one additional class. In other words, there are RESTRICTIONS, followed by even more RESTRICTIONS.

The vast majority of PCs in my campaigns were multiclassed. It only made sense, in the context of the story, that, as they experienced the world, they learned various new things and became curious about using approaches somewhat different than the one they originally learned. Unfortunately, this can no longer be done. It's all about the COOL NEW POWERS, isn't it?


----------



## ncc4781 (Apr 30, 2008)

after seeing the article it occurred to me, What if a Warlock took the warrior of the wild feat. He could apply the curse and hunters quarry to the same guy and be doing +2d6 or more damage (with other feats). That is my kind of striker


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 30, 2008)

How is it cherry picking?  You can only do it for a single other class, you have to spend a feat to do it, you only get the one power per feat, you have to _lose_ one of your powers to get it, and you can't use it as frequently as someone of that class!  Who cares if you can continue to swap it out (and then only when you level)?


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Thing is, why the heck do I need to wait until 10th level to swap out a daily power? I mean, if I'm a fighter/wizard, and I'm willing to give up a fighter's daily to gain a wizard, what's wrong with doing that at 1st level?
> 
> I'll be honest, the more I'm thinking about this, the more I don't like it.



The encounter power is one level after you get two per encounter powers and the utility is also a couple of levels after you get two utility powers, those make sense because they don't want you to have more abilities from your "other" class than your primary class, but for the Daily you have to wait untill one level after you have three, so I'm not completely sure on the reasoning there.


----------



## Shroomy (Apr 30, 2008)

You know, everyone is focusing on the multi-class feat system and power swaps, but I have the feeling that the access to another classes feats and paragon paths are probably as important, if not more so.


----------



## ncc4781 (Apr 30, 2008)

Question: if you play a half elf and of class A, can you take as your racial ability a power from class B, and Then take multi class feast from class C?


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 30, 2008)

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> How is it cherry picking?  You can only do it for a single other class, you have to spend a feat to do it, you only get the one power per feat, you have to _lose_ one of your powers to get it, and you can't use it as frequently as someone of that class!  Who cares if you can continue to swap it out (and then only when you level)?



Well, there are a few things that I don't like about this, but the biggest one that stands out is that it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of the story.  How does a character spontaneously learn the complicated ability to weave magic, then instantly forget it all because he learned how to turn the undead?

I understand why the rules need it to work that way, but it destroys the story-side of character development.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Thing is, why the heck do I need to wait until 10th level to swap out a daily power? I mean, if I'm a fighter/wizard, and I'm willing to give up a fighter's daily to gain a wizard, what's wrong with doing that at 1st level?
> 
> I'll be honest, the more I'm thinking about this, the more I don't like it.



Because in Fourth Edition you are required to accommodate a role. If you are able to multiclass too early then you will fail that rule and be useless. This isn't to say some people are able to balance their role without hard-rules, but it is to say that most people cannot. I can attest to this through experience: Most people suck at balance.

The archetypes are there so no one is useless. I'm personally tired of my teammates trying too hard to imitate this concept or that gimmick and become useless in combat.


----------



## Mort (Apr 30, 2008)

I like the concept - that you can some of another classes another classes abilities based on how much you are willing to "invest" in the class. 

What I don't like:

Some abilities seem MUCH better than others - isn't this exactly what they were trying to avoid?

If your going to allow partial access into a class - why does everyone have the exact same benefit from multiclassing? wouldn't it be better to say "if you pick a feat regarding class x you can choose 1 y level ability from this class (with z limits)" and abilities increasing as you sink more feats. Giving everyone the same exact benefit seems very limiting considering the possible options this approach they propose could have.


----------



## Scrollreader (Apr 30, 2008)

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> I'm not seeing how to have a fighter with the ranger's two-weapon fighting, but perhaps there are ranger powers that are TWF oriented.




Simple.  Take the ranger feat and then go into the ranger paragon path we've seen previewed.  Instant TWF mojo.  Or replace your paragon path with access to ranger abilities, like we already knew was possible.  Or use the feats to pick up an at will TWF ranger attack.  Or, or, or.  You can do this several ways, depending on what you want out of it, and what you're willing to invest.


----------



## Surgoshan (Apr 30, 2008)

I would guess you _could_ do that, but that your half-elf power won't count toward later prerequisites.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

I'm actually a little more confused than normal...but I do know that one of my ideas(based on how I thought the multiclassing system would work...) for a character won't work... unless you can feat retrain the multiclass feat.   >:3


on a different note... can anyone see the pictures in the article?


----------



## jaldaen (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Thing is, why the heck do I need to wait until 10th level to swap out a daily power? I mean, if I'm a fighter/wizard, and I'm willing to give up a fighter's daily to gain a wizard, what's wrong with doing that at 1st level?




I think the problem with powers is that as a class you only get one encounter power until 3rd, 1 daily until 5th, and 1 utility until 6th. If you could "multiclass" your only encounter, daily, or utility power it would seem strange.

If the PrRC is correct, then I could see an arguement for allowing 4th level encounter and 6th level for daily/utility, but then again you need all 6 Heroic-tier (non-racial) feats to get an encounter, daily, and utility multiclass power.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 30, 2008)

Shroomy wins.

The access to the other class' paragon paths is probably the most important part of a multiclass feat.  Think about it- you want to make a rogue/fighter.  You can't switch out a ton of powers, because that would cost you a lot of feats.  Plus, a lot of the powers assume things about your character that aren't so, like assuming that you WANT to be in the middle of the battle, where you'd most likely get chopped up.

So you take Initiate of the Sword.  You get the Fighter's free attack bonus, a fightery skill, and a little marking.  Fair for a single feat, definitely.

And then at level 11, you become a Kensai.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> Or replace your paragon path with access to ranger abilities, like we already knew was possible.  Or use the feats to pick up an at will TWF ranger attack.  Or, or, or.  You can do this several ways, depending on what you want out of it, and what you're willing to invest.




If the answer to something is wait till 11th level, then its not an answer at all. Let's be honest guys, In 3e, there are people who have never played above 6th level. And in 4e, there will be people who never play above 10th. If it takes that long to make a character concept, then the system isn't helping.


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Apr 30, 2008)

The article says:



> 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




Yes...  I'd sort of hoped that 4E would be intuitive - I'm concerned at the admission that this isn't as intuitive as 3E.

I'm also not seeing how I can play a cleric/wizard blending without creating a 'priest of magic' class that taps both power sources.  I can play a cleric whose has some wizard abilities, or a wizard with some cleric abilities... but can I play a 50/50 mixture?  That was one thing I was hoping 4E would do better...


----------



## Ondo (Apr 30, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> Or use the feats to pick up an at will TWF ranger attack.



That doesn't appear to be an option - there's a feat for encounter powers, utility powers, and daily powers, but not at will powers.


----------



## dm4hire (Apr 30, 2008)

Once again WotC seems to be handicapping the players.  I think I will be throwing out the feats.  Other than the small portion of the other class it gives you, you pretty much have to sack one ability for another.  Thus losing both a feat and an ability.  A better option would be to just reduce all uses by one and give it to the other class, effectively replacing like for like or an even better method would be to do this:

You may take one at will ability from your new class; it replaces an existing at will.  Any other at will ability you chose replaces an encounter power from your existing class.  When you would gain a new encounter power you may take one from your secondary class replacing one of your primary class.  The remaining other class encounter powers may be taken in place of your class' daily power.  Basically you get one ability of each type for free in place of one of equal type, but any others replace one step higher.  Thus dailies become paragon, paragon become epic, and so on.  Lot more balancing and gives greater diversity I think.  I'll play with it and see how it works.

They should have also just made key class abilities something anyone could take then multi classing but the primary class gets for free.  Just let you swap ability for ability when it comes to that aspect as well.

So using the warlock/rogue as an example who wanted to take two at will abilities, he would get piercing strike normally, but then get deft strike as an encounter.  Then sack curse ability to get sneak attack.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Well, there are a few things that I don't like about this, but the biggest one that stands out is that it doesn't make any sense from the perspective of the story.  How does a character spontaneously learn the complicated ability to weave magic, then instantly forget it all because he learned how to turn the undead?
> 
> I understand why the rules need it to work that way, but it destroys the story-side of character development.



Only if you look at your character's stats as some sort of definition of what the character *is*, as opposed to a descriptor of what the character can *do*. Things like class and feats and powers are there to describe how the character is capable of interacting withthe world, requiring them to tell a story of how the character got where they are overburdens them unecesarily.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> This is not multiclassing. And whatever it is, it is horribly unintuitive and non-elegant. Epic fail.



Hunh? What could be more elegant than 1 feat = access to one power?


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> The article says:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



As I said above: Fourth Ed requires that you have a role. Being half and half means you fail that role, even if you can half do another's role. They want to get away from that.


----------



## Kunimatyu (Apr 30, 2008)

cthulhu_duck said:
			
		

> I can play a cleric whose has some wizard abilities, or a wizard with some cleric abilities... but can I play a 50/50 mixture?  That was one thing I was hoping 4E would do better...




You sure can, BUT you'll have to wait until 11th level to do it.

This seems restrictive, but most decent multiclassing setups in 3.5 took until levels 7-10 to really get going, and before then, they were usually terrible.

This approach lets a character be genuinely good at their role, and then lets them branch out if they so chose.


----------



## Jawa1972 (Apr 30, 2008)

Ondo said:
			
		

> That doesn't appear to be an option - there's a feat for encounter powers, utility powers, and daily powers, but not at will powers.



 from the article: 
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.

So at level 4 you can swap an at will or an encounter power.  If so then Ranger TWF is in and then at level 11 your fighter can access the Stormwarder prestige class. a fighter whirlwind of death sounds fun.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

dm4hire said:
			
		

> Once again WotC seems to be handicapping the players.  I think I will be throwing out the feats.  Other than the small portion of the other class it gives you, you pretty much have to sack one ability for another.  Thus losing both a feat and an ability.




This is a big thing. It costs me a whole feat to gain this power. Not an extra power, just to have the privilege of something different. Even if feats are more common in the game, they don't grow on trees.

Further, multiclassing does NOT seem to be created equal. If I'm a fighter with a high strength, then multiclassing into warlord powers seems like a good idea. Or I can pick up a wizard power and use my....int, so now I have a crappier attack roll.

In fact, the wizard doesn't multiclass well with anyone. His primary int stat is not the primary for anyone else's powers. Not even warlord powers, remember, the wizard doesn't get the warlord's tactician ability, so those nice warlord powers that give an extra int benefit if your a tactical warlord don't apply.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 30, 2008)

Mort said:
			
		

> Some abilities seem MUCH better than others - isn't this exactly what they were trying to avoid?
> 
> If your going to allow partial access into a class - why does everyone have the exact same benefit from multiclassing? wouldn't it be better to say "if you pick a feat regarding class x you can choose 1 y level ability from this class (with z limits)" and abilities increasing as you sink more feats. Giving everyone the same exact benefit seems very limiting considering the possible options this approach they propose could have.




Maybe this is to avoid giving access to particular class abilities that might cause problems when combined with abilties from other classes?  In other words, some abilities might not stack up as "better" than others on a one-on-one basis, but they might cause non-obvious but big problems  in the certain multi-class contexts?

I suspect that the wide open approach you're suggesting wouldn't work for that reason, at least.  Also note that you can pick any encounter/utility/daily powers from the other class with the power swapping feats, but not at will powers, which seems like a basic "firewall" against broken combinations.  If they happen, at least they won't be happening over and over again.

Still, it does leave the multiclass feat abilities seeming to be a little uneven on that one-for-one basis, as you point out.  That is indeed a bit disappointing.


----------



## Alkiera (Apr 30, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> I'm a little annoyed that apparently you can't get Warlock's Curse with warlock training. I liked the idea of a sinister-looking fighter who gives the enemy the evil eye just before he enters combat with them.
> 
> Still, if the Ranger multiclass feat can offer Hunter's Quarry 1/encounter, I'll bet you can swap the warlock at-will pact power for 1/encounter Curse.




On the other hand, there are some concepts where 1/enc Eyebite might be pretty nice.

My guess would be that the RAW way means you have to pick a pact; if you took the curse power, which pact you chose would be ambiguous, and pacts seem to be a big part of the Warlock's fluff.  As DM, I might let you do that, but you'd not have a pact, just have learned to curse people; you couldn't take pact-specific warlock powers.  I would let you take feats that work off the warlock's curse, though, which could be interesting.  And powers that aren't pact-specific would be fair game... if there are any.  If you took warlock as your paragon path, you'd choose a pact then.

The basic pattern seems to be that Heroic tier characters just dabble in a second class; you get a skill and a class ability from it, and for a few feats more, can trade some powers out.  Interesting to note that you don't need Novice Power to take the next one...  You could just take Acolyte Power if you only wanted the Utility power, and not an encounter power.

They didn't expand on what taking a base class as your paragon path does, but I'd guess it gives you more of the class abilities (instead of the PP abilities) and you can choose from the second class for your paragon powers.

So 'dipper' multiclassing is the feats, that gives you a skill and a class ability, and lets you trade powers from your class for your secondary class powers.  'True' multiclassing has to wait for the Paragon tier; at which point you become more of a gish than before.  Possibly you could re-train some of your '[X] Power' feats if they are no longer needed for your concept, and take the desired powers via the Paragon multiclass system.

I think this may be the closest yet to making the rogue/wizard character I've been trying to build in RPGs since playing a rogue with spells in Diablo 1.

Note: given the levels are reqs for the feats, not power choice-related; you can take these more than once to swap out more powers.  Gonna need lots of feats...


----------



## Scrollreader (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> If the answer to something is wait till 11th level, then its not an answer at all. Let's be honest guys, In 3e, there are people who have never played above 6th level. And in 4e, there will be people who never play above 10th. If it takes that long to make a character concept, then the system isn't helping.




Well.  3.X isn't much better. You can't really multiclass well (not the sense of anything that has to do with spellcasting, at the very least) without a PrC.  Not many of those avaliable before 6th level.  The system as it stands doesn't work well at low levels.  UA's 'multiclassing at first level' was a nice try, but ultimately not worth it.  And to the guy with three fighter levels, and three sorceror levels at level 6?  I'm pretty sure he'd rather be fighter six with fireball.

  A true mixing of all that both classes have to offer isn't avaliable until paragon tier.  But neither are any of the paragon paths.  If you want a lesser amount of multiclassing the system supports it, even at low levels.  I don't have a problem with saying "to be as good at magic as Bob, and as good at Swordplay as Mary" requires paragon level achievement.  If you don't want to be that good, use the feats.


----------



## Ondo (Apr 30, 2008)

Jawa1972 said:
			
		

> from the article:
> 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.
> 
> So at level 4 you can swap an at will or an encounter power.



Uh, no. Novice Power specifies you swap an encounter power, Acolyte Power specifies a utility power, and Adept Power specifies a daily power.


----------



## ryryguy (Apr 30, 2008)

Jawa1972 said:
			
		

> from the article:
> 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.
> 
> So at level 4 you can swap an at will or an encounter power.  If so then Ranger TWF is in and then at level 11 your fighter can access the Stormwarder prestige class. a fighter whirlwind of death sounds fun.




The feat only says encounter power, not at will power.  It seems you can't get at will powers from the feats.


----------



## Lackhand (Apr 30, 2008)

I'm actually not sure why this is unintuitive. Different, sure. But unintuitive? Eh. "Unusual".

You only get one class. One character, one class. Perfectly sensible.

You will never be the same as the guy who spent 20 years at the wizarding academy, without refactoring your character. Okay!

This solves, elegantly, the 70/30 or more split -- a character that's mostly one thing, and only a little bit the other.

It doesn't solve elegantly at _all_ the 50/50 split. But!

If you really really really want a 50/50 split, sometimes you want your own base class, sometimes you're just trying to be difficult p).
I think a 50/50 fighter/magic-user is now best represented with a swordmage, no matter what they look like. I think a 50/50 fighter/cleric is now a paladin. In general, look to the role you want to fill and the power source you want to draw from, and the rest shall follow.


----------



## Lurker37 (Apr 30, 2008)

Agreed. The 'same level or lower' obviously refers to the level of the power you swap out.

So if you swap out a power you learned at level 6, you replace it with a power from the other class of level 6 or lower. You cannot drop a level 6 power to gain one of level 7 or higher.


----------



## Mort (Apr 30, 2008)

ryryguy said:
			
		

> Maybe this is to avoid giving access to particular class abilities that might cause problems when combined with abilties from other classes?  In other words, some abilities might not stack up as "better" than others on a one-on-one basis, but they might cause non-obvious but big problems  in the certain multi-class contexts?
> 
> I suspect that the wide open approach you're suggesting wouldn't work for that reason, at least.  Also note that you can pick any encounter/utility/daily powers from the other class with the power swapping feats, but not at will powers, which seems like a basic "firewall" against broken combinations.  If they happen, at least they won't be happening over and over again.




Oh I see exactly what you're saying re: balance problems. But the proposed approach is not much better AND it has less options.  Since 4e designers seem to have really thought about internal balance - you'd think ability picking (within limits imposed by them) could work.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> This is a big thing. It costs me a whole feat to gain this power. Not an extra power, just to have the privilege of something different. Even if feats are more common in the game, they don't grow on trees.



Indeed. It seems you'll have to play a regular character like is designed. Is it really so bad to be good at something instead of nuking yourself to half of everyone else?


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 30, 2008)

I like how multi-class work in 4E, because it makes your initial class, and second class decision more important. Gone are the days of players choosing to multi-class in 3, 4, or 5 classes.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 30, 2008)

One thing I was asking myself while reading this is why would anyone take the skill training feat? You could take a multiclass feat instead and get training in a skill PLUS a minor power from another class PLUS you are treated as that class which opens up alot of options. Granted, you can only "multiclass" once, but still, if you're going to take a single skill training feat, you're better off taking a multiclass feat instead.

I think it would have been more balanced (and interesting) if, instead of giving you a skill, it required training in a skill iconic to that class. And instead of giving you a lame once/encounter use of an at-will power or once/day use of an encounter power, it actually gave you that ability, just as the other class has it. For example, the Rogue multiclass feat would require skill training: thievery, but would give you sneak attack at-will (not once per encounter).


----------



## cthulhu_duck (Apr 30, 2008)

Kunimatyu said:
			
		

> This seems restrictive, but most decent multiclassing setups in 3.5 took until levels 7-10 to really get going, and before then, they were usually terrible.




That may be true... But I'm comparing against both what 3.5 and 1E allowed - and I always wished that 3.5 was closer to what 1E supported.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> One thing I was asking myself while reading this is why would anyone take the skill training feat? You could take a multiclass feat instead and get training in a skill PLUS a minor power from another class PLUS you are treated as that class which opens up alot of options. Granted, you can only "multiclass" once, but still, if you're going to take a single skill training feat, you're better off taking a multiclass feat instead.(not once per encounter).



You can only pick one skill from that class' skill list.
You can only take the feat once.
Theese feats have preqs.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 30, 2008)

Well, to get another Trained Skill you would take Skill Training after multiclassing. Perhaps too Skill Training gives more benefits then simply +5 and Trained.

Perhaps, it allows you to gain a secondary bonus to another Skill related (or certain aspect of that skill).


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> Well.  3.X isn't much better. You can't really multiclass well (not the sense of anything that has to do with spellcasting, at the very least) without a PrC.




3.x got it half right. Fighter type multiclassing worked just fine. Ranger/Barbs, Fighter/Rogues, Ranger/Rogues, Paladin/Fighters were all worthwhile multiclasses. We all acknowledge that spellcaster multi classing sucks in 3.5


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Is it just me or do the multiclass feats seem horribly imbalanced with each other?




It's not just you.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 3.x got it half right. Fighter type multiclassing worked just fine. Ranger/Barbs, Fighter/Rogues, Ranger/Rogues, Paladin/Fighters were all worthwhile multiclasses. We all acknowledge that spellcaster multi classing sucks in 3.5



The main issue with multiclassing in 3.5 were balance. If I wanted to hit things as a warrior could I had to choose classes with BAB, even if they did not give me Sneak Attack, or did not give me spell casting, etc.

Also, the fact that some builds were used so often because they were powerful, yet other builds gave nothing (yet my friends took them) was outright horrible.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Only if you look at your character's stats as some sort of definition of what the character *is*, as opposed to a descriptor of what the character can *do*.  Things like class and feats and powers are there to describe how the character is capable of interacting withthe world, requiring them to tell a story of how the character got where they are overburdens them unecesarily.



But spellcasting is quite a big part of a character...not just some new trick she learned.  Summoning forth eldritch powers from the Elemental Nexus and bringing it to bear against those who oppose her?  That's not learning a new hobby; that is character-shaping awesomeness.  Such power is as much a part of who/what a character "is" as her name and race, and can shape the plot and story significantly.

I'm not saying it shouldn't be done.  I just need it to make sense from a storyteller's point of view, because a big part of my job as a DM is storytelling.


----------



## Scrollreader (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 3.x got it half right. Fighter type multiclassing worked just fine. Ranger/Barbs, Fighter/Rogues, Ranger/Rogues, Paladin/Fighters were all worthwhile multiclasses. We all acknowledge that spellcaster multi classing sucks in 3.5





I'm going to assume that you worked with a group that allowed monk or paladin multiclassing, since otherwise your statement doesn't make sense.  But even if we leave that out of the 3.5's 'worthwhile' multiclassing, there are still quite a few things that 3.5 made difficult to do with multiclassing.  Mostly due to the need to /keep/ people from cherry picking all the good stuff, like they did with the 3.0 ranger.  Lets take an example at oh, level 5.  I'm a paladin 2/Fighter 3.  Oh, wait no, that doesn't work.  I'm missing some iconic paladin abilities, and fighter three is useless.  Lets see.  Fighter 2/Rogue ... wait, crap.  I forgot to take my class with more skill points first.  Okay so.  Ranger 3 ... crap.  No animal companion, wand or spell use, etc.  Damn.  I guess I can take barbarian stuff, so long as I never want better rage, and keep my number of fighter levels even and low. 

 You /never/ could do more than a splash of even non caster multiclassing in 3.5.  Not without a PrC designed for your concept.  With the sole exception of fighter, because fighter didn't /have/ any class features.  And with the right splats, barbarian, since it was frontloaded and you could feat for more rage.  (And even then, it assumes rage is the only class feature you care about).  You were splashing already.  Now you you can splash without sucking as your main class.  Is the 4e way perfect?  Not at all.  But it's certainly not /worse/ than 3.5, IMO.  And in some ways, alot better.


----------



## Jack99 (Apr 30, 2008)

Ack, multi-classing is horrible!


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> For example, the Rogue multiclass feat would require skill training: thievery, but would give you sneak attack at-will (not once per encounter).




Not balanced at all. That extra damage is one of the defining factors of the rogue, and one of the things that mechanically defines the rogue as a "striker" class. Two feats is still not nearly enough of an opportunity cost for giving that to someone else _at will_.


----------



## Scrollreader (Apr 30, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> But spellcasting is quite a big part of a character...not just some new trick she learned.  Summoning forth eldritch powers from the Elemental Nexus and bringing it to bear against those who oppose her?  That's not learning a new hobby; that is character-shaping awesomeness.  Such power is as much a part of who/what a character "is" as her name and race.
> 
> I'm not saying it shouldn't be done.  I just need it to make sense from a storyteller's point of view, because a big part of my job as a DM is storytelling.




I just don't really see this as a huge deal.  But rhen, I don't see why turn undead doesn't work for you as a spell.  "I used to pray to Pelor for blessings in battle.  But after the wight ate my grandma, I've realized the error of my ways.  My prayers now scourge the undead, and I hunt them wherever I find them"

It shouldn't be any harder than any of the other retraining, which we've known about for awhile.  If you can justify that, this is easy.  if you can't, you have other problems.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 30, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> I just don't really see this as a huge deal.  But rhen, I don't see why turn undead doesn't work for you as a spell.



Erm...not to go off-topic, but _turn undead_ has been a first-level cleric spell in my homebrew for almost a year now.  Evocation [Good], Clr1 and Pal1, Will negates.  Same for _greater turning, rebuke undead,_ and _control undead._  It seems to work pretty well.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not balanced at all. That extra damage is one of the defining factors of the rogue, and one of the things that mechanically defines the rogue as a "striker" class. Two feats is still not nearly enough of an opportunity cost for giving that to someone else _at will_.




You're still not as good at it as a rogue. You don't have the ability to sneak attack people who haven't acted yet, for example. Nor do you get the brawny/trickster rogue benefits. You don't have their mobility powers, like tumble, without investing additional feats, making you a much less effective a striker. Plus, sneak attack only works with specific weapons, so presumably, you'd have to spend additional feat(s) just to be able to use it with your preferred weapon (unless your fighter just happens to prefer whimpy rogue weapons, in which case he needs the boost anyway).


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

again... I think the basic powers you get from the first feat aren't as important as opening up secondary feats and paragon paths.

from what I've seen there are really only a few differences between powers, mostly range, damage type, and  area. so having access to buffing feats will probably be enough to get the flavor you want for the multiclassing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> You're still not as good at it as a rogue. You don't have the ability to sneak attack people who haven't acted yet, for example. Nor do you get the brawny/trickster rogue benefits. You don't have their mobility powers, like tumble, without investing additional feats, making you a much less effective a striker. Plus, sneak attack only works with specific weapons, so presumably, you'd have to spend additional feat(s) just to be able to use it with your preferred weapon (unless your fighter just happens to prefer whimpy rogue weapons, in which case he needs the boost anyway).




All true.

It's still not an equitable trade, given the different purposes and power levels between "powers" and "feats" in 4E.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Not balanced at all. That extra damage is one of the defining factors of the rogue, and one of the things that mechanically defines the rogue as a "striker" class. Two feats is still not nearly enough of an opportunity cost for giving that to someone else _at will_.



Am I mis-remembering, or does the rogue get _two_ trained feats as class trained skills? I think the balance in his case is that he gets Thievery and Stealth as free trained skills.


----------



## Scrollreader (Apr 30, 2008)

CleverNickName said:
			
		

> Erm...not to go off-topic, but _turn undead_ has been a first-level cleric spell in my homebrew for almost a year now.  Evocation [Good], Clr1 and Pal1, Will negates.  Same for _greater turning, rebuke undead,_ and _control undead._  It seems to work pretty well.




So what's the problem if my rogue with cleric multiclass feats gains a level and switches out some cleric 'spellcasting' for turn undead?  You've had 3 and a half editions of justifying 'my god has given me different miracles today than yesterday'.  Or did I completely misunderstand the post where you said you'd find this difficult to explain?


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> I like how multi-class work in 4E, because it makes your initial class, and second class decision more important. Gone are the days of players choosing to multi-class in 3, 4, or 5 classes.




I loved having 4 classes in 6 levels.  Building interesting combinations was one of the most interesting parts of the game for me.  4e clearly doesn't support that, and frankly, so far it's the only thing I'll miss about 3e.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> I loved having 4 classes in 6 levels.  Building interesting combinations was one of the most interesting parts of the game for me.  4e clearly doesn't support that, and frankly, so far it's the only thing I'll miss about 3e.



Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.


----------



## Vaeron (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.




I did most of my "weird combinations" in NWN2...  Some of them were fun, or outrageously powerful.  But it would be too much work and hassle to try to do pen & paper, I think.  And too artificial, since NWN and similar games only 'imitate' roleplaying.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.



IMC, practically all multiclassing came from the "organic growth" of characters. And there was _a lot_ of it.


----------



## RigaMortus2 (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> I loved having 4 classes in 6 levels.  Building interesting combinations was one of the most interesting parts of the game for me.  4e clearly doesn't support that, and frankly, so far it's the only thing I'll miss about 3e.




I agree.  In 3x you could do this if you wanted to.  And if you were of the mind that multiclassing 6 difference classes was too absurd, you didn't have to allow it.  However, in 4E, it is no longer an option (w/o some heavy houseruling).

It is as I feared.  Multiclassing was done half arsed...

This must have been one of the last minute things they threw together to get 4E out the door ASAP.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> IMC, practically all multiclassing came from the "organic growth" of characters. And there was _a lot_ of it.



My problems came from people who planned their levels, feats and abilities, exactly when they would switch alignments, exact knowledge of everything taught in all the books, to make a monster of a character who did things perfectly. If something went wrong, they had to start over.

I've seen it, and it's ugly.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Funnily enough, I hate that about 3.5. Mind you I did it and did it well because I had to in order to keep up with everyone else. However, I would have much rather just played a character instead of playing a game.



With all respect, you probably should have been playing another game.  
It's totally possible that that was the only game your friends were into at the time, and you played it because gaming is fun, and generally I find that a game that isn't my favorite is still fun.  Or maybe you just got sick of 3e.  I know I did for a while.  I managed to get my group hooked on the Riddle of Steel, which is a great game for playing a full character and not just a set of numbers.  We got through whole sessions without picking up dice sometimes.  I digress.  
D&D hasn't ever, at it's core, been about characters.  It's about going into dungeons killing nasty looking things and taking their stuff.  The books are largely about monsters or combat.  If getting into character is more your thing than building characters, D&D isn't really about supporting that.


----------



## Ondo (Apr 30, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I agree.  In 3x you could do this if you wanted to.  And if you were of the mind that multiclassing 6 difference classes was too absurd, you didn't have to allow it.  However, in 4E, it is no longer an option (w/o some heavy houseruling).
> 
> It is as I feared.  Multiclassing was done half arsed...
> 
> This must have been one of the last minute things they threw together to get 4E out the door ASAP.



Or perhaps it was done in order to meet the design goals they spelled out in the article.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> I agree.  In 3x you could do this if you wanted to.  And if you were of the mind that multiclassing 6 difference classes was too absurd, you didn't have to allow it.  However, in 4E, it is no longer an option (w/o some heavy houseruling).
> 
> It is as I feared.  Multiclassing was done half arsed...
> 
> This must have been one of the last minute things they threw together to get 4E out the door ASAP.






Um... NO.  They simply made the classes better and restricted  multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters.  If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> The books are largely about monsters or combat.  If getting into character is more your thing than building characters, D&D isn't really about supporting that.



On the contrary, I love D&D because it has the rules for hard combat and mechanics that other systems tend to leave for the DM to figure out (I'm looking at you, BESM.) My issue isn't with the system: I love the tactics of picking your powers and abilities with caution. However, when it gets in the way of someone actually having a concept for their character (Which is chapter 1: Figure out who you want to play, then make mechanics based on it.) I get a little agitated.

It's my problem that it annoys me, I admit it, but I'm glad 4e is helping to maintain the immersion value of a story while keeping the mechanics as rules.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Um... NO.  They simply made the classes better and restricted  multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters.  If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.



 Given that classes in 4E are more narrowly defined than before, I don't see why picking up lots of classes should be penalised. If anything, they should be anticipating people picking up lots of classes to represent character concepts that don't fit neatly into the predefined buckets.


----------



## Incenjucar (Apr 30, 2008)

We really need to know the full scope of abilities to judge this (as with everything else).  Considering combinations like Hunters Quarry+Sneak Attack+Torturous Strike=OW


----------



## sunbear (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> My problems came from people who planned their levels, feats and abilities, exactly when they would switch alignments, exact knowledge of everything taught in all the books, to make a monster of a character who did things perfectly. If something went wrong, they had to start over.
> 
> I've seen it, and it's ugly.




I had to ban the WotC optimisation boards. It made my life (as a GM) hell at the mid levels of Shackled City.


As far as the new multi classing goes....not a big deal. I can still play a character that was a street thief before being taken in by the Pelorian Brotherhood (paladins), or a ranger with really strong spiritual beliefs, or a wizard that has studied fencing his whole life, etc. It seems to me the RPing aspect of MCing is still there, the min maxing, optimization stuff not so much (as a consolation prize the battlefield tactics has opened way up for the optimization geniuses out there).


----------



## ncc4781 (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Um... NO.  They simply made the classes better and restricted  multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters.  If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.




I played a "slacker" type character that was a drifter who never applied himself at anything for too long. He was human nobility but 20th in line for the throne. I played him from 1st to 12th level (when the campaign ended) and he had 12 different classes.

And yes he was an effective character.


----------



## Simon Marks (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> character concepts that don't fit neatly into the predefined buckets.




Character concepts that don't fit into neatly predefined buckets don't belong in D&D!

In my day, all Dwarves were the same!


More seriously, the point of a class-n-level based system is the pre-defined buckets. Unless the buckets are exceptionally broad (and I liked the Smart/Tough/Fast hero division), many concepts won't fit.

I'll have to see how it plays, but sacrificing the ability to make broad concepts to ensure you don't accidentally gimp yourself for the rest of the game seems good _for D&D_

 It's not as flexible as 3.5, but more flexible that 1e and I'm ok with that.


----------



## Serendipity (Apr 30, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> Question: if you play a half elf and of class A, can you take as your racial ability a power from class B, and Then take multi class feast from class C?




I was wondering that too - I mean they keep telling us "half elves multiclass well."


----------



## bjorn2bwild (Apr 30, 2008)

Hmm, with the inability to gain class "styles" from multiclassing, that leaves some paragon paths for main-class characters only, such as Stormwarden (prereq: ranger, TWF style)

This I like.


While I enjoyed the mix-and-match 3e multiclassing, I'm not terribly upset by 4e throwing that out the window.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> With all respect, you probably should have been playing another game.
> It's totally possible that that was the only game your friends were into at the time, and you played it because gaming is fun, and generally I find that a game that isn't my favorite is still fun.  Or maybe you just got sick of 3e.  I know I did for a while.  I managed to get my group hooked on the Riddle of Steel, which is a great game for playing a full character and not just a set of numbers.  We got through whole sessions without picking up dice sometimes.  I digress.
> D&D hasn't ever, at it's core, been about characters.  It's about going into dungeons killing nasty looking things and taking their stuff.  The books are largely about monsters or combat.  If getting into character is more your thing than building characters, D&D isn't really about supporting that.



D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, about kicking arse and taking names, and about trash talking and telling a story about it, not spending 3 hours picking you spells and your prestigue class levels so that your party isn't insta-gibbed by the high level Lich. 4e is doing that _right_.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Um... NO.  They simply made the classes better and restricted  multiclassing to stop people from either making gimps, or ridiculously powerful characters.  If you have to define your character by 6 classes... you should be rethinking the character.



I agree with your first point, the classes are better, and they've reeled in the power or gimping that that could come about from multiclassing.  Making a classed system in which first levels are as interesting and exciting as later levels is a fantastic achievement in my book.  Clearly you couldn't have simple 3e multiclassing, where one takes level one and then takes level one again in another class, the 4e character would literally be almost twice as powerful.  The way they've got it set up means that you can't have a fighter sneak attacking all the time, but the real key is you can't have a ranger or warlock sneak attacking all the time.  The problem lies not in the 50/50 role split, but in the 100/100 role synergy.   If that happened, with any class, if you made a defender _even more_ like a defender or a leader _even more_ like a leader you start running into places where non multiclassed characters can't compete.  Which I fully acknowledge was a problem with 3e.

But I take umbrage with your second point.  You seem to be saying that if I come up with an idea that isn't currently modeled in the game system, but I could achieve that outcome by mashing the first few levels of a number of classes together, I shouldn't do it?  I once made a barbarian/ranger/scout/fighter.  I like the idea of a highly mobile guy dual wielding greatwords, sue me.  But I couldn't get the abilities I wanted with any single one of those classes, so to you the character is invalid?  Why should a character be defined by one thing he can do rather than the summation of his abilities?  
I'm getting severely off track here, I'm not a 100% behind the new "multiclassing rules." They seem a little tacked on and not the integrated solution most of us were hoping for.  It seems to me that this is the first thing that a lot of people are going to house rule.


----------



## Samuel Leming (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> IMC, practically all multiclassing came from the "organic growth" of characters. And there was _a lot_ of it.



You and Neceros were not playing the same game.  The same rules maybe, but not the same game.

Sam


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

I think the idea of having 4 classes in 6 levels is the worst example of min-maxing that makes 3.x unbearable.  A DM I used to play with would throw uber tweaked characters against the party just to give us a dose of our own medicine.  The kind of damage a tweaked NPC class can dish out is absurd.  When players have to face themselves, a multi-class nightmare, they don't like it.  It usually involves lots of Raise Dead spells.

I'm very good at min-maxing characters but the problem with that is other players end up getting left behind after a few levels.  Then the DM has to pick up the slack because one character is too good while the others just suck.

The problem with 3.x is certain multi-class options were far too good or no good at all.  Many players would dip two levels into fighter, then another into warrior.  It gives you three feats, a great BaB, and a great Fort Save.  Both of those classes suck except for the fact that you pick up a boat load of feats in short order.  Most classes are better when you multiclass in 3.whatever, and that is a problem.  When classes fall victim to power creep then a core feature of the game needs revision.

Classes are the game, not multiclasses.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> D&D is about killing monsters and taking their stuff, about kicking arse and taking names, and about trash talking and telling a story about it, not spending 3 hours picking you spells and your prestigue class levels so that your party isn't insta-gibbed by the high level Lich. 4e is doing that _right_.




*sheepish*  I liked finding cool combos in my spells. 


I was playing an lvl15 incantatrix that had a way to drop 98d6 on a single target in one round.  Tee hee.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

ncc4781 said:
			
		

> I played a "slacker" type character that was a drifter who never applied himself at anything for too long. He was human nobility but 20th in line for the throne. I played him from 1st to 12th level (when the campaign ended) and he had 12 different classes.
> 
> And yes he was an effective character.



I imagine that if you posted the classes and levels you gained them you'd get a lot of people telling you how wrong you are.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Given that classes in 4E are more narrowly defined than before, I don't see why picking up lots of classes should be penalised. If anything, they should be anticipating people picking up lots of classes to represent character concepts that don't fit neatly into the predefined buckets.





More narrowly defined how? combat roles are basically the same, meatshield, caster, skirmisher,  boss.   The ideas behind the characters are basically the same. 

You don't have to force the mechanics of the game to fit the flavor of you character, you can change the flavor of the mechanics to fit the character.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> I once made a barbarian/ranger/scout/fighter.  I like the idea of a highly mobile guy dual wielding greatwords, sue me.



Woe to the game group that has such brilliant ROLL-Playing.  Seriously.  Dual-wielding "GREATWORDS" isn't a character concept, it's a debate style (or fighting style if you had a typo   )


Combat mechanics are a character facet, not a character.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> I think the idea of having 4 classes in 6 levels is the worst example of min-maxing that makes 3.x unbearable.




4 warrior classes in 6 levels is hardly the worst kind of min/maxing in 3e.

You should have seen the gestalt campaign I ran.  One guy had a rogue/druid/monk what would turn into a flying giant squid and pounce on something with roughly 15 attacks each gaining sneak attack for something like 105d6 sneak attack.  That's not only game breaking, a flying ninja squid is also incredibly silly.  But, hell, what good is a game if you can't have fun with it.


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> *sheepish*  I liked finding cool combos in my spells.
> 
> I was playing an lvl15 incantatrix that had a way to drop 98d6 on a single target in one round.  Tee hee.



I don't actually have problem with people who do that. I do that more than most people in my group. I just feel that the game shouldn't be designed intentionally to encourage it, as this marginalizes the people who aren't interested in doing that more than is necessary.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> Woe to the game group that has such brilliant ROLL-Playing.  Seriously.  Dual-wielding "GREATWORDS" isn't a character concept, it's a debate style (or fighting style if you had a typo   )
> 
> 
> Combat mechanics are a character facet, not a character.



No, at that point, it was a character.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I don't actually have problem with people who do that. I do that more than most people in my group. I just feel that the game shouldn't be designed intentionally to encourage it, as this marginalizes the people who aren't interested in doing that more than is necessary.



I fully agree.


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 30, 2008)

[Edit] Nevermind.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> No, at that point, it was a character.



This is a point of view debate, which isn't a debate.

Being able to duel wield greatswords is a character trait. If you based your character on that trait and gave it more meaning, then that's your character.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> More seriously, the point of a class-n-level based system is the pre-defined buckets. Unless the buckets are exceptionally broad (and I liked the Smart/Tough/Fast hero division), many concepts won't fit.




Exactly. The buckets are no longer broad, so the multiclassing mechanic has more work to do.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> 4 warrior classes in 6 levels is hardly the worst kind of min/maxing in 3e.
> 
> You should have seen the gestalt campaign I ran.  One guy had a rogue/druid/monk what would turn into a flying giant squid and pounce on something with roughly 15 attacks each gaining sneak attack for something like 105d6 sneak attack.  That's not only game breaking, a flying ninja squid is also incredibly silly.  But, hell, what good is a game if you can't have fun with it.



Is it still fun when a DM uses characters like that to TPK in a single round?


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> This is a point of view debate, which isn't a debate.
> 
> Being able to duel wield greatswords is a character trait. If you based your character on that trait and gave it more meaning, then that's your character.



Precisely.


Any game that encourages number-crunching and dice rolling is ROLL-playing game, not a Roleplaying Game.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> More narrowly defined how? combat roles are basically the same, meatshield, caster, skirmisher,  boss.   The ideas behind the characters are basically the same.




WTF?



> You don't have to force the mechanics of the game to fit the flavor of you character, you can change the flavor of the mechanics to fit the character.




Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. The buckets are no longer broad, so the multiclassing mechanic has more work to do.



I don't think we can say this until we see the power lists. Each class is going to have about 80 powers, as I understand it. I think it will be completely possible to build a lot of tweaked concepts entirely out of well-chosen standard powers, with no need whatsoever to reach outside of the class. A swashbuckling rogue doesn't _need_ to buy Fighter multiclassing; he just grabs rapier proficiency and chooses the rogue powers that give him the nicest swashy flavor. In fact, multiclassing into fighter may actively hinder him if the rogue power list gives him enough choices to meaningfully fill out his power list.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> With all respect, telling people that if they don't like to play D&D the same way you do, they should just find another game is elitist and rude. Your way of enjoying the game isn't the "right" way.
> 
> Correction, *your* D&D hasn't ever been about characters. Mine has and so has alot of peoples' D&D. Your way is no more "right" than ours is "wrong." D&D can be a hack-and-slash dunegeon crawl, and it can also be a very rich, story-filled game.




You're missing my point.  I didn't say there's a right and wrong way to play the game.  I'm saying that creating a fully rounded out character isn't as well supported in core D&D rule set as it is in other games.  I was merely suggesting that if that's the aspect of RPG's he likes there are other games that do it better.  Don't mistake a criticism of the rules set as an attack on how you play the game.  
Personally, I find D&D way, WAY, more interesting if there are rich interpersonal plotlines behind the adventure I'm having.  All I'm saying is that kind of thing is external to the rules set.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> WTF?
> 
> 
> 
> Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.



That's never how I saw it. Let's take the Warlock, for example. My party hated the Warlock (in 3.5) because it was too draculaisk. I made a character that was the warlock class, but instead made him more Dragon-like (This was before Dragon Magic.)

Flavor change without multiclassing.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

I, for one, am curious to see exactly how the Multi-Classing works in 4e.  I've had minimal experience with 4e thus far (as can be expected) so I can only guess.  It seems as if the player chooses a "Primary Class" then takes feats to dip into other classes.  So I think the question a player needs to answer would be:

What class best suits your character concept?

By choosing a solid primary class you'll spend less time dipping into the Multiclass feats.  Although, with players getting access to more feats, I don't think that the multiclass Feats will "cost" a player all that much.

Again, I'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> I agree with your first point, the classes are better, and they've reeled in the power or gimping that that could come about from multiclassing.  Making a classed system in which first levels are as interesting and exciting as later levels is a fantastic achievement in my book.  Clearly you couldn't have simple 3e multiclassing, where one takes level one and then takes level one again in another class, the 4e character would literally be almost twice as powerful.  The way they've got it set up means that you can't have a fighter sneak attacking all the time, but the real key is you can't have a ranger or warlock sneak attacking all the time.  The problem lies not in the 50/50 role split, but in the 100/100 role synergy.   If that happened, with any class, if you made a defender _even more_ like a defender or a leader _even more_ like a leader you start running into places where non multiclassed characters can't compete.  Which I fully acknowledge was a problem with 3e.
> 
> But I take umbrage with your second point.  You seem to be saying that if I come up with an idea that isn't currently modeled in the game system, but I could achieve that outcome by mashing the first few levels of a number of classes together, I shouldn't do it?  I once made a barbarian/ranger/scout/fighter.  I like the idea of a highly mobile guy dual wielding greatwords, sue me.  But I couldn't get the abilities I wanted with any single one of those classes, so to you the character is invalid?  Why should a character be defined by one thing he can do rather than the summation of his abilities?
> I'm getting severely off track here, I'm not a 100% behind the new "multiclassing rules." They seem a little tacked on and not the integrated solution most of us were hoping for.  It seems to me that this is the first thing that a lot of people are going to house rule.




Point 1. Thank you.

Point 2. Yes.  I'm saying you shouldn't do it.  Not that you can't, but shouldn't.  You took classes that allowed you to do what you wanted, but... why in hell would you want to dual wield greatswords?  two weapons bigger than you and not balanced at all.  Just assuming now... Monkey grip, two weapon fighting(free), oversized offhand weaponry,dodge, mobility, spring attack(eventually).
with penalties, it's what -6/-6 on the two attacks? for the chance of doing rediculous amounts of damage if you get a full round attack(which defeats the purpose of being crazy fast.)...

Point 2.1 that being said... I'm playing a straight fighter basically doing the same thing with a large bastard sword(from a module) and a sword of the planes(same module).  If I can't hit it with my massive suite of attacks, I switch to 2 handing the large bastard sword... which puts my attacks from a single digit bonus to hit, to a high teens bonus to hit.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> I don't think we can say this until we see the power lists. Each class is going to have about 80 powers, as I understand it. I think it will be completely possible to build a lot of tweaked concepts entirely out of well-chosen standard powers, with no need whatsoever to reach outside of the class. A swashbuckling rogue doesn't _need_ to buy Fighter multiclassing; he just grabs rapier proficiency and chooses the rogue powers that give him the nicest swashy flavor. In fact, multiclassing into fighter may actively hinder him if the rogue power list gives him enough choices to meaningfully fill out his power list.



 A swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword is kinda out of luck.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> I, for one, am curious to see exactly how the Multi-Classing works in 4e.  I've had minimal experience with 4e thus far (as can be expected) so I can only guess.  It seems as if the player chooses a "Primary Class" then takes feats to dip into other classes.  So I think the question a player needs to answer would be:
> 
> What class best suits your character concept?
> 
> ...



You've got it spot on.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> That's never how I saw it. Let's take the Warlock, for example. My party hated the Warlock (in 3.5) because it was too draculaisk. I made a character that was the warlock class, but instead made him more Dragon-like (This was before Dragon Magic.)
> 
> Flavor change without multiclassing.




Yes, you can do that. This has nothing to do with multiclassing to fill out character concepts that aren't neatly handled by existing classes.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> Is it still fun when a DM uses characters like that to TPK in a single round?



Well, no.  But what's fun for at least one of my players is having a crazy character, and I try to make that work as best I can.  I've only had a TPK once, and it was because I designed the encounter poorly.  When I GM, I don't go for TPKs as I've heard some GMs do.  I don't consider that winning or having a good time.  Getting a TPK is as simple as saying "You all die."  But what is fun is designing an NPC so close to the edge that it looks like it could be a TPK but the party ends up defeating it.


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. The buckets are no longer broad, so the multiclassing mechanic has more work to do.



The game plan appears to be, "sell a whole bunch of different little buckets." Like, with different builds and features for fighters and rogues being in that Martial Power book or whatever it's called. You want an evenly split rogue/wizard type or whatever, though they said they fixed multiclassing in this edition?... wwwait for the book!

So my game plan is, I'm waitin' for some books, to see what they come up with.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> The game plan appears to be, "sell a whole bunch of different little buckets." Like, with different builds and features for fighters and rogues being in that Martial Power book or whatever it's called. You want an evenly split rogue/wizard type or whatever, though they said they fixed multiclassing in this edition?... wwwait for the book!
> 
> So my game plan is, I'm waitin' for some books, to see what they come up with.



 This is indeed most likely to be the case. When classes are narrow, no multiclassing hack can be good as a custom-designed class.

Oh well, time to update my martial artist!


----------



## small pumpkin man (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> A swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword is kinda out of luck.



Explain why this character isn't just a Ranger and I'll think about it.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> why in hell would you want to dual wield greatswords?



Because it's simultaneously silly and awesome.  I even had them chained together at the pommel.  

If I wanted to take balance and weight into account I'd go bust out the GURPS rules.  But I wanted a guy to run at something like a bladed cruise missle because I like the mental image.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.




weaker because it's not easily abused?
weaker because people might actually have to think about a slightly more realistic character?(damn you char-op board)

But more specifically I was talking about changing the FLAVOR of an ability to make it fit with a concept.  For example I'm going to be making a great axe wielding fighter, that is going to be pretty sneaky, but I'll probably take the brutal strike ability(the first level fighter daily) and reflavor it to a precision based attack... with my axe, right between the shoulder blades.... and boom, I'm a fighter, but rogue styled and sneaky.  no need to multiclass. no mess, and no confusion.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. *But multiclassing is now weaker than before.*




Which is exactly what Wizard wants.  Multiclassing in 3.x is overpowered, even as per the article:



> 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.




Multiclassing in 4ed is supposed to be a lot more centered around keeping the overall game balanced but still being able to take elements of other classes and adding them to yours.  So if in 3.x you were a multiclasser who went for total min/maxing, 4ed multiclassing is going to be disappointing because Wizard intentionally is undoing that.  However if you multiclassed just to get other powers and to broaden your specializations of skills/abilities in 3.x, your style of multiclassing shouldnt really be effected as much (unless you want to multiclass into more than one other class, but on that front I think we need more info on classes overall).


----------



## Simon Marks (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> A swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword is kinda out of luck.




Are they?

WOTC_Miko I'm sure pointed out that she took a feat to allow her rogue to use a Rapier as a light blade sorta thing.

Feats are how you customise your character now, so a swashbuckling rogue who uses a rapier and shortsword seems to be done via feats, not multiclassing.

In 3.5, multiclassing was the primary way to customise your character in some respects.
in 4e, it's all feats.

There are hundreds of them, apparently - we'll have to wait and see.


----------



## Cadfan (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Multiclassing is how you change the mechanics to fit the character. But multiclassing is now weaker than before.



Its not weaker, its different.

Before, if I wanted to play a character who was a Fighter, who did Fighter type stuff, had fully Fighter abilities and the same melee power as a typical Fighter, BUT who also knew some _good_ healing magic, or who could toss a _meaningfully dangerous _ glob of magical acid at his foes, I was pretty much out of luck.  Those ever so slightly high level abilities required a big trade off in terms of levels, came saddled with a lot of unwanted other abilities, and then stopped scaling once I went back to leveling as a Fighter, rendering them obsolete.

Now, that seems very easy to accomplish.  And for the true concept mixer, mixing paragon paths seems to have a lot of available diversity of option.

The real loss in diversity seems to be here:

In 3e, certain multiclass characters weren't truly mixes of classes.  They were strange, new hybrid classes that functioned entirely different from both parent classes.  For example, a Fighter/Mage tended to NOT be a fighter who tossed a fireball or two.  That was the absolute WORST, most stupid way to multiclass a fighter and a wizard, because you ended up with a crap attack bonus, crap hit points, and a fireball for low damage with a crap DC.  Instead, a fighter/mage turned into a character who fought in melee after obtaining obscene bonuses due to stacking magical buffs and polymorph exploits, and power attacking.  These combinations weren't "the whole is greater than the sum of the parts," per se, but rather... they were like adding 2+2 and getting a banana.  Something entirely different and not evidenced in the original material.

Well, now the "fighter who changes it up with a fireball or two" is entirely valid.  But the weird hybrid classes are not.  It seems like the game needs whole new classes to cover the basic "fighter who fights by buffing with magic" type characters (at least if you want more than one buff, since you could get that with the multiclass utility feat), and so on.  Fortunately, that one at least is already written.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> weaker because it's not easily abused?




Weaker because it can no longer be used to represent character concepts that might have been possible previously, despite not being particularly outrageous.



> weaker because people might actually have to think about a slightly more realistic character?(damn you char-op board)




Let us not go to the CharOp board. It is a funny place.



> But more specifically I was talking about changing the FLAVOR of an ability to make it fit with a concept.  For example I'm going to be making a great axe wielding fighter, that is going to be pretty sneaky, but I'll probably take the brutal strike ability(the first level fighter daily) and reflavor it to a precision based attack... with my axe, right between the shoulder blades.... and boom, I'm a fighter, but rogue styled and sneaky.  no need to multiclass. no mess, and no confusion.




Your point is...?


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> Well, no.  But what's fun for at least one of my players is having a crazy character, and I try to make that work as best I can.  I've only had a TPK once, and it was because I designed the encounter poorly.  When I GM, I don't go for TPKs as I've heard some GMs do.  I don't consider that winning or having a good time.  Getting a TPK is as simple as saying "You all die."  But what is fun is designing an NPC so close to the edge that it looks like it could be a TPK but the party ends up defeating it.



The problem is the "Can of Worms" in DnD multiclassing.  When a character can do more damage than an entire party then how, as a DM, do you make that challenging?  When is it a challenge and when is it a TPK?

The problem is one of game balance.  On one hand, you have a ridiculous character that is based on throwing as many dice in combat as possible, and on the other hand you have the rest of the group.  When you make the game challenging for an Uber Cheese PC it can easily become a TPK when UPC dies.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Are they?




If you are a rogue, you can multiclass to fighter, or you can multiclass to ranger. Not both.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

Olfactatron said:
			
		

> Because it's simultaneously silly and awesome.  I even had them chained together at the pommel.
> 
> If I wanted to take balance and weight into account I'd go bust out the GURPS rules.  But I wanted a guy to run at something like a bladed cruise missle because I like the mental image.




hmmm.... I'm tempted to yell, scream and fume about how a certain media type from an island nation has ruined and warped the minds of America...  But the image is awesome if a bit ridiculous.  Fantasy HERO is the system that would be best for the character idea... but I digress....


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its not weaker, its different.
> 
> Before, if I wanted to play a character who was a Fighter, who did Fighter type stuff, had fully Fighter abilities and the same melee power as a typical Fighter, BUT who also knew some _good_ healing magic, or who could toss a _meaningfully dangerous _ glob of magical acid at his foes, I was pretty much out of luck.  Those ever so slightly high level abilities required a big trade off in terms of levels, came saddled with a lot of unwanted other abilities, and then stopped scaling once I went back to leveling as a Fighter, rendering them obsolete.




I'm not talking about fighter/wiz or fighter/cleric. Those are bad.

I'm talking about stuff like fighter/rogue, fighter/monk, fighter/rogue/monk, etc. Basically, non-spellcasting characters who don't fit neatly into "heavily armoured tank", "mobile fragile striker" and so forth, but are more of a blend of these.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Weaker because it can no longer be used to represent character concepts that might have been possible previously, despite not being particularly outrageous.



Such as Ninja Squids?

What you're doing is speculating based on very limited knowledge.  Rather than say, it might be weaker, you're giving an absolute answer when you really don't have but a clue.  Big Ego.


I dare say that it could most cover character concepts rather nicely, but what it won't do is allow a character to dish out 500pts damage at lvl 9 - Ever.  And that's a good thing.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> Such as Ninja Squids?




Those could work too.



> What you're doing is speculating based on very limited knowledge.  Rather than say, it might be weaker, you're giving an absolute answer when you really don't have but a clue.  Big Ego.




You say this like it's a negative thing.



> I dare say that it could most cover character concepts rather nicely, but what it won't do is allow a character to dish out 500pts damage at lvl 9 - Ever.  And that's a good thing.




It is good to know you have formidable hurdles for a multiclassing mechanic.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

Cadfan said:
			
		

> Its not weaker, its different.
> 
> Before, if I wanted to play a character who was a Fighter, who did Fighter type stuff, had fully Fighter abilities and the same melee power as a typical Fighter, BUT who also knew some _good_ healing magic, or who could toss a _meaningfully dangerous _ glob of magical acid at his foes, I was pretty much out of luck.




Considering a cleric can use healing word twice per ENCOUNTER and your fighter gets it once per DAY I wouldn't call your healing good.

And considering your glob of magical acid is based on int, and unless your fighter suddenly decided to forgo his strength in favor of int, your magical acid isn't going to be that dangerous.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Your point is...?




My point is you don't HAVE to multiclass to get the FLAVOR of the character!  You don't.  

Getting additional mechanics involved just because you think you need them is not helping you to Roleplay your character.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

It would be intersting to split up the multiclass feats by roles.  So if you were taking a feat that gave you access to a cross-role class, lets say the fighter multclassing to rogue, you got more of the abilities than if you were going from role to same role in the case of a ranger/rogue.  My reasoning is that a defender that wants to act like a striker is going to need more help than the striker that want to be better at being a striker.  
So the fighter would get thievery sneak attack 1/enc, and swap an at will power. 
The ranger would get thievery and sneak attack 1/enc.  
I don't know if this idea has any merit, but it's something to consider.  I definitely feel that the percieved nerf on multiclassing was to cap the upper limit on power rather than versatility.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about fighter/wiz or fighter/cleric. Those are bad.
> 
> I'm talking about stuff like fighter/rogue, fighter/monk, fighter/rogue/monk, etc. Basically, non-spellcasting characters who don't fit neatly into "heavily armoured tank", "mobile fragile striker" and so forth, but are more of a blend of these.



Tactical D&D is about resource management. Those recourses include Feats, class levels and (now) powers.

In 3.5 you had 7 feats normally, plus bonus feats, etc. With 7 feats, they were very, very rare. In fact, you had 20 class levels to your 7 feats. Therefore, class levels were more easier to give up, because all class levels gave you some form of a BAB, HP, saves, etc. However, feats were very, very rare compared. 

4e is almost the opposite. We are given many, many feats (Almost twice as much, if I can count) and class levels are the same. Even so, you can't choose your class levels now. You are your class, and that's it. Ergo, you get more feats, and now you have powers as well which help define your character.

Fourth edition is making it easier to design your character. Character concepts aren't about multiclassing anymore, because you don't have to. Take the feats that support your character (Which is what they are for, making your character different then everyone else) And powers that give you your abilities.

Class levels are almost meaningless. At this point we're arguing the difference between 2nd and 3rd editions. It just doesn't compare.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> My point is you don't HAVE to multiclass to get the FLAVOR of the character!  You don't.
> 
> Getting additional mechanics involved just because you think you need them is not helping you to Roleplay your character.




You don't need anything to roleplay a character. But sometimes having crunchy bits helps.


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> My point is you don't HAVE to multiclass to get the FLAVOR of the character!  You don't.
> 
> Getting additional mechanics involved just because you think you need them is not helping you to Roleplay your character.



If you can easily get the flavor of a bunch of different character types by changing a few words, then you don't have strongly defined classes. Which is it?


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 30, 2008)

You know just thinking. There could be different class-variants for each classes multiclass. Since they did individually name them. 

So there could be three different Ranger multiclass-feats, three different Fighter multiclass-feats, etc. Each would focus on different skill, class feature, etc.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about fighter/wiz or fighter/cleric. Those are bad.
> 
> I'm talking about stuff like fighter/rogue, fighter/monk, fighter/rogue/monk, etc. Basically, non-spellcasting characters who don't fit neatly into "heavily armoured tank", "mobile fragile striker" and so forth, but are more of a blend of these.



Wait a minute.  Those are bad?  Why?  Now all of a sudden something is bad.  Because you don't like?

So if it's not your baby, it's an ugly baby.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Fourth edition is making it easier to design your character. Character concepts aren't about multiclassing anymore, because you don't have to. Take the feats that support your character (Which is what they are for, making your character different then everyone else) And powers that give you your abilities.




Show me which feats to use to build a blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.



> Class levels are almost meaningless. At this point we're arguing the difference between 2nd and 3rd editions. It just doesn't compare.




Class levels are meaningless. Classes are very meaningful indeed.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> The problem is the "Can of Worms" in DnD multiclassing.  When a character can do more damage than an entire party then how, as a DM, do you make that challenging?  When is it a challenge and when is it a TPK?
> 
> The problem is one of game balance.  On one hand, you have a ridiculous character that is based on throwing as many dice in combat as possible, and on the other hand you have the rest of the group.  When you make the game challenging for an Uber Cheese PC it can easily become a TPK when UPC dies.



I completely agree.  It's not at all easy.  In that particular campaign my solution was to give the wweaker characters artifact weapons.  Smoothed things out nicely and gave me the opportunity to design some of the craziest monsters I could come up with.  But that game was all about excess anyway, I'm not at all saying it's how everyone should play.  Hell, I only did it once.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> If you can easily get the flavor of a bunch of different character types by changing a few words, then you don't have strongly defined classes. Which is it?



*sniff* *sniff*

Imp or Troll?


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Show me which feats to use to build a blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.
> 
> 
> 
> Class levels are meaningless. Classes are very meaningful indeed.



Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> Wait a minute.  Those are bad?  Why?  Now all of a sudden something is bad.  Because you don't like?




Those are bad because ftr/wiz is an inherently hard concept to support.

It is very simple. I'm not saying that the multiclassing mechanic has to support things like ftr/wiz which are hard. It has to support blending fighter, rogue, ranger (and possibly warlord), which should be easy.

I do not have a problem with 4E ftr/wizzes being so crappy that noone will ever play one. But it should beable to support blending other classes as mentioned above.



> So if it's not your baby, it's an ugly baby.




Of course.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.



 And is the result as useful as a heavily armoured tank or a lightly armoured, fragile striker...?


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Fighter, Rogue Multiclass feat. Big-Honkin-Weapon proficiency feat.




Why do this when I can take the ranger multiclass feat? I don't need to meet the dex prereq, I can quarry with any weapon, and the effect lasts all combat, as opposed to a single poke. Further, quarry I just do, sneak attack I will have to get combat advantage (and since I don't have first strike, that's even harder to do).

The rogue feat looks so incredibly weak compared to the ranger feat its not even funny.


----------



## MaelStorm (Apr 30, 2008)

Simon Marks said:
			
		

> Are they?
> 
> WOTC_Miko I'm sure pointed out that she took a feat to allow her rogue to use a Rapier as a light blade sorta thing.
> 
> ...



THIS. Very good point.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And is the result as useful as a heavily armoured tank or a lightly armoured, fragile striker...?



He sure is a heavy defender, since that's his role. Lightly armored? No, he definitely wears heavy armor. Striker? No he's a defender, not a striker. You can only have one role.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> *sniff* *sniff*
> 
> Imp or Troll?



 I am the troll, thank you very much.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> He sure is a heavy defender, since that's his role.




That is the role of the class as defined in the rules. Now what happens if you happen to have a concept that doesn't fall neatly into one of roles...?


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That is the role of the class as defined in the rules. Now what happens if you happen to have a concept that doesn't fall neatly into one of roles...?



Please give me an example.


----------



## The Little Raven (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> That is the role of the class as defined in the rules. Now what happens if you happen to have a concept that doesn't fall neatly into one of roles...?




You're not going to like the answer...


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> 4e is almost the opposite. We are given many, many feats (Almost twice as much, if I can count) and class levels are the same. Even so, you can't choose your class levels now. You are your class, and that's it. Ergo, you get more feats, and now you have powers as well which help define your character.
> 
> Fourth edition is making it easier to design your character. Character concepts aren't about multiclassing anymore, because you don't have to. Take the feats that support your character (Which is what they are for, making your character different then everyone else) And powers that give you your abilities.



This is a blind assertion until we see the feats.

Fourth edition may well make it easier to design your character ten splatbooks in, but I'm not buying that the cores will compare that way.


----------



## Olfactatron (Apr 30, 2008)

MaelStorm said:
			
		

> THIS. Very good point.



Seconded.  This is the reason that, while i'm not super happy with the "sound bite" version of the multiclassing rules, I'm certainly waiting to see the rest of what can be done with out it.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Please give me an example.



 A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.



This is not a role, it's two roles. That is my point. Why would you want to mix heavy armor and a light armor? What is the end purpose of the character?


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> If you can easily get the flavor of a bunch of different character types by changing a few words, then you don't have strongly defined classes. Which is it?




The opposite actually. The class can be very good, and with a little flavor change it can represent a different archetype.  any idea that has a basis on a single background can be represented by the base class too, with only a slight adjustment of flavor.

The mighty samurai?  Ok. Bushido, the way of the sword and the bow, acknowledged masters of combat and stategy.  what class would you make the samurai?  his own class? why? we have rangers, fighters and warlords to fill the 3 aspects.  it's all about changing the flavor slightly.  Now... I will say his own class would get the point across better, and have more generalized powers instead of focusing on one type.  And surely, the character could be made with multiclassing... but why?  If you can do it with one class, why shouldn't you.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> This is not a role, it's two roles. That is my point. Why would you want to mix heavy armor and a light armor? What is the end purpose of the character?




To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Those are bad because ftr/wiz is an inherently hard concept to support.
> 
> It is very simple. I'm not saying that the multiclassing mechanic has to support things like ftr/wiz which are hard. It has to support blending fighter, rogue, ranger (and possibly warlord), which should be easy.
> 
> I do not have a problem with 4E ftr/wizzes being so crappy that noone will ever play one. But it should beable to support blending other classes as mentioned above.



I like the idea that you won't be able to perform a finesse move with a Great Axe.  It's absurd.  Some ideas should be incompatible.  In ridiculous 3.x you could perform a SA while charging on a warhorse with a hvy lance.  How is that finesse?  It's so stupid that no rational exists for why Rogues in 3.x have SA and not everyone.

Some features MUST remain incompatible by definition of predetermined class roles.  That's a fundamental flaw of 3.x, not a feature.  Multiclassing characters could do everything and be damn good, often better, than single classed characters.

4e seems to have drawn a line in the sand for multiclassing that 3.x never bothered to.  At some point you have to say - incompatible.  If you don't, then it's back to 7th grade Uber Everything characters that cleave the World after killing the gods, take a step, and Sunder the Moon.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> I like the idea that you won't be able to perform a finesse move with a Great Axe.  It's absurd.  Some ideas should be incompatible.  In ridiculous 3.x you could perform a SA while charging on a warhorse with a hvy lance.  How is that finesse?  It's so stupid that no rational exists for why Rogues in 3.x have SA and not everyone.
> 
> Some features MUST remain incompatible by definition of predetermined class roles.  That's a fundamental flaw of 3.x, not a feature.  Multiclassing characters could do everything and be damn good, often better, than single classed characters.




Wait, sneak attacking with a longsword and dagger is stupid?


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.



Then, as I said before. Spend all of your feats on gaining 50% defender 50% striker powers and you're not a heavy defender who can skirmish the field with sneak attacks, or ranger abilities. If you want pure half and half, then at level 11 take another class instead of a paragon path. 20 Defender, 10 Rogue.


----------



## Stalker0 (Apr 30, 2008)

> 4e is almost the opposite. We are given many, many feats (Almost twice as much, if I can count) and class levels are the same.




You can't look at feats over 30 levels and make a comparison. Many people never played 3e at 20th level, likely many will not play 4e at 30th.

Let's look at the first 10 levels. You will likely get feats at 1,2,4,6,8, and 10. That's 6 feats compared to 4 in 3.5. So 50% more feats. Definately useful, but its not like feats are falling from the sky like candy. I've played 9th level fighters with 10 feats, and I was still painfully having to choose them. Feats to multiclass is a heavy cost in 4e, I just hope its worth it.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.



So a fragilly-heavy, tank striker?

I'd make him half-elf, half-dretch, half-AT4.


----------



## ForbidenMaster (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> And is the result as useful as a heavily armoured tank or a lightly armoured, fragile striker...?




Now you are turning into the bard issue.  A character that does multiple things must not do them any one of those things as well as a character who is specialising in one of those specific things, otherwise the multi character is broken (and which is why multiclassing in 3.5 is broken).

As an example, a core rogue should be a better rogue then a multiclassed rogue, but is is clearly evident that in 3.5 that doesnt hold true.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.



That's not a role, that's a hermaphrodite. How does _any_ system  support a character that is simultaneously heavily-armored and lightly armored, or simultaneously tough and fragile? Either your character goes around in light armor or he goes around in heavy. Either he can stand in the front line or he can't.

But you want a medium point between them? Ranger with Toughness and armor proficiencies. Or Rogue with the same if you're more about single melee weapons; it works out much the same. Toughness bumps a Striker's hit points into the same HP bracket as a Defender and armor proficiencies will let him wear the same gear. No multiclassing needed.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Then, as I said before. Spend all of your feats on gaining 50% defender 50% striker powers




This will be hard when there's exactly 4 multiclassing feats, which have to be spent.



> and you're not a heavy defender who can skirmish the field with sneak attacks, or ranger abilities. If you want pure half and half, then at level 11 take another class instead of a paragon path. 20 Defender, 10 Rogue.




It would be nice if this could be done before 11th level, though.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> You can't look at feats over 30 levels and make a comparison. Many people never played 3e at 20th level, likely many will not play 4e at 30th.
> 
> Let's look at the first 10 levels. You will likely get feats at 1,2,4,6,8, and 10. That's 6 feats compared to 4 in 3.5. So 50% more feats. Definately useful, but its not like feats are falling from the sky like candy. I've played 9th level fighters with 10 feats, and I was still painfully having to choose them. Feats to multiclass is a heavy cost in 4e, I just hope its worth it.



Yeah but a fighter ONLY had feats.  It's a weak comparison.  A fighter doesn't have any manuevers, any class features, any distinguishing abilities.  At least in 3e.

BTW - I hope it's worth it too.  I'm on the fence on this one.  On one hand, I like the idea that multiclassing isn't all lame or all powerful; on the other hand, I'm thinking that it might be too simple.  I also try to keep in mind that the Core Rules have changed quite a bit.  For instance, Wizards can simply take an armor prof. and weapon prof. and they can fight and cast.  At higher levels it's been revealed that wizards can use a "weapon implement" if they choose a particular feature.  It means not having to multi-class as much.  All I can really say is, "fingers crossed."


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> That's not a role, that's a hermaphrodite. How does _any_ system  support a character that is simultaneously heavily-armored and lightly armored, or simultaneously tough and fragile? Either your character goes around in light armor or he goes around in heavy. Either he can stand in the front line or he can't.




He can stand in the front line but not as long as a dedicated tank. Similarly, he can dish out the damage, but not as much as someone who is 100% ninja.



> But you want a medium point between them? Ranger with Toughness and armor proficiencies. Or Rogue with the same if you're more about single melee weapons; it works out much the same. Toughness bumps a Striker's hit points into the same HP bracket as a Defender and armor proficiencies will let him wear the same gear. No multiclassing needed.




Hmm, this is a good point. Diluting the ninja factor is likely to be as much about feat selection as multiclassing.


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

There seems little reason that two half-defender half-striker characters can't be basically as effective as one full defender and one full striker, esp. since 4e makes a point of not letting specific adventuring functions be only the province of one particular role, specifically in this case, full BAB vs. skillmonkeying. So there should be little trouble with the fighter-rogue concept, if it approached nondogmatically.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> This will be hard when there's exactly 4 multiclassing feats, which have to be spent.



By taking the class-specific feat you are also allowed to buy that secondary class-only feats too.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Hmm, this is a good point. Diluting the ninja factor is likely to be as much about feat selection as multiclassing.



This is my point.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 30, 2008)

I think a lot of people are simply so hardwired to assume that concept differentiation can only take place via multiclassing that they can't see that the new normal way to do so is via feats. We've already been told that there are about three times as many feats in the PHB than there were in the 3.5 PHB. In 3.5, you multiclassed because all classes had roughly the same abilities at any given level, barring feat and spell picks. In 4e, every class has about 80 powers to choose from, plus three times as many feats. You can shift HP brackets with Toughness, you can (presumably) shift armor types with proficiencies, we know you can grab new weapon proficiencies... you can do a great deal to modify a character without ever leaving your class. That was not the case in 3.5.


----------



## Ravingdork (Apr 30, 2008)

I would love to see the developers of the new 4E Forgotten Realms products try and stat out Elminster with these rules.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 30, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> I think a lot of people are simply so hardwired to assume that concept differentiation can only take place via multiclassing that they can't see that the new normal way to do so is via feats.



The "problem" I see is that it is almost only by feats. I wished that it would also be via Powers. As we can see from the article, you have to be very loyal to your prim.class Powers, since you need to waste a feat just to be able to trade a prim.class Power for sec.class Power. You don't add anything at all, you just trade them.

Regarding the sec.class feats though, it's a total swing party.


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> You can shift HP brackets with Toughness, you can (presumably) shift armor types with proficiencies, we know you can grab new weapon proficiencies... you can do a great deal to modify a character without ever leaving your class. That was not the case in 3.5.



MWP: longsword. Again, this is a promise at this point. I do hope you're right. Not that I particularly agree with your last assertion: people would say "you could do a great deal to modify a character with your feats" in 3.5, if they couldn't multiclass in that edition.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> I would love to see the developers of the new 4E Forgotten Realms products try and stat out Elminster with these rules.




Seeing as how NPC's don't have to be built according to class rules, they can give Elminster whatever abilities they want him to have. 

Although getting down to it, is there anything that Elminster has that can't be accounted for with Skill Training and Weapon Training Feats? He had one level of Fighter, and two levels of Rogue. Give him Skill Training in Thievery and Stealth, and a weapon and armor proficiency or to, and you're set. Give him a couple Cleric multiclass Feats, and that ought to cover it. Will he have Sneak Attack and Fighter maneuvers? No. But it's not as if he needs them. 

And that's assuming you can't retrain your class (No evidence of that, but one can always hope, after all). In which case Elminster could've started as a Level 1 Fighter, then when he levelled up he could've retrained into a Level 2 Rogue. Once he levelled up, again, he could've retrained into a Level 3 Cleric, and last but not least, he could've then retrained into a Level 4 Wizard, and proceeded from there.


----------



## Ximenes088 (Apr 30, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> MWP: longsword. Again, this is a promise at this point. I do hope you're right. Not that I particularly agree with your last assertion: people would say "you could do a great deal to modify a character with your feats" in 3.5, if they couldn't multiclass in that edition.



I think you could modify your concept pretty powerfully in 3.5, too- if there were no feat chains, no prerequisites beyond class, race, and level bracket, class prerequisites could be bypassed with a feat, and you got twice as many feats as you normally did.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 30, 2008)

raven_dark64 said:
			
		

> I would love to see the developers of the new 4E Forgotten Realms products try and stat out Elminster with these rules.



Elminster is an NPC, he has no class. He needs no class.
Just give him all the powers and abilities you think Elminster should have and you are done!


----------



## Falling Icicle (Apr 30, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> Elminster is an NPC, he has no class. He needs no class.
> Just give him all the powers and abilities you think Elminster should have and you are done!




I for one hate the clunky, metagamy idea that the players use entirely different rules from everyone else, even other human wizards, simply because they're controlled by the players. But that's a discussion for another thread. I digress.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> A blend of a heavily armoured tank and a lightly armoured, fragile striker.



You want someone to switch between the two styles? Like say "Today, I'll leave my plate mail at home and wear leather armor, since we need to sneak a lot..."

Or do you want a Heavily Armoured Tank Striker?

The second sounds... broken.

The first sounds impossiblehard, but doeable. (It wouldn't really be "effective" in 3E, either, but maybe you had a  certain illusion it was this case.)
But maybe there is an approach. Set your "favored" style first. This decides whether you pick Fighter or Rogue, or possibly Ranger (Two-Weapon Fighting is what I'd suggest.)
Then take weapon and armor profiency feats as needed (starting with Fighter definitely seems easier), and then pick the multiclass feats for the other class you wanted. 
In "Defender" mode, you will focus in using Fighter encounter and daily powers first, in "Striker" mode, you will focus on using Ranger/Rogue encounter and daily powers first. Mix At-Will powers as you see fit.

I think from the know abilities of Ranger and Rogue, you should definitely look into those powers that let you shift with your attacks or shift larger distances. Movement is important for the Striking stuff, and your Fighter powers will probably take care of the damage you inflict. (Even if you don't achieve the heights of a pure Striker).


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Originally Posted by neceros:
> "This is not a role, it's two roles. That is my point. Why would you want to mix heavy armor and a light armor? What is the end purpose of the character?"
> 
> To play someone who is not purely a heavily armoured tank or a fragile striker, but a blend of both.



The example I believe you are looking for would be something akin to in WoW - a Fury Spec Warrior in Berserk Stance. Heavy armored warrior taking on the DPS role even though the class by definition is a defender.


----------



## HeinorNY (Apr 30, 2008)

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> I for one hate the clunky, metagamy idea that the players use entirely different rules from everyone else, even other human wizards, simply because they're controlled by the players. But that's a discussion for another thread. I digress.



The rules are there to be played by the players so they can interact with the gameworld, not to represent how things work or how people do their stuff in the gameworld.


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> I think you could modify your concept pretty powerfully in 3.5, too- if there were no feat chains, no prerequisites beyond class, race, and level bracket, class prerequisites could be bypassed with a feat, and you got twice as many feats as you normally did.



You know, having played with variants of 3.5 that do this, it's really only the last thing, number of feats. Prereqs for concept feats can be worked around any number of ways, mainly by making more feats available (that support similar concepts with different mechanics, possibly). It works.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

Anyway, on the subject of multiclassing, can't say I'm all to pleased with what we got. There're two things that I'm especially disappointed about. 

1) The level limits on your Feats. I really don't see why I have to wait til 10th-level to get a Daily Power. Would it really matter if one got it, sooner? 

2) I was hoping to be able to spend any number of Feats on multiclassing. But from appearances, there's nothing to indicate that you can take the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, or Adept Power Feats more then once. I hope I'm wrong on that, but it's a shame if you can only have one of each. 

A couple other things are bothering me, though. 

Is exchanging a Paragon Path the only way to further multiclass beyond level 10? Are there no multiclass Feats for the Paragon Tier? Same goes for the Epic Tier. Are there any multiclass Feats for that, or does one have to substitute their Epic Destiny for further multiclassing? 

Also pretty disappointing that you can't take an At-Will Power from another class as an At-Will Power. I really wanted to give a Paladin character a power like Tide of Iron, or Lance of Faith. Oh well. 

Pretty interesting, though. If one gets all four Feats, then a 10th-level character will derive one-third of his power from his secondary class, and the other two-thirds from his primary class. And assuming trading in a Paragon Path to further multiclass works the way I think it does, then a 20th-level character will derive half his power from his primary class, and half from his secondary. 

Just wish we'd gotten some info on how exactly exchanging a Paragon Path for multiclassing works. Here's the list of powers that you get for a Paragon Path. 

11th: Paragon path feature 
11th: Paragon path action point feature 
11th: Paragon path encounter power 
12th: Paragon path utility power 
16th: Paragon path feature 
20th: Paragon path daily power 

My hope is this. That at 11th level, you can choose a class feature from the class you're multiclassing in. Let's assume Cleric. So I'm thinking at 11th level you get a class feature. Like Healing Word, and that it works just as it does for the Cleric (twice per encounter). At 11th-level you gain a Cleric Encounter Power. At 12th-level you gain a Cleric Utility Power. At 16th-level you gain another Class Feature (like Channel Divinity). And at 20th-level you gain a Cleric Daily Power. 

That's how I'm thinking that works. In which case you will have very nearly created a character who's truly half-and-half. The only question is, what do you get for the Paragon Path Action Point Feature? Speaking for myself, I think an At-Will Power which works as an At-Will Power for that would be fantastic.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Khaalis said:
			
		

> The example I believe you are looking for would be something akin to in WoW - a Fury Spec Warrior in Berserk Stance. Heavy armored warrior taking on the DPS role even though the class by definition is a defender.



Forgive me of my lack of knowledge of Wow, I stopped after playing EQ for 8 years.

I see nothing wrong with a two wielding dps heavy tanker, for a time, at least. I dont think one should be able to go around all day dishing out damage and being tanked up. If the character loses AC for being reckless, as a rage, or some other trade off to keep the DPs balanced there's no problem.

Multiclassing should be to expand your abilities, not give you more power.


----------



## Imp (Apr 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You want someone to switch between the two styles? Like say "Today, I'll leave my plate mail at home and wear leather armor, since we need to sneak a lot..."
> 
> Or do you want a Heavily Armoured Tank Striker?



For gods sakes he wants a fighter/rogue straight out of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, is it that hard to divine. A concept that all of those handled more or less well and was neither broken nor unviable in any of them.


----------



## Cirex (Apr 30, 2008)

I want to see the limitations on the powers you can pick before I give my final opinion, but it looks decent so far.

EDIT : Doh, posted at the wrong one.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> For gods sakes he wants a fighter/rogue straight out of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, is it that hard to divine. A concept that all of those handled more or less well and was neither broken nor unviable in any of them.



That's my bloody point. With Multiclassing as we see it he doesn't need to switch between Rogue and Fighter in 4th. Everyone needs to rewire themselves to understand the mechanics of 4e. Eventually.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> The rules are there to be played by the players so they can interact with the gameworld, not to represent how things work or how people do their stuff in the gameworld.



Will you concede that this is the first time ever this has been the core assumption in D&D, and that 4E is one of the very few PnP role-playing games which make that assumption?

As for multiclassing via feats, I very much doubt it will be feasible. If it were so feasible, Rich Baker wouldn't have had to write a new "Swordmage" class to cover the fighter/mage concept. I predict that we will see a whole bunch of new classes, since the new multiclassing rules will be woefully inadequate to cover a great number of concepts which were easily doable in previous editions. And people will inevitably want to re-create their favorite characters from the past in 4E.


----------



## Khaalis (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Forgive me of my lack of knowledge of Wow, I stopped after playing EQ for 8 years.
> 
> I see nothing wrong with a two wielding dps heavy tanker, for a time, at least. I dont think one should be able to go around all day dishing out damage and being tanked up. If the character loses AC for being reckless, as a rage, or some other trade off to keep the DPs balanced there's no problem.
> 
> Multiclassing should be to expand your abilities, not give you more power.



Unfortunately there is no equivalent EQ analogy as you didn't have differing paths for your class. In WoW you have 3 paths per class. In the case of the Warrior its Arms (primarily specialization in 2H weapons), Fury (primarily 2 weapon DPS), and Protection (tanking).  You also have 3 different stances - Battle (generic balance of protection and offense), Defense (increase ability to take damage and reduce DPS) and Berserk (reduce ability to take damage but deal more DPS).

In WOW, you have specifically defined roles with Warriors being defenders and Rogues being DPS. However, with the right "build" you can make a Warrior that is as good or even better than a Rogue at dishing out DPS AND they have better defenses with the use of heavy armor and defender based abilities. You CANT however make a rogue into any semblance of a defender.

This is kind of what we are talking about with a Fighter / Rogue in D&D and its almost the same settup.  A Fighter with some rogue is a defender with better DPS ability than normal. However, a Rogue that takes some Fighter doesn't become a better defender.

I think what we will end up seeing is more "Hybrid" classes. They said all along that the Fighter/Wizard GISH was going to be a viable option. This hasn't really been true with what we have seen in the Multiclass rules to date, and in fact apparently WotC agreed in that they already wrote a Hybrid Fighter/Wizard - the Swordmage.  For a Fighter/Rogue Hybrid, I think we will see something along the line of a Swashbuckler (from 3.5) where they are light armored Fighter with some defender abilities that increase their AC, include things like Marking but will focus more on dealing damage than soaking it up.

JMHO.


----------



## AtomicPope (Apr 30, 2008)

ainatan said:
			
		

> The "problem" I see is that it is almost only by feats. I wished that it would also be via Powers. As we can see from the article, you have to be very loyal to your prim.class Powers, since you need to waste a feat just to be able to trade a prim.class Power for sec.class Power. You don't add anything at all, you just trade them.
> 
> Regarding the sec.class feats though, it's a total swing party.



I'm glad it's not being done via Powers.  They needed to place a restriction on how many abilities a class has and feats is the easiest way to do it.  Since all of the classes get the same number of Feats, At Will, Encounter, and Day Powers, by allowing PC's to trade abilities they _must _ give up something otherwise there is no quid pro quo.

Feats are just an easy trade.  Players spend feats to widen their range of abilities.  When players select from a list that isn't from the Primary Class then they're slightly penalized.  It's a simple solution.

Compare this to 3e where no two classes are remotely equal and some downright stink.  Druid has oodles of class features while Sorcerers have one - at 1st level.  Fighters only have feats - no class features.  In 4e everyone has the same "template" but accesses different purpose abilities.  Since class level doesn't matter for spells they needed another mitigating factor.`


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> If it were so feasible, Rich Baker wouldn't have had to write a new "Swordmage" class to cover the fighter/mage concept. I predict that we will see a whole bunch of new classes, since the new multiclassing rules will be woefully inadequate to cover a great number of concepts which were easily doable in previous editions.




But previous editions _didn't_ cover the fighter/mage concept well by multiclassing. In 1E and 2E, you were well behind everyone else in levels. In 3E, a multiclass f/m was _horribly_ underpowered, unless you took a prestige class--or used one of the new classes, like duskblade.

The 4E multiclass system won't be all things to all people (I personally like most aspects of it, but not all)--but let's not pretend the previous systems were perfect, either.


----------



## srn (Apr 30, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> 2) I was hoping to be able to spend any number of Feats on multiclassing. But from appearances, there's nothing to indicate that you can take the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, or Adept Power Feats more then once. I hope I'm wrong on that, but it's a shame if you can only have one of each.




My reading of it is that you can only spend that number of feats on swapping powers - BUT you can take additional class-specific feats from the "other" class as well as from your own. So you might take a 2nd level cleric feat instead of a rogue feat, for example.

So, you could take all your feats in the "other" class, if you wanted to. Whether that would be useful or not is another question that perhaps only the full PHB will reveal.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 30, 2008)

Imp said:
			
		

> For gods sakes he wants a fighter/rogue straight out of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd edition, is it that hard to divine. A concept that all of those handled more or less well and was neither broken nor unviable in any of them.



But that's too easy! Play a Fighter with the Rogue Multiclass feats! Or a Rogue with the Fighter mutliclass feats! Done. 

It's a new edition, it doesn't have to mimic the exact results of previous or later editions. In all editions, you are definitely someone that mixes Rogue and Fighter abilities, not just a Fighter wearing dark cloak or a Rogue wielding a bigger sword.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But previous editions _didn't_ cover the fighter/mage concept well by multiclassing. In 1E and 2E, you were well behind everyone else in levels. In 3E, a multiclass f/m was _horribly_ underpowered, unless you took a prestige class.
> 
> The 4E multiclass system won't be all things to all people (I personally like most aspects of it, but not all)--but let's not pretend the previous systems were perfect, either.




Quick question for you, since I figure being a playtester you might know the answer, and answering probably wouldn't be a big deal. 

When it comes to the multiclass feats (Novice Power, Acolyte Power, Adept Power), can you only take one of each, or are they the kind of Feats that you can take several times? I suspect it's the former, but I just want to make sure. Thanks.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

srn said:
			
		

> My reading of it is that you can only spend that number of feats on swapping powers - BUT you can take additional class-specific feats from the "other" class as well as from your own. So you might take a 2nd level cleric feat instead of a rogue feat, for example.
> 
> So, you could take all your feats in the "other" class, if you wanted to. Whether that would be useful or not is another question that perhaps only the full PHB will reveal.




True enough. Power of Amaunator, for instance, is a Feat. And taking Initiate of the Faith, I imagine, will open that up (Assuming it's limited to Clerics). So it'd be pretty neat to have that, for instance. Of course, that multiclass combo would probably be for a Paladin character. I wonder if they also gain access to Channel Divinity Feats?


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> But previous editions _didn't_ cover the fighter/mage concept well by multiclassing. In 1E and 2E, you were well behind everyone else in levels. In 3E, a multiclass f/m was _horribly_ underpowered, unless you took a prestige class--or used one of the new classes, like duskblade.
> 
> The 4E multiclass system won't be all things to all people (I personally like most aspects of it, but not all)--but let's not pretend the previous systems were perfect, either.



I'm not pretending anything, but 1e/2e Fighter/Mages in elven chain were among the more powerful class combos out there. 3e Fighter/Mages, on the other hand, certainly weren't as viable. But what I expected from 4E is *to finally fix multiclassing once and for all*. Instead, what we got looks like a half-baked solution which wasn't really thought through (and this assumption is supported by various designers' statements on the topic of multiclassing, in which it was apparent that multiclassing was put on the back burner until a very late date in the design process).

There were problems with 1e/2e multiclassing.

There were problems with 3e multiclassing, although not as many (and of a different nature) as in 1e/2e. The main benefit of 3e multiclassing was how streamlined and elegant the whole process was. The main problem was to create a viable multiclassed spellcaster.

4e effectively bans multiclassing for characters under level 11, introduces the new, highly restrictive "multi-feating" concept, and creates a number of problems of its own, not the least of which is the loss of elegance introduced in the 3e concept. A lot of 4e multi-feating problems stem, IMO, from the new concept of powers, which is very problematic in and by itself.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Quick question for you, since I figure being a playtester you might know the answer, and answering probably wouldn't be a big deal.




Unfortunately, it _is_ a big deal. I'm literally not allowed to share _anything_ that WotC hasn't already made public. Pointing out the formatting error on the table was one thing, because the info _was_ public, just not clear. But I can't say anything about what's in the book beyond what they've said.

Sorry.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it _is_ a big deal. I'm literally not allowed to share _anything_ that WotC hasn't already made public. Pointing out the formatting error on the table was one thing, because the info _was_ public, just not clear. But I can't say anything about what's in the book beyond what they've said.
> 
> Sorry.






Then why are you even in the forums discussing it?  that seems like a vary dangerous game to play.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> But what I expected from 4E is *to finally fix multiclassing once and for all*. Instead, what we got looks like a half-baked solution which wasn't really thought through (and this assumption is supported by various designers' statements on the topic of multiclassing, in which it was apparent that multiclassing was put on the back burner until a very late date in the design process).




"Late in the process" doesn't equal "not thought through."

I've seen enough playtest drafts to know that multiclassing has worked this way for quite some time. It's definitely been not only thought through, but tested.

As far as whether it's fixed the problems, I guess that depends what your problems _are_. AFAIAC, it's a perfect system for "dipping"; that is, for playing a fighter who dabbles in wizardry, or a paladin who survived as a street thief in his youth.

No, it doesn't seem to allow for a perfect 50/50 split. Whether that's a problem or not depends on one's personal tastes.



> 4e effectively bans multiclassing for characters under level 11




Um, no. That's what the feats are for. They may not be the sort of multiclassing you'd prefer, but they're multiclassing.



> introduces the new, highly restrictive "multi-feating" concept




Only restrictive if you want the 50/50, as above.



> the loss of elegance introduced in the 3e concept.




The 3E system only _looked_ elegant. The fact that it needed a few dozen patches in the form of PrCs or new base classes says to me that it wasn't nearly as elegant as all that, though.



> A lot of 4e multi-feating problems stem, IMO, from the new concept of powers, which is very problematic in and by itself.




*shrug* Then I don't think much of anything about PCs in 4E is going to appeal to you, since powers are basically at the core of everything.


----------



## neceros (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> 4e effectively bans multiclassing for characters under level 11, introduces the new, highly restrictive "multi-feating" concept, and creates a number of problems of its own, not the least of which is the loss of elegance introduced in the 3e concept. A lot of 4e multi-feating problems stem, IMO, from the new concept of powers, which is very problematic in and by itself.



Again, multiclassing in previous editions was required or wanted because of design flaws. A fighter could not be as powerful as a wizard, so she trained as both to be both.

In fourth edition, you don't need to multiclass for your character concept, unless that character concept is literally dabbling in other classes or half/half. If you want to play a fighter mage, be a Wizard who has some feats aimed to proficiencies and Toughness. If your mage needs to be a defender, then multiclass into a defender archetype.

Multiclassing just isn't as much of a requirement as it was in earlier editions. Multiclassing _is_ less powerful because you don't _need_ it anymore.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> Then why are you even in the forums discussing it?  that seems like a vary dangerous game to play.




Um, because I enjoy discussing the parts of the game that _have_ been made public.


----------



## CleverNickName (Apr 30, 2008)

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> So what's the problem if my rogue with cleric multiclass feats gains a level and switches out some cleric 'spellcasting' for turn undead?  You've had 3 and a half editions of justifying 'my god has given me different miracles today than yesterday'.  Or did I completely misunderstand the post where you said you'd find this difficult to explain?



This is the part of the thread where I start sounding like a simulationist, and we start going back and forth about it.  But we've got enough of those threads already.

My favorite part of D&D is the story...how it changes over time, how everyone contributes in shaping it, all of the plot hooks and tangents, the tale of a handful of unlikely folk who face overwhelming odds and save the world.  There are thousands of ways to tell that story (and my way of telling it isn't any better than anyone else's), but the way that I like to do it is through the lens of believability.  Even things as absurd as magic and dragons can be acceptable if they are explained properly and kept consistent throughout the story...but "because it's _more awesome,_ that's why!" isn't the sort of explaination I am looking for.

Yes, I could dream up an explaination to explain how a character knows how to do something on Friday and forgets how to do it over the weekend.   Or I could just hand-wave it and ignore it altogether, like a plot hole in a bad sci-fi movie.  But honestly, I would prefer for it to never be an issue in the first place, that's all.

I'm sure I will feel better once I've read the books and learned more about all of these feats and powers.  Right now, though, my gut reaction is to start houseruling it like crazy.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

> a paladin who survived as a street thief in his youth



Out of curiosity, how would you go about creating this character in 4e, using the published rules? In 3.x, he'd clearly be Rogue 1/Paladin X. How would you mechanically describe him having more than one trained rogue skill in 4E, if you make him a Paladin 1 with Rogue training? 

And yes, I highly dislike the wuxia-inspired powers. Hated the Bo9S, too.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> You want someone to switch between the two styles? Like say "Today, I'll leave my plate mail at home and wear leather armor, since we need to sneak a lot..."
> 
> Or do you want a Heavily Armoured Tank Striker?
> 
> ...




I want to play a swashbuckler. Or a wuxia swordsperson. That is, someone who can take damage, but not as much as a dedicated tank; and can deal damage, but not as much as a dedicated ninja. This shouldn't be hard. Whether it actually is hard remains to be seen.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, it _is_ a big deal. I'm literally not allowed to share _anything_ that WotC hasn't already made public. Pointing out the formatting error on the table was one thing, because the info _was_ public, just not clear. But I can't say anything about what's in the book beyond what they've said.
> 
> Sorry.




No problem. In retrospect, I was asking a bit to much. Just wish I knew for certain if the Feats were the kind that you can only take once, or if they're the kind that you can take several times.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

neceros said:
			
		

> Again, multiclassing in previous editions was required or wanted because of design flaws. A fighter could not be as powerful as a wizard, so she trained as both to be both.
> 
> In fourth edition, you don't need to multiclass for your character concept, unless that character concept is literally dabbling in other classes or half/half.




A swashbuckler sounds very much like a half/half. Or third/third/third, if we want to add TWF to the mix.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, how would you go about creating this character in 4e, using the published rules? In 3.x, he'd clearly be Rogue 1/Paladin X. How would you mechanically describe him having more than one trained rogue skill in 4E, if you make him a Paladin 1 with Rogue training?




I'd either make him human and give him Skill Training as well as the Sneak of Shadows feat, or I'd simply give him a high Dex and assume that accounts for a lot of his thiefly abilities in his youth. I might take Skill Training later on down the road, and justify it as his old skills coming back to him.



> And yes, I highly dislike the wuxia-inspired powers. Hated the Bo9S, too.




I don't personally find most of the 4E martial powers to feel particularly wuxia; in fact, I was pleasantly surprised at how _little_ they felt (in terms of flavor, not mechanics) like some of the more out there Bo9S stuff. There are some exceptions at epic tier, but I think inhuman feats of skill are to be expected of 21+ level characters.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I want to play a swashbuckler.




Very easily done, staring with a rogue or ranger base, and choosing the right feats. I really don't think you have anything to worry about.


----------



## Fallen Seraph (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> A swashbuckler sounds very much like a half/half. Or third/third/third, if we want to add TWF to the mix.



Honestly hong, I will bet my 4e books there will be some kind of Paragon Path called Swashbuckler, which opens up TWF to multiple classes.

I also think there may be other multiclass-feats for each class, as such there may be another Ranger one that gives TWF. My basis for that being, each feat is individually named, so there may be more then one multiclass feat for each class, thus there needs to be name distinction.


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Honestly hong, I will bet my 4e books there will be some kind of Paragon Path called Swashbuckler, which opens up TWF to multiple classes.




While I actually prefer paragon tier at this point in time, I don't think this kind of thing should require you to be 11th level.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> Out of curiosity, how would you go about creating this character in 4e, using the published rules? In 3.x, he'd clearly be Rogue 1/Paladin X. How would you mechanically describe him having more than one trained rogue skill in 4E, if you make him a Paladin 1 with Rogue training?
> 
> And yes, I highly dislike the wuxia-inspired powers. Hated the Bo9S, too.





depends on whether or not you consider being a petty pick pocket and street rat worthy of maintaining into paladinhood... in 3.5 I'd say one level or a few cross class skill points.... in 4 looks like you either take the training feat... or leave it as background and not claim massive skill in the abilities(unpracticed skills fade quickly.)

The question really is... is it his background to make a fleshed out character, or is it his background to justify a powerful character?  (a die of sneak attack and lot's of skills means a lot)


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd either make him human and give him Skill Training as well as the Sneak of Shadows feat, or I'd simply give him a high Dex and assume that accounts for a lot of his thiefly abilities in his youth. I might take Skill Training later on down the road, and justify it as his old skills coming back to him.



In other words, it's not possible to create this character at 1st level unless (1) he is a human (2) you role-play him as if he had forgotten his skills during paladin training or (3) you describe him as a natural thief who didn't have to train much. Fair enough, not the answer I wanted to hear, and certainly a lot more limited than 3.x, but still somewhat doable. To be fair, it isn't very doable in 3.x at 1st level, either. But my linear mind sort of likes the progression of Rogue > Paladin. 

As for powers, their very concept ("everybody's got powers") screams wuxia to me. I may be mistaken in what my interpretation of wuxia is, though.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> I want to play a swashbuckler. Or a wuxia swordsperson. That is, someone who can take damage, but not as much as a dedicated tank; and can deal damage, but not as much as a dedicated ninja. This shouldn't be hard. Whether it actually is hard remains to be seen.





So... a fighter? but not in platemail. One breastplate wearing dex based fighter.. coming up....

Have I just been barking at the wind with this?


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> As for powers, their very concept ("everybody's got powers") screams wuxia to me. I may be mistaken in what my interpretation of wuxia is, though.




If people do not jump from tree to tree, it's not wuxia.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> The question really is... is it his background to make a fleshed out character, or is it his background to justify a powerful character?  (a die of sneak attack and lot's of skills means a lot)



In my case, it is ALWAYS the latter. And I don't think a Rogue/Paladin is a particularly powerful combo anyway. Bard/Paladin, on the other hand...


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> So... a fighter? but not in platemail. One breastplate wearing dex based fighter.. coming up....




Is this likely to be as useful as a stock plate-wearing fighter...?



> Have I just been barking at the wind with this?




Only you can answer that question.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Sammael said:
			
		

> To be fair, it isn't very doable in 3.x at 1st level, either. But my linear mind sort of likes the progression of Rogue > Paladin.




Well, as to the first part, true. It's actually more doable at 1st level in 4E than in 3E, unless one is using the... What were they called? The "apprentice rules?"

And beyond 1st level, you no longer have to be human to start getting into more feats. 

So ultimately, it's all a question of how you describe the character prior to him becoming an adventurer. And then it's entirely a question of mindset; there's no reason rogue-turned-paladin has to be modeled by "level of rogue + levels of paladin." That's purely a 3E artifact.



> As for powers, their very concept ("everybody's got powers") screams wuxia to me. I may be mistaken in what my interpretation of wuxia is, though.




Why is it wuxia to say "Hey, Bob Fighter knows these particular maneuvers, and fights with a spear, but Joe Fighter knows those other maneuvers, and fights with a sword?" That's essentially what exploits are, after all: martial maneuvers. They may be powers _mechanically_, but that's as much a metagame concept as levels, IMO.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> depends on whether or not you consider being a petty pick pocket and street rat worthy of maintaining into paladinhood... in 3.5 I'd say one level or a few cross class skill points.... in 4 looks like you either take the training feat... or leave it as background and not claim massive skill in the abilities(unpracticed skills fade quickly.)
> 
> The question really is... is it his background to make a fleshed out character, or is it his background to justify a powerful character?  (a die of sneak attack and lot's of skills means a lot)



It's a tempting combination, but it's also a reasonable background.

In third edition, Rogue1/PaladinX was the best approach, both for power and background reasons.
At 1st level, you were really weak. You still are the pick-pocket or street-rat aiming for more, and at 2nd level, you might have achieved that.

1st level in 4E is different. You don't start as the streat-rat or pick pocket aiming for more. You start as a Paladin with a shady past. So, you definitely would play him as a Paladin with Rogue multiclass feats. He doesn't get much of the Rogue abilities, but that's because he either didn't get far enough in his shady past, or because becoming a Paladin meant he abandoned or unlearned or forgot his old abilities.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Is this likely to be as useful as a stock plate-wearing fighter...?




no. but it's what you keep asking for... a reasonably armored damage dealer.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I'd either make him human and give him Skill Training as well as the Sneak of Shadows feat




Any particular reason you'd need the Skill Training Feat, though? Sneak of Shadows gives you the Thievery Skill and a Sneak Attack 1/Encounter. Wouldn't that be enough to account for a street rat type character? Or is Skill Training for a skill like Stealth?


----------



## hong (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> no. but it's what you keep asking for... a reasonably armored damage dealer.



 Of course, if I take out the requirement "be as useful as a stock character", then all kinds of wondrous possibilities are opened up. Such is the power of multiclassing.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Any particular reason you'd need the Skill Training Feat, though? Sneak of Shadows gives you the Thievery Skill and a Sneak Attack 1/Encounter. Wouldn't that be enough to account for a street rat type character? Or is Skill Training for a skill like Stealth?




Don't _need_ the feat, no. But if I wanted the character to be proficient in more than one Rogue skill that wasn't on the Paladin list, that's how I'd do it.


----------



## Green Knight (Apr 30, 2008)

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Don't _need_ the feat, no. But if I wanted the character to be proficient in more than one Rogue skill that wasn't on the Paladin list, that's how I'd do it.




Oh, ok, cool. I was just getting a bit worried there for a minute that you didn't actually get the skill from the multiclass feat.


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> In third edition, Rogue1/PaladinX was the best approach, both for power and background reasons.
> At 1st level, you were really weak. You still are the pick-pocket or street-rat aiming for more, and at 2nd level, you might have achieved that.
> 
> 1st level in 4E is different. You don't start as the streat-rat or pick pocket aiming for more. You start as a Paladin with a shady past. So, you definitely would play him as a Paladin with Rogue multiclass feats. He doesn't get much of the Rogue abilities, but that's because he either didn't get far enough in his shady past, or because becoming a Paladin meant he abandoned or unlearned or forgot his old abilities.




But why did he get so far as to get that first level in 3.x?  for the power, if it's actual background and not a path he continues down there is not a need for the class level in it. It's a matter of power.

Sure 4th ed has a little less leeway for the power base, but again... if it's a background element does it really need to have it's own mechanical influence over the character?


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

Incidentally, my solution to the background problem would be to introduce something similar to the d20 Modern Starting Occupations - you get some level of competence with a couple of skills and a single bonus feat.


----------



## Sammael (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> But why did he get so far as to get that first level in 3.x?  for the power, if it's actual background and not a path he continues down there is not a need for the class level in it. It's a matter of power.
> 
> Sure 4th ed has a little less leeway for the power base, but again... if it's a background element does it really need to have it's own mechanical influence over the character?



In my opinion, and as a preference in my (somewhat simulationist) games, background must be defined mechanically to be meaningful. If I say that my character is a great swimmer who can swim for miles without needing to rest, but I then don't put any ranks in Swim and assign a Con score of 8 without bothering to take the Endurance feat, then the background doesn't have any meaning. Stats, to me, must support role-playing assumptions.

This is another point where 4E designers and I obviously differ a lot.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Apr 30, 2008)

Pistonrager said:
			
		

> But why did he get so far as to get that first level in 3.x?  for the power, if it's actual background and not a path he continues down there is not a need for the class level in it. It's a matter of power.
> 
> Sure 4th ed has a little less leeway for the power base, but again... if it's a background element does it really need to have it's own mechanical influence over the character?



Simulationists needs, I suppose. I totally agree with them in this case. (Maybe it's only because I am a Powergamer hiding between "good roleplaying" and "simulation"?)

It's also possible that the hypothetical example gets actually played from 1st to nth level, and the evolution is "organic" due to in-game reasons. 
(In this case, the 4E approach either makes it hard to do this "organic", unless you're fine with mostly staying a Rogue instead of a "real" Paladin. )


----------



## Pistonrager (Apr 30, 2008)

hong said:
			
		

> Of course, if I take out the requirement "be as useful as a stock character", then all kinds of wondrous possibilities are opened up. Such is the power of multiclassing.




I'm not following you. you want a damage dealer(but not as much as a "real ninja") and you want tankability(but not as much as a plate wearing+sword and board fighter).  I give it to you... and you say it's not as useful? How? How is it not as useful? AC not as high? tough you asked for less armor. Damage not high enough? again you asked for less than the top. Maneuverability? lighter armor means you move faster. 


 The idea of being not as useful as a stock character is thrown against a wall and beaten with the dead horse that is 3.5's multiclassing rules the moment you want to be just as powerful as a straight class character with a combination of roles and powers.


----------



## Plane Sailing (Apr 30, 2008)

Thread closed. 

Please continue your discussion in the main thread here  http://www.enworld.org/showthread.php?t=225035

Pistonrager, don't do this again. Thanks. I pointed out early on in the thread that this kind of pre-emptive 'grabbing' a thread isn't wanted, and the thread has so much sillyness at the start (because of the pre-emptive grabbing attempt) that I can't just merge it into the actual discussion threads.

Regards


----------



## Mouseferatu (Apr 30, 2008)

Just seeing if I can sneak in before the lock with my Sneak of Shadows feat.


----------

