# Classes by primary stat



## Klaus (Oct 21, 2009)

Strength (6 classes) - Barbarian, Battle Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Warden, Warlord

Constitution (1 class) - Infernal, Vestige and some Star Warlocks

Dexterity (4 classes) - Assassin, Archery Ranger, Rogue, Monk

Intelligence (4 classes) - Artificer, Psion, Swordmage, Wizard

Wisdom (6 classes) - Avenger, Laser Cleric, Druid, Shaman, Seeker, Invoker

Charisma (4 classes) - Bard, Sorceror, Fey and some Star Warlocks, some Paladins

Con and Dex are falling behind. This limits the multiclass options of classes that use these stats.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 21, 2009)

monk is dex


----------



## Klaus (Oct 21, 2009)

Added, thanks!

Now, stats by power source (classes with more than one stat based on build count as .5 for each source):

Martial - Strength (x2.5), Dex (x1.5)

Divine - Strength (x1), Wisdom (x2.5), Charisma (x.5)

Arcane - Intelligence (x3), Charisma (x2.5), Constitution (x.5)

Primal - Strength (x2), Wisdom (x3)

Psionic - Intelligence, Dexterity

Shadow - Dexterity


----------



## mneme (Oct 21, 2009)

I'll note, as long as one is considering multiclassness, that Arcane classes usually lose a skill by multi-ing into arcane, and divine classes do the same by multiing into Divine.  This means that, for example, a Wis/Int avenger has very few combat-useful multiclass options; ignoring forced religion multis, there's Swordmage (mediocre; Arcane, +1 to AC ), Wizard (thunderwave ftw, but implement costs are too expensive, or Learned Spellcaster for ritual casting ++), bad Divine options (Divine Challenger, to get CDs that are worse than what you already have, Divine Healer to get a useless class feature to you, Soldier of Virtue (for Virtue's Touch 1/day) ), Invoker for a skill and Ritual Casting + free Hand of Fate 1/day, Artificer (quite good, actually; utility swaps are better than attack), Shaman (spirit (odd defender power) + "speak with spirits" skill boon), or Druid (beast form (only really useful for the minor action shift to get you out of trouble, though that turns off your attacks for a turn) and a single beast attack), and Noble Indoctrination (if you worship Bahamut).

Of these, the good ones are Wizard/attack (but it doesn't scale), Druid (but the attack doesn't scale), Shaman (maybe; good for skill challenges), Artificer (for the heal and maybe some deeper multiclassing with Int-based weapon powers or more likely, utilities) and Wiz/Invoker for Ritual Casting and free rituals/free hand of fate.  There are some -decent- options here--wiz and druid both give some interesting attack options (but maintaining an implement and getting the ability to draw it without a complete loss is problematic); shaman, wiz(ritual caster), and invoker have a lot of out of combat possilbities; Artificer gives a surge-free heal (but the root class's attacks aren't wis based, so will tend to be 2-3 points lower than your normal attacks).  But nothing even approaches Barbarian for strength multiclassing, or Rogue for Dex multiclassing.


----------



## Nichwee (Oct 22, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Strength (6 classes) - Barbarian, Battle Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Warden, Warlord




Shouldn't this include Two Weapon Ranger? And Beast Ranger as it seems to attack via your Str or the Beast's?


----------



## Klaus (Oct 22, 2009)

True for the 2-weapon Ranger. The Beastmaster ranger can go either way (Str or Dex).


----------



## Diirk (Oct 22, 2009)

Yeah rather than group ranger by build I'd simplify it as melee ranger (0.5 str) or ranged ranger (0.5 dex).

The divine source looks wrong... shouldn't it be 1x str (half paladin, half cleric) and 2.5x wisdom (avenger, invoker, half cleric), and what's the 1/2 dex from ?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2009)

Constitution needs more classes. I hope the Elemental Classes, if they ever come, will use it more liberally.  I think it's usually hard to make Constitution fit, but once you start channeling powerful energies through your body, it feels right. 

It might also be good to have a list of what ability scores are "secondary" for classes. Some multi-classing potential can be found there, too. 

If your multiclass has your secondary stat as primary stat, you can still benefit notably. An Artful Dodger Rogue can benefit from some Fey Pact powers, for example. Of course, this also has its disadvantages - you need to combine weapons and implements. It is better if you can use your weapon as implement or share the implement type.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 22, 2009)

Diirk said:


> Yeah rather than group ranger by build I'd simplify it as melee ranger (0.5 str) or ranged ranger (0.5 dex).
> 
> The divine source looks wrong... shouldn't it be 1x str (half paladin, half cleric) and 2.5x wisdom (avenger, invoker, half cleric), and what's the 1/2 dex from ?



1/2 dex from my mind.

I'll correct it.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 22, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Constitution needs more classes. I hope the Elemental Classes, if they ever come, will use it more liberally.  I think it's usually hard to make Constitution fit, but once you start channeling powerful energies through your body, it feels right.
> 
> It might also be good to have a list of what ability scores are "secondary" for classes. Some multi-classing potential can be found there, too.
> 
> If your multiclass has your secondary stat as primary stat, you can still benefit notably. An Artful Dodger Rogue can benefit from some Fey Pact powers, for example. Of course, this also has its disadvantages - you need to combine weapons and implements. It is better if you can use your weapon as implement or share the implement type.



Even so, attack powers using a secondary stat would be anywhere from 1 to 3 points below a primary, so it's usually a poor choice.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Even so, attack powers using a secondary stat would be anywhere from 1 to 3 points below a primary, so it's usually a poor choice.




1 point below is not a poor choice.

The poor choice is either multiclassing or hybriding in the first place. Yeah, someone can sometimes get a minor cool effect or ability and there are a few builds that actually work semi-ok, but both of these concepts just plain suck and are not well thought out.

Want to be a Fighter / Wizard? Guess what? You're in luck. We put out the Swordmage class just for you!!! Whatever. 


If WotC would have designed good multiclassing rules, they would only need 12 classes and they would have 156 (or even more with multiclassing into a third class) class options, all of them viable.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Oct 22, 2009)

Klaus said:


> Even so, attack powers using a secondary stat would be anywhere from 1 to 3 points below a primary, so it's usually a poor choice.



If you are willing to not always have a starting ability score of 18 (before racial modifiers), it is possible to afford two stats at 16. Add racial ability modifiers, and you have the same stat for both. 

[sblock]
The poor choice is either multiclassing or hybriding in the first place.
[/sblock]
Wrong. Any feat that gives you skill training and an extra can't be a bad choice. But some work better than others. I think any feat that also grants you one of the Leader healing powers isn't bad, for example. It's decent extra healing when you need it most. It probably gives you more hit points than Toughness. 

Some At-Will powers, even as encounter power only, are often situationally very useful, and situational typically means "not much more than once per encounter". 



> If WotC would have designed good multiclassing rules, they would only need 12 classes and they would have 156 (or even more with multiclassing into a third class) class options, all of them viable.



I do not think that is possible. Maybe if they removed stuff like ability modifiers for attacks? Of course, that would fix already all major drawbacks with the existing system.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> [sblock]
> The poor choice is either multiclassing or hybriding in the first place.
> [/sblock]
> Wrong. Any feat that gives you skill training and an extra can't be a bad choice.




Wrong.

You only say that since you bought into the idea that one skill = one feat is balanced and desirable. The fact is, few players actually take Skill Training as a feat (yes, I know, some do, we have one player in our group who has), but in order to buy into the fact that a skill plus a bennie for a feat is cool, one has to first buy into the assumption that a skill for a feat is ok.

I don't buy into that. As a general rule, roles take over most skills in a group, so there is no need to buy too many skills. We once had a group of 5 who covered every single skill as trained.


Eyebite once per encounter (one of the best ones). Cool.

But a single power once per encounter does not a Fighter/Warlock make. It makes a Fighter with a single power. whoop de fricking doo

That's not really multiclassing. Not even close.

It's giving a skill and a power to a Fighter. It has really nothing to do with Warlock abilities. Ditto for hybrids.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> 1 point below is not a poor choice.
> 
> The poor choice is either multiclassing or hybriding in the first place. Yeah, someone can sometimes get a minor cool effect or ability and there are a few builds that actually work semi-ok, but both of these concepts just plain suck and are not well thought out.




It just depends on what you want out of your character.  A character who has the flexibility to use class features and powers from another class do get some benefits.  The problem with multiclassing is that there will always be some combinations which are way better than others.  The ability to mix two classes together needs to be kept in check or single class characters will be extinct like in 3.5.



> Want to be a Fighter / Wizard? Guess what? You're in luck. We put out the Swordmage class just for you!!! Whatever.




When I first heard about this class, my first reaction was that multiclassing sucked so much that they had to make a totally new class that is a mix of two existing classes.  When the rules actually came out, I was happy that the fighter/wizard is very different than the swordmage.



> If WotC would have designed good multiclassing rules, they would only need 12 classes and they would have 156 (or even more with multiclassing into a third class) class options, all of them viable.




I think it is very difficult to ensure all multiclass and hybrid combinations are viable.  You can ensure each individual class is balanced with respect to every other class.  One you start mixing two (or more) classes together, it becomes it becomes very difficult to ensure that every possible build is not too powerful or too weak.  There will be some variance in power level.  There have been multiclassing in every edition since 1E and in every edition there is balance issues between single and multiclassed characters.  At least many of the multiclass or hybrid builds in 4E are viable.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Eyebite once per encounter (one of the best ones). Cool.
> 
> But a single power once per encounter does not a Fighter/Warlock make. It makes a Fighter with a single power. whoop de fricking doo
> 
> ...




The idea of 4E multiclassing is that you gradually gain abilities of your second class over time.  As you take more multiclass feats you become more of the class you multiclass into.  What you give up are feats.

Hybrids do give you abilities and powers of two classes, but you need to give up some class abilities and powers of each class.  Hybrids allow you to delve into two different classes more deeply right away, but you do not gain all class features of both classes right away and have to spend a feat to gain more class features.

Both of these systems allow you to gain features of two classes at a cost.  One is in feats, the other is in class features.  If you do not consider these to be "multiclassing", what do you expect to be able to gain when you multiclass and what will you be willing to give up in order to gain these abilities?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> Both of these systems allow you to gain features of two classes at a cost.  One is in feats, the other is in class features.  If you do not consider these to be "multiclassing", what do you expect to be able to gain when you multiclass and what will you be willing to give up in order to gain these abilities?




No, the first one typically allows one to gain powers and rarely (depending on class) a portion of a class feature. And it allows Paragon and Epic entry (sometimes).

The second one allows one to gain powers from both classes and possibly one or two class features total from the two classes. And it allows Paragon and Epic entry (sometimes).

I have no problem with paying for class features with feats or via some other method. But neither of these systems really give that (beyond once for hybrid).

They are so watered down that are not useable for their purpose: multiclassing. There is no second classing there. Multipowering, sure. They give that to some extent. Multiprerequisites, yeah sometimes.

Multiclassing, nope. The term is totally misrepresentative of what actually occurs.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Multipowering, sure. They give that to some extent. Multiprerequisites, yeah sometimes.
> 
> Multiclassing, nope. The term is totally misrepresentative of what actually occurs.




Not sure I like your definition of multiclassing or find it desirable you might have to define it better... 
If its just like 3.x from what I heard go up a level and bing I now know as much as somebody who had a whole apprenticeship and journeyman-hood and developed it  all in one swoop that makes utterly no sense to me never did.


----------



## Klaus (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> 1 point below is not a poor choice.
> 
> The poor choice is either multiclassing or hybriding in the first place. Yeah, someone can sometimes get a minor cool effect or ability and there are a few builds that actually work semi-ok, but both of these concepts just plain suck and are not well thought out.
> 
> ...



It's pretty safe for Str-bsed classes to multiclass into other Str-based classes. Barbarian gives +2 damage for an entire encounter, Warlord gives Inspiring Word, etc. And of course, the Bard can (must?) take COmbat Virtuoso and use Charisma for everything.

Now that I think about it, why can't there be something like that for other classes, like a rogue feat that allows him to use Dex instead of Str for multiclass attack powers.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> Not sure I like your definition of multiclassing or find it desirable you might have to define it better...
> If its just like 3.x from what I heard go up a level and bing I now know as much as somebody who had a whole apprenticeship and journeyman-hood and developed it  all in one swoop that makes utterly no sense to me never did.




I play the game to have fun.

I don't play it to emulate reality.

But, I also have totally ok with a gradual multiclassing aquisition idea of either:

1) Normal 4E multiclassing where PCs give up feats in order to obtain class features (note: some class features are stronger than a feat, so it might be a 2 to 1 swap in some cases or even some might be disallowed) and do not give up feats to gain powers in other classes, they just gradually swap in.

2) Hybrid 4E multiclassing where PCs can repeatedly use Hybrid Talent to acquire class features and they just gradually swap in.

The concept of giving up a feat in order to swap out one power and swap in another is totally silly. Gaining an additional power with a feat? Fine. Gaining a class feature with 1 or 2 feats (if 1 feat is not enough for some class features)? Fine. Or even limiting which hybrid class features can be acquired is fine.

The way it is designed today though, it's Class Dabbling in the case of multiclassing and it's Power Dabbling (and for many hybrids, being semi-crippled in the process) in the case of Hybrid.

Sorry, but I consider that totally lame.


Note: Hybrid is semi-ok as is if the DM allows Hybrid Talent to be taken multiple times. It still has the silly "must take a power from the other class" limitation, but meh.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> They are so watered down that are not useable for their purpose: multiclassing. There is no second classing there. Multipowering, sure. They give that to some extent. Multiprerequisites, yeah sometimes.
> 
> Multiclassing, nope. The term is totally misrepresentative of what actually occurs.




The term "multiclassing" and it's variants (hybrid, dual class) used over the many editions of D&D have changed.  If you are attempting to apply the term "multiclassing" in one edition to mean the same thing in another edition, you will find that the term means different things across editions.

I would like to know what your definition of multiclassing is and what should it cost?  For a fighter to be considered multiclassed into a cleric, what cleric features should the character get and what should be the cost to get these features?

The hybrid playtest rules actually talked about the capabilities of hybrid characters.  They clearly state that a hybrid character can partially or temporarily fill the role of a single classed character.  At least this lays out the expectation of what a hybrid character can do.

The wording in the PH1 in the multiclass section just says that multiclassing allow you to dabble or dip into another class.  There is no addition wording that gives a sense of how well can you fulfill the role of the class you multiclass into.  I think this may lead to many players expecting multiclassing in 4E to do more or something completely different than what it currently does.  In any case, the 4E definition of multiclassing means dabbling or dipping into another class.  It would seem it ammounts to only a very small set of abilities.  Whether or not this should be called, "multiclassing" is probably the issue some people have.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 22, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The concept of giving up a feat in order to swap out one power and swap in another is totally silly. Gaining an additional power with a feat? Fine. Gaining a class feature with 1 or 2 feats (if 1 feat is not enough for some class features)? Fine. Or even limiting which hybrid class features can be acquired is fine.




The way the power progression in 4E works, you have a cap of how many powers of each kind you can have.  As you gain enounter or daily power, you end up having to swap out lower level powers.  I think part of the reason is that low level powers become trivial at higher levels.  Another reason is perhaps to limit the number of powers you need to keep track of.  At least this seems to be how the power progression is set up.

The power swap feats (multiclassing or otherwise) are designed to fit within this framework.  You do not gain an additional encounter power with the Novice Power feat.  You do not gain an additional power with a familiar or skill power feat.  Instead, you swap.

I quite understand the feeling that this seems lame.  It definitely feels like you're not gaining anything.  It's like paying some money in a restauraunt just so you can look at a second menu and then having to still pay full price for what you selected off that second menu.  Even if what you order off that second menu goes really, really well with something else you ordered off the first menu, it does feel like you got short changed.



> The way it is designed today though, it's Class Dabbling in the case of multiclassing and it's Power Dabbling (and for many hybrids, being semi-crippled in the process) in the case of Hybrid.
> 
> Sorry, but I consider that totally lame.




I'm not sure what it is that you are really looking for in a system that combines two classes together.  4E multiclassing is dabbling in another class.

If you want to be able to get more from a second class, hybrids appear to be the option.  You gain more features and can more freely mix powers from two different classes.  I don't see them as being really semi-crippled.  They have the most important class feature(s) from both classes to be able to function as both classes well enough.  The missing class features hybrids do not get are not such a great limitation considering you have so much flexibility to function as 2 classes.



> Note: Hybrid is semi-ok as is if the DM allows Hybrid Talent to be taken multiple times.




I think that single classed characters should retain some advantages over multiclass or hybrid characters.  If you want all and full class features as a single classed charcter, then you should be a single classed character and not a hybrid.  With whatever system there exists for combining two classes together, there should still be something significant that is only available to single classed characters.



> It still has the silly "must take a power from the other class" limitation, but meh.




Well, I don't see an issue with tying class features and powers together.  If you are going to be a hybrid paladin, you should have paladin powers and should play like a paladin at least part of the time.

I do see some situations where this feels very limiting.  If you want to take any power swap feats, you must have a third power of that kind before you can swap powers.  This issue comes up with skill utility powers.  You cannot actually use a power swap feat to swap a utility power with a skill power until you reach level 10.  The reason is that you need at least one power from each of your hybrid classes.

When I look at the hybrid system, it looks pretty good to me.  They get some nice benefits and flexibility in using powers and abilities from two different classes.  They do have some disadvantages that single classed characters do not have and some seem rather unusual.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 22, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> I think this may lead to many players expecting multiclassing in 4E to do more or something completely different than what it currently does.  In any case, the 4E definition of multiclassing means dabbling or dipping into another class.  It would seem it ammounts to only a very small set of abilities.  Whether or not this should be called, "multiclassing" is probably the issue some people have.




My issue is with the entire concept.

What is multiclassing to most people in 4E? It's a way to get a single skill and a single other ability and possibly to meet a prerequisite for a feat, or a Paragon and/or Epic class.

Period. End of story.

It's totally game mechanics.

Very few people using Multiclassing to acquire powers from another class. Nobody uses it to acquire so much as a single class feature from another class.

It's not even dabbling. It doesn't rate that strong of a term.


The entire idea of multiclassing from a game perspective in RPGs has historically been is the ability to acquire abililties from two or more classes. Even changing the word to dualclassing is not sufficient because it does not do that.

Multiclassing in 4E does not do that. Neither does Hybrid.

Both allow the PC to have powers from two classes (at an extreme cost), but neither of them allows a PC to actually have multiple class features from two classes.

One cannot pick two Fighter skills and two Wizard skills with multiclassing unless there is already overlap.

How is this comprehensible as MULTI - CLASSED if one cannot even get two skills from each of the classes?


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 22, 2009)

Klaus said:


> And of course, the Bard can (must?) take COmbat Virtuoso and use Charisma for everything.
> 
> Now that I think about it, why can't there be something like that for other classes, like a rogue feat that allows him to use Dex instead of Str for multiclass attack powers.




Unlike other classes, a Bard can take multiclass feats from more than one class.  It is quite possible that without Combat Virtuoso, a bard would end up having powers with 3 or more different attack stats via the class specific feats and power swap feats.  If a bard only multiclasses into one other class, then Combat Virtuoso is not a must take.  If a bard multiclasses into 2 or more other classes and amongst all classes more than 2 different attack stats are use, then it becomes difficult to be effective unless you take Combat Virtuoso.

Other classes can only multiclass into one other class, so maintaining two attack stats is achievable within reason.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> I think that single classed characters should retain some advantages over multiclass or hybrid characters.  If you want all and full class features as a single classed charcter, then you should be a single classed character and not a hybrid.  With whatever system there exists for combining two classes together, there should still be something significant that is only available to single classed characters.




Even with allowing Hybrid Talent multiple times, single class characters have abilities that the hybrid does not.

As a simple example, Rogue vs. Rogue/Barbarian (where the R/B can take Hybrid Talent multiple times):

Rogue:

First Strike, Rogue Tactics, Rogue Weapon Talent, Sneak Attack


Rogue/Barbarian:

Sneak Attack (limited), Rampage


Wait, one has 4 class features to the other's 2 (and one of those 2 is limited).

What if the Rogue/Barbarian takes Hybrid Talent 5 times.

Now, it's 4 class features vs. 7 class features. It sound huge. But wait, the R/B gave up 5 feats in order to accomplish this.


And what does the R/B have that the Rogue does not (in this example)?

1) An ok once per encounter ability (Feral Might).
2) Rampage which is a free basic attack typically less than once per encounter.
3) A slight bonus to light AC.
4) Hide Armor.
5) Slightly better hit points (1 per two levels, fairly weak).


What does the Rogue have that the R/B does not?

1) A feat.
2) A feat.
3) A feat.
4) A feat.
5) A feat.
6) A version of Sneak Attack that can be used with every attack power.


I think single class characters do quite fine against hybrids, even if you house ruled that Hybrid Talent can be taken multiple time. But with Hybrid Talent only allowed once, the hybrid PC is totally screwed over. Woo Hoo. 3 class features and one of them is restricted and it cost a feat versus 4 class features and not having to use a feat.


Sorry, but just because WotC put something into print does not make it worthwhile.

When it comes to multiclassing/hybrid future player desires, it's not about powergaming and min/maxing. It's about having a PC that has options from two (or more) classes without being raked over the coals to achieve this.

This is what multiclassing should represent (not the lamo thing WotC sold everyone on). A PC that has options from two (or more) classes without being raked over the coals to achieve this. It's ok for a multiclass PC to have a few less options to counter the versatility, but that's not what we have yet.

I totally understand the restrictions that Hybrid put on and it's pretty ok if one allows Hybrid Talent multiple times.

But, Multiclassing is totally lame with regard to having a PC with abilities from two classes.

Maybe WotC will try to address this with new Bard-like classes for the other power sources in the future. Maybe not.

But I consider Bards and Hybrids to be WotC's attempt at fixing the totally lame Multiclassing system. I think that they are fair first attempts, but still not right.


And I consider Multiclassing to be so lame because it was WotC's first attempt in a game system that was being rushed out the door. Well designed multiclassing is more complex than many other game elements. A real significant balance has to be achieved. I just think that 4E rushed out the door without it, just like Battlerage Vigor rushed out the door without taking minions into account. IMO.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> My issue is with the entire concept.
> 
> What is multiclassing to most people in 4E? It's a way to get a single skill and a single other ability and possibly to meet a prerequisite for a feat, or a Paragon and/or Epic class.
> 
> ...




I think I understand where you are coming from.  You feel that players are picking a multiclass feat because of the mechanics not because they actually want to partially be that class.  Someone who perhaps decides to want the Arcana skill takes Arcane Initiate.  Is this correct?

I don't know how you can really blame the system.  If someone choses character options for mechanical (and not role playing) purposes only, that person would do that not matter what system is used.  This happens whether it's 4E or D&D or some other game.

If I want to play a fighter/wizard, I feel the system allows me to do so.  For instance, I can take the Arcane Initiate feat and choose an at-will which I use once per encounter.  Later I can take additional multiclass feats to swap powers or gain more class features.

If I'm a fighter and simply wanted to have more area effects so I can mark multiple enemies with Combat Challenge, I can do the same thing and pick Scorching Burst to use as an encounter power.  Later, I can swap more AoE powers with power swap feats.

Both characters may end up being very similar for very different reasons.



> The entire idea of multiclassing from a game perspective in RPGs has historically been is the ability to acquire abililties from two or more classes. Even changing the word to dualclassing is not sufficient because it does not do that.
> 
> Multiclassing in 4E does not do that. Neither does Hybrid.
> 
> ...




I'm not sure I understand your issue here.  What is so special about the number 2 that you have to have two class features and two skills from your two classes before you are considered multiclassed?  If you look at the class features of each class, there is a bare minimum that you need to at least function adequately as that class.  Other class features over and above this are not critical for you to function.  Also, not all class features are equal.  Some class features do more for a class than others.  Gaining both the ability to weild a one-handed weapon in your off-hand and prime shot does not really make you functionally a ranger.  Getting Hunter's Quarry alone does.

If you really need to take a 4th skill before you really feel like you multiclassed, you can always just use a feat.  I know you do not feel that a skill is worth a feat, but at least the option is there.

Regarding the price of being able to function as two classes, there needs to be a price.  Also, any character needs to fit within some parameters so that the character is functional, but not overpowered.  A fighter has to be able to do the things a fighter is designed to do.  A wizard has to be able to do the thing (different things) that a wizard is designed to do.  What should a fighter/wizard mix be able to do?  If a fighter/wizard can do both a fighter's job as well as a fighter and a wizard's job as well as a wizard then there is a problem.  There should be something a fighter should be able to do that a fighter/wizard mix cannot do.  There should be something that a wizard can do that a fighter/wizard cannot.

I'm not sure what the threshold is before you can call yourself a fighter or wizard if you are a mixed class.  That is likely very subjective.  You seem to feel that the threshold is higher than what is possible at what you feel is a reasonable cost.

Multiclassing and hybrids already has an inherent disadvantage in that you may need two different primary stats.  Add to that the cost of feats and it would appear that many but the most optimised mixed characters are weaker than a single classed character.  The value of flexibility is also difficult to measure.  I've seen two instances of hybrid characters and one mix simply works way better than the other.

My speculation is that the cost is set so high to ensure the best mix class combos is not unbalanced.  The power level of multiclassed and hybrids can vary greatly.  It seems to me that they decided to err on the side of making multiclassing and hybrid weaker rather then stronger.


----------



## Flipguarder (Oct 23, 2009)

Karinsdad, from what I can tell, you want players that mc to be VASTLY superior to players that don't. Can you describe what you WOULD want, if not that?


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

Flipguarder said:


> Karinsdad, from what I can tell, you want players that mc to be VASTLY superior to players that don't. Can you describe what you WOULD want, if not that?




I want versatility with a PC.

I don't want vastly superior multiclass PCs.

As an example, I wouldn't probably bitch about the multiclass rules too much if the original rules had been the current hybrid rules combined with allowing the Hybrid Talent feat to be taken multiple times. In fact, I probably would have liked that to be the rules.

In that case, single class PCs have the strength of the niche and more feats, hybrid PCs have the versatility.

Even as is, there are many aspects of Hybrid PCs that are fairly lame, even if someone were to allow Hybrid Talent multiple times.

But something like that was what I was looking for with 4E Multiclassing: Dualclassing. I want to play a Cleric/Ranger. Ok, do so.

With the rules as is (without houseruling), that's not possible or even close. But, that is what I would like to see. And in my own game, I can houserule Hybrids real easy. So, no harm no foul.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> I play the game to have fun.
> 
> I don't play it to emulate reality.



I suppose it was fun to have multi-classing that broke the game.... because being able to sample a class easily and get core abilities to a class was underestimated to the point that it was abuseable and I think 4e's mc and hybrid break my verisimilitude less it deserves the props for it.

Power swapping for a feat is almost always quite lame and I agree with you on that element.... the times when it isnt lame is probably because somebody has figured out a nice synergy they want to exploit



KarinsDad said:


> But, I also have totally ok with a gradual multiclassing aquisition idea of either:
> 
> Note: Hybrid is semi-ok as is if the DM allows Hybrid Talent to be taken multiple times. It still has the silly "must take a power from the other class" limitation, but meh.




I think Hybrids are great.... not semi-ok,

Official rules being cautious allowing 2 class features the latter enabled via pp it, means I as a DM can house rule easy enough to allow more class features... and the players can say wow look the dm is nice. 
If they went the other way and went with making you just as capable in both classes as a single class character is in one?... somehow nobody would end up single classed... versatility is a form power and pretending it isnt seems disingenuous and an accident waiting to happen.

I tend to have even hybrid characters take a mc feat yup for the skill and touch stone power.... and the flavor.

Gandalf The Grey - Deva, Avenger|Invoker, Flame of Hope , with MC Learned Spell Caster.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> And in my own game, I can houserule Hybrids real easy. So, no harm no foul.




And in the long run I would say you and I mostly agree 

I just dont resent the earlier rules for multiclassing being inadequate or the current hybrid ones for being a bit cautious


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

Garthanos said:


> I just dont resent the earlier rules for multiclassing being inadequate




I do remember when the 4E PHB first came out, a lot of people said WT??? when they looked at multiclassing. Our group even wanted house rules for it (one of the few house rules initiated by the players, not the DM).

And who takes Paragon Multiclassing? Virtually nobody, yet that was the first stab at having things such as At Wills from two classes.

But, I think as the year+ has gone by since the release of 4E, people have started to get really used to the concept of multiclassing as a way to get a skill and set up a Paragon class and it just became the status quo of just another way to get some cool synergy, not to have a dual class PC.


----------



## Stalker0 (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> As an example, I wouldn't probably bitch about the multiclass rules too much if the original rules had been the current hybrid rules combined with allowing the Hybrid Talent feat to be taken multiple times.




I'm a big fan of the hybrid rules as a way to get a bit of the old school multiclass flavor. But allowing the hybrid talent feat multiple times is too good imo. I've run enough builds with the thought of using that feats, and there are plenty of combos you can make that are strictly superior to straight classes.

I don't have a problem with 4e multiclass feats...except the name. I agree its not multiclassing, its class dabbling. Hybrid feels closest to me, sure the class abilities you get are limited but at least they are always useful. That's better than the result of some 3e multiclasses where you woudl get abilities so watered down you might as well not have done it at all.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

Stalker0 said:


> I'm a big fan of the hybrid rules as a way to get a bit of the old school multiclass flavor. But allowing the hybrid talent feat multiple times is too good imo. I've run enough builds with the thought of using that feats, and there are plenty of combos you can make that are strictly superior to straight classes.




Such as?


----------



## eamon (Oct 23, 2009)

Part of the issue is that versatility in much less powerful in 4e than in 3e.  In 3e, many monsters were completely immune to whole swaths of attacks, or might be terribly difficult to defeat by some means but easy by another.  Using the right tool for the job was very important.  Some non-combat encounters were dominated by magical effects that you either had or didn't have (say, water breathing or what-not).  Because raw power often didn't matter nearly as much as just having the right tool, sacrificing focus was often a good choice.  That, combined with prestige classes and multiclassing rules that commonly made it possible to retain the core of your class (at most giving up some small amount of power) while gaining new, different options, meant that good characters commonly were multiclassed or prestige-classed.

In 4e, a small to-hit bonus actually _matters_.  Resistances and Vulnerabilities are rarely absolute; in fact, if you can deal just a bit more damage than your neighbor, even if you're attacking something that's resisted, you may well end up doing better.  Raw power is very important, and flexibility (though still valuable) less so.  Out of combat most classes get only few relevant features in the first place, and rituals (which can be expensive) are one of the few remaining options.

So when in 4e a hybrid rogue gives up sneak attack partially, this loss of power really matters.  When a hybrid paladin loses much of his marks power, and need to use more actions to boot, this really matters.  Having a high-attack stat matters, but for hybrids this is usually hard to achieve, since it's unlikely the stats actually line up perfectly.  When a hybrid loses armor proficiencies, it matters.

For all these reasons, a hybrid loses out on the power scale.  It's possible to make hybrids that work, but it's hard.  The only characters that have a chance of competing will need to have just 2 relevant stats, or need to have just one attack stat and 2 secondary stats that _don't_ need to be very high (i.e. neither may be the AC stat for a light armor character, for starters).

Many hybrid features limit their usability such that they can only be used partially, in conjunction with that classes powers.  But that means that at any given moment, a hybrid character tends to benefit from far fewer abilities than a single-class character (since hybrids also tend to be missing various extra's).

Even losing just +1 to +2 attack and damage versus a single-classed character is going to be hard to compensate for a hybrid character, and those areas where features might synergize tend to be carefully compartmentalized by the rules.  The only real win tends to be the greater power selection pool; and that's worth something, but I doubt that it's worth even +1 to attack and damage for most characters, and it's almost certainly not going to be worth all the various smaller supporting features you lose, the armor proficiencies, and the poorer stat distribution most hybrids will face.

So, _if_ you can find a hybrid combo with a decent stat distribution, where the "extra" features aren't all that important (say a wizard) and where the armor proficiencies and weapon/implement usage isn't too problematic (i.e. where you're basically giving up very little compared to a single classed character) _then_ you can make a fine hybrid - perhaps even an overpowered one if you manage to find some feature combo.

But it's unlikely - it's much more likely you'll end up with a much weaker character with fewer features that work only more situationally, with a broader selection of powers to choose from.

The problem is, most classes already have a very nice power selection, and the extra options tend to be pointless unless they're broken - so now we either have weak hybrids, or abusive overpowered hybrids, but not much in between.

I don't think it's a huge problem; it's not quite as bad as paragon multiclassing, but I do expect only very few hybrids to be made.


----------



## keterys (Oct 23, 2009)

Looking at a few characters I'm actively playing, I have a fighter, warlord, barbarian, invoker, and artificer.

They're _all_ multiclassed. 

The fighter's dip into religion has always been prominent in his play and I multi-ed at 1st level, and I have a base multiclass and a utility and an encounter power. Both utility and encounter powers make me stronger than if I didn't have them, or if I took another feat. 

The warlord was multiclassed paladin from 1st level, because I wanted the ability to divine challenge. I do keep considering picking up another feat, but really just the ability to divine challenge once an encounter has gotten a DM acting like I was a paladin as well, so good enough for me.

The barbarian started at 4th level and has been part fighter since then. I've had Come And Get It since I was 7th level, took a fighter paragon path at 11th, often act as a secondary tank through dint of temporary hp and DR.

The deva invoker I always wanted a lantern archon pet to hang around with me, so I did that via multiclassing. It did also help me fill out my skill list of what I felt I required. I'll probably swap out for a utility power at some point, but I'm low enough level that hasn't come up.

The artificer just wanted a skill and I wasn't too concerned how he got it, so he MC-ed to get a skill and hey, that ability is badass, won't say no. I might, mind you, some day take a utility, but not because it's really that meaningful to the character.

It's just that it's very, very often the case that swapping one of your less desirable powers for a more desirable one from another class is worth a feat.


----------



## Kodus (Oct 23, 2009)

I like multiclassing as well. There are certainly negatives to doing it but I also tend to be a feat whore human or a half-elf as well.

Obviously STR based heroes make good candidates and of course there's the Sorcerer daggermaster (which is a good example of poor consistency thematically but actually works well in a game mechanics sense).

If you want flexibility you have to be a bard. Yes, it's a major restriction and I think it's well done - it's completely intended by the publishers to be a benefit of getting "stuck" with the skill monkey class.

I have a fun half-elf bardbarian/warlord. He's fun to play and the party certainly likes to have him around.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> And I consider Multiclassing to be so lame because it was WotC's first attempt in a game system that was being rushed out the door. Well designed multiclassing is more complex than many other game elements. A real significant balance has to be achieved. I just think that 4E rushed out the door without it, just like Battlerage Vigor rushed out the door without taking minions into account. IMO.




I definitely think that multiclassing can be improved. I have heard that multiclassing went through many different options during development. It appeared that the one that went to print was the one that probably is the least likely to be broken. I heard that one option allowed players more flexibility by cherry picking features from two different classes. It sounded a lot like hybrid characters.

The multiclass feats in Primal Power was quite interesting in that they require the first MC feat as a prerequisite. Also, there are no MC feats at the paragon tier. I find this to be an interesting change. It has caused me to at least speculate that there may be some changes to how multiclassing works when the PH3 is released. Perhaps it's just wishful thinking. Although multiclassing isn't broken, the many complaints about it since the very beginning have been fairly consistent.

I do understand why so many people are unimpressed with multiclassing. Hybrids have had a much better reception. I guess personally for me, it just works for the characters I want to play. It's not like I have though of some awesomely broken combo or anything. It just feels like it fits my character. Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones.  My character happens to be an eladrin fighter/wizard.  I plan to primarily use close blast attack powers and I do plan to choose the paragon multiclassing when I reach level 11.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 23, 2009)

Stuntman said:


> Maybe I'm just one of the lucky ones.  My character happens to be an eladrin fighter/wizard.  I plan to primarily use close blast attack powers and I do plan to choose the paragon multiclassing when I reach level 11.




I put together an Eladrin Wizard that wanted to melee fight a bit. I took Multiclassing Shaman, effectively to get a blocker, and then took Melee Training Int to allow my PC to fight with a weapon. The multiclassing had really nothing to do with becoming a better Defender since that option really wasn't available.

It sort of, kind of, got me where I wanted to be, but the Multiclassing rules were not there to get me Fighter/Wizard (i.e. Defender role plus Controller role). That's what I would have taken if there were good Fighter/Wizard multiclass rules (hybrid not allowed in this campaign). I didn't feel comfortable creating my similar PC to how you created yours, maybe since you started with Fighter (presumably) whereas I started with Wizard.

It does seem like there are quite a few feats like Melee Training showing up, just to shore up the multiclassing rules. And Bard and Hybrid has come out to help out as well, but I still think it's not quite there yet.


----------



## Stuntman (Oct 23, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It sort of, kind of, got me where I wanted to be, but the Multiclassing rules were not there to get me Fighter/Wizard (i.e. Defender role plus Controller role). That's what I would have taken if there were good Fighter/Wizard multiclass rules (hybrid not allowed in this campaign). I didn't feel comfortable creating my similar PC to how you created yours, maybe since you started with Fighter (presumably) whereas I started with Wizard.




Yeah.  I started as a fighter and then took the multiclassed wizard feat that gave me Thunderwave as an encounter power.  I'm still at low levels, but plan to take more close blast or close burst powers.  Mechanically, I find that a fighter/wizard works much better than a wizard/fighter.  Adding wizard abilities to a full fledged fighter is easier as long as you try to use close attack powers since you are in melee most of the time.

I cannot see it working the other way around.  Some combos just doesn't seem to be viable.  If you are a wizard, you are most likely the character who needs to be protected.  If you add a bit of fighter, you're basically making the enemy hit you even more than they want to in the first place.

I think its the nature of trying to combine two different classes together that causes the end result to vary greatly depending on the combo.  With multiclassing, the order is important as well.  I don't know if it would be possible to ensure that there are no weak combos and no broken combos when designing a system to combine two classes together in a class-based system.



> It does seem like there are quite a few feats like Melee Training showing up, just to shore up the multiclassing rules. And Bard and Hybrid has come out to help out as well, but I still think it's not quite there yet.




I think that they can improve upon both multiclassing and hybrids.  So far, the two hybrid characters I have seen seem to fair pretty well compared to single classed characters.  I'm fairly happy with hybrids from what I have seen and from what I have heard.  Multiclassing can use more of an improvement.

I'm not too excited about Melee Training as it only applies to basic attacks.  Many melee class powers that do not count as basic attacks will not benefit from this feat.

The bard I find is rather limiting.  If I want to multiclass as two different classes, I do not want to have to be a bard first and then take two multiclass feats.  Combat Virtuoso is really needed for a bard because he may end up multiclassing to more than one other class and thus without the feat would need more than two attack stats.


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 24, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It does seem like there are quite a few feats like Melee Training showing up, just to shore up the multiclassing rules.



?
I'm not seeing how Melee Training has anything to do with multiclassing, since what it affects are your Melee Basic Attacks, and not your multi-class powers.  It's more about defeating the cognitive dissonance that arises when you have a melee-focused hit-monkey like a rogue or avenger suddenly unable to hit the broadside of an enemy who has turned their back and walked away, or when the party warlord has provided a nice opening.

-Dan'L


----------



## WalterKovacs (Oct 24, 2009)

The multiclass rules are a bit weak ... it would probably be a bit better if you didn't need 4 power swap feats to qualify for paragon multiclassing, and then getting the paragon multiclass at the cost of any other paragon multiclass (getting an at-will swap at the cost of an action point ability or relevant 16th level effect). They _tried_ to give class features as feats you get when you paragon multiclass, but that is a _huge_ prerequisite.

BUT ... they seem to have changed their mind with Primal Power. Instead of the 'alternate path into the class (which at least addressed the problem of forced duplication of skills)' or 'paragon multiclass' feats, they have "gain a class feature, or something like it" as a feat that requires the multiclass feat to qualify. More of those would be nice ... and the X Power 2 books are just the place to put them. They can address the multiclass "problem" in terms of not being good at giving class features using future feats (although the paragon mutliclass thing and power swap feats should be fixed somehow ... maybe reducing it to 1 or 2 feats instead of 3, and improving how the paragon multiclassing actually works ... maybe giving class features at 11 and 16 to make it more like a REAL paragon path?)

As for Hybrid Classes ... what class features do people really want? Many classes have relatively minor class features (I doubt many would spend a feat to get prime shot or rogue weapon talent), leaving two "big" options: Armor related class feature (Avenger's Armor of Faith, Paladin's proficiency up to Plate, Sorceror using STR in place of INT or DEX in light armor) and the class features that are related to power choices (build types). Not being allowed to have say ... an Avenger/Swordmage hybrid that can easily get both armor of faith and warding working ... or forcing the sorceror/rogue to choose between benefitting from wild mage powers or artful dodger powers ... that seems like prventing a class frombeing _better_ than either half. And they can still get those two options at paragon tier. Based on where the original hybrid was compared to this one ... they aimed below the balance "bar" to avoid going over powered. The second itteration got better, and there is a chance for more power before the book itself drops. To paraphrase a sentiment above ... it's better to give the DM the option to up the power level, than for the DM to have to reduce the power level. The DM would rather be giving the player something extra than to have to take something away.


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 24, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> I'm not seeing how Melee Training has anything to do with multiclassing, since what it affects are your Melee Basic Attacks, and not your multi-class powers.  It's more about defeating the cognitive dissonance that arises when you have a melee-focused hit-monkey like a rogue or avenger suddenly unable to hit the broadside of an enemy who has turned their back and walked away, or when the party warlord has provided a nice opening.




For a Eladrin Wizard, it allows him to melee fight reasonably with a longsword.

No, it doesn't give him the fancy extra bonus ability that most melee attacks have, but it allows him to melee. The feat allows any PC to melee, hence, it is a multiclass-like feat.

When a foe gets past the front line, I wanted this PCs to be able to melee with that foe in the back lines. I wanted him to Defend when doing this as well, but I could not find a good way to do that yet.

It doesn't matter if the Wizard role is to control. When a foe is in this PC's face, he's going to melee him. That's multiclassing. A Wizard fighting with a sword like a Fighter.

No, that's not 4E game mechanics multiclassing. It's 4e game roleplaying multiclassing. The Wizard acting like a Fighter. Hence the reason I said that this feat shores up the multiclassing rules. It by itself is not "a multiclassing rule", it allows the PC to do a multiclassing-like activity.

I wouldn't doubt that other multiclassing-like feats might not be added to the game in the future. If you think about it, even something as simple as Armor Proficiency Leather is a multiclassing-like feat. It allows a Wizard to armor up without penalty, something only other classes are allowed to do.

Any feat that allows a given PC to do something that only other classes are allowed to do is a multiclassing-like feat.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 24, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> The Wizard acting like a Fighter. Hence the reason I said that this feat shores up the multiclassing rules. It by itself is not "a multiclassing rule", it allows the PC to do a multiclassing-like activity.
> 
> I wouldn't doubt that other multiclassing-like feats might not be added to the game in the future. If you think about it, even something as simple as Armor Proficiency Leather is a multiclassing-like feat. It allows a Wizard to armor up without penalty, something only other classes are allowed to do.
> 
> Any feat that allows a given PC to do something that only other classes are allowed to do is a multiclassing-like feat.




Yup and I think of the Skill Powers in the same category... sort of once removed... if you have already spent a feat to have athletics or used a background to do so then you can do some utility power things which are not all like a wizard.


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 24, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> For a Eladrin Wizard, it allows him to melee fight reasonably with a longsword.
> 
> No, it doesn't give him the fancy extra bonus ability that most melee attacks have, but it allows him to melee. The feat allows any PC to melee, hence, it is a multiclass-like feat.
> 
> ...




No, that's not multiclassing.  That's the Eladrin wizard doing something he could already do, but do it better.  It's not hugely different (in concept, not math) than taking a weapon expertise feat.  Really, it's no different than most other feats -- i.e. taking something you can already do and enable you to do it better.  It's certainly not more flexibility of options, which is what you seem to be requiring from multiclassing.

Simply swinging a sword to make an MBA does not a fighter nor a defender make.

-Dan'L


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 24, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> No, that's not multiclassing.  That's the Eladrin wizard doing something he could already do, but do it better.




Can Wizards *effectively* melee?

Nope.

That feat allows them to do so.

I explained what I meant by the phrase shoring up multiclassing.


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> Can Wizards *effectively* melee?
> 
> Nope.
> 
> ...




Yes, but just because you explained what you meant doesn't make it meaningful or useful.  Let's review; you said:



> No, it doesn't give him the fancy extra bonus ability that most melee attacks have, but it allows him to melee. The feat allows any PC to melee, hence, it is a multiclass-like feat.




Since EVERY class can already melee with an MBA, and the feat in question only increases accuracy with MBAs, it does not add anything to that class' performance that could truly be considered multi-classing.

I think part of the problem here is that you've yet to condense a useful, usable definition for what you feel multi-classing should encompass.  So, let me give it a stab:

Multi-classing is picking up definitive traits from a class other than your base class.

Since the ability to make a melee basic attack or a ranged basic attack, effectively or otherwise, is by no fair means definitive of any class.  Would you consider a Figher taking Skill Training in Thievery to be a feat that is "shoring up multiclassing" since it lets them be more effective at it, like a Rogue?  Or similarly ST in Religion because it makes them more Cleric-y?  

At some point, you've got to realize that some feat choices for increased effectiveness are just that, and not something that was made as a crutch for what you view as a weak system for multi-classing.  Just because you found that the pickled beets made for an unsatisfying meal doesn't mean that the chocolate mousse was crafted to make up for it.

-Dan'L


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 25, 2009)

Saying every class can melee because they have an MBA is like saying every person can cook because they have a stove.

Meanwhile the wizard's only going to burn water without Melee Training.


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Saying every class can melee because they have an MBA is like saying every person can cook because they have a stove.
> 
> Meanwhile the wizard's only going to burn water without Melee Training.



Sure, but does that make Melee training a feat designed to "shore up multiclassing?"

-Dan'L


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Sure, but does that make Melee training a feat designed to "shore up multiclassing?"




Yup.

It allows the Wizard to cook eggs, just like the Fighter.

Egg cooking was a province of melee PCs.

Now, Wizards can cook eggs as well, they just have a tough time with omelets. 

Before, the Wizards burnt the eggs almost every time.


It shores up the sharing of the melee class feature of egg cooking with all PCs. No doubt about it.

Something one set of classes could really only do reasonably well is now available to every class.


Just like Ritual Casting now allows Fighters to cast spells. Just not as well as spell casters.

It's limited, but it is still class ability sharing and hence, it shores up the normal multiclassing rules with yet another way to partially do this type of thing.


----------



## DracoSuave (Oct 25, 2009)

Right, and it's a very apt comparison... as any character can use scrolls for rituals, but only a Ritual Caster can master them.

But you'd hardly call someone without a ritual casting feat of one type or another a ritual caster, now would you?


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 25, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> It's limited, but it is still class ability sharing and hence, it shores up the normal multiclassing rules with yet another way to partially do this type of thing.




Sorry, I'm calling BS on this.  Melee fighting is not a class ability, it is not definitive of a class nor it is not indicative of a unique class.  So, you're saying that a Wizard who can effectively swing a sword makes them have multi-class fighter traits?  Why fighter, and not: avenger, barbarian, bard, cleric, paladin, ranger, rogue, swordmage, warden, or warlord?  Are you stuck on the notion fueled by previous editions' lack of fighter options that a fighter's defining choices have to be variations of the melee basic attack?

What defines a class in 4ed, enough to make it meaningfully different from other classes?  What traits and abilities are definitively unique to a class that make them worthwhile touchstones for measuring multi-class flexibility?  One thing that _isn't_ class definitive is the ability to swing a sword in melee; as written any class can do this; proficiency and a high str/melee training make it more likely to hit, but nothing prevents it.



> Just like Ritual Casting now allows Fighters to cast spells. Just not as well as spell casters.




Why wouldn't they be able to cast as well as a spell caster?  They'd be likely only a few points behind on the skill checks, and those aren't exactly as crucial as to-hit rolls.  (For this, I'm assuming rituals, not class powers labeled as "spells", because comparing the two is like comparing apples and eggs.)

The point is, EVERY feat gives either more flexibility or more effectiveness.  If you wanted to, you could probably twist out a situation where any of them reflect what a different class could do.  That doesn't mean that they are meaningfully "shoring up multiclassing."  It just means that you find them useful in building up a character concept that varied slightly from the 100% base class build.  That's exactly what every feat is for: taking the central nugget of a pure class and tweaking it to better reflect the character you want to play.  It's not about multiclassing, it's about character building.  Multiclassing is one tool in character building, but not every tool for character building is about "shoring up multiclassing."

-Dan'L


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 25, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> It's not about multiclassing, it's about character building.  Multiclassing is one tool in character building, but not every tool for character building is about "shoring up multiclassing."
> -Dan'L




Better term yes, melee training and skill powers are very useful tools for character building --- > especially when one wants abilities traditionally central from another class <--- 

This latter part is what associates it with multiclassing. Nothing wrong with "shoring up multiclassing"... it kind of felt like it needed help in providing the versatility element of character building. KD tends to over emphasize negatives sometimes in my opinion or expresses something not negative in a way easily taken as negative. 
Hybrid rules and melee training and skill powers would have made character building far more versatile if they existed in phb1.


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 25, 2009)

DracoSuave said:


> Right, and it's a very apt comparison... as any character can use scrolls for rituals, but only a Ritual Caster can master them.




It's not really so apt.  This is like saying while any class can make an MBA, only a Ranger can Twin Strike.  It would be an apter comparison to say that Skill Training: Arcana/Nature/Religion make for a more effective scroll user.  That is, it takes something you can already do and lets you do it more effectively -- because that's really all Melee Training does.



> But you'd hardly call someone without a ritual casting feat of one type or another a ritual caster, now would you?




No, but neither is "ritual caster" a class like Fighter.  And while there are fewer classes that can effectively master and cast rituals than can effectively swing a sword, I would likely be just as hesitant to call out Ritual Caster as "shoring up multiclassing" as I am Melee Training.

-Dan'L


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 25, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> Sorry, I'm calling BS on this.  Melee fighting is not a class ability, it is not definitive of a class nor it is not indicative of a unique class.




*Effective* melee fighting is a privilege of specific classes.


By your argument, I could claim that multiclassing itself is not multiclassing because any class can have the skill that the multiclassing feat gives. That skill is not unique to that class.

And even the special abilities are near worthless with respect to gaining a unique ability. Doing something once per day that someone else can do better 5 or 10 or more times per day? Doing something once per encounter that someone else can do better 5 or 10 or more times per encounter? And most of these are something that someone can basically do with a different class, it's just an ability with a different name (Sneak Attack vs. Hunter's Quarry, Healing Word vs. Inspiring Word vs. Majestic Word). The mechanics are slightly different, but the effect is basically the same.

That barely qualifies for the adjective "dabbling".

My argument is that this basically boils down to what many feats do. Gives a minor ability the PC did not already have and sometimes, it's something that other classes are typically better at.

There really is nothing that special about multiclassing over many other feats in this regard.


----------



## Dan'L (Oct 26, 2009)

KarinsDad said:


> By your argument, I could claim that multiclassing itself is...



... a whole bunch of things that you've _already_ claimed and asserted about multiclassing.  Glad to see we're finally reaching some common ground.

-Dan'L


----------



## KarinsDad (Oct 26, 2009)

Dan'L said:


> ... a whole bunch of things that you've _already_ claimed and asserted about multiclassing.  Glad to see we're finally reaching some common ground.




Whatever.


----------



## Garthanos (Oct 26, 2009)

Multiclassing was the definition in previous editions of how people were able to broadly distinguish there characters enabling abilities that are features of other classes not there own. There are a number of feats that allow one to do that in 4e and you may want to use more than one. Yes KD didnt express that in a friendly way... 

He could have said a number of feats now enable you to use abilities that are much the focus of other classes.

I would include "ritual caster", "melee training" and the various feats called "multiclassing feats" or even the feats for skill training.

The newest and most effective methods combine with the above Hybrid Class design and Skill powers.

They all support one another towards the end of having versatile custom characters without necessarily requiring scads of new classes.

At this point it feels like people are engaging in a "language use" argument...


----------

