# Excerpt: Multiclassing (merged)



## jaelis

*Actual excerpt: multiclassing*

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


----------



## Hussar

*4e Multiclassing*

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

There you go.


----------



## jaelis

Just in case someone wants a thread where the first two pages aren't a discussion of why the excerpt isn't actually up yet


----------



## Lackhand

FIRSTPOST!

Er, ah, um, I mean: That... is pretty sexy. Not what I was assuming, since I thought there'd be strict additions rather than swaps... but it makes good sense.

Thanks for the crunch, guys!


----------



## Kishin

Interesting.....Does this mean we have to wait until 11th level to start picking up powers from another class?

Not really a fan of that idea.


----------



## Hussar

Crap, didn't know I'd been ninja'd about 12 hours ago.  :'(


----------



## Mouseferatu

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


----------



## erf_beto

Kishin said:
			
		

> Interesting.....Does this mean we have to wait until 11th level to start picking up powers from another class?
> 
> Not really a fan of that idea.



no, i think that's just if you don't want a paragon path. you can start early, like the warlock pregen.


----------



## Lackhand

The text doesn't look like it forces a wait 'till 10th level per se -- the feats don't have any prerequisites, for instance.

It says "further multiclass", making it look like those are bennies above-and-beyond those granted by featurary.


----------



## Kishin

erf_beto said:
			
		

> no, i think that's just if you don't want a paragon path. you can start early, like the warlock pregen.




The warlock pre-gen is a half elf, I thought, and has that wizard power as a result of his racial ability.

But hmm.


----------



## jaelis

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



Which part?  I didn't notice.  I might be confused...

What I'm a little sad about is the absence of discussion about how the paragon part works.

Also, to interpret this, you'd really need a better sense of what feats will be worth, in order to judge how the benefits of the multiclass feats stack up.  

I feel unsatisfied, even though it is pretty crunchy!


----------



## A'koss

Yeah, the article is somewhat poorly worded in places, but as Lackhand points out the feat list doesn't have any level prerequisites.


----------



## neceros

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

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



How so? I didn't notice any oddness.

I think the multiclassing rules are good, but I had hoped for a more in depth multiclassing ability. If I wanted to spend all of my feats on multiclassing (In getting all abilities, etc) I should be able to. AS it stands, though, it's not horrible.


----------



## Rechan

I wonder if the Half-elf's free 'snatch a power from someone else' counts as qualifying for any multi-classing ahead of time.

I think the '4th/8th/10th' by the Power Swap feats mean when you can get them. Or what level of a power you can get?


----------



## small pumpkin man

Kishin said:
			
		

> Interesting.....Does this mean we have to wait until 11th level to start picking up powers from another class?
> 
> Not really a fan of that idea.



What? You can take the Novice power feat at 4th level. or possibly as soon as you take one of the other feats, it's not obvious whether those levels are prereques or not. anyway, you certainly don't have to be 11th.


----------



## Green Knight

Kishin said:
			
		

> The warlock pre-gen is a half elf, I thought, and has that wizard power as a result of his racial ability.
> 
> But hmm.




They've said that Half-Elves are good multiclassers, so Half-Elves probably get a multiclass Feat of their choice, and in this case, Tira got Arcane Initiate.


----------



## cdrcjsn

Kishin said:
			
		

> Interesting.....Does this mean we have to wait until 11th level to start picking up powers from another class?
> 
> Not really a fan of that idea.




"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 "

Those feats seem to indicate that you can get powers earlier.


----------



## Incenjucar

Hmnn.

I wonder how people are going to take only being able to "take" two classes.


----------



## Wiman

Only allowing one multiclass is an important step towards fixing something which was inherently problematic.

Easy to use by the looks of it too.


----------



## Shroomy

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Hmnn.
> 
> I wonder how people are going to take only being able to "take" two classes.




You tell them that they are essentially getting two more classes at 11th and 21st level.


----------



## Rechan

Does things like 'Word 1/encounter' Such as 'Divine challenge 1/encounter' mean that they GET the Divine Challenge + 1/encounter ability, or they only can use Divine Challenge once an encounter?


----------



## Mouseferatu

neceros said:
			
		

> How so? I didn't notice any oddness.




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_


----------



## M.L. Martin

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

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




  Hmm...what's wrong with it? My guess is that the level listing on the 'Novice Power', 'Acolyte Power', and 'Adept Power' belong in the Prerequisites column.
  EDIT: Apparently our vampiric rodent has picked up the Sneak of Shadows feat.   

  As for the article, it's underwhelming at first glance, but it's growing on me. So you get to pick up a skill (the 'iconic' skill for Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard, a choice for everyone else), get to use the class's 'core' power as if it were a step below where it normally was, and get to meet prerequisites for feats, paragon paths, etc. Then you can spend feats to swap out powers. The 'build options' and other bits will have to wait until 11th level, I imagine.

   It's not as flexible as 3E, and it favors dabblers over even splits, but it looks like it should do the job.

  And it's worth it just for this line: "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."

  We continue our joyful dance on the grave of 'system mastery'.


----------



## Shroomy

Green Knight said:
			
		

> They've said that Half-Elves are good multiclassers, so Half-Elves probably get a multiclass Feat of their choice, and in this case, Tira got Arcane Initiate.




She's not listed as having any of the multi-class feats on her character sheet and the mechanics don't seem to jive with the excerpt.  My guess is that half-elves get any classes at-will power as a per encounter ability.


----------



## DanChops

I'm actually quite happy with this approach to multi-classing.  One thing it allows for that previous systems didn't do very well is multi-classing at first level.  (Sure, the 3.0 DMG had "Apprentice level" rules, but I didn't find that to be very satisfying.)  For example, the 4E approach seems to allow for the classic "Fighter/Magic User" as a viable option from level one: simply create a fighter with the Arcane Initiate feat (or, alternativly, a Wizard with the Student of the Sword feat) and you're golden.


----------



## Hussar

Rechan said:
			
		

> Does things like 'Word 1/encounter' Such as 'Divine challenge 1/encounter' mean that they GET the Divine Challenge + 1/encounter ability, or they only can use Divine Challenge once an encounter?




I would assume the latter.  It wouldn't make much sense to multiclass and get MORE uses out of something that a class gets.  So, you nick an encounter power out of another class and get to use it once/encounter.


----------



## Aristotle

I'll probably lift the two class maximum to three in my game, although I'll run the game as written first. I like this in general. It lets you dabble in another class, and provides lots of interesting combos. I thought I saw somewhere that you could choose to take secondary class powers instead of paragon path powers. That isn't mentioned here? It is cool that the feats qualify you for the secondary classes paragon paths. That increases value.

I'm sure it's well balanced, but I still think the absolute best combos will be those from the same power source or those fitting the same combat role. That's cool by me. Wizards who have learned to tap the darker side of the arcane power source and rogue woodsmen sound great to me.


----------



## small pumpkin man

neceros said:
			
		

> How so? I didn't notice any oddness.



I assume it's the levels on the bottom three feats, it's not obvious what they mean.

-edit, Ninja'd, Ninja'd so hard it hurts


----------



## malcolm_n

Oh, I wonder (quickly looks at the Paragon path article)...
From the looks of the articles, you could

1) play a human fighter and get Sneak of Shadows at level 1
2) pick up Novice Power at level 4 and swap your encounter power you'd gain for Torturous Strike.
*3) Gain powers as a cleric starting at 11?*

I mean, if you think about it, that'd be an effective way to tri-class; it would be weaker though, than a paragon path, but fun for a character concept.  What do ya'll think about if this is how it works or allowing it to?


----------



## Rechan

Hussar said:
			
		

> I would assume the latter.  It wouldn't make much sense to multiclass and get MORE uses out of something that a class gets.  So, you nick an encounter power out of another class and get to use it once/encounter.



But Divine Challenge, Sneak Attack, etc are At Will.


----------



## Kishin

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> "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 "
> 
> Those feats seem to indicate that you can get powers earlier.




I was reading those as the level of the power, rather than the level prerequisite. It makes more sense that way.

I didn't really expect it to be a 'paragon path or multiclass' decision. That'd be very much against the spirit of things.


----------



## jeffhartsell

Powers like healing word, hunters quarry, divine challenge, etc can be used more than once per encounter; so the initial MC feats are under powered compared to being that class, but they are in addition to your own powers.

It is the swap feats that seem ho-hum. I give up a feat and a power slot for a power from a different class. I undertand that gaining a power with a feat would be too good, so this is the alternative. Too bad they could not also giving us additional uses of the class ability as well with the power feats.


----------



## Incenjucar

Honestly, I'm fine with all this because dabbling is more interesting... if you're doing a half and half or a triple class I'd rather just make a brand new class that fills the role more precisely.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

They might be trying to reduce certain power combos, but I can't see them getting too overpowered.  Certainly smite+sneak attack is no longer really over the top, warlock's curse only works with warlock powers.  

Though the thing is we're only seeing the bottom tier in how multiclassing works.  Eventually a multiclass rogue might be able to sneak attack more than 1/encounter.


----------



## erf_beto

malcolm_n said:
			
		

> Oh, I wonder (quickly looks at the Paragon path article)...
> From the looks of the articles, you could
> 
> 1) play a human fighter and get Sneak of Shadows at level 1
> 2) pick up Novice Power at level 4 and swap your encounter power you'd gain for Torturous Strike.
> *3) Gain powers as a cleric starting at 11?*
> 
> I mean, if you think about it, that'd be an effective way to tri-class; it would be weaker though, than a paragon path, but fun for a character concept.  What do ya'll think about if this is how it works or allowing it to?



I thought about it too... could happen, could be possible...

The other thing I noticed is you'll probably never see a rogue casting any low level per day wizard spell, like Sleep, because he should be 10th level in order to do that, and by then, he'll have access to more interesting powers to swap. That's not bad, just interesting...


----------



## neceros

Kishin said:
			
		

> I didn't really expect it to be a 'paragon path or multiclass' decision. That'd be very much against the spirit of things.



No, it does work. IT's all about your Character Concept. 

As a paladin you have two choices: Continue down the path of paladin and eventually become great in a certain area (Paragon Path), or switch up your learning and mix Paladin with some other class (Paladin20/Wizard 10). It's a difference of Generalizing or Specializing.


----------



## neceros

erf_beto said:
			
		

> I thought about it too... could happen, could be possible...
> 
> The other thing I noticed is you'll probably never see a rogue casting any low level per day wizard spell, like Sleep, because he should be 10th level in order to do that, and by then, he'll have access to more interesting powers to swap. That's not bad, just interesting...



Wizards is going with a more broad approach. Sleep doesn't get worse as you level. It's benefit never goes away, though the spell will remain as written through your life.

The difference in level is that while _sleep _will always work, later on there will be _dream _(as example) that will sleep an area, or have additional effects, etc.


----------



## A'koss

neceros said:
			
		

> No, it does work. IT's all about your Character Concept.
> 
> As a paladin you have two choices: Continue down the path of paladin and eventually become great in a certain area (Paragon Path), or switch up your learning and mix Paladin with some other class (Paladin20/Wizard 10). It's a difference of Generalizing or Specializing.



To be clear, you can still take a Paragon Path if you multiclass, it's just that if you plan on really deeply multiclassing, you can forego it.

_"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."_


----------



## Incenjucar

Sleep+Hunters Quarry+Sneak Attack vs. Balor.

*whistle*


----------



## A'koss

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Sleep+Hunters Quarry+Sneak Attack vs. Balor.
> 
> *whistle*



Sorry bub, you can only multiclass with _one_ other class...


----------



## neceros

A'koss said:
			
		

> To be clear, you can still take a Paragon Path if you multiclass, it's just that if you plan on really deeply multiclassing, you can forego it.
> 
> _"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."_



Right, I was using the 10/10 approach, not the feats.


----------



## jeffhartsell

It seems that if you take base class "X" and MC feat "y" you cannot take a paragon path for class "Z"; only one for class X or Y.


----------



## Incenjucar

A'koss said:
			
		

> Sorry bub, you can only multiclass with _one_ other class...




The mega-stabber does not need to be the one who used Sleep.


----------



## Surgoshan

So a half-elven rogue takes hunter's quarry as his racial ability thing and then dipmulticlasses to get sleep.


----------



## TarionzCousin

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

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



The table looks fine to me, but two images aren't showing up.

(Firefox)


----------



## jeffhartsell

IMO there are no more X/Y class splits, you are simply always your base class and if you MC and opt for a paragon path MC you are simply gaining paragon powers from the other base class. The big question is what action point power do you gain? Or maybe you get a new at-will? Don't know that yet.

So a fighter20/wizard10 is really a ftr30 with a MC feat and the wizard paragon path.


----------



## A'koss

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> So a half-elven rogue takes hunter's quarry as his racial ability thing and then dipmulticlasses to get sleep.



That assumes the half-elf can multiclass outside his racial "dip" choice...


----------



## jeffhartsell

Surgoshan said:
			
		

> So a half-elven rogue takes hunter's quarry as his racial ability thing and then dipmulticlasses to get sleep.




The current assumption is the half-elf only gets a power and not a class feature for the racial ability.


----------



## Spatula

Hmm, interesting, though not as much information as I'd hoped.  The initial feat is tailored by class and gives you an extra trained skill & encounter power.  All well and good, but... You spend 3 more feats for the novice, acolyte, and adept options and you gain effectively nothing; the option to swap out powers you would have gotten anyway with other powers of the same level.  That strikes me as being very much like the TWF tax in 3e: spend feats so that you can almost do as much damage as a 2H fighter!  Have they made multiclassing beyond the first feat too weak, in order to keep the powergamers away from it?

And no information on how paragon-path-multiclassing works or how it interacts with the feats.


----------



## kalyptein

So the cleric and warlord multiclass feats give you Healing / Inspiring Word 1/day.  Looking at the DDXP cleric's Healing Word...it's an encounter power, but you can use it twice per encounter (once per round).  Do you think the multiclass version is usable twice per day then?


----------



## ppaladin123

Spatula said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting, though not as much information as I'd hoped.  The initial feat is tailored by class and gives you an extra trained skill & encounter power.  All well and good, but... You spend 3 more feats for the novice, acolyte, and adept options and you gain effectively nothing; the option to swap out powers you would have gotten anyway with other powers of the same level.  That strikes me as being very much like the TWF tax in 3e: spend feats so that you can almost do as much damage as a 2H fighter!  Have they made multiclassing beyond the first feat too weak, in order to keep the powergamers away from it?
> 
> And no information on how paragon-path-multiclassing works or how it interacts with the feats.




EDIT: double post


----------



## ppaladin123

Spatula said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting, though not as much information as I'd hoped.  The initial feat is tailored by class and gives you an extra trained skill & encounter power.  All well and good, but... You spend 3 more feats for the novice, acolyte, and adept options and you gain effectively nothing; the option to swap out powers you would have gotten anyway with other powers of the same level.  That strikes me as being very much like the TWF tax in 3e: spend feats so that you can almost do as much damage as a 2H fighter!  Have they made multiclassing beyond the first feat too weak, in order to keep the powergamers away from it?
> 
> And no information on how paragon-path-multiclassing works or how it interacts with the feats.




I'm guessing you can gain access to some interesting/fun power combos by investing in this line of feats. Who knows what synergies there are between multi-class minor and standard actions? You only need to take one feat to qualify for another class's paragon path too. I can't wait to see what I can do with a paladin with some warlord features.


----------



## Midnight Dawns

*Excerpt: Multiclassing*

It's Up. Sorry if someone else already put it up.
http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a


----------



## tombowings

Overall, I like it. It doesn't offer too much, but not too little either.

However, I do I have worry:

Warlord: *skill training*, inspiring word 1/day.

If Skill Training is a feat, why would anyone take it instead of one of the multiclass feats?


----------



## Shroomy

I said it on the other thread, but getting all the feat and paragon prerequisites has the potential to pretty important.


----------



## hong

Hm, seems that multiclassed characters got the nerfstick. You use a feat, and you get a limited benefit. You can use another feat, which lets you subtract a class power and add a multiclassed power.


----------



## neceros

tombowings said:
			
		

> Overall, I like it. It doesn't offer too much, but not too little either.
> 
> However, I do I have worry:
> 
> Warlord: *skill training*, inspiring word 1/day.
> 
> If Skill Training is a feat, why would anyone take it instead of one of the multiclass feats?



There's an assumption that "Skill Training" means you get to choose the skill that the class you're emulating chose at level one. For instance, Rangers choose between Nature and Dungeoneering.

Not sure.


----------



## jaldaen

kalyptein said:
			
		

> So the cleric and warlord multiclass feats give you Healing / Inspiring Word 1/day.  Looking at the DDXP cleric's Healing Word...it's an encounter power, but you can use it twice per encounter (once per round).  Do you think the multiclass version is usable twice per day then?




No I think it's meant to be once per day b/c the power/class ability conversion seems to be:

At-Will powers become 1/Encounter powers and Encounter powers (which Healing Word would fall under) become 1/Daily powers.


----------



## Mouseferatu

tombowings said:
			
		

> If Skill Training is a feat, why would anyone take it instead of one of the multiclass feats?




Well, assuming you want a mechanical answer, as opposed to just "character concept"... 

Prerequisites.

Also, the fact that you can only multiclass into one class, and some people might want a wider range of trained feats.


----------



## FadedC

tombowings said:
			
		

> Overall, I like it. It doesn't offer too much, but not too little either.
> 
> However, I do I have worry:
> 
> Warlord: *skill training*, inspiring word 1/day.
> 
> If Skill Training is a feat, why would anyone take it instead of one of the multiclass feats?




Well you can only multiclass to 1 class....you may not want to make that decision based solely on what skill it gives. But it's unclear exactly how it works.


----------



## tombowings

neceros said:
			
		

> There's an assumption that "Skill Training" means you get to choose the skill that the class you're emulating chose at level one. For instance, Rangers choose between Nature and Dungeoneering.
> 
> Not sure.




Even still, if you were going to pick up either Nature or Dungeoneering anyway, there would be no reason not to pick up the "Warrior of the Wild" feat instead.

I have faith that the devs balanced everything out, but I like playing characters with lots of skills and plan on taking the "skill training" (or whatever it's called) feat at least a couple times. I'm sure everything will work out fine though.


----------



## tombowings

Double posts, sorry.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Spatula said:
			
		

> Hmm, interesting, though not as much information as I'd hoped.  The initial feat is tailored by class and gives you an extra trained skill & encounter power.  All well and good, but... You spend 3 more feats for the novice, acolyte, and adept options and you gain effectively nothing; the option to swap out powers you would have gotten anyway with other powers of the same level.  That strikes me as being very much like the TWF tax in 3e: spend feats so that you can almost do as much damage as a 2H fighter!  Have they made multiclassing beyond the first feat too weak, in order to keep the powergamers away from it?
> 
> And no information on how paragon-path-multiclassing works or how it interacts with the feats.



well, the first feat generally looks good, since it's something on top of your normal abilities, however yeah, and I'd say the utility powers would allways be good, since they'd often give you access to wacky things, but with the attack power feats look like you'd want to be careful you had a high enough appropriate stat, and/or it gives you access to something helpful and different. An int based Warlord taking Fireball, or a Warlock taking a nice chr based Paladin healing power would be worth it, but a Wizard taking Fighter powers could easily just end up being pointless.


----------



## neceros

You're about 13 hours late.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

Tombowings, I'm pretty sure that the skill training and power/feature are a package deal.
Aren't they?


----------



## DanChops

Another thought - both _Initiate of the Faith_ and _Student of Battle_ create further mechanical alternatives to the old "someone's gotta play the cleric" trope.  Assuming that *Inspiring Word* does the same thing as *Healing Word*, these mechanics have built in two flavorful ways for a group to get around needing a character to play the heal bot.

Something else - I've long enjoyed games where every character in the party has a shared functional background - whether it be a pre-historic game where all are barbarians, or a Harry Potter-style scenario where all are students at a wizardry college.  In 3.5, the best way I found to mechanical simulate this was gestalt classes.  I would run a gestalt game, but stipulate that everyone take the same class as one of their two classes.  This made for some fun, high-powered romps, but it would have been nice (i.e. much less work for the DM) to have been able to create the same idea while staying within the bounds of normal power levels.  4E multiclassing allows for that.  I could either stipulate that everyone take the same Multiclass Feat at first level, or give it to them for free, depending on the power level of game I'm looking for.

Very nice indeed.


----------



## Cadfan

Ok, so I start my elf rogue at level 1, with a feat to allow me to fight with a rapier.  Then I take Student of the Sword to get +1 attack, a new skill, and a little marking.  Then I take Kensai as my paragon path at level 11.  I end up with a swashbuckler who deals serious damage with his rapier.

This... makes me happy.


----------



## Stalker0

Midnight Dawns said:
			
		

> It's Up. Sorry if someone else already put it up.
> http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080430a




There are three threads about this already, all the them predominately displayed on the top of the page, and have been since midnight. Look before you post a topic.


----------



## neceros

DanChops said:
			
		

> Something else - I've long enjoyed games where every character in the party has a shared functional background - whether it be a pre-historic game where all are barbarians, or a Harry Potter-style scenario where all are students at a wizardry college.  In 3.5, the best way I found to mechanical simulate this was gestalt classes.  I would run a gestalt game, but stipulate that everyone take the same class as one of their two classes.  This made for some fun, high-powered romps, but it would have been nice (i.e. much less work for the DM) to have been able to create the same idea while staying within the bounds of normal power levels.  4E multiclassing allows for that.  I could either stipulate that everyone take the same Multiclass Feat at first level, or give it to them for free, depending on the power level of game I'm looking for.
> 
> Very nice indeed.



Interesting. Isn't it enough to just put it in the back story, though?


----------



## HeinorNY

hong said:
			
		

> Hm, seems that multiclassed characters got the nerfstick. You use a feat, and you get a limited benefit. You can use another feat, which lets you subtract a class power and add a multiclassed power.



When you buy the swap-power feat, you don't add anything, you just trade powers.
A character with such a feat has, power-wise, one feat less. 
You are trading power for concept.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Hmm... Cadfan your post got me thinking, since reminded me of Swashbuckler/Rogue. I wonder if like Daring Outlaw in 3e, if there will be specific feats just to help with certain aspects of multiclassing. 

Perhaps feats to bring powers/features down a peg; from per-encounter to at-will, or perhaps, allow a second class feature.


----------



## hong

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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_



 Ahh, that makes more sense.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice

No cherry picking proficiencies- great.
Not expanding the absolute number of abilities a character has- also good.
Not watering down caster levels- fantastic.
Allowing 1 for 1 swaps of powers- excellent.

All in all, while it is not the same, it is a workable solution. All of the munchkins...excuse me, optimizers...may not like this, but I sure do. It preserves class roles while expanding options. Lessens the impact of the dip, but makes it still a good option. Allows for many varied character concepts, without making the uber-dipper the only good one.

I wonder though, will certain combinations be kinda useless. Like say the wizard who goes multiclass fighter. Marking doesn't seem like a good idea with low hit points. I would assume that they could pick up some armor and weapon proficiencies with some feats, but even toughness would still leave them kinda weak. The other way around seems a little better. Maybe give up a sword attack or two in order to blast some things and use rituals. I don't know what this will all amount to, but they seem to be really encouraging people to mostly stay within role. 

Hunters quarry seems particularly nice for any weapon guy, and sneak attack superbe for specific weapons guys. It looks like a warlock that goes multiclass wizard could be pulled off rather nicely. Better armor and more HP than normal wizard, curse, relatively similar type of role (blow things up from range) and adding in the multi-target spells of the wizard along with Rituals. It will be interesting to see how this plays out with the full rules.


----------



## hong

ainatan said:
			
		

> When you buy the swap-power feat, you don't add anything, you just trade powers.
> A character with such a feat has, power-wise, one feat less.
> You are trading power for concept.



 Exactly. I don't see the reason for having to trade power for concept.


----------



## Lurker37

ainatan, I think you're overlooking the increase in options afforded by having a power that lets you do something you otherwise couldn't do.

Take the example of a party without a wizard ( as far as we know, the only controller in the 4E PHB ). The striker multiclasses into wizard , and takes a burst damage spell. Suddenly the striker can clear the room of minions if required. 

That may very well be worth the feat and the loss of the swapped-out power.


----------



## neceros

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. I don't see the reason for having to trade power for concept.



You are trading Specialization for Generalization. Remember: no body is forcing you to multiclass.


----------



## Scrollreader

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. I don't see the reason for having to trade power for concept.




You're trading power for /flexibility/ IMO.  Rogues don't get Aoe damage, normally.  it's not their deal.  They're single target DPS, to use MMO terminology.  Spending a feat or two to get the ability to lay down level equivalent wizard-Aoe goodness is what you're buying.  You're paying for the ability to go outside your role.  For being able to bring aspects of another role, as well as the goodies you already have.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Hmmh...

absolutely not impressed...

I am really curious now how you do TWF...

maybe you can do it by default or a feat but you won´t get powes for it...


----------



## hong

Do we know how many feats a character has?


----------



## Elder-Basilisk

Well, there's a lot of fancy talk there about kicking system mastery in the teeth and making any combination work equally well, but it doesn't look likely to work out that way.

Take the Student of the Sword feat, for instance. If there are a limited number of attack bonus boosting feats--even if many of them are better than Student of the Sword, it's still an obvious power choice for a warrior type. And no matter how often the designers pretend that healing word 1/day is as good as +1 to hit, there are a lot of characters for whom the +1 to hit is going to be a lot better. (Marking, etc, we'll wait and see on, but +1 to hit is an obvious and obviously useful benefit).

Conversely, the power trading feats have a long road to hoe in order to avoid being traps for the unwary. If they work as described in the article, a character who takes a power trading feat gives up a feat and a power to get a power that wouldn't normally be available to him. Now, if everything works as advertised and all powers are equal (no really, I'm trying to be serious here, WotC designers said it, it must be so), then the character who sticks with his ordinary class powers gets a feat and a power but the character who wants to trade simply ends up short a feat in comparison. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a couple powers that are significantly better than other powers (at least for certain types of characters) and that characters who use the power trading feats to gain those powers will be somewhat stronger than they would without the power trading feat. At the same time, players who make more suspect choices will end up with a power that doesn't really help them do anything that needs doing and will have wasted a feat for the privilige of gimping their character like that.

We'll have to wait and see what all comes out of it, but it doesn't look particularly promising to me as a multiclassing system.

In the meantime, I'll note that saying at the same time that the new system does fighter/mages perfectly fine and that it only allows dabbling is complete and utter doublespeak.


----------



## swgeek77

> 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.




This seems to be saying that you can't multiclass from level one, only levels 11 through 20.

Also, I think the levels that are in the benefits section of the feats table have something to do with this:



> 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.




Since powers have a specific level that they are available at, I think the feats allow you to choose a power with a maximum level set by the feat; 4th, 8th and 10th respectively.

That is just how I am interpreting the wording


----------



## FireLance

ainatan said:
			
		

> When you buy the swap-power feat, you don't add anything, you just trade powers.
> A character with such a feat has, power-wise, one feat less.
> You are trading power for concept.



And a character who takes all three feats has three feats less. While I get the tradeoff between power and concept, I wonder whether I'd be giving up too much power. A single power swap doesn't seem to be very good value for a feat. By 4e's design philosophy, a power of level X from class A should be about as valuable as a power of level X from class B. 

I personally think that a single feat should be enough to get you an encounter power swap from 4th level, a utility power swap from 8th level, and a daily power swap from 10th level. Unless this results in some grossly broken combinations, I will probably house-rule it this way in 4e.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

> I personally think that a single feat should be enough to get you an encounter power swap from 4th level, a utility power swap from 8th level, and a daily power swap from 10th level. Unless this results in some grossly broken combinations, I will probably house-rule it this way in 4e.



Grossly, grossly broken.


----------



## neceros

swgeek77 said:
			
		

> Since powers have a specific level that they are available at, I think the feats allow you to choose a power with a maximum level set by the feat; 4th, 8th and 10th respectively.
> 
> That is just how I am interpreting the wording



A play tester has corrected the improper grammar. Those feats should have the 4th, 8th, and 10th entries under Prerequisites, not benefits.


----------



## Scrollreader

FireLance said:
			
		

> I personally think that a single feat should be enough to get you an encounter power swap from 4th level, a utility power swap from 8th level, and a daily power swap from 10th level. Unless this results in some grossly broken combinations, I will probably house-rule it this way in 4e.





The breaks are in the wrong place on that list.  Those levels are the /pre-reqs/.  The text states that as you go up in level, the power can change.  This means you can, with your encounter feat, eventually have a wizard 30 encounter power (if there is one).  I'd say that's worth a feat.


----------



## FireLance

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> You're trading power for /flexibility/ IMO.  Rogues don't get Aoe damage, normally.  it's not their deal.  They're single target DPS, to use MMO terminology.  Spending a feat or two to get the ability to lay down level equivalent wizard-Aoe goodness is what you're buying.  You're paying for the ability to go outside your role.  For being able to bring aspects of another role, as well as the goodies you already have.



The cost of going outside your role is not being as good in your primary role, and you already pay that cost by giving up one (or more) of your powers. 

This feels like the "Mystic Theurge is broken!" argument all over again.


----------



## neceros

FireLance said:
			
		

> I personally think that a single feat should be enough to get you an encounter power swap from 4th level, a utility power swap from 8th level, and a daily power swap from 10th level. Unless this results in some grossly broken combinations, I will probably house-rule it this way in 4e.



Feats are less powerful in 4th, than in 3.5.


----------



## lkj

FireLance said:
			
		

> . . . By 4e's design philosophy, a power of level X from class A should be about as valuable as a power of level X from class B. . .




Yes, but I assume only in the context of that class and it's abilities. Presumably, if you could just pick and choose powers and abilities from any of the classes and put them together, you can create very unbalanced combinations. 

In essence the equation is really: class A is balanced with class B, NOT power A=Power B. 

AD


----------



## small pumpkin man

swgeek77 said:
			
		

> This seems to be saying that you can't multiclass from level one, only levels 11 through 20.



The feats give you extra powers, so do Paragon paths, there is no difference, both are "multiclassing"


			
				swgeek77 said:
			
		

> Also, I think the levels that are in the benefits section of the feats table have something to do with this:
> 
> Since powers have a specific level that they are available at, I think the feats allow you to choose a power with a maximum level set by the feat; 4th, 8th and 10th respectively.
> 
> That is just how I am interpreting the wording



No. Read Mouseferatu's post, he's actually played the game, those levels are the lowest level you can take the feat.


----------



## FireLance

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> The breaks are in the wrong place on that list.  Those levels are the /pre-reqs/.  The text states that as you go up in level, the power can change.  This means you can, with your encounter feat, eventually have a wizard 30 encounter power (if there is one).  I'd say that's worth a feat.



In the absence of better information, I'm going with the pre-requisites. Yes, that means that you will have a 3rd-level encounter power in your primary class for one level before you can swap it out at 4th (which, presumably, is what would happen if you took Novice Power at 4th level).


----------



## Ozdec

hong said:
			
		

> Do we know how many feats a character has?





As I understand it currently you will have 1 at 1st +1/2 levels thereafter with an extra 1 if Human

Also don't forget - by Spendiing a feat at 1st level you effectively gain 1 encounter power at first level over a single classed PC


----------



## A'koss

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> The breaks are in the wrong place on that list.  Those levels are the /pre-reqs/.  The text states that as you go up in level, the power can change.  This means you can, with your encounter feat, eventually have a wizard 30 encounter power (if there is one).  I'd say that's worth a feat.



Indeed. The ability to switch to a new multiclass power _every level_ I think is going to prove to be a very popular feature.


----------



## Rechan

FireLance said:
			
		

> The cost of going outside your role is not being as good in your primary role, and you already pay that cost by giving up one (or more) of your powers.



Except that you're keeping the benefits from your earlier class. 

For instance, if it was _not_ giving up a feat, then it would be totally worth it to start as fighter, and then just cherry pick encounter and daily Wizard powers. That way, you had your Sweet defender HP, Defenses, Surges, and armor proficiencies, plus the Wizard encounters/dailies.

If I can trade ALL my fighter abilities for wizard ones, then I'm not a great fighter, but I'm a BETTER wizard.


----------



## Cadfan

Its not even improper grammar.  The word "further" isn't in that sentence just to waste space.


----------



## FireLance

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Grossly, grossly broken.



And your arguments in support of this assertion are?


----------



## DanChops

neceros said:
			
		

> Interesting. Isn't it enough to just put it in the back story, though?



I suppose it depends on what you're looking for.  For example, in the game where everyone met at a wizardry college, the group wanted everyone to have benefited from their time spent studying the arcane.  So, we did a gestalt game where everyone was Wizard/something else, where the something else typically tied into their pre-college back ground.  (The Wizard/Cleric, for example, was the bastard son of a local parish priest, and was raised by the monastary attached to the temple before he went off to learn how to be a Wizard.  The Wiard/Ranger, on the other hand, came from a lumber-jack village on the edge of the kingdom.)

Now, the problem we ran into with this is that we didn't _really_ want everyone to be full-on wizards, but at the same time we wanted their wizardry abilities to be more useful that a simple "cast one first-level spell once/day" kind of a thing, especially at higher levels.  What we really wanted was for the group to have an arcane feel that was relevent throughout the course of the campaign.  

Seems to me that 4E multiclassing will allow that kind of a game to the T.  Everyone picks _Arcane Initiate_ to start (or they get it for free, depending on what the group decides).  Then, if they want, they pick up the three _--- Power_ feats later on, and they have the option to take an Arcane-focused Paragon Path.  However, through it all they retain that flavor of being a Cleric who is versed in the Arcane arts, rather than being a full-on Wizard.
Of course, this wouldn't work for every game, but I've enjoyed this sort of concept before, and I'm stoked to try it in 4E.


----------



## jeffhartsell

It looks like, for example, a fighter with the rogue MC feat and shadow assassin PP would gain 1d6 sneak attack at-will against bloodied foes at 16th and a full 3d6 sneak 1/enc (or 4d6 1/enc vs. a bloodied foe). And the other abilities are solid for a fighter. Plus there are probably some spiffy powers that would make a fighter/rogue solid even using feats.

But still looks like if you want TWF at-will you have to start as ranger.


----------



## Lurker37

swgeek77 said:
			
		

> This seems to be saying that you can't multiclass from level one, only levels 11 through 20.




If that was the case then you couldn't multiclass to qualify for paragon paths, which this excerpt clearly states you can. (Not this this was news to anyone who read this post a few days ago.)




			
				swgeek77 said:
			
		

> Also, I think the levels that are in the benefits section of the feats table have something to do with this:




Since Mouseferatu was a playtester, pardon me if I put more value in his firsthand knowledge than in your guesses. He's already stated those entries are in the wrong column.


----------



## ZetaStriker

Well, I think the point is that you're only supposed to be dabbling until you multiclass instead of taking a Paragon Path at 11th. Who knows, that might even allow you to dabble in a third class as well, seeing as how the excerpt went out of its way to mention Fighter/Mage/Thieves.


----------



## Lord Nat

I like the look of the system.
It looks like you can split class fine with just taking feats to swap out some of your main class powers for subclass powers.
Burning feats means you will not be as good at your main class but you will be able to do more over all. A fighter with tumble to get into the right spot better, or a wizard with few ranger powers for his magic missile (I am hoping that it basic attack you can use it as part of other attack powers). I can see a way to do most multi-class stuff (outside of the crazy stuff like Monk/Paladin/Cleric/Bard/Scout's that make no since anyway).

I like the idea of dabbling in class more then fully changing into them.
I mean if you take years training to be a fighter you don't one day just take a level in paladin with no real training, sure you can find god and dabble in their powers, but you are no Saint Glory.

Over all I like the system.
Tho I wonder what the picking not to take a P-Path does...


----------



## Scrollreader

FireLance said:
			
		

> The cost of going outside your role is not being as good in your primary role, and you already pay that cost by giving up one (or more) of your powers.
> 
> This feels like the "Mystic Theurge is broken!" argument all over again.




Not at all.  Because losing three levels in your primary spellcasting class was horrid.  Losing one power really doesn't compare to how /bad/ that was.  This is more like the anima mage, really.  No spellcasting levels lost, feat buy in for extra abilities.  (I think it was the anima mage.  The binder/spellcaster class with no lost caster levels from Tome of Magic.  Don't have my books handy, atm.)

And again, YMMV, but having fireball avaliable when you don't have a controller is /definately/ worth a feat, as far as I'm concerned.  Or the fact that each of the /first/ multiclassing feats is already at least as good as skill training (if with harsher pre-reqs and other limits, like only getting to have one).  Or Eyebite.  A clever rogue could get incredible amounts of mileage out of that power, easily getting a feat's worth.  Or, Or, Or.  I mean, just with the powers we have /already/ seen, I can see several cases where I think it would be worth a feat to get a power.  And f you don't think so, there's always the option to multiclass in lieu of a paragon path, or use the first multiclassing feat to get into a paragon path that you like (Fighter into Stormwarden, for instances.  or Rogue into Kensai).  If there wasn't a price involved, then there's no roles, no niches, and no way for your character to shine.  I've seen this happen in WOD and Exalted.  A character who picks well in those systems can completely marginzalize someone else, or even multiple other players.  Those games require a strong social contract outside the game to keep roles and niches safe.  I don't think that's the direction D&D was going to be taken in.


----------



## Xanaqui

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Well, there's a lot of fancy talk there about kicking system mastery in the teeth and making any combination work equally well, but it doesn't look likely to work out that way.
> 
> Take the Student of the Sword feat, for instance. If there are a limited number of attack bonus boosting feats--even if many of them are better than Student of the Sword, it's still an obvious power choice for a warrior type. And no matter how often the designers pretend that healing word 1/day is as good as +1 to hit (yes, it's presumably limited to certain weapons, but how frequently is that a problem?), there are a lot of characters for whom the +1 to hit is going to be a lot better. (Marking, etc, we'll wait and see on, but +1 to hit is an obvious and obviously useful benefit).



We've seen at least 1 feat (Dwarven Weapons Training) that grants quite a bit more than +1 to hit, so I'm under-convinced that Student of the Sword is the way to go for hitting.


			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Conversely, the power trading feats have a long road to hoe in order to avoid being traps for the unwary. If they work as described in the article, a character who takes a power trading feat gives up a feat and a power to get a power that wouldn't normally be available to him. Now, if everything works as advertised and all powers are equal (no really, I'm trying to be serious here, WotC designers said it, it must be so), then the character who sticks with his ordinary class powers gets a feat and a power but the character who wants to trade simply ends up short a feat in comparison. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a couple powers that are significantly better than other powers (at least for certain types of characters) and that characters who use the power trading feats to gain those powers will be somewhat stronger than they would without the power trading feat. At the same time, players who make more suspect choices will end up with a power that doesn't really help them do anything that needs doing and will have wasted a feat for the privilige of gimping their character like that.
> 
> We'll have to wait and see what all comes out of it, but it doesn't look particularly promising to me as a multiclassing system.
> 
> In the meantime, I'll note that saying at the same time that the new system does fighter/mages perfectly fine and that it only allows dabbling is complete and utter doublespeak.



You are likely correct, but note that with re-training, the player can correct such a bad choice.

This looks like  a pretty good system to me, but I guess whether or not it's good depends on your goals. I'm guessing that you would have preferred a more equative split between two classes.

Frankly, I'm happy if most multiclass combinations are on the same order of power as most single-class combinations. The power level matchup doesn't have to be exact; just better than the C/F/M was in 1st ed AD&D.


----------



## Spatula

neceros said:
			
		

> You are trading Specialization for Generalization.



And losing 1-3 feats in the process.  The trade-off isn't the problem, it's the high cost of it that bothers me.  Any power of a given level should be roughly equal to any other power of the same level.  Now, going outside your niche has value, but you also have to consider that whatever multiclass powers that you pick up are probably not going to favor your best ability score.

I really wish there had been something about how the Paragon-level multiclassing works.


----------



## small pumpkin man

hong said:
			
		

> Do we know how many feats a character has?



There was a tenth level character with 6 feats. Their race and class was not known.


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> Except that you're keeping the benefits from your earlier class.
> 
> For instance, if it was _not_ giving up a feat, then it would be totally worth it to start as fighter, and then just cherry pick encounter and daily Wizard powers. That way, you had your Sweet defender HP, Defenses, Surges, etc, plus the Wizard encounters/dailies.



I'm not saying that it isn't worth a feat. I'm saying that swapping out an encounter, a utility and a daily is not worth three.


----------



## hong

Ultimately it depends on how good feats are, and how many of them you get. If you get a feat every 2 levels, and they're not as powerful as class features, then maybe you can afford to drop a feat to change class features. If feats are very good, then it may not be so affordable.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

FireLance said:
			
		

> And your arguments in support of this assertion are?



Ever played 3.x with munchkins?  This would be worse, considering how hard WotC is trying to balance the utility of each class.


----------



## Rechan

Spatula said:
			
		

> but you also have to consider that whatever multiclass powers that you pick up are probably not going to favor your best ability score.



Unless you multi-class cleverly. 

An Int (Tactics) focused Warlord picking up Int-focused Wizard powers. A Brute-focused rogue picking up (Strenght) based Fighter powers, etc. Some of the paladin abilities are Charisma vs. Will; a Charismatic Rogue or an Inspiration-powered Warlord could milk that.


----------



## Scrollreader

hong said:
			
		

> Ultimately it depends on how good feats are, and how many of them you get. If you get a feat every 2 levels, and they're not as powerful as class features, then maybe you can afford to drop a feat to change class features. If feats are very good, then it may not be so affordable.




I'll concur with that.


----------



## FireLance

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> Ever played 3.x with munchkins?



No, but I've played with some pretty good powergamers.


> This would be worse, considering how hard WotC is trying to balance the utility of each class.



Please elaborate.


----------



## Rechan

FireLance said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that it isn't worth a feat. I'm saying that swapping out an encounter, a utility and a daily is not worth three.



Acolyte power is not a pre-requisit for Adept power. If you don't want to waste a feat on a Utility power, then don't take Adept Power. 

If you just want to get at SLEEP, just take the Wizard MC feat, and then the Adept power feat, and BAM, you have SLEEP.


----------



## UngeheuerLich

Two things:

I really think, if you want skill training, it would be unfavourable to just take skill training and not train in a different class...

Student of the sword looks quite powerfull (+1 to all attacks AND skill traing) and if you don´t like it anymore, just switch it out with a different feat...

I would rather have gained certain armor or weapon proficiencies than skill training when I multiclass to fighter...

As it stands, right now it seems favourable to dip one class and don´t pick novice or adept feats etc... especially if you would have taken skill training anyway...

Right now i am thinking multiclassing needs houseruling...


----------



## HeinorNY

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> You're trading power for /flexibility/ IMO.



I know this point very well, and I understand it. But this same logic made sense in 3.5, and multiclassing didn't work very well back then.
The way it is presented it's very simple, you give up feat to be able to have powers from other classes than your primary class.


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> Acolyte power is not a pre-requisit for Adept power. If you don't want to waste a feat on a Utility power, then don't take Adept Power.
> 
> If you just want to get at SLEEP, just take the Wizard MC feat, and then the Adept power feat, and BAM, you have SLEEP.



To put my quibble another way, I don't mind paying a feat, it's just that I look at what I'm getting for a feat and wonder, "Is that all?"

These feats remind me of 3e's metamagic feats. You pay once when you get the feat, and you pay again when you swap out one power for another. No doubt, flexibility is an advantage, but I don't think it's that much of an advantage.


----------



## Mentat55

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Now, if everything works as advertised and all powers are equal (no really, I'm trying to be serious here, WotC designers said it, it must be so)



I thought all _classes_ were balanced relative to each other.  Once you starting crossing class boundaries and poaching specific powers, you get unexpected synergies.  I think a feat is well worth the cost of obtaining capabilities outside your normal class limits.


----------



## Rechan

ainatan said:
			
		

> I know this point very well, and I understand it. But this same logic made sense in 3.5, and multiclassing didn't work very well back then.



Multi-classing worked well - for non-casters, because it messed with casting. That, and it was easily abused. 

Feats look fairly weak, from what we've seen. I mean, look at the paragon level feats. Those don't really make me go WOW MUST HAVE.


----------



## Spatula

Rechan said:
			
		

> Except that you're keeping the benefits from your earlier class.
> 
> For instance, if it was _not_ giving up a feat, then it would be totally worth it to start as fighter, and then just cherry pick encounter and daily Wizard powers. That way, you had your Sweet defender HP, Defenses, Surges, and armor proficiencies, plus the Wizard encounters/dailies.
> 
> If I can trade ALL my fighter abilities for wizard ones, then I'm not a great fighter, but I'm a BETTER wizard.



Except it doesn't work like that.  You get one encounter power, one utility power, and one daily power, max (plus the class ability as an encounter power for the first feat).  Well, there's the paragon path option, but we don't know how that works, still...


----------



## Midnight Dawns

BTW I did look and I saw one that was put up early and at the time I did not see any one place a link in it. The apology was in case it was put up before I hit the post button. I actually started typing the thread before midnight thank you but was called away for a few minutes.


----------



## Rechan

FireLance said:
			
		

> To put my quibble another way, I don't mind paying a feat, it's just that I look at what I'm getting for a feat and wonder, "Is that all?"



I could see you saying that IF you had to stick with the power you got with the feat. But, you get to trade up every level. That's pretty potent.

Also, look at the other feats that are on the table we've seen. I'm pretty sure that when you look over those feats, you'll be saying "Is that all?"


----------



## HeinorNY

Rechan said:
			
		

> Feats look fairly weak, from what we've seen. I mean, look at the paragon level feats. Those don't really make me go WOW MUST HAVE.



That's a good point. Maybe a feat is worth a tactical option gain.


----------



## Rechan

Also, I think that some of the real juicy stuff might come from MCing into another class in your same Role.

For instance, a Rogue or a Warlock MCing into a ranger for that Hunter's Quarry. You can only curse the closest target anyhow. Slap the Quarry on someone you've all ready cursed, or someone you have combat advantage over, and that's another d8 of damage.

Or a Fighter picking up Paladin, for that Divine Challenge mark. Divine Challenge can only be used on one opponent at a time, so it being 1/encounter isn't much worse than a regular Paladin; use your Fighter marks for lesser opponents.


----------



## Ximenes088

UngeheuerLich said:
			
		

> Two things:
> 
> I really think, if you want skill training, it would be unfavourable to just take skill training and not train in a different class...
> 
> Student of the sword looks quite powerfull (+1 to all attacks AND skill traing) and if you don´t like it anymore, just switch it out with a different feat...
> 
> I would rather have gained certain armor or weapon proficiencies than skill training when I multiclass to fighter...
> 
> As it stands, right now it seems favourable to dip one class and don´t pick novice or adept feats etc... especially if you would have taken skill training anyway...
> 
> Right now i am thinking multiclassing needs houseruling...



Note the attribute requirements on all the MC feats. Nobody's going to be dipping fighter unless they've bought Strength 13, and nobody's going to be buying Strength 13 unless they're already a melee-friendly type. For MC feat training to be a brain-dead substitute for the skill training feat, you need   ) to want no other multiclass,   ) to want one of the two skills offered for that class as a default, and   ) to have the requisite ability score to get the feat. That's three separate requirements that do not necessarily follow on each other.


----------



## Cadfan

Things that might be fun:

Rogue
Warrior of the Wild
Novice Power: Fox's Cunning

This would get you an extra skill, and really enhance your ability to avoid danger while still pumping out damage to a chosen target.  Works best with a throwing dagger or shuriken on hand.

Rogue
Initiate of the Sword
Proficiency: Rapier
Kensai

Turns you into a serious swashbuckler.  Big attack and damage bonuses with that rapier, plus whatever else you get from Kensai.

Fighter
Initiate of the Faith
Paragon Path: Warpriest

Lets your mark not only penalize attacks by -2, but also grant you an opportunity attack if the marked target attacks someone else.  Also grants miscellaneous combat and durability bonuses, and synergizes with Cleric powers that rely on Strength.

Warlord
Arcane Initiate, select Magic Missile
Novice Power: Force Orb

Lets you use Magic Missile as a ranged attack once per encounter, and since its a generic ranged attack, you can use it in conjunction with warlord powers like Feather Me Yon Oaf.  Also gives you an area of effect attack (that has friend or foe ID) for when your warlord powers have maneuvered the enemies into a clump.


----------



## ShadowyFigure

WOTC EXCERPT said:
			
		

> wizard power 1/encounter




Wait so do es this mean I can get force orb on a level 1 fighter...


----------



## Rechan

Rechan said:
			
		

> Also, I think that some of the real juicy stuff might come from MCing into another class in your same Role.
> 
> For instance, a Rogue or a Warlock MCing into a ranger for that Hunter's Quarry. You can only curse the closest target anyhow. Slap the Quarry on someone you've all ready cursed, or someone you have combat advantage over, and that's another d8 of damage.
> 
> Or a Fighter picking up Paladin, for that Divine Challenge mark. Divine Challenge can only be used on one opponent at a time, so it being 1/encounter isn't much worse than a regular Paladin; use your Fighter marks for lesser opponents.



This will also probably become more true when newer classes come out, because they're supposed to do things that Other classes can't (See: Psionics = Enchantment).


----------



## Rechan

ShadowyFigure said:
			
		

> Wait so do es this mean I can get force orb on a level 1 fighter...



I bet they meant 'At-will Wizard power'. Because MCing into Warlock gives pact At-Will 1/encounter.


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> I could see you saying that IF you had to stick with the power you got with the feat. But, you get to trade up every level. That's pretty potent.



To me, that's retraining. If a non-multiclassed character gets to retrain his powers too, the "trading up" that a multiclassed character gets is not that much of a benefit.


> Also, look at the other feats that are on the table we've seen. I'm pretty sure that when you look over those feats, you'll be saying "Is that all?"



I guess it's a matter of taste. I really like Action Surge and Power of Amaunator, for example.


----------



## frankthedm

hong said:
			
		

> Hm, seems that multiclassed characters got the nerfstick. You use a feat, and you get a limited benefit. You can use another feat, which lets you subtract a class power and add a multiclassed power.



 They got beaten unconscious with the nerfstick and woke up spaded & neutered.


----------



## hennebeck

What do you think the downside would be of allowing 3 classes?
Why did they decide to limit it?
You still lose a feat that could have been used for something else.


----------



## Rechan

FireLance said:
			
		

> I guess it's a matter of taste. I really like Action Surge and Power of Amaunator, for example.



It may be. After all, I've had many a player look at the 3.x handbook and go "... I don't like any of these feats", when there are some good ones, tactically speaking. 

I'm willing to bet the "concept over power" players will eat up the feats. It spends their feats AND drives home their character concept.


----------



## Ximenes088

hennebeck said:
			
		

> What do you think the downside would be of allowing 3 classes?
> Why did they decide to limit it?
> You still lose a feat that could have been used for something else.



I'd say that it's because keeping a lid on the synergies of any two classes is a lot easier than trying to chain up any three classes.


----------



## MindWanderer

Mentat55 said:
			
		

> I thought all _classes_ were balanced relative to each other.  Once you starting crossing class boundaries and poaching specific powers, you get unexpected synergies.  I think a feat is well worth the cost of obtaining capabilities outside your normal class limits.



 I second this.  Take the rogue: do you think a rogue will be able to get a level 16 utility power as useful as Greater Invisibility?  Probably not, not to him anyway.  The combination of perpetual combat advantage and sneak attack is greater than the sum of its parts.


----------



## small pumpkin man

ShadowyFigure said:
			
		

> Wait so do es this mean I can get force orb on a level 1 fighter...



I assume it means use a Wizard at will power once per encounter.


----------



## Khuxan

One character that is always mentioned when multiclassing is discussed is Conan the Barbarian. I've never read the books, but I'm curious to know if people think that these multiclassing rules are robust enough to create Conan. 

(It seems King Conan is a barbarian 15/soldier 2/thief 1/pirate 2 - which I think could be covered by a barbarian multiclassing into rogue in 4e).


----------



## MindWanderer

jeffhartsell said:
			
		

> But still looks like if you want TWF at-will you have to start as ranger.



Technically, yes--but if you take a TWF-ranger encounter power, a TWF-ranger daily, and the Stormwarden PP, that's a lot of TWF-powers you can dish out.

*Edit:* Could you even take Stormwarden?  If you need the "two-blade fighting style" to qualify, you may really have to be a ranger--and that'll be true for other PPs as well.  That could be very unfortunate.  Although I notice that Pact Initiate looks like it could qualify you for Doomsayer.


----------



## Stalker0

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> I assume it means use a Wizard at will power once per encounter.




Yep 1/encounter you can throw a little magic missile that does less damage than your weapon (because your int is lower) and has a lower chance to hit (because your int is lower).

Oh yeah, really feeling the fighter/wizard in this version


As for the novice/acolyte thing, I can understand that WOTC was concerned about cross class synergies, so they made a feat the cost of branching into other power trees. What I don't understand is why they though it needed to be 3 feats to get 3 powers. How about 1 feat to get access to all 3? You still have to be high level, you still have to give up your regular powers, unless you multiclassed just right you'll likely have a weaker ability score for those powers, and you still paid a feat. Seems like a much more reasonable tradeoff to me.


----------



## frankthedm

The article said:
			
		

> Combos like fighter/wizard now work much better, while traditional choices like fighter/rogue still function just fine.



If by 'just fine' they mean _"can't figure out how to sneak attack with a weapon larger than a 1d6!"_  To say nothing of the ranger / rogue who may feel slighly _"Nerfed to hell"_.

Now the changes were needed, but is kind of funny how making multiclassing usable was the LAST of the priorities.



> _The 4th Edition design had three primary goals for multiclassing:
> 1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them.
> 2. Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations.
> 3. Institute controls to make every combination as playable as possible._


----------



## Stalker0

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Technically, yes--but if you take a TWF-ranger encounter power, a TWF-ranger daily, and the Stormwarden PP, that's a lot of TWF-powers you can dish out.




Woo hoo, once in the whole freakin fight I can use my two weapons. As opposed to having a shield, giving me a permanent bonus to AC and reflex, AND having at will abilities I can use with it.

And let's not forget, that TWF is one of the ranger's tactical options. And many powers gain bonuses to one or the other of a class's options. But since no other class gets access to those options, those powers are weaker. So even if a fighter spends the feat to get ranger, AND spends another feat to get TWF powers, and assuming he actually has a decent dex to make use of those ranger powers, he STILL is not as good at those powers as a TWF ranger.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Some multiclassing feats look better than others.  If we're going by this pattern you tend to get the lesser benefits multi-classing with Initiate of the Faith, Student of Battle, Singer of Song, etc. on anyone leading to leader classes, unless the later benefits are good going down that road.

Well it does answer one of the questions in my thread on martial characters using rituals, perhaps its better for some fighters to take Ritual Casting (and some possible skill training feats) instead of Arcane Initiate, as they may not be able to do the impressive magic stuff in combat, but might get a better chance at doing impressive magic stuff out of combat.


----------



## Rechan

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> *Edit:* Could you even take Stormwarden?  If you need the "two-blade fighting style" to qualify, you may really have to be a ranger--and that'll be true for other PPs as well.  That could be very unfortunate.  Although I notice that Pact Initiate looks like it could qualify you for Doomsayer.



According to the article, multi-classing into a class gives you all the pre-reqs to take the PPs. 

So a fighter MCing into ranger can go Stormwarden.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

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.


----------



## frankthedm

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Yep 1/encounter you can throw a little magic missile that does less damage than your weapon (because your int is lower) and has a lower chance to hit (because your int is lower).
> 
> Oh yeah, really feeling the fighter/wizard in this version



For only $40 you can get the Swordmage.







			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> As for the novice/acolyte thing, I can understand that WOTC was concerned about cross class synergies, so they made a feat the cost of branching into other power trees. What I don't understand is why they though it needed to be 3 feats to get 3 powers. How about 1 feat to get access to all 3? You still have to be high level, you still have to give up your regular powers, unless you multiclassed just right you'll likely have a weaker ability score for those powers, and you still paid a feat. Seems like a much more reasonable tradeoff to me.



Feats are  plentiful in 4E and do not grant extra abilities most of the time. Thus each trade is charged one feat because the feat pays for the trade.


----------



## FireLance

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> I second this.  Take the rogue: do you think a rogue will be able to get a level 16 utility power as useful as Greater Invisibility?  Probably not, not to him anyway.  The combination of perpetual combat advantage and sneak attack is greater than the sum of its parts.



Depends on what the level 16 rogue utility powers are like. 

Anyway, I'm still not sure whether the combination of "The target becomes visible when it attacks" and "Sustain minor" means that:

1. You can sustain the spell with a minor action, but after the target attacks, it becomes visible and the spell ends; or

2. The target becomes visible when it attacks, but with a minor action, you can cause the target to become invisible again. 

The first interpretation means that a rogue with the ability to cast the spell would not need a wizard around to maintain his invisibility (since he can sustain the spell on himself), but would only be able to gain automatic combat advantage once per day.


----------



## hong

FireLance said:
			
		

> Depends on what the level 16 rogue utility powers are like.
> 
> Anyway, I'm still not sure whether the combination of "The target becomes visible when it attacks" and "Sustain minor" means that:
> 
> 1. You can sustain the spell with a minor action, but after the target attacks, it becomes visible and the spell ends; or
> 
> 2. The target becomes visible when it attacks, but with a minor action, you can cause the target to become invisible again.
> 
> The first interpretation means that a rogue with the ability to cast the spell would not need a wizard around to maintain his invisibility (since he can sustain the spell on himself), but would only be able to gain automatic combat advantage once per day.



 I'm pretty sure it was concluded here that it's the first interpretation.


----------



## Stalker0

frankthedm said:
			
		

> For only $40 you can get the Swordmage.




Heck yeah!! I mean, why even put multiclassing in the game, let's just sit back, relax, and wait for WOTC to release core classes for every single possible character concept we can think of.

Phew, that's a load off my mind


----------



## oberixie

I like how it looks plenty of room to create a sweet concept without making MC the best possible option.  

I mean come on  an eldrian warlock with a rogue dip

stealth eyebite sneak attack misty step feystep curse backstabber feat more then likely a way to make eldrich blast usable for sneak attack sounds like a very good assassin to me.


----------



## frankthedm

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Heck yeah!! I mean, why even put multiclassing in the game, let's just sit back, relax, and wait for WOTC to release core classes for every single possible character concept we can think of.
> 
> Phew, that's a load off my mind



While sarcasm can be appreciated, this situation DID happen with 3E and PRCs. I can't say for certain they borked multiclassing _intentionally _to make the inevitable deluge of Core classes more appealing, but it would have been a very shrewed move to do so.


----------



## FireLance

hong said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure it was concluded here that it's the first interpretation.



My balance-fu agrees, but it's the same balance-fu that tells me that a single power swap is probably* not worth a feat.

* Since I haven't seen 4e in its entirely yet, of course.


----------



## FireLance

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Take the Student of the Sword feat, for instance. If there are a limited number of attack bonus boosting feats--even if many of them are better than Student of the Sword, it's still an obvious power choice for a warrior type. And no matter how often the designers pretend that healing word 1/day is as good as +1 to hit, there are a lot of characters for whom the +1 to hit is going to be a lot better.



Or maybe it's +1 to attack _once per encounter_.


----------



## Fobok

Personally, I really like this new multiclass system. To me, the real kicker is the ability to qualify for another class' Paragon Path. (Not as a Paragon Path, but a Rogue taking Kensai for example.) That, to me, is where you'll see the real specializations. 

Really, the power-swapping feats and such seem weak, but I see them as for the Heroic tier, not any farther. At lower levels, those will delve you pretty deep in. It's the Paragon Paths (and the ability to get more multiclass powers instead) where you see the deep delving for the higher levels. You can't really see these things as separate, they're both part of the same package.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Yep 1/encounter you can throw a little magic missile that does less damage than your weapon (because your int is lower) and has a lower chance to hit (because your int is lower).
> 
> Oh yeah, really feeling the fighter/wizard in this version



Why do you want to play a Fighter/Wizard and still choose a low INT? Pick a reasonable INT, get a free magic missile per encounter with your Arcana skill training, and then you'll take the later feats to really get some magic in your sword-fighting.



> As for the novice/acolyte thing, I can understand that WOTC was concerned about cross class synergies, so they made a feat the cost of branching into other power trees. What I don't understand is why they though it needed to be 3 feats to get 3 powers. How about 1 feat to get access to all 3? You still have to be high level, you still have to give up your regular powers, unless you multiclassed just right you'll likely have a weaker ability score for those powers, and you still paid a feat. Seems like a much more reasonable tradeoff to me.



I am not sure why it had to be 3 feats, either. It might have to do with the generally lower power of feats. 

Since retraining is included per default, and also a lot more flexible then the 3E PHB II, this also sheds an interesting light on feats. You will exchange feats that turned out to be unsuited by default, and you can eventually replace Heroic Tier feats with Paragon Tier feats.


----------



## Ximenes088

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Yep 1/encounter you can throw a little magic missile that does less damage than your weapon (because your int is lower) and has a lower chance to hit (because your int is lower).



What fighter's going to multiclass for something he can do better by throwing an axe? He'll take Fireblast for his per-encounter and suddenly get a minion-killing AoE effect.


----------



## Green Knight

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> What fighter's going to multiclass for something he can do better by throwing an axe? He'll take Fireblast for his per-encounter and suddenly get a minion-killing AoE effect.




Is Eldritch Blast a choice for Pact Initiate? If so, a Fighter could get himself a nice 1d10 ranged damage Encounter Power.


----------



## DonAdam

Surely a fighter/wizard would have a decent Int. Especially since it can sub for a good Dex now. And don't forget that trained Arcana probably includes various functions like detect/read magic and the like. As was said above, take the AoE spell rather than magic missile.

So for 1 feat, seems pretty good.

I hope you can take an array of cantrips instead of just one spell.

The giving up a feat for swapping makes intuitive sense to me.  If powers were designed to be mixed and matched willy nilly, why bother having multiple classes in the first place?

The only thing that worries me so far is the 2-weapon fighting concern. It shouldn't require being a ranger.


----------



## Plane Sailing

I quite like the way this is presented, but I'd love to know the reasoning behind certain decisions.

For instance 

 - why are gaining powers from a different class so expensive? You've already spent a feat to multiclass, why additional feats to swap one of your perfectly good powers for one of those perfectly good powers?

- why the apparent difference in what is gained from multiclass feats, as in some of them give an at-will power as a per encounter power, others give a per encounter power as a per day power, and the wizard one seems rather open-ended as it doesn't specify what kind of power you get (at will or per encounter). I could guess at-will but...

- what happens if a fighter or rogue or whatever wants to be a two weapon fighting character - how does that work (maybe there is a feat for it?)

Cheers


----------



## neceros

I'm not sure if two weapon fighting requires being a ranger. I just believe the ranger is more adept at it.


----------



## One Horse town

Spatula said:
			
		

> And losing 1-3 feats in the process.




Nor necessarily. I presume that you could decide to re-train the Novice feat to acolyte at 8th level or above, thus upgrading the power you can utilise. That could mean (depending on how re-training works), that you gain a power that can be used more often, for just the intitial 1 feat instead of spending 2 feats to get 2 abilities. It's a choice to make, if indeed re-training works like that. The same with the adept feat. Maybe you can re-train up to that at 12th or above. So you get just 1 (good) ability for the expenditure of 1 feat. You won't be as effective as you would if you spent 3 feats, but you only spent 1 feat, so it's a trade off on how much you want to multi-class.

This all hinges on how re-training works, however.


----------



## Graf

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Well, there's a lot of fancy talk there about kicking system mastery in the teeth and making any combination work equally well, but it doesn't look likely to work out that way.
> 
> Take the Student of the Sword feat, for instance. If there are a limited number of attack bonus boosting feats--even if many of them are better than Student of the Sword, it's still an obvious power choice for a warrior type. And no matter how often the designers pretend that healing word 1/day is as good as +1 to hit, there are a lot of characters for whom the +1 to hit is going to be a lot better. (Marking, etc, we'll wait and see on, but +1 to hit is an obvious and obviously useful benefit).



 I like the way you're trying to analyze but I think there are some other ways to look at it...

What's wrong with having the "weapon focus" of the game be "you have fighter training"? Sure it may be a bit better than another featon the "must take list" but 1) it makes sense that if you're studying everything about fighting you study fighting with fighters 2) it prevents other-multiclassing (a disadvantage -- again you spend all your time practicing poking things with long pointy things you don't have time to learn other classes).

Also, _healing word _triggers someone elses healing surge. That's a useful power at epic levels. Not bad for a 1st level feat. Heck, the power could be called "you get an extra healing surge as a minor action" which is the dwarf power.



			
				Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Conversely, the power trading feats have a long road to hoe in order to avoid being traps for the unwary. If they work as described in the article, a character who takes a power trading feat gives up a feat and a power to get a power that wouldn't normally be available to him. Now, if everything works as advertised and all powers are equal (no really, I'm trying to be serious here, WotC designers said it, it must be so), then the character who sticks with his ordinary class powers gets a feat and a power but the character who wants to trade simply ends up short a feat in comparison. What is most likely to happen is that there will be a couple powers that are significantly better than other powers (at least for certain types of characters) and that characters who use the power trading feats to gain those powers will be somewhat stronger than they would without the power trading feat. At the same time, players who make more suspect choices will end up with a power that doesn't really help them do anything that needs doing and will have wasted a feat for the privilige of gimping their character like that.




Obviously some powers will be sub optimal for certain characters. That's why you get to *swap again*, for free *every level*. So someone could pick a flavorful power that doesn't work well, have the character learn from the experience and go pick something more useful.

I know that FL has been mentioning the pay twice thing, I may just be being contrary but there are really only two ways to balance the system.

1. Balance toward the middle (so even a fighter with 13 int benefits significantly from getting magic missile)
2.  Balance toward the high end (so a tactical warlord with 20 int doesn't benefit too much from taking RoF (or whatever the best wizard power is)

You can't really have a system that allows both of these things and also where stat choices matter.
3.5 swung wildly around gimping most combinations in an (ultimately failed) attempt to cut the power of the extremity.

And the power gap between of the extremity and "normal" (or, god forbid, core-only) characters was/is vast.
Ultimately I think they have to expect that people will optimize and eye the upper rung carefully. One of the best ways to limit that is a "pay to play" system where you give up some awesomeness from your class to get access to another.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

neceros said:
			
		

> I'm not sure if two weapon fighting requires being a ranger. I just believe the ranger is more adept at it.



*Nods* I agree, I am thinking perhaps since one of the Class Features of the Ranger was: Fighting Style, why couldn't other classes use the same list of Fighting Styles, just the Ranger has the Build that gives bonuses to two weapon fighting.


----------



## malcolm_n

The article 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. "



  So at 4th, I can get my encounter power and if i don't like it i'll trade out for another at 5th.  When I get a brand new encounter power, I could trade out my 4th level power and get that one while getting back my fighter ability.

At 30th level, paragon aside, I'll have a max level Wizard encounter, daily and utility power; and I'm a rogue... Rawr.  and i still get the next lowest level of rogue powers to keep me okay.

To answer a question of conan earlier; yes, we can make conan.  Having read many of the books, I'd place him as a barbarian with MC Rogue, at least early on.  In his later years, he was more like a fighter/rogue, which would easily explain the ability to retrain.


----------



## FadedC

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> - why are gaining powers from a different class so expensive? You've already spent a feat to multiclass, why additional feats to swap one of your perfectly good powers for one of those perfectly good powers?




I wouldn't say the feat your spending to multiclass is much of a cost. If you look at the things it gives you, it seems to be signifcantly more then you'd otherwise expect to get out of a single heroic feat. If it gave you even more on top of that it would be pretty insane.

On the fighter/magic missle discussion.....yeah I doubt the fighter is going to take magic missile. But in addition to scorching blast there's also ray of frost....a little slowing utility might not be bad at all for the fighter. And the lower attack bonus from less int can be made up for by the fact that it targets fortitude rather then ac.


----------



## Daeger

Honestly? I don't like this one bit. This is probably the first 4th edition excerpt that has left me completely disappointed. As the article mentions - multiclassing is being introduced as an afterthought. I thought feats for multiclassing were merely going to be one of the many options - learning that you can't ACTUALLY multiclass and instead take feats to emulate it is really lame.


----------



## Pinotage

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> - why are gaining powers from a different class so expensive? You've already spent a feat to multiclass, why additional feats to swap one of your perfectly good powers for one of those perfectly good powers?




Yip. Given that all powers are generally balanced between classes, so that each class delivers roughly the same damage output but in a different way, I don't see what you'd gain by swapping a power other than class flavor, which in itself might be worthwhile.

I understand the reasons behind the multiclassing, but I'm not that impressed with it. I would much rather have seen a generic multiclassing path that could be taken, akin to a paragon path, but something that you could get at any level. The path would allow you to advance in any other class via multiclassing, and could be built similarly to a paragon path. 

Pinotage


----------



## vagabundo

As per usual, the simplicity and  straightforward way of 4e throws me for a loop. It is funny, but for multiclassing, I knew what was coming, yet I still had that 0_o moment. _Is that it?_, I thought. 

Allowing the new system to settle, I can see now how it will work and interact with the other parts of 4e. Simplicity is power. This system is nice and balanced, conservative even. But could help create a wide range of characters. And it is easy to extend: a new batch of multiclass feats for the core classes.

I also like the roleplaying possibilities of these feats. Each seems to have a little bit of potential back story associated with it. 

The 4e system, multiclassing and retraining, tell you to make the best character for your concept now. Don't wait, don't plan, optimise at every level, try new things, go crazy! You can retrain later if it doesn't work out.


----------



## Rechan

oberixie said:
			
		

> stealth eyebite sneak attack misty step feystep curse backstabber feat more then likely a way to make eldrich blast usable for sneak attack sounds like a very good assassin to me.



... 

YOINK.


----------



## Mouseferatu

I really don't know where the idea that "all powers are 100% equal" is coming from. WotC has said that the _classes_ are balanced overall. Nobody ever said that every power of level X is identical.

Some powers do more damage; others do less but bestow conditions; others do less but affect more targets, or have secondary effects, or allow you to boost a companion, and so forth.

So if a class is designed primarily to be a one-on-one damage dealer, taking a power that suddenly allows it to attack a whole mess of people at once is a _big deal_. It opens up a whole range of tactical options.

Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?


----------



## Dice4Hire

Looks nice, very nice. I must say it is very hard to analyze this excerpt without the retraining rules known for sure. It looks like you cannot retrain from playing with one class but would it be possible? To be a fighter who takes some rogue at low levels and some wizard at high? That would be pretty powerful. 

Any good version of the retraining rules out there?


----------



## IceFractal

It's not a _bad_ system, it's just ... underwhelming.  I mean, some of the preview articles promised a five-star lobster dinner and what we get is a bologna sandwich.  

For example, I recall something along the lines of "any class, any combination, works" being bandied about a few months ago.  That might be technically true, but only if your idea of multiclassing is a light dip, you're willing to be four feats and a paragon class behind the rest of the party for the sake of concept, and you happen to pick a class combination which is actually synergistic - something which 4E doesn't seem to solve much better than 3E did.  Heck, you can't even multiclass three classes!


Honestly, light-dip multiclassing was something that already worked decently well in 3E.  If you were, say, a Rogue, then picking up one or two levels of Sorcerer gave you some useful abilities without putting you unduly behind.  It was trying to do something like Fighter 10/Wizard 10 that had problems, and apparently the 4E solution to those problems is "wait until a Fighter/Mage base class is released".

And yeah, I'm going to comment on this:







> The 4th Edition design had three primary goals for multiclassing:
> 1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them.
> 2. Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations.
> 3. Institute controls to make every combination as playable as possible.



So balancing something is more important than making it usable?  Balance is great, but it should be secondary to fun and usability - there's no point balancing something that nobody wants to play.


----------



## IceFractal

> Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?



Just wanted to respond to this separately - I don't know about other people, but IMO, that was a large part of the _problem_ with 3E multiclassing, not part of it's justification.  

Originally it was thought that something like Wizard 10/Cleric 10 would be fine because of versatility.  Then most people realized that versatility is no substitute for actually being able to do stuff, and that the Mystic Theurge was a necessity.  Fast forward to the Bo9S, and there's attempts to let people be versatile without becoming powerless.

So sure, a lot of 3E combinations did give up too much power for their versatility, but that doesn't mean 4E should do things the same way.


----------



## Daeger

IceFractal said:
			
		

> I recall something along the lines of "any class, any combination, works" being bandied about a few months ago.  That might be technically true, but only if your idea of multiclassing is a light dip, you're willing to be four feats and a paragon class behind the rest of the party for the sake of concept, and you happen to pick a class combination which is actually synergistic - something which 4E doesn't seem to solve much better than 3E did.  Heck, you can't even multiclass three classes!



My thoughts exactly. I'm disappointed that if any solution does arise - we're going to have to wait for supplements. I am not satisfied with dabbling. I don't 'dabble' multiclassing. My multiclassed characters are almost always half and half.


----------



## FireLance

I mentioned earlier that I liked the Power of Amaunator feat, and after a bit more thought, I have concluded that I would like the power swap feats more if they functioned like that feat.

As far as I know, Power of Amaunator does not require a cleric to lose one of his existing uses of Divine Channeling in order to gain it. Instead, it provides an additional option for Divine Channeling, even though in any one encounter, the cleric can only use one Divine Channeling ability.

I think the power swap feats could function in a similar fashion. When you take the Novice Power feat, you select one encounter ability from your secondary class. Once per encounter, you can use that ability, but you must expend another encounter ability from your primary class of that ability's level or higher. When you gain a level, you can change your choice of encounter ability from your secondary class.

In this manner, you're spending a feat to give you the option to use a power from your secondary class, but you are never worse off compared to a character who has not taken the feat. If the power swap feats were done in this way, I think they would be worth that feat.


----------



## vagabundo

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I really don't know where the idea that "all powers are 100% equal" is coming from. WotC has said that the _classes_ are balanced overall. Nobody ever said that every power of level X is identical.
> 
> Some powers do more damage; others do less but bestow conditions; others do less but affect more targets, or have secondary effects, or allow you to boost a companion, and so forth.
> 
> So if a class is designed primarily to be a one-on-one damage dealer, taking a power that suddenly allows it to attack a whole mess of people at once is a _big deal_. It opens up a whole range of tactical options.
> 
> Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?




Having had at it (4e multiclassing) for a while. How have you found it? Does it allow you to create concepts that are outside the the standard classes? As the core classes now seem a little more focused than in 3e. 

If you multiclass have you found the character suffers much power loss compared too his peers?


----------



## Mouseferatu

IceFractal said:
			
		

> So sure, a lot of 3E combinations did give up too much power for their versatility, but that doesn't mean 4E should do things the same way.




I agree that some of the 3E multiclasses gave up too much power for their versatility. But the problem was one of _degree_, not one of _concept_.

Versatility _is_ worth a certain amount of power. If you can be equally as powerful as a single-classed character _and_ more versatile, it's clearly the superior option. The solution is figuring out _how much_ power loss is worth the versatility.


----------



## Mouseferatu

vagabundo said:
			
		

> Having had at it (4e multiclassing) for a while. How have you found it? Does it allow you to create concepts that are outside the the standard classes? As the classes now seem a little more focused.
> 
> If you multiclass have you found the character suffers much power loss compare too his peers?




Nobody has done much multiclassing in my group; we all decided we wanted to start the new system with some pretty basic concepts. Nobody has taken anything more than the very first multiclass feat (the class-specific ones).

I think the system looks good for dabblers, less so for people who want 50/50. But most of that is based on my understanding of the system, as opposed to direct observation in play.


----------



## Rechan

FireLance said:
			
		

> As far as I know, Power of Amaunator does not require a cleric to lose one of his existing uses of Divine Channeling in order to gain it. Instead, it provides an additional option for Divine Channeling, even though in any one encounter, the cleric can only use one Divine Channeling ability.



The thing about PoA is that it's a rider. It's not a full on power in its own right, it just modifies another power with a boost of damage. A nice boost yes, but that's it.



> In this manner, you're spending a feat to give you the option to use a power from your secondary class, but you are never worse off compared to a character who has not taken the feat. If the power swap feats were done in this way, I think they would be worth that feat.



The problem I have with this is that it's TOO good; why _wouldn't_ someone take that? To expand their options, so they have something that can fill that hole when Encounter Power X doesn't fit the situation?


----------



## FireLance

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So if a class is designed primarily to be a one-on-one damage dealer, taking a power that suddenly allows it to attack a whole mess of people at once is a _big deal_. It opens up a whole range of tactical options.



Well, you probably know more about the rules than I do, but I would think it works out in the long run. The striker gains mass damage capability, but loses some single-target effectiveness. The party as a whole becomes better at dealing with masses of opponents, but less able to take out solo monsters. Given a variety of challenges (meaning: the DM does not specifically tailor the encounters to play to either the party's strengths or weaknesses), it's probably a wash.


> Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?



For me, at least, it's always been a question of how much power for how much versatility. In the case of the 4e power swap feats, it seems like too much power for too little versatility.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> The problem I have with this is that it's TOO good; why _wouldn't_ someone take that? To expand their options, so they have something that can fill that hole when Encounter Power X doesn't fit the situation?




Because they might want to spend that feat slot on something else, of course.


----------



## Mouseferatu

hong said:
			
		

> Because they might want to spend that feat slot on something else, of course.




Wouldn't work. The ability to "plug a hole" with an extra power is _far_ more valuable than a feat.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> Because they might want to spend that feat slot on something else, of course.



What's better than getting an extra power choice?


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> What's better than getting an extra power choice?



 More hit points... better AC... better defenses... whatever else an extra feat gives you....


----------



## Spatula

hennebeck said:
			
		

> What do you think the downside would be of allowing 3 classes?
> Why did they decide to limit it?
> You still lose a feat that could have been used for something else.



The downside is that you're watering down your main role.  The multi-class is just suppose to be some additional flavor / flexability, you're still supposed to be able to be a defender, striker, whatever your main class is.  If you're replacing all your class powers with multiclass powers from different multiclasses, *and* using up all your feats on it, you're not going to be effective at much of anything.


----------



## Mouseferatu

FireLance said:
			
		

> For me, at least, it's always been a question of how much power for how much versatility. In the case of the 4e power swap feats, it seems like too much power for too little versatility.




Indeed, it's possible. As I said above, I'm going by what I've read; I haven't seen too much multiclassing in my own group. I think it's a good trade between power and versatility, based on what I know of the system, but I could certainly be proved wrong.

I don't _think_ I will be, but it's feasible.


----------



## hong

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Wouldn't work. The ability to "plug a hole" with an extra power is _far_ more valuable than a feat.



 In a party-based game, you "plug a hole" by having someone play a PC with the requisite schtick. Anything else is likely to be inferior.


----------



## Guild Goodknife

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Versatility _is_ worth a certain amount of power. If you can be equally as powerful as a single-classed character _and_ more versatile, it's clearly the superior option.



This.

Multiclassing was crap in every past edition. It was crap in 2nd edition (when there was also the extremly superior dual classing). It was slightly less crap in 3rd but still crappy enough to not make it worth while in most cases (caster multiclassing with other core classes) and super powerfull in other cases.

This looks fairly useable.


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> The thing about PoA is that it's a rider. It's not a full on power in its own right, it just modifies another power with a boost of damage. A nice boost yes, but that's it.



The key point is, I don't think Power of Amaunator is a swap. It gives you an additional option without taking away any of your existing options (admittedly, I could be wrong).


> The problem I have with this is that it's TOO good; why _wouldn't_ someone take that? To expand their options, so they have something that can fill that hole when Encounter Power X doesn't fit the situation?



Because it costs a feat, and there's another feat that he wants more?  Feats are (still, I assume) intended to provide benefits, and the real cost of a feat is the opportunity cost of not taking another feat. You might want to expand your options, or you might want more hit points, or you might want an attack roll bonus when you spend an action point.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> More hit points... better AC... better defenses... whatever else an extra feat gives you....



Since Powers seem to be the bread and butter of the game, I don't see a +2 here or there trumping that. 

Let me put it to you this way: Would you let a player take this feat in 3.x? 

Wider Spellcasting
Benefit: If you prepare your spells, add another spell-slot to the highest level of spells you can cast. If you cast spontaneously, add another spell known to your known list. *This always applies to your highest level known; if you level up, it applies to that level instead of the previous*.


----------



## Rechan

FireLance said:
			
		

> Because it costs a feat, and there's another feat that he wants more?  Feats are (still, I assume) intended to provide benefits, and the real cost of a feat is the opportunity cost of not taking another feat. You might want to expand your options, or you might want more hit points, or you might want an attack roll bonus when you spend an action point.



I'm sorry, but the balancing factor from feat to feat is not "Well what if they want another feat." All feats need to be balanced with one another so that none are a "no brainer".


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> Since Powers seem to be the bread and butter of the game, I don't see a +2 here or there trumping that.




If I have N rounds in a fight, that's N times I can use a power, no matter how many powers I have.




> Let me put it to you this way: Would you let a player take this feat in 3.x?
> 
> Wider Spellcasting
> Benefit: If you prepare your spells, add another spell-slot to the highest level of spells you can cast. If you cast spontaneously, add another spell known to your known list. *This always applies to your highest level known; if you level up, it applies to that level instead of the previous*.




I thought we were talking about a totally different ball game now?


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> Let me put it to you this way: Would you let a player take this feat in 3.x?
> 
> Wider Spellcasting
> Benefit: If you prepare your spells, add another spell-slot to the highest level of spells you can cast. If you cast spontaneously, add another spell known to your known list. *This always applies to your highest level known; if you level up, it applies to that level instead of the previous*.



Actually, it's more like:

If you prepare spells, you may prepare two spells in one slot. However, once you cast either of the spells, the spell slot is expended.

For the spontaneous spellcaster, it's pretty much Extra Spell (from Complete Arcane) and feat retraining (from PHB2).


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> If I have N rounds in a fight, that's N times I can use a power, no matter how many powers I have.




1) You don't know if you have N rounds or if it's going to be O rounds or L rounds. 

2) You might not be able to use that power N times; you may only be able to use it once because it's an Encounter or a Daily. 



> I thought we were talking about a totally different ball game now?



Illustrating an example in 3.x terms becauseshowing what's balanced and what isn't there is easier than doing so in an edition that we don't even have yet?


----------



## FireLance

Rechan said:
			
		

> I'm sorry, but the balancing factor from feat to feat is not "Well what if they want another feat." All feats need to be balanced with one another so that none are a "no brainer".



Which boils down to: what is the value of an additional option? Obviously, you think it is more valuable than I do.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> 1) You don't know if you have N rounds or if it's going to be O rounds or L rounds.
> 
> 2) You might not be able to use that power N times; you may only be able to use it once because it's an Encounter or a Daily.




The point is, you still only have N times in which you can use encounter powers. You can just choose from a few more than N powers.



> Illustrating an example in 3.x terms becauseshowing what's balanced and what isn't there is easier than doing so in an edition that we don't even have yet?




Because the multiclassing in this edition is so different, apparently, that all comparisons to previous editions are bad.


----------



## Spatula

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I really don't know where the idea that "all powers are 100% equal" is coming from. WotC has said that the _classes_ are balanced overall. Nobody ever said that every power of level X is identical.
> 
> Some powers do more damage; others do less but bestow conditions; others do less but affect more targets, or have secondary effects, or allow you to boost a companion, and so forth.
> 
> So if a class is designed primarily to be a one-on-one damage dealer, taking a power that suddenly allows it to attack a whole mess of people at once is a _big deal_. It opens up a whole range of tactical options.
> 
> Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?



I thought we were starting from the assumption that 3e's multiclassing was deeply flawed.  "Everyone" didn't justify 3e's multiclassing system, and those that do probably aren't the ones questioning the cost-benefit ratio of 4e's multiclassing.

As far as power balance, I think we understand that powers have different effects, but the expectation is that at any given level, the available powers are roughly comparable.  An area attack is hugely beneficial, especially if you normally don't have one, but it's not going to deal the same damage as your single-target attack.  If the powers aren't roughly balanced, then multiclassing in 4e is going to be the cherry-picker's delight.


----------



## Mouseferatu

I should probably think about bowing out of this, since I'm having trouble making myself clear without going into more detail than I probably should. But I'll try once more...

I'm not saying that powers aren't _roughly equal_. But that's _in context_. Giving a fighter an area-attack at range is a _much bigger deal_ than giving one to a wizard, because the wizard already has them; the fighter probably doesn't.

So while that area attack spell might be mechanically balanced with a fighter power of the same level, the fighter may well feel that it's worth more, because it lets him do something he couldn't previously do.


----------



## Spatula

hong said:
			
		

> In a party-based game, you "plug a hole" by having someone play a PC with the requisite schtick. Anything else is likely to be inferior.



Yep, the multiclass is going to be a back-up, at best, in a normal party.  If your party had no leader, taking cleric/warlord multiclass feats would be huge, because it opens up some combat healing power that the group didn't have previously.  But the group shouldn't be without a leader in the first place.  In a normal group, the cleric/warlord multiclass still has useful abilities (more combat healing, can stand the real leader back up if he goes down) but won't have as much impact.


----------



## Spatula

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I should probably think about bowing out of this, since I'm having trouble making myself clear without going into more detail than I probably should. But I'll try once more...
> 
> I'm not saying that powers aren't _roughly equal_. But that's _in context_. Giving a fighter an area-attack at range is a _much bigger deal_ than giving one to a wizard, because the wizard already has them; the fighter probably doesn't.
> 
> So while that area attack spell might be mechanically balanced with a fighter power of the same level, the fighter may well feel that it's worth more, because it lets him do something he couldn't previously do.



Well, sure.  No one is saying that the multiclass character isn't more versatile.  But is it worth a feat and a power to select another class' power?  (edit: given that there's almost certainly someone else in the group who can already do something similar - if not, then the cross-class power obviously has more benefit, but that shouldn't be the norm)  You said yourself that no one in your playtest group went past the initiate feat.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Spatula said:
			
		

> But is it worth a feat and a power to select another class' power?




I think so, if it fits the character concept.



> You said yourself that no one in your playtest group went past the initiate feat.




Yes, but that's because nobody chose to play a (heavily) multiclassed character for _conceptual _reasons. As I said, we wanted to stay fairly basic for our first 4E game.


----------



## Khaalis

FireLance said:
			
		

> For me, at least, it's always been a question of how much power for how much versatility. In the case of the 4e power swap feats, it seems like too much power for too little versatility.



This is exactly how I feel. Its too high a cost for too little gain. You aren't gaining additional powers, but simply gaining "different" powers, and it costs you a feat per power to do it. I honestly think this will probably be the first major House Rule topic for 4E.

Right now, my gutt says the system works fine for dabbling, but not true "multiclassing". I do however agree, that there needs to be some cost in power for versatility. However, I think that to make the system more 'deep' multiclass friendly, we would have to change the structure of the Power feats.

Something along the lines of from:
"*Novice Power* 
_Prerequisites:_ Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
_Benefit:_ Swap one encounter power with one of multiclass"

To:
*Novice Power* 
_Prerequisites:_ Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
_Benefit:_ When you gain a new encounter power, you may choose it from your class or any class for which you have the multiclass feat. You may not have more encounter powers from your multiclass than from your base class.

This would allow you (at 30th) to have:
* *Encounter:* 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* *Daily:* 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* *Utility:* 1 Epic, 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 3 Core Class, 2 Multiclass

Granted we need to see the complete rules, but I do believe this will likely be one of the most house ruled topics of 4E.


----------



## FireLance

Khaalis said:
			
		

> *Novice Power*
> _Prerequisites:_ Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
> _Benefit:_ When you gain a new encounter power, you may choose it from your class or any class for which you have the multiclass feat. You may not have more encounter powers from your multiclass than from your base class.
> 
> This would allow you (at 30th) to have:
> * *Encounter:* 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
> * *Daily:* 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
> * *Utility:* 1 Epic, 1 Paragon (or multiclass power), 3 Core Class, 2 Multiclass



So, would your proposed feat allow you to swap a paragon power for a multiclass class power? Otherwise, its net effect is pretty much the same as the original Novice Power feat: two core class encounter powers, one multiclass encounter power.


----------



## hong

Well, looks like multiclassing handed off the heavy work to the feat subsystem. Now we just need to know what that looks like....


----------



## Khaalis

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> I should probably think about bowing out of this, since I'm having trouble making myself clear without going into more detail than I probably should. But I'll try once more...
> 
> I'm not saying that powers aren't _roughly equal_. But that's _in context_. Giving a fighter an area-attack at range is a _much bigger deal_ than giving one to a wizard, because the wizard already has them; the fighter probably doesn't.
> 
> So while that area attack spell might be mechanically balanced with a fighter power of the same level, the fighter may well feel that it's worth more, because it lets him do something he couldn't previously do.




This is a mixed bag of course. Even if the fighter's equivalent power is of "equal power level" to the wizard's ranged AoE, as you said it comes down to Perceived Value.  In this case is it better for the Fighter to gain a power that is specifically geared to do what a Fighter does (STR based attacks in melee)? Or is it better to give him a new "trick" where he can he lob a ranged AoE 1/encounter?  Some will argue for both sides. I personally think that giving the fighter an option to do something when he normally couldn't (since most fighters end up twiddling their thumbs until they can enter melee) is a better option, which of course proves your point.


----------



## Samuel Leming

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> 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.



Sold. I'm going to hold you to this...

Can you do a swashbuckler without multiclassing?

Looks like these strikers make better fighters/martial artists than the fighter class. Seems kind of backwards.

Sam


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Okay, this might be slightly off-topic by now, but this was what I was just writing as an answer in the other ("pre-scoop") thread before it was closed...



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> 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.



I don't think it is that much of a difference. There are some things you probably classify as "relevant" to defining a character they don't see as that important. 

They focus on adventure-relevant skills. Climbing, Swimming or Endurance is adventure relevant, which is why there are skills covering it. Crafting (mundane) or Professions are not relevant for adventuring, that's why it seems not to be covered by the 4E skill system.

I appreciate this approach, especially if the alternative means having to choose between non-adventuring stuff and adventuring stuff. There is no "game" reason to choose the former. I wouldn't mind a seperate subsystem for non-adventuring stuff, but - does it ever matter?


----------



## Khaalis

FireLance said:
			
		

> So, would your proposed feat allow you to swap a paragon power for a multiclass class power? Otherwise, its net effect is pretty much the same as the original Novice Power feat: two core class encounter powers, one multiclass encounter power.



The notation of "1 Paragon (or 1 Mutliclass)" is simply to reference the fact that the rules say you can take a Multiclass Option instead of a Paragon Path.  Overall, the only real gain from rewording the feat this way is that you end up with 1 additional Multiclass Utility Power.  This may still be too high a cost for some as it still costs 4 feats in the end. 

The other option would be to remove the restriction on more multiclass feats than core. If you really wanted say a Fighter/Wizard build that had the Fighter's Base stats (HP, Healing Surges, Armor, etc.) but all Wizard Powers, you could do it with this...

*Novice Power*
_Prerequisites:_ Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
_Benefit:_ When you gain a new encounter power, you may choose it from your class or any class for which you have the multiclass feat. 

For someone who wanted to allow more freedom of multiclassing you could simply make it a Single feat cost so that multiclassing becomes a 2 Feat cost, not 4.

*Multiclass Power*
_Prerequisites:_ Any class-specific multiclass feats, 4th level
_Benefit:_ When you gain a new encounter, daily, or utility power, you may choose it from your class or any class for which you have the multiclass feat. You may not have more powers in any category (encounter, daily, utility) from your multiclass than from your base class.

You still end up with...
* *Encounter:* 1 Paragon, 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* *Daily:* 1 Paragon, 2 Core Class, 1 Multiclass
* *Utility:* 1 Epic, 1 Paragon, 3 Core Class, 2 Multiclass

...but at the cost of 2 feats vs. 4 and get a net gain of 1 cross-class Utility power (assuming you take max number of cross-class powers) over the proposed core rules.

These are just raw ideas I'm tossing out to show how this "Could" be house-ruled to get more of the right Multiclass feel for individual people's games.

Make sense?


----------



## Pinotage

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So while that area attack spell might be mechanically balanced with a fighter power of the same level, the fighter may well feel that it's worth more, because it lets him do something he couldn't previously do.




Sure, but at the same time instead of taking a multiclass feat that gives him something he couldn't do, he takes another fighter feat which will presumably allow him to do something he couldn't do before as well. I see what you're saying, but the multiclass feats are like dabbling. I figure most people just won't bother until they hit paragon level, and hopefully that'll look a bit more meaty than just having one power from another class, which might be something you could just get from a magical item, for example. The feats give you powers, and as I understand it, so do magical items.

Pinotage


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Having read through the thread (thank you Mouseferatu!) I think I can say that I like the multi-classing rules. It's aimed at people who want to dabble (hello Grey Mouser!) and pick up bits and pieces of other classes, rather than the old 2e 50/50 split, and I like that.

Fundamentally, a 50/50 character is a very different one from it's two "parents", and as such deserves it's own class with it's own powers, IMO.

For example, the SwordMage is likely to have melee focussed defence power that neither the fighter nor the wizard would really want or need - given the fighter has his high AC and the wizard will seek to avoid melee if possible.


----------



## Mouseferatu

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I see what you're saying, but the multiclass feats are like dabbling.




Well... Yeah. That's exactly what they are. You're a fighter who's dabbled a bit in wizardry, or a paladin with a few leftover rogue skills from his childhood. They're _meant_ to indicate a bit of dabbling. And for a lot of characters--the kind that, in 3E, would've been represented by a 1 or 3 level dip--that's entirely appropriate.


----------



## Pinotage

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Well... Yeah. That's exactly what they are. You're a fighter who's dabbled a bit in wizardry, or a paladin with a few leftover rogue skills from his childhood. They're _meant_ to indicate a bit of dabbling. And for a lot of characters--the kind that, in 3E, would've been represented by a 1 or 3 level dip--that's entirely appropriate.




Well, you obviously know more about the system than we do, but from where I'm sitting, this kind of dabbling just doesn't look worth it. Mechanically speaking, of course. It's barely the equivalent to a 1 level dip in 3e, which would likely be more beneficial by far than these feats. I don't know - it looks like the 'real' multiclassing only starts at paragon tier.

Pinotage


----------



## Falling Icicle

While alot of people are (understandably) pointing out the things you can't do with this system that you could do in 3e, I think it's worth mentioning the things that this system does so much better.

For one thing, it's possible to dabble now, especially in magic. If I want to play a Fighter with Fireball, I only need to spend 2 feats to get it. And my fireball is no less effective than a Wizard's (save possibly for having a lower Int). That's a very cool option, and I think it's worth the cost. In 3e, such a character would have required an investment of 5 levels in Wizard (getting alot of extra baggage I may not want), and due to the importance of caster level, it wouldn't even be effective. I'd also lose alot of HP, 2-3 points of base attack bonus, and fighter feats, making me both a crappy wizard and a crappy fighter. All that headache and loss to obtain the one or two spells I wanted.

Trading one power of your own class for another at the cost of a feat may seem like a net loss, but think about it. It enables you to do things that your class isn't supposed to be able to do. You can have flying rangers, eyebiting rogues, thunderlancing warlords and paladins that can call upon amaunator's power for crazy radiant damage smites. Versatility can be tremendously effective, especially since it opens up alot of combinations and tactics that wouldn't be available otherwise.

No, you don't have all the flexibility of 3e multiclassing, But you don't have any of its many drawbacks either. It's certainly going to be alot simpler to make multiclass characters now. You don't have to look up each class's chart, add up saves and attack bonuses, etc. And instead of having to meticulously plan your character out ahead of time, you can just pick up multiclassing next time you get a feat, or even retrain if you don't want to wait. This system allows you to be more care free and spontaneous about it. In 3e, if you screwed up and got levels in a class you didn't like, you had no recourse to reverse that decision without house rules. Now, if you decide you don't like your second class, you can just retrain and try something else.

In my experience, most people who multiclassed in 3e did so not for roleplaying reasons, but for min-maxing reasons. If anything, I think *more* people will multiclass for roleplaying reasons now, since the system is less cumbersome, allows more combinations to be effective, isn't as costly to the character and doesn't require pre-planning to be effective.


----------



## Khaalis

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I don't know - it looks like the 'real' multiclassing only starts at paragon tier.



I'm not so sure even that will make the "deep multiclasser" happy. This is what I expect to see from the Paragon Multiclassing.

•	11th: Multiclass Class’ feature – Only way to gain a class feature power of a second class (such as Channel Divinity, First Strike, etc.).
•	11th: Multiclass Class’ At-Will feature -- Only way to gain an at-will class feature Powers of a second class (such as Eyebite, Deft Strike, etc.). replaces the Paragon Path's Action Point boost.
•	11th: Multiclass Class’ encounter power
•	12th: Multiclass Class’ utility power 
•	16th: Multiclass Class’ feature – Only way to gain a 2nd class feature power of a second class.
•	20th: Multiclass Class’ daily power

We also don't know if a Paragon Path's powers will be more powerful than a class' powers. If they are roughly equivalent, the only thing I suspect you will lose out on is the Action Point Boost. However, if the Paragon Path powers are more powerful than 'standard' powers, then you are losing the option of more power for more versatility.


----------



## Green Knight

Khaalis said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure even that will make the "deep multiclasser" happy. This is what I expect to see from the Paragon Multiclassing.
> 
> •	11th: Multiclass Class’ feature – Only way to gain a class feature power of a second class (such as Channel Divinity, First Strike, etc.).
> •	11th: Multiclass Class’ At-Will feature -- Only way to gain an at-will class feature Powers of a second class (such as Eyebite, Deft Strike, etc.). replaces the Paragon Path's Action Point boost.
> •	11th: Multiclass Class’ encounter power
> •	12th: Multiclass Class’ utility power
> •	16th: Multiclass Class’ feature – Only way to gain a 2nd class feature power of a second class.
> •	20th: Multiclass Class’ daily power
> 
> We also don't know if a Paragon Path's powers will be more powerful than a class' powers. If they are roughly equivalent, the only thing I suspect you will lose out on is the Action Point Boost. However, if the Paragon Path powers are more powerful than 'standard' powers, then you are losing the option of more power for more versatility.




Don't see why that shouldn't make the deep multiclasser happy (Unless you're not counting the four multiclass Feats). Assuming that's how it works, then you've got a character who's pretty much 50/50 in his class abilities. A 20th-level Fighter/Wizard with that (and the four Feats) would look like this (F for Fighter Power, W for Wizard Power). 

AT-WILL POWERS: F, F, W 
ENCOUNTER POWERS: F, F, W, W, W (At-Will Power) 
DAILY POWERS: F, F, W, W 
UTILITY POWERS: F, F, F, W, W 
CLASS FEATURES: All Fighter Class Features + 2 Wizard Class Features 

That's about as 50/50 as they come.


----------



## Ondo

Khaalis said:
			
		

> 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.



Actually, they've specifically stated that the Swordmage is not a gish.


----------



## vagabundo

This kind of dabbling will satisfy about 80% of people who want a bit of spice to their character class of choice.

Who wants to bet that a more involved (complicatged) system will be included as an option for the other 20% in the PHBII?

Going this route helps avoid horrible mechanics like Arcane Spell Failure for amour. We dont need it now. Serious, I hope it is gone gone.


----------



## katahn

IceFractal said:
			
		

> The 4th Edition design had three primary goals for multiclassing:
> 1. Design the classes, make them cool, then force multiclassing to play nice with them.
> 2. Institute controls to prevent abusive combinations.
> 3. Institute controls to make every combination as playable as possible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And yeah, I'm going to comment on this:So balancing something is more important than making it usable?  Balance is great, but it should be secondary to fun and usability - there's no point balancing something that nobody wants to play.
Click to expand...



Three primary goals does not imply that the goal listed first was more important than the goal listed second; or that the second goal was more important than the third.  It simply means that multiclassing had three requirements in their mind and what those requirements were.  It is a mistake to infer a specific order of importance in them IMHO.


----------



## Khaalis

Ondo said:
			
		

> Actually, they've specifically stated that the Swordmage is not a gish.



I believe they only use this wording because it is not a Gish as defined by 3X (a character with near full to full BAB and 9th level spells). Everything we have heard about the Swordmage sounds more gish to me than a Fighter with 4 feats dumped into learning a few wizard tricks.

 Its an Arcane defender.
 It uses magic to fight better.
 It uses spells of armoring and protection instead of wearing heavy armor.
 They're defenders, and they need hit points and AC comparable to fighters, and get there by using persistent magic effects.
 They use combat-focused "immediate" spells and "move" spells (such as short-range teleports and transpositions, as well as instant shield-like effects, and a short-duration, self-only strength spell, and one that wreathes a sword in magical flames).

Overall, sounds very gish to me, since this is the kind of spells a gish specialized with in 3X anyway.


----------



## Green Knight

Khaalis said:
			
		

> I believe they only use this wording because it is not a Gish as defined by 3X (a character with near full to full BAB and 9th level spells). Everything we have heard about the Swordmage sounds more gish to me than a Fighter with 4 feats dumped into learning a few wizard tricks.
> 
> Its an Arcane defender.
> It uses magic to fight better.
> It uses spells of armoring and protection instead of wearing heavy armor.
> They're defenders, and they need hit points and AC comparable to fighters, and get there by using persistent magic effects.
> They use combat-focused "immediate" spells and "move" spells (such as short-range teleports and transpositions, as well as instant shield-like effects, and a short-duration, self-only strength spell, and one that wreathes a sword in magical flames).
> 
> Overall, sounds very gish to me, since this is the kind of spells a gish specialized with in 3X anyway.




I'm thinking you can create a pretty nice character by multiclassing Swordmage with Wizard. Your base Swordmage class would give you spells and magical abilities that beef you up in hand-to-hand, while your multiclassed Wizard abilities would give you some long-range spells to better round out your character. I was already interested in playing the Swordmage, before, but I think I'm gonna try that combo out.


----------



## Khaalis

Green Knight said:
			
		

> I'm thinking you can create a pretty nice character by multiclassing Swordmage with Wizard. Your base Swordmage class would give you spells and magical abilities that beef you up in hand-to-hand, while your multiclassed Wizard abilities would give you some long-range spells to better round out your character. I was already interested in playing the Swordmage, before, but I think I'm gonna try that combo out.



It will also likely be safe to assume that INT and STR are the primary stats for the Swordmage also making it synergistic. At least I hope it works out that way. This does however, go back to the point of multiclasses working best within their own power source, reducing the need for MAD.


----------



## TheLordWinter

jeffhartsell said:
			
		

> The current assumption is the half-elf only gets a power and not a class feature for the racial ability.




Sorry if this already was posted (it's a long thread) but we know Prime Shot is a Ranger power. The fact that the Half-Elf Warlock has both Prime Shot and Ray of Frost would seem to raise some questions - particularly since the Warrior of the Wild grants Hunter's Quarry and not Prime Shot. Could be that the Half-Elf is a "good multiclasser" because they automatically get both an additional power and also an additional class feature in addition to any other multiclassing benefits.


----------



## Vael

Here's my question: we know humans get a bonus at-will power at first level. If they take a multiclass feat at first level, can they choose that bonus at-will from the other class?


----------



## Shazman

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Hmnn.
> 
> I wonder how people are going to take only being able to "take" two classes.




Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.


----------



## Green Knight

Vael said:
			
		

> Here's my question: we know humans get a bonus at-will power at first level. If they take a multiclass feat at first level, can they choose that bonus at-will from the other class?




Damn, that is a good question. I hope so.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Shazman said:
			
		

> Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multi classing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.



It is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization by multi classing multiple classes.
But ~80 powers and approximately 15 feat slots instead of 7 feat slots seem to open up entirely new ways to customize your specific character. 

It could also help that we might not get boring stuff like "Better Attack Bonus", "Even Better Attack Bonus", "More Damage", "Even More Damage", "More Damage and More Attack Bonus - Yay!!" customization. Or "Improved Combat Maneuver", "A better Improved Combat Maneuver" "Use Combat Maneuver in a different situation then usual", or "Cast the Same Spell, but better" types of customization. Though this hope might be premature.


----------



## Wormwood

Incenjucar said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'm fine with all this because dabbling is more interesting... if you're doing a half and half or a triple class I'd rather just make a brand new class that fills the role more precisely.



Exactly. A gish class is inherently more interesting to me than a 3e half-fighter, half-wizard.


----------



## katahn

Shazman said:
			
		

> Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.




Actually it was 3e that was the kick in the pants, not 4e.  Although 4e isn't necessarily making it much better it certainly isn't making it worse.  3e multiclassing simply did not work for any caster multiclasses other than possibly some combinations of cleric/melee or druid/melee.  Heavy restrictions on caster level and failure with armored arcane spellcasting and limited to lower level spells that were easier for higher level things to save against all made a lot of the traditional multiclassing tropes a fast way to a gimped character.

4e, even with limited feat-based MCing, will absolutely handle the fighter/arcane caster trope considerably better than 3e ever could.  That is, better than 3e could without resorting to the over-used workaround of prestige classing.  I lost count of the number of 3e prestige classes that were designed around fighter/wizard and included special abilities to reduce arcane spell failure for casting in armor...

So criticize 4e multiclassing all you like, but please don't pretend that 3e multiclassing was somehow better for anything other than fighter/rogue or melee/CoDzilla combinations without inventing whole new classes.


----------



## Polyhedral_Columbia

Overall I like it. Two snags for me:

1) The limit to two classes feels like 4e lopped off a happy AD&D tradition. Surely there's _some_ way a three multiclass system could work, even if it was mostly a token rule. For example, the third multiclass might provide an even smaller set of class features. I'm not opposed to limiting it to _three_ classes though, since this was the maximum number in First Edition.

2) The Fighter multiclass name, "Student of the Sword" doesn't seem to fit with Fighters who use other weapons besides Swords. I'd rather the name be something like "Student of the Fight".

Travis


----------



## DonAdam

I too am fine with mechanics treating dabbling and even-splits as different creatures, and requiring new classes for the latter.

This is especially true when classes are not only concepts but also "roles."  Trying to get a middle of the road character would probably be too swingy.

Also, the "mix" classes will have to fit a role, which is probably a good thing. Relatedly, I'm *hoping* that Bladesinger will be an Arcane Striker instead of a Paragon Path for Sword Mage.



Do we know that you can only take the power-swap feats once each? Seems like it would be a natural fit for taking multiple times.


----------



## Engilbrand

This is a much simpler system. I like it. It adds some versatility to a class, which is definitely a good thing. The only thing that I see that could be tricky (and I realize that this may be covered somewhere else) is the inherent problem of a character changing over time.
Mike's a Wizard. After adventuring for 5 years, he realizes that he's satisfied with his body of knowledge and would like to move on to learning something else. He wants to learn the ways of the Rogue, too.
In 3.5, Mike would have 8 levels of Wizard and then start taking Rogue. In 4th, though, he would probably just start taking the multiclass feats as he levels up. He may even then take a Paragon Path for a Rogue to emphasize his growing skills. What's the problem that I see? Well, he's just as powerful as he's always been, even though he's not focusing on his spellcasting.
That's the only problem that I have. Thankfully, it's a minor one that I can easily live with. I'll probably stay with one class, throw in a little bit of something else, and then happily take my Paragon Path. I'm not too worried about a character making a major change like that.
In retrospect, though, after taking enough of the multiclass feats, it would probably make sense to retrain to being a Rogue with Wizard feats. That would show that his arcane abilities are starting to atrophy and he's becoming specialized as a Rogue.
Well, I think I just completely solved my minor "problem" with the whole multiclassing thing.


For those who have problems with the whole "only 2" thing:
Picture, if you will, a college kid. He's studying Law, Medicine and Education. He does his internship to be a doctor. After school, he becomes a teacher who practices a little law on the weekend. Eventually, he decides to just focus on teaching.
You can only really have one career. Anything else is a job. As time goes on, our hypothetical student probably forgot a lot of his medical stuff. When he's old and ready to retire, he probably won't be up to date on current laws and will probably have forgotten most of the things he used to know.
In 3.5, they would have you believe that, at the age of 75, this guy would still be as fine a doctor as he was 50 years before, he could be thrown into a courtroom after being out of one for 45 years and be just as effective as he was back then, and he was as good a teacher as he was a few years before that (which makes sense). Technically, though, 3.5 wouldn't be able to recognize the teaching and lawyering as happening at the same time.
In 4E, though, by the age of 75, he's forgotten nearly everything about medicine, enough that it doesn't even really matter anymore. He spent most of his life as a teacher, so has all of his class levels there, and he might have a few "feats" when it comes to being a lawyer.
Is 4E perfect? Nope. I'm sure that you can come up with arguments against it. Does it make more sense than 3.5? Yes.


----------



## katahn

TraverseTravis said:
			
		

> Overall I like it. Two snags for me:
> 
> 1) The limit to two classes feels like 4e lopped off a happy AD&D tradition. Surely there's _some_ way a three multiclass system could work, even if it was mostly a token rule. For example, the third multiclass might provide an even smaller set of class features. I'm not opposed to limiting it to _three_ classes though, since this was the maximum number in First Edition.
> 
> 2) The Fighter multiclass name, "Student of the Sword" doesn't seem to fit with Fighters who use other weapons besides Swords. I'd rather the name be something like "Student of the Fight".
> 
> Travis




I don't know, I think it would be possible to hit three class combinations (sort of) with paragon rules.  The "multiclass" option doesn't imply needing feat-based multiclassing as a prerequisite, at least not that way I read it.

Class A, multiclas via feats into B
Paragon -> add multiclass into C instead of taking a paragon path.

If the option exists with epic, you could theoretically have a character strong in 3 roles with dabbling into a 4th via feats.

Epic -> add multiclass into D instead of taking an epic path.

You wouldn't have the cool ultra-specialized toys of a paragon or epic path necessarily, but you'd have an amazing range of versatility.  Might be worth it.


----------



## DonAdam

Engilbrand said:
			
		

> Mike's a Wizard. After adventuring for 5 years, he realizes that he's satisfied with his body of knowledge and would like to move on to learning something else. He wants to learn the ways of the Rogue, too...
> In retrospect, though, after taking enough of the multiclass feats, it would probably make sense to retrain to being a Rogue with Wizard feats. That would show that his arcane abilities are starting to atrophy and he's becoming specialized as a Rogue.




This was my first concern too, but I think you've hit upon the right solution. If a player really went this way, I'd build in a span of time between tiers for plausibility and let them "reinvent" the character in between.


----------



## Torchlyte

Shazman said:
			
		

> Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.




I challenge you to find me a character concept that cannot be accomodated with these multiclassing rules. I will then show you that you are wrong.


----------



## Green Knight

> 1) The limit to two classes feels like 4e lopped off a happy AD&D tradition. Surely there's some way a three multiclass system could work, even if it was mostly a token rule. For example, the third multiclass might provide an even smaller set of class features.




The designers have talked about three class multiclassing, so I think it's still a possibility. For instance, you can trade out your Paragon Path for additional multiclassing. I imagine that doing so will allow you to take abilities from some other class unrelated to any multiclassing Feats you may have. So, for example, I may start with a Cleric character, and then take four Feats to multiclass as a Ranger. Then I could potentially trade in my Paragon Path in order to then multiclass into a Wizard. That may very well be a possibility.


----------



## Valamyr

The first feat and the 1-class limitations are fine by me... and the paragon paths mechanics looks okay.

But the Novice Power, Acolyte Power, Adept Power thingies are ridiculously underpowered, thats wasted feats if it works as written...

Here's my understanding of how it should work; at levels 4, 8, and 10, if you have picked a multiclass feat, you automatically get the option to swap a power if you wish. Why would feats be wasted? You shouldnt have to trade usefulness for flavor. I'm guessing we are misreading the article or something...


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Shazman said:
			
		

> Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.




I'm really not seeing this.

From what the excerpt says, you can choose ANY base class, add class powers from ANY other class - and you think this isn't going to lead to diversity and customisation?

Now I can create a smart fighter, who, at 15th level (if you get a feat at 15th, anyway) can take a Wizard power to allow him to fly. Or a Cleric who can fade into Shadows, as befits a Cleric of Illusion. Or a Warlock who channels the power of the Far Realms to heal his friends...or a million varieties that take things out of the Fighter / Wizard / Cleric / Rogue core ideas.

This article leads to MORE customisation and more diversity, not less.

When you say it eliminates multi-classing, I agree that the days of the fighter10/wizard10 are gone - but frankly I think it's a good thing, and that that sort of multiclassing was certainly not more customisable than 4e is shaping up to be.


----------



## FourthBear

I like the system overall, although that's not a big surprise since I'm a fan of strong, central character classes in D&D.  Even in 3e, I never really saw the "problem" with multiclassed spellcasters having a significant knock in power.  If you don't focus, why should you expect to be near the level of character who *do* focus?  I actually disliked the fact that classes like rogue and fighter got relatively little at higher levels, so there was little reason to stick with them.  This made other people happy, since you could multiclass these "easily", because you were giving up so little.  I always wished that not gaining those high level fighter or barbarian levels was actually a somewhat painful trade-off, rather than "Meh, I'm not missing much and gaining a whole raftload of novel class abilities that stack great!  Multiclassing martial classes is great!  They don't get anything cool at high levels!"  OK, that's an exaggeration, but this *is* the internet.

Given that the DMG is going to be apparently focused on how DMs can customize and make changes that suit their own campaigns, I'd guess that there will be a discussion of altering the multiclassing rules.  Mearls has already noted that 4e could be changed into a classless game much more easily than previous editions and I think we can certainly see how.  For those campaigns that don't mind quadruple classed character concepts and easy access to class features, I think that the house rules to break those barriers down should be pretty straightforward.  Just allowing anyone taking a Class Training feat to select that classes' powers as a straight swap (will to will, encounter to encounter) doesn't seem too crazy.  I do think it might lead to lots of poorly conceived multiclassed characters because it does seem too much to me.


----------



## Voss

Some comments-

the article itself isn't written that well.  The write-up of the power-swap feats took a couple readings to understand exactly what they were saying. Any sentence thats starts with 'Effectively, pretend...' isn't going to a good place.  Its a sign post for 'we know we are writing this really poorly'.

However, it is largely what I expected, with an extra-versatility built in with the at each level swap (something other characters may not get to do).  Though, like with retraining, that aspect is something I don't particularly care for.  I can't forget how to dribble a soccer ball in order to instantly learn how to dribble a basketball.  The lack of verisimilitude bothers me.

But, overall, I like it.  I am also amused at how some of the 4e supporters are having a moment of doubt over this.   

But, I like it- the only thing I'm particularly leery about is the only one class restriction. It seems as much a 'We must save you from making sub-par characters' as much as 'We must stop you from making something too good'.

The swap is what I expected.  The initial feat with a skill and a bit extra is an interesting bonus.  I am curious how things like hunter's quarry will work- the usable once per encounter is odd.  I take it means that you can select one target as your quarry once per encounter, and it lasts until he falls or the end of the encounter, as normal, and not 'it lasts for one hit'.   Pretty tasty ability for someone like a warlock to pick up.  Curse and quarry = lots of damage.  

Healing and Inspiring word are of course, good for anyone.  Wizard training is useful, of course, since it allows someone to take a minion-clearance spell or two without anyone in the party saddling himself with the class-role just so the party has a controller.  

The power swaps are good, both conceptually and mechanically.  Yes, optimizers, there is a lot you can do.  Take a warlord-wizard.  Max out your INT, take your int based warlord powers, and when you run out, replace a str or cha based power with more INT based wizard powers.  There's definitely some min-maxing potential here.  At the same time there is a lot of room for dabblers, concepts and simple neat tricks.  The Grey Mouser is almost perfect as a Rogue with wizard training at first level.  And of course, unlike 3rd edition multiclassing, things are actually level appropriate, without giving you more stuff which would make you severely overpowered.

And I figure the paragon path replacement will work roughly the same way Khaalis does.  Class features at 11 and 16, at will or something else, and then just powers at 11, 16, 20.  It comes late, but it works.


----------



## whydirt

I think people are overlooking an important reason behind the feat cost of getting out-of-class powers.  When you choose a power from another class, you're giving up the least useful power available from your main class for the most useful power from the new class.  That difference in utility is paid for with the feat.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

FourthBear said:
			
		

> I like the system overall, although that's not a big surprise since I'm a fan of strong, central character classes in D&D.  Even in 3e, I never really saw the "problem" with multiclassed spellcasters having a significant knock in power.  If you don't focus, why should you expect to be near the level of character who *do* focus?  I actually disliked the fact that classes like rogue and fighter got relatively little at higher levels, so there was little reason to stick with them.  This made other people happy, since you could multiclass these "easily", because you were giving up so little.  I always wished that not gaining those high level fighter or barbarian levels was actually a somewhat painful trade-off, rather than "Meh, I'm not missing much and gaining a whole raftload of novel class abilities that stack great!  Multiclassing martial classes is great!  They don't get anything cool at high levels!"  OK, that's an exaggeration, but this *is* the internet.
> 
> Given that the DMG is going to be apparently focused on how DMs can customize and make changes that suit their own campaigns, I'd guess that there will be a discussion of altering the multiclassing rules.  Mearls has already noted that 4e could be changed into a classless game much more easily than previous editions and I think we can certainly see how.  For those campaigns that don't mind quadruple classed character concepts and easy access to class features, I think that the house rules to break those barriers down should be pretty straightforward.  Just allowing anyone taking a Class Training feat to select that classes' powers as a straight swap (will to will, encounter to encounter) doesn't seem too crazy.  I do think it might lead to lots of poorly conceived multiclassed characters because it does seem too much to me.



Your comment on 3E non-spellcasters "topping out" at level 10 gives me an interesting idea of extending tiers, which is only tangentially relevant to this discussion: 
If people don't feel comfortable with Paragon or Epic Tiers, they could instead gain powers from other classes. 
If you've become a 10th level Fighter, you instead use paragon and epic path powers to gain new level 1-10 powers from different classes (or possibly your own class?). E10 is the new E6. We knew that already, but this is an interesting way to achieve it, without letting the Paragon and Epic progression go to waste...


----------



## neceros

D&D is a class based system. If you take away the class,  you don't have a system. Multiclassing is equivalent to being half, or worse, of a character. 

In 3.5, Multiclassing was horrible. Multiclassing, by the way, involves Exp Penalties and ensuring you aren't too far apart in class levels. Prestige classes are not multiclassing.

Fourth Edition, as true to making life better, decided that Multiclassing as we know it will break, and would ruin the game (As it had many editions before it.) It's, instead, given us the illusion of multiclassing, so we can be happy without breaking our little characters into something unbalanced and under privileged.


I applaud Wizards for their work.


----------



## el-remmen

Just when I thought there could be nothing more about 4E I could dislike. 

Actually, there have been some things lately that I found interesting, but I don't like this at all.

Mearls said it right in the article: _This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3e system._

As soon as he mentioned swapping powers he lost me. Don't you think this overcomplicates the process?  Esp. when creating characters starting at higher levels?

Also, the inability to triple class is lame, though looking at how this works, I can see how the swapping and regaining of powers would be even more complicated with 3 (or god forbid 4) classes.

If anything, it doesn't really seem like multi-classing at all, and thus is another step away from those core features of D&D that are familiar and comfortable for me. 

Ah well. . . the world moves past us as we older. I'm getting used to it. 

EDIT: I just wanted to add that I never felt 3E multi-classing was broken.  I just think certain playstyles lead to taking adventage of possibilities it technically allows (or for certain combinations to become useless in the context of that particular gameplay), but also think that people who play that way (not that there's anything wrong with it) are _always_ going to find ways to manipulate and take advantage of rules - so confining the rules based on that playstyle is the equivalent to the other end of the spectrum where the DM is expected to handle all aspects of game balance.


----------



## Klaus

Sounds much less intuitive, with the "swap, then get it back, then swap again".

We need to see the rules for Retraining to get a full notion of how multiclassing works. One of the best characters in my 3.x campaign started as a Wizard, then started dabbling into Rogue, and then the rapier-wielding took over as she became a sort of bladesinger. So in the end she was neither a wizard who dabbled as a rogue, nor a rogue who dabbled as a wizard.


----------



## hong

el-remmen said:
			
		

> As soon as he mentioned swapping powers he lost me. Don't you think this overcomplicates the process?  Esp. when creating characters starting at higher levels?




This SIMPLIFIES the process. Say you're creating a 10th level character. Just take the feat, and pick the best 10th level power you can get. No need to worry about what level you got the feat at.


----------



## BarkingDeathSquirrel

Hrm... I'm mostly fine with this approach, but I would have rather had the feat break up be kinda like this:

*Inital Multiclassing Feat* - As it is currently
*Powers Multiclassing Feat* - Can take/swap out 1 each of encounter, daily, and utility powers.
*Final Multiclassing Feat* - _Gain_ a At-Will power from class in question.

I also wish they would have put in the paragon multiclassing option in the article.


----------



## Crosswind

This is glorious.  Since I severely doubt that Wizards can balance all the powers at a given level to be comparably good, if feats are common and not great, I think we'll see a decent amount of dabbling.

I would, however, suspect that the +1 to attack for Fighter is 1/encounter.  And that the skill training adds the skills to the list of things that you CAN be trained in.  Not the list of things that you are trained in.  This is simply based on the assumption that there is a Weapon Focus (+1 to attack with a weapon) and a Skill Training feat.

-Cross


----------



## el-remmen

hong said:
			
		

> This SIMPLIFIES the process. Say you're creating a 10th level character. Just take the feat, and pick the best 10th level power you can get. No need to worry about what level you got the feat at.





Maybe I haven't been following how all this Power stuff works closely enough, but I was thinking of from my own point of view of how I create PCs/NPCs which tends to be organic (how did this person get to be how they are?)

But my initial response to your suggestion was, what if I don't want to give them a 10th level power? What if another fits the idea of the character better?


----------



## nerfherder

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Mearls said it right in the article: _This approach lacks the intuitive elegance of the 3e system._



That raised a huge danger flag for me, too.


> As soon as he mentioned swapping powers he lost me. Don't you think this overcomplicates the process?  Esp. when creating characters starting at higher levels?



I think (hope!) that when we read the full PHB explanation, it will be clearer.

It sounds reasonably straightforward - if you have one of the multiclass feats, then you pick one of that class's powers instead of a main class power.  I imagine it like a point-based system where the structure is hidden and constrained by archetypal classes, but some flexibility is reintroduced by allowing you to make limited power swaps.


----------



## Plane Sailing

Voss said:
			
		

> Healing and Inspiring word are of course, good for anyone. Wizard training is useful, of course, since it allows someone to take a minion-clearance spell or two without anyone in the party saddling himself with the class-role just so the party has a controller.




I think the wizard training is a bit unclear - since it allows a power to be used 1/encounter that seems to imply that it follows the other examples and allows an at-will power to be used 1/encounter - and the minion clearance spells tend to be per-encounter or higher rather than at-will.

(c.f. the pregen warlock which gets the wizard 'at will' ray of frost as a 'per encounter' power).

It is only with the addition of other feats as you reach higher level that you are able to get the minion-clearing spells.

That's how I read it at the moment, anyhow.

Cheers


----------



## hong

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Maybe I haven't been following how all this Power stuff works closely enough, but I was thinking of from my own point of view of how I create PCs/NPCs which tends to be organic (how did this person get to be how they are?)
> 
> But my initial response to your suggestion was, what if I don't want to give them a 10th level power? What if another fits the idea of the character better?



 Then just pick the one you want. The point is, you don't have to worry about what level you got the feat at.


----------



## Protagonist

el-remmen said:
			
		

> But my initial response to your suggestion was, what if I don't want to give them a 10th level power? What if another fits the idea of the character better?




then you give him a power with level 1<n<10 ? It's not like they are not explicitly telling you that you can choose any power *up to* your allowed maximum.


----------



## el-remmen

Eh, well. . . regardless that is academic as the scope of the new classing dabbling that will pass for multi-classing is anything but satisfying.


----------



## hong

I foresee lots of custom classes.


----------



## Lacyon

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think the wizard training is a bit unclear - since it allows a power to be used 1/encounter that seems to imply that it follows the other examples and allows an at-will power to be used 1/encounter - and the minion clearance spells tend to be per-encounter or higher rather than at-will.




Scorching burst is an at-will minion-clearing spell for the pregen wizard.



			
				Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> (c.f. the pregen warlock which gets the wizard 'at will' ray of frost as a 'per encounter' power).
> 
> It is only with the addition of other feats as you reach higher level that you are able to get the minion-clearing spells.
> 
> That's how I read it at the moment, anyhow.
> 
> Cheers




I think the pregen warlock just decided that being able to slow a target was for some reason more important than clearing minions.


----------



## LordArchaon

I read through page 5 of the thread... Man, how MANY posts in so little time.

My view is this: you're NEVER EVER going to need more than those 4 feats to be a multiclass of GOOD value. That's because of power retraining. With that last multiclass feat, you're gonna have access to 30th level dailies of the other class once you reach 30th level. Full stop.

The only real drawback is that using feats you really won't be able to gain an at-will power, but I'm pretty sure that's the dominion of the multiclass-instead-of-paragon-path thing.
Or, you could take a paragon path tied to your 2nd class and get some at-will goodness.
These way of giving many options is really enjoyable, even if of course they're made taking into account game balance.

Speaking of game balance, I'm also a little unhappy with the 2 classes limit. They could have expended some more effort in the development process and coming out with a 3 classes limit, where the 2nd actually qualifies for paragon multiclassing or specific paragon paths, while the 3rd always remain confined to multiclass feats, and maybe those not including the final daily, or becoming paragon feats.
For example, you could start as a wizard/warlock (which already seems a lot less powerful than a warlock/wizard), then at paragon tier start to specialize in one of the two, but also start to take another feat chain to gain some ranger powers.

However, great system.


----------



## Pinotage

hong said:
			
		

> This SIMPLIFIES the process. Say you're creating a 10th level character. Just take the feat, and pick the best 10th level power you can get. No need to worry about what level you got the feat at.




Simplifies, yes. To the point where it's not really multiclassing. It's just gaining another power unrelated to the class, if you see what I mean. Taking a feat is that gives you another class' power is hardly multiclassing. A fighter with fireball is hardly a multiclassed fighter - he's just like a 3e fighter with a Necklace of Fireballs. Having one or two powers of a class doesn't, IMO, imply multiclassing. I think the only real multiclassing you'll find is in the paragon path. I just wish they'd included that bit rather than this 'thing' they call multiclassing which isn't really at all.

Pinotage


----------



## dimonic

tombowings said:
			
		

> Overall, I like it. It doesn't offer too much, but not too little either.
> 
> However, I do I have worry:
> 
> Warlord: *skill training*, inspiring word 1/day.
> 
> If Skill Training is a feat, why would anyone take it instead of one of the multiclass feats?





Because you can only have _one_ multiclass feat.


----------



## TwoSix

Shazman said:
			
		

> Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.



Neglecting, of course, that in other editions, most classes didn't have that many powers to acquire anyway.


----------



## Voss

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Maybe I haven't been following how all this Power stuff works closely enough, but I was thinking of from my own point of view of how I create PCs/NPCs which tends to be organic (how did this person get to be how they are?)
> 
> But my initial response to your suggestion was, what if I don't want to give them a 10th level power? What if another fits the idea of the character better?




Then give them a lower level one?  You can take any power equal to or less than your current level of the appropriate type.


----------



## Green Knight

> Speaking of game balance, I'm also a little unhappy with the 2 classes limit. They could have expended some more effort in the development process and coming out with a 3 classes limit, where the 2nd actually qualifies for paragon multiclassing or specific paragon paths, while the 3rd always remain confined to multiclass feats, and maybe those not including the final daily, or becoming paragon feats.




As I mentioned before, it may very well be possible to multiclass into a third class by trading in the Paragon Path. The two class restriction is only in relation to those four feats and nothing more. It doesn't say anything about applying to multiclassing by trading in a Paragon Path. 

In addition, the designers have explicitly mentioned multiclassing three classes. Doubt that would've come up if you couldn't do it.


----------



## Voss

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> I think the wizard training is a bit unclear - since it allows a power to be used 1/encounter that seems to imply that it follows the other examples and allows an at-will power to be used 1/encounter - and the minion clearance spells tend to be per-encounter or higher rather than at-will.
> 
> (c.f. the pregen warlock which gets the wizard 'at will' ray of frost as a 'per encounter' power).
> 
> It is only with the addition of other feats as you reach higher level that you are able to get the minion-clearing spells.
> 
> That's how I read it at the moment, anyhow.
> 
> Cheers




You're reading it based on a singular example with no actual text?  Um, OK.  A little strange since we don't really know exactly why the half-elf has that power, but sure.  But there isn't any reason that stands out as to why she couldn't have scorching burst rather than ray of frost.


----------



## Deadstop

el-remmen said:
			
		

> As soon as he mentioned swapping powers he lost me. Don't you think this overcomplicates the process?  Esp. when creating characters starting at higher levels?





Power swapping seems to me to make it even easier to create a character who starts at a higher level.

Just give him the appropriate feats and choose some powers from the second class in place of powers from the primary class.

You don't have to worry about when he theoretically would have taken each feat or power, because he always could have retrained feats or swapped lower-level powers for higher-level ones in the meantime. All that matters is what he looks like now.


Deadstop

ETA: Yeah, and of course 3 or 4 other people already made the same comment in the page I hadn't gotten to yet. Sorry.


----------



## Kraydak

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> ...
> Everyone justified the 3E multiclassing system by saying "You're giving up power for versatility." Why is it that, all of a sudden, people are claiming that doing so is unfair?




There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.

I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics.  4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling.  1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.


----------



## TwoSix

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Simplifies, yes. To the point where it's not really multiclassing. It's just gaining another power unrelated to the class, if you see what I mean. Taking a feat is that gives you another class' power is hardly multiclassing. A fighter with fireball is hardly a multiclassed fighter - he's just like a 3e fighter with a Necklace of Fireballs. Having one or two powers of a class doesn't, IMO, imply multiclassing. I think the only real multiclassing you'll find is in the paragon path. I just wish they'd included that bit rather than this 'thing' they call multiclassing which isn't really at all.
> 
> Pinotage



Can you explain what "real multiclassing" is?  Preferably, without referring back to previous editions.


----------



## LordArchaon

Green Knight said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, it may very well be possible to multiclass into a third class by trading in the Paragon Path. The two class restriction is only in relation to those four feats and nothing more. It doesn't say anything about applying to multiclassing by trading in a Paragon Path.
> 
> In addition, the designers have explicitly mentioned multiclassing three classes. Doubt that would've come up if you couldn't do it.




GREAT! I had forgot that designer's talk. However, at this point I can also start thinking that that option could be set to come with PhB2...  

Because you see, it doesn't make much sense to get "additional" multiclass benefits by giving up the paragon path if that class isn't related to the feats you already took. I could be wrong though.


----------



## dimonic

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Simplifies, yes. To the point where it's not really multiclassing. It's just gaining another power unrelated to the class, if you see what I mean. Taking a feat is that gives you another class' power is hardly multiclassing. A fighter with fireball is hardly a multiclassed fighter - he's just like a 3e fighter with a Necklace of Fireballs. Having one or two powers of a class doesn't, IMO, imply multiclassing. I think the only real multiclassing you'll find is in the paragon path. I just wish they'd included that bit rather than this 'thing' they call multiclassing which isn't really at all.
> 
> Pinotage




Well, not exactly - your Fighter would be a Fighter with Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, and Fireball. This does suggest a little more than a fighter with a necklace of Fireballs.


----------



## LordArchaon

dimonic said:
			
		

> Well, not exactly - your Fighter would be a Fighter with Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, and Fireball. This does suggest a little more than a fighter with a necklace of Fireballs.




And you're forgetting the utility power, which can also be used during social encounters. You can charm people while talking, like a Jedi...


----------



## el-remmen

TwoSix said:
			
		

> Can you explain what "real multiclassing" is?  Preferably, without referring back to previous editions.




Huh? Obviously, multi-classing can only be compared to how it was handled in previous editions of the game, and for those of us who like the method or at least the idea of how it was implemented are going to see this implementation as something way short of what we want and are used to.

It is just this taking feats things doesn't seem like "multi-classing" as you don't really have multiple classes, you just have a power or two from another class in addition to your main class.


----------



## Voss

Kraydak said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.
> 
> I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics.  4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling.  1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.




Actually, 1st and 2nd edition multiclass characters were stronger than single classed characters.  They were only a level behind and could do *everything* a single classed character could do, beyond some armor/weapon use.  The only thing that made them suck was the level caps in the upper levels.
But take a 5th level fighter and a 4th level fighter/magic-user.  The 4/4 was down a point of thaco, had slightly lower hit points, but had 4 levels of spellcasting, better saves and a lot more options.  And with a spell or two, was probably a better fighter.


----------



## Wormwood

hong said:
			
		

> I foresee lots of custom classes.



+1 enthusiasm point.


----------



## el-remmen

Deadstop said:
			
		

> All that matters is what he looks like now.




Yeah, I get that.  Not happy with the idea of re-training either, personally.  For me, the potential drawbacks of organic character-building is part of the fun and challenge of the game.




			
				Deadstop said:
			
		

> ETA: Yeah, and of course 3 or 4 other people already made the same comment in the page I hadn't gotten to yet. Sorry.




No problem.  This thread is growing faster than than the Blob!


----------



## dimonic

Kraydak said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.
> 
> I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics.  4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling.  1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.




Ok, so a 10th level fighter, with Arcane Initiate, Novice Power, Acolyte Power and Adept Power will have Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, a level 4- Wizard encounter power, a level 8- Wizard utility power, and a level 10- Wizard daily power.

Parlor tricks? I think not.


----------



## TwoSix

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Huh? Obviously, multi-classing can only be compared to how it was handled in previous editions of the game, and for those of us who like the method or at least the idea of how it was implemented are going to see this implementation as something way short of what we want and are used to.
> 
> It is just this taking feats things doesn't seem like "multi-classing" as you don't really have multiple classes, you just have a power or two from another class in addition to your main class.



But when 95% of a class's identity comes from its powers, and you have 30-40% of your powers from another class... I don't know, seems pretty much like you're two classes in one.


----------



## Ximenes088

Kraydak said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.
> 
> I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics.  4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling.  1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.



With four feats, a third of your powers come from another class. With paragon slots, half of your powers are from another class. This is dabbling?

And as for them being "parlor tricks", I think you're getting 4e confused with 3e. _3e_ let you trade 9th level sorcerer spells for 2nd level cleric spells. Your 4e multiclass abilities will be maximum-level powers- that is, the _opposite_ of dabbling in parlor tricks.


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Maybe I haven't been following how all this Power stuff works closely enough, but I was thinking of from my own point of view of how I create PCs/NPCs which tends to be organic (how did this person get to be how they are?)
> 
> But my initial response to your suggestion was, what if I don't want to give them a 10th level power? What if another fits the idea of the character better?




If you're building PC's and NPC's in an organic fashion I think 4e is going to be very difficult for you, as it is aimed much more towards an approach that says "What is good for the story right now?"

That's why the multi-classing excerpt looks like it does - with retraining and these feat choices creating a high level PC is comparitively easy - just give them the Multiclass feat they want, and then pick appropriate powers for their level. It's mechanically irrelevant when they picked that feat, all that matters in game terms is what they can do now.


----------



## Green Knight

dimonic said:
			
		

> Ok, so a 10th level fighter, with Arcane Initiate, Novice Power, Acolyte Power and Adept Power will have Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, a level 4- Wizard encounter power, a level 8- Wizard utility power, and a level 10- Wizard daily power.
> 
> Parlor tricks? I think not.




Actually, assuming the Wizard powers are the most powerful, that character will have a 7th-Level Wizard Encounter Power, a 9th-Level Wizard Daily Power, and a 10th-Level Wizard Utility Power.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Okay, who from WotC can I kick in the... behind so that they fix the images in the article? 
I demand a look on this artwork! Now!



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> Simplifies, yes. To the point where it's not really multiclassing. It's just gaining another power unrelated to the class, if you see what I mean. Taking a feat is that gives you another class' power is hardly multiclassing. A fighter with fireball is hardly a multiclassed fighter - he's just like a 3e fighter with a Necklace of Fireballs. Having one or two powers of a class doesn't, IMO, imply multiclassing. I think the only real multiclassing you'll find is in the paragon path. I just wish they'd included that bit rather than this 'thing' they call multiclassing which isn't really at all.
> 
> Pinotage



If 1/3 of your powers come from another class, that seems significant to any type of character. Keep in mind that you don't get more then 9 class powers till level 10, and only the number of your class-related utility power increases later. Relevant Link

Furthermore, the base feats already seem to exemplify having a relation to the desired class - being trained in Arcana seems one of the defining factors of any dabbler or multiclasser of the arcane.

But I agree that it's not the same as a 1:1 multiclass. You're two (maybe three) parts Fighter, and one part Wizard. Paragon-Multiclassing might add more, but you won't get parity.


I think that my first 4E character might become a Warlord, possibly with Fighter Multiclassing. Seems like a perfect fit.


----------



## Mort_Q

How do cantrips and rituals work into this?


----------



## dimonic

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Huh? Obviously, multi-classing can only be compared to how it was handled in previous editions of the game, and for those of us who like the method or at least the idea of how it was implemented are going to see this implementation as something way short of what we want and are used to.
> 
> It is just this taking feats things doesn't seem like "multi-classing" as you don't really have multiple classes, you just have a power or two from another class in addition to your main class.




*You do get:* a skill (not _all_ the skills, but bear in mind that you needed to allocate skill points from your limited reserve to those skills), and you get a power for each feat you invest.

*You don't get:* HP - meh. Saves - irrelevant, and were much abused. Other class features - again, often over abused - 1 or 2 levels of another class gave you pretty much everything you wanted from that class _without_ giving up anything significant unless you were a spell caster.

So sure, it is a step down from the player's point of view for multiclassed martial characters. I contend that it is a better design, and will tend to create far fewer silly loopholes and overpowered characters.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

With the extremely low number of powers that characters get, the limited multiclassing makes sense to me.   A Level 20 Fighter(Warlord-WarlordPP) has a little less than half their powers as a Warlord.


----------



## Green Knight

> How do cantrips and rituals work into this?




Anyone can use Rituals so long as they take the Ritual Casting Feat (There might be some other requirements, like ranks in Arcana or Religion, but that's unknown at the moment). 

As for Cantrips, they're a Wizard Class Feature, which you can't get your hands on through these multiclassing Feats. It _may_ be possible to get them if you multiclass in lieu of taking a Paragon Path, but that's an assumption, not a hard fact.


----------



## dimonic

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Actually, assuming the Wizard powers are the most powerful, that character will have a 7th-Level Wizard Encounter Power, a 9th-Level Wizard Daily Power, and a 10th-Level Wizard Utility Power.




Presuming that you can retrain those powers by that level.


----------



## lightblade

I think the strongest multi-class options will be ones where you chose a paragon path for the class you have dabbled in via feats.  The Rogue-Kensai people have mentioned seems a lot more exciting and thematic than a Rogue-Fighter, for instance.


----------



## Green Knight

dimonic said:
			
		

> Presuming that those powers exist at those levels, for which we have no evidence.




Check out the Tiers article.


----------



## TwoSix

lightblade said:
			
		

> I think the strongest multi-class options will be ones where you chose a paragon path for the class you have dabbled in via feats.  The Rogue-Kensai people have mentioned seems a lot more exciting and thematic than a Rogue-Fighter, for instance.




Warlord with Arcane Initiate into Battle Mage makes me all kinds of giddy, personally.


----------



## Cadfan

I can all but guarantee that my first character will be an elf rogue multiclassed into ranger.  Gets me the Nature skill, Hunter's Quarry once per encounter (which is all you need it for versus a solo), and opens me up to use things like Fox's Cunning to add a little extra mobility to what will probably be a brawny rogue who uses daggers and shuriken.  That's probably worth two feats.  I consider 4e Skill Training feats to be worthwhile, so this is probably worth it as well.


----------



## Kraydak

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> With four feats, a third of your powers come from another class. With paragon slots, half of your powers are from another class. This is dabbling?
> 
> And as for them being "parlor tricks", I think you're getting 4e confused with 3e. _3e_ let you trade 9th level sorcerer spells for 2nd level cleric spells. Your 4e multiclass abilities will be maximum-level powers- that is, the _opposite_ of dabbling in parlor tricks.




Going by the DDXP sample characters, the abilities a fighter gets to fulfill the role of defender... are not Exploits.  You cannot act as a defender, even if you invest heavily in fighter MC.  If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling.

Of course, being able to pick up a second class-role through feats would probably be overpowered, which is why previous editions made doing so cost levels.


----------



## el-remmen

dimonic said:
			
		

> I contend that it is a better design, and will tend to create far fewer silly loopholes and overpowered characters.




Well, we can only hope so. . . But I have little faith this is true. I have more faith (if it can be called that) in gamers' ability to find ways to manipulate and abuse the rules than I do in designers to foresee the ways in which this is accomplished.

What I posted in the "EDIT" of my original post still  stands.


----------



## I'm A Banana

I'm pretty happy with it. "Fill multiple roles with less power" never really worked all that well unless the DM took it specifically into account, because "maximum power" was often a near-requirement for dealing with the baddies. Though I'll agree that it hardly seems like "true multiclassing," I'm totally okay with only legendary heroes being able to both cast powerful magic and wield mighty blades.


----------



## drothgery

hong said:
			
		

> I foresee lots of custom classes.




Well, yeah. A SWSE-style extremely multiclass-friendly (especially with a few common house rules) setup would, unfortunately, negatively impact WotC's ability to sell books with new classes in them. If you can make a perfectly good gish out of a fighter with wizard training or a wizard with fighter training, then you don't need the book with the swordmage in it.


----------



## Gimby

I can see where people who don't think this is "real" multiclassing are coming from, particularly in reference to older editions.

Comparing 3e to 4e multiclassing, in 3e when taking a level of the new class, you got their Hit Dice, weapon and armour proficiencies, BAB, saves, skills, skill points per level and class features.  

In 4e however, everyone has the same save, attack bonus and skill advancement rate.  Difference in healing surges are similar to getting a max HD at first level.  The missing trained skill is similar to getting 4x skill points at first level.  The class features are similar to powers.   

Given this, the difference between 3e and 4e multiclassing seems to be that you don't get the hit dice and proficiencies of the new class when you take the multiclassing feats, and that multiclassing costs feats.  

In 3e though, to make multiclassing really worthwhile would also cost feats (Practiced Spellcaster and so on).  Plus you only got access to low-level versions of each classes powers, while in 4e you get access to level appropriate versions of both classes powers.

I'm not seeing too much of a difference.


----------



## Green Knight

> Going by the DDXP sample characters, the abilities a fighter gets to fulfill the role of defender... are not Exploits. You cannot act as a defender, even if you invest heavily in fighter MC. *If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role* (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling.




Soldier of the Faith gives you the Paladins Divine Challenge ability right at first level. It's that ability that makes a Paladin a Defender. Student of the Sword gives you the ability to mark, but it's not clear what that means, if you gain the combat challenge ability. Either way, you can partially fill the rolls of other classes through these multiclass feats, and right at first level. 

Soldier of the Faith gives you some ability to be a Defender. Sneak of Shadows and Warrior of the Wild give you some ability to be a Striker. And Initiate of the Faith and Student of Battle gives you a bit of the healing ability of a Leader.


----------



## Klaus

Green Knight said:
			
		

> As I mentioned before, it may very well be possible to multiclass into a third class by trading in the Paragon Path. The two class restriction is only in relation to those four feats and nothing more. It doesn't say anything about applying to multiclassing by trading in a Paragon Path.
> 
> In addition, the designers have explicitly mentioned multiclassing three classes. Doubt that would've come up if you couldn't do it.



 No, not really.

All Paragon Paths have a Prerequisite, that being the class from which that Paragon Paths spins out of (Justiciar has "Requirement: Paladin"). So you can only choose a Paragon Path from your class, or from the class of your Multiclass feat.


----------



## Pinotage

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Huh? Obviously, multi-classing can only be compared to how it was handled in previous editions of the game, and for those of us who like the method or at least the idea of how it was implemented are going to see this implementation as something way short of what we want and are used to.
> 
> It is just this taking feats things doesn't seem like "multi-classing" as you don't really have multiple classes, you just have a power or two from another class in addition to your main class.




Yip. That's pretty much what I was going to say in reply to the same question. Having one power from another class isn't multiclassing. It's just another power. To multiclass, you need to capture the flavor of what the multiclass suggests. A fighter/wizard should act like one. He shouldn't be a fighter that's capable of only a fireball once per encounter. He should be more. Likewise a Cleric of Trickery, such as a cleric/rogue, should be more than just a cleric with one rogue power that allows him to tumble, for example. I don't think feat multiclassing does enough to justify the term 'multiclass'.

Pinotage


----------



## Green Knight

Klaus said:
			
		

> No, not really.
> 
> All Paragon Paths have a Prerequisite, that being the class from which that Paragon Paths spins out of (Justiciar has "Requirement: Paladin"). So you can only choose a Paragon Path from your class, or from the class of your Multiclass feat.




I think you misunderstood my post. I'm talking about multiclassing. I.E. trading in a Paragon Path for class abilities (Cleric, Fighter, Ranger, etc) instead. From the article on Paragon Paths... 

"(Alternatively if you wish, you can also select powers from a second class in place of a paragon path. That’s described in the information on multiclassing, and something we’ll cover in a future preview article.)"


----------



## Pinotage

dimonic said:
			
		

> Well, not exactly - your Fighter would be a Fighter with Arcana, Magic Missile 1/encounter, and Fireball. This does suggest a little more than a fighter with a necklace of Fireballs.




Not really. He's a fighter with a few wizard tricks. He's not a fighter/wizard. The concept and flavor are very different to what this kind of feat multiclassing allows. Perhaps it's an inherent problem with the 4e system as a whole, where powers are everything, but I haven't really thought that through.

Pinotage


----------



## Kraydak

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Soldier of the Faith gives you the Paladins Divine Challenge ability right at first level. It's that ability that makes a Paladin a Defender. Student of the Sword gives you the ability to mark, but it's not clear what that means, if you gain the combat challenge ability. Either way, you can partially fill the rolls of other classes through these multiclass feats, and right at first level.
> 
> Soldier of the Faith gives you some ability to be a Defender. Sneak of Shadows and Warrior of the Wild give you some ability to be a Striker. And Initiate of the Faith and Student of Battle gives you a bit of the healing ability of a Leader.




Soldier of the Faith gives you Divine Challenge... as a per encounter ability.  You cannot fulfill the role of defender in any meaningful way with that.


----------



## whydirt

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Yip. That's pretty much what I was going to say in reply to the same question. Having one power from another class isn't multiclassing. It's just another power. To multiclass, you need to capture the flavor of what the multiclass suggests. A fighter/wizard should act like one. He shouldn't be a fighter that's capable of only a fireball once per encounter. He should be more. Likewise a Cleric of Trickery, such as a cleric/rogue, should be more than just a cleric with one rogue power that allows him to tumble, for example. I don't think feat multiclassing does enough to justify the term 'multiclass'.
> 
> Pinotage




Aside from being able to write Fighter X / Wizard Y on your character sheet, what does the new system of multiclassing lack in terms of actual use in-game?  You say they should be more, but you don't say what's specifically missing.


----------



## rowport

Daeger said:
			
		

> Honestly? I don't like this one bit. This is probably the first 4th edition excerpt that has left me completely disappointed. As the article mentions - multiclassing is being introduced as an afterthought. I thought feats for multiclassing were merely going to be one of the many options - learning that you can't ACTUALLY multiclass and instead take feats to emulate it is really lame.



Daeger summed up my opinion perfectly here.  I don't mind having a *single* multiclass feat, but requiring another one for each power swap is absurd.

What I find baffling about it, is that Star Wars SAGA has such a simple, elegant solution to effective multiclassing.  Why not just emulate that?  Unless FranktheDM's conspiricy theory is correct: make multiclassing suck (again) to encourage the need for more core classes.  Suxxor.


----------



## dimonic

Green Knight said:
			
		

> Check out the Tiers article.




Yeah, I edited my post - I don't think you can retrain powers that quickly.


----------



## hong

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Not really. He's a fighter with a few wizard tricks. He's not a fighter/wizard.




In 4E, a fighter is a fighter with a few fighter tricks.

The REAL question is whether spending the feats to get more than a couple of powers is going to be worth it.


----------



## vagabundo

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> It is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization by multi classing multiple classes.
> But ~80 powers and approximately 15 feat slots instead of 7 feat slots seem to open up entirely new ways to customize your specific character.
> 
> It could also help that we might not get boring stuff like "Better Attack Bonus", "Even Better Attack Bonus", "More Damage", "Even More Damage", "More Damage and More Attack Bonus - Yay!!" customization. Or "Improved Combat Maneuver", "A better Improved Combat Maneuver" "Use Combat Maneuver in a different situation then usual", or "Cast the Same Spell, but better" types of customization. Though this hope might be premature.




They have done the right thing(tm), imo. Given more class options and make feat interesting tweaks for said class features in a generic way.

So a feat would alter a burst power, doesn't matter what the power source is, or a ranged attack roll, in interesting ways. This will lead to tactical options in a non-fiddly way. 

It is multidabbling and most players wont care. Those that do will have their multiclassing++ in a future splatt or 3rd party offering.


----------



## Green Knight

dimonic said:
			
		

> Yeah, I edited my post - I don't think you can retrain powers that quickly.




You don't need to use Feat retraining. From the multiclassing article. 



> 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.




In other words, you've got a 6th-level Fighter with the Novice Power Feat with a 3rd-Level Spell and 1st-Level Exploit. He just hit 7th-level. He now has a choice. He can keep his 3rd-Level Spell, or he can trade it in for a 3rd-Level Exploint and gain a 7th-Level Spell.


----------



## Ximenes088

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Yip. That's pretty much what I was going to say in reply to the same question. Having one power from another class isn't multiclassing. It's just another power. To multiclass, you need to capture the flavor of what the multiclass suggests. A fighter/wizard should act like one. He shouldn't be a fighter that's capable of only a fireball once per encounter. He should be more. Likewise a Cleric of Trickery, such as a cleric/rogue, should be more than just a cleric with one rogue power that allows him to tumble, for example. I don't think feat multiclassing does enough to justify the term 'multiclass'.
> 
> Pinotage



But if you're seriously investing in your multiclass, you have roughly 1/3 of your powers from your second class. Is one-third of you entire powerset not enough to give you the flavor you want, considering that third is as high-level as your primary class powers? A 10th level Fighter/Wizard isn't just getting a fireball 1/encounter, he's getting Scorching Blast 1/encounter, Fireball 1/encounter, a utility spell 1/encounter, and a daily. Three rounds out of every fight can be spent blasting AoE/hoodoo effects. Once he hits 11th level, he can grab the spell-shaping paragon feat and open up fights by throwing Scorching Blast on _himself_ to nuke everyone around him- or stand at ground zero of his own fireball. That's not a real fighter-mage?


----------



## Pinotage

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> But I agree that it's not the same as a 1:1 multiclass. You're two (maybe three) parts Fighter, and one part Wizard. Paragon-Multiclassing might add more, but you won't get parity.




Yeah, I wish they'd included the bit about paragon multiclassing as well. I think I'm just concerned that having one or two powers from another class doesn't really capture the concept of the particular multiclass well. I think paragon multiclassing can work - I just wish they'd allow it sooner rather than at strict tier level.

Pinotage


----------



## Green Knight

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Soldier of the Faith gives you Divine Challenge... as a per encounter ability. You cannot fulfill the role of defender in any meaningful way with that.




As you said, "If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling." You can, in fact, fulfill a second class role, even if it is crappy. Therefore it's not dabbling. 

Besides, fulfilling the role is entirely dependent on the numbers of your opponents. If you're fighting a Solo creature then you're performing it just as well as any full-fledged Paladin. Even with greater numbers, you can still target the biggest, most powerful creature with Divine Challenge and keep him from attacking the weaker characters. That is fulfilling your role. You may not be able to do it twice or more per encounter, but so long as you use it on the toughest opponents, I doubt you'd have much cause to use it more then once.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

***forget it***


----------



## Voss

rowport said:
			
		

> Daeger summed up my opinion perfectly here.  I don't mind having a *single* multiclass feat, but requiring another one for each power swap is absurd.
> 
> What I find baffling about it, is that Star Wars SAGA has such a simple, elegant solution to effective multiclassing.  Why not just emulate that?  Unless FranktheDM's conspiricy theory is correct: make multiclassing suck (again) to encourage the need for more core classes.  Suxxor.




Saga doesn't have any class features, though.  Just crappy feats and crappy talent trees.  The difference in what classes are plays a big role in the difference in multi-classing.  Just picking up one of the starting feats and advancing normally in the class wouldn't work with the way D&D classes are constructed.


----------



## rowport

drothgery said:
			
		

> Well, yeah. A SWSE-style extremely multiclass-friendly (especially with a few common house rules) setup would, unfortunately, negatively impact WotC's ability to sell books with new classes in them. If you can make a perfectly good gish out of a fighter with wizard training or a wizard with fighter training, then you don't need the book with the swordmage in it.



Just a quick shout out to drothgery, who independently arrived at the same points that I did: (1) SWSE multiclassing is simple but effective, (2) this one is neither, so (3) there will be lots more core classes.  Meh.  I am not impressed.


----------



## rowport

Voss said:
			
		

> Saga doesn't have any class features, though.  Just crappy feats and crappy talent trees.  The difference in what classes are plays a big role in the difference in multi-classing.  Just picking up one of the starting feats and advancing normally in the class wouldn't work with the way D&D classes are constructed.



Voss-

I tend to agree; that is why class-based systems ultimately suck.    D&D approached a point-based system in 3.0/3.5, and then reverted back heavily to class-based (and "role-based") in 4e.  That is not progress, it limits options.

I like simplicity in the rules-- I am having a blast playing Star Wars SAGA Edition because our rules mavens and our theatre guys are both effective.  But, simplicity at the cost of options is completely lame.

EDIT: On a related thought, I was very, very skeptical about how multiclassing would play out months ago, when there was some discussion about how much those rules were in flux during playtesting.  I see now why.    And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as  "concept."  If I consider my options at level up, and realize that multiclassing is suboptimal, I have a mechanical reason not to do it.  I think that sucks.


----------



## Pinotage

whydirt said:
			
		

> Aside from being able to write Fighter X / Wizard Y on your character sheet, what does the new system of multiclassing lack in terms of actual use in-game?  You say they should be more, but you don't say what's specifically missing.




Well, it's not an easy question to answer unless we've actually seen the entire system and read the books. I just think that having a few powers from another class doesn't make you a multiclass, and I'm starting to think that's an inherent problem with having a 'powers' system where abilities are so strictly defined. It's also hard to answer this without comparing this to 3e and earlier editions.

I think the way I see it is that by your base, you're still a fighter. And you've tacked on a few wizard powers. Not having seen the wizard class in full, I think there will be quite a few things that define being a wizard aside from his powers. The fighter never gets these. There are a few rogue abilities, for example, that aren't powers, but are defining parts of the rogue class. A multiclass won't get these. He might get a few powers, but he never gets what defines the class. I think that's what's missing.

I think paragon multiclassing will work much better, since you're second class is much more defined. I don't think powers alone define a class in 4e.

Pinotage


----------



## Knight Otu

Interesting...
 I can definitely see why the 2-class limit is in place. Someone taking the three striker multiclass feats, for example... doesn't mean I like it. Maybe at some point, there might be secondary multiclass feats allowing for less dangerous multi-classing.
 I'm kind of surprised there seems to be no feat to swap or gain at-will powers, outside the ones granted by the multiclass feats themselves (which change category anyway). That would go quite some way for better flavor, I think.
 Three powers plus some features is dabbling, no doubt. As said, it is more of a 1/4 multiclassing than a 1/2 multiclassing. Maybe the power-swap feats can be taken multiple times?
 I'm not sure if the feat cost is right, too low, or too steep, but I'm leaning towards too steep. I'll have to see how it works in practice.


----------



## Pinotage

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> But if you're seriously investing in your multiclass, you have roughly 1/3 of your powers from your second class. Is one-third of you entire powerset not enough to give you the flavor you want, considering that third is as high-level as your primary class powers? A 10th level Fighter/Wizard isn't just getting a fireball 1/encounter, he's getting Scorching Blast 1/encounter, Fireball 1/encounter, a utility spell 1/encounter, and a daily. Three rounds out of every fight can be spent blasting AoE/hoodoo effects. Once he hits 11th level, he can grab the spell-shaping paragon feat and open up fights by throwing Scorching Blast on _himself_ to nuke everyone around him- or stand at ground zero of his own fireball. That's not a real fighter-mage?




Without having to retype what I mentioned in another post, I don't think powers alone define a class. Or at least I hope it's not the case in 4e. I might be wrong, but we've seen abilities in classes that are not powers, and the multiclass doesn't get these. I also think that many powers are going to be very similar in a way, just affecting a different defense, for example, and that to make feat multiclassing work you'll need to very carefully select the powers you want. Is a fighter with the rogue multiclass feat and the tumble power a rogue? I don't think so. Having the ability to tumble doesn't define being a rogue.

Pinotage


----------



## AlphaAnt

rowport said:
			
		

> I like simplicity in the rules-- I am having a blast playing Star Wars SAGA Edition because our rules mavens and our theatre guys are both effective.  But, simplicity at the cost of options is completely lame.




If it weren't for the spellcasting classes, we wouldn't have needed a new system at all.  As SWSE pointed out, when all the classes are basically Martial, the 3.x system worked.  Throw in a class whose core mechanic is spellcasting, it's a different story entirely.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

rowport said:
			
		

> Daeger summed up my opinion perfectly here.  I don't mind having a *single* multiclass feat, but requiring another one for each power swap is absurd.
> 
> What I find baffling about it, is that Star Wars SAGA has such a simple, elegant solution to effective multiclassing.  Why not just emulate that?  Unless FranktheDM's conspiricy theory is correct: make multiclassing suck (again) to encourage the need for more core classes.  Suxxor.



I am not convinced that the Saga multiclassing system was that good, but since I never played it, I might be wrong. It certainly worked, but then, Saga only had 5 classes, right? 
It didn't really cover skill access, and getting all the abilities of the free feats of a class also required feat expenditure (not that different from 4E...)


----------



## Voss

rowport said:
			
		

> Voss-
> 
> I tend to agree; that is why class-based systems ultimately suck.    D&D approached a point-based system in 3.0/3.5, and then reverted back heavily to class-based (and "role-based") in 4e.  That is not progress, it limits options.




I don't really think this is true.  3rd edition had no sense of balance or consistency.  Class A would get something completely broken and class B would get something not even worth mentioning.

4e is missing some options right now, but they'll accumulate over time (I'm worried that it will be a muddied mess in 2 years, the way 3e is now).  But then, I like a defined class over a classless system.  I've never seen a classless system that didn't boil down to 'Everyone is good at everything that matters'.



> I like simplicity in the rules-- I am having a blast playing Star Wars SAGA Edition because our rules mavens and our theatre guys are both effective.  But, simplicity at the cost of options is completely lame.
> 
> EDIT: On a related thought, I was very, very skeptical about how multiclassing would play out months ago, when there was some discussion about how much those rules were in flux during playtesting.  I see now why.    And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as  "concept."  If I consider my options at level up, and realize that multiclassing is suboptimal, I have a mechanical reason not to do it.  I think that sucks.




I'm not sure that it is suboptimal.  There seems quite a potential to min/max, actually.  You can crank one stat up to 20 at character creation, and then pile on as many powers that use that stat as possible.  Then take even more from a second class.  After all the feats we've seen, I've seen very few that I wouldn't give up for the ability to min-max, if thats my goal.  +3 damage with crossbows?  +1 AC with chainmail?  Bah.  I'll give my Int based warlord Sleep, Fly, and Force orb over *any* option like that, rather than take a lesser attack working off a lower str or cha bonus.


----------



## whydirt

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, it's not an easy question to answer unless we've actually seen the entire system and read the books. I just think that having a few powers from another class doesn't make you a multiclass, and I'm starting to think that's an inherent problem with having a 'powers' system where abilities are so strictly defined. It's also hard to answer this without comparing this to 3e and earlier editions.
> 
> I think the way I see it is that by your base, you're still a fighter. And you've tacked on a few wizard powers. Not having seen the wizard class in full, I think there will be quite a few things that define being a wizard aside from his powers. The fighter never gets these. There are a few rogue abilities, for example, that aren't powers, but are defining parts of the rogue class. A multiclass won't get these. He might get a few powers, but he never gets what defines the class. I think that's what's missing.
> 
> I think paragon multiclassing will work much better, since you're second class is much more defined. I don't think powers alone define a class in 4e.
> 
> Pinotage




First, you keep understating what you can do to make your hybrid character.  The base multiclass feat already adds a class skill from the new class in addition to a power.  Mechanics-wise, D&D characters are their ability scores, skills, feats, powers, and innate class abilities.  Ability scores are roughly independent of class.  Skills and powers are handled by the new multiclassing feats pretty well, and you can take additional skills from outside your class with Skill Training.  While we don't know for certain, I assume that you'll be able to select any feats appropriate to either side of your chosen mix of classes.

This leaves the few innate abilities you get as a Level 1 character of a class.  Some of these features are included in the multiclassing feats, such as marking.  In the end, a player may have to choose one class to "favor" over the other, but I think most character concepts are weighted toward one class anyway.

I think the old versions of multiclassing are a poor benchmark to measure against, since they were even less flexible than this proposed system.  Not to mention that characters are more than their classes anyway.  The flavor and details by which you describe your character in-game are much more important than the class titles written on your character sheet.


----------



## katahn

Consider the raw number of abilities a character will have from levels 1-10 of each category.  Being "limited" to one of each category through those levels as a multiclass while still being fully effective in your base class seems reasonable to me.  It achieves the "fighter who knows some magic" role.

*But my concept is someone equally good in melee combat and spellcasting... a true fighter/wizard.*

Then at level 11 you can go for a true fighter/wizard multiclass instead of a paragon path.  You lose the focused power of the paragon path, but gain tremendous versatility instead.  This strikes me again as a reasonable tradeoff.

*But what about the triple-class combinations?  Or quadruple-class combinations?*

If 4e is as easily tweaked into becoming a true classless system, then I imagine tweaking to allow additional forms of multiclassing could certainly be done more easily.  Instead of choosing a class, one can select whatever abilities desired by level.  From a core or base rules perspective and preserving the idea of combat roles, I can understand the desire to not dilute the meaning of the classes too much.

*Multiclassing in 3e or Saga is better!*

Respectfully I disagree with 3e multiclassing being better.  It only worked really well for melee/melee type combinations, marginally well for melee/divine caster combinations, and abysmally for anything involving arcane spellcasters.  Loss of caster levels, sharply restricted spell lists, lower level spells that would be easier for higher level monsters to make saves against, armored spell failure for arcane casters, etc.  There's a reason why 3e saw such an explosion of "prestige" classes all designed around making the melee/arcane multiclass trope work.

As for Saga, I'm not familiar with it.  Based on comments here it seems to me that the class design of Saga allows its version of multiclassing to work where it wouldn't in 4e.  Saga doesn't appear to have classes as strictly defined by their roles in combat that 4e does.


----------



## Patlin

It's possible that the feats section is divided up into heroic/paragon/epic sections.  If so, that could conceivably be only the first table of multiclassing feats -- the heroic tier ones.

The problem with these excerpts is that there are so many holes in what we know, you could swim an Aboleth through them.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Code:
	

Level	Enc. 			Daily			Utility
1st 	1 			1			—
2nd 	1 			1 			2
3rd 	3, 1 			1 			2
4th 	3, 1(MC)		1 				2
5th 	3, 1 			5, 1 			2
6th 	3, 1 			5, 1 			6, 2
7th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		5, 1 			6, 2
8th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		5, 1 			6, 2(MC)
9th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		9, 5, 1 		6, 2(MC)
10th 	7, 3(MC), 1 		9, 5(MC), 1 		10, 6(MC), 2
11th 	P(MC7), 7, 3(MC), 1 	9, 5(MC), 1 		10, 6(MC), 2
12th 	P(MC7), 7, 3(MC), 1 	9, 5(MC), 1 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
13th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	9, 5, 1 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
14th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	9, 5, 1 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
15th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC10), 10, 6(MC), 2
16th 	P(MC13), 13, 7(MC), 3 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
17th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
18th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	15, 9(MC), 5 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
19th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	19, 15(MC), 9 		P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2
20th 	P(MC17), 17, 13(MC), 7 	P(MC19), 19, 15(MC), 9 	P(MC16), 16, 10(MC), 6, 2


MC is the Feat Multiclass power. P(MCX) is the Paragon Multiclass power, assuming it gives you an extra of the multiclass of equal or lower level than the Paragon Power you lose.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

I'm torn about all this.

On the one hand, I want the rules to empower me to create the character concept I envision.  In a game like DnD, characters are as much what they can do as who they are.  As more information has been revealed about 4e, it's become apparent to me that the designers are really focused on the classes in a class-based system.  Some would say this method is more structured; others, too rigid.

On the other hand, we've all seen how multiclassing can get... out of hand.  The restrictions serve two commonsense purposes in my mind:  they prevent broken combinations now and help future proof the system as new classes are introduced.

As someone who rarely felt the need to multiclass beyond 5 levels, I'm fine with this system.  In a class-based system, I believe that strong class structure across the board is important.  Players should be rewarded for _sticking_ with a class in a class-based system, not dipping into 3 or 4 or 5 choices to achieve a maximum effect.

I've always thought that "fewer base classes, the better."  But in 4e, I think this is not the case.  Classes are very specific now, but I think the bredth of types won't come from combining classes, but by creating options within the umbrellas; i.e., have more base classes to choose from in the Roles and Power Sources.  For example, if we have a variety of options that fill out the Defender (Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, etc.), there may be less need for multiclassing, as the concept (say, a warrior with magical prowess) is better served by a new base class rather than shoehorning a multiclass combination into that role.


----------



## drothgery

rowport said:
			
		

> Just a quick shout out to drothgery, who independently arrived at the same points that I did: (1) SWSE multiclassing is simple but effective, (2) this one is neither, so (3) there will be lots more core classes.




That's not quite right. The 4e system seems reasonably effective for dabbling; it's probably _better_ than one or two level dip approach (both mechanically and stylisticly) of 3.x for that. Which was always the case for spellcasters in 3.x; it's the case for everyone in 4e.

FWIW, I don't necessarily think this is a bad thing; in 3.x, there were tons of new base classes, and many of them were fun and interesting.


----------



## dimonic

Green Knight said:
			
		

> You don't need to use Feat retraining. From the multiclassing article.
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, you've got a 6th-level Fighter with the Novice Power Feat with a 3rd-Level Spell and 1st-Level Exploit. He just hit 7th-level. He now has a choice. He can keep his 3rd-Level Spell, or he can trade it in for a 3rd-Level Exploint and gain a 7th-Level Spell.




Ah, yes, you are quite right. So it is even better - certainly more than dabbling in a second class.


----------



## am181d

With a paragon path, you get roughly three class features and three powers. As far as how this would apply to multiclassing: the powers part is pretty straight-forward. My *guess* is that the class features parts let you pick up at-wills, maybe weapons, etc. (Of course, I'm sure that there are also armor and weapon training feats.)


----------



## KidSnide

You have to figure that other feats will offer ways to customize your character in multiclass-like ways.  If you have a melee-based striker or leader, adding toughness and better armor will go a long way to making you a viable 1st rank melee fighter.  You don't necessarily need fighter powers (although a touch of marking would help), since your classes natural melee based powers will still be good.

Similarly, taking the theivery and stealth skills will make you feel rogue-ish.  And, well-chosen magic items can round off many less standard character designs, particularly if there is a certain "magic trick" that is the magey part of your character concept.


----------



## I'm A Banana

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I've always thought that "fewer base classes, the better." But in 4e, I think this is not the case. Classes are very specific now, but I think the bredth of types won't come from combining classes, but by creating options within the umbrellas; i.e., have more base classes to choose from in the Roles and Power Sources. For example, if we have a variety of options that fill out the Defender (Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, etc.), there may be less need for multiclassing, as the concept (say, a warrior with magical prowess) is better served by a new base class rather than shoehorning a multiclass combination into that role.




I think this is exactly what you'll be seeing.


----------



## dimonic

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> I'm torn about all this.
> 
> I've always thought that "fewer base classes, the better."  But in 4e, I think this is not the case.  Classes are very specific now, but I think the bredth of types won't come from combining classes, but by creating options within the umbrellas; i.e., have more base classes to choose from in the Roles and Power Sources.  For example, if we have a variety of options that fill out the Defender (Fighter, Paladin, Swordmage, etc.), there may be less need for multiclassing, as the concept (say, a warrior with magical prowess) is better served by a new base class rather than shoehorning a multiclass combination into that role.




Interestingly, I think that more than before, more players will play from more core classes. The 3e Player's Handbook introduced such a great array of "cover all the bases" classes that it was not only possible to play using only the PH1 classes as "core", but I think the vast majority of players did just that, and most if not all PrCs were designed to appeal to the PH1 core classes. It was very late in the 3e game that (to me) really appealing alternative core classes were designed - the Knight is one example.

Since the new PH omits the Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Sorcerer, having so many archetypal classes presumably for the PH2 will make the PH2 as a whole much more mainstream - in the same way that the Warlock and Warlord will be very mainstream because they are in PH1.

Therefore, all these classes (and more) will be more "core", and other supplements will have much more designed for them as a result.


----------



## Jhamin

Voss said:
			
		

> But then, I like a defined class over a classless system.  I've never seen a classless system that didn't boil down to 'Everyone is good at everything that matters'.




And is that such a bad thing?  In most fiction with an ensamble cast you are divided into "competent" (PCs) and "not as good, but come in handy once in a while" (NPCs/Hirelings).

Classes with rigidly defined roles are a major issue for me.  (I know, I know I'm playing the wrong game)  It leads to situations where stealth is impossible because the fighter didn't buy move silently or only the rogue can fight on a rocking ship because they were the only ones with the balance skill or where no one can convince the guards not to arrest you because the "social guy" is at negative HP.


I think a system where everyone can take a hit, everyone is athletic enough to navigate the wacky adventure environment, everyone can deal damage, and everyone is able to contribute to the social encounters is a *good* system.
Each character needs a place to shine, but not dying when the big bad uses his cool power or being able to get to the adventure should _not_ be that place.


----------



## Propheous_D

I personally LOVE this new way of doing things. I think it allows you to have flavour and abilities form another class. MOSTLY though it makes Paragon Paths very interesting. Sure there will be paragon paths for individual classes, but what about Paragon Paths for multiclass characters?

Arcane Trickster - Requires Sneak Attack and Magic Missile
Arcane Archer - Requires Quarry and Magic Missile
Mystic Theurge - Requires Magic Missile and Holy Word

I think that in the beginning till you reach 10th level you will be focusing more on your primary class, but I think that Paragon level is were you will start to be able to even off the multiclassing. If we think about this it was basically true of original multi-classing. You never really reached your stride till about 10th level really in 3E because you were limited to the abilities you gained in the other classes.


----------



## Green Knight

dimonic said:
			
		

> Ah, yes, you are quite right. So it is even better - certainly more than dabbling in a second class.




I didn't like the rules at first, but they're slowly starting to grow on me. I'm looking at some spell pages released a while back, for instance, and I'm just amazed at the thought of a Fighter casting Prismatic Beams or Wall of Ice. Picture the scene. The Fighter throws up a wall 12 squares long, splitting up the oncoming horde of monsters, and inflicting 2d6+Int modifier to any monsters adjacent to the squares the wall occupies. The wall splits them up, so for a round or two the party can wail away at half of them while the other half has to run around the wall. And to top it all off, the Fighter's Combat Challenge may very well apply to every single monster damaged by that Wall of Ice spell. So instead of one monster getting marked per attack, and suffering a -2 penalty when they attack someone other then the Fighter, pretty much EVERY monster suffers that effect. The Fighter can really make things worse for the monsters on the other side of the wall by hanging out around the center of the wall, forcing them to cover even more ground to get to him. Pretty amazing. 

Then there're some of the Encounter Powers. Like Prismatic Burst, for instance. That would be fantastic in the hands of a Fighter. A Burst 2 radius within 20 squares, so a hell of a range, and capable of catching numerous targets (once again potentially nailing them all with Combat Challenge). 3d6 + Intelligence modifier damage and the targets are blinded. And the best part? It's Radiant damage. Doubt the Fighter would get that otherwise, so he'd suddenly be a lot more lethal against undead and the like. Can you imagine a Fighter running around throwing down a Prismatic Burst in every fight? 

Add to that Rituals, and a multiclass combo like the gish isn't looking to bad at all.


----------



## mmu1

I see a lot of people assuming that the 11th level Paragon path multi-classing approach is the answer to those complaining about how limited the MC system seems so far...

I think that's a big assumption to make - especially since, based on what we've seen of the Paragon paths, they're IIRC _not_ filled with abilities that are especially useful to classes other than the one they're written for.

Since it seems _really_ unlikely they wrote an alternate version of every Paragon path to be  used for multi-classing, my guess is that you'll simply be able to take a MC feat and then use a path meant for a different class... which will be near-useless, unless you _also_ invest as much as you can into the MC power-swap feats. Even then, I don't think it'll let you move far beyond dabbling in a class. 

(And on a side note, I really don't see how anyone can call this system anything _but_ dabbling. It might "fix" the issue with magic abilities gained through multiclassing, but in the end, it gives you so much less than in any other edition - and at higher cost)


----------



## drjones

This all points to a system where character customization is gained more through feat and class selection than multiclassing.  I think this is good for balance, anyone who posts here is probably capable of making truly monstrous 3.5 characters that made the rest of the party baggage.  With this approach that should be less common since they will have some remote chance of playtesting most combos while still having min/maxing room in feat selection, ability scores etc.  Does this mean you have less combos available?  Yes.

Is that the end of the world? No.


----------



## Green Knight

mmu1 said:
			
		

> I see a lot of people assuming that the 11th level Paragon path multi-classing approach is the answer to those complaining about how limited the MC system seems so far...
> 
> I think that's a big assumption to make - especially since, based on what we've seen of the Paragon paths, they're IIRC _not_ filled with abilities that are especially useful to classes other than the one they're written for.
> 
> Since it seems _really_ unlikely they wrote an alternate version of every Paragon path to be  used for multi-classing, my guess is that you'll simply be able to take a MC feat and then use a path meant for a different class... which will be near-useless, unless you _also_ invest as much as you can into the MC power-swap feats. Even then, I don't think it'll let you move far beyond dabbling in a class.




If you reread the article on Paragon Paths, you'll notice that it says the following: 



> (Alternatively if you wish, you can also select powers from a second class *in place of a paragon path*. That’s described in the information on multiclassing, and something we’ll cover in a future preview article.)




And it says the following in the article on multiclassing. 



> At 11th level, you can choose *to forgo your paragon path* in order to further specialize in a second class.




In other words, you can take a Paragon Path, _or_... you can instead multiclass.


----------



## Caliber

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Without having to retype what I mentioned in another post, I don't think powers alone define a class. Or at least I hope it's not the case in 4e. I might be wrong, but we've seen abilities in classes that are not powers, and the multiclass doesn't get these. I also think that many powers are going to be very similar in a way, just affecting a different defense, for example, and that to make feat multiclassing work you'll need to very carefully select the powers you want. Is a fighter with the rogue multiclass feat and the tumble power a rogue? I don't think so. Having the ability to tumble doesn't define being a rogue.
> 
> Pinotage




But said Fighter would also be Trained in Thievery and Sneak Attack 1/encounter, assuming he only spent the two feats required to gain his Tumble ability. A Fighter that tumbles into the thick of melee and stabs someone in the kidney (or liver, spleen, you pick the organ) sounds pretty Rogue-ish to me. Two more feats will give him what I imagine would be equally Rogue like abilities, which as others have pointed out, will constitute a large percentage of his abilities. And since he can trade out his Rogue abilities every level, he can always pick from the cream of the crop, and even drop off abilities that don't work out. 

What doesn't sound Rouge-y about that to you? What do you think he needs to be more Rogue-like? The ability to catch people flat-footed? There was another feat that offered that ...


----------



## HeinorNY

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> ***forget it***



QFT


----------



## Stormtalon

The question I have boils down thusly:

  The three power-swapping feats have minimum level limits.

  They can presumably be taken after level 11.

which leads to the question:

  Is there anything which would prevent the feats from being taken more than once, if you want to do a bit more than merely dabble (and yet still go down a Paragon Path)?

If I were inclined to houserule anything, it would be to explicitly state that, "These feats can be taken more than once.  Each time you take it you can swap another power of the same type."


----------



## dimonic

Green Knight said:
			
		

> As you said, "If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling." You can, in fact, fulfill a second class role, even if it is crappy. Therefore it's not dabbling.
> 
> Besides, fulfilling the role is entirely dependent on the numbers of your opponents. If you're fighting a Solo creature then you're performing it just as well as any full-fledged Paladin. Even with greater numbers, you can still target the biggest, most powerful creature with Divine Challenge and keep him from attacking the weaker characters. That is fulfilling your role. You may not be able to do it twice or more per encounter, but so long as you use it on the toughest opponents, I doubt you'd have much cause to use it more then once.




I would suggest that I don't think these multiclass characters _are intended_ to be able to play two roles equally.  The player should choose which one is to be filled as a primary, and accept that the secondary role will be sub-optimal. That is Ok with me.

True "equal" multiclassing may never be possible with 4e. However, as I look at the various multiclass combos I have created, many of them (the pure martial ones) I can create better in 4e, sometimes within a single class, and the cross power cores (arcane + martial) work much better than they did in 3e. So far, I am delighted.



Truth is, 3e multiclassing for martial characters worked because most of the class features required _actions_ to use, so at any instance, you were either one class, or the other. In fact, those "dips" that were most broken were those that gave abilities that were not "actions required", such as Rage. 4e cannot use the same mechanic because more class features are always on, or do not require actions to employ.


----------



## AlphaAnt

dimonic said:
			
		

> Truth is, 3e multiclassing for martial characters worked because most of the class features required _actions_ to use, so at any instance, you were either one class, or the other. In fact, those "dips" that were most broken were those that gave abilities that were not "actions required", such as Rage. 4e cannot use the same mechanic because more class features are always on, or do not require actions to employ.




QFT.  Non-action features should come from feats, not classes.


----------



## Kraydak

dimonic said:
			
		

> I would suggest that I don't think these multiclass characters _are intended_ to be able to play two roles equally.  The player should choose which one is to be filled as a primary, and accept that the secondary role will be sub-optimal. That is Ok with me.
> ...




While I would argue that the preview suggests that the secondary role will be more than merely suboptimal, I am in agreement with the above.  On the other hand, I feel that calling this mechanic multi-classing is misleading.  You aren't gaining the ability to act as multiple classes.  In previous editions, you did.  If WotC had admitted that they weren't including multiclassing, but might later, and were providing mechanics for dabbling in other classes as a way to tweak (rather than fundamentally modify) your character, they would have been honest.  As it is... they are misrepresenting the mechanics.  They appear decent at what they were designed to do, and it isn't the mechanic's fault that their design parameters are at odds with their name.

In the above I am assuming that, say, most/most of a striker's extra damage *isn't* coming from their Powers being better, but rather the extra dice abilities, which aren't relevantly picked up by the multi-classing feats, or most of the fighter's defender abilities are, as appears in the DDXP, wrapped up in non-exploit abilites.


----------



## Stalker0

Alright, ALRIGHT!! I've gotten some sleep, and calmed down. Man, I don't normally rant on the boards, but I saw this article and it just infuriated me for some reason, as my path of heated comments from yesterday will show.

But now I can hope to look at this a little more rationally.

Thinking about it more, I recognize that the initial feats can't be too good, else everyone will want to multiclass. I still think that the powers feat requires too much. I think one feat for 3 powers would be good, 3 for 3 seems too much. But hey, I can wait to see the powers list before I can say that for sure.

Lastly, to me my biggest peave with it right now is that the multi classing feats don't seem to balance with each other.

Compare the ranger one with the rogue.

Ranger: I can mark a target, and a do a permanent extra d6 of damage to it the entire combat.

Rogue: I can 1/encounter attack a guy for an extra 2d6 damage, assuming I have a light blade (which many classes that would want to multiclass into rogue probably wouldn't want). However, I also have to get combat advantage. Since I don't get the rogue's first strike ability, I have to work to make this happen. And of course, if I miss, I've wasted my ability for the whole fight.

Those two aren't even close. In fact, I think the ranger's is the strongest one on the table. Its prereqs are easy to make as you can have one or the other. It lasts for a long time, and it works with anyone, whether its magic missile or a sword blow.

I don't understand why they couldn't make sneak attack 2/encounter or 3.

Take the cleric for example. When the other multi class abilities grant per encounter abilities, this one gives you a once per day. Once per day is such a HUGE gap, that's the difference between an ability being used 2-6 times a day or once. Further, the cleric can normally gives his party a big bonus to healing after combat when they are using surges. This guy can't do any of that.

Why couldn't the feat provide a 2/day healing? I mean, the cleric can use healing word twice per encounter, so why not bump it to twice per day?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

On the "nefarious WotC plans to create a large amount of new core classes" - is that so different from 3E? Okay, there were not so many core classes, but there were tons of prestige class. If you add 3 prestige classes together, you also get 30 levels of class. 

Interestingly, most of the new base classes seem to come in the Player Handbooks. That basically means we won't see as many base classes as we saw PrCs, and that might mean they could be generally useful. Most PrCs in most splatbooks I own will never see play, since they fit none of my character concepts. Heck, most where so hard to qualify for that I never got in a reasonable level range to do it, especially not with a "organically" growing character. Yet I still bought these books. And I am sure I am not alone. Because there were sometimes interesting things - a few nice feats, maybe one of of 8 PrCs, a interesting core class, a good spell. 

But I suspect you will always be able to make a character concept for Druid, a Bard, a Illusionist, a Swashbuckler or a Swordmage. 
If anything, this means we might get more bang for our buck with this approach.



			
				Jhamin said:
			
		

> And is that such a bad thing?  In most fiction with an ensamble cast you are divided into "competent" (PCs) and "not as good, but come in handy once in a while" (NPCs/Hirelings).



Yes, it is a bad thing. Most fiction doesn't have ensemble cast, actually. 
But the little that have (like maybe the Fantastic Four) are very distinct in what they can do. Invisiblity and Force Fields lead to very different combat uses then great strength and resistance. 

If every character _has_ to pick up Dodge and Firearms (as a typical example), something is wrong. Any character concept that doesn't contain these skills is automatically less used, since it's suboptimal.

Every character should be competent, but not every character should be good at the same things. Heck, every character should be special, but they shouldn't be special in the same ways!


----------



## Stalker0

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> On the "nefarious WotC plans to create a large amount of new core classes" - is that so different from 3E?




I'm seeing this argument a lot, and its getting old. While there's a section of people who think 3e is the most godly thing ever, most of us liked 3e but agreed their were flaws. So in a new edition, we want things to be...better!! If something is the same as 3e and its considered a flaw, well all your saying is that 4e is just as crappy in certain ways as 3e, and that's not what you want to hear out of a new edition.


----------



## Crosswind

I think it's more than a bit funny that the "I can't create my concept with this system!" group, when explaining what their cleric/rogue/divine seeker concept is, almost invariably uses a prestige class that wasn't in the PHB.  

...really?  You think that 10 extra books piled with options might help you nail your concept better?

Because tell me:  How did you all create a good fighter/mage from the 3.5 PHB?

-Cross


----------



## Andur

Pinotage, I am very confused by what you think multiclassing is exactly.  You have yet to define it in any way which would make 3.x more acceptable than 4e.

The biggest thing is there really is no such thing as multiclassing as far as the characters are concerned.  They simply have the ability to do certain things.

I think what many people are confusing is multiclassing with multiROLING.  WotC clearly want people to choose a role (Defender, Leader, Controller, Striker) and then stick with that role.  Choosing different CLASSES should help characters define that role, augment that role, or situationally fill in for another role.

Roles are mechanics, Classes are flavour.  Changing of the flavours should have little impact on the mechanics.

On a slightly different topic, for those of you that thing a bullet list implies priorities please tell us about the following wall:

1)  The wall is red.
2)  The wall is brick.
3)  The wall is 5' high.

Does that mean the wall being 5' high is less important than the wall being red?


----------



## Mirtek

Elder-Basilisk said:
			
		

> Take the Student of the Sword feat, for instance. If there are a limited number of attack bonus boosting feats--even if many of them are better than Student of the Sword, it's still an obvious power choice for a warrior type. And no matter how often the designers pretend that healing word 1/day is as good as +1 to hit, there are a lot of characters for whom the +1 to hit is going to be a lot better. (Marking, etc, we'll wait and see on, but +1 to hit is an obvious and obviously useful benefit).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Student of the Sword
> Str 13
> Fighter: skill training, +1 to attack and mark 1/encounter
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So is the +1 to attack also limited to 1/encounter or is only the mark limited and the +1 is permanent?
> 
> To me the "and" says that both are 1/day, otherwise they would have put a "," between them instead of an "and"
Click to expand...


----------



## Mighty Veil

I'm a bit disappointed with 4e m/c. Maybe it plays better than it reads in the preview.


----------



## matthewseidl

rowport said:
			
		

> Voss-
> EDIT: On a related thought, I was very, very skeptical about how multiclassing would play out months ago, when there was some discussion about how much those rules were in flux during playtesting.  I see now why.    And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as  "concept."  If I consider my options at level up, and realize that multiclassing is suboptimal, I have a mechanical reason not to do it.  I think that sucks.




Having played in Ari's group before, and knowing most of the current players well, let me say that at least one of the payers in that group never let mechanics get in the way of concept.  He was famous for making terrible characters, mostly multi-classed to death (a few rogue levels, a few bard levels, maybe a dip into Sorc, then add in a prc, etc).  If he didn't multi, its because he saw things he liked in a single class, not because he was worried about being weaker.


----------



## FadedC

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Lastly, to me my biggest peave with it right now is that the multi classing feats don't seem to balance with each other.
> 
> Compare the ranger one with the rogue.
> 
> Ranger: I can mark a target, and a do a permanent extra d6 of damage to it the entire combat.
> 
> Those two aren't even close. In fact, I think the ranger's is the strongest one on the table. Its prereqs are easy to make as you can have one or the other. It lasts for a long time, and it works with anyone, whether its magic missile or a sword blow.
> 
> Take the cleric for example. When the other multi class abilities grant per encounter abilities, this one gives you a once per day. Once per day is such a HUGE gap, that's the difference between an ability being used 2-6 times a day or once. Further, the cleric can normally gives his party a big bonus to healing after combat when they are using surges. This guy can't do any of that.
> 
> Why couldn't the feat provide a 2/day healing? I mean, the cleric can use healing word twice per encounter, so why not bump it to twice per day?




I agree with you on the ranger vs. rogue thing and I wonder if there isn't something we are missing in the shortened text. More importantly why wouldn't every striker class multiclass to ranger to get the hunter's quarry if it does in fact last the whole fight? Imagine how good that would be against solo monsters. Seems way too strong for a feat. But if it only works for 1 round, then it's pretty weak.

I don't agree about the cleric though. This is ability that gives what is essentially an extra second wind, usable as a minor action with gives extra hit points and can be used on others. People consider the dwarf ability to be the a huge deal, and this is way better. Making it only usable once a day is the only way to balance it. If it was usable more often every defender would take it to heal themselves in combat repeatedly as a minor action.


----------



## Ximenes088

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Compare the ranger one with the rogue.



Ranger training presumably picks Nature or Dungeoneering as trained skills and gains Quarry 1/encounter. Rogue training presumably gets Thievery _and_ Stealth and gains Sneak Attack 1/encounter. Rogues get two auto-trained skills whereas rangers only get one; perforce, rogue training must be balanced elsewhere.


----------



## Propheous_D

FadedC said:
			
		

> I agree with you on the ranger vs. rogue thing and I wonder if there isn't something we are missing in the shortened text. More importantly why wouldn't every striker class multiclass to ranger to get the hunter's quarry if it does in fact last the whole fight? Imagine how good that would be against solo monsters. Seems way too strong for a feat. But if it only works for 1 round, then it's pretty weak.




It would only be very powerful against solo or maybe elite encounters. The majority of encounters will involve a minimum of 4 monsters, and most likley much more then that. So being able to use the ability on one monster once per encounter is substancial but not broken IMO.


----------



## jaldaen

Not certain this has been mentioned, but the Multiclassing Table is fixed.

Feat               Prerequisites
Novice Power   Any class-specific multiclass, 4th level
Acolyte Power  Any class-specific multiclass, 8th level
Adept Power    Any class-specific multiclass, 10th level


----------



## SpydersWebbing

The concept? It's cool. It keeps me from seeing a binder/warlock/hellfire adept(?) ever again. Oh God... what a travesty it did to monsters. I'll definitely use the concept. 

The execution....not so much. The feats don't look very balanced at the moment. I'd have to see the full rules to understand more, but if it looks then how it does now, then I'll just make up my own feats.

It's make believe. I don't have to do everything they say to do.


----------



## jaldaen

I wonder if all the 1/encounter abilities that have ongoing effects (Divine Challenge) under normal circumstances only last 1 round... it would "balance" them with the "one-shot" (Sneak Attack) multiclass powers.


----------



## Mokona

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> having fireball avaliable when you don't have a controller is /definately/ worth a feat, as far as I'm concerned.



*Wizards of the Coast* has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader.  The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.

Therefore, there is no benefit in *Dungeons & Dragons* _4th Edition_ to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.

If you are an Arcane controller dabbling in Psionic controller you're just trying to get more flavor or very slightly different powers.  This isn't worth a feat unless feats are a dime-a-dozen.

If you are a Striker dabbling in Controller powers you're just trying to get a certain flavor (perhaps because they party of five characters has two full Strikers of which you're one but only one Controller) or you're trying to cover for the Controller if they're overwhelmed/temporarily disabled.  This is not worth a feat if I only get 10 but it would be worth a feat if I got 30 feats.

What resource is used to make magic items?  I'd say that is about the level of power/resource I'd be willing to give up in order to swap a power I already get for a slightly different power.  Or, if all multiclass powers were less often (at-will becomes encounter, encounter becomes daily) then you wouldn't need any cost at all.


----------



## Charwoman Gene

Mokona said:
			
		

> *Wizards of the Coast* has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader.  The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.




*Mokona* is incorrect.  They've said the game is very playable with alternate mixes, but basically assumes you have the rough capabilities of the 4 roles.

I've seen Mike Mearls say as much at I-Con and at Gen Con Last year.  Please provide you repeated evidences to support your assertion.

Companies can't state things.  They are not people.
Games can't desire things.


----------



## That One Guy

*This is long.*

I think the best multi-classing will come from half-elves. I'm afraid that it might be worthless for anyone else to multi-class, because all a person acquires is a skill and one ability usable sometimes. The most absolute glaring flaw is that one cannot determine what one borrows from another class. If a ranger wanted to be tactical he should be able to grab a Warlord or Cleric power, not just their healing abilities once per day. If there are truly only one feat/class available then it will defeat a lot of players' hopes.

Ironically, I do like the system for flavour-oriented characters (or half-elves). I assume that the sample half-elf warlock does not have Arcane Initiate because she does not have that feat listed, not the Arcana skill. Under that assumption, a fighter as base class could pick up Scorching Blast 1/encounter and Magic Missile 1/encounter. If this gishy fighter fights five encounters, then he/she will be able to get 5 uses out of each spell/day. Going backwards is not as effective (unless the fighter's Combat abilities are actually feats that they can acquire... then anyone can be as sticky and I retract complaints) because the wizard can blast a lot more spells, but his/her health is not as good and w/out a feat cannot wear heavier armour. Hypothetically, the wizard/fighter could get toughness, heavy armourprof, and the fighter training feat... but even a half-elf wizard/fighter wouldn't feel as right as the other way around. (Also, I dislike no ability to acquire cantrips as a nonwizard. Night Haunt forever. A side complaint against 4e - I want Orisons.)

By the way, half-elf Fighter/paladin is pretty groovy.

Another complaint that has been expressed, and is quite valid, is the fact that the chart does not list Sneak of Shadows as getting First Strike. That makes the person a lot less valid as a Fighter/Rogue (unless they pick up Seize the Moment from Paragon-level feats... but that's just dumb). Also, I think the Sneak Attack 1/encounter means once per fight a successful hit that would trigger a sneak attack automatically does, since sneak attack is something that normally triggers as long as its reqs are met (I imagine one could actively attempt not to have it trigger for that fight... but that seems odd to me, unless it's a minion).

Posssibility... every few levels the 1/duration abilities increase in number. Even if it was every third level, that would be beneficial.

As far as fighters go... "Fighter: skill training, +1 to attack and mark 1/encounter" not having a comma after the word attack is not actually indicative of anything. It could be a typo or be using the dated grammar style where lists do not use the comma adjacent to and.

My overall conclusion is that it works for some character concepts, and can be done effectively if one multi-classes in certain directions correctly... However it is sorely weak when multi-classing in the opposite direction, and in some situations the multi-class concept completely fails regardless of direction (Unless more feats are revealed, or the feats listed scale in effectiveness).


----------



## Ximenes088

Mokona said:
			
		

> *Wizards of the Coast* has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader.  The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.
> 
> Therefore, there is no benefit in *Dungeons & Dragons* _4th Edition_ to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.



Uh, where do they say this? Having each role filled is good, and they've said it's what they're assuming, but nowhere have I seen them claim that "no group should exist that doesn't have" one of each. In fact, I seem to recall Mike Mearls indicating that you could run an entire no-magic campaign with Warlords, Rogues, Rangers, and Fighters. No Controllers in that list.


----------



## zsek320

I think our problem is that we are yet to see the whole picture.

We do not have a list of all the feats that core will have nor do we have a list of all the powers each class will have. We also do not know all of the paragon paths that will be released.

Depending on the ruling there might be the possibility of gaining 3 classes (base, multiclass feat and paragon replacement) with a final Epic path (for a total of 4) and perhaps you can replace an epic path with a paragon path.

Unfortunately the multiclass article seems to have brought up more questions than answers...


----------



## Patlin

Mokona said:
			
		

> *Wizards of the Coast* has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader.  The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.




Find me a party of 3 "smart enough" to handle all four roles without multiclassing.

I think you are misinterpreting Wizards.  It's advisable to have all four classes, just as it's always been advisable to have a balanced party.  i've played in a lot of parties that are not balanced, however, and you can still be succesfull and have fun without all roles being filled.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

Mokona said:
			
		

> What resource is used to make magic items?  I'd say that is about the level of power/resource I'd be willing to give up in order to swap a power I already get for a slightly different power.



Apparently all you need is the Ritual Casting Feat, which really doesn't have anything to offer in combat, but a lot to offer out of combat.  Since not only you can create magic items, you can also cast spells like Alarm, Fire Trap, Remove Disease, Phantom Steed, Locate Object, Remove Curse, Commune, Speak With Dead and more...  And apparently any class can take that feat if they want to.


----------



## Green Knight

> because all a person acquires is a skill and one ability usable sometimes. The most absolute glaring flaw is that one cannot determine what one borrows from another class. If a ranger wanted to be tactical he should be able to grab a Warlord or Cleric power, not just their healing abilities once per day. If there are truly only one feat/class available then it will defeat a lot of players hopes.




You might want to read the whole thing...


----------



## SuperGnome

Shazman said:
			
		

> Not too well.  First, you get pigeonholed into a combat role, and now you are limited to acquiring a few powers from one other class.  Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to basically eliminate multiclassing.  4E is a major kick in the pants to diversity and customization.  One more reason not to switch.




This bumps into something I've been thinking about, and this thread made me think about more.  We're sort of playing with two approaches to a roleplaying system:  Class based and Skills based (which I prefer to think of as Modular).

Old D&D (up to 2e prolly, but including the red box and other 'basic' sets) was strictly class-based.  Your rogue was your go-to guy for traps, your wizard casted arcane spells, your cleric healed, etc.  You chose your roll.  End of story.  2e did work in multiclassing, but it was still class based.

3.x was MUCH more modular.  You could mix and match different feats/skills and could emulate other classes to a much higher degree, and be far more successful at combining them to suit your character concepts.  The strict Class-based system was pretty flimsy at that point, and it leaned far more towards a Modular approach IMO.

4e seems to be providing a much more controlled atmosphere, while still avoiding being more Modular or more Class based.  It's a different approach than 3e, but closer to that than the more strict Class based ideal of past versions.

I don't know if that's a good thing or not.  
  Do I like the idea of Class-based systems?  I do from a standpoint of simplicity and nostalgia, but I've -always- been quickly bored with going through the same progression over and over.
  Do I like the idea of a stricly Modular system?  I do for the versatility, but would it seem to water down the classic nostalgia of the core classes?  It could, but I doubt that'd be the case.
 Do I like somewhere in between (a la 3e and 4e)?  It does offer each of the core ideas of the other two options, but pulls in both of their flaws as well.

The way multiclassing works in 4e seems pretty sweet to me, but I can't say I'd call it multiclassing in the traditional sense (and I know 4e is supposed to be pretty nontraditional).  If I think about it against the backdrop of fantasy fiction and character concept without the chronology of D&D multiclassing, it seems pretty slick to me.

Anyone still reading this?   

*just to qualify my use of "Modular" vs "Skills Based" - Imagine a pool of abilities (Combat, Arcane Spells, Stealth, etc...) or feats for that matter... just the elements each class is built of. You could pick and choose these in a skills based system in a modular fashion, and with no limit on which you could combine.

[edit] - Unless I'm mistaken here...  Skills Based could be everyone has the same skills and assigns points to what they want to be good at.  Occurred to me after I submitted.  And btw, the 2e DMG had rules for modular character class creation by assigning points to various abilities from the classes.  Since that was back in the days of non-standard class level progression, you didn't really have a ceiling if I recall.. in any case, it was a cool effort, but ended up being a mess.


----------



## Lacyon

Mokona said:
			
		

> *Wizards of the Coast* has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader.  The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.
> 
> Therefore, there is no benefit in *Dungeons & Dragons* _4th Edition_ to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.




Both of these statements are the opposite of true.


----------



## That One Guy

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Ranger training presumably picks Nature or Dungeoneering as trained skills and gains Quarry 1/encounter. Rogue training presumably gets Thievery _and_ Stealth and gains Sneak Attack 1/encounter. Rogues get two auto-trained skills whereas rangers only get one; perforce, rogue training must be balanced elsewhere.



I hope you're right, but it does not currently state that. If it's true, then yeah... rogue training is pretty nice.


----------



## Shazman

el-remmen said:
			
		

> Eh, well. . . regardless that is academic as the scope of the new classing dabbling that will pass for multi-classing is anything but satisfying.




I agree. They "fixed" multiclassing by reducing it to a get a few powers from this class feat. You can do this with 3.5 feats. This isn't multiclassing, it's just getting another feat. They promised multiclassing with any combo would work well.  Instead they gave us no real multi-classing.  Good job wizards.  One more addition to the long string of failures that is 4E.


----------



## Kishin

Kraydak said:
			
		

> There is a big difference between giving up power for versatility, and giving up power for parlor tricks.
> 
> I am getting tired of WotC putting old names on new, unrelated mechanics.  4e "multiclassing" is mechanics for dabbling.  1-3e multiclassing was mechanics for filling *multiple* roles, albeit weaker than a single classed character.




If by that, you mean, performing multiple roles suboptimally and thereby making yourself a third wheel, yes.

D&D (and party based RPGs) have, and always will be, about specialization. 90% of all multiclassing I saw in 3E was to further bolster a party member in fulfilling one specific role.
4E allows you to grab a few things from other fields to shore up party weaknesses (Someone mentioned an example of a fighter picking up an AoE in a party that lacked a controller).

I'm sorry for the people who thought that Wizard10/Fighter10 was ever an effective way to build a character, but that's the kinda dross that gets sacrificed to further other design goals.



			
				Mokona said:
			
		

> Wizards of the Coast has stated repeatedly that no group should exist that doesn't have at least one each of controller, striker, defender, and leader. The rules assume every party is smart enough to have each role because the game STRONGLY desires you to have each role in your mix.
> 
> Therefore, there is no benefit in Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition to "having {some controller power} available when you don't have a controller" because that is a situation that rules aren't meant to address.




Actually, its been stated quite the opposite, several times, by Mike Mearls himself, on these forums.


----------



## That One Guy

Green Knight said:
			
		

> You might want to read the whole thing...



I take it you're pointing out that the ranger could take the power-swap feats. Yes, that would be a viable solution in the long run, but it may not be what the ranger/warlord wants at level 1 to the point of an oddly absurd degree. However, I'm not entirely sure what flaw you're trying to point out in my summary. I wonder if you're referring to, "Each class has a class-specific multiclass feat that gives you access to features from that class." What I am saying is that I hope it does not work entirely like that, or that they implement more multi-class feats.

*Alas, typoness.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Kamikaze Midget said:
			
		

> I think this is exactly what you'll be seeing.




Right, and I'm basically cool with that, even as someone who has never (and will never) buy every supplement under the sun.  In the interest of having strong, desirable base classes I'm psyched.



			
				dimonic said:
			
		

> Since the new PH omits the Barbarian, Bard, Druid and Sorcerer, having so many archetypal classes presumably for the PH2 will make the PH2 as a whole much more mainstream - in the same way that the Warlock and Warlord will be very mainstream because they are in PH1.




Probably.  I think having lots of base classes is ok.  Many people probably wondered how balanced these bonus classes were.  In this system, all base classes receive the same amount of powers and the same level of powers at the same time.  So we're looking at a more stream-lined base class creation process as well, which ultimately makes for a better class system.  Which I like.


----------



## Alimaius

*Stalker0* 

The balance issues do not seem so glaring to me, and if they are they are certainly easily remedied. Both the warlord and cleric feats give 1/day powers, I believe because they revolve around the use of the healing surge, a mechanic which becomes important over the course of a day rather than an encounter. A "true" warlord or cleric is able to use it one or more times per encounter because it is assumed that a party will only be using one or two healing surges per encounter. The feat allows a character to give the party an extra healing surge "edge" during an encounter, or keep one extra in case of emergencies. Like most of the multiclass feats, it is designed NOT to allow the multiclassing character to actually fulfill the role they are multiclassing into. 

However, you do raise a good point about the rogue's ability: which for the rogue is almost totally reliant on being able to do it multiple times in conjunction with other rogue's abilities. My guess is most of these abilities will not be straight transcriptions of the class's power: maybe changing the objectionable mechanics. Whatever the case, the balance issues should be easy to spot: a 1/encounter sneak attack that does not require combat advantage is hardly unbalancing, so institute that as a rule, or else allow the character to use the rogue's first strike ability as far as sneak attacks go.

Overall the mechanic pleases me. The powers mechanic makes sure to balance the different classes' powers against each other. And perhaps the SINGLE most important advantage of the system is that a multiclass character gains powers from their secondary class at AN APPROPRIATE LEVEL. This way you don't have tenth level characters forced to make do with third level spells which most opponents of that level won't even blink at. It has been said before, because it bears repeating: I think this is the only system that delivers satisfactorily on that count. Fusing two classes, and tracking advancement for them separately, just doesn't cut the mustard


----------



## Stalker0

That One Guy said:
			
		

> Also, I think the Sneak Attack 1/encounter means once per fight a successful hit that would trigger a sneak attack automatically does




This is a good point, one I hadn't considered. It could read like this:

Once per encounter after making a successful attack against a creature you have combat advantage against, you can add +2d6 damage.

Then at least you wouldn't have to worry about wasting your power if you miss the attack roll. That would shore up the rogue/ranger discrepancy at least a bit.


----------



## drjones

Shazman said:
			
		

> I agree. They "fixed" multiclassing by reducing it to a get a few powers from this class feat. You can do this with 3.5 feats. This isn't multiclassing, it's just getting another feat. They promised multiclassing with any combo would work well.  Instead they gave us no real multi-classing.  Good job wizards.  One more addition to the long string of failures that is 4E.



Yeah one more screwup like this and I am going to love this game, damn you WOTC!!!!


----------



## Nail

PrecociousApprentice said:
			
		

> No cherry picking proficiencies- great.
> Not expanding the absolute number of abilities a character has- also good.
> Not watering down caster levels- fantastic.
> Allowing 1 for 1 swaps of powers- excellent.
> 
> All in all, while it is not the same, it is a workable solution. All of the munchkins...excuse me, optimizers...may not like this, but I sure do.



Me too.


----------



## JohnSnow

Okay. I managed to slog through the entire thread. I have some observations.

 I don't know that everyone agrees with this approach, but the obvious intent here is to deliberately _prevent_ someone from creating a character that is _equally good_ at being both a fighter and a wizard. That's not an accident - it's on purpose.

 The only way that the above would be acceptable is if the character in question is both _not as good_ at being a fighter, and _not as good_ at being a wizard as the single-classed characters. This is Third-Edition multiclassing. And, let's be honest, being crappy at two jobs is something nobody wants.

 What some people seem to want is to be as good a fighter as a single-classed fighter, and as good at being a wizard as a single-classed wizard. This is blatantly, and categorically, utter munchkin crap. You shouldn't be able to replace two characters.

 One of the key benefits seems to be that the multiclass feat "unlocks" the class-specific feats.

 General cross-training is probably the province of general feats.

 Some of these feats give you more of the class flavor than you realize.

In Fourth Edition, what defines a rogue? It appears to be "training in the stealth and thievery skills, sneak attack, and the ability to choose rogue-specific powers and feats." By contrast, a 3e rogue was defined by sneak attack, a massive skill list, and tons of skill points.

I started thinking about the way to make various concepts. And it seems to me that general feats may help with it as much as multiclassing does. For example, we know (or can assume) that there are feats that grant proficiency in weapons or armor that your base class does not. There are also feats that grant skill training in skills your base class does not. There may be feats that allow the character to gain the ability to cast rituals, use cantrips, take combat styles, or various other class abilities. And those feats may be needed to make multiclassing concepts work as much as the actual multiclassing feats are.

Want to dabble in magic, or play a former apprentice wizard without taking the arcane initiate feat? Maybe there's a feat called "cantrips." Heck, maybe you'll play a rogue who takes skill training (arcana) _and_ cantrips. And then he takes Arcane initiate at 2nd-level. Sure, he hasn't boosted his rogue skills with feats, but he's got some pretty nice magical "oomph" when he needs it (kinda like the Grey Mouser).

As a side note, given that there are feats with prerequistes of 4th, 8th, and 10th level, I suspect we'll be getting feats at 1st and every even level thereafter. That jives with the 10th-level character with 6 feats (1 at 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th), assuming the character in question wasn't human (since it seems humans get an extra feat).


----------



## Spenser

Shazman said:
			
		

> I agree. They "fixed" multiclassing by reducing it to a get a few powers from this class feat. You can do this with 3.5 feats.



Wow, I can take a single feat in 3.5 that lets my 18th level fighter cast Meteor Swarm? Awesome! That seems much better than Dodge. 



> This isn't multiclassing, it's just getting another feat. They promised multiclassing with any combo would work well.  Instead they gave us no real multi-classing.  Good job wizards.  One more addition to the long string of failures that is 4E.



Define "real multiclassing". Half your powers coming from your other class -- sounds like "real multiclassing" to me. And thanks to 4e's leveling mechanics, you can actually land those powers on your enemies. 

This is system is a huge win for anyone who wants to make a caster multiclass. Good riddance, Mystic Theurge.


----------



## Phloid

Ugh. Although there is an overwhelmingly positive bent on these boards toward 4th Edition and I will likely be flamed or at least contested I have to take the negative side of this. 

These multiclassing rules are not what I want. They look like solid rules for dabbling in another class, but they are not "Multi-Classing." In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?" You might, but new players to the game won't unless the PH says to call it that. Even then, the name still won't fit. To me it is a wizard with sneak attack. Not a multiclass wizard/rogue. Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it. And only one other class? Bah!

Am also annoyed that I have to give up multiple feats in order to "multiclass." I want my feats for other things.

I'm well aware that multiclassing rules in the previous editions were not good, but neither is this. They should work, but they are not "multiclassing." It is "class dabbling."

I'm just more discouraged every time they reveal something about  the game. I'll read the PH and play a game or two before I pass final judgment but it looks bad in my eyes, and keeps getting worse.


----------



## That One Guy

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I started thinking about the way to make various concepts. And it seems to me that general feats may help with it as much as multiclassing does. For example, we know (or can assume) that there are feats that grant proficiency in weapons or armor that your base class does not. There are also feats that grant skill training in skills your base class does not. There may be feats that allow the character to gain the ability to cast rituals, use cantrips, take combat styles, or various other class abilities. And those feats may be needed to make multiclassing concepts work as much as the actual multiclassing feats are.
> 
> Want to dabble in magic, or play a former apprentice wizard without taking the arcane initiate feat? Maybe there's a feat called "cantrips." Heck, maybe you'll play a rogue who takes skill training (arcana) _and_ cantrips. And then he takes Arcane initiate at 2nd-level. Sure, he hasn't boosted his rogue skills with feats, but he's got some pretty nice magical "oomph" when he needs it (kinda like the Grey Mouser).
> 
> As a side note, given that there are feats with prerequistes of 4th, 8th, and 10th level, I suspect we'll be getting feats at 1st and every even level thereafter. That jives with the 10th-level character with 6 feats (1 at 1st, 2nd, 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th), assuming the character in question wasn't human (since it seems humans get an extra feat).



I agree with most things that you said. A multiclass should not be as good as the main class in doing the things that they do (A fighter who sticks to melee focused feats will rock something fierce melee-style as opposed to a gish who can fight and cast). If there are feats that expand the features available, like your example of cantrips, that'd be rockin' sweet. I tried to examine the table as if it was the whole picture, but leaving room for it not being so. If there are more feats to help a person pick up aspects of other classes, then it'll work exactly how I hope and I'll be thrilled. If what we have is pretty much the extent of multi-classing then I think a lot of character concepts won't be able to be fulfilled.

I'm guardedly optimistic, but very much hoping that you are correct.


----------



## Alimaius

Also: a quick point

http://wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/4ex/20080416a

The table in this article seems to indicate you never know more than a few (at most 6 utility powers at high level) powers from your class. Since this multiclassing system is specifically a heroic tier thing, let's look at those: a tenth level character will know eleven powers. Assuming they have gone full multiclass, they will have swapped three of those out for multiclass powers as well as one freebie, giving them twelve powers, four of which are their second class. This is a third of the character: no small percentae. A fighter/wizard who fully multiclasses is going to feel quite different from a fighter who does not or mutliclasses into another class. 

This is to respond to criticisms that multiclassing is not extensive enough, from the point of view of both mechanics and concept: I guarantee you one sixth of a character's abilities is not going to make the difference between the concept you want to play and one you don't, it just isn't that important. By the same token your character is not going to be able to do that much more or less based on two powers (ones you probably wouldn't be seeing much of anyway). 

The other main criticism: that doing this with feats is unbalancing, neglects the fact that feats have been changed in 4e. They do not do nearly as much as they did in 3e, where granting class features and in some cases exotic new powers was commonplace. They mostly provide modest bonuses. These feats: were they to represent the simple ADDITION of powers to the characters repetoire, would be horrendously unbalanced, especially for the heroic tier. Who the hell would want to take "Lost In The Crowd" when you could just take a multiclass progression and get three free powers. The point is they allow the secondary class to fill a spot in your character's statistics rather than just grafting it on


----------



## Irda Ranger

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay. I managed to slog through the entire thread.



You're a better man than I.   

After sleeping on this, I think it's a good system within a class-based, strong-roles RPG.  I like strong archetypes and roles, and I like playing in groups where there's teamwork and specialization (e.g., Fantastic Four or X-Men), rather than four uber-generalists (e.g., the "Four Clerics" 3E D&D group).  To sum up JohnSnow, you can't allow any one person on the team to morph into an uber-generalist without making the rest of the team superfluous and eventually going solo (e.g., Wolverine).

And since I like strong roles and specialized teams, a system that allows a little flex in character design but keeps you firmly in your Role (allowing you to support your team as you're supposed to) seems like a good system to me.

Apropos of nothing, I think I'm going to refer to all Martial characters as "Fighting Men", all Arcane characters as "Magic-Users."  Fighting Men will have four sub-classes: Stalwart, Courageous, Canny and Daring.  Magic-Users will have two sub-classes: Reckless and Studious.


----------



## Pinotage

Caliber said:
			
		

> What doesn't sound Rouge-y about that to you? What do you think he needs to be more Rogue-like? The ability to catch people flat-footed? There was another feat that offered that ...




Well, the tumble example was fairly weak on my part, and you have provided a much clearer example that doesn't make the multiclassing look so bad. Still, it requires several feats to get even the rudimentary aspects right of the rogue - tumbling, sneak attack, combat advantage, and then I'm not sure how this even goes with the Fighter as a defender who now has to wield a light blade and likely light armor. But, you gave a good example. It doesn't look so bad. Thanks!

Pinotage


----------



## Voss

Phloid said:
			
		

> These multiclassing rules are not what I want. They look like solid rules for dabbling in another class, but they are not "Multi-Classing." In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?" You might, but new players to the game won't unless the PH says to call it that. Even then, the name still won't fit. To me it is a wizard with sneak attack. Not a multiclass wizard/rogue. Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it. And only one other class? Bah!




Out of curiosity, though I can understand not being pleased by 4e changes, is calling it a wizard/rogue important in some way?  I mean, really, does the label actually matter, and something so clunky in particular..?

On to the second point, which seems more important-  50/50 class split with just the feats?  No.  1/3 of one class and 2/3rds of the other.  But switch out the paragon path for a 'multiclass path', and yes, it probably is roughly 50/50.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Phloid said:
			
		

> I'm well aware that multiclassing rules in the previous editions were not good, but neither is this. They should work, but they are not "multiclassing." It is "class dabbling."




The problem with the class based system is the trade.  Unless you do something like the gestalt rules from UA, there's no such thing 100% multiclassing.  Either you're a dabbler, you're half as effective as single classed characters, or you're somewhere in between.  Or, if you're a spellcaster you're even worse off, because the maximum effect of your spells is only based on one of your class's levels.

One of the foundations of 4e is a stronger classes.  They're tighter and more focused.  Mearls came right out and said, multiclassing was an afterthought.  IMO, this is because multiclassing is very difficult to do in a class-based games.  So, we have dabbling.  And frankly, we still don't know _exaclty_ how far MCing can go; we don't have all the details on the "second class as a paragon path" thing.  That could go a long way to open things up.

But, you don't like it, you don't like.  It's a taste thing.  It's more limited than 3e, but supposedly more balanced.


----------



## Wormwood

Phloid said:
			
		

> In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?"



Probably not, but then again why would I want to? Wizard/rogue sounds like fighter/magic-user to these old ears, and I'm bored before I finished this sentence.



			
				Phloid said:
			
		

> Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it.



Still not sure why a 50/50 class split is a good thing when you're multiclassing, but a bad thing when designing a new class. 

But ultimately, I agree with you. They should retire the term "Multiclassing" and move on already.


----------



## drjones

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, the tumble example was fairly weak on my part, and you have provided a much clearer example that doesn't make the multiclassing look so bad. Still, it requires several feats to get even the rudimentary aspects right of the rogue - tumbling, sneak attack, combat advantage, and then I'm not sure how this even goes with the Fighter as a defender who now has to wield a light blade and likely light armor. But, you gave a good example. It doesn't look so bad. Thanks!
> 
> Pinotage



No, no no you are supposed to ignore the advice and demand a fully powered fighter with a fully powered thief welded to his back.  Then say it does not matter because the multiclassing system is not 'to your taste'.  If this rational productive discourse continues it will be time to visit the punishment box!


----------



## Hella_Tellah

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> What some people seem to want is to be as good a fighter as a single-classed fighter, and as good at being a wizard as a single-classed wizard. This is blatantly, and categorically, utter munchkin crap. You shouldn't be able to replace two characters.




No, but you could, in theory, have a character who is good at 1/2 of what a fighter does and 1/2 of what a wizard does, and be as powerful as a single-classed character.  That's the ideal multiclass situation, as far as I'm concerned.  I like the 4e dabbler model just fine, though, since I expect my ideal multiclass model would be hell to design.

As an example, my ideal 3e Mystic Theurge would be capable of casting about half of the spells on the Cleric list, and about half the spells on the Wizard list.  She'd have no more spell slots than a normal caster, but would be able to fill them with a wider variety of spells.  The Archivist fits this fairly well, although as-written it's preposterously overpowered.

My ideal 4e Mystic Theurge would be able to pick spells from a smaller list of Wizard spells, as well as prayers from a smaller list of Cleric spells.  He'd still have the same number of at-will, encounter, and daily powers.  4e multiclassing is pretty close to that, actually, except for the feat expenditure.  Time and exposure to the system may prove me wrong, but right now it looks like the cost in feats will either be way too high for combinations that are only okay (A Cleric taking the Warlord training feats, for instance), or the cost will be way too low for combinations that are clearly good and useful (like a Rogue taking Wizard training to become invisible on a regular basis).  It just looks a bit slapdash, really.  This form of multiclassing was clearly designed as an add-on to an already solid system, rather than as a fundamental aspect of the system, as it was in 3e.

I'm sure it will be decently balanced and prevent some of the abuses in 3e, and it definitely addresses the caster multiclassing problem elegantly, but I do wish they'd designed all of the classes with multiclassing in mind from the get-go.


----------



## Mokona

Charwoman Gene said:
			
		

> The game ... basically assumes you have the rough capabilities of the 4 roles.



_Emphasis added_

Quote Skip Williams, "Your Place in the Party", http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/cwc/20061226:

Four Basic Character Roles

From the game's early days back in the 1970s to today, the D&D game has used four basic structures for characters. Nobody has ever given these structures formal names, so for purposes of this article we'll call them Sturdy Brawler, Stealthy Rascal, Arcane Spellslinger, and Divine Guardian. Each of these character types contributes to a party's success in a different way, and *the most effective parties* have at least one character to *fill each role*.

It's possible for a single character to fill more than one of these roles, especially when you begin exploring the options that multiclassing makes available, but it's difficult to excel at two roles and nigh impossible to excel at three or four. So, here's our first lesson in character creation -- *Pick a single role to fill in a party*, at least to start. The best characters do one thing and concentrate on doing that one thing well.


----------



## Pinotage

Andur said:
			
		

> Pinotage, I am very confused by what you think multiclassing is exactly.  You have yet to define it in any way which would make 3.x more acceptable than 4e.
> 
> The biggest thing is there really is no such thing as multiclassing as far as the characters are concerned.  They simply have the ability to do certain things..




I'm trying really hard not to bring 3e into this!   

We all know that 3e multiclassing didn't really work very well in a lot of instances. That's a given. And we can all agree that a 1:1 power ratio between the classes just doesn't work either (it's stupidly overpowered). You can't be a full fighter and full mage at the same time. Some other power ratio between the two classes is required to make a fighter/mage as a concept of equality between classes work. 4e's feat system offers a few powers in a new class at the expense of feats that could've boosted the main class. You get versatility, but you water down the main class to provide the few extra powers (possibly even a lot depending on the general power level of feats) and in some instances to get them to work (like a fighter requiring a light blade for sneak attack). You get some additional versatility, but the classes are never equal. If you start fighter, you'll always be a fighter with a few wizard powers. You'll never be equal amounts of fighter and wizard in a ratio of power relative to a single class that actually works. 

Let's be clear. 3e never generally achieved this, but did very well with certain combinations. 4e's paragon path system might actually achieve this. The feat system? I don't think it can. It doesn't offer a 'true' multiclass that works with equal parts of each class since you'll always be more of one class than the other. 

Pinotage


----------



## 3 Man

Wow, after reading all of that I feel I should receive an award!

In the past I have multi-classed a bit and seen it attempted many times by my players.  Personaly I was always seeking to recreate my original DND elf:fighter-magic user-scout.  Each time the attempt was made by me or my players the character felt, while thematicly interesting, overty underwhelming in terms of game mechanics.  I did not admitedly ever get into all of the extra books which may have had a good solution for my elf grail, though.

All preambles aside I feel from what limited information is currently available I could at last recreate my circa 1981 elf!  Eladrin fighter with a move silent skill and a magic missle!  I could teleport, sword people up, sneak around and cast the occasional magic missle.  How cool is that?!  And only 27 years in the making...


----------



## Bishmon

Alimaius said:
			
		

> The other main criticism: that doing this with feats is unbalancing, neglects the fact that feats have been changed in 4e. They do not do nearly as much as they did in 3e, where granting class features and in some cases exotic new powers was commonplace. They mostly provide modest bonuses. These feats: were they to represent the simple ADDITION of powers to the characters repetoire, would be horrendously unbalanced, especially for the heroic tier. Who the hell would want to take "Lost In The Crowd" when you could just take a multiclass progression and get three free powers. The point is they allow the secondary class to fill a spot in your character's statistics rather than just grafting it on



This seems to be a lot of speculation since we're largely in the dark on what feats can do in 4E. Of the very few feats we've seen has been the Toughness feat, which grants HP equal to 3 + level. If you're a 10th level character, would you rather have 13 HPs, or the chance to swap a daily power out for one of the same strength from a different class? The former makes you better, while the latter makes you different. That's an issue.

Fortunately, it's an easy fix for those who think it might need to be fixed. Personally, I'll probably keep the initial multiclass feats, but then just roll the Novice/Acolyte/Adept Power feats into a single feat.

Besides that, I mostly like the multiclassing. I really want to play a dragonborn fighter/"sorcerer" who is able to manifest his strong elemental connection in a couple ways other than just the breath weapon, and this looks like it'll work great. I also want to play an elven ranger who can take the rogue multiclassing feat to fill the trapmonkey role and get some sneak attack to boot.

My biggest disappointment is the warlord/cleric feats. Hopefully I could swap out a fighter encounter power and get the proper Healing Word, but I think that's a bit murky.


----------



## Counterspin

I don't understand this obsession with an even split.  It's not necessary for any concept that your power come exactly half from two different sources.  And if it's not a concept issue, and not a balance issue, I'm not sure why anyone should care.


----------



## mneme

Ok, much slogging needed to make the comments I wanted to anyway.

1. Yeah, about what I expected.  Except that the initial "dip" feats are somewhat stronger than I expected, and the power-switching ones a touch weaker.

2. Ok, I see the base problem with power switching.  The real issue is that even in 4E, the classes -aren't- equal.  Wizards get fewer HP with each level-up than Fighter, but receive stronger (yes, not equal -- stronger; a wizard daily will generally easily out-damage a fighter-daily and then some, and the encounter powers of a wizard are a good deal stronger as well) powers in exchange.

   This means that even aside from questions of balancing the base training feats (which they aren't from this excerpt, but are probably more so in the actual printed material with more details), the Power switching feats cannot be balanced--the appropriate cost for letting a wizard swap his daily for a fighter's daily (for the most part, negative; the wizard should pretty much never do this) cannot be equivalent to the appropriate cost for letting a fighter swap his daily for a wizard's (in this case, the cost is two feats with some other benefits; that's probably about right).  So rather than force every fighter to be a fighter/wizard just to keep up, they've made some combinations less than viable--sure, this means you're going to see a lot less multiclassing into fighter than the other way around (though the per-encounter abilities might be interesting enough to trade a wizard per-encounter, for the right class), and certainly far less power-trading in that direction than fighters grabbing up, oh, say, cleric, warlord, ranger, and wizard powers (for healing, tactics, striking, and AoE, respectively), but it does make all combinations viable even if they optimize very differently.

3. They deliberately overpowered the base multiclassing feats.  Yes, they also slapped a stat requirement on them, but going from the right classes, that's not really a penalty.  This, IMO, is why there's a restriction on two classes (though I'd guess that there will be Paragon multiclassing feats that let you grab a third class); getting a skill, a power, and futher qualification is quite good for just one feat, letting you do this for all your feats (well, three of them.  Str=>3.5, Wiz=>1, Int=>1, Cha=>1.5, Dex=>2; clearly, martial classes are still better at multiclassing, or more flexible at it, anyway) would be too much.  OTOH, several of these are quite good on their own (even aside from possible bonuses like Stealth & Thievery for Sneak of Shadows, which fits the flavor but not the text of the exerpt); I would guess, particularly given the lameness of many fighter powers compared to non-fighter powers, that in fact, the Fighter feat gives a straight +1 to attack, not per encounter -- so even a wizard->fighter combo isn't unlikely; she would just not bother taking power feats at all, instead taking Student of the Sword (thus getting +1 to her AoE spells!), Armor training, probably Toughness, and maybe taking a fighter-oriented paragon class.  By contrast, a fighter might take Student of Battle just for the inspiring word and the skill (certainly, the qualification is free), but more likely will take some dailies at 10th level, trading a vanilla daily with Reliable for a tactical daily that helps in other ways if it misses (and if it hits).


----------



## katahn

Hella_Tellah said:
			
		

> No, but you could, in theory, have a character who is good at 1/2 of what a fighter does and 1/2 of what a wizard does, and be as powerful as a single-classed character.  That's the ideal multiclass situation, as far as I'm concerned.  I like the 4e dabbler model just fine, though, since I expect my ideal multiclass model would be hell to design.




It's worth pointing out that Blizzard, in World of Warcraft, tried this exact approach (just as powerful, lacking all the versatility) in their initial design and description of the druid class.  Now in WoW the druid class is capable (depending on form and talent selection) of filling up to three roles in the 4e sense (leader, defender, and two flavors of striker) with a smattering of controllerish abilities if "outdoors" (entangling roots).

The net result has been a class that has never really found its definition.  The other defenders complain because they can do more damage when acting as a striker, or are capable of being better healers when acting as a leader.  Strikers complain they can't be like leaders and the druid is too close to being as good a striker and other leaders complain similarly.

The class, and the principle of "less abilities but just as capable", looks very good on paper but in practice it ends up making pure-role classes a little bit obsolete.  I played a druid in WoW to the level cap of 70 (two of them actually) and I enjoyed the class, but looking at it objectively I can absolutely see the legitimacy of the complaints.

Who cares if I have a character with half the abilities of another defender and half the abilities of another controller if I am capable of filling the core roles of each just as effectively as they are?  The point is I can do what the most important, role-defining, aspect of their class can do, plus I can fulfill the most important and role-defining ability of another class can too.  And it isn't just that I can do them, in that core functionality I have equal potency.

In a strongly role-defined class based game that is a counter-productive thing to have.


----------



## Mokona

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Having each role filled is good, and they've said it's what they're assuming...



I used black and white language in my original post when I should have been more nuanced.  You've basically agreed with my point; the game designers assume you can fill each of the four roles.

The following paragraph supports my original point (even though it disagrees with the way I stated my evidence).  Why?  Because the mechanics that allow you to function without a Leader are leader-style mechanics available in other classes and therefore you're not getting a huge reward for your feat when you use a feat to get access to the Leader powers your group should have already had.  If groups without a Leader have "different strengths" then I should have to decrease my power level to get back to regular strengths through multiclassing.

I like the new multiclass rules except the cost is slightly too high.

Quote Rob Heinsoo, "PC Roles", http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/drdd/20070831a:

4th Edition *has mechanics that allow* groups that want to function without a Leader, or without a member of the other three roles, to persevere. *Adventuring is usually easier if the group includes a Leader, a Defender, a Striker, and a Controller*, but none of the four roles is absolutely essential. Groups that double or triple up on one role while leaving other roles empty are going to face different challenges. They’ll also have different strengths.


----------



## Ruin Explorer

This thread is amazing, because it seems like 90% of the posters here are acting as if 1 and 2E never happened. Personally, 90% of my "time /played" in AD&D was in 2E (or 1E), and I loved the multiclassing system there, and I don't think it "broke the game" (perhaps people disagree).

Then 3E comes along with it's TERRIBLE multiclass system, and now were all supposed to like 4E's system because it's not as terrible as 3E's? Meh. The system I see there looks kind of insultingly weak. I mean, I didn't expect any Gestalt-ish, but I was expecting something somewhat closer to 1E/2E's multiclassing than 3E's. Instead we have something that's seeming equivalent to taking a random level in another class about every third or forth level, only at least most powers auto-scale now. The idea that you need to spend a Feat beyond the basic multiclassing feat JUST to swap a power with a power of another class seems a bit bogus, considering how well-balanced and deliberately interchangeable the powers seem.

To me, it just doesn't look like it'll be a lot of fun, and that's the main thing. It looks like people will take one glance at it, go "Uh, so I end up weaker? No thanks." and move on, ignoring the system entirely, unless they obsessed with a concept, in which case they'll just be a little bit embittered by the unecessary additional feat-spending.

Certainly it means now more masters of sword and spell, y'know, ever. It changes D&D's world from one where no-one is more than a dabbler. Game over? Hardly, but it's just really terminally unexciting.


----------



## Scipio202

*Guessing at Paragon Level Multiclassing*

Given the structure of the Paragon Path benefits, perhaps we can guess how the paragon-level multiclassing works.

For Paragon Paths you get
11th: Paragon Feature, Action Point option, Paragon Encounter Power
12th: Paragon Utility Power
16th: Paragon Feature
20th: Paragon Daily Power
(as well as getting from your base class a utility at 16th)

So, I'm going to assume that any feature from your paragon path becomes a feature from your secondary class, and any power from your paragon path becomes (a) an increase in your overall power "count", as well as (b) an extra primary/secondary class "swap".  I'm also going to assume that the action point option is instead picking up one of the at-wills from your secondary class.  Unfortunately we can't easily guess what class level the power should be from.  Then you'd have.

11th: Secondary Class Feature, Secondary Class At-will, Encounter Power&Swap
12th: Utility Power&Swap
16th: Secondary Class Feature Feature
20th: Daily Power&Swap
(as well as getting from your base class a utility at 16th)

You can then look at what % of your power count for each power type you can have from your secondary class, assuming both full heroic and paragon multiclassing (again abstracting from which levels you pick)

At Will: 0% from 1-10, 33% from 11-20
Encounter: 0% from 1-3, 50% from 4-5, 33% from 7-10, 50% from 11-20
Daily: 0% from 1-9, 33% from 10-19, 50% at 20
Utility: 0% from 1-7, 50% from 8-9, 33% from 10-11, 50% from 12-15, 40% from 16-20
(this ignores the bonus encounter power from the initial feat).

So, while not completely 50-50, it's not far off, and you could increase the "feel" of the secondary class a bit more by taking your swaps always at the highest level.  Plus you'd have almost all the features of the secondary class, which should help increase the "feel" of being 50-50.

edit: last sentence, clarity


----------



## Storm-Bringer

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> On the other hand, we've all seen how multiclassing can get... out of hand.  The restrictions serve two commonsense purposes in my mind:  they prevent broken combinations now and help future proof the system as new classes are introduced.



That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing.  The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster.  Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.

I never had the chance to look it up before, but is this seriously _the_ Pun-pun that causes all the brouhaha?


----------



## Alimaius

> No, but you could, in theory, have a character who is good at 1/2 of what a fighter does and 1/2 of what a wizard does, and be as powerful as a single-classed character. That's the ideal multiclass situation, as far as I'm concerned. I like the 4e dabbler model just fine, though, since I expect my ideal multiclass model would be hell to design.




The problem though is that isn't balanced. Players are going to naturally chose powers which benefit them the most, while harming them the least. The strength of a cleric is that they have a lot of healing and buff spells, but a weaker selection of overt attack spells. A wizard is going to have the opposite problem. Allowing a class access to both makes a character who can heal/buff AND sling damage, which is overpowered. The only solution to this is to either reduce the effectiveness of both aspects (make the class unable to access high level healing or damage spells) or reduce the effectiveness of one. Wanting a character that is any kind of competent in two areas (especially when the two original areas are traditionally weaknesses for either original class) is, as *JohnSnow* says, utter munchkin crap.

Also, are you really going to be DOING that much in combat? No matter what system you use to create it fact is most fighter/casters either use a few solid damage spells, a few solid buffs, or some limited combination of the two. Then they wade in. Do people really want the entire wizard spell list at their fingertips? Because I guarantee there are going to be a lot of fireballs and precious few charm persons being cast. A wizard doesn't need to fight: a fighter doesn't need to wizz, so if you have the powers of both you are going to end up doing one or the other,


----------



## JohnSnow

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, the tumble example was fairly weak on my part, and you have provided a much clearer example that doesn't make the multiclassing look so bad. Still, it requires several feats to get even the rudimentary aspects right of the rogue - tumbling, sneak attack, combat advantage, and then I'm not sure how this even goes with the Fighter as a defender who now has to wield a light blade and likely light armor. But, you gave a good example. It doesn't look so bad. Thanks!
> 
> Pinotage




The thing is, I think that a character who tumbles into combat, gaining combat advantage and such, and shanks people with sneak attack is _predominantly_ a rogue, not a fighter. Assuming you want a classic swashbuckler type, it would make sense to start with a rogue with toughness and proficiency in a fighter-y weapon (like the rapier or even the longsword), and then take "student of the sword" to add some extra fighter-y goodness to the character (higher to-hit and the ability to mark once per encounter). Then, when you want, throw in Novice Power to gain a fighter power to further complement your rogue-y goodness. By fourth level, you'll have 2 rogue at-will powers, +2d6 damage when you have combat advantage, either Artful Dodger or Brutal Scoundrel, the ability to mark once per encounter, tumbling (assuming you take it as your level 2 utility power), 1 rogue encounter power (positioning strike looks good), 1 fighter encounter power (Passing Attack, perhaps?), and 1 rogue daily power.

Off the top of my head, I can see some awesome synergy between Positioning Strike (with Artful Dodger), and Passing Attack.

For example:

Tumble to enter combat (move action).
Positioning strike to slide one target closer to another.
Spend an action point and use Passing Attack to smoke them both. If you have combat advantage, this is a pretty rocking skill.


----------



## Kobold Avenger

mneme said:
			
		

> This means that even aside from questions of balancing the base training feats (which they aren't from this excerpt, but are probably more so in the actual printed material with more details), the Power switching feats cannot be balanced--the appropriate cost for letting a wizard swap his daily for a fighter's daily (for the most part, negative; the wizard should pretty much never do this) cannot be equivalent to the appropriate cost for letting a fighter swap his daily for a wizard's (in this case, the cost is two feats with some other benefits; that's probably about right).  So rather than force every fighter to be a fighter/wizard just to keep up, they've made some combinations less than viable--sure, this means you're going to see a lot less multiclassing into fighter than the other way around (though the per-encounter abilities might be interesting enough to trade a wizard per-encounter, for the right class), and certainly far less power-trading in that direction than fighters grabbing up, oh, say, cleric, warlord, ranger, and wizard powers (for healing, tactics, striking, and AoE, respectively), but it does make all combinations viable even if they optimize very differently.



The Fighter training feat is perhaps the best out of the multiclass feats, many players would want it just for the +1 to attacks, who cares about getting the fighter powers.


----------



## Engilbrand

Look at Eberron. Look at the Dragonmark feats. By themselves, they're weak. They give a minor skill bonus and, normally, a worthless spell. The major benefit, though, is that they open up new avenues in terms of mechanics (PrCs and other feats) and roleplaying (Dragonmarked Houses- Duh!)
The same can be said for the "Training" feats. Alone, they're a little weak. But they can add a lot to the character as time goes on and they open up feats and Paths and Destinies.
There are plenty of ways in character to show a gradual change to a new class. People seem to forget that retraining if a part of the system now. It doesn't have to be the cheesy, "I can cast Fireball, but I forgot how to swing a sword!" If done well, from a character standpoint, it is closer to, "I can cast Fireball, but I'm a little our of shape and I'm not up on my forms to be able to {X}." 
I don't think that previous forms of multiclassing make sense. The new ways shows how you're gradually learning new abilities and getting better at them. Eventually, you may have perfected them, but your previous abilities have atrophied.
And think of the fun that can be had with mixing Classes, feats and Paths. I actually like the idea of the Fighter with a couple of spells who can fry an enemy when he's unarmed and is able to immediately retaliate if hurt enough. A Fighter with some Wizard Feats who enters the Battle Mage Path. That seems a little like Richard Rahl from the Sword of Truth series.


----------



## Moon-Lancer

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing.  The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster.  Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.
> 
> I never had the chance to look it up before, but is this seriously _the_ Pun-pun that causes all the brouhaha?




also included in the book is a spell called venom fire. add that with a fleshraker from mm3. It was clearly the book that was broken, *edit* Multiclassing is very hit and miss in 3.5


----------



## Nahat Anoj

Hey guys, they changed multiclassing quite a bit!  I think this'll generate some controversy.

*reads thread*

Oh my ...



I don't mind it - I usually only multiclassed with two classes anyway, and at least this way my Knight/Paladin wouldn't have been shafted so much on smites.  Although I must admit some regret over being unable to fulfill my youthful dreams of a viable fighter/mage/thief.    I'll have to wait until the Swordmage comes out - maybe some Rogue training will suffice.


----------



## Cerulean_Wings

Matthew L. Martin said:
			
		

> We continue our joyful dance on the grave of 'system mastery'.




To me it's more like an ever-burning efigy, left there to remind us of what we have left behind


----------



## Mirtek

Kobold Avenger said:
			
		

> The Fighter training feat is perhaps the best out of the multiclass feats, many players would want it just for the +1 to attacks, who cares about getting the fighter powers.



But is it supposed to be permanet? The "and" indicates that both the bonus and the ability to mark are limited to 1/encounter.


----------



## Cadfan

You know, in all my years of DMing 3e, I never once saw a player create a character with exactly half levels in wizard, and half levels in fighter.

Except at maybe level 4, when they were aiming for a PRC.

So... explain to me why its bad to have to go to a 3rd class like Spellblade or whatever its called to get your fighter/wizard fix.


----------



## Andor

My hat's off to anyone who actually slogged through this, I certainly didn't. ^^

The feat cost of swapping powers seems fair to me. For a start 4e feats seem generally weaker than 3e feats, so it's a smaller cost than percieved. Secondly paying a small price in power for flexibility is reasonable, especially given the narrow focus of 4e classes. Thirdly no one is holding a crossbow to your head and making anyone multi-class, if you'd rather have the feat do so. Lastly as Mneme points out the base multi-classing feat is very powerful by what we've seen of the feat standards for 4e. It duplicates the skill training feat, then adds a power on top of that, then gives you more paragon path options on top of that. Since you've already gotten a 3 for 1 from the base multi-classing feat, the latter feat costs are basically freebies.


----------



## Iron Sky

Ruin Explorer said:
			
		

> This thread is amazing, because it seems like 90% of the posters here are acting as if 1 and 2E never happened. Personally, 90% of my "time /played" in AD&D was in 2E (or 1E), and I loved the multiclassing system there, and I don't think it "broke the game" (perhaps people disagree).




To be fair, some of us have never played 1 or 2E(though I have played the latter).  Heck, some of us here didn't even _exist_ when 1 or 2E came out...

I've been roleplaying since I was 12, starting with the "latest and greatest" DnD product at the time: 2nd Edition AD&D.  I've never even seen an older version of DnD.

So, if we don't mention it, it's because many of the posters here probably have never played the systems or, like me with 2nd Edition, never played more than 1 or 2 campaigns with them.  In my 1-2 2nd AD&D campaigns I ran back in the day, out of about 30-35 characters people made and played, not one was dual/multi-class that I can remember.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing.  The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster.  Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.




It was an extreme example, I'll certainly grant you that.  My point remains the same; multiclassing in 3e was not perfect.  It was (and I'd argue still is) the most robust multiclassing system we have in DnD.  However, it was prone to wonky results.  Its freedom allowed cherry-picking and wonky results like pun-pun.  It didn't work well for non-casters.  Most of the classes in the PHB are spellcasters, so multiclassing hurts most of the core classes.  There were entire PrCs were constructed in order to bandaid certain concepts (fighter/wizard, cleric/wizard, etc.)

4e has made a point of creating strong, tightly focused classes.  I think they've done this well.  As a result, multi-classing was not a priority for them and got pushed to the side.  It leaves something to be desired for many people.  (I may or may not be in this camp... haven't completely decided).  However, I think the devs ignored multiclassing because each implementation has presented its own strange, sometimes detrimental problems.  Multiclassing actually takes _away_ from a strong class-based system, in that it puts too much focus on getting the most out of multiple classes, rather than just one.

If one is building a class based system, why dilute that system rather than strengthen it?  It seems to me that if one wants a "multiclass character," one is better off looking at classless systems that allow a much different kind of advancement.


----------



## Dausuul

Spenser said:
			
		

> Wow, I can take a single feat in 3.5 that lets my 18th level fighter cast Meteor Swarm? Awesome! That seems much better than Dodge.




Actually... that sounds like a really good idea.  I would totally implement something like that in my next 3.X game, if I intended to run another 3.X game.

*Dabble in Wizardry [General]*
*Prerequisite:* Int 13
*Benefit:* You gain a single spell slot with level equal to one-half your character level, minus one (maximum 9).  You may use that slot to prepare and cast an arcane spell as a wizard of level equal to your character level.
Whenever you reach a new even-numbered level, the level of this spell slot increases accordingly.
You are subject to all normal restrictions on casting, including arcane failure chance, except that low Intelligence does not prevent you from casting these spells.  You must keep a spellbook.  You do not gain additional spell slots for high Intelligence.
*Special:* You can take Dabble in Wizardry multiple times.  Each time, you gain another spell slot.

*Dabble in Sorcery[General]*
*Prerequisite:* Cha 13
*Benefit:* You gain a single spell slot with level equal to one-half your character level, minus one (maximum 9).  You also learn one sorceror/wizard spell of the same level or less.  You may spontaneously cast that spell as a sorceror of level equal to your character level.
Whenever you reach a new even-numbered level, the level of this spell slot increases accordingly.  In addition, you may exchange the learned spell for a different one, whose level does not exceed one-half your character level, minus one (for example, upon reaching 8th level, you may exchange _summon monster II_ for _summon monster III_).
You are subject to all normal restrictions on casting, including arcane failure chance, except that low Charisma does not prevent you from casting these spells.  You do not gain additional spell slots for high Charisma.
*Special:* You can take Dabble in Sorcery multiple times.  Each time, you may choose either to gain another spell slot or to learn another spell (but not both).

*Dabble in Divinity[General]*
*Prerequisite:* Wis 13
*Benefit:* You gain a single spell slot with level equal to one-half your character level, minus one (maximum 9).  You may use that slot to prepare and cast a cleric spell as a cleric of level equal to your character level.
Whenever you reach a new even-numbered level, the level of this spell slot increases accordingly.
You are subject to all normal restrictions on casting, except that low Wisdom does not prevent you from casting these spells.  You do not gain additional spell slots for high Wisdom.
*Special:* You can take Dabble in Divinity multiple times.  Each time, you gain another spell slot.

*Dabble in Druidry[General]*
*Prerequisite:* Wis 13
*Benefit:* You gain a single spell slot with level equal to one-half your character level, minus one (maximum 9).  You may use that slot to prepare and cast a druid spell as a druid of level equal to your character level.
Whenever you reach a new even-numbered level, the level of this spell slot increases accordingly.
You are subject to all normal restrictions on casting, except that low Wisdom does not prevent you from casting these spells.  You do not gain additional spell slots for high Wisdom.
*Special:* You can take Dabble in Druidry multiple times.  Each time, you gain another spell slot.


----------



## Storm-Bringer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> What some people seem to want is to be as good a fighter as a single-classed fighter, and as good at being a wizard as a single-classed wizard. This is blatantly, and categorically, utter munchkin crap. You shouldn't be able to replace two characters.



I don't often agree with Mr. Snow, but I had to say:  Thank God for you.

I have been ranting about this for quite a while now when the subject of multi-classing comes up.  Every time someone says how badly Class X and Class Y combine, I was almost at the point of tearing out my hair.  And I have precious little to tear out.  

With apologies to Eric's Grandmother, _no freaking crap_*!!  Multi-classed characters were always the _backup guys_.  If you wanted to be the sword guy (or gal) and Cuisinart everything in your path, you play _the Fighter_.  If you wanted to be the Ultimate Wielder of Awesome Arcane Power, you play _the Wizard_.  The Fighter/Wizard doesn't get all that cool stuff, because you are splitting your attention between two classes.  You get penalized for not specializing.

And now, taking a few powers and a skill from another class is like manna from heaven.  This time around, it seems to make sense that you are taking these other powers to provide backup for the main character.  _That is always what multi-classing was for_.

Ok, we can go back to disagreeing now.  



*replace words as necessary to get the full meaning of my frustration


----------



## JohnSnow

That One Guy said:
			
		

> I agree with most things that you said. A multiclass should not be as good as the main class in doing the things that they do (A fighter who sticks to melee focused feats will rock something fierce melee-style as opposed to a gish who can fight and cast). If there are feats that expand the features available, like your example of cantrips, that'd be rockin' sweet. I tried to examine the table as if it was the whole picture, but leaving room for it not being so. If there are more feats to help a person pick up aspects of other classes, then it'll work exactly how I hope and I'll be thrilled. If what we have is pretty much the extent of multi-classing then I think a lot of character concepts won't be able to be fulfilled.
> 
> I'm guardedly optimistic, but very much hoping that you are correct.




Ummm...I may have something that will interest you greatly. One of the playtest characters, Erais the Sunlord, had the following _feat_ listed on his character sheet - Channel Divinity - Power of Amaunator (see back). The back read as follows:

*Channel Divinity - Power of Amaunator*  Feat Power
_Your prayer to Amaunator creates a white-hot surge of radiance._

*Encounter • Divine, Radiant*
*Special:* You can use _divine fortune, power of Amaunator_, or _turn undead_ once per encounter, but only one of them per encounter.
*Free Action Personal*
*Trigger:* You hit an enemy with a power with the radiant keyword.
*Effect:* Your power deals an extra 1d10 radiant damage to all targets hit by the power used. If a power deals half damage on a miss, you deal half of the extra damage as well.

I am assuming this is a cleric feat. I am equally assuming that it's entirely possible that there might be cleric feats for _divine fortune_ and _turn undead._ Of course, those are feats only available to clerics. Except that the article on multiclassing says, specifically:



> 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.




I imagine that feats exist to deepen your character concept, or (by multiclassing) broaden it.

I'm starting to think this may turn out a lot cooler than some people think at the moment.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> And now, taking a few powers and a skill from another class is like manna from heaven.  This time around, it seems to make sense that you are taking these other powers to provide backup for the main character.  _That is always what multi-classing was for_.
> 
> Ok, we can go back to disagreeing now.



Yep, I have to agree with you for once - multiclassing is definitively no longer a "build option" to improve your character beyond that what a single class character offers. And hence the dismay of people who had fun building their character.

The new "multiclassing" is more of a character concept option - to show that a character has picked up new stuff, like the fighter/wizard OR the wizard/fighter. And on the first glance, it does that pretty well - giving you the ability to play a character concept that doesn't fit into a single class. And that from the 1st level!

For me, that's a success.

EDIT: Also: There's retconning. If you're putting all your feats into your multiclassing efforts and pick up the paragon path, you'll probably get pretty close to a 50/50 split in your powers, ask your DM and build your character as the other class with your original class as picked up class. Perhaps this is even formalized in the form of retraining.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Caliber

Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, the tumble example was fairly weak on my part, and you have provided a much clearer example that doesn't make the multiclassing look so bad. Still, it requires several feats to get even the rudimentary aspects right of the rogue - tumbling, sneak attack, combat advantage, and then I'm not sure how this even goes with the Fighter as a defender who now has to wield a light blade and likely light armor. But, you gave a good example. It doesn't look so bad. Thanks!
> 
> Pinotage




Glad I could help out. I'd suggest there may be feats to help out with those weapon/armor restrictions as well, but I'm veering pretty far into simple conjecture at this point  ....


----------



## am181d

Alimaius said:
			
		

> The problem though is that isn't balanced. Players are going to naturally chose powers which benefit them the most, while harming them the least. The strength of a cleric is that they have a lot of healing and buff spells, but a weaker selection of overt attack spells. A wizard is going to have the opposite problem. Allowing a class access to both makes a character who can heal/buff AND sling damage, which is overpowered. The only solution to this is to either reduce the effectiveness of both aspects (make the class unable to access high level healing or damage spells) or reduce the effectiveness of one. Wanting a character that is any kind of competent in two areas (especially when the two original areas are traditionally weaknesses for either original class) is, as *JohnSnow* says, utter munchkin crap.




If the powers are balanced correctly, then a character who has 50% wizard powers and 50% cleric powers is not unbalanced. (This is probably a gross simplification, but as a general principle, I think it holds.)


----------



## Storm-Bringer

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> It was an extreme example, I'll certainly grant you that.  My point remains the same; multiclassing in 3e was not perfect.  It was (and I'd argue still is) the most robust multiclassing system we have in DnD.  However, it was prone to wonky results.  Its freedom allowed cherry-picking and wonky results like pun-pun.  It didn't work well for non-casters.  Most of the classes in the PHB are spellcasters, so multiclassing hurts most of the core classes.  There were entire PrCs were constructed in order to bandaid certain concepts (fighter/wizard, cleric/wizard, etc.)



I think I see what you are getting at, but again, Pun-pun doesn't demonstrate that multi-classing is the problem.  The only (core) class Pun-pun has is...  Wizard.

I don't necessarily disagree that some multi-classing choices are problematic, but see my reply above to JohnSnow.



			
				Divine Minion template said:
			
		

> Proxies
> A divine proxy speaks and acts on behalf of the divine being. When the demand for a deity’s presence is too high, the deity may use proxies.
> Proxies are divine minions invested with a small portion of the deity’s power. A deity may invest 1 rank of its power (reducing its divine rank accordingly) in a single servant for as long as the deity chooses. The minion must be physically present for the deity to perform the investiture. While so invested, *the proxy gains any salient divine abilities held by the patron deity as well as the powers and abilities of a rank 1 demigod. Without the requisite ability scores or divine ranks, the proxy may not be able to use all those powers and abilities.* A deity may have more than one proxy, but it must lose 1 divine rank for each proxy it invests. A deity can retrieve a single divine rank as a standard action, and doing so it does not require the physical presence of the proxy.



I mean, right there, Pun-pun is a demigod.  Already out of the realm of 'mortal' limitations.

Secondly, 



> Petitioners
> Some spirits demonstrate their devotion to their deity by traveling to the deity’s home plane. Those that survive the journey across the planes become servants of their deity. While a few may remain disembodied spirits, most become petitioners through the divine will of their patron deity.
> *In general, petitioners appear in the form that they had when they died,* though they may be remade by deities to fit the nature of their particular afterlife. In general, petitioners who become divine servants are creatures that originally had at least 1 Intelligence and 1 Wisdom.
> The following creature types may become petitioners depending on the deity: aberrations, animals, dragons, fey, giants, humanoids, magical beasts, monstrous humanoids, and plants, oozes, and vermin with sufficient ability scores. Constructs and undead are not usually made into petitioners, though the spirits of their original forms may be. Elementals and outsiders tend to meld with their native planes, and as such do not become petitioners. Their spirits may still be called back from the dead, however.
> *The template presented below is for NPCs, not player characters.* If dead characters who are petitioners are later restored to life (once again becoming player characters), they forget any of their experiences as petitioners.



Pun-pun had to be dead first, and at any rate, all the admonitions in the article about not allowing Pun-pun as a PC are redundant.  You can't apply the Petitioner template to a PC anyway.

In any case, without the sarrukh, none of it is possible.  Again, one poorly thought out ability of a single monster allows all of that.  Pun-pun is a very strong argument for more transparency in game design, so you don't have later splats causing all kinds of problems.  But it has nothing whatsoever to do with multi-classing.




> 4e has made a point of creating strong, tightly focused classes.  I think they've done this well.  As a result, multi-classing was not a priority for them and got pushed to the side.  It leaves something to be desired for many people.  (I may or may not be in this camp... haven't completely decided).  However, I think the devs ignored multiclassing because each implementation has presented its own strange, sometimes detrimental problems.  Multiclassing actually takes _away_ from a strong class-based system, in that it puts too much focus on getting the most out of multiple classes, rather than just one.
> 
> If one is building a class based system, why dilute that system rather than strengthen it?  It seems to me that if one wants a "multiclass character," one is better off looking at classless systems that allow a much different kind of advancement.



I can't disagree with any of this, either.  If the argument is that D&D is to be strongly classed, you make excellent points.  But using the 'evolution' argument that seems to be going around these days, D&D was evolving away from a strongly classed game since the latter days of 2nd edition.  Kits, in particular, and various Player's Option books demonstrated that.


----------



## Phloid

You would think that with the reworking of all mechanics being "power" based and each class having mechanically similar powers to choose from at each level that are roughly balanced with each other, that the designers could have come up with a multiclass system that was actually taking multiple classes instead of this dabbling thing they devised. Or at least in addition to this thing in case you just wanted to dabble instead of multiclassing. 

I know that there could be a balance issue with multiclass characters becoming "gestalt" if precautions aren't taken, and I don't condone a rise in power level in any shape or form. In fact this is another reason I anticipate not liking 4th Ed. 

Even though I'm tempted to go into the other reasons I think 4th Ed will not be to my liking, this isn't the right forum.

I do think that there could be a fairly simple and balanced way for a player to take powers from more than one class without the need to spend feats and allow for an even distribution of class features. This would of course blur the lines of party role of both classes, but if properly balanced, could make an excellent 5th character.


----------



## JohnSnow

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I don't often agree with Mr. Snow, but I had to say:  Thank God for you.
> 
> ...
> 
> Ok, we can go back to disagreeing now.




*LAUGH*

The thing is Storm-Bringer, we usually disagree on matters of "feel" rather than balance issues. I think as far as our sense of how the game _works_ (or ought to), you and I tend to be of the same mind.

Where we tend to disagree, I think, is on how the game _plays_ and some of the flavor aspects of it. And on how important those things are to how much like D&D it feels. Of coruse, I'm not sure I'm as much in favor of all the Fourth Edition changes as you might think - I just haven't yet seen anything about 4E that bugs me as much as Vancian magic did.


----------



## Scipio202

am181d said:
			
		

> If the powers are balanced correctly, then a character who has 50% wizard powers and 50% cleric powers is not unbalanced. (This is probably a gross simplification, but as a general principle, I think it holds.)




There is a difference between balanced overall, and equally good in every circumstance.

Suppose there are 3 types of encounters: A, B and C.  In your typical campaign, they occur with equal frequency.

Suppose Wizards and Cleric each have three powers.

Wizard 1 is Excellent if A, Poor otherwise
Wizard 2 is Excellent if B, Poor otherwise
Wizard 3 is Decent in any encounter

Cleric 1 is Excellent if B, Poor otherwise
Cleric 2 is Excellent if C, Poor otherwise
Cleric 3 is Decent in any encounter

Wizards and Clerics are balanced overall as classes, and (for appropriate exact values of "Excellent", "Decent" and "Poor") the powers are balanced both within the class and between the classes.

However, a PC who can pick Wizard 1, Wizard 2 and Cleric 2 is strictly better than either pure class.


----------



## Remathilis

Whew. I finished the entire thread. Do I get a level now? 

Here is my point on multi-classing. 

In third (forget 1e/2e for a moment, they just strapped a second PC on your back and made you share hp between them), multi-classing had only two options.

1.) Uber-build that does your job better than a single class.
2.) Watered-down nerf-sticked PCs who can't do their job. 

The first was the area of munchkins, CharOp boards, and finding the PERFECT combination of cherry-picked levels, prestige classes, and such that created horrible synergies. It also made some classes nothing more than "grab a level of" for others. (Swashbuckler was ripe pickings for rogues, as was ranger. And what fighter didn't benefit from one level of barbarian?) If you were going for a very specific build, you could really work miracles with cherry-picking (so much so, ranger, paladin and bard all got heavy revision in 3.5 to combat it). 

The second came if you actually tried to fill two roles, rather than cherry-pick. Fighter/wizards lacked the caster level to beat spell resistance. Rogue/Monks lagged in disable device, making trap rolls impossible. A fighter/cleric lacked true healing power to make him a primary healer. So onward came the "patch" prestige classes (eldrich knight, mystic theurge) and soon enough, almost every conceivable class combo (primarily those with spellcasting or similar) got its own gestalt prc. Often times, a multi-classed PC trying to actually fill two roles fell behind in both, creating a less than optimal character.

(As an aside: I love the fact paragon paths are welded to classes for this reason as well. We all know you could theoretically get into any PrC with nearly any class combo, but in practice, most PrCs were built for one or two classes, and everyone else gained nothing for it. If you made the pre-reqs too loose, it lost value. If you made the bennies too good, there was no reason not to take it. In essence, PrCs became what paragon paths are now (extra cool abilities that make you different from one rogue to the next) without having to make them "balance" against the core classes nor dilute them from their primary roles to take them)

So, all this brings me back to 4e and multi-classing. Clearly, WotC would rather have a controlled version of type 1 and chuck part 2 altogether. IMHO, that's good. Any multi-class rules that made a hybrid class combo equal to his peers in either profession was too good, and any that made you hopelessly ineffective was just the opposite. Maybe this isn't quite "goldi-locks" level yet, but the fact I can still have elven warriors cast some spells without overshadowing actual wizards or failing at being actual warriors, thats a big plus in my book.


----------



## Mouseferatu

rowport said:
			
		

> And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as  "concept."




Given that you don't know my group, and don't know what we discussed and agreed upon back when we first started playtesting 4E, I find this presumptuous in the extreme.


----------



## Storm-Bringer

Moon-Lancer said:
			
		

> also included in the book is a spell called venom fire. add that with a fleshraker from mm3. It was clearly the book that was broken, NOT multi classing.



Ok, so I am not hallucinating about the bit where it falls completely apart without the sarrukh?  Whew.  Thanks for the confirm.  After all the talk about this Pun-pun, I thought I had missed something critical when I was reading it.


----------



## Kaisoku

My only real concern over the new multiclassing is that I won't be able to create characters like I had in the past, without coming up with new rules or new abilities that basically copy others.


For example, in my current game I'm playing the following character build:

Human
Fighter 4, Barbarian 3, Ranger 3, Rogue 3, Commander 3*, Psychic Warrior 4
*War of the Burning Sky


This character was actually built organically. I started out entering the game at 8th level or so, with a Fighter/Barbarian/Ranger background with skill points in Social skills and built as a guerrilla fighter (yay Gatepass!).

Rogue levels were added to increase my skill capability in social skills and spot as they were becoming increasingly important.
Commander levels were added because I was starting to become more aware of how much tactics influenced combat, we had participated in more than a couple war situations, and the character had been made a Noble, gaining at least some assumed leadership in-character.

Finally, nearing the end of the recent activities, we've encountered Psionics for the first time *Edit* Removed minor potential spoiler *Edit*. This opened up an avenue of character development unforseen.


It all makes logical sense, in character, and the only cheese factor is the Spiked Chain I'm using to full effect. However being that this is Core Rules only (with psionics now), this barely keeps my character caught up to the power the Cleric and Wizard have.

This is a really nice character build with a lot of options, that I hadn't even planned from the beginning to turn out like this. It legitimately has 6 base classes that all work well together, giving my a lot of in-combat and out-of-combat options as a character, without being hideously overpowered.


This wouldn't be possible according to 4e rules.

Which saddens me. Regardless if they did it in 1e or 2e, I loved that this was possible in 3e. In fact, in previous editions that I DM'd, I was constantly crafting new abilities or whole classes for players that wanted something outside of the box that "kits" wouldn't really help cover.

So while it's not always been in the rules, I've been playing by the _spirit_ of 3e multiclassing all my game time.


In 4e, my current character build would need the following optoins:

- Defender skills (tripping, stopping people, high defense/hitpoints)
- Rage
- Track, a little bit of ranged combat capability (rapid shot)
- Sneak Attack
- Enough skill bonuses to accomodate some bonus to knowledge skills, Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff/Sense Motive, Spot, Tracking (survival), Psionic skills (autohypnosis and concentration).
- Some leader bonuses (allowing extra attacks, movement, bonuses to combat, and ability to communicate surreptitiously between comrades)
- A smattering of combat-focused psionics.

I could see this _potentially_ working if I were allowed to take multiclass from more than one class. Otherwise it's back to building new base classes that happen to encompass a large enough portion of what I want... but even then, being able to double as Defender with a smattering of Leader doesn't allow Psionics to come into play naturally later...


I know this character is rather unique in build...
It's just... a little disappointing to see that this option has been neutered because it's not "mainstream".


----------



## Storm-Bringer

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> *LAUGH*
> 
> The thing is Storm-Bringer, we usually disagree on matters of "feel" rather than balance issues. I think as far as our sense of how the game _works_ (or ought to), you and I tend to be of the same mind.
> 
> Where we tend to disagree, I think, is on how the game _plays_ and some of the flavor aspects of it. And on how important those things are to how much like D&D it feels. Of coruse, I'm not sure I'm as much in favor of all the Fourth Edition changes as you might think - *I just haven't yet seen anything about 4E that bugs me as much as Vancian magic did.*



Heretic.  

Otherwise, I think your analysis is spot on.


----------



## GoodKingJayIII

Like I said, Pun-pun was not the best example.  Your points are well take, and I'm willing to forget him if you are.   



			
				Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> I can't disagree with any of this, either.  If the argument is that D&D is to be strongly classed, you make excellent points.  But using the 'evolution' argument that seems to be going around these days, D&D was evolving away from a strongly classed game since the latter days of 2nd edition.  Kits, in particular, and various Player's Option books demonstrated that.




I prefer that kind of evolution in a class system with fewer classes.  However, if part of your design philosophy is to create lots of classes that cover a lot of different archetypes (and from what we know about 4e, it's moving in this direction), then having lots of "liquid" classes may be to the detriment, rather than benefit.

I believe, when we finally have the books, we'll find that the system is fairly pliable, particularly within class boundaries.


----------



## Mort_Q

I need to read the whole PH entry, but as it stands right now, my gut reaction is that the limit of one multi-class (or dual-class as some would have it) is more to protect the PC from becoming underpowered than to prevent the PC from becoming overpowered.

Perhaps there is more in the DMG about this.

That said, it looks good to me so far.


----------



## Mouseferatu

matthewseidl said:
			
		

> Having played in Ari's group before, and knowing most of the current players well, let me say that at least one of the payers in that group never let mechanics get in the way of concept.  He was famous for making terrible characters, mostly multi-classed to death (a few rogue levels, a few bard levels, maybe a dip into Sorc, then add in a prc, etc).  If he didn't multi, its because he saw things he liked in a single class, not because he was worried about being weaker.




*blink*

When did you start visiting ENWorld?!


----------



## el-remmen

PrecociousApprentice said:
			
		

> All of the munchkins...excuse me, optimizers...may not like this, but I sure do.




Well, I am not nearly a munchkin or optimizer, but I still don't like it. 

As I said in my first post:



			
				el-remmen said:
			
		

> I just wanted to add that I never felt 3E multi-classing was broken. I just think certain playstyles lead to taking adventage of possibilities it technically allows (or for certain combinations to become useless in the context of that particular gameplay), but also think that people who play that way (not that there's anything wrong with it) are always going to find ways to manipulate and take advantage of rules - so confining the rules based on that playstyle is the equivalent to the other end of the spectrum where the DM is expected to handle all aspects of game balance.


----------



## Cadfan

am181d said:
			
		

> If the powers are balanced correctly, then a character who has 50% wizard powers and 50% cleric powers is not unbalanced. (This is probably a gross simplification, but as a general principle, I think it holds.)



I disagree.  Imagine two character classes.  One is the 4e Warlord.  The other is exactly the same as a 4e Warlord, except that its allowed to pick Fighter powers if it feels like it, up to 50%.

The second is obviously better.

Not only is it better in the sense that it can do something the first class cannot, but it is also better in the sense that it has more chances for powerful synergies between abilities, and a resulting higher power level of characters created with that class.

So, we charge for it a bit.  Fixes the problem.  Sucks for you if you were intending to create something anti-synergetic, but, we can't base the game on that.  Far better to create a new class for anti-synergetic combinations, and balance the game on the assumption that players will pick the more powerful choices available.


----------



## Mort_Q

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> I just haven't yet seen anything about 4E that bugs me as much as Vancian magic did.




QFT


----------



## Mouseferatu

There are a lot of people saying "If all powers of level X are balanced, there should be no cost (or less cost) for swapping them out!"

But this completely ignores the fact that powers are balanced _in context_. I tried to get this across earlier, with my "fighter with an area attack" example. The fact that wizard power X is balanced with fighter power X assumes that wizard power X is taken _by a wizard_, and fighter power X is taken _by a fighter_. They may remain equal out of that assumed context.

For example--and I'm making this up, not offering a hint of what's in the book --an encounter power that says you can ignore the effects of a successful melee attack made against you is more valuable to a fighter than to a wizard, because the fighter's in melee a _lot_ more often than the wizard is. (As an actually in-the-book example, consider the possibility of a fighter acquiring _mirror image_.) Similarly, a utility power that says you can throw a ranged or area power without drawing an opportunity attack is more valuable to a spellcaster or an archer (obviously) than to a primarily melee-based fighter.

My point? Powers are balanced _in their assumed context_. That doesn't mean they're balanced in a vacuum, and that there should be no cost for swapping them out.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Also on-top of all that Mouseferatu said. I think there is less cost for swapping of powers then the cost of multiclassing in 3e.

You figure with 4e, you use a feat you swap a power. This I think is much less costly then having to progress up any odd number of levels to gain the specific aspect of the class you wished to have.

Thus, the main class you wished to focus in becomes weaker, simply because you wanted a particular aspect of another class. This to me feels much more costly then simply losing a feat (which in my eyes from both gamist and simulationist-side makes perfect sense, gamist: balancing, simulationist: your spending your time and effort to learn a power so you don't gain a feat).

On a more general point too, I like this too since I can nitpick what I want from multiclassing more, instead of being overwhelmed by various class abilities that take away from my character concept.


----------



## Storm-Bringer

GoodKingJayIII said:
			
		

> Like I said, Pun-pun was not the best example.  Your points are well take, and I'm willing to forget him if you are.



Agreed.  



> I prefer that kind of evolution in a class system with fewer classes.  However, if part of your design philosophy is to create lots of classes that cover a lot of different archetypes (and from what we know about 4e, it's moving in this direction), then having lots of "liquid" classes may be to the detriment, rather than benefit.
> 
> I believe, when we finally have the books, we'll find that the system is fairly pliable, particularly within class boundaries.



I was thinking along these lines with a 3e revision Wiki that I have been neglecting for a bit.  Go back to four classes, and bring the 'sub-classes' back.  Except, they would be more 'specialization paths' for the main classes, with some fairly amorphous skills that aren't necessarily siloed with the class.  So, a Fighter spends some skill/feat/whatever points to grab some minor Cleric spell casting.  Blam!  Paladin.  The Wizard is tired of cowering in the back in every combat, so spends a slot on combat stuff.  Blam!  Gish.

I will grant, that is very similar to what 4e is doing, but it is only a very broad overview.  I was looking at a bit deeper on the multi-classing.

More on topic, this seems to be more of a 'classed system with a skill system welded on' than 3e was.  In the previous edition, you had a pretty severe cost (in some cases) for getting the 'skills' of another class, and 4e appears to have mitigated that.  How that plays out in the long term is still up in the air.


----------



## HeinorNY

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> There are a lot of people saying "If all powers of level X are balanced, there should be no cost (or less cost) for swapping them out!"
> 
> But this completely ignores the fact that powers are balanced _in context_.



I was thinking earlier about this and now after reading your post I just got it.
When poeple say that, they are forgetting that different classes have different HP values, healing surges, armor proficiences.
A 10th level wizard with the X Spell is as powerful as the 10th level fighter with his Y Exploit, but because it takes into account not only the powers themselves, but everything else both classes have which are distinct from each other. Each class has its context.
When you put a Power in a different context you must pay for it.


----------



## drothgery

Cadfan said:
			
		

> You know, in all my years of DMing 3e, I never once saw a player create a character with exactly half levels in wizard, and half levels in fighter.




... because everyone knows how sucky it is, and won't do it...



			
				Cadfan said:
			
		

> Except at maybe level 4, when they were aiming for a PRC.




... meaning, when they were aiming for PrC that makes their fighter/wizard not suck.


----------



## Kraydak

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Okay. I managed to slog through the entire thread. I have some observations.
> 
> I don't know that everyone agrees with this approach, but the obvious intent here is to deliberately _prevent_ someone from creating a character that is _equally good_ at being both a fighter and a wizard. That's not an accident - it's on purpose.




And adequately trivial to not warrant mention.



> The only way that the above would be acceptable is if the character in question is both _not as good_ at being a fighter, and _not as good_ at being a wizard as the single-classed characters. This is Third-Edition multiclassing. And, let's be honest, being crappy at two jobs is something nobody wants.




*scratches head* So no one ever used 3e multiclassing rules?  Huh?



> What some people seem to want is to be as good a fighter as a single-classed fighter, and as good at being a wizard as a single-classed wizard. This is blatantly, and categorically, utter munchkin crap. You shouldn't be able to replace two characters.



Any quotes for that?  I think you are straw-manning here.

1st, 2nd and 3.5 all allowed decently balanced, multi-role characters.  4e doesn't.  I have no problem with the mechanics as presented, but I find their name, multi-classing, to be dishonest.

For everyone complaining about 3e spell-casting multi-classing: yes, 3.0's spell-caster MCing was broken-weak.  However, 3.5 fixed it by the simple addition of the Theurge type PrCs.  The final equation was: 2 classes=-3 caster level, +/- 1.  3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance.  4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.


----------



## JohnSnow

am181d said:
			
		

> If the powers are balanced correctly, then a character who has 50% wizard powers and 50% cleric powers is not unbalanced. (This is probably a gross simplification, but as a general principle, I think it holds.)




That's true. Provided that the character does not _also_ have half (the best half, naturally) of the class abilities for each class.

As far as attack spells, you're kinda right. There's no real difference (damage-wise) between _magic missile_ and _lance of faith._ 

On the other hand, the more options you have, the greater the chance the character is overpowered. Why? Because the character is able to use multiclassing to offset his weakness. A wizard who can easily reduce his squishyness by multiclassing (for example, if he could wear armor after multiclassing to cleric) has _utterly eliminated one of the balance factors_ of the wizard class at no cost to himself. The cleric is supposed to wade into the thick of it and risk getting hit, whereas the wizard is NOT. The cleric's powers are all reasonably close range, while the wizard has a fair number of powers that work from a great distance.

Similarly, the cleric who could throw a massive area attack spell down is grossly overpowered. That's the 3e cleric all over again.

Once again, the balance problem isn't the spells that have comparable effects, it's the spells that offset the penalties that balance the class. For example, there's a cleric encounter power called _cause fear_ that causes the target to flee its speed + 2 squares away from you. It can be case up to 10 squares away. To a cleric, that's somewhat useful. But it's hard for him to capitalize on the advantage by himself, since he has no powers with that kind of range. The wizard, on the other hand, can throw out that power and make the target run away. The next round, before he can get close, you can blast him with one of your long range, high damage spells.

I'm not saying you shouldn't be _able_ to do it, but that kind of flexibility is definitely worth a feat.


----------



## Ximenes088

Kaisoku said:
			
		

> In 4e, my current character build would need the following optoins:
> 
> - Defender skills (tripping, stopping people, high defense/hitpoints)
> - Rage
> - Track, a little bit of ranged combat capability (rapid shot)
> - Sneak Attack
> - Enough skill bonuses to accomodate some bonus to knowledge skills, Diplomacy/Intimidate/Bluff/Sense Motive, Spot, Tracking (survival), Psionic skills (autohypnosis and concentration).
> - Some leader bonuses (allowing extra attacks, movement, bonuses to combat, and ability to communicate surreptitiously between comrades)
> - A smattering of combat-focused psionics.
> 
> I could see this _potentially_ working if I were allowed to take multiclass from more than one class. Otherwise it's back to building new base classes that happen to encompass a large enough portion of what I want... but even then, being able to double as Defender with a smattering of Leader doesn't allow Psionics to come into play naturally later...



Fighter with Warlord multiclassing. Burn your feats on skill training and declare that your warlord's inspiration powers or your fighter's maneuvers are rage and/or psionic-flavored. There's no reason that Cleave has to be flavored as "a sweep of your fist and/or weapon" rather than "A telekinetic blast focused in the wake of your sword.", and there's no reason that an Inspiring Word applied to yourself can't be described as you going berserk and shrugging off damage. The power mechanics can be reflavored in arbitrary fashion with absolutely no impact on game balance.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Kraydak said:
			
		

> 3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance.  4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.



I think that 4E multiclassing is less about options to build a character and more about options to realise a character _concept_.

So let's try - give me a character concept that 4E multiclassing cannot handle (apart from obvious things like psionics, nature magic, and so on, because the base classes are missing).

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I would agree with it being based around character concept, especially when you figure you actually have more control over which elements of the class your multiclassing you get, ie: powers. 

This always annoyed me in 3e, where I want certain aspect of a class, but by multiclassing I get a ton of stuff I didn't want.


----------



## lkj

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> There are a lot of people saying "If all powers of level X are balanced, there should be no cost (or less cost) for swapping them out!"
> 
> But this completely ignores the fact that powers are balanced _in context_. I tried to get this across earlier, with my "fighter with an area attack" example. The fact that wizard power X is balanced with fighter power X assumes that wizard power X is taken _by a wizard_, and fighter power X is taken _by a fighter_. They may remain equal out of that assumed context.
> 
> For example--and I'm making this up, not offering a hint of what's in the book --an encounter power that says you can ignore the effects of a successful melee attack made against you is more valuable to a fighter than to a wizard, because the fighter's in melee a _lot_ more often than the wizard is. (As an actually in-the-book example, consider the possibility of a fighter acquiring _mirror image_.) Similarly, a utility power that says you can throw a ranged or area power without drawing an opportunity attack is more valuable to a spellcaster or an archer (obviously) than to a primarily melee-based fighter.
> 
> My point? Powers are balanced _in their assumed context_. That doesn't mean they're balanced in a vacuum, and that there should be no cost for swapping them out.





I see where you are coming from 100% (just so you don't feel like you are yelling in the dark . . . or maybe you are being a vampire mouse  . . . )

Somewhere in this mess of a joined thread, I posted that powers are probably only equivalent  . . .


". . . in the context of a class and it's abilities. Presumably, if you could just pick and choose powers and abilities from any of the classes and put them together, you can create very unbalanced combinations.

In essence the equation is really: class A is balanced with class B, NOT power A=Power B."


At any rate, I think we're saying the same thing. Just leaving out all those confusing details  and examples   


AD


----------



## occam

Spatula said:
			
		

> Except it doesn't work like that.  You get one encounter power, one utility power, and one daily power, max (plus the class ability as an encounter power for the first feat).




I haven't finished reading through the thread, yet, so maybe somebody's already mentioned this, but... I don't see where it says you can take any of the power-swap feats only once. It seems that if you wanted to, you could spend all your feats on swapping out powers with your secondary class, which could end up making a fighter look quite magey.


----------



## katahn

Ximenes088 said:
			
		

> Fighter with Warlord multiclassing. Burn your feats on skill training and declare that your warlord's inspiration powers or your fighter's maneuvers are rage and/or psionic-flavored. There's no reason that Cleave has to be flavored as "a sweep of your fist and/or weapon" rather than "A telekinetic blast focused in the wake of your sword.", and there's no reason that an Inspiring Word applied to yourself can't be described as you going berserk and shrugging off damage. The power mechanics can be reflavored in arbitrary fashion with absolutely no impact on game balance.




Dovetailing on this, consider the rogue levels were taken to get more skill points for social interactions and not because he was dabbling in being a thief.  In 4e this is much more elegantly handled by taking skill training feats as many times as needed to cover the core desired skills.

Psionics is hard to cover until PHB2 comes out with psionic classes, but the rest of the character could probably be covered reasonably well by a warlord(fighter) or maybe a fighter(warlord) depending on the emphasis desired.


----------



## Rechan

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Once again, the balance problem isn't the spells that have comparable effects, it's the spells that offset the penalties that balance the class. For example, there's a cleric encounter power called _cause fear_ that causes the target to flee its speed + 2 squares away from you. It can be case up to 10 squares away. To a cleric, that's somewhat useful. But it's hard for him to capitalize on the advantage by himself, since he has no powers with that kind of range. The wizard, on the other hand, can throw out that power and make the target run away. The next round, before he can get close, you can blast him with one of your long range, high damage spells.



And if the Wizard can do both easily, then that really eliminates the need for the Cleric and the Wizard working together on that combo.


----------



## MindWanderer

Spatula said:
			
		

> Well, sure.  No one is saying that the multiclass character isn't more versatile.  But is it worth a feat and a power to select another class' power?  (edit: given that there's almost certainly someone else in the group who can already do something similar - if not, then the cross-class power obviously has more benefit, but that shouldn't be the norm)  You said yourself that no one in your playtest group went past the initiate feat.



Even if another member of the party can do it better in general, that doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be redundant.  There are cases--_many_ cases--where having two party members capable of doing the same thing, even if one is worse at it, is extremely valuable.  If a bunch of enemies are clustered together, and the wizard blasts them all, it may still be a good idea for the warlord/wizard to blast them all again.  If the situation is reversed, and the bunched-together party just took a massive hit from an enemy controller, it can be extremely handy to have a second character to help with the healing.  If you're caught in a pincer attack, two defenders can be invaluable, even if one is only a dabbler (e.g. a warlord/paladin).  I think the abilty to pull out those kinds of options is easily worth a feat or more.


			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> Well, you obviously know more about the system than we do, but from where I'm sitting, this kind of dabbling just doesn't look worth it. Mechanically speaking, of course. It's barely the equivalent to a 1 level dip in 3e, which would likely be more beneficial by far than these feats. I don't know - it looks like the 'real' multiclassing only starts at paragon tier.



You get a better multiclassing option, true, and yes, it's the only way to get a fully-functional class feature from another class.  But it's clear from earlier editions that 'real' multiclassing just doesn't work, resulting in either superpower or multi-ineffectiveness.  The only reason why it works in 4e is because every paragon-tier character is automatically multiclassed, after a fashion, so there's no other basis of comparison.  I think it's a great idea, personally.

Regarding multi-multiclassing: from what we've seen so far, it's actually possible to be quadruple-classed, at least in a limited fashion (and you wouldn't want to be 25/25/25/25 multiclassed anyway): a half-elf paladin could take Scorching Burst 1/encounter as a racial ability, Warrior of the Wild and Novice Power to nab Hunter's Quarry and an encounter melee attack power, and forego a paragon path, or take Hospitaler, to function as a Leader.  When we get the sorcerer class, this example won't even suffer from MAD (all Cha- and Str-based--and half-elves get a Cha bonus!).  And best of all, their ability to be a Defender won't even be hampered even though they can handle quite a bit of all four roles.


----------



## Rechan

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> Even if another member of the party can do it better in general, that doesn't mean that you'll necessarily be redundant.  There are cases--_many_ cases--where having two party members capable of doing the same thing, even if one is worse at it, is extremely valuable.  If a bunch of enemies are clustered together, and the wizard blasts them all, it may still be a good idea for the warlord/wizard to blast them all again.  If the situation is reversed, and the bunched-together party just took a massive hit from an enemy controller, it can be extremely handy to have a second character to help with the healing.



Forget even bothering to add MC into the mix; I anticipate that many parties will have two people of one role in them. 

Hell, if 5 party members is the new standard, then I think two of one role is even _expected_ since there's only 4 roles.


----------



## Gargazon

occam said:
			
		

> I haven't finished reading through the thread, yet, so maybe somebody's already mentioned this, but... I don't see where it says you can take any of the power-swap feats only once. It seems that if you wanted to, you could spend all your feats on swapping out powers with your secondary class, which could end up making a fighter look quite magey.




Um... unless it says explictly in a feat's description, you can only ever take the feat once. Y'know, like you couldn't take power attack twice in 3.5.


----------



## JohnSnow

Kraydak said:
			
		

> *scratches head* So no one ever used 3e multiclassing rules?  Huh?




Oh, they used them. They just complained bitterly about how their spellcasting was "subpar" or their lower-level spells were "worthless." So yeah, people used them. They just hated them.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> *Any quotes for that?  I think you are straw-manning here.*
> 
> 1st, 2nd and 3.5 *all allowed decently balanced, multi-role characters.*  4e doesn't.  I have no problem with the mechanics as presented, but I find their name, multi-classing, to be dishonest.
> 
> For everyone complaining about 3e spell-casting multi-classing: yes, 3.0's spell-caster MCing was broken-weak.  However, 3.5 fixed it by the simple addition of the Theurge type PrCs.  *The final equation was: 2 classes=-3 caster level, +/- 1.*  3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance.  4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.




Emphasis mine.

As for quotes to support that some people are asking for precisely that, there's plenty on pages 6-10 of the thread. I read them all. I don't feel like going back and pulling specific examples. Anyone who's claiming you should be able to have all the powers of a cleric and all the powers of a wizard (without spending feats) *is* asking to be as good as their single classed counterparts of the same level.

People aren't complaining it can't be done. They're complaining that it's unfair that you should have to "waste a feat" to do it. Or, alternatively, that the cost is too high. Moving on...

Given the way 1st and 2nd Edition XP worked, a 1st Edition Fighter/Wizard 6 was in a party with a Wizard 7 and a Fighter 7 (roughly, I don't have my 2e XP tables handy). Compared to the wizard, he's missing his best spell and he's one hit die down, but he's got fighter hit points and to-hit, and he can wield fighter weapons and wear armor. Compared to the fighter, he's lagging behind 1 point on his to-hit, but has the full range of spells available to a 6th-level wizard. You're telling me _that's_ balanced? Are you high?!

With more balance XP tables and exponential power growth, 3e's "balance" via prestige classes works - kinda. It's a band-aid, but it works. On the other hand, it's pretty suboptimal at low levels. For instance, the Mystic Theurge has to be at least 3rd-level in each class, so by the time he takes his prestige class, he's 7th level, and still casting 2nd-level spells. By contrast, his single-classed counterparts are casting 4th-level spells and have basically been kicking his ass for 4 levels now. Things start to improve at 8th when he gets 3rd-level spells, but that's _8th-level_, almost halfway through the (non-Epic) game.

The 3e system is also ridiculously beneficial to dipping. You get WAY too much for taking a 1 or 2-level dip into, say, fighter (and many other classes). As such, they can only give so much to classes at 1st-level, so that sometimes iconic features must be postponed until later levels (c.f. the 3.5 ranger). That's a bug of the 3e system. It's one that SWSE fixed.

All of the above are just my own observations, not (necessarily) gospel truth.


----------



## JohnSnow

Gargazon said:
			
		

> Um... unless it says explictly in a feat's description, you can only ever take the feat once. Y'know, like you couldn't take power attack twice in 3.5.




And of course, you've read the feat descriptions? Or see them in the article? 'Cuz I sure don't. Those kind of things have never shown up in the table.

There were many feats you could take twice, provided they weren't stacking, but instead applying to different areas. For example, off the top of my head, you could take the following feats multiple times:

Martial Training (from _Tome of Battle_)
Martial Stance (from _Tome of Battle_)
Martial Weapon Proficiency
Skill Focus
Spell Focus (and Greater Spell Focus)
Weapon Focus (and Greater Weapon Focus)

Not totally sure about the names of the first two. My copy of ToB is at home. All of those feats are things that add new capabilities to your character, rather than boosting existing ones. That's exactly the situation with these cross-training feats. Ergo, it stands to reason to assume they'll follow similar rules (especially regarding the _Tome of Battle_ example, the guts of which we have been told were back-converted from 4E).


----------



## Mouseferatu

Kraydak said:
			
		

> For everyone complaining about 3e spell-casting multi-classing: yes, 3.0's spell-caster MCing was broken-weak.  However, 3.5 fixed it by the simple addition of the Theurge type PrCs.  The final equation was: 2 classes=-3 caster level, +/- 1.  3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance.  4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.




See, here's where your argument runs off the rails, for me.

In 3.5, you couldn't get the 50/50 half-caster character with _just_ multiclassing. You had to add a PrC, most of which (except the mystic theurge itself) weren't core.

In 4E, you can't get the 50/50 half-caster character with just multiclassing; you'll need one of the forthcoming classes, like the swordmage.

I see no real difference between the two, except that one uses the term "multiclass" and one doesn't. In both cases, though, you have to use a new mechanic in addition to the multiclassing.

So, 4E has a system that handles dabbling well (and, at least for some people, arguably better than prior systems), but needs new mechanics for an even split. The same was true of 3.5. Where's the big difference?


----------



## pawsplay

Storm-Bringer said:
			
		

> That shows nothing whatsoever about multiclassing.  The entire exercise is predicated solely on one monster.  Pun-pun isn't the result of a horribly broken multi-class system, just one poorly thought out ability of an incredibly rare monster that only really exists in one campaign setting.
> 
> I never had the chance to look it up before, but is this seriously _the_ Pun-pun that causes all the brouhaha?




Pun-pun is a worse case scenario. But he shows what a bad idea Supernatural Transformation is.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> So, 4E has a system that handles dabbling well (and, at least for some people, arguably better than prior systems), but needs new mechanics for an even split. The same was true of 3.5. Where's the big difference?



I don't know if this is true, but I have the feeling that it's more than dabbling.

Using the generic wizard/fighter:

Play a wizard, pick up the multi class feats. Pick up a fighter paragon path or the fighter class as paragon path. Then sink all your feats into melee-related feats and feats that make you sturdier (Toughness), since you fulfil the prerequisites for fighter-only feats/options.

This sounds much closer to 50/50 than dabbling - it's at least something like 30/20.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## mach1.9pants

As an aside to the main discussion going on I think that the class specific feats are pretty good value. Because not only do you get the power/class feature from the class you also get training in a skill for that feat. So unless the skill training feat gives you 2 skills trained it is a good feat to get even if you don't want the power just the skill.


----------



## mach1.9pants

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> This sounds much closer to 50/50 than dabbling - *it's at least something like 30/20.*Cheers, LT.



That applies to halfling fighters only


----------



## Rechan

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I don't know if this is true, but I have the feeling that it's more than dabbling.
> 
> Using the generic wizard/fighter:
> 
> Play a wizard, pick up the multi class feats. Pick up a fighter paragon path or the fighter class as paragon path. Then sink all your feats into melee-related feats and feats that make you sturdier (Toughness), since you fulfil the prerequisites for fighter-only feats/options.
> 
> This sounds much closer to 50/50 than dabbling - it's at least something like 30/20.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



Really, I think you'd get more benefit out of going Fighter, then multiying into Wizard. You get all your Defender HP/defs, surges, plus the stuff that makes a controller a controller. It's the better of the 30/20 split.


----------



## hong

At the moment, I really cannot see people sinking more than 1-2 feats at most into multiclassing. I'm assuming here that feats will actually be significant contributors to a character's usefulness.

Multiclassing is basically a nerfed dipping. Creating character concepts that don't fall neatly into the existing classes, or are close to same, looks to be something that will be achieved via custom classes.


----------



## AZRogue

I can't read all this at the moment, unfortunately, but still feel like commenting, so here it goes:

I like the 4E system in a way. It will be all right BECAUSE I think, in 4E, it will just be easier to make a new Class than to try and make a 50/50 split character. This is fine by me. A single new Class for, say, a Fighter/Rogue/Cleric concept would be best and it's not something I'm afraid to do myself and, hopefully, not something that WotC or the 3pp's shy away from. The rules as presented are more than adequate for "dipping". 

I do want to say, though, that nothing so far has equaled the fun of playing AD&D (and 2E) multiclassing. Superb. Powerful? You betcha, but I designed the encounters and took that into account. The Golden Age of multiclassing, IMO. 

But, as I said, designing a specific Class to accomplish an effective evenly split multiclass character, like the older versions, will be adequate.


----------



## Bill Bisco

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I think that 4E multiclassing is less about options to build a character and more about options to realise a character _concept_.
> 
> So let's try - give me a character concept that 4E multiclassing cannot handle (apart from obvious things like psionics, nature magic, and so on, because the base classes are missing).
> 
> Cheers, LT.




My 2nd edition character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage Half-Elf.  Being of mixed heritage he similarly applied himself in many areas.  He casted Divine and Arcane Spells in addition to learning fighting techniques.

He did this at 1st level.


----------



## Mokona

Patlin said:
			
		

> It's advisable to have all four classes, just as it's always been advisable to have a balanced party.  i've played in a lot of parties that are not balanced, however, and you can still be succesfull and have fun without all roles being filled.



You agree with me that *D&D* is written with rules and guidelines so that it is better to have one of each role.  So why punish parties that choose to fill the "missing" Controller role with mutliclassing?  The punishment is making multiclassing too expensive.

Below Andy makes my point that you should have each role even if you have to multiclass to cover a missing role.

Quote Andy and Greg Collins, "Sibling Rivalry, Take Two", http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/tt/20060110a:

Andy: I can already see the DMs out there nodding along. We've all seen this happen -- somebody decides to change characters, without necessarily realizing that *they're also vacating a crucial party role*.

Particularly at low- to mid-levels, *every character in the party must bring something to the group that no one else has*. Each character may (and in fact, probably should) be a specialist, but *the group as a whole has to cover the crucial bases* in order to have a good chance of succeeding (much less surviving).

In D&D, the four basic party roles are usually defined as follows:

    * "Bruiser" (the tough melee-based character who serves as the primary line of defense against big, bad monsters);
    * "Blaster" (the ranged-attack specialist, traditionally an arcane caster with plenty of area spells such as fireball);
    * "Sneaker" (the eyes, ears, fingers, and quiet feet of the party, who usually mixes melee and ranged attacks); and
    * "Healer" (the one who keeps everyone else on their feet during the fight, and patches everyone up afterward).

While plenty of variations on these four roles exist (and some classes don't quite fit), *going entirely without any one of them means you're likely to have a significant vulnerability* to cover in other ways.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> At the moment, I really cannot see people sinking more than 1-2 feats at most into multiclassing. I'm assuming here that feats will actually be significant contributors to a character's usefulness.



We have been told that they are not. That the majority of a player's usefulness comes from their Powers.


----------



## Mokona

Lacyon said:
			
		

> Both of these statements are the opposite of true.



I'll quote the source here because it actually supports my original post.  WotC_Shoe is *not yet sure* that his party which is missing a key role isn't suffering too much.  He, like me, is worried that they're suffering too much and so he plans to watch the issue closely.

Quote WotC_Shoe, "Are you ready for some dice rolling?", http://www.gleemax.com/Comms/Pages/Communities/BlogPost.aspx?blogpostid=43622&pagemode=2&blogid=2074:

At any rate, despite the occasional negative hit point totals accrued by the weekly group, they are still able to achieve a reasonable "day's" worth of adventuring before they need to stop for an extended rest. *At least I think they are*. I get a feeling that the weekend group can last an extra encounter or two. Now that the rules have settled down a bit, I'll be keeping track of the number of rounds in each fight and the number of (combat)encounters in a "day", and attempt to confirm my hypothesis.


----------



## Voadam

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> Given the way 1st and 2nd Edition XP worked, a 1st Edition Fighter/Wizard 6 was in a party with a Wizard 7 and a Fighter 7 (roughly, I don't have my 2e XP tables handy). Compared to the wizard, he's missing his best spell and he's one hit die down, but he's got fighter hit points and to-hit, and he can wield fighter weapons and wear armor. Compared to the fighter, he's lagging behind 1 point on his to-hit, but has the full range of spells available to a 6th-level wizard. You're telling me _that's_ balanced? Are you high?!




Actually there are a few more balance points. 

The 6/6 F/Mu does not have 6th level fighter hp. He gets half the F HD and half the MU HD in 1e and in 2e he rolls both HD and averages the results. So he's got about 6d7 HD under either method instead of the 7d10 of the straight fighter. So 24 hp vs. 38.5 before any con bonuses. Down by more than 1/3 in hp. At 7th level the fighter also gains his first bonus attack every other round going at 3/2.

As a fighter MU he also can't cast in armor (in 2e they have that elven mithril chain exception), so his AC is also likely not as good as the straight fighter who will likely be wearing at least plate mail at 7th level.

As a wizard he gives up 1 caster level, his highest level spell, and a second level spell (he has 8 total spells a day versus 10 of the straight caster).

Here are the xp charts up to 8th
Mage 
          1	              0	
	  2	       2,500	
	  3	       5,000	
	  4	     10,000	
	  5	     20,000	
	  6	     40,000	
	  7	     60,000	
	  8	     90,000	

  1	              0	           
	  2	       2,000	     
	  3	       4,000	     
	  4	       8,000	      
	  5	     16,000	    
	  6	     32,000	  
	  7	     64,000	    
	  8	   125,000	  

So if you take a number like 80,000 xp that would give us your 6/6 F/M or the 7 F or the 7 M. Good guess. I always guestimated old edition multiclassers as about a level behind straight class characters, though there are some wonky spots due to the wierd advancements.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> We have been told that they are not. That the majority of a player's usefulness comes from their Powers.



 That doesn't mean feats can't be useful either.


----------



## drjones

Iron Sky said:
			
		

> To be fair, some of us have never played 1 or 2E(though I have played the latter).  Heck, some of us here didn't even _exist_ when 1 or 2E came out...




I played both of them and I despised multiclassing.  I still tried to do it in the 2e video games but it was full of arbitrary restrictions (race based class restrictions.. why?) that did not seem to further game balance.  It basically was a sign that said 'you can multiclass if you really want to but we can't balance it well so here are a few hoops to jump through and a kick in the nads for trying'.

But if 2e was the overly-strict-homeschooling-ex-marine-dad 3e was the recently-divorced-spoil-you-rotten-yuppie-dad.  Looks like they are trying to hit somewhere in the middle.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> That doesn't mean feats can't be useful either.



Useful like getting one power for another?


----------



## Rechan

To those who think that the multi-classing system is a waste of a feat for swapping a power:

Can you point to two heroic-tier feat that you think is stronger than picking one power from another class's list and exchanging it for your own, that you can also trade up as you level?


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> To those who think that the multi-classing system is a waste of a feat for swapping a power:
> 
> Can you point to a heroic-tier feat that you think is stronger than picking one power from another class's list and exchanging it for your own, that you can also trade up as you level?



 Can you point to a heroic-tier feat that is weaker than swapping one power for another?


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> Useful like getting one power for another?



 That just means you're down a feat. You still have the same number of powers.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I don't think we need worry as much about "wasting" feats as we did in 3e (especially for fighters). Feats in 4e, seem to be much more based around making your character more specific and unique, essentially they are character concept builders. 

As such, it certainly isn't wasteful to gain powers from another class for a feat that helps establish your character concept (which should be what multiclassing should be about).


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Rechan said:
			
		

> Can you point to a heroic-tier feat that you think is stronger than picking one power from another class's list and exchanging it for your own, that you can also trade up as you level?




I don't think that the multiclass system looks like a waste of a feat, but I can point to one:

Toughness 

unless it's changed since last November, which is entirely possible.

Also, Human Perserverance, which at the least gives +1 to saves.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

hong said:
			
		

> Can you point to a heroic-tier feat that is weaker than swapping one power for another?





Elven Precision doesn't look like much:



> Elven Precision [Elf]
> 
> Prerequisites: Elf, elven accuracy racial power, heroic tier
> Benefit: When you use the elven accuracy power, you gain a +2 bonus to the new attack roll.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> Can you point to a heroic-tier feat that is weaker than swapping one power for another?



Lost in the crowd: that gives a +2 to AC when adjacent to two larger enemies.

The human's feat that gives a +1 to saving throws. 

Feat used to skill train.

Action surge - Only usable once every other encounter.

Elven Precision.


----------



## Scholar & Brutalman

Rechan said:
			
		

> The human's feat that gives a +1 to saving throws.




You think that's _weak_?


----------



## Voadam

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, here's where your argument runs off the rails, for me.
> 
> In 3.5, you couldn't get the 50/50 half-caster character with _just_ multiclassing. You had to add a PrC, most of which (except the mystic theurge itself) weren't core.
> 
> In 4E, you can't get the 50/50 half-caster character with just multiclassing; you'll need one of the forthcoming classes, like the swordmage.
> 
> I see no real difference between the two, except that one uses the term "multiclass" and one doesn't. In both cases, though, you have to use a new mechanic in addition to the multiclassing.
> 
> So, 4E has a system that handles dabbling well (and, at least for some people, arguably better than prior systems), but needs new mechanics for an even split. The same was true of 3.5. Where's the big difference?




Eh, in 3.5 I house ruled in Arcana Unearthed/Evolved spellcasting multiclassing rules to cover the 50/50 caster. Caster level stacks, spell slots stack, spells known stack. The caster will have lower level spells but a ton of spell choices and not be behind on caster levels. These multiclassers are similar to theurges but from level 2 on and support both dabbling and 50/50 splits.

The big power is still in the most powerful spells so they are weaker than the focused spell casters but are not so dramatically behind the curve as if they started over in casting.


----------



## Andor

Kraydak said:
			
		

> 1st, 2nd and 3.5 all allowed decently balanced, multi-role characters.  4e doesn't.  I have no problem with the mechanics as presented, but I find their name, multi-classing, to be dishonest.




Um... No. 1st and 2nd ed multiclassing was not balanced by any stretch of the imagination. A single classed character was simply and purely weaker than a multiclassed character in those systems. That's why humans were rarer than boobs on a beholder.  Remember those days?


----------



## drjones

am181d said:
			
		

> If the powers are balanced correctly, then a character who has 50% wizard powers and 50% cleric powers is not unbalanced. (This is probably a gross simplification, but as a general principle, I think it holds.)



Nope.  All you have to do is ask yourself 'Is there any reason to play a pure character?' In a situation where a multiclass caster is just as good as a normal caster then only someone roleplaying would every play a pure caster.  3.5 'fixed' this by making all 50/50s garbage.  4e is taking a softer but less min/maxable approach to the same end: 

To make all players at the table feel like they are contributing because joe next to you didn't come up with some brilliant combo that does everything you can do and a lot of other cool stuff as well so you might as well go home.


----------



## Rechan

Scholar & Brutalman said:
			
		

> You think that's _weak_?



Weaker than cherry-picking a power? Hell yeah.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> That just means you're down a feat. You still have the same number of powers.



You just cherry-picked the best power from a class's list, and you got to give away a weak power from yours.


----------



## Falling Icicle

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> There are a lot of people saying "If all powers of level X are balanced, there should be no cost (or less cost) for swapping them out!"
> 
> <snip>
> 
> My point? Powers are balanced _in their assumed context_. That doesn't mean they're balanced in a vacuum, and that there should be no cost for swapping them out.




Exactly. That was the point I was trying to make earlier. Multiclassing lets you get powers that your class normally isn't supposed to have. And it also allows for some very interesting synergies. Fighters can mark opponents that they damage, for example. So giving them a ranged AoE spell (like fireball) allows them to simultaneously mark several foes at once, at range, in addition to damaging them! I really doubt that fighters normally have such powers available to them.

Multiclassing has always been about sacrificing some power in your main class to get more versatility. The key is for it to be costly enough that people are discouraged from doing it as a default option, but not so expensive that it's crippling or just not worth it. I think that the 4e multiclassing-by-feats system succeeds at that goal.


----------



## Mort_Q

Falling Icicle said:
			
		

> ...  giving them a ranged AoE spell (like fireball) allows them to simultaneously mark several foes at once, at range, in addition to damaging them!




Can fighters mark more than one opponent at a time?


----------



## AtomicPope

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> My 2nd edition character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage Half-Elf.  Being of mixed heritage he similarly applied himself in many areas.  He casted Divine and Arcane Spells in addition to learning fighting techniques.
> 
> He did this at 1st level.



But fighters didn't have any abilities in 1e whatsoever.  As is stands, your comparison just shows how much the game has evolved to give fighters a special role.  Could a 1e fighter stop a moving monster dead in its tracks as a reaction?  Nope.  Could a 1e fighter hinder a monster so its attacks suffered penalties when not targeting the fighter?  Nope.  Could your FCM 1/2e take any amounts of serious damage?  Nope.  Hit Points were divided at 1st level to compensate.  Could a 1e fighter heal himself in combat as a standard feature?  Nope.

The 1e fighter possessed nothing but HP and Weapon/Armor profs.  The same can't be said for the 4e fighter.  He has more hitpoints, more abilities, and more features then ever before.  Fighters have something to do besides 1D8+Str for the rest of their career.


BTW - you could still make a 4e FCM at 1st level and he'd be doing a heck of a lot more than a 1e multiclasser.


----------



## Henry

Something that I think isn't being considered fully by detractors of 4e multiclassing is the obvious slower power progression between levels, versus 3e. Those "wasted" feats will actually grant you some pretty powerful abilities that are usable over the lifespan of the character (sleep has been the obvious example, but given the choice of powers between 1 and 10 with the "swap-out" ability, I'm sure there are even better examples in the book).

The ability to keep updating the powers as time goes on is what makes the difference to me - retraining may allow this for single classed characters, but what if it doesn't? We know wizards can swap their dailies, but what if that's all they can swap on a regular basis, with retraining being more limited? In that case, the ability to use any of the encounter powers at one point or another would be a pretty significant boon in and of itself.

All in all, I'm actually liking what I'm seeing, because the 1e and 2e multiclassing rules struck me as not aiding their original purposes. 1e multiclassing was too powerful for the low levels, and totally stunted for the high. It was a game system where if you knew the DM was running for more than 6th or 7th level, no one in their right mind ran a demi-human, and if you knew the DM was probably only going to stop the game at 6th or so, then no one in their right mind ran a HUMAN. Mostly, in our games, it was the latter, and the game petered out at 5th to 7th level, when another player started getting the drive to DM something. Instead, if you were in for the long haul, you played a human with at least an 18 in the score for the class you were going to dual-class into later...

In 3e, among non-spellcasters, it practically encouraged multiclassing. The barbarian for the occasional rage, 1 or 2 rogue levels for the rapid skill increase in your main skill set (or factotum for the inspirations also!) and evasion, 2 levels of fighter for the feats, some swordsage or warblade for a splash of martial maneuvers and weapon switchout mastery, and maybe some levels of duskblade for the will saves and a few useful melee powers. In all, the only thing that would hurt hit points is the rogue, you'd have top notch BAB, and a LOT more skill points than the fighter, paladin, or barbarian.


----------



## Rechan

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> Can fighters mark more than one opponent at a time?



The text is thus:

Combat Challenge: When you attack you may mark the enemy, giving a -2 to attack targets other than you, only one mark per new mark supersedes old one. 

So: 

You may mark an enemy when you attack. 

Another class's mark erases an old one (So you mark an enemy, the paladin marks, the paladin's mark overtakes yours).

No mention of a limit.


----------



## AtomicPope

Mort_Q said:
			
		

> Can fighters mark more than one opponent at a time?



Probably not w/o a feat.  Everything I've seen (which is all questionable) states that fighters must hit in melee to mark and only one at a time.  I'm sure as levels increase they'll have ways to improve.


----------



## Mort_Q

Rechan said:
			
		

> No mention of a limit.




Very interesting.  Thanks.


----------



## Atlatl Jones

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And it seems to me that general feats may help with it as much as multiclassing does. For example, we know (or can assume) that there are feats that grant proficiency in weapons or armor that your base class does not. There are also feats that grant skill training in skills your base class does not. There may be feats that allow the character to gain the ability to cast rituals, use cantrips, take combat styles, or various other class abilities. And those feats may be needed to make multiclassing concepts work as much as the actual multiclassing feats are.



That's an excellent point.  I hope you're right about that.  In addition, there may be class-specific feats that multiclassing 'unlocks.'

There were some complaints that this system doesn't model Conan as well as 3e.  But Conan becoming a rogue wasn't really a class/power thing, it was primarily a skill thing.  In the stories where Conan became a thief, he had taken the skill training feat in Stealth and Thievery, and maybe multiclassed as a rogue.  In the stories where he was King Conan, he retrained the skill training feats away, and instead multiclassed for Warlord powers.


----------



## Wolv0rine

*Okay yeah, this is long*

IMHO, it’s not a matter of “is it worth a feat?” or any such similar questions, the question is “Is this Multi-classing?”, and to me, the answer is unequivocally (to the point of being faintly insulting) “No”.
This is dipping, as has been pointed out.  And if it had been included as a sub-system completely separate from the concept of Multi-classing (which I honestly do not understand what everyone’s on about about 3E’s Multi-classing rules being abusive or broken or…  whatever.  It’s all about the players, man.  If your players want to crack the game, they will.  If they don’t want to crack to the game, they won’t.  3E Multi-classing always seemed fine to me), then it would have been interesting.  Very interesting.  Class-dipping feats is cool.  Class dipping feats as the Multi-classing mechanics is terrible.
Personally, I’m still disappointed that they didn’t take the page from D20 Modern (especially given they’re using _three_ tiers of ‘power’) and go with Core Class/Advanced Class/PrC.  Which IME worked wonderfully as a means of “three degrees of focusing your specificity, giving up the full oomph of staying single classed for tighter specialization”.  But that doesn’t even address multi-classing.  Then again, IMO, neither does 4E from what they’ve shown us.
And seriously, is there some inherent cumulative insult associated with the number of classes written on your character sheet?  Maybe you’re flighty, maybe you’re tightly defining a concept, maybe you’re bored.  Who knows, but aside from a slight eye roll over “Dang mang, just couldn’t make up your mind eh?  Heh heh” I can’t bring myself to look down upon the character sheet that reads (yes, I am making these up whole cloth) “Fighter 6/Rogue 2/Fencer 2/Blademaster 2/Ascendant Petitioner 1” instead of “Fighter 13”.  You discourage MC cherry-picking for its own sake by not front-loading classes, not by breaking the knees of the concept of Multi-classing.
And come to think of it, how would you even logically denote this form of multi-classing on a character sheet?  You’re at no point actually taking *levels* in a second class.  Are you, for example, “Fighter 6/Cleric” (to denote that you count as a cleric too, for PP purposes and other ‘being a cleric’ instances)?

Here’s a few thoughts from a thread on Gleemax on this topic, and since I’m composing a post (and the EN World forums are currently unresponsive), I thought I’d throw them (and my thoughts on them) in, because they seem to address some of this “The problem with multi-classing in 3E” thing…


> Yes, when compared to the 3e version of multi-classing, this version seems weak. But remember that they are giving up on the flexibility of the old system for benefits in the new. For instance, in the old system they had to design classes so that they didn't get the super cool abilities of that class until multiple levels in, to discourage people from just taking a level in every class they could. So now our early classes should feel more iconic to their roles. No more having to wait on abilities in your main class just because they had to balance the abilities to stop some power gamer from grabbing one level and getting all the cool stuff.



(underline mine)
Seriously?  Is this one of the ‘problems with 3E multi-classing’?  Because to my mind this is just better class design technique.  Of course you spread out class benefits over the levels, otherwise you’ve got a front-loaded class that no-one *wants* to take more levels in because it’s dull and tasteless after you’ve gotten your initial burst of class benefits.  *boggles*
Another thread, another post, but again addressing 3E multiclassing:


> No, multiclassing from anything for spell casting was only effective if you went to a prestige class. Even then single class spellcasters usually were more effective. "Dipping" was not good for them because spells were based on CLASS level, as opposed to CHARACTER level. end up with a lower spells and fewer of them.



Is this another one of the ‘problems’, that multi-classed spellcasters were less powerful spellcasters (unless they multi-classed into a spellcasting PrC)?  Because, that just makes sense to me.  If you’ve changed or diminished your study/practice to focus on something else, you’re going to fall a bit behind.  And it seems the concept of “giving up some power for concept” is considered a _good_ thing, from the posts in this thread at least.  Again, *boggles*.

(And now that EN World is responding again, I can pull quotes from THIS thread. )


			
				vagabundo said:
			
		

> Going this route helps avoid horrible mechanics like Arcane Spell Failure for amour. We dont need it now. Serious, I hope it is gone gone.



I’ve gotta ask, what’s wrong with the Arcane Spell Failure for armored casters?  I mean if it’s the goofy “armor interferes with the flow of magic” rationale D&D had at one point, yeah I though that was bollocks, but I mean if nothing else it was a pretty good concession to “game balance” and all.

And what I fear the most, really, is that this system is going to take us back to the 1E method of introducing scores of Core Classes to meet every unusual or completely different class concept (which was, really, the beauty of PrCs.  You could introduce new classes that were more than just a tweaked Core Class without having to add more and more Core Classes), or the 2E method of Kits.  I get the impression the 1E approach is going to dominate.  And the simple matter is, when you continue to create new Core Classes, you almost immediately introduce classes that are better than the original Core Classes in some way or another.

Now, I’ll come right out and say that I have (at least) quibbles with 3E (enough to do a lot of ‘houseruling’ and outright re-writing), but so far this is one of the crappier of the things I’ve seen previewed about 4E.  I don’t dislike 4E because it’s 4E, I dislike 4E because I think they just really, really screwed the pooch in their design approaches.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> My 2nd edition character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage Half-Elf.  Being of mixed heritage he similarly applied himself in many areas.  He casted Divine and Arcane Spells in addition to learning fighting techniques.
> 
> He did this at 1st level.



Easy:

Paladin (which wades into melee and has divine prayers) as base class, combined with Arcane Initiate. At first level - can wade into battle, can heal, can cast arcane spells.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Falling Icicle

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> IMHO, it’s not a matter of “is it worth a feat?” or any such similar questions, the question is “Is this Multi-classing?”, and to me, the answer is unequivocally (to the point of being faintly insulting) “No”.




I think alot of the disappointment could have been avoided if they had called them "cross-class training feats" instead of calling it multiclassing, which is somewhat deceiving.


----------



## Bill Bisco

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> But fighters didn't have any abilities in 1e whatsoever.  As is stands, your comparison just shows how much the game has evolved to give fighters a special role.  Could a 1e fighter stop a moving monster dead in its tracks as a reaction?  Nope.  Could a 1e fighter hinder a monster so its attacks suffered penalties when not targeting the fighter?  Nope.  Could your FCM 1/2e take any amounts of serious damage?  Nope.  Hit Points were divided at 1st level to compensate.  Could a 1e fighter heal himself in combat as a standard feature?  Nope.
> 
> The 1e fighter possessed nothing but HP and Weapon/Armor profs.  The same can't be said for the 4e fighter.  He has more hitpoints, more abilities, and more features then ever before.  Fighters have something to do besides 1D8+Str for the rest of their career.
> 
> 
> BTW - you could still make a 4e FCM at 1st level and he'd be doing a heck of a lot more than a 1e multiclasser.



 He wouldn't be a Fighter/Cleric/Mage though.  I have an arbitrary limit on 2 classes.  My character would fight, heal, and throw spells at his enemies.  I could wear armor after casting my wizard spells if I wanted to, or I could save my wizard spells for utility and wear armor and fight well for the rest of the adventure.


----------



## Bill Bisco

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> Easy:
> 
> Paladin (which wades into melee and has divine prayers) as base class, combined with Arcane Initiate. At first level - can wade into battle, can heal, can cast arcane spells.
> 
> Cheers, LT.




A Paladin is not a Fighter.  Nor is a Swordmage a Fighter.  Nor is a Paladin a Cleric nor is a Swordmage a Wizard.

My character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage.  4th edition as written cannot replicate this.


----------



## WhatGravitas

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> My character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage.  4th edition as written cannot replicate this.



I've talked about _concepts_, not about specific classes. That's what I meant:

A fighter is a guy who fights with weapons.
A cleric is the guy who prays and heals.
A wizard is the guy who slings spells.

The Paladin/Wizard combo fulfils all three parameters, as soon as you stop thinking in classes and start to think in concepts.

Cheers, LT.


----------



## Rechan

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> A Paladin is not a Fighter.  Nor is a Swordmage a Fighter.  Nor is a Paladin a Cleric nor is a Swordmage a Wizard.
> 
> My character was a Fighter/Cleric/Mage.  4th edition as written cannot replicate this.



Well if you're going to be that specific about the names of the classes: 

You couldn't do it in 3e either. Because there was no Mage or Magic User class. 

A wizard or sorcerer is not a Magic User or a Mage. They are a wizard or sorcerer.


----------



## Bishmon

Rechan said:
			
		

> You just cherry-picked the best power from a class's list, and you got to give away a weak power from yours.



I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, but this seems like it might be relevant:

"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*."


----------



## Bill Bisco

Lord Tirian said:
			
		

> I've talked about _concepts_, not about specific classes. That's what I meant:
> 
> A fighter is a guy who fights with weapons.
> A cleric is the guy who prays and heals.
> A wizard is the guy who slings spells.
> 
> The Paladin/Wizard combo fulfils all three parameters, as soon as you stop thinking in classes and start to think in concepts.
> 
> Cheers, LT.



I understand what you're saying.  And I'm trying to point out that unless a Paladin has access to all the Fighter powers and all the Cleric powers that having a Paladin class will not be an adequate substitute for my character's fighter and cleric training.  

Although there are similarities between a Fighter and a Paladin.  You cannot juxtapose saying that a Paladin fulfills my character's background in place of the fighter.  

If I told you my character was a Cleric/Mage/Thief would you try to do the same saying that I would really be a Cleric of Olidammarra / Wizard?



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> Well if you're going to be that specific about the names of the classes:
> 
> You couldn't do it in 3e either. Because there was no Mage or Magic User class.
> 
> A wizard or sorcerer is not a Magic User or a Mage. They are a wizard or sorcerer.



 My point is that these are all separate classes with separate schools of thought and separate powers.


----------



## Rechan

Bishmon said:
			
		

> I'm not sure what exactly you mean by this, but this seems like it might be relevant:
> 
> "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*."



And you can bet your bottom dollar you'll be picking the best one of the other class's list, and getting the best of your first class's list for your old power.


----------



## Falling Icicle

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> I understand what you're saying.  And I'm trying to point out that unless a Paladin has access to all the Fighter powers and all the Cleric powers that having a Paladin class will not be an adequate substitute for my character's fighter and cleric training.
> 
> Although there are similarities between a Fighter and a Paladin.  You cannot juxtapose saying that a Paladin fulfills my character's background in place of the fighter.
> 
> If I told you my character was a Cleric/Mage/Thief would you try to do the same saying that I would really be a Cleric of Olidammarra / Wizard?




You could try a warpriest with arcane initiate. Clerics can be very powerful in melee, those with that paragon path especially so. I believe a melee cleric is one of their basic builds. Just have a good Str score and take weapon proficiency in whatever weapon you like, if it's one that's not available to clerics by default. And actually, since there isn't arcane spell failure anymore, you're getting even more benefit from your wizard spells.


----------



## jaldaen

Would all this "multiclassing or not" debate be a bit different if WotC just called these rules what they admittiedly are... Dual-classing?

Or would people say that these rules don't even do dual-classing well?

Just my random thought of the day


----------



## Bishmon

Rechan said:
			
		

> And you can bet your bottom dollar you'll be picking the best one of the other class's list, and getting the best of your first class's list for your old power.



I'm still not following. 

You realize it's saying that if you replace a 5th level power in your primary class, it can only be replaced by a 5th level or lower power from your secondary class, even if you're higher level.

Assuming you realize that, you seem to be basing the usefulness of this feat on the complete lack of balance among powers of the same level. Is that right?


----------



## Rechan

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Assuming you realize that, you seem to be basing the usefulness of this feat on the complete lack of balance among powers of the same level. Is that right?



Now this doesn't make any sense to me. Huh?

And I'm not basing JUST the usefulness on cherry-picking. I see several aspects that are really great.


----------



## Rechan

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> My point is that these are all separate classes with separate schools of thought and separate powers.



Not by much, not to me. But then, I didn't play 2e.


----------



## Bishmon

Rechan said:
			
		

> Now this doesn't make any sense to me. Huh?



"You just cherry-picked the best power from a class's list, and you got to give away a weak power from yours."

My point is I'm not seeing how. The powers swapped are going to be of equal level, so how are you getting rid of a weak power and gaining a strong power? Wouldn't that be predicated on poor balance of class powers at equal levels?

I'm just trying to understand how you've gotten from point A to point B with this.


----------



## Rechan

Because for whatever reason, even though they are mechanically balanced, some powers are probably going to be more appealing than others. Either due to their overall utility, satisfaction, or just how they appeal to a player. 

So if you can pick let's say you can pick three powers from your class. You find two powers that appeal. But your options for that third, none of them look good to you.  

With the feat, this lets you look at someone else's class list. And of those list, you can pick the most appealing to you off of that list.

That list is going to only get BIGGER, not only as you level, but as new books come out. You don't get to just look at YOUR first class's list of abilities, but your other class's too. 

So you can pick the most appealing, satisfying, and useful abilities from two lists, not one.

To put it in 3e terms, let's say you're a 6th level cleric; you can cast say, 3 spells of 3rd level. But you only see two really good ones on the cleric list. Let's say that now you could pick a spell off the wizard's list, so you can pick the best 3rd level Arcane AND divine spells. All 3rd level spells are supposed to be equal with the other 3rd level spells, but we all know that some are better than others. Contagion doesn't hold a candle to searing light, etc.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Would all this "multiclassing or not" debate be a bit different if WotC just called these rules what they admittiedly are... Dual-classing?
> 
> Or would people say that these rules don't even do dual-classing well?




Its neither.

In both traditional multiclassing and dual-classing, you have *full *access to all of a class' powers for a given level, not this ability or that.  This is more like the 2Ed Players Option PC building rules.

Don't get me wrong- I've proposed something like this 4Ed multiclassing for 3.X- but as a _supplement to_, not a _replacement for_ multiclassing.

To me this change smacks a bit of Babies & Bathwater™- tossing a pretty intuitive system to a something else entirely because of a few details some people don't like.

You don't like the 3.X "level penalties" for multiclassing?  Ditch them.  You don't like how some classes are nearly barred from multiclassing?  Ditch that rule too.

You don't like the loss of spellpower attendant to multiclassing?  To that I say "Tough"- I see no reason why someone who devotes part of their time and effort to being a spellcaster should be as mystically powerful as someone who devotes all their time to the arcane arts.


----------



## Bishmon

edit: This is now irrelevant. Give me a moment to update my response.


----------



## Rechan

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Isn't that the _exact_ problem some people have with the feat?



No! Their problem is that it's a waste.



> Not only will normal feats offer plenty of appealing choices, they'll make a character more capable! But you're saying these power-swap feats will give access to different appealing choices, but without actually gaining any capability? And you're saying that's a good thing?



Of course you're gaining capability! You're getting abilities from someone else's list! You're getting something that makes you capable!

Are we talking past each other?


----------



## FireLance

whydirt said:
			
		

> I think people are overlooking an important reason behind the feat cost of getting out-of-class powers.  When you choose a power from another class, you're giving up the least useful power available from your main class for the most useful power from the new class.  That difference in utility is paid for with the feat.



No, you're giving up the *most* useful power from your primary class for the most useful power from your secondary class of that level or lower. If you didn't have the option of picking from a secondary class, you would have picked the most useful power from your primary class, right?


----------



## Wolv0rine

jaldaen said:
			
		

> Would all this "multiclassing or not" debate be a bit different if WotC just called these rules what they admittiedly are... Dual-classing?
> 
> Or would people say that these rules don't even do dual-classing well?
> 
> Just my random thought of the day



Nope, this isn't even Dual-Classing.  Dual-Classing pretty much is a 50/50 split, dividing your XP 2 ways.  This is...  regulated cherry-picking.


----------



## Bishmon

Rechan said:
			
		

> Of course you're gaining capability! You're getting abilities from someone else's list! You're getting something that makes you capable!



At the expense of giving up an equal-level power from your own list! If I toss $5 in the garbage, and then take $5 from a friend, I haven't gained anything (except an angry friend).

But this is irrelevant, because of this:



			
				Rechan said:
			
		

> To put it in 3e terms, let's say you're a 6th level cleric; you can cast say, 3 spells of 3rd level. But you only see two really good ones on the cleric list. Let's say that now you could pick a spell off the wizard's list, so you can pick the best 3rd level Arcane AND divine spells. All 3rd level spells are supposed to be equal with the other 3rd level spells, but we all know that some are better than others. Contagion doesn't hold a candle to searing light, etc.



So you're basing your comments on the assumption that powers of the same level will not be balanced. Ok. Fine. That will indeed make the multiclassing feats more useful. I'm not eager to see what those imbalances will do to the rest of the system, though.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> This is... regulated cherry-picking.




QFT...and I wish I had said that!


----------



## small pumpkin man

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Its neither.
> 
> In both traditional multiclassing and dual-classing, you have *full *access to all of a class' powers for a given level, not this ability or that.  This is more like the 2Ed Players Option PC building rules.
> 
> Don't get me wrong- I've proposed something like this 4Ed multiclassing for 3.X- but as a _supplement to_, not a _replacement for_ multiclassing.
> 
> To me this change smacks a bit of Babies & Bathwater™- tossing a pretty intuitive system to a something else entirely *because of a few details some people don't like.*
> 
> You don't like the 3.X "level penalties" for multiclassing?  Ditch them.  You don't like how some classes are nearly barred from multiclassing?  Ditch that rule too.
> 
> You don't like the loss of spellpower attendant to multiclassing?  To that I say "Tough"- I see no reason why someone who devotes part of their time and effort to being a spellcaster should be as mystically powerful as someone who devotes all their time to the arcane arts.



Cutting off multiclassing from an entire power source was not "a few details". The idea that Arcane power is more "special" than other sources of power is exactly the type of geek wankery led us to so many editions of overpowered Wizards and people thinking monsters have to be spellcasters to be usable as proper enemies, and I'm so very happy 4e is getting rid of it.


----------



## Kordeth

Bishmon said:
			
		

> At the expense of giving up an equal-level power from your own list! If I toss $5 in the garbage, and then take $5 from a friend, I haven't gained anything (except an angry friend).




By that logic, no power you pick up is a gain, because no matter what power you pick, you're giving up 3 or so equal-level powers from your class list. Do you see the logical flaw here? If I have three powers at third level, and gain another one at fourth level, _I have gained a power._ If that power is gained from my own class list, I'm "losing out" on anywhere from 3-5 (probably) other powers I _could_ have taken at that level. What difference does it make whether I'm "giving up" powers from my own class list to pick the one I want from that list or "giving up" powers to pick from another class's list?


----------



## Rechan

Bishmon said:
			
		

> At the expense of giving up an equal-level power from your own list! If I toss $5 in the garbage, and then take $5 from a friend, I haven't gained anything (except an angry friend).



But _getting access_ to something that opens new options that you Would Not have had before is Worth a feat! 

90% of the feats that we have seen seem applicable only in certain situations. +1 to Saving throws. +2 to AC only when you're beside two larger opponents. +2 against opportunity attacks. +2 when you use Encounter Power X. +3 When you use an Action Point. You don't give an enemy CA when you are surprised. You get weapon training with x weapons. 

Those are very narrow, specific situations. They're like turn undead: they make you useful, only in this situation, or only by expanding your options slightly. How is getting trained in another skill, or access to these weapons over here, GREAT? It's not; it just an extention of an option. Just like the MC feats.



> So you're basing your comments on the assumption that powers of the same level will not be balanced. Ok. Fine. That will indeed make the multiclassing feats more useful. I'm not eager to see what those imbalances will do to the rest of the system, though.



Grr. I'm not assuming that some powers will just flat out suck. But I am saying that not every option that everyone has in their class is going to appeal to them for their build. 

For instance, if you're playing a Rogue who uses thrown weapons and crossbows, and you want to stay out of combat, you likely aren't going to pick up abilities that rely on _melee attacks_, or being in hand to hand combat, right? But all the rogue abilities we've seen rely on melee attacks. 

So what do you do: you get access to another class's abilities that have more ranged options, such as a Ranger who has those nice ranged powers.


----------



## Dormain1

As someone who has enjoyed multiclassing and dualclassing for many years in all edition, i really dont mind the new rules, i dont think they are really true multi or dual classing as we know them and i can see how people would think it as cherry picking and false advertising

As per older ed. MC is advancing in two or more classes at the same time, slower and with lower level powers(CL, HP, thaco) but vastly more powerful overall

DC was when you stopped advancing in one class and started going up in another

3rd ed combined them and was open to abuse for cherrypicking which is what most well known examples of MC PC's are

So WotC decided to make it easier to cherrypick, more balanced, and harder to break but there will be no more double class advancing or triple etc 

there will be less character builds and more character variations

someone will create a classless class like they did for d20

I will wait until we have all the rules before saying its great or not but as is it doesn't look so bad, hopefully there will be a way to turn those per day to per encounter etc.


----------



## AtomicPope

FireLance said:
			
		

> No, you're giving up the *most* useful power from your primary class for the most useful power from your secondary class of that level or lower. If you didn't have the option of picking from a secondary class, you would have picked the most useful power from your primary class, right?



Wrong.  If _you _ want to give up the most useful power from your primary class then by all means, do so.  It seems pretty obvious that this is in an attempt to stultify the discussion with low-brow, superficial quips.  You're completely ignoring the inherent design of emergent complexity within the class features and powers.  When coupled with Action Points as a standard feature for Player Characters it allows for power combinations of the likes that characters have never possessed before.

Multiclassing provides characters with access to powers from other sources.  Since power sources and character roles are well defined (unlike previous editions where copy n paste was all the rage), a multiclassing character can viably function in multiple roles.  Access to alternate power sources and role features is *most * useful when it fits a character's intended design.  This coupled with emergent complexity allows the character to function outside of their original role but not to outperform/outshine a purist (something that 3e couldn't claim).


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> But _getting access_ to something that opens new options that you Would Not have had before is Worth a feat!




Not if it also means throwing away options that you would have had otherwise.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> Not if it also means throwing away options that you would have had otherwise.



It is if you want to throw way the options that you would have had otherwise.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> It is if you want to throw way the options that you would have had otherwise.



 What a strange concept.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Cutting off multiclassing from an entire power source was not "a few details". You could argue that the problems with the SW:Saga system were only details, but they ultimately are very different system, you could in no way use the Saga system with 4e without completely redesigning the classes around it, something they specifically decided wasn't worth it.




1) Never saw SW: Saga, so I can't speak to that.

2) I also have no idea what you mean when you say that 3.X multiclassing cut of entire power sources.



> The idea that Arcane power is more "special" than other sources of power




3) It isn't more special.  Its just different.  And how do any of the older forms of multiclassing cut you off from arcane power?


----------



## Kordeth

hong said:
			
		

> Not if it also means throwing away options that you would have had otherwise.




If I go to the restaurant, peruse the menu, and decide to order a cheeseburger, am I throwing away options because I order the eggs benedict instead? (Assume for the moment I'm not an enormous glutton and am, in fact, capable of eating only one meal at any given mealtime.)

No. It's _not_ throwing away options, any more than picking Wizard Attack Power #1 over Wizard Attack Powers #2-5 is "throwing away options." All of your options are _still there_, in fact you're adding more (because now you can choose between Wizard Attack Powers #s 1-5 _and_ Fighter Attack Powers #s 1-5). What it neither adds nor takes away is the number of _choices_ you can make. You still get your choice of one power from the list, it's just that the feat makes it a bigger list.


----------



## hong

Kordeth said:
			
		

> If I go to the restaurant, peruse the menu, and decide to order a cheeseburger, am I throwing away options because I order the eggs benedict instead? (Assume for the moment I'm not an enormous glutton and am, in fact, capable of eating only one meal at any given mealtime.)




Well, it's like a generic food metaphor. Sometimes I want to compare things to ice cream, but I should not have to discard the ability to compare things to peanut butter as well.



> No. It's _not_ throwing away options, any more than picking Wizard Attack Power #1 over Wizard Attack Powers #2-5 is "throwing away options."




You are giving up a feat AND a power to get a power. That is the cost.


----------



## Rechan

To use the 3e example I was using earlier, this is what the argument seems to be:

If there was this feat:

Make Divinity Magic:
Pre-req: Prepare spells.
Benefit: Now you can prepare spells from both the Divine and Arcane spell lists.

The argument that seems to be is:

Well this is a waste of a feat, because even though you can pick spells off both lists, you still have the same amount of spell slots to prepare. You haven't gained anything but the access to another class's spells.

Except that now you have clerics casting fireballs in full armor and sorcerers who can flame strike for half holy damage.


----------



## AtomicPope

Bill Bisco said:
			
		

> He wouldn't be a Fighter/Cleric/Mage though.  I have an arbitrary limit on 2 classes.  My character would fight, heal, and throw spells at his enemies.  I could wear armor after casting my wizard spells if I wanted to, or I could save my wizard spells for utility and wear armor and fight well for the rest of the adventure.



Wear armor _after _ casting your wizard spells.  Gimme a break.  You're really reaching for the supposed merits of 1e multiclassing.


Oh wait Mr. Monster!  I've finished casting my *two spells for the day*.  I'd like to put my armor on now.


Wizards have more spells than ever before.  Fighters have manuevers.  They have to give and take.  I noticed you never addressed _any _ of the issues I brought up.  It's because you can't.  It would be a hopeless case.  There's absolutely no comparison to the limited scope of 1e classes with the plethora of features and abilities that a 4e class gains at level one.  Rather than address it you give some bogus example of scenario playing perfect for a character with virtually no features by comparison.  If that's the best you can do then enjoy your two spells and wardrobe rack you're forced to lug around in the dungeon.  There's no hope for endless denial.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> To use the 3e example I was using earlier, this is what the argument seems to be:
> 
> If there was this feat:
> 
> Make Divinity Magic:
> Pre-req: Prepare spells.
> Benefit: Now you can prepare spells from both the Divine and Arcane spell lists.




Bad example. Now you can prepare one extra spell from the divine and arcane spell lists.


----------



## Vendark

hong said:
			
		

> You are giving up a feat AND a power to get a power. That is the cost.




But presumably you're giving up a power you didn't really care about in order to get a power that you really, really wanted and couldn't get any other way. If that's the case, giving up a feat doesn't sound so bad. If that's not the case, why are you doing it?


----------



## Bishmon

Kordeth said:
			
		

> By that logic, no power you pick up is a gain, because no matter what power you pick, you're giving up 3 or so equal-level powers from your class list. Do you see the logical flaw here? If I have three powers at third level, and gain another one at fourth level, _I have gained a power._ If that power is gained from my own class list, I'm "losing out" on anywhere from 3-5 (probably) other powers I _could_ have taken at that level. What difference does it make whether I'm "giving up" powers from my own class list to pick the one I want from that list or "giving up" powers to pick from another class's list?



Because you're using a feat! That is the _entire_ point.

Imagine a restaurant scenario. I go in, look at a menu, and order a $10 entree. (I've just picked a power). Now I order a $5 desert. (I just chose a feat).

You go in, look at the menu, see a whole list of $10 entrees, but decide that instead of getting a desert, you'd rather look at a second list of $10 entrees and choose from that.

Well, now we've each got a $10 entree, but I've also got a $5 desert. I _clearly_ got the better deal.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> Bad example. Now you can prepare one extra spell from the divine and arcane spell lists.



Where do you get "Extra"? 

You still have your pre-existing spell slots, you just can pick and choose from the Arcane AND Divine list.


----------



## AtomicPope

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 3) [Arcane Power] isn't more special.  Its just different.  And how do any of the older forms of multiclassing cut you off from arcane power?



It is more special because it's defined as a single source rather than a function of an overall system.  Older forms of multiclassing had a thing called _caster level_ and _spell level_, which was applied independently of character level.  A character that multiclassed often ran the risk of losing both caster level and access to higher level spells.  In 4e there is neither.


----------



## Kordeth

hong said:
			
		

> Well, it's like a generic food metaphor. Sometimes I want to compare things to ice cream, but I should not have to discard the ability to compare things to peanut butter as well.




But you're not. You're developing a comprehensive matrix of ice cream and peanut butter, and then freely choosing between both as suits your whimsical fancy.



> You are giving up a feat AND a power to get a power. That is the cost.




Your math does not resemble our earth arithmetic. If a 3rd level character has 5 powers (purely hypothetical) and he gains another one at level 4, he has 6 powers.

If a single-class character reaches level 4, he selects a new power from his class list. He has six powers.

If a multi-class character takes the Novice Power feat at 4th level, he selects a new power from his class list _or_ the class list of another class. He has six powers.

Saying that you "give up a power" to multiclass is exactly the same as saying that every time a single class character chooses a new power on gaining a level, he's "giving up" three or four other powers because he can only choose one.


----------



## Spatula

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> And of course, you've read the feat descriptions? Or see them in the article? 'Cuz I sure don't. Those kind of things have never shown up in the table.



Hmm?  If a feat could be taken more than once, it always showed up in the table, as a superscript # on the feat name & an associated footnote.

Now, the table in the article was probably whipped up just for that (one would hope, given the formatting errors) so if there was a footnote it probably would have been removed, so there's no way to tell.  But the default is still that a feat can only be taken once.  And I doubt you could take the novice, etc. feats multiple times, because that would start to _really_ cut into your primary role, as opposed to just allowing you to dip into another class.  And the dip is the stated goal of these heroic multiclassing rules.



			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> 3.5 had the broadest multi-classing rules, able to handle anything from dabbling to 50/50 splits with moderate elegance. 4e's retrograde step is unfortunate.



Well, it's _still_ hard to say what you're really capable of doing with multiclassing in 4e, as they only gave us half the picture.  The paragon multiclass rules are still a mystery.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> Where do you get "Extra"?
> 
> No extra spell slots. You just can pick from list x too.



 To be precise, you can pick one extra spell from the divine and arcane spell lists.


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> To be precise, you can pick one extra spell from the divine and arcane spell lists.



I didn't type that. So where are you reading that?


----------



## mach1.9pants

Rechan said:
			
		

> If there was this feat:
> 
> Make Divinity Magic:
> Pre-req: Prepare spells.
> Benefit: Now you can prepare spells from both the Divine and Arcane spell lists.



Should be more like:
Make Divinity Magic
Pre-req: spontaneous casting of arcane spells
Benefit: You can choose your spells known from the divine list

Thats about right, I think?


----------



## hong

Kordeth said:
			
		

> But you're not. You're developing a comprehensive matrix of ice cream and peanut butter, and then freely choosing between both as suits your whimsical fancy.




Well, it's like a generic food metaphor. The fact that sometimes things are like ice cream does not mean I should have to pay for saying they are like peanut butter.




> If a multi-class character takes the Initiate Power feat at 4th level, he selects a new power from his class list _or_ the class list of another class. He has six powers.




... and one less feat that he could have spent on something else. Opportunity cost is perhaps a subtle concept.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> I didn't type that. So where are you reading that?



 Exactly. You didn't type that. That's why what you typed is a bad metaphor. Almost like generic food.


----------



## Rechan

mach1.9pants said:
			
		

> Should be more like:
> Make Divinity Magic
> Pre-req: spontaneous casting of arcane spells
> Benefit: You can choose your spells known from both the divine list
> 
> Thats about right, I think?



No, I meant it exaclty how I wrote it.

You have Bob the Cleric. Bob takes the feat. Bob the Cleric can now pick spells off the wizard list of spells in addition to his cleric list of spells.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 1) Never saw SW: Saga, so I can't speak to that.
> 
> 2) I also have no idea what you mean when you say that 3.X multiclassing cut of entire power sources.
> 
> 3) It isn't more special.  Its just different.  And how do any of the older forms of multiclassing cut you off from arcane power?



Apparently I wasn't clear, I meant spellcasters were cut off from multiclassing, not the other way around, it's such a big deal it's on the ten commandments of optimization twice. You can make divine multclassed characters, but it often ended up poorly, and multiclassing arcane casters required a lot of splat books to get right. If you have a "multiclassing" system which is supposed to help create characters which are a blend of different classes and it only works with half of the classes in the PHB, you have a system with glaring holes.

Not to say 4e system necessarily does, I'm going to wait to see if you can make a Fighter Wizard that's worth anything. (or any other matchup where the MAD looks to be high.)


----------



## Lord Mhoram

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Because you're using a feat! That is the _entire_ point.
> 
> Imagine a restaurant scenario. I go in, look at a menu, and order a $10 entree. (I've just picked a power). Now I order a $5 desert. (I just chose a feat).
> 
> You go in, look at the menu, see a whole list of $10 entrees, but decide that instead of getting a desert, you'd rather look at a second list of $10 entrees and choose from that.
> 
> Well, now we've each got a $10 entree, but I've also got a $5 desert. I _clearly_ got the better deal.




Well to extend the analogy... the menu you have is all beef dishes, and I was really hankering for some seafood. I pay the extra 5 bucks to get access to the seafood. And when I come in next time, I can choose the seafood or the Beef menus and make that change everytime I come in and get a choice (i.e. gain a new power). So I give up desert once, to be able to choose from Seafood or Beef.


----------



## Kordeth

hong said:
			
		

> ... and one less feat that he could have spent on something else. Opportunity cost is perhaps a subtle concept.




I'm not arguing that multiclassing doesn't cost a feat to expand your options, I'm saying that claiming it costs a feat _and_ a power is fallacious. Of course there's a cost for multiclassing--if there wasn't, there would be very little point to even having a class-based system.

Still, if you want a world where everyone multiclasses, I doubt it would break the game to say that the class-specific multiclass feats simply give you the ability to pick a power from your second class at 4th, 8th, and 10th level. It's just going to encourage lots more multiclassing, whereas the design goal of 4E seems to be "encourage specialization, but allow for flexibility."


----------



## Rechan

hong said:
			
		

> Exactly. You didn't type that. That's why what you typed is a bad metaphor. Almost like generic food.



You're not making any damn sense. You're just adding words in for no good reason. What the hell are you talking about?

AND WHY IS ENWORLD SLOW?


----------



## Lurker37

Bishmon said:
			
		

> So you're basing your comments on the assumption that powers of the same level will not be balanced. Ok. Fine. That will indeed make the multiclassing feats more useful. I'm not eager to see what those imbalances will do to the rest of the system, though.




This is starting to sound like the hysteria surrounding the expected overpoweredness of the monk class pre 3.0. We all know how that ended.

This excerpt is a marketing exercise. It deliberately raises more questions than it answers, because otherwise no-one would need to buy the rules. As a result, we now have questions we want answers to. Some posters here playtested the rules, so can give informed opinions on some of those answers, but are restricted by NDAs. They've tried to tell us what they can.

A playtester has already stated that the powers are balanced in the context of their original class, but grant more power to other classes when they use a multiclass feat to get them. These cross-class powers *are* more powerful _for the multiclass character cherry picking them_ because they can grant a tactical option the original class lacks entirely. That granting this without making it cost a feat each pick would result in character more powerful than the single class character, so the feat cost is required to restore the balance. In other words, an original-class power plus a feat adds roughly as much to that class's power as  swapping both for a well-chosen power from another class.

Furthermore, we don't know how powerful feats are in 4E. We have reason to suspect that characters may get more of them, but they will be less powerful. We just can't be sure.

And finally all we know about multiclassing instead of taking a Paragon path is that it is possible.

So really, most of us are debating over speculation and guesswork. ( And thoroughly enjoying it... wait - that's not my point! )

So until such time as we have the full ruleset in our hands, our very best indication of how well multiclassing works is the comments of the playtester, and especially his rebuttal of certain assumptions posted here.

I just hope he hasn't gotten himself into trouble for revealing too much.


----------



## Spatula

Voadam said:
			
		

> As a fighter MU he also can't cast in armor (in 2e they have that elven mithril chain exception)



Not sure where you got the idea that elven chain is specific to 2E but it is not.  It existed with the same properties in 1e AD&D.  I can't speak for BEMCI, though, but it would certainly make some sense there since elves were the only F/MUs.


----------



## Kordeth

small pumpkin man said:
			
		

> Not to say 4e system necessarily does, I'm going to wait to see if you can make a Fighter Wizard that's worth anything. (or any other matchup where the MAD looks to be high.)




Focus on Str and Int, pick a weapon that favors Int (hypothetical, we've seen weapons that favor Con and, I think, Dex), and you should be okay. Int will boost your Ref Def (I love that phrase) and AC if you're in light armor, so Dex isn't too vital. Con would be nice, but Str covers your Fort Def and if you're base fighter you've got decent hp and healing surges. Depending on how useful Wis and Cha are to fighters and wizards, I don't think you're going to be hurting.


----------



## hong

Kordeth said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that multiclassing doesn't cost a feat to expand your options, I'm saying that claiming it costs a feat _and_ a power is fallacious.




You can do this thing in various ways. You can use a feat slot to buy an extra power (feat-power tradeoff). You can use a power slot to grab a power from another class list (straight power tradeoff). Or you can do it the 4E way, which is to use a feat slot _and_ a powerslot to buy a power from another class list. Hence costing a feat and a power.



> Of course there's a cost for multiclassing--if there wasn't, there would be very little point to even having a class-based system.




The point of having a class-based system is to provide easy hooks for character generation, and simple party generation. The downside to this is reduced flexibility, if you want to create a character that goes outside the predefined buckets.

The usual methods for increasing flexibility have been to multiclass, or to provide more base classes. The first method is basically gimped in 4E, unless your concept is already fairly close to a predefined bucket. This leaves the second method.


----------



## FireLance

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> Wrong.  If _you _ want to give up the most useful power from your primary class then by all means, do so.  It seems pretty obvious that this is in an attempt to stultify the discussion with low-brow, superficial quips.  You're completely ignoring the inherent design of emergent complexity within the class features and powers.  When coupled with Action Points as a standard feature for Player Characters it allows for power combinations of the likes that characters have never possessed before.
> 
> Multiclassing provides characters with access to powers from other sources.  Since power sources and character roles are well defined (unlike previous editions where copy n paste was all the rage), a multiclassing character can viably function in multiple roles.  Access to alternate power sources and role features is *most * useful when it fits a character's intended design.  This coupled with emergent complexity allows the character to function outside of their original role but not to outperform/outshine a purist (something that 3e couldn't claim).



Let's put it this way. A 4th-level character with a multiclass training feat has one 1st-level encounter power of his primary class and one 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class. If he selects the Novice Power feat, he can either: 

1. Replace his 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class with a 3rd-level encounter power of his secondary class; or

2. Replace his 1st-level encounter power of his primary class with a 1st-level encounter power of his secondary class; or 

3. Replace his 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class with a 1st-level encounter power of his secondary class.

Given that he has already chosen the 3rd-level and 1st-level encounter powers from his primary class, they can't be too shabby. In fact, they would probably be the powers that the player feels are either most useful or most appropriate to the character. Hence, it is not correct to say that the best power from the seconday class replaces the _*worst*_ power from the primary class. It is in fact replacing one of the better (if not the best) powers from the primary class.

Now, I do recognize that there is an advantage in gaining a power from another class. What is not clear to me is whether the relative gain in utility is worth a feat (remember, we're replacing the best with the best here). As previously mentioned, I think that one feat for three swaps (replacing the best encounter, utility, and daily powers of the primary class with the best encounter, utility and daily powers of the secondary class) is about right. Alternatively, a single feat could give the player the option to use either of the best powers from his primary or secondary class (i.e. the player selects an encounter power from the seconday class. Once per encounter, he may use that power by spending an encounter power from his primary class of that power's level or lower. So, if he selected a 3rd-level encounter power from his secondary class, he could use it once per encounter by spending his 3rd-level encounter power from his primary class. If he selected a 1st-level encounter power from his secondary class, he can use it once per encounter by spending his 3rd- or 1st-level encounter power from his primary class).

Of course, this assessment is based on what I know of the powers that have been released so far. I'll make a final decision after the rules have been released and I've managed to play around with the system for a while.


----------



## hong

Rechan said:
			
		

> You're not making any damn sense. You're just adding words in for no good reason. What the hell are you talking about?
> 
> AND WHY IS ENWORLD SLOW?




I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.

Is this really worth a feat?


----------



## Spatula

Kordeth said:
			
		

> I'm not arguing that multiclassing doesn't cost a feat to expand your options, I'm saying that claiming it costs a feat _and_ a power is fallacious.



The facts are fallacious now?

You spend a feat.  You lose one of your class powers.  You gain a power from another class.  The cost of gaining 1 cross-class power is: 1 feat, 1 class power.  Regardless of whether you think the trade-off is worth it or not, that's the cost.


----------



## RigaMortus2

Spatula said:
			
		

> Not sure where you got the idea that elven chain is specific to 2E but it is not.  It existed with the same properties in 1e AD&D.  I can't speak for BEMCI, though, but it would certainly make some sense there since elves were the only F/MUs.




Huh?  As far as I can remember, in 2E anyway, if you were a multiclass Fighter/Magic User, you could not cast wizard spells (arcane spells) in metal armors save for elven chain.  At least in 3E you had the chance to cast in metal armor, you just have Arcane Spell Failure.  In 2E, the answer to casting arcane spells in metal armor was simply "NO!"

Please correct me if I am wrong.  It's been a long time since I played 2E and even longer since I played 1E.  But if they DID have a way for magic users to cast in metal armor, I'd like to be reminded of it.


----------



## Vendark

FireLance said:
			
		

> Given that he has already chosen the 3rd-level and 1st-level encounter powers from his primary class, they can't be too shabby. In fact, they would probably be the powers that the player feels are either most useful or most appropriate to the character.




If he was truly happy with all his powers, he probably wouldn't take the feat yet. If he does take the feat, then one of his powers is merely a stopgap, the one he found least objectionable for his character at the time.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Focus on Str and Int, pick a weapon that favors Int (hypothetical, we've seen weapons that favor Con and, I think, Dex), and you should be okay. Int will boost your Ref Def (I love that phrase) and AC if you're in light armor, so Dex isn't too vital. Con would be nice, but Str covers your Fort Def and if you're base fighter you've got decent hp and healing surges. Depending on how useful Wis and Cha are to fighters and wizards, I don't think you're going to be hurting.



Let me put it this way, I see Fighter/Warlords working fine and dandy, and Warlord/Wizards being awsome, but assuming Fighters need 2 to 3 stats like everyone else seems to, the question is whether adding a fourth stat hurts you too much, especially without stat boosters.

Then again, if the only problem with multiclassing is greater MAD, I think we'll all be lucky.


----------



## FireLance

Vendark said:
			
		

> If he was truly happy with all his powers, he probably wouldn't take the feat yet. If he does take the feat, then one of his powers is merely a stopgap, the one he found least objectionable for his character at the time.



Least objectionable is close enough to best (given his options) that my point that he is replacing the best with the best still stands.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

hong said:
			
		

> I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.
> 
> Is this really worth a feat?



Well you sorta do have access to all divine powers, you simply can only equip one per-feat. However, seeing how you can change that power each level, you can adapt it to suit the circumstance you feel is best for the way your character is developing.

This adds in my eyes a lot of flexibility.


----------



## Bishmon

Lurker37 said:
			
		

> A playtester has already stated that the powers are balanced in the context of their original class, but grant more power to other classes when they use a multiclass feat to get them. These cross-class powers *are* more powerful _for the multiclass character cherry picking them_ because they can grant a tactical option the original class lacks entirely.



At the expense of increased tactical options in situations the class is intended for.

Let's say I'm a greatsword-using fighter. Sure, I could gain a ranger archery power that opens up a new tactical option, but that's at the expense of one of my own melee-focused powers, a power that keys off my prime attribute, works in more situations I will find myself in, works with the weapon I've been upgrading, and doesn't force me to spend actions to switch weapons.

I'm not saying your argument lacks any merit, just that it isn't quite as nice and easy as you make it seem.


----------



## Mort

hong said:
			
		

> I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.
> 
> Is this really worth a feat?




Does the feat spent allow you to take a power that lets your character accomplish what you wish him to, if yes, then maybe it's worth it (certainly depends on the power level of other feats).  Regardless, it seems that builds in 4e will be very fluid and if you think the feat wasn't worth it - it's extremely easy to change.


----------



## Kordeth

Spatula said:
			
		

> The facts are fallacious now?
> 
> You spend a feat.  You lose one of your class powers.  You gain a power from another class.  The cost of gaining 1 cross-class power is: 1 feat, 1 class power.  Regardless of whether you think the trade-off is worth it or not, that's the cost.




The class power isn't part of the cost. All characters get the same number of power selections every time they gain the appropriate level--"losing" a class power in this instant is _absolutely no different_ than choosing, say, Cleave instead of Tide of Iron from your own class's list of powers. You aren't losing anything, you're making a choice. A choice, remember, that retraining allows you to make even as a single class character.


----------



## hong

Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well you sorta do have access to all divine powers, you simply can only equip one per-feat. However, seeing how you can change that power each level, you can adapt it to suit the circumstance you feel is best for the way your character is developing.
> 
> This adds in my eyes a lot of flexibility.



 That auto-levelling of your cross-class power is certainly what keeps it from being a dead loss. I am intrigued, and not about to write it off completely just yet.


----------



## Henry

RigaMortus2 said:
			
		

> Huh?  As far as I can remember, in 2E anyway, if you were a multiclass Fighter/Magic User, you could not cast wizard spells (arcane spells) in metal armors save for elven chain.  At least in 3E you had the chance to cast in metal armor, you just have Arcane Spell Failure.  In 2E, the answer to casting arcane spells in metal armor was simply "NO!"
> 
> Please correct me if I am wrong.  It's been a long time since I played 2E and even longer since I played 1E.  But if they DID have a way for magic users to cast in metal armor, I'd like to be reminded of it.




Actually, 1e allowed F/M-U's to cast spells in metal armor, BECAUSE it didn't prohibit it. The quote from the 1E PHB says: "Fighter/magic-User: Obviously, this combination allows excellent armor protection, the use of weaponry, and spells. Hit points are good on the average... Elves and Half-elves may be fighter/magic-users." I don't think Gary would have spelled it out like that (especially when, for instance, he mentions earlier than multi-fighter-clerics can use edged weapons) if he didn't want them to cast spells AND wear armor. After all, they were being lopped off at the knees halfway through progression, anyway.


----------



## Vendark

FireLance said:
			
		

> Least objectionable is close enough to best (given his options) that my point that he is replacing the best with the best still stands.




But he's still trading the power he likes least of his current powers for the one he likes most of the other class' powers. There's clearly some value added here, in a way that "replacing best with the best" doesn't convey.


----------



## Scrollreader

hong said:
			
		

> I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.
> 
> Is this really worth a feat?




It is if it's shapechange.   

The ability to maintain a high end level appropriate ability from outside of your normal class and role is worth a feat, IMO.  We've seen it stated before, that classes are balanced against classes.  If powers were all the same, we'd not have as many classes as we do, because they'd all have the same HP, surges, roles and class abilities.  I'm certain it's possible for the feat to be a bad investment.  In fact, I can virtually guarantee that a specific one of my players will do so, because he likes to make suboptimal choices with multiclass characters.  I'm also certain that it won't take long at all for the min/max forums to come up with ways for these feats to be mechanically superior.  Somewhere in the middle, are the people for whom it is cool, thematically interesting, and the feat investment is worth it for a mix of mechanical and conceptual reasons.


As a quick question for you Hong:  If I'm playing a fighter, with int 18 and str 8.  It takes no feat investment to swap powers, so I take all wizard powers.  Now I'm a wizard, with better armor and weapon profs, better HP, and more healing surges.  Why do you maintain that this is not more powerful than being a straight wizard?  If you agree that it is more powerful, then all we're discussing is the relative value of feats as currency, which is something we lack enough information to discuss at all reasonably.


----------



## Bishmon

Kordeth said:
			
		

> The class power isn't part of the cost. All characters get the same number of power selections every time they gain the appropriate level--"losing" a class power in this instant is _absolutely no different_ than choosing, say, Cleave instead of Tide of Iron from your own class's list of powers.



Except you're not using a feat to select Cleave instead of Tide of Iron.


----------



## lkj

While it's fascinating to argue whether or not your are 'giving up' a power an a feat, I don't think that semantic point is really the crux of the issue. 

For a moment, let's just accept this premise-- You spend a feat and give up a power in order to gain a power from another class. 

The real question is "Is it worth it?" It might well be. A fighter might find that being able to cast a fireball (something a fighter can never do otherwise) is worth spending a feat and a power for. I think that's entirely plausible. More generally, one might find that the combination of an arcane and martial powers is more 'powerful' or 'useful' than just having that extra martial power. So it's worth spending a feat.

Even more generally, it might be that certain cross class powers in combination are more useful or powerful than combinations of within class powers. So, it might be worth taking the feat.

Now this ignores whether having access to paragon paths you wouldn't be able to take or perhaps feats that you wouldn't have access to otherwise adds benefit. 

Of course, there's no way to tell whether it's worth it till we have the full ruleset. Which brings me to a second and separate question than whether it's worth spending a feat and a power to get another power:

Can I build the fighter/mage I'm envisioning using these multiclass rules?

Unfortunately, I don't think we know yet.  Until we see the paragon paths, the class specific feats, all the powers, etc. , I just think it's too hard to tell.

Anyway, only a few weeks till we can start this argument all over again with new data.

AD


----------



## Kordeth

Bishmon said:
			
		

> Except you're not using a feat to select Cleave instead of Tide of Iron.




Which maybe is the reason I said _the feat is the cost of multiclassing._


----------



## fuzzlewump

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> IMHO, it’s not a matter of “is it worth a feat?” or any such similar questions, the question is “Is this Multi-classing?”, and to me, the answer is unequivocally (to the point of being faintly insulting) “No”.
> This is dipping, as has been pointed out.  And if it had been included as a sub-system completely separate from the concept of Multi-classing . . . then it would have been interesting.  Very interesting.  Class-dipping feats is cool.  Class dipping feats as the Multi-classing mechanics is terrible.



A class is defined by its powers and a short list of features, and multi-classing gives you access to another classes powers and some of those features. You agree that when you multi-class, you can't simply add two first level characters together. If we start with 7 powers, when we level up it wouldn't make sense to now have 14 powers. It would be overpowered. So how do you do it? What you call the "dipping" system is what they decided on. So is the problem that the system over-limits you? In what ways could the system change in order to meet your definition of multi-classing? Mechanically speaking.




			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Seriously?  Is this one of the ‘problems with 3E multi-classing’?  Because to my mind this is just better class design technique.  Of course you spread out class benefits over the levels, otherwise you’ve got a front-loaded class that no-one *wants* to take more levels in because it’s dull and tasteless after you’ve gotten your initial burst of class benefits.  *boggles*



Sweet spot starts at level 1 in fourth edition. The 4E wizard character sheet starts with 7 spells or whatever because the creators are confident that no one is going to do a 1-level dip in wizard in order to get the 7 spells and then run. Because you can't, that's not how multi-classing works anymore. So, you can have fun and interesting classes from the start. In third edition, a 1st level wizard had 1 spell to cast, because like you said, they weren't front loaded. If you enjoy that more, by all means, continue with third edition. 



			
				Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Is this another one of the ‘problems’, that multi-classed spellcasters were less powerful spellcasters (unless they multi-classed into a spellcasting PrC)?  Because, that just makes sense to me.  If you’ve changed or diminished your study/practice to focus on something else, you’re going to fall a bit behind.  And it seems the concept of “giving up some power for concept” is considered a _good_ thing, from the posts in this thread at least.  Again, *boggles*.



Not less powerful: unworkable. Giving up spell progression was beyond "less powerful." In fourth edition, you give up a power of equal level, say, level 7, and gain a level 7 wizard ability. So, you don't have to get wizard powers of half your level. Sorry for the brevity, but those are the main points.


----------



## occam

Gargazon said:
			
		

> Um... unless it says explictly in a feat's description, you can only ever take the feat once. Y'know, like you couldn't take power attack twice in 3.5.





We haven't seen the full feat descriptions.
Technically, you can take feats twice in 3.5, it just usually doesn't do you any good:



			
				SRD said:
			
		

> If a character has the same feat more than once, its benefits do not stack unless indicated otherwise in the description.
> 
> In general, having a feat twice is the same as having it once.




We don't know if the same general rule is in effect for 4e, but even if it is, the power-swap feats could easily be seen as non-overlapping.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Apparently I wasn't clear, I meant spellcasters were cut off from multiclassing, not the other way around, it's such a big deal it's on the ten commandments of optimization twice.




Optimization Schmoptimization- those commandments are garbage.

Multiclassing exists to help you find the best in-game representation of your mental vision of a PC, to realize that character & personality within the framework of the rules.  To do otherwise is to massage some rules to create a game artifact and slap a name on it- you might as well name them PC#1, PC#2, PC#3...PC#N.

Nobody's barred from actually multiclassing- you just see it as somehow unfair that a multiclassed spellcaster actually has to give up something of value (N number of spells of Z levels) in order to gain something else of value (extra combat feats, sneak attack, whatever).

Do you honestly think that its usually the case that a general practice physician is as good at brain surgery as a dedicated specialist?  Or that someone who is a world-class marksman who plays piano is equally good at it?  What about a person who bowls once a week as opposed to someone who bowls twice a day?

NO- generally speaking, the person who picks one thing to practice is almost invariably better at it than those who dabble, and the 3.x multiclassing rules reflect that.


----------



## FireLance

Vendark said:
			
		

> But he's still trading the power he likes least of his current powers for the one he likes most of the other class' powers. There's clearly some value added here, in a way that "replacing best with the best" doesn't convey.



Again, that's not entirely correct. The power he likes the least from his selected primary class powers is quite likely to be of lower level than the power he likes the best from his seconday class. In many cases, he will have to either give up a power he likes quite a bit, or select a power that he does not like quite as much.

In other words,

Primary class powers not selected < least-liked selected primary class power [1] < most-liked selected primary class power [2] < most liked secondary class power [3]

In most cases, the player will be trading [2] for [3], not [1] for [3].


----------



## hong

Scrollreader said:
			
		

> As a quick question for you Hong:  If I'm playing a fighter, with int 18 and str 8.  It takes no feat investment to swap powers, so I take all wizard powers.  Now I'm a wizard, with better armor and weapon profs, better HP, and more healing surges.  Why do you maintain that this is not more powerful than being a straight wizard?  If you agree that it is more powerful, then all we're discussing is the relative value of feats as currency, which is something we lack enough information to discuss at all reasonably.




Like I said before, I'm assuming that feats are going to be a substantial contributor to overall effectiveness. I basically don't see people spending more than a couple of feats to grab some powers.


----------



## Bishmon

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Which maybe is the reason I said _the feat is the cost of multiclassing._



So what are you spending the feat on? I mean, if choosing a power with this multiclassing feat is no different than choosing Cleave over Tide of Iron, two equal-level powers, why the feat? Just so you add other equal-level powers to go alongside Tide of Iron on the list of things you didn't select?

The point is, the feat has to increase your effectiveness in some way, ideally at a similar level to other feats. So how is this feat doing that?


----------



## mach1.9pants

Rechan said:
			
		

> No, I meant it exaclty how I wrote it.
> 
> You have Bob the Cleric. Bob takes the feat. Bob the Cleric can now pick spells off the wizard list of spells in addition to his cleric list of spells.



Nope he can pick ONLY one spell from the wizard list. he can upgrade that spell as he levels, but he can only ever have one arcane spell on his powers known- the rest must be cleric powers.


----------



## Incenjucar

Some choices will be better than others, that's just rather obvious.

There are some really great synergies available, such as super-mobile strikers dropping a paladin's challenge, and then there will be things less likely to be useful, like a wizard with tide of iron.

But the thing is to avoid making it too easy to have a Bow-Using Ranger with Fly.


----------



## Kordeth

Bishmon said:
			
		

> So what are you spending the feat on? I mean, if choosing a power with this multiclassing feat is no different than choosing Cleave over Tide of Iron, two equal-level powers, why the feat? Just so you add other equal-level powers to to go alongside Tide of Iron on the list of things you didn't select?
> 
> The point is, the feat has to increase your effectiveness in some way, ideally at a similar level to other feats. So how is this feat doing that?




By giving you options you wouldn't otherwise have access to. Why does it need to do more than that?


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

Realized I should move this.


----------



## hong

Kordeth said:
			
		

> By giving you options you wouldn't otherwise have access to. Why does it need to do more than that?



 Please, let us not go to "tradeoff power for flexibility". It is a funny place.


----------



## Zelc

*3.5e example!*

I don't see how this is that different from 3.5e Prestige Classing.  Say you're deciding between Beguiler 20 and Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1.  You're basically paying a bunch of skill points (I'm guessing it's slightly less expensive than a 4e feat) for the ability to switch your bypass SR ability for a telepathy 100' ability.  *How is that any different than this new multiclassing method?*


----------



## Green Knight

Bishmon said:
			
		

> The point is, the feat has to increase your effectiveness in some way, ideally at a similar level to other feats. So how is this feat doing that?




By giving you access to abilities which you wouldn't possess otherwise. 

Take a Fighter who takes the Novice Power Feat. He can now gain access to the Prismatic Burst spell in place of one of his Encounter Powers. Prismatic Burst is a Burst 2 spell with a range of 20 squares which inflicts Radiant damage and blinds the targets. How will a Fighter possibly get something like this, otherwise? 

First of all, even if Fighters have ranged powers, they won't be 20 squares (most likely they'll be associated with throwing weapons). They sure as hell won't be Burst 2. They won't blind the target. And they certainly won't inflict Radiant damage, which is something the Fighter otherwise wouldn't get (and which will make the Fighter exceptionally useful in fights against Undead). 

Would the Fighter Attack 13 Power he's replacing probably be awesome? Undoubtedly. But it wouldn't let him do the things he can do with Prismatic Burst. That, to me, is worth a Feat.


----------



## Zelc

hong said:
			
		

> Please, let us not go to "tradeoff power for flexibility". It is a funny place.



It's not a power tradeoff for flexibility if the other class's ability synergizes with yours.  Hence the whole reason dips and crazy multiclass/PrC combinations were concocted in CharOp.


----------



## Scrollreader

hong said:
			
		

> Like I said before, I'm assuming that feats are going to be a substantial contributor to overall effectiveness. I basically don't see people spending more than a couple of feats to grab some powers.




Mmm.  I suppose we're all just whistling in the dark, here.

In 3.X, I don't think you'd get any arguments that this ability would be worth a feat.  Just look at all the CO builds that used the 'extra power known' feat from the XPH or the number of people who picked domains entirely for a single high level spell (Shapechange being a particular offender, but not the only one).  And I'm pretty sure, with the right spell (Divine Power springs to mind) you'd have many, many people willing to give up substantial class features or whole schools of magic for acess to it, even if it cost a feat.

  The hope is that 4e will not have as big a disparity between equal level options, especially from the same list.  Hence, the payoff will be smaller.  However, from what we've seen, it looks like feats will also be less variable.  So are we giving up Dodge for this?  Or Karmic Strike?  Power attack or heavy armor optimization?  I think feats will be useful and en masse, a contributor of some substance.  I think an individual feat will be less so, and a cleverly chosen power can offer more benefit than the cost.  Ultimtely though, I don't think we have a solid basis to discus the value of feats as currency, and the difference now is just one of degree and personal preference.  Shall we agree to disagree?


  And if not, there's always paragon multiclassing.  However that ends up working out.


----------



## occam

It occurs to me that a well-balanced rule will generate the greatest amount of conflict, because it makes the optimal choice non-obvious. In fact, it makes the optimal choice very situation- and person-dependent. So far, we've got almost 20 pages on this topic in about a day; maybe WotC has achieved their goal with 4e multiclassing.

Then again, I am polishing off a 22-oz. near-12% abv imperial stout, so I may not be in the clearest state of mind at present.


----------



## Orius

First off, I am not reading through 550+ posts before commenting here.  I'll forget half of what I want to say, and I don't have the time to go through all those posts anway.

From what I can tell, it looks like it has potential.  Having played enough pre-3e and 3e, I've seen how D&D's multiclassing worked in the past.  Even if these rules turn out to be bad, the designers are addressing one of the weak points in the game.  

Old-school multiclassing was restricted to demihumans only, humans were stuck with that horrible dual classing stuff in 2e and maybe earlier.  Even then, the rules had limited numbers of multiclass options (given racial class restrictions), and there was only a single triple class option available, the elf (or was it half-elf?) fighter/thief/mage.  While XP slowed down a bit, the characters tended to be pretty strong, and always got the best THAC0 (usually fighter) and saves.

Then 3e had its problems with dipping.  I'm sure there are those who absolutely loved 3e's multiclassing (and I do agree it was an improvement over the old stuff) who'll disagree, but there were problems. Like taking a level of fighter just for full armor and martial weapon proficiency.  Like taking a level of monk with a divine caster for the Wis bonus to AC.  Like taking a level of paladin for the Cha bonus to saves.  And so on.  Yes, there were the XP penalties for doing that, but builds that worked with a favored class got around that.   In addition, multi-classing was a bad option most of the time for a caster, simply beause of lost spell levels.  Multiclassing in 3e was good when it involved 2 or 3 fairly compatible classes that worked well together, but the system was a bit too abusable, and penalized spell casters disproportionally.

This doesn't look too bad.  In essense, it  seems to go back to the tradition of two classes only while avoiding the overpowered mutliclasses of yore.  There's no need for a jack-of-all-trades multiclass build in the game, since D&D has long about teamwork and having a party of specialists who wrok together to overcome challenges.


----------



## Kordeth

hong said:
			
		

> Please, let us not go to "tradeoff power for flexibility". It is a funny place.




Now we're arguing two different points. I'm not saying the feat cost of multiclassing is balanced or fair or good--we can't make that decision until we see the PHB and can gauge whether Initiate Power is comparable with Toughness or Weapon Focus or whatever options there are. I'm just trying to point out that you aren't "losing" a power for multiclassing.


----------



## Kordeth

occam said:
			
		

> It occurs to me that a well-balanced rule will generate the greatest amount of conflict, because it makes the optimal choice non-obvious. In fact, it makes the optimal choice very situation- and person-dependent. So far, we've got almost 20 pages on this topic in about a day; maybe WotC has achieved their goal with 4e multiclassing.




Well, too be fair, we've got twenty pages of people arguing about what the rules _might_ be, not what the rules _are._ If we get twenty pages in a day around, say, June 13th or so,then you might be on to something.  



> Then again, I am polishing off a 22-oz. near-12% abv imperial stout, so I may not be in the clearest state of mind at present.




[Threadjack] Very nice--what are you drinking? I'm a huge imperial stout fan myself.[/Threadjack]


----------



## occam

Kordeth said:
			
		

> [Threadjack] Very nice--what are you drinking? I'm a huge imperial stout fan myself.[/Threadjack]




It's The Czar Imperial Stout, from Avery Brewing in Boulder, CO. Not bad, but some aging to bring out the flavors and improve the body would probably do it some good. Definitely packs a punch, though.

I'm still waiting for Full Sail to come out with another Black Gold Imperial Stout, which they're supposed to be doing this year, IIRC. Yum!

Back to your regularly scheduled thread....


----------



## Bishmon

Just to end my contribution to whatever this has become, I don't think these power-swap feats will be worthwhile. I might be wrong.

Done and done.


----------



## hong

Zelc said:
			
		

> It's not a power tradeoff for flexibility if the other class's ability synergizes with yours.  Hence the whole reason dips and crazy multiclass/PrC combinations were concocted in CharOp.



 That's one thing, I guess. If this rule does away with the combinations of six zillion level dips for obscure powers, with no plausible characterisation rationale other than a raw power grab, then it will be a Good Thing indeed.


----------



## Kordeth

occam said:
			
		

> It's The Czar Imperial Stout, from Avery Brewing in Boulder, CO. Not bad, but some aging to bring out the flavors and improve the body would probably do it some good. Definitely packs a punch, though.
> 
> I'm still waiting for Full Sail to come out with another Black Gold Imperial Stout, which they're supposed to be doing this year, IIRC. Yum!




Delicious indeed. If you can find it out in Colorado, I heartily recommend Stone Brewing's Russian Imperial Stout, or Port Brewing's Santa's Little Helper. Both very excellent beers, and I'm privileged enough to live within driving distance of both breweries. 



> Back to your regularly scheduled thread....




Err, right. Multiclassing. Yep. Suuuuuuuure do love that multiclassing.


----------



## Lurker37

Bishmon said:
			
		

> At the expense of increased tactical options in situations the class is intended for.
> 
> Let's say I'm a greatsword-using fighter. Sure, I could gain a ranger archery power that opens up a new tactical option, but that's at the expense of one of my own melee-focused powers, a power that keys off my prime attribute, works in more situations I will find myself in, works with the weapon I've been upgrading, and doesn't force me to spend actions to switch weapons.
> 
> I'm not saying your argument lacks any merit, just that it isn't quite as nice and easy as you make it seem.




Agreed. I tried to cover that by specifying that the power had to be well-chosen.  I fully expect that some classes and/or roles will get more mileage from certain multiclass powers than others. While I hope that this is not going to introduce a new form of system mastery, we unfortunately currently lack the information required to examine this in more detail.

And I don't expect to get these answers next month. It will probably take a month or so after the rules are released before we really begin to see how well these rules actually work in play. That's why I'm paying such close attention to what the playtesters say.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Personally, I see dipping as less a problem of the multiclassing system and more a problem of the internal design of classes- the more front-loaded the "kewl" powers within a class are, the more it makes sense to dip.

If, for example, a PrCl got all of its powers at 1st level, but at a very weak level (limited uses, diminished power, whatever), dipping might not be ideal.  Ditto making a PC stick in the class until lvl 5 or so.  Or perhaps basing a power's effectiveness on "class" levels, rather than PC levels.

Instead, many of the "problem" classes (base or PrCl), had some of the most valuable powers doled out at a significant power level very early on.

Consider: How many popular spellcaster PrCls give you access to an additional level of spells while making you sacrifice other class abilities.  Now ask yourself, how many popular ones give you a completely different spell progression plus some powers.

And where are the ones that give you all kinds of abilities, but almost completely eliminate progressing as a spellcaster?  Dragon Disciple and...?


----------



## small pumpkin man

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Optimization Schmoptimization- those commandments are garbage.
> 
> Multiclassing exists to help you find the best in-game representation of your mental vision of a PC, to realize that character & personality within the framework of the rules.  To do otherwise is to massage some rules to create a game artifact and slap a name on it- you might as well name them PC#1, PC#2, PC#3...PC#N.



And if the idea in your head isn't like Rincewind or Roger Wilco except without the amazing ability to suceed without skill, you would do well to follow those rules.


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Nobody's barred from actually multiclassing- you just see it as somehow unfair that a multiclassed spellcaster actually has to give up something of value (N number of spells of Z levels) in order to gain something else of value (extra combat feats, sneak attack, whatever).



Okay, see, no. The problem is that if your a 12th level Wizard, those things aren't "of value" to you at all. Not in the slightest.You don't care. _And you're giving up caster levels_. this means as has been pointed so many times in such discusions, that you _suck_. You have no greater variety for lessened power, you, just, suck.


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Do you honestly think that its usually the case that a general practice physician is as good at brain surgery as a dedicated specialist?  Or that someone who is a world-class marksman who plays piano is equally good at it?  What about a person who bowls once a week as opposed to someone who bowls twice a day?
> 
> NO- generally speaking, the person who picks one thing to practice is almost invariably better at it than those who dabble, and the 3.x multiclassing rules reflect that.



No, a Fighter/Rogue works like that, they can do both but not as good as a pure Fighter, or a pure Rogue, but it's can do both enough to contribute, that works. A 3.x Fighter/Wizard can neither Fight properly, nor blast/control/party buff/whatever Wizards normally do properly, making it a waste of everyone's time.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

Characters that "multiclass" by using Feats/Paragon powers are not supposed to necessarily be "more powerful" or "more playable" than characters that don't.  There are a ton of similar feats and even powers that are situational.  Like Ray of Frost or pretty much any non-healing Warlord ability.
They just make playing your character _different_.  Perhaps more flexible.
I believe that the ability to retrain makes power-swapping feats worthwhile as they are, 1 feat for 1 swap; others may disagree about the number of feats-to-powers, but overall it's apparent that the concept, for dabbling, is sound.

As I think I show in my thread, 4E makes it easier to "multiclass 50/50" from the get-go by simply making a class that combines the selection of powers in a way that makes sense.  The integration of systems formerly used to determine effects of abilities makes it possible in ways it wasn't before.
And if you don't want to go 50/50, dabbling seems to work fine.  And much, MUCH better than 3.x.

If you don't want to think hard about a good, standard combo class, let me know and I'll make it for you.


----------



## Ipissimus

Yup, not having read this whole thread, please bear that in mind, I'll go over my thoughts.

Overall, it looks pretty good. There isn't really one of these that pops out as 'better' than the others, though Student of the Sword comes close. But then 'Fighter: skill training' sounds like 'Military Intelligence' and the other feats give you comparable crunch. Gish will probably have to pick up an armour training feat if they want it.

I will be more impressed with it if they release feats that allow a PC to 'cherry pick' other class abilities from other classes in a limited fashion. I think 1/encounter is a nice limitation when the core class gets to do it whenever they like.

The point that I have to disagree with is that a PC should sacrifice power for versatility, which is probably why I feel it's a little off making a multiclass character spend a feat to swap a power. Rather, you're already sacrificing specialization for versatility which is a minor difference in phrasing, I'll admit, but one with deep implications (that should probably be the subject for another thread, so I won't waste anyone's time here on that). On the other hand, just giving a power away for a feat is too much in this case with inevitable synergy problems cropping up. A better 'deeper multiclassing' option might have been more feats that give extra encounter or daily powers from the at-will/encounter powers of other classes. Heck, those feats could even work alongside the ones presented to give everyone more options as to how their character works.

Aside from Conan, my other benchmarks for multiclassing rules are Cloud Strife and Sephiroth - if just for their visual thematics. Right now, the Wiz or Lock/SotS is looking fairly close to that image. As of now, though, this does not bode well for the conversion of my Mystic Theurge... though I'll admit, it might make the Wizard a little more useful from the back line.

I can see why they don't want more than one other class, though. I mean, imagine the 'front line' Wiz/SotS/IotF. Cool, yeah, but a little too cool.


----------



## Andor

hong said:
			
		

> I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.
> 
> Is this really worth a feat?




Would I spend a feat to allow my Wizard to give up Wind Wall in exchange for gaining Cure Serious Wounds? You'd better freaking believe it! 

Would I spend a feat to have my 5th level rogue give up 1d6 of his sneak attack in order to cast Invisibility once per day? Probably. Most rogues would think that's a pretty sweet deal.

Would I spend a feat to allow my Paladin to give up his special mount in exchange for casting Fly once per day? Depends on the Paladin, but for most, yeah.

Would a Druid spend a feat to give up his Wildshape in exchange for 1d6 sneak attack damage? Hell no! But he wouldn't whine about having the option.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Okay, see, no. The problem is that if your a 12th level Wizard, those things aren't "of value" to you at all. Not in the slightest.




If those things aren't "of value" to you at 12th level, then you shouldn't have taken them at all.


> You don't care. And you're giving up caster levels. this means as has been pointed so many times in such discusions, that you suck. You have no greater variety for lessened power, you, just, suck.




Your perception of "value" and "suck" differ from mine.  If being a relatively powerful wizard with some low-level thieving ability is how I envision my PC, then I'm satisfied with the value I'm getting and don't care what others think.

If I want my PC to be equally talented in magery and thievery and he's a 12th level PC, then he should probably be equivalent to a Wiz6 and a Rog6 in all ways that matter.

If, OTOH, I want my 12th level PC to be a wizard/rogue who is the equal of a 12th level rogue and a 12th level wizard in all regards...that's munchkinny.



> A 3.x Fighter/Wizard can neither Fight properly, nor blast/control/party buff/whatever Wizards normally do properly, making it a waste of everyone's time.




He _can _fight and spellsling properly- he just can't do so as well as a single classed version of either.  Cue the opening chords of White Lion's "When the Children Cry."

This isn't a _problem_, its a _consequence_ of being a generalist- you pay that price for being flexible.

Did you ever play M:tG?  Mono colored decks generally focused on one or two of the major powers of a given color.  Multichromatic decks couldn't control as well as a straight Blue deck, couldn't kill as well as a Red or Black deck, couldn't protect as well as a White deck, nor summon as quickly or powerfully as a Green deck, but were all about flexibility and could do a bit of each.


----------



## Zelc

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Personally, I see dipping as less a problem of the multiclassing system and more a problem of the internal design of classes- the more front-loaded the "kewl" powers within a class are, the more it makes sense to dip.



Here's the other problem.  If you can't front-load classes, then many classes are awful to play in the first few levels because they haven't gotten their defining abilities.  This provided a significant constraint on class design, which is especially noteworthy if you've tried to make a homebrew class.  You want to make it play and run smoothly from level 1, but you can't because then it'd be too good for dips.


And again, I'd like to re-emphasize that a lot of PrCs in 3.5 works exactly like the multiclassing system in 4e: you give up the prerequisites (feats, skill points, etc.) and the class abilities in your previous class in exchange for the prestige class's abilities.  See my example of the Beguiler 20 vs. the Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1.  Where this broke down (get PrC abilities at a low cost due to no good class abilities) was where the biggest opportunities for power-gaming came in.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> Here's the other problem. If you can't front-load classes, then many classes are awful to play in the first few levels because they haven't gotten their defining abilities.




That is the eternal conundrum of the class-based RPG system.



> And again, I'd like to re-emphasize that a lot of PrCs in 3.5 works exactly like the multiclassing system in 4e:




But if you're multiclassing with another base class, it seems as if you get one aspect of the new class without any of the underlying stuff- its a little like getting a roof without a foundation and a little like cutting in line.


----------



## Zelc

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If those things aren't "of value" to you at 12th level, then you shouldn't have taken them at all.



So no Wizards who want to be effective should multiclass/PrC?  Because giving up caster levels is almost never worth it power-wise.



> Your perception of "value" and "suck" differ from mine.  If being a relatively powerful wizard with some low-level thieving ability is how I envision my PC, then I'm satisfied with the value I'm getting and don't care what others think.
> 
> If I want my PC to be equally talented in magery and thievery and he's a 12th level PC, then he should probably be equivalent to a Wiz6 and a Rog6 in all ways that matter.
> 
> If, OTOH, I want my 12th level PC to be a wizard/rogue who is the equal of a 12th level rogue and a 12th level wizard in all regards...that's munchkinny.



Because power scales super-linearly with respect to levels, a Wiz6/Rog6 will be MUCH less powerful than a Rog12 or Wiz12 (especially the Wiz12).  You honestly think +3d6 sneak attack and Evasion can make up for the fact that you're casting 6d6 Fireballs or 7d6 Scorching Rays when he's casting 12d6 Cone of Colds and 12d6 Scorching Rays and Polymorph and Evard's Black Tentacles and Cloudkills and Walls of Stone and Disintegrate?



> He _can _fight and spellsling properly- he just can't do so as well as a single classed version of either.  Cue the opening chords of White Lion's "When the Children Cry."
> 
> This isn't a _problem_, its a _consequence_ of being a generalist- you pay that price for being flexible.



No, he can't fight or spellsling properly.  That +9 BAB and 6d6 Fireballs just won't cut it against 12th level monsters (note you can't cast both in one turn...).  Heck, a buffed Wiz12 with Polymorph (or possibly even Tenser's Transformation!) fights better in melee than a Fig6/Wiz6.  In an proper-CR encounter, a Fighter6/Wizard 6 will almost always contribute less to the fight than a Fighter 12 or Wizard 12, and the expected contribution will most definitely be less.  I challenge you to make a Fighter 6/Wizard 6 that contradicts this (prob start new thread in D&D rules).



> Did you ever play M:tG?  Mono colored decks generally focused on one or two of the major powers of a given color.  Multichromatic decks couldn't control as well as a straight Blue deck, couldn't kill as well as a Red or Black deck, couldn't protect as well as a White deck, nor summon as quickly or powerfully as a Green deck, but were all about flexibility and could do a bit of each.



I did play M:tG, and this is a horrible analogy.  Multicolor decks often created tons of synergy and powerful/broken combos.  Blue-green Madness comes to mind.  I also played a ton of T1, and pretty much every deck was multi-colored because the single-colored decks just couldn't keep up in sheer power.  Mono-blue decks often weren't the best control decks because they had limited ways of dealing with stuff that actually gets past the counterwall.

Adding another color splash to a deck just for the purposes of added flexibility (i.e. adding White or Green just for Disenchant/Naturalize to deal with enchants/artifacts) often creates color-screw issues and weakens the deck as a whole.  And it's not nearly as bad in MtG as it is in D&D.


----------



## ryryguy

All this "it costs a feat and a power to get a power" and "it just costs a feat" argument suddenly made me recall something from my dark and distant past.  as a bonus it even involves food!  (But not generic food - this is a true story!)

I was about four or five years old, at the swimming pool, going to the snack bar to buy a cheeseburger.  Now I don't remember the actual sums and coins involved, let's say I had four dimes and four nickels, and the price of a cheeseburger was 55 cents.  My grasp of financial matters was still somewhat shaky, but I did understand that you could give more money than the price and get change back.  So I put my 60 cents on the counter and asked for the burger.

The snack bar guy naturally slid one of the nickels back over to me - "It's just 55 cents, kid."  

But I pushed it back over.  "I know how much it is - now you have to give me change!"  

"Right, kid, and here's the change!"  Sliding the nickel back to me.

"No, that's not change, that's the nickel I just gave you!"  Sliding the nickel back to him.

This repeated a couple of times, with the guy teetering between amusement and annoyance.  Finally he picked up all the coins, put them in the register, pulled a nickel back out of the register and handed it back along with the burger.  At last I was satisfied. "Took him long enough to understand how this works!" I thought.

So... yeah.  It cost four dimes and four nickels to get a cheeseburger _and_ one nickel.  Just like it costs a feat _and_ a power to get a power.  

Net costs: 55 cents; one feat.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> So no Wizards who want to be effective should multiclass/PrC? Because giving up caster levels is almost never worth it power-wise.




They are effective.  They're just not as effective as pure spellcasters of equivalent experience, and there is no logical reason why they should be.  The dedicated caster "paid the cost to be the boss"- he did the high-level magic studies and research while the multiclasser was out in the practice yard with the Sergeant of Arms doing sword practice.



> Because power scales super-linearly with respect to levels, a Wiz6/Rog6 will be MUCH less powerful than a Rog12 or Wiz12 (especially the Wiz12).




As it should be.



> You honestly think +3d6 sneak attack and Evasion can make up for the fact that you're casting 6d6 Fireballs or 7d6 Scorching Rays when he's casting 12d6 Cone of Colds and 12d6 Scorching Rays and Polymorph and Evard's Black Tentacles and Cloudkills and Walls of Stone and Disintegrate?




Yes, yes, yes- from a roleplaying perspective, 1000 times yes.  The guy with the +3d6 SA and Evasion decided to learn the ways of the back alleys while eschewing time in the stacks of arcane libraries.



> No, he can't fight or spellsling properly. <stuff> I challenge you to make a Fighter 6/Wizard 6 that contradicts this (prob start new thread in D&D rules).




I can't, and I never said I could.

He fights like a 6th level fighter and he casts like a 6th level spellcaster- which is as it should be.  Why would I expect him to contribute like a 12th level solo-classed PC?

Look at decatheletes.  They participate in 10 different track and field events.  I'd bet none of them could compete against dedicated specialists in those events, and probably couldn't _qualify _as Olympians in even a single event against a field of specialists.  Heck, they might only just be competitive at the collegiate level within a single event.


> I did play M:tG, and this is a horrible analogy.




Not really- I've played since Alpha.  I'm a "Mr. Suitcase."  (Or, more accurately, a "Mr. Bunchofstoragetrunks.)

You only saw the rise of multiclolored decks after certain cards got banned from tournament play.

As cards cycled in and out of play with the introduction and retirement of sets, mono and chromatic deck designs waxed and waned in power.

But the point remains- no deck counters like a straight blue deck, no deck does direct damage like a straight red deck, etc.

And no caster outperforms a straight caster.


----------



## Zelc

I suppose I should clarify the MtG thing a bit.  Doing Rog6/Wiz6 is like taking a mono-red Sligh deck and combining it with a mono-blue Permission deck.  It gives you added flexibility (hey, you can swing with creatures AND counter spells!) but it generally doesn't synergize.  

Something like Rogue3/Wiz3/Arcane Trickster 6 is like making a R/U aggro-control deck in a format where the legal cards aren't great for making R/U aggro-control decks.  You can do it, and there's more synergy than just mashing together the Sligh and Permission decks, but it's not going to be a competitive deck.

Something like Rogue1/Wiz 4/Unseen Seer 7 is like making an R/U aggro-control deck with some cards that are awesome for the aggro-control.  Here, this deck may be one of the best in the format, and both colors are adding enough synergy to justify the costs.  The reason to make this a 2-color deck is not flexibility, but power.


----------



## small pumpkin man

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If those things aren't "of value" to you at 12th level, then you shouldn't have taken them at all.



EXACTLY.



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Your perception of "value" and "suck" differ from mine.  If being a relatively powerful wizard with some low-level thieving ability is how I envision my PC, then I'm satisfied with the value I'm getting and don't care what others think.



Which is simulated far better in 4e by just taking skill training theivery. (or in 3.x by taking that feat from races of destiny, although even that becomes less useful later on)


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If I want my PC to be equally talented in magery and thievery and he's a 12th level PC, then he should probably be equivalent to a Wiz6 and a Rog6 in all ways that matter.
> 
> If, OTOH, I want my 12th level PC to be a wizard/rogue who is the equal of a 12th level rogue and a 12th level wizard in all regards...that's munchkinny.



Yeah, that's exactly what I said. I said "I want to be able to do everything and be a complete munchkin", in fact, here's the quote


			
				SPM said:
			
		

> I want multiclassing to be like playing gestalt in a normal game



*sigh*

Look, I realize CR isn't exact, but when one 6th level Rogue and one 6th level Wizard is worth one level 8 Wizard I think we can safely say someone playing a character who has 6th level Rogue abilities and 6th level Wizard abilities isn't actually able to effect the world like a 12th level character is.




			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> He _can _fight and spellsling properly- he just can't do so as well as a single classed version of either.  Cue the opening chords of White Lion's "When the Children Cry."



No, he can't use it to make a reasonable difference to appropriate level encounters, meaning he might as well not be able to do it all.


			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This isn't a _problem_, its a _consequence_ of being a generalist- you pay that price for being flexible.
> 
> Did you ever play M:tG?  Mono colored decks generally focused on one or two of the major powers of a given color.  Multichromatic decks couldn't control as well as a straight Blue deck, couldn't kill as well as a Red or Black deck, couldn't protect as well as a White deck, nor summon as quickly or powerfully as a Green deck, but were all about flexibility and could do a bit of each.



Yes, duh, obviously a tradeoff needs to be made, this is _basic_ designer stuff.  But finding that balance is not as obvious as you seem to think, as far as I can tell, it's one of the toughest problems in game design, there are extensive articles about this on Wizard's very site, about the Bard etc, and about how they put far too much importance on the "generalist" aspect for Bards and monks, and far too little in the case of the pure spellcasters various abilities, even Hong has made about 6-7 posts in this very thread saying "we don't need to get into that argument again" but there's always someone, sin't there?


----------



## Zelc

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> They are effective.  They're just not as effective as pure spellcasters of equivalent experience, and there is no logical reason why they should be.  The dedicated caster "paid the cost to be the boss"- he did the high-level magic studies and research while the multiclasser was out in the practice yard with the Sergeant of Arms doing sword practice.
> 
> [...]
> 
> Yes, yes, yes- from a roleplaying perspective, 1000 times yes.  The guy with the +3d6 SA and Evasion decided to learn the ways of the back alleys while eschewing time in the stacks of arcane libraries.
> 
> [...]
> 
> He fights like a 6th level fighter and he casts like a 6th level spellcaster- which is as it should be.  Why would I expect him to contribute like a 12th level solo-classed PC?



Why do I expect him to contribute as a 12th level PC*?  Because he's a 12th level PC, and he's part of the team who'll be facing 12th level encounters?  Because it's really really hard (maybe practically impossible) to design an encounter that can challenge both him and the rest of his party if he's much weaker than the party?  Because the game just doesn't work as well if he's not as powerful as a 12th level PC?  Because it's not fun to play the gimped character?

Neither the PC nor the DM should be punished this heavily for making a roleplaying decision.  I may want my character to learn the ways of the back alleys, but I don't want him to be gimped and be the joke of the party in fights.  And if learning the ways of the back alleys requires gimping the character, well, that's a lot fewer people who'll have their characters learn the ways of the back alleys.  You should be glad the costs of multiclassing is lower; now people can take up RP opportunities without turning themselves into dead weight in fights.


*Note I did not say "Contribute as a 12th level Wizard and a 12th level Rogue in 1".  Obviously, that would be more powerful than a normal 12th level PC.

ETA: Ironically, multiclassing hurts you if you want to be able to do everything and be a complete munchkin".  Pun-Pun is best achieved with a single-class character, after all...


----------



## Wolv0rine

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> QFT...and I wish I had said that!



Why thank you, that may be the first time someone's QFT'ed me in 6 frelling years. 



			
				Fallen Seraph said:
			
		

> Well you sorta do have access to all divine powers, you simply can only equip one per-feat. However, seeing how you can change that power each level, you can adapt it to suit the circumstance you feel is best for the way your character is developing.
> 
> This adds in my eyes a lot of flexibility.



So, you forgo one of your normal class progression abilities *and* blow a feat, and (in the case of a spellcasting dip) you get *one* spell, and you can swap out that spell only upon leveling.  You don't even get like, 1 floating spell slot...  you get one spell.  I mean I could see this as being a little more valid if you could change your one spell at any time like other spellcasters can, but only on levelup?  Ehh.



			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Wolv0rine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> IMHO, it’s not a matter of “is it worth a feat?” or any such similar questions, the question is “Is this Multi-classing?”, and to me, the answer is unequivocally (to the point of being faintly insulting) “No”.
> This is dipping, as has been pointed out. And if it had been included as a sub-system completely separate from the concept of Multi-classing . . . then it would have been interesting. Very interesting. Class-dipping feats is cool. Class dipping feats as the Multi-classing mechanics is terrible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A class is defined by its powers and a short list of features, and multi-classing gives you access to another classes powers and some of those features. You agree that when you multi-class, you can't simply add two first level characters together. If we start with 7 powers, when we level up it wouldn't make sense to now have 14 powers. It would be overpowered. So how do you do it? What you call the "dipping" system is what they decided on. So is the problem that the system over-limits you? In what ways could the system change in order to meet your definition of multi-classing? Mechanically speaking.
Click to expand...


The system would have to provide me with a means to gain 1 full level of the class I’ve multi-classed into, not ask me to blow a feat and give me a nibble of 1 level of the class I multi-classed into.  That’s the thing, you’re not gaining 1 level of the multi’ed class, you’re gaining 1 piece of 1 level of that class.



			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Wolv0rine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously? Is this one of the ‘problems with 3E multi-classing’? Because to my mind this is just better class design technique. Of course you spread out class benefits over the levels, otherwise you’ve got a front-loaded class that no-one wants to take more levels in because it’s dull and tasteless after you’ve gotten your initial burst of class benefits. *boggles*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet spot starts at level 1 in fourth edition. The 4E wizard character sheet starts with 7 spells or whatever because the creators are confident that no one is going to do a 1-level dip in wizard in order to get the 7 spells and then run. Because you can't, that's not how multi-classing works anymore. So, you can have fun and interesting classes from the start. In third edition, a 1st level wizard had 1 spell to cast, because like you said, they weren't front loaded. If you enjoy that more, by all means, continue with third edition.
Click to expand...


But you’re not _getting_ 7 spells with a 1 level dip, you’re gaining 1 spell.  You’re still only getting 1 piece of 1 level.  At least in 3E if I take a level in another class, I get all the benefits of that one level.  If I multi into 1st level Wizard, I may get one spell…  and Summon Familiar, and Scribe Scroll, etc.  If I take more levels in Wizard, I’m going to get the full progression of spells for however many levels I took, not just 1 spell per Wizard level I take.


			
				fuzzlewump said:
			
		

> Wolv0rine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is this another one of the ‘problems’, that multi-classed spellcasters were less powerful spellcasters (unless they multi-classed into a spellcasting PrC)? Because, that just makes sense to me. If you’ve changed or diminished your study/practice to focus on something else, you’re going to fall a bit behind. And it seems the concept of “giving up some power for concept” is considered a good thing, from the posts in this thread at least. Again, *boggles*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not less powerful: unworkable. Giving up spell progression was beyond "less powerful." In fourth edition, you give up a power of equal level, say, level 7, and gain a level 7 wizard ability. So, you don't have to get wizard powers of half your level. Sorry for the brevity, but those are the main points.
Click to expand...


I see the points, I just don’t like/agree with them.  If I’m multi-classing wizard levels, I know from the start that I’m not going to be a full-power Wizard.  If I wanted to be a full-power Wizard, I’d have gone full-Wizard levels.  I just don’t understand how making the choice to split your focus makes the system unworkable.  I mean, you know going into it that splitting your focus is going to make you less powerful in both/all of your areas of focus.  You’re giving up raw power for diversity, but you’re still getting the full measure of the levels you take.  Unlike the 4E excerpt, which shows us getting (to borrow from the food analogy earlier up-thread) our choice of a cherry, a banana, a scoop of ice cream, or some chocolate syrup when we ordered a banana split.

And this is on top of the idea that for having feat-dipped, you get that one class ability at the same degree of skill as someone whose single classes the class you multi'ed it from.  Which is just a concept that also grates on my sensibilities.  I blew a feat and bypassed one of my primary class abilities to learn one trick from another class.  BUT, I'm just as good at that one thing as the expert single-classed guy.  Does it balance out?  Yeah kinda, but it's just...  illogical from a non-mechanical POV.


----------



## AtomicPope

FireLance said:
			
		

> Let's put it this way. A 4th-level character with a multiclass training feat has one 1st-level encounter power of his primary class and one 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class. If he selects the Novice Power feat, he can either:
> 
> 1. Replace his 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class with a 3rd-level encounter power of his secondary class; or
> 
> 2. Replace his 1st-level encounter power of his primary class with a 1st-level encounter power of his secondary class; or
> 
> 3. Replace his 3rd-level encounter power of his primary class with a 1st-level encounter power of his secondary class.



Now we're getting somewhere 

Ok, the way I'm reading the WotC sneak peek is that when you multiclass the 1st feat gives you:
1) Skill Training - one skill counts as being trained.  This is a big deal in Stars Wars Saga since there are no skill points.  I heard rumors (dismiss them at will) that class skills (not universal) cannot be trained w/o a feat.
2) Limited access to an At Will power - The powers listed are At Will powers derived from core classes but have an additional limitation.  For instance, the Cleric's Healing Word is an At Will 2/encounter power (or so says the rumors).  For multiclassers it becomes a 1/day.

A character with a Multiclass power feat gains access to an additional power (the "entry fee") without trading one of their own, thereby gaining (one hopes) some additional functionality in battle.  These powers are in addition to their standard class At Will powers.  I'm guessing this because there's no indication under _Initiate of the Faith _ that the multiclass character loses their primary class At Will power.  To give classes more At Will powers from a different source might be too much.  



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Given that he has already chosen the 3rd-level and 1st-level encounter powers from his primary class, they can't be too shabby. In fact, they would probably be the powers that the player feels are either most useful or most appropriate to the character. Hence, it is not correct to say that the best power from the seconday class replaces the _*worst*_ power from the primary class. It is in fact replacing one of the better (if not the best) powers from the primary class.



I find this viewpoint a bit problematic - Better and Best.  It's hard for me to say what's better or best for a character without having a concept in mind.  Take the _Sneak of Shadows _ for instance.  This entry level multiclass feat gives the player access to Sneak Attack once per encounter.  If a Ranger or Warlock (both strikers) gained access to this they could stack that with their Hunter's Quarry or Curses, respectively, to do some serious extra damage.  What I see is not so much trading powers (in this case, none are lost and a feature is gained), but focusing on a central theme.

In 1e,2e, and 3e it was all but impossible to have a group of adventurers that were all "Mercenary Rogues" for hire.  The reason is the skill system wouldn't support it.  You couldn't have a Paladin/Rogue (or Thief) in previous editions because he would lose out on so many Pally Powers and have no skills to speak of as a Rogue.  Now that's not the case.  The Paladin, or Wizard, or Cleric, or Fighter could take _Sneak of Shadows _ and get access to Rogue skills that will be useful, even at higher levels.  The same could be said for a group of Wizard adventurers that is entirely affiliated with a god (lets say Boccob) and has access to some priestly abilities, yet loses none of their spell casting powers - _Initiate of the Faith_.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Now, I do recognize that there is an advantage in gaining a power from another class. What is not clear to me is whether the relative gain in utility is worth a feat (remember, we're replacing the best with the best here). As previously mentioned, I think that one feat for three swaps (replacing the best encounter, utility, and daily powers of the primary class with the best encounter, utility and daily powers of the secondary class) is about right. Alternatively, a single feat could give the player the option to use either of the best powers from his primary or secondary class (i.e. the player selects an encounter power from the seconday class. Once per encounter, he may use that power by spending an encounter power from his primary class of that power's level or lower. So, if he selected a 3rd-level encounter power from his secondary class, he could use it once per encounter by spending his 3rd-level encounter power from his primary class. If he selected a 1st-level encounter power from his secondary class, he can use it once per encounter by spending his 3rd- or 1st-level encounter power from his primary class).



I've read the "PHB Lite" from En World and some of the Spells and Exploits are awesome.  What's interesting is the access to class ablities are no longer limited by Stat Scores, only multiclassing is.  What I mean is, a Wizard doesn't need to have a 19 Int just to have access to 9th level spells anymore.  This frees up characters quite a bit.  A fighter could have a high level Cleric Prayer or Wizard Spell with only a 13 Int or Wis (impossible in previous editions).  From what I've seen in the demonstrations, Action Points allow characters to perform crazy combinations.



			
				FireLance said:
			
		

> Of course, this assessment is based on what I know of the powers that have been released so far. I'll make a final decision after the rules have been released and I've managed to play around with the system for a while.



Meh, rumors and demos were enough for me


----------



## Zelc

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> So, you forgo one of your normal class progression abilities *and* blow a feat, and (in the case of a spellcasting dip) you get *one* spell, and you can swap out that spell only upon leveling.  You don't even get like, 1 floating spell slot...  you get one spell.  I mean I could see this as being a little more valid if you could change your one spell at any time like other spellcasters can, but only on levelup?  Ehh.



*This is what happens in 3.5e as well!!*

Beguiler 20 vs. Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1.  I have the option of giving up a bunch of skill points (both in prereqs and skill points/level) and the Beguiler class ability to ignore SR against flat-footed opponents in exchange for the Mindbender class ability of telepathy 100'.  So give up the equivalent of a weak feat to exchange one class ability for another.  Of course, this breaks down slightly when you take more than one level of the PrC, but then you're still exchanging your base class abilities for the PrC abilities.

Plus the other spellcasters can only change their spells when they level up in 4e.  So no difference here.




> I just don’t understand how making the choice to split your focus makes the system unworkable.



Try making a Rogue 6/Wizard 6 that can contribute in a 12th level encounter.  Heck, even a Rogue 2/Wizard 10 is probably on par with if not slightly weaker than a Wizard 11.



> BUT, I'm just as good at that one thing as the expert single-classed guy.  Does it balance out?  Yeah kinda, but it's just...  illogical from a non-mechanical POV.



The feat could have been used to improve your primary class's capabilities.  So you are weaker.


----------



## Stalker0

Wolv0rine said:
			
		

> Why thank you, that may be the first time someone's QFT'ed me in 6 frelling years.




If it makes you feel better, that phrase has only been commonly used on the boards for about a year and change


----------



## Wolv0rine

Zelc said:
			
		

> Wolv0rine said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So, you forgo one of your normal class progression abilities and blow a feat, and (in the case of a spellcasting dip) you get one spell, and you can swap out that spell only upon leveling. You don't even get like, 1 floating spell slot... you get one spell. I mean I could see this as being a little more valid if you could change your one spell at any time like other spellcasters can, but only on levelup? Ehh.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *This is what happens in 3.5e as well!!*
> 
> Beguiler 20 vs. Beguiler 19/Mindbender 1.  I have the option of giving up a bunch of skill points (both in prereqs and skill points/level) and the Beguiler class ability to ignore SR against flat-footed opponents in exchange for the Mindbender class ability of telepathy 100'.  So give up the equivalent of a weak feat to exchange one class ability for another.  Of course, this breaks down slightly when you take more than one level of the PrC, but then you're still exchanging your base class abilities for the PrC abilities.
Click to expand...


I’m honestly not familiar with the Beguiler or Mindbender classes.  So I’ll use another pair of classes that I am familiar with.
Barbarian 20 vs. Barbarian 19/Assassin 1:

Barbarian 20 gets +1/+1/+1/+1 BAB, +1 Fort Save, Mighty Rage and and a 6th rage/day for his 20th Barb level.
Barbarian 19/Assassin 1 gets +2 Ref Save, Sneak attack +1d6, Death Attack, Poison Use, and opens up the progression of spell slots for his 20th character level.

The 4E-style Barbarian 19/Assassin 1 ignores all of the BAB and Save stuff because it’s all the same from what I’ve gathered (or that part of the analogy from 3E to 4E doesn’t translate, either way), and he gets to choose Sneak attack +1d6, death attack, poison use, OR the opening up of progression of spell slots for his 20th character level (which also, granted, doesn’t translate, but I’m using a Core Class and a PrC, because being unfamiliar with the classes you referenced, I presumed Mindbender might be a PrC, I could be wrong).  
But the point still stands, the 3E multi-classed character got the full measure of that 1 level, he didn’t have to chose either the Ref Save OR the Sneak Attk OR the Death Attk, OR the Poison Use…  etc, for his 1 Assassin level.



			
				Zelc said:
			
		

> Plus the other spellcasters can only change their spells when they level up in 4e.  So no difference here.



Hmm?  From what I’d gathered a 1st level Wizard has 7 spells, and can change which one(s) he has ‘up’ after resting.  The feat-dipped Ftr/Wiz has 1 spell, and he can decide to swap it out for a different one when he levels up if he doesn’t like the one he took, as far as I understand it.



			
				Zelc said:
			
		

> Try making a Rogue 6/Wizard 6 that can contribute in a 12th level encounter.  Heck, even a Rogue 2/Wizard 10 is probably on par if not slightly weaker than a Wizard 11.



Can I make a Sneak Attack with my magic missile?  (DM: Ahh, no)  Okay, Rog6/Wiz6…  that gives me 4/3/3/2 for spell levels.  I’ll ignore the 0-lvl spells because most of them aren’t going to help the point (okay, it’s because it’s nearly 2 am and I don’t want to type a synopsis for every spell level, just the highlights).  Spells Prepared (in an attempt to contribute in a 12th level encounter, not from any real way I’d build a character)
1st Level: Protection from (alignment, likely Evil), Ray of Enfeeblement, and Magic Weapon.
2nd Level: Hypnotic Pattern (that’s a potential 14 HD of fascination if I’m lucky), Invisibility (x2)
3rd Level: Fly and Ray of Exhaustion

Right off the bat I’m going to get the benefit of Prot from Evil, that’s good.  I Magic Weapon my Weapon, and hit the toughest-looking opponent I can determine with Ray of Enfeeblement (1d6 +3 Str Damage) before I even get into the thick of things (because I’m a Rogue, unless we just got jumped in a wicked ambush I am NOT in front of the marching order).  I slap down a Hypnotic Pattern and hope that the dice favor me or the encounter is made up of many smaller HD monsters and not a few higher HD ones so that it at least catches one or a few of them.  That’s a “cool if it works, but if not, no big” choice.  I cast Invis, close and Sneak Attack.  I retreat if possible and cast Fly, Ray of Exhaustion, then Invis again, and Sneak Attack another target.  After that (since my Invis is nullified a second time because I attacked) I ride out the duration of Fly and snipe with a bow.  When Fly ends, I engage in the battle as a 6th level Rogue.

I’m not tumbling all over the battlefield Sneak Attacking and whatnot as well as a 12th level Rogue, and I’m sure not laying down the arcane artillery like a 12th level Wizard, but even if half the spells (that don’t target myself) don’t have much effect, I still had an interesting tactic available to me during the battle, and given the fact that I decided to MC in the first place, I expected 6 levels ago to not be as smack-down powerful as the single-classed 12th level party members.  But boy howdy I got 8 spells for those 6 Wiz levels (not counting cantrips), and I didn’t even include any scrolls I probably scribed at any given point, and completely neglected to include any uses I might try to put my (carefully chosen to match my character’s personality and style, of course) familiar.  So yeah, I’d be happy to say I made a healthy contribution in the 12th level encounter.  Maybe not stellar, maybe no-one went “WOW!”, but I was in there.



			
				Zelc said:
			
		

> The feat could have been used to improve your primary class's capabilities.  So you are weaker.



Yes, you are weaker by one feat, you are weaker in your primary class, and as your reward you get 1 fraction of a level of another class.  IMO, our theoretical “you” just got robbed.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> If it makes you feel better, that phrase has only been commonly used on the boards for about a year and change



I know, but it's still nice when someone bothers to mention you made a good point, or made a point nicely (regardless of it's strength), or both.  I don't really throw into threads very often, so my posts tend to get bypassed and overlooked alot.  This thread's been surprisingly responsive to my involvement.  It's rather nice.  That you WotC for screwing up MCing badly enough to generate a thread I had to stop and vehemently bitch in!


----------



## Kishin

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Cue the opening chords of White Lion's "When the Children Cry."




I disagree with the point you were making about Fighter/Mages in 3.5E (In all honesty, it is a dark and dreary road where the rest of the party's effectiveness quickly outpaces yours, and instead of 'not as good at X as primary class' you eventually become 'fail at both X and Y'), but that quoted retort right there won you this and possibly all other threads for the next two days.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> In all honesty, it is a dark and dreary road where the rest of the party's effectiveness quickly outpaces yours, and instead of 'not as good at X as primary class' you eventually become 'fail at both X and Y'




In 30+ years of playing D&D, I have played very few single-classed PCs- perhaps as little as 5%- and I have _not once_ missed the power of a solo-classed PC.  Concerns about effectiveness are, have always been, and always will be secondary to my concerns about whether a particular set of abilities (in whatever system) most accurately represents the idealized version of the PC floating in my head.

This is one of those things in 4Ed that makes me feel as if they're trying to get me to trade my heroes for ghosts.

This is ultimately one area of gaming in which its probably impossible for the sides to reconcile with each other, so let's just agree to disagree (profoundly).



> that quoted retort right there won you this and possibly all other threads for the next two days.




I'm glad any day I can make someone besides me smile!


----------



## Torchlyte

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In 30+ years of playing D&D, I have played very few single-classed PCs- perhaps as little as 5%- and I have _not once_ missed the power of a solo-classed PC.  Concerns about effectiveness are, have always been, and always will be secondary to my concerns about whether a particular set of abilities (in whatever system) most accurately represents the idealized version of the PC floating in my head.
> 
> This is one of those things in 4Ed that makes me feel as if they're trying to get me to trade my heroes for ghosts.
> 
> This is ultimately one area of gaming in which its probably impossible for the sides to reconcile with each other, so let's just agree to disagree (profoundly).




...but isn't the persistent complaint on this thread that these new multiclass options are "weaker" because they cost feats? Nevermind that they have the enormous advantage of not disrupting your character's spell level/sneak attack/rage advancement (in 3e terms).



			
				Andor said:
			
		

> Would I spend a feat to allow my Wizard to give up Wind Wall in exchange for gaining Cure Serious Wounds? You'd better freaking believe it!
> 
> Would I spend a feat to have my 5th level rogue give up 1d6 of his sneak attack in order to cast Invisibility once per day? Probably. Most rogues would think that's a pretty sweet deal.
> 
> Would I spend a feat to allow my Paladin to give up his special mount in exchange for casting Fly once per day? Depends on the Paladin, but for most, yeah.
> 
> Would a Druid spend a feat to give up his Wildshape in exchange for 1d6 sneak attack damage? Hell no! But he wouldn't whine about having the option.




QFT

Edit: Which is better, Toughness (23 HP at level 20) or a power swap feat? How good is Lethal Hunter (d6 quarry => d8 quarry), really? How good is Backstabber (d6 SA => d8 SA), really? I think the opportunity cost of these feats is being overstated on this thread.


----------



## Hambot

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Going by the DDXP sample characters, the abilities a fighter gets to fulfill the role of defender... are not Exploits.  You cannot act as a defender, even if you invest heavily in fighter MC.  If you can't pick up the ability to fulfill a second class role (even crappily), yes, it is dabbling.
> 
> Of course, being able to pick up a second class-role through feats would probably be overpowered, which is why previous editions made doing so cost levels.




*Cough*  Leadership feat *cough*  I choose a codzilla cohort.

Yup.  Overpowered.  Been there, DM'd that.

Although I did like the leadership feat for turning a mount into a cohort that didn't die to a random 10d6 fireball.


----------



## Mirtek

Mokona said:
			
		

> You agree with me that *D&D* is written with rules and guidelines so that it is better to have one of each role.  So why punish parties that choose to fill the "missing" Controller role with mutliclassing?  The punishment is making multiclassing too expensive.
> 
> Below Andy makes my point that you should have each role even if you have to multiclass to cover a missing role.
> [...]
> *going entirely without any one of them means you're likely to have a significant vulnerability* to cover in other ways.



Which is a quote about something that was true in earlier editions (in this case from 200*6* and is one of the stated goals of 4e to get away from (to make the 4 martial or 4 arcane, ... party viable)


----------



## see

Kordeth said:
			
		

> All characters get the same number of power selections every time they gain the appropriate level--"losing" a class power in this instant is _absolutely no different_ than choosing, say, Cleave instead of Tide of Iron from your own class's list of powers. You aren't losing anything, you're making a choice. A choice, remember, that retraining allows you to make even as a single class character.




The opportunity cost of something is equal to the value of the next best choice you could make.  So, if your two top choices for the one power you can select are Cleave and Tide of Iron, and you very slightly prefer Cleave, then the opportunity cost of selecting Cleave is Tide of Iron.  That _is_ a cost.  You could have the benefits of Tide of Iron, and you are giving them up for the benefits of Cleave.  Tide of Iron's benefits are what you're paying for Cleave.

To make it really explicit — in 3e, your 19th-level wizard, upon reaching 20th level, could take a single level of cleric.  The opportunity cost of that was giving up a 20th level of wizard.  You clearly lost more than you gained by making that choice, didn't you?  That loss was opportunity cost.  Yes, you're still better than a 19th-level wizard, but that isn't the basis for the comparison; the comparison is to what else you could have done with that 20th character level.

Less extremely, consider a 20th level 3e wizard in combat, who is down to two spells – _meteor swarm_ and _fireball_.  The cost for casting _meteor swarm_ this round is giving up the damage from _fireball_ this round.

You're playing chess.  You could move your rook to safely capture your opponent's knight, or you could you could move your bishop to safely capture his rook.  If you take the rook (the more powerful piece), your opportunity cost was his knight.

You want another class's power in 4e?  Then you're paying the explicit cost of a feat and the opportunity cost of the best power in your class you could have chosen otherwise.

The question then becomes, will another class's power generally be worth the combined cost of losing a feat and the best available in-class power?  *If* the powers of the classes are finely balanced enough that the best available out-of-class power doesn't make you more powerful than the best available in-class power, the answer will be no; selecting a cross-class power will always be a suboptimal build because you gave up both an in-class power and a feat, and in exchange got a power only as powerful as your in-class power.


----------



## Mirtek

Kordeth said:
			
		

> If I go to the restaurant, peruse the menu, and decide to order a cheeseburger, am I throwing away options because I order the eggs benedict instead? (Assume for the moment I'm not an enormous glutton and am, in fact, capable of eating only one meal at any given mealtime.)



If you are only allowed to order eggs benedict if you order your cheeseburger without cheese you are.

So you would have A+B +feat. Of you can swap the feat to get A+C.  A=B=C

In the former case you have 2 options plus the power of the feat (no matter how small it may be). In the later you just have two options and no added feat

Because you sacrificed the feat to get C instead of B and since B&C are equally powerfull you did not gain any increase in power from that to balance out for the lost power of the feat.


----------



## Mirtek

Zelc said:
			
		

> So no Wizards who want to be effective should multiclass/PrC?  Because giving up caster levels is almost never worth it power-wise.



The funny thing is that late 3.5's solution to this was to burn a feat (for practiced spellcaster)


----------



## FireLance

AtomicPope said:
			
		

> A character with a Multiclass power feat gains access to an additional power (the "entry fee") without trading one of their own, thereby gaining (one hopes) some additional functionality in battle.  These powers are in addition to their standard class At Will powers.  I'm guessing this because there's no indication under _Initiate of the Faith _ that the multiclass character loses their primary class At Will power.  To give classes more At Will powers from a different source might be too much.



I've got no issues with the first multiclass feat (if anything, I wonder if it might be a little _over_powered). I'm just not convinced that the subsequent multiclass swap feats are worthwhile. In addition, I wanted to point out the fallacy in the argument that the swap is worth a feat because the character is exchanging the "worst" power in his primary class with the "best" power in his secondary one.


----------



## Delgar

Well I think it's clear with the number of people saying the tradeoff is worth it, and the number of people that say it's not worth it, that they got it right.

It's clearly not a MUST have option and it's clearly not a completely terrible option, and that sounds balanced to me.


----------



## chitzk0i

Mirtek said:
			
		

> If you are only allowed to order eggs benedict if you order your cheeseburger without cheese you are.
> 
> So you would have A+B +feat. Of you can swap the feat to get A+C.  A=B=C
> 
> In the former case you have 2 options plus the power of the feat (no matter how small it may be). In the later you just have two options and no added feat
> 
> Because you sacrificed the feat to get C instead of B and since B&C are equally powerfull you did not gain any increase in power from that to balance out for the lost power of the feat.




I think you're losing something by simplifying it that much.  A, B, and C are not identical like you've asserted.  A and B are distinct from each other and belong to a set of objects.  C belongs to another set of objects.  Is it worth it to pay resources to draw objects from two different sets instead of drawing from just one set?  

To answer that question, we would need to know the differences between the objects in each set and the value of the resource we're giving up.  We don't know for sure any of that.  We know a few of the objects in each set and we can make some educated guesses about the value of the resource we're giving up, but _that's all_.  We don't know enough.


----------



## Voss

see said:
			
		

> The question then becomes, will another class's power generally be worth the combined cost of losing a feat and the best available in-class power?  *If* the powers of the classes are finely balanced enough that the best available out-of-class power doesn't make you more powerful than the best available in-class power, the answer will be no; selecting a cross-class power will always be a suboptimal build because you gave up both an in-class power and a feat, and in exchange got a power only as powerful as your in-class power.




It isn't quite that simple, however.  If you choose a power that functions better with your other choices (synergy) or uses a better stat than the other powers available to you (optimizing), you aren't making a suboptimal choice.  Plus, given that powers do many, many different things, 'more powerful' becomes something extremely complex.  If your class doesn't have any defensive powers or extra action powers or area effect powers, it may be useful to pick one up.  A lot of powers don't function on an easily rated 'this does the most damage, so is therefor most powerful' rubric.

You're also, of course, paying for the ability to upgrade more often than you normally would.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

I actually waded through the posts since my last one, and all I got was a slight fever (actually, that's not from reading, but I wanted to add some drama... )

Is this for of multiclassing more dipping then anything else?
Possibly. 

Let's be honest, multiclassing in 3E also was often similar to "dipping" - pick a level of Rogue for skills and sneak attack, or a level of Fighter for a bonus feats and heavy armor proficiency, or a level of Barbarian for Rage. In all these examples, you still got to improve your "core" abilities - BAB, Saves, HD. You couldn't do this for spellcasting, because for some reason, no one in 3.0 or 3.5 found a way to let BAB, spells per day, spells known or caster level stack, and the fix where Prestige Classes. (Eldritch Knight, Mystic Theurge...)
Many multiclassed characters also used this dipping to multiclass in PrCs. 

4E has two design elements that need to be considered: 
- Frontloading of classes, so you feel like a member of the class at level 1
- Every character is like a spellcaster
Maybe there would have been a different approach, but this is the approach 4E did, and at this point, you'll have to decide how to handle multiclassing with these elements.
3E style multiclasing is overpowered for front-loading, but fails in regards to spellcasting.

So, how do you balance each aspect?
- Reduce the benefits of the "front-loadedness" for multiclassing. (This was first done in Starwars Saga Edition). You get only a subset of the normal 1st level abilities.
- Let the "caster levels" stack, but don't add more spells/powers per day for multiclassing. You can choose powers from an expanded list, but still can pick the highest level powers.

The question is - what's the cost for this expansion? Should there be a cost at all? There is already the opportunity cost, after all?
3E multiclassing did rarely cost something for non-spellcasters. You usually got the most interesting stuff with 1-4 levels, and didn't really lose something. So this might be a bad basis for cost determination. 
Starwars Saga Edition might come closer - if you multiclass from Noble into Soldier, you don' get that much. If you really want to "Soldier" more, you will need to expend feats and skill training feats to get Soldier-abilities, which means not only do you not advance in your Noble talents (that's expected opportunity cost), but you also pay with feats.

4E takes a similar approach. You pay the opportunity cost, and you pay with some feats. Is it worth it? That might depend on what you select.
A Fighter with an Ice Wall power doesn't sound so bad. First round, mark a foe, second round, put a wall between you and him - now he either has to select different targets (taking the -2 penalty) or waste some time walking around the wall. (Oh, and he will take some damage, too.) A Cleric with the Rogue's tumble power can safely reach a comrade to heal him. At this point, we don't know what other Cleric or Fighter powers might do, but I think this definitely shows that there are situations in where such powers seem useful enough. A lot of the powers usability might depend on party composition and a specific tactical situation.

...

There are, off course, other concerns to multiclassing. It's not always about power, it can also be about making the character concept work you had in mind, and organic growth. A Rogue constantly forced to fight in the front-lines might multiclass into Fighter in 3E, and wear a heavier armor. A 4E Rogue could now take a multiclass feat for Fighter, or pick a heavier armor profiency feat. The "trouble" might begin if the Rogue in our example now wants to pick up a third class - maybe he's travelling a lot through the wilderness, and would find tracking and archery more useful. In 3E, the solution would probably be to multiclass into Ranger. In 4E, he couldn't just multiclass into Ranger if he already multiclassed into Fighter. But on the other hand, he sure could pick up bow profiency or skill training in Nature.

An interesting "feature" here is: The character in 4E can retrain per default. If he sees that he doesn't really benefit from his fightery abilities any more, he could just choose to retrain his fighter training feats or his armor profiency, and pick up the Ranger multiclass feats or skill training in Nature. 

Now, some people will undoubtly argue that they don't like retraining. Organic growth (to them) means that I can still see what the character did half a year or 3 levels ago. Well, that's a matter of taste, but I don't see much wrong with the idea of people losing their aptitude in a certain area, and regaining it in a new area. Sure, it can feel a bit awkward, if all it takes is one level (which could be gained in two days) to "forget" heavy armor profiency, but then, it also takes only the same level and two days to gain heavy armor proficiency, or learn two new spells (the latter 3E only  )


If it was just me, I'd consider saying that you can could take a "Vancian" approach to feats and powers you have, and you can choose each day (or a larger, arbitrary unit of time) to regain an ability you previously knew and chose to relearn. But that's house rule territory (as far as we know), so it doesn't exactly help the discussion. 

---

On the now seemingly no longer that interesting topic on the profileration of more core/base classes: D&D is a class-based game. There is a limit to what a class can represent. There is a continuum on how strictly defined a class is. 3E tended to have a mix of class definitions - each spellcaster was tightly defined, as a result, multiclassing them was hard. Each non-spellcaster class was a lot more losely defined, the synergy between them was higher and multiclassing was easier with them. Prestige Classes basically where either trying to tighten a class focus stronger (you're not just a Fighter, but a Weapon Specialist, or you're not just a WIzard, but a Loremaster), or expanding them (Mystic Theurge the most prominent example)

4E seems to define classes more strictly. Paragon Paths seem to enforce this further, while multiclassing expands a little. But in the end, instead of expansion through PrCs or multiclassing, we will get new core classes. This has the advantage that you start in your desired class from day and level one, and don't get there at a later point. This has its appeal to me... (Even though I used to be more a fan of class-less games...)


----------



## Vysirez

Lots of interesting discussion on this. I will first admit that this post is going to ramble a bit.

I do have to say that this is a lot what I expected from comments made by Devs. So I'm not surprised. I do agree that 4e multiclassing looks to lean more towards dabbling then full 50/50 split. But I'm not sure that it's as much toward dabbling as many fear. I think that the ability to take class specific feats and PPs will add more flexibility then the article seems to indicate at first.

One thing I found amusing about 4e multiclassing is cherry picking. The Devs have stated that they didnt like cherry picking in 3.5 and so felt they had to design classes less frontloaded. But  when it comes to 4e mutliclassing, cherry picking is built in. I think that 4e multiclassing is balanced around the fact that you are going to cherry pick the best powers and best secondary class for your build.

One comment I wanted to make on the 3e cleric taking a feat to get access to wizard spells. The counter arguements was that it was just 1 spell. But while sort of true, it's also kinda misleading. A spellcaster in 3e would have far more spells per day then a 4e character is going to have powers. So while 1 spell in 3e is a fairly small portion of your daily load, 1 power is a much larger chunk. 

An issue that has been discussed a bit in the thread is that not all powers are equal. While theoretically all classes are balanced overall, powers are not balanced between classes. A figher gets heavy armor, more hps, more healing surges. In return for this his powers are going to tend to be a bit weaker then a wizard. So a fighter picking up wizard powers is going to gain more then a wizard getting fighter powers. The question is how much of a difference is there, and does it break anything. 

All in all I think the 4e mutliclassing system will work well enough for me. What we have seen so far is a bit lacking, but I think once I see all the class specific feats, and the range of powers available, I think it will work fairly well. There will be a lot of options open since even if you have the same multiclass combo, say Fighter with Wizard multi, you still wont always take the same powers. Or the same feats. I really think getting access to class specific feats will make a bigger difference then some people seem to believe.


----------



## Shazman

Phloid said:
			
		

> Ugh. Although there is an overwhelmingly positive bent on these boards toward 4th Edition and I will likely be flamed or at least contested I have to take the negative side of this.
> 
> These multiclassing rules are not what I want. They look like solid rules for dabbling in another class, but they are not "Multi-Classing." In 4th Ed are you going to refer to your wizard with the Sneak of Shadows feat as a "Wizard/Rogue?" You might, but new players to the game won't unless the PH says to call it that. Even then, the name still won't fit. To me it is a wizard with sneak attack. Not a multiclass wizard/rogue. Can I get a 50%/50% class split with these rules? It doesn't seem like it. And only one other class? Bah!
> 
> Am also annoyed that I have to give up multiple feats in order to "multiclass." I want my feats for other things.
> 
> I'm well aware that multiclassing rules in the previous editions were not good, but neither is this. They should work, but they are not "multiclassing." It is "class dabbling."
> 
> I'm just more discouraged every time they reveal something about  the game. I'll read the PH and play a game or two before I pass final judgment but it looks bad in my eyes, and keeps getting worse.




I have to agree with you.  While my previous posts may have been a bit too negative, this is not what they promised us.  Instead of trying to make a multiclassing system that works for everyone, especially casters, they avoided multiclassing alltogether and made some dabbling feats.  3.5 multiclassing works really well, except for spellcasters, but anyone who play 3.5 understands this.  They know that a wizard 10/fighter 10 will not have access to effective spells at higher levels.  They also know that playing an eldritch knight is better.  What's wrong with that?  I can play a barbarian/ranger/rogue and have him be just as effective as the player playing a sraight fighter. It woulnd not be difficult to make some dabbling feats for 3.5, but I certainly wouldn't call it multiclassing.  4E dabbling lets you get a few powers from only one and no more than one other class.  That is weak and lazy game design.  You may not believe me, but I really have tried to like 4E.  The problem is that I really dislike pretty much everything they release about it.  First it was the overemphasis on roles.  Then we found out that many iconic classes and races would be in limbo for a while and cost extra later.  Then we saw extremely weak, and bland excerpts on the pit fiend , rogue, and warlord.  Then we see anemic, bland paragon paths, and this class dabbling passing as multiclassing.  It's almost like they really don't want me to like the game.


----------



## Masquerade

Delgar said:
			
		

> Well I think it's clear with the number of people saying the tradeoff is worth it, and the number of people that say it's not worth it, that they got it right.
> 
> It's clearly not a MUST have option and it's clearly not a completely terrible option, and that sounds balanced to me.



After reading over 600 posts of this thread (I deserve a medal!), this is the same conclusion at which I have arrived.

In 3.5, multiclassing produced some of the most powerful characters and some of the weakest. It seems that 4e multiclassers are going to be about on-par with non-multiclassers. There are reasons to take the feats and reasons not to. Sounds like a good rule to me.


----------



## satori01

I have a number of issues with what I have read regarding "multi-classing".

1) I think fundamentally this design does not address some fundamental complaints about multiclassing & PrCs, namely: complexity & delay in time for a concept to kick in.
Arguably you can say multi classing is easier now since it requires solely a feat investment, and Saving Throws and To Hit charts are simplified.  Of course given that every class is now just a list of powers you pick and chose from means classes are fundamentally all like spell casters of previous editions.

Delay in a concept is also a big concern.  You wanted to play a Fighter/Mage in 3.5...there where a billion & 1 ways to do it, some at 1st level, some thru feats or magic items, some thru PrCs.....but the concept could kick in in force between 7-10th level.  Look 4E and now that has become 11th level....whaaa?  The delay got longer...
Whaa?

2)Is Cherry Picking 1 power really multiclassing?  If a Fighter that throws the occasional Fireball really a Fighter/Mage.  Sure the player can play up the "magical training" they have had and everyone at the table can play along......but come on this is more like putting lipstick on a pig, and everyone at the prom pretending its a real date.  Can we not already predict what classes will be "multiclassed to"  people will pick up area attacks if area attacks are rare,  people will pick up rogue, because Thievery as a skill lets you do all of the cool things that skill ranks and dedication in terms of level required previously.  People for the most part will probably not chose fighter unless they are martially minded because HPs being static makes it the new Multiclassing problem as spell casting was in 3E.

You will see fighters that lob fireballs, but not as much I suspect of Wizards that can fight, because do you want to be the guy with lower Hit Points than a defender Marking the solo mob....I think not.

3)  If 3E multiclassing was so elegant why abandon it completely?   I hate disingenious statements like that.  A magical BAB system solves the multiclassing issue there.
4e designers wanted to build from the ground up.  That is fine.  What I suspect though is that classes are just long lists of narrowly defined powers.  Like WoW characters there will be nuance differences say between 2 different Warlocks, but not alot of fundamental ones.

This is a big change from 3.5 where with the multiclassing, PrC, & feats characters of the same class could be vary different.

Star Wars Saga has been mentioned a few times, and I think the points people have made are interesting.  One thing I have fear for in 4e is that my reaction to classes is going to be similar to my opinion of Star Wars Saga classes:

Interesting mechanics, but no soul.

If everyone has the same to Hit table,  if everyones powers are balanced to military like precision, if every class is a list of powers and feats alone, with no quirky other features, then to quote the Incredibles: "everyone is special, and thus no one is".
4e mechanics sound fine, I like them, but this "multiclassing" system sounds like a compromise due to the fundamental nature of some design decision, and one has to wonder do these great mechanics have heart.


----------



## Voss

Shazman, can you specify what they promised?  You seem to have a precise idea of what it was, while I only seem to have a vague idea.


Anyway. This subsystem (whether you feel it should be called multiclassing or not), doesn't strike me as 'weak and lazy'.  Its definitely different from the 3rd edition system, but I don't think thats a bad thing in its own right. (though, I should mention that I don't really think 3rd edition has anything of value)  I'm not sure I like the one class restriction, but I'm also not sure more would be necessary for anything beyond a thought exercise. I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with it, and it doesn't break the game the way multiclassing can in 3rd edition, so I'm fairly satisfied.

Finally, if you don't like 4e, thats all well and good.  Nothing bad happens to anyone if you don't.  Personally, except for the fluff, I largely like it.  The wizard is a bit naff, but the only thing I'd describe as bland is the temporal-cat-centaur thing, and various other legacy monsters that 3e is responsible for (goofy aberrations and the like) and the horde of not-quite-exactly-the-same monstrous humanoids that have built up since first edition.


----------



## Shazman

I couldn't have said it better myself.  That Incredibles comment was pure gold.  They are so concerned with balance, that they removed the specialness from the classes.  That pretty much defeats the point of having classes.  If the fighter's daily power and the warlock's daily power do the same amount of damage, what's the point.  You might as well have a skill or powers based system instead of a class system.


----------



## Shazman

Voss said:
			
		

> Shazman, can you specify what they promised?  You seem to have a precise idea of what it was, while I only seem to have a vague idea.
> 
> 
> Anyway. This subsystem (whether you feel it should be called multiclassing or not), doesn't strike me as 'weak and lazy'.  Its definitely different from the 3rd edition system, but I don't think thats a bad thing in its own right. (though, I should mention that I don't really think 3rd edition has anything of value)  I'm not sure I like the one class restriction, but I'm also not sure more would be necessary for anything beyond a thought exercise. I'm pretty sure I can do what I want with it, and it doesn't break the game the way multiclassing can in 3rd edition, so I'm fairly satisfied.
> 
> Finally, if you don't like 4e, thats all well and good.  Nothing bad happens to anyone if you don't.  Personally, except for the fluff, I largely like it.  The wizard is a bit naff, but the only thing I'd describe as bland is the temporal-cat-centaur thing, and various other legacy monsters that 3e is responsible for (goofy aberrations and the like) and the horde of not-quite-exactly-the-same monstrous humanoids that have built up since first edition.




They said that any combo of multiclassing works.  But they eliminated multiclassing.  It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing.  And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.  If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised?  I think not.


----------



## Wulf Ratbane

They've kicked the can down the road to 5th edition.

<shrug>


----------



## vagabundo

satori01 said:
			
		

> If everyone has the same to Hit table,  if everyones powers are balanced to military like precision, if every class is a list of powers and feats alone, with no quirky other features, then to quote the Incredibles: "everyone is special, and thus no one is".
> 4e mechanics sound fine, I like them, but this "multiclassing" system sounds like a compromise due to the fundamental nature of some design decision, and one has to wonder do these great mechanics have heart.




3e classes and multiclassing produced some very suboptimal characters, I'll take a dose of balance for fun anyday. No more players making a bad decision and their character getting sidelined in the game. 

Everyone is useful in and out of combat, the PCs are special, they're "heroes". My players are having a ball in 4e (easily 4E=3Ex2 in terms of fun in combat), so the test of the puddin' is in the eating and I think this system will fit nicely with what we have seen so far and will be a little bit of icing on the character creation cake.

PS I'd describe 3e multiclassing as a lot of things, but not elegant.


----------



## Wolv0rine

Amen, Shazman.  I'll tell you, with every excerpt they release, I become more and more comfortable with the group I primarily work with's decision that we're not going 4E.  (The problem is, of course, that *everyone* wants to do a "3.75E", from Pathfinder to whoever else wants to grab the tossed-aside edition and make those *real* tweaks that were too risky to try on the customer base when 3E (no, I will NOT specify between 3E and 3.5E, it's silly) was the Big Show.  But that's another thread entirely, sorry for that momentary thread-jack everyone...  I'm sleep-deprived AND have been reading this thread since yesterday.  )


----------



## neceros

I'll sum it up as best I can.

Mutliclassing is unneeded. In third edition, you multiclassed for a specific purpose, usually. A wizard needed weapon feats, or armor, or wanted BAB, or whatever. Rogues and Fighters wanted more combat prowess without giving away their Sneak Attack dice, yatta yatta.

In fourth edition, it's not required because you can just take the required feats to get what you need. Wizards will have generally the same base attack as a fighter with his magic. If he wants to use a sword, give him the feat. Armor? Same thing.

The only reason you'd need to multiclass is to get the powers. That's basically the only difference between classes now, but it's a big one.

In both games you have resource conservation as a major method of controlling players. In Third, you gave a player 20 levels, 7 feats (on average), and if you were a spell caster, spells if you took that one base class only. (Remember, Prestige classes are not multiclassing. We're talking only about real multiclassing, 5 Wizard / 5 Fighter.)

In fourth edition, you have 20 levels (We're assuming you don't go epic, for simplicity), ~15 feats (based on assumptions), and everyone has powers. Not only that, but you don't have to stay in your base class to continue gaining your natural powers. They come to you no matter what once you pick your class. If you pick to multiclass at level 11, you continue leveling as a Paladin, but you also start leveling as a Wizard! (Or whatever.)

The real difference in Fourth is the fact that your character is only limited to what feats you take. Some would argue that this was true in third, as well, but it's much more so. As stated earlier, you had class levels you could trade in for free class abilities in most instances. You had way more class levels to give than you had Feats, so it made sense to take a level of Fighter to gain a BAB (Which is way better, by the way), than to pick Weapon Focus to get better to hit.
*
In short, Fourth edition is giving you a much more elegant, and powerful way to make your character who you want him or her to be.*

Hope that makes sense.


----------



## TwoSix

hong said:
			
		

> I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.
> 
> Is this really worth a feat?




Absolutely, yes.


----------



## occam

Kordeth said:
			
		

> Delicious indeed. If you can find it out in Colorado, I heartily recommend Stone Brewing's Russian Imperial Stout, or Port Brewing's Santa's Little Helper. Both very excellent beers, and I'm privileged enough to live within driving distance of both breweries.




I actually live in Washington, and have appreciated many a Stone beer. However, we just started getting distribution of Port Brewing's stuff like last month (although I've visited Pizza Ports in San Diego a few times), and I am very much enjoying working my way through the various Port and Lost Abbey beers. Love the Old Viscosity!


----------



## TwoSix

Shazman said:
			
		

> They said that any combo of multiclassing works.  But they eliminated multiclassing.  It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing.  And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.  If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised?  I think not.




Considering "multiclassing" has no dictionary definition, they're not being "untruthful" at all.  Calm yourself, Iago.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Shazman said:
			
		

> I couldn't have said it better myself.  That Incredibles comment was pure gold.  They are so concerned with balance, that they removed the specialness from the classes.  That pretty much defeats the point of having classes.  If the fighter's daily power and the warlock's daily power do the same amount of damage, what's the point.  You might as well have a skill or powers based system instead of a class system.



I sometimes have the feeling that people don't really get what the powers and the roles for 4E mean. I am not sure I get all of it myself, since it is different from what came before.

What definitely is important is that a Warlock and a Fighter power generally will not do the same damage. And more importantly, they will also have different "secondary" effects. Dealing damage at range is different from dealing damage at melee and pushing your enemy around. Neither is superior, and both might deal damage, but they feel and work differently, and open different tactical options.

And these differences is what the roles are all about. And the new tactical option granted by multiclassing will significantly change the feel of a character. A Fighter capable of throwing a fireball will use different tactics then a fighter that is capable of disrupting an enemy attack against one of his allies and dealing damage to him (hypothetical power). And this will apply for every single combat encounter he participates in (if it's an encounter power).


----------



## katahn

Shazman said:
			
		

> They said that any combo of multiclassing works.  But they eliminated multiclassing.  It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing.  And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.  If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised?  I think not.




How exactly have they eliminated multiclassing?  All I see is that two specific forms of multiclassing are basically gone: the 1e/2e system where you levelled simultaneously in multiple classes and the 3e system where you serially levelled multiple classes.  Those are not the be-all and end-all of multiclassing systems.

At its core, multiclassing just means having abilities/powers that come from more than just one class.  This fits that very general definition.

In 1e/2e multiclasses were simply better than single-class variants.  Being a level or 2 down in each multiclass compared to a single-class character was not enough to balance our having equivilent power in multiple other classes.  Playing a single-class character was a dumb move unless you were dealing with games beyond the non-human level caps, and even then every non-human MC tended to involve "thief" which had no level limits...

In 3e multiclassing absolutely did not work for spellcasting classes and was especially punative on arcane spellcasting classes.  The cumulative effect of fewer caster levels (to beat spell resistance), lower spell levels (enemies had an easier time with saving throws), fewer spells, and for arcane casters the need to use 'still spell' to get around spell failure exacerbated the lower spell level issue.  It took splatbooks and innumerable prestige classes to get around how incredibly disfunctional the multiclassing system in 3e was.

Conversely in 4e I can begin at level 1 as an eladrin fighter(wizard) and have a bit of arcane magic use to add flavor to my fighter; for only that basic feat I can also freely select any wizard-as-prerequisite feats I might wish by adding them to the list of feats I can select from.  As I gain levels I can swap out selected fighter abilities in exchange for adding wizard abilities.  Paying for this priviledge in the form of feats balances what I see as a huge benefit of being able to select out-of-role and out-of-class abilities as a fighter.

My 4e fighter/wizard can cast spells armored without needing to invest a feat to get the still spell metamagic feat.  My 3e fighter/wizard had to make that sacrifice and suffered above and beyond that the effective loss of my highest level of spells because I couldn't combine them with still spell.

My 4e fighter/wizard's wizard spells will always be effective in a fight.  My 3e fighter/wizard's spells were easier to make saving throws against due to lower spell level and were far less likely to bypass spell resistance due to lower caster level relative to what the monsters were designed to be prepared for.

My 4e fighter/wizard can elect to exchange a lower-level known spell for a higher-level spell without making any additional sacrifices of feats or class levels.  My 3e fighter/wizard could not do that.

My 4e fighter/wizard is still a fully effective fighter who only lacks a bit of versatility in my core role in exchange for the added flexibility of wizard spells.  My 3e fighter/wizard will be anywhere from 5-10 levels behind any other fighter in a level 20 campaign and be noticeably less effective in his core role as a result - a loss of effectiveness that is not sufficiently redressed in having 5-10 levels of wizard without resorting to the hacked work-around of prestige classes.

So please, explain to me how multiclassing doesn't really exist in 4e when it did in 3e.  Because I see traditional multiclassing in 3e that failed to live up to its promise far too often and I see this new variant form of multiclassing in 4e that does.


----------



## Voss

Shazman said:
			
		

> They said that any combo of multiclassing works.  But they eliminated multiclassing.  It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing.  And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.  If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised?  I think not.




Ah.  I was hoping for a link of some sort.  More of the precise and less of the 'he said, they said'.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

I have seen comments so far on dipping and 50/50 multiclassing, and it was mentioned once or twice way back in the thread to point out how 4E multiclassing doesn't work. The one area I haven't seen how 4E deals yet is the case of essentially class switching. Say starting a character as say a Bard for for 3 levels (because that is your character concept at the time) then realize that after playing for awhile that Ranger makes more sense now and better fits both story and player desire and then do the next 7 levels as Ranger for a Bard3/Ranger7. 

In 3.x this works because over time the Ranger levels catch up and then surpass the Bard levels creating a Ranger with some Bard thrown in. In 4e this is not possible. Once a Bard (once the PHB2 comes out) always a Bard, no mid career changes. In 4E if I start at level 10 then no problem, I can make a Ranger and dip into Bard, but if I start at level 1 this is impossible.


----------



## Kwalish Kid

katahn said:
			
		

> So please, explain to me how multiclassing doesn't really exist in 4e when it did in 3e.  Because I see traditional multiclassing in 3e that failed to live up to its promise far too often and I see this new variant form of multiclassing in 4e that does.



Oooh, let me! Let me!

In the new system, you can't multiclass _and_ make use of the same amount of feats that everyone else can.

Am I right?


----------



## neceros

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I have seen comments so far on dipping and 50/50 multiclassing, and it was mentioned once or twice way back in the thread to point out how 4E multiclassing doesn't work. The one area I haven't seen how 4E deals yet is the case of essentially class switching. Say starting a character as say a Bard for for 3 levels (because that is your character concept at the time) then realize that after playing for awhile that Ranger makes more sense now and better fits both story and player desire and then do the next 7 levels as Ranger for a Bard3/Ranger7.
> 
> In 3.x this works because over time the Ranger levels catch up and then surpass the Bard levels creating a Ranger with some Bard thrown in. In 4e this is not possible. Once a Bard (once the PHB2 comes out) always a Bard, no mid career changes. In 4E if I start at level 10 then no problem, I can make a Ranger and dip into Bard, but if I start at level 1 this is impossible.



Yeah, they are trying to stop people from being able to do that.

Not only will you have 3 useless levels, but you'll be three levels behind the class you actually wanted to play. Even more, you'll have an exp penalty. Yuck, yuck, yuck,

I have a feeling that there will be some sort of retraining rule in the PHB, or PHBII to help people with this issue. Multiclassing should not be a corrective event, but a character concept.


----------



## med stud

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> I have seen comments so far on dipping and 50/50 multiclassing, and it was mentioned once or twice way back in the thread to point out how 4E multiclassing doesn't work. The one area I haven't seen how 4E deals yet is the case of essentially class switching. Say starting a character as say a Bard for for 3 levels (because that is your character concept at the time) then realize that after playing for awhile that Ranger makes more sense now and better fits both story and player desire and then do the next 7 levels as Ranger for a Bard3/Ranger7.
> 
> In 3.x this works because over time the Ranger levels catch up and then surpass the Bard levels creating a Ranger with some Bard thrown in. In 4e this is not possible. Once a Bard (once the PHB2 comes out) always a Bard, no mid career changes. In 4E if I start at level 10 then no problem, I can make a Ranger and dip into Bard, but if I start at level 1 this is impossible.



You can always redesign the character from the ground up. Lets say that you play a ranger and dip into bard. After a while you feel that you want to play a bard with ranger splashed in instead. By the RAW, that's not possible. In that case, you switch the classes around so that your character is now primarily a bard.

The amazing thing with PnP-games is that options aren't coded. A group of players can easily go outside the rules if they feel that it leads to a better game.


----------



## katahn

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Oooh, let me! Let me!
> 
> In the new system, you can't multiclass _and_ make use of the same amount of feats that everyone else can.
> 
> Am I right?




That's about the only difference I can think of.  Well that and the fact you can't make a class that is capable of being effective in more than one core role (without sacrificing a paragon path presumably) and actually can effectively make use of second-class abilities that are taken instead of primary-class abilities.

Personally I'm fine with sacrificing a feat or three instead of sacrificing class levels that before long leave my character underpowered at everything.  But that's just me and maybe I'm crazy.


----------



## Dausuul

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Your perception of "value" and "suck" differ from mine.  If being a relatively powerful wizard with some low-level thieving ability is how I envision my PC, then I'm satisfied with the value I'm getting and don't care what others think.




Okay, splendid.  That's exactly what 4E gives you.  Where's the problem?



			
				Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> If I want my PC to be equally talented in magery and thievery and he's a 12th level PC, then he should probably be equivalent to a Wiz6 and a Rog6 in all ways that matter.




Whoa, hold on there.  You jumped from "character concept" to "specific mechanics."  "Equally talented in magery and thievery" is a character concept.  "Wiz 6/Rog 6" is just one of any number of ways that concept could be implemented in-game.

If you want to be equally talented in magery and thievery, your "wizard half" should probably have a power level roughly equivalent to your "rogue half."  There are lots of ways to implement that, and basic level-for-level multiclassing is only one of them.  Wiz6/Rog6 meets your requirements.  So does Wiz 3/Rog 3/Unseen Seer 6.  So does a Wiz11/Rog11 gestalt.  And so does a 4E character with half wizard powers and class features, and half rogue powers and class features.

Now, in practice, 4E multiclassing won't give you a fifty-fifty split; estimates here suggest the most heavily multiclassed characters in 4E will be about two-thirds primary class to one-third secondary class.  However, I don't think I've ever seen a case in which a character _concept_ actually demanded a fifty-fifty split.  The concept usually only requires that the character be a talented mage and a talented thief (or whatever), which 4E's system provides.

I've got a character right now who's a favored soul 4/sorceror 4/mystic theurge 8.  She's a priestess of a deity of magic, water, and the moon; as such, she combines arcane and divine magic.  But y'know what?  In 4E, I could make that same character as a cleric with wizard multiclass feats, and it would fit the concept like a glove, even though she wouldn't have a fifty-fifty split any more.


----------



## Starbuck_II

med stud said:
			
		

> You can always redesign the character from the ground up. Lets say that you play a ranger and dip into bard. After a while you feel that you want to play a bard with ranger splashed in instead. By the RAW, that's not possible. In that case, you switch the classes around so that your character is now primarily a bard.
> 
> The amazing thing with PnP-games is that options aren't coded. A group of players can easily go outside the rules if they feel that it leads to a better game.



Actually, by RAW in 4th, you can retrain so you are now a Bard with Ranger splashed instead.
We don't know if trainingin 4th is like PHB 2 in 3.5, but it might be.


----------



## rowport

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowport
And, with respect to Ari, I think that his group all choosing *not* to multiclass (beyond dabbling, anyway) might well be influenced by mechanics as much as "concept." 




			
				Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> Given that you don't know my group, and don't know what we discussed and agreed upon back when we first started playtesting 4E, I find this presumptuous in the extreme.




Ari-

Fair enough!  I also saw that one of your players posted that at least one of your group typically plays heavily multiclassed characters in 3.5, and (my sense from his post) not for powergaming/optimizing reasons.  That player sounds like a perfect test case for somebody who enjoys character customization (as opposed to optimization) who for some reason is opting not to do so in 4e.  Presuming that you know your player, and/or can ask him directly, would you mind posting his rationale?  I am genuinely curious, not looking for an argument.


----------



## rowport

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> *blink*
> 
> When did you start visiting ENWorld?!



Ari-

I could not bear to go find his post in this immense thread, but that is the player post that I meant.


----------



## Cadfan

hong said:
			
		

> I will explain this very slowly, so that ENWorld can catch up to me. Let us say you currently cast arcane spells. Under this 4E multiclassing paradigm principle thinking, you do not gain access to all divine and arcane spells for one feat. You gain access to _one_ divine spell. What is more, you pay for that by also losing access to _one_ arcane spell.
> 
> Is this really worth a feat?



Probably, yes.

I think everyone is on the same page.  You pay one feat and one power in exchange for a new power of equal or lower level to the one you gave up from a list that you would not otherwise be permitted to access, and which may contain powers that accomplish things that the powers you are normally permitted cannot accomplish well, or perhaps at all.

If you wanted to think of it differently, you could think of it as paying one feat for the opportunity to choose an upcoming power selection from two lists, rather than from one list.

Everyone's on the same page, we just disagree on whether its worth the cost.

I think it is, personally.  At least, I think it will be worth the cost in enough of the possible cases and combinations of classes and power lists that it will end up getting used.  It may not be worth it in all cases, but I think it will be useful in enough cases.


----------



## rowport

Mouseferatu said:
			
		

> See, here's where your argument runs off the rails, for me.
> 
> In 3.5, you couldn't get the 50/50 half-caster character with _just_ multiclassing. You had to add a PrC, most of which (except the mystic theurge itself) weren't core.
> 
> In 4E, you can't get the 50/50 half-caster character with just multiclassing; you'll need one of the forthcoming classes, like the swordmage.
> 
> I see no real difference between the two, except that one uses the term "multiclass" and one doesn't. In both cases, though, you have to use a new mechanic in addition to the multiclassing.
> 
> So, 4E has a system that handles dabbling well (and, at least for some people, arguably better than prior systems), but needs new mechanics for an even split. The same was true of 3.5. Where's the big difference?



Ari-

From my perspective, 3.5 was a poor multiclassing system, since it was clear that a 50/50 class split was *never* as powerful as a 100 core class (at least with any casting classes in the mix).  You are very right that kludges like prestige classes and/or feats improved the situation but did not fully fix it.  Most notably, Practiced Spellcaster is nearly a must-have feat to make it work.

I understand your point to be that 4e is as good or "arguably better" but I am still disappointed as I thought it would be *fixed* where clearly it is not.  If anything, reverting back to "dabbling" instead of multiclassing (i.e. adding a dash of magic to your fighter instead of creating a fighter-mage) with a two-class maximum is a big step in the wrong direction.  

As a few posters here have said, as has Buzz of my own home group, I might be happier playing HERO or GURPS again and just leaving D&D.  That might be right.  I guess I am bummed that I thought a clear design flaw should be fixed, not just marginalized as it is in this solution.

And, I am very puzzled why other options were rejected on multiclass solutions.  The power curve in Bo9S maneuvers adjusted to multiclassing without the need for feat kludges.  So do the skill-based Force powers in SWSE.  I dunno.  I just seems like this is the least-elegant option, not really much different than a 4e version of Practiced Spellcaster.


----------



## Warbringer

*Spellcasting Multiclass*: 3.x failed in multi-classing spellcasters, IMO, because of 2 key failings: 

1) no explict CL stacking (unlike BAB) 
2) spell level tied into highest caster level (hence the biggest problem with dual spellcaster mulitclasses)

That's it. Fix those, you've fixed the system

In 4e part 2) seems to be fixed because the at will/per enc/per day seemed to be flatter with the increases scaled into character level. Regarding part 1) hard to tell, but the fix seems to be your caster level effectively is you character level and you add the caster powers to your pool of potential choices (not sure yet if you have to sacrafice an existing power)

In philosophy it sesm 4e treats muliticalassing spellcasting differently


----------



## drjones

I think the discussion of 'is it worth it?' is entirely premature until we see: All feats, All Powers and All tiers of multiclassing.  Sorry but the only folks who know are under NDA.

But that said, some posters seem to feel that multiclassing is a failure unless a MC character is more powerful than a single class character.  If this is the case than there should never be a single single class character because it is a suboptimal choice.  I liked making interesting synergistic builds in 3.5 and I can see why others would still want to make the same monsters in 4e but I think balance around the table is more important than a feeling of personal min/max mastery.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

Starbuck_II said:
			
		

> Actually, by RAW in 4th, you can retrain so you are now a Bard with Ranger splashed instead.
> We don't know if trainingin 4th is like PHB 2 in 3.5, but it might be.




Did I miss something? Are you a playtester, or was there some scoop I missed about retraining class choices in 4E?


----------



## DandD

You know that it is balanced if there's a 20+ page long thread discussing about it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

rowport said:
			
		

> Ari-
> 
> From my perspective, 3.5 was a poor multiclassing system, since it was clear that a 50/50 class split was *never* as powerful as a 100 core class (at least with any casting classes in the mix).  You are very right that kludges like prestige classes and/or feats improved the situation but did not fully fix it.  Most notably, Practiced Spellcaster is nearly a must-have feat to make it work.
> 
> I understand your point to be that 4e is as good or "arguably better" but I am still disappointed as I thought it would be *fixed* where clearly it is not.  If anything, reverting back to "dabbling" instead of multiclassing (i.e. adding a dash of magic to your fighter instead of creating a fighter-mage) with a two-class maximum is a big step in the wrong direction.
> 
> As a few posters here have said, as has Buzz of my own home group, I might be happier playing HERO or GURPS again and just leaving D&D.  That might be right.  I guess I am bummed that I thought a clear design flaw should be fixed, not just marginalized as it is in this solution.



Do you really think that it is a "clear design flaw"? I mean, how do you define a character that is combining fighting with spellcasting, without him ending up overpowered compared to a character that focuses only on one of these two aspects? 
How would you do it?

Even (or especially?) point-buy based systems do this - you have limited set of build points, and if you want to be create at swordmanship and sorcery, this will cost you. And most likely, it's suboptimal to not specialize in one area.



> And, I am very puzzled why other options were rejected on multiclass solutions.  The power curve in Bo9S maneuvers adjusted to multiclassing without the need for feat kludges.  So do the skill-based Force powers in SWSE.  I dunno.  I just seems like this is the least-elegant option, not really much different than a 4e version of Practiced Spellcaster.



The skill based Force powers are probably not so greatly balanced. At low levels, you gain a significant starting boost, and at higher levels, your powers lose effectiveness, since defenses improve faster then skill bonus. 

The Bo9S maneuver system wasn't that bad, I suppose. Their class identity wasn't very strong, though, and they didn't try to cover all core classes with them. Essentially, they were just "fightery" classes, and they didn't multiclass with spellcasters, either.

In the end, classes are supposed to represent archetypes. If you broaden the archetypes of a single class to much, you eliminate the advantages of having classes in the first place.
A real "Fighter-Mage" is an archetype. Why _not_ create a class for him?

---

What wasn't discussed a lot in this thread yet is the fact that the multiclassing feats seem to be only part of multiclassing in 4E. At Paragon levels, you can choose to forgo paragon pathes and instead multiclass. Yes, it is relatively late in the career (comparing the levels 1-20 of 3E to the 1-30 of 4E, around the same time as picking a PrC in 3E), but it allows you to expand your multiclasing even further. Judging from the excerpt, you might get full access to a lot more class features by then. What I don't get yet is if you are also allowed to add a 3rd class, or are still constrained to a previous multiclass class.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

And a side note. We're always talking about the stupid loved Fighter/Mage.

How does this shape up for Fighter/Thieves*Rogues or Fighter/Paladins, or Cleric/Wizards?


*I really wrote Thief at first - why? I play D&D only since 3E, I don't even know how the Thief Classes looked like! Curse you, grognards, for slipping your dated terminology in my vocabulary!


----------



## drothgery

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The skill based Force powers are probably not so greatly balanced. At low levels, you gain a significant starting boost, and at higher levels, your powers lose effectiveness, since defenses improve faster then skill bonus.




Well, that's largely because they're skill vs. defenses, and the skill, attack, and defense progressions are not all the same in SWSE. This has the nice effect of making Jedi act like they do in the movies (Force powers work easily on mooks, but when high-powered Force users fight, it usually devolves into a lightsaber duel), but isn't all that balanced. With 4e math, this would work better.


----------



## Cadfan

Prediction- once you bring utility powers into the mix, almost every single multiclass combination will have at least some reason to be used.


----------



## cdrcjsn

Brown Jenkin said:
			
		

> Did I miss something? Are you a playtester, or was there some scoop I missed about retraining class choices in 4E?




We have been told that you can retrain feats as you level.

Multi-classing is now a feat choice.

So that means you can switch out your splash class every level if you felt like it.

* Edit - and I just read what the quoted person wrote (and the person who he was quoting) and realized that my post went off on a tangent.  nm.


----------



## Lizard

Oh well, it's 20 pages in, and I might as well comment.

I'm glad I waited, since my first comments would have been based on a misunderstanding of the rules -- I thought you could only get three powers, max, from the second class, which would have been t3h suxx0r. But it seems you can get about 1/3rd of your powers from the second class (if you spend all your feats on them), which is pretty good. It's not 50/50, obviously, but it does let you do a lot.

Given the feats we've seen, powers seem like a better choice. Especially since there's no tiers or levels or prequisites. I'm trying to see why EVERYONE won't multiclass in 4e. Take the novice feat at first level, grab some Cool Bennies (more than I think you'd get for a feat), then wait until that cool power that synergizes perfectly comes along. Every fighter can toss a Fireball to weaken the enemy before closing with them or cleaning out minions. Actually, it seems spellcasters will be less likely to multiclass, as it's more useful for a fighter (who gives up no hit points or save bonuses) to gain some area-effect spells than it is for a wizard (who GAINS no hit points or ability to use armor, etc) to get some trivial extra trick he can do with his staff -- which he shouldn't be wielding in melee anyway if everyone else is doing their job right. Indeed, I think "two feats for a nuke" is a tradeoff every melee class will want to make -- especially since it's not a permanent choice and you can swap out powers any time you level. Just taking the training feat so you always have the option to grab cool powers strikes me as no-brainer. Wizards and Warlocks synergize nicely, too.

Have we seen how 'multiclassing instead of paragon' is going to work yet?

It's a long step from the 'build your own class' model of 3x, but it seems to work within the 4e paradigm of strictly defined roles and niche protection uber alles. The one-class-limit seems to be a "We admit we couldn't get this working right but the deadline is due" fix, a limitation which has no in-game logic at all. If Joe Fighter can grab wizard training at 12th level, why can't he also grab ranger training at 14th? Hell, if he can drop powers, why can't he drop Wizard and pick up Ranger? If multiclassing was a choice you had to make at first level -- representing childhood training or whatever -- the one class limit would make sense.


----------



## Exasperation

So, multiclassing is the first big disappointment I've had since I started paying attention to the 4e previews.  There have been a few minor annoyances, but nothing that I was really upset about.

After the initial shock of disappointment wore off, I started feeling puzzled.  I couldn't quite place my finger on _why_ I was disappointed.  The more I read of the discussion, the more puzzled I became.  Whatever it was that I didn't like, none of the arguments against the new multiclassing seemed to match it, and none of the arguments for it put my unease to rest.

When I did figure out what was bothering me, I went and registered with ENWorld so I could share it.  Now that the registration has gone through, here goes:
Do you remember the arguments about Wizards getting at-will powers?  What was the primary reason that supporters of at-will spells gave for having them?  It was that they wanted to _feel like_ a wizard, and just being able to cast one magic missile before having to switch to a crossbow didn't cut it.

Thinking about the info we have on character classes, and the pregen characters we have, it seems to me that most of the feel of a character class in combat comes from a combination of your at-will powers and your class features - exactly the areas that access to is heavily restricted or outright denied by the multiclassing feats.

(Of course, in between my registering and being able to post, someone else touched on this issue, but it seems to have been mostly ignored in favor of arguments about the definition of opportunity cost.)



			
				satori01 said:
			
		

> 2)Is Cherry Picking 1 power really multiclassing?  Is a Fighter that throws the occasional Fireball really a Fighter/Mage.  Sure the player can play up the "magical training" they have had and everyone at the table can play along......but come on this is more like putting lipstick on a pig, and everyone at the prom pretending its a real date.


----------



## Brown Jenkin

cdrcjsn said:
			
		

> We have been told that you can retrain feats as you level.
> 
> Multi-classing is now a feat choice.
> 
> So that means you can switch out your splash class every level if you felt like it.




I am not talking feats and changing what to splash in but changing primary classes over time. Going from Bard3 to Bard3/Ranger7 means my character switches from one primary class to another, not a change in what is dipped into. As far as I know once a player starts as one class in 4E they are stuck in that class forever (with only dips into other classes).

med stud's solution was to have the GM allow the player to rebuild the character after awhile. Starbuck_II stated that this sort of class retraining was part of 4E. That is what I wanted clarification on.


----------



## rhm001

All right, slogged through the whole *22* pages. That was a lot of posts, so forgive me if I accidentally repeat a point already made.

People seem to want to compare the benefits of earlier editions' and 4e's multiclassing, as well as one of the costs---feats, I don't believe anyone has mentioned some of the costs that no longer apply. Specifically, when you multiclassed in 3e you paid for it in one or more of to hit, potential hit points and saving throws, as well as the lost class abilities. Obviously, each of those costs was higher for some classes than others, but they were all costs that had to be balanced against benefits. With the 4e system, you keep the standard hit points for your class for a given level, as well as the standard progression for the other numbers. For defenders and strikers in particular, that's a reduction in costs. I don't think that it automatically validates replacing those costs with feats in and of itself, but it needs to be part of the equation.

I also want to go WAY back and mention that, although the rogue's sneak attack can only be used once against a target with the relevant feat, while the ranger multiclass feat's potentially lasts for an entire encounter, the number for sneak attack goes up with level, while the other number appears to remain static at 1d6 (or 1d8 with the appropriate feat). Again, not sure it's equal, but should be considered.


----------



## Torchlyte

Shazman said:
			
		

> And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.




I challenge you to find me a character concept that can't be represented with this system.



			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> Whoa, hold on there.  You jumped from "character concept" to "specific mechanics."  "Equally talented in magery and thievery" is a character concept.  "Wiz 6/Rog 6" is just one of any number of ways that concept could be implemented in-game.
> 
> If you want to be equally talented in magery and thievery, your "wizard half" should probably have a power level roughly equivalent to your "rogue half."  There are lots of ways to implement that, and basic level-for-level multiclassing is only one of them.  Wiz6/Rog6 meets your requirements.  So does Wiz 3/Rog 3/Unseen Seer 6.  So does a Wiz11/Rog11 gestalt.  And so does a 4E character with half wizard powers and class features, and half rogue powers and class features.
> 
> Now, in practice, 4E multiclassing won't give you a fifty-fifty split; estimates here suggest the most heavily multiclassed characters in 4E will be about two-thirds primary class to one-third secondary class.  However, I don't think I've ever seen a case in which a character _concept_ actually demanded a fifty-fifty split.  The concept usually only requires that the character be a talented mage and a talented thief (or whatever), which 4E's system provides.
> 
> I've got a character right now who's a favored soul 4/sorceror 4/mystic theurge 8.  She's a priestess of a deity of magic, water, and the moon; as such, she combines arcane and divine magic.  But y'know what?  In 4E, I could make that same character as a cleric with wizard multiclass feats, and it would fit the concept like a glove, even though she wouldn't have a fifty-fifty split any more.




This brings up another point. If I have just two cleric powers, _but I use them all the time_, I'm essentially 50/50 anyways.


----------



## Wolfwood2

Is anyone else a little annoyed at those ability score requirements?  Strength is a req in fully 4 out of the 8 Initiate feats (and in 2 of them is the sole option).  Intelligence and Wisdom come in at 1 each.

I was starting to think about how to convert one of my characters, a gnome wizard, to 4E.  Given his military background, the Student of Battle feat for a little warlord training looked attractive.  Unfortunately, with a Strength of 5 he's not going to come anywhere close to qualifying.  I understand this to to prevent novice players form screwing up, as warlord powers we've seen so far are all strength based.  However, surely there are some Tactical warlord powers out there that are intelligence based and would make sense for a wizard!


----------



## Wormwood

DandD said:
			
		

> You know that it is balanced if there's a 20+ page long thread discussing about it.



22 pages and I finally smile.


----------



## Torchlyte

rhm001 said:
			
		

> All right, slogged through the whole *22* pages. That was a lot of posts, so forgive me if I accidentally repeat a point already made.
> 
> People seem to want to compare the benefits of earlier editions' and 4e's multiclassing, as well as one of the costs---feats, I don't believe anyone has mentioned some of the costs that no longer apply. Specifically, when you multiclassed in 3e you paid for it in one or more of to hit, potential hit points and saving throws, as well as the lost class abilities. Obviously, each of those costs was higher for some classes than others, but they were all costs that had to be balanced against benefits. With the 4e system, you keep the standard hit points for your class for a given level, as well as the standard progression for the other numbers. For defenders and strikers in particular, that's a reduction in costs. I don't think that it automatically validates replacing those costs with feats in and of itself, but it needs to be part of the equation.
> 
> I also want to go WAY back and mention that, although the rogue's sneak attack can only be used once against a target with the relevant feat, while the ranger multiclass feat's potentially lasts for an entire encounter, the number for sneak attack goes up with level, while the other number appears to remain static at 1d6 (or 1d8 with the appropriate feat). Again, not sure it's equal, but should be considered.




1. It would also be an increase in cost for lower HP classes.

2. That, and it doesn't require a minor action. I'm going off of a fuzzy memory here, but I'm fairly certain that Hunter's Quarry takes a minor action.

3. This links to the complaint about the Cleric's healing once per day. True, it's a little underpowered... but power swapping with the Cleric is also especially useful. With two feats, I imagine that it balances things out. We'll just have to trust WotC on this until we get all the rules.


----------



## katahn

Warbringer said:
			
		

> *Spellcasting Multiclass*: 3.x failed in multi-classing spellcasters, IMO, because of 2 key failings:
> 
> 1) no explict CL stacking (unlike BAB)
> 2) spell level tied into highest caster level (hence the biggest problem with dual spellcaster mulitclasses)
> 
> That's it. Fix those, you've fixed the system




3) Remove arcane spell failure or apply "spell failure" to all spell casting classes evenly.  Cleric/Druid casters are already stupidly overpowered compared to arcane casters and to add insult to this they don't have spell failure.

Just pointing out, you missed one.


----------



## SteveC

Now that we've finally seen the multiclassing rules, I have to say, for the first time in a 4E preview, that's some pretty weak sauce.

The thing is: we're not all that far from the mark, the "spend a feat, get a feature" aspect works for me just fine, but the actual abilities are just weak.

What would be wrong with something like this:

[Class] Training
Benefits:
Pick a class feature from [Class]. You can perform this feature as if you were a member of [class]. You may purchase this feat multiple times: each time you do so, select an additional class feature.
Special: [Class] training qualifies you for any Paragon Paths that have [Class] as a prerequisite.

In addition to that, keep all of the other feats for powers as normal. What would be wrong with that?

Bewildered,

--Steve


----------



## katahn

SteveC said:
			
		

> Now that we've finally seen the multiclassing rules, I have to say, for the first time in a 4E preview, that's some pretty weak sauce.
> 
> The thing is: we're not all that far from the mark, the "spend a feat, get a feature" aspect works for me just fine, but the actual abilities are just weak.
> 
> What would be wrong with something like this:
> 
> [Class] Training
> Benefits:
> Pick a class feature from [Class]. You can perform this feature as if you were a member of [class]. You may purchase this feat multiple times: each time you do so, select an additional class feature.
> Special: [Class] training qualifies you for any Paragon Paths that have [Class] as a prerequisite.
> 
> In addition to that, keep all of the other feats for powers as normal. What would be wrong with that?
> 
> Bewildered,
> 
> --Steve




Because class features/powers are more potent than feats in 4e, and trading a feat to get something better than a feat with absolutely zero tradeoff translates into a character spending feats to become what amounts to a gestalt of the two classes.  They have more powers than a single-class, could theoretically fulfill all four core roles as the feat you described is not limited to only one other class and thus render even having classes as pointless.

If you want to gestalt in 4e, just run a gestalt campaign.  Multiclassing rules are meant to work with classes, not make them redundant or pointless.


----------



## Scipio202

*Magical Items and the % split*

One thing that I don't think has come up: since the devs have suggested that the major role of magical items is to grant new powers, we should be counting those powers when we assess whether a Fighter/Wizard "feels" like a 50/50 split.  I'm guessing some (many?) power-granting magical items will have class (or perhaps power source) restrictions.  As I read it, multiclassing into wizard should allow you to use wizard-specific magical items.

Would a Fighter/Wizard feel like a 50/50 "gish" if every encounter he's using 2 fighter exploits, tossing off a fireball, AND shooting an ice beam from a wand/ring/etc.?


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

SteveC said:
			
		

> Now that we've finally seen the multiclassing rules, I have to say, for the first time in a 4E preview, that's some pretty weak sauce.
> 
> The thing is: we're not all that far from the mark, the "spend a feat, get a feature" aspect works for me just fine, but the actual abilities are just weak.
> 
> What would be wrong with something like this:
> 
> [Class] Training
> Benefits:
> Pick a class feature from [Class]. You can perform this feature as if you were a member of [class]. You may purchase this feat multiple times: each time you do so, select an additional class feature.
> Special: [Class] training qualifies you for any Paragon Paths that have [Class] as a prerequisite.
> 
> In addition to that, keep all of the other feats for powers as normal. What would be wrong with that?
> 
> Bewildered,
> 
> --Steve



The individual features are not balanced against each other. Only adding them all together, and taking starting hit points, healing surges and skills, you achieve something balanced. I suppose that the feats are as specific as they are, because only this way, the multiclass feats can be balanced.
In 3E terms. Compare gaining a Familiar with gaining Rage (both possibly with full advancement by character level)


----------



## rhm001

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> 1. It would also be an increase in cost for lower HP classes.




Not necessarily. The HP cost itself will increase (from a net gain to no value) for those classes, yes. That's part of the reason I noted that the costs will all differ. But I don't think we can say whether it's an increase in total cost. For example, before, arcane spellcasters gained the most in terms of HPs; no other class carried a penalty, and all except another arcane caster class carried a benefit. There was a shorter list of classes that granted a divine caster HP. But casters always lost the most as well: spells and spell levels. Everyone seemed to accept that a loss of spells and spell levels outweighed durability. Now, there is no HP benefit, but no caster level loss, either (and it's a power swap rather than a loss, but the analogy starts to break down there). 

And just to cover them: For striker classes, who saw both HP benefits and penalties before, there's no skill penalty, no damage increase penalty, and a potentially broader range of ability benefits.


----------



## Stalker0

Alright, two days after I've read the rules and I've calmed down completely now Took a lot of time to rethink the system, and here are my thoughts:

*The Initiate Feat*

Thinking about it more, I'm okay with this feat. There are some advantages to it. For one, you can multiclass at 1st level, something you couldn't do in 4e. That's a plus. Second, the potential for balance is much higher than before. Now, whenever we get new classes, we should expect a multiclass feat to go with it. Using that, everyone class should be a balanced option compared to each other. Definitely a plus.

Frankly, the feat couldn't be any stronger, or it would be a must have.

I still believe that the biggest problem with the feat is twofold.
1) That the initiate feats are not balanced with each other. But I'm a man a of science, and I recognize that seeing a few words on a page, when we may not even have the full text of the feats, is a poor judge of balance. I'm big enough to admit a wait and see approach is a better judge.

2) That the multiclass feats don't allow enough mixing of the classes. I'm of the opinion that multiclassing is a patch for the class system. The class system provides a lot of benefits, but its biggest drawback is each class provides a limited archetype. In order for players to play the character they want, you need to blend those archeytpes a bit.

I get that one feat is not enough to do a full mix of two classes, nor probably should it for balance reasons. But I think we can do a bit better than what we have here. For example, allow a second initiate feat to pick up another class ability (again strict control on which one).

Or force the person to give up something from their original class to gain a bit more in the multiclass. For example, let's say that every class has an * next to one of their class abilities. The fighter's +1 to attack for example. Then the multiclass feat would allow you more strength in your multiclass, but at the cost of some of your original ability.

For example, change the Ranger feat to the following:

Ranger initiate feat (forgot the name)
Prereq: Str 13 or Dex 13
Benefit: You gain skill training in one ranger class skill you currently don't have training in. Once per encounter you can use the hunter's quarry ability.
Special: If you give up your * class ability, you can now gain the ranger's tactic ability (TWF or archery).

*Multiclass Powers*

My opinion is still that 3 feats to gain 3 powers seems weak. However, once again until I see the full feat system and what kind of awesome wizard powers I can get for the fighter it would be ignorant of me to create strong judgements.

One thing I would like to see is a "practiced spellcaster" type feat that would allow multiclasser some help getting their new powers up to speed. For example, a fighter with an 18 strength and 13 int may love his new wizard power, but its going to be extremely weak comparatively (both in damage and in attack roll). Perhaps a feat to bump that power as high as your primary stat or something of the note.

If a person is willing to spend all of those feats to get a power, then he should be entitled to be good at it.


----------



## Wolfwood2

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> *Multiclass Powers*
> 
> My opinion is still that 3 feats to gain 3 powers seems weak. However, once again until I see the full feat system and what kind of awesome wizard powers I can get for the fighter it would be ignorant of me to create strong judgements.




I don't really expect that most multi-classers will spend 3 feats to gain 3 powers.  I expect most of them will spend 1 feat to gain 1 power.  They'll look at their concept and make a decision as to in what manner their PC is going to draw on the secondary class.  Is it going to be a utility power?  A once-per-encounter signature trick?  A once-per-day big boom to shock opponents?  I don't believe that most concepts will require all three feats.

For example, on another board someone cited Dilvish the Damned as a potential multiclass character.  Dilvish definitely solved most problems with cold steel.  It was only in extreme situations that he would pull out one of his mega-powerful Awful Saying spells.  Dilvish as a PC would likely want the Adept power feat, but not the Initiate or Acolyte feats.

An Initiatie feat plus one feat for one power is the same trade-off, but a much smaller investment.  It still leaves plenty of feats for enhancing your base class abilities.


----------



## Dausuul

katahn said:
			
		

> 3) Remove arcane spell failure or apply "spell failure" to all spell casting classes evenly.  Cleric/Druid casters are already stupidly overpowered compared to arcane casters and to add insult to this they don't have spell failure.




Can't say I agree with this.  It's more that divine and arcane casters operate in different spheres.  At mid- to high levels, divine casters are the supreme gods of conventional, chop-off-the-hit-points combat.  Arcane casters can't match CoDzilla's damage output or staying power; but they can redefine the battlefield so as to make chop-off-the-hit-points combat irrelevant.


----------



## rhm001

Stalker0 said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to see is a "practiced spellcaster" type feat that would allow multiclasser some help getting their new powers up to speed. For example, a fighter with an 18 strength and 13 int may love his new wizard power, but its going to be extremely weak comparatively (both in damage and in attack roll). Perhaps a feat to bump that power as high as your primary stat or something of the note.
> 
> If a person is willing to spend all of those feats to get a power, then he should be entitled to be good at it.




Two things:

1) Some of the "starters," particularly the rogue backstab look like they will ramp up from the start; nothing says it isn't subject to the standard damage increase at higher levels.

2) The powers taken with the later feats can be replaced at each level. Granted that requires the swap out of a higher level power, but it is a more powerful version of what you spent the first feat on. On the other hand, an additional feat that gave you the ability to add an effective level or two, so you could trade a level 3 ability for a level 4 or 5 ability (provided you were high enough level to use it) might not be a bad/broken idea. Have to see the powers first.


----------



## SteveC

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> The individual features are not balanced against each other. Only adding them all together, and taking starting hit points, healing surges and skills, you achieve something balanced. I suppose that the feats are as specific as they are, because only this way, the multiclass feats can be balanced.
> In 3E terms. Compare gaining a Familiar with gaining Rage (both possibly with full advancement by character level)



...and that makes perfect sense to me as well. That's why when Mike Mearls talked about a table of how many features you get with how many feats made me think there would be a sort of multiclassing tree where the more feats you spend, the better features you get. 

This way is interesting: I can see a Warlock taking ranger training to cause a lot of damage with a combined curse/quarry, but that's more of a synergy rather than any sort of true multiclassing. This is one of the things I'll have to see in actual play, but I suspect this will be one of the first real houserules I end up making for my second campaign (I always run one "by the book" to get an idea of how these things work in actual play, first).

--Steve


----------



## Spatula

Shazman said:
			
		

> They said that any combo of multiclassing works.  But they eliminated multiclassing.  It isn't being truthful to call the dabbling feats multiclassing.  And you definitely can't do a three class combo with these new "mulitclassing" rules.  If I promised that 4E would have a spellcasing system that was balanced and worked for everyone and then got rid of spellcasting alltogether, did I deliver what I promised?  I think not.



Well, that's pretty much been the pattern of many of 4e's fixes to 3e's thorny problems.   We made combat simpler by getting rid of all the maneuvers!  We fixed Dispel Magic by removing all the stuff it used to be able to do!  So in 4e terms, yes, you did deliver. 

But once again, it is too early to say what you "can" and "cannot" do with multiclassing.  We only have half the picture - the heroic tier half.  The paragon tier multiclass option is still unknown to us.  Can you pick a 2nd multiclass as your paragon path?  Because that would result in a three-class combo.  But we don't know if it would be allowed (and even if not, it would probably be very easy to houserule).  And I think others have looked at the power progression from the Tiers excerpt and posited that if you take the 4 heroic feats, and if the paragon multiclass gives you cross-class powers in place of the paragon powers (a likely scenario), you end up with close to a 50/50 (or was it 60/40?) power split.  And the powers are the class-defining abilities.


----------



## katahn

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Can't say I agree with this.  It's more that divine and arcane casters operate in different spheres.  At mid- to high levels, divine casters are the supreme gods of conventional, chop-off-the-hit-points combat.  Arcane casters can't match CoDzilla's damage output or staying power; but they can redefine the battlefield so as to make chop-off-the-hit-points combat irrelevant.




I can't really say I've seen that straight-class arcane casters' abilities noticeably make the lack of spell failure for divine casters a balanced equation.  But even if I were to agree in the case of the wizard, conceptually arcane spell failure for a sorcerer (who's magic is innate rather than studied) just doesn't makes sense to me.  Of course I'd balance the supposed superior utility of an arcanist against the fact that they have weaker hit dice, poorer nonmagical combat ability, and don't start with any sort of armor proficiencies rather than all of that plus spell failure.

The real reason for spell failure was (IMHO) because if it weren't for that every wizard/sorcerer in the game would multiclass with Fighter 1 to get all three armor proficiency feats plus a boost in HP and extra weapon skills.  Losing one caster level for that would probably be worth it.  If taking level 1 of a class didn't give such a front-loaded benefit, the game-balance reasons for arcane spell failure would cease to exist.


----------



## mneme

Lizard said:
			
		

> I'm glad I waited, since my first comments would have been based on a misunderstanding of the rules -- I thought you could only get three powers, max, from the second class, which would have been t3h suxx0r. But it seems you can get about 1/3rd of your powers from the second class (if you spend all your feats on them), which is pretty good. It's not 50/50, obviously, but it does let you do a lot.



*waves to the Lizard*

To be fair, we don't know whether you can get the power-switching feats multiple times -- I think the 1/3 number actually assumes you can only get them once (9 powers by 10th level, of which 3 are switched).  OTOH, we don't know what multiclassing is like past 10th level ("true" multiclassing starts at 11th; these -are- training feats, and we don't know if there are Paragon-level muticlassing feats as well), and I'd guess that you can take these feats multiple times anyway (which means that by 20th level, you could actually have all your powers traded out if you wanted--you have 11-12 feats by then, which is about as many powers as you have).



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Given the feats we've seen, powers seem like a better choice. Especially since there's no tiers or levels or prequisites. I'm trying to see why EVERYONE won't multiclass in 4e. Take the novice feat at first level, grab some Cool Bennies (more than I think you'd get for a feat), then wait until that cool power that synergizes perfectly comes along. Every fighter can toss a Fireball to weaken the enemy before closing with them or cleaning out minions.




Pretty much.  I'd guess that some builds will be more feat-intensive, but for many, two feats for a 1/day bomb will be a no-brainer.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Have we seen how 'multiclassing instead of paragon' is going to work yet?



Nope.  We can guess (bonus powers from the other class, class features widened to or towards the "full" base features for the class, -maybe- the ability to pick powers from either class on level, thus getting to retrain power switching feats), but we've not gotten the full skinny by any means.

Certainly, if there's a "true" 50/50 split, it is likely to be here.



			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> grab ranger training at 14th? Hell, if he can drop powers, why can't he drop Wizard and pick up Ranger? If multiclassing was a choice you had to make at first level -- representing childhood training or whatever -- the one class limit would make sense.




Very much agreed that the "one class limit" is an acknowledgement that these feats are overpowered; if they were balanced, there'd be no reason to have the limit.  I'm guessing a fix will happen later.  But you definately -can- drop a multiclassing feat and replace it with a different multiclassing feat via retraining later -- why wouldn't you be able to?  Hell, given the power switching feats and the way they work, you could even switch over a whole power set at a new level (prediction: eratta saying that if you do this, you -must- switch over all your power switching feats; you can't keep powers from the old class!  But I doubt this will be clear except by inference in the printed rules; it's too much of a corner case).


----------



## Michele Carter

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> And a side note. We're always talking about the stupid loved Fighter/Mage. ... How does this shape up for ... Cleric/Wizards?




Well, I can only speak to mine, but it's great. 

My dwarf wizard is high-Wisdom anyway, for the control aspects. Her background is all about serving in a temple of Ioun, so taking the cleric multiclass feat made perfect sense at 1st level. That got me the Religion skill and a _healing word_ once per day; might not seem like a lot, but believe me, it's just super-handy to have an extra healing spell at the right moment. Especially from an unexpected source.

At 5th level she's only got the Novice Power feat so far, but trading out a wizard spell for a cleric prayer has absolutely been worth it, both roleplaying wise (yes! it's still a factor!) and in combat. The wizard spell I traded *might* have done more damage, but the cleric prayer allows for a bigger area effect AND party aid. I plan on her taking the other two power-swap feats as she gains levels, and will strongly consider paragon multiclassing when she hits 11th. Even if I don't go that way, she'll always have three cleric prayers at her disposal.  Considering they could be at her highest level, that feels pretty darn cleric-y to me.


----------



## Spatula

rhm001 said:
			
		

> I also want to go WAY back and mention that, although the rogue's sneak attack can only be used once against a target with the relevant feat, while the ranger multiclass feat's potentially lasts for an entire encounter, the number for sneak attack goes up with level, while the other number appears to remain static at 1d6 (or 1d8 with the appropriate feat). Again, not sure it's equal, but should be considered.



The problem with the sneak attack power (aside from requiring combat advantage, etc.) is that sneak attack can only be used with small blades, slings, and hand crossbows, which no one but the rogue has much reason to use.  The benefit from the ranger feat is just a hell of a lot better.  The rogue multiclass feat perhaps would have been better off granting the rogue's get-the-drop ability, as everyone would find that useful.


----------



## Scipio202

Another advantage of this form of multiclassing is it makes it easier for the DM to have themed campaigns because if everyone takes two feats, everyone can have the same utility power (especially movement powers).  If you want to make flying really important, or breating under water, or whatever, then you can make it so everyone has the same power without stopping being their main roles.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> I challenge you to find me a character concept that can't be represented with this system.




By this system I assume you mean 4th ed.  

The ultramystic who has access to all magical powers. In third 3d I could take levels in Cleric, Wizard, Incarnate and Psion. I might not be really powerful at any of them, but by concept I could touch all powers (made for a fun Gestalt though   ).

That was in basic answer to the question.


Personally I like the new multiclassing. I can't wait for the full rules so I can see how things work completely.


----------



## The Shadow

I'm really not understanding all the love for "50/50" multiclass splits.  Such a thing has never been possible in any edition of D&D.

Yes, you could have 50% of your *levels* from each class.  But certainly not 50% of your effectiveness, nor 50% of your concept.  And most assuredly has there never been a D&D character who spent 50% of his rounds in combat being fightery and 50% of his rounds being wizardly.  (Most *especially* not in 1e and 2e.)

Frankly, the multiclass system here looks quite good enough to handle any character concept I've ever come up with.  And that's *without* seeing the paragon multiclassing.  And *without* any new classes being created.

I'm getting the impression out there that some people regard a "character concept" as involving class features?  Really?  Do you really need to sneak attack more than once an encounter to indicate that you're from the mean streets, despite a later change in career?  (How "realistic" or "verisimilitudinous" is it for someone to pursue two very different careers _to the same extent_, I might add?)

The one concern I do have with the system as presented is that it sure looks like a fighter/wizard is getting a lot better deal than a wizard/fighter.  (It appears the wizard will have to expend a good deal of other feats to be able to really help out as a secondary defender.)  But I could be wrong about that, and *either* of those two looks like a better mesh between classes than what's gone before.

And yes, in 3e I would spend a feat to give my wizard a single cleric spell a day so fast it would make your head spin.  Much less a *quarter of my daily spells*.  (3e doesn't have per-encounter spells, do recall.)


----------



## Kishin

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> In 30+ years of playing D&D, I have played very few single-classed PCs- perhaps as little as 5%- and I have _not once_ missed the power of a solo-classed PC.  Concerns about effectiveness are, have always been, and always will be secondary to my concerns about whether a particular set of abilities (in whatever system) most accurately represents the idealized version of the PC floating in my head.
> 
> This is one of those things in 4Ed that makes me feel as if they're trying to get me to trade my heroes for ghosts.
> 
> This is ultimately one area of gaming in which its probably impossible for the sides to reconcile with each other, so let's just agree to disagree (profoundly).




I understand your concerns, and agree to disagree. I consider myself more about building to a concept, but in a lot of cases with multiclassing, I've never seen the marriage between concept and effectiveness work out, most notably at higher levels. I would argue that it was easier to play to the concept of a magic using melee character using the Duskblade class rather than multiclassing. Your mileage obviously varies. Most of the multiclassing I've seen in the last many years of 3E has been done to further specialize a character into their niche (I suppose this sounds a bit odd) rather than a broadening of role. Everyone approaches D&D a different way, though.

What I think is interesting is the stated design goal of constructing the system in a way that makes every combination not lag behind, while still maintaining its own flavor, something a friend has referred to as very 'Disney'. In short, it seems they're aiming to make it so that bad multiclassing is at a minimum.



			
				WoTC_Miko said:
			
		

> Well, I can only speak to mine, but it's great.
> 
> My dwarf wizard is high-Wisdom anyway, for the control aspects. Her background is all about serving in a temple of Ioun, so taking the cleric multiclass feat made perfect sense at 1st level. That got me the Religion skill and a healing word once per day; might not seem like a lot, but believe me, it's just super-handy to have an extra healing spell at the right moment. Especially from an unexpected source.
> 
> At 5th level she's only got the Novice Power feat so far, but trading out a wizard spell for a cleric prayer has absolutely been worth it, both roleplaying wise (yes! it's still a factor!) and in combat. The wizard spell I traded *might* have done more damage, but the cleric prayer allows for a bigger area effect AND party aid. I plan on her taking the other two power-swap feats as she gains levels, and will strongly consider paragon multiclassing when she hits 11th. Even if I don't go that way, she'll always have three cleric prayers at her disposal. Considering they could be at her highest level, that feels pretty darn cleric-y to me.




Your posts are always so refreshing/informative, Miko. Its nice to hear how things are being played on the ground floor.

Just a quick question: Is there a pure cleric in the party, or is your character responsible for a larger portion of the buffing/healing than might be expected?


----------



## DeusExMachina

The Shadow said:
			
		

> And yes, in 3e I would spend a feat to give my wizard a single cleric spell a day so fast it would make your head spin.  Much less a *quarter of my daily spells*.  (3e doesn't have per-encounter spells, do recall.)




QFT... I actually used that feat that lets you use one power or spell from other spell lists quite a few times. Assassin with the suggestion spell, psychic warrior with the schism power (extremely effective, one half of your mind buffs while the other fights), etc. Extremely effective because of specific synergy bonuses. You had to look for the good ones, but it was totally worth it...


----------



## katahn

Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> By this system I assume you mean 4th ed.
> 
> The ultramystic who has access to all magical powers. In third 3d I could take levels in Cleric, Wizard, Incarnate and Psion. I might not be really powerful at any of them, but by concept I could touch all powers (made for a fun Gestalt though   ).
> 
> That was in basic answer to the question.
> 
> 
> Personally I like the new multiclassing. I can't wait for the full rules so I can see how things work completely.




If by "kinds of magic" you mean "power sources" then yes 4e can't do it.  But if you are referring to magic relating to roles then....

Cleric(Wizard)/Paragon:Warlock

A pure spellcaster type in a robe (mostly) capable of healing, nuking, and zapping.  Also would have a very wide-variety of utility-type spells.

edit: just to clarify, this is tongue-firmly-in-cheek


----------



## MindWanderer

Wolfwood2 said:
			
		

> I don't really expect that most multi-classers will spend 3 feats to gain 3 powers.  I expect most of them will spend 1 feat to gain 1 power.  They'll look at their concept and make a decision as to in what manner their PC is going to draw on the secondary class.  Is it going to be a utility power?  A once-per-encounter signature trick?  A once-per-day big boom to shock opponents?  I don't believe that most concepts will require all three feats.
> 
> For example, on another board someone cited Dilvish the Damned as a potential multiclass character.  Dilvish definitely solved most problems with cold steel.  It was only in extreme situations that he would pull out one of his mega-powerful Awful Saying spells.  Dilvish as a PC would likely want the Adept power feat, but not the Initiate or Acolyte feats.
> 
> An Initiatie feat plus one feat for one power is the same trade-off, but a much smaller investment.  It still leaves plenty of feats for enhancing your base class abilities.



I dunno... I think the approach you state will be common, but I think many will take two or three of those feats.  Partially it's the opportunity cost (I spent the Initiate feat to qualify for the Power feat and I'm going to milk that prereq for all it's worth) and partially it's for options.  For instance, one of the two character concepts I plan to use for RPGA games is a dragonborn rogue who will eventually take sorcerer training.  Assuming the sorcerer is a controller, I'll be getting a utility power and an encounter power from the sorcerer list.  That'll give me one useful sorcerer trick, probably to help my mobility or defense (to set me up for a flank or protect me once I get there), and between the encounter power and my breath weapon I'll be able to function as a pretty decent secondary controller.


			
				Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> By this system I assume you mean 4th ed.
> 
> The ultramystic who has access to all magical powers. In third 3d I could take levels in Cleric, Wizard, Incarnate and Psion. I might not be really powerful at any of them, but by concept I could touch all powers (made for a fun Gestalt though   ).
> 
> That was in basic answer to the question.



You can still do that in 4e, once we have all those classes.  Be a half-elf wizard.  Take your racial cross-class power from the incarnate list and take the initiate feat and a couple of power feats for clerics.  At 11th level, skip your paragon path to multiclass into psion.  Hey presto, you're quadruple-classed.  And a _lot_ more effective than the corresponding 3e character.


----------



## Torchlyte

Edit: To the post above me, I have a strong feeling you can't multiclass into a fourth class with the Paragon Tier swap.



			
				Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> By this system I assume you mean 4th ed.
> 
> The ultramystic who has access to all magical powers. In third 3d I could take levels in Cleric, Wizard, Incarnate and Psion. I might not be really powerful at any of them, but by concept I could touch all powers (made for a fun Gestalt though   ).




That's not a character concept, it's a laundry list of mechanics.

Edit: To give my post more substance, let me create a character concept from your list.

Calvin is a gifted magic-user in many ways, but he lacks focus and dedication. He has learned the basics of a variety of different magical techniques, never able to persevere.

The fact is, you wouldn't actually have to have spells from all the lists to represent this concept. You could take a Cleric and use multiclass feats to obtain some Wizard spells and your concept would be fulfilled. If you wanted to be a Half-Elf, you could add in a Psion power, but there's no reason you'd have to; this is a concept where power atrophy is easily applicable.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's not a character concept, it's a laundry list of mechanics.




The character concept is, for example, a child of destiny born to unite magic. As part of the character concept, the character can access all form of magic.

That is a concept.

The laundry list was an example of how that could be done in third edition.


----------



## Derren

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> That's not a character concept, it's a laundry list of mechanics.




Every D&D character is in the end just a list of mechanics. A good roleplayer fills this list according to a concept and thanks to the 4E straitjacket a lot of concepts are now not possible anymore.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

katahn said:
			
		

> edit: just to clarify, this is tongue-firmly-in-cheek





As was my concept, at least to an extent.


----------



## Lord Mhoram

MindWanderer said:
			
		

> You can still do that in 4e, once we have all those classes.  Be a half-elf wizard.  Take your racial cross-class power from the incarnate list and take the initiate feat and a couple of power feats for clerics.  At 11th level, skip your paragon path to multiclass into psion.  Hey presto, you're quadruple-classed.  And a _lot_ more effective than the corresponding 3e character.




Yeah. It could get much the same feel. Depends on how the Paragon multi-classing thing works.

I was mostly throwing out the idea because we couldn't get that right off. I've played characters like that, and yeah, from what I have seen the 4th ed version would  be more effective. 

I tend towards multiclassing. Been playing so long, I tend to come up with odd and wierd character concepts (Superheroes being my primary genre doesn't hurt in that direction either). I really do like what I am seeing for 4th.


----------



## Dausuul

katahn said:
			
		

> I can't really say I've seen that straight-class arcane casters' abilities noticeably make the lack of spell failure for divine casters a balanced equation.  But even if I were to agree in the case of the wizard, conceptually arcane spell failure for a sorcerer (who's magic is innate rather than studied) just doesn't makes sense to me.  Of course I'd balance the supposed superior utility of an arcanist against the fact that they have weaker hit dice, poorer nonmagical combat ability, and don't start with any sort of armor proficiencies rather than all of that plus spell failure.




Conceptually, I've never felt that the arcane spell failure rules made any sense at all.  But I don't see them hurting arcane casters particularly, certainly not at the higher levels.

The rule for any arcane caster past 10th level is, "If you _need_ Armor Class, you're doing it wrong."  High-level arcane casters in 3.X rely on their insane mobility, their magical defenses, and their battlefield control magic to protect them.  _Greater invisibility_, _mirror image_, _displacement_, _stoneskin_, _phantom steed_, _greater blink_, _time stop_, and the like keep you from getting hurt, while save-or-die and save-or-lose spells take out your enemies.  For bonus points, use scry 'n die tactics to ensure the fight is over before it starts, or just _teleport_ to the objective and bypass the fight entirely.  That's what I mean by making chop-off-the-hit-points combat irrelevant.

4E looks to be negating this, making arcane casters play the same basic game as everyone else--protect your hit points with AC/Fort/Ref/Will, defeat your enemies by chopping off their hit points.


----------



## Torchlyte

I edited my above post.



			
				Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> The character concept is, for example, a child of destiny born to unite magic. As part of the character concept, the character can access all form of magic.
> 
> That is a concept.
> 
> The laundry list was an example of how that could be done in third edition.




I guess I see that as more of a flavor change than something that must be represented by 1 Incarnum Power + 1 Arcane Power + 1 Divine Power + 1 Psionic Power. For example, you could do Divine/Psionic and have rituals represent the arcane side.


----------



## The Shadow

Derren said:
			
		

> Every D&D character is in the end just a list of mechanics.




I... would find it very difficult to disagree more.

Every D&D character of mine is an idea in my mind - a personality, a way of speaking, a backstory, a set of imagined things they do.  A sketch of a person - a heroic person in a fantasy world.

The list of mechanics is there to help me depict that person in the context of the game.  It is not, by any stretch, "my character".  It is a partial, always inadequate, and limited attempt to depict the character in my mind as he or she interacts with the imagined world.



> A good roleplayer fills this list according to a concept and thanks to the 4E straitjacket a lot of concepts are now not possible anymore.




I can't imagine why you believe this.  Really, I can't.  I'll grant you that a druidic concept (say) will be more inadequately represented by the mechanics than usual until next year... but no reasonable concept is impossible.  (Where by 'reasonable' I mean 'leaving room for the other people at the table to participate roughly equally'.)


----------



## JohnSnow

Long post, but bear with me.



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> 2) That the multiclass feats don't allow enough mixing of the classes. I'm of the opinion that multiclassing is a patch for the class system. The class system provides a lot of benefits, but its biggest drawback is each class provides a limited archetype. In order for players to play the character they want, you need to blend those archeytpes a bit.
> 
> I get that one feat is not enough to do a full mix of two classes, nor probably should it for balance reasons. But I think we can do a bit better than what we have here. For example, allow a second initiate feat to pick up another class ability (again strict control on which one).




I think this actually very likely IS in the system, although perhaps not in the form you think. In other words, there isn't an "arcane initiate 2" but various feats that provide options for wizard characters, _which our multiclass character can benefit from._ As an example, the DDXP cleric (Erais) had a special ability called _Power of Amaunator_ that he picked up _by spending a feat_. My assumption is that this ability has a prerequisite of "cleric." The multiclass article makes it very clear that this feat would be available to any character who had taken Initiate of the Faith. Here's the relevant quote from the article on multiclassing:

_"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."_​
I imagine that there will be a number of feats like this, that provide a benefit for members of that class, but also provide a benefit to other PCs. For example, there might be a wizard feat that grants a character more cantrips. Or a fighter feat to improve your attacks, or rogue feats that let you do more with skills, or, or, or...

Make sense?



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> Ranger initiate feat (forgot the name)
> Prereq: Str 13 or Dex 13
> Benefit: You gain skill training in one ranger class skill you currently don't have training in. Once per encounter you can use the hunter's quarry ability.
> Special: If you give up your * class ability, you can now gain the ranger's tactic ability (TWF or archery).
> 
> *Multiclass Powers*
> 
> My opinion is still that 3 feats to gain 3 powers seems weak. However, once again until I see the full feat system and what kind of awesome wizard powers I can get for the fighter it would be ignorant of me to create strong judgements.




I believe that feats in 4th Edition either provide static enhancements to your existing options, or open up new options. For example, we know there's a ritual casting feat. We know, based on the DDXP cleric, that there are other options besides Divine Fortune and Turn Undead. For all we know, the cleric "picks 2" from a list of several.

Assuming a similar list exists for the Warlock and Wizard, there might be feats that let them add to the their options. Which, of course, any character who had multiclassed to those classes would qualify for.

For example, what if there are rogue feats that allow a rogue to pick up brutal scoundrel _as well as_ artful dodger?

Hopefully, this all makes sense.



			
				Stalker0 said:
			
		

> One thing I would like to see is a "practiced spellcaster" type feat that would allow multiclasser some help getting their new powers up to speed. For example, a fighter with an 18 strength and 13 int may love his new wizard power, but its going to be extremely weak comparatively (both in damage and in attack roll). Perhaps a feat to bump that power as high as your primary stat or something of the note.
> 
> If a person is willing to spend all of those feats to get a power, then he should be entitled to be good at it.




There's an existing feat that makes does something like that. I imagine it's the Fourth Edition translation of a feat available to wizard characters (for which, we established above, our multiclass character qualifies) called "Spell Focus."

Our fighter still lags slightly behind the single-classed wizard, but he can almost make it up, if he wants to.

Those class-specific feats are the aspects of multiclassing I think we aren't seeing. And I think they're the ones that really unlock its potential.

Your fighter with arcane initiate isn't going to have as many fighter options as a single class fighter (one less power, a few points behind on various bonuses due to not taking feats), but it's my belief that if he spends all his feats on his multiclass, he'll have some pretty handy wizarding skills - which, because they don't have all the feat enhancements, won't be _quite_ as good as what a single-classed wizard can do. And, he's still going to have fewer arcane options than a wizard with student of the sword does. Which is as it should be.

Personally, I regard all of this as a feature, rather than a bug.



			
				WolfWood2 said:
			
		

> For example, on another board someone cited Dilvish the Damned as a potential multiclass character. Dilvish definitely solved most problems with cold steel. It was only in extreme situations that he would pull out one of his mega-powerful Awful Saying spells. Dilvish as a PC would likely want the Adept power feat, but not the Initiate or Acolyte feats.




Actually, I think Dilvish (*ahem* the "Half-Elven") is probably a textbook 4e multiclassed character. He's first and foremost a fighter (clearly) with Arcane Initiate as his half-elven benefit, granting him the arcana skill and _magic missile_ once per encounter. He may also have novice power or adept power (to cover his various fireblasts), may have one utility power (although I can't think of any). I'd say he's also taken the "ritual casting" feat, which covers his 12 Awful Sayings. 

Now, you probably need some ability for him to acquire cantrips, but as I said above, I imagine there's a wizard class feat that would allow precisely that.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

...4E doesn't give you multiclassing 50/50 options because said options would be better represented with combined classes that can select certain powers from multiple classes.  WotC hasn't promoted this idea because they want to sell their books, but it's really easy to do.  The method by which to adjust a comboclass for the increased flexibility probably should be via feats, but can be anything from limiting skills or even features and powers.
This probably won't ever be an official rule, because it gives power to individual DMs that isn't marketable, but it's incredibly intuitive given the nature of 4E's power and combat mechanics.
In two months, I expect an enworld thread will have a sticky of a series of playtested and generally-accepted comboclasses.  Or should.

But since WotC won't sponsor it as Canon, the debate will rage on and a majority of whining 3.x-multiclassing-lovers will pretend that there isn't an obvious fix.


----------



## Pinotage

I haven't seen any mention of this, but do characters who multiclass into wizard or cleric get access to rituals?

Pinotage


----------



## Dausuul

Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> The character concept is, for example, a child of destiny born to unite magic. As part of the character concept, the character can access all form of magic.
> 
> That is a concept.




Okay.  Cleric with wizard multiclass, or vice versa.  Done.  You can access both arcane and divine magic, which are the only two forms of magic that exist in 4E at the moment. 

Snarky rejoinders aside, I'll concede that the "only one multi-class" limit does restrict one's options a bit, although I question how often it would actually come up.  But does anyone have a concept which could not be represented by the core multiclassing system, if the "only one multi-class" limit were not in place?


----------



## Spatula

Pinotage said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any mention of this, but do characters who multiclass into wizard or cleric get access to rituals?



We don't know what pre-requisites are needed to get access to rituals, so it's hard to say.  We don't know much of anything about rituals, in fact.


----------



## Torchlyte

Dausuul said:
			
		

> I'll concede that the "only one multi-class" limit does restrict one's options a bit




I still disagree with this because I think a character doesn't have to be utterly defined by "one power for x, one power from y, one power from z." Some would represent a Paladin/Rogue with multiclass powers, where I might be more inclined to just give a Paladin some unusual skill choices.



			
				Pinotage said:
			
		

> I haven't seen any mention of this, but do characters who multiclass into wizard or cleric get access to rituals?
> 
> Pinotage




Not unless they take the ritual casting feat.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

Dausuul said:
			
		

> But does anyone have a concept which could not be represented by the core multiclassing system, if the "only one multi-class" limit were not in place?



What about mah Fighter/Cleric/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue/Warlord/Warlock/Wizard?


----------



## Dausuul

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> What about mah Fighter/Cleric/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue/Warlord/Warlock/Wizard?




First, that's not a character concept, it's a list of mechanical elements.  Second, if the "only one multi-class" limit were not in place, it would be quite easy to create.


----------



## Torchlyte

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> What about mah Fighter/Cleric/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue/Warlord/Warlock/Wizard?




This will be my greatest challenge yet!

Paladin with Wizard multiclass feats, careful skill selection, and a couple extra feats to fill in the empty space.

Fighter/Warlord/Cleric => Paladin

Ranger/Rogue => Sneaky Skills/Feats

Warlock/Wizard => Wizard

*I win!*


----------



## Lord Mhoram

Dausuul said:
			
		

> Okay.  Cleric with wizard multiclass, or vice versa.  Done.  You can access both arcane and divine magic, which are the only two forms of magic that exist in 4E at the moment.







			
				Dausuul said:
			
		

> Snarky rejoinders aside, I'll concede that the "only one multi-class" limit does restrict one's options a bit, although I question how often it would actually come up.  But does anyone have a concept which could not be represented by the core multiclassing system, if the "only one multi-class" limit were not in place?




Not at all. As I mentioned upthread, I really like the new system. To get the versatility I want, I may make a few houserules, but I've never had any problems doing that. I'm actually looking forward to playing with the classes and multiclassing as presented. And that is from someone who D&D is a secondary game system. The MC rules moved the PH from a "yeah whenever" purchase to a "buy the week it comes out" one.


----------



## Dausuul

Lord Mhoram said:
			
		

> Not at all. As I mentioned upthread, I really like the new system. To get the versatility I want, I may make a few houserules, but I've never had any problems doing that. I'm actually looking forward to playing with the classes and multiclassing as presented. And that is from someone who D&D is a secondary game system. The MC rules moved the PH from a "yeah whenever" purchase to a "buy the week it comes out" one.




I was at "buy the week it comes out" before 4E was even announced.  I got pretty tired of 3.X.  

Although right now, what I'm really drooling to see is information on rituals.  WotC has been very tight-lipped on that particular subject.


----------



## DandD

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> What about mah Fighter/Cleric/Paladin/Ranger/Rogue/Warlord/Warlock/Wizard?



Sounds like Senior Vorpal Kick-asso (with two 4th edition base-classes added), the retarded goblin and absolute moron who got captured by some evil ranger-dude who specialized in killing goblinoids, and got tortured very very painfully, and then was going to be executed. Now his single-player character classed goblinoid fellows have to save his worthless butt, and they might die because of him. 

Yeah, a good concept for a super-useless character who only gets everybody else in trouble.


----------



## drjones

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> *I really wrote Thief at first - why? I play D&D only since 3E, I don't even know how the Thief Classes looked like! Curse you, grognards, for slipping your dated terminology in my vocabulary!



Do not fight it.  I am no 'back in good old days' dude but someone who stabs you in the back, unlocks doors and removes traps?  Thief all the way baby, Expert Treasure Finder on the business card.


----------



## Mouseferatu

rowport said:
			
		

> Presuming that you know your player, and/or can ask him directly, would you mind posting his rationale?  I am genuinely curious, not looking for an argument.




As I said... Because we specifically and overtly decided to keep our characters relatively simple during our first 4E campaign, so we could learn and master the new system.


----------



## jeffhartsell

So, if you have a human and take the first multi-class feat at 1st level do you think you can take the bonus at-will power from the second class?  That just would make humans pretty uber for multi-classing.


----------



## Kraydak

Maybe I can make my unhappiness clear by looking at what 4e MCing doesn't give you.  It doesn't give you at-will Powers, or (with minor exceptions) other non-Power class abilities.  What does this mean?

If you want to MC into a defender you:
1) don't gain Armor, HP or Healing surges: you don't get any tougher, a key defender characteristic.  Sure, you can spend even more feats on those things, but then you would have been better off not MCing and getting those feats instead.
2) don't gain the ability to defend allies reliably.  While you do get the ability to (possible miss change w/fighter) mark 1 person/encounter with the initial MC feat, and might be able to pick up other defender abilities as encounter powers, your defender abilities will still be negligible.  MCing with fighter, you *don't* get the fighters AoO root/anti shift abilities.  WotC claims to have made paladin marks relatively unstable to prevent coward-pally tactics.  With many enemy, long duration, mobile encounters supposed to be the norm, a single, weak per encounter mark+the option to spend a feat on a per encounter ability just isn't going to cut it.
It is lack of toughness improvements that really galls me: MCing into a defender, by costing feats, effectively *weakens* your defenses (those feats could have been spent on increasing your own defense).  The inability to pick up significant party-protection abilities doesn't help any either.

If you MC into a striker: (the following is written under the assumption, borne out in the very limited info we have, that a striker's extra damage comes from their abilities that give extra damage dice, Sneak Attack/Hunter's Quarry/Warlock's Curse)
1) You don't get significant extra damage: you get 1 use of the striker's extra damage ability/encounter (unless you are a warlock, then you lose completely).  Given the goal of long fights with many enemies, you aren't gaining even weak striker damage.
2) You aren't getting much mobility, the other striker feature.  The warlock can get a per encounter movement ability with his MC feat.  All can get per encounter movement abilities with further feat investiture, but 2-3 movement abilities/encounter, with 4e encounter durations, won't play like a high mobility character.
MCing into strikers won't get you either the flavor of a high DPS character, or the flavor of a high mobility character.  Yay?  Also, like the defender MC armor issue, MCing into strikers doesn't seem to net you weapon proficiencies... which can pose problems.  Forcing extra feat expenditure to be able to use the weapon your MCed class requires is asking too much.

The cases of leaders and controllers is less clear, because we don't have much information about higher level healing, or any real idea on how the controller is supposed to control the battlefield.


----------



## DandD

How exactly did Multiclassing in pre-3rd edition work, again? Wasn't it so that you started as a multiclass, and forever were a multiclassed character? Isn't D&D 3rd edition's approach rather more like dual-classing?


----------



## Andor

DandD said:
			
		

> How exactly did Multiclassing in pre-3rd edition work, again? Wasn't it so that you started as a multiclass, and forever were a multiclassed character? Isn't D&D 3rd edition's approach rather more like dual-classing?




Yes, although 3e's approach is much kinder than the old dual classing rules which demanded very high stats and were a "no looking back" kind of deal where you could never advance in your old class again. In fact IIRC you couldn't even use the abilities of your old class untill your nex class was of equal level or you were 'backsliding'.

And of course as has been mentioned, the multi-classed characters of old were just flat out massively more powerful than a single classed character.


----------



## muffin_of_chaos

I remember the days when 3.0 was new and cool and made more sense.
Makes me wonder how 5E will differ from 4E.


----------



## Blackbrrd

Dausuul said:
			
		

> ....
> 4E looks to be negating this, making arcane casters play the same basic game as everyone else--protect your hit points with AC/Fort/Ref/Will, defeat your enemies by chopping off their hit points.




I don't quite agree with you. For instance Bigby's Grasping Hands makes your AC/Fort/Ref/Will quite irrelevant against melee mobs. Blast of Cold does the same kind of thing. Fly can also be used to avoid melee mobs. The list goes on, and I think there will be spells that hinders ranged mobs as well.


----------



## Victim

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Maybe I can make my unhappiness clear by looking at what 4e MCing doesn't give you.  It doesn't give you at-will Powers, or (with minor exceptions) other non-Power class abilities.  What does this mean?
> 
> If you want to MC into a defender you:
> 1) don't gain Armor, HP or Healing surges: you don't get any tougher, a key defender characteristic.  Sure, you can spend even more feats on those things, but then you would have been better off not MCing and getting those feats instead.
> 2) don't gain the ability to defend allies reliably.  While you do get the ability to (possible miss change w/fighter) mark 1 person/encounter with the initial MC feat, and might be able to pick up other defender abilities as encounter powers, your defender abilities will still be negligible.  MCing with fighter, you *don't* get the fighters AoO root/anti shift abilities.  WotC claims to have made paladin marks relatively unstable to prevent coward-pally tactics.  With many enemy, long duration, mobile encounters supposed to be the norm, a single, weak per encounter mark+the option to spend a feat on a per encounter ability just isn't going to cut it.
> It is lack of toughness improvements that really galls me: MCing into a defender, by costing feats, effectively *weakens* your defenses (those feats could have been spent on increasing your own defense).  The inability to pick up significant party-protection abilities doesn't help any either.




If multiclassing is a tool for getting the powers of another class, going after the non power features (like weapons, armor, HP, skills, etc) with multiclassing feats seems like a mistake.  Just take Toughness, and proficiency feats, Skill Training and so forth straight out to achieve your wizard/fighter or X/rogue multiclass.


----------



## Shroomy

Kraydak said:
			
		

> Maybe I can make my unhappiness clear by looking at what 4e MCing doesn't give you.  It doesn't give you at-will Powers, or (with minor exceptions) other non-Power class abilities.  What does this mean?
> 
> If you want to MC into a defender you:
> 1) don't gain Armor, HP or Healing surges: you don't get any tougher, a key defender characteristic.  Sure, you can spend even more feats on those things, but then you would have been better off not MCing and getting those feats instead.
> 2) don't gain the ability to defend allies reliably.  While you do get the ability to (possible miss change w/fighter) mark 1 person/encounter with the initial MC feat, and might be able to pick up other defender abilities as encounter powers, your defender abilities will still be negligible.  MCing with fighter, you *don't* get the fighters AoO root/anti shift abilities.  WotC claims to have made paladin marks relatively unstable to prevent coward-pally tactics.  With many enemy, long duration, mobile encounters supposed to be the norm, a single, weak per encounter mark+the option to spend a feat on a per encounter ability just isn't going to cut it.
> It is lack of toughness improvements that really galls me: MCing into a defender, by costing feats, effectively *weakens* your defenses (those feats could have been spent on increasing your own defense).  The inability to pick up significant party-protection abilities doesn't help any either.
> 
> If you MC into a striker: (the following is written under the assumption, borne out in the very limited info we have, that a striker's extra damage comes from their abilities that give extra damage dice, Sneak Attack/Hunter's Quarry/Warlock's Curse)
> 1) You don't get significant extra damage: you get 1 use of the striker's extra damage ability/encounter (unless you are a warlock, then you lose completely).  Given the goal of long fights with many enemies, you aren't gaining even weak striker damage.
> 2) You aren't getting much mobility, the other striker feature.  The warlock can get a per encounter movement ability with his MC feat.  All can get per encounter movement abilities with further feat investiture, but 2-3 movement abilities/encounter, with 4e encounter durations, won't play like a high mobility character.
> MCing into strikers won't get you either the flavor of a high DPS character, or the flavor of a high mobility character.  Yay?  Also, like the defender MC armor issue, MCing into strikers doesn't seem to net you weapon proficiencies... which can pose problems.  Forcing extra feat expenditure to be able to use the weapon your MCed class requires is asking too much.
> 
> The cases of leaders and controllers is less clear, because we don't have much information about higher level healing, or any real idea on how the controller is supposed to control the battlefield.




However, the system is "multi-classing", not "multi-roling", which is what you appear to be asking for.  There is no way a system like 4e is going to allow you to seriously gimp your actual starting role, which is why you are seeing restrictions on the number of classes you can MC into, why you don't get access to at-will powers, and why you can only devote 1/3 of your total powers to the new class during the Heroic Tier.  To give full access to another role makes your character way over-powered and negates the idea of roles in the first place; heck, unfettered access to the same role has the same effect.

Its clear that 4e MC is intended to add versatility while keeping you largely in the bounds of your chosen role.  I think it is a smart trade-off because it avoids the problems at both ends of the power spectrum since you can't make a MC character who will outshine another PC at his role but you also can't divide your levels into a useless mishmash of abilities.

I also think it is clear that we are not seeing the full picture of character conception and design, given that we have largely discussed multi-classing solely in terms of roles, classes, and powers, and to a much lesser extent feats (more or less centered on opportunity cost).  Personally, I think that while feats are ultimately weaker than their 3.x counterparts, the sheer number you get makes them an extremely potent force in the conception of your character, which is why I think that the "pre-requisite rule" of MC'ing will probably be one of the most important aspects of the system.


----------



## jeffhartsell

Shroomy said:
			
		

> don't get access to at-will powers




Do we know that humans won't get access to a bonus at-will from a second class if multi-classing at 1st level?


----------



## Plane Sailing

muffin_of_chaos said:
			
		

> God, you're such a tool.  This doesn't make any sense.  You know it, I know it, they know it.




Completely inappropriate behaviour, muffin_of_chaos. Don't post in this thread again. Any similar use of bad language towards other people will result in a suspension.



Heh, after a short flurry of emails it turns out that muffin_of_chaos was actually insulting himself for a joke, so no harm done. (the quote hopefully be changed soon to make it's attribution clear... at the time the post was originally reported and responded to there was no attribution for the quote).

Cheers


----------



## Shroomy

jeffhartsell said:
			
		

> Do we know that humans won't get access to a bonus at-will from a second class if multi-classing at 1st level?




Nope, but I thought it was half-elves that got that particular ability (I'm not sure if its racial or not).  I was just going off the charts provided in the excerpt.


----------



## Victim

Plane Sailing said:
			
		

> Completely inappropriate behaviour, muffin_of_chaos. Don't post in this thread again. Any similar use of bad language towards other people will result in a suspension.




The amusing part is that he was quoting his own post.


----------



## Kordeth

Victim said:
			
		

> The amusing part is that he was quoting his own post.




When self-criticism is outlawed, only outlaws shall be self-critics.


----------



## JohnSnow

Kraydak said:
			
		

> It is lack of toughness improvements that really galls me: MCing into a defender, by costing feats, effectively *weakens* your defenses (those feats could have been spent on increasing your own defense).  The inability to pick up significant party-protection abilities doesn't help any either.




Umm...I hate to be the one to break it to you, but that's sort of the _point._ If the average wizard has a choice between multiclassing to fighter to gain all those class features and blowing a feat to gain armor proficiency, which is he going to take? Without the "hit" to casting, which everyone agrees sucks, the choice is a no-brainer. No-brainer choice = bad design.

If you want to improve your defenses, you should have to take feats to improve your defenses (toughness, armor proficiency, and so forth). If you want to improve your combat ability, you should take feats that improve your combat prowess (weapon proficiency, weapon focus, and the like). That's the way competency expansion is SUPPOSED to work. You aren't supposed to be able to get all the front-loaded features of a class in exchange for dipping into it for one level. That's pretty freaking stupid. You want more hit points? Take toughness. It's the gift that keeps giving. More surges? There's probably a feat that boosts the number of surges you get. I guarantee there's armor and weapon proficiency feats (which probably aren't nearly as "painful" to the character as they were in 3e).

Just want skill training in Thievery? Don't multiclass to Rogue, just take the Skill Training feat.




			
				Kraydak said:
			
		

> MCing into strikers won't get you either the flavor of a high DPS character, or the flavor of a high mobility character.  Yay?  Also, like the defender MC armor issue, MCing into strikers doesn't seem to net you weapon proficiencies... which can pose problems.  Forcing extra feat expenditure to be able to use the weapon your MCed class requires is asking too much.




Again, this is not a bug, it's a feature.

Most people splashed rogue for the skill points, not the sneak attack. If you just want Thievery trained, spend a feat to do that. For the character who really wants rogue flavor, take Sneak of Shadows.

It's not complicated. If you want to be able to sneak attack every round, you should be a rogue in the first place. If any class could acquire the features of any other, we'd quickly end up where everyone has all the relevant features of every class, and the concept of roles (and teamwork!) would lose all meaning.

That's not a game I'm interested in. Stop trying to fill the role of two classes. If you insist on doing so, you're not "creating a character concept," you're being a spotlight hog.


----------



## Michele Carter

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> *says true things*




A little more bluntly honest than I'm generally supposed to be (and believe me, the self-edit is a harsh master), but...yeah. 

I very rarely played multiclassed characters in previous editions, because they were just too much of a pain. Different hit dice, different attack bonuses, spellcasters fuggetaboutit. It wasn't beyond my capability to figure out, it just wasn't worth the trouble most of the time.

4E, I'm finding, lets me make the characters I always wanted to, to the degree I want. A rogue with a taste for warlock powers, a warlord with a talent for wizardry, a wizard who can heal. All without giving up my primary role and function in a party, and without taking useless levels in another class and nerfing my primary abilities.

Shiny!


----------



## neceros

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> 4E, I'm finding, lets me make the characters I always wanted to, to the degree I want. A rogue with a taste for warlock powers, a warlord with a talent for wizardry, a wizard who can heal. All without giving up my primary role and function in a party, and without taking useless levels in another class and nerfing my primary abilities.
> 
> Shiny!



Exactly.


----------



## Doc_Klueless

I'm on post 631. This may have been mentioned and then wiped out by all the discussion, or nobody has brought it up yet, but...

I like that by taking the multiclass feat, the character also gets access to all feats that have the second class as a prerequisite. That expansion in feat selection may also have a huge impact on how the character looks and feels. So, it's not just swapping a power; it's also getting access to a whole other bunch of feats the character was previously unable to sample.

I'm not too sure about the power swap. I'll want to see it practice, but I'm swaying towards "liking."


----------



## JohnSnow

WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> A little more bluntly honest than I'm generally supposed to be (and believe me, the self-edit is a harsh master), but...yeah.




Well, I don't have to bear the burden of working for Wizards and worrying about how what I say will reflect on the company. So I can get away with saying stuff like that. As long as I do it in a respectful manner (ENworld's "don't be a jerk" rule).



			
				WotC_Miko said:
			
		

> 4E, I'm finding, lets me make the characters I always wanted to, to the degree I want. A rogue with a taste for warlock powers, a warlord with a talent for wizardry, a wizard who can heal. All without giving up my primary role and function in a party, and without taking useless levels in another class and nerfing my primary abilities.
> 
> Shiny!




See, to me, it seems that if I'm being honest, there aren't a whole lot of characters (even in fiction) that are as multitalented as people seem to be asking for here. When you have a character who's as tough as a fighter, can cast spells like a wizard, and has the skill set of a rogue, you have what fiction writers call a "Mary Sue." It's a character with no weaknesses to speak of, and it's lame.  

For example, it's like wanting to run _Star Wars_ with Han Solo as a Jedi Knight. Quite honestly, I put Cade Skywalker from the new _Star Wars_ comic series into this category. He's a smuggler jedi with a dark past...oh yeah, he's also a Skywalker. Please! Sure, you can do it, but what does a character like that need with a party? It is, to an extent, a problem with Jedi in general. They're so self-sufficient they just wander around kicking butt. As much as I like _The Wheel of Time_, I wouldn't deny that Rand's a bit of a Mary Sue. But I digress...

Characters, good characters, have strengths and weaknesses. The class system builds those into a D&D character by making them better at some things and worse at others. The oft-quoted 50/50 fighter/wizard or cleric/wizard seems, to me, to be mostly about being able to be a wizard when it's most beneficial to be one and being able to fall back on another, better, role for those times when being a magic-user sucks.

IMO, that's why it's been so hard for people to lay out a _character concept_ that can't be modeled well in this system. Because for the most part, it's not the concept that's taken the hit, it's the game-breaking uber-character.

My two cents. Flame away.


----------



## Scipio202

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See, to me, it seems that if I'm being honest, there aren't a whole lot of characters (even in fiction) that are as multitalented as people seem to be asking for here. When you have a character who's as tough as a fighter, can cast spells like a wizard, and has the skill set of a rogue, you have what fiction writers call a "Mary Sue." It's a character with no weaknesses to speak of, and it's lame.




Agreed.

The only ones who (might) need to be that multi-talented would be villains, and they can be created as widely powered as you want with npc/monster creation rules.


----------



## jeffhartsell

Shroomy said:
			
		

> Nope, but I thought it was half-elves that got that particular ability (I'm not sure if its racial or not).  I was just going off the charts provided in the excerpt.




IIRC the half-elf gets to poach a power from a different class but at a different per use and humans get a bonus at-will power from their current class. So if a human has two classes, can you take an at-will from either class? That will be interesting to find out.


----------



## JohnSnow

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> Agreed.
> 
> The only ones who (might) need to be that multi-talented would be villains, and they can be created as widely powered as you want with npc/monster creation rules.




Villains also tend to be much higher level than the PCs they face, and so can afford to blow a few feats crossing the valley of multi-ineffectiveness. They need this because they tend to be solo types.

That's the thing a lot of people don't get. Just cuz "character X" in a novel is a "true" fighter/wizard doesn't mean that someone with equal experience wouldn't kick his butt (barring uber-powerful magic characters). Very often, we have _no idea_ what "level" fictional characters are.


----------



## Mouseferatu

jeffhartsell said:
			
		

> IIRC the half-elf gets to poach a power from a different class but at a different per use and humans get a bonus at-will power from their current class. So if a human has two classes, can you take an at-will from either class? That will be interesting to find out.




I wouldn't think so, though I haven't looked at the rules to be certain (and probably couldn't say if I did).

Taking the feat _doesn't_ give you a second class. It gives you some very specific and very defined _traits_ of a second class. But you're still a fighter (or whatever), even if you have some wizard powers and qualify for wizard feats and paragon paths.

So no, I'd think that a rule that says "You get another at-will power from _your class_" wouldn't be applicable to the class for which you took the multiclass feat.


----------



## jaldaen

Doc_Klueless said:
			
		

> I like that by taking the multiclass feat, the character also gets access to all feats that have the second class as a prerequisite. That expansion in feat selection may also have a huge impact on how the character looks and feels. So, it's not just swapping a power; it's also getting access to a whole other bunch of feats the character was previously unable to sample.




Yeah I think getting access to not only powers, but class-related feats, paragon paths, and the like is well worth a feat (especially when the gateway "Initiate" feat grants you with Skill Training and an additional power per day or encounter power).


----------



## That One Guy

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> ...I am assuming this is a cleric feat. I am equally assuming that it's entirely possible that there might be cleric feats for _divine fortune_ and _turn undead._ Of course, those are feats only available to clerics. Except that the article on multiclassing says...



Thanks, that does interest me greatly. I had a, "Ahhh!" moment. Feats are said to be the method to add depth, breadth, or a little bit of both... and that seems to very strongly support that concept. Excellent point. It makes my small fears less afraid, and my hopes a little bit bigger.


----------



## 2eBladeSinger

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See, to me, it seems that if I'm being honest, there aren't a whole lot of characters (even in fiction) that are as multitalented as people seem to be asking for here. When you have a character who's as tough as a fighter, can cast spells like a wizard, and has the skill set of a rogue, you have what fiction writers call a "Mary Sue." It's a character with no weaknesses to speak of, and it's lame.




Completely agree.

Also (This is my speculation -I'm sorry if this has been mentioned before on the thread) but there are going to be at least 8 power sources, and if trends prevail about 2.75 classes per source.  Meaning that by the time all of the power sources are revealed there might be at least 22 core classes.  (i.e. there will be a larger core class pool from which to draw for a concept.)


----------



## Atlatl Jones

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See, to me, it seems that if I'm being honest, there aren't a whole lot of characters (even in fiction) that are as multitalented as people seem to be asking for here. When you have a character who's as tough as a fighter, can cast spells like a wizard, and has the skill set of a rogue, you have what fiction writers call a "Mary Sue." It's a character with no weaknesses to speak of, and it's lame.



This is generally true, with a couple of exceptions.

The first is when it's a setting where certain skill sets or spellcasting are common skills, and everyone does them to some degree, like in the Vlad Taltos books.  In these situations, a house rule is probably the best solution, such as everyone gaining a certain multiclass feat for free which doesn't count against the "one multiclass only" rule.

The other time when this isn't exactly true is when there's an archetype in the setting that, in D&D terms, encompasses multiple classes.  Jedi are a good example of then, since in D&D terms they are both powerful defenders and controllers.  In such situations, it's probably better to design a whole new class.


----------



## Lurker37

Kwalish Kid said:
			
		

> Oooh, let me! Let me!
> 
> In the new system, you can't multiclass _and_ make use of the same amount of feats that everyone else can.
> 
> Am I right?




So what's new? In 3.5 you usually had to spend a feat or two to make a multiclass work Multiclassed spellcaster pretty much had to take Practised Spellcaster. Multiclassed fighters would take feats to offset lost hit points and BAB, and so on. If you were multiclassing into a Prestige class, chances were that you'd taken a feat you really didn't want just to qualify for the class, not to mention putting points into skills you otherwise would have avoided.

And (we expect) in 3.5 you had less feats, so each feat spent was a bigger opportunity cost. Skill points were even worse, since most skills needed to be max rank to be reliable.


----------



## DrSpunj

*Whew!*

I made it!   

It only took several hours over the last couple days to read through everything, just in time for the next preview!   

Thanks to everyone who has contributed to this thread, especially to *WotC_Miko* for sharing what she's able to at this time. It's been a very interesting read and has covered a great deal of speculative ground.

My vote is on the plus side with some reservations, where I think most people are at given what's been shared and how much more there is to the system overall. Thinking over the last few characters I've built as NPCs for my game, either villains or extras, and back to characters I played a few years ago, I think this system will work in most cases. It will likely certainly have some suboptimal combinations, but already I believe it's head & shoulders above what 3E could do. I think the designers and developers at WotC were just as unhappy with many of the combinations in 3E as I and those I've gamed with were, and took all of that to heart with what they've put together for 4E.

Developing a good concept at level 1 will help one make good use of these rules, and how they're acquired over time and with the retraining allowed makes it possible to dynamically change and evolve that concept as the game progresses  That is something I'm looking really forward to test out on both sides of the DM screen!


----------



## small pumpkin man

Lizard said:
			
		

> Oh well, it's 20 pages in, and I might as well comment.
> 
> I'm glad I waited, since my first comments would have been based on a misunderstanding of the rules -- I thought you could only get three powers, max, from the second class, which would have been t3h suxx0r. But it seems you can get about 1/3rd of your powers from the second class (if you spend all your feats on them), which is pretty good. It's not 50/50, obviously, but it does let you do a lot.
> 
> Given the feats we've seen, powers seem like a better choice. Especially since there's no tiers or levels or prequisites. I'm trying to see why EVERYONE won't multiclass in 4e. Take the novice feat at first level, grab some Cool Bennies (more than I think you'd get for a feat), then wait until that cool power that synergizes perfectly comes along. Every fighter can toss a Fireball to weaken the enemy before closing with them or cleaning out minions. Actually, it seems spellcasters will be less likely to multiclass, as it's more useful for a fighter (who gives up no hit points or save bonuses) to gain some area-effect spells than it is for a wizard (who GAINS no hit points or ability to use armor, etc) to get some trivial extra trick he can do with his staff -- which he shouldn't be wielding in melee anyway if everyone else is doing their job right. Indeed, I think "two feats for a nuke" is a tradeoff every melee class will want to make -- especially since it's not a permanent choice and you can swap out powers any time you level. Just taking the training feat so you always have the option to grab cool powers strikes me as no-brainer. Wizards and Warlocks synergize nicely, too.



That's.... that's about what I was thinking.... 

Damn, what is the world coming too?


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> Have we seen how 'multiclassing instead of paragon' is going to work yet?



Instead of? No, although just taking your Paragon Path from one appropriate your "secondary class" looks like it would work pretty well. It is pretty annoying the PP article said "refer to multiclassing" and the MCing article said "refer to PPs".


			
				Lizard said:
			
		

> It's a long step from the 'build your own class' model of 3x, but it seems to work within the 4e paradigm of strictly defined roles and niche protection uber alles. The one-class-limit seems to be a "We admit we couldn't get this working right but the deadline is due" fix, a limitation which has no in-game logic at all. If Joe Fighter can grab wizard training at 12th level, why can't he also grab ranger training at 14th? Hell, if he can drop powers, *why can't he drop Wizard and pick up Ranger?* If multiclassing was a choice you had to make at first level -- representing childhood training or whatever -- the one class limit would make sense.



Well, you can retrain feats, so if you've only taken feats you can retrain those out, but other than that, yeah, I guess.


----------



## Mokona

Mirtek said:
			
		

> Which is a quote about something that was true in earlier editions (in this case from 200*6* and is one of the stated goals of 4e to get away from (to make the 4 martial or 4 arcane, ... party viable)



You have good eyes but, yes, I did know that it was a 2006 article.  *Wizards of the Coast* was secretly working on 4th edition in 2006.  The continual reference to the four party roles was R&D's way of adjusting *D&D* players to a crucial fact that would be even more crucial in 4th edition (not less so).  A stated goal of 4th edition was to explicitly acknowledge the need for each of four roles in parties and to provide more than one choice (see Warlord as an alternative to Cleric).


----------



## Ximenes088

Mokona said:
			
		

> You have good eyes but, yes, I did know that it was a 2006 article.  *Wizards of the Coast* was secretly working on 4th edition in 2006.  The continual reference to the four party roles was R&D's way of adjusting *D&D* players to a crucial fact that would be even more crucial in 4th edition (not less so).  A stated goal of 4th edition was to explicitly acknowledge the need for each of four roles in parties and to provide more than one choice (see Warlord as an alternative to Cleric).



This is not the case. Mike Mearls has specifically stated that it is possible to run an all-Martial campaign with no controllers. You may have problems with minion swarms, but that's very much in-genre for no-magic campaigns. A four-role party is preferable for most situations, and it's the baseline assumption which WotC operates on, but at absolutely no point have they declared "It is more important to have a rounded party in 4e than in 3e". I think it entirely unjustifiable to claim they've said so.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice

Whoa! I posted earlier in this thread, but the new posts were out pacing my ability to keep up, and I hate to sound like an idiot by repeating something. I have a wife, a child, and I am in medical school, and I still made it through all those posts! Shows how messed up my priorities are  . All I can say is that the more I read about it, the better I feel. Me likey.

The posts by playtesters have really helped to solidify my opinion about this. Even after Ari showed less that an infallible knowledge of the rules with the human extra at-will thing.  

This is going to be the best RPG yet. My previous simulationist predilections have been grown out of, the gamist elements seem perfect, narrativism has been boosted, and all of my character concepts seem not only possible but not even sub-optimal. And Vancian casting was beat down like it should have been ages ago. The only problem that I have is that the class ballance seems too good to perfectly simulate my favorite fantasy series. (Wheel of Time. Casters are no longer teh Uber.)

Reserving final judgement for June, but I mostly feel like a raving fanboi. It would be very hard for Wizards to ruin it for me now, and if they do, I will just house rule 4e into what I am currently expecting!

Back to my mundane life of Good Father, Good Husband, Good Student.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

This thread is growing like kudzu!

Too many posts that I disagree with to actually quote and do a point-by-point rebuttal, so I'll just sum up my position.

1)  *The 4Ed multiclassing system is illogical.*  When people dabble in a field outside of their specialty, they don't pick up the abilities of experienced persons within that field- they start off as novices themselves.  Yet this system lets you swap out a class ability for another class' ability of the same or lesser value.



> *From Exerpt:*
> 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.




Example: When Michael Jordan retired from basketball (the first time) and took up baseball, he didn't go from leading the NBA in several categories to leading the MLB in some category.  In fact, he couldn't even play baseball well enough to get out of the minor leagues.

Are there exceptions to this?  Of course- but they're exceedingly rare.  To continue looking at sports, in all of history, only one player has played in both a Superbowl and a World Series- Deion Sanders.  And in his case, it was one singular attribute of his that allowed him to succeed.  His speed let him cover any WR in football and frequently steal bases in baseball.

There is no such synergy between melee combat and spellslinging.

2)* The assertions that 3Ed multiclassing sucked (and all variations theron) for spellcasters because it robs them of power sway me not in the least.*  A mage who takes the time to become proficient in thievery or warcraft is by neccessity not spending as much time on learning the Craft as his non-dabbling contemporaries, and it follows that he should be a less potent spellcaster for his extra-curricular activities...FOREVER.  It also follows that he will never be as talented as dedicated rogues or warriors because he's not putting in the time on their drills while his nose is buried in some arcane tome.

Do I think that there problems with multiclassing in 3.X?  Yes, the very minor one about the XP penalty/Favored class thing, which is easily ditched.

3) *This isn't multiclassing, its cherry-picking. * Multiclassing- to me and obviously others in this thread- means that you are fully capable (at a proficiency described mechanically in your PC's respective levels) and responsible as a member of each of your individual classes.  A Warrior Priest is both a warrior and a full priest, not some guy who can fight well and can occasionally do some_ single _thing priests do.  If my PC were to go to a 4Ed version of such a PC and ask for some everyday priestly duty to be performed on his behalf, only to be told that he couldn't do it because all he could do is raise the dead, he'd be plenty ticked.  That's a miracle worker, to be sure, but that's not a priest.

I definitely feel shortchanged by this incarnation of multiclassing rules.

Or as Judge Judy says: http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0060927941/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link

4) *Even if I considered this to be multiclassing (which I clearly don't), this is easily the most limited form of it ever.*


> *From Exerpt:*
> You can dabble in a second class but not a third.




Even in 1Ed, I could play a 3 classed 1/2Elf, or a Human with even more with Dual-Classing (heck, Bards in 1Ed required dabbling in several classes).

So, we've gone from the most wide-open range of options within the game's history to the most restrictive.

If I were to look back and try to recapture the feel- not attempting some kind of full conversion- of most of my past D&D PCs in this system, I couldn't do it- its a rare PC of mine with only 2 classes.

Example: My NG drow Rgr/Druid/MU (who at 26 years of play, for the record, predates Drizzt by 6 years, thank you very much) is basically balanced between his 3 classes.  He's a defender of nature so staunch he actually threatened the party's mage (a "Tim" wannabe) with attack if he launched a fireball at the approaching party of undead critters...because they were in the middle of an old-growth forest, uses his shapechanging abilities for surveillance, eschews most flashy spells in favor of Transmutation spells almost exclusively, and fights on the front lines of the party most of the time.

That's just one.

All that said:  it may be that this all works as a system, but I don't think I'll be calling this my favorite (or even _any_) form of D&D.


----------



## CubeKnight

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> This thread is growing like kudzu!
> 
> Too many posts that I disagree with to actually quote and do a point-by-point rebuttal, so I'll just sum up my position.
> 
> 1)  *The 4Ed multiclassing system is illogical.*  When people dabble in a field outside of their specialty, they don't pick up the abilities of experienced persons within that field- they start off as novices themselves.  Yet this system lets you swap out a class ability for another class' ability of the same or lesser value.
> 
> 
> 
> Example: When Michael Jordan retired from basketball (the first time) and took up baseball, he didn't go from leading the NBA in several categories to leading the MLB in some category.  In fact, he couldn't even play baseball well enough to get out of the minor leagues.
> 
> Are there exceptions to this?  Of course- but they're exceedingly rare.  To continue looking at sports, in all of history, only one player has played in both a Superbowl and a World Series- Deion Sanders.  And in his case, it was one singular attribute of his that allowed him to succeed.  His speed let him cover any WR in football and frequently steal bases in baseball.
> 
> There is no such synergy between melee combat and spellslinging.



 It may not be realistic, but tell me what's more fun:

Be a Fighter and gain a single Magic Missile at a level where, due to Spell Resistance and the like, will do absolutely nothing to enemies and be a waste of a turn?
vs
Be a Fighter and gain an equivalent-level power that will work as if a Wizard of your level had cast it?

I damn sure wouldn't like to have a weak power that will do nothing at all in a battle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

> It may not be realistic, but tell me what's more fun




For me?

I'd have more fun going the former route (albeit with a different spell selection- I've never used MM) than the latter.

To me, the latter mucks about with my willing suspension of disbelief...its an intellectual version of cutting in line.   A cheat, if you will.

If I wind up playing 4Ed, I forsee myself predominantly playing solo-classed PCs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

Oh yeah- forgot one.

5) *I can't choose when to "multiclass."*  If I read this properly, I can't choose to start multiclassing at 2nd level.  To me, that sucketh hugely.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

I am sorta the opposite, I think this is in some regards more realistic. Someone who dabbles in something won't instantly pick up and know how to do the basics for EVERYTHING that thing their dabbling with will do, like in 3e.

With 4e, they find something that interests them and works in concert with who they are, thus able to be better faster, but still may not have the knowledge of how to do everything, like before.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz

While there is some truth to what you say, there is still the nature of the accrual of skills that 4Ed completely ignores.

A dabbler in 4Ed potentially gets access to a high-level ability, but without learning _any_ of the foundational stuff that other practitioners need to learn in order to reach that point.

A person dabbling in guitar can't simply learn how to play Malaguena without learning many chords, progressions and techniques.  A person dabbling in medicine can't simply learn how to do brain surgery.

Its like getting a roof without a foundation or support pillars.

So, he may only want to learn this & that technique that helps him out, but there are things he'd need to learn before he can do that.

First learn walk, _then_ learn run.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Well you have to first multiclass before you can then take a feat to gain a power. So I would view that first multiclass as a person's specific refined study and the feat afterwards for the power to be his area of expertise in the place he is dabbling, if you get my analogy.

I say this to, with making an assumption that there could be perhaps multiple multiclass feats for each class. So you can pick and choose, which aspect of that class best fits (say two Ranger ones: The one that gives you Hunter's Quarry another gives you Prime Shot), and most likely the future power feat would go along that course.


----------



## Craith

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Oh yeah- forgot one.
> 
> 5) *I can't choose when to "multiclass."*  If I read this properly, I can't choose to start multiclassing at 2nd level.  To me, that sucketh hugely.




But you can, as far as I know every level up you can retrain one feat - just retrain one L1 Feat for a multiclass feat.


----------



## UngainlyTitan

I Finally get to see the end of this thread. Every time over the last 3 days when i read to the last page and then tried to load the last page, I would loose the connection to enworld and when I finally loaded the page, there were 4 more added.

So my thoughts, I really like what I see so far. I think that any concept can be created withing the current setup. The opportunity cost thing, well it is impossible to say without full access to  all the rules, but it seems a reasonable price to pay considering the secondary effect of cross classing - feats.

It seems to be that opening up the complete feat list (and given the greater number of feats available to a character) is a pretty potent option, add in skill cross training and power swaps and you are pretty potent in the seconday class.

The only thing it does not allow is the caster/warrior combo that is as effective (or very close to ) as the rest of the party (single classed) at both classes. That, however, was never on the cards but it seem to me to be the only reason to bring up 2nd edition multiclass combos. 

It appeals to the simulationist in me, because if one multiclasses at levels other than first, the power developement is gradual, or fairly so, depending on how many feats you want to swap. It also allows a character like the Grey Mouser, (a former wizards apprentice) from the get go.

I wonder would Gandalf be a Palladin/Wizard?


----------



## Jack99

Hell just froze over I think, I agree with Lizard...


----------



## Mathew_Freeman

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> Oh yeah- forgot one.
> 
> 5) *I can't choose when to "multiclass."*  If I read this properly, I can't choose to start multiclassing at 2nd level.  To me, that sucketh hugely.




I'm not sure I can see any evidence of that - the feats don't specify that you can only take them at first level.


----------



## Lizard

Tallarn said:
			
		

> I'm not sure I can see any evidence of that - the feats don't specify that you can only take them at first level.




If I ran 4e, I might houserule it that way, though -- the system works best to represent "prior training" or other pre-adventurer experience, rather than learning new things.


----------



## katahn

Atlatl Jones said:
			
		

> The other time when this isn't exactly true is when there's an archetype in the setting that, in D&D terms, encompasses multiple classes.  Jedi are a good example of then, since in D&D terms they are both powerful defenders and controllers.  In such situations, it's probably better to design a whole new class.




In that case you create a power source and call it "Force" or "The Force" and then build classes around it.  The classes would each represent an iconic way a Jedi (or Sith) interacts with the Force.

Luke Skywalker: Defender-type with a couple of controllerish abilities that could have been taken via feats.

Yoda: Controller-type with some strikerish bits (when he goes postal on Count Dooku in Ep2 and tries to fight the Emperor in E3)

Emperor: Leader-type if you follow the hints dropped in the novels that say he was using the Force to make his troops even more effective.

Darth Vadar: Striker-type who really was good and enjoyed killing people in various ways.


----------



## katahn

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> 2)* The assertions that 3Ed multiclassing sucked (and all variations theron) for spellcasters because it robs them of power sway me not in the least.*  A mage who takes the time to become proficient in thievery or warcraft is by neccessity not spending as much time on learning the Craft as his non-dabbling contemporaries, and it follows that he should be a less potent spellcaster for his extra-curricular activities...FOREVER.  It also follows that he will never be as talented as dedicated rogues or warriors because he's not putting in the time on their drills while his nose is buried in some arcane tome.
> 
> Do I think that there problems with multiclassing in 3.X?  Yes, the very minor one about the XP penalty/Favored class thing, which is easily ditched.




The problem is that the concept of multiclassing is that the sum of the power of each class combined equates to the power of a single-classed person of the same character level.  In 3e this was not true.  So while conceptually what you say makes sense, the implementation in mechanics for 3e did not.  It had to be rectified by additional rules and splatbooks that gave us endless iterations of prestige classes.

A fighter/wizard 10/10 could only be equivilent to another level 20 character if they could seemlessly use all of their abilities and be as effective with them as any other character could.  The problem is they couldn't.  If geared to use their level 10 fighter abilities effectively they faced arcane spell failure as a wizard on top of everything else.  If geared to not deal with arcane spell failure they wouldn't remotely have the defenses needed to survive being a fighter.

They would be noticeably less effective in combat in either role: missing more with weapon swings due to lower fighter level, seeing more spell resists due to lower caster level, seeing more of their enemies make saving throws against their spells because saves were keyed to spell level, and so forth.  These issues could be worked around in prestige classes, but that to me is an admission of a highly broken system that could only be fixed by either massively rewriting it or by introducing new classes to cover the various gish combinations.

Yes it would be possible to fix multiclassing in 3e without going to 4e or its model of it, but multiclassing wasn't the only broken issue in 3e.  Fixing and improving all that was bad about 3e included elements like making single-class fighters not a joke, solidifying the differences between being the wizard and the sorcerer or warlock, making clerics a class that people didn't either have to convince someone to play or just make an NPC, and so on.


----------



## RandomCitizenX

Lizard said:
			
		

> If I ran 4e, I might houserule it that way, though -- the system works best to represent "prior training" or other pre-adventurer experience, rather than learning new things.




I have to disagree on this point since I could easily see the feat being picked up later and justified by study with one of the other party members (the fighter running nightly sword drills with the wizard for instance) at the point when the character has attained enough knowledge they pick up the feat.


----------



## cdrcjsn

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> While there is some truth to what you say, there is still the nature of the accrual of skills that 4Ed completely ignores.
> 
> A dabbler in 4Ed potentially gets access to a high-level ability, but without learning _any_ of the foundational stuff that other practitioners need to learn in order to reach that point.
> 
> A person dabbling in guitar can't simply learn how to play Malaguena without learning many chords, progressions and techniques.  A person dabbling in medicine can't simply learn how to do brain surgery.
> 
> Its like getting a roof without a foundation or support pillars.




Hmm...so I didn't really learn to play Pachelbel's Canon on piano despite not knowing how to sight read or know to play any other songs?

I think if a fighter practices to say "wingardum leviosa" while twisting their wrist and holding their magic wand in a certain way, they'll learn to be able to eventually float things.  They don't need to learn an even more minor cantrip like "repairo" before thay can do it.


----------



## Scipio202

I like to cook, but its not my main profession.  I don't have the breadth of skills of a professional chef.  If you wanted me to make a 10 course dinner for 300, I'll be no where near as good as a trained chef.  But I've got a few recipes that I make a lot, that I've practiced at, and that are probably within the ballpark of restaurant quality.

Some skills might really require you to get all of the fundamentals, but others certainly allow you to pick a particular sub-skill and master that.


----------



## Voadam

How well does it look like this handles wizards who multiclass into a melee class?

I currently play in a 3e game with a level 17 rgr/wiz eldritch knight/abjurant champion. He uses a lot of spells for defense, melee buffing, a little ranged attack, divinations, and utility spells. He has a big sword various melee enhancement spells and likes to melee as his main combat strategy. He has almost no wizard prestige class abilities but at 15th level wizard caster level he has a lot of spells and wizard items (wands, robe of archmagi, etc.). He is not as good at meleeing as the melee oriented party paladin, fighter/cleric, or the corner cases (grappling) that the vow of poverty master of many forms warshaper druid is, but he's decent and can hold his own and do some neat things in his two niches (magic and magic boosted melee).

In 4e I see this mechanically as a wizard dipping into some melee class features (whether it is general feats, multiclass feats, or whatever). Does this work out to an effective possibility?

I see the fighter dipping for a few wizard powers working effectively mechanically, but this concept is not just a few specific limited wizard powers so I think it needs to be a base wizard multiclassing into a warrior type.

Is this just the equivalent of the 3e Unearthed Arcana wizard variant who gets fighter bonus feats instead of wizard metamagic or item creation bonus ones (i.e. not enough to really turn a wizard into a decent melee concept)?


----------



## Mokona

The official word on dipping.  

Dave Noonan, D&D Podcast Episode 20: "Mailbag, Nothing but Mailbag!", http://webcast2.wizards.com/podcasts_dandd/DnD_Episode20.mp3

"Yeah...I think, speaking as broadly as possible about multiclassing, I think it's accurate to say that it's more flexible in terms of splashing a multiclass...[uh]...of splashing a second class in to your mix.

It's probably not as flexible in 3rd edition for sort of deep multiclassing.  However, a lot of those deep multiclassing options in 3rd edition were bogus.  I mean would get you killed in the dungeon, a Wizard 5/Cleric 5 is in big trouble in a deep level dungeon."


----------



## katahn

Voadam said:
			
		

> How well does it look like this handles wizards who multiclass into a melee class?
> 
> I currently play in a 3e game with a level 17 rgr/wiz eldritch knight/abjurant champion. He uses a lot of spells for defense, melee buffing, a little ranged attack, divinations, and utility spells. He has a big sword various melee enhancement spells and likes to melee as his main combat strategy. He has almost no wizard prestige class abilities but at 15th level wizard caster level he has a lot of spells and wizard items (wands, robe of archmagi, etc.). He is not as good at meleeing as the melee oriented party paladin, fighter/cleric, or the corner cases (grappling) that the vow of poverty master of many forms warshaper druid is, but he's decent and can hold his own and do some neat things in his two niches (magic and magic boosted melee).
> 
> In 4e I see this mechanically as a wizard dipping into some melee class features (whether it is general feats, multiclass feats, or whatever). Does this work out to an effective possibility?
> 
> I see the fighter dipping for a few wizard powers working effectively mechanically, but this concept is not just a few specific limited wizard powers so I think it needs to be a base wizard multiclassing into a warrior type.
> 
> Is this just the equivalent of the 3e Unearthed Arcana wizard variant who gets fighter bonus feats instead of wizard metamagic or item creation bonus ones (i.e. not enough to really turn a wizard into a decent melee concept)?




Ok a character that is primarily a melee combatant, with little personal defenses and relying primarily on spells to enhance his offense without necessarily having big controllerish abilities like web, sleep, and so forth.

If I have summarized what you've described accurately, I'd either make this guy a ranger (2-weapon fighting variant) or a rogue (burly type rogue) and then multiclass into either wizard (if you want more controllerish type spells/abilities) or warlock (if you want more ranged strikey options).  From what I've seen buffs aren't a major part of the game in 4e, at least not the way they were in 3e at any rate, so that aspect of the concept might not work out no matter what the multiclassing rules are or aren't.

The above would get you through the heroic tier, moving into the paragon tier it sounds like you'd probably grab the paragon path for the multiclass you selected rather than for your base class.  Without knowing about epic tiers, it's impossible to say for sure.

I wouldn't see this character starting off as a fighter simply because you described him as a melee combatant who doesn't have big armor and a shield and doesn't try to fill a defender-type role.  Instead you described a sort of classic melee striker who has some magic overlay.


----------



## Torchlyte

Voadam said:
			
		

> How well does it look like this handles wizards who multiclass into a melee class?
> 
> I currently play in a 3e game with a level 17 rgr/wiz eldritch knight/abjurant champion. He uses a lot of spells for defense, melee buffing, a little ranged attack, divinations, and utility spells. He has a big sword various melee enhancement spells and likes to melee as his main combat strategy. He has almost no wizard prestige class abilities but at 15th level wizard caster level he has a lot of spells and wizard items (wands, robe of archmagi, etc.). He is not as good at meleeing as the melee oriented party paladin, fighter/cleric, or the corner cases (grappling) that the vow of poverty master of many forms warshaper druid is, but he's decent and can hold his own and do some neat things in his two niches (magic and magic boosted melee).
> 
> In 4e I see this mechanically as a wizard dipping into some melee class features (whether it is general feats, multiclass feats, or whatever). Does this work out to an effective possibility?
> 
> I see the fighter dipping for a few wizard powers working effectively mechanically, but this concept is not just a few specific limited wizard powers so I think it needs to be a base wizard multiclassing into a warrior type.
> 
> Is this just the equivalent of the 3e Unearthed Arcana wizard variant who gets fighter bonus feats instead of wizard metamagic or item creation bonus ones (i.e. not enough to really turn a wizard into a decent melee concept)?




I think everyone on the thread would agree that these feats work well for dipping from either class. The argument is on whether or not they can achieve even greater depth.

A wizard grabbing fighter multiclass feats would work just fine (better than in 3.5 with the changes to BAB and removal of ASF).


----------



## JohnSnow

The thing is, if we're going to be honest about it, there shouldn't be any such thing as multiclassing.

You want a wizard with some fighter-y aspects? Start as a wizard and start spending all your feats on picking up fighter abilities. You won't be as good a wizard as a single-classed wizard (at least until Paragon level), but you'll be a better wizard than any character who picks up wizard as a second class. On the other hand, if you just want a little bit of wizard flavor for your fighter, you're better off starting as a fighter and splashing wizard. The more wizard you splash, the less good you'll be as a fighter. Honestly, I think that with retraining, you could get a character that advanced like this...

100% Wizard
90/10 Wizard/Fighter
80/20 Wizard/Fighter
70/30 Wizard/Fighter
60/40 Wizard/Fighter

So you can get up to maybe 60/40 with the class training feats. True 50/50 probably requires you to take the multiclassing option at Paragon level. I mean, true fighter/wizards are pretty rare, and most of them really ought to be paragon level. Until then, most fictional characters of that type are clearly dominant in one class or the other. Usually, they start in more mundane classes and their magic slowly dominates as the story progresses. To be fair, this is probably an example where retraining makes the most sense.

Is this "realistic?" No, not in the least. But it's pretty much in keeping with fantasy fiction. Consider a character like Rand al'Thor who starts as a ranger (basically), before retraining as a fighter (kinda) then picking up the blademaster paragon path...and then retraining as a kind of elementalist spellcaster.

Not to mention he's surely got some kind of heroic path or epic destiny that just makes him "different" (i.e. "broken" in D&D terms).


----------



## PrecociousApprentice

I think that Rand al'Thor is ranger->rogue(warlock)->warlock(rogue).

He has woodsman abilities and significant ability with the bow at the beginning. He then learns (retrains) to use a single sword verses single opponents very well, and at the same time discovers some arcane tallent (multiclass feat). Later the arcane tallent eclipses his ability with the sword (retrains), which remains formidable but not nearly as potent. This obviously ingores the paragon/epic destinies that are unknowns in 4e, but very prominant in WoT. He also has a version of Action Surge (taveren, sp?). Lews Therin in his head could be accounted for as a vestige pact.

I am very happy about how easy it will be to create characters that are more like literature characters compared to 3.x.

I also think that the complaint about the 50/50 split could go away if people started to think about powers as possible actions and not objects. Sure, if they were objects, then an exact 50/50 split might be impossible, but as possible actions, there is nothing to say that the  character can't behave as a Large-part-class-one + Large-part-class-two. Thematically and narratively, what is the problem? The problem only emerges when the things written on a character sheet are treated as objects that are "owned" and then a perceived unfairness emerges.


----------



## Kraydak

A lot of this post will be rephrasing what I've said before, so I probably shouldn't post... but then, this thread is long enough that that is allowed, right?

Most (not all) of my problems with 4e MCing is the name (and what is in a name, really?).  It is counter-intuitive to me that a process called multi-classing doesn't give you the aspects of the class you are multi-ing into.  The bog-standard fighter/rogue, if started as a rogue, *loses* (by losing feats, not significant) toughness rather than improving on one of the defining characteristics of the class he is multi-ing into.  Now, JohnSnow might say that if he did improve his hitpoints (like a 3e MC), it would be unbalanced because he didn't give up anything significant.  While true, that is, to my mind an indictment of the process: 4e MCing *does not* let you "average" your two classes.  You don't give up anything key to your class-role, and hence can't pick up anything important to your MCed class-role.  How can you call that multi-classing?

I also expect that MC will come to be viewed as weak.  Swapping equivalently powered Powers at the cost of a feat might be worth it for increased versatility.  However, in 4e different classes use different weapon/implement sets.  If you want to multi from Fighter into rogue, you *can't* make use of your sneak attack 1/encounter without either using a gimped weapon (thereby negating any advantage of sneak attacking) unless you spend an extra feat on SAing with a real weapon (which IIRC is possible?).  That makes the initial feat +7 damage/encounter at the cost of 2 feats.  With longer encounters, that is probably about .35 damage/feat/encounter, less if you have to declare the SA before attacking.  Anyone remember if the other rogue Exploits are light-blade dependent?

Or rangers: melee rangers are dual-wielders.  Multi-ing into ranger, you aren't getting the at-will dual wield mechanics for free, so when you want to use your cool MCed per/encounter ability, you need to draw an extra weapon, possibly sheath your (non-light) main weapon and, having spent time doing that, lost any advantage it might have earned you.  Maybe you can spend feats on dual-wielding as a non-ranger, but then you have to add that feat cost to the MC feat cost.

A fighter that wants to cast fireball has to worry about spending a feat to use his sword as an implement (possible, IIRC), or maybe a feat for quickdraw...

Because (many) classes are distinct in their "weapon" of choice (paladins/fighters/warlords stand a good chance at using the same gear, warlock/wizard/cleric might be), and casters gained implements that serve the same purpose, you need to add in the logistical cost of swapping between main-hand gear sets/getting proficiency in MCed gear sets.  If that cost exists, MCing is going to be somewhat gimped.


----------



## Voadam

katahn said:
			
		

> Ok a character that is primarily a melee combatant, with little personal defenses and relying primarily on spells to enhance his offense without necessarily having big controllerish abilities like web, sleep, and so forth.
> 
> If I have summarized what you've described accurately, I'd either make this guy a ranger (2-weapon fighting variant) or a rogue (burly type rogue) and then multiclass into either wizard (if you want more controllerish type spells/abilities) or warlock (if you want more ranged strikey options).  From what I've seen buffs aren't a major part of the game in 4e, at least not the way they were in 3e at any rate, so that aspect of the concept might not work out no matter what the multiclassing rules are or aren't.
> 
> The above would get you through the heroic tier, moving into the paragon tier it sounds like you'd probably grab the paragon path for the multiclass you selected rather than for your base class.  Without knowing about epic tiers, it's impossible to say for sure.
> 
> I wouldn't see this character starting off as a fighter simply because you described him as a melee combatant who doesn't have big armor and a shield and doesn't try to fill a defender-type role.  Instead you described a sort of classic melee striker who has some magic overlay.




I'm not deep into 4e rules mastery or concepts so far so I am trying to get some more input.

I think you are right that melee striker instead of defender is the role I'm looking for here for translating my character and rogue or ranger might be the class for that instead of fighter which is fine.

But I'm looking for a wizard moving to take on the melee striker role through multiclassing and appropriate wizard and general feat power selection. Dipping into wizard from the normally melee stiker position is a possible path that looks like it can handle level appropriate challenges competently but I think of my character as a spellcasting wizard who specialized in melee, not a meleer who dabbles in a few limited spells. I'm looking for a 3e wizard eldritch knight type build, not a duskblade type one.

The WotC 4e multiclassing statement found in the 4e news thread says "any combo, any level, always works." So I'm trying to look at wizard multiclassing into a melee class to see if he can do melee at least semicompetently.

By my understanding classes are all the same for BAB and saves, correct? So it is just hp, skills, starting proficiencies, and class powers that differ by class correct?

What powers do these melee classes offer a wizard when he multiclasses into them? How much can feats allow a character to handle a different role.

I understand this is a two role concept and the game is designed around mostly handling one role, but one of the functions of multiclassing is to fill in a party's holes so this could be a good design goal for solo play or for smaller or lopsided parties (which was very true in 3e, he is a great solo character, but mechanically gets outshined in a full party filling the normal niches).


----------



## Torchlyte

Kraydak said:
			
		

> A lot of this post will be rephrasing what I've said before, so I probably shouldn't post... but then, this thread is long enough that that is allowed, right?
> 
> Most (not all) of my problems with 4e MCing is the name (and what is in a name, really?).  It is counter-intuitive to me that a process called multi-classing doesn't give you the aspects of the class you are multi-ing into.  The bog-standard fighter/rogue, if started as a rogue, *loses* (by losing feats, not significant) toughness rather than improving on one of the defining characteristics of the class he is multi-ing into.  Now, JohnSnow might say that if he did improve his hitpoints (like a 3e MC), it would be unbalanced because he didn't give up anything significant.  While true, that is, to my mind an indictment of the process: 4e MCing *does not* let you "average" your two classes.  You don't give up anything key to your class-role, and hence can't pick up anything important to your MCed class-role.  How can you call that multi-classing?
> 
> I also expect that MC will come to be viewed as weak.  Swapping equivalently powered Powers at the cost of a feat might be worth it for increased versatility.  However, in 4e different classes use different weapon/implement sets.  If you want to multi from Fighter into rogue, you *can't* make use of your sneak attack 1/encounter without either using a gimped weapon (thereby negating any advantage of sneak attacking) unless you spend an extra feat on SAing with a real weapon (which IIRC is possible?).  That makes the initial feat +7 damage/encounter at the cost of 2 feats.  With longer encounters, that is probably about .35 damage/feat/encounter, less if you have to declare the SA before attacking.  Anyone remember if the other rogue Exploits are light-blade dependent?




Feat-damage efficiency isn't really all that high in the first place. Lethal hunter gives you +1.05 damage after factoring in critcal strikes (assuming you only crit on 20). The '+1d10 on crit' feat is worth 5.5*.05 = .275


----------



## Voadam

Torchlyte said:
			
		

> I think everyone on the thread would agree that these feats work well for dipping from either class. The argument is on whether or not they can achieve even greater depth.
> 
> A wizard grabbing fighter multiclass feats would work just fine (better than in 3.5 with the changes to BAB and removal of ASF).




Can you explain that? I've seen a few people say they see melee dipping into spellcasting working fine conceptually, but that the other way around looks problematic.

Ignoring my cross-role goal of going from wizard controller seeking to pick up an extra role of melee striker, what specifically does a wizard gain from multiclassing into any of the melee classes and what does this allow him to do? Be more effective with his spells through martial tricks? Do defensive maneuver type things that will keep him alive longer?

I'm not familiar with the class powers that can be swapped, I just know it is not increased hp or saves or base attack type bonus.


----------



## Scipio202

Voadam said:
			
		

> Can you explain that? I've seen a few people say they see melee dipping into spellcasting working fine conceptually, but that the other way around looks problematic.
> 
> Ignoring my cross-role goal of going from wizard controller seeking to pick up an extra role of melee striker, what specifically does a wizard gain from multiclassing into any of the melee classes and what does this allow him to do? Be more effective with his spells through martial tricks? Do defensive maneuver type things that will keep him alive longer?
> 
> I'm not familiar with the class powers that can be swapped, I just know it is not increased hp or saves or base attack type bonus.



 If you are an arcane controller you will have lots of powers that are AoE damage (often with an extra penalty to the targets) that attacks Ref/Will/Fort.

If you go into a martial striker, you'll be picking up powers that are focused damage, and may come with something like imposing penalties or forced move, that target AC.  You're also likely to want powers that benefit from movement since you don't really want to tank.  A forced move power could be a good "get away from me" power if somebody slips past the defender.


----------



## katahn

Voadam said:
			
		

> I'm not deep into 4e rules mastery or concepts so far so I am trying to get some more input.
> 
> I think you are right that melee striker instead of defender is the role I'm looking for here for translating my character and rogue or ranger might be the class for that instead of fighter which is fine.
> 
> But I'm looking for a wizard moving to take on the melee striker role through multiclassing and appropriate wizard and general feat power selection. Dipping into wizard from the normally melee stiker position is a possible path that looks like it can handle level appropriate challenges competently but I think of my character as a spellcasting wizard who specialized in melee, not a meleer who dabbles in a few limited spells. I'm looking for a 3e wizard eldritch knight type build, not a duskblade type one.
> 
> The WotC 4e multiclassing statement found in the 4e news thread says "any combo, any level, always works." So I'm trying to look at wizard multiclassing into a melee class to see if he can do melee at least semicompetently.
> 
> By my understanding classes are all the same for BAB and saves, correct? So it is just hp, skills, starting proficiencies, and class powers that differ by class correct?
> 
> What powers do these melee classes offer a wizard when he multiclasses into them? How much can feats allow a character to handle a different role.
> 
> I understand this is a two role concept and the game is designed around mostly handling one role, but one of the functions of multiclassing is to fill in a party's holes so this could be a good design goal for solo play or for smaller or lopsided parties (which was very true in 3e, he is a great solo character, but mechanically gets outshined in a full party filling the normal niches).




Start from your goal, how the character will play and what portion of their abilities come from what sources.  Your original description read as a character who primarily did damage via melee with a big sword (striker) and that this person had an array of magical spells they used to specifically enhance their effectiveness in battle.

A wizard is a specialist in ranged AOE damage, so they don't really seem like a good primary fit to me.  However, a splash of wizard abilities to enhance your ability to smash things with your sword does seem to fit.

Without actually reading the rules and knowing if a wizard with a splash of melee training would fit bill, I can't really say.  The combat skills of all characters are roughly equivilent, it's more the class-related at-will and encounter abilities that matter.  Strikers like the rogue or ranger have very nice melee-oriented at-will abilities that fit the concept as I understand it.  Multiclassing from a wizard base gives those at-will abilities as per-encounter ones.  So while it reads backwards to you, the net result of "guy who hits things with a sword and knows some spells" is probably best served by MCing into wizard rather than basing on it.

Of course, you could always wait and look for a melee-themed arcane striker type class (or just design one).  The Forgotten Realms CS for 4e is supposed to have an arcane defender (swordmage) in it, that might suit you as a base class, depending on whether or not their defendering schtick comes from heavy-armor or personal and persistent magical protection spells.


----------



## jaldaen

Scipio202 said:
			
		

> You're also likely to want powers that benefit from movement since you don't really want to tank.  A forced move power could be a good "get away from me" power if somebody slips past the defender.




I addition to moving enemies away from you you could also use a power to move enemies closer together and then use your action point to hit them with a more effective AoE power.


----------



## DM_Blake

JohnSnow said:
			
		

> See, to me, it seems that if I'm being honest, there aren't a whole lot of characters (even in fiction) that are as multitalented as people seem to be asking for here. When you have a character who's as tough as a fighter, can cast spells like a wizard, and has the skill set of a rogue, you have what fiction writers call a "Mary Sue." It's a character with no weaknesses to speak of, and it's lame.
> 
> For example, it's like wanting to run _Star Wars_ with Han Solo as a Jedi Knight. Quite honestly, I put Cade Skywalker from the new _Star Wars_ comic series into this category. He's a smuggler jedi with a dark past...oh yeah, he's also a Skywalker. Please! Sure, you can do it, but what does a character like that need with a party? It is, to an extent, a problem with Jedi in general. They're so self-sufficient they just wander around kicking butt. As much as I like _The Wheel of Time_, I wouldn't deny that Rand's a bit of a Mary Sue. But I digress...
> 
> Characters, good characters, have strengths and weaknesses. The class system builds those into a D&D character by making them better at some things and worse at others. The oft-quoted 50/50 fighter/wizard or cleric/wizard seems, to me, to be mostly about being able to be a wizard when it's most beneficial to be one and being able to fall back on another, better, role for those times when being a magic-user sucks.
> 
> IMO, that's why it's been so hard for people to lay out a _character concept_ that can't be modeled well in this system. Because for the most part, it's not the concept that's taken the hit, it's the game-breaking uber-character.
> 
> My two cents. Flame away.




Dangit, John, I always like arguing with you, but this time I can't...

Speaking as a writer, I have to totally agree with what you've said. Fiction abounds with characters who must face their own weaknesses and prevail despite those weaknesses.

Without weaknesses, a fictional hero becomes uninteresting.

I think Superman is a classic example of this. He could do it all. Outfight, outfly, outspeed, and outmuscle all his enemies, he's indestructible, can see through almost anything, has eye lasers and a breath weapon for those useful ranged and ae attacks when super-strength just won't get the job done. He can even time travel, when needed. Ahh, but kryptonite. How many times can we see Superman kick everyone's butt, then be laid low by kryptonite, then find a way to escape the kryptonite, then finish kicking everyone's butt?

So, for once, we agree.

With a caveat...

While reading about fallable heroes makes for good literature, sometimes reading about invincible heroes is just plain fun. Conan, John Carter, Rambo, John McClane, Superman. Nobody beats them. They never lose. They can still be fun. One-dimensional. Predictable. But fun.

Each of these guys has their other problems though. Sure, John McClane kicks everyone's butt, and can't be killed, even by highly trained expert mercenaries with machine guns, explosives, high-tech gear, and even advanced prototype military aircraft. But, he can't keep his wife happy, has alcohol issues, fear of flying, relationship problems with everyone, etc. So his flaws, while they don't slow him down in butt-kicking combat, really crush his role-playing aspects.

Even Superman couldn't live a happy, carefree heroic life. Secret identity, can't get the girl or she'll expose his secret, etc.

Oh, and one more caveat...

From the POV of actually being the hero, all things considered, I like to be the invincible kind.

If I had to strap on some armor, and go crawling through dark dangerous dungeons (DDD), and I had my choice to either A) be all powerful, able to find traps, slay monsters, heal myself, and cast endless magical utility, or B) pick one of those things and rely on strangers to join me in the DDD so that they can, hopefully, do the rest of that stuff without screwing up and getting me killed, I would pick A.

So, when I game, I try to go for A there, too, though I'm not so singlemindedly dedicated to the idea in a game as I would be if it were real life.

But, my current group of players in the group I'm not DMing has me thinking that self-sufficiency is required. One player can never be counted on to make good tactical decisions. He's a dual-wielding barbarian who never rages, not even once in months of play, and deals about an average of 10 HP per hit at 9th level. Our only rogue shows up to 1/3 of the game sessions and generally detects traps by blundering into them, or hanging out in the back to let the barbarian set them off first. Our cleric things nothing of charging into battle screaming prayers to Kord, and is usually the first one to go unconscious - at best she's spending round after round healing herself to stay alive, so nobody else gets much healing. Our fighter ok, fairly dependable and makes good tactical decisions. And I'm the mage. I usually account well for myself, but since I get no protection from the group and very little healing, and most of the monsters are intelligent enough to take me out first, I spend most of my combats using defensive utility just to try to stay alive.

Yeah, I like the players, and enjoy the gaming, but that's the kind of group that makes me want to be Superman.


----------



## FireLance

Okay, thinking a little more about the cost of swap feats:

Perhaps gaining access to a secondary class power outside your role might be worth a feat, but gaining access to a power from another class with the same role may not be as useful. Perhaps then the solution is four Versatile [Role] feats that allow you to swap an encounter, a utility and a daily power from another class with the same role?

So a Fighter multiclassed into Paladin with the Versatile Defender feat could select one encounter, one utility and one daily Paladin power for the cost of one feat.


----------



## Voadam

katahn said:
			
		

> Start from your goal, how the character will play and what portion of their abilities come from what sources.  Your original description read as a character who primarily did damage via melee with a big sword (striker) and that this person had an array of magical spells they used to specifically enhance their effectiveness in battle.
> 
> A wizard is a specialist in ranged AOE damage, so they don't really seem like a good primary fit to me.  However, a splash of wizard abilities to enhance your ability to smash things with your sword does seem to fit.
> 
> Without actually reading the rules and knowing if a wizard with a splash of melee training would fit bill, I can't really say.  The combat skills of all characters are roughly equivilent, it's more the class-related at-will and encounter abilities that matter.  Strikers like the rogue or ranger have very nice melee-oriented at-will abilities that fit the concept as I understand it.  Multiclassing from a wizard base gives those at-will abilities as per-encounter ones.  So while it reads backwards to you, the net result of "guy who hits things with a sword and knows some spells" is probably best served by MCing into wizard rather than basing on it.
> 
> Of course, you could always wait and look for a melee-themed arcane striker type class (or just design one).  The Forgotten Realms CS for 4e is supposed to have an arcane defender (swordmage) in it, that might suit you as a base class, depending on whether or not their defendering schtick comes from heavy-armor or personal and persistent magical protection spells.




Right, starting with the goal I'm serious about being a wizard MCing into a striker instead of a striker MCing into wizard to recreate this character.

This eldritch knight is the party wizard, he has a lot of melee buff and personal defense spells, but he is also the one who does divinations (locate object, see invisible, analyze dweomer, scry, legend lore) and utility spells (knock, summon monster, teleport, shadow walk, fly, limited wish). He casts cantrips all the time for flavor reasons. He is loaded up on knowledges across the board.

In combat I like him to primarily hack things apart in melee while magically enhanced, and only secondarily do ranged attacks like scorching ray or cone of cold or battlefield control like wall of ice or web. I'm fine with him being a decent but second tier melee combatant who does not usually stand out in that role, but can handle it decently enough.

I agree that "guy who hits things with a sword and knows some spells" is probably best served by going melee striker MCing into wizard or warlock, but that's not what I'm looking for. That would be translating him into a duskblade type concept. I'm looking for a character that is primarily a wizard but who can give up a little magic and act as a backup melee striker role.

I'm not sure 4e MCing handles this until you get to the paragon route path.

It looks like picking up toughness multiple times and a sword proficiency are what are needed, and possibly some striker abilities. Though if it is just 1/encounter weak striker abilities, it might not be enough of a gain to change the low hp unarmored mage who is normally a vulnerable artillerist into a functional melee striker.

I think this is also probably the toughest case for the 4e MC because the wizard has a lot of vulnerability in his base (low hp and weapon/armor skill) and a lot of the power balance thrown into his powers. He is the most vulnerable class in melee and others (defenders and controller abilities) are designed to keep him out of melee.

Giving a wizard a few new non melee powers can conceptually work great (warlock single target ranged striking, cleric healing, leadership/group buffing abilities, etc.) as you can still do those from the protected role in the rear, but melee powers you have to deal with the wizard's inherent non power base class weaknesses.


----------



## Destil

*Hopes, dreams, wishes...*

So, after going through a good 20+ pages of this thread over the last two days I may as well get my hits in.

Power swapping in this edition *is* multiclassing. No THAC0, no BAB, no spellcasting levels no non-weapon proficiencies or skill points anymore. Just powers, the 1/2 level bonus and some misc things (HP, healing surges) + class features. 

At first I was disappointed, hoping for something more like Star Wars Saga. Frontloading and Spellcasting were the only parts of 3E multiclassing that didn't work, and the whole system was very very elegant. After some reflection I'm only worried about the opportunity cost of 3 feats (the first one, of course, is clearly one of the strongest heroic tier feats we've seen).

So my hope is that some of this opportunity cost is lessened when you read the actual descriptions of the feat, instead of what we see here, their table entry. In an ideal world:

Initiate of the Faith
Prerequisites: Wis 13 	
Benefit: You grain skilltraining in the Religion skill, if you are already trained in religion you can instead choose any other skill on the Cleric class list.

You are considered to be a cleric for any prerequisites, such as those for a paragon paths and feats.

You can healing word once per day. Like a cleric with this class feature you can use this power up to twice per encounter, but no more than once per round.

Each time you choose Novice Power, Acolyte Power or Adept Power as a feat you gain one additional use per day of Healing Word. If you have all three it becomes an encounter power for you.

Something like this, where the class-specific feat can be a little complex and tailored to the class, and the generic feats can fill all the gaps. So whenever a new class comes out we only need one feat and a paragon path to enable full multi-classing.


----------



## PrecociousApprentice

Voadam, I think that you are actually looking for a striker MCed to wizard. Most of the things you want,

"divinations (locate object, see invisible, analyze dweomer, scry, legend lore) and utility spells (knock, summon monster, teleport, shadow walk, fly, limited wish)," 

are most likely going to be rituals. The best guesses for rituals at this point are going to be that you can access them through a feat/skill. This means that there is relatively little need for wizard power for these things. 

The rest of what you have stated as goals seem to be striker abilities, backed up by wizard abilities. What you are overlooking is that class in 4e leads to role in 4e. Role is specifically combat role. Meaning that you can think about how you want to behave in combat, and pick a class that does that style of combat best, and if your best fit class doesn't have what you need, then a splash of 4e style multiclassing can likely get you what you want. The rest of what makes your character who s/he is may largely be dependant on skills and feats. Only combat role is really dependant on class anymore, and none of these metagame concepts like class, role, skills, and feats are real to the character. His concept of self can include wizard, despite not having the wizard base class, as long as he can do a sufficient amount of what he considers wizardly stuff.

So if your stated combat goal is,

"In combat I like him to *primarily hack things apart* in melee while magically enhanced, and *only secondarily do ranged attacks* like scorching ray or cone of cold or battlefield control like wall of ice or web. I'm fine with him being a decent but second tier melee combatant who does not usually stand out in that role, but can handle it decently enough,"

then this very much fits with a melee striker that has MCed into wizard for a few control powers, but promarily fits the melee striker role in combat. All of the out of combat stuff that feels like 3.x wizard stuff has likely been divorced from the wizard class in 4e. These out of combat roles can be fulfilled by any class.

As long as you are  able to give up 3.x mechanics, and truthfully state your character concept without any game mechanics attached, then you can rebuild basically whatever character you can think of in 3.x as a 4e character. You just need to understand the implications of 4e in building a character concept. There will be no 1 to 1 conversion of characters builds from 3.x to 4e. There will be relatively easy character concept translation from all your 3.x, BECMI, GURPS, Wheel of Time, Dragonlance, LotR, or whatever, to 4e. The system seems at this point to be very robust and flexible, as long as you can step outside of the box created by other rulesets' mechanics.

And all of this should have been predicated on the statement that, these are conclusions I have drawn from all of the leaked info regarding 4e up to this point. I am using a limited data set drawn from preview material and compliled by raving fanbois. The real rules will probably be enlightening to us all in June. But I still feel that my conclusions adhere very closely to the spirit of all of the teasers released by WotC and all the playtesters.


----------



## katahn

Voadam said:
			
		

> Right, starting with the goal I'm serious about being a wizard MCing into a striker instead of a striker MCing into wizard to recreate this character.




Like someone else said... stop thinking about 3.5e classes and start thinking about the end result.  While you like to think of the character as a wizard who picks up other stuff, the rest of how you actually describe the character functioning is at odds with that.  A 4e wizard has lots of ranged single target and AoE attacks and spells that manipulate the battlefield in a big way.  Your character as described has or uses very little of that and functionally is a melee striker with magic spells additionally.

Starting off as a wizard will not give you what you describe as desirable in character function.  Multiclassing into wizard from a more appropriate base-class will I think.  There is absolutely nothing wrong with role-playing your character differently of course, but from a mechanics pov I think you need to start forgetting how it would happen in 3.5e and insisting that 4e model that particularly closely.

By MCing into a wizard you are eligible for all wizard paragon and epic paths, you are eligible for all wizard-prerequisite feats, and you can grab skill training for any and all of the rituals you might like.  Since your concept is based heavily on the wizard's utility spells rather than direct attacks, your DM might even allow you to forego taking encounter/daily spell MC feats and focus on utility spell feats.  However you slice it, your core function is "hit them with my sword" and that doesn't include "wear heavy armor and be defenderish" and so regardless of other fluff,... that's a striker first and foremost and thus a striker class needs to be your base.


----------



## Xanaqui

DM_Blake said:
			
		

> Oh, and one more caveat...
> 
> From the POV of actually being the hero, all things considered, I like to be the invincible kind.
> 
> If I had to strap on some armor, and go crawling through dark dangerous dungeons (DDD), and I had my choice to either A) be all powerful, able to find traps, slay monsters, heal myself, and cast endless magical utility, or B) pick one of those things and rely on strangers to join me in the DDD so that they can, hopefully, do the rest of that stuff without screwing up and getting me killed, I would pick A.
> 
> So, when I game, I try to go for A there, too, though I'm not so singlemindedly dedicated to the idea in a game as I would be if it were real life.
> 
> But, my current group of players in the group I'm not DMing has me thinking that self-sufficiency is required. One player can never be counted on to make good tactical decisions. He's a dual-wielding barbarian who never rages, not even once in months of play, and deals about an average of 10 HP per hit at 9th level. Our only rogue shows up to 1/3 of the game sessions and generally detects traps by blundering into them, or hanging out in the back to let the barbarian set them off first. Our cleric things nothing of charging into battle screaming prayers to Kord, and is usually the first one to go unconscious - at best she's spending round after round healing herself to stay alive, so nobody else gets much healing. Our fighter ok, fairly dependable and makes good tactical decisions. And I'm the mage. I usually account well for myself, but since I get no protection from the group and very little healing, and most of the monsters are intelligent enough to take me out first, I spend most of my combats using defensive utility just to try to stay alive.
> 
> Yeah, I like the players, and enjoy the gaming, but that's the kind of group that makes me want to be Superman.



Personally, I'd prefer to specialize. Generalization (barring poorly designed rules) tends to make the party as a whole weaker.

If you continue in 3.x, just pick your spells carefully, create magic items judiciously, and wait to level up a few more times. By LV 13 or so, a 3.x Wizard/Sorcerer should be able to largely self-defend, _and _be a major damage dealer in the party.

Alternatively, you could boost the other PCs- Making a decent weapon for the barbarian, decent armor/ AC improving items for the Cleric and almost anything useful for the Fighter may make your job enough easier to be worth the costs. Conversely, you could cast buff spells to much the same effect.


----------



## Scipio202

So in Rodney Thompson's new blog post he talks about his wizard who multiclassed into fighter (apparently using some things from the martial power sourcebook).



> Wednesday night in my D&D game I got to flex my wizard's multiclass fighter muscle. I saved our cleric, Divin, from having his soul sucked out by an Oni thanks to my sweet fighter multiclass feat (out of the Martial Power Sourcebook), and on the next round I got to use my fighter encounter power (also from MP) to give all my comrades the edge we needed to take him down. I actually was rolling way, way higher on my longsword-based attacks than I did on my spells (magic missile, why do you hate me so?) and I got to stand back-to-back with Anvar, our Dragonborn fighter, in a very cool scene where he and I blocked a narrow hallway as orcs and ogres rushed forth to die upon our blades. Meanwhile the rest of the party was getting knocked around by some basilisks, but we had a very 300 moment as none of the orcs could rush past us to reinforce the basilisks beyond.




So (a) it seems that MCing from wizard into fighter could be useful, and (b) this seems to suggest that future sourcebooks might provide different initial MC feats, possibly providing different features/powers than those in the PHB.  That would certainly create more MC variety.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully

Interesting. So the multiclassing feats we have seen will not be the last ones...


----------



## Lizard

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
			
		

> Interesting. So the multiclassing feats we have seen will not be the last ones...




Yes. It makes sense. A year from now, there will be a lot more basic options for characters -- so MC options should expand as well.


----------



## Fallen Seraph

Probably not proper etiquette to do so, but... Called it!

http://www.enworld.org/showpost.php?p=4195405&postcount=141


> 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.



Yeah, this will add in my eyes even more flexibility/customization. Since now we can even be more picky about which abilities from the fighter for example to pick.


----------

