4th & Dragon : Dungeons and Dragons...and stuff

I think this bothers me most of all.  I know that a few posters here didn’t like the multi-classing rampant builds, but their objection was based on a solid interpretation that a class was a profession.  Whereas I saw a class as a group of options for a character.  3.5 was actually the least restrictive in terms of character builds and seemed to move away from a class as an occupation but more as a collection of specialized options.

So, when my rogue/fighter/assassin/master yeoman was out there, I can see that people here would object on the basis of his being split over four classes.  But I saw him as a thief, extraordinarily gifted with a short bow, but ultimately still a thief.  His IC profession had nothing to do with his OOC class progression.

I liked that about 3rd edition.  I did away with multi-classing penalties as one of my first house-rules.  The reason for multi-class penalties was the fictional observation that maintaining skills at different rates was hard and therefore the progression of those skills should take longer.  However, I looked at myself as an example of maintaining various skills at differing levels and not having any problems doing so.

Again, I’ll need to devour the rules on this, but I suspect that I will dislike the limitations inherent in the new system.

I’ve never played in a campaign or led a campaign that allowed multiclassing. This goes back to 2nd Edition, when I started playing, in the early ‘90s. I’ve never personally known anyone who has run a multiclassed character.

I know it’s because I’ve never played with hardcore min-maxers, and that is who multiclassing most appeals to, I think. That definitely seems to be the case whenever I see multiclassing brought up on Internet message boards.

This v4 method seems very interesting though, and should prevent the worst abuses that make the DMs I know shy away from allowing multiclass characters in their campaigns.

I don’t think that multiclassing is limited to minx-maxers.  I personally like to mix things up, as single classed heroes tend to get a little boring.  There are only so many ways to make a fighter, and they usually end up pretty close to the same.  If I can add a few levels of rogue, go in to Ghost Faced Killer, and finish up with a little Blackguard, I’ve got one big evil dude I can put a story behind, as opposed to Spiked Chain Fighter Variant C.

Like Merc says, the more classes you can include in your build, the more options you have for really defining who your character is.

Just look at the Fochlucan Lyrist—a WotC approved class.

You know, min-maxers weren’t the only ones to play multiclassers. It does look as though they are trying to hamper them.  I wonder if they realize that min-maxers will always find a way. Its the DM putting the smack down on such actions that matters.

I do wonder why the chose 11th level, seems an odd spot.

I can understand how some people are going to be upset abou the lack of class options availible to them now, although I think we need to wait to see xactly how flexable the “feat multiclassing” is. With everyone getting a ton more feats it seems like we might be able to reproduce taking classes by taking feats instead.

As far as why they chose 11 to truly multiclass, I would assume it is because that is when you get you “2nd class” anyway.  The way I understand it your “class” ie fighter rogue, whatever, takes you from 1-30, you gain benefits from it your entire career.  At 11 you get a Paragon Path, which is effectively a 2nd “class” that you benefit from for levels 11-30, this is why they let you take a 2nd core class instead of a PP at 11.  Then you get your last “class” at level 21, your Epic Destiny, which means from level 21-30 you are getting benefits from all 3 “classes”.

I never wanted my thief to be just a thief.  That’s the problem with restricting options.  That thief will always have the same skills.  He might have a different personality because of the player or have a slightly different attack skill, but ultimately he will always deal with things the same way.

That’s why I liked the option to multi-class.  The thief (rogue) might be a killer (assassin) but also dabbles in magic (wizard) and users daggers exclusively (daggerspell mage).  I think closing the door to builds like that is a bad thing.  Plus, that Daggerspell Mage build is anything but min-maxed.  He’s a character concept that I tried to form using the rules, not the other way around.  I generally think about what I want to accomplish and then look at the rules to find out how.  With restrictive rules like the ones I just read about here, the options are so limited that I would never be able to create the above build.

I like the idea that you can use Feats to Multi-Class.  If you can still advance with no limits in your first class and take Feats to gain elements of a second, that seems good.  If it works like that.

However, just one class to do that in is bogus.  One of my favorite characters that I have had since about ‘95 is multiclassed.  He’s started out a Fighter/Thief/Cleric; when I updated him into 3rd he became a Monk/Rogue/Cleric (because he was an unarmed fighter before), I gave him a couple PrCs to help fit him out to where he’d be (Reaping Mauler and Master Thrower) but I won’t be able to do that now apparently.

I mean it could be cool to allow a Fighter to take a Feat and gain a small amount of arcane casting ability but not have a ‘ding’ to his BAB.

I understand what you are saying about (probably) not getting to build the exact character you want with 4es more restrictive multiclassing, but I wonder if we are not selling it short before we have had a chance to look at it.

Taking the daggerspell mage as an example.  I do not have my book with me, but I am guessing it is a rogue/mage build that uses daggers to deliver attacks?  With 4e we know that there are feats that let you use weapons as implements for casting spells.  So you take a rogue, give him some wizard feats (including the expanded implement feat), and even if you feel like it, take wizard at 11th level, then you have a rogue build that casts spells as a wizard using his dagger. Of course if you want it more magic oriented, you just start as a wizard and take rogue as your lvl 11 class.

I am not saying it will be as easy to make what you want, but I think it might surprise you that you still can make what you want. Plus, since you can retrain feats now, you do not have to gimp yourself during your journey to the goal.

First off, if you look at the novice/acolyte/adept power feats, you’ll note you can have up to 3 powers from your second class before 11th (not to mention the power you get from that first multiclass feat). As for variety in character - yes, focusing on a single class is a 4e design decision, but you still have the option to multiclass, a paragon path, and an epic destiny (and a race and feats) to differentiate your character from others of the same class. Not to mention you have 4+ powers to choose from at each level to make your fighter (or whatever) different from my fighter. The customizability within the core classes alone blows away 3.5 (except spellcasters, who got to choose spells each level - much like all classes get to do now). Anyway, let’s also remember that 3.5 has years of supplements; once 4e gets going there will be plenty more options

Three powers really doesn’t do me much good. What do you do for those of us who tick for tack all the way up the multiclass scale. Alot of my characters alternate between two class or even three to the get the perfect character fluff I want.  This all still feels way to WoW’ish to me. Once you get to lv such and such, you really get cool stuff.

As for supplementary stuff, I never use to buy it until my players twist my arm hard enough because what was often great at the moment, was a disaster waiting to happen the next when errata’s or addition supplements came out to “improve”

Still it is a wait and see thing. Maybe something in it all will impress me, just haven’t seen anything yet.

For me, multiclassing was always about making a character do what I wanted them to do, and in many ways 3.5 hampered this, and in others it helped considerably.  Potentially 4e’s way of handling multiclassing looks good, but I, like Cameron, am a bit trepedatious about the restriction to only one secondary class.  I’m going to really have to look over the rules in detail before deciding whether I like that or not, and if not, how I might change it.

Three powers really doesn’t do me much good. What do you do for those of us who tick for tack all the way up the multiclass scale.

Three powers is a full 3rd of your class based power selection at 10th level.  If you then take your paragon path in the multiclass direction, then at 20th level your up to nearly half of your powers being from your secondary class (you’ll have 1 more utility power from your primary than you have from your secondary).  If you use your Epic destiny to develop your secondary class as well (assuming this is possible) then you’ll retain that near parity situation all the way to 30th level.

How much more important is your feat selection in 4e compared to in 3.5? In 3.5, it’s often not a big deal; maybe in 4e, that’s where the majority of your design comes in. Multiclassing in 4e may well be more restrictive simply because it doesn’t make as huge a difference.

...Well, I’m not sure I believe that. It’s what I’m counting on, however.

Yeah, I’m not sure how this fits in with the “everything is easier and more fun!” talking point they’ve been peddling everywhere. I guess it’s more of an old school vibe, and I’m not necessarily opposed to them limiting options as a matter of course...I just hope they’re going to be more honest about it in the future. Of course, WotC was no more honest at 3.0’s release, with things like the Sage saying Halfling Outrider wasn’t supposed to have a base attack bonus.