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

You already get to swap an at-will power at 11th level if you go into the multiclass paragon option.

Sounds like you are not fully familiar with the PHB multiclass option on page 209. In the lower right corner is the whole paragon multiclassing rule. It is quite lacking considering what you give up to do that.

EDIT: page number :D

Sorry never notice that section, i didnt spend much time reading about paragon stuff since we have no character there yet, nice to make me notice that, but the page is 209 not 109

But even after reading this, giving up the paragon path and all its benefit to be able to only select lower level power i am not sure it worth it. Its quite weak indeed. I do agree that you need something more.

Rothe - 09 August 2008 06:37 AM

And really, the ability to charge and use at-wills is not so powerful.

We need to get some more ideas going.  Any way their used, some cool abilities are going to come out of this.

I want to emphasize that my vision is that every ability has to take into account all of the different class abilities.

For example, I think it is great for non-fighters multiclassing into fighter to gain “lesser” ways of marking enemies.
Same goes for non-rogues being able to use sneaky tactics (adding some damage or other thing with combat advantage)
Implements should be possibly unified to make combos like wizard warlock more workable etc.

Good vision.  I actually have to work while at work today, so I’ll try to get some ideas going tonight.

Okay, so I originally didn’t think that this was entirely necessary, but the character I’m currently playing has now started developing in a multi-class direction (cleric/wizard, currently with Novice Power)) and so I’ve been looking into the multi-class rules.

I’ve come to agree that paragon multiclassing is underpowered when compared to a normal paragon path.  Consider a paragon path usually nets you the following:
(a) 1 encounter power,
(b) 1 daily power,
(c) 1 utility power,
(d) 1 path feature at 11th level not related to the spending of action points,
(e) 1 path feature at 11th level related to the spending of action points, and
(f) 1 path feature at 16th level which may or may not be related to the spending of action points.

Paragon multiclassing, by contrast nets you the following:
(a) 1 encounter power,
(b) 1 daily power,
(c) 1 utility power, and
(d) the ability to swap one of your at-wills.

I’ve structured the list so that letters correspond on purpose.

Now, one could argue that a, b, & c are underpowered because the powers you get to chose from in your second class are of a lower level than the ones the paragon path grants you, but they are granting you your choice from all powers of correct type and the level at which you gain them and below so I’m not going to get involved in that.

For d, the two options are a fairly close match, but I’d add the following feature:
Implement Flexibility: When using a power with the Implement keyword, you may use an implement from either your base class or the one associated with your multiclass feats.
This makes classes which use different implements (e.g. cleric with wizard) a bit easier to handle as then the character doesn’t need more than one implement.  There is precedent for an additional small boon like this.  See Angelic Avenger, which grants a Cleric proficiency with a martial weapon in addition to the standard set of features.

The obvious underpoweredness of the paragon multiclassing, however, is in the fact that it is totally missing e & f.  Rothe’s synergy bonuses seem to be a good start at addressing this, but they only provide one of the two missing features (probably the 16th level one, not 11th as he proposes, since they don’t involve the spending of action points).  The problem is (as Rothe pointed out) that a ton of abilities are needed (56 for just the classes in the PHB, even more as more classes come out).  Thus, while I like the idea, I’d prefer something that is a bit more generic and that fits the current structure better.

No real ideas for the features yet.  I just thought I’d post my thoughts on the framework of how to “fix” multiclassing.

Okay, so I’ve been thinking about this some more and have come to the following conclusion:

Designing the “missing” features to each specific multi-class combination is prohibitive.  It leads to 2*N*(N-1) features that have to be designed (where N is the number of classes).  That’s 144 to cover the current contents of the Compendium.  Furthermore, the release of the next class would require the design of 36 more features and the one after that would require 40, then 44, etc.

However, the “missing” features could be designed to be specific to the secondary class, much as the multi-class feats themselves are.  This would require only 20 features to cover the current contents of the Compendium and only 2 features would need to be designed each time a new class is released.

As an example of this concept, I propose the following multi-class paragon features for the wizard:

Implement Aided Action (11th level): When you spend an action point to take an extra action, if you use your action to use a power with the Implement keyword, you can apply the benefits of one Arcane Implement Mastery to that power provided you are wielding the appropriate type of implement.

Wizard’s Spellbook (16th level): You gain the Spellbook class feature as if you were a wizard.  Its benefits apply to all of your daily attack and utility powers which have the Implement keyword or are wizard powers.

Yeah, I kind of have to agree with you BP. I ran out of steam when I was making the features. It is fun, but time consuming and since there are so many, it is difficult to keep them balanced. I did, however, get a lot of ideas that could be useful later for something else.

I would try to aim for 3 features per secondary class though. Some might not be useful for all the primary classes and that is why I originally tried to make one for each combo.

For example, all kinds of implement synergies would be nice. However, if I want to give the Wizard multiclass paragon path a feature that allows using holy symbols as arcane implements, I am aiming it only for a small number of classes and that is no good. I still like the idea of combining the implements to avoid having to buy many “class foci” for multiclassed characters (weapons for martial classes, implements for divine and arcane etc.).

That’s 144 to cover the current contents of the Compendium.  Furthermore, the release of the next class would require the design of 36 more features and the one after that would require 40, then 44, etc.

I think it is not quite this bad though. If you make only one feature for each combo, you only need to make (amount of classes)x(amount of classes -1) features which is still doable.

I would try to aim for 3 features per secondary class though. Some might not be useful for all the primary classes and that is why I originally tried to make one for each combo.

The design goal of the features shouldn’t be dependent on the primary class, in my opinion.  These features should provide the character with more of the flavor (and mechanics) of their secondary class.  When the designer asks the questions “Would a class x/wizard find this feature useful?” they shouldn’t have to check on every variation on class x.  Knowing that the character’s secondary class is wizard should be enough.

For example, all kinds of implement synergies would be nice. However, if I want to give the Wizard multiclass paragon path a feature that allows using holy symbols as arcane implements, I am aiming it only for a small number of classes and that is no good.

Which is why Implement Flexibility didn’t specify which implements you could now use.  It simply lets the implements of either of your classes function for powers which have the implement keyword.

I still like the idea of combining the implements to avoid having to buy many “class foci” for multiclassed characters (weapons for martial classes, implements for divine and arcane etc.).

Actually, I think the interchangeability of weapons and implements should be reserved for magic items (a.l.a. the holy avenger and the pact blade).

I think it is not quite this bad though. If you make only one feature for each combo, you only need to make (amount of classes)x(amount of classes -1) features which is still doable.

It doesn’t matter if you’re talking 1, 2, or 3 features per combo.  You’re still talking about designing features on a per combo basis which leads to a progressive increase in the number of features that have to be designed with each new class release.  Eventually this means that you’re going to be spending more time designing the multi-class features for a new class than you spent designing the class itself (though the multiplier will effect exactly how many classes it takes to reach that point).

Designing multi-class features on a per combo basis requires O(N^2) number of features.  Designing on a per class basis requires O(N) number of features.  For those not familiar with the properties of order math, let me put that into tables of numbers for you (assuming 1 feature per combo or class for the moment, though as I argue in my original post, I don’t think that’s the right number to be designing for):

Or, in terms of new material that must be produced with each new class release:

As you can see, designing to the combo leads to progressively more work with each new class release.  Designing soley to the secondary class (like the multi-class feats that start you on the path are) doesn’t.

Okay, so I just found a post at the Wizard’s boards which seems to implement the ideas I’ve been discussing really well.  I’ve only read through it this point and haven’t really thought about how it would work in play, but I though I’d link it for other people to read.

A direct link to the post, for those not interested in reading the whole Wizard’s thread (which, admittedly, has some of the usual WotC boards attitudes floating through it).

A link to the whole thread, for those interested in the whole back and forth.