Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
The way I read the preview, it sounds to me as if once you take the multi-classing feat, you can dip into the powers of that class PLUS take abilities that have that class as a prerequisite. I don't think there's enough information to really understand how this plays out without seeing the full rules, but I would expect that being considered a "cleric" for a bunch of non-power abilities is useful. Keep in mind that 4e looks to be based on a bunch of talent trees with only a handful of core class abilities. The multi-class feats theoretically grant you the ability to access the feat trees in addition to letting you dabble in the core class's powers. And, given that it appears much of your power derives from these feat trees, this is fairly similar to taking a level in rogue to gain sneak attack and thereby giving up a level in wizard under 3e.
But, if you're not buying into the structure of the 4e classes to begin with, you're probably not going to be happy with this rule (surprise, surprise). In related news, if you don't like chocolate ice cream, you probably won't like chocolate pudding either.
One thing to keep in mind is the number of powers we're talking about. Even high level characters only have four per-encounter abilities. Replacing one with a power from another class, and another with a Paragon Path for that class, will very strongly change the list of options you have.
Unlike in 3E where you could just take a level and get saves, AB, HP, skills, and proficiencies, it seems in 4E you have to pay feats for what you want. I suspect the designers want to ensure that each class can perform their role well, and thus it is pretty hard to weaken yourself very much in your core capacity. To be equally as good in another role will likely be exceptionally expensive in terms of feats.
For those who don't think you can make a fully blended character, I'm curious what you think will be missing? No offense meant, but I've seen several others say they don't think they'll be able to give their Fighter/Mage (or whatever) exactly what they want.
Cheers! :)
With 4e, if you really want a blended class, apparently you need a new class like the swordmage. However, for dippers, I agree that these rules look really nice. But for blenders like myself, they don't appear very appealing. Of course, I'll wait until I see the full rules, but from the excerpt I couldn't help but think "THIS is what they call multiclassing?" And, no, I'm not just trying to min/max a cleric/monk/barbarian/death toaster - I just like to blend archetypes. :)
I think you're right Ken, it won't be possible to really blend fully two classes to get a mix archtype, or role, character. You'll have to take the class which comes closest to the type of character you want to play. The folks who enjoyed playing a fighter/wizard in third edition should play aswordmage.
I think that's a good thing really, because the old way of multiclassing allowed a player to gimp themselves way, way to easily. They tried to fix it with the presitge classes like the mystic thuerge, but good god, that character build sucked from level 4 to 6 as they took the second class they needed to get Mystic Thuerge.
Now they've made it much more difficult to gimp your own character, or to min/max them out with ludicrus class combos.
That is really good, because it makes building adventures amazingly easy. If every character is roughly equal in power, even if they play radically differently based on what class they are, then premade dungeons are now much much easier to make and have them be reliably challenging, but not total killers. You can make your own home brew adventures a loteasier too.
I wish I didn't have to wait for the Swordmage to come out to play the fighter/wizard type of character, I do like that they are retooling the classes to prevent abuses or character gimping combos.
One thing to keep in mind is the Swordmage isn't a standard Fighter/Mage combo. It is the Arcane sourced Defender. I doubt you'll see many big-boom type spells.
It will definitely be expensive to be competent performing two different roles in combat, but like Teiren said, that is to try and prevent the extremes of multiclassing (either being gimped, or being too strong).
Cheers! :)
|
Another incredibly lame mechanical decision. Every 4E excerpt leaves me saying, "Meh.", and this is no exception. Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to eliminate multiclassing and replace it with these anemic dabbling feats. This is lazy and lacks imaginaton. I expected more from them, but I should have know better by now.
Another incredibly lame mechanical decision. Every 4E excerpt leaves me saying, "Meh.", and this is no exception. Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to eliminate multiclassing and replace it with these anemic dabbling feats. This is lazy and lacks imaginaton. I expected more from them, but I should have know better by now.
I like you...I shall call you Raz #2
Another incredibly lame mechanical decision. Every 4E excerpt leaves me saying, "Meh.", and this is no exception. Their "solution" to the multiclassing "problem" was to eliminate multiclassing and replace it with these anemic dabbling feats. This is lazy and lacks imaginaton. I expected more from them, but I should have know better by now.I like you...I shall call you Raz #2
If DnD has any tradition at all, it is that reversing something's name is a time honored way to invent the name of something new.
I think we should go with Zzar (or maybe Zarr!)
Cheers! :)
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I like you...I shall call you Raz #2
Neh. Corey's been a hater from day 1, just like Razz, no need to confuse the two. I'm not sure why they feel the need to bother on every 4e post with a "well I just don't like this either." I think everyone understands they don't want to play 4e, and it's certainly no shock that each additional change that is announced is disliked by them without any real basis or reasoning just like the last (particularly those changes that require looking at the system holistically, and not just in a vacuum). WotC could announce they are printing the PHB on $100 dollar bills and we'd get a "this is ridiculous - do they think we're too stupid to spend $50 bills?!?! Plus, everyone hates Ben Franklin because he failed to cure cancer."
I like you...I shall call you Raz #2
"You're a funny man, Sully; I like you. That's why I'm going to kill you last."
If DnD has any tradition at all, it is that reversing something's name is a time honored way to invent the name of something new.
I think we should go with Zzar (or maybe Zarr!)
Cheers! :)
Zzar it is
Neh. Corey's been a hater from day 1, just like Razz, no need to confuse the two. I'm not sure why they feel the need to bother on every 4e post with a "well I just don't like this either." I think everyone understands they don't want to play 4e, and it's certainly no shock that each additional change that is announced is disliked by them without any real basis or reasoning just like the last (particularly those changes that require looking at the system holistically, and not just in a vacuum). WotC could announce they are printing the PHB on $100 dollar bills and we'd get a "this is ridiculous - do they think we're too stupid to spend $50 bills?!?! Plus, everyone hates Ben Franklin because he failed to cure cancer."
I trying to be as obnoxious to them as I possibly can...maybe they won't come back?
Since they are on the verge of making me not come back to the Paizo boards or visiting the site ever again.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I trying to be as obnoxious to them as I possibly can...maybe they won't come back?
What a wonderful world that would be...
Since they are on the verge of making me not come back to the Paizo boards or visiting the site ever again.
Where are you thinking of heading? I like a lot of the community here, but since Paizo announced their intent not to follow 4e, I've been considering exploring new forums. I'm sick of dealing with unreasoned 4e hate, but I'm also not interested in the unreasoned 4e fanaticism you get at the WotC boards.
I trying to be as obnoxious to them as I possibly can...maybe they won't come back?What a wonderful world that would be...
Since they are on the verge of making me not come back to the Paizo boards or visiting the site ever again.Where are you thinking of heading? I like a lot of the community here, but since Paizo announced their intent not to follow 4e, I've been considering exploring new forums. I'm sick of dealing with unreasoned 4e hate, but I'm also not interested in the unreasoned 4e fanaticism you get at the WotC boards.
No clue...probably nowhere.
I wasn't reading any messageboards before and I was doing fine...guess I will manage without it.
I trying to be as obnoxious to them as I possibly can...maybe they won't come back?What a wonderful world that would be...
Since they are on the verge of making me not come back to the Paizo boards or visiting the site ever again.Where are you thinking of heading? I like a lot of the community here, but since Paizo announced their intent not to follow 4e, I've been considering exploring new forums. I'm sick of dealing with unreasoned 4e hate, but I'm also not interested in the unreasoned 4e fanaticism you get at the WotC boards.No clue...probably nowhere.
I wasn't reading any messageboards before and I was doing fine...guess I will manage without it.
I actually thought it was an alias of Razz's, but its Cory Stafford's, whoever that is.
I do recommend ENWorld if you're interested in checking out a pretty robust 4E community. I must warn you though, even ENWorld has its persistent "haters" who generally arrive to post in every thread about how much they dislike 4E. ENWorld does offer an ignore function, however, if you'd rather just not see their posts.
Also, being a more friendly 4E board means not having to wallow in quite as much negativity (and it simply gets a lot more traffic, so you get a lot more commentators.)
Cheers! :)
Hmm...not a bad idea. :-D
I've been an ENWorld member for 7 years or so and it's a great community. I prefer to go there for serious mechanical discussion of 4E. They have put a lot of work into creating 4E lite packages based on the previews released so far. I prefer here for PbPs, though. Best PbP community anywhere. :D
|
|
Neh. Corey's been a hater from day 1, just like Razz, no need to confuse the two. I'm not sure why they feel the need to bother on every 4e post with a "well I just don't like this either." I think everyone understands they don't want to play 4e, and it's certainly no shock that each additional change that is announced is disliked by them without any real basis or reasoning just like the last (particularly those changes that require looking at the system holistically, and not just in a vacuum). WotC could announce they are printing the PHB on $100 dollar bills and we'd get a "this is ridiculous - do they think we're too stupid to spend $50 bills?!?! Plus, everyone hates Ben Franklin because he failed to cure cancer."I like you...I shall call you Raz #2
Hey, give me a break! I haven't poseted on the 4E forums in months. You may not believe me, but I really wanted to like 4th edition. I was initially excited we I heard it announced, but every tidbit they released was very distasteful to me. Everytime I'd want to like it, they threw out another preview that left me saying either ,"Why would they do something studpid like that." or "Meh.". It's almost like they don't want me to like 4E. In some small way, I am still hoping that it by turn out to be a passable version of D&D. At this point, that hope is delusional at best. I just can't get behind 95% of the changes I've heard about, which are nearly the whole game at this point.
Antoine and Sebastian, I do hope you will continue on here. David, Pete, Krauser and many others seem to be starting to bring some embers to life, and I am hoping that there is the possibility that there will be a forum here that brings to a 4e discussion the same fun and intelligence the Paizo board has overall.
So any time any of you think about bailing because of a fun-killing post, please remember that your presence in the 4e Paizo forum is much appreciated.
Cheers,
Matt
Antoine and Sebastian, I do hope you will continue on here. David, Pete, Krauser and many others seem to be starting to bring some embers to life, and I am hoping that there is the possibility that there will be a forum here that brings to a 4e discussion the same fun and intelligence the Paizo board has overall.
So any time any of you think about bailing because of a fun-killing post, please remember that your presence in the 4e Paizo forum is much appreciated.
Cheers,
Matt
I agree! I really don't post much, but I generally stop by to check the 4e forum here daily. I appreciate the well-reasoned and intelligent discussion many of the posters here bring, and I like to consider myself a part of that community, even if I'm not as talkative as others. I'm optimistic that we are bringing this section of the Paizo boards back from the pit of hostility and vitriol of a few months ago. While I am sad that Paizo shut the door on a 4e Pathfinder, and so there's not as much to get excited about here, it's hard to leave a community I've grown so attached to.
I agree! I really don't post much, but I generally stop by to check the 4e forum here daily. I appreciate the well-reasoned and intelligent discussion many of the posters here bring, and I like to consider myself a part of that community, even if I'm not as talkative as others. I'm optimistic that we are bringing this section of the Paizo boards back from the pit of hostility and vitriol of a few months ago. While I am sad that Paizo shut the door on a 4e Pathfinder, and so there's not as much to get excited about here, it's hard to leave a community I've grown so attached to.
Someone has invade my brain!!!
I'm one of the people who really dislike the gist of this multiclassing. For one thing, as far as I can tell from the Paragon Path excerpt and the multiclassing exerpt, you can actually never take another class.
The multiclassing excerpt says that you can take feats to allow you to take powers from another class. Even the "paragon path swap" doesn't allow you to take another class, it again just allows you to take powers from another class. Although the majority of the interesting stuff of a class is the powers, that's not all of it. As we saw in the warlord excerpt, there are also class abilities, and as far as we can see so far, unless you take the class at 1st level, you can never access that class' non-power abilities.
Note that paragon paths give both features and powers. So, I'm 100% sure that you will be able to get additional class features (not only powers), when swapping paragon paths with multiclassing.
As a chronic multiclasser, I really don't like these rules. For one thing, I'm not a "dipper" (which these rules are great at), but often more of a blender, which from everything I see here, just doesn't fit. Just to use a classic example of the fighter/wizard - with the 4e multiclassing rules, you can either be a fighter that dabbles in wizardy, or a wizard that dabbles in fighting, but you can't really be a blend of both (without using a ton of feats, or waiting until 11th level apparently).
Now in 3e, non-spellcaster combinations work very nicely (like fighter/rogue for example). I'll admit that spellcaster multiclassing in 3e sucks (which led to the mystic theurge style PrClasses that are just band-aids and not solutions). But I also think the problem is fixable without going as far as 4e (and am working on a possible solution just for kicks, but I've tried a few that have helped easily).
With 4e, if you really want a blended class, apparently you need a new class like the swordmage. However, for dippers, I agree that these rules look really nice. But for blenders like myself, they don't appear very appealing. Of course, I'll wait until I see the full rules, but from the excerpt I...
You have a point here. 4E multiclassing implies is sub-optimality, as I previously mentioned. I believe that by swapping paragon paths with multiclassing, you can get something similar to "blending", but at sacrifice of optimality, as you are losing the powerful paragon features and powers.
So I just multiclassed into Fighter with my Wizard a few weeks ago. One of the things I think gets lost when you look at the multiclass rules in isolation is how it interacts with the new power system. When you start trading out powers you are trading out the way you behave on a round-by-round basis in combat. So, for example, my Wizard traded our ray of enfeeblement to get a nice, reactive fighter power that causes the target to grant combat advantage to my allies. I throw that in there between magic missiles and I end up with a couple of rounds per encounter where I feel like I've got some really nice sword training.
Couple that with the way powers scale up with you as you go along and a "dip" doesn't really mean the same thing it does in 3.5. In 3.5 a dip into a class like wizard or cleric quickly means that those spells you learned are rapidly reduced in usefulness in combat (creative players never reach 0 usefulness with them, but I think we can all agree that 1st-level spells are doing little except utility at high levels). However, if I dip into a class in 4E, those powers don't lose their usefulness like they would in 3.5, and that dip remains a solid percentage of my actions during every single encounter.
It's true that you can't really do the "half and half" character in 4E, though you can get darn close by taking all the multiclass feats and multiclassing instead of taking a paragon path. You'll probably identify yourself as "A fighter that casts some spells" or "a warlock that provides some healing" but, from my experience (and fully acknowledging that YMMV), the fact that you are consistently (and effectively!) using powers from your second class on an encounter by encounter basis makes your multiclass character feel as much, or as little, like your second class as you want.
So I just multiclassed into Fighter with my Wizard a few weeks ago. One of the things I think gets lost when you look at the multiclass rules in isolation is how it interacts with the new power system. When you start trading out powers you are trading out the way you behave on a round-by-round basis in combat. So, for example, my Wizard traded our ray of enfeeblement to get a nice, reactive fighter power that causes the target to grant combat advantage to my allies. I throw that in there between magic missiles and I end up with a couple of rounds per encounter where I feel like I've got some really nice sword training.
I guess the way I look at it is that I dont need to have 10 or so wizard spells at 2nd-level, along with some mostly okay melee output. Not that I can actually cast all those spells in a day, or that they will remain useful at higher level, or that I would even BE casting them all the time, anyway.
I've always had a basic idea of a wizard that uses a greatsword in melee combat, and I think that 4th Edition will actually allow me to effectively build a character that can do that. :-)
Couple that with the way powers scale up with you as you go along and a "dip" doesn't really mean the same thing it does in 3.5. In 3.5 a dip into a class like wizard or cleric quickly means that those spells you learned are rapidly reduced in usefulness in combat (creative players never reach 0 usefulness with them, but I think we can all agree that 1st-level spells are doing little except utility at high levels). However, if I dip into a class in 4E, those powers don't lose their usefulness like they would in 3.5, and that dip remains a solid percentage of my actions during every single encounter.
Most classes that have a "spellcasting" theme suffer from that. Some, like martial adepts dont get gimped as badly, but the mechanics necessitate some kind of full spellcasting progression in order to remain globally useful.
Lets face it, a lot of the time you just need good damage, duration, or a high save DC.
It's true that you can't really do the "half and half" character in 4E, though you can get darn close by taking all the multiclass feats and multiclassing instead of taking a paragon path. You'll probably identify yourself as "A fighter that casts some spells" or "a warlock that provides some healing" but, from my experience (and fully acknowledging that YMMV), the fact that you are consistently (and effectively!) using powers from your second class on an encounter by encounter basis makes your multiclass character feel as much, or as little, like your second class as you want.
I dont really care if I can do a half-and-half character, since I technically couldnt do that in 3rd Edition, either. If I play a fighter 5/wizard 5, the character just plain sucks unless I predict combat ahead of time, pile on tons of buffs, and then wade into combat only to take a nap later for the next encounter so that I can do it all again, just to be slightly better (maybe) than the full-time fighter. When it comes to the wizard, you just cant come close to what she can do.
Its this idea that perpetuates the "clerics are better fighters than fighter" myth. I was able to assist a fighter/wizard in an old campaign to get an AC of like, 27 without armor and some hefty damage to boot, but it didnt last long and he could only do that trick once per day. Otherwise, he was an utterly pathetic glass fighter with a few minor magic tricks.
Some half-and-half combinations might work, or work in small areas: a fighter/rogue might be great in melee combat in theory, but cant keep pace with the Search/Disable Device DCs, probably wont have as good an AC or Reflex save, and has way less hit points.
Meh. Some folks want to be able to bolt a second or third character onto their back and feel that this will not negatively effect balance. 3x lets you do this in some cases (melee combos mostly) and not in others (fighter/mage?). I think the 4e effort to make all the players at the table not feel redundant is a good one and is more important than rewarding build mastery.
I liked min/maxing in 3.x, especially the computer implementations and coming up with crazy powerful builds but anything that can be used by a player can be used by a DM to make a NPC that is just as crazy (and easily capable of causing a TPK within the rules) so I am willing to give up some tweakability for the sake of better mathematical power balance and more equitable 'fun' distribution around the table.
Also note that in this scheme you are only losing feats to multiclass, this is something of value to lose but compare to 3.x where you had to carefully balance the loss of bab, spell effectiveness, DCs, etc. etc. You might not get as much in return but the cost may be less as well.
But I think it is still too soon to write off multiclassing. Until you know a. all feats, b. all powers, c. all class features and have tested out the relative power of PCs vs. monsters at different levels it is WAY premature to say what builds will/wont work.
Also the excerpt only dealt with heroic tier multiclassing, we know that one can forgo taking paragon tier feats to take multiclassing feats so it may be possible to get something from a third class.
Where are you thinking of heading? I like a lot of the community here, but since Paizo announced their intent not to follow 4e, I've been considering exploring new forums. I'm sick of dealing with unreasoned 4e hate, but I'm also not interested in the unreasoned 4e fanaticism you get at the WotC boards.
I would second the mention of ENWORLD, not because the discourse is always excellent (dnd and the internet.. I wonder if that combination will attract spastic nerds?) but because the boffins there have put together a lot of good prerelease info into a usable form.
I heard about it on the WOTC dnd podcast and went there to check it out and was playing a homebrew preview 4e game a day later. That did much more to sell me and my buddies than any of the official preview stuff has.
So I just multiclassed into Fighter with my Wizard a few weeks ago. ...
Thanks for the insight, Rodney. Again.
I'm looking forward to World Wide D&D Game Day where I will have a chance to run a table. I'll be able to see the 4e scenario in advance so I will be prepared to run the event well, and I can't wait to see what's in this year's package.
The Game Day package will be my first look at 4e outside of previews and player feedback like yours.
As for the multiclassing idea, I think it looks great. It seems to do what it should do.
|
|
I'm not sure why they feel the need to bother on every 4e post with a "well I just don't like this either."
Hmm, for them (and many others besides) 4th edition is like an itch that needs to be scratched.
I also had this itch until Pathfinder RPG became my healing salve.Nonetheless I still read the 4th edition boards and see some things I like and many things I do not like. I will still post my thoughts on various mechanics because I like to see other viewpoints and discussion helps to eithr cement my viewpoint or change it.
The way I read the preview, it sounds to me as if once you take the multi-classing feat, you can dip into the powers of that class PLUS take abilities that have that class as a prerequisite. I don't think there's enough information to really understand how this plays out without seeing the full rules, but I would expect that being considered a "cleric" for a bunch of non-power abilities is useful. Keep in mind that 4e looks to be based on a bunch of talent trees with only a handful of core class abilities. The multi-class feats theoretically grant you the ability to access the feat trees in addition to letting you dabble in the core class's powers. And, given that it appears much of your power derives from these feat trees, this is fairly similar to taking a level in rogue to gain sneak attack and thereby giving up a level in wizard under 3e.
But, if you're not buying into the structure of the 4e classes to begin with, you're probably not going to be happy with this rule (surprise, surprise). In related news, if you don't like chocolate ice cream, you probably won't like chocolate pudding either.
Sorry, I like all forms of chocolate.
I'm with Sebastian on this. Although we can't know until some time after 6 June, the combination of 4E multiclassing (OK, maybe it is powerdipping) and custom classes (swordmage, etc.) should please most folks. But only if you're willing to approach this new Edition on its own terms. Of course, you don't have to.
But why deny yourself the opportunity? What if it really is fun?
Oh ... and SMURF! Sorry. Sometimes I get enthusiastic about little things. I'll give this up ... eventually.
I'm not sure why they feel the need to bother on every 4e post with a "well I just don't like this either."Hmm, for them (and many others besides) 4th edition is like an itch that needs to be scratched.
I also had this itch until Pathfinder RPG became my healing salve.Nonetheless I still read the 4th edition boards and see some things I like and many things I do not like. I will still post my thoughts on various mechanics because I like to see other viewpoints and discussion helps to eithr cement my viewpoint or change it.
My mother was always pretty consistent on the whole "scratching an itch just makes it itch worse" dealy when I was a kid. Did no one else get those lectures?
It does seem like the announcement of the Pathfinder RPG has quieted the asylum, as I had suspected it would. I'd guess that the last few tremors of unrest will vanish once the 4E books themselves are out.
Cheers! :)
|
I read it and then this thread, and got a little confused and thought I might be crazy. So I re-read it, and now I am convinced I am not crazy, its everyone else who is crazy (usually a good sign that I am, indeed, crazy)
Here is my take on the excerpt. Like you really care, lol:
1) You can take a feat that gives you the skill set (trained) in another class as well as a power of that class (albeit in a lesser form). you are consider a member of that class for pre-requisite purposes as well as your original class
2) once you have 1) you can continue to take a feat that will allow swap out a power of your main class for one of the "dip" class
This is how most people are reading it and ending the discussion. And this is where I read things a bit differently. There is still the option of choosing another class instead of a Paragon path:
3) at 11th level you choose to pick up another class instead of the Paragon Path. In this option, you get to pick up the FEATURES of the second class as well as the powers normally available only as feat-dipping.
Whats not clear is whether you could say Start as a fighter, feat-dip into Wizard, then at 11th choose rogue instead of a paragon path for either Wizard or fighter. My gut tells me you won't be able, that the selection of the multiclass feat determines which class you could choose to further specialize in at 11th. The text on only taking one multiclass feat doesn't necessarliy preclude you from the "another class instead of paragon path" option.
I think there is some more to multiclassing than this "multiclass feat" excerpt implies.