|
So I just got done reading the rules, they really don't want you two multiclass. Taking a feat to pretending your a different class (but you're not) and then 3 feats that you have to wait until you level X to be allowed to take, in order to swap powers you have for ones you want.
And I'm shocked.. they pulled 2 weapon fighting from everyone but the Ranger. I don't see Rogues or Fighters going to multiclass route either for it.
I like the 3.5 multiclass rules better. It was the only TRUE multiclass system. Yes it had the potential for less than optimal builds,but the opposite is also true. And the possibilities were endless. I will miss it. Not that i am not going to try 4th e anyway...
|
|
Indeed 3E had a better system, where it failed was the prestige classes. Most of the prestige classes are stupid or are flavorful but not something many characters would take, npcs yes.
Popular multiclasses combinations like Fighter/Wizard didn't have a prestige that was the obvious choice. They tried to make Bladesinger work right what.. 3 times? There were at least 4 different fighter/wizard prestige classes over the course of 3E from Wizards, but they all fell short to me.
I am told the Abjurant Champion was good...but that was only five levels and then you needed another PrC. Like Eldritch Knight....hmm i see what you mean lol.
It seems like casters in 4TH EDITION WON'T BE ALL POWERFUL<OR VERY INTERESTING> IN THE NEW GAME.
I don't think the Mystic Theurge was as crappy as advertised. Unless you were in a really over the top , power gaming campaign.
I dunno. I like the new Multiclassing, although it does seem a bit weaker than I had anticipated (in particular, the final version of Paragon multiclassing seems weaker than I expected.)
I think the big score from multiclassing is going to be able to take powers outside of your role, to gain capabilities beyond what you'd normally be able to do. Plus, you qualify for almost any Paragon Path your multiclass could take, which is a really nice boon. Since your multiclass's powers can be as high as your level, you aren't limited to wimpy Magic Missiles when you take your first Wizard level, but can instead throw Fire Bursts right away (assuming you're high enough).
As for the TWF thing, yeah I was a bit surprised. There are a few feats that could help you out if you weren't a Ranger, but not many. Still, notice that a lot of Fighter abilities have Weapon effects that differ depending on what the Fighter is wielding. I like the idea of using a Mace/Hammer in one hand for your Stuns and Knockbacks and maybe a Blade of some sort for Bleeds or whatever. (Another idea I had was Rogue multi'd into Fighter, dual wielding, Mace and Dagger. Sneak attack and Rogue powers with Dagger, Fighter powers with Mace to stun and give Combat Opportunity!)
Cheers! :)
Kinda reminds me of the old 2nd edition days, when only Rangers could dual wield, and fighters just got tonnes of attacks.
I really like the new multiclassing better, as it allows for effective characters no matter which class you lump yourself with.
The ability to multiclass instead of taking a paragon path makes further encourages, this, as does one of the four epic destinies (cant remember the name, but it let you pick your encounter/dailies from any class you want).
3rd Edition multiclassing is generally so subpar that no one in my group does it except when going into a prestige class to make their original class worthwhile (bard going into seeker of the song, wizards and sorcerers going into anything else out there, etc). Its like you either did it because your core class sucks, or because the prestige class had something cool that you wanted.
I really like the new multiclassing better, as it allows for effective characters no matter which class you lump yourself with.
The ability to multiclass instead of taking a paragon path makes further encourages, this, as does one of the four epic destinies (cant remember the name, but it let you pick your encounter/dailies from any class you want).
3rd Edition multiclassing is generally so subpar that no one in my group does it except when going into a prestige class to make their original class worthwhile (bard going into seeker of the song, wizards and sorcerers going into anything else out there, etc). Its like you either did it because your core class sucks, or because the prestige class had something cool that you wanted.
That's funny, considering many NPC and PC builds I have seen all over the place, from the Internet to real life people I know, all have multiclassed characters. Class or prestige class.
And multiclassing doesn't exist in 4E, I don't even know why anyone calls it that anymore. It's called "class dipping" now.
I've seen a lot of NPC blocks that use multiclassing, and even monsters with class levels, but that doesnt mean that they were any good. The mind flayer sorcerer, for example, is pretty craptacular with his 3rd-level spells and nothing else.
Anyway, thats the new multiclassing. I'm not sorry that you dont like it, but then you werent going to use it. One of my players is converting her bard to a warlord with some wizard multiclassing, though I might just let her pick some wizard spells to save the feats. Its all balanced anyway, I dont see any reason not to.
I don't know that its that they don't want people to multiclass, I think actually this system (however appologetic the authors themselves seem about it) fixes something in the 3.x games that really bugged me. The premise of the character classes as described is that they are monolithic institutions. You don't just rummage through some dusty books and become a mage--you get tutored for years in an academy or by apprenticing yourself to a better one. Barbarians and druids aren't just guys who know nature stuff--they are cultures and societies of their own that you can't even get into usually unless you're born into them. Paladins get a call, and either dump everything else in their life and follow it, tossing themselves fully into the lifestyle or their call is lost forever. But yet there's this sense that you can just decide to get another class level when you level up? When did that happen? It feels like all this magic and power just suddenly hits all at once in a way that's really hard to narrate. All of a sudden you can shoot magic missles out of your fingertips, or work the will of a god. Overnight seemingly you are what everyone else (yourself included--at least with regard to your first class level) had to struggle for years to achieve. That's a little bogus.
This way makes a lot more sense. You are a wizard, but because of the wiles of fate you find yourself sneaking around between buildings, hiding under bridges, and having to blend into crowds. You're not going to be a rogue in a level. That takes years. But after a while you might get the fundamentals down, and maybe you might integrate that into your reportoire. You're a fighter, but over the course of your adventures you find your faith, and become a powerful and ardent devotee of a god. Well, you ain't a cleric. That takes joining a temple and working hard and studying doctrine for nearly a decade to do that. You just have a simple, powerful faith that could grow into something someday. Eventually you learn to do a thing or two that clerics do, but you still aren't much more than a devout sellsword. If you follow along intently enough, the time might come when you've travelled your road long enough that the chance might come to actually follow your dream and be that other thing--but that's a ways in coming.
That I can tell a story about. The goshawful bard-ranger-fighter-sorcerer-monk? Couldn't even TELL you how that happened.
And multiclassing doesn't exist in 4E, I don't even know why anyone calls it that anymore. It's called "class dipping" now.
Please tell me you're joking. That's not really the language of the rules, is it? :o
|
|
And multiclassing doesn't exist in 4E, I don't even know why anyone calls it that anymore. It's called "class dipping" now.Please tell me you're joking. That's not really the language of the rules, is it? :o
No, it's still called multiclassing. Razz is just saying in his usual calm and reasonable way that it isn't much like the old form of multiclassing. In that regard it's just like saving throws. Same name, but a massively different mechanic.
No, it's still called multiclassing. Razz is just saying in his usual calm and reasonable way that it isn't much like the old form of multiclassing. In that regard it's just like saving throws. Same name, but a massively different mechanic.
Thanks :)
No, it's still called multiclassing. Razz is just saying in his usual calm and reasonable way that it isn't much like the old form of multiclassing. In that regard it's just like saving throws. Same name, but a massively different mechanic.And multiclassing doesn't exist in 4E, I don't even know why anyone calls it that anymore. It's called "class dipping" now.Please tell me you're joking. That's not really the language of the rules, is it? :o
Exactly, you actually never change classes from what I understand (hence the misnomer of calling it "multiclassing"). You will never be a fighter 10/rogue 10. You'll just be a fighter 20 with some rogue class powers and/or paragon path.
Oh, but in 4e there's not much to classes other than their powers anyway.
No, it's still called multiclassing. Razz is just saying in his usual calm and reasonable way that it isn't much like the old form of multiclassing. In that regard it's just like saving throws. Same name, but a massively different mechanic.And multiclassing doesn't exist in 4E, I don't even know why anyone calls it that anymore. It's called "class dipping" now.Please tell me you're joking. That's not really the language of the rules, is it? :oExactly, you actually never change classes from what I understand (hence the misnomer of calling it "multiclassing"). You will never be a fighter 10/rogue 10. You'll just be a fighter 20 with some rogue class powers and/or paragon path.
Oh, but in 4e there's not much to classes other than their powers anyway.
Yeah...just like in 3rd Edition. The main difference being that half the classes arent all cookie-cutter versions of eachother.
Yeah...just like in 3rd Edition. The main difference being that half the classes arent all cookie-cutter versions of eachother.
Exactly, you actually never change classes from what I understand (hence the misnomer of calling it "multiclassing"). You will never be a fighter 10/rogue 10. You'll just be a fighter 20 with some rogue class powers and/or paragon path.Oh, but in 4e there's not much to classes other than their powers anyway.
Huh?
Guess I failed a comprehension check somewhere. This doesn't make sense to me.
Oh, but in 4e there's not much to classes other than their powers anyway.
To which I say, "Yeah, just like the classes in 3rd Edition." The main difference is that in 4th Edition classes are defined in what they are supposed to do (thus allowing them to succeed at that task), yet do not end up being identical to eachother in terms of class features. As I've demonstrated in another thread, it is entirely possible to have two dwarf fighters use axe weapons and STILL be different without going into personality, feats, skills, etc.
Compare two barbarians in 3rd Edition, and they are identical. Same thing with the monk with the exception of a couple bonus feats.
That's funny, considering many NPC and PC builds I have seen all over the place, from the Internet to real life people I know, all have multiclassed characters. Class or prestige class.
And multiclassing doesn't exist in 4E, I don't even know why anyone calls it that anymore. It's called "class dipping" now.
And thank the maker for that.
Multiclassing in 3.5e was an unmitigated disaster which challenged suspension of disbelief and any sense of balance that the game pretended to have.
(1) The fighting classes multiclassed freely, and the way multiclassing (and class design in general) was handled allowed characters to gain 80% of a class's benefits with only a couple levels from that class. Yes, my barbarian spent his entire youth raging in fights, surviving in the wild, blah blah blah. But your fighter could get all the coolest parts of my class by dipping into it with a single level. Gee, how.... silly.
(2) Of course, suspension of disbelief aside, it didn't really matter that melee classes could multiclass well, because they all still sucked horrendously when compared to spellcasting classes. That Ftr4/Bar4/Rng1 had all sorts of neat abilities and was significantly more powerful than a non-multiclassed fighter, but he was still chump change compared to the party druid, cleric or wizard. Multiclass and optimize all you want- you're still going to play second fiddle to the spell chuckers.
(3) The spellcasters, on the other hand, had a horrible, horrible time multiclassing. It wouldn't show up in many campaign because when you compare a wiz3/clr3/mt5 to a ftr4/bar7, the Theurge is still as good as the melee guy. Replace the Theurge with a pure wiz11 or clr11 and you'll see immediately how horrendously underpowered the Theurge really is.
So... multiclassing was either an exercise in sucking less or sucking more. Good riddance.
I'm going to have to agree that multiclassing in 3.x was either an exercise in futility or was a total power grab, depending on the player.
I'm not saying 4e is the answer, as I haven't completely read all the rules yet, but I do like having the choice there if I want to multiclass and not risk having my character become less useful overall.
The more example characters that I see being built with 4e multi-classing rules (on EN World and RPG.net), the more I think that the 4e system was the way to go. Not only are they, for the most part, interesting and very effective combos, but they capture the conceptual spirit of mixing two different classes very effectively (especially when you add in the various paragon path options).