Has anyone House Ruled to allow multiclassing? If so, what are the results?


4th Edition

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Admittedly, one of my BIG turn-offs is the lack of character versatility. If I were to play, I'd want to allow multiclassing. But my question is whether anyone already has and what are the results?


It's already there. Not the same as in previous editions, true, but it's there. And it's nicely flexible, or so it looks after a couple readings. I've not tried it yet.


Multiclassing as in 3E multiclassing? I'm not sure how it would work. As it stands now, multiclassing in 4E allows for characters to dip into another class enough for them to get some core abilities and, in my case, is usually enough to get whatever flavor or concept I'm after without hurting game balance. If that didn't work I would almost say that it's better to come up with an entirely new Class to represent the concept, as they're doing with the Swordmage.

One idea I've toyed with and will try when my smaller bi-monthly group of regular players starts up our second game is to do away with Classes all together and separate them, instead, into the classes based on Power Source.

I would have Martial characters only, at 1st level, actually, and allow free reign when choosing powers from any list. As for the other Power sources, they could be accessed by 4E multiclassing (an Arcane or Divine Class, not specific PHB definitions). That way no one would really be a wizard, per se, but a dabbler in magic as they had access to training. I'm going to try it out for a lower magic campaign.

Oh, and I'm adding in the Rolemaster Critical Hit tables for maiming effects and what not for when someone criticals.


I think it is worth noting that the "Orcus Slayer" builds (rogue, with multiclassing into ranger for the Blade Cascade power) floating around the WoTC CharOp boards and EN World all rely on multiclassing. If we use theoretically optimization as a yard stick, 4e multiclassing options are powerful and certainly can be optimized. We don't have Pun Pun yet, but we can take out the most powerful stated monster in the 4e MM with a single character, in a single round.


Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!

Lantern Lodge

Disclaimer: I'm not a 4E player.

If I understand it correctly, you can't change classes mid-adventuring-career? Some characters I only play at conventions scheduled twice a year, for four years now. Your concept of or goals for a character can change a lot in four years since you initially created a 1st level character. The flexibitiy of 3E allows for this, though taking feats in 4E to gain a core ability(ies) of another class might ease the pain.

AZRogue wrote:
I would almost say that it's better to come up with an entirely new Class to represent the concept, as they're doing with the Swordmage.

I've never taken a Prestige Class. I have a lot of characters start from 1st level, and rarely advance to level high enough to consider a Prestige Class, or didn't develop the necessary pre-reqs to qualify. I've always thought Base Classes were much more appealing, at least for low-to-mid-level play where you want a character concept that strays beyond fighter, rogue, mage.


XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!

A wizard or cleric 20 could do the same thing (take out most powerful stat'd monter) in 3.X. If you build it, they will break it.


DarkWhite wrote:

Disclaimer: I'm not a 4E player.

If I understand it correctly, you can't change classes mid-adventuring-career?

It works like this: there are three tiers of game play (1-10, 11-20, 21-30).

Multiclassing in the lowest tier basically means blowing a feat to gain access to one power from another class. If you complete the feat chain, in the second tier, you can qualify for some of the 4e version of prestige classing (paragon classes) and/or you can exchange 2nd tier powers from your "main" class for powers from your "second" class.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!

Thanks for threadcrapping, troll!

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Saurstalk wrote:
Admittedly, one of my BIG turn-offs is the lack of character versatility. If I were to play, I'd want to allow multiclassing. But my question is whether anyone already has and what are the results?

It's hard to imagine how you would build a multi-classing system that looked like 3e's system using 4e rules and not basically end up with a gestalt character (including the power boost). I'd probably give the actual multi-classing rules a spin before making any changes though - they do tend to convey the flavor of a multi-class character pretty well.

Liberty's Edge

If I understand the rules correctly, you can only "dip" into one other class, though. Right?

I'm looking at some of my favorite characters - one was a guy who simply had no clue what to do with his life. So, he dabbled. He tried being a rogue, a bard, a psychic warrior, and eventually a sorcerer.


At first glance I like the new multiclassing rules.

I always thought characters were too free in 3.5 to completely change what they were doing. I like the more limited 4e approach, though we haven't actually played it yet.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Saurstalk wrote:

If I understand the rules correctly, you can only "dip" into one other class, though. Right?

I'm looking at some of my favorite characters - one was a guy who simply had no clue what to do with his life. So, he dabbled. He tried being a rogue, a bard, a psychic warrior, and eventually a sorcerer.

Ahhh...so are you asking if there is a house rule to allow multiple class dipping? I can't really see why you couldn't just allow someone to take multiple multi-classing feats. The rule that you can only multi-class once struck me as designed to reduce complexity rather than to achieve balance.

Sovereign Court Contributor

Just a funny little thing... I think it's neat that the half-elf is once again arguably the best multiclass race, and the only one capable of accessing three classes, much like in 1E.

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

Rambling Scribe wrote:
Just a funny little thing... I think it's neat that the half-elf is once again arguably the best multiclass race, and the only one capable of accessing three classes, much like in 1E.

I thought that was awesome too.


Saurstalk wrote:
I'm looking at some of my favorite characters - one was a guy who simply had no clue what to do with his life. So, he dabbled. He tried being a rogue, a bard, a psychic warrior, and eventually a sorcerer.

I played in the Living Force Star Wars RPGA campaign. In one mod, a player came to the table with an 8th level character whose total BAB was +1 -- love that multiclassing!

He was a great player and character, too. Contrary to some opinions, combat optimization isn't a prerequisite for fun roleplaying.

Sovereign Court Contributor

I've been thinking about this some more and I think Sebastian is mostly right... the limitation to one class is for simplicity. In addition, there's no real support in the paragon tier, but it probably wouldn't be hard to house rule multi-multiclassing there.

However, I am willing to bet that the limitation is also a hedge bet against future broken combos. It's possible that some combination of powers from multiple classes down the road will create a broken result, and they want to prevent that.

I think you're still safe though, because they have other prevention mechanisms in place, and as always, you can houserule on a case-by-cae basis if something is too gross.

Another possibility is that they are trying to prevent people from making characters that are too diluted or otherwise mad less useful by too much multiclassing. To which I say, if that's what turns your crank, go ahead.


Sebastian wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!
Thanks for threadcrapping, troll!

No my friend, this is just my opinion. Which i am entitled to. And the new multiclassing system is probably best left the way it is,for balance reasons. Good god with the way people railed against the "dumbing down" comments, to go ahead and suggest that is why they made multiclassing the way they did..thats rich.

And no character ever built in 3.5 is one shotting Orcus in a real encounter...at least not any character that is actually going to be allowed. And sure as hell not with any core class. Without any prestige cheese. I don't know i am sure it has happened in alot of campaigns i would just laugh at...so i digress. But in a real game it is a neat way to wind up bathed in a sea of negative energy....drained of all your blood, slammed into oblivion and just downright DAMNED! Sounds like a good premise for an action film...

Liberty's Edge

Tatterdemalion wrote:

I played in the Living Force Star Wars RPGA campaign. In one mod, a player came to the table with an 8th level character whose total BAB was +1 -- love that multiclassing!

He was a great player and character, too. Contrary to some opinions, combat optimization isn't a prerequisite for fun roleplaying.

That was this guy to a T. Not the greatest combatant, but his inability to dedicate himself to one path of training was played to a T . . . and incidentally - matched the player's path in life to a T as well.


Anthrasxus you don't play with wizards and clerics?

As for the one shot kill could someone give a link, I've seen solo ranger builds that claim to be able to do it but take about 30 rounds to do so, and about the same with the cleric but no one round kills yet. I need sauce people I'm gonna build an ecnounter deck of 1 card, orcus and defeat his badass as i farm him for his rod.

Sovereign Court

F33b wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!

A wizard or cleric 20 could do the same thing (take out most powerful stat'd monter) in 3.X. If you build it, they will break it.

What level are you supposed to be to do this in 4e ?


I'm going to let players multiclass using the normal rules before making any calls on that, and so far we have one guinea pig: a dwarf fighter with ranger training. So far, the ability to use hunter's mark is pretty darn useful for the extra damage, even if its just once per encounter.


I won't be allowing it when I DM until I've a lot more experience with the system, but I think it should be possible to make an almost "classless" system out of 4e. Simply, allow players to select their powers from any class, as long as they're the appropriate level. Remove class restrictions on Feats and Paragon Paths, and let people take the ones they want. I'd probably want to standardise the HPs and defences so there was no advantage with any class, and perhaps give a large selection of feats at 1st level to allow you to customise your abilities - select multiple armour proficiencies for a "fighter", ritual casting for a "wizard", channel divinity for a "cleric" - but after that it's not going to be too significant. Whether I'll ever work up the courage to try this is another matter.


Stereofm wrote:
F33b wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!

A wizard or cleric 20 could do the same thing (take out most powerful stat'd monter) in 3.X. If you build it, they will break it.

What level are you supposed to be to do this in 4e ?

30.


Rambling Scribe wrote:
I've been thinking about this some more and I think Sebastian is mostly right... the limitation to one class is for simplicity. In addition, there's no real support in the paragon tier, but it probably wouldn't be hard to house rule multi-multiclassing there.

Actually, that was my assumption as well until I started playing with making characters. Since the power-swap feats all you to swap out powers of any level, basically once you take the "encounter power swap" (I forget the names since they aren't directly relevant), you can swap out any encounter power for one from your other class from that point on. So you can take paragon and epic tier powers from your second class. Plus, I believe you can take the feats multiple times to swap out more of your powers (or replace your paragon path, although I am unclear if you have to replace your entire paragon path or can just replace certain levels with options from your second class).

I'll admit that as someone who has probably had 3 times as many multiclass characters than not (in all editions), I was really turned off when I first saw the multiclassing rules. But seeing as how the class abilities are all loaded into 1st level, and the only thing classes really gain as they progress are powers, then the power-swapping is really the only option for 4e "multiclassing". (I still have a hard time calling it that. I can't have a wizard 10/rogue 10, then it's not really multiCLASSING is it?) :)

I think some flexibility in the multiclass feats would have been nice, however. Like the rogue multiclass feat allowing thievery or stealth as your trained skills, etc. I will probably house rule that a multiclass feat allows you to select any one skill from the class skills as a trained skill. Doesn't seem outrageous to me (other than some obscure build option, but I don't care at all about those mathematical oddities).

Scarab Sages

The multiclass feats do indeed allow you to choose an at-will power and make it an encounter power. You get a trained skill or two as well. Thats pretty much it. I don't think it would be terrible to allow someone to take the multiclass feats...uh..multiple times (ugh..no pun intended). However, allowing multiple "paragon path multiclassing" would be a problem...the real "power" in a class comes from their class features and thats where I see the potential problems.

One note of caution. If, during play, it seems that a 3rd class multiclass power is providing too many options for the character such that everyone else is down to their at-wills but the multiclass is still firing off cool encounter powers, perhaps make the the second mulitclass feat choice give you an at-will power as a DAILY power instead. And perhaps drop the added skills for a second multiclass...I wouldn't ever allow a 3rd multiclass feat under any circumstances.

One other note, without the "power-swap" feats, there is no way to get the utility spells, IIRC. Essentially multiclass feats give you combat options (but not necessarily power) and the power-swap feats give you the best choice of options (by allowing daily and utility swaps in addition to attack powers) and paragon-path multiclassing gives you a nice bump in power (from the class features).

This last is interesting. The PHB notes that PP-multiclassing is somewhat sub-optimal, but in my quick review to date I don't see how PP class features are that much better than heroic class features. I don't see much inprovement of powers either. A level 15 power is roughly the same "power" whether its from the Wizard List or the Archmage list.

anywho, my 2 cp


I don't think that the two-class restriction was instituted for simplicity sake (that is a side effect), but for role preserval. Even if you take every multi-class feat, you're only devoting a third of your powers to your secondary class.


Shroomy wrote:
I don't think that the two-class restriction was instituted for simplicity sake (that is a side effect), but for role preserval. Even if you take every multi-class feat, you're only devoting a third of your powers to your secondary class.

I think this is probably pretty close to accurate. I imagine that they don't want Roles diluted too much in the core product. Roles have never been of primary importance in previous editions but they seem much more important now.

The Exchange

Saurstalk wrote:
Admittedly, one of my BIG turn-offs is the lack of character versatility. If I were to play, I'd want to allow multiclassing. But my question is whether anyone already has and what are the results?

I guess the question is what kind of versatility are you looking for? Class advancement in 4e is more organic in 4e than it was in 3e. By that I mean that the powers and class features form a natural progression on a theme. 3e was more like a building block model where each level added a part to a whole that may or may not end up having a thematic coherence. In some cases that was ok because new themes emerged for the arrangement of components, but often it led to either rampant munckinism or characters that could do anything well in or out of combat.

So what did 3e multiclassing accomplish that you would like to see from 4e?


Stedd Grimwold wrote:
This last is interesting. The PHB notes that PP-multiclassing is somewhat sub-optimal, but in my quick review to date I don't see how PP class features are that much better than heroic class features. I don't see much inprovement of powers either. A level 15 power is roughly the same "power" whether its from the Wizard List or the Archmage list.

(My post assumes that by PP-multiclassing you are referring to the rules for picking up a 2nd class instead of a Paragon Path)

But the PP-multiclassing system doesn't let you pick up any of the 2nd classes class features...just more of their powers. The problem with the Paragon Path multi-classing rules is partially that you end up with a 7th level encounter power instead of a 11th level one, 10th level utility instead of 12th, etc...but, as you said, that's not that big of a deal.

The main discrepancy is that a paragon path gives you 2 new abilities at 11th (1 related to action points and one a more general purpose bonus) and another new ability at 16th. The multi-classed paragon path approach lets you trade a single at will...and that's it. Oh, and you have to spend 4 feats to qualify for this. There's a clear difference in power level there...I assume that this is to make it an unattractive option. If that's the plan it does the job nicely, none of my crew (a couple of die hard multi-class junkies in there) have any interest in going this route. It just looks so bad on paper. For the record, many people in my group are pleased with the multi-classing feat rules.

Personally, I think that the PP-multiclassing rules should give the character better access to the 2nd classes class features at 11th and 16th. You'd still miss out on the juicy paragon path powers/abilities and end up splitting your powers between two classes, but you could come closer to actually filling the role of your 2nd class (though clearly not as well as a single class character of that role).


Rambling Scribe wrote:


However, I am willing to bet that the limitation is also a hedge bet against future broken combos. It's possible that some combination of powers from multiple classes down the road will create a broken result, and they want to prevent that.

I'm going to agree with this. It still won't work 100% of the time but the key is to key the number of ways the characters can break the system manageable.

Sovereign Court

XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!

This post may be a bit trollish, but he does have a point. Could it be that they made the mistake they made with 3.5. Did they put high-level playtesting on the back-burner again?


Shadowlance wrote:


(My post assumes that by PP-multiclassing you are referring to the rules for picking up a 2nd class instead of a Paragon Path)

But the PP-multiclassing system doesn't let you pick up any of the 2nd classes class features...just more of their powers. The problem with the Paragon Path multi-classing rules is partially that you end up with a 7th level encounter power instead of a 11th level one, 10th level utility instead of 12th, etc...but, as you said, that's not that big of a deal.

The main discrepancy is that a paragon path gives you 2 new abilities at 11th (1 related to action points and one a more general purpose bonus) and another new ability at 16th. The multi-classed paragon path approach lets you trade a single at will...and that's it. Oh, and you have to spend 4 feats to qualify for this. There's a clear difference in power level there...I assume that this is to make it an unattractive option. If that's the plan it does the job nicely, none of my crew (a couple of die hard multi-class junkies in there) have any interest in going this route. It just looks so bad on paper. For the record, many people in my group are pleased with the multi-classing feat rules.

Personally, I think that the PP-multiclassing rules should give the character better access to the 2nd classes class features at 11th and 16th. You'd still miss out on the juicy paragon path powers/abilities and end up splitting your powers between two classes, but you could come closer to actually filling the role of your 2nd class (though clearly not as well as a single class character of that role).

For the most part, I agree Shadow that the PP multiclassing does seem weaker than just taking a regular PP. I think a lot of "multiclassing" might be accomplished via using the base Multiclass feat to qualify for another class's PP (frex: see my Rogue-multiclass-Fighter who plans on becoming a Pit Fighter ...)

Still, I think there could be a few changes you could make that might make replacing your PP with a second class more enticing. Dropping the requirement to have taken all the power swap feats is one; allowing a third class instead of one you had taken a base feat in is another (ie, you don't need to take any multiclass feats, just take another base class instead of a PP if you want); gaining another at-will instead of replacing one; or possibly giving some class features at 11th/16th, when your PP is giving you nifty cool abilities.

All of those options together would probably be too much, but one or two would probably bring it about equal in my mind. Still, some of these are pretty extensive changes to a system that no one really has a lot of experience with yet, so it might be best to hold off for now ...

Cheers! :)


Antioch wrote:
I'm going to let players multiclass using the normal rules before making any calls on that, and so far we have one guinea pig: a dwarf fighter with ranger training. So far, the ability to use hunter's mark is pretty darn useful for the extra damage, even if its just once per encounter.

I don't know if you've seen the errata, but if not, know that the Hunter's Quarry gained from the Ranger multiclass only lasts for one round. So they shouldn't be getting that +1d8 for an entire encounter.

Cheers! :)


I did say once per encounter after all. :-P


Antioch wrote:

I did say once per encounter after all. :-P [/QUTE]'

I wasn't sure if you meant Quarrying once per encounter or getting the bonus damage once per encounter. ;)


David Marks wrote:
Antioch wrote:

I did say once per encounter after all. :-P [/QUTE]'

I wasn't sure if you meant Quarrying once per encounter or getting the bonus damage once per encounter. ;)

If you take the Ranger multiclass feat and use Hunter's Quarry it lasts for the entire encounter. It only affects one target though, so if that target dies, you can't use it again until the next encounter.

A single class ranger can change his Quarry as many times as he wants in an encounter as a minor action, assuming he is the closest PC to the target.

I'm not aware of any Errata for this, as it appears perfectly fine as written.


4E PHB Eratta wrote:

Warrior of the Wild [Addition]

Player’s Handbook, page 208
Add the following sentence to the
end of the second paragraph of the
benefit section: “The target you
designate as your quarry remains
your quarry until the end of your next
turn.”

From here. I think the problem is, as it stood, anyone who didn't want to multiclass and had a feat to burn would take the Ranger multiclass. A feat to get a free +1d8 per attack on one enemy per encounter? Sign me up!


AZRogue wrote:
Shroomy wrote:
I don't think that the two-class restriction was instituted for simplicity sake (that is a side effect), but for role preserval. Even if you take every multi-class feat, you're only devoting a third of your powers to your secondary class.
I think this is probably pretty close to accurate. I imagine that they don't want Roles diluted too much in the core product. Roles have never been of primary importance in previous editions but they seem much more important now.

I have always felt that roles have been a part of D&D right from the begining. The iconic and indeed nearly required party in 1st edition was the Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, and Wizard. It's been that way in every edition of the game. Everybody knew that it was a really really good idea to have somebody in each of those roles. 3rd editon just allowed us to have more choice for what was class could fill the 'fighter' role.

Now, those well established roles are being formally talked about and considered in the design process for the classes. Classes designed to fill the Cleric role are now guarrenteed to have the full healing potentials and group abilities that the Cleric would grant.

They have also greatly reduced the nessesity of having each and every role filled in the party. Everyone is going to be compentent at fighting, anybody can take skill training in Theivery and fill the traditional rogue role, and the ritual casting feat grants the ability to act, at least out of combat, like the mage and everyone can use a healing surge in combat so it's not techincally nessisary to have a cleric anymore. Yes, the classes designed for the role will fill it better, but with a little bit of footwork no party will be left out in the cold when it comes time for a certain role to shine.

I think you are right though, the multiclassing rules have been designed to ensure that you do not give up enough of your core compentancy that you will no longer be able to fulfill the role your class is supposed to. Instead, you can now be slightly less effective at your primary role but able to step neatly into the role of the class you are dipping into should your party be missing a striker or leader.

Scarab Sages

Shadowlance wrote:


(My post assumes that by PP-multiclassing you are referring to the rules for picking up a 2nd class instead of a Paragon Path)

Yup

Shadowlance wrote:
But the PP-multiclassing system doesn't let you pick up any of the 2nd classes class features...just more of their powers.

Oh yeah. My bad. And thats a big deal. (see below)

Shadowlance wrote:
The problem with the Paragon Path multi-classing rules is partially that you end up with a 7th level encounter power instead of a 11th level one, 10th level utility instead of 12th, etc...but, as you said, that's not that big of a deal.

You CAN choose the 7th level power from the second class OR the 7th level power from your base class...there are no 7th level encounter powers.

Shadowlance wrote:
The main discrepancy is that a paragon path gives you 2 new abilities at 11th (1 related to action points and one a more general purpose bonus) and another new ability at 16th. The multi-classed paragon path approach lets you trade a single at will...and that's it. Oh, and you have to spend 4 feats to qualify for this.

No. Again, you choose either the 7th level power of your base class OR the 7th level power from the 2nd class. There are no 11th level encounter powers.

Shadowlance wrote:
There's a clear difference in power level there...I assume that this is to make it an unattractive option. If that's the plan it does the job nicely, none of my crew (a couple of die hard multi-class junkies in there) have any interest in going this route. It just looks so bad on paper. For the record, many people in my group are pleased with the multi-classing feat rules.

I disagree with the power level analysis. No class gives an 11th level encounter power, for example. Since you choose not to take a PP, the only encounter powers available are the 7th level ones. And as far as I can tell no PP offers an encounter power at 11th either.

Shadowlance wrote:
Personally, I think that the PP-multiclassing rules should give the character better access to the 2nd classes class features at 11th and 16th. You'd still miss out on the juicy paragon path powers/abilities and end up splitting your powers between two classes, but you could come closer to actually filling the role of your 2nd class (though clearly not as well as a single class character of that role).

I was wrong in that I thought you did access to the class features of the secondary class, but I don't necessarily think its a bad thing. You "lose" the class features of a PP for an array of options with the potential of some unique combo's. Very few people, for example, will be Cleric/Warlords...the powers are too similar. A PP is like that. It gives you very similar powers. I think far more interesting will be the dual-role multiclass builds: Defender/Striker (fighter/rogue) for example.


Sebastian wrote:
Rambling Scribe wrote:
Just a funny little thing... I think it's neat that the half-elf is once again arguably the best multiclass race, and the only one capable of accessing three classes, much like in 1E.
I thought that was awesome too.

Except that almost none of the 1st level class at-will powers are terribly impressive as encounter powers. That and you don't get class feature powers, only the generic at-will powers that go with the class (YMMV with a more liberal reading). Granted, this racial will only get better as splat books roll out, but right now, it is pretty weak.

reference thread here

also, note the recent errata on the ability:

WoTC 4e Errata wrote:


Dilettante [Revision]
Player’s Handbook, page 42
Replace “an at-will power” with “a
1st-level at-will attack power"
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:


And no character ever built in 3.5 is one shotting Orcus in a real encounter...at least not any character that is actually going to be allowed. And sure as hell not with any core class. Without any prestige cheese.

You've just qualified your argument to the level of "meaningless".

Orcus also wasn't in the 3.X MM. He's pure WoTC splat in 3.X.

However, that's a red herring in this argument. This isn't so much about a 4e build being able to solo an Iconic D&D bad guy, as it is about a 4e build being able to solo the most powerful statt'd monster in the 4e MM.

Core-only Classes certainly could take on CR 20 challenges and win. This is where CoDzilla comes from!

Logos wrote:

Anthrasxus you don't play with wizards and clerics?

As for the one shot kill could someone give a link, I've seen solo ranger builds that claim to be able to do it but take about 30 rounds to do so, and about the same with the cleric but no one round kills yet. I need sauce people I'm gonna build an ecnounter deck of 1 card, orcus and defeat his badass as i farm him for his rod.

Try starting here. The OP in the link thread is actually "borrowing" from some EN World threads , so you can trace it back to EN World, if you wish.

That said, any DM worth their salt will make the rod a unique, one-time drop (BoP or what have you.)

Dark Archive Bella Sara Charter Superscriber

F33b wrote:


Except that almost none of the 1st level class at-will powers are terribly impressive as encounter powers. That and you don't get class feature powers, only the generic at-will powers that go with the class (YMMV with a more liberal reading). Granted, this racial will only get better as splat books roll out, but right now, it is pretty weak.

reference thread here

Hey now, I said it was awesome, I didn't say it was any good in play. ;-)


Seeing as how Orcus commands an ARMY of undead, evil outsiders,and wierdo cultists...if you happen to get within ten miles of the guy with any powers left at all..you deserve to win. In a real encounter, in his home enviroment or otherwise, i don't see any character ever made having the power to kill Orcus. Now if you happen to catch him on a flat ,featureless plain, alone as he stumbles out of the outhouse or something well then...but in a real encounter expect to be swarmed by the living dead in droves.
I find nothing more useless, or frustrating than the so called "thought exercises" or claims of "codzilla"...some of it is possible, but it's just not how the game was intended to be played..and if any character is ever dominating every encounter in sight, then you just aren't designing your encounters right, or taking into account the limitations or weakness of a given class or ability.
How about a regiment of Swarmshifter Druid Kings? Backed by a battalion of Fiends? With squad on squad of high level priests....and lets see you have what less than 20 powers at your disposal? Ridiculous is this orcusslayer crap....hey isn't it time for Power Rangers or something?


Stedd Grimwold wrote:
You CAN choose the 7th level power from the second class OR the 7th level power from your base class...there are no 7th level encounter powers.

Um...the only 7th level powers are encounter powers.

Stedd Grimwold wrote:
No. Again, you choose either the 7th level power of your base class OR the 7th level power from the 2nd class. There are no 11th level encounter powers.

It is true that 7th level is the next highest level available for encounter powers below 11th, so you have to pick a 7th level one instead (though it seems that it doesn't necessarily have to be from your 2nd class). What I was referring to though in the text that you quoted was the Path Features, not powers. I said "abilities" which was unclear...sorry. Each path gives 2 (some 3) different Path Features at 11th (one related to action points and one or two that aren't). The PP multi classer gets the at-will tradeoff to replace this path bonus. Further, the true paragon path also gets another feature at 16th, the multi classer gets nothing there. It is these features that I was refererring to.

Stedd Grimwold wrote:
I disagree with the power level analysis. No class gives an 11th level encounter power, for example. Since you choose not to take a PP, the only encounter powers available are the 7th level ones. And as far as I can tell no PP offers an encounter power at 11th either.

Umm, ALL of the paragon paths offer an encounter power at 11th. It's the very first power listed in every single paragon path. It is true that there are no class powers at 11th though so the multi classer clearly must choose from the 7th level batch. I would argue that, in general, the 11th level encounter powers are more powerful than the 7th level ones, but that will vary from case to case and it's clearly debatable.

Stedd Grimwold wrote:
I was wrong in that I thought you did access to the class features of the secondary class, but I don't necessarily think its a bad thing. You "lose" the class features of a PP for an array of options with the potential of some unique combo's. Very few people, for example, will be Cleric/Warlords...the powers are too similar. A PP is like that. It gives you very similar powers. I think far more interesting will be the dual-role multiclass builds: Defender/Striker (fighter/rogue) for example

It's definitely possible that some powerful combos can be crafted under the existing system. My primary concern is that, on paper, it seems to be a suboptimal choice as the true Paragon Path gains those three extra features and has access to higher level powers.


Shadowlance wrote:
It's definitely possible that some powerful combos can be crafted under the existing system. My primary concern is that, on paper, it seems to be a suboptimal choice as the true Paragon Path gains those three extra features and has access to higher level powers.

In trading-your-PP-for-deep-multiclassing's defense, I'm pretty sure the books explicitly warn that it is a non-optimal path.

If you or your player is dead set on trying it (and can't be swayed to just taking one of their multiclass's PPs) but doesn't like its non-optimalness, you could try some of the suggestions I threw out up-thread.

In fact, please do. I'd like to know how they turn out! :)


David Marks wrote:

In trading-your-PP-for-deep-multiclassing's defense, I'm pretty sure the books explicitly warn that it is a non-optimal path.

If you or your player is dead set on trying it (and can't be swayed to just taking one of their multiclass's PPs) but doesn't like its non-optimalness, you could try some of the suggestions I threw out up-thread.

In fact, please do. I'd like to know how they turn out! :)

I'm currently fiddling with a system that gives somewhat watered down versions of the 2nd class's features at 11th and 16th. I have a 2nd edition -> 3rd edition campaign that I'd love to revisit in 4th, but all of the character's were multiclassed so it seems a good test bed to fiddle with things (since everyone would suffer or benefit similarly).

We are doing Rise of the Runelords (4e converted...tomorrow they hit Thistletop) first though so Wizards will have a good 8 or 9 months to put out more books before that gets underway. Perhaps familiarity with the system over that time (plus new options) will render my concerns moot.


Saw this on ENWorld today and instantly thought of here:

bert1000 wrote:

Paragon Multi-classing

If you have all 4 multi-class feats, you can choose the “Multi-class Paragon Path”. This has the following benefits:
1) Can swap 1at-will per PHB
2) Get a 7th level, 10th level, and 19th power of your 2nd class instead of Paragon powers per PHB
3) Instead of other Paragon features, you also get more of the class features of your 2nd class per below. These features replace any features from the multi-class feats when overlapping. For example, when a multi-class Rogue gets Sneak Attack at 16th level, the 1/encounter Sneak Attack from the feat is no longer valid.

Cleric
11th: Channel Divinity, Healer’s Lore
16th: Healing Word

Fighter:
11th: Combat Challenge, Combat Superiority
16th: Fighter Weapon talent

Paladin:
11th: Channel Divinity, Lay on Hands
16th: Divine Challenge

Ranger:
11th: Fighting Style, Prime Shot
16th: Hunter’s Quarry

Rogue:
11th: Rogue Tactics, First Strike
16th: Sneak Attack

Warlock:
11th: Warlock’s Curse, Shadow Walk
16th: Pact Boon

Warlord
11th: Combat Leader, Commanding Presence
16th: Inspiring Word

Wizard:
11th: Implement Mastery, Cantrips
16th: Spellbook (only for Wizard spells)

This really would produce more of a 1/2 and 1/2 multi-class by level 20, and seems ok at first glance.

You pay:
4 feats
Give up paragon features
Give up paragon powers

You get:
1 trained skill
3 swapped powers
3 lower level "paragon" powers
Most class features of your 2nd class

I haven't thought through all the combinations, though, so this might be too much (especially for striker multi-classing into striker).

Full thread here.

This is pretty much what I was suggesting up thread, but much more fleshed out. What do you guys think about it?


Sebastian wrote:


Ahhh...so are you asking if there is a house rule to allow multiple class dipping? I can't really see why you couldn't just allow someone to take multiple multi-classing feats. The rule that you can only multi-class once struck me as designed to reduce complexity rather than to achieve balance.

Actually I think that would be a pretty significant power shift. You are giving up a relatively un-powerful feat for a new encounter power and a trained skill each time you multiclass and you are expanding your paragon path pool. From a min/max point of view if you could multiclass repeated you probably should do it again and again.

If you are only interested in making 'interesting' unfocused characters you will need to add in new negatives, otherwise the unfocused guy will actually be more powerful than the specialist.

Personally this just sounds like RP to me, if you have had 5 different jobs and sucked at all of them then you don't need to still have the powers from your first job just take a skill focus in some wierd skills and use the powers from your last two jobs which you actually remember.


Sebastian wrote:
Saurstalk wrote:
Admittedly, one of my BIG turn-offs is the lack of character versatility. If I were to play, I'd want to allow multiclassing. But my question is whether anyone already has and what are the results?
It's hard to imagine how you would build a multi-classing system that looked like 3e's system using 4e rules and not basically end up with a gestalt character (including the power boost). I'd probably give the actual multi-classing rules a spin before making any changes though - they do tend to convey the flavor of a multi-class character pretty well.

I've tried and it doesn't. The different being the limitation of only being allowed to get ONE multiclass feat.

For the OP, I would say, for now, try lifting the stupid rule of only ONE multiclass feat per character. Allow a character to have as many multiclass feats as he wants and you'll probably get a lot closer to the way 3E had it than the way 4E is.

Dark Archive

Sebastian wrote:
XxAnthraxusxX wrote:
Which points to a really poor game design with an outrageous lack of playtesting. AWESOME!
Thanks for threadcrapping, troll!

And, as so often happens, the first personal insult comes from either crosswiredmind or Sebastian, always the bluebirds of happiness, burning with a desire to grind their axes and then post long meandering threads about how far the civil discourse on these boards has fallen, when they are the primary instigators, like little children trying to pretend that someone else farted.

1 to 50 of 58 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / Gaming / D&D / 4th Edition / Has anyone House Ruled to allow multiclassing? If so, what are the results? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.